ÿWPC$ ­i'l[µÌDâÍÈîpzj‘ôP=Ž|YÚ¹?.†d„OΔ¥a3’‡ çÌ…¡Æ:TAE²‰ 92$p=’ºê™L¹Ý­ÔAÆ ^»ce?Õ_Ð;fâÈ:XDz»‘Fñv\ï.—Ȳ¾°±h;1Sí¢™i.GAàÐÀ›|p ¹?Ã<†ùð:üzÏc‚Mì–ª]âÀ‡¥;\bÎP„% ¤“Õ^ŠbŠ*È~%W+Û\D(‹?ªW¡¿­Q±fñ=÷Ýñ©'öÙýD— ^õ "À¿#ßeúN5×È1uêÙÑ$îŸ ”Í?Ç Í7T_  f{ œ202¹cÖÐ>&þ …³zÔJp?Ãð³"œ"¹jÓÏK°ò~MP.k³Ã§#=p˜ëÎßõw$w<“™R-ŒåmÓÝt¯Å5û¯rOǺÎóé9Æ ö‰®*½ˆ™Ë yMÔT”a*Š"ó¥ŸJÔRǦ&„ê¯{IJYûÉÐÔ%uÙ|)ƒ'ir~¯ìP>#ÕyœÒ:Öþô¦ÛÃé}ý1ÔõÁ–`~WeÊFGúÖöÀxÕMÎ-¦öˆiK¤;4)Ç]T;ƸÎ;üo¸µ‚6øhhÅÖûdÈë}®Db %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Ƨ Æm Æ3 Æù ¿NÕU@××Eb 0ë!!!! B   0¤) D3Í D- 0K-- ASxÆË 0¤‘ 0D5 A«y»!Š2+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'    3|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Ñ ° ÑLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ e Ñ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2h&$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôªÝò»»Ô d(|3ÿb$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿb$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€W XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€ OYÑÑ€ïWÑà@ttìàÔ‡îäÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îîä.#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€19,€2001à @ àà @` à€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XW X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXW 5#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€Ô_ÔDOROTEOÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAPARICIOÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLAZAROÔ_ÔÔ‡XW X»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€14620€€€€€€Lee€Russell,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01650„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€18,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€was€convicted€by€a€Bedford€County€jury€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô,€second€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„Ð xÈ  Ð10„401,€and€driving€while€license€revoked,€second€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504,€bothÐ d´ ÐClass€A€misdemeanors.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€Defendant€to€serveÐ P  Ða€sentence€of€11€months,€29€days,€with€all€but€90€days€suspended,€for€the€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€conviction€and€aÐ <Œ Ðsentence€of€11€months,€29€days,€with€all€but€60€days€suspended,€for€his€conviction€of€driving€whileÐ (x Ðlicense€revoked.€€The€trial€court€further€ordered€that€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively,€for€anÐ d Ðeffective€sentence€of€150€days€confinement,€and€that€Defendant€pay€a€total€of€$3600€in€fines.€€OnÐ P Ðappeal,€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÐ ì< Ðarresting€officer€to€testify€concerning€the€results€of€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€test€without€firstÐ Ø( Ðcomplying€with€the€requirements€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992);€(2)Ð Ä Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€considering€Defendantððs€national€origin€prior€to€sentencing;€and€(3)Ð ° Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€that€Defendantððs€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€€AfterÐ œì Ða€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ˆØ Ðò òó óÔ#†¼»XXW #ÔÔ‡XW X»¼ÔÓ*ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ `° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXW œ #ÔÔ‡XW X.¼ÔÔ‡XW XàXW ÔThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó€andÐ 8!ˆ  ÐòòTerry€Ô_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ôóó,€Ô_ÔSp.J.Ô_Ô,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌMario€Ramos,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔDoroteoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAparacioÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLazaroÔ_Ô.Ð ü#L# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€John€H.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€J.Ð Ô%$!% ÐW.€Michael€Ô_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€Michael€Ô_ÔRandlesÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ À&"& ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓ9 ÓÔ#†XW XXXW ‡ #ÔÔ#†¼»XXW h #ÔÔ‡XW X»¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý÷ ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXW X#ÔÔ‡XW X»¼ÔÐ ° ÐòòóóÔ#†¼»XXW ç#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XW X»¼ÔÌò òà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€8:00€a.m.€on€September€18,€1999,€Officer€Charles€Kimbrill,€of€theÐ `° ÐShelbyville€Police€Department,€was€traveling€southbound€on€North€Main€Street€when€he€observedÐ L œ ÐDefendantððs€vehicle€traveling€in€the€opposite€direction.€€His€radar€unit€showed€that€DefendantððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðvehicle€was€traveling€at€60€miles€per€hour.€€The€posted€speed€limit€was€40€miles€per€hour.€€KimbrillÐ $ t Ðturned€around,€switched€on€his€blue€lights,€and€stopped€Defendant€on€Hickory€Drive.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOfficer€Kimbrill€approached€the€driverððs€side€of€the€van€and€asked€to€see€DefendantððsÐ è 8  Ðdriverððs€license.€€(Defendant€spoke€only€Spanish;€he€understood€no€English.€€Kimbrill€claimed€to€beÐ Ô$  Ðð ðsemi„fluentðð€in€the€Spanish€language.)€€Defendant€replied€he€did€not€have€a€license.€€KimbrillÐ À  Ðrequested€that€Defendant€exit€the€vehicle,€and€Defendant€complied.€€Kimbrill€testified€at€trial€thatÐ ¬ü  ÐDefendant€was€unsteady€on€his€feet.€€In€addition,€there€was€the€strong€odor€of€beer€on€his€person,€hisÐ ˜è  Ðeyes€were€glassy€and€bloodshot,€his€face€looked€tired,€and€he€had€what€appeared€to€be€pieces€of€moistÐ „Ô  Ðfood€or€vomit€on€his€jacket.€€Defendant€did€not€appear€agitated€at€the€time,€and€he€cooperated€fullyÐ pÀ Ðin€answering€Kimbrillððs€questions.€€Kimbrill€asked€Defendant€whether€he€had€been€drinking,€andÐ \¬ ÐDefendant€replied€that€he€drank€one€beer.€€Defendant€told€Kimbrill€that€he€was€tired€because€he€hadÐ H˜ Ðjust€finished€a€twelve„hour€shift€at€work,€and€he€was€speeding€because€he€did€not€want€to€be€late€toÐ 4„ Ðhis€second€job.€€Based€on€his€experience€with€intoxicated€persons,€Kimbrill€deduced€that€DefendantÐ  p Ðwas€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€arrested€him€for€DUI€and€driving€without€aÐ  \ Ðlicense.€€Kimbrill€testified€that€he€did€not€ask€Defendant€to€perform€any€field€sobriety€tests€becauseÐ øH Ðhe€believed€he€would€be€unable€to€properly€translate€the€procedures€so€that€Defendant€wouldÐ ä4 Ðunderstand€them.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWhen€Officer€Bobby€Peacock€arrived€to€provide€backup,€Kimbrill€was€speaking€to€DefendantÐ ¨ø Ðin€Spanish.€€Peacock€testified€that€he€did€not€understand€what€either€of€them€were€saying,€but€heÐ ”ä Ðnoticed€that€Defendant€was€unstable€on€his€feet€and€a€strong€odor€of€alcoholic€beverage€wasÐ €Ð Ðemanating€from€him.€€Defendant€also€had€red€eyes€and€some€type€of€food€or€ð ðvomitðð€on€his€jacket.€Ð l¼ ÐBased€upon€his€experience,€Peacock€believed€Defendant€to€be€intoxicated.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAfter€Defendant€was€arrested€and€placed€in€the€back€of€Kimbrillððs€police€car,€the€officersÐ 0"€  Ðcalled€for€a€tow€truck.€€During€a€search€of€Defendantððs€vehicle,€they€discovered€a€phone€bill€with€theÐ #l! Ðname€ð ðEnrique€Doroteo€Aparicioðð€on€it.€€Kimbrill€testified€that€when€he€showed€the€bill€toÐ $X" ÐDefendant€and€asked€him€whether€the€name€on€the€bill€was€his,€Defendant€replied€affirmatively€andÐ ô$D # Ðgave€his€birth€date€as€September€9,€1961.€€Later,€the€police€discovered€this€was€not€DefendantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðcorrect€name,€and€his€birth€date€was€actually€September€10,€1961.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWhen€Defendant€arrived€at€the€police€department,€Kimbrill€asked€him€to€participate€in€aÐ ¤(ô#' ÐBreathalyzer€test€to€determine€blood€alcohol€content,€and€Defendant€agreed.€€Kimbrill€explained€theÐ )à$( Ðprocedure€in€Spanish€and€demonstrated€how€to€blow€into€the€machine.€€Defendant€placed€the€tubeÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€his€mouth€and€his€cheeks€puffed€up,€but€the€air€he€exhaled€registered€€ð ðinsufficientðð€sample.€Ð h+¸&* ÐÑïWÑâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  ÑWhen€it€became€obvious€to€Kimbrill€that€Defendant€was€not€actually€blowing€air€into€the€machine,Ð ° Ðhe€reexplained€the€procedure€and€they€performed€the€test€two€additional€times.€€Defendant€still€failedÐ œì Ðto€blow€sufficient€air€for€a€valid€reading.€€Defendant€was€taken€to€the€jail€and€booked.€€Later,Ð ˆØ ÐKimbrill€learned€that€the€name€and€birth€date€on€Defendantððs€arrest€report€were€incorrect.€€A€newÐ tÄ Ðcheck€with€the€correct€information€revealed€that€Defendantððs€driverððs€license€had€been€revoked.€Ð `° ÐAlthough€Defendant€was€eligible€for€reinstatement€if€he€met€certain€requirements,€e.g.,€proof€ofÐ L œ Ðinsurance,€payment€of€fees,€et€cetera,€he€had€not€satisfied€the€requirements€as€of€that€date.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àDefendant€testified€at€his€trial€through€an€interpreter.€€He€claimed€that€on€the€morning€of€hisÐ  ` Ðarrest,€he€had€just€finished€working€twelve€hours,€6:00€p.m.€to€6:00€a.m.,€packing€biscuits.€€WhenÐ ü L  ÐDefendant€finished€his€shift,€he€went€home€to€eat€breakfast€and€have€one€beer.€€The€food€on€hisÐ è 8  Ðjacket€was€chicken€and€gravy€which€had€spilled€from€his€tortilla;€he€had€not€had€time€to€change.€Ð Ô$  ÐDefendant€slept€in€his€car€for€an€hour€before€leaving€to€go€to€his€second€job.€€Defendant€owned€aÐ À  Ðrestaurant€downtown€where€he€also€worked€as€the€cook.€€Defendant€admitted€to€speeding,€butÐ ¬ü  Ðclaimed€that€he€was€in€control€of€his€vehicle.€€Officer€Kimbrill€confirmed€that€he€stopped€DefendantÐ ˜è  Ðbecause€he€was€speeding;€he€did€not€observe€Defendantððs€vehicle€swerving.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àDuring€his€testimony,€Defendant€admitted€informing€Kimbrill€that€he€drank€one€beer.€Ð \¬ ÐHowever,€he€also€asserted€that€he€would€have€passed€field€sobriety€tests€if€he€had€been€given€any.€Ð H˜ ÐDefendant€denied€staggering€when€he€exited€his€vehicle€and€claimed€that€he€had€complied€fully€withÐ 4„ Ðthe€officerððs€instructions€for€taking€the€Breathalyzer€test.€€Defendant€further€denied€giving€KimbrillÐ  p Ðhis€wrong€name€and€birth€date,€and€he€claimed€that€Kimbrill€never€showed€him€a€phone€bill.€€€Ð  \ ÐÌà@‚‚&ìàò òAnalysisó óˆÐ ä4 ÐÌò òA.€€Admissibility€of€Officerððs€Testimonyó óÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€Officer€Kimbrill€to€testifyÐ ”ä Ðconcerning€the€results€of€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€test€without€first€complying€with€theÐ €Ð Ðrequirements€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€disagree.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€observe€that€Defendant€failed€to€specifically€raise€this€issue€inÐ D!” Ðhis€motion€for€new€trial€as€required€by€Rule€3(e)€of€Tennesseeððs€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€Ð 0"€  ÐDefendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€alleges€that€ð ðthe€[trial]€judge€admitted€evidence€which€wasÐ #l! Ðinadmissible.ðð€€This€claim€is€too€broad,€standing€alone,€to€satisfy€the€specificity€requirement€in€RuleÐ $X" Ð3(e)€and,€therefore,€is€waived.€€òòFahey€v.€Eldridgeóó,€46€S.W.2d€138,€142„43€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àEven€if€the€issue€is€not€waived,€Defendant€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief€on€the€merits.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðsupreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992),€upon€which€DefendantÐ ¸'#& Ðrelies,€does€not€support€his€claim€of€error€concerning€the€police€officerððs€testimony€regarding€testÐ ¤(ô#' Ðresults.€€In€òòSensingóó,€the€court€determined€the€foundation€that€must€be€laid€prior€to€admitting€breathÐ )à$( Ðalcohol€test€results€into€evidence€at€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€416.€€In€its€conclusion,€the€court€stated€that€becauseÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€instruments€and€procedures€used€for€such€tests€had€become€familiar€and€their€use€commonplace,Ð h+¸&* Ðsome€relaxation€of€the€rigorous€prerequisites€formerly€required€to€authenticate€their€reliability€wasÐ T,¤'+ ÐÑ OYÑâ  âѰ°Ñâ  âÑ  Ñappropriate.€€òòId.óó€(pursuant€to€òòSensingóó,€a€testing€officer€is€no€longer€required€to€know€the€scientificÐ ° Ðtechnology€involved€in€the€function€of€the€machine).€€Here,€the€record€reveals€that€Defendant€gaveÐ œì Ðinsufficient€samples€during€Officer€Kimbrillððs€attempts€to€administer€the€Breathalyzer€test.€€Thus,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€officers€never€obtained€a€valid€reading.€€The€requirements€set€forth€in€òòSensingóó€apply€only€whenÐ tÄ Ðthe€State€seeks€to€introduce€into€evidence€the€òòresultsóó€of€a€Breathalyzer€test.€€Here,€there€were€noÐ `° Ðresults€available;€therefore,€òòSensingóó€did€not€apply.Ð L œ ÐÌò òB.€€Consideration€of€Defendantððs€National€Origin€in€Sentencingó óÐ $ t ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€because€it€considered€Defendantððs€nationalÐ ü L  Ðorigin€€during€sentencing€in€direct€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(4).€€Specifically,Ð è 8  ÐDefendant€argues€that,€because€questions€regarding€Defendantððs€immigration€status€were€allowedÐ Ô$  Ðprior€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€of€his€sentence,€the€mind€of€the€court€was€improperlyÐ À  Ðinfluenced€which€resulted€in€a€longer€sentence.€€We€disagree.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àDefendant€is€correct€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„102(4)€requires€a€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€to€exclude€all€considerations€respecting€race,€gender,€creed,€religion,€national€origin€and€socialÐ pÀ Ðstatus€when€determining€a€defendantððs€sentence.€€However,€the€record€does€not€show€that€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourt€violated€this€statutory€directive.€€We€may€not€automatically€presume€that€because€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðlearned€of€Defendantððs€status€as€an€ð ðundocumented€immigrantðð€prior€to€sentencing,€it€improperlyÐ 4„ Ðconsidered€this€fact€in€its€determination.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Richard€T.€Smileyóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CR„Ð  p Ð00305,€1998€WL€692965€at€*3,€Blount€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€October€6,€1998)Ð  \ Ðòòjudgment€affððdóó,€38€S.W.3d€521€(Tenn.€2001)€(mentioning€the€defendantððs€gender€does€not€equateÐ øH Ðwith€considering€it€as€a€factor€in€sentencing).€€To€the€contrary,€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðrecognized€the€legal€restrictions€surrounding€Defendantððs€citizen€status.€€When€the€prosecutor€statedÐ Ð  Ðits€desire€to€call€Defendant€for€questioning€about€his€immigration€status,€Defendant€objected€on€theÐ ¼  Ðground€that€it€was€irrelevant€to€the€matter€of€sentencing.€€The€trial€court€appeared€to€agree,€replyingÐ ¨ø Ðthat€the€information€was€relevant€to€the€issue€of€setting€an€appeal€bond€and€it€wanted€ð ðto€do€it€allÐ ”ä Ðtogether.ðð€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFurther,€Defendantððs€brief€fails€to€cite€any€proof€in€the€record€that€might€indicate€the€courtÐ X ¨ Ðwas€influenced€by€Defendantððs€undocumented€entrance€into€this€country,€and€our€review€of€theÐ D!” Ðrecord€has€not€uncovered€evidence€of€prejudice.€€As€a€result,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÐ 0"€  Ðto€hear€evidence€concerning€appeal€bond€issues€and€sentencing€issues€at€the€same€hearing€was€withinÐ #l! Ðits€discretion.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð $X" ÐÌò òC.€€Consecutive€Sentencingó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€none€of€the€criteria€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ¸'#& Ðsection€40„35„115€apply€to€his€case€and,€therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€DefendantððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€We€disagree.Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€thisÐ h+¸&* ÐCourt€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ T,¤'+ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€TheÐ ° Ðpresumption€of€correctness€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ð ˆØ Ð823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutoryÐ tÄ Ðsentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€and€gaveÐ `° Ðdue€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencingÐ L œ Ðunder€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðpreferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€burden€is€on€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€SentencingÐ  ` ÐCommission€Comments.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àConcerning€Defendantððs€consecutive€sentences,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„Ð Ô$  Ð115€is€the€statutory€authority€concerning€sentencing€determinations€for€defendants€with€multipleÐ À  Ðconvictions.€€Essentially,€the€statute€provides€that€the€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutivelyÐ ¬ü  Ðif€it€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€òòone€or€moreóó€of€the€statutory€criteria€exists.€€òòStateÐ ˜è  Ðv.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Defendant€asserts€that€none€of€the€factorsÐ „Ô  Ðenumerated€in€section€40„35„115€apply€to€his€case.€€We€disagree.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€at€the€time€of€commission€of€the€offenses€which€are€the€subject€of€thisÐ H˜ Ðappeal,€Defendant€was€on€probation€for€his€conviction€of€first€offense€driving€while€license€revoked.€Ð 4„ ÐAccording€to€the€record,€the€ð ðgreatest€concernðð€of€the€trial€court€was€Defendantððs€prior€record.€€TheÐ  p Ðconcern€appears€justified.€€Defendantððs€prior€criminal€record€contains€two€convictions€for€failure€toÐ  \ Ðappear,€in€addition€to€the€prior€convictions€for€DUI€and€driving€while€license€revoked€which€causedÐ øH Ðhis€most€recent€convictions€to€have€ð ðsecond€offenseðð€status.€€In€addition,€we€note€that€Defendant€wasÐ ä4 Ðstill€on€probation€for€his€first€offense€DUI€when€he€was€arrested€on€February€17,€1999,€for€his€firstÐ Ð  Ðoffense€of€driving€while€license€revoked.€€The€instant€convictions€represent€the€second€time€thatÐ ¼  ÐDefendant€has€committed€offenses€while€on€probation€for€prior€crimes.€€In€ordering€consecutiveÐ ¨ø Ðsentencing,€the€trial€court€emphasized€it€was€ð ðclear€that€some€substantial€punishment€[wa]s€goingÐ ”ä Ðto€be€necessary€to€deter€him€from€doing€this€again.ðð€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€properÐ X ¨ Ðin€Defendantððs€case.€€Although€we€question€whether€Defendantððs€record€of€criminal€activity€isÐ D!” Ðsufficiently€ð ðextensiveðð€to€warrant€consecutive€sentencing,€resolution€of€this€issue€is€not€necessaryÐ 0"€  Ðbecause€factor€(6),€allowing€consecutive€sentencing€based€on€offenses€committed€while€on€probation,Ð #l! Ðclearly€applies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(2),€(6)€(1997).€€Since€the€statute€provides€that€theÐ $X" Ðtrial€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€it€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ ô$D # Ðthat€only€one€of€the€statutory€criteria€exists,€the€trial€courtððs€order€imposing€consecutive€sentencesÐ à%0!$ Ðin€Defendantððs€case€is€justified€based€on€the€circumstances€presented.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€toÐ Ì&"% Ðrelief€on€this€issue.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌò òà@  %ìàConclusionó óˆÐ h+¸&* ÐÐ T,¤'+ Ðà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€AFFIRMED.Ð ° ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð tÄ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ `° Ðà  àÌÌà  à€Ð $ t Ð