ÿWPCß …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ mB ÆY Æ Æå Æ« Æq 7 0l? 0D« 0Jï 0T9 0^ 0hë 0rS 0|Å A©A 0@ê 0†* B° D+Í 0Kø 0C 1uÓ 0dH D3¬U>ßB)DCFU*‰ AO³äfæLv~[vÓÙ 0T¬ AO 0DO D/“ B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ $%&'D()D*+D,e-Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x6ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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  Ô $#›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial $1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌSeptember€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€rule€has€now€been€amended€to€make€sequestration€before€voir€direÏà àdiscretionary€with€the€trial€court.Ì€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ ‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 Òò òÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ќـÙÔ€2ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€341A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÓÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€ó ó€ò ò¢01C01£„9608„CR„00384ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILSON€COUNTYà àÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àHON.€€J.€O.€BOND,€JUDGEÌCHARLES€W.€SANDERSON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(Aggravated€Burglary)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àò òà à)ÌÌòòÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌCOMER€DONNELLà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€¢WALKUP£Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌÌò òKAREN€G.€CHAFFINà àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌó óAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ213€North€Cumberland€St.à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌLebanon,€TN€37087à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òTOM€P.€THOMPSON,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òH.€DOUGLAS€HALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à111€Cherry€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLebanon,€TN€37087„3609ÌÌ€ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌÌÌò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌÓÓJUDGEó óÌÌò òòòÑ€5ÑÇÑ7€6vXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àOn€November€29,€1995,€a€Wilson€County€jury€found€defendant,€Charles€W.ÏSanderson,€guilty€of€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€defendant€to€15€years€as€a€Range€III€(45%)€Persistent€Offender.€ÏDefendant€challenges€both€the€conviction€and€sentence€alleging€the€followingÏerrors:€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àà0 àà à(1)€à àthe€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€dismiss€the€indictmentÏfor€lack€of€a€preliminary€hearing€recording;€Ìà àà ࢣ(2)€à àthe€trial€courtððs€incorrect€statement€of€the€law€regardingÏà àà àà àà àcircumstantial€evidence;Ìà àà à(3)€à àthe€trial€courtððs€improper€definition€of€reasonable€doubt;€Ìà àà àà0 àà à(4)€à àthe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€request€to€exclude€witnesses€Ìà àà àà àfrom€the€courtroom€prior€to€òòvoir€direóó;€à àÌà àà à(5)€€€€€€the€failure€to€suppress€defendantððs€statement€giving€a€Ìà àà àà àfalse€name€to€the€officer;€à0 àÌà àà à(6)€à àallowing€the€indictment€in€the€jury€room;€Ìà àà à(7)€à àthe€wrongful€admission€of€a€screwdriver€into€evidence;€Ìà àà0 àà0 àà à(8)€à àimproper€final€argument€by€the€state;€Ìà àà à(9)€à àinsufficiency€of€the€evidence;€and€Ìà à€€€€€€€€€(10)€à àan€improper€sentence.ÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€€AFFIRM€€the€conviction€and€the€sentence.ÌÌÓ  Óà@ àò òòòFACTSÌÓ  Óóóó óÌÓ  Óà àHouston€Dedman,€father¢£€of€the€victim,¢£€saw€a€pick„up€truck€at€the€victimððsÏmobile€home€on€October€7,€1994,€the€date€of€the€crime.€€€While€his€wife€wasÏcalling€the€victim€at€her€workplace€and€then€911,€¢Dedman£€continued€to€watchÏfrom€his€back€porch€approximately€350€feet€away.€€He€saw€a€heavy„set,€long„haired€man€wearing€a€white€tee„shirt€and€blue€jeans€go€first€to€the€front€door€ofÏthe€trailer€and€then€€to€the€back€door.€€The€man€entered€the€mobile€home€andÏstayed€inside€five€to€ten€minutes€before€exiting€by€the€back€door.€€¢£¢£The€authoritiesÏthen€arrived€on€the€scene€and€apprehended€the€defendant€and€another€suspect.€ÏDedman€identified€the€defendant€as€the€same€person€he€saw€enter€the€mobileÏhome.€€Defendantððs€fingerprints€were€found€on€the€back€door€of€the€mobile€home.€€Ìà àLieutenant€Kenny€Burns€responded€to€the€911€dispatch.€€As€he€pulled€intoÏthe€driveway,€he€saw€a€truck€and€a€male€with€long€hair€standing€close€to€theÏmobile€home.€€€He€testified€that€defendant€saw€him€and€started€to€run€toward€theÏtruck.€€€At€that€point,€Burns€made€him€stop€and€lie€down€on€the€ground.€€The€manÏhad€on€blue€jeans€and€a€white€tee„shirt.€€When€asked€his€name,€the€defendantÏgave€Lt.€Burns€the€false€€name€of€ð ðChuck€¢Binkley£.ðð€€Chuck€Binkley€was€actually€aÏfemale€who€was€the€owner€of€the€truck€and€the€wife€of€the€other€personÏapprehended.€€Lt.€Burns€identified€defendant€as€the€man€he€had€apprehended.ÌÓÓÓÓà ࢣ¢£¢£¢£According€to€the€TBI€lab€report,€a€screwdriver€found€in€the€truck€could€haveÏproduced€the€pry€marks€on€the€back€door€frame,€but€there€were€not€sufficientÏidentifying€characteristics€to€show€exclusion€of€all€other€prying€devices.€€€€ÌÓÓ¢£¢£ÓÓà àThe€victim€testified€that€no€one€had€permission€to€be€on€her€property€onÏthat€date,€and€all€her€doors€had€been€locked.€€She€arrived€shortly€after€theÏapprehension€of€the€€defendant€and€before€officers€left€the€scene.€€The€chain€onÏher€back€door€had€been€broken.€€She€went€into€her€house€and€found€theÏbedroom€ð ðransackedðð€with€doors€opened€and€drawers€pulled€out.€€The€jewelryÏbox€on€the€bed€had€all€of€its€drawers€pulled€out.€€Nothing€had€been€taken.ÌÌà@ àò òòòLACK€OF€RECORDING€OF€PRELIMINARY€HEARINGóóó óÌÌà àThe€General€Sessions€Court€judgment€shows€that€defendant€was€boundÏover€on€ð ðattempt€to€commit€aggravated€burglary.ðð€€Defendant€claims€prejudicialÏerror€because€the€trial€court€refused€to€dismiss€the€indictment€based€on€theÏGeneral€Sessions€Courtððs€€failure€€to€make€a€recording€of€his€preliminary€hearingÏin€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€¢Crim£.€P.€5.1(a).€€òòButts€v.€Stateóó,€640€¢S.W.2d£€37,€38€(Tenn.Ï¢Crim£.€App.€1982),€held€that€ð ðthe€failure€to€provide€a€recording€or€its€equivalentÏmay€constitute€harmless€error.€.€.€[when]€the€trial€evidence€so€conclusivelyÏshowed€.€.€.€guilt€that€a€record€of€the€preliminary€hearing€could€not€have€aided€theÏdefense.ðð€€Defendant€claims€his€facts€justify€a€different€outcome.€€We€do€notÏagree.€€€Proof€of€guilt€was€overwhelming.€€Defendant€has€failed€to€show€anyÏprejudice.€€The€failure€to€record€the€preliminary€hearing€was€harmless€error.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòseeóó€also€òòState€v.€Bohanonóó,€745€S.W.2d€892,€896€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòTRIAL€COURT€COMMENTSóóÌó óÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€commenting€incorrectly€onÏthe€burden€of€proof€during€òòvoir€direóó,€and€that€the€court€erred€in€its€definition€ofÍreasonable€doubt€in€comments€made€before€òòvoir€direóó.€€Ìà@ àò òA.Ìó óà àThe€language€cited€by€defendant€is€an€effort€by€the€trial€court€during€òòvoirÏdireóó€to€illustrate€the€difference€in€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€TheÏlanguage€used€by€the€trial€judge€accurately€paraphrases€òòT.P.I.€„€Crim.óó€ðð€42.03Ï(4th€ed.€1995).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àò òB.Ìà àó óDefendant€complains€the€trial€court€erroneously€told€the€jury€€before€òòvoirÏdireóó€that:Ìò òÓÓà8 àà àó óBeyond€a€shadow€of€a€doubt€is€not€the€rule,€beyond€anyÏdoubt€is€not€the€rule.€€Itððs€simply€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ThatÏthereððs€no€other€reasonable€answer€to€it€other€than€just„„reasonableÏanswer.€€ÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€the€last€phrase€concerning€a€ð ðreasonable€answerðð€is€vague,€noÏharm€inured€to€the€defendant.€€The€statements€concerning€ð ðshadow€of€a€doubtððÏand€ð ðbeyond€any€doubtðð€are€accurate€statements€of€the€law.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòMOTION€TO€SEQUESTER€à@ àà@ àWITNESSES€PRIOR€TO€òòVOIR€DIREó óóóóóÌÓÓ€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDefense€counsel€requested€sequestration€of€the€witnesses€prior€to€òòvoirÏdireóó.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request€so€the€potential€jurors€could€determine€ifÏthey€knew€any€of€the€witnesses.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€615€providedÍthat€sequestration€was€to€be€effective€beforeòò€voir€direóó€if€requested.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€However,Ïdefendant€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€failure€to€sequesterÏprior€to€òòvoir€direóó.€€ÌThis€is€harmless€error.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€600,Ï605€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òMOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€GIVING€NAME€TO€OFFICERóóó óÌÓÓò òÌÓÓÓÓÓÓà àó óDefendant€contends€the€officerððs€request€for€defendantððs€name€shouldÏhave€been€preceded€by€òòMirandaóó€warnings€since€defendant€was€in€custody.€€AÏrequest€for€a€defendantððs€name€does€not€trigger€the€necessity€of€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings.€€òòSeeóó€òòPennsylvania€v.€Munizóó,€€496€U.S.€582,€601„602€(1990);€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€623€S.W.2d€118,€121€(Tenn.€1981).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòINDICTMENT€IN€THE€JURY€ROOMóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€jury€to€take€theÏindictment€into€the€jury€room€during€deliberations.ò ò€€ó óAs€a€matter€of€custom,€manyÏtrial€courts€allow€the€indictment€to€be€taken€to€the€jury€room;€however,€there€is€noÏexpress€legal€authority€concerning€this€custom.€€Raybin,€òòTennessee€CriminalÏPractice€and€Procedureóó,€ðð€31.14€(1985).€€We€see€no€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€ÍThe€indictment€was€read€to€the€jury€at€the€beginning€of€trial.€€The€trial€judgeÏproperly€instructed€the€jury€that€the€indictment€was€not€evidence€against€theÏdefendant€and€could€not€create€any€inference€of€guilt.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÌÓÓÓÓà@ àòòADMISSION€OF€SCREWDRIVER€INTO€EVIDENCEÌó óóóÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€about€theÏscrewdriver€found€in€the€vehicle.€€Even€though€the€scientific€testing€was€notÏconclusive,€the€screwdriver€was€found€in€a€place€that,€coupled€with€trialÏtestimony,€would€allow€an€inference€that€it€was€a€tool€used€to€pry€the€door€of€theÏresidence.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€reflect€that€its€probative€value€wasÏoutweighed€by€its€prejudice€to€defendant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòà@ àò òPROSECUTORððS€CLOSING€ARGUMENTó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€complains€of€the€following€argument€made€by€the€prosecutor€inÏfinal€argument:ÌÓÓà8 àà àHe€[defense€counsel]€wants€you€to€say,€if€he€was€in€there,€heÏwas€just€doing€trespass,€just€little€ole€misdemeanor€trespass€is€whatÏhe€was€doing.€€Convict€him€of€that.€€You€know,€bring€it€down€toÏtrespass.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant€did€not€request€the€range€of€punishment€charge€and€claimsÏthat€the€mention€of€ð ðmisdemeanorðð€constituted€prejudicial€conduct.€€The€State€didÏnot€advise€the€jury€of€the€range€of€punishment.€€We€find€nothing€improper€inÍtelling€the€jury€that€a€particular€offense€is€a€misdemeanor€or€a€felony.€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.Ìòòò òÌà@ àSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€justify€the€guilty€finding.€ÏIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€NorÏmay€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,Ï859€(1956).€€€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€stateððsÏwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÏOn€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÏand€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòIdóó.€ÏThis€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilty€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏunless€the€defendant€demonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€theÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€forÏa€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòStateÏv.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€is€theÏappellate€courtððs€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€theseÏstandards,€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);ÍòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ìà àThe€evidence€was€clearly€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction€of€aggravatedÏburglary.€€The€defendant€was€seen€unlawfully€entering€and€leaving€the€premisesÏand€was€apprehended€at€the€scene.€€The€premises€were€ð ðransacked;ðð€therefore,Ïthe€jury€could€conclude€there€was€an€intent€to€steal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€834,€838€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€fact€that€nothing€was€actuallyÏremoved€is€not€determinative.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSENTENCINGóóó óÌÌà àFinally,€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€a€15„yearÏsentence€to€run€consecutively€to€his€prior€sentences.€€This€Courtððs€review€of€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€isÏimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€ÏIn€conducting€our€review,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€€ðð40„35„113€and€ðð40„35„114;€and(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€hisÏown€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àIf€no€mitigating€factors€or€enhancement€factors€are€present,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€court€should€Ïstart€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€rangeÏfor€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€theÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€forÏeach€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€toÏthe€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€ÏòòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€SentencingÏCommission€Comments.€€Ìà@ àò òA.Ìó óà àIn€sentencing€the€defendant€to€the€maximum€Range€III€punishment€of€15Ïyears,€the€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€and€four€(4)€enhancement€factors.€ÏThe€applicable€enhancement€factors€found€by€the€trial€court€were:€€ÌÓÓà àà à(1)à àprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€addition€to€Ìà àà àà àthose€necessary€to€establish€Range€III€punishment€Ìà àà àà àunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);€ÌÌà àà à(2)à àprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€Ìà àà àà àconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÌà àà àà àcommunity€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8);ÌÌà àà à(3)à àthe€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€trust€whenÌà àà àà àhe€committed€this€crime€while€on€furlough€under€Ìà àà àà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15);€andÌÌà àà à(4)€à àthe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€Ìà àà àà àwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€wasÌà àà àà àgreat€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).ÌÌÓÓDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€of€the€last€threeÏenhancement€factors.€€Ìà àDefendant€concedes€he€has€prior€convictions€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€€to€establish€Range€III€punishment.€€More€specifically,€the€defendantÏhas€been€convicted€of€second€degree€burglary€(enhanced€to€a€life€sentence€asÏan€habitual€criminal),€grand€larceny€(enhanced€to€a€life€sentence€as€an€habitualÏcriminal),€three€(3)€separate€counts€of€third€degree€burglary€and€robbery€by€useÏof€a€deadly€weapon.€€Ìà àThe€proof€also€established€that€defendant€had€two€(2)€prior€paroleÏrevocations.€€Accordingly,€the€court€properly€applied€the€enhancement€factorÏrelating€to€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€on€a€three„day€furlough€whenÏthis€offense€was€committed€and,€therefore,€found€the€defendant€abused€aÏposition€of€public€trust.€€We€find€no€support€for€the€application€of€this€factor€in€theÏcontext€of€a€furlough.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Seayóó,€945€S.W.2d€755,€766€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1996)€(holding€that€this€factor€did€not€apply€to€a€defendant€who€committed€anÏoffense€while€on€probation).€€However,€committing€a€crime€while€on€furlough€for€aÏfelony€qualifies€as€€an€enhancement€factor€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13)(E).€€Furlough€is€a€type€of€release€into€the€community€under€the€indirectÏsupervision€of€the€Department€of€Correction€or€local€governmental€authority.€ÏAccordingly,€this€enhancement€factor€should€have€been€applied€instead€of€theÏpublic€trust€enhancement€factor.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€this€aggravated€burglary€was€committed€underÏcircumstances€under€which€the€potential€injury€to€the€homeowner€was€great.€€TheÏhomeowner€was€not€present€at€the€time€of€the€burglary.€€The€state€concedes€andÏwe€agree€that€this€factor€was€erroneously€applied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Averyóó,€818ÏS.W.2d€365,€369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ìà àIn€spite€of€the€misapplication€of€the€above„mentioned€enhancementÏfactors,€we€conclude€under€our€òòde€novoóó€review€that€the€maximum€15„yearÏsentence€is€appropriate€for€this€defendant.€€Ìà@ àò òB.Ìó óà àThe€trial€court€ran€this€15„year€sentence€consecutively€to€the€sentences€forÏwhich€defendant€was€on€furlough€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€defendant€was€a€professional€criminal€and€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€was€extensive.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1)€and€(2).€ÏWe€further€find€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€necessary€to€protect€the€publicÏagainst€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant€and€that€the€consecutiveÏsentences€reasonably€ÌÌrelate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ï938€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€find€no€error€in€the€sentence.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONÌóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€€AFFIRM€€the€conviction€for€aggravatedÏburglary€and€the€sentence€imposed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€òòÌóóJOE€H.€WALKER,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌ