ÿWPC/ €£ÈRß~¶úWªv+»Ì~˜ÝÐó3Š$~´¾¢þþ½gt_Õˆç`бn“8Ènz)Ýι Þ±jé&™n¯I.Ÿz ´5Þú>€¥)a©±lCÍÀ÷ûˆJ½\Ç׉5÷À`|êö2àL«0¯"Tù÷Û'°ÔCNnrfÃØ2Õ}@2[5dòuyún¿Ð|¨§ÀOL&Îdpë=é·ý«3 6(îóeO«;KTj„ÿÄwÓÀD^ZÊeÛv'›8 Ö²7Ùä]ïä«qáïøœÜuÆÓ{àí@æ;!‰†À•¦ÀË9ìØœƒ²1£ÃŽÂº…MJdâ Ú«¼¦}=“Û‘Ów¥“Ýñ›pä†nœ–ÕùR-s[õV=uÊ£´‰}\ù!ºeî»,чë¼{ES=Ö 4–¶N44wLÕ˜¸“î4XˆÀ×^C{ââQn1ëž×SMÝq©¨Û4àq/al.R›SbfÆÍ&AÁ°=¸¹^\nA e¨&ük,–ØJüƒ™ip‡tz¶¾%½??#æ¿<¯ÿH׳%×R€C<àã¹zŸ‚DgRðe2ü0mnü€qÕ.¢hÂx¸Ï9î„gc’Ù™ßè·t`l™ÃJ8Ý2„¹ÌRób %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*óx^ k ww z{ Òõ 4Ç Û ê mì Æ ÆÉ ÆÆU#ÁNÜÜÜEÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ 0Dàààààb$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 0ë,,,, B 0¤4 D3Ø D-  0K88 ASƒÆÖ 0¤œ 0D@ A«„»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular éÝ ƒRî5$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€Defendant€contends€as€part€of€the€sufficiency€argument€in€his€brief€that€he€was€improperly€convicted€ofÐ ° Ðboth€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€and€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver€based€upon€the€sameÐ tÄ Ðevidence€in€violation€of€double€jeopardy€protections.€€However,€it€is€clearly€stated€on€the€Judgment€for€count€two€thatÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€two€convictions€were€properly€merged.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,€233„38.€€Therefore,€the€DefendantÐ üL Ðnow€stands€convicted€of€only€one€offense:€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell.©œ+  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÖJ~'X£2ø4¦3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2î5$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹=ò»»Ô d(|3?/$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?/$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼¥»»»ÔÑ8€W XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼¥»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€November€28,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XW X»¼¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¥»XXW "#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€CHIANTI€€FULLERÔ‡XW X»¼¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€14726€€€€€€William€Charles€Lee,€Judgeà0 @ àà0 @ àÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00463„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€28,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XW XXXW ÔThe€Defendant,€Chianti€Fuller€was€indicted€for€four€offenses:€(1)€possession€with€intent€to€sell€0.6Ð xÈ  Ðgrams€of€cocaine,€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance,€(2)€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€0.6€gramsÐ d´ Ðof€cocaine,€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance,€(3)€simple€possession€of€marijuana,€a€schedule€VIÐ P  Ðcontrolled€substance,€and€(4)€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€by€aÐ <Œ Ðjury€of€counts€(1)€and€(2),€and€pled€guilty€to€counts€(3)€and€(4).€€The€trial€court€merged€count€twoÐ (x Ðinto€count€one€and€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€nine€years€and€six€months€for€possession€of€cocaineÐ d Ðwith€intent€to€sell.€€The€Defendant€was€also€sentenced€to€nine€months€to€be€served€concurrently€withÐ P Ðhis€other€sentence€for€each€of€the€two€misdemeanor€convictions.€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€contendsÐ ì< Ðthat€(1)€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€the€jury€verdict€of€guilt€beyond€aÐ Ø( Ðreasonable€doubt€and€(2)€the€sentence€was€excessive.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð Ä ÐÔ#†XW XXXW Ð#ÔÔ#†¼¥»XXW #ÔÔ‡XW X»¼¥ÔÌÓÄÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¥»àXW ä #ÔÔ‡XW X.¼¥ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòNormaÐ `° ÐMcGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌAndrew€Jackson€Ô_ÔDearingÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Chianti€Fuller.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kathy€Ô_ÔAslingerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€MikeÐ ü#L# ÐÔ_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;€and€Michael€Ô_ÔRandlesÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ è$8 $ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌó óÔ#†¼¥»XXW ° #ÔòòóóÓ  ÓÔ€XW X»¼¥ÔòòÔ‡XW XXXW Ôóóà  àOn€March€4,€2000,€Director€Tim€Lane€and€Assistant€Director€Shan€Daugherty€of€theÐ „)Ô$) ÐSeventeenth€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force€stopped€a€car€in€Shelbyville,€Tennessee€based€uponÐ p*À%* Ðinformation€obtained€by€Director€Lane€from€a€confidential€informant.€€The€informant€told€theÐ \+¬&+ ÐDirector€that€the€two€men€in€the€car€would€be€in€possession€of€a€large€amount€of€crack€cocaine.€Ð H,˜', ÐAfter€stopping€the€vehicle,€Director€Lane€approached€it€on€the€driverððs€side€and€Assistant€DirectorÐ 4-„(-ýG ÐDaugherty€approached€the€vehicle€on€the€passengerððs€side.€€As€the€officers€approached,€AssistantÐ ° ÐDirector€Daugherty€observed€the€Defendant,€who€was€sitting€in€the€front€passenger€seat,€attempt€toÐ œì Ðhide€an€object€under€the€seat.€€The€officer€instructed€the€Defendant€to€roll€his€window€down,€andÐ ˆØ Ðthen€noticed€a€beer€can€protruding€from€underneath€the€Defendantððs€seat.€€The€Defendant€was€thenÐ tÄ Ðinstructed€to€hand€the€officer€the€beer€and€step€out€of€the€car.€€Once€out€of€the€car,€the€officerÐ `° Ðconducted€a€pat€down€search€of€the€Defendant€and€discovered€a€hard€object€in€the€Defendantððs€backÐ L œ Ðpocket.€€When€asked€about€the€object,€the€Defendant€removed€a€crack€pipe€from€his€back€pocket€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðhanded€it€to€the€officer.€€The€Defendant€was€immediately€placed€under€arrest€for€possession€of€drugÐ $ t Ðparaphernalia.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAfter€placing€the€Defendant€under€arrest,€Assistant€Director€Daugherty€conducted€a€moreÐ è 8  Ðthorough€search€and€discovered€$111.00€in€cash€and€what€appeared€to€be€crack€cocaine€in€theÐ Ô$  ÐDefendantððs€sock.€€Donna€Flowers,€a€forensic€chemist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ð À  Ðtestified€that€the€substance€found€in€the€Defendantððs€sock€was€0.6€grams€of€cocaine,€a€schedule€IIÐ ¬ü  Ðcontrolled€substance.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€driver€of€the€car,€Jesse€Carter,€was€also€arrested€after€a€brief€struggle€which€ensued€whenÐ pÀ ÐDirector€Lane€realized€Mr.€Carter€was€attempting€to€chew€up€and€swallow€a€bag€of€what€was€laterÐ \¬ Ðidentified€as€1.3€grams€of€crack€cocaine.€€After€Mr.€Carterððs€arrest,€the€officers€searched€the€car€andÐ H˜ Ðfound€$223.00€in€cash€and€9.4€grams€of€marijuana.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€arrests,€the€Defendant€was€taken€to€the€Bedford€County€Sheriffððs€Department,Ð  \ Ðadvised€of€his€rights,€and€interviewed€by€Director€Lane€and€Officer€Thomas€Biele.€€Prior€to€theÐ øH Ðinterview,€the€Defendant€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€form;€however,€the€interview€was€not€recordedÐ ä4 Ðby€video€or€audio€tape.€€Director€Lane€and€Officer€Biele€testified€at€trial€as€to€the€statements€madeÐ Ð  Ðby€the€Defendant€in€the€interview.€€During€the€interview,€the€Defendant€admitted€to€traveling€fromÐ ¼  ÐNashville€to€Shelbyville€with€Mr.€Carter€on€two€previous€occasions€to€sell€crack€cocaine.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€stated€that€Mr.€Carter€would€give€him€approximately€one€gram€of€crack€cocaine,€and€heÐ ”ä Ðwould€sell€it€in€smaller€amounts.€€The€Defendant€estimated€that€he€had€sold€close€to€seven€grams€ofÐ €Ð Ðcrack€cocaine€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Carter.€€The€Defendant€also€stated€that€he€sometimes€sold€crackÐ l¼ Ðcocaine€in€Shelbyville€without€the€help€of€Mr.€Carter.€€Despite€making€these€statements,€theÐ X ¨ ÐDefendant€refused€to€make€any€statements€regarding€the€0.6€grams€found€in€his€possession€on€MarchÐ D!” Ð4.€€A€butt€of€a€marijuana€cigarette€was€also€found€in€the€Defendantððs€coat€pocket€while€the€DefendantÐ 0"€  Ðwas€being€processed.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDirector€Lane€testified€that€the€street€value€of€the€crack€cocaine€found€in€the€DefendantððsÐ ô$D # Ðsock€would€be€approximately€$60.00.€€According€to€the€Directorððs€testimony,€a€crack€addict€typicallyÐ à%0!$ Ðpurchases€approximately€0.2€grams,€or€$20.00€worth,€of€crack€cocaine€at€a€time.€€However,€DirectorÐ Ì&"% ÐLane€did€concede€that€an€addict€may,€at€times,€buy€as€much€as€$50€worth€of€crack€cocaine.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf€at€trial.€€He€stated€that€on€March€4,€2000,€heÐ )à$( Ðaccompanied€Mr.€Carter€to€Shelbyville€where€Mr.€Carter€intended€to€visit€his€girlfriend.€€TheÐ |*Ì%) ÐDefendant€had€accompanied€Mr.€Carter€on€several€such€trips€in€the€past,€and€also€had€a€friend€inÐ h+¸&* ÐShelbyville,€Cynthia€Rankins.€€Upon€arriving€in€town,€the€Defendant€asked€Mr.€Carter€to€take€himÐ ° Ðto€Ms.€Rankinsðð€residence.€€Finding€Ms.€Rankins€to€be€not€at€home,€the€Defendant€walked€aroundÐ œì Ðthe€neighborhood€and€eventually€bought€$50.00€worth€of€crack€cocaine€from€a€man€on€the€street.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€Defendant€smoked€part€of€the€crack€cocaine€while€he€waited€for€Mr.€Carter€to€return,€and€placedÐ tÄ Ðthe€rest€in€his€sock.€€Two€hours€later,€Mr.€Carter€arrived€and€the€two€left,€only€to€be€stopped€shortlyÐ `° Ðthereafter€by€Director€Lane€and€Assistant€Director€Daugherty.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contended€at€trial€that€the€cocaine€found€in€his€possession€was€solely€for€hisÐ $ t Ðpersonal€use.€€He€admitted€to€being€a€crack€addict,€but€denied€ever€selling€crack€cocaine.€€TheÐ  ` ÐDefendant€denied€ever€making€statements€to€police€concerning€his€involvement€with€Mr.€Carter€inÐ ü L  Ðselling€crack€cocaine,€and€asserted€that€he€was€not€aware€that€Mr.€Carter€sold€crack€cocaine.Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òSUFFICIENCYó óÐ À  ÐÓÑ%Óà  àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€findingÐ ¬ü  Ðof€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€to€the€charges€of€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€theÐ ˜è  Ðdrugs.€€The€Defendant€concedes€that€he€was€in€possession€of€crack€cocaine,€however,€he€contendsÐ „Ô  Ðthat€there€is€no€evidence€to€establish€that€he€had€an€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guilt€in€criminalÐ H˜ Ðactions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ 4„ Ðthe€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Evidence€is€sufficient€if,€afterÐ  p Ðreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ  \ Ðhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ð øH Ð443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€278€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€addition,€becauseÐ ä4 Ðconviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumption€ofÐ Ð  Ðguilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient.€Ð ¼  ÐòòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,Ð ¨ø Ð105„06€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992);òòóó€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).òòóóÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongest€legitimateÐ X ¨ Ðview€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ D!” Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914;òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€279.€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð 0"€  Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€191;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBuggsóó,Ð #l! Ð995€S.W.2d€at€105.òòóó€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€find€particular€conflicts€in€the€trialÐ $X" Ðtestimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,Ð ô$D # Ð639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÐ à%0!$ Ðgiven€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€the€appellate€courts.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€788,€795€(Tenn.€2000);€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.Ð ¸'#& ÐCrim.€App.€1987).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„417(a)Ð |*Ì%) Ðwhich€prohibits€a€person€to€ð ð[p]ossess€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver€orÐ h+¸&* Ðsell€such€controlled€substance.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4).€€The€Defendant€concedes€thatÐ ° Ðhe€was€in€possession€of€0.6€grams€of€crack€cocaine,€but€contends€that€the€cocaine€was€for€hisÐ œì Ðpersonal€use€and€that€he€had€no€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€the€drug.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDespite€the€Defendantððs€contention,€there€is€sufficient€evidence€within€the€record€to€supportÐ `° Ðthe€juryððs€finding€that€the€Defendant€did€possess€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€the€crack€cocaine.€€TheÐ L œ ÐDefendant€was€found€in€possession€of€0.6€grams,€or€$60.00€worth€of€crack€cocaine.€€Director€LaneÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€that€a€crack€addict€would€normally€buy€only€approximately€0.2€grams,€or€$20.00€worth,€ofÐ $ t Ðcrack,€but€occasionally€may€buy€as€much€as€0.5€grams,€or€$50.00€worth,€of€crack€cocaine.€€DirectorÐ  ` ÐLane€also€stated€that€the€Defendant€told€him€he€had€previously€sold€crack€cocaine€in€Shelbyville,Ð ü L  Ðwith€and€without€Mr.€Carter,€on€several€occasions.€€The€Defendant€gave€Director€Lane€a€detailedÐ è 8  Ðdescription€of€the€technique€the€Defendant€and€Mr.€Carter€utilized€when€selling€crack€cocaine.€€TheÐ Ô$  ÐDefendant€informed€Director€Lane€that€he€had€sold€approximately€seven€grams,€or€$700€worth€ofÐ À  Ðcrack€cocaine€in€Shelbyville€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Carter.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhile€the€Defendant€denied€making€these€statements,€it€is€clear€that€the€jury€resolved€thisÐ „Ô  Ðconflict€in€favor€of€the€State€and€accredited€the€testimony€of€Director€Lane.€€Accordingly,€in€the€lightÐ pÀ Ðmost€favorable€to€the€State,€we€find€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€Defendantððs€convictions€forÐ \¬ Ðpossession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€deliver€and€sell.׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð H˜ ÐÌÔ#†XW XXXW O#Ôò òÔ‡XW XXXW ÔÓ  ÓSENTENCINGó óÐ  p ÐÓì:Óà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive.€€TheÐ  \ ÐDefendant€was€convicted€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€.6€grams€of€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony,Ð øH Ðand€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417€(c)(1).€€TheÐ ä4 Ðsentencing€range€for€a€Class€B€felony€is€therefore€eight€to€twelve€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð Ð  Ð35„112(a)(2).€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€nine€years€and€six€months.€€Although€on€appeal€theÐ ¼  ÐDefendant€does€not€suggest€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€enhancement€or€mitigatingÐ ¨ø Ðfactors,€he€asserts€that€only€a€minimum€sentence€of€eight€years€would€be€appropriate€in€this€case.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ l¼ Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ X ¨ Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÐ D!” Ðð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ 0"€  Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1991).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð à%0!$ Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ ° Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ œì Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ ˆØ Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210Ô#†XW XXXW Í:#ÔÔ‡XW XXXW Ô;€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€875Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð `° ÐApp.€1988).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ $ t Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ  ` Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ü L  Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ è 8  Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€926„27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð Ô$  Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð À  ÐÔ#†XW XXXW âC#ÔÔ‡XW XXXW ÔÌà  àIn€sentencing€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€examined€the€presentence€€report€and€stated€theÐ ˜è  Ðfollowing:Ð „Ô  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€finds€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ pÀ Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÐ \¬ Ðappropriate€range.ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAnd€as€the€State€has€argued,€there€are€two€different€avenues€that€the€Court€canÐ 4„ Ðconsider.Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€is€concerned€that€the€defendant€apparently€has€rooked€the€State€ofÐ  \ ÐTennessee€on€more€than€one€occasion€in€securing€the€privilege€to€drive.€€He€gets€aÐ øH Ðlicense€that€is€revoked,€goes€back€and€gets€another€one€under€a€different€name.€€AndÐ ä4 Ðthen€he€gets€that€one€revoked,€and€he€goes€back€and€gets€a€license€under€a€differentÐ Ð  Ðname.м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àWell,€each€of€those€revocations€are€criminal€behavior€that€the€Court€canÐ ¨ø Ðconsider.€€But€the€Court€can€also€consider€and€does€give€greater€weight€to€thoseÐ ”ä Ðconvictions€than€the€Court€would€normally€give€to€a€misdemeanor€convictionÐ €Ð Ðbecause€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€how€apparently€those€convictions€occurred€Ð l¼ Ð.€.€.€.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€also€finds€that€the€defendantððs€statement€which€was€introduced€atÐ D!” Ðtrial€could€ð!ð€to€be€the€more€likely€case;€and,€that€is,€that€the€defendant,€in€an€effort€toÐ 0"€  Ðsupport€his€habit,€did€engage€in€the€sale€of€drugs,€and€on€more€than€one€occasion.€Ð #l! ÐAnd€in€each€of€those€occasions,€then€the€Court€finds€there€to€be€criminal€behavior.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€evidence€presented€at€trial,€as€well€as€the€information€provided€by€the€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report,€clearlyÐ à%0!$ Ðestablished€the€Defendantððs€history€of€criminal€activity.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€theÐ Ì&"% Ðhistory€of€criminal€activity€qualified€as€an€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ¸'#& Ð113(1).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€suggested€three€mitigating€factors,€and€all€were€rejected€by€the€trial€court.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐFirst,€the€Defendant€asserted€that€because€he€played€a€minor€role€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,Ð h+¸&* Ðhis€sentence€should€have€been€mitigated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(4).€€The€trial€courtÐ ° Ðspecifically€found€that€the€Defendant€was€more€that€a€minor€role€player€in€the€offense€charged.€€TheÐ œì Ðtrial€court€rejected€the€Defendantððs€contention€that€Mr.€Carter€was€the€major€drug€dealer€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðpresent€case€and€the€Defendant€was€simply€an€underling.€€We€note€that€the€Defendant€was€notÐ tÄ Ðcharged€with€any€offenses€relating€to€Mr.€Carter,€but€only€with€possession€of€the€drugs€andÐ `° Ðparaphernalia€that€were€found€on€his€person.€€We€find€no€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€inÐ L œ Ðrejecting€the€application€of€this€factor.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Defendant€argued€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€his€employmentÐ  ` Ðhistory€and€his€drug€addiction€as€mitigating€factors€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„Ð ü L  Ð113(13).€€In€rejecting€the€Defendantððs€argument,€the€trial€court€noted€that€the€DefendantððsÐ è 8  Ðemployment€history€was€unverifiable€because€he€was€often€self„employed.€€The€trial€courtððs€refusalÐ Ô$  Ðto€rely€upon€an€unverified€employment€record€and€a€drug€addiction€to€mitigate€the€DefendantððsÐ À  Ðsentence€was€not€improper.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€contended€that€his€sentence€should€be€mitigated€because€his€conductÐ „Ô  Ðneither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€The€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourt€rejected€the€Defendantððs€contention€based€upon€our€decision€in€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€441€(Tenn.Crim.App€1991),€where€we€held€that€ð ðconsidering€the€potency€of€crack€cocaine,Ð H˜ Ðit€certainly€can€be€said€that€there€is€a€high€risk€to€human€life€from€the€distribution€of€that€substance.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐòòId.óó€at€446„447.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€The€trial€court€reasoned€that€if€the€saleÐ  p Ðof€crack€cocaine€can€be€used€as€an€enhancement€factor€due€to€the€high€risk€to€human€life,€a€defendantÐ  \ Ðwho€is€convicted€of€possession€of€crack€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€that€substance€cannot€use€theÐ øH Ðfact€that€a€sale€never€occurred€as€a€mitigating€factor.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€a€recent€case€in€which€a€defendant€was€convicted€of€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€toÐ ¼  Ðsell€or€deliver,€our€supreme€court€held€that€ð ðwhere,€(1)€the€conviction€for€possession€is€based€onlyÐ ¨ø Ðupon€constructive€possession,€and€(2)€the€threat€of€serious€bodily€injury€is€more€conceptual€than€real,Ð ”ä Ðlittle€justification€exists€in€having€a€òòper€seóó€rule€that€excludes€consideration€of€this€mitigating€factor.ððÐ €Ð ÐòòState€v.€Rossóó,€49€S.W.3d€833,€848„49€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€supreme€court€based€its€ruling€on€theÐ l¼ Ðconceptual€nature€of€the€threat€of€serious€bodily€injury€and€the€lack€of€evidence€showing€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant€sold€or€attempted€to€sell€the€drug€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€€The€supreme€court€alsoÐ D!” Ðstated€that€ð ða€òòper€seóó€exclusion€of€a€particular€mitigating€factor€to€an€entire€class€of€offenses€notÐ 0"€  Ðalways€or€not€inherently€involving€serious€bodily€injury€undermines€the€notion€of€individualizedÐ #l! Ðsentencing€that€underlies€the€1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€849.€€Therefore,€we€findÐ $X" Ðthat,€because€no€evidence€was€presented€that€the€Defendant€actually€sold€or€was€selling€the€crackÐ ô$D # Ðcocaine€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€ð ðper€seðð€to€consider€TennesseeÐ à%0!$ ÐCode€Annotated€section€40„35„113(1)€as€a€mitigating€factor.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àHowever,€while€the€supreme€court€rejected€a€òòper€seóó€exclusion€of€40„35„113(1)€as€a€mitigatingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfactor€in€felony€cocaine€possession€cases,€the€court€did€not€require€the€factor€be€accorded€any€specialÐ )à$( Ðsignificance.€€òòSeeóó€òòRossóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€849.€€Like€òòRossóó,€given€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€conclude€that€Ð |*Ì%) Ðthe€mitigating€factor€is€entitled€to€very€little€weight€in€the€sentencing€determination.€€After€reviewingÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€gave€appropriate€weight€to€the€enhancement€factor,€and€we€areÐ ° Ðunable€to€conclude€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€improper€or€unsupported€by€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ œì Ðv.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€785€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1995).€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€while€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€should€have€considered€40„35„113(1)€as€a€mitigating€factor€in€deciding€the€DefendantððsÐ tÄ Ðsentence,€the€sentence€imposed€was,€nevertheless,€proper.Ð `° ÐÔ#†XW XXXW ˜G#ÔÔ‡XW XXXW ÔÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓxfÓà  àAccordingly,€we€find€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€Defendantððs€conviction€and€sentence.€Ð $ t ÐThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ô#†XW XXXW Xf#ÔÔ‡XW XXXW ÔÐ  ` ÐÌÔ#†XW XXXW ‰g#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE