ÿWPC$ QX°|ê:ÛÚØˆú×ßÉØÀ1¢Å |L êÉËñíS®ÙçÏþK¡–™<‹€•)uÑšÙQí©Û`ô¥ÊФ˜™”æ—k+˜Uÿâ–Mï]ÿœf;åãßë÷Âß=—QªãU¤=>¤ºmX¹¦ß‘ G—–ÕF‰¿BD0÷Ll£×Û)£h¹cqc"!Îs˜ eb» ¹ÄQˬÅfp ¥ Ù¡f;‰[+Œ·V²ÌÞÕŠùSXû–.\.ó}Pm‡’ðj¶^?¾ë›±ÞÜÅð†9_ XXã¾|W/ÁÂkáF!­#tâ:Ÿ¹QÁ¤ôp'ÛªC)ú¶˜˜ÖÀŸÍšÉ6Š¿ò(¿E IfiÂän¾{à v8W!Z"VN‡¡Úär³ÈçjXæ>pvKe§æT¶ñ´H¾&ûz®Oþ£€êÙ†y-•÷N܃¡Œ§.¡? –9¬aÏkLÊût:Âs¢í³b•˨±XšñJ? <<ßÍïšÿü¦=¼Oûǿ߸s±[XËÀ;¾,`?Á}uS™ÈÓ$?s¿ªy»±¾åðG  pO.ÑL+>z„;;rÑ|æÛ9*öï|5ÕñìÖI4ËÁ»öÙƒµø¨·åXd#!xUN™ %ç 0(íU: bO wW 4[ o "~ N  ^ ¢ ® m° Ç 0lÏ 0D; D5  6´ U:ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê B$ $ $ $ 0DA A A AQ… ÆÖ 0Dœ 0Dà ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-tpO'3|xkidnappingu¬'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóYYYY)ÿÿ!dxdx ,Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X¶XXXÔÔ€¦]XX¶ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¶X¦]ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýab]cCþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Š«‹XXÔÔ€Š*á‹‹Š«ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€u@XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌßx€`B2.jzŒÿr`  `€€@ÿE¬Ö ` 8ttxPäd ð r xßAT€NASHVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)à0 p àC.C.A.€NO.€M199800466CCAR3CDÐv p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ x  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant,ò òà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð z  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ|p€%p€% ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð ~ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àHON.€FRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€JR.Ђ"p€%p€% ÐSHIRLEY€R.€HASTINGS,à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)€€€€€€€à p àЄ$€%€% Ѐà ` àà0 ¸ àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà À àà  à)à0ph€%h€%àó óІ&p€%p€% Ѐà ` àà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À àò òà  à)à0 p à(SEVENTH€OFFENSE€DUI;€HMVO)Ј(p€%p€% Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:à h àà À àòòà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð ~! ÐÌò òW.€H.€STEPHENSON,€IIà À àà0  àà0p€%€%àà È àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS€Ðv#p€%p€% Ðó óSuite€318,€2400€Crestmoor€Roadà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ x$ ÐNashville,€TN€37215Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àLUCIAN€D.€GEISEÐ p& Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ r' Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð j)  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àó óà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð f*!! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÐ ^,þ"# Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ `-$$ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òCOLIN€J.€CARNAHANÐ X/ø%& Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ Z0ú&' Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à222€2nd€Avenue€North€Ì€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ð N3î)* ÐÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;€Ð .;Î12 ÐREMANDED€FOR€RESENTENCINGÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  X ø ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Où °‹Š*áÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š*á‹ °°OùÔÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓÌÓÓ€Ìà ` àOn€May€20,€1998,€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€DefendantÏShirley€R.€Hastings€in€case€98„T„502€for€seventh€offense€driving€under€the€influenceÏ(ð ðDUIðð)€and€for€violating€the€habitual€motor€vehicle€offender€(ð ðHMVOðð)€law.€€OnÏSeptember€16,€1998,€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Defendant€in€caseÏ98„T„915€for€seventh€offense€DUI€and€for€violating€the€HMVO€law.€€On€October€19,Ï1998,€Defendant€pled€guilty€in€case€98„T„915€to€seventh€offense€DUI€and€violatingÏthe€HMVO€law.€€On€November€23,€1998,€Defendant€pled€guilty€in€case€98„T„502€toÏseventh€offense€DUI€and€violating€the€HMVO€law.€€Following€a€consolidatedÏsentencing€hearing€on€November€23,€1998,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Defendant€asÏa€Range€I€standard€offender€to€concurrent€sentences€of€one€year€for€each€of€theÏHMVO€convictions.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentences€ofÏeleven€months€and€twenty€nine€days€for€each€of€the€DUI€convictions,€suspendedÏafter€180€days€in€jail.€€The€State€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€sentence,Ïraising€the€following€issue:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€imposeÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€in€part,€reverse€the€judgment€in€part,€and€remand€this€case€forÏresentencing.ÌÌà@®®(Dàò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ š1:(( ÐÌà ` àOn€November€27,€1996,€Defendantððs€car€caught€fire€while€she€was€driving€onÏInterstate€65€in€Davidson€County.€€When€law€enforcement€officers€arrived,€theyÏobserved€that€Defendant€had€an€extreme€odor€of€alcohol€on€her€person,€hadÐ †9&00 Ðbloodshot€eyes,€and€had€slurred€speech.€€Defendant€subsequently€failed€at€leastÏone€field€sobriety€test€and€a€breath€test€indicated€that€she€had€a€blood€alcoholÏcontent€of€.148%.€€In€addition,€Defendantððs€driverððs€license€had€previously€beenÏrevoked€and€she€had€been€declared€a€HMVO.ÌÌà ` àOn€February€12,€1997,€while€Defendant€was€on€bond€for€the€November€1996Ïoffenses,€she€was€involved€in€a€two„car€accident€in€Davidson€County.€€When€lawÏenforcement€officers€arrived€they€observed€that€Defendant€had€a€strong€odor€ofÏalcohol€on€her€person€and€had€extremely€slurred€speech.€€The€officers€alsoÏobserved€that€there€were€several€empty€whisky€bottles€in€Defendantððs€vehicle.€€AÏsubsequent€breath€test€indicated€that€Defendant€had€a€blood€alcohol€content€ofÏ.16%.ÌÌà ` àDuring€the€sentencing€hearing,€Defendant€admitted€that€she€was€on€bond€forÏthe€November€1996€offenses€when€she€committed€the€February€1997€offenses.€ÏDefendant€also€admitted€that€she€had€six€prior€DUI€convictions€and€she€admittedÏthat€she€had€continued€to€drive€on€numerous€occasions€even€though€she€hadÏpreviously€been€declared€a€HMVO.€€However,€Defendant€testified€that€she€hadÏturned€her€life€around€and€she€was€receiving€treatment€for€her€substance€abuseÏproblems.€€Defendant€also€testified€that€she€had€been€making€an€effort€to€improveÏher€life€by€obtaining€additional€education€and€career€training.ÌÌà ` àDebbie€Sue€Lentz€and€Theresa€Diane€Malone€verified€Defendantððs€testimonyÏâ âthat€she€was€receiving€extensive€treatment€for€her€substance€abuse€problems.€Ð ¨6H-. ÐBoth€Lentz€and€Malone€testified€that€they€had€seen€dramatic€improvement€inÏDefendantððs€ability€to€stay€clean€and€sober.Ìâ âÌà ` àAt€the€close€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€found€theÏtestimony€from€Lentz€and€Malone€about€Defendantððs€improvement€in€dealing€withÏher€problems€to€be€ð ðpowerful€and€compelling.ðð€€The€trial€court€then€addressedÏvarious€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€and€stated€that€it€had€determined€thatÏbased€upon€all€of€the€relevant€circumstances,€consecutive€sentencing€was€notÏappropriate.ÌÌà@·· Dàò òII.€€PROCEDURAL€CONSIDERATIONSó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àInitially,€Defendant€contends€that€this€appeal€should€be€summarily€dismissedÏbecause€the€State€has€failed€to€comply€with€Rules€5(b)€and€24(b)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Rule€5(b)€provides€that€ð ð[w]hen€the€[S]tate€.€.€.€is€theÏappellant,€a€copy€of€the€notice€of€appeal€shall€be€served€on€the€defendant€and€theÏdefendantððs€counsel.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5(b).€€Rule€24(b)€provides€that€ð ð[t]heÏtranscript,€certified€by€the€appellant,€the€appellantððs€counsel,€or€the€reporter€as€anÏaccurate€account€of€the€proceedings,€shall€be€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€courtÏwithin€90€days€after€filing€the€notice€of€appeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€The€StateÏexpressly€concedes€that€it€did€not€comply€with€Rule€5(b)€because,€although€it€didÏserve€Defendantððs€counsel€with€a€copy€of€the€notice€of€appeal,€it€did€not€serveÏDefendant.€€In€addition,€the€record€indicates€that€the€State€also€failed€to€comply€withÏâ âRule€24(b)€because€it€did€not€file€the€transcript€within€the€ninety€day€period.€€TheÐ ´6T-. ÐState€contends€that€even€though€it€did€not€comply€with€these€rules,€dismissal€is€notÏwarranted€in€this€case.€€We€agree€with€the€State.Ìâ âÌà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€affect€of€noncompliance€withÏthe€technical€aspects€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€in€òòJohnson€v.€Hardinóó,€926Ð @à ÐS.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓÓà0 ` àRule€1€of€[the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure]€requires€that€"[t]hese€rules€shallÏbe€construed€to€secure€the€just,€speedy,€and€inexpensive€determination€ofÏevery€proceeding€on€its€merits."€€The€general€policy€of€the€rules,€asÏsuggested€by€the€Advisory€Commission€and€interpreted€by€the€courts,Ïemphasizes€reaching€a€just€result€and€disregarding€technicality€in€form.€.€.€.ÏThe€rules€of€appellate€procedure€provide€courts€with€wide€discretion€andÏsubstantial€flexibility.€[Under€Rule€2€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€a]nÏappellate€court,€"[f]or€good€cause,€including€the€interest€of€expeditingÏdecision€upon€any€matter,€.€.€.€may€suspend€the€requirements€or€provisionsÏof€[the]€rules€in€a€particular€case."€.€.€.€Thus,€the€overall€intent€of€the€rules€isÏto€allow€cases€to€be€resolved€on€their€merits.€€A€court's€construction€andÏapplication€of€the€rules€should€further€that€intent€and€should€enhance,€notÏimpede,€the€search€for€justice.€Ð ` €%` €% ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€238ð!ð39€(citations€and€footnotes€omitted).€€Ð ø"˜ ÐÌà ` àWe€wish€to€emphasize€that€we€do€not€condone€the€Stateððs€failure€to€complyÏwith€the€clear€and€unambiguous€rules€cited€by€Defendant.€€However,€we€note€thatÏDefendant€has€failed€to€identify€any€manner€in€which€she€was€prejudiced€by€theÏStateððs€noncompliance.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€in€this€case,€dismissal€of€the€appealÏwould€overemphasize€technicality€in€form€and€would€impede€the€search€for€justice.€ÏTherefore,€we€will€address€the€merits€of€this€case.ÌÌà@‘‘!Dàò òIII.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ °4P+, Ðâ âÐ ´6T-. Ðà ` àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€imposeÏâ âconsecutive€sentencing€in€this€case.ÌÌà ` àWhen€the€State€challenges€a€defendant's€sentence,€the€State€has€the€burdenÏof€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€òòState€v.€Blouvetóó,€965€S.W.2d€489,€494Ð @à Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997)€(SentencingÏCommission€Comments).€€In€addition,€our€review€is€de€novo€with€a€presumption€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determinations€were€correct.€€òòBlouvetóó,€965€S.W.2d€atÐ (È  Ð494;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402(d)€(Supp.€1999).€€However,€this€presumption€"isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ð ¨ ÐÌà@ÖÖDàò òA.€€HMVO€Sentence€in€Case€98„T„915ó óˆÐ ø"˜ ÐÌà ` àFirst,€the€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€the€HMVOÏsentence€in€case€98„T„915€to€run€concurrently€with€the€sentences€in€case€98„T„502.ÌÌà ` àRule€32(c)(3)(C)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides:ÌÓÓà0 ` àWhere€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€multiple€sentences€from€one€trial€or€whereÏthe€defendant€has€additional€sentences€not€yet€fully€served€as€the€result€ofÏthe€convictions€in€the€same€or€other€court€and€the€law€requires€consecutiveÏsentences,€the€sentence€shall€be€consecutive€whether€the€judgment€explicitlyÏso€orders€or€not.€€This€rule€shall€apply:Ð ` €%` €% Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` €%` €%àTo€a€sentence€for€a€felony€where€the€defendant€was€released€on€bailÏand€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€both€offenses.Ð ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(3)(C).€€In€addition,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„¼20„111(b)€provides:Ð ¬8L/0 ÐÓÓà0 ` àIn€any€case€in€which€a€defendant€commits€a€felony€while€such€defendant€wasÏreleased€on€bail€.€.€.€and€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€both€such€offenses,Ïthe€trial€judge€shall€not€have€discretion€as€to€whether€the€sentence€shall€runÏconcurrently€or€cumulatively,€but€shall€order€that€such€sentences€be€servedÏcumulatively.Ð ` €%` €% ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„111(b)€(1997).€€Under€these€provisions,€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€mandatory€when€a€defendant€commits€a€felony€while€on€bond€and€theÏdefendant€is€subsequently€convicted€of€both€offenses.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€undisputed€that€Defendant€was€on€bond€for€the€DUI€and€HMVO€offensesÏin€case€98„T„502€when€she€committed€the€DUI€and€HMVO€offenses€in€case€98„T„¼915.€€Because€violating€the€HMVO€law€is€a€Class€E€felony,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¸ Ððð€55„10„616(b)€(1998),€the€trial€court€was€required€to€order€the€HMVO€sentence€inÏcase€98„T„915€to€run€consecutively€to€the€sentences€in€case€98„T„502.€€The€trialÏcourt€had€absolutely€no€discretion€in€this€aspect€of€sentencing.ÌÌà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€below,€we€conclude€that€we€must€remand€this€caseÏfor€resentencing.€€Upon€remand,€the€trial€court€must€order€the€HMVO€sentence€inÏcase€98„T„915€to€run€consecutively€to€the€sentences€in€case€98„T„502.ÌÌà@ÁÁ$Dàò òB.€€All€Four€Sentencesó óˆÐ Ð,p#$ ÐÌà ` àSecond,€the€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€orderÏall€four€of€Defendantððs€sentences€to€run€consecutively€to€each€other.ÌÌà ` àWith€certain€exceptions,€including€the€one€discussed€above,€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-115(b),€whichÐ ¬8L/0 Ðprovides€that€ð ð[t]he€[trial]€court€òòmayóó€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€courtÐ `  Ðfinds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatðð€one€or€more€of€the€required€statutoryÏcriteria€exist.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)€(1997)€(emphasis€added).€€ð ðWhetherÏsentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently€or€consecutively€is€a€matter€addressed€toÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€973€S.W.2d€224,€230ð!ð31Ð @à Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€ÌÌà ` àDuring€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€discussed€Defendantððs€criminalÏrecord,€Defendantððs€family€situation,€the€relevant€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors,€and€the€testimony€from€Lentz€and€Malone.€€The€trial€court€then€stated€thatÏbased€on€all€of€these€considerations,€it€had€determined€that€consecutive€sentencingÏwas€not€appropriate€in€this€case.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€ordered€all€four€ofÏDefendantððs€sentences€to€run€consecutively€to€each€other€because€Defendant€is€anÏoffender€with€an€extensive€criminal€record.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2)Ð è&ˆ Ð(1997).€€We€conclude€that€while€the€trial€court€probably€would€have€been€justifiedÏin€imposing€consecutive€sentencing€on€this€basis,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€imposing€concurrent€sentencing€(other€than€as€previously€noted€in€thisÏopinion).€€Section€40„35„115(b)€provides€that€the€trial€court€may,€rather€than€must,Ïimpose€consecutive€sentencing€if€one€or€more€of€the€enumerated€factors€is€present.€ÏIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€criteria€and€exercisedÏits€discretion€to€impose€concurrent,€rather€than€consecutive€sentencing€for€the€DUIÏand€HMVO€convictions€in€case€98„T„502€and€the€DUI€conviction€in€case€98„T„915.€ÏBecause€our€review€indicates€that€the€trial€court€ordered€these€three€sentences€toÐ  8@/0 Ðrun€concurrently€after€giving€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€andÏprinciples€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€we€may€not€order€all€four€sentences€inÏthis€case€to€run€consecutively€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€that€result.€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ P ð Ðv.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1991).€€Thus,€we€conclude€thatÐ Hè Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€decided€not€to€order€all€fourÏsentences€to€run€consecutively.ÌÌà@#Dàò òIV.€€NECESSITY€FOR€REMANDó óˆÐ (È  ÐÌà ` àIn€our€review€of€the€record,€it€is€apparent€the€trial€courtððs€determination€of€theÏlength€of€each€sentence€was€based€largely€upon€the€courtððs€erroneousÏdetermination€that€all€four€sentences€should€run€concurrently€to€each€other.€ÏBecause€the€HMVO€sentence€in€case€98„T„915€must€run€consecutively€to€theÏsentences€in€case€98„T„502,€we€conclude€that€the€interests€of€justice€require€theÏremand€of€this€matter€for€reconsideration€of€the€length€of€each€of€the€fourÏsentences.ÌÌà@ÂÂ(Dàò òV.€€CONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ä*„!" ÐÌà ` àIn€conclusion,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€as€much€as€it€ordered€theÏDUI€and€HMVO€sentences€in€case€98„T„502€and€the€DUI€sentence€in€case€98„T„¼915€to€run€concurrently€with€each€other.€€However,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€in€as€much€as€it€ordered€concurrent€sentencing€for€the€HMVO€sentenceÏâ âin€case€98„T„915€because€that€sentence€must€run€consecutively€to€the€sentencesÐ À6`-. Ðin€case€98„T„502.€€In€addition,€we€remand€this€case€for€resentencing€in€regard€toÏthe€length€of€all€four€sentences.Ìâ âÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JR.,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JudgeØ عÑ  Ñ