ÿWPCó 3ï:Q6äíïŠ_OéL.²IŒuRL¥Q!!³ìóFX§™[‹)šÒ£8´]ÿ 6•Á£PRÚä·½ýíÄB›¨•ÎaœƒIÓÐaN+mÿé’á_|Ô¹‰¾îb-ûƒÊ戱èO¾ªíI)zöcDÇ‘‡Þf2 õÖñ_ò†`ãåßÈ4t°GjÝ ½¬XÕŠƒXåpÖ¤&Ú=ö [G³ËÇ0W=¸\¨ærÒ9Ó˜×|›o5nâëî¡ö&Ú<„Y­zÛ‡{{±Àæ›p ¤;ûú¢’ ™8 ´ïÂrº£ÎpžhÙ^d^D –2CÂe–×üJ™­ê“ñ€ml:IÈ­‚_-œÉ( š1h6Á½ ô«ªZNÀ¢S…ˆÃ0Ü÷â@T’2‚ƒøc@LR]Õ ¤k3vIG4xá@¬ô(Öî„7+ú‰ @ÐÏ‹þ,·ÂÖ=`›$;}=Yç!Dçý[T›ØÙîø­UgF¿Y[ò5Ï÷Z-yÊc¥õˆµ›D©ƒyÔÿï¦Ap¡CÅäãþ\Kø £ª.¯FQrB JÏÐsç º_êf}_-«¤PZÈž3ád¨2 cXD7Õ¼!% Ðthat€Gilbert€had€locked€the€keys€in€the€trailer€where€the€drugs€were€located.€€The€defendant€contactedÐ Ô&$"& Ða€realtor€to€arrange€for€a€new€set€of€keys,€and€then€asked€the€undercover€agent€to€retrieve€the€keysÐ º' #' Ðfrom€the€realty€company.€€When€the€undercover€agent€returned€with€the€keys,€he€got€13.9€grams€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðcocaine€from€Gilbert€for€$675.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€facilitation€of€this€sale.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àIndictment€No.€8432€alleged€that€on€March€13,€1997,€the€defendant€sold€0.5€grams€or€moreÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€cocaine.€€The€stateððs€proof€revealed€that€on€this€date€the€undercover€agent,€after€speaking€with€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendant€on€the€phone,€went€to€defendantððs€residence€where€defendant€again€instructed€theÐ ° Ðundercover€agent€to€obtain€the€cocaine€from€under€the€rock€where€he€was€to€leave€the€money.€€TheÐ –æ Ðundercover€agent€testified€that€the€trailer€was€only€a€few€steps€from€the€defendantððs€house,€and€€heÐ |Ì Ðsecured€20.3€grams€of€cocaine€and€left€$1,200€under€the€rock.€€He€then€returned€to€the€defendantððsÐ b² Ðhouse€and€had€the€defendant€test€the€substance€to€insure€that€it€was€indeed€cocaine.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIndictment€No.€8433€alleged€that€on€March€19,€1997,€the€defendant€sold€0.5€grams€or€moreÐ  d Ðof€cocaine.€€The€stateððs€proof€revealed€that€the€undercover€agent€had€placed€a€call€to€the€defendantÐ ú J Ðabout€making€a€buy,€and€the€defendant€informed€him€there€was€a€ð ðdrought,ðð€meaning€he€was€unableÐ à 0 Ðto€obtain€cocaine.€€Defendant€stated€he€had€called€from€ð ðHouston€to€Indianapolis.ðð€€However,€theÐ Æ   Ðdefendant€later€called€the€undercover€agent€and€stated€that€he€had€obtained€some€cocaine.€€TheÐ ¬ ü  Ðundercover€agent€arrived€at€defendantððs€residence,€and€the€two€went€into€a€trailer€behind€defendantððsÐ ’â  Ðresidence.€€The€undercover€agent€weighed€the€cocaine,€and€the€defendant€counted€the€$1,220€givenÐ xÈ  Ðto€him€by€the€undercover€agent.€€The€amount€of€cocaine€purchased€was€17.2€grams.Ð ^®  Ѐ€€Ð D”  Ðà  àIndictment€No.€8434€alleged€that€on€March€27,€1997,€the€defendant€sold€26€grams€or€moreÐ *z  Ðof€cocaine.€€The€stateððs€proof€revealed€that€the€undercover€agent€on€this€date€was€again€initiallyÐ ` Ðinformed€that€there€was€a€ð ðdrought,ðð€but€to€ð ðhold€on,ðð€he€would€ð ðput€[him]€down.ðð€€Later€that€day,Ð öF Ðthe€defendant€contacted€the€undercover€agent€and€told€him€he€had€obtained€the€cocaine.€€When€theÐ Ü, Ðundercover€agent€arrived,€he€and€defendant€again€went€to€the€trailer.€€ð ðAnother€manðð€was€also€there.€Ð  ÐThe€undercover€agent€weighed€the€cocaine€and€discovered€it€was€not€the€agreed€upon€amount.€€HeÐ ¨ø Ðtold€the€defendant€he€could€not€purchase€the€cocaine€because€it€was€not€what€they€agreed€upon.€Ð ŽÞ ÐSubsequently,€the€defendant€offered€to€sell€the€cocaine€for€the€price€of€$2,350,€and€the€transactionÐ tÄ Ðwas€completed.€€The€cocaine€weighed€49.1€grams.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àIndictment€No.€8435€alleged€that€on€April€17,€1997,€the€defendant€sold€26€grams€or€more€ofÐ &v Ðcocaine.€€The€stateððs€proof€revealed€that€on€this€occasion,€after€talking€with€defendant€by€phone,€theÐ  \ Ðundercover€agent€entered€the€defendantððs€residence€and€met€an€unidentified€person.€€The€defendantÐ òB Ðinformed€the€undercover€agent€and€the€unidentified€person€to€go€outside€by€the€house€and€conductÐ Ø( Ðthe€transaction.€€The€two€went€outside,€and€the€undercover€agent€purchased€80.5€grams€of€cocaine.€Ð ¾ ÐThey€then€returned€to€the€defendantððs€residence,€where€the€unidentified€man€counted€the€money.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àIndictment€No.€8437€alleged€that€on€May€1,€1997,€the€defendant€sold€counterfeit€cocaine.€Ð p!À  ÐThe€stateððs€proof€revealed€that,€after€a€phone€conversation€with€the€defendant€concerning€theÐ V"¦! Ðproposed€purchase€of€cocaine,€the€undercover€agent€went€to€the€defendantððs€residence€where€he€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðmet€by€Gilbert.€€The€undercover€agent€inquired€as€to€the€whereabouts€of€the€defendant.€€He€wasÐ "$r# Ðinformed€by€Gilbert€that€he€was€in€the€residence€with€company,€and€that€Gilbert€would€conduct€theÐ %X $ Ðtransaction.€€After€securing€what€purported€to€be€two€ounces€of€cocaine€for€$2,950,€the€undercoverÐ î%>!% Ðagent€went€to€the€pre„arranged€meeting€place€and€turned€the€substance€over€to€Agent€Howell.€€AgentÐ Ô&$"& ÐHowell€immediately€recognized€that€the€substance€was€not€cocaine.€€Ð º' #' Ѐ€€€Ð  (ð#( Ðà  àIndictment€No.€8436€alleged€that€on€May€1,€1997,€the€defendant€assaulted€Agent€Howell€byÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€display€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€stateððs€proof€revealed€that,€after€the€transaction€described€inÐ l*¼%* ÐIndictment€No.€8437,€Howell€and€the€undercover€agent€discovered€that€the€substance€purported€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðbe€cocaine€was€counterfeit.€€Thereafter,€the€undercover€agent€along€with€Howell€returned€to€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendantððs€residence€to€demand€the€return€of€the€money,€at€which€point€the€defendant€drew€hisÐ ° Ðweapon€and€pointed€it€at€Howell.€€Howell€then€drew€his€pistol,€and€the€defendant€fled€into€theÐ –æ Ðresidence.Ð |Ì ЀÌà  àThe€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€as€charged€on€each€indictment€with€the€exception€ofÐ H˜ ÐIndictment€No.€8431,€in€which€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€lesser€charge€of€facilitationÐ . ~ Ðof€the€sale€of€0.5€grams€or€more€of€cocaine.Ð  d ÐÌò òòòóóó óà0  à€€€Ðà 0(#(# ÐÓ  Óòòò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÐ Æ   ÐÌÓ  ÓóóA.€Standard€of€ReviewÐ ’â  ÐòòÌóóó óà  àIn€his€brief€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€hisÐ ^®  Ðconvictions.€Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä=#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔ€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€must€reviewÐ D”  Ðthe€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€was€sufficient€"to€support€theÐ *z  Ðfindings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€This€ruleÐ ` Ðis€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence€or€aÐ öF Ðcombination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,18€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ü, ÐApp.1996).Ð Â ÐÌ€à  àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ ŽÞ Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.1978).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÐ tÄ Ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199Ð Zª ÐTenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€theÐ @ Ðstate€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonableÐ &v Ðand€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,Ð  \ Ð932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995).Ð òB ÐÌà  àThe€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court,€resolves€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ð ¾ Ðthe€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence.€Ð ¤ô ÐòòId.óó€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated,€"[a]€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approvedÐ Š Ú Ðby€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÐ p!À  Ðfavor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."€€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€€Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÐ "$r# Ðpresumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€Court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€isÐ %X $ Ðinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Ð î%>!% Ð(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä7#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ Ô&$"& Ðò òB.€€AnalysisÐ º' #' Ðó óÌà  àIn€cases€8430,€8432,€8433,€and€8434,€the€undercover€agent€testified€that€the€defendant€set€upÐ †)Ö$) Ðeach€transaction€and€directly€participated€in€each€sale.€€The€defendant€offered€no€evidence€to€disputeÐ l*¼%* Ðthis€testimony.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€find€that€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðdefendant€knowingly€sold€cocaine€over€0.5€grams€as€alleged€in€cases€8430,€8432,€and€8433,€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðknowingly€sold€cocaine€over€26€grams€as€alleged€in€case€8434.€òòóóÐ ° ÐÌà  àIn€cases€8429€and€8437,€the€evidence€reveals€that€the€defendant€set€up€both€transactions;€theÐ |Ì Ðundercover€agent€came€to€the€defendantððs€residence;€and€the€actual€transfers€were€made€by€Gilbert.€Ð b² ÐIn€both€instances€the€jury€could€conclude€that€the€defendant€promoted€the€sales€and€solicited€GilbertÐ H˜ Ðto€make€the€actual€transfers.€€Thus,€the€jury€could€reasonably€conclude€that€the€defendant€wasÐ . ~ Ðcriminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€Gilbert.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€Ð  d ÐAccordingly,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions€for€selling€cocaine€over€0.5€gramsÐ ú J Ðin€case€8429€and€selling€counterfeit€drugs€in€case€8437.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€the€sale€of€0.5€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€in€case€8431,€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€jury€convicted€him€of€the€facilitation€of€the€sale.€€We€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€forÐ ’â  Ðthe€jury€to€conclude€the€defendant€knew€that€Gilbert€was€to€sell€the€undercover€agent€cocaine€andÐ xÈ  Ðð ðknowingly€furnishe[d]€substantial€assistanceðð€in€the€sale€of€the€cocaine.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„Ð ^®  Ð403(a).€€The€undercover€agent€testified€that€he€contacted€the€defendant€to€ð ðset€upðð€the€sale,€but€thatÐ D”  Ðwhen€he€arrived,€Gilbert€had€locked€the€keys€in€the€trailer€where€the€cocaine€was€located.€€He€furtherÐ *z  Ðstated€that€it€was€the€defendant€who€contacted€the€realtor€about€obtaining€another€set€of€keys€andÐ ` Ðinstructed€him€to€retrieve€the€keys€from€the€realty€company.€€The€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establishÐ öF Ðthat€the€defendant€ð ðset€upðð€the€sale€and€rendered€substantial€assistance;€thus,€the€€jury€couldÐ Ü, Ðreasonably€conclude€the€defendant€facilitated€the€sale€of€the€cocaine€in€case€8431.€€Ð  ÐÌòòà  àóóAlthough€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€selling€over€26€grams€of€cocaine€in€case€8435Ð ŽÞ Ðpresents€a€closer€question,€we€conclude€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€Prior€to€theÐ tÄ Ðactual€sale€on€April€17,€1997,€the€defendant€and€the€undercover€agent€had€conversations€concerning€Ð Zª Ðthe€agentððs€purchase€of€cocaine.€€The€defendant€told€the€agent€he€was€having€difficulty€findingÐ @ Ðcocaine.€€On€April€17òòthóó,€€the€defendant€advised€the€agent€that€the€seller€was€at€his€residence.€€TheÐ &v Ðagent€went€to€defendantððs€residence€where€the€agent€was€told€by€defendant€to€consummate€the€buyÐ  \ Ðwith€the€unidentified€third€party€outside€defendantððs€residence.€€Thus,€the€jury€could€reasonablyÐ òB Ðconclude€the€defendant€promoted€the€sale,€assisted€the€sale€by€getting€both€parties€together€at€hisÐ Ø( Ðresidence,€and€solicited€the€third€party€to€make€the€sale.€€Thus,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÐ ¾ Ðestablish€that€the€defendant€was€criminally€responsible€for€the€sale€by€the€third€party€in€case€8435.€Ð ¤ô ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2).€€òòÐ Š Ú ÐÌà  àóóFinally,€we€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€ofÐ V"¦! Ðaggravated€assault€in€case€8436.€€Agent€Howell€testified€that€the€defendant€pointed€a€pistol€at€him,Ð <#Œ" Ðand€he€feared€for€his€life.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(2),€„102(a)(1)(B).€€Ð "$r# ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓSEVERANCEÐ î%>!% Ðóóó óÓDRÓà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€consolidating€all€nine€of€the€indictments€forÐ º' #' Ðtrial.€€However,€the€defendant€voiced€no€objection€to€the€stateððs€motion€to€consolidate€and€failed€toÐ  (ð#( Ðinclude€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e),Ð †)Ö$) Ð36(a);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€386€(Tenn.€1995).€€Furthermore,€we€do€not€find,€asÐ l*¼%* Ðdefendant€contends,€that€the€consolidation€of€his€offenses€for€trial€ò òòòóóó óconstitutes€plain€error€under€Tenn.Ð R+¢&+ ÐR.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Chris€Smithóó,€No.€03C01„9807„CR„00259,€1999€WL€619042,€at€*1Ð 8,ˆ', Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€17,€1999,€at€Knoxville)€(approving€consolidation€of€drugÐ ° Ðtransactions€with€similar€factual€patterns).€Ð –æ ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òJURY€VENIREÐ H˜ ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€challenges€the€manner€in€which€the€jury€venire€was€chosen.€€Specifically,€heÐ  d Ðcontends€the€selection€process€systematically€excluded€African„Americans€and€senior€citizens€fromÐ ú J Ðthe€jury€pool.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€set€forth€a€three-pronged€test€in€òòDuren€v.€Missourióó,€439Ð ¬ ü  ÐU.S.€357,€99€S.Ct.€664,€58€L.Ed.2d€579€(1979),€for€determining€whether€a€jury€was€properly€selectedÐ ’â  Ðfrom€a€ð ðfair€cross-section€of€the€communityðð€pursuant€to€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments.€Ð xÈ  ÐAccordingly,€in€order€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€violation€of€the€fair€cross-section€requirement,€theÐ ^®  Ðdefendant€must€show:Ð D”  ÐÌà8  à(1)€that€the€group€alleged€to€be€excluded€is€a€"distinctive"€group€in€the€community;Ð`Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€that€the€representation€of€this€group€in€venires€from€which€juries€are€selected€isÐ Ü, Ðnot€fair€and€reasonable€in€relation€to€the€number€of€such€persons€in€the€community;Ð Â Ðand€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€that€this€underrepresentation€is€due€to€systematic€exclusion€of€the€group€in€theÐ tÄ Ðjury-selection€process.ÐZªÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.€óóat€364,€99€S.Ct.€at€668.€€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€adopted€this€test.€€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670Ð &v ÐS.W.2d€600,€610€(Tenn.1984).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€held€on€this€issue,€Judy€Callahan,€Circuit€Court€Clerk€for€Giles€County,Ð Ø( Ðtestified€that€prospective€jurors€were€randomly€selected€by€computer€from€a€list€of€Giles€CountyÐ ¾ Ðcitizens€with€driverððs€licenses.€€The€only€jurors€excluded€from€this€list€included€those€who€wereÐ ¤ô Ðknown€by€the€jury€commission€to€be€deceased€or€extremely€elderly.€€Elderly€was€defined€by€the€clerkÐ Š Ú Ðas€persons€who€due€to€advanced€age,€or€being€in€a€nursing€home,€were€incapable€of€serving€on€a€jury.€Ð p!À  Ðà0  àà ° àÐ (#(# ÐÌà  àOur€Supreme€Court€has€previously€held€that€selecting€jurors€by€using€a€list€of€licensed€driversÐ "$r# Ðdoes€not€violate€either€the€federal€or€state€constitution.€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€535€(Tenn.Ð %X $ Ð1997)€(Appendix).€€Furthermore,€we€do€not€find€that€the€process€of€excluding€certain€jurors€from€theÐ î%>!% Ðpool€due€an€incapability€of€serving€was€designed€to€systematically€exclude€any€distinctive€groupsÐ Ô&$"& Ðin€the€community.€€The€jury€venire€represented€a€ð ðfair€cross„sectionðð€of€the€community;€thus,€theÐ º' #' Ðselection€process€was€constitutional.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIMPEACHMENT€OF€UNDERCOVER€AGENTóóó óÐ R+¢&+ ÐÓ  Óò òÐ 8,ˆ', ÐA.€€Prior€Sworn€TestimonyÐ ° Ðà  àÌà  àó óDefense€counsel€argues€that€the€undercover€agent€gave€untruthful€testimony€under€oath€atÐ |Ì Ðdefendantððs€prior€forfeiture€hearing,€and€he€asserts€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€him€toÐ b² Ðcross„€examine€the€undercover€agent€regarding€the€allegedly€untruthful€testimony.Ð H˜ Ðò òÌà  àó óAt€the€forfeiture€hearing,€defense€counsel€asked€the€undercover€agent€the€following€question:€Ð  d Ðð ðWere€you€back€then€or€are€you€now,€presently,€under€any€criminal€indictment׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€charge,€conviction,Ð ú J Ðor€probation,ðð€to€which€the€undercover€agent€responded,€ð ðno.ðð€€However,€four€days€prior€to€thisÐ à 0 Ðtestimony€the€undercover€agent€had€been€arrested€on€the€following€charges:€driving€on€a€revokedÐ Æ   Ðlicense,€driving€under€the€influence,€violation€of€implied€consent€law,€and€possession€of€a€handgunÐ ¬ ü  Ðwithout€a€permit.€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€state€sought€to€exclude€the€introduction€of€this€evidence,€claiming€that€theÐ ^®  Ðundercover€agent€answered€the€question€truthfully€because€he€was€not€under€ð ðindictment.ðð€€€TheÐ D”  Ðdefendant€argued€that€the€evidence€should€be€allowed€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608€(b)€as€a€prior€badÐ *z  Ðact€relating€to€the€witnessðð€character€for€untruthfulness.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€evidence€wasÐ ` Ðnot€probative€as€to€any€material€issue€and€excluded€the€evidence.€Ð öF ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€subject€testimony€was€probative€on€the€issue€of€the€witnessðð€credibility;Ð Â Ðnamely,€his€character€for€untruthfulness.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b).€€Whether€the€witness€understoodÐ ¨ø Ðthe€question€only€to€relate€to€ð ðindictmentsðð€as€opposed€to€ð ðchargesðð€goes€to€the€weight€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðevidence.€€Thus,€defense€counsel€should€have€been€allowed€to€pursue€whether€or€not€the€witness€wasÐ tÄ Ðuntruthful€under€oath€at€the€forfeiture€hearing.€€Had€the€witness€denied€that€he€was€untruthful,€noÐ Zª Ðfurther€extrinsic€evidence€could€be€admitted€to€prove€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b).€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€defendant€failed€to€present€an€offer€of€proof€as€to€the€undercover€agentððsÐ  \ Ðanswer€to€this€inquiry.€€We€do€not€know€how€the€witness€would€have€responded€to€defense€counselððsÐ òB Ðinquiry.€€In€order€for€an€appellate€court€to€rule€upon€an€issue€predicated€upon€the€exclusion€ofÐ Ø( Ðtestimony,€the€evidence€excluded€must€appear€in€the€record€in€the€form€of€an€offer€of€proof.€€Tenn.Ð ¾ ÐR.€Evid.€€103(a)(2);€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€971€S.W.2d€30,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€If€the€proposedÐ ¤ô Ðtestimony€is€absent€from€the€record,€this€court€is€precluded€from€considering€the€issue.€€òòRobinsonóó,Ð Š Ú Ð971€S.W.2d€at€40.€€We€simply€cannot€speculate€as€to€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€becauseÐ p!À  Ðsuch€a€determination€depends€upon€the€exact€testimony€given€by€the€undercover€agent€in€responseÐ V"¦! Ðto€defense€counselððs€inquiry.€€However,€regardless€of€the€undercover€agentððs€response€to€defenseÐ <#Œ" Ðcounselððs€inquiry,€it€would€appear€that€the€result€of€the€trial€would€have€been€the€same€in€light€of€theÐ "$r# Ðoverwhelming€evidence€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð %X $ ÐÌò òB.€€Pending€ChargesÐ Ô&$"& ÐÌó óà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€pre„empted€his€cross„examination€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€undercover€agent€by€allowing€the€state€to€resume€its€direct€examination€and€inquire€into€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðwitnessðð€pending€criminal€charges.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àAt€a€pre„trial€hearing,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€stateððs€motion€to€exclude€from€evidenceÐ |Ì Ðthe€undercover€agentððs€pending€Giles€County€charges.€€The€charges€included€a€DUI,€two€bad€checkÐ b² Ðcharges,€and€criminal€impersonation.€€Before€cross„examination,€the€defendant€sought€a€ruling€underÐ H˜ ÐTenn.€R.€Evid€608(b)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€the€admissibility€of€the€undercover€agentððs€two€pending€charges.€€The€trialÐ . ~ Ðcourt€initially€ruled€that€the€defendant€would€be€allowed€to€inquire€into€the€charges€on€cross„Ð  d Ðexamination.€€However,€the€state€argued€that€the€trial€court€had€previously€ruled€the€charges€wereÐ ú J Ðto€be€excluded.€€The€trial€court€then€stated€that€the€previous€ruling€only€related€to€the€DUI€charge.€Ð à 0 ÐThe€state€complained€that€their€understanding€was€that€the€motion€had€been€granted€as€to€all€charges,Ð Æ   Ðand€that€had€they€known€defense€counsel€would€be€allowed€to€ask€about€the€bad€check€and€criminalÐ ¬ ü  Ðimpersonation€charges€on€cross„examination,€they€would€have€inquired€into€the€charges€on€directÐ ’â  Ðexamination.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€since€cross„examination€had€not€begun,€the€stateÐ xÈ  Ðwould€be€allowed€to€continue€their€direct€examination€and€ask€the€witness€about€the€pendingÐ ^®  Ðcharges.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àThe€scope,€manner€and€control€of€examination€of€witnesses€is€largely€within€the€trial€courtððsÐ ` Ðdiscretion,€and€a€ruling€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ð öF Ð839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€find€no€impropriety€here.€€Although€a€literal€reading€of€Tenn.Ð Ü, ÐR.€Evid.€608(b)€would€suggest€that€prior€bad€acts€may€only€be€pursued€on€cross„examination,Ð Â Ðallowing€inquiry€on€direct€examination€would€not€be€reversible€error.€€N.€Cohen€òòet€alóó.,€ò òTennesseeÐ ¨ø ÐLaw€of€Evidenceó ó€ðð€608.5€(3òòóód€ed.€1995).€€Regardless,€defense€counsel€was€given€full€opportunityÐ ŽÞ Ðto€pursue€the€matter€on€cross„examination.€€Thus,€since€the€jury€heard€evidence€regarding€theÐ tÄ Ðwitnessðð€pending€charges,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trialÐ Zª Ðcourtððs€ruling.€òò€See€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð @ Ðòòòòóóò òÓ  ÓTRANSCRIPTSÐ &v ÐÓ×|ÓÌóóó óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€given€a€limiting€instruction€regarding€Ð òB Ðthe€transcripts€of€the€taped€phone€conversations€between€the€undercover€agent,€defendant,€and€others.€Ð Ø( ÐThe€defendant€also€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€redact€statements€made€by€theÐ ¾ Ðundercover€agent€and€in€allowing€the€transcripts€to€be€sent€to€the€jury€room€during€deliberations.ò òòòÐ ¤ô Ðó óóóÌà  àThe€state€introduced€into€evidence€transcripts€of€taped€phone€recordings€between€theÐ p!À  Ðundercover€agent€and€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€now€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€givenÐ V"¦! Ða€limiting€instruction€to€the€jury€admonishing€them€that€only€the€statements€and€declarations€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendant€could€be€considered€in€determining€guilt€or€innocence.€€Initially,€we€note€that€defenseÐ "$r# Ðcounsel€failed€to€request€such€an€instruction;€thus,€the€defendant€has€waived€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ %X $ Ðv.€Cameronóó,€909€S.W.2d€836,€853€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€Tenn.€R.€Evid..€105;€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð î%>!% Ð36(a).€€Nonetheless,€we€will€address€the€issue.€€Ð Ô&$"& Їà  àGenerally,€the€jury€should€be€instructed€that€only€the€statements,€admissions,€and€declarationsÐ ° Ðof€the€defendant€in€a€taped€conversation€may€be€considered€on€the€question€of€guilt€or€innocence.€Ð –æ ÐòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€223€(Tenn.€1980).€€However,€defendant€has€not€referred€to€anyÐ |Ì Ðportion€of€the€recorded€conversations€in€which€declarations€by€the€undercover€agent€inured€toÐ b² Ðdefendantððs€prejudice.€€Only€those€statements€of€others€that€are€prejudicial€to€defendant€need€beÐ H˜ Ðredacted.€òò€Id.óó€€Declarations€by€others€are€sometimes€necessary€to€place€a€defendantððs€statements€inÐ . ~ Ðproper€context.€€In€this€case€defendant€has€not€demonstrated€the€need€to€redact€any€of€the€undercoverÐ  d Ðagentððs€statements€nor€any€prejudice€resulting€from€the€failure€to€give€limiting€instructions.€€òòSeeÐ ú J ÐóóòòState€v.€James€Clayton€Young,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00208,€1998€WL€258466,€at€*20€(Tenn.Ð à 0 ÐCrim.€App.€filed€May€22,€1998,€at€Nashville).€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€allowing€the€transcripts€to€be€viewed€by€theÐ ’â  Ðjury€during€deliberations.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.1€states€that€the€jury€shall€take€to€the€jury€room€allÐ xÈ  Ðexhibits€received€in€evidence€for€the€juryððs€examination€during€deliberations,€unless€good€cause€isÐ ^®  Ðshown€for€not€taking€an€exhibit€to€the€jury€room.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stanley€Lawsonóó,€No.€01C01„9607„CR„Ð D”  Ð00320,€1997€WL€661483,€at€*11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€24,€1997,€at€Nashville).€€òòperm.€toÐ *z  Ðapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€good€cause€for€excluding€theÐ ` Ðtranscripts.€Ð öF ÐÌà  àThus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òÌSENTENCINGÐ tÄ Ðóóó óÓ  Óà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€indication€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ @ Ðevaluated€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offenses.€€Thus,Ð &v Ðhe€argues€that€his€sentence€should€be€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€challenges€the€length€of€each€of€his€sentences€within€the€range€and€the€imposition€of€sixÐ òB Ðconsecutive€sentences.€€We€agree€that€the€sentences€must€be€examined€òòde€novoóó€without€aÐ Ø( Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€€€Ð ¾ ÐÌò òA.€€Length€of€SentenceÐ Š Ú ÐÌà  àó óÔ#†XWÒXXX1ÄKA#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ V"¦! Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€However,€this€presumption€is€conditioned€uponÐ <#Œ" Ðan€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ "$r# Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÐ %X $ Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ î%>!% Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€allow€meaningful€appellate€review,Ð  (ð#( Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€for€arriving€at€the€final€sentencingÐ l*¼%* Ðdecision,€identify€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÐ R+¢&+ Ðfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigatingÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€enhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€theÐ ° Ðsentence.€€Ð–æÐ Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€96€(quoting€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€601€(Tenn.€1994)).€€€Ð b² ÐÔ#†XWÒXXX1Äw#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€simply€stated€that€all€theÐ . ~ Ðenhancement€factors€filed€by€the€state€applied€and€none€of€the€mitigating€factors€asserted€by€theÐ  d Ðdefendant€applied.€€The€stateððs€original€notice€listed€the€following€enhancement€factors:€(1)€theÐ ú J Ðdefendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€behavior€beyond€that€necessary€toÐ à 0 Ðestablish€the€appropriate€range;€(2)€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense;€and€Ð Æ   Ð(3)€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€in€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victimÐ ¬ ü  Ðwas€great.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1),€(2),€(16).€€Additionally,€the€stateððs€amended€noticeÐ ’â  Ðalleged€that€the€defendant€committed€an€offense€with€more€than€one€victim,€and€Ô#†XWÒXXX1ÄD“#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔ€the€defendant€hadÐ xÈ  Ðno€hesitation€about€committing€an€offense€where€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€CodeÐ ^®  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114€(3),€(10).€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€maximum€Range€IÐ D”  Ðsentences€of€twelve€years€on€all€six€of€his€sale€of€cocaine€convictions;€six€years€for€facilitation€of€theÐ *z  Ðsale€of€cocaine€and€aggravated€assault;€and€two€years€for€the€sale€of€counterfeit€cocaine.€€Since€theÐ ` Ðtrial€court€did€not€articulate€how€each€of€the€alleged€enhancement€factors€applies,€we€must€reviewÐ öF Ðthe€defendantððs€sentence€òòde€novoóó€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä*—#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ Ü, ÐÔ#†XWÒXXX1ÄDš#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÌò òÓ  Ó(a)€Enhancement€Factor€(1)ó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ¾šÓà  àEnhancement€factor€(1),€the€defendant€Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä›š#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔhad€an€extensive€history€of€prior€criminal€behavior,Ð tÄ Ðapplies€to€each€of€the€defendantððs€convictions.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1).€€At€sentencing,€aÐ Zª Ðstateððs€witness€testified€that€the€defendant€had€previously€sold€cocaine€to€an€undercover€agent€inÐ @ Ð1992,€and€paid€another€undercover€agent,€pretending€to€be€a€police€officer€taking€bribes,€to€keep€himÐ &v Ðinformed€about€the€police€departmentððs€drug€investigations.€€Furthermore,€the€defendantððs€wifeÐ  \ Ðtestified€regarding€the€defendantððs€involvement€in€a€scheme€to€obtain€multiple€prescriptions€forÐ òB Ðpainkillers€from€various€doctors€and€pharmacies€over€a€period€of€several€years.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àIt€is€further€apparent€the€defendant€was€a€major€drug€dealer.€€During€the€taped€phoneÐ ¤ô Ðconversations€between€the€defendant€and€the€undercover€agent,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€checkedÐ Š Ú Ðwith€his€contacts€in€Nashville,€Dallas,€Detroit€and€Cincinnati€about€obtaining€cocaine€for€re„sale.€Ð p!À  ÐTherefore,€we€apply€enhancement€factor€(1)€and€give€it€great€weight.Ð V"¦! ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(b)€Enhancement€Factor€(2)Ð "$r# Ðó óÌÓV Óà  àAdditionally,€with€regard€to€the€defendantððs€drug€convictions,€he€was€ð ða€leaderðð€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðoffenses€in€cases€8429,€8435€and€8437.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(2).ò òó ó€€Testimony€from€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðofficers€and€the€undercover€agent€revealed€that€in€these€cases€the€defendant€used€an€intermediary€inÐ º' #' Ðselling€the€cocaine€and€counterfeit€cocaine.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(c)€Enhancement€Factor€(3)ó óÐ l*¼%* ÐÌÓ_¢Óà  àFactor€(3),€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim,€does€not€apply€to€any€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendantððs€drug€convictions.€€As€to€aggravated€assault,€the€record€reveals€that€both€the€undercoverÐ ° Ðagent€and€Agent€Howell€were€present€when€the€defendant€displayed€his€gun.€€Although€theÐ –æ Ðindictment€for€aggravated€assault€only€lists€Agent€Howell€as€the€victim,€the€undercover€agentÐ |Ì Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€also€pointed€the€gun€at€him.€€Thus,€we€apply€enhancement€factor€(3)€toÐ b² Ðthe€aggravated€assault€conviction.Ô#†XWÒXXX1Äb›#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ H˜ ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(d)€Enhancement€Factors€(10)€and€(16)Ð  d Ðó óÌÓq¥Óà  àThis€court€has€previously€held€thatÔ#†XWÒXXX1Ä9¥#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔ€factor€(10),€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€aboutÐ à 0 Ðcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€€and€factor€(16),€the€crime€was€committedÐ Æ   Ðunder€circumstances€where€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great,€are€inapplicable€to€drugÐ ¬ ü  Ðconvictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(10),€(16);€òòsee€óóòòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€421„22Ð ’â  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ħ#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔ;€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€446„47€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð xÈ  Ð1991).€While€our€court€has€recognized€that€cocaine„related€cases€can€be€committed€under€factualÐ ^®  Ðscenarios€which€would€justify€factor€(16),€the€nature€of€the€particular€controlled€substance€cannotÐ D”  Ðin€and€of€itself€be€used€to€justify€use€of€these€particular€enhancement€factors.ðð€€òòóó€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882Ð *z  ÐS.W.2d€at€421„22.Ð ` ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€indicates€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€business€of€drug€trafficking.€€However,Ð Ü, Ðthere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€these€crimes€were€committed€under€circumstances€whichÐ Â Ðcaused€a€great€potential€for€bodily€injury€or€risk€to€human€life€other€than€the€nature€of€the€substancesÐ ¨ø Ðsold.€€Likewise,€this€court€has€held€that€it€is€improper€to€apply€these€factors€based€merely€on€the€Ð ŽÞ Ðquantity€or€quality€of€the€substance€underlying€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Norman€G.€Copelandóó,€No.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ01C01„9602„CC„00057,€1997€WL€137407,€at€*11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€27,€1997,€atÐ @ ÐNashville).€€Thus,€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€do€not€apply€to€any€of€the€drug€cases.Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä*¨#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ &v ÐÌà  àThus,€the€only€remaining€issue€is€whether€factors€(10)€and€(16)€should€apply€to€defendantððsÐ òB Ðsentence€for€aggravated€assault.Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä£­#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔ€€Factor€(10)€is€an€element€of€aggravated€assault.€€€òòSee€óóTenn.€CodeÐ Ø( ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„102.€€However,€this€Court€has€held€that€even€when€factor€(10)€is€an€element€of€theÐ ¾ Ðoffense,€it€may€still€be€applied€where€the€defendant€creates€a€high€risk€to€the€life€of€a€person€otherÐ ¤ô Ðthan€the€victim.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€theÐ Š Ú Ðdefendantððs€perpetration€of€the€aggravated€assault€created€a€high€risk€to€the€life€of€the€undercoverÐ p!À  Ðagent€as€well€as€Agent€Howell.€The€undercover€agent€testified€he€was€in€close€proximity€to€theÐ V"¦! Ðdefendant€and€also€stated€that€he€thought€he€would€be€killed.€€Thus,€we€conclude€€factor€(10)€appliesÐ <#Œ" Ðto€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€assault.€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àWithin€this€Court€there€is€inconsistent€application€of€factor€(16)€where€the€potential€forÐ î%>!% Ðbodily€injury€to€a€person€other€than€the€named€victim€is€great.€€In€òòState€v.€Michael€Lebron€Tayloróó,Ð Ô&$"& ÐNo.€03C01„9810„CR„00366,€1999€WL€692579,€at€*6„7€òòóó(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€8,€1999,Ð º' #' Ðat€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999),€this€Court€concluded€that€both€factors€(10)€andÐ  (ð#( Ð(16)€could€be€applied€to€enhance€a€defendantððs€sentence€when€applied€to€a€person€other€than€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðnamed€victim.€òòóó€€However,€a€separate€panel€of€this€court€reached€a€different€result€in€òòState€v.€JohnÐ l*¼%* ÐBradley€Loweryóó,€No.€E1998„0034„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€748103,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filedÐ R+¢&+ ÐJune€12,€2000,€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€app.€óófiled€August€16,€2000.€€The€panel€concluded€that€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðplain€language€of€the€statute€demonstrates€that€factor€(16)€restricts€its€application€to€ð ða€victim.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ° ÐThus,€the€court€concluded€that€factor€(16)€may€not€be€established€by€showing€potential€harm€to€aÐ –æ Ðbystander.€€We€need€not€resolve€the€conflict€in€this€case.€€In€light€of€our€use€of€factor€(10),€weÐ |Ì Ðconclude€that€we€would€impose€the€same€length€of€sentence€regardless€of€whether€we€applied€factorÐ b² Ð(16).€€Ô#†XWÒXXX1Äš®#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ H˜ ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(e)€Mitigating€Factorsó óÐ  d ÐÌÓ\¸Óà  àFinally,€upon€review€of€the€mitigating€factors€asserted€by€the€defendant,€we€find€none€of€theÐ à 0 Ðfactors€to€be€applicable.Ð Æ   ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(f)€Setting€of€Sentencesó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÓW¹Óà  àWe€conclude€that€the€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€sentences€shall€be€as€follows:Ð ^®  Ðà  àCase€8429„€selling€cocaine€over€0.5€grams„€factors€(1)€and€(2)„€sentence€of€12€yearsÐ D”  Ðà  àCase€8430„€selling€cocaine€over€0.5€grams„€factor€(1)„€sentence€of€11€yearsÐ *z  Ðà  àCase€8431„€facilitation€of€sale€of€cocaine€over€0.5€grams„€factor€(1)„€sentence€of€5€yearsÐ ` Ðà  àCase€8432„€selling€cocaine€over€0.5€grams„€factor€(1)„€sentence€of€11€yearsÐ öF Ðà  àCase€8433„€selling€cocaine€over€0.5€grams„€factor€(1)„€sentence€of€11€yearsÐ Ü, Ðà  àCase€8434„€selling€cocaine€over€26€grams„€factor€(1)„€sentence€of€11€yearsÐ Â Ðà  àCase€8435„€selling€cocaine€over€26€grams„€factors€(1)€and€(2)„€sentence€of€12€yearsÔ#†XWÒXXX1Ä$¸#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àCase€8436„€aggravated€assault„€factors€(1),€(3),€and€(10)„€sentence€of€6€yearsÐ tÄ Ðà  àCase€8437„€selling€counterfeit€cocaine„€factors€(1)€and€(2)„€sentence€of€2€years€Ð Zª ÐÌò òB.€€Consecutive€Sentencing€Ð &v ÐÌó óà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€running€each€of€his€Class€B€drug€convictionsÐ òB Ðconsecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€seventy„two€years.€€Ô#†XWÒXXX1Ä<½#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔòòóóA€court€may€order€sentences€to€runÐ Ø( Ðconsecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that:Ð ¾ ÐÌ€à8  à(1)€[t]he€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devoted€suchÐ Š Ú Ðdefendantððs€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;Ðp!À Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€[t]he€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive;...Ð<#Œ"Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b);òò€see€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð %X $ Ð1995).€Ð î%>!% ÐÔ#†XWÒXXX1Äg¿#ÔÔ‡XWÒXXXWÒÔÌà  àÔ#†XWÒXXXWÒ8Â#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔThe€trial€court€found€both€criteria€(1)€and€(2)€applied.€òòóó€Regardless€of€whether€the€defendantÐ º' #' Ðdevoted€his€life€to€drug€trafficking€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood,€we€conclude€the€record€clearlyÐ  (ð#( Ðdemonstrates€that€the€defendant€had€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð †)Ö$) Ððð€40„35„115€(2).€€Prior€criminal€activity€does€not€require€prior€convictions;€prior€criminal€behaviorÐ l*¼%* Ðis€sufficient.€€òòState€v.€Fredrick€Sledgeóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00089,€1997€WL€730245,€at€*€32€(Tenn.Ð R+¢&+ ÐCrim.€App.€filed€November€25,€1997,€at€Jackson),€òòaffððd€as€modified€and€remanded€on€other€groundsóó,Ð 8,ˆ', Ð15€S.W.3d€93€(Tenn.€2000).€€Here,€the€record€reveals,€and€the€trial€court€justifiably€concluded,€thatÐ ° Ðthe€defendant€had€been€involved€over€a€period€of€time€in€a€major€drug€trafficking€operation.€Ð –æ ÐTherefore,€we€conclude€the€defendant€is€an€appropriate€candidate€for€consecutive€sentencing,€but€ourÐ |Ì Ðinquiry€does€not€end€with€this€determination.€òòóóÐ b² ÐÌà  àThe€general€principles€of€sentencing€require€that€the€length€of€sentences€be€ð ðjustly€deservedÐ . ~ Ðin€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseðð€and€ð ðbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offenseÐ  d Ðcommitted.ðð€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,òòóó€3€S.W.3d€456,€460€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„Ð ú J Ð102(1),€„103(2)).€€In€light€of€the€recent€decisions€by€this€court,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ à 0 Ðordering€all€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€òòóó€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Richard€Lynn€Nortonóó,€No.€E1999„Ð Æ   Ð00878„CCA„R3„CD,€__€WL__,€at€*__€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Aug.€22,€2000,€at€Knoxville);€òòStateÐ ¬ ü  Ðv.€John€Derrick€Martinóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9502„CR„00043,€1995€WL€747824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ’â  Ðfiled€€December€19,€1995,€at€Nashville),€òòaffððd€and€remanded€on€other€groundsóó,€940€S.W.2d€567Ð xÈ  Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,€244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àIn€òòMartinóó,€the€defendant€was€arrested€after€four€sales€of€cocaine€to€undercover€agents.€€HeÐ *z  Ðwas€convicted€on€three€counts€of€the€sale€of€cocaine,€possession€with€intent€to€sell€cocaine,Ð ` Ðpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia€and€driving€on€a€suspended€license.€€The€trial€court€imposedÐ öF Ðconsecutive€sentences€for€each€drug€conviction€for€an€effective€sentence€of€40€years.€€òòSeeóó€òòMartinóó,Ð Ü, Ðat€*2.€€The€panel€in€òòMartinóó€concluded€that€while€Martin€did€qualify€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„Ð Â Ð115€for€consecutive€sentencing,€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€for€each€drug€offense€wasÐ ¨ø Ðinappropriate€because€ð ðthe€severity€of€the€crimes€could€vary€significantly€depending€upon€theÐ ŽÞ Ðspecific€number€of€buys€the€officers€chose€to€conduct€and€the€amounts€purchased€in€each€buy.ðð€òò€Id.Ð tÄ Ðóóat€*€5.€òò€óóFurthermore,€the€panel€in€òòMartinóó€determined€that€ð ðforty€years€for€the€drug€offenses€is€[not]Ð Zª Ðreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€these€four€crimes.ðð€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€forty„year€sentenceÐ @ Ðwas€reduced€to€twenty€years€and€nine€months.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àNorton€was€convicted€of€three€drug€offenses€and€received€three€consecutive€sentences.€€€Ð òB ÐUsing€the€òòMartinóó€rationale,€the€òòNortonóó€panel€reduced€the€defendantððs€sentence€from€thirty„six€yearsÐ Ø( Ðto€twenty„four€years.€€The€court€reasoned€that€the€ð ðimposition€of€three€consecutive€sentences€wouldÐ ¾ Ðpermit€investigating€officers€to€dictate€the€length€of€a€sentence€based€upon€the€number€of€controlledÐ ¤ô Ðbuys€they€arrange€and€the€amounts€purchased.ðð€€òòNortonóó,€€slip€op.€atòò€óó12.€€€€€€€€Ð Š Ú Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà  àThe€same€is€true€in€the€instant€case.€€The€authorities€continued€to€arrange€controlled€buys.€Ð V"¦! ÐEven€though€we€conclude€the€defendant€unquestionably€qualifies€for€consecutive€sentencing€basedÐ <#Œ" Ðupon€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity,€we€find€that€the€imposition€of€an€effective€seventy„twoÐ "$r# Ðyear€sentence€is€not€consistent€with€our€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€The€sentence€must€be€justlyÐ %X $ Ðdeserved,€and€no€greater€than€that€deserved,€for€the€offenses.€€òòLaneóó,€3.€S.W.3d€at€460.€€We€concludeÐ î%>!% Ðdefendant€should€serve€four€of€his€sentences,€rather€than€six,€consecutively.€Thus,€the€defendantððsÐ Ô&$"& Ðconvictions€for€sale€of€cocaine€under€indictments€8429,€8430,€8434,€and€8435€shall€be€servedÐ º' #' Ðconsecutively€to€each€other€with€all€other€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.€€Therefore,€in€lightÐ  (ð#( Ðof€our€reduction€in€the€length€of€some€of€the€defendantððs€sentences,€we€conclude€the€defendantððsÐ †)Ö$) Ðsentences€shall€be€reduced€from€an€effective€term€of€seventy„two€years€to€forty„six€years.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àWe€recognize€that€this€sentence€is€higher€than€those€imposed€in€òòNortonóó€and€òòMartinóó.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐHowever,€this€defendantððs€drug€and€other€criminal€activity€is€more€egregious.€€Two€of€the€casesÐ ° Ðinvolved€well€over€26€grams€of€cocaine;€namely,€49.1€grams€and€80.5€grams.€€Five€other€casesÐ –æ Ðinvolved€well€over€0.5€grams;€namely,€1.9€grams,€6.7€grams,€13.9€grams,€20.3€grams€and€17.2Ð |Ì Ðgrams.€€The€counterfeit€cocaine€case€was€supposed€to€involve€two€ounces€of€cocaine.€€Furthermore,Ð b² Ðthe€evidence€in€this€case€reveals€that€the€defendant€had€drug€contacts€across€the€United€States.€€WeÐ H˜ Ðconclude€an€effective€sentence€of€forty„six€years€is€appropriate€under€all€the€circumstances.€€Ð . ~ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òÌCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ à 0 ÐÓ  Óòòóóòòò òó óóóÌà  àÔ#†XWÒXXX1ćÂ#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€all€convictions€should€be€affirmed;€however,Ð ¬ ü  Ðwe€conclude€some€of€the€sentences€should€be€modified.€€The€sentences€shall€be€twelve€years€in€casesÐ ’â  Ð8429€and€8435;€eleven€years€in€cases€8430,€8432,€8433,€and€8434;€five€years€in€case€8431;€six€yearsÐ xÈ  Ðin€case€8436;€and€two€years€in€case€8437.€€Cases€8429,€8430,€8434,€and€8435€shall€run€consecutivelyÐ ^®  Ðto€each€other€with€all€other€sentences€running€concurrently,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€forty„sixÐ D”  Ðyears.€€The€cases€are€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€amended€judgments.Ô#†XWÒXXX1ÄÜ#ÔÔ‡X1ÄXXXWÒÔÐ *z  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ü, Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÔ#†XWÒXXX1ÄóÞ#Ô