ÿWPCî y ŸÊ&‘Œþø\èú»ß'$ƒå& K®ã9ÑcKÃѾ~›î¹<«Åh'Ä Ìæõ^Õ}Ñeã™=–üQ1¬aVmù‚³\o|H™öP ÝûIÔþqGQ*7 ∨Y[0vm—è£.oÊä"&ÊårL‰Zu H m?Ʀìun0B fPn*ïÖUî°‘H½ÑÔ€[³.m^ jn?Õu®]š÷n¬Á%w¦'A Âõ¥È"¼ÞݱR;ÜÿR%ý²S\ÿbÄ(w>cq6¦Ž§Z&ØF¡IH;Îu„ÀRÊß>CŽxÕűÔj>™†y‚ö]AÏ¿8yç,<Ê;|³(Æœ¾åxô"…M¥5Í!™öwéN†6#M3ÏqbßDÿ¤Øyùß@«lÏ}™™úŽK¶ÆåM>>Ë5ßÛEÐ@ ”Iæƒ8\)…ªÏË%Ÿö¨ÙÕ(én¾<Ë&¬ó™q¼CT·Ÿw ßÓo(BWizT¹>ö›Úu°–´P,Šþ”Š;/N¨»Iø†þh¥É²¥ …°M=§+ìŽ9í¿êÙ¿‹vIo³mTGßgÕöôw Jlh?ѯ•uð O‡}NÐ)%µ®ë 6šÝj ˜-æxöØ"±)UB> %€U.†´nXÄ 0P4lÆ€ 0”F 0DÚw@U:^ ˜ž2¦ 0DØ 0K 0Dg D/«  Ú $z U:ž$ØU:üüüüüüü AQ6 A‡ 0l$$ D+ B»ÆØØ Bž D3»<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi X%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xˆ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ón~<$ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó rsDtuDvEwDxyÓ€…ˆ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH (Ý ƒ ¾Á$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óà œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôK­ôX XÔThe€Stateððs€brief€argues€that€this€factor€should€be€applied€because€ð ð[t]here›€is€no€other€apparentÐ `  Ðreason€for€[the€defendantððs]€actions.ðð€€To€the€contrary,€there€could€be€an€infinite€number€of€other€reasonsÏand€we€remind€the€State€that€if€the€State€wishes€to€rely€on€this€or€any€other€factor,€the€State€must€offerÏevidence,€not€conclusory€statements,€in€support€of€its€argument.€€œ›(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd –Ý ƒ ¾Á$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ô;°ôX XÔThe€policy€of€this€Court€is€to€withhold€the€identity€of€young€children€involved€in€sexual€abuseÐ `  Ðcases,€identifying€them€only€by€their€initials.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€188€n.1€(Tenn.Ð  ¾ ÐCrim.€App.€1989).Ì Ý ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xä…XX XÔÔ€.] XXä…ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xä…X .]ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€9,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô;°ôXXä…ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xä…XX XÔÔ€.] XXä…ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xä…X .]ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€8,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô;°ôXXä…ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ%!# I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(D3u$££Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5üÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñyñ›ñyñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÑ7€XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÙàXX XÔñ…ññyñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@EÒf ` ttx$ ` ð Úrßñyññ…ññˆññ…ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@EÒf ` ttx$ ` ð Úrßñ…ññˆññˆññˆññˆññyñ›ñyññˆññˆñ›ñˆñà œ àà ô àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌñˆñœßt€(>.*jx£þ4` `€€@Eu„ ` ttx$­P ð  tß›ñˆñÌà@±±;;àAT€JACKSONˆÌÌà@‡‡8;àMAY€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ¤ àà ü àà T à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àò ò)ó óà ¬ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9711„CR„00452ó óÐ À`  Ðà œ àà ô àAppellee,à ¤ àò ò€€€€€à ü àà T à)Ð °P  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àSHELBY€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àHON.€BERNIE€WEINMAN,Ð €  ÐANDERSON€D.€CURRY,à ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T à)Ìà œ àà ô àó óAppellant.ò òà ¤ àà ü àà T à)à ¬ àó ó(Rape€of€a€child)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ¤ àà ü àà T à€€€€€òòà ¬ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òA€C€WHARTON,€JR.à ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ Ð p ÐÌSHERRY€BROOKSà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àCLINTON€J.€MORGANó óÐ °"P ÐAsst.€Public€Defenderà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àCounsel€for€the€StateÐ  #@ Ѐ€€€€„At€œTrial„›€à ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ à425€Fifth€œAve.,›€NorthÐ $0 Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àCordell€Hull€Bldg.,€Second€œFl.Ïò òWALKER›€œGWINN›ó óà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð p& ÐAsst.€Public€Defenderà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àÐ `'  Ð201€Poplar€œAve.,›€Suite€201à ü àà T àà ¬ àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIó óÐ P(ð! ÐMemphis,€TN€38103à ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ @)à" Ѐ€€€€„On€Appeal„Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àò òà ü àà T àà ¬ àTHOMAS€HOOVERó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ à201€Poplar€œAve.,›€Suite€301à d# àÐ - #& Ðà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àà  àÌÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü àà T àà ¬ àÌà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ P7ð-1 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ  :À04 ÐJudgeÌÐ  < 269 ÐñyñœñyñѰXÑÓ  Óà@‡‡:;àò òòòÔ‡¼ça¼XXÙàÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XÙàX¼¼ça#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà œ àà ô àÔ% € ÔThe€defendant€was€indicted€in€December€1996€for€rape€of€a€child.€€A€ShelbyÏCounty€jury€found€him€guilty€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€twenty€years€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€arguesÏthat€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€and€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€admitted€into€evidence€a€chart€depicting€the€victimððs€injuries.€€The€defendant€alsoÏargues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà œ àà ô àBecause€the€defendant€has€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€aÏdetailed€account€of€the€facts€is€necessary.€€In€September€of€1996,€the€victim,€C.R.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€wasÐ &Æ Ðliving€with€her€mother,€her€younger€sister,€and€her€motherððs€boyfriend,€the€defendant.€ÏC.R.€testified€that€on€Sunday,€September€15,€1996,€she€and€her€sister€had€been€at€homeÏwith€the€defendant€while€their€mother€was€at€work.€€She€stated€that€she€had€planned€toÏtake€a€bath€and€then€go€to€the€store€with€some€friends.€€She€went€into€the€room€sharedÏby€her€mother€and€the€defendant€so€that€she€could€get€a€towel.€€When€she€entered€theÏroom,€the€defendant€asked€her€to€play€a€card€game€with€him.€€She€agreed€but€when€sheÏstarted€to€leave,€the€defendant€asked€her€to€watch€television€with€him€and€then€beganÏtickling€her.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àC.R.€testified€that€after€the€tickling,€the€defendant€pulled€her€on€top€of€him.€ÏHe€then€asked€her,€ð ðWant€to€do€this?ðð€€and€she€said€ð ðNo.ðð€€She€said€she€knew€what€ð ðthisððÏmeant€because€the€defendant€had€pulled€her€on€top€of€him.€€She€testified€that€theÐ ¦4F+. Ðdefendant€had€then€ð ðpulled€[her]€pants€out€of€the€way€and€stuck€his€penis€into€[her]Ð º4Z+0 Ðvagina.ðð€€She€also€stated€that€it€had€hurt€when€the€defendant€did€this.€€However,€sheÏtestified€that€she€had€not€seen€the€defendantððs€penis€nor€had€she€seen€him€unzip€hisÏpants.€€She€testified€that€she€was€not€sure€the€defendant€had€penetrated€her€with€hisÏpenis€but€that€she€knew€something€had€been€put€inside€of€her€and€that€the€defendant€hadÏdone€it.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àFollowing€this€incident,€C.R.€took€a€bath.€€She€then€left€the€house€to€meetÏa€friend.€€When€she€met€her€friend,€C.R.€told€her€what€had€happened,€and€she€and€herÏfriend€decided€to€go€to€a€nearby€police€station.€€At€the€station,€she€told€officers€what€hadÏhappened€and€she€was€taken€to€a€nurse€for€an€examination.ÌÌà œ àà ô àOn€cross„examination,€C.R.€testified€that€she€had€first€met€the€defendantÏin€June€of€that€year.€€She€said€he€had€several€pieces€of€furniture€in€her€house€but€sheÏdenied€getting€angry€when€the€defendant€told€her€he€had€planned€to€remove€the€furniture.€ÏShe€further€denied€arguing€with€the€defendant€on€the€day€of€the€incident€about€houseÏcleaning€duties.€€However,€she€did€testify€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€argued€on€aÏprevious€occasion€about€that€topic.ÌÌà œ àà ô àC.R.€further€testified€that€the€defendant€had€stayed€with€her€and€her€sisterÏon€several€occasions.€€She€also€stated€that€when€she€left€the€house€after€taking€her€bath,Ïshe€left€her€sister€at€the€house.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€had€never€before€touchedÏher€in€an€inappropriate€way.ÌÌà œ àà ô àSandra€Anderson,€a€family€nurse€practitioner€and€sexual€assault€nurseÏexaminer€for€the€city€of€Memphis,€testified€that€she€had€examined€C.R.€on€September€15,Ï1996.€€She€performed€a€physical€exam€and€took€C.R.ððs€statement€about€the€incident.€ÏThe€examination€revealed€slight€bleeding€and€a€laceration€in€an€area€below€the€hymen.€ÏAnderson€explained€that€the€bleeding€meant€that€a€trauma€or€acute€injury€had€occurredÐ ä9„06 Ðwithin€the€past€twenty„four€hours€to€that€area.€€She€further€testified€that€she€was€unableÏto€say€exactly€what€had€caused€the€trauma€but€that€she€could€say€it€had€been€caused€byÏsome€form€of€penetration€to€that€area.€€However,€she€testified€that€she€had€found€noÏtraces€of€semen€on€C.R.€ÌÌà œ àà ô àAnderson€further€testified€that€C.R.€had€ð ðnotchesðð€or€ð ðinterruptions€in€theÏintegrity€of€the€hymenðð€that€could€have€been€the€result€of€penetration.€€However,ÏAnderson€stated€that€the€notches€could€have€been€caused€prior€to€the€time€of€thisÏincident.€€She€further€explained€that€her€examination€had€revealed€rolled€hymenal€tissueÏwhich€indicates€some€prior€trauma€to€the€area€that€had€scarred€and€healed.€€She€said€thisÏinjury€could€have€been€caused€by€an€acute€injury€and€not€necessarily€by€penetration.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€now€argues€that€the€State€failed€to€present€sufficientÏevidence€of€sexual€penetration.€€Ô‡ XôËXXXôËÔA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€hasÐ ¼ \ Ðthe€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdictÏof€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€anyÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.Ð ¸)X $ ÐTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).Ð „+$"& ÐÌ€à œ àà ô àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€weÐ /¼%* Ðmust€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determiningÏwhether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÐ ´2T). Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€œS.Ct›.€2781,€61Ð €4 +0 МL.Ed›.œ2d›€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€required€toÏafford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€wellÏas€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚ences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.Ð ä9„06 ÐCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð `  ÐÌà œ àà ô àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolvedÏby€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guilty€verdictÐ 0 Ðrendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ð ô”  ÐÌà œ àà ô àð ðSexual€penetrationðð€is€statutorily€defined€as€ð ðsexual€intercourse,Ïcunnilingus,€fellatio,€anal€intercourse,€or€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€partÏof€a€personððs€body€or€of€any€object€into€the€genital€or€anal€openings€of€the€victimððs,€theÏdefendantððs,€or€any€other€personððs€body,€but€emission€of€semen€is€not€required.ðð€€T.C.A.Ïðð€39„13„501(7).€€In€this€case,€C.R.€initially€testified€that€the€defendant€had€ð ðstuck€his€penisÏinto€[her]€vagina.ðð€€She€later€stated€that€she€was€not€completely€sure€that€it€had€been€theÏdefendantððs€penis€that€had€penetrated€œher›€but€that€she€knew€something€had€been€putÏinside€of€œher.›€€Andersonððs€testimony€corroborated€C.R.ððs€testimony€that€she€had€beenÏpenetrated.€€Anderson€found€slight€bleeding€and€a€recent€tear€near€C.R.ððs€hymen.€€WhileÏshe€could€not€identify€the€cause€of€the€tear€and€bleeding,€she€said€that€the€injury€certainlyÏcould€have€been€caused€by€some€form€of€penetration€to€that€area.ÌÌà œ àà ô àWe€find€this€evidence€to€be€entirely€sufficient.€€That€C.R.€could€not€definitelyÏsay€that€she€had€been€penetrated€by€the€defendantððs€penis€is€of€no€consequence.€€SheÏcould€definitely€state€that€she€had€been€penetrated€by€something€and€that€the€defendantÏhad€caused€the€penetration.€€In€addition,€physical€evidence€showed€a€recent€injury€toÏC.R.ððs€vaginal€area.€€This€evidence€is€certainly€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€definition€of€ð ðsexualÏpenetration.ðð€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€any€other€element€of€the€crime.€€Thus,Ïwe€find€no€merit€to€his€sufficiency€challenge.Ð ä9„06 Їà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€intoÏevidence€a€diagram€of€C.R.ððs€genital€area.€€The€defendant€argues€that€because€the€chartÏalso€showed€past€injuries€that€may€have€been€caused€by€penetration,€the€chart€wasÏprejudicial€and€its€introduction€deprived€him€of€a€fair€trial.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€chart€œñnñdid›€ñnñdepictñoñedñoñ›€the€ð ðnotchesðð€Anderson€described€during€her€testimony.€ÏIt€also€indicated€the€bleeding€and€the€rolled€hymenal€tissue.€€While€Anderson€œñpñdid›€ñpñtestifñqñyñqññrñiedñrñ›€thatÏthe€notches€and€rolled€hymenal€tissue€were€caused€by€previous€injuries,€she€could€notÏstate€the€nature€of€this€injury.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€chart€left€the€jury€with€theÏimpression€that€C.R.€had€been€penetrated€before€and€that€he€had€been€the€one€to€do€so.€ÏTo€the€contrary,€Anderson€did€not€say€the€previous€injuries€were€caused€by€penetration.€ÏFurthermore,€C.R.€testified€that€the€defendant€had€never€before€touched€her€in€anÏinappropriate€manner.€€Thus,€we€find€no€error€in€admitting€the€chart€into€evidence.€€Also,Ïas€pointed€out€above,€the€evidence€is€entirely€sufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€of€rapeÏof€a€child.€€Thus,€if€there€were€an€error€in€admitting€the€chart,€it€was€certainly€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€œT.R.A.P.›€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà œ àà ô àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€TheÏtrial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€twenty€years€imprisonment,Ïthe€presumptive€sentence€in€that€range.€€When€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€herÏsentence,€we€must€conduct€a€œde›€œnovo›€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€theÏappealing€party.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€ThisÏpresumption,€however,€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ð L6ì,2 Ðà@;;@;àˆà ¬ àÐ 8¸.4 Ðà œ àà ô àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€œÐ ä9„06 Ððð›€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€in€sentencing.€ÏThis€section€mandates€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒô DÒÓB.0 ˆà8è@˜ðH! #ø%P(¨*ˆ,°œXBÓÒ¦Ò(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[œt]he›€presentence€report;€(3)€[œt]he›Ïprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[œt]he›€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€the€criminalÏconduct€involved;€(5)€[œe]vidence›€and€information€offered€byÏthe€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ððððÏ40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[œa]ny›€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sen‚tencing.ÌÌÌÒô ÒÒ¢ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ€ÒÒÀ¢ÒÓE.€Ø 0 ˆà8è@˜ðH! #ø%Ø'0 ˆŒXˆ,EÓÌÒ€ÒÒ¢ÀÒà ` àà ¸ àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€midpoint€of€the€appropriate€rangeÏis€the€presumptive€sentence€for€Class€A€felonies.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€and€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€presumptive€sentence€and€enhance€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€the€rangeÏas€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€mayÏset€the€sentence€above€the€presumptive€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€TheÏweight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€œShelton›óó,Ð :%Ú Ð854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[œw]henever›€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,€itÐ ž*>!% Ðòòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigating€factorsÐ j, #' Ðit€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€and€mitigatingÏfactors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factors€must€beÏrecorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€by€the€trialÏjudge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÌÔ#†XôËXX XôË!##ÔÔ‡ XôËXXXôËÔ€€€€€€€€Ô#†XôËXX XôËÙC#Ô€€€€€€€Ð 27Ò-3 Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€specifically€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€toÐ þ8ž/5 Ðconsider€two€mitigating€factors,€that€he€had€been€gainfully€employed€as€a€security€guardÏand€that€he€had€never€before€been€convicted€of€a€felony.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€applied€several€enhancement€factors.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€the€only€person€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€had€been€employed€as€a€security€patrol€for€œCDA›€Security€for€the€two€andÏa€half€years€prior€to€his€arrest.€€He€also€stated€that€he€had€served€in€the€œñsñañsññtñAñtñrmy›€for€threeÏyears€and€had€received€an€honorable€discharge.€€His€prior€record€included€two€œDUI›Ïconvictions€and€at€least€two€other€driving€offenses.€€However,€the€record€revealed€no€priorÏfelonies.€€The€defendant€explained€that€he€was€on€probation€for€œDUI›€at€the€time€of€hisÏarrest€in€this€case.€€His€arrest€resulted€in€a€violation€of€that€probation.€€The€defendantÏfurther€testified€that€he€was€sorry€about€what€had€happened€to€C.R.€€However,€heÏcontinued€to€deny€having€raped€her.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€announced€that€he€found€no€mitigatingÏfactors€but€that€he€did€find€five€enhancement€factors.€€The€defendant€now€argues€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€considered€his€work€history€and€his€lack€of€felony€convictions€asÏmitigating€factors.€€As€this€Court€has€noted€before,€ð ðEvery€citizen€in€this€state€is€expectedÏto€have€a€stable€work€history€if€the€economy€permits€the€citizen€to€work,€the€citizen€is€notÏdisabled,€or€the€citizen€is€not€independently€wealthy.ðð€œñvñ€ñvñ›€œñuñÌñuñòòState›€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€423Ð „+$"& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Thus,€we€see€no€reason€why€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€the€defendantððs€two€and€œñwña›€ñwññxñone„ñxñhalf›€years€of€employment€as€a€mitigating€factor.€ÏLikewise,€we€can€find€no€justification€for€mitigating€his€sentence€based€on€his€lack€ofÏfelony€convictions.€€Not€only€is€every€citizen€expected€to€have€a€stable€work€history,€butÏalso€is€expected€to€refrain€from€committing€any€type€of€crime.€€We€can€find€no€merit€to€theÏdefendantððs€argument.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€from€T.C.A.€œÐ ä9„06 Ððð›€40„35„114:€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€(1);€that€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏdefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€and€excitement€(7);€that€the€defendant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€inÏthe€community€(8);€that€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€probationÏ(13);€and€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great€(16).€€The€defendant€challenges€the€application€of€all€theÏabove€with€the€exception€of€factor€one.€€This€factor€clearly€applies€as€the€defendant€hasÏbeen€convicted€of€œDUI›€twice€and€has€at€least€two€other€driving€related€convictions.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€for€factors€eight€and€thirteen,€the€State€concedes€that€these€factors€areÏnot€applicable.€€The€defendantððs€previous€convictions€were€for€misdemeanors€only,€andÏfactor€thirteen€requires€a€defendant€to€have€been€on€release€status€from€a€prior€felonyÏconviction.€€Similarly,€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€did€not€comply€with€theÏconditions€of€his€probation.€€His€final€appointment€with€his€probation€officer€was€missedÏbecause€he€was€incarcerated.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant€and€the€State€that€these€twoÏfactors€were€erroneously€applied.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€also€find€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€factor€seven,€that€theÏoffense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasureÏor€excitement.€€While€this€factor€may€be€applied€in€rape€cases,€the€State€has€ð ðthe€burdenÏof€demonstrating€that€the€rape€was€sexually€motivated€(done€to€gratify€the€œDefendant's›Ïdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement),ðð€which€the€State€did€not€do€in€this€case.€€òòState€v.Ð è0ˆ', ÐAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993).œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Thus,€this€factor€cannot€apply.Ð ´2T). ÐÐ €4 +0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àAs€to€factor€sixteen,€that€the€offense€was€committed€under€circumstancesÏunder€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€was€great,€we€find€that€this€factorÏwas€also€erroneously€applied.€€While€the€nurse€practitioner€did€testify€that€C.R.€had€someÏevidence€of€an€injury,€the€penetration€by€the€defendant€did€not€pose€great€potential€forÏbodily€injury€nor€were€the€injuries€suffered€by€C.R.€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œCarico›óó,Ð 0 Ð__€S.W.2d€__€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.Ð \ü  Ð1996)(rejecting€this€factor€where€a€young€boy€had€been€orally€and€anally€penetrated).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€State€suggests€that€enhancement€factor€four,€that€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€vulnerable,€and€factor€fifteen,€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€privateÏtrust€should€have€been€applied.€€While€the€better€practice€is€for€the€trial€court€to€carefullyÏconsider€all€relevant€and€possible€sentencing€factors,€this€Court€is€authorized€to€considerÏany€enhancement€(or€mitigating)€factors€supported€by€the€record.€€òòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2dÐ ð Ðat€34.€€As€to€factor€four,€the€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€ð ðvulnerability€enhancementÏrelates€more€to€the€natural€physical€and€mental€limitations€of€the€victim€than€merely€to€theÏvictim's€age.ðð€€òòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€35.€€In€order€for€this€factor€to€be€applied,€the€StateÐ T$ô Ðmust€offer€some€proof€as€to€how€this€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable.€€Because€theÏState€failed€to€do€so,€its€suggestion€that€this€factor€be€applied€is€misplaced.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€do,€however,€agree€with€the€State€that€the€trial€court€should€have€appliedÏfactor€fifteen,€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€C.R.€testified€that€herÏmother€had€left€her€and€her€sister€in€the€defendantððs€care€and€that€the€defendant€hadÏstayed€alone€with€the€two€girls€on€previous€occasions.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€explainedÏthat€in€applying€this€factor,€a€court€must€determine€ð ðwhether€the€offender€formally€orÏinformally€stood€in€a€relationship€to€the€victim€that€promoted€confidence,€reliability,€orÏfaith.ðð€€òòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€488.€€C.R.ððs€mother€had€entrusted€the€defendant€with€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðcare€of€her€two€daughters,€and€the€defendant€had€served€in€this€role€prior€to€this€incident.€ÏThus,€it€is€clear€that€the€defendant€abused€his€position€of€private€trust.€€EnhancementÐ ä9„06 Ðfactor€fifteen€should€have€been€applied.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€summary,€we€find€that€the€applicable€enhancement€factors€are€factor€one,Ïthat€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior,€and€factorÏfifteen,€that€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€trust.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.€WeÏfurther€find€that€no€mitigating€factors€are€applicable.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113.€€The€trial€courtÏhad€sentenced€the€defendant€to€twenty€years,€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€AÏfelony,€despite€the€courtððs€application€of€four€enhancement€factors.€€While€the€applicationÏof€three€of€the€factors€was€erroneous,€we€cannot€find€that€sentencing€the€defendant€to€theÏpresumptive€sentence€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Thus,€we€affirm€the€defendantððsÏsentence€of€twenty€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌœà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_______________________________›Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€œà p àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÐ T$ô ÐÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌœÌÌ_______________________________›ÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judge›ÌœÌÌÌ_______________________________›ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€œJudge›