ÿWPC#" nǼ­U’pÃU·ó:buP ²>pÃX·¾Æ„„DEjŸ´I” Ä‰Õ (ÿ v™ð,³¶•¬xÈý‡÷KÄ&¨®æbu€§Kó:±D‘‹ së›G”JÕaïSâ@EÇ¢4éSÍ`êè¥È¨HÇ’´cRŸe5þh¸ °•?>ð‰aµi­ÆM”’M±iêUPõ€a6— -Ѻaâo4Ñpb4Wùü’—lçDuð[?8k½F´ÊŪ%@eG]Á1ÔïÝœôÃZf·Ë– j¼Ø0r8±öånnì¸[ˆïEþËýgLVÿ&ÅÔ,3Y,\¸â⫯§ÏÍ\º¤yàxd#Ç7öý¿ÞØ–ï¦X3R*Àõ &ò²¯"è~êB>T°¥ÕÞ\# Ö®Ó2jkÔa©Ì»‹ê*WÏë¼ÖÔ2q˯V‹}"©µäT¥ù €­¥¶yx×ê!Ûø »´“êN}ê²(œ²²EÝÄ>°æà,Ì8t2@ü"×\•q=ª¯óñbó1 Ôúáæ_ùçê^‘³Ðï a£\l üu¢ ¢?ùŽš’&CôK*3ú$ \uͳâfô˗ĬS+O·b %\^ b 0ˆnU&NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ99Nÿÿ²E³Ãµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµbxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxª€€ 0ë* 0D°YY B   0¤& D5Ê D-ÿ 0K,, ASwÆÊ 0¤ 0D4! A«x!»=±ƒ1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B03|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 AmSouthPappas CrimreweighTuggle OdomHenningshowupDrinkardshowupsBiggers BealpresentenceMcIntireconclusorySheltonresentencingSolomanWoodallTennentWarfield ¹Ý ƒR9±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÔò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellant€was€employed€at€Music€Land€Motors€from€March€2002€until€June€2002.€€In€May€2001,€theÐ ° ÐAppellant,€while€employed€at€Crown€Ford,€sold€a€car€to€Pillow.€€Grimes€had€previously€purchased€several€cars€from€theÐ qÁ ÐAppellant€while€employed€at€various€Nashville€dealerships.- ù-  Ý ƒR9±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÔò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€We€note€that€the€trial€courtððs€reconsideration€of€the€Appellantððs€sentence€should€be€conducted€in€view€of€theÐ ° Ðrecent€decision€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔBlakelyÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€542€U.S._____,€124€S.€Ct.€2531€(2004).(|G29±$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÇÑ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÔò»»Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¦Ý ƒR9±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÔò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€Appellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€apply€mitigating€factors.€€First,€he€assertsÐ ° Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€factor€(1),€that€the€Appellantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÐ qÁ Ðserious€bodily€injury.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(2003).€€The€State€concedes€that€this€factor€should€have€beenÐ 2‚ Ðapplied,€and€this€court€has€previously€concluded€that€mitigating€factor€(1)€may€be€considered€in€sentencingÐ óC Ðdeterminations€for€property€offenses.€€òòState€v.€Daniel€James€Cosgroveóó,€No.€M2001„02127„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ´ ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€Nov.€15,€2002),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€2003).€Ð uÅ Ðà  àAdditionally,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigating€factor€(13),€the€catchallÐ 6 † Ðmitigator,€based€upon€both€his€long€record€of€stable€employment€and€his€strong€supportive€family€ties€in€the€community.€Ð ÷ G ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€We€note€that€this€court€has€stated€that€work€ethic€and€family€contribution€areÐ ¸  Ðentitled€to€favorable€consideration€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113(13).€€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900Ð y É  ÐS.W.2d€36,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Moreover,€this€court€has€held€that€employment€should€be€considered€inÐ : Š  Ðsentencing€a€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€34€S.W.3d€471,€482„83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€The€trial€court€shouldÐ û K  Ðconsider€the€evidence€presented€and€make€a€determination€as€to€the€application€and€weight€of€these€factors,€as€well€asÐ ¼  Ðany€others€which€may€be€applied€on€the€facts€of€the€case.€€ d(|3÷%$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÇÑ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3÷%$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÇÑ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÇÑ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXì3Ø'Avery 5262 AddressXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Letter262 AddressÔñ$ññ$ñRXì3Ø'Aÿ3Ø'LetterTÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ÇÑ»»»ÔÑ8€š?XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î=FÇÑÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ÇÑ»îî=F`#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€22,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡Xš?X»¼ÇÑÔÌò òÔ#†¼ÇÑ»XXš?w#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€CHARLES€R.€TURNERòòóóÔ‡Xš?X»¼ÇÑÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2002„C„1790€€€€€€Carol€Soloman,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„02064„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€1,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔThe€Appellant,€Charles€R.€Turner,€was€convicted€by€a€Davidson€County€jury€of€two€counts€ofÐ V¦  Ðidentify€theft€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯M #ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔÔ#† ¼æ£ »X X¯Mð#ÔÔ‡ X¯MX » ¼æ£Ôand€sentenced€to€concurrent€sentences€of€three€years,€with€service€of€one€year€inÐ ? Ðconfinement.€€In€addition,€Turner€was€ordered€to€pay€restitution.€€On€appeal,€Turner€raises€fourÐ (x Ðissues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€an€in„courtÐ a Ðidentification€by€a€witness;€Ô#† ¼æ£ »X X¯M"#ÔÔ‡ X¯MX » ¼æ£ÔÔ#†Xš?XX X¯Mà#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?Ô(2)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions;€(3)Ð úJ Ðwhether€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ ã3 Ðdetermining€the€amount€of€restitution.€€After€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€identificationÐ Ì Ðissue€is€without€merit€and€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions.€€Accordingly,Ð µ Ðwe€affirm€the€judgments€of€conviction.€€However,€after€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÐ žî Ðfailed€to€sentence€the€Appellant€in€accordance€with€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€to€properlyÐ ‡× Ðdetermine€the€Appellantððs€ability€to€pay€the€ordered€restitution.€€Accordingly,€we€remand€the€caseÐ pÀ Ðfor€a€proper€determination€of€these€sentencing€issues.€€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯M #ÔÔ#†¼ÇÑ»XXš?Ì#ÔÔ‡Xš?X»¼ÇÑÔÐ Y© ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð +{ ÐReversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó ó€€Ð e ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ÇÑ»àXš?Ï #ÔÔ‡Xš?X.¼ÇÑÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð ê :  ÐWoodallóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ó!#! ÐÌEmma€Rae€Tennent€(on€appeal)€and€Rebecca€Warfield€(at€trial),€Assistant€Public€Defenders,Ð ¥#õ# ÐNashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Charles€R.€Turner.Ð Ž$Þ$ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€MichelleÐ `&°!& ÐChapman€McIntire,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Victor€S.€Johnson€III,€District€Attorney€General;Ð I'™"' Ðand€Ryan€D.€Brown,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 2(‚#( ÐÔ#†¼ÇÑ»XXš?Ú #ÔÔ‡Xš?X»¼ÇÑÔÌÓ« ÓÌÌÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ÇÑ»XXš?Ü#ÔÔ‡Xš?X»¼ÇÑÔÐ ¨-ø(.ý ÐÔ_Ô‡ò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ° ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ÇÑ»XXš?R#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xš?X»¼ÇÑÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔÌà  àOn€the€dates€the€crimes€were€committed,€the€Appellant€was€employed€by€Music€Land€MotorsÐ ƒÓ Ðas€a€car€salesman.€€While€employed€at€other€car€dealerships€in€the€Nashville€area,€the€Appellant€hadÐ l¼ Ðcome€into€contact€with€both€victims,€Lawrence€Pillow€and€Darrell€Grimes,€when€they€purchased€carsÐ U¥ Ðfrom€him.׃×Ý ƒS#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€During€the€purchase€of€the€vehicles,€each€victim€gave€the€Appellant€the€informationÐ > Ž Ðnecessary€for€him€to€check€their€credit€rating,€including€social€security€number,€driver€licenseÐ ' w Ðnumber,€employment€history,€date€of€birth,€and€address.€€Neither€victim€did€business€with€theÐ  ` ÐAppellant€at€Music€Land€Motors.Ð ù I ÐÌà  àIn€May€2002,€a€man€purporting€to€be€Lawrence€Pillow€called€the€1„800„Loan„by„PhoneÐ Ë   Ðprogram€at€South€Trust€Bank€and€initiated€a€loan€application.€€After€being€approved€for€a€$4,100.00Ð ´  Ðloan,€the€paperwork€was€sent€to€the€local€bank€branch€in€order€to€close€the€loan.€€A€man€claimingÐ í  Ðto€be€Pillow€and€presenting€a€driver€license€identification€came€to€the€bank€late€in€the€afternoon€onÐ †Ö  ÐMay€28,€2002.€€Brenda€Hess,€a€loan€specialist€with€the€bank,€spoke€with€the€manò ò€ó ófor€approximatelyÐ o¿  Ðfifteen€minutes€but€did€not€feel€comfortable€issuing€the€check€despite€the€identification.€€She€testifiedÐ [«  Ðthat€the€man€could€not€remember€his€social€security€number,€did€not€resemble€the€picture€on€theÐ D” Ðdriver€license,€kept€his€head€down€while€talking,€and€refused€to€take€his€hat€off€the€first€time€sheÐ -} Ðasked.€ò ò€ó óAdditionally,€Hess€noted€that€the€driver€license€presented€to€her€was€a€duplicate€license€andÐ f Ðwas€only€a€month€old.€€She€further€noted€that€the€Metro€School€Board€check€stub€presented€to€verifyÐ R Ðemployment€was€not€a€form€which€she€recognized.€€Hess€testified€that€she€did€not€believe€that€theÐ ë; Ðman€was€Lawrence€Pillow€and,€as€a€result,€asked€him€to€come€back€the€next€morning€to€completeÐ Ô$ Ðthe€loan€when€her€manager€would€be€in.€€The€man€left€the€bank€and€did€not€return.€€Hess€identifiedÐ ½  Ðthe€Appellant€at€trial€as€the€man€she€spoke€with.€€Ð ¦ö ÐÌà  àPillow€was€contacted€by€South€Trust€Bank€and€informed€that€someone€was€attempting€toÐ xÈ Ðborrow€money€in€his€name.€€The€bank€presented€Pillow€with€security€photos€of€the€person,€but€heÐ a± Ðwas€initially€unable€to€recognize€the€Appellant.€€Pillow€ran€his€credit€history€and€learned€thatÐ Jš Ðsomeone€at€Music€Land€Motors€had€checked€his€credit€in€April€2002.€€He€then€spoke€with€theÐ 3ƒ Ðgeneral€manager€of€Music€Land€Motors,€who€identified€the€Appellant€as€the€person€in€the€securityÐ l Ðphotos.€€Pillow€later€discovered€that€a€duplicate€driver€license€had€been€issued€in€his€name€on€AprilÐ  U Ð23,€2002.Ð î > ÐÌà  àIn€June€2002,€a€man€using€the€name€Darrell€Grimes€originated€a€$4,500.00€loan€through€€theÐ À"! Ð1„800„Loan„by„Phone€program€at€AmSouth€Bank.€€The€paperwork€was€then€sent€to€the€localÐ ©#ù" ÐNashville€office,€where€loan€officer€David€Hayes€attempted€unsuccessfully€to€contact€the€applicantÐ ’$â# Ðat€the€phone€number€listed€on€the€application.€€A€short€time€later,€a€man€purporting€to€be€DarrellÐ {%Ë $ ÐGrimes€came€into€the€bank€and€spoke€with€Hayes.€€He€presented€a€driver€license€bearing€the€nameÐ d&´!% ÐDarrell€Grimes€and€signed€the€necessary€loan€paperwork.€€Hayes€spent€approximately€forty„fiveÐ M'"& Ðminutes€with€the€person€and€even€convinced€him€to€open€a€checking€account,€which€he€did€in€theÐ 6(†#' Ðname€of€Darrell€Grimes.€€Part€of€the€loan€funds€were€placed€in€the€checking€account,€with€theÐ ° Ðremainder€being€distributed€in€cash.€€Hayes€noted€that€there€was€some€discrepancy€in€the€appearanceÐ ™é Ðof€the€person€present€and€the€driver€license€photo.€€However,€after€checking€with€another€employee,Ð ‚Ò Ðthe€two€agreed€that€there€was€enough€of€a€resemblance€that€it€could€be€the€same€person.€€ò òÐ k» ÐÌà  àó óHayes€saw€the€person€a€few€days€later€when€he€returned€to€the€bank€attempting€to€withdrawÐ > Ž Ðfunds€from€the€new€checking€account.€€The€person€had€no€identification€with€him€but,€becauseÐ ' w ÐHayes€recognized€him€as€ð ðDarrell€Grimes,ðð€he€was€allowed€to€cash€the€check.€€Hayes€identified€theÐ  ` Ðperson€who€purported€to€be€Darrell€Grimes€as€the€Appellant.€Ð ù I ÐÌà  àGrimes€learned€about€the€incident€when€he€contacted€AmSouth€Bank€after€receiving€a€letterÐ Ë   Ðinforming€him€that€a€line€of€credit€had€been€issued€in€his€name.€€Upon€further€investigation,€GrimesÐ ´  Ðlearned€that€a€duplicate€copy€of€his€driver€license€had€been€issued€on€June€11,€2002.€€He€also€ran€hisÐ í  Ðcredit€history€and€learned€that€his€credit€had€been€checked€at€Music€Land€Motors.€€Upon€speakingÐ †Ö  Ðwith€the€general€manager€there,€Grimes€was€informed€that€it€was€the€Appellant€who€had€conductedÐ o¿  Ðthe€credit€check.€€Ð X¨  ÐÌà  àIn€September€2002,€a€Davidson€County€grand€jury€returned€an€indictment€against€theÐ *z ÐAppellant€charging€him€with€two€counts€of€€identity€theft,€class€D€felonies.€€Following€a€jury€trial,Ð c Ðthe€Appellant€was€convicted€as€charged.€€At€an€April€30,€2003€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ üL Ðsentenced€the€Appellant€to€two€concurrent€sentences€of€three€years,€with€one€year€to€be€served€inÐ å5 Ðconfinement.€€Additionally,€the€court€ordered€the€Appellant€to€pay€restitution€of€$4,500.00€toÐ Î ÐAmSouth€Bank,€$1,100.00€to€Lawrence€Pillow,€and€$3,000.00€to€Darrell€Grimes€for€their€pecuniaryÐ · Ðlosses.€€€The€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied,€with€this€appeal€following.€Ð  ð ÐÌà@ƒƒ&ìàò òAnalysisˆÐ r ÐÌó óà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€has€raised€four€issues€for€our€review:€€ò òó ó(1)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ F– Ðerred€by€failing€to€suppress€an€in„court€identification€by€a€witness;€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯M#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?Ô(2)€whether€the€evidence€wasÐ / Ðsufficient€to€support€his€convictions;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences;€andÐ h Ð(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€respective€awards€of€restitution.€ò òÐ  Q ÐÌI.€€Suppression€of€In„Court€IdentificationòòÐ Ô!$  ÐÌó óóóà  àFirst,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppressÐ ¦#ö" Ðbased€upon€what€he€refers€to€as€an€ð ðunconstitutional€pre„trial€identification€by€the€witness€BrendaÐ $ß# ÐHess.ðð€€In€reviewing€suppression€issues,€we€will€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€theÐ x%È $ Ðevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€Furthermore,Ð a&±!% Ðin€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€may€consider€proof€adducedÐ J'š"& Ðat€both€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð 3(ƒ#' ЀÌÌà  àIn€compliance€with€a€subpoena,€Hess€appeared€in€the€courtroom€on€the€first€day€of€theÐ î*>&* ÐAppellantððs€scheduled€trial.€€Hess€was€present€in€the€courtroom€while€pre„trial€motions€were€beingÐ ×+''+ Ðheard€in€this€case,€and€the€Appellant,€who€was€the€only€African€American€in€the€courtroom,€wasÐ ° Ðseated€at€counselððs€table€with€his€attorneys.€€The€Appellant€argues€that€this€pre„trial€confrontationÐ ™é Ðwas€unduly€suggestive€and,€as€a€result,€that€Hessðð€subsequent€in„court€identification€was€tainted€andÐ ‚Ò Ðshould€have€been€suppressed.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€Appellant€relies€upon€the€UnitedÐ k» ÐStates€Supreme€Court€decision€in€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€382€(1972).Ð T¤ Ðà  àÌà  àWe€find€no€State€action€in€arranging€the€courtroom€ð ðconfrontationðð€between€Hess€and€theÐ & v ÐAppellant.€€We€reject€the€argument€that€the€issuance€of€a€subpoena€which€compels€a€witness€toÐ  _ Ðappear,€thus€permitting€the€witness€to€view€the€accused€at€trial,€is€the€functional€equivalent€of€anÐ ø H Ðimproper€show„up.€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯MT,#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔÐ á 1  ÐÌà  àòòóóð ðIt€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€law€that€in€the€absence€of€state€action€in€the€identificationÐ ³  Ðprocess,€constitutional€due€process€rights€are€not€implicated;€therefore,€the€analysis€adopted€by€theÐ œì  ÐUnited€State€Supreme€Court€in€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó€is€not€appropriate.ðð€€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€91€S.W.3d€247,Ð …Õ  Ð272€(Tenn.€2002);€òòState€v.€Drinkardóó,€909€S.W.2d€13,€15„16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(refusing€toÐ n¾  Ðfind€the€identification€unduly€suggestive€and€violative€of€due€process€because€the€police€did€notÐ W§  Ðarrange€the€confrontation€between€the€defendant€and€the€witness)€(citing€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€656€S.W.2dÐ @ Ð49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)).€€An€inadvertent€or€accidental€meeting€involves€no€abuse€of€theÐ )y Ðidentification€process.€òò€State€v.€Burnsóó,€777€S.W.2d€355,€358€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€à Ð àÐ b Ðà  àÌà  àÔ#†Xš?XX X¯M¶5#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔIn€a€related€issue,€the€Appellant€also€argues€that€ð ða€substantial€likelihood€existed€that€theÐ ä4 Ðwitness€misidentified€the€[Appellant].ðð€€We€also€find€this€conclusory€argument€without€merit.€€HessÐ Í Ðtestified€that€she€spent€approximately€fifteen€minutes€in€close€proximity€with€the€Appellant€whenÐ ¶ Ðhe€came€into€the€bank€to€obtain€the€loan.€€She€also€testified€that€in€the€course€of€her€job€she€hadÐ Ÿï Ðreceived€training€to€observe€people€in€situations€such€as€these€and€that€she€had€carefully€observedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€Appellant.€€Additionally,€Hess€testified€that€she€was€positive€that€the€Appellant€was€the€personÐ qÁ Ðwho€impersonated€Lawrence€Pillow.€€She€also€noted€that,€when€she€first€saw€the€Appellant€in€theÐ Zª Ðcourtroom€on€the€day€of€trial,€he€was€sitting€in€a€group€with€more€than€thirty€people€and€that€sheÐ C“ Ðimmediately€picked€him€out.€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯M :#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔÐ ,| ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€was€permitted€to€cross„exam€Hess€with€regard€to€her€memory€and€the€lengthÐ þN Ðof€time€since€she€had€seen€the€Appellant€commit€the€crime.€€The€issue€became€one€of€credibility€forÐ ç 7 Ðthe€jury,€who€we€must€presume€was€properly€instructed€with€regard€to€eyewitness€identificationÐ Ð!   Ðtestimony.€€We€conclude€that€the€identification€testimony€was€properly€admitted.€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯M%>#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔÐ ¹" ! ÐÌÔ#†Xš?XX X¯M1@#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?Ôò òII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€supportÐ ^&®!% Ðhis€two€convictions€for€identity€theft.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€the€evidence€with€regardÐ G'—"& Ðto€the€identity€of€the€perpetrator€was€insufficient€to€establish€that€he€committed€the€crimes.€€Ð 0(€#' ÐÌò òó óà  àIn€considering€this€issue,€we€apply€the€rule€that€where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÐ *R%) Ðchallenged,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidenceÐ ë*;&* Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€[State],€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÐ Ô+$'+ Ðelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ð ° ÐCt.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ ™é Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ ‚Ò Ðtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€All€questions€involving€the€credibilityÐ k» Ðof€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€byÐ T¤ Ðthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€This€court€willÐ =  Ðnot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€presented.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð & v Ð1978).€Ð  _ ÐÌ€à  àð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÐ á 1  Ðwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ðð€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,Ð Ê   Ð493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€A€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€withÐ ³  Ðwhich€a€defendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convictedÐ œì  Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð …Õ  ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€These€rules€are€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€directÐ n¾  Ðevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,Ð W§  Ð779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àð ðA€person€commits€identify€theft€who€knowingly€transfers€or€uses,€without€lawful€authority,Ð b Ða€means€of€identification€of€another€person€with€the€intent€to€commit,€or€otherwise€promote,€carryÐ ûK Ðon,€or€facilitate€any€unlawful€activity.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„150(a)€(2003).€€A€ð ðmeans€ofÐ ä4 Ðidentificationðð€includes€ð ðany€name€or€number€that€may€be€used€to€identify€a€specific€individual,Ð Í Ðincludingðð€their€name,€social€security€number,€date€of€birth,€official€state€or€government€issuedÐ ¶ Ðdriver€license€or€identification€number.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„150(b)(1).€€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€does€not€dispute€that€someone€acquired€duplicate€driver€licenses€for€bothÐ qÁ ÐLawrence€Pillow€and€Darrell€Grimes€and€then€presented€themself€to€the€banks€in€order€to€acquire,Ð Zª Ðor€attempt€to€acquire,€loan€proceeds€without€the€knowledge€or€consent€of€the€victims.€€The€AppellantÐ C“ Ðmerely€argues€that€the€proof€is€insufficient€to€show€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€was€thatÐ ,| Ðperson.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€only€testimony€directly€identifying€him€as€theÐ e Ðperpetrator€came€from€Brenda€Hess€and€David€Hayes,€the€two€loan€officers.€€The€Appellant€assertsÐ þN Ðthat€Hessðð€testimony€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€it€was€tainted€by€a€pre„trialÐ ç 7 Ðidentification€of€the€Appellant€and€was,€therefore,€unreliable.€€Additionally,€he€asserts€that€theÐ Ð!   Ðtestimony€of€David€Hayes€was€unduly€bolstered€by€Hessðð€testimony.€€He€contends€that€had€the€trialÐ ¹" ! Ðcourt€properly€suppressed€Hessðð€identification,€Hayesðð€identification€would€have€been€insufficientÐ ¢#ò" Ðto€sustain€the€verdict.€€We€disagree.€Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àAs€previously€determined,€the€identification€testimony€of€Brenda€Hess€was€properly€admittedÐ ]&­!% Ðinto€evidence.€€The€evidence€before€the€jury€established€that€Hess€positively€identified€the€AppellantÐ F'–"& Ðas€the€person€who€presented€himself€to€her€as€Lawrence€Pillow,€gave€her€a€copy€of€Pillowððs€driverÐ /(#' Ðlicense,€his€social€security€number,€and€date€of€birth€in€an€attempt€to€obtain€a€$4,100.00€loan.€€HayesÐ )h$( Ðalso€positively€identified€the€Appellant€as€the€person€who€presented€himself€as€Darrell€Grimes€inÐ *Q%) Ðorder€to€obtain€a€$4,500.00€loan€from€AmSouth€Bank.€€He€testified€that€the€Appellant€presented€aÐ ê*:&* Ðcopy€of€Grimesðð€driver€license,€as€well€as€verifying€Grimesðð€address€and€social€security€number.€Ð Ó+#'+ ÐMoreover,€strong€circumstantial€evidence€against€the€Appellant€was€presented€to€the€jury.€€BothÐ ° Ðvictims€had€purchased€cars€from€the€Appellant€and€had€given€him€personal€information€necessaryÐ ™é Ðto€check€their€credit,€including€social€security€and€driver€license€numbers.€€Each€victimððs€credit€wasÐ ‚Ò Ðchecked,€without€authorization,€at€Music€Land€Motors,€the€dealership€where€the€Appellant€wasÐ k» Ðemployed,€just€prior€to€the€issuance€of€duplicate€driver€licenses€for€both€victims.€€There€was€alsoÐ T¤ Ðtestimony€from€Hayes,€Grimes,€and€a€co„worker€of€the€Appellant€regarding€a€distinctive€way€thatÐ =  Ðthe€Appellant€held€a€pen.€€This€evidence,€when€considered€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ð & v Ðis€more€than€sufficient€to€support€the€Appellantððs€convictions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð  _ ÐÌò òÔ#†Xš?XX X¯M‰@#ÔÔ‡ X¯MXXXš?ÔIII.€Excessive€SentencingÐ á 1  ÐÌó óà  àThird,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences€in€his€case.€Ð µ  ÐWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€ofÐ žî  Ðthis€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÐ ‡×  Ðcourt€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(2003).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€uponÐ pÀ  Ðthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÐ Y©  Ðall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòsee€alsoÐ B’ ÐState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).€€ð ðIf€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factorsÐ +{ Ðor€otherwise€fails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls.ðð€€òòStateÐ d Ðv.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÐ ýM Ðprovide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€Appellant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ æ6 ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Ð Ï ÐÌà  àòòóóThe€Appellant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€identity€theft,€class€D€felonies,€for€which€theÐ ¡ñ Ðappropriate€sentence€range€is€two€to€four€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4)€(2003).€€TheÐ ŠÚ Ðpresumptive€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€class€D€felony€is€the€minimum€sentenceÐ sà Ðwithin€the€applicable€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€present.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ \¬ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(2003).€€If€there€are€enhancement€factors€present€but€no€mitigating€factors,€theÐ E• Ðcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum.€€òòIdóó.€at€(d).€€If€both€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ .~ Ðfactors€are€present,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€€asÐ g Ðappropriate€€for€the€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€for€all€applicable€mitigatingÐ  P Ðfactors.€€òòIdóó.€at€(e).€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòSheltonóó,Ð é 9 Ð854€S.W.2d€at€123.€€However,€the€sentence€must€be€adequately€supported€by€the€record€and€complyÐ Ò!"  Ðwith€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2dÐ »" ! Ð229,€237€(Tenn.€1986).€€€Ð ¤#ô" ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€a€sentence€greater€than€theÐ v%Æ $ Ðminimum€of€two€years€for€each€conviction€and,€further,€that€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€decision€isÐ _&¯!% Ðnot€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€correctness€because€the€court€enhanced€the€sentences€withoutÐ H'˜"& Ðspecifying€any€statutory€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€apply€three€applicable€mitigating€factors.€Ð 1(#' ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€made€the€following€pronouncements€on€the€record€prior€to€sentencing€theÐ *S%) ÐAppellant:Ð ì*<&* ÐÐ Õ+%'+ Ðà8  àà ` àTHE€COURT:€.€.€.€He€shows€no€remorse,€and€according€to€40[„]35„102Ð ° ÐDefendant€should€be€imposed€to€prevent€crime€of€remote€respect€of€the€law.€€Well,Ð ™é Ðwith€this€gentlemanððs€behavior€pre€and€post€trial€itððs€undermined€respect€for€the€lawÐ ‚Ò Ðbecause€he€has€told€his€sister,€at€least,€and€I€assume€his€other€six€siblings€that€heÐ k» Ðdidnððt€do€this€act.ÐT¤Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àTherefore,€what€respect€for€the€law€can€the€children,€and€his€family€have€forÐ & v Ða€judicial€system€that€they€now€perceive€to€be€unfair.€€Not€only€has€he€underminedÐ  _ ÐMr.€Grimes,€and€Mr.€Pillow,€heððs€undermined€the€legal€system,€or€the€justice€system,Ð ø H Ðand€that€is€almost€as€distracting€as€the€personal€problems€that€Mr.€Pillow,€and€Mr.Ð á 1  ÐGrimes€have€suffered.€.€.€.€ÐÊ  Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€says€it€is€also€to€encourage€a€federal€rehabilitation€for€the€Defendant.€€Well,Ð œì  Ðsince€the€Defendant€does€not€admit€to€his€offense,€and€shows€absolutely€not€aÐ …Õ  Ðsmithereens€of€remorse,€the€rehabilitation€process€is€going€to€have€to€be€altered.€€IÐ n¾  Ðam€going€to€sentence€him€to€pay€the€restitution€of€the€victims.€€The€potential€forÐ W§  Ðrehabilitation€pursuant€to€40[„]35„13€section€45€without€a€long€sentence,€I€donððt€thinkÐ @ Ð[the€Defendant]€would€be€rehabilitated.€€Therefore,€I€wish€I€could€sentence€€him€toÐ )y Ðmore,€but€Iððm€going€to€sentence€him€to€two€three€year€terms€to€run€concurrent,€whichÐ b ÐI€regret,€but€I€have€no€other€choice.ÐûKÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAfter€review,€it€is€apparent€that€the€Appellant€is€correct€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€specifyÐ Í Ðon€the€record€its€application€of€any€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€or€even€the€appropriateÐ ¶ Ðsentencing€range.׃T×Ý ƒS#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210(f)€mandates,€ð ðWhenever€the€courtÐ Ÿï Ðimposes€a€sentence,€it€shall€place€on€the€record€either€orally€or€in€writing€what€enhancement€orÐ ˆØ Ðmitigating€factors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð qÁ Ð35„209.ðð€€To€facilitate€appellate€review,€the€trial€court€ð ðmust€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÐ Zª Ðarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factor€found,€stateÐ C“ Ðthe€specific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÐ ,| Ðenhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,Ð e Ð945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997);€òòsee€also€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(f).€€òòóó€€Ð þN Їà  àThe€record€reflects€that,€in€addition€to€failing€to€specify€any€statutorily€enumeratedÐ ° Ðenhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€in€enhancing€the€Appellantððs€sentence€from€two€to€three€yearsÐ ™é Ðappears€to€have€considered€the€Appellantððs€lack€of€remorse,€lack€of€respect€for€the€law,€and€hisÐ ‚Ò Ðamenability€to€rehabilitation,€none€of€which€are€proper€considerations€in€determining€the€length€ofÐ k» Ða€sentence.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(2003).€€òòóóAs€the€trial€court€is€the€primary€court€forÐ T¤ Ðsentencing,€and€because€here€the€court€failed€to€impose€a€sentence€in€accordance€with€sentencingÐ =  Ðguidelines,€we€remand€for€resentencing.׃P×Ý ƒS#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð & v ÐÌò òIV.€€Restitution€AmountsÐ ø H ÐÌó óà  àLastly,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€Appellant€to€payÐ Ì   Ðrestitution€in€the€following€amounts:€$4,500.00€to€AmSouth€Bank,€$1,100.00€to€Lawrence€Pillow,Ð µ  Ðand€$3,000.00€to€Darrell€Grimes.€òòóóÐ žî  ÐÌà  àA€sentencing€court€may€direct€a€defendant€to€make€restitution€to€the€victim€for€pecuniary€lossÐ pÀ  Ðas€a€condition€of€probation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(a)€(2003);€òòState€v.€Alfordóó,€970Ð Y©  ÐS.W.2d€944,€945€(Tenn.€1998).€€Whenever€the€trial€court€believes€restitution€may€be€proper€or€if€theÐ B’ Ðvictim€or€the€district€attorney€general€requests€restitution€the€court€shall€order€the€presentence€officerÐ +{ Ðto€include€documentation€regarding€the€nature€and€amount€of€the€victimððs€pecuniary€loss€in€theÐ d Ðpresentence€report.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(b).€€The€statute€defines€"pecuniary€loss"€to€be:Ð ýM ÐÌà8  à(1)€All€special€damages,€but€not€general€damages,€as€substantiated€by€evidence€in€theÐ Ï Ðrecord€or€as€agreed€by€the€defendant;€and€Ð¸Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€Reasonable€out„of„pocket€expenses€incurred€by€the€victim€resulting€from€theÐ ŠÚ Ðfiling€of€charges€or€cooperating€in€the€investigation€and€prosecution€of€the€offense;Ð sà Ðprovided,€that€payment€of€special€prosecutors€shall€not€be€considered€an€out„of„Ð \¬ Ðpocket€expense.€ÐE•Ð Ð  ÐÐ ÐòòIdóó.€at€(e).€€Special€damages€are€those€which€are€"the€actual,€but€not€the€necessary,€result€of€the€injuryÐ g Ðcomplained€of,€and€which€in€fact€follow€it€as€a€natural€and€proximate€consequence."€€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,Ð  P Ð917€S.W.2d€251,€255€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€General€damages€are€those€which€are€"the€necessaryÐ é 9 Ðand€immediate€consequence€of€the€wrong."€òòIdóó.€€Ð Ò!"  ÐÌà  àIt€is€unnecessary€for€the€sentencing€court€to€determine€restitution€in€accordance€with€theÐ ¤#ô" Ðstrict€rules€of€damages€applied€in€civil€cases.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€883,€887€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $Ý# ÐApp.€1997).€€However,€though€the€rules€of€damages€are€relaxed,€they€are€not€completely€discarded.€Ð v%Æ $ ÐòòState€v.€David€D.€Bottomsóó,€No.€M2000„02080„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€MayÐ _&¯!% Ð31,€2001).€€The€sum€of€restitution€ordered€must€be€reasonable€but€does€not€have€to€mirror€or€equalÐ H'˜"& Ðthe€precise€pecuniary€loss.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€898€S.W.2d€742,€747€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ThereÐ 1(#' Ðis€no€set€formula€or€method€for€determining€the€amount.€€òòJohnsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€886.€TheÐ )j$( Ðsentencing€court€must€consider€not€only€the€victim's€loss,€but€also€the€financial€resources€and€futureÐ ° Ðability€of€the€Appellant€to€pay€or€perform€in€determining€the€amount€and€method€of€payment.€€Tenn.Ð ™é ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(d);€òòState€v.€Bottomsóó,€87€S.W.3d€95,108€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€An€orderÐ ‚Ò Ðof€restitution€which€obviously€cannot€be€fulfilled€serves€no€purpose€for€the€Appellant€or€the€victim.€Ð k» ÐòòJohnsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€886.€€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  à€A€victim€seeking€restitution€must€present€sufficient€evidence€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€makeÐ & v Ða€reasonable,€reliable€determination€as€to€the€amount€of€the€victimððs€loss.€€òò€David€D.€Bottomsóó,€No.Ð  _ ÐM2000„02080„CCA„R3„CD.€€General€statements€by€a€victim€regarding€the€amount€of€his€or€her€lossÐ ø H Ðcontaining€no€explanation€as€to€how€the€victim€arrived€at€the€amount€are€insufficient.€€òòSmithóó,€898Ð á 1  ÐS.W.2d€at€747.€€While€a€victimððs€testimony€standing€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€establish€specialÐ Ê   Ðdamages€for€the€purposes€of€restitution,€the€victim€should€explain€how€he€or€she€arrived€at€theÐ ³  Ðamount€of€damages€requested.€€Further,€documentation€supporting€the€victimððs€testimony€is€helpful.€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àWhen€ordering€restitution,€the€trial€court€shall€specify€the€amount€of€time€and€payment€andÐ n¾  Ðmay€permit€payment€or€performance€of€restitution€in€installments.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(c).€Ð W§  ÐHowever,€the€court€may€not€establish€a€payment€or€performance€schedule€which€extends€beyond€theÐ @ Ðmaximum€statutory€term€of€probation€supervision€that€could€have€been€imposed€for€the€offense.€€òòIdóó.€Ð )y ÐÌò ò(a)€AmSouth€Bankó óÐ ûK ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€AmSouth€Bank,€the€Appellant€concedes€that€the€monetary€losses€resultingÐ Î Ðto€the€bank€from€the€fraudulent€loan€were€special€damages€and,€thus,€properly€recoverable.€Ð · ÐHowever,€he€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€failed€to€sufficiently€establish€that€the€bank€sufferedÐ  ð Ðan€actual€pecuniary€loss€of€$4,500.00.€€He€asserts€that€the€proof€shows€that€while€the€original€loanÐ ‰Ù Ðwas€for€$4,500.00,€the€proof€also€established€that€the€Appellant€did€not€take€the€entire€amount€of€theÐ r Ðproceeds€with€him€in€cash€but€rather€deposited€part€of€it€in€a€checking€account.€Ð [« ÐÌà  à€We€disagree€with€the€Appellantððs€assertion€and€find€the€proof€sufficient€to€establish€that€theÐ -} ÐAppellant€received€proceeds€in€the€amount€of€$4,500.00€from€a€fraudulent€loan.€€The€State€submittedÐ f Ðloan€documentation€in€the€amount€of€$4,500.00.€€The€loan€officer,€David€Hayes,€testified€that€theÐ ÿO ÐAppellant€opened€a€checking€account€with€part€of€the€proceeds€and€took€the€remainder€in€cash.€€TheÐ è 8 Ðrecord€also€establishes€that€the€Appellant€later€withdrew€$450.00€by€check€from€the€account.€€ThereÐ Ñ!!  Ðis€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€bank€recovered€any€of€their€loss€from€the€loan.€€The€orderÐ º" ! Ðof€restitution€is€correct.€€€Ð £#ó" ÐÌò ò(b)€Lawrence€Pillow/Darrell€Grimesó óÐ u%Å $ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€amounts€awarded€Pillow€and€Grimes€for€lost€wages€during€the€prosecution€Ð H'˜"& Ðand€investigation€of€the€case,€as€well€as€the€wages€they€lost€to€procure€new€driver€licenses,€theÐ 1(#' ÐAppellant€asserts€that€the€awarded€amounts€were€not€reasonable€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ )j$( Ðsection€40„35„304(e)(2).€€That€statute€defines€ð ðpecuniary€lossðð€to€be€ð ð[r]easonable€out„of„pocketÐ *S%) Ðexpenses€incurred€by€the€victim€resulting€from€the€filing€of€charges€or€cooperating€in€theÐ ì*<&* Ðinvestigation€and€prosecution€of€the€offense[.]ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(e)(2).€€Ð Õ+%'+ Їà  àThere€is€no€dispute€that€lost€wages€are€pecuniary€losses€under€the€restitution€statute,€as€thisÐ ° Ðcourt€has€recognized€lost€wages€as€part€of€a€restitution€order.€òò€Seeóó€òòState€v.€Vanderfordóó,€No.€01„C„01„Ð ™é Ð9101„CC„00004€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€22,€1991);€òòState€v.€Cowartóó,€No.€01„C„01„Ð ‚Ò Ð9508„CC„00251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Nov.€22,€1996).€€Indeed,€the€AppellantÐ k» Ðacknowledges€that€lost€wages€are€recoverable,€but€he€asserts€that€part€of€the€pecuniary€loss€in€thisÐ T¤ Ðcase€was€for€out„of„pocket€expenses€or€lost€€wages€the€men€incurred€for€matters€other€than€thoseÐ =  Ðdirectly€related€to€the€prosecution€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(e)(2).€€Specifically,Ð & v Ðthe€Appellant€disputes€the€money€awarded€for€lost€wages€when€the€victims€were€procuring€newÐ  _ Ðdriver€licenses.€€€Ð ø H ÐÌà  àWhile€it€may€be€true€that€the€time€the€victims€spent€in€having€new€driver€licenses€issued€didÐ Ê   Ðnot€result€ð ðfrom€the€filing€of€charges€or€cooperating€in€the€investigation€and€prosecution€of€theÐ ³  Ðoffense,ðð€the€Appellantððs€argument€appears€to€ignore€sub„section€(e)(1)€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ œì  ÐAnnotated€section€40„35„304,€which€states€that€restitution€may€be€ordered€for€a€crime€victim'sÐ …Õ  Ð"pecuniary€loss,"€defined€as€all€special€damages€substantiated€by€evidence€in€the€record€or€as€agreedÐ n¾  Ðto€by€the€Appellant€but€not€to€include€general€damages.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„304(b),€(e)(1)Ð W§  Ð(2003).€€€à ` àÐ @ ÐÌà  àClearly,€the€lost€wages€disputed€by€the€Appellant€were€special€damages.€€The€wages€theÐ b Ðvictims€lost€while€procuring€new€driver€licenses€were€an€actual€result€of€the€injury€complained€of,Ð ûK Ðwhich€followed€as€a€natural€and€proximate€consequence.€€The€Appellant€had€duplicate€driverÐ ä4 Ðlicenses€issued€in€the€victimððs€names.€€If€this€had€not€occurred,€no€renewal€of€the€licenses€wouldÐ Í Ðhave€been€required.€€Indeed,€with€regard€to€Mr.€Grimes,€the€Appellant€had€his€driver€licenseÐ ¶ Ðclassification€changed,€resulting€in€additional€loss€of€wages.€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€statute€also€requires€that€restitution€be€made€only€where€special€damages€areÐ qÁ Ð"substantiated€by€evidence€in€the€record."€€In€this€case,€Pillow€testified€that€he€had€missed€a€total€ofÐ Zª Ðfive€days€of€work€due€to€the€Appellantððs€actions€and€that€he€made€$225€per€day.€€He€specificallyÐ C“ Ðtestified€that€he€suffered€approximately€$1,100.00€in€lost€wages.€€Grimes€testified€that€he€missedÐ ,| Ðtwelve€days€of€work€due€to€the€Appellantððs€conduct€and€that€he€earned€approximately€$1,400.00€perÐ e Ðweek.€€He€€testified€that€he€easily€lost€$3,000.00€in€wages.€€Thus,€after€reviewing€the€record,€thisÐ þN Ðcourt€finds€that€the€victimsðð€testimony€about€their€wages,€which€was€unchallenged€by€the€Appellant,Ð ç 7 Ðwas€sufficient€to€warrant€restitution€for€lost€wages€in€the€amounts€ordered.€€The€Appellantððs€issueÐ Ð!   Ðis€without€merit.€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àNotwithstanding€the€proper€awards,€the€record€is€silent€with€regard€to€any€finding€of€theÐ ‹$Û# ÐAppellantððs€ability€to€pay€the€ordered€restitution€during€his€period€of€probation.€€The€recordÐ t%Ä $ Ðestablishes€that€the€Appellant€is€employed€as€a€car€salesman€but€no€mention€is€made€of€his€earnings.€Ð ]&­!% ÐAs€this€is€a€required€finding€prescribed€by€the€statute,€we€must€remand€for€a€determination€of€theÐ F'–"& ÐAppellantððs€ability€to€pay€the€ordered€restitution€within€the€scheduled€period.€€€€Ð /(#' ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ë*;&* Ðó óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€Appellantððs€judgments€of€conviction.€€The€case€isÐ ° Ðâ âremanded€to€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€for€determinations€of€the€appropriate€sentencesÐ ™é Ðand€the€Appellantððs€ability€to€pay€the€ordered€restitution€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Ô#†Xš?XX X¯M´Y#ÔÐ ‚Ò ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  _ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE