ÿWPC” fÂ+(^ûCä‘yA…JÞDÔ)×›7NÃö6ÜÕï®ÏTr–¬°òãl«‹!»ÖgwýEÑ‚wÔâ’Æ øö`òÓ­I‰µÕĘËþ9–d&ÏÜ,ÊÞÞ¿x]h‰Ûé¿¢Œžh©Sz`5ý½Âð1Ô¶ËhUö²´Xx:@,nÿʤ¸;ûxù/îÎÞ%"Û©œ¦KwšZ†ÿµ`ÑÈ%ñ:EGÂ’–NÐôü² £d¶·#}Ø>ÀC?€û |ÉZŸrÑ€rm_·„Z¶˜¼a*uý¨ q ½ÕC%Êv6í¨£.¹[U-µ(a¯ãi¶J6áŒèCaZP†ÙÑb­…Š B…“™q0§ÐõÌ%Å÷WæˆM)ößkÏô¸;Ï=PÅí§ÖéÀùcX…ÇZT˜ «dÈÃý‚\rµô7̯œ Þ¢½yØä¾¶ud©ð °N6®¨J‘ª¡Oæþx †: ¦€Ì cX=i¬údBÜÕ<> 0D D/H BwX, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular iPjPkPlPmPnPoPpPqPrÓ€³†;$3|x{, øð AZ"Arial Regular áÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝPermission€to€appeal€was€denied€in€òòKeel,óó€while€no€permission€to€appeal€wasÐ ° Ðsought€in€òòMillbrooksóó.€€((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÛÔ€X/’XXXÔÔ€¦FXX/’ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X/’X¦FÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñrñ›ñrñÒ°ÒÔ€X/’XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñrñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rß›ñrñà@˜ ˜ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@FF'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@77%àJUNE€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ  ` Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òNO.€01C01„9709„CC„00389ó óÐ ü L  Ðà ` àAppellee,à@÷÷-à)ˆÐ è 8  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òLINCOLN€COUNTYó óÐ Î  Ðò òVS.ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ º  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHON.€CHARLES€LEE,Ð ¦ö  ÐANDRE€PARKS,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ ’â  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆÌà ` àAppellant.à@÷÷-à)ˆà p à(Sale€of€Cocaine)Ð d´ ÐÌÌÌÒ(ä „¸ @(#(#(Òò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð üL ÐÌJOHN€HARWELL€DICKEYÌó óDistrict€Public€Defenderò òÐ À ÐÌMICHAEL€D.€RANDLESÌ(At€Trial)ó óÐ ~Î ÐAssistant€District€Public€DefenderÌ218€North€Main€StreetÌShelbyville,€TN€€37160Ìò òÌÌJULIE€A.€MARTINÌ(On€Appeal)ó óÐ à"0! Ð706€Walnut€Street,€Ste.€900„AÌP.€O.€Box€426ÌKnoxville,€TN€€37901„0426Ð ˜%è $ Ðò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð üL$ ÐÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÐ Ô$& ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òDARYL€J.€BRANDó óÐ ŒÜ) ÐAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òW.€MICHAEL€McCOWNó óÐ ö F/ ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òWEAKLEY€E.€BARNARDó óÐ ®#þ2 ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌMarshall€County€CourthouseÌRoom€407ÌLewisburg,€TN€€37091Ð L'œ"6 ÐÒ(ä „¸ @ìì(ÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ |.Ì)< ÐÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÐ  È62E Ðó óÑ7€Ó*XXdìXXdì7Ñà@ÉÉ'àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àDefendant,€Andre€Parks,€appeals€his€conviction€by€a€Lincoln€County€jury€ofÏthe€offense€of€selling€cocaine€under€0.5€grams,€a€Class€C€felony.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€a€term€of€eight€(8)€years€and€eleven€(11)€months€and€deniedÏalternative€sentencing.€€He€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à1.à  àwhether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€Ð ˜è  Ðà8¸ x¸ xàguilty€verdict;Ð    ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à2.à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppressÐ Jš  Ðà8¸ x¸ xàthe€undercover€agentððs€in„courtÏidentification€of€the€defendant;Ð    ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à3.à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€œinto€à8@ȸ x¸ xàà @È àÐ â2 Ðevidence›€the€œpackages›€containing€the€cocaine€œà @ú àsince›€itÏhad€defendantððs€name€marked€on€œthem;›€œñiñà  àñiñand›Ð®þ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à4.à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€œà8@¸ x¸ xàñjñà @ àÐ zÊ Ðñjñdefendant.€€›€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€evidence,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà@ÎÎ+àò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ Ä ÐÌà ` àThe€stateððs€proof€showed€that€on€June€20,€1996,€undercover€agent,€TommyÏœBiele,›€was€a€Dickson€police€officer€on€special€assignment€to€the€œSeventeenthÏJudicial›€District€Drug€Task€Force€in€Lincoln€County.€€He€utilized€an€unmarkedÏvehicle€containing€audio€and€video€equipment.€€At€approximately€5:30€p.m.€theÏdefendant€approached€Agent€Bieleððs€vehicle.€€The€agent€was€able€to€view€theÏdefendant€close€up,€face„to„face.€€As€a€police€officer,€Agent€Biele€had€been€trainedÏto€ð ðmemorize€everything€you€can€about€them€before€they€leave.ðð€€The€agentÏrequested€œof€the€defendant€three›€(3)€rocks€of€crack€cocaine€for€œ$50.›€€The€defendantÏhanded€the€agent€three€(3)€rocks,€and€the€agent€paid€the€defendant€$50.€€TheÏtransaction€was€videotaped€and€shown€to€the€jury.€€The€agent€did€not€notice€anyÏdistinguishing€marks€or€œscars›€on€œthe€seller.›€€Agent€Biele€was€ð ð100%€certainðð€that€theÏdefendant€was€the€same€person€who€sold€him€cocaine€on€the€date€in€question.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€rocks€were€turned€over€to€another€officer.€€All€officers€in€the€chain€ofÐ Ä95; Ðcustody€identified€the€packaging.€€The€substance€was€further€identified€by€theÏforensic€chemist€as€œcontaining›€0.4€grams€of€cocaine€base,€a€Schedule€II€controlledÏsubstance.€€Ìà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€stateððs€proof,€the€defendant€offered€no€witnesses€orÏtestimony.€€However,€the€defendant€exhibited€to€the€jury€his€arms€which€containedÏœscars.›€€Ìà ` àœThe›€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€separate€counts€of€selling€and€deliveringÏœcocaine€based€upon€this€transacton.›€€The€delivery€conviction€was€stricken€by€theÏtrial€court,€thus€leaving€the€defendant€with€a€conviction€for€the€sale€of€cocaine€underÏ0.5€grams.ÌÌà@×× àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ @ ÐÌà ` àÔ‡ X€HXXXï¨Ôà ¸ àWhen€reviewing€the€trial€court's€judgment,€this€Court€will€not€disturbÐ ä4 Ða€verdict€of€guilt€unless€the€facts€of€the€record€and€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏfrom€it€are€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€theÏdefendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ð „#Ô" Ð318,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.Ð d%´ $ ÐTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€other€words,€this€Court€will€notÐ D'”"& Ðreevaluate€or€reweigh€the€evidence€brought€out€at€trial.€€œSince›€a€verdict€of€guiltÏremoves€the€presumption€of€a€defendant's€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÏpresumption€of€guilt,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€at€the€appellate€level.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€œ474,›€œ476€(Tenn.€1973).›Ð Ä.*. ÐÔ#†Xï¨XX X€H€#Ôà ` àThe€defendant€was€specifically€identified€as€the€person€who€sold€theÐ ¤0ô+0 Ðcontrolled€substance.€€The€issue€of€identification€is€a€question€for€the€jury.€€œòòState€v.Ð p2À-2 ÐStricklandóó,€885›€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€issue€was€resolvedÐ <4Œ/4 Ðby€the€jury€against€the€defendant.€€The€chain€of€custody€was€properly€shown,€andÏthe€substance€was€identified€by€the€forensic€chemist€as€cocaine.€€The€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€Ð  9ð4: Їà@÷÷"àò òòòIN„COURT€IDENTIFICATIONó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àDefendant€next€contends€œAgent›€Bieleððs€in„court€identification€of€the€defendantÏwas€tainted€by€a€prior€impermissibly€suggestive€photographic€identification.€€œÌÌà@··,àò òA.ó óˆÐ ¸   ЛÌà ` àApproximately€one€month€after€the€drug€transaction,€œanother€agent€showedÏAgent›€Biele€œa›€photograph€œof€the€defendant›€œand€inquired›€as€to€whether€this€was€theÏœsame€person›€who€sold€œhim€the›€drugs.€€Agent€Biele€identified€the€œdefendant›€in€theÏphotograph€as€the€same€person€who€sold€the€drugs.€€The€trial€court€found€thisÏphotographic€identification€was€impermissibly€suggestive€and€suppressed€the€useÏof€this€identification€as€a€part€of€the€stateððs€œcase„in„chief.›€€However,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€an€in„court€identification€was€sufficiently€reliable€and€independent€fromÏthe€tainted€photographic€identification.€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€in„courtÏidentification€of€the€defendant.€€œÌÌà@´´,àò òB.ó óˆÐ T#¤" ÐÌ›à ` àFirstly,€we€note€that€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€at€a€suppressionÏhearing€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ð *à%* МÌà@´´,àò òC.ó óˆÐ (.x). ÐÌ›à ` àSecondly,€convictions€based€on€œeyewitness›€identification€at€trial€following€aÏpre„trial€photographic€identification€will€be€set€aside€only€œif›€the€photographicÏidentification€was€œso€impermissibly›€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantialÏlikelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,Ð 07€28 Ð384,€88€S.Ct.€967,€971,€19€L.Ed.2d€œ1247,1253›€(1968).€€We,€nevertheless,€recognizeÐ ü8L4: Ðthat€a€pre„trial€confrontation€procedure€may€be€unlawful€œif,€under€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€the€procedure€is€unnecessarily€suggestive.€€òòMoore›€v.€Illinoisóó,€œ434,Ð |Ì Ð411›€œU.S.›€220,€227,€98€S.Ct.€458,€464,€54€L.Ed.2d€œ424,€433›€(1977).€€œÌà ` àThis›€Court€must€consider€five€factors€in€determining€whether€the€in„courtÏidentification€is€reliable€enough€to€withstand€a€due€process€attack€despite€theÏsuggestiveness€of€the€pre„trial€identification.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,€93Ð ¬ ü  ÐS.Ct.€375,€382,€34€L.Ed.2d€œ401,€411›€(1972);€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€88.€Ð xÈ  ÐThese€factors€are:€€(1)€€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€timeÏof€the€crime;€(2)€the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention;€(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessððÏprior€description€of€the€criminal;€(4)€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€theÏwitness€at€the€confrontation;€and€(5)€the€time€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation.€€òòStricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€88.€€œÐ tÄ ÐÌà@´´,àò òD.ó óˆÐ  \ ЛÌà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar€Agent€Biele€had€ample€opportunity€to€view€the€defendantÏface„to„face.€€As€a€police€officer,€Agent€Biele€was€trained€in€the€importance€ofÏidentification.€€Agent€Biele€had€absolutely€no€doubt€or€hesitation€that€the€defendantÏwas€the€person€who€sold€him€the€drugs.€€The€transaction€was€memorialized€onÏvideotape.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€in„court€identification€was€not€tainted€by€theÏprior€photographic€identification.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€ruling.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@YY àò òòòDEFENDANTððS€NAME€ON€PACKAGEó óóóˆÐ Ü/,+0 ÐÌà ` àDefendant€next€contends€the€admission€into€evidence€of€the€drug€œenvelopes›Ïwas€prejudicial€since€his€name€had€been€written€on€œthem.›€€We€respectfully€disagree.€Ïà ` àOne€of€the€officers€testified€as€to€her€role€in€the€chain€of€custody.€€SheÏreceived€the€cocaine€from€another€agent,€packaged€and€sealed€it,€and€wroteÐ ä844: Ðidentifying€information€on€the€envelopes.€€The€defendant€objected€to€œtheir›Ïintroduction€into€evidence€since€the€defendantððs€name€had€been€written€on€œthe›Ïœenvelopes.›€€Since€the€chain€of€custody€had€not€been€completely€œestablished€at€thatÏtime,›€the€exhibits€were€marked€for€identification€purposes€only.€€Subsequently,€whenÏthe€chain€of€custody€was€completely€established,€the€trial€court€admitted€the€exhibitsÏinto€evidence.€€Ìà ` àThe€defendantððs€name€was€written€on€the€œenvelopes›€for€the€purpose€ofÏidentifying€evidence€and€establishing€the€chain€of€custody.€€Defendant€was€notÏprejudiced€by€this€procedure.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ˆˆ(àò òòòSENTENCINGó óóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà ` àDefendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€Multiple€Offender,€to€a€term€of€eightÏ(8)€years€and€eleven€(11)€months.€€The€œMultiple€Offender€range›€of€punishment€œforÏthis€Class€C€felony€was›€not€less€than€six€(6)€years€nor€more€than€ten€(10)€years.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(3).€€Alternative€sentencing€was€denied.€Ð |!Ì  ÐDefendant€now€challenges€the€length€of€the€sentence€and€the€denial€of€alternativeÏœsentencing.ÌÌà@··,àò òA.ó óˆÐ °($( ЛÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòdeÐ T,¤', Ðnovoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÐ $.t). Ðpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏjudge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€œÐ Œ3Ü.4 Лà ` àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€theÏminimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2dÐ ð8@4: Ð785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€courtÏshould€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÏrange€for€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€forÏthe€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€forÏeach€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€toÏthe€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposesÏand€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€Ð xÈ  ÐòòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,Ð D”  Ð848€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116,€125€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ` ÐApp.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Ð Ü, ÐNevertheless,€should€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€areÏpresent,€a€trial€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòseeóó€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€638Ð D” Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1994).ÌÌà@´´,àò òB.ˆÐ ¬ü Ðó ó›Ìà ` àThe€defendant€concedes€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€followingÏenhancement€factors:€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àœ(1)›à  àa€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€œñañà8@¸ x¸ xàà8@¸ x¸ xàà8@¸ x¸ xàañaññcñà8@¸ x¸ xàÐ è&8"& Ðñcññkñà  àñkñaddition›€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏœñmñà  àñmñappropriate›€range,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„ñnñà @Æ à¼à  àñnñ114(1);›Ð ¸ x¸ x Мñlñà ` àñlñ›Ìà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à(2)à  àa€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€withÐ f+¶&+ Мà8¸ x¸ xàthe›€conditions€of€release€into€theÏcommunity,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼114(8);€andÐ    ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à(3)€à  àadjudications€of€prior€delinquent€acts€as€a€œñfñà8@¸¸ x¸ xàÐ ä/4+0 Ðñfññoñà  àñoñjuvenile›€which€would€constitute€a€felony€ifÏœñpñà  àñpñcommitted›€by€an€adult,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„¼ñqñà  àñqñ35„114(20).›€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓà ` àDefendant€had€prior€convictions€for€forgery,€evading€arrest,€felony€theft,Ïselling€Schedule€IV€drugs,€passing€worthless€checks,€assault€and€battery,€contemptÏof€court,€œand€simple›€œassault.›€€As€a€juvenile€he€had€an€adjudication€for€forgery.€€He€œÌÐ Æ95; Їhad›€a€prior€probation€revocation.€€œThe€three€(3)€enhancement€factors€were€properlyÏapplied.€€ÌÌà@´´,àò òC.ó óˆÐ  d ЛÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€œfinding€that,€due€solely€to€theÏnature€of€cocaine,›€œthe›€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÏpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð P   Ð114(16).€€The€trial€court€noted€that€this€Court€has€conflicting€opinions€as€to€thisÏissue.€€òòSee€òòóóState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð ì< ÐMillbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).œ×ƒ ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€òòMillbrooksóó€applied€thisÐ ¼  Ðfactor€finding€the€use€of€crack€cocaine€to€be€injurious€to€the€human€body.€€œ819›ÏS.W.2d€at€447.€€œòòKeelóó›€rejected€the€òòMillbrooksóó€analysis€in€its€application€of€this€factorÐ T¤ Ðto€all€cocaine€cases;€however,€òòKeelóó€recognized€that€some€cocaine„related€casesÐ  p Ðcan€be€committed€under€factual€scenarios€justifying€the€application€of€this€factor.€Ïœ882›€S.W.2d€at€421„22.€€We€find€òòKeelóó€to€contain€the€better€analysis.€€òòSee€óóalso€òòStateÐ ¸ Ðv.€Robert€L.€OððNealóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9610„CC„00438,€Marshall€County€(Tenn.Ð ˆ!Ø  ÐCrim.€App.€filed€December€30,€1997,€at€Nashville).€€Ìà ` àIn€this€case€we€find€no€particular€circumstances€causing€a€great€potential€forÏbodily€injury€other€than€the€nature€œof›€the€substance€itself.€€Accordingly,€we€find€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€its€application€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€Nevertheless,€we€noteÏthat€the€trial€court€specifically€stated€it€gave€very€little€weight€to€this€enhancementÏfactor€in€light€of€our€conflicting€opinions.€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€sentenceÏreduction€due€to€the€misapplication€of€this€enhancement€factor€is€not€justified.€€œÌÌÌÌÐ L5œ06 Ðà@´´,àò òD.ó óˆÐ ° ЛÌà ` àDefendant€further€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€recognizeÏmitigating€factors.€€Specifically,€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€his€seeking€treatment€œfor›€cocaine€addiction€œprior€to€his€arrest€and›€hisÏpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€Defendant€has€an€extensive€prior€criminal€history.€ÏDefendant€has€continued€to€use€drugs€and€sell€them€to€support€his€habit.€€We€findÏno€error€in€the€trial€court€refusing€to€recognize€any€mitigating€factors.€€œÌÌà@¹¹,àò òE.ˆÐ è8 Ðó ó›Ìà ` àIn€summary,€we€find€the€trial€court€only€erred€in€its€application€of€oneÏenhancement€factor.€€This€does€not€necessarily€entitle€defendant€to€a€reduction€ofÏœhis€sentence.›€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1998).€€We€find€œtheÐ $t Ðtrial›€courtððs€determination€of€the€length€of€sentence€to€be€œappropriate.€€ÌÌà@¿¿,àò òF.ˆÐ Œ!Ü  Ðó ó›Ìà ` àFinally,€defendant€contends€he€should€have€received€an€alternative€sentence.€ÏHe€concedes€he€is€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€that€he€is€a€favorable€candidateÏsince€he€is€a€Range€II€Offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€Ð È($( ÐFurthermore,€defendant€is€not€eligible€for€probation€since€the€length€of€his€sentenceÏexceeds€eight€(8)€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€The€only€possibleÐ d,´', Ðalternative€sentence€the€defendant€could€receive€is€participation€in€the€communityÏcorrections€program.€€œÌÌÌÌÌÐ ü8L4: Ðà@®®,àò òG.ˆÐ ° Ðó ó›Ìà ` àThe€Community€Corrections€Act€establishes€a€program€of€community„basedÏalternatives€to€incarceration€for€certain€eligible€offenders.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ  p Ð40„36„103.€€A€defendant€is€eligible€for€participation€in€a€community€correctionsÏprogram€if€the€defendant€satisfies€several€minimum€eligibility€criteria€set€forth€atÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(1)„(7).€€The€Act€does€not€provide€that€all€offendersÏwho€meet€these€requirements€are€entitled€to€such€relief.€€òòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803Ð T¤  ÐS.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Indeed,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„¼106(d)€provides€that€the€eligibility€criteria€shall€be€interpreted€as€minimum€standardsÏto€guide€the€court's€determination€of€eligibility€of€offenders€under€the€Act.Ìà ` àIn€determining€if€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€may€consider€theÏneed€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€whetherÏconfinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likely€to€commitÏsimilar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measures€have€often€or€recently€beenÏunsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ €!Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð P# " Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€noted€defendantððs€extensive€criminal€history€and€his€œcontinuedÏfailure›€to€benefit€from€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement.€€The€recordÏcertainly€supports€these€findings.€€We€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denyingÏalternative€sentencing.€€ÌÌœà@xx(àò òòòCONCLUSION›ˆÐ .h). ÐÌó óóóà ` àFor€the€above€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð È1-2 ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ F6–17 ÐÌÌœÌÐ ö9F5; ÐCONCUR:›ÌÌó óÌÌ______________________________Ìò òCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÐ : Š ÐÌÌÌó ó______________________________Ð ê :  Ðò òLEE€MOORE,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó óÐ Ð  ÐÌ