ÿWPCI …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÃv~àvÓ^ D31 0@d AO¤Æó 0D¹ D/ý B,˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-   D H   E  še H Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌNovember€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÕAXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà0 à€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJUNE€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °†XDp”XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9608„CC„00342Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àBEDFORD€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€LEE,€JUDGE€ÌTIMOTHY€MARK€REDD,à à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(ATTEMPTED€BURGLARY)ÌÓ ` °œXÓó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òA.€JACKSON€DEARING,€IIIà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó117€South€Main€Street€à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌSuite€101ÌShelbyville,€TN€37160à à€à àà àò òPETER€M.€COUGHLANó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€MICHAEL€McCOWNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òROBERT€G.€CRIGLER€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àOne€Public€Square,€Suite€300€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àShelbyville,€TN€37160€ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€MODIFIED€IN€PARTÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEò ò€Ìó óÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Timothy€Mark€Redd,€appeals€as€of€right€following€a€juryÏtrial€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Bedford€County.€€He€was€convicted€of€attemptedÏburglary,€assault,€resisting€arrest,€and€possession€of€burglary€tools.€€He€arguesÏon€appeal€(1)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction€forÏassault,€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€merging€the€conviction€for€possessionÏof€burglary€tools€with€the€conviction€for€attempted€burglary,€(3)€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€not€merging€the€conviction€for€resisting€arrest€with€the€conviction€forÏassault,€(4)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€consecutive€sentencing,€and€(5)Ïthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€for€theÏconviction€of€attempted€burglary.€€We€affirm€the€convictions€and€sentences,€butÏmodify€the€manner€of€service.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€judgmentsÏsentencing€Defendant€in€the€following€manner:€ÌÓÓÌCount€1,€attempted€burglaryà àà0 à1€year,€9€months,€T.D.O.C.,€to€be€servedÏin€Community€Corrections€,€with€365€daysÏincarceration€in€Bedford€County€Jail,€dayÏfor€dayÌÌCount€2,€assault€à àà àà àà à11€months,€29€days,€Bedford€County€JailÌÌCount€3,€resisting€arrest€à àà à4€months,€Bedford€County€JailÌÌCount€4,€possession€of€Ìburglary€toolsà àà àà àà à9€months,€Bedford€County€JailÌÓÓÌà àThe€judgments€also€ordered€that€the€sentence€in€Count€1€(attemptedÏburglary)€is€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€sentence€in€Count€4€(possessionÏof€burglary€tools),€and€that€these€sentences€are€to€be€consecutive€to€sentencesÏimposed€in€Marshall€County€cases.€€The€sentence€imposed€for€Count€2Ï(assault)€was€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€sentence€imposed€inÏCount€3€(resisting€arrest).€€However,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€sentences€inÏCount€2€and€Count€3€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentences€imposed€inÏCount€1€and€Count€4.€€€€The€record€reflects€that€at€the€time€Defendant€wasÏsentenced€in€the€cases€involved€in€this€appeal,€he€was€serving€a€sentence€forÏMarshall€County€convictions€which€involved€9€months€incarceration.€€ÌÌà àIn€essence,€in€the€cases€presently€before€this€court,€the€trial€judge€orderedÏDefendant€to€serve€a€sentence€of€1€year,€9€months€on€Community€Corrections,Ïwhich€included€365€days€of€incarceration€in€the€Bedford€County€Jail,€to€beÏfollowed€by€a€sentence€of€incarceration€in€the€Bedford€County€Jail€for€11€months,Ï29€days€with€a€minimum€service€of€75%€of€this€sentence€prior€to€release.€€AÏliteral€reading€of€the€sentence€would€involve€the€Defendant€serving€365€days€inÏjail,€followed€by€9€months€release€in€the€Community€Corrections€program,€andÍthen€followed€by€service€of€at€least€75%€of€an€11€month,€29€day€sentence€ofÏincarceration€in€the€Bedford€County€Jail.ÌÌà@ àòòSufficiency€of€the€evidenceÌÌà àóóThe€only€conviction€for€which€Defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€the€conviction€for€assault.€€He€concedes€that€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€convict€him€of€the€remaining€three€charges€of€attempted€burglary,Ïresisting€arrest,€and€possession€of€burglary€tools.€€Defendant€argues€that€at€noÏtime€during€his€arrest€did€he€commit€any€overt€act,€other€than€an€idle€threat,€toÏplace€anyone€in€imminent€fear€of€bodily€injury.€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€theÏaccused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€isÍinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,Ï623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€thisÏcourt€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€juryÏverdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolvesÏall€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àOn€September€7,€1995,€Willard€Baker,€owner€and€manager€of€ShelbyvilleÏSupermarket,€was€working€alone€in€the€back€of€the€store€after€it€had€closed€forÏthe€day.€€He€heard€a€noise€that€sounded€like€it€was€on€the€roof,€and€it€got€louderÏas€he€followed€it€outside.€€He€walked€to€the€overhang€and€could€hear€the€noiseÏdirectly€over€his€head.€€€After€a€few€seconds,€he€walked€back€inside€the€storeÏand€called€the€police.€€The€police€arrived€about€one€minute€later€atÏapproximately€9:40€p.m.€€Baker€saw€two€or€three€cars€arrive€at€the€front€parkingÏlot€and€two€cars€arrive€in€back.€€He€pointed€towards€the€roof€where€he€heardÏthe€noise.ÌÌà àOfficer€James€Wilkerson€of€the€Shelbyville€Police€Department€arrived€atÏthe€Shelbyville€Supermarket€after€hearing€from€the€police€dispatcher€thatÏsomeone€was€attempting€to€gain€entry€to€the€store.€€He€pulled€in€toward€theÏback€of€the€building€and€was€the€first€police€officer€to€arrive.€€When€he€shinedÏhis€spotlight€onto€the€roof,€he€saw€the€Defendant€running€across€the€roofÏtowards€him.€€Wilkerson€stopped€his€car€and€ran€to€the€building.€€DefendantÏjumped€from€the€roof€area€onto€some€coolers,€and€then€jumped€down€to€aÏloading€dock€where€Wilkerson€was€standing.€€The€men€stood€within€arms€reachÏwhen€Wilkerson€ordered€Defendant€to€drop€the€black€bag€he€was€carrying€andÏdrop€to€the€ground.€€€ÌÌà àWhile€holding€the€bag€with€his€left€hand,€Defendant€stuck€his€right€hand€inÏthe€bag€and€partially€pulled€out€something.€€Wilkerson€could€only€see€part€of€theÏsmall,€black€object.€€Defendant€said€something€to€the€effect€that€ð ðwe€would€allÏdie.ðð€€Wilkerson€presumed€that€Defendant€ð ðhad€a€bomb€the€way€he€said€weÏwould€all€die.ðð€€Wilkerson€stated€that€at€the€time€he€was€in€fear€of€imminentÏbodily€injury€and€had€drawn€his€weapon.€€While€Wilkerson€repeatedly€orderedÏDefendant€to€drop€the€bag€and€get€on€the€ground,€Defendant€refused€to€complyÏand€continued€to€threaten€Wilkerson.€ÌÌà àAt€about€that€time,€Officers€Marsh,€McKee,€and€Arrington€arrived€on€theÏscene.€€Marsh€was€first,€and€he€testified€that€after€he€arrived€he€was€runningÏaround€the€building€when€he€heard€Wilkerson€asking€for€help.€€He€saw€that€theÏsubject€had€a€bag€with€his€hand€stuck€in€the€bag€and€heard€him€say€that€ð ðheÏwould€take€all€of€us€out.ðð€€McKee,€who€drove€up€as€backup€behind€the€store,Ïfirst€saw€the€Defendant€standing€between€Marsh€and€Wilkerson,€edgingÏtowards€the€open€field.€€McKee€got€out€of€the€car€and€cut€in€between€DefendantÏand€Wilkerson.€€When€McKee€approached€Defendant,€Defendant€turned€andÏtold€McKee€that€ð ðI€will€take€us€all.ðð€€At€that€time,€McKee€took€Defendantððs€handÏout€of€the€bag€and€pushed€it€aside,€then€threw€the€bag.€ÌÌà àDefendant€began€to€flee€on€foot,€but€was€caught€by€Arrington.€€€ArringtonÏhad€arrived€at€the€store€with€Marsh€in€the€front€parking€lot.€€He€had€gone€to€theÏnorthwest€corner€of€the€building€until€he€heard€an€officer€behind€the€store€requestÏassistance.€€He€ran€to€the€rear€of€the€store€and€saw€Defendant€fleeing.€ÏArrington€grabbed€Defendant€and€the€two€fell€to€the€ground€in€a€struggle.€€All€theÏofficers€at€the€scene€assisted€Arrington€as€Defendant€resisted€arrest€by€firstÏswinging€his€arms€and€then€putting€his€arms€underneath€his€body€where€theyÏcould€not€put€handcuffs€on€him.€€After€the€Defendant€was€placed€in€the€patrolÏcar,€Wilkerson€found€the€bag€Defendant€had€been€holding.€€He€checked€to€seeÍif€a€weapon€was€inside.€€Wilkerson€found€various€burglary€tools€inside€the€bagÏand€identified€these€at€trial.ÌÌà àOfficer€Wilkerson€drove€Defendant€to€the€police€station€where€ChrisÏSzaroletta,€a€police€investigator,€€was€called€in€to€take€a€statement€from€theÏDefendant.€€Szaroletta€testified€that€Defendant,€after€waiving€his€rights,Ïvoluntarily€made€a€statement€admitting€his€attempted€entry€into€the€store,€that€heÏremoved€some€screws€from€panels€on€the€storeððs€roof,€and€that€the€burglaryÏtools€belonged€to€him.€€This€statement€was€admitted€into€evidence.€€No€proofÏwas€offered€by€the€defense.ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„101(a)(2),€a€personÏcommits€assault€if€he€intentionally€or€knowingly€causes€another€to€reasonablyÏfear€imminent€bodily€injury.€€During€his€testimony,€Officer€Wilkerson€stated€thatÏthe€Defendantððs€actions€of€pulling€a€small,€black€unidentifiable€object€out€of€hisÏbag€and€threatening€that€ð ðwe€will€all€dieðð€caused€him€to€reasonably€fearÏimminent€bodily€injury.€€In€fact,€Wilkerson€was€sufficiently€concerned€for€his€safetyÏto€draw€his€weapon€as€an€attempt€at€some€form€of€self„defense.€€The€StateÏœproved›€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Defendant€pulled€an€unidentifiableÏobject€out€of€his€bag€and€threatened€Officer€Wilkerson,€and€that€WilkersonÍreasonably€feared€imminent€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilsonóó,€924€S.W.2d€648,Ï650€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€Defendantððs€act€and€Wilkersonððs€fear,€the€assaultÏstatute€requires€proof€of€criminal€intent,€or€mens€rea.€€That€criminal€intent€requiresÏthat€Defendant€acted€either€intentionally€or€knowingly.€Defendant€argues€that€hisÏovert€acts€were€only€ð ðidle€threatsðð€which€do€not€give€rise€to€intent€under€theÏmeaning€of€the€statute.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€intent€be€found€solely€from€directÏevidence€as€a€crime€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€alone.€ÏòòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€The€law€provides€thatÏmens€rea,€even€the€malicious€intent€to€kill,€can€be€inferred€from€circumstances€ofÏconduct€giving€rise€to€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€751€S.W.2d€851,€855Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€indictment€charged€that€the€Defendant€ð ðintentionally€orÏknowingly€did€cause€Officer€James€E.€Wilkerson€.€.€.€to€reasonable€fear€imminentÏbodily€injury.ðð€€A€person€acts€intentionally€ð ðwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€theÏconduct€when€it€is€the€personððs€conscious€or€objective€desire€to€engage€in€theÏconduct€or€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€€There€isÏsufficient€circumstantial€evidence€for€the€jury€in€this€case€to€have€concludedÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Defendant€acted€with€the€required€mens€reaÍwhen€he€threatened€Officer€Wilkerson.€€Upon€appellate€review,€the€State€isÏentitled€to€the€strongest€view€of€the€evidence€and€the€inference€that€DefendantÏwas€aware€that€the€threat€would€cause€Wilkerson€to€fear€imminent€bodily€injury,Ïwhich€satisfies€the€mens€rea€requirement€of€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€This€issue€has€noÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àòòMerger€Of€Convictions€ÌÌà àóóDefendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€merge€count€four,Ïpossession€of€burglary€tools,€with€count€one,€attempted€burglary.€€€He€allegesÏthat€ð ðbut€for€the€burglary€tools€in€his€possession,€the€Defendant€could€not€beÏconvicted€of€attempted€burglary.ðð€€Defendant€also€claims€that€as€the€crimes€ofÏassault,€count€two,€€and€resisting€arrest,€count€three,€both€contain€the€statutoryÏelement€of€fear,€these€two€crimes€should€merge.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„101€and€39„16„602.ÌÌà àThe€resolution€of€this€issue€requires€a€weighing€of€the€following€fourÏfactors:€ð ð(1)€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€of€the€statutory€offenses;€(2)€an€analysis,Ïguided€by€the€principles€of€òòDuchacóó,€of€the€evidence€used€to€prove€the€offenses;Ï(3)€a€consideration€of€whether€there€were€multiple€victims€or€discrete€acts;€andÏ(4)€a€comparison€of€the€purposes€of€the€respective€statutes.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,Í938€S.W.2d€373,€381€(Tenn.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòBlockburger€v.€U.S.óó,€284€U.S.€299Ï(1932);€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€òòBlockburgeróó,€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€in€sustaining€multiple€convictions€from€aÏsingle€set€of€circumstances€where€the€same€act€or€transaction€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€two€distinct€statutory€provisions,€the€test€to€be€applied€to€determineÏwhether€there€are€two€offenses€or€only€one€is€whether€each€provision€requiresÏproof€of€an€additional€fact€which€the€other€does€not.€€òòBlockburger€v.€U.S.óó,€284ÏU.S.€at€304.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ðif€the€sameÏevidence€is€not€required,€then€the€fact€that€both€charges€relate€to,€and€grow€outÏof,€one€transaction,€does€not€make€a€single€offense€where€two€are€defined€byÏthe€statutes.ðð€€òòDuchacóó,€505€S.W.2d€at€239€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„701€defines€the€offense€ofÏpossession€of€burglary€tools€as€possession€of€ð ðany€tool,€machine€or€implementÏwith€intent€to€use€the€same,€or€allow€the€same€to€be€used,€to€commit€anyÏburglary.€.€.€.ðð€€The€offense€of€burglary€is€defined€by€statute€as€when€a€person,Ïð ðwithout€the€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner,€enters€a€building€other€thanÏa€habitation€(or€any€portion€thereof)€not€open€to€the€public,€with€intent€to€commitÏa€felony,€theft€or€assault.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(1).€€ð ðA€personÏcommits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwiseÏrequired€for€the€offense€.€.€.€acts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€orÍcause€a€result€that€would€constitute€the€offense€.€.€.€and€the€conduct€constitutesÏa€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„12„101(a)(3).€€ÌÌà àThe€statutory€provisions€of€attempted€burglary€and€possession€ofÏburglary€tools€require€proof€of€at€least€one€different€element€in€each€offense;€theÏsame€evidence€is€not€required€to€prove€both€offenses;€the€offenses€involvedÏconcerned€two€discrete€acts€by€the€Defendant;€and€the€offenses€protect€differentÏinterests.€€The€trial€court€correctly€noted€that€a€person€could€commit€an€attemptedÏburglary€without€the€possession€of€burglary€tools,€and€that€not€only€didÏDefendant€possess€a€screwdriver€with€which€he€was€attempting€to€enter€theÏbuilding,€he€possessed€numerous€other€burglary€tools€which€were€introducedÏinto€evidence.€€Similarly,€the€Defendantððs€possession€of€burglary€tools€did€notÏinfer€that€he€ð ðenteredðð€a€building€for€the€purpose€of€committing€a€burglary,€onlyÏthat€the€Defendant€had€the€intent€to€commit€a€burglary.€€In€òòDuchacóó,€a€similarÏconviction€was€upheld€involving€the€offenses€of€third€degree€burglary€andÏpossession€of€burglarious€instruments.€€òòIdóó.€at€240.€€The€mere€fact€that€bothÏoffenses€grew€out€of€a€single€criminal€episode€does€not€make€them€a€singleÏcase€in€this€instance.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àCounts€two€and€three€warrant€the€same€analysis€as€above.€€A€personÏcommits€assault€who€ð ðintentionally€or€knowingly€causes€another€to€reasonablyÏfear€imminent€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(2).€€A€person€whoÏintentionally€prevents€or€obstructs€ð ðanyone€known€to€the€person€to€be€a€lawÏenforcement€officer,€or€anyone€acting€in€a€law€enforcement€officerððs€presenceÏand€at€such€officerððs€direction,€from€effecting€€a[n]€.€.€.€€arrest€.€.€.€of€any€person,Ïincluding€the€defendant,€by€using€force€against€the€law€enforcement€officer€orÏanotherðð€commits€the€offense€of€resisting€arrest.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„602(a).€€These€offenses€also€are€separate€and€distinct€offenses€which€requireÏproof€of€different€statutory€elements€and€evidence,€involve€separate€discrete€actsÏby€the€Defendant€and€have€multiple€victims€(all€of€the€arresting€officers€versusÏOfficer€Wilkerson),€and€protect€differing€interests.€€€òòSeeóó€òòBlockburgeróó,€284€U.S.€atÏ304.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌòòÌà@ àSentencingÌóóÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÍsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthe€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;Ïòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà@ àòòconsecutive€sentencingÌÌóóà àDefendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€his€sentences€to€beÏserved€consecutively.€€Upon€review€of€the€record,€it€is€evident€that€the€trial€courtÏimposed€consecutive€sentences€based€upon€the€fact€that€Defendant€committedÏthese€offenses€while€he€was€on€probation€for€offenses€he€committed€in€anotherÏcounty.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115(b)(6)€states€that€aÏdefendant€convicted€of€more€than€one€(1)€criminal€offense€can€be€ordered€by€theÏcourt€to€serve€consecutive€sentences€if€the€defendant€is€sentenced€for€anÏoffense€committed€while€on€probation.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€trial€court€found€that€an€extended€sentence€wasÏnecessary€to€restrain€the€Defendant€from€committing€other€offenses,€therebyÏprotecting€the€public€from€Defendantððs€further€criminal€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€trial€court€also€noted€thatÏthis€offense€was€serious€in€that€it€ð ðcould€have€led€to€the€injury€of€the€[police]Ïofficers.ðð€€Due€to€the€severity€of€Defendantððs€acts,€the€consecutive€sentenceÏimposed€reasonably€relates€to€his€crimes.€€òòIdóó.€at€939.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòalternative€sentencingÌÌà àóóDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serve€his€1Ïyear,€9€month€sentence€for€attempted€burglary€in€Community€Corrections€as€aÍform€of€alternative€sentencing.€€Defendant€claims€that€he€did€not€request€such€aÏform€of€sentencing,€and,€therefore,€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proof€of€entitlementÏto€alternative€sentencing.€€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€serve€a€split€sentenceÏin€Community€Corrections€of€365€days,€day€for€day,€on€his€felony€sentence€ofÏone€year€and€nine€months,€but€was€not€granted€alternative€sentencing€on€theÏmisdemeanor€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€to€be€servedÏat€the€rate€of€seventy„five€percent€(75%).ÌÌà àTrial€courts€have€the€authority€to€place€a€defendant€into€ð ðCommunityÏCorrections€program[s]€whether€there€is€a€written€application€or€not.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏEstepóó,€854€S.W.2d€124,€127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„36„106(a)(7)€explicitly€provides€that€ð ð[P]ersons€whoÏare€sentenced€to€incarceration€or€on€escape€at€the€time€of€consideration€will€notÏbe€eligible€[for€Community€Corrections].ððÌ€€Ìà àAt€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€Defendant€was€sentenced€toÏincarceration€on€the€Marshall€County€convictions.€€In€addition,€Defendant€wasÏsentenced€to€incarceration€for€the€misdemeanor€assault€in€this€case€in€BedfordÏCounty.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€was€not€eligible€to€be€sentenced€toÏCommunity€Corrections.€€ÌÌà àNevertheless,€it€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€felt€thatÏalternative€sentencing€of€split€confinement€was€the€most€appropriate€sentenceÏfor€Defendant€in€this€case.€€We€agree.€€Therefore,€even€though€Defendant€is€notÏstatutorially€eligible€to€be€placed€into€the€Community€Corrections€program,€weÏaffirm€the€length€of€the€sentences€and€the€order€of€consecutive€sentencing€as€setÏforth€by€the€trial€court,€but€modify€the€judgments€to€reflect€that€Defendant€isÏsentenced€to€serve€the€conviction€for€attempted€burglary€in€the€Bedford€CountyÏJail,€with€a€split€confinement€involving€incarceration€for€1€year,€followed€byÏprobation€for€9€months.€This€sentence€is€to€follow€and€thus€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€and€after€the€sentence€of€11€months,€29€days€in€the€BedfordÏCounty€Jail€for€the€conviction€of€assault€in€Count€2.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„306.€€The€judgments,€as€modified,€are€hereby€affirmed.€€ÌÓÓÇÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge