ÿWPC: Zм ¨¢÷wTªÀ‘ësèݘvBÚgʱÃ"ªwZ^Yb Ñõµ~©<–*àñµ¨ßÏøÄä'¨·’ %4”ªZ¶ŽßðN¾PW&†Ø³W(T"fírT8>êÙ& o¼uâ|A{¢rFÃ5ðv÷Ô[Ó<ŽÖT:Ñ1òÿZÉ(ÁÓ_·­J ¤£çN¦2ñ¼Í4œWõ`ìÎKù¼Ý,šÁm¬ä›#IL{Wã§ÉU)y±²¼I*_Ya¶f×CiõÚ6kV3RiÜÊ´ÿ-h„Œ¹™•1Àj_"èµwe˜WýsR¦Öh©6Ãöí¦úW÷Þ#-ffɉTWò®|šçAÄDÍ5üâ€ëAWÌOêl÷oÑ‘­kãá)y"¸õ_` øAQÉ{¼ï,âL4ú­vâé™Q*¸ö ŒUV¡Sü@GôG©Ê{jß$bc¤:B?í¢ÈPÏÆ)\@aç3ú×;CIü˜èâ *åöïšÊ¹×ŠDeãeèÞ8)~µ±¼Ö#‚­ŽÁÎkt CÕžÊÖHòåI!,?M²›>ƒhÒk@D‹“³Y s_&ëbQBÊÑC_4ûê0,uèˆn((Õ¶O›ƒéŽ”ƒ^eˆðz”{î÷uf‡b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz D‘ ÆÕ Æ› ÆaÆ' 0¤íN‘ 0D“×E×ÙU Nááááááááááááááááááááááb//////////////////////////////////// 0ë7777 B"" 0¤? D3ã D- 0KCC ASŽÆá 0¤§ 0DK A«˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»÷z2)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularûr')PU¤1t§ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ :Ý ƒR÷$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÆX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô÷ÂòXXÆÔPortions€of€the€record€refer€to€Ms.€Martin€as€Louisa,€Loulisa,€or€Lisa€Martin.€€The€record€refers€to€both€DaryelÐ ° ÐHuey€and€Daryel€Hooie.€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$§§Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó öÝ ƒR÷$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÆX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô÷ÂòXXÆÔThe€defendant€was€tried€separately€from€his€co„defendants,€Louisa€Martin€and€Daryel€Huey. (ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2÷$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X7äX»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼\J»»»ÔÑ8€(äXXdê»»d 8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ÝÝ"ìàMAY€2000€SESSIONˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XÆX»¼\JÔÌò òÔ#†¼\J»XXÆ£#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€BARRY€WATERS€ROGERSó óÐ Ò" ÐÓéÓÌÔ€XÆX»¼\JÔà@Í Í ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Giles€CountyˆÐ ø H Ðà@llìàNo.€7677€Robert€L.€Jones,€Judge€ˆÐ ä 4 ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<» ` A߈Ð ¼  ÐÌà@  ìàNo.€M1999„01358„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€15,€2000€ˆÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€Barry€Waters€Rogers,€was€indicted€for€arson,€conspiracy€to€commit€arson,€andÐ ŠÚ  Ðvandalism.€€The€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€on€the€charge€of€conspiracy€to€commit€arson€but,€onÐ vÆ  Ðthe€arson€charge,€returned€a€guilty€verdict€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€facilitation€of€arson.€Ð b² ÐAlthough€the€jury€also€returned€a€guilty€verdict€for€facilitation€of€vandalism,€the€trial€court€later€setÐ Nž Ðthat€aside.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€three€and€one„half€years€in€the€DepartmentÐ :Š Ðof€Correction,€with€probation€to€be€granted€after€the€first€year€of€service.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€theÐ &v Ðdefendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€complains€that€he€was€improperlyÐ b Ðsentenced.€€We€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð þN ÐÌò òà@! ! ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óˆÐ Ö& ÐÌòòGary€r.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ ®þ ÐOgleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð šê ÐÌÔ_ÔHershellÔ_Ô€D.€Ô_ÔKogerÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔPulaskiÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Barry€Waters€Rogers.Ð r ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Ð J š ÐMike€Bottoms,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Robert€C.€Sanders€and€Richard€H.€Ô_ÔDunavantÔ_Ô,Ð 6!†  ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð ""r! ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ æ$6 $ ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€8:30€P.M.€on€October€15,€1995,€Corporal€Randy€King€of€the€Ô_ÔPulaskiÔ_Ô€PoliceÐ ¾&"& ÐDepartment€discovered€a€fire€in€a€dental€office€owned€by€Dr.€Edward€Ô_ÔSiskÔ_Ô.€€He€saw€a€truck€parkedÐ ª'ú"' Ðapproximately€15€feet€from€the€building.€€After€contacting€the€fire€department,€Corporal€KingÐ –(æ#( Ðidentified€the€defendant׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€as€the€single€occupant€of€the€truck.€€He€also€noticed€another€individual€whoÐ ‚)Ò$) Ðappeared€to€be€hiding€near€the€building.€€The€individual€fled€the€area€on€foot€and€got€into€a€waitingÐ n*¾%* Ðcar€which€sped€away€from€the€scene.€€Because€the€defendant€had€been€drinking,€he€was€placed€underÐ Z+ª&+ý Ðarrest€for€public€intoxication.€€Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔÌà  àAbout€10€minutes€after€the€fire€department€arrived,€Officer€Melissa€Thomas€noticed€whatÐ ˆØ Ðappeared€to€be€a€slight€amount€of€gasoline€in€the€bed€of€the€defendant's€truck.€€She€swabbed€theÐ tÄ Ðliquid€with€gauze€so€it€could€be€analyzed.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àJerry€Dickey,€an€arson€investigator€with€the€Department€of€Commerce€and€Insurance,€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðnotified€of€the€fire€while€he€was€at€his€residence€in€Columbia.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€scene,Ð $ t ÐInvestigator€Dickey€found€a€melted€plastic€jug,€a€piece€of€cloth,€some€strips€of€masking€tape,€and€aÐ  ` Ðhatchet€at€the€fire's€point€of€origin.€€He€also€detected€the€odor€of€gasoline€emanating€from€the€plasticÐ ü L  Ðjug.€€Investigator€Dickey,€who€was€assisted€by€a€trained€canine,€found€the€remains€of€some€vinylÐ è 8  Ðwindow€blinds€outside€of€the€burned€building.€€When€he€inspected€the€defendant's€truck,€InvestigatorÐ Ô$  ÐDickey€discovered€a€plastic€lid€which€smelled€like€gasoline€and€appeared€to€fit€a€plastic€jug€like€theÐ À  Ðone€found€inside€the€burned€dental€office.€€He€also€found€a€partial€roll€of€the€same€type€of€maskingÐ ¬ü  Ðtape€found€inside€the€dental€office.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€the€plastic€jug,€the€towel,€and€gasolineÐ ˜è  Ðhad€been€fashioned€into€a€Molotov€cocktail€and€that€the€hatchet,€which€had€been€taped€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðcontainer,€was€used€as€a€weight€to€break€the€window.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOfficer€John€Dickey€of€the€Pulaski€Police€Department€interviewed€the€defendant€immediatelyÐ H˜ Ðfollowing€his€arrest.€€When€first€questioned,€the€defendant€denied€any€knowledge€of€or€involvementÐ 4„ Ðin€the€fire.€€When€Officer€Dickey€found€the€black€plastic€container€lid€on€the€dashboard€of€theÐ  p Ðdefendant's€truck€and€learned€of€the€tape€and€the€melted€container,€he€chose€to€interview€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€a€second€time.€€In€that€interview,€on€the€day€following€the€fire,€the€defendant€stated€thatÐ øH Ðhe€had€met€other€individuals€in€a€parking€lot,€purchased€some€gasoline,€and€set€fire€to€the€dentalÐ ä4 Ðoffice.€€The€defendant€specifically€identified€Fred€Simmons€as€one€of€the€participants.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àLater,€when€Officer€Dickey€could€not€locate€anyone€named€Fred€Simmons,€he€interviewedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€defendant€a€third€time.€€As€he€did€so,€Officer€Dickey€advised€the€defendant€that€he€was€awareÐ ”ä Ðthat€the€defendant€had€been€with€Daryel€Huey€and€Louisa€Martin.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€thenÐ €Ð Ðacknowledged€that€the€co„defendants,€Martin€and€Huey,€had€been€with€the€defendant€drinking,Ð l¼ Ðtalking,€and€driving€on€the€day€of€the€fire€when€Ms.€Martin€remarked€that€her€dentist,€Dr.€Sisk,€hadÐ X ¨ Ðrefused€to€provide€her€with€adequate€pain€medication€for€her€teeth.€€The€defendant€stated€that€HueyÐ D!” Ðwanted€to€retaliate€in€some€way€and€that€the€three€bought€some€gasoline€and€placed€it€in€a€plasticÐ 0"€  Ðcontainer.€€The€defendant,€accompanied€by€Huey,€then€drove€his€truck€to€Dr.€Sisk's€office.€€Ms.Ð #l! ÐMartin€followed€in€her€car.€€The€defendant€stated€that€Huey€used€tape€to€attach€the€hatchet€to€theÐ $X" Ðplastic€container.€€The€defendant€contended€that€when€he€became€aware€of€Huey's€intent€to€burn€theÐ ô$D # Ðoffice€building,€he€warned€him€not€to€do€so€and€did€not€believe€that€he€would€actually€follow€throughÐ à%0!$ Ðwith€the€threat.€€He€recalled€that€Huey,€as€he€left€the€truck,€directed€the€defendant€to€drive€away.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€stated€that€he€observed€Huey€walking€towards€the€dental€office€and,€moments€later,€sawÐ ¸'#& Ðflames.€€He€remembered€"seeing€a€car€take€off€through€the€four„way€stop€.€.€.€but€couldn't€tell€if€it€wasÐ ¤(ô#' ÐLouisa's."€€By€that€time,€he€was€being€questioned€by€Corporal€King.Ð ° ÐÌà  àMark€Bender,€a€criminal€investigator€with€the€Bureau€of€Alcohol,€Tobacco€&€Firearms,Ð ˆØ Ðassisted€in€the€interrogation€of€the€defendant.€€Investigator€Bender€confirmed€that€the€defendantÐ tÄ Ðswore€to€his€second€statement€wherein€he€claimed€that€someone€by€the€name€of€Fred€SimmonsÐ `° Ðcommitted€the€crime.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àJohn€McOwen,€a€forensic€chemist,€determined€that€the€window€blind€found€outside€of€theÐ $ t Ðbuilding€contained€gasoline,€as€did€the€remains€of€the€towel€and€plastic€container€wrapped€withÐ  ` Ðmasking€tape.€€He€further€determined€that€both€the€gauze€used€to€collect€the€liquid€found€in€the€bedÐ ü L  Ðof€the€defendant's€pickup€truck€and€the€black€plastic€lid€found€in€the€truck€contained€gasoline.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant's€mother,€Josephine€Rogers,€testified€for€the€state.€€She€stated€that€between€twoÐ À  Ðand€three€hours€before€the€fire,€she€saw€the€defendant€with€Huey€and€Martin.€€Ms.€Rogers€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðreturned€from€a€walk€and€saw€the€defendant€drive€away€from€her€residence.€€She€testified€that€sheÐ ˜è  Ð"almost€went€berserk€because€he€had€detached€from€them€about€six€€months€before€that."€€On€cross„Ð „Ô  Ðexamination,€Ms.€Rogers€explained€that€the€defendant€had€broken€off€his€relationship€with€the€co„Ð pÀ Ðdefendants,€implying€that€they€had€been€a€bad€influence.€€The€night€of€the€fire,€she€said,€was€his€firstÐ \¬ Ðcontact€with€them€in€months.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDr.€Edward€Sisk€did€not€know€the€defendant.€€At€trial,€he€testified€that€there€had€beenÐ  p Ðapproximately€$40,000.00€in€damage€to€his€building€and€$120,000€in€damage€to€the€contents.€€HeÐ  \ Ðtestified€that€Ms.€Martin€had€been€a€patient€at€one€time€and€had€asked€for€pain€medication€which€heÐ øH Ðthought€was€not€warranted.€€Dr.€Sisk€testified€that€she€was€upset€as€a€result€of€the€conversation€andÐ ä4 Ðthat€he€had€"let€her€go€.€.€.€as€a€patient."€€He€also€recalled€that€Huey€had€called€to€complain€about€hisÐ Ð  Ðfailure€to€prescribe€pain€medication€for€Ms.€Martin.€€Dr.€Sisk€described€Huey's€demeanor€as€"lessÐ ¼  Ðthan€desirable."€€Dr.€Sisk€also€recalled€receiving€a€phone€message€from€Carolyn€Curry,€Ms.€Martin'sÐ ¨ø Ðmother,€who€said,€"If€you€do€not€give€Lisa€six€or€eight€Loratab€7.5,€I'm€going€to€call€a€lawyer."€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€recalled€that€the€co„defendants,€Huey€andÐ l¼ ÐMartin,€had€come€by€his€residence€at€approximately€5:30€P.M.€on€the€day€of€the€fire€and€that€he€hadÐ X ¨ Ðgone€for€a€drive€with€them.€€They€had€been€drinking€both€beer€and€whiskey€before€MartinÐ D!” Ðcomplained€about€Dr.€Sisk's€failure€to€prescribe€more€pain€medication€for€her€teeth.€€The€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðrecalled€that€Martin,€who€had€been€having€pain€due€to€dental€problems,€remarked€about€Dr.€Sisk,€"IÐ #l! Ðthink€they€ought€to€suffer€like€we€do."€€Eventually,€the€three€returned€to€the€defendant's€residence.€Ð $X" ÐThe€defendant€drove€Huey€to€a€convenience€market.€€Martin€followed€in€her€vehicle.€€Huey€returnedÐ ô$D # Ðwith€an€antifreeze€container€and€asked€the€defendant€to€drive€down€the€alley€behind€Dr.€Sisk's€office.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€defendant€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€what€Huey€had€planned€and€that€Huey€told€him€to€leaveÐ Ì&"% Ðwhen€he€got€out€of€the€truck.€€The€defendant€contended€that€neither€Huey€nor€Martin€had€everÐ ¸'#& Ðmentioned€burning€Dr.€Sisk's€office.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àForty„four€years€old€and€single,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€had€never€been€married€and€hadÐ |*Ì%) Ðno€children.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€had€no€prior€criminal€record€and€had€lived€in€GilesÐ h+¸&* ÐCounty€his€entire€life€except€for€five€years€he€spent€in€Knoxville€working€at€the€University€ofÐ ° ÐTennessee€in€preventive€maintenance.€€At€the€time€of€the€fire,€the€defendant€had€been€employed€forÐ œì Ðover€five€years€as€a€forklift€operator€at€the€Sun€Drop€Bottling€Company.€€Prior€to€that,€he€had€workedÐ ˆØ Ðat€a€furniture€store€for€12€years.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€conceded€that€the€rag,€the€tape,€and€the€hatchet€used€to€make€the€MolotovÐ L œ Ðcocktail€were€already€in€his€truck.€€He€claimed€that€while€he€knew€that€Huey€planned€to€doÐ 8 ˆ Ðsomething,€he€did€not€know€specifically€what€it€was.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence,€which€was€entirely€circumstantial€from€hisÐ ü L  Ðperspective,€was€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€He€maintains€that€the€state€failed€to€proveÐ è 8  Ðthat€he€was€aware€that€his€co„defendants€intended€to€commit€the€crime€of€arson€and€that€he€hadÐ Ô$  Ðknowingly€furnished€substantial€assistance.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403€defines€facilitation€of€a€felony€as€follows:€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òCriminal€responsibility€for€facilitation€of€felony.ó óð!ð(a)€A€person€isÐ pÀ Ðcriminally€responsible€for€the€facilitation€of€a€felony€if,€knowing€thatÐ `° Ðanother€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,€but€without€the€intentÐ Lœ Ðrequired€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2),€the€personÐ 8ˆ Ðknowingly€furnishes€substantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€the€Ð $t Ðfelony.Ð`` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€The€facilitation€of€the€commission€of€a€felony€is€an€offense€of€theÐ üL Ðclass€next€below€the€felony€facilitated€by€the€person€so€charged.€Ðè8` x` x ÐÌArson€of€any€structure€other€than€a€place€of€worship€is€a€Class€C€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„Ð À Ð301(b)(1).€€€Ð ¬ü ÐÌà  àWhether€the€evidence€is€direct€or€circumstantial,€or€a€combination€of€both,€the€same€rulesÐ „Ô Ðapply.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€A€criminal€offense€may€beÐ pÀ Ðestablished€exclusively€by€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237,€241€(Tenn.Ð \ ¬ Ð1973).€€A€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÐ H!˜ Ðstate€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€proof€in€favor€of€the€state's€theory.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560Ð 4"„  ÐS.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÐ  #p! Ðthe€evidence,€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð  $\" ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€ofÐ ø$H # Ðinnocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€upon€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.Ð ä%4!$ Ð1973).€€Findings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€will€not€be€set€aside€unless€the€evidence€is€insufficientÐ Ð& "% Ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);Ð ¼' #& ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979).€€Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌà  àThe€proof€established€that€the€defendant€was€present€while€Huey,€having€expressed€an€intentÐ €*Ð%) Ðto€retaliate€against€Dr.€Sisk,€concocted€a€Molotov€cocktail.€€The€defendant€transported€Huey€to€aÐ l+¼&* Ðconvenience€market,€where€he€purchased€the€gasoline€and€placed€it€in€a€plastic€container.€€The€tapeÐ ° Ðand€hatchet,€which€were€necessary€to€construct€the€Molotov€cocktail,€came€from€the€defendant'sÐ œì Ðtruck.€€The€defendant€drove€Huey€to€the€dental€office€and€was€parked€only€a€few€feet€away€whenÐ ˆØ Ðflames€could€be€seen€coming€from€the€building.€€The€statement€that€the€defendant€made€to€policeÐ tÄ Ðconflicted€with€his€claim€at€trial€that€he€was€unaware€that€Huey€intended€to€burn€the€building.€€In€ourÐ `° Ðview,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€facilitation€of€arson.€€ThatÐ L œ Ðis,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€that€the€defendant€was€aware€that€Huey€intended€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommit€arson€and€the€defendant€knowingly€furnished€substantial€assistance€in€the€crime.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€three„€and„one„half„year€sentence€is€excessive,€basedÐ ü L  Ðupon€the€applicable€range€of€between€two€and€four€years,€and€that€he€was€entitled€to€an€alternativeÐ è 8  Ðsentence.€€He€specifically€submits€that€the€state€failed€to€overcome€his€presumptive€favorability€andÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€immediate€probation€rather€than€ordering€a€sentence€of€splitÐ À  Ðconfinement.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€theÐ „Ô  Ðduty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€uponÐ \¬ Ðthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ H˜ Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð 4„ ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€"If€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factors€or€otherwiseÐ  p Ðfails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls."€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€thatÐ øH Ðthe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencingÐ ¼  Ðhearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counselÐ ¨ø Ðrelative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigatingÐ ”ä Ðor€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;Ð l¼ ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€record€in€this€case€demonstratesÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€trial€court€made€adequate€findings€of€fact.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€or€E€felony€conviction,€the€presumptiveÐ #l! Ðsentence€is€the€minimum€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ $X" ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancement€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€may€set€theÐ ô$D # Ðsentence€above€the€minimum,€but€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€AÐ à%0!$ Ðsentence€involving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€an€assignment€of€relativeÐ Ì&"% Ðweight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€a€means€of€increasing€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ¸'#& Ð210(e).€€The€sentence€must€then€be€reduced€within€the€range€by€any€weight€assigned€to€the€mitigatingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfactors€present.€€òòId.óóÐ )à$( ÐÌà  àIn€determining€the€length€of€the€sentence,€the€trial€court€found€three€applicable€enhancementÐ h+¸&* Ðfactors€as€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)à0¸ ` x` xàThat€the€amount€of€damage€to€property€was€particularly€great;€ÐˆØ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(9)à0¸ ` x` xàThat€the€defendant€possessed€an€explosive€device€in€theÐ `° Ðcommission€of€the€offense;€and€ÐL œ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(10)à0¸ ` x` xàThat€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€theÐ $ t Ðcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Ð `¸ x¸ x ÐÌThe€trial€court€pointed€out€the€magnitude€of€the€financial€loss€incurred€by€Dr.€Sisk,€emphasized€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€Molotov€cocktail€was€constructed€in€the€defendant's€truck,€and€noted€that€the€dental€office€wasÐ Ô$  Ðlocated€in€a€row€of€buildings€that€shared€adjacent€walls€and€was€near€several€private€residences,Ð À  Ðwhich€were€at€risk€if€the€fire€had€spread.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€determined€that€there€were€three€applicable€factors€in€mitigation€as€setÐ „Ô  Ðout€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113:€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(9)à0¸ ` x` xàThe€defendant€assisted€the€authorities€in€uncovering€offensesÐ H˜ Ðcommitted€by€other€persons€or€in€detecting€or€apprehendingÐ 4„ Ðother€persons€who€had€committed€the€offenses;Ð p¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(10)à0¸ ` x` xàThe€defendant€assisted€the€authorities€in€locating€orÐ øH Ðrecovering€any€property€or€person€involved€in€the€crime;€and€Ðä4¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(13)à0¸ ` x` xàThe€defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€record.€€Ð¼ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àBecause€the€trial€court€assigned€little€weight€to€(9)€and€(10)€of€the€mitigating€factors,€itÐ ”ä Ðdetermined€that€the€enhancement€factors€outweighed€the€factors€in€mitigation€and€that€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðmerited€"a€sentence€toward€the€high€end€of€the€range."€€In€imposing€sentence,€the€trial€court€alsoÐ l¼ Ðobserved€that€the€defendant€had€not€held€regular€employment€for€more€than€a€year€and€had€not€beenÐ X ¨ Ðemployed€at€all€for€a€period€of€eight€months€between€trial€and€the€imposition€of€sentence.€€The€trialÐ D!” Ðcourt€placed€special€emphasis€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€concluded€that€the€length€andÐ 0"€  Ðthe€manner€of€the€term€was€consistent€with€the€principles€of€the€sentencing€legislation.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€was€hopeful€that€he€would€receive€a€full„Ð ô$D # Ðtime€job€at€Richland€Steel.€€He€agreed€to€serve€as€a€witness€for€the€state€in€the€trial€of€Huey€andÐ à%0!$ Ðexpressed€remorse€for€the€damage€and€suffering€caused€Dr.€Sisk.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€misapplied€enhancement€factor€(6),€that€the€amount€of€damage€to€property€was€particularlyÐ ¸'#& Ðgreat;€misapplied€factor€(9)€because€an€explosive€device€was€inherent€in€the€offense€of€arson;€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmisapplied€enhancement€factor€(10),€a€considerable€risk€to€property€and€human€life,€€because€the€fireÐ )à$( Ðdid€not€spread€and€no€one's€life€was€threatened.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€several€additionalÐ |*Ì%) Ðmitigating€factors€should€apply,€citing€in€particular€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„113(1),€(2),€(3),€(4),Ð h+¸&* Ð(11),€and€(12),€as€well€as€several€other€circumstances€which€would€fall€within€the€general€categoryÐ ° Ðauthorized€in€factor€(13).€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€denied€probation€because€of€the€seriousnessÐ tÄ Ðof€the€offense€and€the€necessity€to€prevent€crime€and€promote€respect€for€the€law.€€He€points€out€thatÐ `° Ðthere€was€no€evidence€of€deterrence€and€argues€that€he€should€have€been€granted€immediateÐ L œ Ðprobation.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€each€enhancement€factor.€€None€were€elementsÐ  ` Ðof€the€crime.€€The€damage€to€property€was€particularly€great.€€There€was€risk€of€damage€to€theÐ ü L  Ðadjoining€property€and,€possibly,€nearby€residences.€€In€classifying€the€damage€as€particularly€great,Ð è 8  Ðthe€trial€court€merely€mentioned€that€if€arson€was€graded€by€the€level€of€loss,€as€are€other€propertyÐ Ô$  Ðcrimes,€the€conviction€here,€a€Class€D€felony,€would€have€qualified€as€a€Class€B€felony.€€There€wasÐ À  Ðnothing€improper€about€that.€€Possession€of€an€explosive€was€not€an€element€of€the€crime€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðfacilitation€of€arson€and,€thus,€was€properly€applied€as€an€enhancement€factor.€€Factor€(10)€may€beÐ ˜è  Ðapplied€when€persons€other€than€the€victim€are€nearby€and€might€be€subjected€to€injury.€€òòState€v.Ð „Ô  ÐSimsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€This€court€has€specifically€found€factor€(10)Ð pÀ Ðapplicable€in€arson€cases€because€of€the€danger€to€fire€fighters,€law€enforcement€officers,€and€othersÐ \¬ Ðat€the€scene.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Aaron€Eckardóó,€No.€01C01„9610„CC„00429€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ H˜ ÐNashville,€Dec.€12,€1997);€òòState€v.€Ronald€D.€Blairóó,€No.€01C01„9406„CR„00191€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð 4„ Ðat€Nashville,€Dec.€22,€1994).€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€also€properly€rejected€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€that€theÐ øH Ðdefendant's€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€The€defendant's€claims€thatÐ ä4 Ðmitigating€factors€(2),€(3),€(4),€(11),€and€(12)€apply€is€based€upon€his€contention€that€he€wasÐ Ð  Ðintoxicated€and€merely€acquiescing€to€the€desires€of€his€friends.€€There€was,€however,€simply€noÐ ¼  Ðproof€that€the€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation,€that€grounds€existed€tending€to€excuse€hisÐ ¨ø Ðconduct,€or€that€his€role,€although€perhaps€less€culpable€than€Huey's,€was€minor.€€The€circumstancesÐ ”ä Ðof€the€offense€were€not€so€unusual€as€to€preclude€a€sustained€intent€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€toÐ €Ð Ðviolate€the€law;€in€fact,€the€necessary€preparations€for€the€crime€required€some€amount€of€time.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€had€ample€opportunity€to€reconsider€his€participation.€€Furthermore,€there€was€no€proofÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€defendant€merely€acted€under€duress€or€under€the€domination€of€Huey€or€Martin.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àFinally,€while€acceptance€of€responsibility€and€the€expression€of€remorse€may€be€a€solid€basisÐ #l! Ðfor€a€successful€rehabilitation,€there€is€no€requirement€that€either€be€included€among€the€mitigatingÐ $X" Ðfactors€set€out€in€the€catchall€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€The€claim€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant's€work€history€should€€be€a€mitigating€consideration€is€also€in€question.€€While€the€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€has€the€discretion€to€consider€a€solid€work€history€as€a€mitigating€circumstance,€it€is€notÐ Ì&"% Ðrequired€to€do€so,€especially,€as€in€this€case,€where€the€defendant€has€not€worked€for€over€a€year€sinceÐ ¸'#& Ðcommitting€the€crime.€€The€trial€court,€in€our€assessment,€acted€within€its€authority€in€imposing€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthree„year,€six„month€sentence€when€the€maximum€possible€was€four€years.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àIt€is€our€view€that€the€trial€court€also€acted€within€its€authority€in€denying€immediateÐ h+¸&* Ðprobation.€€While€granting€a€probationary€sentence€after€the€service€of€one€year,€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðdeemed€immediate€probation€as€inappropriate€due€to€the€seriousness€of€the€criminal€act.€€There€wasÐ œì Ðsubstantial€damage€to€the€dental€office€and€a€grant€of€immediate€probation€might€have€depreciatedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€egregiousness€of€the€defendant's€level€of€participation.€€By€finding€the€defendant€guilty€ofÐ tÄ Ðfacilitation€of€arson€rather€than€arson,€the€jury€afforded€some€degree€of€leniency.€€It€was,€therefore,Ð `° Ðappropriate€to€deny€immediate€probation€due€to€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€