ÿWPCÞ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µLÝU:) bc w@k 4« ¿ 0¡Î 0¸o 0J' q 0Ty 0^Í 0h+ 0r“ 0| 0† 0 1u— 0d  BpU>U *ËB)õDC D3a AM”á 0@û­;v~èvÓf AO9ƈ 0DN D/’ BÁ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MSÈðððððÈð0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- “U”•–V—D˜U™šD›Ó€§Úƒç"3|x«(`™w$Ô‡XÍèXXXÔÔ‡XÍèXXXÍèÔÔ‡ôrÓôXXÍèÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(h(2N^$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€Xp3XXXÔÔ€ôôXXp3Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òOctober€31,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€make€no€claim€that€the€evidence€they€were€not€allowed€to€present€involvedÏcriminal€convictions.€€Indeed€Ms.€Ridenour€was€impeached€with€her€record€of€criminal€convictionsÏfor€dealing€in€narcotics.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€bXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€'ÔÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓMICHAEL€EUGENE€McBEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9509„CR„00276Ìandà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJEFFREY€EUGENE€DUNLAPà à)ó óÌà àAppellants,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€RAY€L.€JENKINSó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal€„€AggravatedÏRobbery)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌLESLIE€M.€JEFFRESSà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€for€Appellant€Dunlapà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ1776€Riverview€TowerÌ900€S.€Gay€Streetà àà àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌKIIMBERLY€A.€PARTONà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌAttorney€for€Appellant€McBeeÌ407€Union€Avenueà àà àà àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌSuite€209à àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌKnoxville,€TN€37902Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€L.€JOLLEY,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Building,€Ste.€168Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à400€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902„2405ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€'„ÔOPINIONÔ€'°Ôóóó óÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÔ€'ŠÔOn€December€14,€1994,€a€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€jury€foundÏAppellants€Jeffery€Dunlap€and€Michael€McBee€each€guilty€of€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€robbery€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„402Ï(1991).€€As€Range€III€persistent€offenders,€Appellants€were€both€sentenced€toÏthirty€years€imprisonment€on€each€count.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€sentences€toÏrun€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€sixty€years€for€each€Appellant.€ÏOn€appeal,€Appellants€raise€three€issues€for€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€was€sufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€the€convictions;€(2)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€certain€evidence€to€be€admitted;Ïand€(3)€whether€the€sentences€were€excessive€in€length.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€œthe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€May€23,€1993,€Patrol€Officer€Larry€Gilland€ofÏthe€Knoxville€Police€Department€responded€to€a€911€call€at€the€residence€of€ÍRonnie€and€Margaret€Ridenour.€€Upon€arriving€at€the€residence,€Officer€GillandÏknocked€on€the€front€door.€€Hearing€no€response,€he€contacted€his€dispatcher€toÏrequest€that€a€telephone€call€be€made€to€the€location.€€Soon€thereafter,€OfficerÏArman€joined€Officer€Gilland€at€the€Ridenour€residence.€€Subsequently,€the€doorÏwas€answered€by€Margaret€Ridenour.€€Ms.€Ridenour€was€hysterical;€she€yelledÏthat€her€husband€and€grandchildren€had€been€robbed€at€knife€point€and€wereÏbeing€held€hostage.€€Upon€entering€the€residence,€Gilland€and€Arman€sawÏAppellant€Dunlap€in€the€living€room€talking€on€the€telephone,€telling€theÏdispatcher€that€the€police€were€not€needed.€€As€Gilland€went€down€the€hallwayÏwere€Ms.€Ridenour€claimed€hostages€were€being€held,€Mr.€Ridenour€came€outÏof€a€bedroom€and€yelled€that€someone€had€run€across€the€hall€into€anotherÏbedroom.€€Gilland€heard€a€window€break€and€entered€that€bedroom.€€In€theÏbedroom,€Gilland€found€Appellant€McBee€crouched€under€a€broken€windowÏwhich€had€bars€on€the€other€side€of€it.€€McBee€was€found€with€$827€cash,€threeÏrings,€two€gold€chains,€a€manððs€wrist€watch,€a€gold€cross,€a€cigarette€lighter,Ïfood€stamps,€and€a€food€stamp€eligibility€card€belonging€to€Sheila€Ridenour.€€InÏaddition,€two€knives€were€found€under€McBee,€and€he€was€wearing€gardeningÏgloves€on€his€hands.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Mr.€and€Ms.€Ridenour€testified€that€they€were€lying€in€bed€when,Ïat€around€two€a.m.,€they€heard€a€knock€on€the€door.€€When€Mr.€Ridenour€heardÍa€man€call€out€his€name,€he€unlocked€the€door€to€his€house.€€Two€men,€laterÏidentified€as€Appellants€Dunlap€and€McBee,€forced€their€way€into€the€houseÏand€held€a€knife€to€Mr.€Ridenour.€€Dunlap€went€into€the€back€of€the€house€andÏbrought€Ms.€Ridenour€to€where€Mr.€Ridenour€was€being€held.€€Both€of€theÏAppellants€had€knives,€and€one€of€them€poked€Mr.€Ridenour€in€the€head€withÏhis€knife€causing€a€small€puncture€wound.€€The€Appellants€then€demandedÏmoney€and€jewelry€from€the€Ridenours.€€The€Ridenours€took€off€what€jewelryÏthey€were€wearing€and€gave€it€to€Dunlap€and€McBee€but€the€couple€deniedÏhaving€any€money.€€Then€McBee€took€Ms.€Ridenour€to€the€back€bedroomÏwhere€her€purse€was€located.€€McBee€took€$690€from€Ms.€Ridenourððs€purse.€ÏOnce€the€Appellants€discovered€that€the€Ridenours€had€lied€about€not€havingÏany€money,€the€Appellants€became€angry.€€Ms.€Ridenour€tried€to€appease€theÏAppellants€by€telling€them€that€if€they€would€let€her€call€her€brother€she€could€getÏmore€money€for€them.€€The€Appellants€allowed€Ms.€Ridenour€to€use€theÏtelephone.€€Ms.€Ridenour€called€911€instead€of€her€brother.€€Soon€thereafter,€theÏpolice€arrived€and€arrested€the€Appellants.Ìà àÌà àAccording€to€the€Appellantsðð€theory€of€the€case,€the€event€the€RidenoursÏclaimed€was€a€robbery€was€in€fact€ð ða€drug€deal€gone€bad.ðð€€Mr.€RidenourÏallegedly€had€sold€the€Appellants€bad€cocaine€and€the€Appellants€were€invitedÍto€the€Ridenour€home€to€rectify€the€problem.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€juryÏfound€Appellants€guilty€of€two€counts€each€of€aggravated€robbery.€ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellants€first€allege€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€not€legallyÏsufficient€to€sustain€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery.€€When€an€appealÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€is€whether,Ïafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginia,óó€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.ÏEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€740Ï(1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€orÏsubstitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€€(Tenn.€1973).€ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÍHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,Ïand€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€toÏthe€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€AÏjuryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€theÏdefendant€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2dÏ329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àRobbery€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€theÏperson€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„401€(1991).€€Aggravated€robbery€is€a€robbery€ð ð(1)€œaccomplished›€with€aÏdeadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victimÏto€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon;€or€(2)€where€the€victim€suffers€seriousÏbodily€injury.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„13„402.€€In€order€to€sustain€the€convictions€for€aggravatedÏrobbery€in€this€case,€the€State€had€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÏabove„mentioned€elements€of€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€atÏ190„91.€€When€Appellant€McBee€was€apprehended€by€the€police,€$827,Ïjewelry,€and€a€food€stamp€eligibility€card€belonging€to€Sheila€Ridenour,€Ms.ÏRidenourððs€daughter,€were€found€on€McBeeððs€person.€€Two€hunting€knives,Íwhich€fit€the€description€given€by€the€Ridenours€of€the€knives€used€by€theÏrobbers,€were€found€underneath€McBee.€€In€addition,€McBee€was€apprehendedÏwearing€gloves.€€McBee€also€attempted€to€escape€from€the€Ridenour€home€byÏbreaking€the€back€bedroom€window€when€the€police€arrived.€He€was€preventedÏfrom€escaping€by€the€bars€on€the€window.€€When€the€police€entered€theÏRidenour€home,€Dunlap€was€on€the€telephone€telling€the€police€dispatcher€thatÏpolice€assistance€was€not€needed.€€Additionally,€Mr.€and€Ms.€Ridenour€testifiedÏabout€the€horror€they€faced€as€they€were€held€at€knifepoint€and€told€to€handÏover€their€jewelry€and€money.Ìà àÌà àThe€Appellants€argue€that€there€are€too€many€inconsistencies€in€theÏRidenourððs€testimony€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€they€committed€aggravated€robbery.€€As€stated€previously,Ïdetermining€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€resolving€conflicts€in€the€proof€areÏmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury.€€òòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547.€€From€theÏguilty€verdict€returned€against€the€Appellants,€it€appears€the€jury€attributedÏgreater€credibility€to€the€Ridenour€testimony€than€the€Appellantsðð€proof.€€TheÏdecision€of€the€jury€is€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€Thus,€we€find€that,Ïwhen€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€any€rational€trier€of€factÏcould€have€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellants€were€guilty€ofÏaggravated€robbery.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€DENIAL€OF€ADMISSION€OF€EVIDENCEÌÓ  ÓÌà àNext,€Appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€them€toÏpresent€evidence€showing€that€Mr.€and€Ms.€Ridenour€were€in€possession€ofÏdrugs€in€violation€of€their€Methadone€program.€€According€to€Appellantsðð€theory€ofÏthe€case,€if€the€Ridenours€possessed€contraband€drugs,€they€must€have€beenÏengaged€in€illegal€narcotics€trading.€€This,€Appellants€argue€supported€their€claimÏthat€the€Ridenours€were€not€robbed€but€instead€were€involved€in€ð ða€drug€dealÏgone€bad.ððÌÌà àIn€fact€Appellant€Dunlap€took€the€witness€stand€and€testified€at€lengthÏthat€the€altercation€with€the€Ridenours€was€a€drug€deal€done€awry.€€The€juryÏapparently€rejected€this€testimony€in€favor€of€the€œRidenoursðð›€version€of€events.€ÏNevertheless,€Appellants€argue€they€should€have€been€allowed€to€introduceÏextrinsic€evidence€of€the€Ridenours€alleged€drug€dealing€as€impeachmentÏfollowing€the€defense€cross„examination€of€the€couple.€€Both€Mr.€and€Ms.ÏRidenour€denied€the€incident€in€question€involved€drug€dealing.ÌÌà àImpeachment€with€specific€instances€of€conduct€is€governed€by€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€608(b)€which€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ìà8 à(b)€Specific€Instances€of€Conduct.€„„€òòSpecific€instances€of€conductÏof€a€witness€for€the€purpose€of€attacking€or€supporting€theÏwitnessððs€credibility,€other€than€convictions€of€crime€as€provided€inÏRule€609,€may€not€be€proved€by€extrinsic€evidence.óó€€They€may,Ïhowever,€if€probative€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€and€under€theÏfollowing€conditions,€be€inquired€into€on€cross„examination€of€theÏwitness€concerning€the€witnessððs€character€for€truthfulness€orÏuntruthfulness€.€.€.€.€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€beforeÏallowing€inquiry€on€cross„examination€about€such€conductÏprobative€solely€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€are:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  Òà à(1)€The€court€òòupon€requestóó€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€theÏjuryððs€presence€and€must€determine€that€the€alleged€conduct€hasÏprobative€value€and€that€a€reasonable€factual€basis€exists€for€theÏinquiry;Ìà à(2)€The€conduct€must€have€occurred€no€more€than€ten€yearsÏbefore€commencement€of€the€action€or€prosecution€.€.€.€.€(emphasisÏsupplied).ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌà àIt€is€clear€that€any€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€Ridenours€involving€narcoticsÏwas€not€provable€through€extrinsic€evidence€for€purposes€of€impeachmentÍunless€the€conduct€formed€the€basis€of€a€criminal€conviction.× ƒ. ××  ×Ô€&Ô€€Ô€'ÔThus,€the€trial€courtÏproperly€excluded€this€evidence.ÌÌà àAppellants€also€argue€they€should€have€been€allowed€to€make€a€profferÏof€proof€for€the€record€as€to€the€nature€of€the€extrinsic€evidence€excluded€forÏimpeachment€purposes.€Although€ordinarily€a€proffer€of€proof€concerningÏexcluded€evidence€should€be€allowed€by€the€trial€court,€it€is€not€reversible€error€toÏdeny€such€a€proffer€where€it€is€obvious€the€evidence€could€not€possible€beÏcompetent.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€816€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€AsÏdiscussed€earlier,€extrinsic€evidence€of€the€Ridenours€alleged€drug€dealing€whichÏwas€not€the€subject€of€a€criminal€conviction€cannot€possibly€be€admitted€toÏimpeach€their€testimony,€€Therefore,€denial€of€a€proffer€of€proof€as€to€the€nature€ofÏthe€evidence€was€proper.Ìà àÌÓ  ÓIV.€€SENTENCINGÌÓ  Óà à€Next,€Appellants€challenge€their€sentences€as€excessive.€€Specifically,ÏAppellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€several€enhancementÏfactors€and€ordered€that€the€sentences€run€consecutively.€€When€an€appealÏchallenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÍconducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€of€the€trialÏcourt€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€However,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏIn€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€such€consideration,€review€of€theÏsentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÏsupported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€wouldÏhave€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991).€€In€reviewing€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€theÏevidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€Ïfactors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€defendantððs€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€theÏsentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).ÌÌÌÌà@ àA.€Length€of€SentenceÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€statutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€a€Class€AÏfelony€is€the€midpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210ððÏ(Supp.€1996).€€Where€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigatingÏfactors€exist,€the€trial€court€may€sentence€above€the€presumptive€sentence€butÏstill€within€the€range.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€both€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,Ïenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€the€enhancementÏfactors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€theÏmitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€afforded€an€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€so€long€as€the€trial€courtÏcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Tennessee€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€ÏòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌÓ  Ó1.€Appellant€DunlapÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€Dunlap€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€aÏClass€B€felony.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(b).€€As€a€Range€III€persistentÍoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€Appellantððs€statutory€sentencing€rangeÏwas€between€twenty€and€thirty€years.€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„112(c)(3).€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€following€enhancement€factors€applied:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range;Ì(5)€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€withÏexceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€Ì(8)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;Ì(11)€The€felony€resulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury€or€involved€the€threatÏof€death€or€bodily€injury€to€another€person€and€the€defendant€hasÏpreviously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€that€resulted€in€death€or€bodilyÏinjury;€and€Ì(13)€The€felony€was€committed€while€on€any€of€the€following€forms€ofÏrelease€status€if€such€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction:€Ìà à(B)€Parole.€€€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(5),€(8),€(11),€(13)€(Supp.€1996).€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€Based€upon€the€foregoingÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€and€relevant€sentencing€principles,€the€trialÏcourt€imposed€a€sentence€of€thirty€years€for€each€count,€€and€the€sentencesÏwere€ordered€to€run€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€60€years.€ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€Dunlap€argues€that€enhancement€factor€(5)€should€not€applyÏbecause€exceptional€cruelty€is€an€element€of€every€aggravated€robbery€andÏthat€it€must€be€presumed€that€the€legislature€included€this€consideration€in€theÍincreased€penalties€for€aggravated€robbery.€€This€Court€has€consistentlyÏrejected€the€notion€that€enhancement€factor€(5)€is€an€element€of€aggravatedÏrobbery,€and€we€have€held€that€this€factor€may€be€used€in€an€appropriate€caseÏto€enhance€an€aggravated€robbery€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Sandersonóó,€DavidsonÏCounty,€No.€01„C„01„9308„CR„00269,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Sept.€27,€1995),€òòperm.óóÏòòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€Feb.€5,€1996);€òòState€v.€Crowóó,€Humphreys€County,€No.€01„C„01„0110„CC„00304€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€July€8,€1993).ÌÌà àHowever,€in€order€for€application€of€enhancement€factor€5€to€beÏappropriate,€the€record€must€reflect€cruelty€over€and€above€that€inherentlyÏattendant€œto€the›€crime€of€which€a€defendant€is€convicted.€€òòState€v.€Embryóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€451,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€behavior€of€AppellantsÏdemonstrates€exceptional€cruelty.€€In€an€apparent€attempt€to€prevent€theirÏidentification€Appellants,€in€the€presence€of€the€Ridenours,€discussed€killing€theÏfamily.€€The€robbery€was€accomplished€by€this€time€and€thus€any€threat€to€killÏthe€family€was€not€necessary€for€the€completion€of€the€primary€crime.€€Secondly,Ïboth€Appellants€threatened€to€kill€the€small€children€present€in€the€residenceÏshould€the€Ridenours€fail€to€be€forthcoming€with€their€property.€€Threatening€theÏlives€of€the€adults€was€bad€enough,€but€threatening€to€kill€their€smallÏgrandchildren€if€the€Ridenours€failed€to€cooperate€represents€a€type€of€crueltyÏthat€is€reprehensible.€€In€addition,€Appellants€told€Ms.€Ridenour€if€she€did€notÍremove€one€of€her€rings,€her€finger€would€be€cut€off.€€We€find€application€of€thisÏfactor€was€appropriate.ÌÌà àAppellant€Dunlap€further€asserts€that€enhancement€factor€(11)€should€notÏapply.€€He€argues€that€although€he€was€previously€convicted€of€armed€robbery,Ïhe€did€not€injure€anyone€in€the€commission€of€that€crime.€€He€supports€hisÏcontention€with€an€affidavit€from€one€of€the€alleged€victims€of€the€prior€crimeÏwhich€states€that€Appellant€did€not€injure€him.€€A€review€of€the€record€revealsÏhowever€that€the€victim€was€injured€in€a€robbery€to€which€Appellant€DunlapÏhad€pleaded€guilty.€€Under€these€circumstances€application€of€enhancementÏfactor€11€was€appropriate.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€the€appropriate€application€of€five€(5)€enhancementÏfactors.€€No€mitigating€factors€appear.€€Under€the€circumstances€a€sentence€ofÏthirty€(30)€years€is€amply€justified.ÌÌà@ à2.€Appellant€McBeeÌà àAppellant€McBee€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€aÏClass€B€felony.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(b).€As€a€Range€III€persistentÏoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€Appellantððs€statutory€sentencing€rangeÍwas€between€twenty€and€thirty€years.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„112(c)(3).€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€following€enhancement€factors€applied:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range;Ì(2)€The€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseÏinvolving€two€(2)€or€more€criminal€actors;Ì(3)€The€offense€involved€more€than€one€(1)€victim;€Ì(5)€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€withÏexceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;€Ì(8)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;Ì(11)€The€felony€resulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury€or€involved€the€threatÏof€death€or€bodily€injury€to€another€person€and€the€defendant€hasÏpreviously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€that€resulted€in€death€or€bodilyÏinjury;€and€Ì(13)€The€felony€was€committed€while€on€any€of€the€following€forms€ofÏrelease€status€if€such€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction:€Ìà à(B)€Parole.€€€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114€(1),€(2),€(3),€(5),€(8),€(11),€(13)€(Supp.€1996).€Ìà àÌà àThe€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€Based€upon€the€foregoingÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€and€relevant€sentencing€principles,€the€trialÏcourt€imposed€a€sentence€of€thirty€years€for€each€count,€€and€the€sentencesÏwere€ordered€to€run€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€60€years.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€McBee€argues€that€enhancement€factors€(2),€(3),€(5),€and€(11)Ïshould€not€have€been€applied€by€the€trial€court.€€Evidence€presented€at€trialÏclearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(2),€whichÍprovides€that€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€crime.€ÏAppellant€McBee€held€a€knife€to€Mr.€Ridenour€and€demanded€money€andÏjewelry.€€McBee€ordered€Appellant€Dunlap€to€take€Mrs.€Ridenourððs€jewelry.€€HeÏalso€ordered€Appellant€Dunlap€to€hold€Mr.€Ridenour€while€he€took€Mrs.€RidenourÏin€the€back€bedroom€and€robbed€Mrs.€Ridenour€of€the€contents€of€her€purse.€ÏApparently,€it€was€Appellant€McBee€that€was€directing€the€robbery.€€McBeeÏwas€found€with€the€Ridenoursðð€money€and€jewelry.€€Thus,€we€find€that€theÏapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(2)€by€the€trial€court€was€proper.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€McBee€also€challenges€the€application€of€enhancement€factorÏ(3),€which€provides€that€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€Case€lawÏestablishes€that€this€enhancement€factor€may€not€be€applied€when€a€defendantÏis€separately€convicted€of€the€offenses€committed€against€each€victim.€€òòState€v.ÏLambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Thus,€the€applicationÏof€this€enhancement€factor€could€not€rest€on€the€fact€that€both€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏRidenour€were€victims€of€the€aggravated€robbery.€€The€State€argued€atÏMcBeeððs€sentencing€hearing€that€this€enhancements€factor€should€applyÏbecause€Appellant€McBee€threatened€to€harm€the€Ridenourððs€grandchildren€ifÏthey€did€not€comply€with€his€demands€for€money€and€jewelry.€€In€òòState€v.ÏRainesóó,€this€court€found€that€the€term€ð ðvictimðð€as€used€in€this€enhancement€factorÏmeans€a€person€injured,€killed,€or€whose€property€was€stolen€or€destroyed.€€882ÍS.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Since€under€the€circumstances€ofÏthis€case,€the€Ridenour€grandchildren€cannot€be€considered€victims€for€theÏpurposes€of€this€enhancement€factor,€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(3)Ïwas€œerroneous.ÌÌà àAppellant€McBee€further€maintains€that€enhancement€factor€(5),€whichÏprovides€that€a€victim€was€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty,€should€not€haveÏbeen€applied.€€For€the€reasons€given€in€the€discussion€of€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(5)€to€Appellant€Dunlapððs€sentence€the€application€of€thisÏenhancement€factor€to€Appellant€McBeeððs€case€was€also€appropriate.›ÌÌà àFinally,€Appellant€McBee€challenges€the€application€of€enhancementÏfactor€(11).€€At€Appellant€McBeeððs€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€relied€uponÏMcBeeððs€conviction€for€aiding€and€abetting€rape€for€the€application€of€thisÏenhancement€factor.€€Appellant€argues€that€this€was€improper€as€he€did€notÏcommit€the€rape€himself€but€was€only€an€accessory€after€the€fact.€€It€isÏunnecessary€to€decide€whether€or€not€a€conviction€for€aiding€and€abetting€rapeÏcan€support€the€application€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€The€evidenceÏpresented€at€Appellant€McBeeððs€sentencing€hearing€includes€proof€thatÏAppellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€in€1986.€€This€conviction€isÏsufficient€to€find€that€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(11)€was€proper.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€one€enhancement€factor,€sixÏenhancement€factors€were€properly€applied.€€The€record€shows€that€AppellantÏhas€been€convicted€of€seven€felonies,€and€has€spent€his€entire€adult€life€inÏprison.€€In€addition,€he€committed€the€aggravated€robbery€of€the€Ridenours€whileÏon€parole.€€In€light€of€the€strength€and€number€of€these€enhancement€factors,€weÏconclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€a€thirty€year€sentence€for€each€countÏof€aggravated€robbery€was€justified€and€reasonable.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓB.€Consecutive€Sentencing€ÌÓ  Óœà àAppellants›€also€œmaintain›€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€œtheir›Ïsentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€toÏimpose€sentences€concurrently€or€consecutively.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„111(a)€(1990).€€The€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€is€appropriate€if€theÏdefendant€has€been€convicted€of€more€than€one€offense€and€the€trial€court€finds,Ïby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowinglyÏdevoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;€Ì(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive;€Ì(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€soÏdeclared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€anÏinvestigation€prior€toÌsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€has€beenÏcharacterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€withÏheedless€indifference€to€consequences;€Ì(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicatesÏlittle€or€Ìno€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€inÏwhich€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high;€Ì(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÏinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€.€.€.€;Ì(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÏprobation;€or€Ì(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„115.ÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ à1.€€Appellant€DunlapÌà àIn€imposing€consecutive€sentencing,€the€trial€court€noted€Dunlapððs€recordÏof€extensive€criminal€activity.€€Dunlap€has€four€second€degree€burglaryÏconvictions,€one€conviction€for€third€degree€burglary,€and€one€conviction€for€armedÏrobbery.€€His€record€also€includes€various€other€felony€convictions.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances€a€finding€that€Dunlap€has€an€extensive€criminal€record€is€clearlyÏwarranted.̛̜à àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€Appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender€as€aÏground€for€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115Í(b)(4).€€However€this€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€this€finding€standing€aloneÏdoes€not€justify€consecutive€sentences.€€A€trial€court€may€not€imposeÏconsecutive€sentences€based€upon€the€defendantððs€dangerous€offender€statusÏunless€the€record€establishes€that:€ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(a)€the€defendant's€behavior€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,Ïand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€humanÏlife€is€high;Ì(b)€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€commission€of€the€offense€wereÏaggravated;€Ìœ(c)›€consecutive€sentences€are€necessary€to€protect€society€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€by€the€defendant;Ì(d)€consecutive€sentences€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses€committed;€andÌ(e)€the€sentence€is€in€accord€with€the€principles€set€forth€in€theÏSentencing€reform€Act.€à àÌà àÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938„39€(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏRossóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00153,€1996€WL€167723,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏApr.€10,€1996).€ÌœÌ›à àIn€the€instant€case€Dunlap,€a€relative€of€the€Ridenours,€demanded€moneyÏand€jewelry€by€holding€the€couple€at€knifepoint.€€At€one€point€Ms.€Ridenour€wasÏtold€her€husband€had€been€killed€and€that€she€was€next.€€Threats€were€madeÏto€kill€the€small€children€in€the€residence,€as€well€as€a€threat€to€cut€off€Ms.ÏRidenourððs€finger.€€Clearly€the€circumstances€are€aggravated,€Dunlap€has€noÏhesitancy€about€committing€such€a€crime€and€consecutive€sentencingÏreasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€offense.€€Finally,€Dunlapððs€prior€criminalÍrecord€indicates€that€consecutive€sentences€are€necessary€to€protect€societyÏfrom€this€individual.ÌÌà@ à2.€€Appellant€McBeeÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€McBee€was€a€professional€criminalÏwho€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(1).€€The€record€clearly€establishes€AppellantÏMcBee€as€a€professional€criminal.€€Appellant€McBee€has€been€incarceratedÏalmost€his€entire€adult€life.€€The€probation€officer€that€prepared€McBeeððs€pre„sentence€report€testified€at€McBeeððs€sentencing€hearing€that€he€had€never€heldÏa€job.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€on€theÏground€that€McBee€is€a€professional€criminal€was€proper.Ìà àÌà àThe€trial€court€also€noted€McBeeððs€record€of€extensive€criminal€activity€asÏa€basis€for€ordering€consecutive€sentences.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(2).ÏHe€has€œnumerous›€prior€felony€convictions.€€These€convictions€include€aÏconviction€for€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€a€conviction€for€aiding€andÏabetting€rape,€a€conviction€for€simple€robbery,€a€conviction€for€second„degreeÏburglary,€two€convictions€for€escape,€a€conviction€for€aggravated€assault,€and€aÏconviction€for€armed€robbery.€€The€proof€here€is€more€than€sufficient€to€supportÍthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€œMcBeeððs›€criminal€activity€was€extensive.€Based€onÏthis€finding,€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€œMcBee€›was€a€dangerous€offender€as€aÏground€for€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€However,€as€we€have€mentioned€previously,€this€finding,€standingÏalone€does€not€justify€consecutive€sentences.€€A€trial€court€may€not€imposeÏconsecutive€sentences€based€upon€the€defendantððs€dangerous€offender€statusÏunless€the€record€established€the€criteria€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó€and€òòStateÏv.€Rossóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938„39;€òòRossóó,€1996€WL€167723,€at€*9.ÌÌà àFrom€the€record,€it€is€clear€that€McBeeððs€behavior€indicated€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high.€€McBee€participated€fully€in€the€threats€and€cruelty€whichÏcharacterize€this€home€invasion.€€In€addition€it€is€obvious€that€prior€incarcerationÏhas€not€had€an€impact€on€McBeeððs€behavior.€€Consecutive€sentencingÏreasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€this€offense€and€is€necessary€to€protectÏsociety€from€further€criminal€activity€by€McBee.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€convictions€and€sentences€of€both€Appellants€areÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€œJUDGEÇ›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌ̛̜Ì___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€œSENIOR›€JUDGE