ÿWPC  Ðe¼îdžëQ± èy-·õÇAË‘›E¹Œuƅͯ/VAšü!q*—»ÝhþWß6¸ Yn2ôÇ1Q(æ6¯ ƒJQ´~Q*ÐÐ]Â\Pî ¬fbxÚ>̲ºVåö@¨{f ⬔@ž·9IFö ¥Ôñ^I°‘Jzgg÷·}¹ kdÔ¾‹ƒü¦Œ©Œ‘cÝ ^vdkh;$ÎäÏ€h&$ÎP¤è';¢Ip‰cK;H.Ö}ÕF“~iK0ùÀ—!)’ýذ¥õ©ÌëÝ„ÕævjUÖq€ŒI[†Ä~yÌ—ž¸`ÃÕˆ Øðáâ }~PcŽ+Ø,µ~œ/8P=¤F&ÌÀø±MK²ñ©Sáž)»%\Xs®½– „ UyÁcfÃ.µW!7ÂyÑ~jôuvŠ©ëåÇü̉Mkº` €£X%%àÐïq1èúŒ¶yf |ÄÙǼ®¢PêÛºJ©•<¸'ÈÌ%A&JýQ(‡-ãów‚ øsØåc¿»ÌÚœËeöm±^QF™øÀ÷êGns-dß°>/±ô††³Oêêp‹ÁoÖi÷~n/ž÷2³ì:N½ôµ¥5|b %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*ÔxñL L z= Ò· ^ ‰ w• 4™ ­ Ƽ Æ‚ ÆH ÆÔNÖ mØ#ÉïE¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸ 0Dººººbþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ 0ë Bññ 0¤ D5² D-ç 0K AS_Ʋ 0¤x 0D A«`»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ÊÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôö ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Defendant€does€not€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€the€hearsay. çÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôö ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€reflects€that€the€crimes€of€theft€and€shoplifting€occurred€while€the€Defendant€was€a€juvenile. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptãz—/Ï  ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ïy»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôö ò»»Ô d(|38¶$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ïy»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|38¶$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ïy»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ïy»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ïy»»»ÔÑ8€„XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î:^ÏyÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ïy»îî:^ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€November€4,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡X„X»¼ÏyÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ïy»XX„#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€CALVIN€OWENSÔ‡X„X»¼ÏyÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNos.€01„06973,€74,€75,€76€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„00033„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€December€17,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Calvin€Owens,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€one€count€ofÐ V¦  Ðattempt€to€commit€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€one€count€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,Ð ? Ðall€Class€B€felonies.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I€offenderÐ (x Ðto€eleven€years€for€each€of€his€four€convictions.€€The€trial€court€ordered€three€of€the€sentences€to€beÐ a Ðserved€consecutively,€with€the€sentence€for€the€remaining€conviction€to€be€served€concurrently,Ð úJ Ðresulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty„three€years.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€the€Defendant€arguesÐ ã3 Ðthat€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencingÐ Ì Ðhim€to€thirty„three€years.€€We€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.Ð µ ÐÓ¸ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ‡× ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ïy»àX„‡#ÔÔ‡X„X.¼ÏyÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòJohn€EverettÐ Zª ÐWilliams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð C“ ÐÌHarry€Ô_ÔSayleÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Calvin€Owens.Ð e ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ç 7  ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Betsy€Ô_ÔCarnesaleÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Ð! ! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¹" " ÐÓêÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ïy»XX„ #ÔòòóóÔ‡X„X»¼ÏyÔÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼Ïy»XX„ü #ÔÔ€X„X»¼ÏyÔòòóóÌÓÓà  àOn€June€9,€2000,€Reuben€Ramirez€went€to€a€store€with€his€friends,€Jose€Salazar€and€ManuelÐ G'—"' ÐRamirez,€to€cash€their€paychecks.€€They€each€left€the€store€with€several€hundred€dollars€in€cash.€€AsÐ 0(€#( Ðthey€were€driving€in€Mr.€Salazarððs€car€to€the€apartment€complex€in€which€they€all€lived,€the€hoodÐ )i$) Ðof€the€car€€flew€up,€breaking€the€windshield.€€The€men€stopped€the€car,€lowered€the€hood,€andÐ *R%* Ðexamined€the€damage€to€the€car.€€They€then€proceeded€to€their€apartment€complex.€€When€theyÐ ë*;&+ Ðarrived,€the€Defendant€approached€them,€asking€whether€he€could€help.€€The€Defendant€told€the€menÐ Ô+$', Ðthat€he€knew€someone€from€whom€the€men€could€buy€parts€to€repair€the€damaged€car.€€TheÐ ½, (- ÐDefendant€told€them€that€he€would€get€them€a€phone€number€they€could€call€to€buy€parts€for€the€car.€Ð ¦-ö(.ý ÐÔ_ÔAs€he€was€talking€to€the€three€men,€the€Defendant€placed€his€hand€on€the€hood€of€the€car.€€TheÐ ° ÐDefendant€accompanied€Jose€Salazar€and€Manuel€Ramirez€into€Mr.€Salazarððs€apartment,€and€ReubenÐ ™é ÐRamirez€went€to€get€his€car€so€they€could€drive€it€to€the€auto€parts€store.€€Mr.€Salazar€went€into€theÐ ‚Ò Ðbedroom€of€his€apartment€to€look€for€a€pen€and€paper.€€When€he€emerged€from€his€bedroom€into€theÐ k» Ðliving€room€of€his€apartment,€he€saw€the€Defendant€pointing€a€gun€at€Manuel€Ramirezððs€head.€€TheÐ T¤ ÐDefendant€told€the€two€men€to€get€on€the€floor,€which€they€did.€€The€Defendant€took€Mr.€SalazarððsÐ =  Ðwallet,€which€contained€over€seven€hundred€dollars.€€Manuel€Ramirez€told€Mr.€Salazar€that€theÐ & v ÐDefendant€had€taken€his€wallet€as€well.Ð  _ ÐÌà  àAs€the€Defendant€attempted€to€leave€the€apartment,€Reuben€Ramirez€arrived€at€the€door.€€TheÐ á 1  ÐDefendant€put€a€gun€to€Reuben€Ramirezððs€head,€grabbed€his€hair,€and€threw€him€to€the€floor.€€TheÐ Ê   ÐDefendant€took€Reuben€Ramirezððs€wallet,€then€forced€him€into€the€bedroom€where€Mr.€Salazar€andÐ ³  ÐManuel€Ramirez€were.€€The€Defendant€demanded€more€money€from€Reuben€Ramirez,€so€ReubenÐ œì  ÐRamirez€reached€into€his€pants€pocket€to€get€the€money€he€had€just€received€when€he€cashed€hisÐ …Õ  Ðcheck.€€As€Reuben€Ramirez€put€his€hand€in€his€pocket,€the€Defendant€shot€him€in€the€chest.€€TheÐ n¾  Ðbullet€passed€through€Reuben€Ramirezððs€torso€and€exited€his€back.€€After€the€Defendant€shot€him,Ð W§  ÐReuben€Ramirez€fled€out€the€window,€ran€to€another€apartment,€and€asked€for€help.€€A€few€minutesÐ @ Ðlater,€the€police€arrived.€€Reuben€Ramirez€testified€that,€as€a€result€of€the€gunshot€wound€to€his€chest,Ð )y Ðhe€could€no€longer€work€outside€in€the€heat.€€During€their€testimony,€both€Reuben€Ramirez€and€JoseÐ b ÐSalazar€identified€the€Defendant€as€the€perpetrator.Ð ûK ÐÌà  à€€€€Officer€Ricky€Davison,€a€crime€scene€investigator€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department,Ð Í Ðexamined€the€scene€of€the€shooting.€€He€located€blood€and€a€spent€bullet€on€the€bedroom€floor€ofÐ ¶ ÐMr.€Salazarððs€apartment.€€Officer€Davison€also€dusted€Mr.€Salazarððs€entire€car€for€fingerprints,€andÐ Ÿï Ðhe€was€able€to€obtain€several€from€the€hood€of€the€car.€€Larry€Preston,€a€fingerprint€examiner€withÐ ˆØ Ðthe€Memphis€Police€Department,€determined€that€one€of€the€fingerprints€lifted€from€the€hood€of€Mr.Ð qÁ ÐSalazarððs€vehicle€belonged€to€the€Defendant.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€Defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery€withÐ ,| Ðrespect€to€Jose€Salazar,€aggravated€robbery€with€respect€to€Manuel€Ramirez,€and,€with€respect€to€theÐ e Ðattack€on€Reuben€Ramirez,€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€second€degreeÐ þN Ðmurder.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions.Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àÔ‡XhÖ XXX„ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guilt€in€criminalÐ ¹" ! Ðactions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Evidence€is€sufficient€if,€afterÐ ‹$Û# Ðreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ t%Ä $ Ðhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ð ]&­!% Ð443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€278€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€addition,€becauseÐ F'–"& Ðconviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumption€ofÐ /(#' Ðguilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient.€Ð )h$( ÐòòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,Ð *Q%) Ð105„06€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992);òòóó€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð ê*:&* ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).òòóóÐ Ó+#'+ Їà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongestÐ ° Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ ™é Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914;òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€279.€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð ‚Ò Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€191;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBuggsóó,Ð k» Ð995€S.W.2d€at€105.òòóó€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€find€particular€conflicts€in€the€trialÐ T¤ Ðtestimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòSeeóóÐ =  ÐòòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€andÐ & v Ðvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€theÐ  _ Ðappellate€courts.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€788,€795€(Tenn.€2000);€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754Ð ø H ÐS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ô#†X„X XXhÖH#ÔÐ á 1  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€attemptedÐ ³  Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery,€and€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€Aggravated€robbery€is€robberyÐ œì  Ðaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a)(1).€€Our€criminal€codeÐ …Õ  Ðdefines€robbery€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€byÐ n¾  Ðviolence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„13„401(a).€€Jose€Salazar€testified€that,€as€he€wasÐ W§  Ðwalking€out€of€his€bedroom,€he€saw€the€Defendant€pointing€a€gun€at€his€friend€Manuel€RamirezððsÐ @ Ðhead.€€He€stated€that€the€Defendant€motioned€with€the€gun€for€them€to€get€on€the€floor.€€TheÐ )y ÐDefendant€took€Mr.€Salazarððs€wallet,€which€contained€over€seven€hundred€dollars.€€The€evidenceÐ b Ðis€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendantððs€conviction€of€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Salazar.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€also€convicted€of€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Manuel€Ramirez,€and€heÐ Í Ðspecifically€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€that€conviction€because€Mr.€RamirezÐ ¶ Ðdid€not€testify€at€trial.€€However,€as€we€have€noted,€Mr.€Salazar€observed€the€Defendant€pointing€aÐ Ÿï Ðgun€at€Manuel€Ramirezððs€head.€€Furthermore,€Mr.€Salazar€testified€that€Mr.€Ramirez€told€him€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€Defendant€had€already€taken€his€wallet.€€Pursuant€to€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€theÐ qÁ Ðhearsay€rule,€the€trial€court€allowed€Mr.€Salazar€to€testify€that,€while€they€were€lying€on€the€bedroomÐ Zª Ðfloor,€Manuel€Ramirez€said€to€him,€ð ðHe€already€took€away€my€wallet€.€.€.€Everything€we€worked€allÐ C“ Ðweek€for€it€has€been€taken€away€from€us€already.€€All€week€long€and€in€such€a€short€time€itððs€beenÐ ,| Ðtaken€away€from€us.ðð׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendantððs€conviction€of€theÐ e Ðaggravated€robbery€of€Manuel€Ramirez.Ð þN ÐÌà  àNext,€in€order€to€sustain€the€Defendantððs€conviction€of€the€attempted€especially€aggravatedÐ Ð!   Ðrobbery€of€Reuben€Ramirez,€the€State€must€have€proven€that€the€Defendant€acted€with€the€intent€toÐ ¹" ! Ðcommit€an€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€that€he€believed€that€his€conduct€would€cause€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(2).€€Especially€aggravatedÐ ‹$Û# Ðrobbery€is€robbery€accomplished€€through€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€and€where€the€victim€suffersÐ t%Ä $ Ðserious€bodily€injury.òòóó€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„13„403(a).€€Reuben€Ramirez€testified€that,€when€he€arrived€at€hisÐ ]&­!% Ðfriendððs€apartment,€the€Defendant€put€a€gun€to€his€head,€grabbed€him€by€the€hair,€and€threw€him€ontoÐ F'–"& Ðthe€floor.€€The€Defendant€demanded€money€from€Mr.€Ramirez€even€after€Mr.€Ramirez€gave€him€hisÐ /(#' Ðwallet.€€When€Mr.€Ramirez€reached€into€his€pocket€to€give€the€Defendant€more€money,€theÐ )h$( ÐDefendant€shot€him€in€the€chest.€€This€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€Defendantððs€convictionÐ ° Ðof€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€Attempted€secondÐ k» Ðdegree€murder€occurs€where€a€defendant€acts€with€the€intent€to€cause€the€knowing€death€of€another,Ð T¤ Ðbelieving€his€or€her€conduct€will€cause€the€result€without€further€conduct€on€his€or€her€part.€€òòSeeóóÐ =  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„101(a)(2),€39„13„210(a)(1).€€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€was€robbingÐ & v ÐReuben€Ramirez€and€his€friends€at€gunpoint.€€When€Mr.€Ramirez€reached€into€his€pocket€to€give€theÐ  _ ÐDefendant€the€money€he€demanded,€the€Defendant€shot€him€in€the€chest,€causing€a€severe€wound.€Ð ø H ÐThe€jury€could€easily€have€found€that€in€so€doing,€the€Defendant€intended€to€kill€the€victim,€who€wasÐ á 1  Ðunarmed.€€In€short,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendantððs€conviction€ofÐ Ê   Ðattempted€second€degree€murder.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€complains€that€he€was€improperly€sentenced.€€Ô‡XhÖ XXX„ÔWhen€an€accusedÐ …Õ  Ðchallenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€aÐ n¾  Ðòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€courtÐ W§  Ðare€correct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÐ @ Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ )y Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ð b ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð ä4 Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ Í Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ ¶ Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ Ÿï Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ ˆØ Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210Ô#†X„X XXhÖÅ9#ÔÔ‡XhÖ XXX„Ô;€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€875Ð qÁ ÐS.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Zª ÐApp.€1988).Ð C“ ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ e Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ þN Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ ç 7 Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ Ð!   Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€926„27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.Ð ¹" ! ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ô#†X„X XXhÖD?#ÔÐ ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€presentence€report€reflects€that,€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€the€Defendant€wasÐ t%Ä $ Ðtwenty„eight€years€old€and€single.€€He€graduated€from€high€school€in€1993€and€had€some€post€high„Ð ]&­!% Ðschool€education.€€The€presentence€report€states€that€the€Defendant€was€employed€in€variousÐ F'–"& Ðrestaurants€from€October€of€1991€until€January€of€1994.€€The€Defendant€also€stated€that,€forÐ /(#' Ðapproximately€one€year€in€1999€and€2000,€he€worked€for€two€temporary€employment€agencies,€andÐ )h$( Ðthat€he€worked€for€his€father€in€1998€and€1999.€€In€addition€to€the€instant€offenses,€the€DefendantÐ *Q%) Ðâ âwas€convicted€of€being€an€accessory€after€the€fact€to€both€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€andÐ ê*:&* Ðaggravated€robbery€in€1996,€forgery€under€one€thousand€dollars€in€1996,€and€aggravated€robberyÐ ° Ðin€1994.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crimes€for€whichÐ k» Ðhe€was€convicted.€€After€determining€that€the€Defendant€had€only€one€prior€felony€conviction€withinÐ T¤ Ðthe€conviction€class€or€the€next€two€lower€classes,€the€trial€court€properly€determined€that€theÐ =  ÐDefendant€was€a€Range€I€offender.€€A€Range€I€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€which€eachÐ & v Ðof€the€Defendantððs€convictions€are,€is€subject€to€a€potential€sentence€of€eight€to€twelve€years€inÐ  _ Ðconfinement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2).€€The€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€BÐ ø H Ðfelony€is€the€minimum€in€the€range,€increased€by€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€decreased€byÐ á 1  Ðapplicable€mitigating€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„210(c),€(e).Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àIn€determining€the€appropriate€sentences€for€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€found€twoÐ œì  Ðenhancement€factors:€(1)€the€Defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€additionÐ …Õ  Ðto€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€and€(2)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€orÐ n¾  Ðthe€amount€of€damage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victims€was€particularly€great.€€òòSeeóóÐ W§  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2),€(7).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€At€the€conclusionÐ @ Ðof€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€eleven€years€on€each€of€his€fourÐ )y Ðconvictions.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€sentences€for€the€two€aggravated€robbery€convictions€andÐ b Ðthe€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€to€be€served€consecutively,€with€the€sentenceÐ ûK Ðfor€the€attempted€second€degree€murder€conviction€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€sentence€forÐ ä4 Ðattempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€Defendantððs€effective€sentence€was€thus€thirty„threeÐ Í Ðyears.Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€challenge€to€his€sentence€is€twofold.€€First,€the€Defendant€contends€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€court€erred€by€enhancing€his€sentence€for€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€based€on€theÐ qÁ Ðparticularly€great€injury€inflicted€upon€the€victim€or€the€particularly€great€amount€of€property€takenÐ Zª Ðfrom€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€He€asserts€that,€because€serious€bodilyÐ C“ Ðinjury€is€an€element€of€the€offense€of€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery,€it€was€error€for€theÐ ,| Ðtrial€court€to€enhance€that€sentence€based€on€the€victimððs€injuries.€€However,€it€is€clear€from€theÐ e Ðtranscript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€that€the€judge€did€not€enhance€the€Defendantððs€sentence€basedÐ þN Ðon€the€victimððs€particularly€great€injuries;€rather,€he€focused€on€the€financial€loss€sustained€by€theÐ ç 7 Ðvictim€when€he€enhanced€the€sentence.Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àWe€must€agree€with€the€Defendant€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€enhance€theÐ ¢#ò" ÐDefendantððs€sentence€for€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€based€upon€the€particularly€greatÐ ‹$Û# Ðfinancial€loss€suffered€by€Reuben€Ramirez.€€Mr.€Ramirez€testified€that€the€Defendant€took€his€wallet,Ð t%Ä $ Ðwhich€contained€eighty€or€one€hundred€dollars.€€Although€Mr.€Ramirez€stated€that€he€had€anotherÐ ]&­!% Ðfour€hundred€and€fifty€dollars€in€his€pocket,€the€Defendant€shot€him€when€he€reached€into€his€pocketÐ F'–"& Ðto€recover€it.€€Therefore,€it€appears€that€the€Defendant€did€not€take€the€four€hundred€and€fifty€dollarsÐ /(#' Ðfrom€Mr.€Ramirez.€€We€cannot€say€that€the€loss€of€eighty€or€one€hundred€dollars€amounts€toÐ )h$( Ðð ðparticularly€greatðð€financial€loss€for€enhancement€purposes.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ *Q%) Ðapplying€enhancement€factor€seven€to€the€Defendantððs€sentence€for€attempted€especially€aggravatedÐ ê*:&* Ðrobbery.Ð Ó+#'+ Ðà  àÌà  àNevertheless,€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€this€regard€was€harmless€because€the€trial€court€foundÐ ™é Ðas€an€additional€enhancement€factor€that€the€Defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ ‚Ò Ðconvictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€him€as€a€Range€I€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ k» ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(2).€€As€we€have€already€noted,€the€Defendant€had€prior€felony€convictions€forÐ T¤ Ðforgery€under€one€thousand€dollars,€aggravated€robbery,€and€for€being€an€accessory€after€the€factÐ =  Ðin€an€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€an€aggravated€robbery.€€This€enhancement€factor€isÐ & v Ðsufficient€to€justify€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€enhance€the€Defendantððs€sentence€for€attemptedÐ  _ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€to€eleven€years.Ð ø H ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€his€sentencesÐ Ê   Ðfor€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€consecutively.€€In€orderingÐ ³  Ðconsecutive€sentencing,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€the€following€criteria:€(1)€the€Defendant€was€aÐ œì  Ðprofessional€criminal€who€knowingly€devoted€his€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€ofÐ …Õ  Ðlivelihood;€(2)€the€Defendant€was€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€was€extensive;€andÐ n¾  Ð(3)€the€Defendant€was€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€humanÐ W§  Ðlife,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð @ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1),€(2),€(4).€€Any€one€of€these€factors,€if€properly€applied,€would€justifyÐ )y Ðthe€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð b ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€trial€court€found€the€Defendant€to€be€a€professional€criminal.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„Ð ä4 Ð115(b)(1).€€The€trial€court€relied€on€the€Defendantððs€scant€employment€history€and€the€types€ofÐ Í Ðcrimes€for€which€he€had€been€convicted.€€The€trial€judge€correctly€noted€that€the€twenty„eight€yearÐ ¶ Ðold€Defendant€did€not€have€an€outstanding€work€history.€€Between€October€of€1991€and€January€ofÐ Ÿï Ð1994,€the€Defendant€was€apparently€a€dishwasher€in€three€restaurants.€€From€some€time€in€1998€untilÐ ˆØ ÐJune€of€2000,€he€worked€sporadically€for€two€temporary€employment€agencies€and€his€father.€Ð qÁ ÐFurthermore,€the€Defendantððs€history€of€criminal€activity€contains€several€crimes€that€are€motivatedÐ Zª Ðby€a€desire€for€financial€gain,€such€as€aggravated€robbery,€forgery,€theft,€and€shoplifting.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WeÐ C“ Ðbelieve€that€the€trial€court€was€justified€in€ordering€consecutive€sentencing€based€on€this€evidence.€Ð ,| ÐAt€the€time€of€sentencing,€the€Defendant€was€twenty„eight€years€old,€had€an€unstable€employmentÐ e Ðhistory,€and€had€accumulated€ten€criminal€convictions,€several€of€which€were€financially€motivated.€Ð þN ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€imposing€consecutive€sentencing€based€onÐ ç 7 Ðthe€professional€criminal€criterion.Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€cited€the€Defendantððs€extensive€criminal€history€as€a€reason€for€imposingÐ ¢#ò" Ðconsecutive€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„155(b)(2).€€Consecutive€sentences€imposed€upon€the€basisÐ ‹$Û# Ðof€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity€frequently€look€to€a€defendantððs€prior€record€in€additionÐ t%Ä $ Ðto€the€offenses€at€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€10€S.W.3d€638,€648€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€In€thisÐ ]&­!% Ðcase,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€two€aggravated€robberies,€one€attempted€especially€aggravatedÐ F'–"& Ðrobbery,€and€one€attempted€second€degree€murder,€and€all€the€convictions€arose€from€the€sameÐ /(#' Ðcriminal€episode.€€However,€the€Defendantððs€adult€criminal€history€dates€back€to€1994,€when€theÐ )h$( ÐDefendant€was€nineteen€years€old.€€In€addition€to€the€instant€convictions,€the€Defendant€has€beenÐ ° Ðconvicted€of€aggravated€robbery,€forgery,€and€accessory€after€the€fact€to€especially€aggravatedÐ ™é Ðkidnapping€and€aggravated€robbery.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€Defendantððs€history€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðcriminal€activity€is€extensive.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€this€regard.Ð k» ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€based€on€the€Defendant€being€aÐ =  Ðdangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitationÐ & v Ðabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  _ Ð115(b)(4).€€Obviously,€the€crimes€committed€against€these€three€victims€were€dangerous€crimes.€€AsÐ ø H Ðnoted€by€our€supreme€court,€however,€every€offender€convicted€of€two€or€more€dangerous€crimesÐ á 1  Ðis€not€thereby€a€dangerous€offender€who€is€subject€to€consecutive€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,Ð Ê   Ð905€S.W.€2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð ³  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€we€have€no€hesitation€in€finding€ð ðthat€theÐ …Õ  Ðterms€imposed€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessaryÐ n¾  Ðin€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender.ðð€€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.€2dÐ W§  Ðat€938.€€The€trial€judge€neither€erred€nor€abused€his€discretion€when€he€ordered€an€effective€sentenceÐ @ Ðof€thirty„three€years.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð )y ÐÌà  àThe€judgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.Ð ûK Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE