ÿWPC ÍÃ-´.\¬ ±GPÍ%k(žÁgû 9Åž=•j=tûRðÈí.å`ÿ êt2±=S© %!Ò»îÑ”aeûqÊn²8Ó¤¹÷Š`¢+º§L»AÙb㸕?êîÀùv^™tuSHÆËg”ßXÉ hÙuɃv7Z"ÌÕâyº»¤>„C/¶oUn±úBèFI¡þúÚ×oÿùÛcõ3ãçÓÈhnnJÝWÀ®}hÒ‡{}=w¡¸ïŽ K^k€&Ò3NRY WÆ9sÙÑ6¿Xi:}w¸¼Èµ!ž×¶‚éõYÉH+•2Ù@d^œ,oxÓŒW…¦ˆ‰íO³ã?Ø|D§&XxA>gãŸwwf±àø(R„kJb %\Nb 0ˆdUNì: zBÒ¼ zŽ Ò ^ Ú wæ 4ê þ Æ ÆÓ Æ™ Æ_ %N' m)#Á@E 0DLJí––––––––––––––––––––bƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ 0ë‹‹‹‹ Bvv 0¤“ D57 D-l 0K™™ ASäÆ7 0¤ý 0D¡ A«å»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpte‚Œ-s 3j1,1 ,  3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 ùÝ ƒR»$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô£Ýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Arizona€Revised€Statute€section€13„1904(A)€(2001)€provides€that:Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€person€commits€armed€robbery€if,€in€the€course€of€committing€robbery€.€.€.€,€suchÐ tÄ Ðperson€or€an€accomplice:Ð8ˆ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€Is€armed€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€a€simulated€deadly€weapon;€orÐüL` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€Uses€or€threatens€to€use€a€deadly€weapon€or€dangerous€instrument€or€a€simulatedÐ À Ðdeadly€weapon.ЄÔ` x` x ÐÌÌà  à€€Georgia€Code€Annotated€section€16„8„41€(2002)€provides€that:Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€armed€robbery€when,€with€intent€to€commitÐ ” ä  Ðtheft,€he€or€she€takes€property€of€another€from€the€person€or€the€immediate€presenceÐ X ¨  Ðof€another€by€use€of€an€offensive€weapon,€or€any€replica,€article,€or€device€havingÐ  l  Ðthe€appearance€of€such€weapon.Ðà 0 ` x` x ÐÌà  à€€Michigan€Compiled€Laws€section€750.529€(2002)€defines€armed€robbery€as€robbery€ð ðwith€a€dangerousÐ h¸  Ðweapon,€or€any€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€person€so€assaulted€to€reasonablyà8 @ àà8 @ à€believe€it€to€be€aÐ ,|  Ðdangerous€weapon.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó BÝ ƒR»$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô£Ýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€motion€to€amend€the€indictment€was€filed€on€September€22,€2000,€three€days€before€trial.€€On€SeptemberÐ ° Ð25,€2000,€the€trial€court€heard€the€motion€prior€to€jury€selection. ãÝ ƒR»$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô£Ýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€note€that€the€appellant€did€not€request€a€continuance€following€the€amendment€of€the€indictment.- ù-(|G2»$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô£Ýò»»Ô d(|3?m$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?m$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€GIXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î duÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼u»îî d #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€May€21,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XGIX»¼uÔÌò òÔ#†¼u»XXGI#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MELVIN€L.€HARPERòòóóÔ‡XGIX»¼uÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S43,578€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„01089„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€12,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€Melvin€L.€Harper,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€Sullivan€CountyÐ xÈ  Ðof€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony.€€Ô#†¼u»XXGI•#ÔÔ‡XGIX»¼uÔThe€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multipleÐ d´ Ðoffender€to€twenty€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€theÐ P  Ðappellant€challenges:€(1)€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€his€conviction€of€armed€robbery;Ð <Œ Ð(2)€the€trial€courtððs€granting€of€the€Stateððs€motion€to€amend€the€indictment€on€the€day€of€trial;€(3)€theÐ (x Ðwording€of€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions€regarding€lesser„included€offenses;€and€(4)€the€sentenceÐ d Ðimposed€by€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼u»XXGIš#ÔÔ‡XGIX»¼uÔ€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€theÐ P Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ì< ÐÓËÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼u»àXGI1#ÔÔ‡XGIX.¼uÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó€andÐ œì ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌSteve€Ô_ÔMcEwenÔ_Ô,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee€(on€appeal);€€Leslie€S.€Hale,€Ô_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee€(atÐ `° Ðtrial),€for€the€appellant,€Melvin€L.€Harper.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Ô_ÔAslingerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð $"t! ÐH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€P.€Ô_ÔStaubusÔ_Ô€and€William€B.€Harper,Ð #`" ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓh ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼u»XXGI— #ÔÔ‡XGIX»¼uÔÐ Ô%$!% Ðòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóÐ À&"& ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àOn€December€18,€1999,€Margie€Pickens€was€working€at€the€Minute€Market€on€WestÐ ¬'ü"' ÐSullivan€Street€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee.€€Pickens€had€worked€for€the€company€for€twenty€years€andÐ ˜(è#( Ðwas€the€manager€at€that€particular€store.€€At€12:45€p.m.,€a€black€male€wearing€white€silk€pants€andÐ „)Ô$) Ða€black€jacket€with€the€word€ð ðÔ_ÔFILAÔ_Ôðð€on€it€entered€the€store€and€proceeded€to€walk€around€theÐ p*À%* Ðcounter.€€There€were€no€other€customers€in€the€store.€€Pickens€thought€the€man€wanted€to€purchaseÐ \+¬&+ Ðtobacco€from€the€rack€behind€the€counter€and€asked€the€man€if€she€could€assist€him.€€òòóóÔ#†¼u»XXGIZ #ÔÔ€XGIX»¼uÔInstead,€the€manÐ H,˜', Ðapproached€Pickens€at€the€cash€register€and€told€her€to€ð ðopen€the€drawer€or€Iððll€kill€you.ðð€€AccordingÐ 4-„(-ýž ÐÔ_Ôto€Pickens,€the€man€ð ðhad€something€under€his€jacketðð€pointed€at€her€that€Pickens€believed€to€be€aÐ ° Ðgun,€although€she€never€actually€saw€a€weapon.€€Pickens€ð ðfrozeðð€in€fear€and€was€unable€to€do€as€theÐ œì Ðman€ordered.€€When€Pickens€failed€to€cooperate,€the€man€began€punching€the€keys€on€the€cashÐ ˆØ Ðregister€until€the€drawer€opened.€€He€then€took€the€money€out€of€the€drawer€and€exited€the€store.€Ð tÄ ÐSlightly€more€than€one€hundred€dollars€($100)€was€taken€from€the€cash€register.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€man€left,€a€customer€entered€the€store€and€Pickens€told€the€customer€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðshe€ð ðjust€got€robbed.ðð€€The€customer€then€went€outside€to€a€payphone€to€call€911,€while€PickensÐ $ t Ðphoned€her€husband.€€The€store€was€equipped€with€a€security€camera€which€recorded€the€incidentÐ  ` Ðon€video€tape.€€Pickens€testified€at€trial€that€the€security€video€was€a€complete€and€accurateÐ ü L  Ðrepresentation€of€the€events,€and€the€tape€was€admitted€into€evidence€and€played€for€the€jury.€Ð è 8  ÐPickens€identified€the€appellant€as€the€man€who€robbed€the€Minute€Market.€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àOfficer€Tim€Horn€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€on€December€18,Ð ¬ü  Ð1999,€he€was€called€to€the€Minute€Market€ð ðon€a€complaint€of€a€robbery.ðð€€When€he€arrived€at€theÐ ˜è  Ðstore,€Officer€Horn€observed€fellow€officer,€Detective€John€Blessing,€questioning€the€victim.€Ð „Ô  ÐAlthough€Officer€Horn€did€not€talk€to€the€victim,€he€stated€that€she€appeared€ð ðshaken€quite€a€bit€andÐ pÀ Ðreal€upset.ðð€€Officer€Horn€testified€that€while€at€the€Minute€Market,€he€viewed€the€security€video€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€robbery€and€then€made€a€perimeter€search€of€the€area€surrounding€the€store.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àApproximately€two€hours€later,€Officer€Horn€observed€a€green€van€with€a€CaliforniaÐ  p Ðlicense€plate€stop,€back€up,€and€go€around€the€block€as€if€trying€to€avoid€the€police.€€Officer€HornÐ  \ Ðfollowed€the€van€to€an€alley€where€the€officer€observed€a€man€wearing€a€black€and€white€FILA€sportÐ øH Ðoutfit€exit€the€vehicle.€€Officer€Horn€ordered€the€man€to€stop,€but€as€he€approached€the€man,€the€manÐ ä4 Ðð ðjust€turned€and€took€off€running.ðð€€Officer€Horn€chased€and€eventually€apprehended€the€suspect.€Ð Ð  ÐOfficer€Horn€identified€the€appellant€as€the€man€he€arrested€that€day.€€Officer€Horn€testified€that€noÐ ¼  Ðweapon€was€found€on€the€appellant€or€in€the€green€van,€nor€did€he€observe€the€appellant€throwÐ ¨ø Ðanything€to€the€ground€during€the€pursuit.€€The€van€belonged€to€the€appellantððs€sister€who€hadÐ ”ä Ðrecently€moved€to€Kingsport€from€California.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àDetective€John€Blessing€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€onÐ X ¨ ÐDecember€18,€1999,€he€was€called€to€the€Minute€Market€on€West€Sullivan€Street.€€When€he€arrived,Ð D!” ÐDetective€Blessing€questioned€the€victim€and€viewed€the€security€video.€€According€to€DetectiveÐ 0"€  ÐBlessing,€the€victim€was€ð ðupset,€frightened,€[and]€scared.ðð€€Detective€Blessing€testified€that€whenÐ #l! Ðhe€questioned€the€victim,€she€told€him€that€ð ðshe€believed€that€[the€robber]€had€some€sort€of€weaponÐ $X" Ðunder€his€coat.ððÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àDetective€Blessing€stated€that€he€was€later€called€to€the€police€department€to€questionÐ Ì&"% Ða€suspect€in€the€robbery.€€Detective€Blessing€identified€the€appellant€as€the€man€he€questioned€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðday.€€According€to€Detective€Blessing,€the€appellant€was€very€cooperative€and,€after€signing€a€waiverÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€his€rights,€the€appellant€made€a€statement€which€Detective€Blessing€recorded€in€writing.€€DetectiveÐ )à$( Ðâ âBlessing€testified€that€he€then€read€the€statement€back€to€the€appellant,€who€signed€the€statement€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðaccurate€after€initialing€one€spelling€error.€€The€statement,€which€was€introduced€into€evidence,€readÐ ° Ðas€follows:Ð œì Ðâ âà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€came€down€to€Kingsport€to€visit€my€sister€Martha€Harper.€€I€haveÐ ˆØ Ðbeen€staying€with€her.€€Martha€has€been€having€a€rough€time€trying€toÐ tÄ Ðmake€ends€meet.€€I€had€been€to€the€Mall€and€I€got€a€ride€goingÐ `° Ðtowards€Riverview.€€I€started€walking€around.€€I€found€myself€downÐ L œ Ðnext€to€the€Minute€Market.€€I€decided€to€go€in€and€rob€the€business.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐI€walked€in€and€proceeded€to€go€behind€the€counter€and€I€told€theÐ $ t Ðfemale€to€give€me€the€money€out€of€the€register.€€I€kept€my€hands€inÐ  ` Ðmy€coat€as€to€make€her€believe€I€had€a€gun€or€something.€€I€took€theÐ ü L  Ðmoney€out€of€the€register€and€left€running€out€of€the€store.€€I€donððtÐ è 8  Ðknow€how€much€I€got€but€I€donððt€think€it€was€even€a€$100.00€dollars.€Ð Ô$  ÐI€hid€out€going€along€the€back€streets€until€I€made€it€to€Riverview.€Ð À  ÐWhile€I€was€in€Riverview,€the€police€saw€me€and€thatððs€when€I€tookÐ ¬ü  Ðoff€running.€€While€I€was€running,€I€lost€the€money€out€of€my€pocket.Иè ` x` x ÐDetective€Blessing€testified€that€the€appellant€told€him€that€he€did€not€have€a€weapon€when€he€robbedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€store.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€foregoing€testimony,€the€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€aggravatedÐ H˜ Ðrobbery€and€imposed€a€ten€thousand€dollar€($10,000)€fine.€€The€trial€court€initially€sentenced€theÐ 4„ Ðappellant€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender€to€twenty„eight€years€incarceration€because€the€appellantÐ  p Ðhad€ð ðfive€prior€Class€C€convictions.ðð€€However,€after€later€discovering€that€one€of€the€robberyÐ  \ Ðconvictions€was€actually€a€conviction€for€solicitation€to€commit€a€robbery€thereby€reducing€theÐ øH Ðnumber€of€Class€C€convictions€to€four,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€setting€aside€the€twenty„eightÐ ä4 Ðyear€sentence€and€granting€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€At€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðfound€the€appellant€to€be€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€and€sentenced€him€to€twenty€yearsÐ ¼  Ðincarceration.€€The€appellant€appeals€his€conviction€and€sentence,€challenging€(1)€the€sufficiency€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€evidence€to€support€his€conviction€of€armed€robbery;€(2)€the€trial€courtððs€granting€of€the€StateððsÐ ”ä Ðmotion€to€amend€the€indictment€on€the€day€of€trial;€(3)€the€wording€of€the€trial€courtððs€juryÐ €Ð Ðinstructions€regarding€lesser„included€offenses;€and€(4)€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òII.€€Analysisó óóóÐ D!” ÐÓ  ÓA.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€his€convictionÐ #l! Ðof€aggravated€robbery.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€asserts€that€ð ðthe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€fails€toÐ $X" Ðestablish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€[the€appellant]€accomplished€the€robbery€by€use€of€a€deadlyÐ ô$D # Ðweapon€or€any€article€intended€to€make€the€victim€reasonably€believe€that€he€was€carrying€a€deadlyÐ à%0!$ Ðweapon.ðð€€The€appellant€contends€that€ð ðthe€evidence,€at€most,€supports€a€conviction€for€the€lesserÐ Ì&"% Ðincluded€offense€of€robbery.ððÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standardÐ )à$( Ðfor€review€by€an€appellate€court€is€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÐ h+¸&* Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);Ð ° ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€The€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÐ œì Ðreasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€valueÐ tÄ Ðto€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trierÐ `° Ðof€fact.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€will€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ð L œ Ð476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Because€a€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€is€initially€cloaked€at€trial€and€replaces€it€on€appeal€with€one€of€guilt,€a€convictedÐ $ t Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€to€this€court€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.Ð  ` ÐTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àRobbery€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€personÐ Ô$  Ðof€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1997).€€AsÐ À  Ðrelevant€to€the€crime€charged€in€this€case,€aggravated€robbery€is€robbery€ð ðòòóó[a]ccomplished€with€aÐ ¬ü  Ðdeadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believeÐ ˜è  Ðit€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a)(1)€(1997).€€The€appellant€asserts€that,Ð „Ô  Ðbased€upon€the€evidence,€the€victim€could€not€have€reasonably€believed€that€the€appellant€possessedÐ pÀ Ða€weapon.€€According€to€the€appellant,€the€evidence€showed€only€that€the€appellant€demanded€moneyÐ \¬ Ðwhile€placing€his€hand€inside€his€jacket.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€the€appellant€cites€to€òòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐDaryl€Anthony€Jemisonóó,€No.€01C01„9303„CR„00107,€1994€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€199,€at€*6Ð 4„ Ð(Nashville,€Mar.€31,€1994),€in€which€this€court€stated,€ð ðWe€have€reservations€about€a€hand€in€aÐ  p Ðjacket,€without€more,€supporting€a€conclusion€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€there€was€a€ððdisplayÐ  \ Ðof€[an]€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ððððÐ øH ÐÌà  àà ` àòòJemisonóó€involved€an€aggravated€robbery€in€which€the€defendant€broke€into€anÐ Ð  Ðapartment€and,€with€his€hand€inside€his€jacket,€ordered€the€victim€to€go€into€the€bathroom€and€remainÐ ¼  Ðthere€until€he€was€gone.€€òòId.óó€at€**2„3.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€believed€that€the€defendant€hadÐ ¨ø Ða€weapon€and€that€ð ðhe€told€her€to€be€quiet€or€he€would€shoot€her.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*3.€€Although€expressingÐ ”ä Ðskepticism€that€a€hand€in€a€jacket€alone€would€be€sufficient€to€convict€the€defendant€of€aggravatedÐ €Ð Ðrobbery,€this€court€upheld€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€finding€that€ð ðthe€jury€was€entitled€toÐ l¼ Ðconclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€possessed€a€deadly€weapon€from€the€mannerÐ X ¨ Ðin€which€the€defendant€had€his€hand€in€the€jacket€and€his€threat€to€shoot€[the€victim].ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*6.€€TheÐ D!” Ðappellant€contends€that€the€facts€in€òòJemisonóó€are€ð ðreadily€distinguishableðð€from€the€facts€in€the€presentÐ 0"€  Ðcase.€€The€appellant€states€that€the€defendant€in€òòJemisonóó€kept€his€hand€in€his€pocket€and€threatenedÐ #l! Ðð ðto€shootðð€the€victim,€but€in€the€present€case,€ð ðthe€appellant€made€no€statements€about€a€weaponÐ $X" Ðbefore,€during,€or€after€placing€his€hand€in€his€pocket.ðð€€The€State,€on€the€other€hand,€contends€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€evidence€in€the€present€case€ð ðwas€stronger€than€the€evidence€presented€in€[òòJemisonóó].ðð€€We€findÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€two€cases€to€be€indistinguishable.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòJemisonóó,€the€defendant€kept€his€hand€in€his€jacket€while€threatening€ð ðto€shootðð€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvictim.€€òòId.óó€at€*3.€€In€the€present€case,€Pickens€testified€that€the€appellant€had€an€object€under€hisÐ )à$( Ðjacket€which€he€pointed€at€Pickens€while€ordering€her€to€ð ðopen€the€drawer€or€Iððll€kill€you.ðð€€ThereÐ |*Ì%) Ðis€only€a€slight€difference€in€the€wording€of€the€threats.€€While€the€word€ð ðshootðð€òòóóobviously€led€theÐ h+¸&* Ðvictim€in€òòJemisonóó€to€believe€that€the€defendant€had€a€gun,€we€have€no€doubt€that€the€appellantððsÐ ° Ðthreat€to€ð ðkillðð€Pickens€could€have€led€Pickens€to€believe€that€the€appellant€was€holding€a€weaponÐ œì Ðunder€his€jacket.€€As€in€òòJemisonóó,€we€conclude€in€the€instant€case€that€ð ð[t]he€jury€was€entitled€toÐ ˆØ Ðaccredit€the€[appellantððs]€threat€and€to€infer€from€it€and€his€hand€positioning€that€he€was€armed.ðð€Ð tÄ ÐòòId.óó€at€*6.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€evidence€necessary€to€establish€aggravated€robbery,€the€appellantÐ 8 ˆ Ðalso€asks€this€court€to€consider€the€aggravated€robbery€statutes€of€Arizona,€Georgia,€and€Michigan,Ð $ t Ðwhich€the€appellant€asserts€are€similar€to€that€of€Tennessee.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€the€appellant,€these€statesÐ  ` Ðð ðhave€made€specific€findings€as€to€the€type€of€evidence€required€to€establish€the€offense€ofÐ ü L  Ðaggravated€robbery.ðð€€However,€because€our€law€is€clear€on€the€matter,€we€see€no€need€to€look€to€theÐ è 8  Ðlaw€of€other€states.Ð Ô$  ÐÌB.€€Amendment€of€the€IndictmentÐ ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€Stateððs€motionÐ ˜è  Ðto€amend€the€indictment€on€the€day€of€trial.׃”×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Prior€to€the€amendment,€the€indictment€charged€thatÐ „Ô  Ðon€December€18,€1999,€the€appellantÐ pÀ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àdid€unlawfully,€feloniously,€intentionally,€knowingly,€by€violence€andÐ \¬ Ðby€the€use€of€an€article€used€and€fashioned€to€lead€Margie€R.€PickensÐ H˜ Ðto€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon,€obtain€approximatelyÐ 4„ Ð$100€in€U.S.€currency€owned€by€Store€No.€4€of€Minute€Markets,€Inc.,Ð  p Ða€corporation,€from€the€person€of€Margie€R.€Pickens,€by€placing€theÐ  \ Ðsaid€Margie€R.€Pickens€in€fear,€without€the€effective€consent€of€theÐ øH Ðâ âowner€and€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€thereof,€contrary€toÐ ä4 ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€39„13„402,€a€Class€B€felony,€andÐ ° Ð.€.€.€[a]gainst€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.Мì` x` x Ðâ âThe€State€moved€to€amend€the€indictment€by€deleting€the€words€ð ðby€violence€and€by€the€useðð€andÐ ˆØ Ðinserting€the€words€ð ðby€the€display.ðð€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€over€the€appellantððsÐ tÄ Ðobjection€that€the€amendment€ð ðchange[d]€the€factual€theory€of€the€Stateððs€proof.ððÐ `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€United€States€and€the€Tennessee€Constitutions€require€that€an€indictment€informÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€accused€of€ð ðthe€nature€and€cause€of€the€accusation.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.Ð $ t ÐI,€ðð€9.€€An€indictment€satisfies€the€constitutional€requirement€of€notice€ð ðif€it€provides€sufficientÐ  ` Ðinformation€(1)€to€enable€the€accused€to€know€the€accusation€to€which€answer€is€required,€(2)€toÐ ü L  Ðfurnish€the€court€adequate€basis€for€the€entry€of€a€proper€judgment,€and€(3)€to€protect€the€accusedÐ è 8  Ðfrom€double€jeopardy.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725,€727€(Tenn.€1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„Ð Ô$  Ð202€(1997).€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àRule€7(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€that€an€indictmentÐ ˜è  Ðmay€be€amended€in€all€cases€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant.€€However,€where€a€defendant€objectsÐ „Ô  Ðto€an€amendment,€the€trial€court€may€permit€the€amendment€only€ð ðif€no€additional€or€differentÐ pÀ Ðoffense€is€charged,€no€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€are€prejudiced,€and€jeopardy€has€notÐ \¬ Ðattached.ðð€€òòState€v.€Kirklandóó,€696€S.W.2d€544,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(b).€Ð H˜ ÐIn€a€jury€trial,€jeopardy€attaches€when€the€jury€is€sworn.€€òòState€v.€Penningtonóó,€952€S.W.2d€420,€422Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€The€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€motion€to€amend€an€indictment€is€left€to€the€soundÐ  p Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€court€will€not€alter€that€decision€unless€such€discretion€wasÐ  \ Ðabused.€€òòKirklandóó,€696€S.W.2d€at€545.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€theÐ Ð  Ðamendment€prejudiced€his€rights€by€absolving€the€State€of€proving€the€elements€of€ð ðviolenceðð€andÐ ¼  Ðð ðuse.ðð€€The€appellant€claims€that,€because€his€ð ðdefense€would€have€[]€focused€upon€defendingÐ ¨ø Ðagainst€the€allegation€of€ððviolence,ðð€and€the€actual€use,€rather€than€display,€of€such€an€article[,]ðð€theÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court€should€have€either€denied€the€Stateððs€motion€to€amend€or€continued€the€trial€in€order€toÐ €Ð Ðprovide€the€appellant€time€to€prepare€a€proper€defense€based€upon€the€amended€indictment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ l¼ ÐState€asserts€that€ð ða€review€of€the€[aggravated€robbery]€statute€reveals€that€the€amendment€neitherÐ X ¨ Ðchanged€the€offense€charged€nor€affected€the€substantial€rights€of€the€[appellant].ðð€€We€agree.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€previously€noted,€aggravated€robbery€is€defined,€in€pertinent€part,€as€robberyÐ #l! Ðòòóóð ð[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€theÐ $X" Ðvictim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a)(1).€€ToÐ ô$D # Ðestablish€robbery,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€appellantÐ à%0!$ Ðobtained€the€money€òòóófrom€the€person€of€another€by€violence€òòoróó€putting€the€person€in€fear,€not€both.€Ð Ì&"% ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(a).€€Therefore,€the€deletion€of€the€phrase€ð ðby€violenceðð€in€the€amendedÐ ¸'#& Ðindictment€did€not€prejudice€the€appellant€because€the€original€indictment€also€alleged€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappellant€obtained€the€money€ð ðby€placing€the€said€Margie€R.€Pickens€in€fear.ðð€€The€State€was€notÐ )à$( Ðrequired€to€prove€ð ðviolence.ðð€€Furthermore,€in€granting€the€motion€to€amend€the€indictment,€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€noted€that€the€evidence€presented€at€the€suppression€hearing€made€it€clear€that€the€State€wasÐ œì Ðnot€relying€on€a€theory€of€ð ðviolence.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€elevate€robbery€to€aggravated€robbery,€the€language€in€the€original€indictmentÐ `° Ðprovided€that€the€robbery€was€accomplished€ð ðby€the€use€of€an€article€used€and€fashioned€to€leadÐ L œ ÐMargie€R.€Pickens€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€The€amended€language€allegedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€robbery€was€accomplished€ð ðby€the€displayðð€of€such€an€article.€€The€State€contends€that€theÐ $ t Ðð ðamendment€merely€conformed€the€language€of€the€indictment€to€the€language€of€the€statute.ðð€€WeÐ  ` Ðagree.€€Regardless,€the€original€indictment€referenced€the€statute€defining€the€offense€of€aggravatedÐ ü L  Ðrobbery€and,€therefore,€was€sufficient€to€place€the€appellant€on€notice€of€the€charged€offense.€€òòStateÐ è 8  Ðv.€Hammondsóó,€30€S.W.3d€294,€300€(Tenn.€2000)€(noting€that€ð ðrecent€decisions€of€this€Court€hold[]Ð Ô$  Ðthat€an€indictment€which€references€the€statute€defining€the€offense€is€sufficient€and€satisfies€theÐ À  Ðconstitutional€and€statutory€requirements€of€òòHillóóðð).€€We€conclude€that€the€appellant€was€notÐ ¬ü  Ðprejudiced€by€the€amendment€of€the€indictment.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ˜è  ÐÌC.€€Jury€InstructionsÐ pÀ Ðà  àà ` àNext,€the€appellant€challenges€the€wording€of€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructionsÐ \¬ Ðregarding€lesser„included€offenses.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that,€in€instructing€the€jury,€theÐ H˜ Ðtrial€court€did€not€specify€that€the€offenses€of€robbery€and€theft€under€five€hundred€dollars€($500)Ð 4„ Ðwere€ð ðlesser„included€offensesðð€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€State€contends€that€the€trial€courtÐ  p Ðproperly€instructed€the€jury.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€Tennessee,€ð ða€defendant€has€a€right€to€a€correct€and€complete€charge€of€the€law,Ð ä4 Ðso€that€each€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€will€be€submitted€to€the€jury€on€proper€instructions.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Garrisonóó,€40€S.W.3d€426,€432€(Tenn.€2000).€€We€review€a€jury€charge€to€determine€whetherÐ ¼  Ðit€fairly€submitted€the€legal€issues€involved€and€did€not€mislead€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€346,€352€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€charging€the€jury,€the€trial€court€informed€the€jury€that€ð ð[i]n€Count€I€of€this€caseÐ l¼ Ðyou€are€charging€three€charges€against€the€defendant,€Aggravated€Robbery,€Robbery,€Theft€UnderÐ X ¨ ÐFive€Hundred€Dollars€($500.00).€€You€cannot€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€more€than€one€offense.€Ð D!” ÐYou€may,€however,€find€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€all€offenses.ðð€€Thereafter,€the€trial€courtÐ 0"€  Ðinstructed€the€jury€as€to€the€elements€of€the€indicted€offense€and€each€lesser„included€offense.€Ð #l! ÐFollowing€the€instruction€on€each€offense,€the€trial€court€further€instructed€the€jury,€ð ðIf,€however,€youÐ $X" Ðhave€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€guilt€of€[insert€offense]€then€your€verdict€must€be€notÐ ô$D # Ðguilty€as€to€[that€offense]€and€you€shall€proceed€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€is€guilty€or€notÐ à%0!$ Ðguilty€of€[next€offense].ðð€€During€deliberations,€the€jury€submitted€the€following€question€to€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt,€ð ðWhat€is€the€minimum€and€maximum€prison€time€sentences€for€(1)€Aggravated€Robbery,€(2)Ð ¸'#& ÐRobbery.ðð€€The€trial€court€responded,€ð ðThe€Court€cannot€instruct€you€as€to€any€possible€sentence€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€offense.€€Such€information€is€not€relevant€to€the€determination€of€guilt€or€innocence.ððÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€41.01,€theÐ ° Ðâ âfollowing€jury€instruction€should€be€given€when€the€offense€charged€contains€more€than€one€lesser„Ð œì Ðincluded€offense:Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€you€have€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€guilt€of€[insertÐ tÄ Ðoffense€charged]€as€charged€in€[count€__€of]€the€indictment,€then€yourÐ `° Ðverdict€must€be€not€guilty€as€to€this€offense,€and€then€you€shallÐ L œ Ðproceed€to€determine€[his][her]€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€òòlesseróóÐ 8 ˆ Ðòòincludedóó€òòoffenseóó€of€[insert€next€lesser€included€offense€in€order].Ð$ t` x` x Ð(footnote€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€However,€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€pattern€juryÐ  ` Ðinstructions€are€ð ðmerely€patterns€or€suggestionsðð€and,€as€such,€trial€courts€are€not€required€to€reciteÐ ü L  Ðtheir€language.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€354.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€State€asserts€that€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury,€citing€òòState€v.Ð À  ÐDeandrade€Phillipsóó,€No.€E2000„00153„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€190,Ð ¬ü  Ð(Knoxville,€Mar.€15,€2001),€in€which€this€court€upheld€similar,€if€not€identical,€jury€instructions.€€InÐ ˜è  ÐòòPhillipsóó,€this€court€concluded€that€ð ðthe€trial€courtððs€instructions€were€clear,€accurate,€and€completeÐ „Ô  Ðand€[we]€do€not€believe€that€the€jury€was€confused€by€the€included€offenses€not€being€described€asÐ pÀ Ðlesser€included.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*20.€€Although€the€appellant€acknowledges€our€holding€in€òòPhillipsóó,€he€claimsÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€present€case€is€distinguishable€in€that€the€instructions€in€the€present€case€clearly€confusedÐ H˜ Ðthe€jury,€as€evidenced€by€the€juryððs€question€to€the€trial€court.€€We€disagree.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóWe€do€not€find€the€jury€instructions€confusing€or€misleading.€€First,€the€trial€courtÐ  \ Ðinstructed€the€jury€on€all€three€offenses€and€further€instructed€that€it€could€convict€the€appellant€ofÐ øH Ðonly€one€offense€or€it€could€acquit€the€appellant€of€all€offenses.€€Second,€the€trial€court€instructed€theÐ ä4 Ðjury€as€to€the€elements€of€each€offense€and€clearly€instructed€that€if€there€was€reasonable€doubt€asÐ Ð  Ðto€one€offense,€the€jury€was€required€to€find€the€appellant€not€guilty€as€to€that€offense€and€move€onÐ ¼  Ðto€the€next€offense.€€Finally,€in€response€to€the€juryððs€question,€the€trial€court€informed€the€jury€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€potential€sentences€were€irrelevant€in€determining€guilt€or€innocence.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourt€did€not€err€in€instructing€the€jury.€Ð €Ð ÐÌD.€€SentencingÐ X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasÐ D!” Ðexcessive.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€he€should€not€have€been€sentenced€to€twentyÐ 0"€  Ðyears€incarceration,€the€maximum€sentence€for€a€Range€II€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony.€Ð #l! ÐAt€the€initial€sentencing€hearing,€the€evidence€presented€consisted€of€the€presentence€report,€a€copyÐ $X" Ðof€the€appellantððs€prior€convictions,€and€a€copy€of€the€statement€the€appellant€made€to€DetectiveÐ ô$D # ÐBlessing.€€At€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€parties€presented€argument,€but€otherwise€relied€upon€theÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€presented€at€the€initial€hearing.€€Based€on€this€information,€the€trial€court€applied€threeÐ Ì&"% Ðenhancement€factors€to€which€it€afforded€great€weight,€i.e.,€that€the€appellant€had€a€prior€history€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðcriminal€behavior,€that€the€appellant€had€an€unwillingness€to€comply€with€sentences€involvingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrelease€into€the€community,€and€that€the€appellant€committed€the€instant€offense€while€on€parole.€Ð )à$( ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€and€(13)€(Supp.€2001).€€As€a€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðconsidered€the€appellantððs€voluntary€confession€of€guilt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€Ð h+¸&* ÐHowever,€the€trial€court€did€not€afford€this€factor€enough€weight€to€reduce€the€appellantððs€sentenceÐ ° Ðbecause€the€appellant€testified€during€an€offer€of€proof€at€trial€that€Detective€Blessing,€who€recordedÐ œì Ðthe€statement€in€writing,€ð ðmade€upðð€part€of€the€statement.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,Ð `° Ðit€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ L œ Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€However,€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðpresumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ð  ` Ð823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€the€sentence€isÐ ü L  Ðimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€conducting€our€review,€this€court€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€receivedÐ À  Ðat€trial€and€at€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€andÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€the€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€offenses;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancements€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€appellantÐ „Ô  Ðon€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€appellantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð pÀ Ððð€40„35„102€and€„103€(1997),€„210€(Supp.€2002);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€B€felony€is€the€minimum€within€the€applicableÐ 4„ Ðrange€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€finds€that€such€factors€do€exist,€the€court€must€start€at€the€presumptive€sentence,€enhance€theÐ  \ Ðsentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentenceÐ øH Ðwithin€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€ThereÐ ä4 Ðis€no€mathematical€formula€for€valuating€factors€to€calculate€the€appropriate€sentence.€€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€ð ðRather,€the€weight€to€be€afforded€anÐ ¼  Ðexisting€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€so€long€as€the€court€complies€with€the€purposesÐ ¨ø Ðand€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.ðð€Ð ”ä ÐòòId.óó€at€475„76.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€challenging€the€length€of€his€sentence,€the€appellant€first€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðerred€in€applying€enhancement€factor€(13),€i.e.,€that€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€appellantÐ D!” Ðwas€on€parole.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13).€€The€appellant€argues€that,€in€applying€this€factor,Ð 0"€  Ðthe€trial€court€relied€only€on€the€presentence€report,€ð ð[no]€fugitive€warrant€nor€any€other€recordÐ #l! Ðsubstantiating€this€allegation€was€introduced€[at€sentencing].ðð€€Contrary€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€Ð $X" Ðthe€trial€court€is€required€to€consider€the€presentence€report€in€sentencing€a€defendant.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ô$D # ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(2).€€Moreover,€the€appellant€had€the€right€to€challenge€the€informationÐ à%0!$ Ðcontained€in€the€presentence€report€at€either€of€the€two€sentencing€hearings€by€presenting€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€contrary,€but€the€appellant€presented€no€such€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(b)Ð ¸'#& Ð(Supp.€2002).€€Instead,€at€the€initial€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€through€counsel€merelyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðobjected€to€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(13),€arguing€that€ð ð[t]hereððs€no€realÐ )à$( Ðproof€before€the€Court€of€what€his€status€is.€.€.€.€They€could€have€discharged€him.€€He€could€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðearned€enough€sentencing€credits€somehow.€€We€donððt€know€Illinois€law.ðð€€Rather€than€speculate,Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€appellant€should€have€produced€evidence€demonstrating€that€he€had€served€his€sentence€for€theÐ ° Ðprior€conviction€and,€therefore,€was€not€on€parole€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€in€the€instant€case.€€òòSeeóóÐ œì ÐòòState€v.€Johnny€Benard€Jonesóó,€No.€02C01„9801„CC„00026,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€1292Ð ˆØ Ð(Jackson,€Dec.€21,€1998).€€We€find€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€considering€the€only€evidence€beforeÐ tÄ Ðit€regarding€enhancement€factor€(13).Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€also€contends€that,€if€this€court€finds€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðapplying€enhancement€factor€(13),€the€presence€of€only€two€enhancement€factors,€(1)€and€(8),€is€notÐ $ t Ðsufficient€to€sentence€the€appellant€to€the€maximum€sentence.€€Because€we€have€determined€that€theÐ  ` Ðtrial€court€properly€enhanced€the€appellantððs€sentence€in€respect€to€factor€(13),€this€argument€is€moot.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€the€appellant€asserts€that€ð ðhis€cooperation€was€substantial€in€voluntarilyÐ Ô$  Ðadmitting€to€his€involvement€in€the€crime,€which€provided€great€assistance€to€the€authorities.ðð€€TheÐ À  Ðappellant€claims€that,€based€on€his€voluntary€confession,€he€is€ð ðentitled€to€a€downward€departureÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€his€sentence.ðð€€We€disagree.€€As€previously€noted,€ð ðthe€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factorÐ ˜è  Ðis€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€so€long€as€the€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principlesÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.ðð€€òòBoggsóó,€932Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€at€475„76.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€it€would€not€afford€the€appellantððs€voluntaryÐ \¬ Ðconfession€enough€weight€to€reduce€his€sentence€because€the€appellant€alleged€that€DetectiveÐ H˜ ÐBlessing€ð ðmade€upðð€the€part€of€the€confession€which€stated€that€the€appellant€ð ðkept€[his]€hands€inÐ 4„ Ð[his]€coat€as€to€make€her€believe€[he]€had€a€gun€or€something.ðð€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€notedÐ  p Ðthat€the€appellant€had€little€to€lose€by€confessing€because€the€entire€crime€had€been€recorded€by€theÐ  \ Ðstoreððs€security€video€camera.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€exercised€its€discretion€inÐ øH Ðaffording€the€mitigating€factor€little€or€no€weight.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€statutoryÐ ¼  Ðmitigating€factor€(1)€in€determining€the€appropriate€sentence,€i.e.,€that€the€appellantððs€conduct€neitherÐ ¨ø Ðcaused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€According€to€theÐ ”ä Ðappellant,€ð ð[s]ince€the€proof€was€insubstantial€that€[the]€appellant€possessed€a€weapon,€the€verbalÐ €Ð Ðthreats€alone€should€not€constitute€a€threat€of€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€òòóóHowever,€the€appellant€citesÐ l¼ Ðno€authority€in€support€of€this€argument.€€Even€assuming€that€the€trial€court€should€have€consideredÐ X ¨ Ðthis€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€court€was€within€its€discretion€in€affording€great€weight€to€theÐ D!” Ðappellantððs€criminal€history,€the€appellantððs€unwillingness€to€comply€with€sentences€involvingÐ 0"€  Ðrelease€into€the€community,€and€the€fact€that€the€appellant€committed€the€instant€offense€while€onÐ #l! Ðparole.€€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€475„76.€€Thus,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÐ $X" Ðsentenced€the€appellant.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€€Conclusionó óóóÐ Ì&"% ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÌÌÌà  àà ` àÌà  à