ÿWPC  ÌVÑb¾âœÑfá"+ˆLÓ©u‚u’X‘“™s= ç q7—vŠK5mj±%¹äÖëhojÞXÇßa ·O–R¤1¼ˆÖÐ4Ž*‚„Ì€¾“¬KsÃëùÛóY¥—5eÇ…Þü’)ãÍÑç ÝäN62:ñþ)E«x¹{+ãwä¸$ÓKb(˜G ™s]¹Áòï§êª'm^I»ƒ÷*¤ÿQÕAàáwžVœ<9¼ÛA8p)É«H†]Úä݈6Kí\rtí›* f³û [ìùƒQ¾u5)á#ê¹ÕŽ:5Xòã ^OÁ¿ôsÿK®‚TóÐ^›ÖáX"¢C<‘ª¼Ø†wÍ:ì ^ÅÓÌÙ² ø„ã΋oUj¹¼æ‰ 2Ńè÷Ýk©•êýêj*×¾î(«è÷¨‡iÙ „FÖ~tp°AUôQ—$ÊsÇê"±jlß~ì³í0GÏn¿1vu”Kë¤qëþK#XQã\öÖê<5‹wök®Ö!¯óÔç×Ã<¡µETÛîå&ú+ [c:WSuõú'øÅeÈÖ ÔÃb/b œ—½íGÓDÔ%'L“×Qm”¹ð½íŸÒŽ]ùš€ýÒ,!éE'¯Î˜)UB> %€U.†´nXÄ 0P4l€ 0Òˆ 0cZw@½U:ýU:7U:q)«U:Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô AQ Æ_ 0D% 0Di 0D­ Bñ D/  B= D3Z <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xí«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ón~<$(‚(2|'$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ômÈôXXÔÔ€ôdÕôôômÈÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÙÚÛDÜDÝÞDßà3eáÓ€íg"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X'1XXXÔÔ€ÈXX'1ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X'1XÈÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€21,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÇÐôXX'1ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñàñ›ñàññàñ›ñàñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€X­XXXÔÑ7€ ­ XXdðdÈ7Ññáñœßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` ttx$"` ð Úrß›ñáñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@ÃÃ;MàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌÓ  Óà@ƒƒ6MàOCTOBER€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9801„CC„00026ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àFAYETTE€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€JON€KERRY€BLACKWOOD,Ð €  ÐJOHNNY€BENARD€JONES€andà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p ÐCLIFTON€LAVERN€MITCHELL,à  àà ` à)à ¸ àÐ ` Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)ó óà ¸ à(Possession€of€Cocaine€with€Intent€toò òÐ Pð Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellants.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)ó óà0 ¸ àSell€and€Possession€of€Marijuana)ò òÐ@à¸J%¸J% Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ   ÐÌÌò òANDREW€JOHNSTONà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ Ð p Ðó ó108€East€Court€Squareà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ À!` ÐSomerville,€TN€ñàñœñàñ€38068ñàñ›ñàñÌ€€€(For€Defendant€Jones)à ° àà  àà ` àò òà ¸ àGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERó óÐ  #@ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òC.€MICHAEL€ROBBINSó óà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð €%  Ð46€North€Third€St.,€Suite€719à  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€Ð p& ÐMemphis,€TN€ñàñœñàñ€38103ñàñ›ñàñà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð `'  Ѐ€€(For€Defendant€Mitchell€on€Appeal)Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òELIZABETH€T.€RICEó óÐ @)à" Ðò òGARY€ANTRICANó óà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ 0*Ð # ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à302€Market€St.Ð  +À!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àó óSomerville,€TN€ñàñœñàñ€38068ñàñ›ñàñÐ ,°"% Ðò òSHANA€McCOY„JOHNSONó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àÐ - #& ÐAsst.€District€Public€Defenderà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà ! àÐ ð-$' ÐP.O.€Box€700ÌSomerville,€TN€ñàñœñàñ€38068ñàñ›ñàñà ° àÐ Ð/p&) Ѐ€€(For€Defendant€Mitchell€at€Trial)à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà ! àÐ À0`'* ÐÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ P7ð-1 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ  :À04 ÐJudgeÌÐ  < 26 ÐÑXÑÓ  Óà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼‡ ¼XX­ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†X­X¼¼‡ Ï#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àA€jury€found€the€defendants€guilty€of€possession€of€cocaine€(over€26€grams)Ïwith€intent€to€sell€and€possession€of€marijuana.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€eachÏdefendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€twenty€years€incarcerationÏon€the€cocaine€offense€and€a€concurrent€term€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€daysÏincarceration€at€75%€on€the€marijuana€offense.€€The€defendants€now€appeal,€arguing€thatÏthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€establish€knowing€possession€of€the€controlled€substances.€ÏDefendant€Jones€raises€two€additional€arguments€for€review,€i.e.,€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€denying€his€motion€to€sever€and€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Finding€no€merit€to€theÏdefendantsðð€arguments,€we€affirm.ÌÌà ¨ àà àOn€the€evening€of€April€22,€1997,€Officer€Dan€Feathers€of€ñàñœñàñthe€Somervilleñàñ›ñàññàññàñÏPolice€Department€stopped€defendant€Jones€for€speeding.€€Defendant€Mitchell€was€aÏpassenger€in€the€front€seat.€€Officer€Feathers€noticed€digital€scales€removed€from€theÏpackaging€and€placed€near€a€box€and€paper€sack€in€the€backseat€of€the€car,€whichÏbelonged€to€Jonesðð€wife.€€After€issuing€Jones€a€warning€citation,€Officer€FeathersÏrequested€Jonesðð€permission€to€search€the€car.€€Jones€told€Officer€Feathers€there€wasÏnothing€illegal€in€the€car,€but€he€gave€the€officer€verbal€and€written€permission€to€searchÏit.€€With€the€aid€of€a€drug„sniffing€dog,€a€white€package€containing€52.8€grams€of€cocaineÏwas€found€hidden€behind€the€glove€box€and€ñàñœñàñwas€confiscated.ñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€€Neither€defendant€was€inÏa€position€from€which€they€could€have€seen€where€the€cocaine€was€found.€The€digitalÏscales,€and€the€packaging€in€which€the€scales€are€shipped€and€sold,€were€alsoÏconfiscated.€€When€asked€about€the€digital€scales,€the€packaging€of€which€still€had€a€priceÏtag€of€one€hundred€thirty„nine€dollars€and€ninety„nine€cents€($139.99)€attached,€JonesÐ †6&-0 Ðreplied€that€earlier€that€day€in€Memphis,€he€had€purchased€them€ð ðfor€his€wifeððs€cooking.ðð€Ð †6&-2 ÐWhen€Officer€Feathers€asked€Mitchell€where€he€had€been€that€day,€he€replied€he€hadÏbeen€at€his€sisterððs€house.€€According€to€Officer€Feathers,€digital€scales€are€the€mostÏaccurate€method€of€weighing€cocaine€for€re„sale.ÌÌà ¨ àà àBoth€defendants€were€placed€under€arrest€and€transported€to€the€policeÏstation.€€Once€there,€Jones€did€not€make€a€statement.€€Mitchell,€however,€waived€hisÏrights€and€spoke€with€the€officers.€€When€asked€whether€there€were€additional€illegalÏitems€in€the€car,€Mitchell€replied€that€there€was€some€marijuana€ð ðat€the€same€placeððÏwhere€the€cocaine€was€found.€€Based€on€this€information,€4.1€grams€of€marijuana€wasÏfound€hidden€behind€the€glove€box.€€From€Jonesðð€person,€the€police€confiscated€twoÏhundred€dollars€($200)€in€cash€and€a€pager.€€From€Mitchell,€the€police€confiscated€fourÏhundred€eleven€dollars€($411),€two€hundred€of€which€was€located€in€the€toe€of€his€shoe,Ïand€a€pager.€€At€the€time€of€the€arrest,€Mitchell€told€Officer€Feathers€he€was€unemployed.€ÏWhile€Jones€told€Officer€Feathers€he€was€employed€at€the€time,€Officer€Feathers€testifiedÏhe€had€not€known€Jones€to€hold€steady€employment€during€the€four€years€he€had€beenÏacquainted€with€him.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendants€first€argue€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establishÏa€knowing€possession€of€the€controlled€substances,€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„¼417(a)(4)€and€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„418(a).€€Both€contend€that€neither€of€them€had€actualÏpossession€of€the€drugs.€€Rather€predictably,€however,€each€points€the€finger€at€the€other,Ïclaiming€his€codefendant€had€constructive€possession€of€the€drugs.ÌÌà ¨ àà àConstructive€possession€is€the€ability€to€gain€actual€possession€over€anÏobject.€€òòState€v.€Transouóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€956€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)(quoting€òòStateÐ €4 +0 Ðv.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)).€€Jones€was€driving€his€wifeððsÐ L6ì,2 Ðcar,€in€which€the€drugs€were€found€secreted€behind€the€glove€box.€€Because€ð ð[k]nowledgeÏmay€be€inferred€from€control€over€the€vehicle€in€which€the€contraband€is€secreted,ðð€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€that€Jones€knowingly€possessed€the€drugs.€€òòState€v.Ð ø ˜ ÐBrownóó,€915€S.W.2d€3,€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(citation€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925Ð Äd ÐS.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(evidence€sufficient€to€establish€knowing€possessionÏwhere€drugs€were€found€in€the€vehicle€driven€by€the€defendant€and€no€explanation€wasÏoffered€for€the€presence€of€the€drugs).€€Likewise,€Mitchellððs€knowledge€of€where€theÏcocaine€and€marijuana€were€hidden,€even€though€he€did€not€see€from€where€in€the€carÏthe€drugs€were€recovered,€creates€the€inference€that€he€had€the€ability€to€gain€actualÏpossession€over€the€drugs,€which€establishes€constructive€possession.€€òòSeeóó€òòTransouóó,Ð Œ, Ð928€S.W.2d€at€956.ÌÌà ¨ àà àMoreover,€both€defendants€were€carrying€on€their€person€several€hundredÏdollars€in€cash€(part€of€which€Mitchell€had€hidden€in€his€shoe)€and€pagers.€€PossessionÏof€a€pager€and€a€large€amount€of€cash€simultaneously€with€a€large€amount€of€a€controlledÏsubstance€may€be€sufficient€circumstances€from€which€the€factfinder€could€infer€that€theÏdefendant€intended€to€sell€the€controlled€substance.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Vada€Allen€Branchóó,Ð  &À  ÐNo.€02C01-9706-CC-00224,€Dyer€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€1,€1998,€atÏJackson);€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39-17-419€("It€may€be€inferred€from€the€amount€of€a€controlledÐ ¸)X $ Ðsubstance€or€substances€possessed€by€an€offender,€along€with€other€relevant€factsÏsurrounding€the€arrest,€that€the€controlled€substance€or€substances€were€possessed€withÏthe€purpose€of€selling€or€otherwise€dispensing.").€€By€proving€that€the€defendantsÏpossessed€drugs€they€intended€to€sell,€the€State€necessarily€proved€knowing€possession.€Ï€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39-11-301(a)(2)€(ð ðintentionalðð€includes€ñàñœñàñð ðknowingðð)ñàñ›ñàññàññàññàñœñàñ.€ñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€ñàñœñàñòòSeeñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€generallyóó€òòState€v.Ð ´2T). ÐMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€538€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)(ð ðBy€alleging€that€the€defendantÐ €4 +0 Ðpossessed€cocaine€which€he€intended€to€sell,€the€indictment€necessarily€implied€that€itÐ L6ì,2 Ðwas€a€knowing€possession.ðð).€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantsððÏconvictions.ÌÌà ¨ àà àDefendant€Mitchell€presents€no€other€issues€for€review.€€Defendant€Jones,Ïhowever,€presents€two€more€issues,€the€first€of€which€pertains€to€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€his€motion€to€sever.€€Jones€contends€that€after€they€were€arrested,€Mitchell€wrote€himÏseveral€letters€that€implicate€he,€not€Jones,€possessed€the€drugs€found€in€the€car.€€HeÏargues€the€only€way€these€letters,€which€are€relevant€and€material€to€proving€hisÏinnocence,€could€ñàñœñàñhave€been€ñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€introduced€ñàñœñàñinto€evidence€isñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€if€his€trial€ñàñœñàñhad€beenñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€severed€fromÏMitchellððs€so€that€he€could€ñàñœñàñhave€calledñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€Mitchell€to€the€witness€stand.€€Without€aÏseverance,€Jones€contends,€he€was€denied€his€right€of€confrontation€and€thus€denied€aÏfair€trial.ÌÌà ¨ àà àDefendant€Jones€had€the€duty€to€prepare€an€adequate€record€in€order€toÏallow€meaningful€review€of€this€issue.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,Ð ˆ"( Ð160€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð T$ô ÐBecause€the€record€does€not€contain€the€letters,€without€which€we€cannot€determine€theirÏrelevance€or€materiality€and€thus€cannot€determine€whether€Jones€was€denied€a€fair€trial,Ïwe€are€precluded€from€considering€the€issue.€€òòId.óó€€Even€so,€and€even€assuming€that€theÐ ¸)X $ Ðletters€were€as€relevant€and€as€material€as€Jones€claims€they€were,€he€has€not€shownÏhow€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€his€motion€to€sever.€€Jones€contendsÏhe€would€have€received€a€fair€trial€only€if€his€motion€to€sever€would€have€been€grantedÏand€Mitchell€would€have€gone€to€trial€ñàñœñàññ×ñprior€to€his€trialñ×ññàñ›ñàññàññàñ€so€he€could€have€called€him€as€aÏwitness.€€Even€if€that€would€have€happened,€however,€and€Mitchell€would€have€beenÏconvicted,€the€record€reflects€that€he€would€have€appealed€his€conviction€and€invoked€hisÏFifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€thus€still€making€him€unavailable€toÐ L6ì,2 Ðtestify€at€Jonesðð€trial.€€Jones€has€simply€failed€to€prove€how€he€was€clearly€prejudiced€byÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€proceed€with€a€joint€trial€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,Ð , Ì Ð898€S.W.2d€161,€166€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.Ð ø ˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà ¨ àà àFinally,€Jones€argues€he€received€an€excessive€sentence.€€At€theÏsentencing€hearing,€neither€Jones€nor€the€State€presented€any€evidence€ñàñœñàññØñbesidesñØññÙñother€thanñÙññàñ›ñàññàññàñ€theÏpresentence€report.€€Jones€stipulated€to€the€information€in€the€presentence€report,€withÏthe€exception€of€the€suggestion€that€he€was€on€release€at€the€time€of€this€crime,€whichÏwas€false.€€Based€on€the€information€before€it,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€twoÏenhancing€factors,€i.e.,€that€Jones€has€a€prior€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€anÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€sentences€involving€release€in€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.Ð $Ä Ððð€40„35„114(1),€(8).€€As€a€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€court€found€that€his€conduct€neitherÏcaused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€Finding€that€theÐ ¼ \ Ðenhancing€factors€outweighed€the€mitigating€factor€and€that€Jones€was€a€multipleÏoffender,€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€twenty€years€incarceration€for€possession€ofÏcocaine€with€intent€to€sell€and€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€for€simple€possession€ofÏmarijuana.€€The€record€supports€this€sentence.ÌÌà ¨ àà àJones€complains€that€the€trial€court€relied€on€nothing€other€than€theÏpresentence€report€in€sentencing€him.€€Contrary€to€Jonesðð€argument,€this€is€insignificant.€ÏIn€sentencing€a€defendant,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€consider€the€presentence€report.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(2).€€While€Jones€had€the€right€to€call€witnesses€to€testify€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€on€his€behalf€or€to€challenge€the€information€contained€in€theÏpresentence€report,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„209(b),€he€did€not€do€so.€€Absent€a€challenge€to€theÏpresentence€report€(besides€correctly€asserting€he€was€not€on€release€status€at€the€timeÐ L6ì,2 Ðof€his€arrest)€and€absent€any€attempt€to€present€evidence€other€than€the€presentenceÏreport,€Jones€cannot€complain€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€only€evidence€presentedÏto€it.ÌÌà ¨ àà àÔ‡ XÿXXXÿÔJones€also€complains,€without€citation€to€authority,€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ 0 Ðfind€his€unwillingness€to€comply€with€terms€of€release€to€be€a€ð ðfrequentðð€or€a€ð ðrecentððÏproblem.€€However,€the€trial€court€need€not€make€such€findings€in€order€to€justify€theÏenhancement€of€a€sentence€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(8).Ô#†XÿXX Xÿ¨<#ÔÐ ô”  ÐÌà ¨ àà àMoreover,€Jones€argues€that€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€in€theÏsentencing€order€that€he€was€a€Range€II€multiple€offender,€he€must€be€sentenced€as€aÏRange€I€standard€offender.€€Jonesðð€argument€is€based€on€a€false€ñàñœñàññÚñpremiseñÚññÚñ›assumptñÚññÛñionñÛñ,ñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€however,€asÏthe€sentencing€order€clearly€refers€to€an€eligibility€release€percentage€of€35%,€whichÏcorresponds€to€the€eligibility€release€percentage€for€ñàñœñàññÜñrñÜññÝñRñÝñangeñàñ›ñàññàññàñ€ñàñœñàññÞñIIñÞññßñIIñßññàñ›ñàñ€multiple€offenders€found€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„501(d).€€Even€so,€there€can€be€no€mistake€that€the€trial€court€intended€toÏsentence€Jones€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender,€as€the€transcript€of€the€sentencingÏhearing€and€the€written€judgment€specifically€reflect.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFurther,€Jones€complains€of€a€discrepancy€between€the€sentencing€order,Ïwhich€states€no€mitigating€factors€were€found,€and€the€sentencing€hearing€transcript,Ïwhich€reflects€a€specific€finding€of€one€mitigating€factor.€€He€argues€that€since€oneÏmitigating€factor€applies€but€was€not€mentioned€in€the€sentencing€order,€his€sentenceÏshould€be€reduced€to€reflect€the€weight€of€the€mitigating€factor.€€His€argument€lacks€merit,Ïhowever,€as€it€is€apparent€from€the€sentencing€hearing€transcript€that€the€trial€court€tookÏinto€account€the€applicable€mitigating€factor€but€specifically€determined€it€was€outweighedÏby€the€two€enhancing€factors.€€Moreover,€whatever€is€reflected€in€the€sentencing€hearingÐ L6ì,2 Ðtranscript€will€control€over€what€is€reflected€in€the€sentencing€order.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zylaóó,Ð `  Ð628€S.W.2d€39,€42€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)(where€transcript€and€court€minutes€conflict,Ïtranscript€controls);€òòState€v.€Michael€Berryóó,€No.€03C01„9601„CR„0„00028,€Sullivan€CountyÐ ø ˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€10,€1997,€at€Knoxville)(where€transcript€and€written€courtÏrecords€conflict,€transcript€controls);€òòState€v.€Michael€Wilsonóó,€01C01„9602„CC„00073,Ð 0 ÐPutnam€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€31,€1997,€at€Nashville)(where€judgment€formsÏconflict€with€transcript,€transcript€controls).ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€short,€the€record€supports€the€imposed€sentence€and€Jones€has€notÏshown€otherwise.€€Thus,€his€claim€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€must€fail.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFinding€no€merit€in€any€of€the€issues€presented€by€defendants€Jones€andÏMitchell,€their€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Senior€Judge