ÿWPC §ÀD}’‡·dºøÒW³g©*q,†´}åyжx6L²ÍÏסØdˆìpxö&úàKäÎ…‚'µ70Ó<ß•=*C°–äã'°’Rk1pT#9Q/È_ )ÃðÏEëÛØÌ3owkl¼ ÒœoÙ¯À?>/ÓgSË"°™¸Í¢n“ÒÔÄ.õe{®¡'9¡˜°'š\|˜ÔDKpBœ âH|Œ6ªßŸî-©éz¬9ÕÛc:½"Màj<*G gªtÀmgn½&r~ÍõyéAãúÃ"<ÅN¬HQë!P3˜Õv]£ÄÑå±ãÍÖXZ{_Ü6kÞvxlÙV%à€¼Gù:ÀáÓǃÀü%\ø¬sY–#iÕ­Â…ø4J»ç€ÁSXðºâï– ôjËœ§Ü×2_×®v€TüŠÝÀ:‹³ •Sã¼#*æw Ix jªB÷b %\^ b 0ˆnU5NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ Õ‘ ÆfÆ,ÆòƸU@~N¾ 0DÀ„EˆˆˆˆˆŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠb’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ 0ëšššš B…… 0¤¢ D3F D-y 0K¦¦ ASñÆD 0¤  0D® A«ò»š¬q) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 ËÝ ƒR ×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôc´ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€audio€tape€of€the€transaction,€which€was€made€an€exhibit€to€the€informantððs€testimony,Ð ° Ðincluded€a€conversation€between€Officer€Prestinini€and€the€informant€immediately€after€the€alleged€buy,€in€which€theÐ n¾ Ðinformant€indicated€that€Davenport€sold€twenty€dollars€worth€of€cocaine€to€another€person€in€the€house€while€theÐ ,| Ðinformant€was€waiting€for€Simmons€to€return.€€However,€this€portion€of€the€tape€was€not€played€for€the€jury.€€AlthoughÐ ê:  Ðshe€made€reference€to€this€alleged€sale€in€her€testimony,€she€was€unclear€as€to€whether€Simmons€was€gone€at€the€timeÐ ° Ðand€unclear€as€to€whether€Simmons€or€Davenport€made€the€sale.€€Thus,€based€on€her€testimony,€one€could€not€concludeÐ n¾ Ðthat€Davenport€made€the€sale.€€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó zÝ ƒR ×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôc´ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€the€informant€was€initially€questioned€as€to€who€asked€Ô_ÔherÔ_Ô€what€she€wanted,€she€stated,€ð ðI€think€it€wasÐ ° Ð[Davenport].ðð€€However,€after€listening€to€the€audio€tape,€she€stated€it€was€Simmons. - ù-(|G2 ×$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôc´ò»»Ô d(|3Žh$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Žh$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼P»»»ÔÑ8€nLXXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ãPÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼P»îî ã #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÌò òÔ#†¼P»XXnL#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€THOMAS€E.€DAVENPORT€and€Ð ä4 ÐJOHN€SIMMONSÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔó óÐ ò B ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„299„53„A€and€B€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ Ì  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<}` AßÐ ~Î  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00317„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€17,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ sà  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<>` AßÐ ?  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓBoth€defendants€were€convicted€by€a€Williamson€County€jury€of€selling€more€than€0.5€grams€ofÐ 4„ Ðcocaine,€a€Class€B€felony.€€Both€defendants€were€sentenced€as€Range€II,€multiple€offenders.€Ð j ÐDefendant€Simmons€received€a€sixteen„year€sentence,€and€defendant€Davenport€received€a€fifteen„Ð P Ðyear€sentence.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€both€defendants€challenge€(1)€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,Ð æ6 Ðand€(2)€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€their€sentences.€€Simmons€further€raises€the€followingÐ Ì Ðissues:€(1)€€whether€he€was€denied€a€speedy€trial;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÐ ² Ðmotion€to€dismiss€due€to€the€absence€of€proper€signatures€on€the€indictment;€and€(3)€whether€the€trialÐ ˜è Ðcourt€erred€in€failing€to€require€the€state€to€elect€an€offense€upon€which€to€proceed.€€Additionally,Ð ~Î ÐDavenport€makes€the€following€allegations:€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€portions€of€the€audioÐ d´ Ðtaped€drug€transaction€to€be€presented€to€the€jury;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€his€priorÐ Jš Ðconvictions€were€admissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€609;€and€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÐ 0€ Ðmotion€for€a€mistrial€when€the€informant€referred€to€Davenportððs€offering€her€a€crack€pipe.€€BasedÐ f Ðupon€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€it€relates€to€defendantÐ üL ÐSimmons;€however,€we€reverse€defendant€Davenportððs€conviction€for€the€sale€of€cocaine€and€reduceÐ â2 Ðit€to€simple€possession€of€cocaine.€We€remand€to€the€trial€court€to€re„sentence€defendant€Davenport.€Ð È Ѐ€€Ð ® þ  ÐÓÝÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Ð z"Ê" ÐReversed€in€Part;€Affirmed€in€Part;€Remandedó óÐ `#°# ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼P»àXnL¬#ÔÔ‡XnLX.¼PÔJoe€G.€Riley,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smith,€J.,óó€and€òòL.€TerryÐ ,%| % ÐÔ_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ôóó,€€Sr.€J.,€joined.Ð &b!& ÐÌMark€L.€Ô_ÔPuryearÔ_Ô,€III,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Thomas€E.€Davenport.Ô#†¼P»XXnL #ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÐ Þ'.#( ÐÌVirginia€Lee€Story,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€John€Simmons.Ð ª)ú$* ÐÌÌâ âÐ \,¬'-ýÿ ÐÔ_ÔPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€BledsoeÔ#†¼P»XXnLŒ#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔ,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ô#†¼P»XXnLº#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÐ ° Ðâ âRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Sharon€E.€Tyler,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ –æ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð |Ì ÐÔ#†¼P»XXnL#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÓÖ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òÌÌOPINIONó óÔ#†¼P»XXnL.#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÐ  d ÐÓ  Óà  àÌà  àDefendants,€Thomas€E.€Davenport€and€John€Simmons,€were€convicted€by€a€WilliamsonÐ à 0 ÐCounty€jury€of€selling€cocaine€over€0.5€grams€and€sentenced€to€fifteen€years€and€sixteen€years,Ð Æ   Ðrespectively.€€Both€have€appealed€to€this€court€challenging€their€convictions€and€sentences.€€WeÐ ¬ ü  Ðconclude€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€defendant€Davenportððs€conviction€for€sellingÐ ’â  Ðcocaine,€reduce€the€conviction€to€simple€possession€of€cocaine,€and€remand€for€re„sentencing.€€WeÐ xÈ  Ðaffirm€the€judgment€in€all€respects€as€to€defendant€Simmons.€Ð ^®  ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓFACTSÐ ` ÐÓÓóóó óÌà  àOn€August€27,€1998,€officers€from€Williamson€County€used€an€informant€from€RutherfordÐ Ü, ÐCounty€who€made€a€controlled€buy€of€0.7€grams€of€cocaine€at€the€home€of€defendant€Davenport.€Ð  ÐAt€trial,€the€informant€testified€that€she€was€incarcerated€in€the€Rutherford€County€jail€when€officersÐ ¨ø Ðapproached€her€about€becoming€an€informant.€€She€testified€that€on€the€day€in€question€she€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðdriven€by€a€Rutherford€County€officer€in€an€unmarked€vehicle€to€the€house€of€defendant€Davenport,Ð tÄ Ðwhich€was€located€in€Williamson€County.€€Officers€testified€that€she€was€wired€with€an€electronicÐ Zª Ðlistening€device,€given€five€$20€bills€and€told€to€purchase€$100€worth€of€cocaine.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àThe€informant€testified€that€she€entered€the€house,€and€both€defendant€Davenport€andÐ  \ Ðdefendant€Simmons€were€present€along€with€Davenportððs€girlfriend€and€another€female.€€SimmonsÐ òB Ðasked€her€what€she€wanted,€and€she€said€"a€hundred."׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Simmons€stated€that€he€did€not€have€thatÐ Ø( Ðmuch,€but€he€could€get€it.€€She€testified€that€she€gave€Simmons€the€money,€and€Simmons€left€theÐ ¾ Ðhouse.€€Officer€Prestinini,€who€drove€the€informant€to€the€scene,€testified€that€he€saw€a€man€fittingÐ ¤ô Ðthe€description€of€Simmons€leave€the€residence€shortly€after€the€informant€entered.€€SimmonsÐ Š Ú Ðreturned€approximately€twenty€minutes€later.€€The€informant€testified€that€Simmons€went€to€theÐ p!À  Ðkitchen€table€and€broke€off€five€rocks€of€cocaine€and€gave€them€to€her.€€Davenport€remained€seatedÐ V"¦! Ðon€the€couch€in€another€room€but€was€able€to€see€the€kitchen€table.€€She€testified€that€she€gaveÐ <#Œ" ÐDavenport€one€of€the€rocks€"because€it€was€his€house,"€and€then€left€the€scene€with€OfficerÐ "$r# ÐPrestinini.€€€€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€informantððs€testimony,€the€state€played€portions€of€the€audio€tapedÐ Ô&$"& Ðâ ârecording€of€the€alleged€sale.€€Officers€from€both€Rutherford€and€Williamson€County€testified€thatÐ º' #' Ðthey€did€not€offer€the€informant€a€"deal"€or€make€her€any€promises€with€regard€to€her€pendingÐ ° Ðcharges.€€Ð –æ Ðâ âà  àÌà  àNeither€defendant€testified,€nor€did€either€offer€any€witnesses€in€defense.€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àThe€jury€found€both€defendants€guilty€of€the€sale€of€more€than€0.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€TheÐ . ~ Ðtrial€court€found€both€defendants€were€Range€II,€multiple€offenders.€€Simmons€received€a€sixteen„Ð  d Ðyear€sentence€and€Davenport€a€fifteen„year€sentence.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð ú J ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òI.€SPEEDY€TRIAL„€SIMMONSÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌóóÓ  Óó óà  àSimmons€argues€that€he€was€denied€a€speedy€trial.€€He€contends€he€was€continuouslyÐ xÈ  Ðincarcerated€since€September€28,€1998,€and€filed€a€request€for€speedy€trial€on€December€14,€1998.€Ð ^®  ÐHowever,€his€trial€did€not€begin€until€August€24,€1999.€ò òÐ D”  ÐÌà  àA.€€Speedy€Trial€FactorsÐ ` ÐÌó óÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔà  àWithout€question,€criminal€defendants€are€constitutionally€and€statutorily€entitled€to€a€speedyÐ Ü, Ðtrial.€€U.S.€Const.€Amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€9;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„14„101.€€There€is€noÐ Â Ðset€time€limit€within€which€the€trial€must€commence;€rather,€consideration€must€be€given€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€of€each€case.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€adopted€the€balancing€test€set€forthÐ ŽÞ Ðin€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€92€S.Ct.€2182,€33€L.Ed.2d€101€(1972),€as€the€method€forÐ tÄ Ðdetermining€whether€a€defendant's€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€violated.€€òòState€v.€Woodóó,€924Ð Zª ÐS.W.2d€342,€346€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1981).€€If,€afterÐ @ Ðconducting€this€balancing€test,€it€is€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€in€fact€denied€a€speedy€trial,Ð &v Ðconstitutional€principles€require€that€the€conviction€be€reversed€and€the€criminal€charges€dismissed.€Ð  \ ÐòòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83€(Tenn.€1973).Ð òB ÐÌà  àIn€conducting€this€balancing€test,€we€are€required€to€examine€the€conduct€of€both€theÐ ¾ Ðprosecution€and€the€appellant,€focusing€primarily€on€€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay,€(2)€the€reason€forÐ ¤ô Ðthe€delay,€(3)€whether€the€appellant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€and€(4)€whether€the€appellantÐ Š Ú Ðwas€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.€2d€at€346;€€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84;€òòState€v.Ð p!À  ÐJeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€12„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€most€important€factor€is€whether€theÐ V"¦! Ðdefendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð <#Œ" Ð1994).€€The€most€important€inquiry€with€regard€to€prejudice€is€whether€the€delay€impaired€theÐ "$r# Ðdefendant's€ability€to€prepare€a€defense.€€òòId.óó€€A€delay€of€as€long€as€two€years€standing€alone€will€notÐ %X $ Ðsupport€a€finding€of€a€speedy€trial€violation.€òòId.óó€(citing€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84).€€Ð î%>!% ÐÔ#†XnLXXXnL*"#ÔÔ#†¼P»XXnL¢#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÌÌÌò òà  àB.€€AnalysisÐ †)Ö$) Ðà  àÌà  àó óWe€first€note€that€the€defendant€did€not€file€a€motion€to€dismiss€prior€to€trial€as€required€byÐ R+¢&+ ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)€and,€therefore,€waives€this€issue€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(f).€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ 8,ˆ', Ðv.€James€W.€Aldridgeóó,€C.C.A.€No.€6,€Fayette€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Oct.€10,€1990,€atÐ ° ÐJackson),€òòperm.€to€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€December€10,€1990).€€The€filing€of€a€demand€for€speedy€trialÐ –æ Ðdoes€not€satisfy€this€requirement.€€òòId.óó€at€*3.€€The€only€pleading€addressing€this€issue€after€theÐ |Ì ÐDecember€14,€1998,€request€for€speedy€trial€was€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€There€was€no€evidenceÐ b² Ðpresented€at€the€hearing€in€support€of€the€claim.€€The€record€is€insufficient€to€allow€for€adequateÐ H˜ Ðappellate€review;€thus,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Jackie€W.€Kestneróó,€No.Ð . ~ Ð03C01„9611„CR„00390,€Washington€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€30,€1998,€at€Knoxville),Ð  d Ðòòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€February€1,€1999).€€Ô#†¼P»XXnLd+#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÐ ú J ÐÌà  àRegardless,€the€record€does€not€reflect€a€speedy€trial€violation.€€The€offense€was€committedÐ Æ   Ðon€August€27,€1998.€€The€original€indictment€was€obtained€in€October€1998,€which€was€laterÐ ¬ ü  Ðdismissed€and€replaced€by€a€superseding€indictment€in€February€1999.€€A€request€for€speedy€trialÐ ’â  Ðwas€filed€on€December€14,€1998.€€In€March€and€May€of€1999,€the€defendant€agreed€to€trialÐ xÈ  Ðcontinuances.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€in€this€matter€was€set€for€August€24,€1999,€and€the€case€proceededÐ ^®  Ðto€trial€on€that€date.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àTwo€continuances€were€agreed€upon€by€the€defendant,€and€the€length€of€the€delay€was€not€Ð ` Ðprejudicial.€€We€conclude€that€Simmons€was€not€denied€a€speedy€trial.€€Ð öF ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òII.€€VALIDITY€OF€THE€CHARGING€INSTRUMENT„€SIMMONSÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óóóó óÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔà  àSimmons€contends€counts€one€and€two€of€the€charging€instrument€are€invalid€because€theyÐ tÄ Ðare€not€signed€on€the€back€by€the€grand€jury€members€or€the€grand€jury€foreperson.€€HeÐ Zª Ðacknowledges€that€the€third€count€is€signed€on€the€back€by€all€twelve€jurors€and€includes€theÐ @ Ðsignature€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson.€€However,€he€claims€that€since€only€defendant€Davenport€isÐ &v Ðcharged€in€count€three,€the€endorsements€on€that€count€are€not€sufficient€to€indict€him€on€counts€oneÐ  \ Ðand€two.€€Ð òB ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€this€motion,€the€trial€judge€determined€that€counts€one,€two€and€threeÐ ¾ Ðcomprised€one€document,€and€count€three€sufficiently€integrated€counts€one€and€two€by€specificallyÐ ¤ô Ðnoting€a€ð ðtrue€billðð€on€ð ðcounts€1,€2€and€3.ðð€€Thus,€he€concluded€the€signatures€were€adequate€toÐ Š Ú Ðsustain€the€indictment€as€to€all€counts.€€We€agree.€€òòSee€óó€òòState€v.€Lawrence€Sheltonóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð p!À  Ð03C01„9505„CR„00138,€Greene€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€13,€1996,€at€Knoxville),Ð V"¦! Ðòòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€indictment€was€sufficient€to€charge€Simmons€with€the€saleÐ <#Œ" Ðand€delivery€of€more€than€0.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€ELECTION€OF€OFFENSES„€SIMMONSÐ º' #' ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àSimmons€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€trial€court€€require€the€state€to€elect€one€count€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€indictment€upon€which€to€proceed.€€€In€count€one€Simmons€was€charged€with€the€sale€of€cocaineÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âover€0.5€grams,€and€in€count€two€he€was€charged€with€the€delivery€of€cocaine€over€0.5€grams.€€TheÐ R+¢&+ Ðtrial€court€concluded€an€election€was€not€required.€€Simmons€contends€that€the€stateððs€failure€to€electÐ ° Ðdeprived€him€of€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àThe€doctrine€of€election€requires€the€state€to€elect€a€set€of€facts€when€it€has€charged€aÐ b² Ðdefendant€with€one€offense,€but€there€is€evidence€of€multiple€offenses.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€992€S.W.2dÐ H˜ Ð389,€391€(Tenn.€1999).€€This€doctrine€is€applied€to€ensure€that€the€defendant€can€prepare€for€theÐ . ~ Ðspecific€charge,€to€protect€the€defendant€from€double€jeopardy,€and€to€ensure€that€some€jurors€do€notÐ  d Ðconvict€on€one€offense€and€other€jurors€on€another.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€137€(Tenn.Ð ú J Ð1993).€€Issues€of€jury€unanimity€usually€arise€where€the€state€presents€evidence€showing€more€thanÐ à 0 Ðone€criminal€offense,€but€the€underlying€charging€instrument€lacks€specificity€as€to€the€offense€forÐ Æ   Ðwhich€the€accused€is€being€tried.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€762€S.W.2d€135,€136„37€(Tenn.€1988).€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àHowever,€there€was€no€risk€in€this€case€that€different€jurors€could€have€based€their€individualÐ xÈ  Ðdeterminations€on€different€sets€of€facts;€thus,€those€cases€requiring€an€election€have€no€applicationÐ ^®  Ðto€the€case€at€bar.€òòóó€When€the€evidence€does€not€establish€that€multiple€offenses€were€committed,€theÐ D”  Ðneed€for€election€never€arises.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,€___€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€jury€wasÐ *z  Ðnot€required€to€make€findings€from€among€several€possible€criminal€acts€to€determine€whetherÐ ` ÐSimmons€was€guilty€of€the€sale€or€delivery€of€cocaine.€€An€election€is€not€required€where€the€juryÐ öF Ðchooses€which€offense€was€committed€based€upon€a€single€set€of€facts.€€òòState€v.€Lemacksóó,€996Ð Ü, ÐS.W.2d€166,€170„71€(Tenn.1999).€€Thus,€we€conclude€€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€requireÐ Â Ðthe€state€to€make€an€election€as€to€Count€1€or€2.€€€€Ð ¨ø Ðò òòòó óóóÔ#†XnLXXXnLZ4#ÔÔ#†¼P»XXnLk0#ÔÔ‡¼P»»¼PÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔà  àò òòòÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€€ó óóóà @ àòòò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCE„€SIMMONS€and€DAVENPORTÐ Zª ÐÓ/EÓÌóóó óà  àBoth€defendants€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€Furthermore,Ð &v ÐDavenport€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€criminally€responsible€for€theÐ  \ Ðactions€of€Simmons.€€He€contends€no€evidence€was€presented€to€show€that€he€either€aided,€attemptedÐ òB Ðto€aid,€directed€or€solicited€the€conduct€of€Simmons,€or€that€he€intended€to€benefit€in€the€proceedsÐ Ø( Ðor€results€of€the€offense.€€€€ò òòòÐ ¾ ÐÌóóà0  àA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óЊ Ú(#(# ÐÌà  àIn€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€juryÐ V"¦! Ðverdict€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ð <#Œ" Ð885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ "$r# Ðof€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð %X $ Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€ofÐ î%>!% Ðinnocence€which€the€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.Ð Ô&$"& ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€thisÐ º' #' Ðpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óóÐ  (ð#( ÐÌà  àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ l*¼%* Ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ R+¢&+ Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonableÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61Ð ° ÐL.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€The€weight€and€credibilityÐ –æ Ðof€the€witnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð |Ì ÐSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð b² Ð1996).Ð H˜ ÐÌò òà  àB.€€SimmonsÐ  d ÐÌó óà  àWe€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€find€Simmons€sold€more€than€0.5€grams€ofÐ à 0 Ðcocaine.€€€The€credibility€of€the€informant€and€the€weight€to€attach€to€her€testimony€were€issues€forÐ Æ   Ðthe€jury.€€òòSeeóó€ò òó óòòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547;€òòBreweróó,€932€S.W.2d€at€19.Ô#†XnLXXXnLÝD#ÔÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔÔ#†¼P»XXnLüD#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔò ò€€ó óThe€jury€obviously€believedÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€informantððs€testimony€that€she€purchased€$100€worth€of€crack€cocaine€from€Simmons.€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€her€testimony,€the€jury€heard€the€alleged€transaction€on€audio€tape.€€€TheÐ ^®  Ðinformant€said€she€wanted€ð ða€hundred.ðð€€Simmons€stated€that€it€would€take€him€ten€minutes€to€getÐ D”  Ðit,€and€the€informant€paid€Simmons€$100.€€Officer€Prestinini,€who€was€waiting€in€the€truck€outsideÐ *z  Ðthe€house,€testified€that€a€man€matching€the€description€of€Simmons€exited€the€residence.€€Some€timeÐ ` Ðlater€Simmons€returned.€€The€informant€testified€that€Simmons€cut€the€cocaine€into€several€rocks€andÐ öF Ðgave€them€to€her.€€Officer€Prestinini€testified€that€he€received€the€cocaine€from€the€informant€afterÐ Ü, Ðshe€exited€the€residence.€€Further€testimony€from€state€witnesses€revealed€the€substance€was€indeedÐ Â Ðcocaine€in€the€amount€of€0.7€grams.€€€ò òÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àó óThus,€we€find€the€jury€heard€sufficient€evidence€to€conclude€Simmons€was€guilty€of€the€saleÐ tÄ Ðof€0.5€grams€or€more€of€cocaine.€€ò òÐ Zª ÐÌà  àC.€€DavenportÐ &v ÐÌà  àó óViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€conclude€there€wasÐ òB Ðinsufficient€evidence€to€support€Davenportððs€conviction€for€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€There€was€noÐ Ø( Ðevidence€that€Davenport€actually€sold€the€informant€cocaine,€and€the€state€failed€to€prove€DavenportÐ ¾ Ðwas€criminally€responsible€for€the€actions€of€Simmons.€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àA€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€another€if€ð ð[a]cting€with€intent€toÐ p!À  Ðpromote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€theÐ V"¦! Ðoffense,€the€person€solicits,€directs,€aids€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense.ðð€Ð <#Œ" ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€there€is€nothing€in€the€informantððs€testimony€and€nothing€on€the€tape€whichÐ î%>!% Ðreveals€Davenport€intended€to€promote€or€assist€in€the€sale€of€the€cocaine.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€the€tapeÐ Ô&$"& Ðcontains€all€conversations€between€the€informant€and€Davenport€during€the€approximately€twenty„Ð ° Ðminute€time€period€while€Simmons€was€gone,€there€is€nothing€in€those€conversations€indicating€anyÐ –æ Ðintent€by€Davenport€to€assist€in€the€offense€or€benefit€from€the€sale€by€Simmons.€€It€was€SimmonsÐ |Ì Ðwho€made€the€initial€deal,€accepted€payment,€acquired€the€cocaine,€and€completed€the€transaction.òòóóòòóóÐ b² ÐÌà  àThe€state€argues€that€Davenport€was€present€and€supplied€the€forum€for€the€transaction.€Ð . ~ ÐHowever,€mere€presence€of€a€person€in€an€area€where€drugs€are€discovered€is€not,€alone,€sufficientÐ  d Ðto€establish€criminal€liability.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð ú J ÐLikewise,€mere€association€with€those€in€possession€of€drugs€is€insufficient€to€establish€criminalÐ à 0 Ðliability.€€òòState€v.€Transouóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€956€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1996).€€Nor€is€this€a€situation€inÐ Æ   Ðwhich€an€inference€of€unlawful€possession€may€be€created€where€the€defendant€is€the€owner€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðpremises.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Here,€the€stateððs€proofÐ ’â  Ðshowed€the€cocaine€was€brought€on€the€premises€by€Simmons€and€given€by€Simmons€directly€to€theÐ xÈ  Ðinformant.€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àThe€state€further€argues€Davenport€allowed€the€use€of€his€house€because€he€knew€he€wouldÐ *z  Ðbenefit€from€the€transaction.€€We€are€unable€to€make€this€assumption.€€Although€Davenport€mayÐ ` Ðhave€intended€to€benefit€from€the€transaction,€a€criminal€conviction€cannot€be€based€upon€conjecture,Ð öF Ðspeculation€or€a€mere€possibility.€€òòState€v.€Sheppardóó,€862€S.W.2d€557,€565€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Ð Ü, ÐThere€is€no€indication€that€there€was€an€agreement€between€Davenport,€Simmons€and€the€informantÐ Â Ðthat€Davenport€would€receive€a€portion€of€the€cocaine€because€he€was€the€owner€of€the€house,€andÐ ¨ø Ðno€evidence€that€he€intended€to€or€did€share€in€the€cash€from€the€sale.€€The€mere€fact€that€theÐ ŽÞ Ðinformant€gratuitously€gave€Davenport€a€rock€after€the€sale€by€Simmons,€ð ðbecause€it€was€his€house,ððÐ tÄ Ðdoes€not€show€that€Davenport€intended€to€benefit€at€the€time€of€the€sale.€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€stateððs€proofÐ &v Ðshows:€(1)€Simmons€asked€the€informant€what€she€wanted€when€the€informant€entered€the€residence;Ð  \ Ð(2)€Davenport€was€present€in€his€residence€when€the€informant€requested€cocaine;€(3)€Davenport€wasÐ òB Ðaware€that€Simmons€received€money€for€the€cocaine;€(4)€Davenport€knew€Simmons€left€intendingÐ Ø( Ðto€return€with€cocaine;€(5)€Davenport€observed€Simmons€giving€the€cocaine€to€the€informant€inÐ ¾ ÐDavenportððs€residence;€and€(6)€the€informant,€without€any€request€from€Davenport,€gave€him€a€rockÐ ¤ô Ðof€cocaine€ð ðbecause€it€was€his€house.ðð€€€The€evidence€is€insufficient€to€establish€that€Davenport€actedÐ Š Ú Ðwith€the€intent€to€promote€or€assist€in€the€commission€of€the€offense€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds,Ð p!À  Ðand€is€insufficient€to€establish€that€he€solicited,€directed,€aided,€or€attempted€to€aid€Simmons€sellÐ V"¦! Ðcocaine.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€Thus,€Davenportððs€conviction€for€selling€cocaineÐ <#Œ" Ðis€reversed.Ð "$r# Ѐ€€Ð %X $ Ðà  àThe€jury€was€also€instructed€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€simple€possession.€€TÔ#†XnLXXXnLÆP#ÔÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔÔ#†¼P»XXnLQ#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔheÐ î%>!% Ðinformant€testified€that€she€gave€Davenport€a€rock.€€The€jury€obviously€concluded€that€DavenportÐ Ô&$"& Ðaccepted€the€cocaine€from€the€informant€as€she€left€the€residence.€€Thus,€we€find€the€evidence€isÐ º' #' Ðsufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€against€Davenport€for€the€lesser€offense€of€simple€possession€ofÐ ° Ðcocaine.€€We,€therefore,€reduce€his€conviction€to€simple€possession€of€cocaine€and€remand€to€the€trialÐ –æ Ðcourt€for€re„sentencing€and€entry€of€the€appropriate€judgment.€€Ð |Ì ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòV.€€DAVENPORTððS€REMAINING€ALLEGATIONSÐ . ~ ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€issue€of€sentencing€with€regard€to€defendant€Davenport€is€moot€in€light€of€our€holdingÐ ú J Ðas€to€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€trial€court€upon€remand€will€re„sentence€Davenport€for€theÐ à 0 Ðlesser€offense€of€simple€possession,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€However,€we€will€briefly€addressÐ Æ   Ðdefendant€Davenportððs€remaining€allegations€of€error.Ð ¬ ü  Ðòòò òÌóóà0  àA.€€Audio€Tape€ÐxÈ (#(# ÐÌà  àó óDavenport€alleges€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€his€pre„trial€motion€to€exclude€theÐ D”  Ðaudio€taped€recording€of€the€transaction.€€He€claims€a€large€portion€of€the€tape€was€irrelevant€andÐ *z  Ðcertain€portions€were€highly€prejudicial.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€portions€of€the€tape€refer€to€allegedÐ ` Ðprior€illegal€activity.Ð öF ÐÌà  àÔ#†XnLXXXnLOj#ÔÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔÔ#†¼P»XXnL‘j#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔ€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€the€portions€of€the€tape€to€which€DavenportÐ Â Ðobjected€did€not€include€any€mention€of€€prior€illegal€activity.€€The€conversations€between€DavenportÐ ¨ø Ðand€the€informant€involved€stories€about€people€with€whom€both€were€familiar.€€The€tape€does€notÐ ŽÞ Ðreveal€any€personal€information€about€Davenportððs€prior€drug€use€or€sale€of€drugs.€òòóóÔ#†XnLXXXnL*q#ÔÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔÔ#†¼P»XXnLlq#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔ€Thus,€weÐ tÄ Ðconclude€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€jury€to€hear€the€tape.Ð Zª ÐÔ#†¼P»XXnL¬s#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÔ#†XnLXXXnLjs#ÔÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔ€€ò òÔ#†XnLXXXnL¿t#ÔÔ#†¼P»XXnL}t#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔÐ @ Ðà  àB.€€Prior€Felony€ConvictionsÐ &v ÐÌà  àó óDavenport€alleges€the€trial€court€erred€in€declaring€his€prior€drug„related€felonies€to€beÐ òB Ðadmissible€if€he€testified.€€He€argues€the€use€of€these€convictions€would€be€highly€prejudicial€andÐ Ø( Ðshould€be€excluded€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609.€òòò òÐ ¾ ÐÌà  àóóó óThe€state€filed€an€appropriate€notice€of€intent€to€impeach€Davenport€with€his€priorÐ Š Ú Ðconvictions€for€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell,€possession€of€a€weapon€with€intent€toÐ p!À  Ðemploy€in€the€sale€of€marijuana,€sale€of€marijuana,€conspiracy€to€sell€marijuana€and€sale€of€cocaine.€Ð V"¦! ÐThe€court€determined€that€all€of€the€convictions€would€be€admissible€except€conspiracy€to€sellÐ <#Œ" Ðmarijuana,€which€was€a€misdemeanor€conviction.Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àThis€court€has€reached€different€conclusions€as€to€whether€prior€drug€convictions€areÐ î%>!% Ðsuggestive€of€dishonesty.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brian€Robersonóó,€No.€01C01„9801„CC„00043,€WilliamsonÐ Ô&$"& ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December,€21,€1998,€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€MayÐ º' #' Ð13,€1999)€(the€act€of€drug€dealing€is€suggestive€of€dishonesty);€òòóó€òòState€v.€Jeffrey€Walkeróó,€No.€01C01„Ð  (ð#( Ð9705„CC„00200,€Maury€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€22,€1999,€at€Nashville)€(sellingÐ †)Ö$) Ðdrugs€does€not€involve€ð ðdishonesty€or€false€statementðð).€€Regardless,€òòóówe€conclude€that,€because€thereÐ l*¼%* Ðwas€no€offer€of€proof€made€at€the€hearing€on€this€issue,€Davenport€has€failed€to€demonstrate€he€wasÐ R+¢&+ Ðprejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€decision.òòóóòòóó€€The€Supreme€Court€inòòóó€òòState€v.€GalmoreóóÔ#†¼P»XXnL)u#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔòòóó€noted€that€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendant€is€not€required€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€nor€testify€at€trial€in€order€to€preserve€this€issueÐ ° Ðfor€appeal;€however,€the€court€also€noted€that€ð ð[d]epending€upon€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€aÐ –æ Ðcase,€an€offer€of€proof€may€be€the€only€way€to€demonstrate€prejudice.ðð€€994€S.W.2d€120,€125€(Tenn.Ð |Ì Ð1999)Ô#†¼P»XXnLî|#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔ;€òòsee€also€óóòòState€v.€Tayloróó,€993€S.W.2d€33,€35€(Tenn.€1999).€€Davenport€has€not€specified€andÐ b² Ðwe€are€unable€to€determine€the€nature€of€his€proposed€testimony.€€Therefore,€under€the€facts€andÐ H˜ Ðcircumstances€of€this€case,€we€hold€that€Davenport€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice.òòÐ . ~ ÐÌóóò òà0  àC.€€MistrialÐú J(#(# ÐÌà  àó óDavenport€contends€he€should€have€been€granted€a€mistrial€because€the€informant€wasÐ Æ   Ðallowed€to€testify€that€Davenport€offered€her€a€crack€pipe€while€they€were€waiting€for€Simmons€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðreturn.€He€further€argues€that€the€instruction€of€the€trial€court€was€insufficient€to€correct€the€prejudiceÐ ’â  Ðcaused€by€the€improper€testimony.Ð xÈ  Ðà  àÌà  àDuring€the€testimony€of€the€informant,€the€state€played€the€audio€tape€of€the€alleged€drugÐ D”  Ðtransaction.€€At€one€point€the€prosecuting€attorney€stopped€the€tape€and€asked€the€informant€whatÐ *z  Ðwas€being€said.€€The€informant€then€testified€that€Davenport€offered€her€a€crack€pipe,€and€sheÐ ` Ðrefused.€€At€this€point,€defense€counsel€objected€and€requested€a€mistrial.€€The€tape€was€replayed€forÐ öF Ðthe€court€with€the€jury€out€and€revealed€the€following€exchange:Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àDavenport:€ð ðdo€you€want€it?ððÐ ¨ø Ðà  àInformant:€ð ðno,€I€have€to€pick€up€my€niece.ððÐ ŽÞ ÐÌThe€judge€then€instructed€the€district€attorney€to€refrain€from€admitting€evidence€regarding€the€crackÐ Zª Ðpipe€as€that€charge€had€been€severed€and€was€not€relevant€to€the€current€charges€before€the€court.€Ð @ ÐHe€further€admonished€the€jury€that€they€were€to€disregard€any€mention€of€a€crack€pipe.Ð &v ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Davenportððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€The€trialÐ òB Ðcourt€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€comments€regarding€the€crack€pipe.€€Davenport€is€not€entitledÐ Ø( Ðto€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ¾ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òVI.€€SENTENCING„€SIMMONSÐ "$r# ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àSimmons€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€his€sentence.€€He€contends€hisÐ î%>!% Ðsentence€is€excessive.€€He€further€argues€that€he€should€be€placed€on€community€corrections.Ð Ô&$"& Ðò òó óòòÌóóò òà0  àA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óР(ð#((#(# ÐÌà  àÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ l*¼%* Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ R+¢&+ Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ 8,ˆ', Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ –æ Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€burden€is€upon€theÐ |Ì Ðappealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€SentencingÐ b² ÐCommission€Comments.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  d Ð210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€most€offenses€shall€be€the€minimum€sentenceÐ ú J Ðwithin€the€applicable€range.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€806€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð à 0 Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€courtÐ Æ   Ðshould€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€forÐ ¬ ü  Ðenhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.Ð ’â  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€for€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€theÐ xÈ  Ðweight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€court€compliesÐ ^®  Ðwith€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€Ð D”  ÐòòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€848€(Tenn.Ð *z  ÐCrim.€App.€1997);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Ð ` ÐNevertheless,€should€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€a€trial€courtÐ öF Ðmay€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);Ð Ü, ÐòòóóòòLavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€806;€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€638€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð Â ÐÔ#†XnLXXXnL2‰#ÔÔ#†¼P»XXnLÍ~#ÔÔ‡XnLX»¼PÔòòà  àÌà  àóóò òB.€€Length€of€SentenceÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà  àó óThe€court€properly€found€Simmons€was€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€based€on€his€four€priorÐ Zª Ðfelony€convictions€for€selling€cocaine.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€found€Simmons€had€a€previousÐ @ Ðhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriateÐ &v Ðrange;€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involvingÐ  \ Ðrelease€into€the€community;€and€the€current€offense€was€committed€while€on€parole€from€a€priorÐ òB Ðfelony€conviction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(13).€€The€court€did€not€find€any€mitigatingÐ Ø( Ðfactors.€€Ð ¾ Ðà  àSimmons€does€not€challenge€the€applicability€of€the€enhancement€factors,€and€we€do€not€findÐ ¤ô Ðany€error€in€their€application.€€Likewise,€he€does€not€list€any€mitigating€factors€which€he€believesÐ Š Ú Ðshould€have€been€applied€by€the€trial€court.€€As€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€Simmons€was€subjectÐ p!À  Ðto€a€sentence€of€12€to€20€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(2).€€We€conclude€the€trial€courtÐ V"¦! Ðdid€not€err€by€sentencing€him€to€sixteen€years,€a€mid„range€sentence.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àò òC.€€Manner€of€ServiceòòÐ %X $ ÐÌà  àóóó óSimmons€argues€he€had€a€strong€potential€for€rehabilitation;€therefore,€he€should€have€beenÐ Ô&$"& Ðplaced€on€community€corrections.€€ò òòòóóó óÔ‡XnLXXXnLÔThe€Community€Corrections€Act€establishes€a€program€ofÐ º' #' Ðcommunity„based€alternatives€to€incarceration€for€certain€eligible€offenders.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  (ð#( Ððð€40„36„103.€€The€Act€does€not€provide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€these€requirements€are€entitledÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€such€relief.€€òòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Indeed,€Tenn.Ð l*¼%* ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(d)€provides€that€the€eligibility€criteria€shall€be€interpreted€as€minimumÐ R+¢&+ Ðstandards€to€guide€the€court's€determination€of€eligibility€of€offenders€under€the€Act.Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€consider€the€need€to€protectÐ ° Ðsociety€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,€the€need€to€avoidÐ –æ Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€whether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€toÐ |Ì Ðeffectively€deter€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€haveÐ b² Ðoften€or€recently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);Ð H˜ Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W2d€at€169;€òòState€v.€Grigsbyóó,€957€S.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€had€four€prior€convictions€for€the€sale€of€cocaine,€and€convictions€forÐ ú J Ðpossession€of€cocaine,€possession€of€a€prohibited€weapon€and€simple€assault.€€The€trial€court€foundÐ à 0 Ðthat€less€restrictive€measures€than€incarceration€had€previously€been€unsuccessfully€applied€toÐ Æ   ÐSimmons,€and€the€current€offense€was€committed€while€he€was€on€parole€for€a€prior€felony.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€held€Simmons€was€not€an€appropriate€candidate€for€community€corrections.€Ð ’â  ÐWe€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€community€corrections.Ð xÈ  ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òCONCLUSIONÐ *z  ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àWe€conclude€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€Davenportððs€conviction€for€the€sale€ofÐ öF Ðcocaine.€€However,€we€find€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€includedÐ Ü, Ðoffense€of€simple€possession€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€re„sentencing€and€entry€of€theÐ Â Ðappropriate€judgment.€€€We€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€Simmonsðð€convictionÐ ¨ø Ðfor€the€sale€of€more€than€0.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€Furthermore,€we€find€all€other€issues€raised€byÐ ŽÞ ÐSimmons€to€be€without€merit;€therefore,€we€affirm€his€conviction€and€sentence.€€Ð tÄ ÐÔ#†XnLXXXnLOš#ÔÔ#†¼P»XXnL·“#Ôò òòòóóó óòòóóÔ€XnLX»¼PÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð &v Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE