ÿWPC* …# VU:a %› 0 (¡w@É4  , F4 0†z 0D D U .L 0Jz 0TÄ 0^ 0hv 0rÞ 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ 0dW B»B)ØDC AMDÊ‘ D3[U>ŽŽÌ 0@Z‹šý%z"œl¹v~%!vÓ£" AOv(ÆÅ( 0D‹) D/Ï) Bþ)˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ŽeDD‘D’D“U”•{–—Ó€³†;$M3|x c:\office\wpwin\template\draft.wpt(6(2Ä$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 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 d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJune€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Other€panels€of€this€Court€have€also€rejected€challenges€to€theÏmandated€instruction.€òòState€v.€David€Palmeróó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9607„CR„00285,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€November€20,€1997,€atÏNashville);€òòState€v.€William€K.€Howellóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9610„CR„00443,ÏDavidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€November€6,€1997,€at€Nashville);€òòStateÏv.€Dwjuan€L.€Bradfordóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9607„CR„00294,€Davidson€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€30,€1997,€at€Nashville).ÌÌ€€€€à àIn€òòState€v.€Jerry€Ray€Cooperóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9604„CC„00150,€LincolnÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€November€17,€1997,€at€Nashville),€two€membersÏof€the€panel€found€the€statute€unconstitutional.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€a€concurring€opinion,€Judge€Joe€G.€Riley€wrote€that€the€òòDinkinsóó€juryÏòòwasóó€òònotóó€instructed€that€it€could€weigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentenceÏof€imprisonment.€€The€òòDinkinsóójury€was€told€the€information€regarding€paroleÏeligibility€was€ð ðfor€your€information€only.ðð€€Judge€Riley€found€there€was€no€dueÏprocess€violation€when€the€court€instructs€the€jury€that€the€sentencingÏinformation€is€furnished€for€informational€purposes€only.€The€statute€requiresÏthat€the€instruction€tell€ð ðthe€jury€to€weigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€aÏsentence€of€imprisonment.ðð€Judge€Riley€found€an€instruction€per€the€statute€isÏð ðclearly€unconstitutionalðð€because€it€tells€the€jury€to€consider€the€sentencing€inÏdetermining€guilt€or€innocence.€But€in€òòDinkinsóó,€the€trial€judge€altered€theÏwording€to€tell€the€jury€the€information€was€for€ð ðinformation€only.ðð€€Judge€RileyÏfound€no€constitutional€violation€based€upon€this€instruction.Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Defendant€does€not€dispute€his€status€as€a€Range€II€offender.Ì pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€defendantððs€presentence€report€indicates€two€prior€convictions€forÏunspecified€traffic€offenses,€three€convictions€for€aggravated€assault,Ïcontributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor,€two€convictions€for€possession€ofÏunspecified€drugs,€possession€of€marijuana,€reckless€driving,€and€simpleÏassault.€€His€eleven€convictions€span€a€six„year€period.€€His€presentence€reportÏalso€indicates€arrests€on€53€other€charges€between€September€1988€and€JulyÏ1995€in€which€the€dispositions€were€unknown.€€The€defendant€also€admitted€toÏthe€probation€officer€that€his€last€use€of€cocaine€and€marijuana€was€July€29,Ï1995,€the€date€of€the€fatal€collision.€€Thus,€the€evidence€supports€the€use€ofÏfactor€(1).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€was€sentenced€to€time€served€on€these€two€trafficÏoffenses.Ô€+ÔÌ bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€This€case€was€originally€assigned€to€our€colleague,€Judge€Joe€B.ÏJones.€€After€Judge€Jonesðð€untimely€death€on€May€1,€1998,€the€case€was€re„assigned.€€Prior€to€his€death,€Judge€Jones€and€his€staff€had€done€extensiveÏwork€on€this€case.€€Much€of€that€work€has€been€utilized€and€incorporated€intoÏthe€opinion.€€This€Court€acknowledges€the€faithful€service€of€Judge€Jones€to€theÏCourt,€both€as€a€member€and€as€its€Presiding€Judge.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€-‚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'\Ñ›œßR€()'A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9701„CR„00031ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€ANN€LACY€JOHNS,ÏJUDGEÌROBERT€ANTHONY€PAYNE,ó óà@ à)Ì€€€ò òa.k.a.€ANTHONY€JORDAN,ó óà@ à)à à(Vehicular€Homicide,€RecklessÌà@ à)à àEndangerment,€RecklessÌà àAppellant.à@ à)à àAggravated€Assault,€IntentionalÏorÌà@ à)à àKnowing€Aggravated€Assault)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌKARL€DEANÌ(Of€Counsel)ó óÌPublic€DefenderÌÌò òJEFFREY€A.€DEVASHERÌ(On€Appeal)ó óÌSenior€Assistant€Public€DefenderÌ1202€Stahlman€BuildingÌNashville,€TN€€37201„5066ÌÌò òALAN€E.€CALHOUNÌJ.€MICHAEL€ENGLEÌ(At€Trial)ó óÌAssistant€Public€Defendersò òÌó ó1202€Stahlman€BuildingÌNashville,€TN€€37201„5066ÌÉò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òSHARON€L.€BROXÌDAN€HAMMó óÌAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌ222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌWashington€Square,€Suite€500ÌNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEó óÇÑ7€:ÍXXdæXXdæ7ÑÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Robert€Anthony€Payne,€a.k.a.€Anthony€Jordan,€wasÏconvicted€by€a€Davidson€County€jury€of€one€(1)€count€of€vehicular€homicide,€aÏClass€C€felony;€two€(2)€counts€of€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon,ÏClass€E€felonies;€three€(3)€counts€of€reckless€aggravated€assault,€Class€DÏfelonies;€and€one€(1)€count€of€intentional€or€knowing€aggravated€assault,€aÏClass€C€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€defendant€as€a€Range€II€offender€toÏten€(10)€years€for€vehicular€homicide,€two€(2)€years€for€each€count€of€recklessÏendangerment,€eight€(8)€years€for€each€count€of€reckless€aggravated€assault,Ïand€ten€(10)€years€for€intentional€or€knowing€aggravated€assault.€€The€trial€courtÏordered€that€the€sentences€run€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€forty„eight€(48)€years.Ìà àOn€appeal,€defendant€presents€five€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motionÏto€sever;ÌÌà8 à(2)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€findings€of€guilt€forÏboth€counts€of€reckless€endangerment;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€violated€the€defendantððs€due€processÏrights€and€rights€against€double€jeopardy€by€allowing€separateÏconvictions€for€reckless€endangerment€and€aggravated€assault;ÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€the€parole€eligibility€jury€instruction€wasÏunconstitutional;€andÌÌà8 à(5)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€excessive€andÏconsecutive€sentences.ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÌà àA€few€minutes€after€midnight€on€July€25,€1995,€Sergeant€Scott€RobinsonÏsaw€the€defendant€driving€around€the€parking€lot€at€the€Holiday€Inn€Vanderbilt€inÏNashville.€€The€officer€said€the€defendantððs€older€model€car€seemed€out€of€placeÏat€the€ð ðhigh„dollarðð€hotel.€€Scott€checked€the€license€tag€number€with€theÏdispatcher,€and€the€tag€was€registered€to€a€newer€model€rental€car.€€RobinsonÏfollowed€the€defendant€at€a€safe€distance,€but€did€not€signal€the€defendant€toÏpull€over€because€he€was€waiting€for€ð ðback„up.ðð€€The€defendant€led€the€officerÏon€and€off€the€interstate,€then€stopped€at€Jefferson€Street,€jumped€out€of€his€car,Ïapproached€the€officer,€and€demanded€to€know€why€the€officer€was€followingÏhim.€The€officer€told€the€defendant€to€return€to€his€car.€€The€defendant€enteredÏhis€car€and€took€off€at€a€high€rate€of€speed.Ìà àThe€officer€followed€the€defendant.€€Near€an€intersection,€the€defendantÏmade€a€U„turn€and€drove€his€car€directly€at€Sgt.€Robinson.€€Robinson€took€anÏevasive€maneuver€to€avoid€colliding€with€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€laterÏturned€off€his€headlights€in€a€residential€neighborhood€and€continued€to€drive€atÏa€high€rate€of€speed.€€Sgt.€Robinson€decided€to€end€the€pursuit€because€the€twoÏmen€had€been€traveling€at€speeds€between€70€and€80€mph,€and€the€defendantÏwas€driving€with€his€lights€off€in€a€residential€neighborhood.€€The€defendant€wasÏnot€apprehended.€Ìà àFour€days€later€on€July€29,€1995,€Officer€Allen€Finchum€was€patrolling€inÍapproximately€the€same€area€where€Robinsonððs€pursuit€had€occurred€severalÏdays€before.€€Finchum€was€following€another€officer,€Dhana€Jones,€who€was€inÏa€patrol€car€several€car€lengths€ahead€of€him.€€As€Finchum€approached€anÏintersection,€the€defendant€pulled€out€in€front€of€him.€€Finchum€had€to€swerve€toÏavoid€hitting€the€defendant.€€Finchum€engaged€his€blue€lights€and€stopped€theÏdefendant.€€Officer€Jones€turned€her€vehicle€around€to€assist€Officer€Finchum.€ÏThe€defendant€exited€his€car€and€approached€Finchumððs€patrol€car.€€HeÏaccused€the€officer€of€speeding€and€began€arguing€with€him.€€When€defendantÏtold€the€officer€he€did€not€have€any€identification€on€him,€the€officer€told€him€toÏreturn€to€his€car€and€look€for€identification.Ìà àThe€officer€asked€the€police€dispatcher€to€check€the€license€tag€numberÏon€the€defendantððs€car,€but€no€information€was€available€for€the€numberÏprovided.€€When€the€officer€approached€the€defendantððs€car,€he€asked€theÏdefendant€to€step€out€of€the€car.€€The€defendant€started€the€ignition€and€droveÏaway€with€the€officer€clinging€on€to€the€vehicle€for€a€brief€time€before€he€fell€off.€ÏOfficers€Finchum€and€Jones€got€into€their€respective€vehicles€and€followed€inÏpursuit€of€defendant.€€Defendant€continued€driving€through€a€residential€area,Ïignoring€stop€signs.€€At€one€intersection€the€defendant€made€a€U„turn€and€droveÏhis€car€towards€the€officers€who€had€to€take€evasive€measures€to€avoid€aÏcollision.€€At€another€intersection,€the€defendant€went€around€a€car€stopped€at€aÏtraffic€light€and€continued€driving.Ìà àDefendantððs€car€eventually€collided€at€an€intersection€with€a€vehicleÏdriven€by€Hattie€Gray.€€€Although€Officer€Finchum€testified€that€his€speed€wasÍbetween€55€and€60€mph,€he€and€Officer€Jones€were€not€able€to€catch€up€to€theÏdefendant€prior€to€the€collision.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€the€collision,€two€children€in€the€victimððs€car€were€ejected.€ÏThe€defendantððs€car€struck€a€utility€pole€which€caused€it€to€stop.€€The€street€onÏwhich€defendant€was€traveling€was€a€two„lane€street€marked€with€a€doubleÏyellow€line€to€indicate€no€passing.€€An€accident€reconstructionist€estimated€thatÏthe€defendantððs€car€was€traveling€93€mph€before€impact.Ìà àNoel€Aihie€was€driving€on€the€same€street€when€he€noticed€the€victimððsÏcar€ahead€of€him€waiting€to€make€a€left€turn€at€the€intersection.€€Aihie€looked€inÏhis€rearview€mirror€and€saw€the€defendant€coming€up€behind€him€at€a€high€rateÏof€speed.€Aihie€estimated€the€speed€was€at€least€70€mph.€€Aihie€veered€hisÏpickup€truck€to€the€right€to€get€out€of€the€defendantððs€way.€The€defendant€wentÏinto€the€wrong€lane€to€go€around€Aihie€just€as€the€victimððs€car€made€a€left€turn.ÏThe€defendantððs€car€struck€the€victimððs€car€slightly€behind€the€driverððs€side.Ìà àGray€was€hospitalized€for€two€weeks;€she€was€in€a€coma€for€seven€daysÏand€sustained€broken€ribs,€a€broken€pelvis,€crushed€ankles,€a€collapsed€lung,Ïand€an€injury€to€the€head.€€Her€five„year„old€daughter,€Ashley€Gray,€died€from€aÏskull€fracture€after€being€ejected€from€the€car.€€Another€daughter,€JasmineÏDartis,€then€7€months€old,€was€also€ejected€from€the€car.€€She€sustained€a€headÏinjury,€a€broken€leg€and€abrasions€to€the€face€and€arms.€€Also€injured€wasÏJames€Gray,€age€10,€who€was€seated€in€the€back€seat€behind€his€mother.€€HeÏsustained€a€head€injury€and€leg€injury€and€underwent€rehabilitation€for€twoÏmonths.Ìà àOfficers€Finchum€and€Jones€apprehended€the€defendant€as€he€crawledÏfrom€his€vehicle€which€was€on€fire.€€He€told€the€officers€they€had€the€wrongÏperson.€€At€the€hospital,€he€told€authorities€his€name€was€Anthony€Jordan.Ìà àThe€defendant€did€not€present€any€proof€at€trial.Ì€Ìà@ àò òòòSEVERANCE€OF€OFFENSESóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€his€pretrialÏmotion€for€severance€of€Counts€7€and€8€from€Counts€1€through€6.€€Counts€7€andÏ8€charged€reckless€endangerment€and€aggravated€assault€originating€from€theÏpolice€pursuit€on€July€25,€1995,€while€the€remaining€counts€resulted€from€theÏpolice€pursuit€and€collision€on€July€29,€1995.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àCounts€1€through€8€of€the€indictment€were€joined€permissively€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(b).€The€indictment€included:ÌÓÓà àCount€1:à8 àSecond€degree€murder€(for€the€death€ofÏAshley€Gray,€July€29,€1995)ÌÌà àCount€2:à8 àVehicular€homicide€(for€the€death€ofÏAshley€Gray,€July€29,€1995)ÌÌà àCount€3:à8 àReckless€endangerment€(endangeringÏthe€public€at€large,€July€29,€1995)ÌÌà àCount€4:à8 àAggravated€assault€(causing€bodilyÏinjury€to€Hattie€Gray€with€a€deadlyÏweapon,€a€car,€July€29,€1995)ÌÌà àCount€5:à8 àAggravated€assault€(causing€bodilyÏinjury€to€James€Gray€with€a€deadlyÍweapon,€a€car,€July€29,€1995)ÌÌà àCount€6:à8 àAggravated€assault€(causing€bodilyÏinjury€to€Jasmine€Dartis€with€a€deadlyÏweapon,€a€car,€July€29,€1995)Ì€Ìà àCount€7:à8 àReckless€endangerment€(endangeringÏthe€public€at€large,€July€25,€1995)ÌÌà àCount€8:à8 àAggravated€assault€(causing€Sgt.€ScottÏRobinson€to€fear€imminent€bodily€injuryÏwith€a€deadly€weapon,€a€car,€July€25,Ï1995).ÌÓÓÌ€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€sever€Counts€7€and€8€from€the€first€six€(6)Ïcounts.€€He€argued€that€the€offenses€from€two€separate€dates€were€not€part€of€aÏcommon€scheme€or€plan,€and€the€evidence€of€one€set€of€offenses€would€not€beÏadmissible€in€the€trial€of€the€other.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððsÏmotion.Ìà@ àò òB.Ìó óà àA€motion€for€severance€of€offenses€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€toÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€theÏexercise€of€this€discretion€unless€it€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record€that€theÏaccused€was€prejudiced€by€the€courtððs€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2dÏ631,€642€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€€Whether€€severance€should€be€granted€ð ðdependsÏupon€the€facts€and€circumstances€involved€in€the€various€crimes€charged.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Morrisóó,€788€S.W.2d€820,€822€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà àTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€for€mandatory€andÍpermissive€joinder€of€offenses€charged€in€separate€indictments.€€It€is€permissibleÏto€join€offenses€under€Rule€8(b)€ð ðif€the€offenses€constitute€parts€of€a€commonÏscheme€or€plan€or€if€they€are€of€the€same€or€similar€character.ðð€€Under€RuleÏ14(b)(1)€a€defendant€shall€have€the€right€to€severance€of€the€offenses€unless€theÏoffenses€are€(a)€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€and€(b)€the€evidence€of€oneÏwould€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,Ï943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€289€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€To€avoid€severance,€both€portions€of€the€rule€must€beÏsatisfied.€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€289.Ìà àRule€14(b)(1)€requires€the€trial€court€to€find€a€common€scheme€or€plan€toÏmeet€the€first€prong.€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€943.€€There€are€threeÏcategories€of€€common€scheme€or€plan€evidence:€(1)€distinctive€design€orÏsignature€crimes;€(2)€a€larger€continuing€plan€or€conspiracy;€and€(3)€sameÏtransaction.€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine€&€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ððÏ404.11€(3d€ed.€1995).€Ìà àPertinent€in€this€case€are€crimes€that€are€of€ð ðdistinctive€design€orÏsignature.ðð€To€fall€into€this€category,€similar€crimes€ð ðare€admissible€to€show€theÏdefendantððs€ððmodus€operandiðð€from€which€it€may€be€inferred€that€the€defendantÏprobably€committed€the€nearly€identical€crime€for€which€he€or€she€is€on€trial.ðð€€òòId.óóÏThe€modus€operandi€must€be€so€unique€and€distinctive€to€be€like€a€signature€toÏbe€probative€of€the€defendantððs€identity.€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€290.€Ìà àThe€second€prong€of€Rule€14(b)(1)€requires€that€the€evidence€of€theÏoffenses€be€admissible€at€the€trial€of€the€other.€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€943;ÍòòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ò ò€ó óEvidence€thatÏthe€accused€committed€crimes€independent€of€those€for€which€he€is€on€trial€isÏgenerally€inadmissible€because€such€evidence€lacks€relevance€and€invites€theÏfinder€of€fact€to€infer€guilt€from€propensity.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€However,Ïevidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€may€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€ÏòòId.óóò òÌó óà àIn€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985),€the€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€proof€of€other€crimes€may€be€admissible€if,€after€a€jury„outÏhearing,€the€trial€court€determines:€€(1)€the€evidence€is€relevant€to€an€issue€atÏtrial,€such€as€identity,€and€(2)€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighs€itsÏprejudicial€effect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€was€drafted€in€accordance€with€theseÏstandards.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404,€Advisory€Commission€Comments.Ìà àThis€Court€must€now€determine€whether€the€admission€of€this€evidenceÏwas€relevant€to€establish€one€of€the€exceptions€to€Rule€404(b).€Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àThe€trial€court€is€required€to€hold€a€pretrial€hearing€to€determine€theÏappropriateness€of€severance.€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€944„45.€The€courtÏmust€make€a€determination€that€the€evidence€of€one€crime€is€relevant€to€aÏmaterial€issue€in€the€trial€of€the€other.€€òòId.óó€at€945.€€The€court€must€then€considerÏwhether€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighs€any€prejudicial€effect.€ÏòòId.óóÌà à€In€this€case€the€trial€court€only€briefly€addressed€the€issue€of€severanceÏbefore€trial€and€during€the€trial.€The€trial€court€failed€to€make€a€finding€as€to€theÍrelevance€of€the€evidence.€The€trial€court€also€failed€to€weigh€the€probativeÏvalue€against€the€prejudicial€effect.€This€Court€will€complete€this€analysisÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).Ìà@ àò òD.ó óÌ€€à àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€proving€identity€andÏmotive.€€The€identity€of€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€July€25th€incidentÏwas€an€issue€at€trial.€€The€evidence€showed€that€the€defendant€was€driving€theÏsame€car€both€times.€€Sgt.€Robinson€identified€the€defendant€as€the€sameÏperson€he€followed€during€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€25th.€€RobinsonÏtestified€that€the€license€tag€displayed€on€the€defendantððs€car€was€registered€toÏa€newer€model€rental€car.€€Looking€at€a€photograph€made€at€the€situs€of€the€JulyÏ29th€collision,€he€identified€the€defendantððs€car€and€license€tag€depicted€in€theÏphotograph€as€the€same€that€he€saw€on€July€25th.Ìà àAfter€the€collision€on€July€29th,€Officer€Jones€testified€that€she€heard€theÏdefendant€tell€officers€they€did€not€have€the€right€person.€Officer€FinchumÏidentified€the€defendantððs€car€and€tag€in€a€photograph€as€the€one€he€hadÏpursued.€€Officer€Charles€Drew€testified€that€he€visited€the€defendant€in€theÏhospital.€The€defendant€identified€himself€as€ð ðAnthony€John€Jordan.ðð€€OfficerÏDrew€identified€the€defendant€as€the€same€man€he€spoke€with€in€the€hospital.Ìà àThe€evidence€of€both€police€pursuits€and€confrontations€with€officers€wasÏrelevant€to€the€issue€of€identity€because€the€defendant€told€officers€they€had€theÏwrong€person€on€July€29th€and€gave€authorities€an€alias.€€Moreover,€Sgt.ÏRobinson€was€not€able€to€apprehend€the€offender€of€the€July€25th€incident,Ímaking€the€defendantððs€identity€a€material€issue.€€Furthermore,€the€evidence€isÏalso€relevant€to€the€defendantððs€motive€for€running€from€police.Ìò òà@ àE.ó óÌà àThis€Court€must€now€weigh€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€againstÏany€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€This€Court€said€in€òòMcKnightóó:ÌÓÓà8 àFactors€in€weighing€the€probative€value€include€the€prosecutionððsÏneed€for€the€evidence,€the€likelihood€the€defendant€committed€theÏother€crimes,€and€the€degree€of€its€relevance.€The€similarity€of€theÏacts€makes€the€probative€value€particularly€significant.€ÌÌÓÓ900€S.W.2d€at€51.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€prejudicial€effect€did€not€outweigh€the€probative€value.ÏThe€evidence€was€extremely€relevant€to€show€identity.€€Moreover,€theÏprejudicial€impact€of€joining€the€offenses€was€slight,€considering€theÏoverwhelming€nature€of€the€evidence€against€defendant.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€err€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€severance.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌÔ€+Ôà àÔ€ÔThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€isÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€thatÏhe€is€guilty€of€reckless€endangerment€to€the€ð ðpublic€at€largeðð€in€Counts€3€and€7.€ÏThe€crux€of€defendantððs€argument€is€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€show€thatÏany€specific€individual€was€endangered€by€the€defendantððs€conduct.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthis€Court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€isÏsufficient€ð ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€basedÏupon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€doesÏnot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,Ï779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€forÏthose€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,Ï199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€theÏstate€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€at€835.€€ð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,Ïaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÏfavor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ðð€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Í1973).Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€theÏburden€in€this€Court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdicts€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Ï(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€aÏmatter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€at€914.Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àDefendant€contends€that€this€Court€has€held€that€a€charge€of€ð ð[r]ecklessÏendangerment€requires€that€a€specific€individual€be€placed€in€imminent€dangerÏby€the€defendantððs€reckless€acts.ðð€€The€defendant€argues€that€there€is€noÏevidence€that€ð ðany€specific€identifiable€person€or€persons€were€endangered€byÏthe€defendantððs€conduct€apart€from€the€victims€named€in€the€remaining€counts€ofÏthe€indictment.ððÌà@ àò ò1.€Statutory€Definition€of€Reckless€Endangermentó óÌà àReckless€endangerment€occurs€when€a€person€ð ðrecklessly€engages€inÏconduct€which€places€or€òòmay€placeóó€another€person€in€imminent€danger€of€deathÏor€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(a)€(emphasis€added).€ÏReckless€endangerment€is€a€Class€E€felony€when€it€is€committed€with€a€deadlyÏweapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(b).€€ð ðDeadly€weaponðð€meansÏð ð[a]nything€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€or€intended€use€is€capable€of€causingÍdeath€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(5)(B).€€AnÏautomobile€qualifies€as€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€787„88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà@ àò ò2.€€July€25th€Incidentó óÌà àRegarding€the€reckless€endangerment€charge€stemming€from€the€JulyÏ25th€incident,€the€evidence€showed€that€Sgt.€Robinson€followed€the€defendantÏfrom€a€hotel€parking€lot€near€Vanderbilt€onto€the€interstate,€off€the€interstate,€andÏinto€a€residential€neighborhood€shortly€after€midnight.€€The€defendant€stoppedÏhis€car,€approached€the€officer,€and€demanded€to€know€why€he€was€beingÏfollowed.€€When€the€officer€told€him€to€wait€in€his€car,€the€defendant€returned€toÏhis€car€and€drove€off€at€a€high€rate€of€speed.€€Sgt.€Robinson€followed€theÏdefendant€in€his€patrol€car.€€The€defendant€made€a€sharp€U„turn€and€drove€hisÏcar€in€the€direction€of€Robinsonððs€patrol€car.€€The€officer€had€to€take€evasiveÏmeasures€to€avoid€a€collision.€€The€defendant€continued€on€at€a€high€rate€ofÏspeed,€turned€off€his€headlights€to€avoid€detection€and€continued€driving€in€aÏresidential€neighborhood.€The€officer€ended€pursuit€in€the€interest€of€safety.Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Clifford€Bidwellóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9308„CR„00287,€BradleyÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€30,€1994,€at€Knoxville),€the€defendantÏwas€involved€in€a€high€speed€chase€with€a€patrol€officer€after€a€burglary.€€In€thatÏcase,€the€defendant€led€the€officer€through€stop€signs€and€ran€through€a€policeÏroadblock€in€excess€of€the€posted€speed€limit.€€This€Court€found€that€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment,Ïstating:ÌÓÓà8 àAlthough€the€state€did€not€establish€that€any€particular€person€wasÏthreatened€with€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€as€a€result€ofÏappellant's€reckless€operation€of€a€motor€vehicle,€we€find€that€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€convict€him€of€reckless€endangerment.€ÏAppellant€drove€his€automobile€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€in€aÏcongested€area€through€several€stop€signs€and€through€a€policeÏroadblock.€€òòIt€is€not€necessary€for€the€state€to€prove€that€a€particularÏindividual€was€threatened€with€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€whileÏin€the€zone€of€danger€created€by€appellant.€€It€is€sufficient€if€hisÏconduct€is€reasonably€likely€to€place€others€in€dangeróó.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Clifford€Bidwellóó,€1994€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€558€at€*2€(emphasisÏadded).Ìà àWe€find€the€reasoning€of€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòBidwellóó€to€beÏpersuasive.€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Wayne€L.€Hughesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9502„CC„00033,€Coffee€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€20,€1996,€at€Nashville)Ï(stating€that€reckless€endangerment€ð ðrequires€that€a€specific€individual€beÏplaced€in€imminent€danger€by€the€defendantððs€reckless€acts.ðð).€€The€defendantÏdrove€through€a€residential€neighborhood€at€speeds€in€excess€of€70€mph€withÏhis€headlights€turned€off€in€order€to€avoid€being€stopped€by€Sgt.€Robinson.€€OurÏreckless€endangerment€statute€includes€conduct€that€not€only€ð ðplacesðð€but€alsoÏð ðòòmay€placeóó€another€person€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodilyÏinjury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(a)€(emphasis€added).€€It€was€certainlyÏreasonable€for€the€jury€to€conclude€that€defendantððs€actions€ð ðmayðð€have€placedÏthose€in€the€residential€neighborhood€in€imminent€danger€of€serious€bodilyÏinjury€or€death.€€We,€therefore,€find€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€7.Ìà@ àò ò3.€€July€29th€Incidentó óÌà àRegarding€the€reckless€endangerment€charge€stemming€from€the€JulyÏ29th€incident,€the€evidence€showed€that€Officer€Finchum€had€to€swerve€to€avoidÏhitting€the€defendant€at€an€intersection.€€When€the€officer€stopped€theÏdefendantððs€car,€he€asked€the€defendant€to€step€out€of€his€car.€€The€defendantÏclosed€his€car€door€and€started€the€car.€€Officer€Finchum,€who€was€clinging€toÏthe€car,€eventually€fell€off€as€the€defendant€drove€away.Ìà àOfficers€Finchum€and€Jones€followed€the€defendant€in€their€cars.€ÏFinchum€said€the€area€was€a€residential/commercial€neighborhood,€andÏresidents€were€on€the€sidewalks€when€the€pursuit€occurred.€€At€one€point€duringÏthe€pursuit,€the€defendant€made€a€U„turn€in€the€street€and€drove€his€car€directlyÏat€Officer€Finchum€who€had€to€take€evasive€action€to€avoid€a€collision.€OfficerÏJones€who€was€behind€Finchum€in€her€patrol€car€also€had€to€take€evasiveÏaction€to€avoid€a€collision.Ì€à àNoel€Aihie€testified€that€he€was€coming€to€a€stop€behind€the€victimððsÏvehicle.€€Aihie€looked€in€his€rearview€mirror€and€saw€the€defendantððs€carÏspeeding€toward€him€from€behind.€Aihie€said€he€tried€to€move€his€pickup€truckÏover€to€the€right€to€get€out€of€the€way.€Ìà àThe€evidence€indicated€that€the€defendant€recklessly€endangeredÏOfficers€Finchum€and€Jones,€Aihie€and€the€pedestrians€on€the€sidewalks.€NoneÏof€these€individuals€was€the€subject€of€charges€in€the€other€counts.Ìà àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€isÏclearly€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€the€defendantÏwas€guilty€of€reckless€endangerment€from€the€July€29th€pursuit€in€Count€3€asÍwell€as€the€July€25th€pursuit€in€Count€7.€Tenn.€R.€App.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ï443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPROPRIETY€OF€ð ðDUAL€CONVICTIONSððó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏseparate€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€and€aggravated€assaultÏbecause€the€multiple€convictions€violated€double€jeopardy€and€due€processÏprotections€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€He€argues€that€ifÏthis€Court€determines€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€uphold€the€recklessÏendangerment€convictions€in€Counts€3€and€7,€separate€counts€of€aggravatedÏassault€in€Counts€4,€5,€6,€and€8€cannot€stand.Ìà@ àò òA.€€Double€Jeopardyó óÌà àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€separate€convictions€for€recklessÏendangerment€and€reckless€aggravated€assault€violate€the€principles€of€doubleÏjeopardy.€€He€argues€his€conviction€for€the€July€29th€reckless€endangerment€inÏCount€3€should€merge€with€his€convictions€for€the€July€29th€reckless€aggravatedÏassaults€in€Counts€4,€5,€and€6.€€He€similarly€argues€that€his€conviction€for€theÏJuly€25th€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€7€should€merge€with€his€convictionÏfor€the€July€25th€aggravated€assault€in€Count€8.€€The€defendant€argues€thatÏunder€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€1996),€this€Court€should€mergeÏthe€convictions.€€Defendant€contends€that€this€Court€has€held€that€the€elementsÍof€aggravated€assault€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon€include€the€elements€ofÏreckless€endangerment.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€one€act€of€recklessÏdriving,€despite€how€many€people€it€may€victimize,€does€not€transfer€intoÏseparate€or€multiple€acts.€The€defendant€relies€upon€€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903ÏS.W.2d€709,€713€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Ìà àIn€òòRamseyóó€this€Court€consolidated€multiple€counts€of€recklessÏendangerment€because€they€arose€from€a€single€act€of€driving.€903€S.W.2d€atÏ713.€€This€Court€reasoned€that€ð ðif€the€statute€prohibits€a€course€of€conduct,€asÏopposed€to€individual€acts,€then€there€can€be€only€one€(1)€conviction€evenÏthough€several€acts€constituting€the€course€of€conduct€may€be€proven.ðð€ÏòòRamseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€713.€€But€this€Court€went€on€to€say€that€it€was€ð ðnotÏfashion[ing]€a€blanket€rule€that€provides€a€defendantððs€continuous€operation€of€aÏvehicle€may€òòonlyóó€result€in€one€act€of€reckless€endangerment€under€the€statute.ððÏòòId.óóÌà à€€The€determination€of€the€double€jeopardy€issue€rests€upon€theÏfollowing:€€(1)€an€analysis€of€the€statutory€offenses;€(2)€an€analysis€of€theÏevidence€used€to€prove€the€offenses;€(3)€a€consideration€of€whether€there€wereÏmultiple€victims€or€discrete€acts;€and€(4)€a€comparison€of€the€purposes€of€theÏrespective€statutes.€€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381.€€The€evidence€in€thisÏcase€supports€convictions€for€both€reckless€endangerment€and€aggravatedÏassault€on€all€counts€because€there€were€different€victims€and€distinct€conductÏinvolved€for€each€offense.€€The€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€3€occurredÏwhen€the€defendant€drove€his€vehicle€recklessly€and€placed€Officers€FinchumÍand€Jones,€motorist€Aihie€and€pedestrians€in€danger€of€serious€bodily€injury€orÏdeath.€€The€aggravated€assaults€in€Counts€4,€5€and€6€occurred€whenÏdefendantððs€car€collided€with€the€vehicle€driven€by€Hattie€Gray,€causing€bodilyÏinjury€to€three€(3)€victims.Ìà àFurthermore,€the€reckless€endangerment€conviction€in€Count€7€occurredÏwhen€defendant€drove€at€speeds€in€excess€of€70€mph€through€a€residentialÏneighborhood€with€no€lights.€€The€aggravated€assault€in€Count€8€occurred€whenÏdefendant€drove€his€vehicle€towards€Sgt.€Robinsonððs€vehicle,€causing€Sgt.ÏRobinson€to€fear€imminent€bodily€injury.€€€Double€jeopardy€principles€are€notÏviolated€by€defendantððs€separate€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€with€aÏdeadly€weapon€and€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€under€theseÏcircumstances.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àò òB.€€Due€Processó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€separate€convictions€for€aggravatedÏassault€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€reckless€endangermentÏcommitted€with€a€deadly€weapon€violate€his€due€process€rights.€€The€defendantÏrelies€on€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà@ àò ò1.€ó óÌà àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€when€kidnapping€is€ð ðessentiallyÏincidentalðð€to€armed€robbery,€due€process€prohibits€a€conviction€for€kidnapping.ÏòòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€307.€€The€Court€determined€the€test€to€be:ÌÓÓà8 àwhether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€essentiallyÍincidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,Ïsufficient€to€support€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€orÏwhether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrantÏindependent€prosecution€and€is,€therefore,€sufficient€to€supportÏsuch€a€conviction.ÌÌÓÓ817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€The€òòAnthonyóó€court€noted€that€there€is€no€prohibition€againstÏconvictions€for€both€offenses€ð ðsimply€because€they€arise€out€of€the€sameÏepisode.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€307.€€A€court€should€instead€determine€if€there€is€a€ð ðsubstantiallyÏincreased€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€that€necessarily€presentðð€in€the€crime€ofÏrobbery.€€òòId.óó€€Defendant€is€asking€this€Court€to€draw€the€same€analogy€withÏreckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€aggravated€assault€with€aÏdeadly€weapon.Ìà àReckless€endangerment€is€generally€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€occurringÏwhen€a€person€ð ðrecklessly€engages€in€conduct€which€places€or€may€placeÏanother€person€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103.€€It€becomes€a€Class€E€felony€when€it€is€committed€withÏa€deadly€weapon.Ìà àAggravated€assault€occurs€when€an€individual€intentionally,€knowingly€orÏrecklessly€causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€another€or€uses€or€displays€a€deadlyÏweapon.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a).€€Intentional€or€knowing€aggravatedÏassault€is€a€Class€C€felony,€but€reckless€aggravated€assault€is€a€Class€D€felony.ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(d).€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€recklessÏaggravated€assault€in€Counts€4€through€6.Ìò òà@ à2.Ìó ó€€à àThe€defendantððs€conduct€created€risk€to€others€in€addition€to€thoseÍnamed€in€the€counts€for€aggravated€assault.€€Making€U„turns€in€the€street,Ïdriving€his€vehicle€toward€the€officers,€passing€a€properly€stopped€car,€andÏspeeding€through€a€populated€semi„residential€area€lend€themselves€to€theÏcharge€and€conviction€of€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€inÏCount€3.€€Although€defendant€had€the€opportunity€to€rectify€his€behavior,€heÏcontinued€his€reckless€driving€which€culminated€in€the€collision€which€killed€oneÏinnocent€victim€and€seriously€injured€three€(3)€others€as€charged€in€the€otherÏcounts.Ìà àMoreover,€on€July€25,€defendant€recklessly€drove€through€a€residentialÏneighborhood€at€an€excessive€speed€giving€rise€to€a€reckless€endangermentÏconviction€in€Count€7.€€By€driving€his€car€into€the€path€of€Sgt.€Robinsonððs€car,Ïdefendant€committed€an€aggravated€assault€in€Count€8.€€The€charges€ofÏaggravated€assault€are€not€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€recklessÏendangerment€conviction.€€The€separate€convictions€do€not€offend€due€processÏrights.Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPAROLE€ELIGIBILITY€JURY€CHARGEó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€the€ð ðTruth€inÏSentencingðð€instruction€(codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b))€andÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ð ðinstructing€the€jury€on€the€minimum€numberÏof€years€the€defendant€would€serve€before€being€eligible€for€parole.ðð€€HeÍcontends€(a)€the€statute€requiring€the€instruction€is€unconstitutionally€vague,€(b)Ïthe€statute€violates€due€process€and€deprives€the€defendant€of€a€fair€andÏimpartial€jury,€and€(c)€the€statute€is€an€unconstitutional€attempt€by€the€generalÏassembly€to€exercise€judicial€powers€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ìò òà@ àA.ó ó€ò òÌà àó óThe€state€filed€a€request€asking€the€trial€court€to€charge€the€jury€on€theÏapplicable€range€of€punishment€for€all€charges€in€the€indictment€and€the€lesserÏincluded€offenses.€The€defendant€objected.Ìà àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€jury€will€not€attempt€to€fix€any€sentence;€however,€òòyouÏmay€weigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€ofÏimprisonment.óó€The€range€of€punishment€for€the€crimes€involvedÏherein€is€as€follows€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€trial€court€then€gave€the€statutory€range€of€punishmentÏfor€€each€offense,€including€the€minimum€amount€of€time€a€person€must€serveÏbefore€reaching€the€earliest€release€eligibility€date.€€The€trial€court€furtherÏinstructed€the€jury€that€whether€a€defendant€is€actually€released€on€the€earliestÏrelease€eligibility€date€is€a€discretionary€decision€made€by€the€Board€of€Paroles.€ÏThese€instructions€were€in€accord€with€the€statutory€mandate.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)(A).Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Howard€E.€Kingóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00032,€ShelbyÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€22,€1996,€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€to€app.Ïgrantedóó€(Tenn.€March€10,€1997),€a€panel€of€this€Court€held€the€instructionÍconstitutional.× ƒ, ××  ×€€However,€in€òòState€v.€Jason€M.€Weiskopfóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9611„CR„00381,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€4,€1998,€atÏJackson),€a€panel€of€this€Court€found€that€the€parole€eligibility€charge€violatedÏthe€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€Court€said€theÏinstruction€€ð ðcontained€such€egregious€and€fundamental€error€that€it€affected€theÏfairness€and€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€proceedings.ðð€òòState€v.€Weiskopfóó,€C.C.A.ÏNo.€02C01„9611„CR„00381,€slip€op.€at€8.€The€jury€in€òòWeiskopfóó€was€told€it€couldÏweigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€just€as€in€theÏinstant€case.€This€Court€found€that€the€jury€ð ðwas€implicitly€instructed€that€theyÏcould€consider€punishment€in€determining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€theÏdefendant.€In€short,€they€were€told€they€could€consider€extraneous€informationÏthat€had€nothing€whatever€to€do€with€guilt€or€innocence€in€arriving€at€theirÏverdict.ðð€òòId.óó€€ð ðAdvising€a€jury€that€it€can€consider€punishment€allowsÏconsideration€of€extraneous€information,€not€adduced€as€proof,€that€in€no€wayÏrelates€to€their€determination€of€guilt€or€innocence.ðð€òòId.óó€at€9.€€Ìà àOnce€the€court€determined€that€the€instruction€was€unconstitutional,€theÏCourt€then€considered€whether€the€giving€of€the€instruction€was€harmless€error.ÏThe€Court€noted€that€the€evidence€was€clear€that€the€defendant€killed€the€victim.ÏThe€real€issue€for€the€jury€was€to€determine€the€degree€of€murder€(premeditatedÏfirst€degree,€second€degree,€or€voluntary€manslaughter).€The€jury€was€told€itÏcould€weigh€and€consider€this€sentencing€information.€€The€Court€was€ð ðunableÏto€conclude€that€this€information€had€no€impact€upon€the€jury€òòsince€the€primaryÏquestion€for€the€jury€in€this€case€was€the€degree€of€homicideóó.ðð€òòId.óó€at€10.Ìà àIn€a€more€recent€case,€òòState€v.€Michael€Dinkinsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9702„CR„00075,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€12,€1998,€at€Jackson),Ïa€panel€of€this€Court€held€the€ð ðTruth€in€Sentencingðð€instruction€unconstitutionalÏbecause€it€violates€Due€Process€as€secured€by€Article€1,€ðð€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€Court€next€considered€whether€the€error€in€òòDinkinsóó€wasÏharmless.€After€finding€that€the€evidence€pointed€ð ðoverwhelmingly€to€the€guilt€ofÏthe€appellantðð€and€the€evidence€went€unchallenged,€the€Court€concluded€thereÏwas€no€dispute€that€the€crime€was€committed.€The€Court€then€found€that€theÍparole€eligibility€instruction€made€no€contribution€to€the€juryððs€verdict€and€foundÏthe€error€to€be€harmless.€Slip€op.€at€10„11.Ìò òà@ àC.ó óÌ€€à àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€jury€was€instructed€as€per€the€statute€to€ð ðweighÏand€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment.ðð€€The€instructionÏviolated€the€defendantððs€rights€to€due€process€by€instructing€the€jury€it€couldÏconsider€extraneous€information€in€determining€guilt€or€innocence.€€However,Ïthis€Court€must€now€determine€whether€the€parole€eligibility€jury€instruction€wasÏharmless€error.Ìà àThe€evidence€against€the€defendant€in€this€case€was€overwhelming.€€HeÏwas€identified€by€Officers€Finchum,€Jones€and€Robinson€as€being€theÏperpetrator€of€the€crimes€committed€on€July€25€and€July€29,€1995.€€Moreover,€anÏexamination€of€the€juryððs€verdict€reveals€that€the€jury€did€not€convict€defendantÏsimply€because€of€the€minimum€amount€of€time€he€would€be€required€to€serveÏbefore€becoming€eligible€for€parole.€€Indeed,€defendant€was€convicted€of€theÏlesser€offense€of€reckless€aggravated€assault€in€Counts€4,€5€and€6€and€wasÏacquitted€of€second€degree€murder€as€charged€in€Count€1.€€Therefore,€weÏconclude€that€the€erroneous€parole€eligibility€instruction€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ÌÌò òà@ àòòSENTENCINGó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€his€sentences€are€excessive.€€The€trial€courtÍimposed€a€Range€II× ƒ/ ××  ×€sentence€of€ten€(10)€years€for€vehicular€homicide,€eight€(8)Ïyears€for€each€count€of€reckless€aggravated€assault,€ten€(10)€years€forÏintentional€or€knowing€aggravated€assault,€and€two€(2)€years€for€each€count€ofÏreckless€endangerment.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€runÏconsecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€forty„eight€(48)€years.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€on€the€recordÏwith€a€presumption€that€ð ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€theÏappeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€TheÏpresumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court€inÏsentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€whichÏare€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€311Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€toÏthe€trial€court's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€of€these€facts€is€predicated€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor€andÏappearance€when€testifying.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€considerÏ(a)€any€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€theÍpresentence€report,€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€ofÏthe€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€byÏthe€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)€the€accused's€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210;€€òòState€v.ÏScottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€theÏburden€of€establishing€that€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€atÏ169;€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€at€311.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€theÏburden€of€illustrating€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€challenges€the€use€of€four€enhancement€factors.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€applied:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€ð ðThe€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictionsÏor€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);ÌÌà8 à(2)€ð ðThe€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€.€.€.€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€great,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6);ÌÌà8 à(3)€ð ðThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÏcommunity,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8);ÌÌà8 à(4)€ð ðThe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crimeÏwhen€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(10);ÌÌà8 à(5)€ð ðThe€felony€was€committed€while€on€.€.€.€release€status€Ó ` °„X<³•X Ó.€.€.ððÏà8 àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13);€andÌÌà8 à(6)€ð ðThe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€whichÏthe€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great,ðð€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(16).ÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€also€enhanced€the€conviction€of€intentional€or€knowingÏaggravated€assault€because€the€victim€was€a€law€enforcement€officer.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(d).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.Ìà àThe€trial€court€failed€to€specify€which€enhancement€factors€applied€toÏwhich€offenses.€€Thus,€the€statutory€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€byÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€does€not€apply.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Holly€Lack€Earlsóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9612„CC„00506,€Coffee€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filedÏJanuary€16,€1998,€at€Nashville).€This€Court€will€address€each€factor€without€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.Ìà àThe€defendant€objects€to€the€use€of€factors€(10)€and€(16)€to€enhance€theÏvehicular€homicide€conviction;€the€use€of€factors€(10)€and€(16)€to€enhance€theÏreckless€aggravated€assault€convictions€and€the€conviction€for€intentional€orÏknowing€aggravated€assault;€and€the€use€of€factor€(8)€and€factor€(13)€for€allÏoffenses.€Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€does€not€object€to€the€application€of€enhancement€factorÏ(1).€€This€factor€is€appropriate€for€all€convictions.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Nor€does€the€defendantÍobject€to€application€of€factor€(6)€to€Counts€4,€5€and€6,€the€convictions€forÏreckless€aggravated€assault.Ìà@ àò òD.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€objects€to€the€use€of€factor€(8)€to€enhance€his€sentencesÏbecause€€the€presentence€report€does€not€reflect€the€defendant€previously€failedÏto€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€theÏcommunity.€The€presentence€report€indicates€the€defendant€was€sentenced€toÏserve€three€years€of€incarceration€on€May€16,€1991,€for€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€assault.€€On€November€29,€1992,€defendant€was€arrested€andÏsubsequently€convicted€on€January€5,€1993,€of€contributing€to€the€delinquencyÏof€a€minor.€€On€February€6,€1994,€defendant€was€arrested€and€convicted€onÏApril€7,€1994,€of€assault.€€Both€of€these€convictions€occurred€within€three€(3)Ïyears€of€his€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€in€1991€while€defendant€was€onÏsome€form€of€release€into€the€community.€€Furthermore,€defendant€was€onÏprobation€for€the€April€7,€1994,€assault€conviction€when€he€was€arrested€andÏsubsequently€convicted€for€traffic€offenses€committed€on€April€15€and€May€1,Ï1994.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Thus,€the€use€of€this€enhancement€factor€was€appropriate.Ìà@ àò òE.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€objects€to€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(10),€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€for€theÏvehicular€homicide€conviction.€€He€argues€this€factor€is€inherent€in€any€offenseÏinvolving€the€death€of€the€victim.Ìà àThis€Court€has€held€this€enhancement€factor€should€not€be€applied€if€theÏonly€risk€to€life€was€to€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€when€the€lives€of€other€people€are€at€riskÏdue€to€the€offense€committed€by€the€accused,€this€factor€is€applicable.€€òòState€v.ÏDockeryóó,€917€S.W.2d€258,€263€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€at€373.€€More€particularly,€this€enhancement€factor€has€been€applied€inÏvehicular€homicide€cases€when€the€accused€places€the€life€of€a€third€party€atÏrisk.€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.ÏBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741ÏS.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ìà àThere€are€reasons€which€justified€the€trial€court's€use€of€thisÏenhancement€factor€to€enhance€the€defendantððs€sentence.€The€evidenceÏshowed€the€lives€of€Officers€Finchum€and€Jones€were€at€risk€by€the€defendantððsÏdriving.€€The€life€of€Aihie€who€pulled€out€of€the€way€to€avoid€being€rear„endedÏwas€also€at€risk€as€were€the€lives€of€the€people€in€the€neighborhood.€Thus,€theÏuse€of€this€factor€was€appropriate€for€enhancing€the€sentence€for€vehicularÏhomicide.Ìà@ àò òF.ó ó€ò òÌó óà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€use€of€enhancement€factor€(10),€havingÍno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,Ïwas€inappropriate€for€the€aggravated€assault€charges€(counts€4,€5,€6,€8).€HeÏargues€this€Court€has€held€that€factor€(10)€cannot€be€applied€to€a€sentence€forÏaggravated€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€relies€on€this€Courtððs€opinion€inÏòòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ìà àThe€situation€in€òòHillóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€facts€in€this€case.€€InÏòòHillóóthe€facts€demonstrated€there€was€only€one€intended€victim;€there€was€noÏevidence€that€other€individuals€in€close€proximity€were€in€danger€of€beingÏinjured.€òòHillóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€363.€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€John€L.€Smithóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9309„CR„00308,€DavidsonÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€20,€1994,€at€Nashville),€this€Court€heldÏthat€when€the€evidence€shows€there€are€other€potential€victims€present€andÏthreatened€by€the€defendantððs€conduct,€use€of€factor€(10)€is€appropriate.€€InÏòòSmithóó,€the€defendant€fired€a€gun€into€a€restaurant€where€a€patron€was€seated€atÏthe€bar€and€a€bus€boy€was€cleaning€tables.€This€Court€found€the€trial€court€erredÏin€not€applying€this€factor.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€behind€the€wheel€of€a€car€driving€atÏexcessive€speeds€through€a€residential€neighborhood,€making€U„turns,€drivingÏhis€vehicle€toward€officers€who€were€pursuing€him,€driving€around€a€carÏproperly€stopped€at€an€intersection€and€nearly€rear„ending€a€driver€who€wasÏcoming€to€a€stop€behind€the€victim.€The€evidence€also€indicated€there€wereÏpeople€in€the€neighborhood€on€the€sidewalks€at€the€time€of€the€pursuit.€€Thus,Ïthe€application€of€this€factor€was€appropriate€for€Counts€4,€5,€and€6€stemmingÍfrom€the€July€29th€pursuit.Ìà àAs€to€Count€8,€we€find€that€the€evidence€would€also€support€theÏapplication€of€factor€(10).€€Defendant€was€driving€at€an€excessive€speed€throughÏa€residential€neighborhood.€€Certainly,€defendantððs€actions€showed€anÏindifference€to€the€high€risk€to€human€life.€€Therefore,€the€application€of€thisÏfactor€was€appropriate€for€Count€8.€Ìà@ àò òG.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(13),€theÏfelony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€bond,€was€inappropriateÏbecause€the€record€lacked€proof€the€defendant€was€on€bond€when€the€offensesÏwere€committed.€The€defendant€argues€that€the€only€ð ðevidenceðð€of€theÏdefendantððs€status€were€comments€at€the€sentencing€hearing€made€by€theÏprosecutor€who€said€the€defendant€was€ð ðon€bond€when€these€events€.€.€.Ïoccurred.ðð€The€defendant€argues€the€mere€statements€of€counsel€are€notÏenough.Ìà àThe€presentence€report€indicates€the€defendant€was€arrested€on€July€2,Ï1995,€on€charges€of€cocaine€possession,€marijuana€possession€and€criminalÏimpersonation.€€All€these€offenses€are€misdemeanors.€€Furthermore,€theÏcharges€were€dismissed€on€August€8,€1995,€after€the€July€29th€fatal€collision.€ÏBeing€on€bond€for€misdemeanor€offenses€does€not€qualify€for€enhancementÏfactor€(13).Ìà àIt€has€long€been€established€in€this€jurisdiction€that€allegations€containedÏin€pleadings€and€the€statements€made€by€counsel€do€not€constitute€evidence.ÍòòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€716€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòTrotter€v.€Stateóó,Ï508€S.W.2d€808,€809€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€As€this€Court€stated€in€òòTrotteróó,Ïð ð[w]hile€it€is€true€that€a€lawyer€is€an€officer€of€the€court,€his€[or€her]€statement€ofÏextra„judicial€facts€made€in€the€course€of€argument,€when€not€under€oath€as€aÏwitness€and€not€subject€to€cross„examination,€proves€nothing.ðð€€508€S.W.2d€atÏ809.€€Thus,€there€is€insufficient€proof€that€the€defendant€was€on€bond€for€a€felonyÏoffense€which€subsequently€resulted€in€a€felony€conviction€at€the€time€of€theÏcommission€of€these€offenses.Ìà àFor€these€reasons,€the€trial€court€inappropriately€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(13).Ìà@ àò òH.ó óÌ€à àThe€defendant€finally€contends€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(16),€thatÏthe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€was€great,€was€inappropriate€for€the€convictions€of€vehicularÏhomicide€in€Count€2€and€aggravated€assault€in€Counts€4,€5,€6,€and€8.Ì€à àThis€Court€has€consistently€held€that€this€factor€should€not€be€used€toÏenhance€a€sentence€for€vehicular€homicide.€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€atÏ82;€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€452.€€Application€of€factor€(16)€wasÏinappropriate€here.€Ìà àThis€Court€has€held€that€applying€factor€(16)€to€aggravated€assault€isÏerror€when€the€factor€is€inherent€in€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault.€òòState€v.ÏHillóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€364.€€Nonetheless,€this€Court€has€upheld€the€use€of€factorÏ(16)€when€the€facts€showed€€more€than€one€victim€was€present€when€the€actÍoccurred.€òòState€v.€Demond€R.€Barnhillóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00197,ÏWarren€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€13,€1996,€at€Nashville),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€July€22,€œ1996).›Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€showed€that€on€July€29th,€there€were€otherÏmotorists€and€pedestrians€in€the€area€when€the€defendant€sped€through€theÏneighborhood,€made€U„turns,€drove€toward€police€officers€and€improperlyÏpassed€other€motorists€who€were€stopped.€The€application€of€this€factor€forÏCounts€4,€5,€6,€was€proper.Ìà àSimilarly,€on€July€25th,€defendant€was€driving€through€a€residentialÏneighborhood€at€an€excessive€speed.€€The€potential€for€bodily€injury€toÏresidents€in€the€neighborhood€was€indeed€great.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏapplying€this€factor€to€Count€8.Ìò òœ›à@ àI.ó ó€Ìà àThe€sentencing€range€for€vehicular€homicide€under€Range€II€was€six€(6)Ïto€ten€(10)€years;€reckless€aggravated€assault€four€(4)€to€eight€(8)€years;Ïintentional€or€knowing€aggravated€assault€six€(6)€to€ten€(10)€years;€and€recklessÏendangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€two€(2)€to€four€(4)€years.€€The€defendantÏreceived€the€maximum€sentence€for€each€offense€except€recklessÏendangerment,€for€which€he€received€the€minimum€sentence.€€The€mere€factÏthat€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€enhancement€factors€does€not€mean€thatÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€his€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€òò€€€€€€€óóÏS.W.2d€òò€€€€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1998).Ìà àThis€Court€finds€under€our€power€of€òòde€novoóó€review€that€even€though€theÍtrial€court€erroneously€applied€enhancement€factors,€the€sentences€received€byÏthe€defendant€were€proper.Ìò òà@ àJ.Ìà àó óThe€defendant€next€contends€the€court€erred€by€ordering€that€hisÏsentences€be€served€consecutively€for€a€total€of€48€years.€€An€accused€may€beÏrequired€to€serve€multiple€sentences€consecutively€if€(a)€the€accused€meets€theÏcriteria€for€consecutive€sentencing€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€orÏother€applicable€rules€or€statutes,€(b)€the€effective€sentence€imposedÏreasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€crimes€committed€by€the€accused,€andÏ(c)€an€extended€period€of€incarceration€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€fromÏthe€accusedððs€future€criminal€conduct.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€In€this€case,€the€evidence€supports€consecutive€sentencing.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€primary€justification€for€imposingÏconsecutive€sentences€was€that€ð ðdefendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(4).€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€finding€by€itself€is€notÏenough€to€support€consecutive€sentencing.€€He€further€argues€that€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€not€appropriate€for€episodic€offenses.Ìà àAn€accused€qualifies€as€a€dangerous€offender€when€his€ð ðbehaviorÏindicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€[he€has]€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(4);€òòseeóó€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€€1976).€WhileÍthe€defendant€qualifies€as€a€dangerous€offender,€this€fact,€standing€alone,€willÏnot€justify€consecutive€sentencing.€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938„39;Ïòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.€1987);€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538ÏS.W.2d€at€393;€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏAs€the€Supreme€Court€said€in€òòWilkersonóó:ÌÓÓà8 àAs€previously€stated€in€this€opinion,€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÏsentences€on€an€offender€found€to€be€a€dangerous€offenderÏrequires,€in€addition€to€the€application€of€general€principles€ofÏsentencing,€the€finding€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€toÏprotect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendantÏand€that€the€consecutive€sentences€must€reasonably€relate€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed.ÌÌÓÓ905€S.W.2d€at€939.€Ìà àAt€the€time€of€sentencing€the€defendant€was€27€years€old.€€The€defendantÏhad€convictions€for€two€unspecified€traffic€offenses,€two€convictions€forÏaggravated€assault,€contributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor,€two€convictionsÏfor€drug€possession,€marijuana€possession,€reckless€driving,€and€simpleÏassault.€€His€eleven€(11)€convictions€span€a€five„year€period.Ìà àThe€defendant€also€admitted€to€a€probation€officer€that€his€last€use€ofÏcocaine€and€marijuana€was€July€29,€1995,€the€date€of€the€fatal€car€collision.€TheÏdefendant€told€the€investigating€officer€he€had€no€employment€history.€€He€couldÏnot€provide€a€legitimate€home€address.€€€Ìà à€This€Court€notes€that€given€the€defendantððs€eleven€prior€convictions€andÏthe€facts€of€this€case,€society€needs€be€protected€from€the€defendantððs€futureÏcriminal€conduct.€€Although€not€noted€by€the€trial€court,€defendant€also€qualifiesÏfor€consecutive€sentencing€because€his€ð ðrecord€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.ðð€ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€The€defendant€has€had€multiple€drug„related€convictions.€€He€also€has€had€several€traffic€offenses.€€The€reportÏindicates€that€the€defendant€had€recently€used€cocaine€and€marijuana€beforeÏdriving€on€July€29th€and€taking€the€life€of€Ashley€Gray.€€Thus,€the€recordÏestablishes€the€defendant€will€continue€to€engage€in€criminal€activity€if€releasedÏinto€society.€€His€history€of€criminal€convictions€supports€this€conclusion.€€òòSeeóóÏòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€939.Ìà àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€isÏappropriate€to€prevent€the€defendant€from€harming€other€human€beings€as€heÏdid€in€this€case.€Moreover,€the€lengths€of€the€sentences€imposed€wereÏcommensurate€with€the€crimes€the€defendant€€committed.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€presented€before€this€Court,€we€findÏno€reversible€error.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.× ƒ2 ××  ל›ÌÌÓÓœÌÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌœ(See€separate€concurring€opinion)›Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEó ó