ÿWPCš ¬ÙBöÊþ%H ©$T€a­"ú¼[øq7먤IÕçáˆF?TË»GH†­{„LmÛ{3¯ „d7ûÞIè®O1Ðx)Ew%oð’…cpúÃés™·¼tÍ%ÔéËH¦ÿ}µ£ß`H|*O/¢ö»ÞyÒQ`Êÿ3'¯²àÙWΘ”•®.ãüŽ–=ƶ„Ù°2ºÅ{ºwÂ' ¦€`š5|à åzñú+{TÇ‹æpøfhi¾Ë3k;)kgˆ‡@ñ2´ù,ê]ÀŒ@fÚ Áâœ(˜/•K­ˆI7ürA8’7²wÎàÓùÚ®$FäRšR>ÍËÔ`> TN©çSåæÄ¨Ï±ºûø+Ò0p3¾‹Øåñìðf³šª×rׯ úöù)©<Àïƒà˜-ɃÐÝÛ×DÇ6/ð”q‹hL ¢)û¶aà°ì¨´Áöz~ GˆX}¬æß&/¯EÈ=YšÂâÇp7!aôbYÖcaOÊÿa’®±ƒ›< ‚Z¦R]Øï,ΠØv‰Ì$㦠ö"ü¥#)‡¶,ÍbÏåÜÖDéž¶ô*Ö-¡ÈÄ÷¡&@[ËÂû‰Ø]É«rNÆ…Î~yýl¥ÞÉ\wlSu˜ûüñÑ=Émb#Á\ % 0D# 0Ÿg UN ‡T ^ Û zç Òa U@3 ws 4w ‹ Æš Æ`Æ&Æì{²N-/ m1EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHbJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 0RRRR BTT 0»q D3, D-_ 0KŒŒ ASׯ* 0»ð 0D« A«ï˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(wµØ$¡¡Ñ8€ ÁXXdì»»d8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular }Ý ƒR¾¤$ÝÔ  ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X%<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô4DòXX%<Ô€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€that€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively€to€a€twelve„year€sentence€for€unrelatedÐ ° Ðcharges€that€the€Defendant€was€serving€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€o“ )  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(ÎáA Z‹(Times New Roman ÖJ~'ð,¤3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 qÝ ƒR¾¤$ÝÔ  ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X%<X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô4DòXX%<Ô€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€the€Defendant€may€have€actually€received€thirteen€felony€convictions€betweenÐ ° Ð1980€and€1995,€including€multiple€burglaries,€forgeries€and€larcenies.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(“G2¾¤$¤¤Ý ƒµØ!ÝÑ8€%<XXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X%<X»»Ô d(“3Æ $££Ý ƒµØ!ÝÑ8€%<XXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3Æ $¢¢Ý ƒµØ!ÝÑ8€%<XXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒµØ!ÝÑ8€%<XXdædÈ8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼@à»»»Ôà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ ÐÓ  ÓJune€2000€SessionÐ Ì ÐÔ‡X%<X»¼@àÔÌò òÔ#†¼@à»XX%<|#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€DAVID€B.€GARDNERÔ‡X%<X»¼@àÔó óÐ À ÐÌà@@é é ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Robertson€CountyÐ ´  Ðà@@q q ìàNo.€9789€&€9780€€€€€€John€H.€Ô_ÔGasawayÔ_Ô,€Ô#†¼@à»XX%<è#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼@àÔJudgeÐ š ê Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ à€€€€€€€€Ð € Ð ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<K` AßÐ Lœ  ÐÌà@@ö ö ìàNo.€M1999„02337„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€10,€2000Ð A‘  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE< ` AßÐ  ]  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€seven€counts€of€forgery.€€He€was€subsequently€tried€by€a€RobertsonÐ R  ÐCounty€jury€and€found€guilty€of€all€counts,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€career€offender€toÐ è8 Ðan€effective€sentence€of€twenty„four€years.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€Defendant€argues€that€theÐ Î Ðtrial€court€erred€by€concluding€that€the€evidence€establishing€venue€was€sufficient€to€support€hisÐ ´ Ðconvictions€and€by€sentencing€him€improperly.€€We€hold€that€the€State€carried€its€burden€of€provingÐ šê Ðvenue€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€that€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€the€Defendant.€Ð €Ð ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€conviction.€€Ð f¶ ÐÔ#†¼@à»XX%<÷#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼@àÔÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ 2‚ ÐÓüÓÌòòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.Ô#†¼@à»àX%<Ù#ÔÔ‡X%<X.¼@àÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smith,€J.,óó€and€òòJohnÐ þN ÐEverett€Williams,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ä4 ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€David€B.€Gardner.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Marvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ |Ì ÐGeneral;€John€Ô_ÔCarneyÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€Dent€Ô_ÔMorrissÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð b ²  Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð H!˜! ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼@à»XX%<µ#ԈР#d# ÐÌÔ‡X%<X»¼@àÔà  àOn€November€14,€1995,€a€Robertson€County€jury€convicted€the€Defendant,€David€B.Ð %X % ÐGardner,€of€seven€counts€of€forgery.€€On€July€19,€1996,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€€asÐ î%>!& Ða€career€offender€to€six€years€incarceration€for€each€count€and,€in€accordance€with€the€jury€verdict,Ð Ô&$"' Ðfined€him€$250€for€each€count.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€for€counts€one€through€fourÐ º' #( Ðbe€served€concurrently€and€that€the€sentences€for€the€remaining€counts€be€served€consecutively,Ð  (ð#) Ðresulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty„four€years.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð †)Ö$* ÐÐ l*¼%+ý Ðà  àPursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€the€Defendant€nowÐ ° Ðappeals€his€convictions€and€his€sentence.€€He€raises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€whether€theÐ –æ Ðevidence€presented€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions;€and€(2)€whether€his€sentenceÐ |Ì Ðis€excessive.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð b² ÐÌà  àPam€Stewart,€the€director€of€the€Robertson€County€Outreach€for€Special€Olympics,€testifiedÐ . ~ Ðthat€her€purse€was€stolen€in€February€1995.€€She€stated€that€she€reported€the€theft€to€police€and€to€herÐ  d Ðbank€on€February€6,€1995,€a€few€days€after€she€realized€that€her€purse€was€missing.€€Stewart€recalledÐ ú J Ðthat€the€stolen€purse€contained€cash,€credit€cards,€and€checks.€€Some€of€the€checks€belonged€to€theÐ à 0 ÐRobertson€County€Outreach€Program€and€required€two€signatures,€that€of€Pam€Stewart€and€that€ofÐ Æ   Ðanother€Outreach€Program€employee,€Karen€Ô_ÔBinkleyÔ_Ô.€€At€the€time€Stewartððs€purse€was€stolen,€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðchecks€had€already€been€signed€by€Karen€Ô_ÔBinkleyÔ_Ô.€€Stewart€identified€five€checks,€which€were€laterÐ ’â  Ðentered€as€exhibits,€as€those€that€had€been€in€her€purse€at€the€time€it€was€stolen.€€Each€of€the€checksÐ xÈ  Ðwas€forged,€and€Stewart€testified€that€no€one€acting€on€behalf€of€the€Outreach€Program€hadÐ ^®  Ðauthorized€the€checks.€€The€check€numbers€and€amounts€were€as€follows:€check€number€196€madeÐ D”  Ðpayable€to€Kroger€for€sixty„five€dollars;€check€number€198€made€payable€to€Kroger€for€fifty„fiveÐ *z  Ðdollars;€check€number€199€made€payable€to€Kroger€for€sixty„five€dollars;€check€number€204€madeÐ ` Ðpayable€to€the€Defendant€for€sixty„five€dollars;€and€check€number€206€made€payable€to€theÐ öF ÐDefendant€for€sixty„five€dollars.€€Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€Stewart€testified€that€two€other€checks€from€her€personal€checking€account,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€she€and€her€husband,€Monty€F.€Stewart,€held€jointly,€had€been€forged.€€One€of€the€checks,€Ð ŽÞ Ðnumber€1391,€was€made€payable€to€Steve€Williams€in€the€amount€of€sixty„five€dollars€and€bore€theÐ tÄ Ðforged€signature€of€Monty€F.€Stewart.€€Pam€Stewart€reported€that€the€signature€on€the€check€was€notÐ Zª Ðthat€of€her€husband€and€that€the€checks€were€never€in€her€husbandððs€possession€after€her€purse€wasÐ @ Ðstolen.€€The€other€check,€number€1394,€was€made€payable€to€Kent€Smith€in€the€amount€of€sixty„fiveÐ &v Ðdollars€and€bore€the€forged€signature€of€Pam€Stewart.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àMarlin€Ellis,€a€cashier€at€Kroger,€testified€that€he€was€the€Defendantððs€first€cousin.€€He€statedÐ Ø( Ðthat€he€recalled€cashing€two€of€the€checks€at€issue,€check€number€204€and€check€number€€206,€forÐ ¾ Ðthe€Defendant.€€His€clerk€code€was€printed€on€both€checks€at€the€time€he€received€them.€€AccordingÐ ¤ô Ðto€information€printed€on€the€checks,€check€number€204€was€cashed€on€February€9,€1995€at€7:46Ð Š Ú Ðp.m.,€and€check€number€206€was€cashed€on€the€same€date€at€9:45€p.m.Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àTroy€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ô,€another€cashier€at€Kroger,€testified€that€he€was€acquainted€with€the€Defendant.€Ð <#Œ" ÐHe€stated€that€he€cashed€four€of€the€checks€at€issue€for€the€Defendant.€€His€clerk€code€was€printedÐ "$r# Ðon€the€checks.€€According€to€information€printed€on€the€checks,€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ô€cashed€check€number€198Ð %X $ Ðon€February€12,€1995€at€7:26€p.m.€and€check€number€199€immediately€afterwards€at€7:27€p.m.€€HeÐ î%>!% Ðcashed€check€number€1391€on€February€3,€1995€at€7:24€p.m.€and€check€number€1394€on€FebruaryÐ Ô&$"& Ð7,€1995€at€4:34€p.m.€€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ô€stated€that€he€specifically€remembered€the€Stewart€name€on€the€checksÐ º' #' Ðand€that€the€Defendant€was€the€person€who€cashed€all€four€checks.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àKaren€Ô_ÔOgburnÔ_Ô,€a€third€cashier€at€Kroger,€testified€that€she€had€known€the€Defendant€ð ðall€[her]Ð l*¼%* Ðlife.ðð€€She€reported€that€she€cashed€check€number€196€for€him€at€11:51€p.m.€on€February€12,€1995.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐHer€clerk€code€was€listed€on€the€check.€She€testified€that€she€remembered€the€check€specificallyÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbecause€it€was€the€first€time€she€had€cashed€a€Robertson€County€Outreach€Program€check.€€She€alsoÐ ° Ðstated€that€she€specifically€remembered€cashing€the€check€for€the€Defendant.Ð –æ ÐÌà  àDetective€Jeff€White€of€the€Springfield€Police€Department€testified€that€on€February€13,Ð b² Ð1995,€he€was€called€to€Kroger,€where€he€observed€the€Defendant€standing€in€a€check„out€aisle.€€HeÐ H˜ Ðrecalled€that€as€he€approached€the€Defendant,€the€Defendant€took€a€check€from€one€of€the€clerkððsÐ . ~ Ðhands,€ð ðwadded€it€up,ðð€and€placed€it€ð ðunderneath€[his]€clothing.ðð€€White€reported€that€the€check€wasÐ  d Ða€Robertson€County€Outreach€Program€check€which€had€not€yet€been€filled€out.€€White€arrested€theÐ ú J ÐDefendant,€but€was€unable€to€recover€the€check.Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ ¬ ü  Ðconvictions.€€However,€his€sole€argument€with€regard€to€sufficiency€concerns€venue.€€He€contendsÐ ’â  Ðthat€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€each€forgery€occurred€in€the€same€county.€€Specifically,€heÐ xÈ  Ðcomplains€that€Kroger€cashier€Marlin€Ellis€did€not€specify€in€his€testimony€the€location€of€the€KrogerÐ ^®  Ðwhere€he€worked€and€cashed€the€forged€checks.€€He€argues,€ð ðall€check/forgery€counts€involvingÐ D”  ÐMarlin€Ellis€as€the€Stateððs€sole€witness€must€be€dismissed€because€the€State€did€not€prove€allÐ *z  Ðelements€of€the€crime€ð!ð€namely€jurisdictional€venue.ðð€€€€€€€Ð ` ÐÌà  à€Because€Article€1,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€gives€a€person€accused€of€a€crimeÐ Ü, Ðthe€right€to€have€a€jury€trial€in€the€county€in€which€the€crime€was€committed,€venue€is€consideredÐ Â Ða€jurisdictional€fact€in€a€criminal€prosecution.€€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,€376€S.W.2d€497,€498€(Tenn.€1964);Ð ¨ø ÐòòEllis€v.€Carltonóó,€986€S.W.2d€600,€601€(Ô_ÔTenn.CrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998).€€It€has€thus€been€stated€that€theÐ ŽÞ Ðjurisdiction€of€the€trial€court€is€limited€to€the€crimes€which€occur€within€the€territorial€boundariesÐ tÄ Ðof€the€county€in€which€it€sits.€€òòEllisóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€601;€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€847€S.W.2d€544,€545Ð Zª Ð(Ô_ÔTenn.Crim.AppÔ_Ô.1992);òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€18.Ð @ ÐÌà  à€While€venue€is€not€an€element€of€a€crime,€the€State€must€prove€venue€by€a€preponderanceÐ  \ Ðof€the€evidence.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„201(e),€(f);òòóó€òòHarveyóó,€376€S.W.2d€at€498òòóó.€€Slight€evidenceÐ òB Ðis€enough€to€carry€the€prosecution's€burden€of€preponderance€if€it€is€uncontradicted.€€òòState€v.Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔBloodsawÔ_Ôóó,€746€S.W.2d€722,€724€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1987).€€In€addition,€circumstantial€evidence€mayÐ ¾ Ðbe€used€to€prove€venue.€€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€549€S.W.2d€949,€950€(Tenn.€1977);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Reedóó,Ð ¤ô Ð845€S.W.2d€234,€238€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Furthermore,ð ð[a]€jury€may€derive€reasonableÐ Š Ú Ðinferences€as€to€venue€from€the€proven€facts.ðð€€òòReedóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€238.€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€the€State€failed€to€prove€anÐ <#Œ" Ðelement€of€the€crime,€specifically€ð ðjurisdictional€venue.ðð€€However,€as€previously€noted,€venue€isÐ "$r# Ðnot€an€element€of€a€crime,€but€rather€a€jurisdictional€question.€€We€will€therefore€address€theÐ %X $ ÐDefendantððs€argument€solely€as€an€issue€of€venue.€€Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Kroger€cashiers€Karen€Ô_ÔOgburnÔ_Ô€and€Troy€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ô€testified€that€they€both€workedÐ º' #' Ðat€the€Kroger€store€in€Springfield,€which€is€located€in€Robertson€County.€€However,€cashier€MarlinÐ  (ð#( ÐEllis€did€not€specify€the€exact€location€of€the€Kroger€store€where€he€worked,€although€he€did€testifyÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€he€lived€in€Robertson€County.€€All€three€cashiers€testified€about€€information€which€was€printedÐ l*¼%* Ðon€the€backs€of€the€stolen€checks€at€the€time€they€were€cashed.€€The€information€included€the€cashierÐ R+¢&+ Ðnumber,€the€aisle€number,€the€transaction€number,€and€the€date€and€time€of€the€transaction.€€InÐ 8,ˆ', Ðaddition,€each€of€the€checks€contained€specific€information€which€did€not€vary:€The€same€bankÐ ° Ðaccount€number€was€printed€on€the€back€of€each€check,€and€the€first€line€printed€on€the€back€of€eachÐ –æ Ðof€the€checks€read€ð ðÔ_ÔDEPÔ_Ô€ONLY€#875.ðð€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àConsideration€of€the€consistent€information€printed€on€the€back€of€each€of€the€forged€checks,Ð H˜ ÐEllisðð€statement€that€he€lived€in€Robertson€County,€the€other€cashiersðð€testimony€that€they€workedÐ . ~ Ðat€the€Kroger€in€Springfield,€and€Pam€Stewartððs€testimony€that€she€also€lived€in€Robertson€CountyÐ  d Ðleads€to€the€clear€and€obvious€inference€that€the€forgeries€all€took€place€at€the€Kroger€located€inÐ ú J ÐRobertson€County.€€Therefore,€the€jury€could€have€rationally€determined€that€all€of€the€transactionsÐ à 0 Ðat€issue€took€place€in€Robertson€County.€€Furthermore,€we€note€that€at€the€time€of€trial,€venue€wasÐ Æ   Ðuncontradicted€and€apparently€became€an€issue€only€on€appeal.€€We€thus€conclude€that€the€StateÐ ¬ ü  Ðcarried€its€burden€of€proving€venueÔ#†¼@à»XX%<– #ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼@àÔ€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€he€was€improperly€sentenced.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€himÐ ^®  Ðas€a€career€offender€to€six€years€for€each€count.€€The€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€for€counts€oneÐ D”  Ðthrough€four€be€served€concurrently€and€that€the€sentences€for€the€remaining€counts€be€servedÐ *z  Ðconsecutively,€resulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty„four€years.€€The€Defendant€acknowledgesÐ ` Ðthat€he€is€a€career€offender.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108€(specifying€theÐ öF Ðrequirements€for€classification€as€a€career€offender).€€The€mandatory€sentence€for€a€career€offenderÐ Ü, Ðfor€a€Class€E€felony€is€six€years.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðððð€40„35„108(c),€€40„35„112(c)(5).€Thus,€the€DefendantÐ Â Ðcontests€only€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€in€his€case.€€He€argues€that€because€all€sevenÐ ¨ø Ðcounts€occurred€between€February€3,€1995€and€February€12,€1995,€they€should€be€considered€aÐ ŽÞ Ðsingle€criminal€episode,€warranting€concurrent€sentencing.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ‡ X%<XXX%<Ôà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ @ Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ &v Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÐ  \ Ðð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ òB Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð Ø( Ð1991).Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð Š Ú Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ p!À  Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ V"¦! Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ <#Œ" Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ "$r# Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€Tenn.Ð %X $ ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ º' #' Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ  (ð#( Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ †)Ö$) Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ l*¼%* Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„115€provides€that€a€trial€court€may€order€consecutiveÐ ° Ðsentences€if€it€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€Ð –æ ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€[t]he€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÐ b² Ðsuch€defendantððs€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€[t]he€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÐ . ~ Ðextensive;Ð dÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€[t]he€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€so€declared€byÐ ú J Ða€competent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÐ à 0 Ðsentencing€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€has€been€characterized€by€a€patternÐ Æ   Ðof€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€to€consequences;Ь ü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€[t]he€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€orÐ ’â  Ðno€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÐ xÈ  Ðrisk€to€human€life€is€high;Ð^® Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(5)€[t]he€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÐ D”  Ðinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravatingÐ *z  Ðcircumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€orÐ ` Ðvictims,€the€time€span€of€the€defendantððs€undetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€andÐ öF Ðscope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damageÐ Ü, Ðto€the€victim€or€victims;ÐÂÐ Ð  Ðà8  à€à0` Ð Ð à(6)€[t]he€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation;Ð ¨ø ÐorÐŽÞ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(7)€[t]he€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€was€aÐ @ Ðð ðprofessional€criminal€who€Ô_Ôha[dÔ_Ô]€knowingly€devoted€[his]€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€ofÐ &v Ðlivelihood,ðð€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1),€and€that€he€was€ð ðan€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activityÐ  \ Ð[was]€extensive.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€Ð òB ÐÌà  àThe€determination€of€whether€to€impose€concurrent€or€consecutive€sentencing€is€a€matterÐ ¾ Ðwithin€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBlouvetÔ_Ôóó,€965€S.W.2d€489,€495€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¤ô Ð1997);€òòHowell€v.€Stateóó,€569€S.W.2d€428,€433€(Tenn.€1978).€€When€reviewing€the€decision€of€a€trialÐ Š Ú Ðcourt€concerning€the€imposition€of€concurrent€or€consecutive€sentencing,€this€Court€is€guided€by€theÐ p!À  Ðsentencing€considerations€set€forth€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„103,€namely€thatÐ V"¦! ÐÌà8  àÔ#†X%<XX X%<{=#ÔÔ‡ X%<XXX%<Ô(2)€[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€sentence€imposed€should€be€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offenseÐ "$r# Ðcommitted;Ð%X $Ð Ð  Ðà8  à.€.€.Ðî%>!%Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€sentence€imposed€should€be€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieveÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed;€andк' #'Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(5)€[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€the€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðdefendant€should€be€considered€in€determining€the€sentence€alternative€or€length€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ða€term€to€be€imposed.Ðl*¼%*Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2),€(4),€(5).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3rd€456,€460€(Tenn.€1999).Ð 8,ˆ', Ðà  àÌà  àSimilarly,€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„115Ð –æ Ðadvise€that€ð ðconsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€be€imposed€in€criminal€cases€and€theÐ |Ì Ðaggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€be€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÐ b² Ðinvolved.ðð€€This€Court€has€previously€noted€that€Ð H˜ Ѐ€€Ð . ~ ÐÔ#†X%<XX X%<ÎR#ÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà8  à[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€legislative€purposes€of€sentencing€include€the€imposition€of€a€term€in€relationÐ  d Ðto€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€confinement€when€necessary€to€avoid€deprecatingÐ ú J Ðthe€seriousness€of€the€crime,€the€provision€of€an€effective€deterrent€to€others,€and€theÐ à 0 Ðrestraint€of€those€with€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct.€€An€aim€is€to€avoidÐ Æ   Ðinequalities€for€similar€crimes€and€to€impose€the€least€severe€measure.€Ð¬ ü Ð Ð  ЀÌòòState€v.€Ô_ÔMcKnightÔ_Ôóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€57€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àIn€sentencing€the€Defendant€in€this€case,€the€trial€judge€stated,€ð ðThe€Defendant€has€11€priorÐ D”  Ðfelony€convictions€prior€to€the€seven€convictions€imposed€by€the€jury,€which€is€the€subject€of€thisÐ *z  Ðhearing.€€That€is€a€total€of€18€felonies€over€a€course€of€time€of€about€15€years.ðð€€While€the€exactÐ ` Ðnumber€of€prior€felony€convictions€in€this€case€is€somewhat€unclear€from€the€record,€the€recordÐ öF Ðclearly€supports€a€finding€of€multiple€prior€felony€convictions€over€a€period€of€fifteen€years.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ Ü, ÐDefendant€himself€admits€that€ð ðit€was€not€in€dispute€that€[he]€had€multiple€prior€felony€convictions.ðð€Ð  ÐWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€record€clearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€DefendantÐ ¨ø Ðis€ð ðan€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(2).€Ð ŽÞ ÐIn€addition,€the€record€likely€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€ð ðdefendant€is€a€professionalÐ tÄ Ðcriminal€who€Ô_Ôha[sÔ_Ô]€knowingly€devoted€[his]€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.ðð€Ð Zª ÐòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„115(1).€€Either€of€these€factors€would€support€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÐ @ Ðin€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„115€(governing€multiple€convictions).€We€also€note€that€theÐ &v Ðpresentence€report€indicates€that€the€Defendant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€of€the€offenses€at€issue.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing€the€State€argued€that€the€Defendant's€record€demonstrated€thatÐ Ø( Ðwhen€not€confined,€the€Defendant€occupied€himself€violating€the€law.€€The€trial€judge€apparentlyÐ ¾ Ðagreed.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€ordering€consecutiveÐ ¤ô Ðsentences€in€this€case.€€One€of€the€factors€pertinent€to€consecutive€sentencing€seems€particularlyÐ Š Ú Ðsuited€to€the€Defendantððs€case:€ð ðConfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÐ p!À  Ðdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A).€€€Because€of€theÐ V"¦! ÐDefendantððs€lengthy€prior€record€and€apparent€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€we€conclude€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€aggregate€length€of€the€sentences,€although€substantial,€is€no€greater€than€the€Defendant€deserves.€Ð "$r# ÐAlthough€it€may€seem€severe€to€the€Defendant,€we€cannot€say€that€the€aggregate€length€of€theÐ %X $ Ðsentences€is€unnecessary.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€accordingly€affirmed.Ð º' #' ÐÓpXÓÔ#†¼@à»XX%<‘8#ÔÔ€X%<X»¼@àÔÐ  (ð#( ЇÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_______________________________________Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE