ÿWPCó /# ¢UN­ %û 0(4)=Lw@T 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) AQ< Æ 0DS 0@— 0D× DC D/^ B Bª D3Ç AMú U*G 1q v~¢ vÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡UÃ$Ôôÿÿÿÿ3|xÇ ³D´Dµ¶U·U¸U¹UºU»U¼Ó€2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(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  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ ` ÑÑ  ÑÓÓòòÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€F}XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ќـ!ÙßR€*,%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€€THE€€COURT€€OF€€CRIMINAL€€APPEALS€€OF€€TENNESSEEÌAT€€KNOXVILLEÌJULY€€1996€€SESSIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓSTATE€€OF€€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à€€€€€)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9601„CR„00050Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à€€€€€)à àNos.€45851€&€45852€belowÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àKnox€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àÌJOHN€€CLARK€€GARRISON€à àà à€€€€€)à àHonorable€Lynn€W.€BrownÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€)à àÌà àà àAppellantà àà àà à€€€€€)à à(Sentencing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ÌÌóóGregory€P.€Isaacsà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌIsaacs,€Rayson€&€Ramseyà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ280€One€Centre€SquareÌP.O.€Box€2448à àà àà àà àà àDarian€B.€TaylorÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€€37901„2448à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Leon€FranksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€Tennessee€€37902ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€€FILED_______________ÌÌSENTENCES€MODIFIED€AND€AFFIRMEDÌÌWILLIAM€€M.€€DENDER,€€SPECIAL€€JUDGEÌÌÌà àòòÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌOPINIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€at€appellant's€re„sentencingÏhearing€on€September€1,€1995.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€states€the€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:ÌÓÓà0 àI.à àWhether€the€Trial€Court's€denial€of€defendant's€request€to€withdraw€his€guilty€pleaÏà àwas€improper.ÌÌà àà àA.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€defendant's€guilty€pleasÏwereà àà àà àvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€made.ÌÌà àà àB.à àThe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€finding€that€no€fair€and€just€reasonÏà àà àà àexisted€for€allowing€the€defendant€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€pursuant€toÏà àà àà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32€(f).ÌÌà àII.€€à àWhether€the€State's€actions€at€defendant's€Re„sentencing€Hearing€breached€theÏà àà àspirit€of€the€plea€agreement€and€violated€this€Court's€mandate€of€January€10,€1995.ÌÌà àIII.à àWhether€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Ïà àà àCrim.€P.€11€(e)€(4),€based€upon€the€trial€court's€rejection€of€defendant's€request€forÏà àà àprobation.ÌÌà àIV.à àWhether€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€its€re„sentencing€of€the€defendant€byÏœà àà àthe€following›€acts:ÌÌà àà àA.à àIncorrectly€sentencing€the€defendant€as€a€Range€II€offender;ÌÌà àà àB.à àIts€failure€to€consider€the€defendant's€mental€condition€as€a€mitigatingÏà àà àà àfactor€in€sentencing;€andÌÌà àà àC.à àIts€finding€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing€was€warrantedÏà àà àà àbased€upon€the€evidence€introduced€by€the€State.ÌÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓòòFACTSóó€ÌÓ  ÓÌà àDefendant€was€originally€indicted€by€the€Knox€County€Grand€Jury€in€Case€No.€45851€forÏone€count€of€theft€and€two€counts€of€forgery,€and€in€Case€No.€45852€for€one€count€of€theft€andÏone€count€of€forgery.€€After€entering€into€plea€negotiations€with€the€Knox€County€District€AttorneyÏGeneral's€office,€appellant€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€theft€in€each€case.€€A€condition€of€the€pleaÏagreement€was€that€the€State€would€not€oppose€probation€if€appellant€made€satisfactoryÏarrangements€concerning€restitution.€€At€the€original€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€alleged€thatÏsatisfactory€arrangements€had€not€been€made,€and€the€State€opposed€probation.€€Appellant€appealedÏthe€holding€of€the€trial€court€that€the€appellant€had€not€made€satisfactory€arrangements€and€theÏsentences€imposed.€€This€Court,€in€an€opinion€dated€January€10,€1995,€held€that€appellant'sÏarrangements€for€restitution€were€fair€and€reasonable,€that€the€State€had€breached€the€spirit€of€theÏPlea€Agreement,€and€the€case€was€remanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€ÌÌà àOn€August€14,€1995,€the€State€filed€a€Notice€of€Intent€to€Seek€Enhanced€Punishment,Ïbased€upon€appellant's€alleged€conviction€for€two€prior€felonies,€one€of€which€was€an€allegedÏconviction€in€DeKalb€County,€Georgia,€in€Case€No.€82„CR„1369,€on€March€12,€1982,€for€aÍfelony€bad€check€charge€and€a€sentence€of€two€years.€€ÌÌà àA€re„sentencing€hearing€was€held€on€September€1,€1995,€and€the€appellant€moved€to€setÏaside€his€guilty€plea.€€Appellant€also€objected€to€the€introduction€of€certain€evidence€by€the€StateÏduring€the€proof€stage€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€court€denied€appellant's€motion€to€setÏaside€his€guilty€plea€and€overruled€his€objections€to€the€introduction€of€the€evidence.€€When€theÏState€tried€to€introduce€evidence€of€the€alleged€Georgia€conviction,€defense€counsel€objected;€andÏthe€State€sought€to€withdraw€the€introduction€of€the€document€purporting€to€be€the€GeorgiaÏconviction.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€allow€the€State€to€withdraw€the€Georgia€conviction.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€sua€sponte,€stated€that€appellant€was€bound€by€prior€counsel's€stipulationÏthat€appellant€was€a€Range€II€offender,€and€no€evidence€was€introduced€to€establish€that€this€wasÏan€appropriate€range€of€sentencing.€€€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€nine€years€in€each€case,€and€theÏsentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively,€and€consecutive€to€a€16€year€sentence€imposedÏin€Bledsoe€County€for€the€crime€of€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€We€note€that€the€16Ïyear€sentence€was€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentences€in€the€case€sub€judice.€€In€addition,Ïappellant€was€ordered€to€pay€restitution€in€the€amount€of€$28,400€in€Case€No.€45851€and€$7,000Ïin€Case€No.€45852.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€Bledsoe€County€conviction€for€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder€has€beenÏreversed€by€a€panel€of€this€Court,€in€an€opinion€in€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9702„CC„00047,€filed€inÏKnoxville€on€February€27,€1998.€€The€case€was€not€reversed€because€the€evidence€was€insufficientÍto€prove€the€crime,€but€because€of€the€failure€of€defense€counsel€to€convey€a€plea€offer€to€theÏdefendant€and€because€the€Court's€charge€to€the€jury€failed€to€state€that€the€action€of€the€defendantÏmust€be€intentional.€€We€note€that€Attorney€Thomas€N.€DePersio€represented€appellant€in€theÏBledsoe€County€case€and€in€the€appeal€of€the€original€cases€in€Knoxville,€which€date€back€as€far€asÏ1992.€ÌÌà àThe€State€admits€in€its€brief€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€appellant€to€be€aÏprofessional€criminal€and€also€erred€in€finding€that€the€appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender.€ÏHowever,€the€State€claims€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€finding€that€appellant's€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive.€€ÌÌà àSubsequent€to€the€re„sentencing€hearing,€appellant€also€filed€a€Motion€for€Reduction€ofÏSentence,€which€was€also€denied€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòI.€€GUILTY€PLEAóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€alleges€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€appellant's€guilty€plea€was€voluntarily,Ïknowingly,€and€intelligently€made.€€We€do€not€agree.€€When€this€case€was€before€this€Court€inÏJanuary,€1994,€appellant€had€every€opportunity€to€question€his€guilty€plea;€but€failed€to€do€so.€€WeÏfind€that€the€appellantððs€guilty€plea€is€controlled€by€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine.€Under€the€law€ofÏthe€case€doctrine,€an€appellate€courtððs€decision€on€an€issue€of€law€becomes€binding€precedent€to€beÏfollowed€in€later€trials€and€appeals€of€the€same€case€involving€the€same€issues€and€facts.€€òòLadd€v.ÍHonda€Motor€Co.,€Ltd.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€90€(Tenn.App.1996)€(citations€omitted);€òòState€v.ÏJeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€8€(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).€€The€doctrine€applies€both€to€issues€that€wereÏactually€before€the€court€and€to€those€issues€that€were€necessarily€decided€by€implication.€€òòLaddóó,Ï939€S.W.2d€at€90.€€This€courtððs€previous€opinion€implicitly€found€the€appellantððs€guilty€plea€to€beÏvoluntarily€and€knowingly€entered.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAppellant€complains€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€not€allowing€the€appellantÏto€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32€(f).€€When€the€trial€judge€commentedÏon€appellant's€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€at€the€re„sentencing€hearing,€he€said,ÌÓÓà0 àFirst€of€all,€Mr.€Garrison,€through€counsel,€alleges€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€notÏknowingly€and€intelligently€made.€€Looking€at€Exhibit€1,€the€situation€is€quite€to€theÏcontrary.€€Judge€Nichols,€who€took€the€plea,€advised€him€of€every€essential€constitutionalÏright€and€many€rights€in€addition.€€He€was€informed€of€a€lot€of€alternatives€and€rights€heÏhad€procedurally€that€are€not€required€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€the€òòMackieóó€(sic)Ïcase.Ìà0 àÌà0 àThe€Court's€conclusion€is€that,€as€far€as€constitutional€rights€are€concerned,€that€this€pleaÏwas€constitutional€in€all€respects;€that€it€was€knowingly€and€intelligently€made€afterÏappropriate€consideration.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àFollowing€the€above€comments,€the€trial€judge€goes€over€various€aspects€of€the€testimonyÏreceived€in€the€hearing,€and€he€concludes,€as€follows:ÌÓÓà0 àThen€the€Court,€questioning€Mr.€Garrison,€says,€"Over€and€above€those€representations,€Ïhave€you€been€promised€anything€else€to€get€you€to€plead€guilty€to€these€charges,€any€otherÏrepresentations€or€promises,"€and€there€is€a€conference.€€The€defendant€doesn't€answer.€ÏHe€says,€"Yes,€I€understand."ÌÌà0 àThe€Court€questions€him€again.€€Question€to€Mr.€Garrison,€"Okay.€€But€have€you€beenÏpromised€anything?€€Any€agent€of€the€State€promised€you€anything€else,€over€and€aboveÏwhat€has€been€announced€in€court?"€€His€clear€answer,€"No."€€So€he€told€the€Court,€underÍoath,€at€his€plea€that€he€had€received€no€other€promises,€and€the€Court€concludes€that€heÏhad€received€no€other€promises,€and€the€Court€concludes€that€he€had€been€made€none.ÌÌà0 àSo€the€conclusion€that€the€Court€reaches,€under€Rule€32,€is€that€the€defendant€has€made€noÏshowing€of€any€fair€or€just€reasons€that€his€guilty€plea€should€be€set€aside,€and€your€motionÏto€withdraw€those€two€pleas€of€guilty€is,€respectfully,€denied.ÌÌà àÌœ›ÌÓÓà àA€defendant€does€not€have€a€unilateral€right€to€withdraw€a€knowing€and€voluntary€guiltyÏplea.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€645€S.W.2d€251,€254€(Tenn.Crim.App.€œ1982).€Accordingly,›€theÏdecision€to€deny€a€withdrawal€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÏreversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€No.€111€(Tenn.Crim.App.€atÏKnoxville,€Dec.€5,€1990).€€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€that€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€not€allowing€the€appellant€to€withdraw€his€guilty€pleas.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòII.€€STATE€ACTION€AT€RE„SENTENCING€HEARINGóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€complains€that€the€State's€action€at€the€re„sentencing€hearing€breached€the€spiritÏof€€the€plea€agreement€and€violated€this€Court's€mandate€of€January€10,€1995.€€We€have€consideredÏthis€issue€carefully,€and€we€find€that€appellant€has€no€right€to€complain€about€the€re„sentencingÏhearing.€€Appellant€was€afforded€the€opportunity€to€have€a€re„sentencing€hearing€with€the€mandateÏthat€the€State€would€abide€by€its€previous€agreement,€and€this€Court€would€have€enforced€suchÏmandate;€€but€by€his€own€action,€appellant€opened€the€door€to€permit€the€State€to€enter€additionalÏevidence€concerning€punishment,€including€the€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murderÏconviction.€€That€conviction,€along€with€appellant's€other€convictions,€certainly€made€probationÍvery€questionable€and€gave€the€trial€judge€every€opportunity€to€deny€probation.€€We€find€this€issueÏto€have€no€merit.̛̜ÌÓ  ÓòòIII.€€TENN.€R.€CRIM.€P.€11€(e)€(4)óó€ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAt€the€time€the€appellant€entered€his€plea€of€guilty,€he€understood€his€plea€agreement€to€beÏthat€which€had€been€announced€to€the€court€just€moments€before.€€A€summary€of€that€agreementÏfrom€the€record€is:ÌÓÓà0 àThe€defendant€will€plead€guilty€to€the€first€count€of€each€indictment...Both€are€Class€CÏfelonies.€€The€defendant€is€a€multiple€offender.€€Notice€has€been€filed.€€The€range€ofÏpunishment€for€each€of€those€offenses€as€a€Range€II,€Multiple€Offender€at€35%€is€six€to€tenÏyears€as€to€each€count.€€The€offense€is€theft....There€is€no€agreement€as€to€the€length€of€theÏsentences.€€That€will€be€argued€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€exposure,€of€course,€is€sixÏto€ten€on€each€one...The€defendant€is€to€pay„„he€intends€to€apply€for€probation.€€The€StateÏwill€not€oppose€the€granting€of€probation€upon€the€following€conditions:€€number€one,€he€isÏto€pay€fifteen€thousand€dollars€($15,000)€toward€restitution€today,€either€he€or€someone€onÏhis€behalf....The€defendant€will€make€restitution€for€the€balance€of€whatever€sentence€heÏreceives€to€a€total€of...fifty„one€thousand€dollars€($51,000)...ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€record€of€the€re„sentencing€hearing€reveals€that€appellant€did€receive€the€agreement€asÏannounced.€€The€State€announced€that€it€did€not€oppose€probation;€however,€the€State€presentedÏevidence€of€the€Bledsoe€County€conviction€for€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€TheÏintroduction€of€that€evidence€was€entirely€proper.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€323,€331Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€Appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender€within€the€range€of€six€to€ten€years.€ÏRestitution€was€set€according€to€the€agreement.€€Appellant€testified€that€he€was€not€promised€heÍwould€receive€probation.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€judge.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòIV.€€RE„SENTENCINGóóÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€theÏduty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÏthe€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(Supp.€1996).€This€presumption€isÏ"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€In€conducting€our€de€novo€review,€we€must€consider€the€evidence€atÏsentencing,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏstatements€of€the€defendant,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors,€and€the€defendant's€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„210(b)€(Supp.€1996);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€The€burden€for€showing€that€theÏsentence€is€improper€is€on€the€appealing€party.€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.ÌÌà àIf€the€trial€court€gave€"due€consideration€and€proper€weight"€to€the€relevant€factors€and€ifÏthe€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€were€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€the€AppellateÏCourt€must€affirm€"even€if€[it]€would€have€preferred€a€different€result."€€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€atÏ789.€€Where€a€trial€court€properly€considers€the€relevant€principles€and€relevant€facts,€butÍmisapplies€an€enhancement€factor,€the€Appellate€Court€must€still€apply€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€when€reviewing€the€remaining€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€372Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(listing€the€three€situations€where€presumption€would€not€apply).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€must€begin€with€a€presumptive€minimum€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€(c).€ÏAny€applicable€enhancement€factors€can€be€considered€to€increase€the€sentence,€to€be€subsequentlyÏreduced€in€light€of€any€applicable€mitigating€factors.€€ðð€40„35„210€(d)€&€(e).€€The€weight€affordedÏeach€factor€depends€on€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238Ï(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€purposes€and€considerations€ofÏsentencing€as€outlined€in€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€did€not€err€in€sentencing€the€appellant.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòIV€(A).€€RANGE€II€OFFENDERóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€complains€that€he€was€incorrectly€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender.ÌÌà àAppellant€agreed€to€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender€at€the€time€he€entered€his€plea.€ÏEven€if€the€record€does€not€support€appellant€being€a€Range€II€offender,€it€is€clear€that€a€defendantÏmay€plead€to€a€range€for€which€he€is€not€eligible,€so€long€as€the€sentence€is€within€the€statutoryÏlimits€for€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mahleróó,€735€S.W.2d€226€(Tenn.€1987).€ÌÌà àAppellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€nine€years€on€each€for€his€two€Class€CÏfelonies,€with€the€applicable€range€being€six€to€ten€years.€€In€setting€these€sentences,€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€general€principles€of€sentencing€and€specifically€applied€enhancement€factors,€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà0 àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114€(1)€€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.ÌÌà0 àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114€(8)€€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;€and€ÌÌà0 àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114€(15)€€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€orÏused€a€special€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€theÏfulfillment€of€the€offense.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€noted€that€the€first€factor€was€given€great€weight,€while€the€next€two€wereÏnot.€€The€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€these€three€factors,€and€the€record€supportsÏthe€use€of€each.€€The€trial€court€gave€slight€weight€to€the€fact€that€appellant€did€not€cause€anyÏserious€bodily€injury.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.ÌœÌÌ›ÌÓ  ÓòòIV€(B).€€MENTAL€CONDITIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€also€considered€the€defendant's€mental€condition,€but€found€that€the€proofÏdid€not€rise€to€establishing€this€factor.€€Appellant's€I.Q.,€in€a€test€conducted€in€September€andÏOctober€of€1992,€was€assessed€as€122,€placing€him€in€the€"Superior€Range"€of€functioning.€It€isÍthe€burden€of€the€appellant€to€show€that€a€mitigating€factor€applies,€and€appellant€offered€noÏevidence€that€this€factor€had€anything€to€do€with€these€offenses;€and€therefore,€we€hold€that€thisÏfactor€was€properly€excluded€from€consideration.€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓòòIV€(C).€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115€(b),€that€numbers€(1),€(2),€and€(4)Ïapplied€in€this€case.€€The€State€admits€that€numbers€(1)€and€(4)€were€incorrectly€applied,€and€weÏagree.€€We€also€agree€that€"(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive"€does€apply€to€appellant.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115,€in€part,€states:ÌÓÓà0 à(a)€€If€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€more€than€one€(1)€criminal€offense,€the€court€shall€orderÏsentences€to€run€consecutively€or€concurrently€as€provided€by€the€criteria€in€this€section.€Ìà0 à(b)€€The€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that:Ìà à.€.€.Ìà à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌÓÓÌà àThere€is€ample€proof€in€the€record€to€show€that€the€appellant's€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive.€€In€addition€to€the€conviction€for€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€appellant€hasÏmore€than€10€other€convictions.€€As€previously€noted,€the€conviction€for€solicitation€to€commit€firstÏdegree€murder€has€been€reversed€by€a€panel€of€this€Court.€€During€the€re„sentencing€hearing€theÏtrial€court€specifically€stated€"the€John€Garrison€that€the€Court€has€seen€today,€based€on€what€hasÍhappened€since€Judge€Scott€saw€Mr.€Garrison€is€quite€a€different€person,€has€shown€an€inability€toÏobey€the€law„„even€when€he€is€in€prison„„and€quit€defrauding€people€even€while€incarcerated€withÏcriminal€behavior."ÌÌà àWhen€the€criminal€record€of€the€appellant€is€considered,€along€with€the€solicitation€toÏcommit€first€degree€murder€case,€we€find€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€theÏpublic€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€appellant€and€that€the€consecutive€sentencesÏreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ï938€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.̛̜ÌÓ  Óà àòòCONCLUSIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€sentences€announced€by€the€Court€at€the€re„sentencing€hearing€are€modified€to€theÏextent€that€the€nine€year€sentence€in€Case€No.€45851€and€the€nine€year€sentence€in€Case€No.€45852Ïwill€be€served€consecutively;€however,€there€being€no€sentence€in€the€Bledsoe€County€case€at€thisÏpoint,€it€will€be€up€to€the€judge€in€that€case€to€determine€whether€the€sentence€in€that€case,€if€any,Ïwill€be€served€consecutively€to€the€above€sentences.€€ÌÌà àWith€the€sentences€modified€as€above€described,€€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€all€necessary€proceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓÌ̛̜ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Dender,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€See€Below€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoseph€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌ̛̜Ì___________________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌà àJudge€Joseph€B.€Jones€died€May€1,€1998,€and€did€not€participate€in€this€opinion.€€We€Ìacknowledge€his€faithful€service€to€this€Court,€both€as€a€member€of€the€Court€and€as€its€Presiding€ÌJudge.Ó  Ó