ÿWPCÊ" …UNV %¤ 0(ªw@Ò4&5 0(= 0¨e D3 1m@ 0J­ 0T÷ 0^K 0h© 0r 0|ƒ 0†ÿ 0… 1u 0dŠ 0@î U>.ÆlU*2 B\B)yDC¢ AOå A4 Ñ D+Þ 0K Tv~rvÓð 0dà 0' 0ж 0 @ 0´à 0Ç” 0Û[ 0ï6 AO%!Æt! 0D:" D/~" B­"(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ I J eK EL EM N EO EP EQ R Ó€³†;$3|x[ ($(X(26¦$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó&&&&'ÿÿdxdstuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€"-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$"-, I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌJuly€20,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ  Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€This€offense€was€committed€on€June€26,€1994,€when€all€forms€ofÏaggravated€child€abuse€were€Class€B€felonies.€€Effective€July€1,€1994,€aggravatedÏchild€abuse€of€a€child€six€(6)€years€of€age€or€less€was€elevated€to€a€Class€A€felony.€Ï1994€Public€Acts,€Chapter€978.€€The€defendant€was,€therefore,€properly€sentencedÏfor€a€Class€B€felony.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€"‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€EbXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9707„CR„00276ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€THOMAS€H.ÏSHRIVER,ÌREBECCA€CUREVICH,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌà@ à)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à à(Aggravated€Child€Abuse,€Child€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€Ï)à à€€Neglect)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌTHEODORA€A.€PAPPASÌó óWashington€Square€BuildingÌ222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSuite€360MÌNashville,€TN€37201Ìò ò(Appeal€Only)ÌÌJACK€A.€BUTLERÌó óFirst€American€BuildingÌSuite€2395Ì315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€TN€37238„2395Ìò ò(Trial€Only)ó óÉò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òKAREN€M.€YACUZZOó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òDIANE€S.€LANCEÌWILLIAM€R.€REEDó óÌAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌWashington€Square€BuildingÌ222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÓ  ÓÓÓOPINIONÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€defendant,€Rebecca€Curevich,€appeals€her€Davidson€County€juryÏconvictions€for€aggravated€child€abuse€and€child€neglect.€€The€defendantÏcontends€on€appeal€that:€ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ(1)€she€was€unfairly€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððsÏrefusal€to€allow€the€opinion€testimony€of€a€policeÏofficer;Ì€Ì(2)€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€her€conviction€for€aggravated€child€abuse;ÌÌ€(3)€she€was€unfairly€prejudiced€by€the€stateððsÏimproper€cross„examination;€andÌ€Ì(4)€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  Óò òÌÌÌÓÓI.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€defendant€gave€birth€to€the€victim€while€incarcerated.€€The€defendantÏand€her€mother,€Paulette€Nicholson,€agreed€that€Nicholson€should€haveÏcustody€of€the€child.€€This€informal€custody€arrangement€continued€after€theÏdefendant€was€released€from€her€incarceration.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€admitted€to€having€a€ten€(10)€year€addiction€to€the€drug,ÏDilaudid.€€This€addiction€continued€after€the€victim€was€born.€€The€defendantÍsubsequently€enrolled€in€a€Methadone€treatment€program.€€Part€of€the€treatmentÏprogram€allowed€the€defendant€to€take€Methadone€home€for€self„medication.€ÏThe€defendantððs€dosage€at€the€time€the€offenses€occurred€was€fifty€(50)Ïmilligrams.ÌÌà àIn€June€1994,€Nicholson€left€the€victim€in€the€defendantððs€care€atÏapproximately€4:00€p.m.€in€order€to€visit€Nicholsonððs€husband€in€the€hospital.€ÏThe€child€was€approximately€six€(6)€months€old.€€The€defendantððs€aunt,€BrendaÏGower,€called€to€check€on€the€defendant€between€10:00€and€10:15€p.m.€€TheÏdefendant€did€not€indicate€to€her€aunt€that€anything€was€wrong€with€the€child.€€ÌÌà àWhen€Nicholson€returned€at€approximately€10:40€p.m.,€the€defendantÏwas€sitting€at€the€kitchen€table€working€a€puzzle.€€When€Nicholson€went€into€theÏother€room€to€check€on€the€child,€she€noticed€the€child€was€having€troubleÏbreathing.€€When€she€picked€the€child€up,€Nicholson€stated€the€child€turned€blueÏand€became€limp.€€Nicholson€instructed€the€defendant€to€call€911.€€When€theÏchild€arrived€at€the€hospital,€he€was€unable€to€breathe€on€his€own€and€a€tubeÏhad€to€be€inserted€in€his€throat.€€There€is€no€question€that€the€child€would€haveÏdied€if€he€had€not€received€emergency€medical€care.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€after€her€mother€left,€she€drank€the€fifty€(50)Ïmilligram€dose€of€Methadone€and€played€with€the€child€for€approximately€forty„five€(45)€minutes.€€She€stated€that€on€the€floor€where€they€played€was€a€can€ofÍsoda,€a€pack€of€cigarettes,€an€ashtray,€a€lighter,€and€her€empty€MethadoneÏbottle.€€The€defendant€testified€she€cannot€remember€her€aunt€calling€that€night.€ÏWhen€she€awoke,€the€defendant€said€she€noticed€the€childððs€labored€breathingÏand€decided€to€call€911.€€The€defendant€stated€that€Nicholson€arrived€homeÏimmediately€after€she€decided€to€call€911.ÌÌà àWhen€the€child€did€not€respond€to€conventional€treatment€at€the€hospital,Ïthe€attending€physicians€administered€Narcan,€which€counters€the€effects€ofÏnarcotics.€€The€child€immediately€reacted€to€the€Narcan€and€began€to€haveÏseizures.€€The€child€subsequently€tested€positive€for€Methadone.€€Dr.€JayantÏDeshpande,€one€of€the€doctors€who€treated€the€child,€testified€that€a€child€theÏweight€of€the€victim€would€have€to€ingest€at€least€twenty„eight€(28)€milligrams€ofÏMethadone€to€cause€breathing€to€cease.ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€defendantððs€first€assignment€of€error€is€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusingÏto€allow€Detective€Steve€Cleek€to€give€his€opinion€as€to€whether€he€thought€theÏchildððs€ingestion€of€Methadone€was€accidental.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€toÏdetermine€the€admissibility€of€Detective€Cleekððs€testimony.€€The€trial€courtÍconcluded€the€detectiveððs€opinion€was€inadmissible€and€asked€the€parties€ifÏthey€agreed.€€Neither€side€objected€to€the€courtððs€ruling.€€The€defendant,Ïtherefore,€has€waived€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà àRegardless€of€the€waiver,€the€trial€court€was€within€its€discretion€toÏexclude€the€testimony.€€The€defendant€wanted€the€detective€to€state€his€opinionÏbased€upon€his€investigation€of€the€facts€of€the€case.€€Witnesses€are€allowed,Ïwith€limitations,€to€testify€as€to€their€opinion€regarding€the€ultimate€issue.€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€704;€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€668€(Tenn.€1997).€€€However,€thisÏrule€is€tempered€by€the€limitation€that€no€opinion€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issueÏis€allowed€when€a€jury€could€readily€draw€its€own€conclusions€on€the€matter,Ïunaided€by€the€witnessðð€opinion.€€Cohen€òòet€al.óó,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ððÏ704.2€(3d€ed.€1995);€òòBlackburn€v.€Murphyóó,€737€S.W.2d€529,€533€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏFurthermore,€the€admission€of€expert€opinion€testimony€must€ð ðsubstantiallyÏassist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€determine€a€fact€in€issue€.€.€.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€702;€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€264€(Tenn.Ï1997).ÌÌà àThe€detectiveððs€experience€investigating€child€abuse€cases€and€hisÏinvestigation€in€this€case€did€not€allow€him€to€formulate€a€more€informedÏconclusion€than€the€jury.€€The€jury€was€apprised€of€the€relevant€facts€and€wereÏfully€capable€of€drawing€their€own€inferences€and€conclusions€without€theÏopinion€of€Detective€Cleek.€€The€detectiveððs€opinion€would€not€substantiallyÍassist€the€jury€in€determining€this€issue.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€excluding€this€evidence.€ÏòòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€669€(holding€appellate€review€is€limited€toÏan€abuse€of€discretion€standard).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€defendant€further€contends€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÏinsufficient€to€sustain€her€conviction€for€aggravated€child€abuse.€€AggravatedÏchild€abuse€requires€the€defendant€knowingly,€other€than€by€accidental€means,Ïtreat€a€child€under€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflictÏinjury,€or€neglect€such€a€child€so€as€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€andÏwelfare;€and€the€act€of€abuse€result€in€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€child.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€39„15„401,€39„15„402(a)(1).ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€theÏstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€318,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838ÍS.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€stateÏis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€orÏlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïreevaluate€the€evidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€thoseÏreached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Furthermore,€in€a€criminal€trial,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€resultÏreached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proofÏare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€jury's€guilty€verdict€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€aÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€TheÏdefendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€onÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€state€contended€the€defendant€intentionally€administered€theÏMethadone€to€the€child.€€The€defendant€asserted,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€while€she€wasÏasleep,€the€child€crawled€to€her€bottle€of€Methadone,€put€the€bottle€in€his€mouth,Ïand€drank€the€remainder€of€its€contents.€€She€stated,€ð ðthere€might€have€beenÏresidue€in€it.ðð€€The€defendant€also€referred€to€ð ðother€membersðð€of€her€family€whoÏused€and€had€access€to€Methadone.€€In€her€testimony€at€trial,€the€defendantÏaccused€her€mother,€Paulette€Nicholson,€of€sneaking€into€the€house€while€sheÏwas€asleep€and€administering€Methadone€to€the€child.ÌÌà àThe€jury€obviously€discredited€the€testimony€of€the€defendant.€€TheÏdefendant€admitted€to€possessing€fifty€(50)€milligrams€of€Methadone€beforeÏNicholson€left€the€child€in€her€custody.€€The€defendant€testified€she,€herself,Ïconsumed€the€entire€contents€of€her€bottle€of€Methadone,€yet€an€expert€testifiedÏthe€child€would€have€had€to€ingest€at€least€twenty„eight€(28)€milligrams€of€theÏdrug.€€The€defendantððs€various€explanations€of€how€the€victim€could€haveÏingested€the€Methadone€strain€credulity.€€Looking€at€the€evidence€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€forÏaggravated€child€abuse.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€she€was€unfairly€prejudiced€byÏquestions€asked€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€which€assumed€facts€neverÏintroduced€into€evidence.€€The€state€contends€the€questions€were€proper€underÏthe€prior€inconsistent€statement€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€asked€on€cross„examination€whether€she€told€Dr.€EdÏDotson€that€she€was€taking€one€(1)€Dilaudid€per€day€in€July€and€August€1994.€ÏThe€defendant€replied,€ð ðIf€I€told€him€that,€then,€yes€maððam,€it€is.ðð€€The€defendantÏsubsequently€testified€that€she€was€ð ðcleanðð€from€March€22,€1994,€until€the€dateÏof€the€trial.€€The€state€countered€by€asking€the€defendant,€ð ðOkay.€€But€you€justÏtold€me€that€Ed€Dotson€„„€you€told€Ed€Dotson€you€were€taking€one€Dilaudid€aÏday€in€July€and€August€of€1994.ðð€€The€defendant€responded,€ð ðWell€then,€IÏhonestly€donððt€know€the€answer.ðð€€The€state€never€introduced€evidence€from€Dr.ÏDotson€or€any€other€witness€that€the€defendant€actually€made€this€admission.ÌÌà à€€When€a€witness€is€examined€regarding€a€prior€inconsistent€statement,Ïcounsel€is€not€required€at€that€time€to€show€the€statement€or€disclose€itsÏcontents€to€the€witness,€but€on€request€must€show€or€disclose€it€to€opposingÏcounsel.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613(a).€€To€use€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€toÏimpeach€a€witness,€counsel€must€have€a€good€faith€belief€the€inconsistentÏstatement€was€actually€made.€€Cohen€òòet€alóó.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ððÏ613.1€(3d€ed.€1995).€€There€is€no€requirement€that€counsel€introduce€the€priorÏstatement€into€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€of€the€defendant€on€her€direct€and€cross„examination€wasÏdifficult€to€follow€as€to€exactly€when€she€was€in€various€treatment€programs€andÏwhen€she€was€drug„free.€€Prior€to€the€prosecutorððs€first€question€concerning€herÏprior€statement€to€Dr.€Dotson,€it€is€conceded€by€the€state€that€it€is€unclearÏwhether€she€had€testified€that€she€had€been€drug„free€in€July€and€August€1994.€ÏThus,€it€could€have€been€inappropriate€at€that€time€to€have€asked€about€the€priorÏstatement€to€Dr.€Dotson.€€However,€the€defendant€did€testify€subsequently€thatÏshe€was€drug„free€during€this€time.€€Clearly,€the€prior€inconsistent€statement€wasÏproper€at€that€time.€€Any€possible€error€as€to€the€timing€of€the€first€question€wasÏharmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€contention€that€the€questions€were€improper€becauseÏthey€ð ðassumed€facts€that€were€not€introduced€into€evidenceðð€is€without€merit.€ÏThere€is€no€legal€requirement€that€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€be€introducedÏinto€evidence.€€Although€there€must€be€a€factual€basis€for€the€question,€theÏdefendant€has€not€shown€the€prosecutor€lacked€that€basis.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€there€was€no€objection€to€either€question.€€The€failure€toÏobject€deprived€the€trial€court€and€this€Court€of€any€opportunity€to€ascertain€theÏfactual€basis€of€the€question.€€The€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òV.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendantððs€final€assignment€of€error€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏimposing€a€maximum€sentence€of€twelve€(12)€years€for€the€aggravated€childÏabuse€conviction.× ƒ. ××  ×òòÔ€#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€%ÔÌÌÓ  Óò òòòA.€€Standard€of€ReviewÌÓ  Óó óóóÌà àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÏcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96Ï(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€theÍminimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€aÏtrial€court€should€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range€for€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€for€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€theÏweight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€theÏtrial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€andÏits€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238Ï(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€848€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);ÏòòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116,€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,Ïshould€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€aÏtrial€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòseeóó€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€638€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòB.€Length€of€SentenceÌÓ  Óóóó óÌà àThe€trial€court€imposed€the€maximum€sentence€after€finding€five€(5)Ïenhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors.€€The€enhancement€factors€foundÏapplicable€by€the€trial€court€are€as€follows:Ò ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ(1)€TheÏdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÍnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);ÌÌ(2)€The€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularlyÏvulnerable€because€of€age,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(4);ÌÌ(3)€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€wasÏhigh,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10);ÌÌ(4)€The€felony€was€committed€while€the€defendantÏwas€on€parole,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13);ÏandÌÌ(5)€The€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15).Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€noted€that€the€defendant€had€previously€beenÏconvicted€of€forgery€and€attempted€tampering€with€evidence.€€The€trial€court,Ïtherefore,€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(1).€€Additionally,€the€defendantÏadmitted€she€was€on€parole€for€these€crimes€at€the€time€the€instant€offensesÏwere€committed.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factorÏ(13).ÌÌà àThe€court€further€found€the€six„month€old€victim€was€particularlyÏvulnerable€due€to€his€age.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(4).€€The€age€of€theÏvictim,€standing€alone,€does€not€justify€application€of€this€enhancing€factor.€ÏòòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€96.€€Although€the€age€of€the€victim€is€an€elementÏof€the€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse,€this€does€not€necessarily€preclude€theÏapplication€of€this€factor.€€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€958€S.W.2d€724,€728€(Tenn.€1997).€ÍRather,€the€trial€court€should€consider:€€(1)€whether,€because€of€age,€the€victimÏwas€particularly€unable€to€resist€the€crime,€summon€help,€or€testify€at€a€laterÏdate;€(2)€whether€the€victimððs€age€(extremely€young€or€old)€is€entitled€toÏadditional€weight;€and€(3)€whether€the€vulnerability€of€the€victim€made€the€victimÏmore€of€a€target€for€the€offense€or,€conversely,€whether€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€in€such€a€manner€as€to€render€the€vulnerability€of€the€victimÏirrelevant.€€òòId.óó;€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€96„97.€€The€victim€was€completely€unableÏto€resist€the€lethal€dose€of€narcotics€administered€by€the€defendant.€€Also,Ïbecause€of€his€age,€the€six„month€old€child€was€unable€to€call€for€help€and€wasÏspared€death€only€by€the€fortuitous€return€of€his€grandmother.€€The€victimððs€ageÏwas€properly€considered€in€enhancing€the€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€state€concedes€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€that€theÏdefendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€humanÏlife€was€high,€€was€inappropriately€applied.€€Serious€bodily€injury€is€an€essentialÏelement€of€aggravated€child€abuse.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€court€found€the€defendant€had€abused€a€position€of€privateÏtrust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€The€determination€that€a€position€ofÏtrust€exists€depends€on€the€nature€of€the€relationship,€not€on€its€length€orÏformality.€€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€parent„child€relationship€is€an€obvious€example€of€a€position€of€trust.€€òòId.óó€€According€toÏthe€defendantððs€testimony,€the€grandmother€did€not€want€to€leave€the€child€withÍthe€defendant,€but€did€so€only€after€the€defendant€argued€with€her.€€Therefore,Ïthe€child€was€entrusted€to€the€care€of€the€defendant€who€abused€this€trust.€€ThisÏenhancement€factor€was€properly€applied.ÌÌà àThe€record€supports€the€application€of€enhancement€factors€(1),€(4),€(13),Ïand€(15)€to€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€The€erroneous€application€of€anÏenhancement€factor€by€the€trial€court€does€not€necessarily€lead€to€a€reduction€inÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€___S.W.2d___(Tenn.€1998).€€The€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€was€proper.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòC.€Alternative€SentencingÌÓ  Óó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€due€to€her€chronic€substance€abuse,€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€not€considering€her€for€community€corrections.ÌÌà àThe€Community€Corrections€Act€establishes€a€program€of€community„based€alternatives€to€incarceration€for€certain€eligible€offenders.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„103.€€A€defendant€is€eligible€for€participation€in€a€communityÏcorrections€program€if€the€defendant€satisfies€several€minimum€eligibility€criteriaÏset€forth€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(1)„(7).€€The€defendant€does€notÏmeet€the€minimum€criteria€since€aggravated€child€abuse€is€not€a€non„violentÍfelony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„36„106(a)(3),€102(12).ÌÌà àAn€offender€who€does€not€meet€the€minimum€criteria€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„36„106(a)€òòandóó€is€considered€unfit€for€probation€due€to€substanceÏabuse€or€mental€problems€may€still€be€eligible€for€community€corrections€underÏthe€special€needs€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏGrigsbyóó,€957€S.W.2d€541,€546€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€However,€before€aÏdefendant€may€be€sentenced€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(c),€heÏor€she€must€be€found€statutorily€eligible€for€probation.€€òòState€v.€Grigsbyóó,€957ÏS.W.2d€at€546;€òòState€v.€Statenóó,€787€S.W.2d€934,€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€ÌÌà àA€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentence€received€by€theÏdefendant€is€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€TheÏdefendant,€due€to€the€length€of€her€sentence,€is€not€eligible€for€probation.€ÏFurthermore,€a€person€convicted€of€aggravated€child€abuse€is€precluded€fromÏreceiving€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„303(a).€€Thus,€since€the€defendantÏis€ineligible€for€probation,€she€is€precluded€from€community€corrections€underÏthe€special€needs€provision.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌR.€LEE€MOORE,€JR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó ó