ÿWPCE …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DCb] AMe B² Ïv~ÜvÓZ D3- 0@` AO Æï 0Dµ D/ù B(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ €‚ƒ[„…Ce†‡ˆ‰Ó€Ô¡¨ ó3|x’2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd- ù-€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJuly€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€#ÑÑ7€•XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€$&"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9606„CC„00255Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àPUTNAM€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€LEON€BURNS,€JR.,€JUDGEÌROBERT€KEVIN€MOORE,à à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(AGGRAVATED€RAPE)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òDAVID€NEAL€BRADYà àà à€à àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òH.€MARSHALL€JUDDà àà àà àRUTH€THOMPSON€Ìó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ215€Reagan€Streetà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌCookeville,€TN€38501à àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€EDWARD€GIBSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òBENJIMAN€W.€FANNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òLILLIE€ANN€SELLSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à145€South€Jefferson€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TN€€38501„3424ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€aÏtwenty„five€(25)€year,€Range€I€sentence€for€his€conviction€of€aggravated€rape,Ïfollowing€a€guilty€plea€in€the€Putnam€County€Criminal€Court.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏDefendant€argues€that:€(1)€The€trial€court€erred€by€not€requiring€the€State€to€file€aÏwritten€notice€of€the€enhancement€factors€it€planned€to€use€against€theÏDefendant€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€applyingÏenhancement€factors€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114(6),€€(7),€and€(10);€and€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€finding€that€theÏDefendantððs€lack€of€a€criminal€history€was€a€mitigating€factor.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€met€the€victim€a€few€weeks€before€the€incident.€€TheÏvictimððs€car€stalled€at€a€store€and€the€Defendant,€with€his€wife€and€children,€tookÏthe€victim€and€her€children€to€her€house.€€On€June€7,€1994,€the€Defendant€brokeÏinto€the€victimððs€house.€€The€Defendant€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€with€the€knifeÍthat€he€had€brought€with€him.€€He€stated€that€if€she€screamed€and€woke€herÏchildren,€he€would€cut€her€throat.€€He€then€forced€the€victim€to€perform€more€thanÏone€sexual€act.€€However,€Defendant€was€indicted€for€only€one€count€ofÏaggravated€rape,€committed€while€armed€with€a€weapon,€which€was€the€knife.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendantððs€first€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€requiring€theÏState€to€file,€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearing,€a€written€notice€of€the€enhancementÏfactors€it€intended€to€rely€upon€in€requesting€an€enhanced€sentence€withinÏRange€I.€€The€Defendant€cites€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„202Ïin€support€of€his€argument.€€The€relevant€portions€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„202€read:ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÌà à(a)€If€the€district€attorney€general€believes€that€a€defendantÏshould€be€sentenced€as€a€òòmultiple,€persistent€or€career€offenderóó,€heÏshall€file€a€statement€thereof€with€the€court€and€defense€counsel€notÏless€than€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€or€acceptance€of€a€guilty€plea€.€.Ï.€.ððÌà à(b)€In€all€cases€following€a€finding€of€guilt,€the€court€òòmayÏrequireóó€that:Ìà à(1)€The€district€attorney€general€file€a€statement€with€the€courtÏsetting€forth€any€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€he€believesÏshould€be€considered€by€the€court;ððÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€&€(b)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender.€€TheÏstatute€requires€a€statement€of€enhanced€punishment€only€if€the€defendant€isÏgoing€to€be€sentenced€as€a€multiple€offender,€persistent€offender€or€a€careerÏoffender.€€The€Defendant€clearly€was€not€being€sentenced€as€one€of€theseÏclassifications€and€therefore,€this€portion€of€the€statute€does€not€apply.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„202(b)€goes€on€to€state€that€a€trialÏcourt€may€require€the€State€to€file€a€statement€of€the€enhancing€factors€it€intendsÏto€rely€on.€€The€term€ð ðmayðð€implies€that€such€a€statement€is€not€a€mandatoryÏrequirement.€€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€788€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€1990),€our€supreme€courtÏstated€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„202(a),€ð ðis€to€provide€fairÏnotice€to€an€accused€that€he€is€exposed€to€other€than€standard€sentencing.ðð€ÏòòAdamsóó,€788€S.W.2d€at€559.€€The€court€also€stated€that€the€statement€ofÏapplicable€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€mentioned€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„202(b),€ð ðmay€be€required€at€the€trial€courtððs€discretionÏafter€conviction.ðð€€òòAdamsóó,€788€S.W.2d€at€558.€€It€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€err€in€not€requiring€the€State€to€file€a€statement€of€enhancement€factors.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€the€threeÏenhancement€factors€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114(6),€(7),€and€(10).ÌÌà àThe€State€concedes€on€appeal€that€enhancement€factor€(6),€that€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€was€particularly€great,€does€not€apply,Ïand€we€agree.€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€ XÔððððÔ€ ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àWe€first€address€enhancement€factor€(7),€that€the€offense€involved€aÏvictim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€It€has€been€held€that€thisÏenhancement€factor€can€be€applied€to€a€defendant€who€commits€rape€becauseÏit€is€not€inherent€in€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.Í1993).€€It€was€also€held€in€òòAdamsóó€that€the€State€has€the€burden€in€rape€casesÏto€prove€that€the€rape€was€sexually€motivated.€€òòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€35.€ÏHowever,€in€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supremeÏcourt€again€addressed€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(7)€to€rape€cases.€ÏòòKissingeróó€stated:ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÌà àThe€focus€of€factor€(7)€is€on€defendantððs€motive€for€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.€€The€motive€need€not€be€singular€for€theÏfactor€to€apply,€so€long€as€defendant€is€motivated€by€defendantððsÏdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€Thus,€factor€(7)€could€be€used€toÏenhance€a€defendantððs€sentence€who€raped€an€ex„lover€out€ofÏspite€and€hatred€ò òandó ó€for€the€purpose€of€satisfying€sexual€urges.€ÏClearly,€the€state€need€not€prove€a€singular€motive€for€the€offenseÏto€rely€on€factor€(7)€in€the€appropriate€case.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€490€(emphasis€in€original).ÌÌà àWe€note€that€a€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€was€not€included€in€theÏrecord€on€appeal.€€From€a€review€of€the€sentencing€hearing€transcript,€it€isÏobvious€that€the€trial€court,€in€sentencing€the€Defendant,€relied€upon€proof€it€hadÏheard€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€Much€of€this€was€discussed€by€the€lawyers.€ÏPertinent€facts€argued€by€the€State€at€the€sentencing€hearing€by€reference€toÏfacts€which€were€proven€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€were€unchallenged€by€theÏDefendant.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€party€who€seeks€appellate€review€to€prepare€aÏrecord€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€what€transpiredÍwith€respect€to€the€issues€forming€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€1993).€€When€there€is€less€than€an€adequate€record€onÏappeal,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€were€supported€byÏsufficient€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991).€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€record€on€appeal€contains€no€evidence,€asÏthat€term€is€normally€defined,€regarding€sentencing€factors,€other€than€the€pre„sentence€report.€€The€transcript€reflects€statements€of€counsel€as€to€proofÏbrought€out€during€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€We€will€address€the€issues€raised€byÏDefendant,€but€with€a€presumption€that€the€proof€heard€by€the€trial€court€at€theÏguilty€plea€hearing€is€as€was€reflected€in€the€statements€of€counsel€and€theÏcourt€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€trial€court€was€aware€of€the€victimððs€statementÏread€by€a€police€officer€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€The€victimððs€statement€relatedÏthat€the€Defendant€told€the€victim,€while€she€was€performing€oral€sex€on€him,Ïthat€ð ðsheððd€better€satisfy€him€or€that€he€would€slit€her€throat.ðð€€The€record€alsoÏreflects€that€on€the€night€of€the€offense,€the€Defendant€entered€the€victimððs€houseÏby€coming€through€a€window€while€armed€with€a€knife.€€The€victim€was€asleep.€ÏHe€performed€three€separate€acts€of€sexual€penetration.€€During€the€course€ofÏthe€aggravated€rape,€the€Defendant€held€a€knife€to€the€victimððs€neck€and€breast,Ïand€threatened€to€cut€off€her€breast€if€she€did€not€cooperate.€€He€also€told€theÍvictim€that€he€was€aware€she€had€two€little€girls,€that€he€knew€they€were€in€theÏhome,€and€if€she€screamed€and€woke€them€up,€he€would€cut€her€throat.€œ›ÌÌà àIn€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€courtÏheld€that€where€the€Defendant€made€the€statement,€ð ðdo€it€like€you€do€it€to€yourÏman,ðð€and€fondled€and€kissed€the€victimððs€breasts,€factor€(7)€applied.€€òòManningóó,Ï883€S.W.2d€at€640.€€We€find€that€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€similar€and€theÏstatement€by€Defendant€that€ð ðsheððd€better€satisfy€himðð€meets€the€Stateððs€burdenÏof€proof€establishing€that€the€Defendant€committed€the€offense,€at€least€in€part,Ïto€gratify€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€application€of€factor€(10),€that€the€Defendant€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€we€note€that€thisÏcourt€has€previously€held€that€our€aggravated€rape€statute€as€used€inÏDefendantððs€case€only€requires€that€the€defendant€be€ð ðarmedðð€with€the€weapon.ÏNeither€the€statute€nor€the€indictment€in€Defendantððs€case€required€that€theÏweapon€be€actually€employed€in€the€commission€of€the€aggravated€rape.ÏòòManningóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€640€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€In€òòManningóó,€theÏdefendant€pressed€a€knife€into€the€victimððs€side€throughout€the€commission€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Our€court€held€that€application€ofÏfactor€(10)€was€proper€as€the€use€of€the€weapon€in€that€case€involved€aÍgreater€risk€of€harm€than€that€required€by€the€standards€of€the€aggravatedÏoffenses.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Richard€J.€Crossmanóó,€No.€01C01„9311„CR„00394,€Wilson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€October€6,€1994),Ïòòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àAs€stated€above,€in€situations€where€a€defendant€is€charged€asÏDefendant€was€in€this€case,€the€aggravated€rape€statute€only€requires€that€theÏdefendant€be€ð ðarmed€with€a€weapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(1)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€The€€òòuseóó€and€òòemploymentóó€of€the€weapon€by€Defendant€in€thisÏcase€demonstrates€a€culpability€ð ðdistinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€thatÏincident€to€the€offense€for€which€he€was€convicted.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883ÏS.W.2d€597,€603€(Tenn.€1994).€€Therefore,€use€of€enhancement€factor€(10)€wasÏproper.€€ÌÌà àWe€note€the€State€argues€that€factor€(10)€applies€because€the€victimððsÏchildren€were€present€in€the€house€during€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€In€òòStateÏv.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€court€stated€thatÏenhancing€factor€(10)€could€be€used,€even€though€it€was€inherent€in€the€offense,Ïwhen€other€people€were€present€and€were€in€danger.€€òòMakokaóó,€855€S.W.2d€atÏ373.€€In€òòMakokaóó,€the€defendant€was€firing€a€gun€in€front€of€a€police€station€whenÍthere€was€a€shift€change.€€Therefore,€there€were€many€others€present€whoÏcould€have€been€injured€or€killed€by€the€gun.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€the€defendantÏwas€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€for€an€incident€where€he€attacked€theÏvictim€with€a€straight€razor.€€There€was€a€large€crowd€gathered€in€the€vicinity€ofÏthe€defendant€and€the€victim.€€This€court€stated€that€factor€(10)€did€not€applyÏbecause,€ð ðHillððs€wrath€and€vindictiveness€was€directed€solely€at€Johnson€[theÏvictim].€€The€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€that€individuals€in€close€proximityÏwere€in€danger€of€being€injured.ðð€€òòHillóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€363.ÌÌà àThe€same€can€be€said€for€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€While€the€victimððs€childrenÏwere€present€in€the€house,€they€were€not€in€the€room€where€the€incidentÏoccurred.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€children€were€in€imminent€danger€fromÏthe€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àEnhancement€factors€(7)€and€(10)€were€correctly€applied€when€the€trialÏcourt€was€determining€the€Defendantððs€sentence.€€Enhancement€factor€(6)€doesÏnot€apply€in€this€case.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendantððs€final€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏconsidering€the€Defendantððs€lack€of€a€criminal€record€as€a€mitigating€factor€underÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113(13).€€It€has€been€held€that€theÏlack€of€a€criminal€record€can€be€a€mitigating€factor.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2dÏ250,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€However,€we€conclude€that€it€wasÏappropriate€for€the€trial€court€to€refuse€to€apply€this€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€TheÏDefendant€was€convicted€of€public€intoxication€in€1993.€€œWhile›€in€the€Navy,€heÏwas€accused€of€molesting€his€child€which€lead€to€a€suicide€attempt€andÏcounseling.€€The€Defendant€was€discharged€from€the€Navy€on€a€less€thanÏhonorable€discharge,€but€claims€he€was€never€court€martialed.€€The€DefendantÏmay€not€have€a€criminal€record,€but€it€is€clear€that€he€has€a€criminal€history.€€WeÏfind€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€not€applying€this€œmitigating›€factor.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Anthony€Angelo€Scalesóó,€No.€01C01„9310„CR„00353,€DavidsonÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€July€28,€1994)€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€As€aÏRange€I€offender€the€sentencing€range€for€this€crime€is€fifteen€(15)€to€twenty„fiveÏ(25)€years.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€twenty„five€(25)€years.€ÏWe€have€found€that€one€of€the€three€enhancement€factors€applied€by€the€trialÍcourt€does€not€apply.€€Therefore,€there€are€two€enhancement€factors€and€noÏmitigating€factors.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€(25)Ïis€supported€by€the€two€enhancement€factors.ÌÌà àThe€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge