ÿWPCU h‡ ]DbÚ€ѹ¨¤ùøš&e„`X2AA£Ì¼ ’¬\‚¤§êoц‘ŠÀÒc7_]Q˜ùJðˆ)Ûª£X‹½@µø–où†/2k‘>¢Tßç¾2Näÿ}(¡êåP“|ô`†ÍÖñ‚–G}Q5ßEßX 37B¹«¡‹|VÏÕ:„L¶R´'V—-åéGÝ< ðüî‹ Í¥?ÿzÄ2 TOÚs²ÜÄ 2þHBí¾êН‹‡Z4J1ï%æ[lÎrÕöÉX[ëâKèó§côžFmêoѫկdöåD%åu˜ÑÌ‚?·Þ>Í,ƒ]Âð”.Ç«MeîeÒz:[?r²äOøQ*QU-J&ÛÍÂéch Ç݃¦½Xg(¸_§Õ×ýõ_l V£‹ok-¡v>„ša”ç¢æ“°å‹‹??5¨kjGGkCb¿%'-h„Ôq„I°DH^si·ƒðSG£ ŠU¦álÚ~šBeuìñÀ>¾g‡%Lõ +í{ÃKŸp0Þ±úÝéx®,¸F»õ¦ÞÌ[7;nà’‰J¦M‚V²’›ù,¦Û¡%ú‰· ¦•ç"ÌŠógCÒt\ÎZ(ÆB§ò õj@Zv| û…UBF %ˆ U.Ž ¼ nXÌ 0P$ 4t ˆ 0³ 0cC w@¦ U:æ U: U:Z ” è¦TŽU:ââââââââââââââââââ B D3999 0Dllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll AO°Æÿÿ 0DÅ D/  B8<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X­«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓuM%(c(2ƒ¤$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€X‹¿XXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ›DeœDžDŸ D¡¢D£¤Ó€g"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ ƒ¤$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X‹¿XXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô§ôXX‹¿ÔThe€defendant€requested€permission€to€late„file€his€notice€of€appeal,€which€this€Court€granted. ÞÔ€X‹¿XXXÔÔ€šXX‹¿ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X‹¿XšÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€13,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó JÝ ƒ ‰d$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€XŸ`XXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôD†ôXXŸ`ÔMs.€Blumberg,€who€is€5'6",€testified€that€the€robber€was€a€few€inches€taller€than€she,€and€Ms.Ð `  ÐMcMillen€testified€that€the€robber€stood€5'9".,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ñ›ñ›ñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€XióXXXÔÑ7€ ió XXdðdÈ7Ññ¤ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` 8ttxP"` ð  rß›ñ¤ñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@uu:MàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@ll8MàJUNE€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9707„CC„00270ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€DONALD€P.€HARRIS,Ð €  ÐEDDIE€L.€COLEY,€JR.,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)Ìà ¨ àà àó óAppellant.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Aggravated€Robbery)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òJOHN€HENDERSONà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óPublic€Defenderà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p ÐÌò òVANESSA€PETTIGREW€BRYANà ` àà ¸ àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOó óÐ °"P Ðò òLARRY€D.€DROLSUMó óà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ  #@ ÐAsst.€Public€Defendersà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð $0 ÐP.O.€Box€68à àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€Ð €%  ÐFranklin,€TN€ñ›ñœñ›ñ€37065„0068ñ›ñ›ñ›ñà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð p& Ðà ¨ àà àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òJOE€D.€BAUGHó óÐ P(ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àMARK€PURYEARÐ  +À!$ Ðó óà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òDEREK€SMITHó óÐ ,°"% Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àP.O.€Box€937Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àFranklin,€TN€ñ›ñœñ›ñ€37064ñ›ñ›ñ›ñÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌñ›ñœñ›ñÌÌñ›ñ›ñ›ñÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ 09Ð/3 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ < 26 ÐJudgeÌÐ  à=€48 Ðñ›ñœ›ñ›ñÑÜXÑÓ  Óà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼W-¼XXióÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XióX¼¼W-E#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€robbery,€a€class€B€felony.€€HisÏfirst€trial€resulted€in€a€hung€jury.€€Upon€retrial,€the€jury€convicted€him€as€charged.€ÏFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€toÏtwelve€years€incarceration,€the€maximum€sentence.€€The€defendant€now€appeals,׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ X‹¿XXXióÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð æ†  Ðarguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€expert€testimony€regarding€eyewitnessÏñ›ñœñ›ñidentification,€thatñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ€the€convicting€evidence€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law,€and€that€hisÏsentence€was€excessive€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€give€due€weight€to€certainÏmitigating€factors.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà ¨ àà àOn€July€15,€1995,€the€victims,€Sarah€Blumberg€and€Jennifer€McMillen,€wereÏworking€at€a€œBaskinñœñ€ñœñññ„ññRobbins›€ice€cream€shop€in€Brentwood.€€Around€1:00€p.m.,€theÏdefendant,€a€nineteen„year„old€African„American€man,€entered€the€store,€looking€no€moreÏsuspicious€than€any€customer.€€Ms.€McMillen€commented€to€Ms.€Blumberg€that€theÏdefendantððs€black€t„shirt€with€unusual€writing€across€it€was€ð ðcool.ðð€€While€the€victims€wereÏpreparing€the€defendantððs€order,€the€defendant€pointed€a€gun€at€them€and€ordered€themÏto€the€ground.€€The€defendant€stood€only€a€few€feet€from€the€victims,€both€of€whom€wereÏafraid€they€would€be€killed.€€One€of€the€victims€was€instructed€to€put€the€storeððs€moneyÏinto€a€bag.€€The€defendant€then€ordered€both€victims€to€the€walk„in€freezer€in€the€back€ofÏthe€store,€telling€them€that€if€they€came€out€of€the€freezer€while€he€was€still€there,€heÏwould€shoot€them.€€The€victims€remained€in€the€freezer€until€they€heard€a€customer€enterÏthe€store€and€call€for€a€clerk,€at€which€point€they€went€to€the€store€next€door€and€calledÏthe€police.ÌÐ 5¾+0 Ðà ¨ àà àThe€police€failed€to€find€any€fingerprints€or€other€physical€evidence€at€theÐ †6&-2 Ðcrime€scene.€€However,€that€afternoon,€each€of€the€victims€gave€separate€descriptionsÏof€the€robber€as€an€obese€African„American€man€around€5'9"׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XŸ`XX XŸ`ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€in€his€twenties,€andÐ , Ì Ðeach€helped€the€police€prepare€separate€composite€pictures€of€the€robber.€€Nine€daysÏafter€the€robbery,€Ms.€Blumberg€identified€the€defendant€in€a€photographic€line„up.€€FiveÏmonths€after€the€robbery,€Ms.€McMillen€identified€the€defendant€in€the€same€photographicÏline„up.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAt€trial,€the€sole€issue€of€dispute€was€one€of€identification.€€The€Stateððs€caseÏrested€on€the€victimsðð€testimony€and€their€pre„trial€and€in„court€identifications€of€theÏdefendant€as€the€robber.€€On€cross„examination,€both€of€the€victims€admitted€that€in€theÏphotographic€line„up,€the€defendant€was€the€only€one€wearing€an€unusual€black€t„shirt.€ÏMs.€Blumberg€also€testified€that€she€expected€to€find€a€picture€of€the€robber€in€theÏphotographic€line„up,€and€Ms.€McMillen€conceded€that€prior€to€looking€at€the€photographicÏline„up,€she€knew€a€suspect€was€already€in€custody€awaiting€trial.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€presented€an€alibi€defense€and€maintained€that€anotherÏsuspect,€whom€the€police€failed€to€adequately€investigate,€committed€the€robbery.€€TheÏdefendantððs€uncle€testified€that€he€was€with€the€defendant€the€day€of€the€robbery,Ïincluding€the€time€it€occurred.€€Another€defense€witness,€Brandon€Duhon,€testified€thatÏhe€was€working€at€a€store€near€œñ›ñœñ›ñBaskinñžñ€ñžññŸñ„ñŸñRobbinsñ›ñ›ñ›ñ›€at€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€According€toÏhis€testimony,€he€had€seen€an€old€yellowish€car€drive€by€his€store€thirty€minutes€beforeÏthe€robbery.€€He€then€watched€the€two€ñ›ñœñ›ñAfrican„Americanñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€males€who€were€in€the€carÏapproach€the€œBaskinñ ñ€ñ ññ¡ñ„ñ¡ñRobbins›€store.€€After€the€robbery,€he€reported€to€the€police€what€heÏhad€seen,€describing€the€car€and€describing€the€driver€as€a€tall,€slender€man€with€braidedÏhair.€€He€could€not€describe€the€passenger.€€He€told€police€that€the€car€ñ›ñœñ›ñhad€lookedñ›ñ›ñ›ñÐ €4 +0 Ðð ðsuspiciousðð€as€if€the€driver€and€the€passenger€were€ð ðcasingðð€the€area.€€Upon€furtherÏexamination,€he€admitted€that€the€car€seemed€ð ðsuspiciousðð€only€after€he€had€heard€aboutÏthe€robbery.ÌÌà ¨ àà àTwo€detectives€involved€in€investigating€the€robbery€were€called€by€theÏdefense.€€According€to€their€testimony,€when€the€police€found€a€car€matching€theÏdescription€Mr.€Duhon€gave€them,€they€discovered€the€car€was€registered€to€DemetriusÏRobinson,€who€lived€one€to€one€and€one„half€miles€from€the€scene€of€the€robbery.€€EvenÏthough€Mr.€Robinson€was€a€tall,€slender€ñ›ñœñ›ñAfrican„Americanñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€man€with€braided€hair,€Mr.ÏDuhon€could€not€positively€identify€him.€€When€questioned,€Mr.€Robinson€said€his€brother,ÏTony€Smith,€had€lived€with€him.€€The€investigating€officer€believed€ð ðTony€Smithðð€was€aÏfake€name€because€it€was€ð ðgeneric,ðð€and€a€report€later€obtained€by€the€police€indicatedÏthat€Mr.€Robinson€did€not€have€a€brother.€€The€police€staked€out€Mr.€RobinsonððsÏapartment€in€the€hopes€of€spotting€Tony€Smith,€but€to€no€avail.€€Finally,€state€recordsÏdisclosed€that€an€ð ðAnthony€DeWayne€Smith,ðð€born€in€March€1975,€lived€at€Mr.€RobinsonððsÏaddress.€€Although€the€investigating€officer€knew€a€picture€of€Anthony€DeWayne€SmithÏwas€on€file€with€the€Metro„Nashville€police€department,€he€did€not€include€it€in€anyÏphotographic€line„up€shown€to€the€victims.€€He€justified€this€decision€on€the€grounds€thatÏhe€could€neither€confirm€nor€controvert€ñ›ñœñ›ñthe€information€Mr.€Robinson€supplied€andñ›ñ›ñ›ñÏbecause€the€victims€reported€seeing€only€one€robber,€not€ñ›ñœñ›ñtwo.ñ›ñ›ñ›ñÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€sought€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Michael€G.ÏJohnson.€€According€to€the€defense€proffer,€Dr.€Johnson€would€testify€regarding€theÏprocess€ñ›ñœñ›ñofñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€eyewitness€identification;€the€relationship€between€stress€and€memory€for€anÏevent;€cross„racial€identification;€the€relationship€between€the€confidence€witnesses€haveÏin€the€accuracy€of€their€identifications€and€the€actual€accuracy€of€their€identifications;€theÏeffect€time€has€on€the€accuracy€of€remembering€something€seen;€and€the€suggestibilityÐ 8¸.4 Ðof€the€photographic€line„ups€used€in€the€instant€case.€€The€State€objected€to€his€testimonyÏon€the€ñ›ñœñ›ñgroundñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€that€it€was€unnecessary€to€help€the€jury€decide€the€issue€of€identification.€ÏThe€trial€court€agreed,€excluding€Dr.€Johnsonððs€testimony.ÌÌà ¨ àà àBased€on€the€evidence€presented€to€it,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guiltyÏof€aggravated€robbery.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€testified,€but€did€notÏdispute€anything€in€the€presentence€report.€€The€defendant€admitted€he€was€arrested€asÏa€juvenile€on€a€weapons€charge€and€was€arrested€and€convicted€for€shoplifting€in€JulyÏ1994.€€He€also€admitted€he€was€arrested€for€and€convicted€of€three€aggravated€robberiesÏin€Davidson€County€in€early€1995,€although€he€testified€he€actually€committed€robberyÏwith€a€gun€in€Davidson€County€five€to€ten€different€times€ñ›ñœñ›ñfrom€late€1994€to€early€1995.ñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€ÏHe€acknowledged€he€was€on€bail€for€the€Davidson€County€robberies€at€the€time€of€theÏœBaskinñ¢ñ€ñ¢ññ£ñ„ñ£ñRobbins›€robbery€in€the€instant€case,€and€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïhe€was€in€the€process€of€serving€twenty€years€in€prison€for€ñ›ñœñ›ñthree€of€thoseñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€robberies.€€HeÏadmitted€to€previously€experimenting€with€marijuana,€but€he€maintained€that€the€last€timeÏhe€had€used€it€was€when€he€was€seventeen€years€old.€€He€also€stated€that€he€hadÏgraduated€high€school€in€two€years,€had€been€a€good€student,€and€had€a€good€pastÏemployment€record.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendantððs€parents€also€testified.€€According€to€them,€ñ›ñœñ›ñtheñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€ñ›ñœñ›ñdefendantÏwasñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€not€a€disciplinary€problem€while€growing€up,€had€been€a€good€student,€and€had€aÏsatisfactory€work€record€upon€graduating€high€school.€€Both€parents€maintained€that€theÏdefendantððs€recent€criminal€behavior€was€ð ðout€of€characterðð€for€him.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€submitted€several€mitigating€factors€for€the€trial€courtððsÏconsideration,€including€the€following:€(1)€that€the€defendant€had€the€capacity€to€adjustÏto€law„abiding€behavior;€(2)€that€the€character,€habits,€mentality,€propensities,€andÐ 8¸.4 Ðactivities€of€the€defendant€indicated€ñ›ñœñ›ñheñ›ñ›ñ›ñ€was€unlikely€to€commit€another€offense;€(3)€thatÏthe€defendant€had€an€excellent€employment€record;€(4)€that€the€defendantððs€educationalÏbackground,€homelife,€sobriety,€or€satisfactory€social€adjustment€suggested€leniency;€(5)Ïthat€there€was€a€strong€possibility€of€successful€treatment€and€training,€and€that€theÏdefendant€was€likely€to€comply€with€the€terms€of€probation;€and€(6)€that€the€defendant€hadÏa€good€prior€performance€on€probation.€€The€trial€court,€however,€found€no€mitigatingÏfactors€and€found€the€following€enhancing€factors:€(1)€that€the€defendant€had€a€previousÏhistory€of€criminal€conduct;€(2)€that€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim;€and€(3)€thatÏthe€defendant€was€on€bail€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏthe€defendant€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€twelve€years€in€prison,€the€maximum€sentence€forÏa€Class€B€felony,€to€run€consecutively€to€the€twenty„year€sentence€the€defendant€isÏcurrently€serving€for€the€Davidson€County€robberies.€€The€defendant€now€appeals.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€excluding€Dr.ÏJohnsonððs€expert€testimony€on€the€process€of€eyewitness€ñ›ñœñ›ñidentificationñ”ñ,ñ”ññ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ€ñ›ñœñ›ññ’ñwhichñ’ññ“ñand€that€this€errorñ“ññ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñÏprevented€him€from€rebutting€the€victimsðð€eyewitness€testimony.€€The€defendantÏrecognizes€that€trial€judges€retain€discretion€to€admit€such€expert€testimony,€but€heÏmaintains€that€this€Courtððs€opinions€in€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ì'Œ" ÐApp.€1983),€and€òòState€v.€Wardóó,€712€S.W.2d€485€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€unfairlyÐ ¸)X $ Ðdiscourage€such€testimony.€€ÌÌà ¨ àà àIt€may€no€longer€be€true,€as€this€Court€has€previously€observed,€that€theÏð ðgreat€weight€of€authority€in€this€country€is€that€the€study€of€the€reliability€of€eyewitnessÏidentification€has€not€attained€that€degree€of€exactitude€which€would€qualify€it€as€a€specificÏscience.ðð€€òòWardóó,€712€S.W.2d€at€487.€€Even€so,€expert€testimony€on€the€process€ofÐ €4 +0 Ðeyewitness€identification€is€not€òòper€seóó€inadmissible€in€Tennessee.€€As€with€any€profferedÐ L6ì,2 Ðexpert€testimony,€the€admission€of€expert€testimony€on€the€process€of€eyewitnessÐ 8¸.4 Ðidentification€remains€a€matter€of€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion€in€each€individual€case.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòsee€ñ›ñœñ›ññ•ñalsoñ•ññ•ñ›generñ•ññ–ññ•ñ€ñ•ñallyñ–ñóóñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ€òòMcMullen€v.€Stateóó,€23€Fla.€L.€Weekly€S207€(Fla.€Apr.€9,Ð , Ì Ð1998)(acknowledging€that€the€majority€of€states€have€adopted€an€ð ðabuse€of€discretionððÏstandard€for€reviewing€the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€on€eyewitness€identification).€ÏIn€the€instant€case,€while€the€admission€of€Dr.€Johnsonððs€testimony€might€have€beenÏhelpful€ñ›ñœñ›ññ—ñinñ—ññ˜ñtoñ˜ññ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ€some€degree,€we€do€not€find€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÏadmit€it.€€òòSeeóó€òòWardóó,€712€S.W.2d€at€487.Ð (È  ÐÌà ¨ àà àIn€an€issue€closely€related,€the€defendant€contends€that€if€the€trial€courtÏwould€have€admitted€Dr.€Johnsonððs€expert€testimony,€as€it€should€have,€then€the€juryÏwould€have€weighed€the€evidence€differently€and€arrived€at€a€not„guilty€verdict.€€BecauseÏthe€trial€court€wrongfully€excluded€Dr.€Johnsonððs€expert€testimony,€the€defendantÏcontinues,€the€jury€did€not€have€sufficient€evidence€upon€which€to€base€a€verdict.€ÏHowever,€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€excludingÏDr.€Johnsonððs€expert€testimony.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€victimsðð€eyewitnessÏtestimony€sufficiently€supports€the€juryððs€guilty€verdict.€€Accordingly,€this€argument€lacksÏmerit.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€He€disputesÏneither€the€applicability€of€the€enhancing€factors€found€by€the€trial€court€nor€theÏconsecutive€nature€of€his€sentence.€€Instead,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏimposing€the€maximum€sentence€ñ›ñœñ›ññ™ñin€the€applicable€range€ñ™ñwithoutñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ€giving€due€weight€to€theÏmitigating€factors€he€presented.€€The€State€concedes€that€three€of€the€suggestedÏmitigating€factors€should€have€been€considered,€but€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€failureÏto€do€so€must€be€considered€harmless€error€because€the€applicable€mitigating€factors€areÏentitled€to€so€little€weight€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€nevertheless€proper.ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà ¨ àà àWe€agree€with€the€State€that€suggested€mitigating€factors€(1),€(2),€and€(5),Ïwhich€concern€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation,€are€not€applicable.€€There€wasÏsimply€no€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€would€support€theÏconsideration€of€these€mitigating€factors.€€To€the€contrary,€the€evidence€shows€that€theÏdefendantððs€likelihood€of€committing€other€similar€crimes€is€rather€high:€In€July€1994,€heÏwas€arrested€for€shoplifting,€and€then€in€late€1994€to€early€1995,€by€his€own€admissionÏhe€committed€a€large€number€of€aggravated€robberies€in€Davidson€County.€€Then,€justÏmonths€later,€while€on€bail€for€those€aggravated€robberies,€he€committed€ñ›ñœñ›ññšñthe€ñšñaggravatedñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñÏrobbery€charged€in€this€case.€€Given€this,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€not€consideringÏsuggested€mitigating€factors€(1),€(2),€and€(5).ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€mitigating€factors€(3),€(4),€and€(6)€should€haveÏbeen€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€The€State€concedes€the€application€of€each€of€theseÏmitigating€factors,€but€argues€that€the€application€of€these€factors€should€not€affect€theÏlength€of€sentence€imposed.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFirst,€we€question€the€applicability€of€factor€(6),€that€the€defendant€has€aÏgood€prior€performance€on€probation,€because€the€record€is€confusing€as€to€whether€theÏdefendant€was€ever€on€ñ›ñœñ›ñprobation€and€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€any€prior€probationaryÏterm€was€successfully€completed.ñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€maintainedÏhe€was€placed€on€probation€as€a€result€of€his€arrest€as€a€juvenile€on€a€weapons€charge,Ïbut€he€also€testified€that€charge€was€dismissed.€€According€to€the€presentence€report,€aÏprior€weapons€charge€as€a€juvenile€could€not€even€be€verified.€€The€defendant€did€notÏreceive€probation€for€any€of€his€other€prior€convictions.€€Without€some€other€evidence€thatÏmight€clarify€whether€the€defendant€was€placed€on€probation€and€if€so,€successfullyÏcompleted€it,€we€are€reluctant€on€this€record€to€determine€that€factor€(6)€should€apply.ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà ¨ àà àAs€to€factors€(3)€and€(4),€even€assuming€that€evidence€of€mitigation€existed,Ïthe€applicable€enhancing€factors„„„which€the€trial€court€obviously€gave€great€weight€andÏwhich€the€defendant€does€not€dispute„„„so€strongly€outweigh€the€mitigating€factors€thatÏthe€mitigating€factors€pale€in€comparison.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2dÐ Äd Ð766,€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(stating,€ð ðEven€if€some€evidence€of€mitigation€exists,€theÏapplicable€enhancement€factors€so€strongly€outweigh€the€mitigating€factors€that€theÏmaximum€sentence€is€warranted.ðð).€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€maintained€a€couple€ofÏjobs,€was€a€good€student,€and€did€not€cause€his€parents€disciplinary€problems€as€a€childÏcannot€compete€with€the€considerations€that€the€defendant€robbed€two€victims€at€gun„¼point€while€on€bail€for€numerous€other€aggravated€robberies.€€Considering€that,€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€sentence€the€defendant€to€twelve€years€incarceration€is€not€erroneous.ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€sum,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€profferedÏexpert€testimony€on€eyewitness€identification,€and€the€evidence€presented€is€sufficient€toÏsustain€the€juryððs€guilty€verdict.€€Moreover,€the€twelve„year€sentence€imposed€is€notÏexcessive€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€The€defendantððs€conviction€andÏsentence€is€affirmed.ÌÌñ›ñœñ›ññ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñÓÓà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌñ›ñœñ›ñÌÌCONCUR:ñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€ñ›ñœñ›ñJudgeÌñ›ñ›ñ›ññ›ññ›ñ