ÿWPCÈ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh BÝ 0dú U>^U*œ D3ÆB)ùDC" 0@e AM¥ òÿÝõÝv~ÒvÓP AO#Ær 0D8 D/| B«˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-  E  E U D   D  Ó€³†;$ÔôÔt˜3|x ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial 'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌJune€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„502,€39„13„504,€39„12„101.Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔ€€€€€€ð ðAggravated€sexual€battery€is€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€theÏà0 àdefendant€by€a€victim€accompanied€by€any€of€the€following€circumstances:€.€.€.€(2)€The€defendantÏcauses€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504.€ð ðAggravated€rape€is€unlawfulÏsexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim€accompanied€by€anyÏof€the€following€circumstances:€.€.€.€(2)The€defendant€causes€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502.Ì ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€€€€Ô€)ÔÔ€)ôÔAggravated€rape€is€a€Class€A€felony€and€for€a€Range€I€offender,€carries€a€sentence€of€fifteenÏà0 à(15)€to€twenty„five€(25)€years.€€Aggravated€sexual€battery€and€attempted€aggravated€rape€are€ClassÏB€felonies€and€for€a€Range€I€offender,€have€a€sentence€range€of€eight€(8)€to€twelve€(12)€years.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€(ŠÔÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœMARCH›€SESSION,€œ1998›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9705„CR„00194›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœDAVIDSON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œCHERYL€BLACKBURNó ó›Ìò òœJOSEPH€LEE€BERNELLó ó›à àò ò)à àœJUDGEó óÌò òBRYANT,à àà àà àà à)›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Aggravated€Rape)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œDAVIDSON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœJEFFREY€A.€DeVASHER›à àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€on€Appealà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDARYL€J.€BRANDÌJ.€MICHAEL€ENGLEà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAttorney€at€Trialà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àNashville,€TN€37243Ì1202€Stahlman€BuildingÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROGER€MOOREÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ì›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌœÌAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€)°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€)ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Joseph€Lee€Bernell€Bryant,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuantÏto€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convictedÏby€a€Davidson€County€jury€of€one€count€of€aggravated€rape,€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery,€and€one€count€of€attempted€aggravated€rapeœ× ƒ0 ××  ×›.€€HeÏwas€sentenced€as€a€standard,€Range€I€offender€to€twenty„three€years€for€theÏaggravated€rape,€ten€years€for€each€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€andÏten€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€The€trial€judge€ordered€theÏaggravated€rape€and€sexual€battery€convictions€to€be€served€concurrently€withÏeach€other€and€consecutively€to€the€conviction€for€attempted€aggravated€rape€forÏan€effective€sentence€of€thirty„three€years.€€He€appeals€his€convictions€andÏsentences€and€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)(A)€That€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€of€guilt;€and€(B)€that€theÏevidence€failed€to€establish€the€element€of€ð ðbodily€injury;ðð€(2)€that€€the€trial€courtÏœerred€by›€granting€the€Stateððs€request€for€a€special€jury€instruction€regarding€theÏattempt€to€destroy€or€conceal€evidence;€and€(3)(A)€that€the€trial€court€imposed€anÏexcessive€sentence€because€it€misapplied€sentence€enhancement€factors,€andÏ(B)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€a€partial€consecutive€sentence.€€After€aÍcareful€review€of€the€record€and€arguments€in€the€case€at€bar,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€review€of€the€facts.€€Both€the€Defendant€and€the€victimÏin€this€case,€Regina€Ervin,€were€security€guards€working€the€night€shift€on€AprilÏ11„12,€1995.€€œThey›€worked€for€the€Integrity€Security€company€which€contractedÏwith€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€security€services€in€state€office€buildings.€€TheÏvictim€was€stationed€at€the€Tennessee€Education€Association€(TEA)€building€onÏJames€Robertson€Parkway€in€Nashville,€œand›€the€Defendant€was€stationed€atÏthe€building€next€door,€the€Volunteer€Plaza.€€The€victim€was€a€twenty„four€yearÏold€mother€of€three€who€had€delivered€her€last€child€in€December€of€1994.€€HerÏhusband€worked€in€heating€and€air€conditioning€and€she€œobtained€a›€night€job€toÏhelp€support€the€family€and€because€œthe€job€schedule›€worked€with€œher›€childÏcare€schedule.€€On€the€night€of€the€offenses€in€question,€the€victim€had€beenÏworking€with€Integrity€Security€for€approximately€four€months€and€had€beenÏassigned€to€the€TEA€building€œon›€the€same€shift€during€this€time.€€The€DefendantÏhad€come€over€from€the€Volunteer€Plaza€building€on€three€or€four€prior€occasionsÏto€get€coffee,€which€was€not€available€at€his€building.€€The€victim€would€let€himÏin,€he€would€go€downstairs€for€coffee,€then€would€leave.€€The€victim€never€hadÏconcerns€about€the€Defendant.€€The€victim€never€went€to€the€Volunteer€Plaza.ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€the€incident,€the€victim€arrived€at€the€beginning€of€her€shiftÏand€had€made€hourly€ð ðroundsðð€of€the€building.€The€victim€worked€alone€in€theÏTEA€building.€The€victim€wore€a€bright€pink€sweater€over€her€uniform€becauseÏthe€building€was€œcold.€›€œShe›€read€a€book€she€had€brought€with€her.€€SheÏrecorded€her€rounds,€with€the€last€entry€indicating€that€she€checked€the€buildingÏat€3:00€a.m.€The€victim€had€difficulty€recalling€the€time€when€the€DefendantÏarrived,€œbut›€stated€that€he€showed€up€around€2:30€a.m.€€The€DefendantÏappeared€at€the€door€and€the€victim€unlocked€it€and€let€him€in€to€get€coffee.€€€TheÏDefendant€went€downstairs€and€the€victim€stayed€at€her€desk€and€read€herÏbook.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€came€back€upstairs.€€The€victim€did€not€see€him€at€first,Ïbut€then€he€attacked€her€by€grabbing€her€and€shoving€her€back€in€her€chair.€ÏThe€Defendant€œgrabbed›€the€victim€by€the€arms€and€shoulders€and€theyÏstruggled.€€The€victim€hit€her€head€against€the€wall.€€The€victim€told€theÏDefendant€to€stop.€€The€victim€freed€herself€and€ran€to€the€front€doors€but€couldÏnot€get€out€because€they€were€locked.€€The€Defendant€grabbed€the€victim€andÏmade€her€go€into€the€elevator,€taking€her€to€the€third€floor€offices.€€The€victimÏnoticed€that€the€Defendant€emitted€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol,€although€she€did€notÏsee€him€drinking.€€The€victim€attempted€to€call€for€help€on€her€radio,€but€no€oneÏresponded.€€The€victim€described€the€events€as€lasting€for€ð ðseveral€hours.ðð€€Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendant€took€the€victim€into€the€third€floor€womenððs€bathroom,Ïwhere€there€was€an€area€with€a€table€and€a€couch.€€The€victim€struggled€withÏthe€Defendant€and€he€threw€her€on€the€couch.€The€Defendant€hit€and€smackedÏthe€victim€with€his€hands€and€shoved€her€into€the€couch.€€The€victim€hit€her€headÏon€the€wall€several€times€and€felt€like€she€ð ðblacked€outðð€briefly.€€The€DefendantÏpulled€down€the€victimððs€pants€and€underwear.€€He€turned€the€victim€on€herÏstomach,€pinning€her€arms€under€her,€and€vaginally€penetrated€the€victim€withÏhis€penis.€€The€Defendant€also€attempted€to€penetrate€her€anally.€€During€theÏassault,€the€Defendant€digitally€penetrated€the€victimððs€vagina€and€put€hisÏmouth€on€her€genital€area.€€The€Defendant€also€licked€the€victimððs€cheek€andÏhand€at€some€time€during€the€incident.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€threatened€the€victim€during€the€incident,€stating€that€heÏwould€go€to€her€house€and€made€a€threat€regarding€her€children.€€The€victimÏwas€afraid€the€Defendant€would€assault€her€children€in€the€same€manner.€€TheÏvictim€was€unsure,€but€thought€that€the€Defendant€had€ejaculated.€€TheÏDefendant€stopped€and€then€the€victim€told€him€to€leave,€which€he€did.€€TheÏvictim€stayed€in€the€third„floor€bathroom€until€she€thought€the€Defendant€had€leftÏthe€building.€€œThe›€victim€then€ran€out€of€the€bathroom€and€down€the€stairs€to€theÏfirst€floor€because€she€was€afraid€to€get€back€on€the€elevator.€The€victim€wasÍeither€wearing€her€sweater€or€had€it€in€her€hands€when€she€came€downstairs.€ÏShe€noticed€that€a€button€on€her€shirt€was€missing€and€her€clothes€wereÏð ðmessed€up.ðð€The€victim€called€her€supervisor,€Virginia€Cooper,€and€then€sheÏcalled€the€police.€€The€victim€found€the€keys€she€had€left€on€her€desk€in€the€frontÏœdoor›€œof›€the€building.€€The€doors€were€unlocked€and€the€victim€locked€them€œuntil›Ïthe€police€arrived.€€Ìà àÌà à€Virginia€Cooper€received€a€telephone€call€from€the€victim€at€3:40€a.m.€ÏThe€victim€sounded€œhysterical,›€œwas›€crying€and€told€Ms.€Cooper€that€she€hadÏbeen€raped€by€the€Defendant.€€The€victim€told€her€she€was€under€her€desk€andÏthat€she€was€afraid€to€get€up.€€Ms.€Cooper€called€the€police,€who€were€alreadyÏpresent€when€she€arrived€at€the€TEA€building.€€Ms.€Cooper€noted€that€it€wasÏdifficult€to€understand€the€victim€on€the€telephone,€but€that€she€appeared€moreÏcomposed€when€she€saw€her.€€ÌÌà àSergeant€Billy€Smith€received€a€report€at€3:52€a.m.€and€was€the€firstÏpolice€officer€to€arrive€on€the€scene.€€He€saw€the€victim,€who€was€ð ðvery€upset,Ïcrying€[and]€real€nervous.ðð€€He€determined€that€the€victim€was€not€seriouslyÏwounded€and€attempted€to€calm€her.€€Ms.€Cooper€arrived€and€gave€SergeantÏSmith€a€key€to€the€Volunteer€Plaza€building.€€Sergeant€Smith€and€OfficerÏMichael€Sanders€went€to€the€other€building€œand,›€as€they€were€securing€theÍlobby,€the€Defendant€emerged€from€the€menððs€bathroom.€€They€arrested€theÏœDefendant,›€and€Officer€Sanders€took€him€out€of€the€building.€Officer€SandersÏsearched€the€Defendant€and€discovered€a€locked€œknife›€in€œthe›€back€pocket€of€hisÏpants.€€€Sergeant€Smith€returned€to€the€TEA€building.€€ÌÌà àDetective€Johnny€Lawrence€arrived€around€4:00€a.m.€and€noticed€that€theÏvictimððs€hair€was€disarrayed,€she€appeared€to€have€been€crying,€and€herÏclothes€were€messed€up€with€a€button€missing€on€her€shirt.€€DetectiveÏLawrence€observed€that€the€victimððs€desk€area€was€disarrayed€and€found€aÏbutton€on€the€floor€that€matched€the€victimððs€buttons.€€Detective€LawrenceÏretraced€the€sequence€of€events€surrounding€the€assault.€€He€observed€theÏwomenððs€bathroom€on€the€third€floor€and€saw€a€couch€that€was€covered€withÏpink€lint.€€He€found€the€victimððs€pink€sweater€under€her€desk€on€the€first€floor.€ÏThe€pink€lint€on€the€couch€and€the€fibers€from€the€sweater€looked€identical.€€ÌÌà àDetective€Lawrence€went€outside€to€see€the€Defendant,€who€wasÏwearing€the€same€type€of€security€uniform€as€the€victim.€€The€Defendant€hadÏpink€lint€all€over€his€uniform€and€in€his€beard.€€The€Defendant€was€transported€toÏbooking.€€Detective€Lawrence€then€turned€œthe›€case€œover€to›€Detective€Gooch.€ÏThe€ID€unit€photographed€the€scene€and€collected€evidence.€€Pink€fibers€wereÏalso€found€in€the€menððs€restroom€in€the€Volunteer€Plaza€building€on€the€sinkÍarea€and€on€the€top€of€the€trash€in€the€waste€receptacle.€€While€OfficerÏCorcoran€was€taking€photographs€of€the€Defendant,€the€Defendant€stated€ð ðIÏdidnððt€do€nothingðð€several€times.€€An€application€of€ultraviolet€light€to€the€couchÏarea€of€the€womenððs€bathroom€revealed€no€evidence€of€semen.ÌÌà àDetective€Kim€Gooch€first€saw€the€victim€at€the€warrants€window€œat›€nightÏcourt.€€She€appeared€very€upset€and€frightened€and€became€more€so€when€theÏDefendant€was€brought€in.€€The€victim€was€composed,€but€was€tearful€at€timesÏand€appeared€frightened.€€Detective€Gooch€took€the€victim€to€Nashville€GeneralÏHospital,€where€a€nurse€practitioner,€Colleen€Powers,€performed€a€rape€kitÏexamination.€€She€performed€a€wood„slide€exam,€which€revealed€no€evidenceÏof€semen€around€the€victimððs€labia.€€Ms.€Powers€noted€red€fibers€in€the€victimððsÏpubic€hair.€€Ms.€Powers€discovered€no€bruising,€but€the€victim€complained€ofÏlower€back€pain€and€Ms.€Powers€discovered€mild€tenderness€of€the€spine.€€Ms.ÏPowers€saw€no€trauma€to€the€vagina,€but€noted€a€thin€white€discharge€in€theÏvaginal€vault.€€No€semen€was€detected€at€that€time.€€However,€the€victim€statedÏthat€she€had€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€her€husband€two€or€three€daysÏbefore€the€incident€and€had€douched€afterwards.€€Ms.€Powers€took€swabs€ofÏthe€victimððs€cheek€and€hand,€where€she€had€stated€the€Defendant€licked€her.€€AÏvaginal€swab€and€a€blood€sample€were€taken€from€the€victim.€€The€rape€kitÏsamples€were€transported€to€the€TBI€laboratory.€€ÌÌà àForensic€testing€at€the€TBI€laboratory€revealed€that€the€pink€fibers€at€theÏcrime€scene€and€on€the€Defendant€matched€those€from€the€victimððs€sweater.€ÏAlso,€the€rape€kit€swabs€from€the€victimððs€cheek€and€hand€revealed€no€saliva.€ÏSperm€was€detected€from€the€vaginal€swab,€but€it€œwas›€not€consistent€with€theÏDefendantððs€DNA.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€with€three€counts€of€aggravated€rape€andÏone€count€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€He€was€tried€by€a€jury€on€OctoberÏ28„30,€1996.€€The€State€elected€the€offenses€as€follows:€count€one€was€vaginalÏpenetration€by€penis,€count€two€was€digital€penetration€of€the€vagina,€countÏthree€was€penetration€by€oral€sex€and€count€œfour€was›€attempted€analÏpenetration€by€penis.€€The€jury€found€the€Defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€rape€inÏcount€one,€guilty€of€the€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€inÏcounts€two€and€three,€and€attempted€aggravated€rape€in€count€four.€ÌÌÓ  ÓI.€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÌÓ  Óà àÌà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€convictions.€When€an€accused€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewingÍthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€asÏwell€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,Ïnot€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÏNor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌÓ  Ó(A).€General€InsufficiencyÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€alleges€that€the€evidence€did€not€prove€that€the€eventsÏoccurred€because€the€physical€evidence€and€testimony€of€the€victim€wereÏinadequate.€€He€notes€the€inconsistency€between€the€time€the€victim€alleged€theÏattack€occurred,€at€2:30€a.m.,€and€her€notation€in€her€log€book€that€she€madeÏrounds€at€3:00€a.m.€€He€also€argues€that€the€victim€made€inconsistentÏstatements€to€various€individuals€regarding€the€actual€acts€that€were€perpetratedÏupon€her.€€Finally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€forensic€evidence€does€notÏsupport€that€the€he€ejaculated€because€there€was€no€semen€detected€that€wasÏlinked€to€him.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€these€problems€create€aÏreasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àObviously,€the€jury€considered€any€inconsistencies€and€resolved€themÏagainst€the€Defendant.€€Questions€of€credibility€and€the€weight€of€the€evidenceÏare€properly€reserved€for€the€jury.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Ó(B)€Failure€to€Establish€the€Bodily€Injury€ElementÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€proveÏthat€the€victim€suffered€bodily€injury€and€as€a€result,€the€convictions€forÏaggravated€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€attempted€aggravated€rapeÏcannot€stand.ÌBodily€injury€is€the€aggravating€factor€upon€which€the€State€relied€to€raise€theÏoffenses€from€simple€rape€and€sexual€battery€to€the€aggravated€offensesœ× ƒ1 ××  ×›.€Ïð ðððBodily€injuryðð€includes€a€cut,€abrasion,€bruise,€burn€or€disfigurement;€€physicalÏpain€or€temporary€illness€or€impairment€of€the€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ,Ïor€mental€faculty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(2).ÌÌà à€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€thisÏelement€because€the€victimððs€claims€of€injury€were€not€properly€substantiated.€ÏThe€victim€testified€at€trial€that€she€hit€her€head€on€the€wall€several€times€duringÏthe€struggle€with€the€Defendant.€€She€also€testified€that€she€thought€sheÏð ðblacked€outðð€momentarily.€€The€nurse€practitioner€did€not€note€any€evidence€ofÏbruises€on€the€victimððs€head.€€The€victim€complained€to€the€nurse€that€she€wasÏexperiencing€lower€back€pain€shortly€after€the€incident.€€The€nurse€noted€a€mildÏtenderness€of€the€spine.€€The€victim€did€not€seek€medical€attention€for€her€backÏinjury€and€had€filed€a€workerððs€compensation€claim€for€her€back€injury,€but€laterÏwithdrew€this€as€a€ground€for€relief.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€had€soughtÍcounseling€after€the€incident€and€was€still€receiving€treatment€at€the€time€of€theÏtrial.ÌÌà àWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€show€that€theÏvictim€suffered€bodily€injury.€€Even€what€could€be€considered€slight€injuries€haveÏsatisfied€the€bodily€injury€element.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€927„28Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.€1994)(physical›€pain€caused€by€vaginal€penetration);€òòState€v.ÏHarrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€583,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)(small€bruise€on€theÏvictimððs€hip).€€Here,€the€victim€testified€that€she€hit€her€head€several€times€andÏmay€have€blacked€out.€€Furthermore,€she€stated€to€the€nurse€shortly€after€theÏincident€that€she€was€experiencing€lower€back€pain,€which€was€substantiatedÏby€the€nurseððs€observation€of€tenderness€of€the€spine.€€The€legislature€has€seenÏfit€to€include€ð ðphysical€painðð€in€the€statutory€definition€of€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(2).€€ð ðIt€is€not€the€duty€of€this€Court€œto€apply›€size€or€degreeÏrequirements€to€such€unambiguous€legislation.ðð€€òòHarrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€at€588.€€AsÏa€result,€we€find€that€this€issue€lacks€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€Special€Jury€InstructionÌÓ  ÓÌà àNext,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€theÏStateððs€request€for€a€special€jury€instruction€regarding€destroying€or€concealingÍevidence.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€Defendant€was€discovered€coming€out€theÏmenððs€bathroom€in€the€Volunteer€Plaza€building.€€The€Defendant€had€pink€fibersÏin€his€beard€and€on€his€uniform,€primarily€stuck€to€the€Velcro€on€his€pocket.€ÏWhen€the€police€examined€the€bathroom,€they€discovered€pink€fibers€on€the€sinkÏand€pink€fibers€on€top€of€the€trash€in€the€waste€receptacle.€€The€State€requestedÏand€the€trial€court€issued€the€following€instruction:€ð ðAny€attempt€by€an€accusedÏto€conceal€or€destroy€evidence€is€relevant€as€a€circumstance€from€which€guilt€ofÏthe€accused€may€be€inferred.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€proof€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððsÏinstruction€and€that€it€served€as€an€impermissible€comment€on€the€evidenceÏviolative€of€Article€VI,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Our€law€providesÏthat€when€the€issue€is€raised€by€the€proof,€it€is€appropriate€for€the€trial€court€toÏissue€œsuch€a›€jury€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€149€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€The€trial€court's€instruction€was€issued€in€compliance€withÏòòTillery€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€509,€511€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€which€states:Ïð ðAny€attempt€by€an€accused€to€conceal€or€destroy€evidence,€including€anÏattempt€to€suppress€the€testimony€of€a€witness,€is€relevant€as€a€circumstanceÏfrom€which€guilt€of€the€accused€may€be€inferred.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€instructionsÏdid€not€shift€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€Defendant€because€the€jury€wasÏinstructed€that€the€State€had€the€burden€of€proving€all€of€the€elements€of€theÍcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€Post„crime€concealment€of€evidence€hasÏcontinued€to€be€an€acceptable€inference€suggesting€that€a€defendant€hasÏcommitted€some€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992);ÏòòState€v.€Larry€Gene€Maddoxóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9609„CR„00339,€HamiltonÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€5,€1997);€€òòState€v.€Michael€CarltonÏBaileyóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9403„CC„00105,€Cheatham€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€July€20,€œ1995),›€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€œ(Tenn.€1996).›€ÌÌà àThe€œproof€raised›€the€issue€that€the€Defendant€attempted€to€concealÏevidence€of€the€crime.€€The€trial€judge€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€ofÏthe€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,Ï319€(Tenn.1986).€€Therefore,€the€jury€instruction€did€not€function€as€œanÏimpermissible›€comment€upon€the€evidence.€€The€jury€was€free€to€decide€whetherÏthe€Defendant€did€indeed€attempt€to€conceal€evidence.€€Once€this€was€resolvedÏas€a€fact,€the€jury€was€permitted€to€infer€that€the€Defendant€committed€the€crimeÏin€question.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€instruction€precluded€him€fromÏpresenting€innocent€explanations€for€his€removal€of€the€pink€fibers.€However,€theÏproof€established€that€fibers€were€placed€in€the€trash€with€the€obvious€intentÏthat€they€be€disposed€œof€as›€waste.€€These€facts€œmay€give€rise€to€an›€inferenceÏand€nothing€in€the€jury€instruction€required€the€jury€to€presume€that€the€DefendantÏtried€to€conceal€evidence.€€Indeed,€the€presence€of€the€pink€fibers€on€and€in€theÍvicinity€of€the€Defendant€became€the€most€incriminating€circumstantial€linkÏbetween€the€Defendant€and€the€victim.€€An€otherwise€innocuous€action€mayÏappear€highly€suspect€in€the€context€of€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances,Ïi.e.€disposal€of€a€gun,€or€wiping€off€blood€with€a€paper€towel€and€discarding€it€inÏthe€trash,€or€in€the€case€of€flight,€a€sudden€trip€out€of€town€after€a€crime€wasÏcommitted.€€If€raised€by€the€proof,€the€trial€court€is€justified€in€issuing€an€instructionÏthat€the€jury€œð ðmayðð›€infer€œguilt€from€such€circumstances.€€The€instructions€clearlyÏplaced€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€State.€›€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€this€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€SentencingÌÓ  Óà àÌà àAs€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€charges€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏimposing€excessive€sentences€and€by€ordering€the€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€ofÏservice€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€)XÔððððÔ€)ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌœÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€forty„two€yearsÏold,€married,€with€three€children.€€He€graduated€from€high€school€in€1972€andÏreported€that€he€received€training€in€geriatric€nursing€in€1982,€but€this€was€notÏverified.€€The€Defendant€reported€working€for€a€moving€company€from€1983€toÍ1991,€but€this€was€unverified.€€The€Defendant€also€worked€for€BrentwoodÏSecurity€from€1993€to€1994,€and€Integrity€Security€from€1994€to€the€time€theÏincident€occurred.€€The€Defendant€has€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€activity,Ïincluding€nine€convictions€for€DUI,€three€convictions€for€driving€with€a€suspendedÏlicense,€one€conviction€for€driving€with€a€revoked€license€and€one€conviction€forÏsimple€assault.€€€A€number€of€other€charges€had€been€dismissed,€retired,€or€theÏdisposition€was€unknown,€and€the€Defendant€was€arrested€several€times€forÏprobation€violations.ÌÌà àA€sentencing€hearing€was€conducted€on€December€18,€1996,€and€theÏarguments€of€counsel€were€considered.€€The€trial€judge€applied€the€followingÏthree€enhancement€factors€to€all€four€convictions:€(1)€That€the€Defendant€had€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior;€(8)€that€theÏDefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÏof€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;€and€(15)€that€the€DefendantÏabused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(15).€ÏThe€trial€judge€applied€enhancement€factor€(7),€that€the€offense€was€committedÏto€gratify€the€Defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,€to€the€convictions€forÏaggravated€rape€and€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€Finally,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€Defendant€possessed€a€weaponÏduring€the€commission€of€the€offense,€although€she€gave€that€factor€no€weight.€ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9).€€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€ÏAfter€considering€the€appropriate€sentencing€considerations,€the€trial€judgeÏsentenced€the€Defendant€to€twenty„three€years€for€the€aggravated€rape,€tenÏyears€each€for€the€aggravated€sexual€batteries,€and€ten€years€for€the€attemptedÏaggravated€rape× ƒ2 ××  ×.€€Because€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€adhered€to€theÏsentencing€principles,€we€review€the€Defendantððs€sentences€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(1),€a€history€of€criminal€convictions,€because€the€DefendantÏhas€only€been€convicted€of€misdemeanors€and€that€this€Court€typically€appliesÏthis€factor€when€felony€convictions€are€involved.€€The€State€counters€thatÏmisdemeanor€records€have€been€sufficient€to€support€this€factor€and€we€agree.ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€908€S.W.2d€410,€413€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòStateÏv.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€410,€419€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€We›€have€found€nothing€thatÏprecludes€application€of€this€factor.€€Accordingly,€we€must€also€reject€theÏDefendantððs€argument€that€a€lack€of€felony€convictions€provides€a€mitigatingÏfactor€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).ÌÌà àNext,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€factorÏœ(15),›€that€he€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€He€notes€that€the€perpetrators€inÏcases€where€this€factor€has€been€applied€are€typically€parents,€œbabysitters,›Ïœcoaches,›€œand€others€in€similar€relationships.€€Indeed,›€our€supreme€court€has€heldÏthat:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€determination€of€the€existence€of€a€position€of€trust€does€not€dependÏon€the€length€or€formality€of€the€relationship,€but€upon€the€nature€of€theÏrelationship.€€Thus,€the€court€should€look€to€see€whether€the€offenderÏformally€or€informally€stood€in€a€relationship€to€the€victim€that€promotedÏconfidence,€reliability,€or€faith.€€If€the€evidence€supports€that€finding,€thenÏthe€court€must€determine€whether€the€position€occupied€was€abused€byÏthe€commission€of€the€offense.€ÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒòòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€DefendantÏcontends€that€he€barely€knew€the€victim€and€had€only€come€to€her€building€threeÏor€four€times.€He€argues€that€his€status€as€a€fellow€employee€did€not€promote€aÏrelationship€of€ð ðconfidence,€reliability€or€faith.ððÌÌà àWe€disagree.€€Here,€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€worked€late€at€night€inÏstate€œoffice€buildings€in€downtown€Nashville.›€€The€Defendant€knew€that€theÏvictim€worked€alone€in€the€building€and€that€the€doors€were€kept€locked.€€TheÏDefendant€came€to€her€building€to€get€coffee€on€three€or€four€prior€occasionsÏwithout€incident.€€No€doubt,€the€Defendantððs€position€as€a€fellow€employee€withÏð ðIntegrity€Securityðð€€was€the€factor€that€allowed€him€to€gain€access€to€the€victimÍin€the€middle€of€the€night.€€Furthermore,€the€Defendant€used€his€relationship€to€theÏvictim€to€perpetrate€the€crime.€€We€find€no€error€in€applying€this€enhancementÏfactor.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€factorÏ(7)€that€the€acts€were€committed€to€gratify€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.ÏIn€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34„35€(Tenn.1993),€our€supreme€courtÏrejected€the€proposition€that,€"as€a€matter€of€law,€every€rape€is€implicitlyÏcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€pleasure€or€excitement."€€€The€supreme€court€notedÏthat€not€all€such€crimes€are€committed€for€pleasure,€but€rather€may€be€motivatedÏby€œfactors›€such€as€brutality,€revenge,€punishment,€or€intimidation.€€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.ÏHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€949€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922ÏS.W.2d€482,€491€(Tenn.€1996),€the€supreme€court€added€that€the€commission€ofÏœa€crime›€to€gratify€a€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement€is€not€limited€to€proof€ofÏsexual€desire€or€sexual€pleasure.€€Thus,€evidence€of€the€achievement€of€sexualÏorgasm€will€not,€by€itself,€prove€factor€(7),€nor€will€the€absence€of€orgasm€negateÏsuch€application.€€òòId.óó€€The€State€must€demonstrate€that€a€defendant€wasÏòòmotivatedóó€to€commit€a€crime€to€gratify€a€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€òòId.óó€Ïð ðThe€focus€is€the€offenderððs€motive,€not€the€eventual€result.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€We€note€theÏinstruction€provided€by€our€supreme€court€in€this€regard:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓIt€applies€anytime€an€offender€commits€an€applicable€offense€to€gratifyÏthe€offender's€desire€for€any€pleasure€or€any€excitement.€€While€thatÏpleasure€or€excitement€may€be€of€a€sexual€nature,€it€does€not€have€toÏbe.€€Therefore,€an€offender€who€is€motivated€to€rape€by€his€or€her€desireÏto€overpower€or€brutalize,€when€that€desire€creates€pleasure€orÏexcitement€for€the€offender,€may€suffer€a€factor€(7)€sentenceÏenhancement.ÓÓÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒòòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€490.ÌÌà àHere,€the€Defendant€perpetrated€a€brutal€rape€upon€the€victim.€€The€trialÏjudge€based€the€application€of€this€factor€on€the€victimððs€testimony€that€theÏDefendant€kissed€her€lips,€then€licked€her€cheek€and€hand.€€She€also€noted€thatÏthe€Defendant€claimed€in€his€presentence€report€that€he€and€the€victim€ð ðfondledÏeach€other.ðð€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€victim€could€not€correctly€rememberÏwhere€or€if€he€licked€her.€€The€actions€and€statement€of€the€Defendant€suggestÏthat€his€attack€of€the€victim€may€have€been,€in€part,€motivated€by€a€desire€forÏsexual€gratification.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€thisÏfactor.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€proposes€that€we€œshould€find€and€apply›€several€statutoryÏmitigating€œfactors€not€found€by€the€trial€court.›€€First,€he€argues€that€he€neitherÏcaused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€ÏYet,€we€have€concluded€that€the€Defendant€did€cause€bodily€injury.€€TheÏDefendant€has€cited€no€case€in€which€this€factor€was€applied€when€bodilyÏinjury€was€involved.€€We€decline€to€do€so€now.€€Likewise,€we€find€nothing€in€theÍrecord€œwhich›€demonstrates€that€the€Defendant€committed€the€offense€under€suchÏunusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawÏmotivated€his€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11).€€Here,€the€DefendantÏused€his€position€to€gain€entry€to€the€building,€attacked€the€victim€when€she€hadÏher€back€to€him,€and€dragged€her€upstairs€to€complete€the€act.€€We€cannotÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€œso€erred.›ÌÌœà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€a€partialÏconsecutive€sentence.€€The€trial€judge€ordered€three€sentences€to€runÏconcurrently€and€one€ten„year€sentence€to€run€consecutively€for€an€effectiveÏsentence€of€thirty„three€years.€€The€trial€judge€articulated€on€the€record€that€sheÏrelied€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115€(b)(2)€and€(b)(6)Ïwhen€she€ordered€consecutive€sentences.€€It€is€clear€from€this€record€that€theÏDefendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive€and€thatÏthe€Defendant€was€being€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÏprobation.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2)€and€(6);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914ÏS.W.2d€926,€933€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€These€factors€authorize€the€trial€courtÏto€consider€consecutive€sentences€pursuant€to€Rule€32(c)(1)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€When€a€defendant€falls€within€the€statutoryÏclassifications€for€eligibility€to€be€considered€for€consecutive€sentencing,€the€onlyÏremaining€considerations€are€whether€(1)€the€sentences€are€necessary€in€orderÍto€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant€and€(2)€"theÏterms€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses."€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,Ï905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€clearly€had€a€basis€for€concluding€that€consecutiveÏsentences€are€necessary€to€protect€the€public.€These€offenses€were€committedÏwhile€the€defendant€was€on€probation,€thus,€he€has€demonstrated€a€lack€ofÏamenability€for€rehabilitation.€€It€is€also€of€grave€concern€that€the€Defendant€usedÏhis€position€as€a€security€officer€to€perpetrate€a€crime€on€another€employee.€€WeÏare€frankly€surprised€that€the€Defendant€could€have€even€obtained€suchÏemployment€with€his€criminal€record.€€€Due€to€his€lengthy€record€and€his€failure€toÏdemonstrate€any€rehabilitative€qualities,€we€€conclude€that€the€terms€areÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE