ÿWPCZ …JVUN  %î 0ôU:û w@5 4u ‰ ˜ U.  0JÎ B 0T5 0^‰ 0hç 0rO 0|Á 0†= 0à 1uS 0dÈ A, 0@É D+  0K4ÆU>EU*ƒB)­ D3ÖDC  AOLÉ›v~dvÓâ AOµÆ 0DÊ D/ B=c:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ßZ>$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X³—XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ›eœežDŸV E¡b¢v£¤Ó€Úƒç"3|x¯%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô d2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ&"%$ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€"%+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ10,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€"‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßR€,-+A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌMAY€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€APPELLEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„C„01„9612„CC„00449Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCocke€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRex€Henry€Ogle,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Sale€of€Cocaine€and€œSimple›€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€œPossession›€of€Marijuana)ÌLATHANIEL€HANEY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌSusanna€L.€Thomasà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ102€Mims€Avenueà àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌNewport,€TN€37821„3614à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àMarvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌEdwin€C.€Millerà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌP.O.€Box€416ÌDandridge,€TN€37725à àà àà àà àAlfred€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37862ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€E.€Atchley,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37862ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌØØÙ  Ùò òÓ  ÓÔ€ „ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Lathaniel€Haney€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€five€(5)€counts€ofÏselling€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony,€two€counts€of€selling€cocaine,€a€Class€C€felony,€andÏsimple€possession€of€marijuana,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€the€defendant€was€a€multiple€offender€and€imposed€the€followingÏRange€II€sentences:€cases€6124,€6125,€6128,€6129,€and€6130,€sale€of€cocaine,Ïconfinement€for€eighteen€(18)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€in€each€case;€andÏcases€6126€and€6127,€sale€of€cocaine€less€than€one„half€gram,€confinement€for€eightÏ(8)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€in€each€case.€€In€case€6123,€simpleÏpossession€of€marijuana,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€elevenÏmonths€and€twenty„nine€days€in€the€Cocke€County€Jail.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€theÏsentences€in€cases€6124€and€6125€are€to€be€served€concurrently€to€each€other€andÏconsecutively€to€the€remaining€cases€for€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty„six€(36)€years.ÍTwo€issues€are€presented€for€review.€€The€defendant€contends€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€support€his€convictions;€and€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€by€requiring€him€to€serve€two€of€the€sentences€consecutively.€€After€aÏthorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€lawÏgoverning€the€issues€presented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€theÏjudgments€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.Ìà àThe€Drug€Task€Force€for€the€Fourth€Judicial€District€commenced€anÏinvestigation€into€the€defendantððs€sale€of€illicit€narcotics.€€The€investigation€began€inÏDecember€of€1993€and€ended€in€February€of€1994.€€The€officers€conducting€theÏinvestigation€enlisted€the€assistance€of€Vance€Hodge,€who€had€previously€beenÏconvicted€in€the€federal€district€court€for€his€involvement€with€illicit€narcotics.Ìà àOn€December€14,€1993,€Hodge€was€en€route€to€the€defendantððs€home€when€heÏsaw€the€defendant€in€Newport.€€They€stopped€and€chatted.€€The€defendant€told€HodgeÏhe€was€going€to€the€store.€€He€asked€Hodge€to€meet€him€at€his€home€later€in€the€day.€ÏHodge€purchased€.5€grams€of€crack€cocaine€from€the€defendant€for€$200€on€this€date.€ÏThis€transaction,€like€the€other€transactions,€took€place€at€the€defendantððs€residence.Ìà àHodge€made€the€following€additional€purchases€of€crack€cocaine€from€theÏdefendant€at€his€residence:à à€ÌÓ` °ƒX/ h—XÓà à1)à àDecember€30,€1993,€.7€grams€of€crack€cocaine€for€œ$200;›Ìà à2)à àJanuary€5,€1994,€.8€grams€of€crack€cocaine€for€$200;Ìà à3)à àJanuary€12,€1994,€.3€grams€of€crack€cocaine€(dollar€amount€unknown);Ìà à4)à àJanuary€19,€1994,€1.8€grams€of€crack€cocaine€for€$600;Ìà à5)à àJanuary€24,€1994,€.6€grams€of€crack€cocaine€for€$400;€andÌà à6)à àFebruary€12,€1994,€.4€grams€of€crack€cocaine€for€$200.Ìà àEach€of€these€transactions€was€recorded.€€The€audio€recordings€wereÏintroduced€into€evidence€and€played€for€the€benefit€of€the€jury.€€The€money€used€toÏpurchase€the€drugs€was€provided€by€the€Drug€Task€Force.Ìà àOn€February€14,€1994,€the€officers€executed€a€search€warrant€at€the€defendantððsÏhome.€€They€found€one„fourth€of€a€pound€of€marijuana€in€the€refrigerator.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€toÏsupport€€his€convictions€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€argues€the€evidenceÏestablishes€the€defense€of€justification,€and,€as€a€result,€the€convictions€must€be€setÏaside€and€dismissed.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€the€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€wasÏsufficient€ð ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÏevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€ð ðA€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ððÌà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ìà àThe€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€more€than€sufficient€to€support€a€findingÍby€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€each€offense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€The€question€this€Court€must€now€resolve€is€whether€theÏevidence€supports€a€defense€of€justification.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€he€was€justified€in€committing€the€crimes€in€question.€ÏHe€argues€he€was€an€informant€for€a€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation€agent,€and€thisÏjustified€his€conduct.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€contends€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€does€not€support€a€defense€of€justification.Ìà àThe€defendant€relies€heavily€upon€a€stipulation€to€support€his€defense.€€TheÏstipulation€simply€states:€ð ðThe€parties€to€this€cause€stipulate€as€follows:€LathanielÏHaney€has€worked€as€a€confidential€informant€for€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation.€ÏThe€details€of€his€work€are€unavailable.ðð€€It€appears€the€defense€wanted€this€stipulationÏrather€than€call€members€of€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€Defense€counsel€toldÏthe€trial€judge€these€individuals,€agents€of€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation,€hadÏbeen€contacted.€€Part€of€the€testimony€given€by€the€agents€would€be€helpful,€but€part€ofÏtheir€testimony€would€be€damaging€to€the€defendant.Ìà àNewport€Police€Officer€Maurice€Shults€testified€as€a€prosecution€witness.€€HeÏworked€with€Hodge€when€most€of€the€transactions€in€question€took€place.€€TheÏfollowing€colloquy€took€place€during€cross„examination:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ` „X" –XÓQ.à8 àWere€you€aware€of€any€association€that€Mr.ÏHaney€had€with€the€FBI?ÌÌA.à8 àI€am€aware€of€some€òòformeróó€association,€yes,Ïmaððam.ÌÌQ.à8 àAnd€would€that€be€specifically€with€Agent€JoeÏMann,€whoððs€now€retired?ÌÌA.à8 àThat€would€be€to€the€best€of€my€knowledge,€yes.ÌÌQ.à8 àDid€you€contact€Agent€Mann€after€Mr.€HodgeÏbegan€working€on€Mr.€Haneyððs€case?ÌÌA.à8 àI€notified€the€FBI€that€we€were€working€anÏundercover€operation€on€crack€cocaine,€and€thatÏMr.€Haney€was€one€of€those€person[s]€who€weÏwere€buying€from.ÌÌQ.à8 àAnd€was€that€because€of€his€past€association?ÌÌA.à8 àI€wanted€them€to€know€what€we€were€working,Ïand€that,€I€guess,€out€of€courtesy,€I€wanted€them€toÏknow€that€someone€that€worked€for€them€òòbeforeÏwas€on€the€other€side€of€the€listóó.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Ò(emphasis€added).ÌÓ ` „°šXÓÌÌÓÓà àTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Agent€Mike€Finley€took€a€statement€from€theÏdefendant€on€the€date€the€search€warrant€was€executed.€€He€testified€on€directÏexamination€that€the€defendant€made€no€mention€he€was€a€confidential€informant€forÏthe€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation,€nor€did€he€state€the€sales€of€cocaine€to€HodgeÏwere€part€of€his€employment€as€a€confidential€informant€for€the€bureau.€€Ìà àIf€the€evidence€established€the€sales€made€by€the€defendant€were€part€of€hisÏduties€as€a€confidential€informant€with€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation€or€any€otherÏlaw€enforcement€agency,€the€State€of€Tennessee€could€not€prosecute€the€defendant.€ÍThe€conduct€would€have€been€justified,€and€such€evidence€would€have€establishedÏthe€defense€of€justification.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„601€and€„610€(c)(2).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€acting€as€aÏconfidential€informant€with€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation€and€his€conduct€in€theÏsale€of€these€drugs€was€pursuant€to€the€direction€of€an€agent€or€other€governmentalÏofficial.€€The€record€establishes€the€defendant€formerly€worked€with€an€agent€of€theÏFederal€Bureau€of€Investigation,€but€the€agent€had€retired.€€Moreover,€the€agents€of€theÏFederal€Bureau€of€Investigation€were€advised€of€the€task€forceððs€investigation€of€theÏdefendant.€€Apparently,€no€agent€remonstrated€or€advised€state€authorities€Haney€wasÏstill€working€as€a€confidential€agent€for€them€or€his€actions€were€a€part€of€his€duties€asÏa€confidential€agent.€€à à€€The€jury€heard€the€evidence€as€hereinabove€set€forth.€€TheÏtrial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€justification.€€The€jury€by€its€verdictsÏrejected€the€defendantððs€theory€of€defense.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€ordering€two€ofÏthe€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€others.€€He€argues€the€trial€court€usedÏthe€same€grounds€to€determine€the€range,€enhance€the€sentences€within€theÏappropriate€range,€and€order€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendantÏconcludes€ð ðthis€Court€should€give€greater€weight€to€the€mitigation€offered€by€theÏdefendant,€in€light€of€the€valuable€contributions€to€F.B.I.€prosecutions.ððÌÌò òÓ  ÓÇœA.ó ó›ÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€"the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÏ305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court's€determination€of€theseÏfacts€is€predicated€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor€and€appearance€when€testifying.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Íòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burdenÏof€establishing€that€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€atÏ311.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€the€sentences€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.ÌÌØØÙ  ÙÑ H Ñò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€ordered€two€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€effectiveÏsentence€imposed€was€thirty„six€(36)€years.€€The€trial€court€ordered€consecutiveÏsentencing€on€two€grounds.€€First,€the€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€Second,€theÏdefendant€was€being€sentenced€for€offenses€which€occurred€while€he€was€onÏprobation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).€€The€trial€court€would€have€beenÏjustified€in€finding€that€the€defendant€was€a€professional€criminal€who€had€knowinglyÏdevoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(1).Ìà àThe€defendant€gave€Agent€Finley€a€statement€outlining€the€people€whoÏsupplied€him€with€illicit€drugs.€€When€the€search€warrant€was€executed€at€theÏdefendantððs€residence,€the€officers€seized€several€firearms,€approximately€141€poundsÏof€marijuana,€several€grams€of€crack€cocaine,€and€$100,283€from€a€brief€case.€€TheÏofficers€also€seized€approximately€$7,000€from€five€individuals€who€had€come€to€theÏdefendantððs€residence€while€the€officers€were€executing€the€search€warrant.€€TheÍrecord€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€ever€employed.€€He€told€theÏpresentence€officer€he€supported€himself€ð ðby€means€of€odd€jobs.ðð€€This€evidenceÏsupports€ground€(b)(1),€knowingly€devoting€himself€to€criminal€activity€as€a€majorÏsource€of€his€livelihood.Ìà àThe€defendant€challenges€(b)(2)€and€(b)(6)€on€separate€grounds.€€He€firstÏargues€the€trial€court€used€(b)(2)€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,€enhance€theÏpunishment€within€the€range,€and€order€consecutive€sentencing.€€Similarly,€theÏdefendant€argues€the€fact€the€defendant€was€œon€probation›€was€used€to€enhance€theÏsentences€within€the€appropriate€range.Ìà àThere€were€enough€previous€convictions€to€establish€the€appropriate€range€asÏwell€as€to€enhance€the€sentences€within€that€range.€€This€Court€has€previously€heldÏprior€felony€convictions€can€be€used€to€support€consecutive€sentencingÏnotwithstanding€the€fact€the€trial€court€used€the€convictions€to€enhance€the€sentencesÏwithin€the€appropriate€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€825€S.W.2d€109,€113€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€757€S.W.2d€11,€13€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€same€reasoning€applies€to€the€use€of€criminal€offenses€committed€while€onÏprobation.€€This€enhancement€factor€may€likewise€be€used€to€support€enhancementÏwithin€the€appropriate€range€and€consecutive€sentencing€based€on€the€reasoning€ofÏòòDavisóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€113;€òòDavisóó,€757€S.W.2d€at€13.Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€ordered€consecutive€sentencing.€€Because€of€theÏdefendantððs€prior€convictions,€particularly€for€drug€offenses,€the€enormity€of€his€illicitÏdrug€business€evidenced€by€the€quantity€of€drugs,€the€money€found,€and€the€firearmsÏcontained€in€his€residence,€and€the€fact€the€defendant€has€ignored€every€opportunity€toÍrehabilitate€and€conform€his€conduct,€society€needs€to€be€protected€from€the€defendantÏand€the€illicit€drugs€he€has€made€available€to€the€community.€€If€released€into€society€atÏan€early€date,€there€is€every€indication€the€defendant€will€continue€to€sell€illicitÏnarcotics€to€any€person€in€the€community€who€desires€such€narcotics.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€JOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€CURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌà à