ÿWPC K ‡Ö.Ú;ÂAw«†A.«ÿ;™<%_È2+Ù¼ªòô)²@oÞà„Þ “Ô¸ºûMÂÖpF$ña /HÌVU寔éŽsèùÌç‚ÀÉ\*49)ßbŽåîêÛ|uh ØÓ•QcÒˆ®èÊhÒß3ìW²  JEÚš0ånfKá$Å yoqBFMž_Û½©´Ã×åê§[ŠÈ è#$‚Bd!o„É-†ñK£ôÃ\ÂÊ¿^rÁqéú‚Kw…ô¡r&´O2®°Ð}X{Dþ!èþéûiĦ˜ê{²ÃxBÐùâqÕ×i†sѼ¡SAþn¤‘Ÿé¯‚Òö°.å' C&l4ç§«‚!ضüÖ)ÂÜ‹"åÅHŸÎhÍ„n(&Lé{aÅ WÝ@éÍ`[E€oª© 3º$àêŽNY?W}äþ¨?0‘ù_Óê0£H[3¼½Ke¢}µCÈoTiÍ õœÔšÁê‘Vw*Ú©[Ö&À¥çi~¹´¡É¾ì„CJ"xåÙàþ¥Ñî¢Íõ`#E¹—ŸjÖu@%º=ë¨RBƒ» õk¼íߨW?DJýdG {ÂÚº&²‚c‘ê ª!ÖÆDÊ«Ï?·¶ ŸRo(ÍÎ #ÉÒ %› N¡ 0ˆ£ U N+ U@y UN¹ zÒ zSÒÍNŸÐ¡ÆqÆ7ÆýÆÃ 0U‰NÞ zàÒZN, 0ã. 0Å zÖÒP 0¿"EáNã 0¹å 0³ž zQÒËN 0­Ÿ 0§L zóÒmN? 0¡A 0Åâ 0ѧ! zx"Òò"NÄ#bÆ# 0³Î# 0­$ z.%Ò¨%Nz& 0§|& 0¡#' zÄ'Ò>(N) 0›) 0•­) zB*Ò¼*NŽ+ 0+ 0Â, zß,ÒY-N+. 0Î-. 0°û. z«/Ò%0N÷0 0ªù0 0¤£1 zG2ÒÁ2N“3 0ž•3 0˜34 zË4ÒE5N6 0ë6 0’7 0Š–7 z 8 Bš8Ò·8 0¤‰9 D5-: D-b: 0K:NÚ: ASÜ:Æ/; 0¤õ; 0D™< A«Ý< 0Dˆ=HÌ= z@ÒŽ@N`AU>bAbA z AÒBNìBìBìB zîBÒhCN:D:D:D zÝ ƒRÏk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôóUòòôóUÔÔ‡òóUòòôóUÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€of€prior€felonyÐ ° Ðconvictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,Ð tÄ ÐSentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô#†òóUòòòóU~#ÔÔ‡gò Ë òòòóUÔe˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt<@ˆÐ9Z &Courier Regularj˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpto˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptt˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpty˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt~˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptƒ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptˆ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt6©l/Ï óbï.Y2ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÝ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼VÝ»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼VÝ»»¼VÝÔà@ttìàÔ‡îÊlVÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼VÝ»îîÊl+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€22,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼VÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼VÝ»XXI=#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€SPIKE€HEDGECOTHòòóóÔ‡XIX»¼VÝÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Cumberland€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€6560€€€€€€Leon€C.€Burns,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01869„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€12,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Spike€Hedgecoth,€was€convicted€of€three€counts€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€greaterÐ xÈ  Ðthan€$10,000,€class€C€felonies,€and€two€counts€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€greater€than€$1,000,Ð d´ Ðclass€D€felonies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„103,€„105(3),€(4).€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€RangeÐ P  ÐII€sentence€of€ten€years€on€each€of€the€class€C€felonies€and€eight€years€on€each€of€the€class€D€felonies.€Ð <Œ ÐThe€trial€court€ordered€that€all€of€the€class€C€felony€sentences€and€one€of€the€class€D€felony€sentencesÐ (x Ðbe€served€concurrently.€€The€remaining€class€D€felony€sentence€was€to€be€served€consecutively,€forÐ d Ðan€effective€sentence€of€eighteen€years.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€alleges€(1)€that€theÐ P Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€intoÐ ì< Ðevidence€audio€recordings€of€telephone€calls€placed€by€the€defendant€from€the€Cumberland€CountyÐ Ø( Ðjail;€(3)€that€due€to€his€intoxication,€the€defendant€was€unable€to€assist€in€his€defense;€and€(4)€thatÐ Ä Ðthe€sentence€is€excessive.€€The€judgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.Ð ° ÐÓßÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼VÝ»àXI´#ÔÔ‡XIX.¼VÝÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐòòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó,€òòJ.óó,€concurring€in€results€only.€Ð L œ ÐÔ#†¼VÝ»XXI° #Ô€Ô‡XIX»¼VÝÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐLarry€M.€Warner,€Crossville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Spike€Hedgecoth.Ð J"š! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð "$r# Ðand€Gary€McKenzie€and€Anthony€Craighead,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,Ð %^ $ ÐState€of€Tennessee.Ð ú%J!% ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼VÝ»XXI #ÔÔ‡XIX»¼VÝÔÐ Ò'"#' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼VÝ»XXI#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XIX»¼VÝÔà  àOn€the€weekend€following€Friday,€April€14,€2001,€Richard€Jones€of€Ray€Bell€ConstructionÐ ª)ú$) Ðdiscovered€that€a€743„B€Bobcat,€valued€at€$7500,€and€a€set€of€lifting€forks,€valued€at€$350,€had€beenÐ –*æ%* Ðtaken€from€a€construction€area.€€Later,€the€Bobcat€was€found€in€Crossville€and€returned.Ð ‚+Ò&+ Ðâ âÐ n,¾',ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€the€following€weekend,€Mike€Hicks,€a€job€foreman€at€J.€Hicks€Excavating,€discoveredÐ ° Ðâ âthat€a€1998€763€Bobcat€and€bucket,€valued€at€$14,500,€and€several€attachments€were€missing.€€TheÐ œì Ðattachments€included€a€root€rake,€valued€at€$6700,€and€a€second€bucket,€having€a€purchase€price€ofÐ ˆØ Ð$752.€€A€set€of€Bobcat€forks,€a€bucket,€and€a€rock€box€were€also€taken.€€The€Bobcat€and€relatedÐ tÄ Ðequipment€were€later€recovered€by€police.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€April€29,€2001,€Leroy€Leary,€general€manager€of€Rental€Service€Corporation€inÐ 8 ˆ ÐCrossville,€discovered€that€a€753€Bobcat,€having€a€value€of€$14,500,€had€been€stolen€from€aÐ $ t Ðconstruction€site€in€Harriman.€€Later,€a€driver€from€Rental€Service€Corporation€noticed€the€stolenÐ  ` ÐBobcat€parked€along€Highway€70€with€a€"For€Sale"€sign€on€it.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€the€same€day,€David€Alexander€of€Bobcat€of€Knoxville€learned€that€a€773€Bobcat,€a€soilÐ Ô$  Ðpreparator,€and€a€trailer€had€been€stolen€from€his€business€premises.€€The€value€of€the€Bobcat€wasÐ À  Ðbetween€$19,000€and€$20,000€and€the€value€of€the€trailer€was€between€$2600€and€$3000.€€Later,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðequipment€was€found€in€Cumberland€County€and€returned.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Robert€Mourey€testified€that€he€and€his€son„in„law,€Kevin€McCart,€purchased€twoÐ pÀ ÐBobcats€from€the€defendant,€one€on€April€14,€2001,€and€another€eight€days€later.€€Mourey€stated€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€defendant€had€claimed€that€he€was€selling€the€equipment€after€closing€a€number€of€hisÐ H˜ Ðconstruction€sites.€€He€recalled€that€he€paid€the€defendant€$3500€each€for€the€743€and€763€Bobcats,Ð 4„ Ð$1500€for€the€trailer,€and€$500€for€the€forks.Ð  p ÐÌà  àKevin€McCart,€Mourey's€son„in„law,€testified€that€between€April€22€and€April€30,€2001,€heÐ øH Ðwas€involved€in€the€purchase€of€four€Bobcats€from€the€defendant.€€According€to€McCart,€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€had€claimed€that€he€was€a€partner€in€a€construction€firm€that€was€going€out€of€business.€Ð Ð  ÐMcCart€testified€that€he€had€left€one€of€the€Bobcats€at€a€feed€store€on€Highway€70€because€the€ownerÐ ¼  Ðhad€expressed€an€interest€in€purchasing€it€and€that€when€he€returned€the€following€day,€the€BobcatÐ ¨ø Ðwas€being€confiscated€by€the€police.€€After€informing€the€police€that€he€had€purchased€the€BobcatÐ ”ä Ðfrom€the€defendant,€he€returned€all€of€the€other€equipment€he€had€acquired.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óò òIÐ X ¨ ÐÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€that€he€had€actuallyÐ D!” Ðcommitted€any€of€the€thefts.€€On€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÐ 0"€  Ðview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.Ð #l! ÐCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€beÐ $X" Ðgiven€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€juryÐ ô$D # Ðas€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€theÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ ¸'#& Ðessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ð )à$( Ðthe€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolvedÐ |*Ì%) Ðby€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€Because€a€verdictÐ h+¸&* Ðof€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convictedÐ ° Ðcriminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustainÐ œì Ða€guilty€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).Ð ˆØ ÐÌÔ‡XIXXXIÔà  àWhere€the€evidence€is€entirely€circumstantial,€the€jury€must€find€that€the€proof€is€not€onlyÐ `° Ðconsistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€inconsistent€with€his€innocence.€€There€must€be€anÐ L œ Ðevidentiary€basis€upon€which€the€jury€can€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€exceptÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€of€guilt.€€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€256,€460€S.W.2d€385,€390€(1970).€€The€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðhas€the€duty€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€weight€and€significance€of€circumstantial€evidence€when€it€isÐ  ` Ðthe€only€basis€upon€which€the€state's€case€rests.€€òòBishop€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€428,€287€S.W.2d€49,€52Ð ü L  Ð(1956).€€The€jury€is€governed€by€four€rules€when€testing€the€value€of€circumstantial€evidence:€(1)€TheÐ è 8  Ðevidence€should€be€acted€upon€with€caution;€(2)€all€of€the€essential€facts€must€be€consistent€with€theÐ Ô$  Ðhypothesis€of€guilt;€(3)€the€facts€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€except€that€of€guilt;€andÐ À  Ð(4)€the€facts€must€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€as€to€convince€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€defendant€is€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.Ô#†XIXXXI#"#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔ€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€203€Tenn.€440,€313€S.W.2d€451,€456Ð ˜è  Ð(1958)Ô#†XIXXXI`'#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔ.€€Like€all€other€fact€questions,€the€determination€of€whether€all€reasonable€theories€orÐ „Ô  Ðhypotheses€are€excluded€by€the€evidence€is€primarily€a€jury€question.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð896€(Tenn.€1987);€òòMarableóó,€313€S.W.2d€at€457Ô#†XIXXXIù'#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔ.Ô#†XIXXXIX)#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔÐ \¬ ÐÔ#†XIXXXI›)#ÔÌà  àð ðA€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€theÐ 4„ Ðperson€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effectiveÐ  p Ðconsent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€Theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€$10,000€but€lessÐ  \ Ðthan€$60,000€is€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„105(4).€€Theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€$1,000Ð øH Ðbut€less€than€$10,000€is€a€Class€D€felony.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„105(3).€€ð ðValueðð€is€defined€as€follows:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  à(i)€The€fair€market€value€of€the€property€.€.€.€at€the€time€and€place€of€the€offense;€orм Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(ii)€If€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€cannot€be€ascertained,€the€cost€of€replacingÐ ¨ø Ðthe€property€within€a€reasonable€time€after€the€offense.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-106(a)(36)(A).€Ô‡XIXXXIÔ€Owners€are€competent€by€fact€of€ownership€to€testify€toÐ l¼ Ðthe€value€of€the€property€stolen.€€òòState€v.€Hammóó,€611€S.W.2d€826€(Tenn.€1981);€òòReaves€v.€Stateóó,€523Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€218,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).Ô#†XIXXXIå-#ÔÐ D!” ÐÌà  àIn€this€instance,€Richard€Jones€of€Ray€Bell€Construction€testified€that€the€743€Bobcat€andÐ #l! Ðattachments€had€a€value€of€$7850.€€Mike€Hicks€of€J.€Hicks€Excavating€confirmed€that€a€763€Bobcat,Ð $X" Ðvalued€at€$14,500,€and€attachments€valued€at€over€$7000,€were€stolen€from€his€company.€€RentalÐ ô$D # ÐService€Corporation€valued€its€stolen€753€Bobcat€at€$14,500.€€David€Alexander€testified€that€a€773Ð à%0!$ ÐBobcat€valued€at€a€minimum€of€$19,000€and€a€trailer€valued€at€$2600€were€taken€from€his€company.€Ð Ì&"% ÐEach€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€permission€to€take€the€Bobcats€or€related€equipment.€Ð ¸'#& ÐWithin€twenty„four€hours€of€each€theft,€Robert€Mourey€and€Kevin€McCart€purchased€the€stolenÐ ¤(ô#' ÐBobcats€and€equipment€from€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€was€selling€the€items€toÐ )à$( Ðclose€several€of€his€construction€sites.€€The€possession€of€recently€stolen€property€raises€an€inferenceÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€guilt.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Balesóó,€585€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1979).€€This€circumstantial€evidenceÐ h+¸&* Ðestablished€that€the€defendant€had€exercised€control€over€the€stolen€items€within€hours€after€theÐ ° Ðthefts,€was€untruthful€in€his€explanation€of€how€he€had€acquired€the€equipment,€and€then€sold€theÐ œì Ðproperty€for€well€under€the€market€value.€€In€our€view,€the€jury€acted€within€its€prerogative€byÐ ˆØ Ðconcluding€that€the€state€had€met€its€burden€of€proof.Ð tÄ ÐÓ  Óò òÌIIÐ L œ ÐÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€into€evidence€an€audioÐ 8 ˆ Ðtape€of€a€telephone€call€placed€by€him€while€incarcerated€at€the€Cumberland€County€Jail.€€He€claimsÐ $ t Ðthat€the€evidence€was€more€prejudicial€than€probative€because€the€jury€was€able€to€determine€fromÐ  ` Ðthe€tape€that€he€was€in€jail€at€the€time€of€the€conversation€and€complains€that€the€evidence€did€notÐ ü L  Ðrelate€to€any€one€of€the€thefts€at€issue.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€byÐ è 8  Ðfailing€to€cite€any€authority€or€include€any€argument€with€regard€to€it.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àBecause€the€defendant€indeed€failed€to€cite€any€authority€for€his€argument€the€issue€must€beÐ ¬ü  Ðdeemed€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€Furthermore,€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief€upon€the€merits€of€the€issue.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€audiotape€is€of€a€conversation€between€the€defendant,€who€was€incarcerated€at€theÐ \¬ ÐCumberland€County€Jail€on€an€unrelated€charge,€and€an€unnamed€individual.€€The€content€of€the€tapeÐ H˜ Ðincludes€a€recorded€voice€informing€the€recipient€that€the€call€is€being€made€by€an€inmate€at€theÐ 4„ ÐCumberland€County€Jail.€€Although€much€of€the€conversation€which€follows€is€inaudible,€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€does€instruct€the€recipient€of€his€call€toò òó ó€"get€the€other,"€using€the€defendant's€truck€andÐ  \ Ðchains.€€The€defendant€also€directs€the€individual€to€have€the€defendant's€girlfriend€drive€him€to€theÐ øH Ðlocation€and€to€otherwise€work€alone.€€At€one€point,€the€defendant€says,€"It€has€to€be€done€onÐ ä4 ÐSunday,"€and,€at€another,€that€the€"the€cat€and€the€hoe"€should€be€sold€for€$6500.€€Throughout€theÐ Ð  Ðconversation,€the€defendant€laments€his€legal€woes,€asks€for€money€to€pay€his€attorney,€and€statesÐ ¼  Ðthat€he€will€likely€be€incarcerated€for€at€least€six€months.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTo€be€admissible,€audiotapes,€like€photographs,€must€be€relevant€to€some€issue€at€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ €Ð ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€An€audiotape€may€be€excluded,€however,€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÐ l¼ Ðoutweighed€by€its€potential€to€unfairly€prejudice€the€defendant€or€to€confuse€or€mislead€the€jury.€€òòSeeóóÐ X ¨ ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€trial€court's€discretion€andÐ D!” Ðwill€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€66Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1992).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThat€the€defendant€was€in€jail€should€have€been€redacted€from€the€tape.€€There€was€prejudiceÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€defendant€when€the€recorded€voice€established€that€the€call€originated€from€the€county€jail.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€trial€court€did€issue€curative€instructions€just€after€the€tape€was€played€directing€the€jury€not€toÐ Ì&"% Ðinfer€guilt€because€the€defendant€was€in€jail€at€the€time€of€the€call.€€Under€our€law,€jurors€areÐ ¸'#& Ðpresumed€to€follow€such€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€914€(Tenn.€1994);€òòStateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðv.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)òòóó.€€In€the€context€of€the€entire€trial€and€whenÐ )à$( Ðviewed€in€conjunction€with€the€curative€instructions,€it€is€our€view€that€the€failure€to€redact€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðportion€of€the€audiotape€making€reference€to€the€defendant's€incarceration€qualified€as€harmless,Ð h+¸&* Ðhaving€no€effect€on€the€verdicts€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€Ð ° ÐAlthough€the€evidence€was€largely€circumstantial,€the€proof€of€guilt€on€each€count€was€particularlyÐ œì Ðcompelling.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àMore€troubling,€however,€is€that€the€content€of€the€tape€did€not€necessarily€relate€to€any€ofÐ `° Ðthe€thefts€at€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€The€state€contended€at€trial€that€because€the€defendantÐ L œ Ðwas€explaining€how€to€steal€a€Bobcat,€it€was€admissible€to€show€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐGenerally,€evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€establish€a€defendantððsÐ $ t Ðpropensity€or€character€and€may€only€be€admitted€to€show€"'the€motive€of€the€defendant,€intent€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€defendant,€the€identity€of€the€defendant,€the€absence€of€mistake€or€accident€if€that€is€a€defense,Ð ü L  Ðand€rarely,€the€existence€of€a€larger€continuing€plan,€scheme,€or€conspiracy€of€which€the€crime€onÐ è 8  Ðtrial€is€a€part.'"€òòóó€òòState€v.€Toliveróó,€__€S.W.3d€__,€No.€E2001-00584-SC-R11-CD€(Tenn.€October€2,Ð Ô$  Ð2003)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Gillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€266,€271€n.6€(Tenn.€2000));€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð À  Ð404(b).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  à"[T]here€are€three€types€of€common€scheme€or€plan€evidence:€(1)€offenses€that€reveal€aÐ „Ô  Ðdistinctive€design€or€are€so€similar€as€to€constitute€ððsignatureðð€crimes;€(2)€offenses€that€are€part€ofÐ pÀ Ða€larger,€continuing€plan€or€conspiracy;€and€(3)€offenses€that€are€all€part€of€the€same€criminalÐ \¬ Ðtransaction."€€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€248€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,Ð H˜ ÐòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€404.11€(3d€ed.€1995)).€€While€it€is€unclear€which€category€was€utilizedÐ 4„ Ðby€the€trial€court,€the€argument€made€by€the€state€at€trial€implies€that€it€was€relying€on€the€distinctiveÐ  p Ðdesign€or€"signature"€crimes€category.€€Our€supreme€court€has€consistently€held€that€"identity€isÐ  \ Ðusually€the€only€relevant€issue€supporting€admission€of€other€offenses€when€the€theory€of€theÐ øH Ðcommon€scheme€or€plan€is€grounded€upon€a€signature€crime."€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ ä4 Ð235,€239€(Tenn.€1999).€€Identity€was€not€an€issue€in€this€case.€€McCart€and€Mourey€testified€that€itÐ Ð  Ðwas€the€defendant€who€sold€them€the€stolen€Bobcats€and€the€defendant€did€not€deny€doing€so.€Ð ¼  ÐMoreover,€the€evidence€would€not€fit€into€the€two€remaining€categories.€€It€is€our€view€that€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€erred€by€admitting€the€conversation€as€evidence€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àFurther,€other€portions€of€the€tape€suggest€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€wasÐ l¼ Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€defendant's€tone€ofÐ X ¨ Ðvoice,€his€reference€to€other€crimes,€his€cursing,€and€his€use€of€racial€epithets,€all€irrelevant€to€theÐ D!” Ðissues€at€trial,€reflected€poorly€on€the€defendant,€who€had€chosen€not€to€testify,€as€was€his€right.€Ð 0"€  ÐAgain,€however,€any€error€in€the€admission€of€the€audiotape€would€qualify€as€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Ô‡XIXXXIÔTenn.Ð #l! ÐR.€Crim.€P.€52(a);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)Ô#†XIXXXI¸R#Ô.€€Proof€of€the€defendant's€participation€in€each€of€theÐ $X" Ðcrimes€in€question€was€overwhelming€and€largely€undisputed.€€Despite€the€erroneous€admission€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€tape,€it€is€our€assessment€that€in€the€context€of€the€entire€record€of€the€trial,€the€verdicts€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðunaffected.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓ  Óò òIIIÐ ¤(ô#' Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€rule€that€he€wasÐ )à$( Ðincompetent€to€stand€trial.€€In€òòDusky€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402€(1960),€the€Supreme€Court€ruledÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€defendant€is€competent€if€he€has€sufficient€ability€to€consult€with€his€lawyer€with€aÐ h+¸&* Ðreasonable€degree€of€rational€understanding€and€a€reasonable€and€factual€understanding€of€theÐ ° Ðproceedings.€€In€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975),€this€court€determinedÐ œì Ðthat€the€defendant€must€be€able€to€understand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedings€against€him,Ð ˆØ Ðmust€be€able€to€consult€with€counsel,€and€must€be€able€to€assist€in€the€preparation€of€his€defense.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establish€his€incompetency€to€stand€trial€by€aÐ L œ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetermination€of€competency€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€926Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€579€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€this€instance,€defense€counsel€informed€the€trial€court€on€the€day€of€trial€that€he€believedÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendant€to€be€intoxicated.€€The€trial€court€questioned€the€defendant,€who€admitted€that€he€hadÐ Ô$  Ðtaken€Benadryl€but€denied€taking€any€other€drugs€or€alcohol.€€Further,€the€defendant€insisted€that€heÐ À  Ðwas€prepared€for€trial€and€that€he€could€assist€in€his€defense.€€Based€upon€those€representations,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€court€permitted€the€proceeding€to€go€forward.€€Later,€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendantÐ ˜è  Ðclaimed€that€he€was€unable€to€assist€his€counsel€because€he€was€on€drugs.€€Other€than€his€bare€claim,Ð „Ô  Ðno€further€proof€was€presented€to€suggest€any€inability€to€assist€in€his€defense€during€the€course€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial.€€In€our€view,€the€record€supports€the€finding€of€the€trial€court.€€The€defendant€wasÐ \¬ Ðresponsive€when€questioned€by€the€trial€judge€and€indicated€a€readiness€to€stand€trial.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIVÐ  p Ðó óÓ  Óà  àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€consecutiveÐ  \ Ðsentencing.€€Ô‡XIXXXIÔWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€isÐ øH Ðthe€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€madeÐ ä4 Ðby€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÐ Ð  Ðupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÐ ¼  Ðand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóóÐ ¨ø ÐòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).€€"If€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factorsÐ ”ä Ðor€otherwise€fails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls."€€òòStateÐ €Ð Ðv.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÐ l¼ Ðprovide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ X ¨ ÐAnn.€ðð€40-35-401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencingÐ #l! Ðhearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counselÐ $X" Ðrelative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigatingÐ ô$D # Ðor€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-102,€-103,€-210;Ð Ì&"% ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€or€E€felony€conviction,€the€presumptiveÐ )à$( Ðsentence€is€the€minimum€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ |*Ì%) ÐAnn.€ðð€40-35-210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancement€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€may€set€theÐ h+¸&* Ðsentence€above€the€minimum,€but€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(d).€€AÐ ° Ðsentence€involving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€an€assignment€of€relativeÐ œì Ðweight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€a€means€of€increasing€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-Ð ˆØ Ð210(e).€€The€sentence€must€then€be€reduced€within€the€range€by€any€weight€assigned€to€the€mitigatingÐ tÄ Ðfactors€present.€€òòId.óóÔ#†XIXXXI³^#ÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€ten€years€for€each€of€the€three€convictions€for€theft€overÐ 8 ˆ Ð$10,000€and€a€sentence€of€eight€years€for€each€of€the€two€convictions€for€theft€over€$1,000.€€TheÐ $ t Ðcourt€also€ordered€that€one€of€the€eight„year€sentences€be€served€consecutively€to€the€others€for€anÐ  ` Ðeffective€sentence€of€eighteen€years.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€first€determined€that€the€defendant€qualified€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offenderÐ Ô$  Ðand€then€concluded€that€enhancement€factor€(2),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ À  Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,Ð ¬ü  Ðwas€applicable€to€all€of€the€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2)€(Supp.€2002).€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court€also€applied€enhancement€factor€(9),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÐ „Ô  Ðunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€òòSeeóóÐ pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)€(Supp.€2002).€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€applied€enhancementÐ \¬ Ðfactor€(14),€that€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ H˜ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(14)€(Supp.€2002).€€In€mitigation,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantððs€conductÐ 4„ Ðneither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€but€gaveÐ  p Ðthat€factor€very€little€weight.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentencing€on€the€following€grounds:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  à[The€defendant]€does€have€an€extensive€criminal€history,€by€his€own€admission.€Ð ¼  ÐBasically,€he's€a€professional€criminal.€€And€he€was€on€probation,€in€this€court'sÐ ¨ø Ðopinion.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSo,€.€.€.€the€first€four€counts€would€run€concurrent,€and€Count€5,€whichÐ €Ð Ðoccurred€the€last€two€weeks€of€April,€an€eight€year€sentence€would€be€consecutive,Ð l¼ Ðfor€an€effective€eighteen€year€sentence.€€And€.€.€.€because€of€the€fact€that€it€is€not€anÐ X ¨ Ðinjury€crime,€or€violent€crime,€I€would€not€run€them€all€consecutive.€€I€don't€think€itÐ D!” Ðjustifies€that.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€the€limitedÐ $X" Ðclassifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ð391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€mustÐ à%0!$ Ðbe€present€before€placement€in€any€one€of€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð227€(Tenn.€1987),€the€court€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€twoÐ ¸'#& Ðor€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,€additional€wordsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€caution:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  à[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€be€imposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregateÐ ° Ðâ âmaximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€be€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€theÐ œì Ðoffenses€involved.òòЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionaryÐ `° Ðlanguage.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€The€1989€Act€is,€inÐ L œ Ðessence,€the€codification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposedÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€followingÐ $ t Ðcriteria׃c×Ý ƒb#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€exist:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  à(1)€€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devoted€himself€toÐ è 8  Ðcriminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive;ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€so€declared€by€aÐ ¬ü  Ðcompetent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÐ ˜è  Ðsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€has€been€characterized€by€a€patternÐ „Ô  Ðof€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€to€consequences;ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÐ \¬ Ðregard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÐ H˜ Ðto€human€life€is€high;Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexualÐ  p Ðabuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arising€fromÐ  \ Ðthe€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€ofÐ øH Ðdefendant's€undetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÐ ä4 Ðextent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation;€orм Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€length€of€the€sentence,€when€consecutive€in€nature,€must€be€ð ðjustly€deserved€in€relationÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(1),€and€ð ðno€greater€than€thatÐ D!” Ðdeservedðð€under€the€circumstances,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1999).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àHere,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€five€offenses.€€The€proof€presented€at€trial€and€at€theÐ ô$D # Ðsentencing€hearing€established€that€the€defendant€had€been€in€the€business€of€selling€stolen€propertyÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€quite€some€time.€€By€the€defendant's€own€admission,€he€would€buy€and€sell€anything,€regardlessÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€source.€€The€presentence€report€indicated€that€the€defendant€claimed€to€have€been€in€"theÐ ¸'#& Ðcarpet€cleaning€business"€for€approximately€eight€years€but€had€not€paid€any€income€tax.€€Other€jobsÐ ° Ðincluded€"the€rock€hauling€business,"€selling€pork€rinds€at€county€fairs,€cutting€firewood,€and€smallÐ œì Ðconstruction.€€The€defendant€has€some€fourteen€prior€convictions€for€offenses€including€hinderingÐ ˆØ Ða€secured€creditor,€forgery,€driving€under€the€influence,€passing€worthless€checks,€possession€withÐ tÄ Ðintent€to€sell€more€than€30€grams€of€cocaine,€conspiracy€to€sell€cocaine,€and€public€intoxication.€€InÐ `° Ðaddition,€copies€of€the€defendant's€convictions€for€forgery€establish€that€he€was€on€probation€whenÐ L œ Ðthe€instant€offenses€were€committed.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€evidence€established€that€the€defendant€had€an€extensive€criminal€history€andÐ  ` Ðalso€qualified€as€a€professional€criminal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Desireyóó,€909€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ü L  ÐApp.€1995).€€That€he€was€on€probation€when€two€of€the€offenses€were€committed€is€a€further€basisÐ è 8  Ðfor€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).€òòóó€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€notÐ Ô$  Ðabuse€its€discretion€by€ordering€consecutive€terms.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE