ÿWPC: ë’’ËTp9=– õ5=(qóÅn<>RÜzù–ˆ7Ü]cutÚÒ:0ÝåËU²Ð^­8:ˆÀVlÝ>ëC„®\Ÿ gãcº’´²8ÝSlÐÞuáÖ)"îÕ¼ú›‚°vÅû¸îq­¤& ¥Fº8@«¶æœ½þ³erÄžú%-O !†ÅÙc/süÔù:ÛMÓý6©`”î¯ôfÐ.ߙȒéÝEÁÊA¶5ÒëLöÌêõüúø"ÀR§Ø–c™)yŒûÁY¿¼9ïJM;ÊùsLLÜ÷Ì_g2A@é“¡¶Üª×€rts%a¤K[ºå1à|íñrCñ ÚgD?hÑϹdxq 6áø2F  yâ äaV?®lTÜSf!iÍÚëYê ÈΫ å9(rÖN³Ås{‡r­ªŒÛ-S>„ê!ËQt;t´Š t!ûÕ¿KÍIÕ”¹›Õ±£Rì2qZ»£N¯|Í9L¦­Cº s øù+i÷j±u‹ÖÈÄ›]ã %bšôDõ»;„&¨Âø¾Ð6aàl€Z–•âÚPI@„ÿbõZJCL«V“¡iàRXÜ“ªæ¼i”Fƒ^úÖ[6Þ_@5kñ‹TüÑ}~b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U:‘ ÆË Æ‘ ÆW ÆU@ãN#%%E------------------------b//////////////////////////////////// 0ë7777 B"" 0¤? D3ã D- 0KCC ASŽÆá 0¤§ 0DK A«»‹”)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular•jW)ôV£3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2»$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿ ò»»Ô d(|3ÿh$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿh$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€SéXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îduÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼u»îîd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€November€22,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡XSéX»¼uÔÌò òÔ#†¼u»XXSé #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€VANCE€Ô_ÔSHELTONÔ_ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼uÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Greene€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„CR„270€€€€€€James€E.€Ô_ÔBecknerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„01632„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€20,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€was€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€defendant€wasÐ xÈ  Ðsentenced€to€twenty„five€years€for€rape€of€a€child€and€twelve€years€for€aggravated€sexual€battery,€toÐ d´ Ðrun€consecutively€to€each€other€and€consecutively€to€a€prior€four„year€sentence.€€In€this€appeal,€theÐ P  Ðdefendant€makes€the€following€allegations:€€(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ <Œ Ðconvictions;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€a€mistrial€due€to€a€variance€between€theÐ (x Ðindictment€and€the€state's€proof€at€trial;€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€his€prior€convictions€forÐ d Ðarson€would€be€admissible€if€he€testified;€and€(4)€his€sentences€are€excessive.€€Upon€our€review€ofÐ P Ðthe€record,€we€remand€for€modification€of€the€judgment€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€to€reflect€theÐ ì< Ðproper€date€of€the€offense,€but€affirm€the€judgments€in€all€other€respects.Ð Ø( ÐÓôÓÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ ° ÐÓ+ ÓÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼u»àXSé™#ÔÔ‡XSéX.¼uÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó,€J.,€joined.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌRoger€A.€Ô_ÔWoolseyÔ_Ô,€Greenville,€Tennessee€(at€trial);€Greg€W.€Ô_ÔEichelmanÔ_Ô,€District€Public€Defender;Ð L œ ÐMichael€A.€Ô_ÔWalcherÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€for€theÐ 8!ˆ  Ðappellant,€Vance€Ô_ÔSheltonÔ_Ô.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð ü#L# ÐC.€Berkeley€Bell,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Eric€D.€Christiansen,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ è$8 $ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓÁ ÓÌÌò òòòOPINIONó óÔ#†¼u»XXSéð #ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼uÔóóÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼u»XXSéO#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XSéX»¼uÔà  àDefendant€was€indicted€on€three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€GreeneÐ p*À%* ÐCounty€jury€of€one€count€of€rape€of€a€child€and€one€count€of€the€lesser€offense€of€aggravated€sexualÐ \+¬&+ Ðbattery,€and€acquitted€of€the€other€count€of€rape€of€a€child.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty„five€yearsÐ H,˜', Ðand€twelve€years,€respectively,€to€run€consecutively€to€each€other€and€consecutively€to€a€prior€four„Ð 4-„(-ý\ ÐÔ_Ôyear€sentence.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges:€€(1)€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;€(2)€theÐ ° Ðtrial€courtððs€failure€to€grant€a€mistrial€due€to€a€variance€in€the€proof€and€the€indictment;€(3)€the€trialÐ œì Ðcourtððs€ruling€regarding€the€admission€of€his€prior€convictions€for€arson€if€he€testified;€and€(4)€theÐ ˆØ Ðlength€of€his€sentences.€€Upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€remand€for€modification€of€the€judgmentÐ tÄ Ðfor€aggravated€sexual€battery€to€reflect€the€proper€date€of€the€offense,€but€affirm€the€judgments€inÐ `° Ðall€other€respects.€€Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òÌFACTSÐ  ` ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€stateððs€proof€revealed€that€friends€of€the€eleven„year„old€victim€reported€to€the€victimððsÐ è 8  Ðteachers€and€school€officials€that€the€victim€might€be€pregnant.€€The€victim€was€then€interviewed€byÐ Ô$  Ðschool€officials€and€a€representative€from€the€Department€of€Human€Services.€€She€told€authoritiesÐ À  Ðabout€her€sexual€activities€with€the€defendant.€€Defendant€was€the€victimððs€cousin€and€resided€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsame€house€from€time€to€time.€€During€the€investigation,€the€defendant€gave€a€tape€recordedÐ ˜è  Ðstatement€to€authorities€in€which€he€denied€any€sexual€contact€with€the€victim.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€had€digitally€penetrated€her€vagina€in€the€summer€ofÐ \¬ Ð1995€in€the€hallway€of€her€motherððs€home.€€Additionally,€she€testified€that€between€ThanksgivingÐ H˜ Ðand€Christmas€of€1995,€she€performed€oral€sex€on€the€defendant€in€the€bathroom€at€the€apartmentÐ 4„ Ðof€Randall€McGee.€€Finally,€she€testified€that€on€January€9,€1996,€she€again€performed€oral€sex€onÐ  p Ðthe€defendant€in€his€bedroom€and€that€once€the€act€was€complete,€the€defendant€asked€her€if€sheÐ  \ Ðwanted€to€have€intercourse€with€him.€€When€she€told€him€she€did€not€want€to€have€intercourse,€theÐ øH Ðvictim€testified€that€the€defendant€grabbed€her€by€the€shorts,€pushed€her€onto€the€bed,€moved€herÐ ä4 Ðshorts€to€the€side,€and€then€vaginally€penetrated€her€with€his€penis.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Peter€R.€Reardon€testified€that€his€findings€in€the€gynecological€exam€of€the€victim€wereÐ ¨ø Ðconsistent€with€vaginal/penile€penetration.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€victimððs€mother€testified€that€she€repeatedly€warned€the€defendant€that€he€should€not€beÐ l¼ Ðalone€with€the€victim.€€The€victimððs€eight„year„old€step„sister€testified€that€she€saw€the€victim€andÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendant€alone€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom€on€January€9,€1996.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThereafter,€the€defendant€presented€testimony€from€Randall€McGee€concerning€the€allegedÐ #l! Ðincident€between€Thanksgiving€and€Christmas€in€1995€in€McGeeððs€apartment.€€McGee€testified€thatÐ $X" Ðthe€victim€and€the€defendant€were€never€alone€on€the€night€in€question.€€As€to€the€alleged€incidentÐ ô$D # Ðon€January€9,€1996,€defendantððs€father€testified€that€he€never€witnessed€the€victim€and€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðalone€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€€€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àÌà  àThe€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€vaginal/penile€rape€of€the€child€occurring€onÐ ¤(ô#' ÐJanuary€9,€1996,€acquitted€the€defendant€of€all€charges€relating€to€the€alleged€incident€at€the€McGeeÐ )à$( Ðapartment,€and€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€lesser€charge€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€relatingÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€the€incident€in€the€summer€of€1995.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð h+¸&* ЇÓ  Óòòò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÐ ° ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€claims€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions€for€rape€of€a€childÐ ˆØ Ðand€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Specifically,€he€alleges€Dr.€Reardonððs€testimony€was€inconclusiveÐ tÄ Ðand€the€victimððs€trial€testimony€contradicted€her€earlier€statements€to€the€authorities.€€Additionally,Ð `° Ðhe€argues€his€pre„trial€statement€denying€any€sexual€contact€with€the€victim€should€have€been€givenÐ L œ Ðthe€same€weight€as€the€victimððs€testimony.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ‡XSéXXXSéÔà  àIn€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€juryÐ  ` Ðverdict€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ð ü L  Ð885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ è 8  Ðof€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð Ô$  Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€ofÐ À  Ðinnocence€which€the€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€thisÐ ˜è  Ðpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óóÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ \¬ Ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trierÐ H˜ Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð 4„ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ð  p Ð(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€The€weight€and€credibility€of€theÐ  \ Ðwitnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ä4 Ð1996).Ô#†XSéXXXSéÐ"#ÔÔ‡ XÞ˜ XXXSéÔÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àÔ#†XSéX X XÞ˜*#ÔÔ€XSéXXXSéÔRape€of€a€child€is€defined€as€the€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetrationðð€of€a€victim€by€a€defendantÐ ¢ò Ðwhere€the€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522(a).€€The€victimÐ ŽÞ Ðtestified€that€on€January€9,€1996,€when€she€was€eleven€years€old,€the€defendant€forcibly€had€sexualÐ zÊ Ðintercourse€with€her.€€In€addition,€Dr.€Reardon€testified€that€his€findings€in€the€examination€of€theÐ f¶ Ðvictimððs€vaginal€area€were€consistent€with€penile€penetration.€€The€jury€was€free€to€disregard€theÐ R ¢ Ðdefendantððs€pre„trial€denial€of€misconduct.€€Thus,€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€theÐ >!Ž Ðdefendant€sexually€penetrated€the€victim,€a€child€under€the€age€of€thirteen,€on€January€9,€1996.€€Ð *"z  ÐÌà  àAggravated€sexual€battery€is€defined€as€ð ðunlawful€sexual€contactðð€with€a€victim€by€theÐ $R" Ðdefendant€where€the€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð î$> # Ð504(a)(4).€€ð ðSexual€contactðð€includes€the€intentional€touching€of€the€victimððs€intimate€parts,€or€theÐ Ú%*!$ Ðintentional€touching€of€the€clothing€covering€the€immediate€area€of€the€victimððs€intimate€parts,€if€theÐ Æ&"% Ðintentional€touching€can€be€reasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€orÐ ²'#& Ðgratification.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(6).€€The€victim€testified€that€in€the€summer€of€1995,Ð ž(î#' Ðwhen€she€was€eleven€years€old,€the€defendant€placed€his€hand€down€the€bikini€bottoms€of€herÐ Š)Ú$( Ðswimsuit€and€inserted€his€finger€into€her€vagina.€€Thus,€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concludedÐ v*Æ%) Ðthe€defendant€intentionally€touched€the€victimððs€intimate€parts.€€Furthermore,€we€conclude€the€juryÐ b+²&* Ðcould€have€reasonably€found€the€defendant€committed€the€act€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€orÐ ° Ðgratification.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€both€convictions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð tÄ ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òII.€€MISTRIALÐ 8 ˆ Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€evidence€of€two€acts€ofÐ  ` Ðpenetration€on€January€9,€1996;€the€state€was€required€to€elect€in€count€one€which€act€of€penetrationÐ ü L  Ðupon€which€it€was€relying;€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€a€mistrial€due€to€a€variance€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€stateððs€proof€and€the€indictment.€€Ð Ô$  Ðà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àCount€one€of€the€indictment€alleges€ð ðunlawful€penetrationðð€of€the€victim€by€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðon€ð ðJanuary€9,€1996,ðð€and€is€not€specific€as€to€the€type€of€penetration.€€Count€two€alleges€ð ðunlawfulÐ ˜è  Ðpenetrationðð€of€the€victim€by€the€defendant€ð ðwithin€three€months€of€January€9,€1996,ðð€in€the€formÐ „Ô  Ðof€ð ðfellatio.ðð€€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars€prior€to€trial,€and€the€stateÐ pÀ Ðprovided€information€about€the€dates€and€locations€of€the€alleged€conduct€for€each€count€of€theÐ \¬ Ðindictment.€€The€state€did€not€specify€the€types€of€sexual€acts€relating€to€January€9,€1996.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€count€one,€the€victim€testified€at€trial€that€on€January€9,€1996,€she€performedÐ  p Ðoral€sex€on€the€defendant€and€was€then€vaginally€penetrated€by€the€defendant€with€his€penis.€€WithÐ  \ Ðregard€to€count€two,€the€victim€testified€that€between€Thanksgiving€and€Christmas€of€1995,€sheÐ øH Ðperformed€oral€sex€on€the€victim€at€the€apartment€of€Randall€McGee.€€ò òòòÐ ä4 ÐÌóóó óà  àAt€the€close€of€the€stateððs€proof,€the€defendant€requested€a€mistrial€arguing€that€the€juryÐ ¼  Ðimproperly€heard€testimony€about€two€different€instances€of€penetration€occurring€on€January€9,Ð ¨ø Ð1996.€€Thus,€the€defendant€alleged€the€jury€would€be€confused€as€to€which€instance€they€were€to€useÐ ”ä Ðas€the€basis€for€the€allegation€in€count€one€of€the€indictment.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€claimedÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€victimððs€testimony€could€lead€to€jury€confusion€in€differentiating€between€counts€one€andÐ l¼ Ðtwo.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€any€juror€confusion€could€be€solved€by€an€election€andÐ X ¨ Ðinstruction€limiting€count€one€of€the€indictment€to€ð ðvaginal€penetration.ðð€€The€jury€convicted€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€of€ð ðvaginal€penetrationðð€in€count€one€and€acquitted€the€defendant€in€count€two.€€€€òòò òÐ 0"€  Ðó óóóÌà  àWe€conclude€that€evidence€as€to€both€fellatio€and€vaginal€penetration€on€January€9,€1996,€wasÐ $X" Ðadmissible€under€count€one€of€the€indictment.€€Evidence€that€relates€to€sex€crimes€that€allegedlyÐ ô$D # Ðoccurred€during€the€time€period€charged€in€the€indictment€is€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried€and,Ð à%0!$ Ðtherefore,€is€admissible.€òòóó€òòState€v.€John€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1994);€òòsee€also€óóTenn.Ð Ì&"% ÐR.€Evid.€402.€€However,€the€state€must€elect€at€the€close€of€its€proof€the€particular€incident€for€whichÐ ¸'#& Ða€conviction€is€being€sought.€€òòId.€€óóAlthough€January€9,€1996,€is€one€day€and€not€a€time€periodÐ ¤(ô#' Ðincluding€more€than€one€day,€the€state€is€not€precluded€from€introducing€evidence€of€different€sexualÐ )à$( Ðacts€on€that€date,€provided€the€state€makes€a€proper€election.€€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àHere,€the€victim€testified€to€one€instance€of€oral€penetration€and€one€instance€of€vaginalÐ ° Ðpenetration€by€the€defendant€on€January€9,€1996.€€However,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÐ œì Ðthey€were€only€to€consider€the€vaginal€penetration€with€regard€to€count€one,€and€the€jury€specificallyÐ ˆØ Ðreturned€a€verdict€of€ð ðguilty€of€rape€of€a€child€by€vaginal€penetration€on€January€9,€1996.ðð€€As€to€theÐ tÄ Ðalleged€fellatio€between€Thanksgiving€and€Christmas€in€1995€in€count€two,€the€jury€acquitted€the€Ð `° Ðdefendant.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThus,€evidence€of€both€acts€of€penetration€on€January€9,€1996,€was€admissible;€the€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðproperly€required€the€election;€the€trial€court€gave€a€proper€jury€instruction€as€to€the€election;€and€theÐ  ` Ðjury€specifically€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€ð ðvaginal€penetration€on€January€9,€1996.ðð€€There€wasÐ ü L  Ðno€error,€no€juror€confusion,€no€variance,€and€no€reason€for€a€mistrial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.òòò òó óóóÐ è 8  ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€€PRIOR€CONVICTIONSÐ ¬ü  ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€improperly€ruled€that€his€three€1993€convictions€forÐ „Ô  Ðarson€could€be€introduced€by€the€state€if€the€defendant€testified.€€The€trial€court€concluded€theirÐ pÀ Ðprobative€value€outweighed€any€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€state€may€use€a€prior€adult€conviction€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€an€accused€in€aÐ 4„ Ðcriminal€prosecution€if:€(a)€the€conviction€was€for€a€crime€that€is€punishable€by€death€orÐ  p Ðimprisonment€in€excess€of€one€year€or€a€misdemeanor€involving€dishonesty€or€false€statement;€(b)Ð  \ Ðless€than€ten€years€has€elapsed€between€the€date€the€accused€was€released€from€confinement€and€theÐ øH Ðcommencement€of€the€prosecution;€(c)€the€state€gives€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€particularÐ ä4 Ðconviction€or€convictions€it€intends€to€use€to€impeach€the€accused€prior€to€trial;€and€(d)€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðfinds€that€the€probative€value€of€the€felony€or€misdemeanor€on€the€issue€of€credibility€outweighs€itsÐ ¼  Ðunfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€609;€òòóóòòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ð661,€674€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð ”ä Ðà  àÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€first€three€requirements€have€been€satisfied.€€Thus,€the€only€remaining€issueÐ l¼ Ðis€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€concluded€that€the€probative€value€of€the€convictions€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðquestion€of€the€appellantððs€credibility€outweighed€the€prejudicial€effect€upon€the€substantive€issuesÐ D!” Ðpresented€by€the€evidence.€€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àIn€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€a€conviction€on€the€issue€of€credibilityÐ $X" Ðoutweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues,€a€trial€court€shouldÐ ô$D # Ð(a)€assess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà  àimpeaching€conviction,€and€(b)€analyze€the€relevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àto€the€issue€of€credibility.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌòòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(quoting€N.€Cohen€eòòt€alóó.,€ò òTennesseeÐ )à$( ÐLaw€on€Evidenceó ó€ðð€609.9€at€p.€288€(2òòndóó€ed.€1990)).€€Ð €*Ð%) ÐÐ p+À&* Ðà  àThe€crimes€of€arson€and€child€rape€are€obviously€dissimilar;€thus,€the€issue€is€whether€theÐ ° Ðcrime€of€arson€is€probative€of€credibility.€€This€court€has€concluded€that€convictions€for€ð ðsetting€fireÐ œì Ðwith€intent€to€burnðð€and€ð ðarsonðð€are€not€relevant€to€a€defendantððs€credibility,€absent€evidence€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðactual€circumstances€supporting€the€convictions.€€òòState€v.€Marvin€Bedfordóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9806„Ð tÄ ÐCR„00192,€1999€WL€234681,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€April€22,€1999,€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€toÐ `° Ðappeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999)€(setting€fire€with€intent€to€burn);€òòState€v.€Charles€Clay€Youngóó,€C.C.A.Ð L œ ÐNo.€01C01„9605„CC„00195,€1997€WL€469900,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€15,€1997,€atÐ 8 ˆ ÐNashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied€óó(Tenn.€1998)€(arson).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Donald€Ray€Hunteróó,€1989Ð $ t ÐWL€9585,€at€*òòóó2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€8,€1989,€at€Jackson)€(arson€is€relevant€toÐ  ` Ðcredibility).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€convictions€in€1993,€arson€was€structural€fire€damage€either€Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€Without€the€consent€of€all€persons€who€have€a€possessory,€proprietary€or€securityÐ ¬ü  Ðinterest€therein;€or€Ð˜è Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€With€intent€to€destroy€or€damage€any€structure€to€collect€insurance€for€the€damageÐ „Ô  Ðor€destruction€or€for€any€unlawful€purpose.€€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„301(a)€(1991).€€The€first€method€of€commission€might€not€necessarilyÐ H˜ Ðinvolve€dishonesty,€whereas€the€second€method€would.€€Here,€the€record€of€the€pre„trial€motionÐ 4„ Ðcontains€no€indication€of€the€underlying€facts€supporting€the€arson€convictions.€€The€state€offeredÐ  p Ðno€such€indication,€nor€did€the€defendant€make€any€argument€about€the€underlying€facts.€€In€fact,€ourÐ  \ Ðreading€of€the€transcript€of€the€pre„trial€motion€reveals€no€objection€by€the€defendant€to€theÐ øH Ðadmissibility€of€the€arson€convictions.€€Defendant€made€no€offer€of€proof€of€his€proposed€testimonyÐ ä4 Ðand€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€state€argues€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€make€an€offer€of€proof.€Ð ¨ø ÐAlthough€an€offer€of€proof€is€not€required€to€preserve€this€issue€for€appeal,€our€Supreme€Court€hasÐ ”ä Ðrecognized€that€,€ð ðdepending€upon€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€a€case,€an€offer€of€proof€may€beÐ €Ð Ðthe€only€way€to€demonstrate€prejudice.ðð€€òòState€v.€Galmoreóó,€994€S.W.2d€120,€125€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIf€the€trial€court€did€err€by€ruling€the€arson€convictions€would€be€admissible,€we€are€unableÐ D!” Ðto€find€it€reversible€in€this€case.€€Firstly,€the€defendant€voiced€no€objection€and€no€argument€at€theÐ 0"€  Ðpre„trial€hearing€with€regard€to€the€arson€convictions,€thereby€waiving€the€issue.€€Secondly,€althoughÐ #l! Ðthe€defendantððs€unsworn€denials€of€misconduct€during€his€January€1996€interrogation€by€an€officerÐ $X" Ðwere€introduced€into€evidence,€we€are€unable€to€assume€what€his€sworn€testimony€would€be.€€Finally,Ð ô$D # Ðwe€are€unable€to€find€prejudice,€based€on€the€record€before€us,€assuming€the€arson€convictions€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€admitted€for€impeachment€purposes.€€€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð )à$( ÐÓ  ÓÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà @ àòòò òIV.€€SENTENCINGÐ ° ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€attacks€the€length€and€consecutive€nature€of€his€sentences.€€Although€he€doesÐ ˆØ Ðnot€attack€the€enhancement€factors€applied€by€the€trial€court,€he€claims€the€trial€court€improperlyÐ tÄ Ðused€the€same€enhancement€factor€to€determine€the€length€of€sentence€within€the€range€and€inÐ `° Ðordering€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendant€further€claims€the€trial€court€failedÐ L œ Ðto€make€adequate€findings€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€(criteria€for€consecutiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentencing€for€multiple€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor).€€€€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ ü L  Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ è 8  Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ Ô$  Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposedÐ pÀ Ða€lawful€sentence€after€giving€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€setÐ \¬ Ðout€under€sentencing€law,€and€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ H˜ Ðrecord,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€Ð 4„ ÐòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ð  p ÐÌò òA.€€Length€of€SentenceÐ øH Ðó óà  àÌà  àThe€trial€court€applied€the€following€enhancement€factors€to€both€convictions:€(1)€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establishÐ ¼  Ðthe€appropriate€range;€(2)€defendant€was€on€felony€probation€when€he€committed€the€instantÐ ¨ø Ðoffenses;€and€(3)€the€defendant€abused€his€position€of€private€trust.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ”ä Ð114(1),€(13),€and€(15).€€The€trial€court€also€found€the€child€rape€was€committed€to€satisfy€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€and€applied€factor€(7)€to€the€child€rape€conviction.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€CodeÐ l¼ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€weight€to€be€given€enhancement€factors€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€longÐ 0"€  Ðas€it€complies€with€the€principles€of€the€sentencing€act.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1986).€€We€find€no€reason€to€disturb€the€maximum€length€of€sentences€set€by€the€trial€court.€€Ð $X" Ѐ€ò òÐ ô$D # ÐB.€€Consecutive€Sentencesó óà  àÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àA€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€that:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  à(5)€[t]he€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offenses€involvingÐ |*Ì%) Ðsexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÐ h+¸&* Ðfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€ofÐ ° Ðdefendant's€undetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÐ œì Ðextent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim€or€victims;€[or]€ÐˆØÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(6)€[t]he€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àSpecific€factual€findings€relating€to€the€need€to€protect€society€are€not€required€for€theseÐ  ` Ðcategories.€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€Nevertheless,€the€general€principles€ofÐ ü L  Ðsentencing€require€that€the€length€of€sentence€be€ð ðjustly€deserved€in€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€theÐ è 8  Ðoffenseðð€and€ð ðbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€460€(citing€Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102(1)€and€103(2)).Ð À  Ðòòò òÌó óóóà  àThe€trial€court€applied€both€criteria€(5)€and€(6).€€The€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€failedÐ ˜è  Ðto€make€specific€findings€with€regard€to€factor€(5).€€Regardless,€we€conclude€the€defendant€was€onÐ „Ô  Ðfelony€probation€from€his€convictions€for€arson€when€he€committed€the€current€offenses.€€Therefore,Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6)€provides€ample€basis€for€consecutive€sentencing.€€We€alsoÐ \¬ Ðconclude€the€aggregate€sentence€was€justly€deserved€in€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€andÐ H˜ Ðwas€not€greater€than€that€deserved.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€upon€the€same€enhancement€factor€inÐ  \ Ðdetermining€the€length€of€each€sentence€and€in€ordering€consecutive€sentencing.€€However,€this€courtÐ øH Ðhas€concluded€it€is€appropriate€to€consider€the€same€enhancement€factor€in€determining€both€theÐ ä4 Ðlength€and€consecutive€nature€of€sentences.€€òòState€v.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€205€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1995).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà@‰ ‰ ìàò òòòV.€€AGGRAVATED€SEXUAL€BATTERY€JUDGMENTó óóóˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€legislature€has€determined€that€a€sentence€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€should€be€servedÐ D!” Ðat€100%,€if€said€offense€was€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(i).€Ð 0"€  ÐAt€sentencing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€was€sentencing€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€offenderÐ #l! Ðbecause€the€time€period€for€count€three€was€the€summer€of€1995,€and€no€evidence€established€aÐ $X" Ðspecific€date€of€commission€for€the€offense.€€Release€eligibility€for€a€Range€I€offender€is€30%.€Ð ô$D # ÐHowever,€the€judgment€in€count€three€erroneously€reflects€the€date€of€offense€as€ð ð1„9„96.ðð€€Thus,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðdirect€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€amended€judgment€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€reflecting€an€offenseÐ Ì&"% Ðdate€prior€to€July€1,€1995,€so€that€the€Department€of€Correction€will€be€able€to€properly€calculate€theÐ ¸'#& Ðrelease€eligibility€date.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òÌÐ h+¸&* ЇCONCLUSIONÐ ° ÐÌó óóóÓ  ÓÔ‡XSéXXXSéÔà  àBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed€asÐ ˆØ Ðmodified.€€Ô#†XSéXXXSéã|#ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE