ÿWPCm …çRÄÒmÊY3ÈÚ{§^†Gþ˜ túTSFHp^~Ê\3™íÁÒZ¬mø"3ë;L]5顪­.S`é¹jî÷®9y 39›è5š@®u[´!]Ï‚HýpÆ>?reªƒ™ßá…û˜Â¸„©ÞÙO¼ƒNl¼Wò–{]ß ïmpó)š õ3É£r®¯8'Aï*¸¾KÄ–<£ ä¿æDËÊ– }ÆØmû“•Õª—ÖxÍŸ¹dŸ¤ûœÓFĆÉKà¾A!Ém1ïÌšq_4ª .Þ"émV |2ÈwZQ ‡­®œƒ5ŽÑJlgƒ5ËûÓ&¬°#7‰-Bë`‚uEi`“…Δô*ÖxÿõgX„“xôQÑùÎ[Ûh`jm|ËêyõP€…„ƒ Ï¿Í+ÁÁ'\\%Ÿ™j¢ü8PSûáLöЭű™“»Íð M^ÒÕòÍcè›Tqr€ìisv>Ëx`)¼áwAemT~¯GÁ¯žþ¡6b»·‘:ÍIö-RÎà½7ªßã²QünÕub+˜mjN÷8¢Íàý^Ü1õÈÕ ïÔgDžëø'›…ŸP¦7±Ñ˜+XáâÊk:9‚#,Ý!ïig©“Ú‚LSàb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æíf³NfrEóyõ 0Dn¢²TN\N^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^b```````````````````````````````````` 0ëhhhh BSS 0¤p D5 D-I 0Kvv ASÁÆ 0¤Ú 0D~ A«Â˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»• Ž1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ hÑ ( ÑÑ\R3Ø'Letter\Ñ oÝ ƒRBî$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹øò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€also€convicted€the€defendant€on€counts€of€assault€and€aggravated€assault€growing€out€of€the€sameÐ ° Ðincident,€but€the€trial€court€merged€the€latter€convictions€into€the€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜Ý ƒRBî$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹øò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÐ3Xòô¹øÔ€Ô#†ô¹øòXXÐ3~#ÔThe€transcript€of€the€colloquy€among€the€prosecutor,€defense€counsel,€and€the€trial€judge€reveals€that€the€judgeÐ ° Ðexamined€the€stateððs€written€demand€and€commented€that€it€was€filed€on€August€2,€2000.€€Despite€the€absence€of€aÐ ™é Ðwritten€demand€in€the€appellate€record,€we€conclude€that€the€record€as€a€whole,€including€defense€counselððs€concession,Ð Zª Ðsupports€the€existence€of€a€statutorily€compliant€demand.€€ - ù-(|G2Bî$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹øò»»Ô d(|3@¸$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3@¸$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ý»»»ÔÑ8€Ð3XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îpJÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ý»îîpJ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€April€13,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÐ3X»¼ÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ý»XXÐ3#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RODERICK€DAVISòòóóÔ‡XÐ3X»¼ÝÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNos.€99„08211,€12€€€€€€J.€C.€Ô_ÔMcLinÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„02338„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€December€13,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Roderick€Davis,€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€jury€of€especiallyÐ V¦  Ðaggravated€robbery,€for€which€he€received€a€sentence€of€24€years,€and€especially€aggravatedÐ ? Ðburglary,€for€which€he€received€a€sentence€of€eleven€years.€€The€trial€court€imposed€the€sentencesÐ (x Ðto€run€consecutively.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€convicting€evidence€is€insufficientÐ a Ðand€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€alibi€evidence,€instructed€the€jury,€and€sentenced€him.Ð úJ ÐUpon€review,€we€affirm€the€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€reverse€the€conviction€ofÐ ã3 Ðespecially€aggravated€burglary€and€modify€it€to€aggravated€burglary,€and€modify€the€sentences.Ð Ì ÐÔ#†¼Ý»XXÐ3{#ÔÔ‡XÐ3X»¼ÝÔÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€are€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð žî ÐReversed€in€Part;€and€Modified.ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ý»àXÐ3%#ÔÔ‡XÐ3X.¼ÝÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,Ð [« ÐJ.óó,€joined.€€€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.Ð D” ÐÌLarry€Fitzgerald,€Memphis,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€Robert€Little€and€James€Thomas,€Memphis,Ð f ÐTennessee€(at€trial);€and€Michael€Ô_ÔSchollÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€for€the€Appellee,Ð ÿO ÐRoderick€Davis.Ð è 8  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€WilliamÐ º" " ÐL.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Patience€Ô_ÔBranhamÔ_Ô€and€Ray€Ô_ÔLeponeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ £#ó# ÐAttorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Œ$Ü$ ÐÓñÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ý»XXÐ3 #ÔÔ‡XÐ3X»¼ÝÔÐ ^&®!& ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Ý»XXÐ3) #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÐ3X»¼ÝÔà0  àà0` (#(#àÑ€²ÏÑÑ€²ÏÑÑ€8ÄÑÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àThe€victim,€Ô_ÔLekisaÔ_Ô€Stevens,€ended€a€five„month€romantic€relationship€with€theÐ 1(#( Ðdefendant€in€October€1998.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€threatened€ð ðhe€would€have€somebodyÐ )j$) Ðto€cut€[her]€face€up€and€cut€[her]€up.ðð€€At€6:00€on€the€morning€of€November€21,€1998,€the€defendantÐ *S%* Ðcalled€and€asked€whether€she€was€alone.€€After€hanging€up,€the€victim,€who€had€worked€the€previousÐ ì*<&+ Ðnight,€went€to€bed.€€Ð Õ+%', Ðâ âÐ ¾,(-ý% ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àShe€was€awakened€later€by€a€loud€noise€and€saw€two€men€dressed€in€black€in€herÐ ° Ðâ âapartment.€€The€men€began€hitting€and€kicking€the€victim.€€Although€the€intruders€wore€masks,€theÐ ™é Ðvictim€recognized€the€voice€of€the€defendant€when€he€told€her,€ð ðBitch,€I€told€you€I€donððt€play€noÐ ‚Ò Ðgames.ðð€€€He€took€a€box€cutter€from€the€other€intruder.€€As€she€was€repeatedly€struck€by€both€men,Ð k» Ðthe€victim€did€not€realize€she€was€being€cut.€€One€of€the€men€cut€off€her€hair€with€the€box€cutter.€Ð T¤ ÐDuring€the€affray,€the€defendant€said€to€the€other€man,€ð ðDee€man,€cut€the€bitch€throat.ðð€€Dee,€whoÐ =  Ðthe€victim€knew€to€be€Desmond€Frazier,€a€friend€and€the€co„defendant€of€the€defendant,€refused€toÐ & v Ðcut€the€victimððs€throat.€€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€then€asked,€ð ðWhere€the€m€„„„„„€f€„„„„„„g€money€at?ðð€€The€victim€hadÐ á 1  Ðearned€approximately€$600€dancing€at€the€Pure€Passion€Club€the€two€previous€evenings,€and€sheÐ Ê   Ðpointed€to€the€mattress€where€she€had€hidden€the€cash.€€The€defendant€took€$575,€and€Frazier€leftÐ ³  Ðthe€apartment.€€As€the€defendant€left,€he€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€if€she€said€anything.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€victim€testified€that€she€was€barely€conscious.€€She€was€unable€to€use€theÐ n¾  Ðtelephone€to€summon€help€because€the€men€had€cut€the€phone€line.€€She€collapsed€after€crawling€outÐ W§  Ðof€her€apartment.€€She€awoke€in€the€ambulance€that€took€her€to€the€hospital,€where€she€received€overÐ @ Ð400€stitches€to€her€arm,€legs,€neck,€back,€and€head.€Ð )y ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€cross„examination,€the€victim€denied€that€she€had€been€upset€because€theÐ ûK Ðdefendant€had€other€girlfriends.€€She€also€denied€seeing€him€with€one€of€them€on€the€morning€ofÐ ä4 ÐNovember€21,€1998,€before€she€went€home,€or€previously€threatening€to€seek€revenge€against€himÐ Í Ðfor€dating€other€women.€€She€testified€that€she€broke€up€with€the€defendant€because€she€refused€toÐ ¶ Ðð ðdeal€with€a€disrespectful€man.ððÐ Ÿï ÐÌà  àà ` àCorshundor€Warren,€the€victimððs€next„door€neighbor,€testified€that€about€7:30€on€theÐ qÁ Ðmorning€of€November€21,€1998,€he€found€the€victim€crawling€outside€her€apartment.€€She€was€cladÐ Zª Ðin€a€brassiere€and€panties€and€was€covered€in€blood.€€She€asked€him€to€call€her€mother€and€did€notÐ C“ Ðmention€the€defendant€or€the€other€intruder.€€Prior€to€finding€the€victim,€Mr.€Warren€had€neitherÐ ,| Ðheard€any€loud€noises€nor€seen€anyone€leaving€the€apartment.€€Ð e ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Memphis€police€officer€who€first€arrived€at€the€victimððs€apartment€testified€thatÐ ç 7 Ðher€door€and€lock€had€been€damaged.€€The€victim€had€been€cut,€was€bleeding,€and€was€obviouslyÐ Ð!   Ðupset€and€distraught.€€She€said€that€her€boyfriend€and€his€friend€had€broken€into€her€apartment€andÐ ¹" ! Ðð ðjumped€onðð€her.€€The€officer€found€splatters€of€blood€inside€the€apartment.€€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àà ` àA€second€investigating€officer€testified€that€she€found€a€foot€print€on€the€damagedÐ t%Ä $ Ðapartment€door.€€She€introduced€into€evidence€photographs€she€had€taken€which€showed€significantÐ ]&­!% Ðblood€smears€in€the€bedroom.€€Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àà ` àA€third€officer€testified€that,€shortly€after€the€attack,€€the€victim€was€able€to€identifyÐ )h$( Ðboth€the€defendant€and€Mr.€Frazier€as€the€intruders€from€a€photographic€array.€€Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* Ðà  àà ` àCalled€by€the€defense,€Kesha€Morris€testified€that€the€victim€had€told€Morris€that€sheÐ ° Ðâ âknew€that€the€defendant€had€not€assaulted€her,€but€that€the€victim€stated€ð ðvengeance€is€[mine].ðð€Ð ™é ÐManika€Phifer€testified€that€she€was€present€with€Ms.€Morris€when€the€victim€said,€ð ðI€know€RodÐ ‚Ò Ðdidnððt€do€it,€but€he€had€somebody€to€do€it€and€vengeance€is€mine.ðð€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€broke€up€because€they€constantlyÐ =  Ðargued€about€a€woman€named€Shay.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€called€him€on€the€morning€ofÐ & v ÐNovember€21,€1998,€when€he€was€at€the€Waffle€House€with€Shay.€€He€hung€up€on€her,€and€sheÐ  _ Ðpaged€him.€€He€called€her€back€and€told€her€they€would€talk€another€time.€€Otherwise,€he€deniedÐ ø H Ðcalling€the€victim,€€assaulting€her,€or€taking€money€from€her.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àà ` àShevica€Hardin€testified€that,€about€a€month€before€the€attack€on€the€victim,€theÐ ³  Ðvictim€called€her€to€express€her€anger€over€Hardin€dating€the€defendant.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€especiallyÐ n¾  Ðaggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€burglary.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ W§  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€and€determined€the€defendant€to€beÐ )y Ða€standard€offender.€€The€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€of€24€years€for€the€especiallyÐ b Ðaggravated€robbery€and€eleven€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€burglary.Ð ûK ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence.ó óÐ Í ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àFirst€we€address€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€He€Ð  ð Ðclaims€that,€relative€to€the€especially€aggravated€robbery,€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€defendantÐ ‰Ù Ðintended€to€deprive€the€victim€of€her€property€prior€to€assaulting€her,€and€relative€to€the€especiallyÐ r Ðaggravated€burglary,€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€victim€sustained€serious€bodily€injury€as€anÐ [« Ðelement€of€the€offense.€€He€also€claims€that€the€serious€bodily€injury€element€precludes€a€convictionÐ D” Ðof€especially€aggravated€burglary.€€Essentially,€then,€the€defendant€posits€that€the€convictions€shouldÐ -} Ðbe€respectively€reduced€to€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€burglary.Ð f ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appealÐ è 8 Ðis€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ Ñ!!  Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòSeeóóÐ º" ! ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€ThisÐ £#ó" Ðmeans€that€we€do€not€re-weigh€the€evidence€but€presume€that€the€fact€finder€has€resolved€allÐ Œ$Ü# Ðconflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€Ð u%Å $ ÐòòSee€State€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð ^&®!% Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€against€a€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÐ G'—"& Ðâ âand€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€thatÐ 0(€#' Ðthe€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€a€guilty€verdict.€òò€State€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð ° Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).Ð ™é Ðâ âÌò òÓ  Ó(a)€Especially€Aggravated€Robbery.ó óÐ k» ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€state€that€it€was€unnecessary€for€the€state€to€prove,€as€the€defendantÐ > Ž Ðclaims€in€his€brief,€ð ðthat€[he]€formed€an€intent€to€deprive€the€victim€of€her€property€prior€to€theÐ ' w Ðalleged€assault.ðð€€Indeed,€this€court€has€previously€held€that€ð ðthe€intent€to€steal€need€not€exist€priorÐ  ` Ðto€or€concurrently€with€the€[infliction€of€serious€bodily€injury]€in€a€case€in€which€the€defendant€isÐ ù I Ðcharged€with€especially€aggravated€robbery.ðð€òòState€v.€Wade€P.€Tuckeróó,€No.€M2001„Ð â 2  Ð02298-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€7„8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jul.€17,€2002),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÐ Ë   Ð(Tenn.€2002).€€The€holding€in€òòWade€P.€Tuckeróó€disposes€of€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€evidenceÐ ´  Ðinsufficiently€supports€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Ð í  ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(b)€Especially€Aggravated€Burglary.ó óÐ o¿  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àNext,€we€address€the€claim€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€verdict€of€especiallyÐ B’ Ðaggravated€burglary€in€the€absence€of€proof€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€A€person€commits€especiallyÐ +{ Ðaggravated€burglary€who,€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner,€enters€a€building€andÐ d Ðcommits€or€attempts€to€commit€a€felony,€theft,€or€assault,€and€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodilyÐ ýM Ðinjury.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððòò€óó€39„14„404(a)€(2003).€€Significantly,€for€purposes€of€the€present€case,Ð æ6 Ðð ð[a]cts€which€constitute€an€offense€under€[section€39„14„404]€may€be€prosecuted€under€[section€39„Ð Ï Ð14„404]€or€any€other€applicable€section,€but€not€both.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„404(d)€(2003).€€ð ðððBodily€injuryððÐ ¸ Ðincludes€a€cut,€abrasion,€bruise,€burn€or€disfigurement;€physical€pain€or€temporary€illness€orÐ ¡ñ Ðimpairment€of€the€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ,€or€mental€faculty€.€.€.€.ðð€òòIdóó.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(2)Ð ŠÚ Ð(2003).€€ð ðððSerious€bodily€injuryðð€means€bodily€injury€which€involves€(A)€A€substantial€risk€of€death;Ð sà Ð(B)€Protracted€unconsciousness;€(C)€Extreme€physical€pain;€(D)€Protracted€or€obviousÐ \¬ Ðdisfigurement;€€or€(E)€Protracted€loss€or€substantial€impairment€of€a€function€of€a€bodily€member,Ð E• Ðorgan€or€mental€faculty€.€.€.€.ðð€òòId.€óóðð€39„11„106(a)(34)€(2003).Ð .~ ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(1)Ð  P Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€prong€of€the€serious€bodily€injury€definition€targeted€by€the€parties€in€the€presentÐ Ó!#  Ðcase€is€that€of€extreme€physical€pain.€€We€acknowledge,€as€the€defendant€argues,€that€bruises,€knotsÐ ¼" ! Ðon€the€head,€bites,€slight€burns,€and€lacerations€do€not€implicate€the€degree€of€extreme€physical€painÐ ¥#õ" Ðthat€would€support€a€finding€of€serious€bodily€injury.€òò€See,€e.g.,€State€v.€Barnesóó,€954€S.W.2d€760,Ð Ž$Þ# Ð765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóó.€€We€believe€that,€in€the€present€case,€however,€the€victimððs€injuriesÐ w%Ç $ Ðresulted€in€serious€bodily€injury€via€extreme€physical€pain.€€The€victim€testified€that€one€of€theÐ `&°!% Ðintruders€ð ðhit€her€in€[her]€face€real,€real€hard.ðð€€At€first€when€she€was€being€hit,€she€did€not€knowÐ I'™"& Ðshe€was€being€cut.€€The€cuts€to€her€arm,€legs,€head,€neck,€and€back€required€over€400€stitches€toÐ 2(‚#' Ðclose.€€She€testified€that€some€of€them€were€so€deep€that€they€required€suturing€from€both€the€insideÐ )k$( Ðand€outside.€€She€faded€into€unconsciousness€and€collapsed€after€crawling€out€of€her€apartment.€€SheÐ *T%) Ðstayed€in€the€hospital€a€day€and€a€half.€€The€photographs€depicted€long€cuts€with€wide€closure€lines.€Ð í*=&* ÐWe€hold€that€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€of€serious€bodily€injury€via€extreme€physical€pain.€€Ð Ö+&'+ ÐѲÏÑâ âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Letter ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ÿ3Ø'LetterTÑâ âÑ  ÑÌà  àà ` àThat€said,€we€also€believe€that€the€evidence€warranted€a€finding€of€serious€bodilyÐ ™é Ðinjury€via€ð ð[ò òó óp]rotracted€or€obvious€disfigurement.ðð€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(34)(D)Ð ‚Ò Ð(2003).€€The€photographs€show€prominent€cuts,€especially€on€the€victimððs€leg.€€To€be€sure,€the€stateÐ k» Ðoffered€no€medical€testimony€that€the€cuts€would€result€in€permanent€scarring€or€disfigurement,€butÐ T¤ Ðthe€definition€does€not€require€that.€€It€requires€only€òòprotracted€or€obviousóó€disfigurement.€€TheÐ =  Ðdisfigurement€apparent€in€the€photographs€was€not€only€obvious€but€provided€a€basis€for€the€juryÐ & v Ðinferring€that€it€would€be€protracted.€€We€hold€that€the€evidence€satisfied€the€statutory€element€ofÐ  _ Ðespecially€aggravated€burglary€that€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.Ð ø H ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÐ Ê   ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àWe€turn€now€to€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€conviction€of€especially€aggravatedÐ í  Ðburglary€was€barred€by€the€prohibition€in€Code€section€39„14„404(d)€that€€acts€constitutingÐ †Ö  Ðespecially€aggravated€burglary€may€be€prosecuted€as€such€or€pursuant€to€ð ðany€other€applicableÐ o¿  Ðsection,€but€not€both.ðð€òò€See€id.óó€ðð€39„14„404(d)€(2003).€€Although€we€believe€the€defendant€miscastsÐ X¨  Ðthis€issue€as€one€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€discern€that,€with€his€section€39„14„404(d)„basedÐ A‘ Ðargument,€he€nevertheless€gains€traction€on€appeal.Ð *z ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€terms€of€section€39„14„404(d)€preclude€convictions€for€both€the€especiallyÐ üL Ðaggravated€robbery€committed€after€entering€the€victimððs€apartment,€one€of€the€elements€beingÐ å5 Ðserious€bodily€injury€to€the€victim,€and€the€especially€aggravated€burglary.€òò€€See€State€v.€JamesÐ Î ÐRuben€Conyers,€óóNo.€M2002-01007-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.Ð · Ð5,€2003)€(ð ðIn€the€instant€case,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€both€especially€aggravated€burglaryÐ  ð Ðand€especially€aggravated€robbery€based,€in€part,€upon€the€serious€bodily€injury€suffered€by€[theÐ ‰Ù Ðvictim].€€Because€section€39-14-404(d)€prohibits€the€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€burglary,Ð r Ðwe€recognize€this€as€plain€error€and€modify€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€especially€aggravatedÐ [« Ðburglary€to€aggravated€burglary.ðð),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2004).€€As€in€òòJames€Ruben€Conyersóó,Ð D” Ðwe€modify€the€defendantððs€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction€to€aggravated€burglary.€€òòSeeóóÐ -} ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„14„403(a)€(2003)€(proscribing€burglary€of€a€habitation€as€aggravatedÐ f Ðburglary).Ð ÿO ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Exclusion€of€Alibi€Evidence.ó óÐ Ñ!!  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€the€defendantððs€next€issue,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€prohibiting€himÐ ¤#ô" Ðfrom€calling€an€alibi€witness.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€12.1€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð $Ý# ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ à(a)€Notice€by€Defendant.€€Upon€written€demand€of€the€districtÐ _&¯!% Ðattorney€general€stating€the€time,€date,€and€place€at€which€the€allegedÐ H'˜"& Ðoffense€was€committed,€the€defendant€shall€serve€within€ten€days,€orÐ 1(#' Ðat€such€different€time€as€the€court€may€direct,€upon€the€districtÐ )j$( Ðattorney€general€a€written€notice€of€an€intention€to€offer€a€defense€ofÐ *S%) Ðalibi.€€Such€notice€by€the€defendant€shall€state€the€specific€place€orÐ ì*<&* Ðplaces€at€which€the€defendant€claims€to€have€been€at€the€time€of€theÐ Õ+%'+ ÐѲÏÑâ âÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXì3Ø'Letter3Ø'Letter ° Ðâ âknew€that€the€defendant€had€3Ø'Letter ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼TÑâ âÑ  Ñalleged€offense€and€the€names€and€addresses€of€the€witnesses€uponÐ ° Ðwhom€the€defendant€intends€to€rely€to€establish€such€alibi.Ð ™é ÐÌà ¸ à(b)€Disclosure€of€Information€and€Witness.€€Within€ten€daysÐ k» Ðthereafter,€but€in€no€event€less€than€ten€days€before€trial,€unless€theÐ T¤ Ðcourt€otherwise€directs,€the€district€attorney€general€shall€serve€uponÐ =  Ðthe€defendant€or€the€defendantððs€attorney€a€written€notice€stating€theÐ & v Ðnames€and€addresses€of€the€witnesses€upon€whom€the€state€intends€toÐ  _ Ðrely€to€establish€the€defendantððs€presence€at€the€scene€of€the€allegedÐ ø H Ðoffense€and€any€other€witnesses€to€be€relied€on€to€rebut€testimony€ofÐ á 1  Ðany€of€the€defendantððs€alibi€witnesses.Ð Ê   ÐÌà ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð œì  ÐÌà ¸ à(d)€Failure€to€Comply.€€Upon€the€failure€of€either€party€toÐ n¾  Ðcomply€with€the€requirements€of€this€rule,€the€court€may€exclude€theÐ W§  Ðtestimony€of€any€undisclosed€witness€offered€by€such€party€as€to€theÐ @ Ðdefendantððs€absence€from€or€presence€at,€the€scene€of€the€allegedÐ )y Ðoffense.€€This€rule€shall€not€limit€the€right€of€the€defendant€to€testifyÐ b Ðin€his€or€her€own€behalf.Ð ûK ÐÌà ¸ à(e)€Exceptions.€€For€good€cause€shown,€the€court€may€grantÐ Í Ðan€exception€to€any€of€the€requirements€of€this€rule.Ð ¶ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.1.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€record€on€appeal€contains€no€demand€for€notice€of€an€alibiÐ Zª Ðdefense.€€Nevertheless,€in€March€2001,€the€defendant€filed€a€ð ðNotice€of€Alibi€Witness,ðð€but€theÐ C“ Ðnotice€failed€to€ð ðstate€the€specific€place€or€places€at€which€the€defendant€claims€to€have€been€at€theÐ ,| Ðtime€of€the€alleged€offense€and€the€names€and€addresses€of€the€witnesses€upon€whom€the€defendantÐ e Ðintends€to€rely€to€establish€such€alibi.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€commenced€on€February€20,€2002.€€During€theÐ þN Ðtrial,€counsel€for€the€co„defendant,€Mr.€Frazier,€apparently€told€the€prosecutor€that€he€planned€to€callÐ ç 7 ÐFrazierððs€mother€to€testify€that€Frazier€was€with€her€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€So€prompted,€theÐ Ð!   Ðprosecutor€moved€to€exclude€the€proposed€testimony€after€the€state€presented€its€case„in„chief.€€TheÐ ¹" ! Ðprosecutor€adverted€to€the€stateððs€ð ðmotion€for€notice€of€alibi€defenseðð€and€told€the€court€that€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðmotion€was€filed€on€August€2,€2000.€€The€co„defendantððs€counsel€acknowledged€that€the€motion,Ð ‹$Û# Ðor€demand,€was€filed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òó óThe€co„defendant€Frazierððs€counsel€argued€that€the€failure€to€disclose€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðspecifics€of€an€alibi€defense€was€not€willful€and€that€he€had€learned€of€the€alibi€witness€just€beforeÐ ]&­!% Ðtrial.€€Counsel€for€the€defendant,€Roderick€Davis,€did€not€participate€in€the€colloquy.€€The€trial€courtÐ F'–"& ÐÑ8ÄÑâ âÑ(°ÑÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXì3Ø'Letter3Ø'Letter ° Ðâ âknew€that€the€defendant€had€3Ø'Letter ° Ðâ âknew€that€the€defendant€had€TÑâ âÑ  Ñacknowledged€that€ð ðboth€defendants€may€testify€as€to€their€whereaboutsðð€but€granted€the€stateððsÐ ( Ðmotion€to€exclude€the€alibi€witness.€€Ð é Ѐà  àà ` àÐ úÒ Ðà  àà ` à€In€our€view,€the€defendant€has€established€no€claim€on€appeal€that€an€alibi€witnessÐ ã» Ðwas€erroneously€excluded.€€€In€the€first€place,€no€one€claimed€that€the€putative€witness€had€anyР̤ Ðknowledge€of€the€defendantððs€whereabouts€at€the€time€of€the€offense;€therefore,€it€can€hardly€beÐ µ  Ðclaimed€that€the€defendant€tried€to€present€a€defense€of€òòhisóó€alibi.€€Ð ž v ÐÌà  àà ` àFurthermore,€even€if€it€could€be€argued€that€Frazierððs€role€in€the€offense€was€soÐ p H Ðclosely€linked€to€that€of€the€defendant€that€Frazierððs€alibi€was€critical€to€Davisðð€defense,€neitherÐ Y 1  Ðdefendant€filed€a€notice€that€complied€with€Rule€12.1(a).€€In€this€event,€the€trial€court€had€discretionÐ B  Ðto€exclude€the€proposed€witness.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.1(d);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Joy€A.€Stinsonóó,€Ð +  ÐNo.€E1999-02082-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€29,€2000)Ð ì  Ð(decision€to€exclude€witness€pursuant€to€Rule€12.1€lies€in€discretion€of€trial€court€and€on€appeal€isÐ ýÕ  Ðreviewable€for€abuse€of€discretion),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001).€€Even€if€defendant€Davis€hasÐ æ¾  Ðð ðstandingðð€to€raise€the€exclusion€issue,€the€record€evinces€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€Ð ϧ  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€again€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€defendant€Davis€may€otherwise€lay€a€claimÐ ¡y Ðnow€to€an€alibi€defense,€the€claim€would€be€waived.€€The€defendant€failed€to€make€any€proffer€ofÐ Šb Ðthe€excluded€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2).€€Furthermore,€after€the€trial€judge€heardÐ sK Ðarguments€from€the€prosecutor€and€Frazierððs€counsel,€he€asked€the€defendantððs€counsel€if€he€had€anyÐ \4 Ðcomment,€and€counsel€declined€to€argue,€object,€or€comment.€€Under€the€circumstances,€theÐ E Ðdefendant€failed€to€avail€the€trial€court€the€opportunity€to€rule€upon€the€alibi€claim€now€beingÐ . Ðpresented€on€appeal,€and€as€such,€he€has€waived€the€claim€for€this€reason€as€well.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð ï ÐP.€36(a)€(ð ð[R]elief€may€not€be€granted€in€contravention€of€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.ðð).Ð Ø ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€onÐ Òª Ðappeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€a€proposed€alibi€witness.Ð »“ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Jury€Instrucions.ó óÐ e ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€referring€to€theÐ `!8 Ðdefendants€jointly,€as€opposed€to€individually,€in€the€jury€instructions.€€For€instance,€he€points€to€theÐ I"!  Ðtrial€courtððs€instructional€statement€that€ð ð[i]f€you€[the€jury]€do€find€the€òòdefendantsóó€guilty,€you€mayÐ 2# ! Ðconvict€òòthemóó€on€only€one€of€the€above€named€offenses€.€.€.€.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€Ð $ó" ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€that€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€case€has€a€right€to€a€correct€and€completeÐ í%Å $ Ðcharge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.Ð Ö&®!% Ð1990).€€In€the€present€case,€however,€the€defendant€does€not€claim€that€the€instructions€wereÐ ¿'—"& Ðinaccurate€or€incomplete;€he€essentially€posits€that€they€were€misleading€or€confusing.€€Against€thatÐ ¨(€#' Ðclaim,€we€notice€that€the€trial€judge€gave€the€following€instructions€to€the€jury:Ð ‘)i$( Ðâ âÐ z*R%) ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒYou€should€give€separate€consideration€to€each€defendant.€€Each€isÐ ( Ðâ âentitled€to€have€his€case€decided€on€the€evidence€and€the€law€whichÐ é Ð[are]€applicable€to€that€particular€defendant.€€You€should€not€considerÐ úÒ Ðany€evidence,€which€was€limited€to€a€particular€defendant,€as€to€anyÐ ã» Ðother€defendant.€€You€can€acquit€both€or€convict€both,€or€you€canР̤ Ðacquit€one€and€convict€the€other.€€If€you€cannot€agree€upon€a€verdictÐ µ  Ðas€to€both€the€defendants,€but€do€agree€upon€a€verdict€as€to€one€ofÐ ž v Ðthem,€you€must€render€a€verdict€as€to€the€one€upon€[whom]€youÐ ‡ _ Ðagree.Ð p H ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒThe€jury€is€presumed€to€have€heeded€this€instruction.€òò€See€State€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121,€148€(Tenn.Ð B  Ð1998).€€Even€if€the€trial€court€erred€in€referring€to€the€defendants€jointly€in€various€portions€of€theÐ +  Ðinstructions,€we€cannot€fathom€how€the€error€had€any€prejudicial€effect€on€the€result€at€trial.€€òòSeeÐ ì  ÐóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Ð ýÕ  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€Cumulative€Error.ó óРϧ  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àBefore€addressing€the€defendantððs€final€issue€of€sentencing€error,€we€acknowledgeÐ ¢z Ðhis€claim€that€cumulative€trial€error€compels€the€reversal€of€his€convictions.€€We€did€discern€errorÐ ‹c Ðin€the€imposition€of€a€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€burglary,€and€above€we€articulated€theÐ tL Ðproper€response€to€such€error€„€„€€that€of€reducing€the€conviction€to€one€of€aggravated€burglary.€Ð ]5 ÐEven€if€we€were€inclined€to€characterize€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€joint€references€to€both€men€on€trialÐ F Ðin€its€jury€instructions€as€error,€we€deemed€the€error€in€and€of€itself€to€be€harmless€beyond€aÐ / Ðreasonable€doubt,€and€we€found€no€other€error€present€in€the€proceedings.€€Thus,€there€are€no€òòerrorsóóÐ ð Ðto€be€deemed€cumulative.Ð Ù ÐÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€Sentencing.ó óÐ Ó« ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àAs€to€sentencing,€the€defendant€disputes€the€application€of€enhancement€factors€thatÐ ¦~ Ðhe€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior,€that€the€victimððs€injuries€wereÐ g Ðparticularly€great,€and€that€he€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÐ x P Ðof€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€claims€that€theÐ a!9 Ðorder€of€consecutive€sentencing€is€infirm.€€The€state€agrees€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÐ J""  Ðenhanced€the€sentences€based€upon€the€magnitude€of€the€victimððs€injuries,€that€being€implicit€in€theÐ 3# ! Ðelement€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€Ð $ô" ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,Ð î%Æ $ Ðit€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ ×&¯!% Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(2003).€€ThisÐ À'˜"& Ðpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ ©(#' Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð ’)j$( ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòsee€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€5€(Tenn.€2000).€€ð ðThe€burden€ofÐ {*S%) Ðshowing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€In€theÐ d+<&* Ðevent€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€theÐ ( Ðsentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review,€however,€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ é Ðconsidered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thisÐ úÒ Ðcourt€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð ã» ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Р̤ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€mechanics€of€arriving€at€an€appropriate€sentence€are€spelled€out€in€the€CriminalÐ ž v ÐSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ ‡ _ Ðdetermines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€ofÐ p H Ðsentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÐ Y 1  Ðsentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÐ B  Ðsentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)Ð +  Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€anyÐ ì  Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€theÐ ýÕ  Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(a),€(b)€(2003);€40„35„103(5)Ð æ¾  Ð(2003);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Рϧ  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€judge€made€appropriate€reference€to€the€principles€ofÐ ¡y Ðsentencing€and€expressed€specific€findings€of€fact.€€We,€therefore,€accord€to€his€judgment€theÐ Šb Ðpresumption€of€correctness.Ð sK ÐÌÓ  Óò ò(a)€Length€of€Sentence.Ð E ÐÓ  Óó óÌà  àà ` àThe€court€applied€enhancement€factors€(2)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÐ ð Ðcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€the€range,€(3)€heÐ Ù Ðwas€a€leader€in€committing€an€offense€involving€two€or€more€offenders,€(7)€the€personal€injuriesÐ ê Ðinflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great,€(9)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÐ Ó« Ðunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community,€(14)Ð ¼” Ðthe€felonies€were€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€bail€for€another€felony,€and€(21)€theÐ ¥} Ðdefendant€was€adjudicated€to€have€committed€a€delinquent€act€or€acts€as€a€juvenile€that€wouldÐ Žf Ðconstitute€a€felony€if€committed€by€an€adult.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2),€(3),€(7),€(9),Ð w O Ð(14),€(21)€(2003).€€The€trial€court€applied€as€a€mitigating€factor€that,€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€theÐ `!8 Ðdefendant€expressed€remorse.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(2003).€€Ð I"!  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€factor€(2),€previous€criminal€history€or€behavior,€the€record€on€appeal€showsÐ $ó" Ðthat,€as€an€adult,€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€consisted€only€of€disregarding€a€stop€sign€andÐ %Ü# Ðviolating€the€driverððs€license€law.€€As€such,€his€record€as€an€adult€was€scant€and€deserving€of€veryÐ í%Å $ Ðslight€weight.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€trial€court€also€utilized€factor€(21),€that€the€defendant,€whenÐ Ö&®!% Ða€juvenile,€was€adjudicated€to€have€committed€a€delinquent€act€that€would€constitute€a€felony€ifÐ ¿'—"& Ðcommitted€by€an€adult.€€òòSee€idóó.€ðð€40„35„114(21)€(2003).€€As€a€juvenile,€the€defendant€had€beenÐ ¨(€#' Ðadjudicated€guilty€of€theft€of€property€valued€in€excess€of€$500.€€Thus,€the€utility€of€factor€(21)€inÐ ‘)i$( Ðâ âthe€defendantððs€case€supplies€some€weight€to€the€issue€of€prior€offending€conduct€that€factor€(2)Ð z*R%) Ðalone€would€not€justify.€€In€summary,€the€trial€court€had€a€basis€for€applying€both€factors.€€SlightÐ ( Ðweight€should€have€been€accorded€to€factor€(2)€and€moderate€weight€to€factor€(21).Ð é Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€parties€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€factor€(7),€thatÐ ã» Ðthe€victimððs€injuries€were€particularly€great.€€The€court€may€not€enhance€a€sentence€via€a€factor€thatР̤ Ðis€itself€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€as€charged€in€the€indictment.€€òòIdóó.€ðð€40„35„114€(2003).Ð µ  ÐTennesseeððs€statutory€conditions€of€serious€bodily€injury€satisfy€the€definition€of€a€particularly€greatÐ ž v Ðinjury.€òò€State€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€602€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€trial€court€should€not€have€appliedÐ ‡ _ Ðthis€factor.€€Ð p H ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€enhanced€the€sentencesÐ B  Ðbased€upon€factor€(9),€that€the€defendant€had€a€òòpreviousóó€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÐ +  Ðconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€He€correctly€points€out€that€this€factorÐ ì  Ðis€not€applicable€on€the€basis€of€the€defendant€committing€the€offense€for€which€he€is€beingÐ ýÕ  Ðsentenced€while€on€release€status€from€another€offense.€òò€See,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€James€M.€Coggins,€Jr.óó,Ð æ¾  ÐNo.€01C01-9310-CR-00360,€slip€op.€at€15€n.4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jul.€28,€1994).€Ð ϧ  ÐHowever,€the€record€shows€that€on€at€least€two€previous€occasions,€the€defendantððs€juvenileÐ ¸ Ðprobation€was€revoked.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jacksonóó,€60€S.W.3d€738,€740€(Tenn.€2001)€(juvenile€probationÐ ¡y Ðviolations€may€serve€as€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€for€release€into€theÐ Šb Ðcommunity).€€We€hold€that€this€fact€supports€the€use€of€factor€(9).€€€Ð sK ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóó€Even€though€enhancement€factor€(7)€should€not€have€been€applied,€we€acknowledgeÐ E Ðthat€the€trial€judge€ascribed€little€weight€to€that€factor.€€All€in€all,€the€trial€courtððs€methodicalÐ . Ðapproach€to€sentencing€the€defendant€bespeaks€a€considered€weighing€of€enhancement€factors€andÐ ï Ða€mitigating€factor,€and€despite€the€misapplication€of€one€enhancement€factor,€we€would€be€loathÐ Ø Ðto€interfere€with€the€trial€courtððs€determination€were€it€not€for€the€impact€of€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó,Ð éÁ Ð542€U.S.€___,€124€€S.€Ct.€2531€(2004).Ð Òª ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòBlakelyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€Blakelyððs€constitutional€rightsÐ ¤| Ðto€a€jury€trial€were€violated€when€the€trial€judge,€based€upon€facts€he€found€without€the€aid€of€a€jury,Ð e Ðimposed€a€sentence€in€excess€of€the€ð ðmaximumðð€he€could€have€otherwise€imposed€under€state€lawÐ v N Ðð ðwithout€the€challenged€factual€finding.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2536„38.€€The€ð ðmaximumððÐ _!7 Ðsentence€for€purposes€of€òòBlakelyóó€ð ðis€the€maximum€sentence€a€judge€may€impose€òòsolely€on€the€basisÐ H"   Ðof€the€facts€reflected€in€the€jury€verdict€or€admitted€by€the€defendantóó.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2537Ð 1# ! Ð(emphasis€in€original).€€The€statutory€maximum€the€court€may€impose€is€the€maximum€ð ðhe€mayÐ $ò" Ðimpose€òòwithoutóó€any€additional€finding.ðð€€òòId.óó,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2537€òòóó(emphasis€in€original).€ð ðWhen€aÐ %Û# Ðjudge€inflicts€punishment€that€the€juryððs€verdict€[or€guilty€plea]€alone€does€not€allow,€[a]€jury€hasÐ ì%Ä $ Ðnot€found€all€the€facts€ððwhich€the€law€makes€essential€to€the€punishment,ðð€and€the€judge€exceeds€hisÐ Õ&­!% Ðproper€authority.ðð€€òòId.óó,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2537€(citation€omitted).€€Ð ¾'–"& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€single€exception€to€the€this€rule€is€that€state€law€may€authorize€a€trial€judge€toÐ )h$( Ðincrease€a€sentence€beyond€the€minimum€based€upon€ð ðthe€fact€of€a€prior€conviction.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___,€124Ð y*Q%) ÐS.€Ct.€at€2536;€òòsee€Apprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466,€490,€120€S.€Ct.€2348,€2362€(2000).Ð b+:&* Ѐ€Ð ( Ðà  àà ` àApparently,€òòBlakely€óósignals€certain€infirmities€in€Tennesseeððs€sentencing€scheme.€Ð é ÐOne€such€infirmity€is€the€procedure€for€determining€the€length€of€the€defendantððs€sentence.€Ð úÒ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210(c)€establishes€presumptive€sentences.€€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.Ð ã» ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(2003).€€When€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors,€theР̤ Ðpresumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€shall€be€the€midpoint€of€the€range,€and€the€presumptiveÐ µ  Ðsentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D€and€E€felony€shall€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range.€€òòId.€€óóThe€trialÐ ž v Ðcourt€may€impose€a€sentence€in€excess€of€the€presumptive€sentence€only€when€it€finds€the€existenceÐ ‡ _ Ðof€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€enumerated€in€Code€section€40„35„114.€€òòId.€óóðð€40„35„210(d),€(e)Ð p H Ð(2003).€€Thus,€the€court€may€not€increase€the€sentence€above€the€presumptive€or€ð ðmaximumððÐ Y 1  Ðwithout€additional€findings€of€fact.€Ð B  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€increased€the€sentence€for€especially€aggravatedÐ ì  Ðrobbery,€a€Class€A€felony,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304(b)€(2003),€from€the€presumptiveÐ ýÕ  Ðsentence€of€20€years€to€a€sentence€of€24€€years,€and€it€increased€the€sentence€for€especiallyÐ æ¾  Ðaggravated€burglary,€òòid.óó€ðð€39„14„404(c)€(2003),€from€the€presumptive€sentence€of€eight€years€to€aРϧ  Ðsentence€of€eleven€years,€òòsee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1),€(2)€(2003)€(establishing€sentencing€ranges€forÐ ¸ ÐClass€A€and€Class€B€felonies,€respectively).€€In€so€doing,€it€relied€upon€factual€findings€in€additionÐ ¡y Ðto€a€record€of€prior€convictions€or€adjudications€to€enhance€the€defendantððs€sentences.€€Pursuant€toÐ Šb ÐòòApprendióó€and€òòBlakelyóó,€this€was€error.€€We€impose€a€sentence€of€20€years€for€especially€aggravatedÐ sK Ðrobbery€and€the€presumptive€sentence€of€eight€years€for€the€conviction€herein€modified€toÐ \4 Ðaggravated€burglary.€€òòSee€idóó.€ðððð€40„35„402(b)€(2003)€(establishing€aggravated€burglary€as€a€ClassÐ E ÐB€offense),€40„35„112(a)(2)€(2003)€(establishing€Range€I,€Class€B€offense€range€of€eight€to€twelveÐ . Ðyears).Ð ï ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(b)€Consecutive€Sentencing.ó óÐ éÁ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àAfter€imposing€sentences€of€24€years€and€eleven€years,€the€trial€court€ordered€thatÐ ¼” Ðthey€be€served€consecutively,€based€upon€its€finding€that€the€defendant€was€a€dangerous€offenderÐ ¥} Ðwhose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÐ Žf Ðcrime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(a)(4)€(2003).€€The€defendant€nowÐ w O Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€made€insufficient€findings€to€support€consecutive€sentencing.Ð `!8 ÐÌà  àà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-115€establishes€criteria€for€orderingÐ 2# ! Ðconsecutive,€instead€of€concurrent,€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€40-35-115(a)€(2003).€€OneÐ $ó" Ðstatutory€basis€upon€which€consecutive€sentencing€may€be€imposed€„„€the€one€utilized€by€the€trialÐ %Ü# Ðcourt€in€the€present€case€„€„€€is€that€the€defendant€ð ðis€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicatesÐ í%Å $ Ðlittle€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€toÐ Ö&®!% Ðhuman€life€is€high.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40-35-115(b)(4)€(2003).€€To€support€consecutive€sentencing€of€aÐ ¿'—"& Ðð ðdangerousðð€offender,€the€evidence€must€demonstrate€that€the€ð ðterms€imposed€are€reasonably€relatedÐ ¨(€#' Ðto€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÐ ‘)i$( Ðâ âcriminal€acts€by€the€offender.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995),òò€limited€byÐ z*R%) ÐState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999).€€Essentially,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€judgeÐ ( Ðfailed€to€support€his€dangerous„offender€finding€when€he€neglected€to€make€the€òòWilkersonóó€findings.€Ð é Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àWe€disagree.€€The€brutality€and€savagery€of€the€attack€upon€the€victim€bespeak€theÐ ã» Ðlevel€of€dangerous€offending€that€is€the€target€of€Code€section€40„35„115(b)(4)€and€òòWilkersonóó.€€TheР̤ Ðrecord€supports€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€the€factor€to€impose€consecutive€sentences.Ð µ  ÐÌà  àà ` àThat€said,€we€must€now€determine€whether€òòBlakelyóó€affects€Tennesseeððs€procedureÐ ‡ _ Ðfor€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€As€noted€above,€òòBlakelyóó€speaks€in€terms€of€the€right€to€juryÐ p H Ðtrial€being€implicated€when€the€government€inflicts€òòpunishmentóó,€a€general€concept€that€is€broaderÐ Y 1  Ðthan€the€specific€activity€of€determining€the€length€of€a€sentence.€€Indeed,€the€High€Court€said,Ð B  Ðð ð[E]very€defendant€has€the€òòrightóó€to€insist€that€the€prosecutor€prove€to€a€jury€all€facts€legally€essentialÐ +  Ðto€òòthe€punishmentóó.ðð€€òòBlakelyóó,€542€U.S.€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2543€(first€emphasis€in€original;€secondÐ ì  Ðemphasis€added).€€Clearly,€an€effective€sentence€of€35€years€is€more€severe€punishment€than€is€anÐ ýÕ  Ðeffective€sentence€of€24€years.€€Thus,€we€consider€whether€the€determination€to€arrange€sentencesÐ æ¾  Ðconsecutively€is€a€function€of€punishment€that€òòBlakelyóó€addresses.Рϧ  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€Tennesseeððs€procedure,€concurrent€sentencing€is€the€baseline€or€presumptiveÐ ¡y Ðarrangement€of€multiple€sentences:€ð ðSentences€shall€be€ordered€to€run€concurrently,€if€the€criteriaÐ Šb Ðnoted€in€[section€40„35„115](b)€are€not€met,€unless€consecutive€sentences€are€specifically€requiredÐ sK Ðby€statute€or€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(d)€(2003);Ð \4 Ðòòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(1)€(ð ðUnless€it€is€made€to€affirmatively€appear€that€the€sentences€areÐ E Ðconsecutive,€they€shall€be€deemed€to€be€concurrent.ðð).€€Thus,€as€in€the€case€of€the€enhancement€ofÐ . Ðthe€length€of€individual€sentences,€the€trial€judge€must€make€a€finding€of€one€or€more€of€the€factualÐ ï Ðcriteria€enumerated€in€Code€section€40„35„115€as€a€basis€for€ordering€the€consecutive€service€ofÐ Ø Ðmultiple€sentences.€Ð éÁ ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€thus€discerned€a€potential€conflict€between€òòBlakelyóó€and€Tennesseeððs€schemeÐ »“ Ðfor€imposing€consecutive€sentences€and€having€solicited€the€partiesðð€supplemental€briefs€on€theÐ ¤| Ðissue,€we€nevertheless€believe€that€òòApprendi€óóandòò€Blakely€óóestablish€that€the€right€to€jury€trial€asÐ e Ðembodied€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€applies€merely€to€the€findings€necessary€to€establish€aÐ v N Ðdefendantððs€guilt€of€a€specific€offense.€€For€instance,€the€High€Court€adopted€for€purposes€of€stateÐ _!7 Ðapplication€the€language€of€òòJones€v.€United€Statesóó,€526€U.S.€227,€243,€119€S.€Ct.€1215€(1999),€aÐ H"   Ðfederal€prosecution:€ð ð[U]nder€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€and€the€.€.€.€€jury€trialÐ 1# ! Ðguarantees€of€the€Sixth€Amendment,€any€fact€(other€than€prior€conviction)€that€increases€theÐ $ò" Ðmaximum€òòpenalty€foróó€òòa€crimeóó€must€be€.€.€.€submitted€to€a€jury€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòApprendióó,€530€U.S.€at€476,€120Ð %Û# ÐS.€Ct.€at€2355€(emphasis€added).€€Additionally,€the€Court€said,€ð ðTaken€together,€[the€due€process€andÐ ì%Ä $ Ðjury€trial€rights]€indisputably€entitle€a€criminal€defendant€to€ðða€jury€determination€that€[he]€is€guiltyÐ Õ&­!% Ðòòof€every€element€of€the€crime€with€which€he€is€chargedóó,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€477,€120Ð ¾'–"& ÐS.€Ct.€at€2355„56€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€People€v.€Sykesóó,€120€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€1331,€16€Cal.€Rptr.€3dÐ §(#' Ð317,€327€(Cal.€App.€2€Dist.€2004).€€We€believe€these€references€to€the€findings€necessary€to€establishÐ )h$( Ðthe€required€òòelementsóó€for€individual€òòoffensesóó,€including€factors€for€extraordinary€sentencing,Ð y*Q%) Ðarticulate€that€the€due€process€and€jury€trial€guarantees€have€no€application€to€a€judgeððs€consecutiveÐ b+:&* Ðsentencing€determination.€€As€such,€we€believe€these€references€reflect€a€time„honored€view€that,Ð ( Ðonce€convictions€and€the€lengths€of€individual€sentences€are€properly€determined,€the€judge€is€theÐ é Ðarbiter€of€whether€the€sentences€shall€run€concurrently€or€consecutively.€€Ð úÒ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€òòApprendi„Blakely€óórule€does€not€apply€to€the€trialР̤ Ðcourtððs€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€€Ð µ  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€ò ò€€€€VI.€€Conclusion.ó óÐ ‡ _ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€affirm€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€but€modifyÐ \ 4  Ðhis€especially€aggravated€burglary€conviction€to€one€of€aggravated€burglary.€€€We€modify€theÐ E  Ðsentences€to€20€years€and€eight€years,€respectively,€and€affirm€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÐ .  Ðsentences.€€The€end€result€is€an€effective€sentence€of€28€years.Ð ï  ÐÌà  àÌà  àà ` à€Ð Òª  ЀÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤| Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE