ÿWPC  ~ŸâuŒtz§zÏš½p è”4)yÞFt¼Kºcר¯OÍUjÙç ás¸U‡v’|iÞ “`ÀÒpæ€Ê¿ì~ï5œÞ;>z¬•‡¢@ÅË·".-ö+äÊè¶:B©[°2¥@gú-·,[¤îhµ/»Â"ju׿1¸Šá¥n ¼i¤Ö ÃÊs°|”†$Ea[lÞĶÁ¾zÕ‚Áy!¦b……2Äð ïrÏj|$ÀG?/]ðdéÇôÿ]äÓ ¾±Ný§ÆAçØÿJéN7r¬LÁ|3=ñ8Š-½C¨)@~7ÇpŠ>þ§ž¨KRHÍ}¿†T9ì¶P>Bhä[*¢+gWž\z«ÅzÒ¥ˆö —þÎÌ.Ý‚ÆË»˜A:ÿˆOÚÖ¨În|~ì”ãTSúä#ÖB$§fï eo­Ïýw’°ÞØ |oC§¦´Ÿï (ÐTaޏghÇ–ºþ0¯äÿTŒ¨ei4Å:Ð+\Ø@siôåîÚ ìñ¥gZœÌ–õg)²¡>¼.£-=Q¨ØB©§ 8gÍ´êÝ©•ËpÎøI(õ™uìXÌj²û÷éú¦Õ&Í\¯>¸ *‰òS‰÷HÍÇ‘øßR‹f_Y\6¾ó†b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æí³N»U@½½Eýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýbÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 0ë Bòò 0¤ D3³ D-æ 0K AS^Ʊ 0¤w 0D A«_˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»!¬w1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2Êf$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõ)ò»»Ô d(|3G‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼N»»»ÔÑ8€%XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îONÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼N»îîO #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€March€16,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡X%X»¼NÔÌò òÔ#†¼N»XX%#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MICHAEL€L.€WALLACEòòóóÔ‡X%X»¼NÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Campbell€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11012€€€€€€E.€Shayne€Sexton,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„01719„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€23,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X%XXX%ÔMichael€L.€Wallace€appeals€from€his€Campbell€County€Criminal€Court€convictions€of€four€countsÐ xÈ  Ðof€rape€of€a€child€and€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€claims€that€his€convictions€are€notÐ d´ Ðsupported€by€sufficient€evidence,€that€the€lower€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€a€motion€for€judgmentÐ P  Ðof€acquittal€on€three€of€the€five€counts,€and€that€he€should€not€have€received€a€90„year€sentence.€Ð <Œ ÐBecause€three€of€the€defendantððs€five€convictions€are€based€upon€uncorroborated€inculpatoryÐ (x Ðstatements,€we€reverse€those€convictions€and€dismiss€those€charges.€€In€all€other€respects,€we€affirm.Ô#†X%XXX%®#ÔÔ#†¼N»XX%#ÔÔ‡X%X»¼NÔÐ d ÐÓ¢ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€are€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð ì< ÐReversed€in€Part.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼N»àX%Ì#ÔÔ‡X%X.¼NÔJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó€andÐ ° ÐòòJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌMartha€J.€Ô_ÔYoakumÔ_Ô,€District€Public€Defender;€and€Charles€A.€Herman,€Assistant€District€PublicÐ tÄ ÐDefender,€for€the€Appellant,€Michael€L.€Wallace.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€David€H.€Findley,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐWilliam€Paul€Phillips,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Scarlett€W.€Ellis,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓŸÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼N»XX%Î#ÔÔ‡X%X»¼NÔÐ è$8 $ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼N»XX%è #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X%X»¼NÔà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ€X%XXX%ÔÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€the€defendantððs€trialÐ À&"& Ðdemonstrated€that€on€July€22,€2001,€Larry€Jeffers€was€hiking€in€Cove€Lake€Park€where€he€came€uponÐ ¬'ü"' Ða€parked€car.€€Inside€he€saw€the€defendant€and€the€ten„year„old€victim.€€The€defendant€was€kneelingÐ ˜(è#( Ðin€front€of€the€victim€and€holding€a€pair€of€panties.€€The€defendant€was€clothed,€but€the€victim€wasÐ „)Ô$) Ðnaked€save€her€shoes€and€socks.€€Jeffers€called€911€on€his€cellular€phone€and€reported€the€matter€toÐ p*À%* Ðthe€authorities.€€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý½ Ðà  àà ` àBefore€police€officers€arrived,€the€defendant€attempted€to€engage€in€small€talk€andÐ ° Ðâ âtold€Jeffers€that€he€was€teaching€the€victim€to€swim,€although€Jeffers€observed€that€the€water€nearbyÐ œì Ðwas€too€shallow€for€swimming,€measuring€no€more€than€six€inches€deep.€€At€one€point,€the€victimÐ ˆØ Ðgot€out€of€the€car€and€began€crying,€and€Jeffers€attempted€to€comfort€her.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àVarious€law€enforcement€officers€testified€about€their€involvement€in€the€case.€Ð L œ ÐGenerally,€their€testimony€established€that€the€defendantððs€pants€were€unzipped€at€the€scene,€and€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðclaimed€that€he€had€forgotten€to€zip€them€after€relieving€himself.€€The€defendant€told€officers€whoÐ $ t Ðresponded€to€the€scene€that€he€brought€the€victim€to€the€location€to€go€swimming.€€He€said€that€theÐ  ` Ðvictim€had€removed€her€clothing€other€than€her€panties,€gone€to€the€water€and€tested€it€with€her€foot,Ð ü L  Ðthen€refused€to€swim€because€she€thought€the€water€was€too€deep.€€The€victimððs€account€at€the€sceneÐ è 8  Ðwas€basically€consistent€with€that€of€the€defendant.€€She€claimed€that€she€had€removed€her€ownÐ Ô$  Ðclothing€and€that€they€were€going€swimming.€€The€victim€also€asked€whether€the€defendant€wouldÐ À  Ðbe€taken€to€jail€and€reported€that€the€defendant€told€her€not€to€say€anything€or€he€would€be€taken€toÐ ¬ü  Ðjail€and€she€might€be,€as€well.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€questioned€later€at€the€police€department€and€admitted€he€hadÐ pÀ Ðsexually€penetrated€the€victim€at€Cove€Lake€Park.€€He€admitted€that€the€penetration€was€both€digitalÐ \¬ Ðand€penile.€€Additionally,€he€confessed€that€he€had€forced€the€victim€to€fellate€him€on€two€occasions,Ð H˜ Ðthe€more€recent€being€July€22.€€He€said€that€both€times€this€occurred€at€the€location€in€Cove€LakeÐ 4„ ÐPark€where€he€had€been€apprehended.€€He€also€admitted€to€digitally€penetrating€the€victim€on€JulyÐ  p Ð18€and€to€performing€cunnilingus€on€her€on€two€occasions.€€Further,€he€admitted€that€he€had€fondled,Ð  \ Ðbut€not€penetrated,€the€victim€on€an€earlier€occasion€in€June€2001.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€victimððs€mother€testified€that€she€had€been€in€a€romantic€relationship€with€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant.€€Although€initially€hesitant€to€allow€the€victim€to€spend€time€around€him,€once€the€motherÐ ¼  Ðgot€to€know€him€she€allowed€the€victim€to€spend€time€with€the€defendant,€first€with€herself€and€theÐ ¨ø Ðvictimððs€brothers.€€Eventually,€the€victimððs€mother€allowed€the€victim€to€attend€the€defendantððsÐ ”ä Ðchurch€services€with€him.€€The€victimððs€mother€testified€that€the€relationship€between€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðand€the€victim€appeared€to€mimic€a€father/daughter€relationship€and€that€she€never€observed€anythingÐ l¼ Ðinappropriate.€€After€the€July€22€incident€at€Cove€Lake€Park,€the€victim€never€told€her€mother€whatÐ X ¨ Ðhad€happened€until€the€night€before€trial.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€victimððs€mother€admitted€that€the€defendant€had€written€her€a€love€letter€whileÐ #l! Ðhe€was€in€jail,€in€which€he€asked€her€to€help€him€get€out€of€jail€and€promised€that€they€would€beÐ $X" Ðtogether.€€The€victimððs€mother€wrote€the€defendant€back,€expressing€her€love€for€him€and€asking€himÐ ô$D # Ðto€call€her.€€They€spoke€by€phone€the€Sunday€night€before€trial,€but€they€did€not€talk€about€the€trial.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€victim€testified€that€she€and€the€defendant€went€alone€together€to€church.€€SheÐ ¸'#& Ðbelieved€there€was€only€one€time€that€they€did€this.€€During€this€outing,€the€defendant€touched€herÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbreast,€private€part,€and€mouth€with€his€hand,€his€mouth,€and€his€private€part.€€The€defendantÐ )à$( Ðremoved€her€dress€and€underwear€and€removed€his€private€part€from€his€pants€but€did€not€removeÐ |*Ì%) Ðhis€pants.€€She€testified€that€he€touched€her€breast€and€genitals€with€his€mouth.€€She€claimed€that€theÐ h+¸&* Ðdefendant€ð ðhad€sex€withðð€her.€€The€victim€recounted€that€after€Mr.€Jeffers€discovered€them€in€the€car,Ð ° Ðthe€defendant€told€her€not€to€tell€anyone€what€he€had€done€and€said€that€they€both€would€go€to€jail.€Ð œì ÐThe€victim€conceded€that€she€told€a€doctor€at€Childrenððs€Hospital€and€police€officers€that€nothingÐ ˆØ Ðhappened.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€discredit€the€stateððs€proof,€the€defendant€offered€his€own€testimony.€€TheÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€testimony€was,€in€many€respects,€riddled€with€inconsistencies.€€He€claimed€that€althoughÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€had€made€inculpatory€statements€to€law€enforcement€officers€on€July€22,€he€was,€in€fact,€innocentÐ $ t Ðof€any€wrongdoing€toward€the€victim.€€He€claimed€that€he€gave€a€false€confession€because€he€wasÐ  ` Ðintimidated€by€the€armed€law€enforcement€officers€and€was€inexperienced€in€dealing€with€theÐ ü L  Ðauthorities.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€denied€romantic€involvement€with€the€victimððs€mother.€€However,€heÐ À  Ðfirst€admitted€writing€a€letter€to€the€victimððs€mother€in€which€he€professed€his€love€for€her€andÐ ¬ü  Ðwished€her€a€happy€Valentineððs€Day,€but€he€then€claimed€ignorance€of€the€romantic€portions€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðletter,€claiming€another€inmate€wrote€part€of€the€letter€under€the€direction€of€a€third€inmate.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€maintained€that€his€association€with€the€victim€and€her€family€grewÐ \¬ Ðout€of€his€playing€ball€with€the€victimððs€brothers.€€He€testified€that€he€took€the€victim€to€church€withÐ H˜ Ðhim€about€four€times.€€He€claimed€that€on€July€22€he€was€with€the€victim€at€Cove€Lake€Park€afterÐ 4„ Ðchurch€because€he€wanted€to€see€if€the€water€was€the€proper€depth€for€fishing.€€He€testifiedÐ  p Ðalternately€that€the€victim€disrobed€and€went€to€the€water€to€test€it€with€her€foot€and€that€sheÐ  \ Ðremained€in€the€car€while€he€went€to€check€the€water.€€He€admitted€that€his€pants€were€unzippedÐ øH Ðwhen€Mr.€Jeffers€and€the€authorities€were€at€the€park,€but€he€explained€that€he€had€relieved€himselfÐ ä4 Ðbefore€their€arrival€and€his€zipper€was€stuck.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€been€to€the€location€in€CoveÐ Ð  ÐLake€Park,€where€Mr.€Jeffers€discovered€him,€only€on€two€occasions€„€„€once€in€January€with€hisÐ ¼  Ðgirlfriend€and€the€second€time€on€July€22€with€the€victim.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€stateððs€rebuttal€proof€contradicted€several€portions€of€the€defendantððs€testimony.€Ð €Ð ÐA€police€officer€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€at€the€scene€that€he€took€the€victim€to€the€parkÐ l¼ Ðbecause€she€wanted€to€go€swimming.€€He€claimed€he€closed€his€eyes€while€she€disrobed€and€the€twoÐ X ¨ Ðof€them€went€to€the€water€together,€but€he€told€her€the€water€was€too€deep.€€The€defendant€told€theÐ D!” Ðofficer€that€the€victim€was€his€niece.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àAn€employee€of€a€towing€service€testified€that€he€had€participated€in€towing€theÐ $X" Ðdefendantððs€car€from€the€scene.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€seen€the€same€vehicle€in€the€same€locationÐ ô$D # Ðtwo€and€a€half€to€three€weeks€earlier.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€testified€on€surrebuttal€that€on€July€21€he€purchased€the€vehicle€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðhe€was€driving€on€July€22€and€was€never€in€that€vehicle€at€Cove€Lake€Park€prior€to€July€22.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€receiving€all€the€proof,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€rape€of€a€child€onÐ |*Ì%) ÐJuly€18,€2001€(two€counts),€rape€of€a€child€on€July€22,€2001€(two€counts),€and€aggravated€sexualÐ h+¸&* Ðbattery€on€an€unspecified€date€in€July€2001.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€imposed€anÐ ° Ðeffective€90„year€sentence.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð œì ÐÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIˆÐ tÄ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€on€each€of€hisÐ L œ Ðfive€convictions€and€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€onÐ 8 ˆ Ðthree€of€the€five€counts.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àA€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€is€a€question€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€stateððsÐ ü L  Ðevidence€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€of€the€crime€charged.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€656€S.W.2d€60,€61€(Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐCrim.€App.€1983).€€Accordingly,€the€standard€for€determining€whether€a€motion€for€judgment€ofÐ Ô$  Ðacquittal€should€be€granted€is€analogous€to€the€standard€employed€in€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ À  Ðconvicting€evidence€after€a€conviction€has€been€imposed.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jerry€Burkeóó,€No.€02C01„Ð ¬ü  Ð9510-CR-00319€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€11,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997);€òòStateÐ ˜è  Ðv.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððsÐ \¬ Ðstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ H˜ Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ 4„ Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);òò€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð  p Ð2791-92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€ofÐ  \ Ðguilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÐ øH Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòoverruledÐ ä4 Ðon€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ ¨ø Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð ”ä ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ €Ð Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€òò€Ô_ÔLiakasÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);Ð D!” ÐòòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€mustÐ 0"€  Ðafford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ #l! Ðas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð $X" ÐòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àClearly,€the€evidence€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€demonstrates€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant€sexually€penetrated€the€victim€on€July€22,€2001.€€The€victim€testified,€ð ð[The€defendant]Ð ¸'#& Ðhad€sex€with€me.ðð€€Among€other€acts,€she€recounted€that€the€defendant€performed€cunnilingus€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðher€and€had€her€fellate€him€and€that€he€touched€her€private€part€with€his€private€part.€€The€defendantÐ )à$( Ðmade€inculpatory€statements€to€law€enforcement€officers€that€day.€€He€admitted€to€penile€penetrationÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€to€having€the€victim€perform€fellatio€on€him€on€that€date.€€Although€the€defendant€recanted€hisÐ h+¸&* Ðstatements€at€trial,€the€jury€had€the€prerogative€as€the€trier€of€fact€to€reject€his€testimony€in€favor€ofÐ ° Ðhis€earlier€statements€and€the€victimððs€testimony.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àLikewise,€there€is€evidence€via€the€defendantððs€pretrial€statements€that€he€touched€theÐ tÄ Ðvictimððs€vaginal€area€in€June€2001€and€that€he€penetrated€her€vaginally€and€had€her€fellate€him€onÐ `° ÐJuly€18,€2001.€€The€defendant€argues€that€his€inculpatory€statements€regarding€these€incidents€lackÐ L œ Ðsufficient€corroboration€to€sustain€his€convictions.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€rule€in€Tennessee€is€that€there€must€be€evidence€independent€of€a€defendantððsÐ  ` Ðconfession€to€a€crime€to€establish€the€òòcorpus€delictióó,€or€body€of€the€crime.€€€òòSee€State€v.€Smithóó,€24Ð ü L  ÐS.W.3d€274,€281€(Tenn.€2000).€€Although€the€corroborating€evidence€need€not€be€sufficient,€standingÐ è 8  Ðalone,€to€sustain€the€conviction,€it€must€be€enough€to€establish€that€a€certain€result€has€been€producedÐ Ô$  Ðand€that€the€result€was€produced€via€some€criminal€agency.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jonesóó,€15€S.W.3d€880,€890„Ð À  Ð91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999);€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€479€S.W.2d€659,€661-62€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972)€(ð ðAÐ ¬ü  Ðconfession€may€sustain€a€conviction€where€there€is€other€evidence€sufficient€to€show€the€commissionÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€crime€by€someone.ðð).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€òòonlyóó€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€sexual€assaults€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€victim€in€June€2001€and€on€July€18,€2001,€is€found€in€the€defendantððs€inculpatory€statements€toÐ H˜ Ðlaw€enforcement.€€The€victim€testified€at€trial€that€the€only€time€the€defendant€abused€her€was€on€JulyÐ 4„ Ð22,€2001,€and€her€prior€statements€did€not€contradict€that€testimony.€€Although€the€defendantððs€priorÐ  p Ðstatements€indicated€that€the€July€18€assaults€took€place€at€Cove€Lake€Park€and€there€was€evidenceÐ  \ Ðthat€a€witness€saw€the€defendantððs€car€at€the€park€in€the€weeks€prior€to€the€July€22€incident,€there€wasÐ øH Ðno€€evidence€that€a€crime€took€place.€€Thus,€we€are€constrained,€in€keeping€with€the€law€of€this€state,Ð ä4 Ðto€hold€that€the€June€2001€and€July€18,€2001€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction€and€two€rape€ofÐ Ð  Ða€child€convictions€cannot€stand.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIˆÐ ”ä Ðó óÌà  àà ` àWe€thus€move€to€the€question€of€sentencing.€€The€trial€court€imposed€an€effective€90„Ð l¼ Ðyear€sentence€for€the€defendantððs€five€convictions.€€The€court€ordered€25„year€sentences€for€the€twoÐ X ¨ ÐJuly€18,€2001€rape€of€a€child€convictions,€20„year€sentences€for€the€two€July€22,€2001€rape€of€a€childÐ D!” Ðconvictions,€and€8€years€for€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction.€€The€court€ordered€each€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðrape€of€a€child€sentences€to€run€consecutively,€with€concurrent€service€of€the€aggravated€sexualÐ #l! Ðbattery€sentence.€€In€the€wake€of€our€holding€that€three€of€the€defendantððs€convictions€are€notÐ $X" Ðsupported€by€sufficient€evidence,€the€defendantððs€effective€sentence€for€the€remaining€two€July€22Ð ô$D # Ðoffense€convictions€is€40€years.€€We€therefore€consider€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€anÐ à%0!$ Ðeffective€40„year€term€for€those€two€convictions.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÐ ¤(ô#' Ðis€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ )à$( Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(2003).€€ThisÐ |*Ì%) Ðpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ h+¸&* Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€theÐ œì Ðappellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novo.€€Id.€€óóIf€appellate€review€reflects€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ `° Ðrecord,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€Ð L œ ÐòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€theÐ  ` Ðsentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€andÐ ü L  Ðthe€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðand€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÐ Ô$  Ðas€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ð À  Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)€theÐ ˜è  Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(a),€(b)€(2003);€40„35„103(5)Ð „Ô  Ð(2003);òò€State€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€mindful€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€recent€decision€in€òòBlakely€v.Ð H˜ ÐWashingtonóó,€542€U.S.€___,€124€S.€Ct.€2531€(2004),€in€which€the€High€Court€said€that€other€thanÐ 4„ Ðwhen€based€on€the€fact€of€a€prior€conviction,€a€judicially€imposed€sentence€cannot€exceed€theÐ  p Ðmaximum€sentence€statutorily€allowed€ð ðsolely€on€the€basis€of€the€facts€reflected€in€the€jury€verdictÐ  \ Ðor€admitted€by€the€defendantðð€unless€the€facts€relied€upon€for€enhancement€are€found€to€exist€beyondÐ øH Ða€reasonable€doubt€by€a€jury.€€òòId.óó€at€__,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2537€(emphasis€omitted)€(ð ð[T]he€relevantÐ ä4 Ðððstatutory€maximumðð€is€not€the€maximum€sentence€a€judge€may€impose€after€finding€additional€facts,Ð Ð  Ðbut€the€maximum€he€may€impose€without€any€additional€findings.ðð)€€Although€òòBlakelyóó€clearlyÐ ¼  Ðapplies€to€individual€length„of„sentence€determinations,€the€Tennessee€appellate€courts€have€notÐ ¨ø Ðdefinitively€resolved€whether€òòBlakelyóó€applies€to€consecutive€sentencing.à  àà x àÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€sentences€with€which€we€are€concerned€are€both€for€20€years,Ð l¼ Ðwhich€is€the€presumptive€sentence€under€the€statute€absent€a€finding€of€enhancement€and/orÐ X ¨ Ðmitigating€factors.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(2003).€€Under€òòBlakelyóó,€the€sentence€couldÐ D!” Ðnot€be€enhanced€by€factors€which€were€not€found€to€exist€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€by€the€jury,Ð 0"€  Ðother€than€prior€criminal€convictions.€€Inasmuch€as€the€record€does€not€reflect€any€prior€convictionsÐ #l! Ðof€the€defendant,€no€enhancement€beyond€the€presumptive€sentence€is€appropriate.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€his€sentences€should€have€been€mitigated€by€a€finding€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€had€no€prior€criminal€history.€€Although€that€factor€may€be€considered,€the€weight€to€be€affordedÐ Ì&"% Ðis€within€the€discretion€of€the€sentencing€court.€€òòSee€State€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731€n.5€(Tenn.Ð ¸'#& ÐCrim.€App.€1993).€€In€the€present€case,€we€are€unpersuaded€that€the€defendant€carried€his€burden€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdemonstrating€that€this€factor€should€be€applied€given€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€multipleÐ )à$( Ðoffenses€and€admitted€to€additional€offensive€conduct.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àTherefore,€we€hold,€in€the€absence€of€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€thatÐ ° Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€imposing€the€presumptive€20„year€sentence€for€the€defendantððs€two€rapeÐ œì Ðof€a€child€convictions.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€turn,€therefore,€to€the€question€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€In€the€present€case,€theÐ `° Ðtrial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€based€upon€a€finding€that€the€defendant€committedÐ L œ Ðmultiple€sexual€offenses€against€a€minor€victim,€a€statutory€factor€authorizing€consecutiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€(2003).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€stated€above,€it€has€not€previously€been€determined€whether€òòBlakelyóóððs€requirementÐ ü L  Ðof€jury€findings€as€a€predicate€to€increased€punishment€applies€to€consecutive€sentencingÐ è 8  Ðdeterminations,€inasmuch€as€neither€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€nor€the€United€States€SupremeÐ Ô$  ÐCourt€has€directly€addressed€that€question.€€Posing€the€question,€at€least,€is€apt€because€our€lawÐ À  Ðprovides€that,€in€the€absence€of€applicable€statutory€factors€authorizing€or€requiring€consecutiveÐ ¬ü  Ðsentencing,€multiple€sentences€òòshallóó€be€imposed€to€run€concurrently.€€òòSee€id.€óóðð€40„35„115(d)€(2003).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà0 ` àòòóóIn€support€of€òòBlakelyððsóó€application€to€consecutive€sentencing€decisions,€we€note€theÐpÀ` (#` (# ÐòòÔ_ÔBlakelyÔ_Ôóó€Court€did€not€speak€in€narrow€terms€that€targeted€merely€the€length€of€an€accusedððs€sentence;Ð \¬ Ðrather,€it€spoke€in€broad€terms€of€the€stateððs€power€to€punish:€ð ðWhen€a€judge€inflicts€òòpunishmentóó€thatÐ H˜ Ðthe€juryððs€verdict€alone€does€not€allow,€the€jury€has€not€found€all€the€facts€ððwhich€the€law€makesÐ 4„ Ðessential€to€the€òòpunishmentóó,ðð.€.€.€and€the€judge€exceeds€his€proper€authority.ðð€€òòBlakelyóó,€542€U.S.€atÐ  p Ð__,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2537€(quoting€1€J.€Bishop,€Criminal€Procedure,€ðð€87,€at€55€(2d€ed.€1872))€(emphasisÐ  \ Ðadded).€€Accordingly,€it€may€be€logically€argued€that€a€consecutive€sentence€is€a€greater€punishmentÐ øH Ðthan€a€concurrent€sentence.€€If€so,€òòÔ_ÔBlakelyÔ_Ôóó€may€require€a€juryððs€finding€of€facts,€other€than€priorÐ ä4 Ðconvictions,€as€a€state€law€predicate€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115(b)€enumerates€factual€bases€whichÐ ¨ø Ðauthorize€consecutive€sentencing.€€In€the€present€case,€the€consecutive€sentencing€factor€upon€whichÐ ”ä Ðthe€trial€court€relied€is€as€follows:Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà8 ` àThe€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÐ X ¨ Ðinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€theÐ D!” Ðaggravating€circumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€between€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€of€the€defendantððsÐ #l! Ðundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€andÐ $X" Ðthe€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victimÐ ô$D # Ðor€victims[.]Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€(2003).€€As€noted€above,€in€the€absence€of€this€or€some€otherÐ ¸'#& Ðauthorizing€factor,€state€law€requires€the€use€of€concurrent€sentencing.€€òòIdóó.€€ðð€40„35„115(d)€(2003).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐClearly,€reliance€on€this€factor€requires€the€sentencing€court€to€make€factual€findings€of€aggravatingÐ )à$( Ðcircumstances.€€If€òòBlakely€óóapplies,€such€findings€would€fall€within€the€domain€of€the€jury,€not€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt.€€Ð h+¸&* ЇÌò òó óà0  àà ` àHowever,€after€ordering€supplemental€briefing€by€the€parties€and€considering€their€Ðœì(#(# Ðsubmissions,€we€are€not€convinced€that€òòBlakelyóóshould€be€read€so€broadly.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòBlakelyóó€was€based€upon€the€principles€of€òòApprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466,€120Ð `° ÐS.€Ct.€2348€(2000).€€Both€cases€involved€sentences€for€a€single€offense,€and€no€issue€regardingÐ L œ Ðconsecutive€sentencing€was€presented€in€either€case.€€We€believe,€however,€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô€óóestablishes€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€right€to€jury€trial€as€embodied€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€applies€merely€to€the€findings€necessaryÐ $ t Ðto€establish€a€defendantððs€guilt€of€a€specific€offense.€€For€instance,€the€High€Court€adopted€forÐ  ` Ðpurposes€of€state€application€the€language€of€òò€Jones€v.€United€Statesóó,€526€U.S.€227,€243€n.6,€119€S.Ð ü L  ÐCt.€1215,€1224€n.6€(1999),€a€federal€prosecution:€ð ð[U]nder€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FifthÐ è 8  ÐAmendment€and€the€.€.€.€€jury€trial€guarantees€of€the€Sixth€Amendment,€any€fact€(other€than€priorÐ Ô$  Ðconviction)€that€increases€the€maximum€òòpenalty€foróó€òòa€crimeóó€must€be€.€.€.€submitted€to€a€jury€.€.€.€.ðð€Ð À  ÐòòApprendióó,€530€U.S.€at€476,€120€S.€Ct.€at€2355€(emphasis€added).€€Additionally,€the€Court€said,Ð ¬ü  Ðð ðTaken€together,€[the€due€process€and€jury€trial€rights]€indisputably€entitle€a€criminal€defendant€toÐ ˜è  Ððða€jury€determination€that€[he]€is€guilty€òòof€every€element€of€the€crime€with€which€he€is€chargedóó,Ð „Ô  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€477,€120€S.€Ct.€at€2355„56€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€People€v.€Sykesóó,Ð pÀ Ð120€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€1331,€16€Cal.€Rptr.€3d€317,€327€(Cal.€App.€2€Dist.€2004).€€We€believe€theseÐ \¬ Ðreferences€to€the€findings€necessary€to€establish€the€required€òòelementsóó€for€individual€òòoffensesóó,Ð H˜ Ðincluding€findings€that€support€extraordinary€sentences,€articulate€that€the€due€process€and€jury€trialÐ 4„ Ðguarantees€have€no€application€to€a€judgeððs€consecutive€sentencing€determination.€€As€such,€weÐ  p Ðbelieve€these€references€reflect€a€time„honored€view€that,€once€convictions€and€the€lengths€ofÐ  \ Ðindividual€sentences€are€determined,€the€judge€is€the€arbiter€of€whether€the€sentences€shall€runÐ øH Ðconcurrently€or€consecutively.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔBlakelyÔ_Ô€óórule€does€not€apply€to€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðimposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€as€a€matter€of€state€law,€Code€section€40„35„115(b)(5),Ð €Ð Ðestablishing€multiple€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€as€a€basis€for€consecutiveÐ l¼ Ðsentencing,€justifies€consecutive€service€of€the€defendantððs€two€20„year€sentences.€€To€be€sure,€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court€is€to€consider€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€the€time€span€of€theÐ D!” Ðoffenses,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts,€and€the€extent€of€the€ð ðresidual,€physical€and€mentalÐ 0"€  Ðdamage€to€the€victim.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€(2003).€€Just€as€surely,€the€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðconsidered€these€factors.€Based€upon€the€defendantððs€pretrial€statements,€the€trial€court€found€thatÐ $X" Ðthe€defendantððs€abuse€of€the€victim€spanned€from€June€into€July€2001.€€The€court€remarked€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€abuse€of€the€victim€apparently€ceased€only€because,€by€happenstance,€a€passerbyÐ à%0!$ Ðdiscovered€an€offense€in€progress€and€alerted€the€police.€€The€trial€court€essentially€found€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðnature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€were€varied€and€substantial.€€The€victimððs€mother€testified€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€defendant€had€assumed€a€fatherly€role€in€the€victimððs€life,€and€her€victim€impact€statementÐ ¤(ô#' Ðindicated€that,€following€the€offenses,€the€victim€felt€insecure€around€men,€would€not€speak€on€theÐ )à$( Ðtelephone€with€a€male,€had€received€counseling,€and€was€in€need€of€further€counseling.€€Based€uponÐ |*Ì%) Ðthose€statements,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€victim€had€been€profoundly€affected€by€the€crimes.€Ð h+¸&* ЀWe€believe€these€findings€are€supported€in€the€record€and,€in€turn,€support€the€imposition€ofÐ ° Ðconsecutive€sentences.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€summary,€we€reverse€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€aggravated€sexual€batteryÐ tÄ Ðoccurring€on€an€unspecified€date€in€June€2001.€€We€reverse€the€defendantððs€convictions€of€rape€ofÐ `° Ða€child€occurring€on€July€18,€2001.€€Theses€charges€must€be€dismissed.€€We€affirm€the€defendantððsÐ L œ Ðconvictions€of€rape€of€a€child€occurring€on€July€22,€2001.€€We€also€affirm€the€defendantððs€20„yearÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentences€for€his€two€rape€of€a€child€convictions€and€the€order€for€consecutive€sentencing.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE