WPC5 h>&Q" ]8/Y,V}ECJ@?@sDS5a焥4[1[?&ct2bP^e2r5w*A46x<#< W`g}9c =nbawΙMW/[@\F=hX ?v-9 -7 Å&0ƟѾtRg#Po2?9`R΂=.J~ˏX}:_P'L< gNq%2GL]]/*Vp>y|L6SL/`A&l+J62[A9P'(P T%l #D:qޅ*\c0OM^[a:񫃨>3ixb%?$\ǩOrxHw'6?^m~:҃GEM$GY@Is@:NU>D 0H 0[ 0n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0<$ 0<8% D+t% A%@ @&oJ&@ &o& %n'UNt'' 0S*+ 0+ 0, 0(8- AQ`-3- B. 0C/// 1gD/ 7/"/ 0/ B-0 B+ 151 0E1#1U:33M3(3N4 1u4 72}44b4:4^ 4w54 55 m5;651q5\  `&Times New Roman'  4Valued Gateway Client40Valued Gateway Client .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref'dxd &Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK# WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -% WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -'X(mK Z6Times New Roman Regular  ))..      '7X'X7'7  X X7B.` hp x (#XB7XX ./WGCz hx p @X@Exxxx (#(#   (#(#X X7QXX 7Q(2$ ;J!..      '$'X'X$''$'  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ ;J!..      '$'X'X$''$'  (2$ ;J!..      '$'X'X$''$'  ($*+,- C<< c ) +"..      '7X'X7'7  B.` hp x (#XB  X X7Ԅ  3  ڄ   d($     35=CIOU[a1(1)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.4 i.     (2x$ ;J!..      '$'X'X$''$'  zX$'  0  )Hairline d'Single1  d#|x(rJ$..      =ۢX=X`=ۢHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0,yAZ"Arial Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Bi) - - 0 E #=C=d#/^) N[).bk1GU 1      ( '   ;J!..      '7X'X7'7  _         0p x (#X0Q7F3L#MQhhQINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Qgg$ATNASHVILLEQԈ    H.` hp x (#X(#HAssignedonBriefsJune21,2000 > X XQQXX  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JOHNROYPOLLYX XQ  0  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMarshallCounty  " No.13700WilliamCharlesLee,TrialJudge   -  7XX  !"k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  X X7 No.M199900278CCAR3CDFiledOctober27,2000 _  -  7XX  !$k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE+ K K+2 -  X X7    Inthisdirectappeal,thedefendantarguesthathewasincorrectlysentencedasa persistent  p  offender.Weagreethatthetwentyfourhourmergerrulebarsuseofoneofhisprevious V convictionsandthereforereverseandremandfor_resentencing_Ԁasa multipleoffenderwithin < RangeII. "    Tenn.R.App.P.3,AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversed;  Remandedfor_Resentencing_   JohnEverettWilliams,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Wellesand P JerryL.Smith,JJ.,joined. 6 JohnE._Herbison_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JohnRoyPolly. R PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ToddR.Kelley,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  WilliamMichael_McCown_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and_Weakley_ԀE.(Eddie)Barnard,  AssistantDistrictAttorney,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.  3p x (#X(#3Q55' OPINION  L"" H.` hp x (#X(#H  Introduction  $h$   XThedefendant,JohnRoyPolly,appealshissentenceimposedafterajurytrialin %4!& MarshallCounty.ConvictedofCountIaggravatedburglaryandCountIIattempttocommit &"' rape,bothClassCfelonies,thedefendantreceivedfifteenyearsentences,tobeserved '#( concurrentlywitheachotherbutconsecutivelytoapriorunrelatedsentence.Henowcomplains (#) thatthesesentenceswereinerror,as,heargues,thetrialcourtimproperlyclassifiedhimasa |)$*  persistentoffender.Accordingly,heasksthisCourttoreducehissentence.Aftercareful b*%+ review,weagreethatthedefendantwassentencedasa persistentoffenderinerror.We H+&, remandfor_resentencing_ԀasaRangeII multipleoffenderwithasentencingrangebetweensix .,~'- andtenyearsforeachcount. -d(.  X -J)/ F3 FE8=ڪ=dd8 F  _  Facts    X  Asthedefendantsonlyissueinvolvesasentencingmatter,weprovidehereonlyabrief b outlineofthefacts.OnJune8,1998,thedefendantapproachedthevictimshouseandaskedto H usethetelephone.Asthevictimhandedthephonetothedefendant,whowasstandingoutside, . ~ thedefendantpushedthedooropenandgrabbedthevictim.Thedefendantcontinuedtoassault  d thevictim,andastheywerestruggling,thedefendantstatedthatheintendedtorapethevictim.  J Fortunately,thevictimmanagedtoescapebystrikingthedefendantwiththephone.  0  X XThedefendantwasarrested,charged,andultimatelyfoundguiltybyajuryofCountOne    aggravatedburglaryandCountTwoattemptedrape.Thereafter,thetrialcourtconducteda   sentencinghearingandsentencedthedefendantasa careeroffendertotwoconcurrentfifteen x  yeartermstobeservedconsecutivetoanunrelatedsentence.Thetrialcourtsimultaneously ^  attemptedtofashionanalternatesentenceintheeventtheCourtofCriminalAppealsdisagreed D  withthe careeroffenderdetermination.Inthealternatesentencethetrialcourtstatedthatif *z  thedefendantwasdeterminedtobeaRangeIII persistentoffender,thenitwouldsentencethe ` defendanttotwelveyearsontheburglaryconvictionandelevenyearsontheattemptedrape F convictiontobeservedconsecutivewitheachotherandconsecutivetotheunrelatedsentence. ,   Thedefendantthenfiledamotionforanewtrialandrequested,amongotherthings,that  thedefendantwasimproperlysentencedasa careeroffenderratherthanaRangeII multiple  offender.Afterahearingonthemotionforanewtrial,thetrialcourtagreedthatitoriginally t sentencedthedefendantasa careeroffenderimproperly.Thetrialcourtacknowledgedand Z attemptedtocorrectthiserrorbyenteringanorder.Thatorderclassifiedthedefendantasa @  persistentoffenderwithinRangeIIIandsentencedhimtofifteenyearsoneachcount &v concurrentwitheachother.Thispronouncementbythetrialcourtclearlyabandoneditsearlier  \ proclaimedalternatesentence. B  X  Analysis    X  Thedefendantssoleargumentisthathewasimproperlyclassifiedandsentencedasa    persistentoffender.Specifically,relyingonTenn.CodeAnn.4035107(b)(4),heargues p!  thathissevenforgeryconvictionsshouldonlycountasthreepriorfeloniesforsentencing V"! purposesandtherefore,thathis persistentoffenderdesignationwasinerror.Aftercareful <#" review,weagreewiththedefendantandremandforresentencing. "$r#  X0 l<`  XAtsentencing,thecourtfirstdeterminestheappropriateoffenderstatusbasedupona %>!% defendantspriorfelonyrecord.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035104.Submissionofcertified &$"& copiesofthedefendantspriorconvictionsisprimafacieevidenceofthedefendantsprior ' #' felonyrecord.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035202(a).Afterdeterminationoftheappropriate (#( status,thecourtthenappliestheappropriaterangetodeterminetheminimumandmaximumof )$) thesentenceavailable.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035104to108.A multipleoffenderis l*%*  sentencedwithinRangeII,a persistentoffenderwithinRangeIII,anda careeroffender R+&+ L# L  ( L  receivesthemaximumsentencewithinRangeIII.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035106,107,108.  й X XInthiscase,theStatefiled,first,anoticeofintenttoseekenhancedpunishmentand, b second,anamendednoticeofintenttoseekenhancedpunishment.Afterthejuryconvictedthe H defendant,theStatefollowedthroughonthisintentandarguedatthesentencinghearingthatthe . ~ defendantqualifiedasa careeroffender.Insupport,theStateintroducedcertifiedjudgments  d confirmingthatthedefendanthadbeenconvictedof:  J  X X XB+ ` hp x X(#B0 `  (1)Theft,Case#6917,MauryCounty,Offensedate071891; 0` `  0 `  (2)Forgery,Case#11843,Count14,MarshallCounty,Offensedate11992;  ` `  0 `  (3)Forgery,Case#11843,Count4,MarshallCounty,Offensedate111092;  ` `    0  (4)Forgery,Case11843,Count8,MarshallCounty,Offensedate111092;    0 `  (5)Forgery,Case#11843,Count10,MarshallCounty,Offensedate111092;x ` `  0 `  (6)Forgery,Case#11843,Count12,MarshallCounty,Offensedate111092;^ ` `  0 `  (7)Forgery,Case#11843,Count6,MarshallCounty,Offensedate111192;andD ` `  0 `  (8)Forgery,Case#11843,Count2,MarshallCounty,Offensedate111892.*z ` `   XAlleightconvictionswereClassEfelonies. `   X  Inresponse,thedefendanttestifiedthatthechecksforgedon11992,111092,and11 , 1192wereallpassedin aboutfortyeighthours, inthesamegeneralvicinity,andwereall  checksstolenfromhisgrandfather.Oncrossexamination,theStateinquiredfurtherintothe  priorforgeryconvictions,especiallytheconvictionsinvolvingcheckspassedon11992,1110  92,and111192.Throughthisquestioning,theStateestablishedthateachofthesecheckswere t passedatdifferentstores,eachapproximatelytwomilesfromeachother,andon threedifferent Z days. @   Thetrialcourtconsideredthistestimony,heardargumentfromcounsel,andthen  \ concludedthatwhilecertainconvictionsfortheforgedchecksmaywellhaveoccurredwithin B twentyfourhoursofeachotherandwhiletheoffensescommittedon11992,111092,and11 ( 1192mayhaveoccurredallwithinfortyeighthoursofeachother,allofthoseconvictions  shouldcount,forsentencingpurposes,asseparateconvictions.Thetrialcourtreasonedthat  4035107(b)(4)explicitlyrequiresnotonlythatthemergedconvictionoccurwithintwentyfour   hoursbutalsothattheconvictionbepartofa singlecourseofconduct,andthatthe p!  defendantsconvictionsdidnotconstitutesuch. V"!   Whileweagreewiththetrialcourtthat4035107(b)(4)certainlyrequiresthatthe "$r# convictionorconvictionsbepartofa singlecourseofconduct,wecannotagreewithits %X $ subsequentconclusionthatthedefendantsforgeryconvictionson119,1110,and1111donot %>!% soqualify.Instead,wenoteseveralcommonalitiesinthecrimeswhichwouldtendtosupport &$"& theconclusionthatthevariousforgerieswere,infact,allpartofonecontinuingcourseof ' #' conduct: (#(  4 (03B! ,X !""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,>32(  1  )3   4   allthecheckswereobtainedfromthesamesource;>34݌ )$) Ќ  X ,,   ""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,52(  2  )3   4   allthecheckswerepassedinthesamemanner;55݌ l*%* Ќ  X ,,   ""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,62(  3  )3   4   allthecheckswerepassedatsimilarlocations;and67݌ R+&+ Ќ  X ,,   ""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,82(  4  )3   4   allthecheckswerepassedwithinafoursquaremilearea.89݌ 8,', Ќ  X ,,   % X ,3% -n(-  M M   M    Therefore,thisCourt,giventheuncontrovertedtestimonyofthedefendantthatthese  threedefensesoccurredwithinfortyeighthoursofeachother,concludesthatoneofthese  offensesisbarredbythetwentyfourhourmergerrule.Thus,byouranalysis,thedefendant,for | sentencingpurposes,hasfourpriorfelonies: b / /! ,X !""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,T=2(  1  )3   4   Thefton71891;T=(>݌ H Ќ  X ,,   ""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,?2(  2  )3   4   Forgeryon11992;??݌ . ~ Ќ  X ,,   ""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,@2(  3  )3   4   Forgeryon111192;and@A݌  d Ќ  X ,,   ""   ,B.` hp x (#,B  ! ,X(#!  X,B2(  4  )3   4   Forgery111892.BoC݌  J Ќ  X ,,   % X ,3=%And,thus,thedefendantisa multipleoffenderandshouldreceiveasentencewithinRangeII.  0   Whilewecometothisconclusionandmustreversethedefendantssentencing,wedo    acknowledgeboththetrialcourtsreasoningandtheStatesappellateargument.First,thetrial   courtwascorrectinaskingwhetherornotthevariousforgeryconvictionsconstituteda single x  courseofconduct.Indeed,suchisarequirementforapplicationofthetwentyfourhourmerger ^  rule.However,consistentwithStatev.Horton,880S.W.2d732(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),we D  concludethattheseforgeries,whileeachaseparatecriminaloffense,wereneverthelesspartofa *z   singlecourseofconductforsentencingpurposes.Second,weacknowledgetheproposition ` arguedbytheStateandcitedinStatev.Birchfield,No.03C019701CR00025(Tenn.Crim. F App.filedJan.6,1998,atKnoxville),thatinstanceslikethisone,wherethedefendantseeksthe , applicationofthetwentyfourhourruleandtherelevantconvictionsoccurondifferentdays,itis  thedefendantsresponsibilitytodemonstratethatthetwooffensesoccurredwithintwentyfour  hoursofeachother.Inthiscase,proofofthatfactisnotoverwhelming.Thedefendantdidnot  testifytotheexacttimeshepassedthechecks;instead,hesimplytestifiedthatthethreeoffenses t alloccurredwith fortyeighthoursofeachother.Thisproofisminimal;however,itisalso, Z theonlyproof.TheStatedidnotattempttorebutthisstatementorotherwiseimpeachthe @ defendantsestimationnordidthetrialcourtmakeanyfindingsoffactinthisregard.Therefore, &v standingaloneandunassailed,thistestimonyissufficienttoestablish,asrequiredbyBirchfield,  \ the timingoftheoffenses. B     Conclusion    X  Forthesereasons,wereversethesentencesasimposedbythetrialcourtandremandfor   furtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. p!   X h___________________________________ ' #' 6JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE