ÿWPCÊ! …U .V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è 0 (•U:½w¸÷4¯ 0Tà 0™ 0D° U:ô D3. 0^a 0h¿ 0r' 0|™ 0† 0› 1u+ 0d  0NR BZU *wB)¡DCÊ AM íZ 0@Gf‡íû•ý„’jv~€vÓþ 0TÑ AO% Æt 0D:! D/~! B­!<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|xö«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial RegularÎÏÐDÑÒDÓÔDÕÖDרÙÚDÛÜ{ÝÞDßàEáDâãDäåEæçèéDêëÓ€Úƒç"2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(I(2(ô$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X™ÄXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular""""'ÿÿdxd2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓH–´4fnote_reffnote_refòòóó d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d))))7Border 1dd€-*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€has€not€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence.Ì ñÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victim's€name€is€not€pertinent€to€this€appeal.Ì ‹Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€language€of€this€indictment€is€virtually€identical€to€the€language€ofÏthe€indictment€in€òòHillóó,€though€the€defendant€in€òòHillóó€was€indicted€for€aggravatedÏrape€and€Kidd€was€indicted€for€rape.€Ì zÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€find€the€state's€waiver€arguments€which€relate€to€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€defendant's€brief€on€this€issue€lacking€in€merit,€though€we€decline€to€belaborÏthe€point€with€lengthy€analysis.Ì `Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝHaving€received€a€sentence€greater€than€eight€years,€Kidd€is€not€entitledÏto€consideration€of€a€probationary€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a)Ï(1997).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔßR€+,*A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌò òÑ€Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌó óÌà@ àMAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9607„CC„00272Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAnderson€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òRICHARD€ALLEN€KIDD€II,ó óà àà à)à àHon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,€JudgeÌò òà àà àà àà àó óà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(Rape)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJ.€THOMAS€MARSHALL,€JR.à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà0 àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌà0 àà0 àà0 àÌNANCY€MEYERà àà àà àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌAsst.€District€Public€Defenderà0 àà0 àà0 àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ101€S.€Main€St.,€Ste.€450à àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌClinton,€TN€€37716à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€N.€RAMSEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà0 àà0 àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJANICE€G.€HICKSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à127€Anderson€Co.€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton,€TN€€37716ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€.ÑÇÑ7€Â)XXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÑ7€ b< XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Richard€Allen€Kidd€II,€appeals€his€conviction€ofÏrape€following€a€jury€trial€in€Anderson€County€Criminal€Court.€€Kidd€is€currentlyÏserving€a€ten€year€sentence€for€his€crime€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€InÏthis€direct€appeal,€he€raises€three€issues€for€our€consideration:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à0 àWhether€the€indictment€is€fatally€insufficient€in€that€it€doesÏnot€contain€an€allegation€of€the€requisite€mental€state.ÌÌà8 à2.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state's€exhibitsÏto€be€published€to€the€jury€where€they€were€never€formallyÏintroduced€by€motion€into€evidence.ÌÌà8 à3.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€a€ten€yearÏsentence.ÌÌÓÓFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€state's€evidence× ƒ/ ××  ×€established€that€Kidd€and€the€victim× ƒ0 ××  ×Ïœdated›€and€lived€together.€€By€all€accounts,€the€two€had€a€stormy,€physicallyÏviolent€relationship.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€victim€was€dating€someoneÏelse.€€She€and€Kidd€were€no€longer€living€together,€and€although€he€had€spentÏthe€night€at€her€trailer€home€on€some€occasions€since€their€breakup,€she€hadÏinformed€him€he€was€no€longer€welcome€prior€to€the€events€that€form€the€basisÏfor€his€conviction.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€November€30,€1994,€the€victimÏawoke€to€find€Kidd€in€her€œhome.›€The€victim€noticed€Kidd€was€intoxicated.€€œSheÏasked€him€to€leave,€but€Kidd›€made€advances€toward€œher.›€€A€protracted€struggleÏensued,€with€both€parties€receiving€injuries.€€Ultimately,€Kidd€vaginally€rapedÏthe€victim.€€After€the€attack,€Kidd€fell€asleep€or€passed€out,€and€the€victim,€whoÏdid€not€have€a€telephone,€escaped€her€trailer€and€went€to€a€grocery€store,Ïwhere€she€called€911€and€alerted€the€authorities€to€the€crime€that€had€justÏoccurred.€€Responding€officers€found€Kidd€asleep€or€passed€out€in€the€victim'sÏhome€and€took€him€into€custody.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àIn€an€issue€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,€Kidd€€questionsÏwhether€the€indictment€against€him€sufficiently€alleges€the€crime€of€rape.€€HeÏrelies€on€this€court's€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hillóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,€1996),€òòperm.€app€grantedóó€(Tenn.,ÏJan.€6,€1997)€and€òòState€v.€Nathaniel€Whiteóó,€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00277€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€7,€1995).€€Since€the€filing€of€the€defendant's€brief,Ïour€supreme€court€has€reversed€this€court's€decision€in€òòHillóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€„„„ÏS.W.2d€„„„,€No.€01„S„01„9701„CC„00005€(Tenn.€Nov.€3,€œ1997).›ÌÌà àà àThe€question€raised€in€òòHillóó€is€whether€a€charging€instrument€whichÏcharges€a€defendant€with€a€crime€that€by€its€statutory€terms€does€not€expresslyÍrequire€a€culpable€mental€state€is€legally€sufficient€under€the€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989,€where€the€instrument€does€not€allege€a€culpable€òòmens€reaóó.€ÏòòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€2.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€requiresÏa€culpable€mental€state€in€order€to€establish€an€offense€unless€the€statutoryÏdefinition€of€the€crime€"plainly€dispenses€with€a€mental€element."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„11„301(b)€(1997).ÌÌà àà àThe€supreme€court€in€òòHillóó€said€that€a€charging€instrument€whichÏdoes€not€allege€a€culpable€mental€state,€the€statutory€definition€of€the€crime€notÏplainly€dispensing€with€a€mental€element,€is€nevertheless€sufficient€to€supportÏprosecution€whereÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àthe€language€of€the€indictment€is€sufficient€to€meet€theÏconstitutional€requirements€of€notice€to€the€accused€of€the€chargeÏagainst€which€the€accused€must€defend,€adequate€basis€for€entryÏof€a€proper€judgment,€and€protection€from€double€jeopardy;ÌÌà8 à(2)à àthe€form€of€the€indictment€meets€the€requirements€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202;€andÌÌà8 à(3)à àthe€mental€state€can€be€logically€inferred€from€the€conductÏalleged.ÌÌÓÓòòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€3.€€The€supreme€court€scrutinized€the€òòHillóóÏindictment€under€the€three„part€inquiry€above€and€determined€the€indictmentÏwas€legally€sufficient€to€support€prosecution€of€the€accused,€notwithstanding€theÏabsence€of€an€explicit€allegation€of€a€òòmens€reaóó.€€€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€atÏ4„10.€€Specifically,€the€supreme€court€noted,€"[T]he€act€for€which€the€defendantÏis€indicted,€'unlawfully€sexually€penetrat[ing]'€a€person€under€the€age€of€thirteen,Íis€committable€only€if€the€principal€actor's€òòmens€reaóó€is€intentional,€knowing€orÏreckless.€€Thus,€the€required€mental€state€may€be€inferred€from€the€nature€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€alleged."€€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€9.Ìà àà àÌà àà àWe€find€the€case€at€bar€very€similar€under€the€òòHillóó€œanalysis.€€TheÏstatute€proscribing€the€offense€does€not€require€a€specific€culpable€mental€state.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503(a)(1)€(1997).›€€The€indictment€in€this€caseÏalleges€the€defendant€"unlawfully€and€forcibly€engage[d]€in€unlawful€sexualÏpenetration€of€[the€victim],€in€violation€of€T[ennessee]€C[ode]€A[nnotated€section]Ï39„13„503,€against€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee."× ƒ1 ××  ×€€InÏpertinent€part,€"Rape€is€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendantÏ.€.€.€accompanied€by€force€or€coercion€.€.€.€to€accomplish€the€act€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503(a)(1)€(1997).€ÌÌà àà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€closely€follows€the€statutory€languageÏdescribing€the€crime.€€It€complies€with€the€statutory€form€by€stating€the€"factsÏconstituting€the€offense€in€ordinary€and€concise€language,€without€prolixity€orÏrepetition,€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€of€common€understanding€toÏknow€what€is€intended,€and€with€that€degree€of€certainty€which€will€enable€theÏcourt,€on€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€proper€judgment€.€.€.€."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€40„13„202€(1997);€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€3.€€Further,€the€mentalÏstate€is€capable€of€logical€inference€from€the€conduct€alleged.€€òòSeeóó€òòHillóó,€„„„ÏS.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€3;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€537„38Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€As€the€supreme€court€noted€in€òòHillóó,€the€allegation€ofÏ"unlawfully€sexually€penetrat[ing]"€a€victim€necessarily€requires€an€intentional,Ïknowing€or€reckless€òòmens€reaóó.€€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€9.€€Therefore,€œthe›Ïallegation€raises€an€inference€of€the€required€mental€state.€€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,Ïslip€op.€at€9.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€indictment€satisfies€the€three€òòHillóó€requirements€forÏsufficient€allegations€to€support€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.Ïat€3.€€Kidd€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€œbasis.ÌÌà àà àIn€passing,€we€note€that€òòNathanielóó€òòWhiteóó,€relied€upon€by€theÏdefendant,€is€not€applicable.€€In€òòNathanielóó€òòWhiteóó,€the€statute€proscribingÏpossession€€of€marijuana€set€forth€a€specific€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðknowingðð.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418(a)€(Supp.€1994).€€The€rationale€in€òòNathanielóóÏòòWhiteóó€for€dismissing€a€count€that€did€not€allege€the€possession€as€knowing€isÏnot€applicable€to€the€present€case€which,€like€òòHillóó,€involves€a€statute€that€ð ðomitsÏa€reference€to€a€specific€òòmensóó€òòreaóó.ðð€€òòHilló󀄄„€S.W.2d€at€„„„„,€slip€op.€at€2.€òòHillóóÏcontrols€the€result€in€the€present€case.›ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€Kidd€claims€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowedÏthe€state's€exhibits€to€be€published€to€the€jury€without€the€exhibits€having€beenÏœformally€admitted›€into€evidence.€€The€state€makes€a€variety€of€waiverÏarguments× ƒ2 ××  ×€and€ultimately€says€any€error€is€no€more€than€harmless.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€reflects€a€somewhat€relaxed€approach€to€trial€practiceÏand€procedure€in€this€matter.€€During€its€case„in„chief,€the€state€referred€to€aÏvariety€of€exhibits€and€had€these€exhibits€marked€for€identification.€€The€œexhibits,›Ïœincluding›€several€photographs,€two€items€of€the€victim's€clothing,€andÏcorrespondence€from€the€defendant€to€the€œvictim,€were€authenticated€by€theÏwitness,€but€the›€state€never€œmoved›€that€these€exhibits€be€received€intoÏœevidence.€€The€record€reflects€that€prior€to€these€exhibits€being€passed€to€theÏjury,€the€prosecutor€requested€that€the€court€allow€publication€of€the€exhibits,Ïwhich€the€court€allowed€in€each€challenged€instance.€€The€defendant€offered€noÏobjection€to€this€procedure€for€the€first€several€exhibits.€€When€defense€counselÏeventually€objected,€she€acknowledged€her€failure€to€object€promptly€toÏpublication€of€the€previous€exhibits.€€The€court€overruled€the€objection,Ïexplaining€that€it€considered€the€state's€request€that€the€exhibits€be€published€toÏthe€jury€sufficient€to€allow€such.ÌÌà àà àThe€proper€procedure€for€admission€of€tangible€items€of€evidenceÏhas€been€aptly€summarized€by€one€commentator:ÌÓÓà8 àAn€attorney€who€wants€to€introduce€an€exhibit€at€trial€should€(a)Ïask€the€court€reporter€or€other€court€officer€to€mark€the€exhibit€forÏidentification€(exhibits€should€be€marked€numerically€andÏsequentially€without€reference€to€the€proponent);€(b)€show€theÏexhibit€to€adversary€counsel€(this€should€be€reflected€in€theÏrecord),€thereby€giving€him€the€opportunity€to€raise€objectionsÏbefore€foundation€questions€and€answers€suggest€inadmissibleÏmatter;€(c)€either€obtain€the€court's€permission€to€approach€theÏwitness€to€deliver€the€exhibit€for€his€inspection,€or,€if€required€byÏcourt€rule,€ask€that€a€court€official€present€the€exhibit€to€the€witness;Ï(d)€lay€the€proper€foundation€for€the€admission€of€the€exhibit,Ïincluding€proof€of€authenticity€(in€doing€so,€leading€questions€areÏappropriate€because€laying€a€foundation€is€a€preliminary€matter);Ïand€(e)€then€request€that€the€exhibit€be€introduced€into€evidence.€ÏIf€the€request€for€admission€is€for€limited€purposes,€this€should€beÏstated€in€the€request.ÌÌÓÓLawrence€A.€Pivnick,€òòTennessee€Circuit€Court€Practiceóó€ðð€24„12,€at€703„04€(4thÏed.€1995).€€The€jury€is€entitled€to€review€those€exhibits€which€have€beenÏadmitted€as€evidence€in€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ricky€Dean€Coleóó,€No.€03C01„9604„CC„00171,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€29,€1997)Ï(inadvertent€publication€to€jury€of€exhibit€marked€for€identification€only€wasÏharmless€error);€òòWaits€v.€Daltonóó,€No.€01„A„01„9407„CV„00317€(Tenn.€App.,ÏMiddle€Section,€Jan.€27,€1995)€(exhibits€marked€for€identification€only€wereÏproperly€excluded€from€exhibits€given€to€jury€for€use€in€deliberations).€€€ThoseÏprinciples€notwithstanding,€objection€to€introduction€of€evidence€is€waivedÏabsent€a€contemporaneous€objection€to€its€admission.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(1).ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€the€defendant€waived€any€objection€to€the€irregularityÍto€the€extent€contemporaneous€objections€were€not€interposed€to€the€state'sÏmotions€to€publish€the€exhibits€to€the€jury.€€Further,€to€the€extent€the€defendantÏoffered€a€timely€objection,€we€find€the€trial€court's€irregular€procedure€forÏreceiving€evidence€falls€short€of€an€abuse€of€its€discretion€in€such€matters.€€òòSee,Ïe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994)€(trial€court'sÏdecision€regarding€admissibility€of€evidence€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appealÏabsent€an€abuse€of€discretion).€ÌÌà àà àAdditionally,€we€reject€the€defendant's€argument€that€any€allegedÏerror€was€so€egregious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€his€right€to€a€fair€andÏimpartial€jury€trial€and€resulted€in€such€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process€thatÏreversal€is€required.€€Any€arguable€error€by€the€trial€court€was€harmless.€€TheÏdefendant€has€made€no€showing€that€any€of€the€exhibits€which€were€publishedÏto€the€jury€were€inadmissible€under€the€Rules€of€Evidence.€€As€such,€we€find€noÏreversible€error€in€the€proceedings€as€to€this€issue.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€Kidd€complains€of€the€trial€court's€application€ofÏenhancement€factors€and€failure€to€find€certain€mitigating€factors€in€sentencingÏhim€to€a€mid„range€ten€year€incarcerative€term.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt,€this€court€engages€in€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumptionÍthe€trial€court's€determinations€were€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1997).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏIn€conducting€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€must€consider€the€evidence€atÏsentencing,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel,€the€statements€of€the€defendant,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÏoffense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€and€the€defendantððsÏamenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€showing€theÏsentence€imposed€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€SentencingÏComm'n€Comments€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€in€this€case€fails€to€demonstrate€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€principles€of€sentencing€as€well€as€the€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€failed€to€place€on€the€record€anyÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€it€found,€as€required€by€the€Sentencing€Act.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(1997).€€It€is€necessary€for€the€trial€court€toÏnote€its€findings€relative€to€these€principles€and€factors€affirmatively€on€theÏrecord€in€order€for€this€court€to€undertake€meaningful€review€of€the€propriety€ofÏthe€defendant's€sentence.€€Because€the€court€did€not€do€so,€we€conduct€ourÏreview€òòde€novoóó€unaccompanied€by€the€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àà àKidd€stands€before€the€court€a€Range€I€offender€convicted€of€aÏClass€B€felony.€€As€such,€he€faces€a€sentence€of€eight€to€twelve€years.€€By€hisÏown€admission,€he€has€prior€convictions€for€reckless€driving€and€DUI.€€InÏaddition,€there€is€evidence€of€other€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant,€includingÏdrug€use.€€As€such,€enhancement€factor€(1),€"the€defendant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range"€applies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(1)€(1997).€€€Likewise,€there€is€evidence€"[t]he€defendant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€into€the€community,"€his€presentence€report€reflecting€aÏprobation€violation€that€was€unchallenged€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Factor€(8)Ïapplies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8)€(1997).ÌÌà àà àTurning€to€the€mitigating€factors,€we€reject€the€defendant'sÏargument€he€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense€due€to€hisÏyouth.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6)€(1997).€€Our€supreme€court€hasÏnoted€that€in€passing€on€the€propriety€of€this€factor,€"courts€should€consider€theÏconcept€of€youth€in€context,€i.e.,€the€defendant's€age,€education,€maturity,Ïexperience,€mental€capacity€or€development,€and€any€other€pertinentÏcircumstance€tending€to€demonstrate€the€defendant's€ability€or€inability€toÏappreciate€the€nature€of€his€conduct."€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€33Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€The€defendant€was€22€at€the€time€of€his€crime.€€Though€he€isÏlacking€in€formal€education,€having€quit€school€in€the€seventh€grade,€there€hasÍbeen€no€showing€of€any€deficiency€in€maturity,€mental€capacity€or€otherÏcircumstance€which€might€reflect€on€his€ability€to€€exercise€"substantialÏjudgment"€and€appreciate€the€nature€of€his€action.€€Additionally,€Kidd€wasÏexperienced€beyond€his€years€with€the€criminal€justice€system.€€We€decline€toÏapply€this€factor.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€claims€the€court€should€have€mitigated€hisÏsentence€because€he€was€a€victim€of€child€abuse.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€€The€evidence€relating€to€physical€abuse€by€the€defendant'sÏfather€when€he€was€an€infant€and€toddler€and€physical€and€verbal€abuse€by€hisÏstepfather,€as€well€as€the€defendant's€appellate€argument€in€this€regard,€fail€toÏconvince€us€that€this€factor€should€be€applied.€€It€is€noteworthy€that€despite€theÏhistory€of€alleged€abuse€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant's€stepfather,€his€evidenceÏat€the€sentencing€hearing€was€that€he€would€live€within€the€same€household€asÏthe€stepfather€if€not€sentenced€to€incarceration.€€This€causes€the€court€toÏquestion€the€existence,€severity,€or€deleterious€effects€of€the€alleged€abuse.€ÏMoreover,€there€is,€at€best,€minimal€evidence€that€the€defendant's€crime€isÏsomehow€related€to€the€child€abuse€he€alleges€he€suffered.€€As€such,€weÏdecline€to€mitigate€his€sentence€based€upon€this€factor.ÌÌà àà àIn€mitigation€of€the€offense,€the€trial€court€appears€to€have€relied€onÏthe€fact€that€the€victim€and€the€defendant€had€a€physically€violent€relationship.€ÏEven€if€we€were€to€accept€the€defendant's€evidence€at€face€value€as€to€the€on„going€nature€of€the€relationship€and€the€victim's€participation€in€€domesticÏviolence,€there€is€absolutely€no€evidence€tending€to€mitigate€the€sexual€assaultÏthe€defendant€perpetrated€on€the€victim.€€At€most,€the€victim€may€have€injuredÏthe€defendant€by€grabbing€and€scratching€his€penis€during€the€struggle€that€tookÏplace€on€the€date€in€question,€but€rape€was€by€no€means€a€justified€response.€ÏUnlike€the€trial€court,€we€decline€to€mitigate€the€defendant's€sentence€basedÏupon€this€factor.ÌÌà àà àBearing€in€mind€all€the€matters€that€are€to€be€considered,€includingÏthe€statutory€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€we€believe€the€enhancement€factors€are€entitled€to€substantial€weight.€ÏCoupled€with€the€absence€of€applicable€mitigating€factors,€we€believe€KiddÏjustly€deserves€more€than€a€minimum€sentence€for€his€crime.€€Ultimately,€weÏagree€with€the€trial€court€that€a€ten€year€sentence€is€appropriate,× ƒ3 ××  ×€though€weÏhave€departed€from€the€trial€court's€rationale€in€reaching€this€conclusion.ÌÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€we€find€all€of€Kidd's€issues€lacking€in€merit.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ