ÿWPCD ÊF’DŽÙÚy ŽÛe,ô²ø‰E²·tŠÉ‡ÐëOB+t«K§¥ô)þóYŠ–Žs\Xà;ÐmFK‚[ïNä{c*,æ~' DìU™CÃA¸D<Ä~ Ž ÈÙVÀù?êÆ‚÷ËÚ“ô>h*}qѼc´ÝÊWRÅÛ˜aYZów˜#Ñ·"cÓô¤A¤G©ˆE¦Ï!s3p5£b,1šÕï$u4Ú¤mÝs¬‹¯&çð§Á.Wµ„µ¯‡wÜå–·`¼Kü“1šî OUÚ®AGŽô+2e6^wIV°Ú^eÁ7Å>s†‚ãÐqMµ¯Ãj¯„­Ø1;¸GrNN,ò º™¤ðƒLg¯ ëËÈ1‡¸4éì©¥û××,7±RP,pY’ŒcƒyÚÃíÕ† Ôä«Ñ¶+åjE@»î³Ö…ÁEÔLÛn¶€£ÈûJ~Ï&G)—#¼.ÉoµN*9™U´]sä+ås Fº´«,Ø-D&¿J+A•¤ &O3µ~C¹]B¿Z?8®(ŠhïF;))aMWðí©oQ FÍO­÷ç ¯òÆ( jù#Mƒ $•Dïaþݽâ$…P›‚\ãÉE‰fØ"hi>AÀ¥1‡#Nãb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ Ð Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©NíU@ïïE//1111111111111111111111b999999999999999999999999999999999999 0ëAAAA B,, 0¤I D3í D-  0KMM AS˜Æë 0¤± 0DU A«™»kƒY+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2µ}$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯ò»»Ô d(|3?~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»dd8ÑÑ 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€å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼å»»»ÔÑ8€\iXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î4åÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ Ö& ÐÔ#†¼å»îî4 #ÔÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€17,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X\iX»¼åÔÌò òÔ#†¼å»XX\i #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€Ô_ÔLENTONIOÔ_Ô€MARCEL€SWANSONÔ‡X\iX»¼åÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„C„2357à0 @ à€€€€€€€J.€€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02899„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€25,€2001Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌThe€defendant€appeals€his€consecutive€sentences€totaling€29€years€for€two€counts€of€aggravatedÐ d´ Ðrobbery€and€one€count€of€aggravated€assault.€€He€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€the€lengthÐ P  Ðof€each€sentence€and€in€ordering€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€€After€a€thorough€reviewÐ <Œ Ðof€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð (x ÐÓÄÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼å»àX\i¢#ÔÔ‡X\iX.¼åÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòJerry€L.€Smith,Ð Ø( ÐóóJJ.òòóó,€joined.Ô#†¼å»XX\i3#ÔÔ‡X\iX»¼åÔòòóóÐ Ä ÐÌMonte€D.€Watkins,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔLentonioÔ_Ô€Marcel€Swanson.€€Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Bret€Thomas€Gunn€and€Ana€Lucia€Escobar,Ð `° ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð L œ ÐÓÓÌò òÌOPINIONó óÔ#†¼å»XX\i #ÔÔ‡X\iX»¼åÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼å»XX\iY #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X\iX»¼åÔà  àOn€the€morning€of€June€15,€1998,€the€defendant€robbed€Anthony€Long€at€gunpoint€as€LongÐ è$8 $ Ðwalked€to€work.€€A€few€minutes€later,€the€defendant€also€robbed€Thomas€Bell€at€gunpoint€while€BellÐ Ô%$!% Ðwas€using€a€pay€telephone.€€Bell€was€pursuing€the€defendant€to€get€his€license€number€when€theÐ À&"& Ðdefendant€fired€a€gun€at€Bell.€€A€Davidson€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant€on€two€counts€ofÐ ¬'ü"' Ðaggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€one€count€of€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€C€felony.€€TheÐ ˜(è#( Ðtrial€court€sentenced€the€defendant,€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€€to€twelve€years€for€each€aggravatedÐ „)Ô$) Ðrobbery€conviction€and€five€years€for€the€aggravated€assault€conviction.€€The€trial€court€ordered€thatÐ p*À%* Ðthe€sentences€be€served€consecutively€to€each€other€and€to€a€prior€conviction.€€The€only€issue€in€thisÐ \+¬&+ Ðappeal€is€sentencing.€€Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à@dd!ìàò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àÔ‡X\iXXX\iÔThis€courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÐ ˆØ Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ tÄ Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ `° Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ 8 ˆ Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ü L  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€areÐ è 8  Ðrequired,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]heÐ ¬ü  Ðpresentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÐ ˜è  Ðalternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ð „Ô  Ð[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ pÀ Ðfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishesÐ \¬ Ðto€make€in€the€defendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  p Ð210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€these€offenses€shall€be€the€minimum€sentenceÐ  \ Ðwithin€the€applicable€range.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€806€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð øH Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðshould€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€forÐ Ð  Ðenhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.Ð ¼  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€for€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€theÐ ¨ø Ðweight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€court€compliesÐ ”ä Ðwith€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€Ð €Ð ÐòòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€34€S.W.3d€471,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð l¼ ÐApp.€2000);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,Ð X ¨ Ðshould€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€a€trial€court€may€set€theÐ D!” Ðsentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòóóòòLavenderóó,€967Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€at€806;€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€638€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ô#†X\iXXX\iA#ÔÐ #l! ÐÌÌà@00!ìàò òLENGTH€OF€SENTENCESó óˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAt€sentencing,€the€trial€court€found€four€enhancement€factors€should€be€applied€to€each€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€defendantððs€sentences.€€They€are€factor€1€(the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range),Ð )à$( Ðfactor€8€(the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentence€involving€release€into€the€community),€factor€10€(the€defendant€had€€no€hesitation€aboutÐ h+¸&* Ðcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high),€and€factor€16€(the€crime€was€committedÐ ° Ðunder€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€was€great).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð œì ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(10),€(16).€€The€state€concedes,€and€we€agree,€that€factors€10€and€16Ð ˆØ Ðare€not€applicable.€€If€an€enhancement€factor€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€for€which€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€is€convicted,€it€cannot€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€Ð `° ÐòòóóRisk€to€human€life€and€potential€for€bodily€injury€are€inherent€in€the€crimes€of€aggravated€robberyÐ L œ Ðand€aggravated€assault€by€using€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€922€S.W.2d€894,€903€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCrim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€will,€therefore,Ð $ t Ðdetermine€the€sentence€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€record€supports€the€application€of€factors€1€and€8.€€Defendant€had€ten€prior€misdemeanor€Ð è 8  Ðconvictions,€including€convictions€for€weapons€possession,€drugs,€evading€arrest€and€assault..€HeÐ Ô$  Ðalso€had€a€prior€felony€conviction€for€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€He€previously€violated€two€differentÐ À  Ðprobations.€€The€application€of€these€two€enhancement€factors€weighs€heavily.€€The€defendant€doesÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€argue€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€apply€the€mitigating€factors€submitted€by€him€atÐ ˜è  Ðsentencing,€and€we€find€that€no€mitigating€factors€are€applicable.€€We€conclude€the€sentencesÐ „Ô  Ðimposed€by€the€trial€court€are€justified€based€upon€these€two€enhancement€factors.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌÌà@¡¡ ìàò òCONSECUTIVE€SENTENCESˆÐ 4„ Ðó óÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€did€notÐ  \ Ðreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.€€We€disagree.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àÔ‡X\iXXX\iÔSpecific€findings€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€society€and€is€reasonablyÐ Ð  Ðrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€are€prerequisites€to€consecutive€sentencing€under€theÐ ¼  Ðð ðdangerous€offenderðð€category€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€such€specific€factual€findings€are€not€required€for€the€otherÐ ”ä Ðcategories€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð €Ð ÐNevertheless,€the€general€principles€of€sentencing€require€that€the€length€of€sentence€be€ð ðjustlyÐ l¼ Ðdeserved€in€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseðð€and€ð ðbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€theÐ X ¨ Ðoffense€committed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€460€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102(1)€and€„103(2)).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€two€factors€justifying€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences:€(1)€theÐ #l! Ðdefendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€had€knowingly€devoted€his€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÐ $X" Ðsource€of€livelihood,€and€(2)€the€defendant€has€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1),€(2).€€The€presentence€report€states,€and€trial€court€noted,€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant,€who€was€25€years€old€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€has€never€held€a€job.€€Regardless€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðapplicability€of€this€factor,€however,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record€is€extensive.€€This€alone€is€aÐ ¸'#& Ðsufficient€basis€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€973€S.W.2d€224,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àWe€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€ordering€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.Ð ° Ðâ âThe€aggregate€sentence€was€justly€deserved€in€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€and€was€noÐ œì Ðgreater€than€that€deserved.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ô#†X\iXXX\iä'#ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð $ t ÐÌ€ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE