ÿWPC— Cžê¼ñ;2$Á3@ê®Ýµa½Aý)âºMËe%™½¼¹ŽWIJ¶Ã`›Ze¬íÅéë¡oãÚñÙÏ9£eˆ&D‡—ä;TaMKîÀ‡IR¥x¡ùŠœ¹-%äEl†’EÚî³Ç_9~Õs\›wƒgê;¹hsõæ;/´ÏÕjã ðæÃòÖÈwFåœ)Ë©é·Æ´⺤†É~öFO;dR–ÍdÑY´›sªÞÝ´ûÑ @êu¹×¿'F%þ¿zÌ­5´]È*DýZ7ÜU¼Þ®˜§6` aÀ[³×X¥@°ÑÀµE.ã¿–cèhORR406ã³ ¡ì6)S©äv­h –wN Ý‘G }Àƒí࿃œ½¿º•|3ªdÇ"mÍVÒå˜(! TÞŸ ÷ÂõTí?„QáG,£si~WÈOáWæ°MÍÖ}‘Û¬ …QÚû'{:fîßöKO~«Ý¥ú¢ê£nJÒˆÜVoüç‡\¢êK.X†ÜÖšì·P¥ë02®ÇwF<*õƒò).ð®¬K19Ý/_GVîL¿l‹¨¾KÊç$þ0wª ¯U ‘ÈÄÍHrtezƒNÞ”ÓrŠ+yppë/Êb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ U@û û z; Òµ z‡ Ò ^ Ó wß Æã Æ© ÆoÆ54ûN E" m$; 0DCd‡‡ AŸëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëbŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ 0ë’’’’ B}} 0¤š D5> D-s 0K   ASëÆ> 0¤ 0D¨ A«ì˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ˜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 ˜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¤†)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)䨤h/¥3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ZÝ ƒROí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôå}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently,€Mr.€Durhamððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony€was€recorded€at€a€decreased€speed.€€The€defendantððsÐ ° Ðbrief€does€not€refer€to€the€content€of€the€audiotape€and€states€that€appellate€counsel€ð ðtried€to€listen€to€the€tape€and€wasÐ tÄ Ðunable€to€hear€anything.ðð€€We€note€that€the€defendant€has€a€different€attorney€on€appeal€but€this€fact€does€not€relieve€himÐ 8ˆ Ðof€his€burden€to€provide€a€complete€record€for€our€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€560.€€In€order€to€learn€theÐ üL Ðsubstance€of€Mr.€Durhamððs€testimony,€the€court€listened€to€the€original€tape€on€a€variety€of€tape€recorders€with€variableÐ À Ðspeed€functions€and€determined€that€Mr.€Durhamððs€testimony€was€apparently€recorded€at€one„half€standard€recordingÐ „Ô Ðspeed.€€During€this€process,€the€author€inadvertently€lost€thirteen€seconds€of€the€direct€examination€of€Mr.€DurhamÐ H ˜ Ðcontained€on€the€original€tape.€€The€remaining€direct€testimony€still€implicates€the€defendant€in€the€burglary€and€theftÐ  \ Ðof€the€gun.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€loss€of€this€portion€of€the€tape€is€to€either€partyððs€detriment.€€€€X[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK- ù-(|G2Oí$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Nõ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôå}ò»»Ô d(|3G’$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Nõ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G’$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Nõ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Nõ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Nõ»»»ÔÑ8€©XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îKNõÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Nõ»îîK #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€26,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X©X»¼NõÔÌò òÔ#†¼Nõ»XX©#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóROY€RAY€WALLACEÔ‡X©X»¼NõÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔGraingerÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€3294€€€€€€O.€Duane€Ô_ÔSloneÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00046„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐDecember€6,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€convictions€for€burglary€and€theft€of€property€valued€at€less€than€fiveÐ xÈ  Ðhundred€dollars.€€He€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€light€of€the€uncorroboratedÐ d´ Ðtestimony€of€an€accomplice,€the€admissibility€of€a€recording€of€his€co„defendantððs€testimony,€and€theÐ P  Ðlength€of€his€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€convictions€and€sentences.€Ð <Œ ÐÓøÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Nõ»àX©#ÔÔ‡X©X.¼NõÔJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòJamesÐ ì< ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌRobert€M.€Ô_ÔBurtsÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔRutledgeÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellant,€Roy€Ray€Wallace.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ˆØ ÐAlfred€C.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Michael€A.€Ô_ÔGallegosÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ tÄ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€Ð `° ÐÓ>ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Nõ»XX©m#ÔÔ‡X©X»¼NõÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Nõ»XX©. #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X©X»¼NõÔà  àThe€defendant,€Roy€Ray€Wallace,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€by€a€jury€in€the€Ô_ÔGraingerÔ_ÔÐ #`" ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€for€burglary,€a€Class€D€felony,€and€theft€of€property€valued€at€less€than€fiveÐ ü#L# Ðhundred€dollars,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€defendant,€a€Range€III€offender,€received€concurrentÐ è$8 $ Ðsentences€of€twelve€years€and€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€respectively.€€He€contends€thatÐ Ô%$!% Ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€because€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€is€uncorroborated,€the€trial€courtÐ À&"& Ðimproperly€admitted€the€tape„recorded€testimony€of€a€co„defendant,€and€his€sentence€is€excessive.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐWe€affirm€the€judgments€of€conviction.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€George€McCoy,€the€owner€of€McCoy€Meat€Company,€testified€as€follows:€€OnÐ p*À%* ÐAugust€10,€1997,€around€midnight,€his€employee,€who€lived€across€the€street€from€the€meatÐ \+¬&+ Ðcompany,€called€to€tell€him€that€someone€had€broken€into€his€business.€€The€employee€told€him€that€Ð H,˜', Ðhe€saw€a€truck€in€the€meat€companyððs€driveway€and€that€when€he€drove€to€the€rear€of€the€buildingÐ 4-„(-ýC ÐÔ_Ôto€investigate,€he€saw€the€perpetrators€fleeing.€€The€perpetrators€had€loaded€ten€thousand€dollarsÐ ° Ðworth€of€perishable€food€into€buggies€and€left€them€at€the€rear€of€the€building.€€They€damaged€threeÐ œì Ðdoors€and€took€a€pager€and€two€hundred€dollars€in€cash.€€He€also€identified€exhibit€one,€a€.22€caliber,Ð ˆØ Ðbolt„action€gun€with€a€piece€of€the€stock€missing,€as€the€gun€that€had€been€taken€from€his€business.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMr.€McCoy€testified€that€the€perpetrators€took€his€business€checkbook€and€wrote€eight€to€tenÐ L œ Ðchecks€on€his€account.€€Mr.€McCoy€was€the€only€one€authorized€to€sign€checks€on€this€account.€€HeÐ 8 ˆ Ðidentified€a€check€written€on€his€account,€made€out€to€Roy€R.€Wallace,€and€signed€by€George€Culin.€Ð $ t ÐThe€memorandum€portion€of€the€check€stated€ð ðweek€8„11€„€8„15€€€36ðð€hours.ðð€€The€check€had€theÐ  ` Ðname€Roy€Wallace,€a€driverððs€license€number,€and€a€phone€number€on€the€back.€€The€check€reflectsÐ ü L  Ðthat€it€had€been€cashed€at€a€business.€€Mr.€McCoy€did€not€know€George€Culin,€and€neither€Mr.€CulinÐ è 8  Ðnor€the€defendant€had€ever€worked€for€him.€€The€defendantððs€relatives€lived€across€the€street€fromÐ Ô$  Ðthe€meat€company,€and€Mr.€McCoy€had€seen€the€defendant€before€but€had€never€given€himÐ À  Ðpermission€to€enter€his€business€or€take€his€property.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àJoey€Edward€Cox€testified€as€follows:€On€August€17,€1997,€the€defendant€tried€to€sell€himÐ „Ô  Ða€rifle,€which€he€identified€as€the€gun€marked€exhibit€one.€€He€told€the€defendant€that€he€did€not€wantÐ pÀ Ðto€buy€the€gun,€but€the€defendantððs€brother€continued€showing€it€to€him.€€He€thought€that€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€acted€suspiciously€because€the€defendant€told€his€brother€not€to€be€flashing€the€gunÐ H˜ Ðaround.€€The€defendant€sold€the€gun€to€James€Diehls€for€twenty„five€dollars.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àJames€Diehls€testified€as€follows:€On€August€17,€1997,€he€saw€the€defendant€and€Joey€CoxÐ  \ Ðat€a€body€shop.€€The€defendant€was€putting€a€gun€in€his€trunk,€and€Mr.€Diehls,€who€collects€guns,Ð øH Ðasked€him€about€it.€€The€gun,€a€.22€caliber€rifle,€was€worth€only€twenty„five€dollars€because€it€wasÐ ä4 Ðbroken.€€Joey€Cox€offered€the€defendant€twenty€dollars€for€the€gun,€but€the€defendant€declined€thatÐ Ð  Ðoffer.€€Mr.€Diehls€bought€the€gun€from€the€defendant€for€twenty„five€dollars.€€He€identified€exhibitÐ ¼  Ðone€as€the€gun€that€he€bought€from€the€defendant€on€that€day.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWayne€Wallace,€the€defendantððs€brother,€testified€as€follows:€He€was€with€his€nephew,Ð €Ð ÐDanny€Overholt;€the€defendant;€and€a€boy,€whom€he€identified€only€as€the€son€of€a€woman€namedÐ l¼ ÐRobin,€when€the€defendant€traded€something€to€Mr.€Overholt€for€a€Kenwood€car€stereo.€€SometimeÐ X ¨ Ðlater,€he€was€with€the€defendant,€Robinððs€son,€and€another€boy.€€The€defendant€traded€the€stereo€toÐ D!” ÐRobinððs€son€in€exchange€for€a€gun.€€Sometime€afterwards,€the€defendant€took€the€gun€to€the€bodyÐ 0"€  Ðshop€to€sell€it.€€Mr.€Wallace€sat€in€the€car€and€did€not€know€how€much€money€the€defendant€receivedÐ #l! Ðfor€the€gun.€€The€defendant€never€told€him€not€to€be€flashing€the€gun€around.€€He€identified€exhibitÐ $X" Ðone€as€the€gun€that€the€defendant€got€from€Robinððs€son.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àJudy€Overholt,€the€defendantððs€sister,€testified€as€follows:€On€April€2,€1997,€she€bought€a€carÐ Ì&"% Ðand€the€salesman€gave€her€a€Kenwood€stereo€to€install€in€it.€€She€sold€the€car€to€her€son,€whoÐ ¸'#& Ðinstalled€his€Pioneer€stereo€and€gave€the€Kenwood€stereo€to€the€defendant€in€the€summer€of€1997.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐShe€knew€nothing€about€the€defendant€subsequently€trading€the€stereo€for€a€gun.€€Grant€RunionÐ )à$( Ðtestified€that€he€had€known€the€defendant€all€of€his€life€and€was€there€when€the€defendant€traded€aÐ |*Ì%) ÐSanyo€car€radio€to€a€teenage€boy€in€exchange€for€a€gun.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€jury€listened€to€the€taped€preliminary€hearing€testimony€of€Brian€Durham,€whoÐ ° Ðimplicated€the€defendant€in€the€burglary€and€stated€that€the€defendant€had€taken€a€gun.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€instructed€the€jury€that€Mr.€Durham€was€also€charged€in€connection€with€these€crimes€and€thatÐ ˆØ Ðif€he€had€been€present,€defense€counsel€would€have€questioned€him€about€entering€into€a€pleaÐ tÄ Ðagreement€with€the€state.€€Based€upon€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€ofÐ `° Ðburglary€and€theft€of€property€valued€at€less€than€five€hundred€dollars.Ð L œ ÐÌà@  ìàò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions€becauseÐ ü L  Ðnothing€corroborates€the€testimony€of€Brian€Durham,€who€was€an€accomplice€in€the€crimes.€€HeÐ è 8  Ðargues€that€although€the€state€proved€that€he€sold€the€gun€taken€from€the€victimððs€business€sevenÐ Ô$  Ðdays€after€the€burglary,€he€presented€uncontradicted€testimony€that€he€had€traded€a€stereo€in€exchangeÐ À  Ðfor€the€gun.€€He€claims€that€the€mere€fact€that€his€name€appears€on€the€stolen€check€does€not€proveÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€he€stole,€wrote,€passed,€endorsed€or€ever€possessed€the€check.€€The€state€contends€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€in€the€record€corroborates€Brian€Durhamððs€testimony.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÔ‡X©XXX©Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€Our€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€isÐ \¬ Ðð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trierÐ H˜ Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJacksonÐ 4„ Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€theÐ  p Ðevidence€but€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÐ  \ Ðreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ô#†X©XXX©î'#ÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€Tennessee,€a€conviction€may€not€be€based€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€anÐ ¼  Ðaccomplice.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€An€accomplice€is€an€individualÐ ¨ø Ðwho€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€participates€with€the€principal€offender€in€theÐ ”ä Ðcommission€of€an€offense.€€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€794€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€the€Ð €Ð Ðpresent€case,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€Brian€Durham€was€an€accomplice€and€that€hisÐ l¼ Ðtestimony€must€be€corroborated.€€Whether€other€evidence€sufficiently€corroborates€the€testimony€ofÐ X ¨ Ðan€accomplice€is€a€question€of€fact€entrusted€to€the€jury.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€803.€€The€generalÐ D!” Ðrule€is€that:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àthere€must€be€some€fact€testified€to,€entirely€independent€of€the€accompliceððsÐ $X" Ðtestimony,€which,€taken€by€itself,€leads€to€the€inference,€not€only€that€a€crime€hasÐ ô$D # Ðbeen€committed,€but€also€that€the€defendant€is€implicated€in€it;€and€this€independentÐ à%0!$ Ðcorroborative€testimony€must€also€include€some€fact€establishing€the€defendantððsÐ Ì&"% Ðidentity.€€This€corroborative€evidence€may€be€direct€or€entirely€circumstantial,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðit€need€not€be€adequate,€in€and€of€itself,€to€support€a€conviction;€it€is€sufficient€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmeet€the€requirements€of€the€rule€if€it€fairly€and€legitimately€tends€to€connect€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðcorroboration€extend€to€every€part€of€the€accompliceððs€evidence.€€The€corroborationÐ h+¸&* Ðneed€not€be€conclusive,€but€it€is€sufficient€if€this€evidence,€of€itself,€tends€to€connectÐ ° Ðthe€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€offense,€although€the€evidence€is€slight€andÐ œì Ðentitled,€when€standing€alone,€to€but€little€consideration.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌòòHawkins€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€121,€133„34,€469€S.W.2d€515,€520€(1971).Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€sufficiently€corroborates€Mr.€Durhamððs€testimony€linking€the€defendant€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðburglary€and€theft€of€the€gun€from€the€meat€company.€€James€Dielhs€testified€that€the€defendant€soldÐ $ t Ðhim€a€broken€.22€caliber€rifle€on€August€17,€1997.€€Joey€Cox€testified€that€the€defendant€had€offeredÐ  ` Ðto€sell€him€a€gun€on€August€17,€1997,€and€then€sold€it€to€Mr.€Diehls.€€Both€men€identified€the€gunÐ ü L  Ðtaken€from€the€meat€company€as€the€one€in€the€defendantððs€possession€that€day.€€Absent€aÐ è 8  Ðsatisfactory€explanation,€the€possession€of€recently€stolen€property€creates€the€inference€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðindividual€in€possession€stole€the€property.€€òòBush€v.€Stateóó,€541€S.W.2d€391,€394€(Tenn.€1976);€òòStateÐ À  Ðv.€Pfeiferóó,€993€S.W.2d€47,€52€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€The€defendantððs€possession€of€the€stolenÐ ¬ü  Ðgun€seven€days€after€the€burglary€is€corroborative€of€Mr.€Durhamððs€testimony.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€three€uncontradicted€witnesses€testified€that€he€traded€a€stereoÐ pÀ Ðto€a€teenage€boy€in€exchange€for€the€gun.€€The€defendantððs€explanation€of€his€or€her€possession€ofÐ \¬ Ðrecently€stolen€property€does€not€destroy€the€inference€that€it€is€stolen,€but,€instead,€presents€aÐ H˜ Ðquestion€for€the€jury€regarding€the€weight€to€give€the€evidence.€€òòBushóó,€541€S.W.2d€at€395.€€WhileÐ 4„ Ðtwo€witnesses,€Wayne€Wallace€and€Grant€Runion,€testified€that€the€defendant€traded€a€stereo€for€aÐ  p Ðgun,€only€Mr.€Wallace€identified€the€gun€taken€from€the€meat€company€as€the€weapon€received€byÐ  \ Ðthe€defendant€in€the€trade.€€Judy€Overholt€testified€that€she€knew€nothing€about€the€defendant€tradingÐ øH Ðthe€stereo€for€a€gun.€€Mr.€Coxððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€acted€suspiciously€regarding€the€gunÐ ä4 Ðby€telling€his€brother€not€to€flash€the€gun€around€contradicts€the€defendantððs€evidence€that€he€gainedÐ Ð  Ðthe€gun€through€legitimate€means.€€The€question€of€whether€the€defendant€received€the€gun€from€anÐ ¼  Ðunnamed€teenager€goes€to€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€evidence,€matters€reserved€for€the€juryÐ ¨ø Ðrather€than€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€fact€that€the€stolen€check€bore€his€name€does€notÐ l¼ Ðcorroborate€Mr.€Durhamððs€testimony€that€he€was€involved€in€the€burglary€because€the€state€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðprove€that€he€stole,€wrote,€passed,€endorsed€or€possessed€the€check.€€The€corroborative€evidence€doesÐ D!” Ðnot€have€to€prove€conclusively€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crime€but€must€simply€connect€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€with€the€crime.€€òòHawkinsóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€133„34,€469€S.W.2d€at€520.€€TheÐ #l! Ðcorroborative€evidence€standing€alone€may€be€entitled€to€little€weight.€€òòId.óó€€òòóóMr.€McCoy,€the€ownerÐ $X" Ðof€the€meat€company,€testified€that€his€business€checkbook€was€stolen€in€the€burglary,€that€he€wasÐ ô$D # Ðthe€only€one€authorized€to€write€checks€on€the€business€account,€and€that€the€defendant€had€neverÐ à%0!$ Ðworked€for€him.€€He€identified€one€of€his€checks,€which€was€payable€to€Roy€R.€Wallace€and€bore€theÐ Ì&"% Ðsignature€ð ðRoy€Wallaceðð€as€the€endorsement.€€The€check€was€dated€August€15,€1997,€and€theÐ ¸'#& Ðmemorandum€notation€indicated€that€the€check€was€for€thirty„six€and€one„half€hours€of€workÐ ¤(ô#' Ðperformed€on€August€11„15,€1997.€€The€stolen€check€listing€the€defendant€as€the€recipientÐ )à$( Ðpurportedly€in€exchange€for€thirty„six€and€one€half€hours€of€labor€despite€the€fact€that€he€neverÐ |*Ì%) Ðworked€for€Mr.€McCoy€connects€the€defendant€with€the€burglary€of€the€meat€company.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àViewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€Mr.€Durham€testified€that€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€broke€into€the€meat€company€and€took€a€gun.€€The€defendant€sold€the€stolen€gun€sevenÐ œì Ðdays€following€the€burglary.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions€for€burglary€andÐ ˆØ Ðtheft€of€property€valued€at€less€than€five€hundred€dollars.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@ì ì ìàò òII.€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€RECORDED€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€audiotape€recording€of€the€preliminary€hearing€testimonyÐ $ t Ðof€Brian€Durham€is€inadmissible€because€it€violates€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€confrontation.€Ð  ` ÐHe€argues€that€Mr.€Durham,€who€was€the€key€witness€linking€him€to€the€burglary,€repeatedlyÐ ü L  Ðcontradicted€himself,€could€not€recall€some€information,€and€was€motivated€to€lie€because€of€his€pleaÐ è 8  Ðagreement€with€the€state.€€He€maintains€that€the€record€is€devoid€of€proof€of€the€stateððs€effort€to€bringÐ Ô$  ÐMr.€Durham€into€court.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€admitted€the€recordedÐ À  Ðtestimony€because€portions€of€the€recording€are€inaudible.€€The€state€contends€that€the€defendant€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðwaived€this€issue€for€failing€to€include€it€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€It€also€argues€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€failed€to€question€the€unavailability€of€Mr.€Durham€at€trial€and€that€the€trial€courtÐ „Ô  Ðdetermined€that€Mr.€Durham€was€unavailable.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€failure€to€include€a€challenge€to€the€admissibility€of€evidence€in€the€motion€for€a€newÐ H˜ Ðtrial€serves€to€waive€appellate€review€of€the€issue.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€When€necessary€to€do€substantialÐ 4„ Ðjustice,€this€court€may€review€an€error€omitted€from€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€but€affecting€theÐ  p Ðsubstantial€rights€of€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€In€order€for€the€state€to€introduce€theÐ  \ Ðformer€testimony€of€an€unavailable€witness€without€violating€the€defendantððs€right€to€confrontation,Ð øH Ðthe€state€must€prove€that€the€witness€is€ð ðtruly€unavailableðð€despite€the€stateððs€good€faith€effort€toÐ ä4 Ðsecure€the€witnessððs€presence€at€trial€and€that€the€evidence€bears€its€own€indicia€of€reliability.€€òòStateÐ Ð  Ðv.€Arnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€543,€548€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€We€are€unable€to€determine€if€the€stateÐ ¼  Ðhas€conformed€to€these€requirements€in€this€case€because€the€defendant€has€failed€to€provide€aÐ ¨ø Ðcomplete€record€on€appeal.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àBefore€trial,€defense€counsel€moved€to€exclude€the€audiotaped€testimony€of€Mr.€Durham,Ð l¼ Ðcontending€that,€as€he€had€told€the€court€earlier,€the€audiotape€was€inaudible€and€that€it€violated€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendantððs€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€this€witness.€€Without€asking€for€the€stateððsÐ D!” Ðresponse,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€motion,€stating€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àthe€Court€finds€that€Mr.€Durham€had€unequivocally€entered€into€an€agreement€withÐ $X" Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€to€testify€against€Mr.€Roy€Ray€Wallace.€€However,€heððs€notÐ ô$D # Ðhere,€a€capias€has€been€issued€for€his€arrest.€€Heððs€obviously€unavailable€as€a€witnessÐ à%0!$ Ðin€this€matter€and€he€did€testify€at€the€Preliminary€Hearing€of€this€matter€and€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðsubject€to€cross„examination€at€that€time.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌThese€statements€along€with€defense€counselððs€reference€to€what€he€previously€told€the€court€indicateÐ )à$( Ðthe€existence€of€earlier€discussions€regarding€Mr.€Durhamððs€availability€that€are€not€a€part€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðrecord.€€The€appealing€party€has€a€ð ðduty€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€andÐ h+¸&* Ðcomplete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€forming€the€basis€of€the€appeal.ðð€òòóóÐ ° ÐòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€the€absence€of€a€complete€record,€we€mustÐ œì Ðpresume€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€Mr.€Durham€was€truly€unavailable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,Ð ˆØ Ð840€S.W.2d€944,€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(ð ðAbsent€an€essential€part€of€the€record,€this€courtÐ tÄ Ðmust€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€correct.ðð).Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€admitted€the€audiotape€into€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðbecause€portions€were€inaudible.€€However,€the€defendant€has€provided€an€incomplete€record€on€thisÐ $ t Ðissue€because€he€has€not€preserved€the€recording€as€it€was€heard€by€the€jury.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€any€event,€ourÐ  ` Ðreview€of€the€recording€reveals€that€while€portions€of€Mr.€Durhamððs€testimony€are€unintelligible,€theÐ ü L  Ðtestimony€still€implicates€the€defendant€in€the€burglary€and€the€theft€of€the€gun.€€We€further€note€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendantððs€trial€counsel€conducted€a€thorough€cross„examination€of€Mr.€Durham,€pointing€outÐ Ô$  Ða€number€of€inconsistencies€in€his€testimony.€€The€trial€court€listened€to€the€audiotape€before€trialÐ À  Ðand€ruled€that€it€was€sufficiently€audible€to€be€heard€by€the€jury.€€The€defendantððs€trial€attorneyÐ ¬ü  Ðstipulated€to€the€authenticity€of€the€audiotape.€€ð ðProvided€that€a€tape€recording€is€properlyÐ ˜è  Ðauthenticated,€the€incompleteness€of€it€goes€only€to€its€weight€and€not€to€its€admissibility.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð „Ô  ÐHarrisóó,€637€S.W.2d€896,€898€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Beasleyóó,€699€S.W.2d€565,Ð pÀ Ð569€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòAldridge€v.€Stateóó,€562€S.W.2d€216,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€Ð \¬ ÐThe€trial€court€properly€admitted€the€recorded€testimony€of€Brian€Durham.€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà@°°#ìàò òIII.€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€summarily€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€because€he€committedÐ øH Ðproperty€crimes€rather€than€crimes€against€people,€broke€into€a€business€rather€than€a€home,€andÐ ä4 Ðrepaid€the€store€that€cashed€the€forged€check€before€he€was€charged€with€these€offenses.€€He€alsoÐ Ð  Ðargues€that€his€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury€and€that€he€has€a€historyÐ ¼  Ðof€bad€nerves€and€diminished€mental€capacity.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ ¨ø Ðsentenced€the€defendant.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourt's€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€As€the€SentencingÐ X ¨ ÐCommission€Comments€to€this€section€note,€the€burden€is€now€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€theÐ D!” Ðsentence€is€improper.€€The€defendantððs€argument€as€stated€above€is€essentially€all€the€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðpresents€on€this€issue.€€As€noted€by€the€state,€the€failure€to€provide€argument€and€citation€toÐ #l! Ðauthorities€will€result€in€waiver€of€the€issue.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€The€defendantððs€briefÐ ° Ðassertion€of€circumstances€that€he€apparently€believes€the€trial€court€should€have€used€to€mitigate€hisÐ œì Ðsentence€is€worthy€of€such€waiver.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€followed€theÐ `° Ðstatutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€andÐ L œ Ðgave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€relevant€sentencing€factors€and€principles.€€The€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€found€and€attached€great€weight€to€enhancement€factor€(1)€because€the€defendant€had€criminalÐ $ t Ðconvictions€in€excess€of€those€necessary€for€his€Range€III€status.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  ` Ð114(1).€€The€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendant€had€twenty€convictions€for€felonies€andÐ ü L  Ðmisdemeanors€in€excess€of€the€six€convictions€necessary€to€establish€his€sentencing€range.€€The€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€also€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€with€factor€(13)(A),€finding€that€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðcommitted€the€present€felony€of€burglary€while€on€bail€for€another€felony€of€which€he€was€ultimatelyÐ À  Ðconvicted.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13)(A).€€The€trial€court€applied€mitigating€factor€(1),Ð ¬ü  Ðfinding€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€did€not€cause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ ˜è  ÐAnn.ðð€40„35„113(1).€€It€found€no€other€mitigating€factors€to€apply,€determined€that€the€defendantððsÐ „Ô  Ðlengthy€criminal€record€greatly€outweighed€any€mitigation,€and€sentenced€the€defendant€to€theÐ pÀ Ðmaximum€sentence€of€twelve€years€for€his€burglary€conviction.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€that€his€conduct€did€notÐ 4„ Ðcause€or€threaten€serious€bodily€injury.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€mitigated€theÐ  p Ðdefendantððs€sentence€with€this€factor€but€found€it€to€be€outweighed€by€the€defendantððs€criminalÐ  \ Ðrecord.€€To€the€extent€that€the€defendant€is€arguing€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€weigh€theseÐ øH Ðfactors,€we€observe€that€the€weight€accorded€sentencing€factors€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€soundÐ ä4 Ðdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðproperly€applied€these€factors.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€his€mental€historyÐ ”ä Ðof€a€nervous€condition€and€diminished€mental€capacity.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendantððsÐ €Ð Ðsister,€Judy€Overholt,€testified€that€as€a€child,€the€defendant€experienced€nervousness,€hyperactivity,Ð l¼ Ðand€problems€concentrating.€€She€stated€that€while€in€school,€the€defendant€took€medication€for€thisÐ X ¨ Ðcondition€but€that€the€medication€made€him€sleepy€and€that€he€slept€through€most€of€his€classes,€andÐ D!” Ðhe€could€not€read€or€write.€€She€said€that€although€the€defendant€needed€to€be€on€medication€for€theÐ 0"€  Ðrest€of€his€life,€he€stopped€taking€the€medication€as€a€teenager€and€started€getting€into€trouble.€€TheÐ #l! Ðtrial€court€considered€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€in€relation€to€mitigating€factor€(8),€theÐ $X" Ðð ðdefendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€or€physical€condition€that€significantly€reducedÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendantððs€culpability€for€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€While€recognizingÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€defendant€did€have€a€condition€that€made€him€nervous,€the€court€rejected€factor€(8),€findingÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€the€defendant€had€sufficient€mental€faculties€to€know€the€type€of€conduct€in€which€he€engaged.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThe€record€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€that€these€crimes€wereÐ |*Ì%) Ðproperty€crimes€rather€than€crimes€against€people€and€that€he€broke€into€a€business€rather€than€aÐ h+¸&* Ðhome.€€The€trial€court€did€consider€the€fact€that€the€offenses€posed€no€threat€of€injury€to€others€inÐ ° Ðapplying€mitigating€factor€(1).€€Furthermore,€the€legislature€has€provided€a€lesser€penalty€for€theÐ œì Ðburglary€of€a€business,€which€is€a€Class€D€felony,€than€that€for€the€burglary€of€a€habitation,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðconstitutes€aggravated€burglary€and€is€a€Class€C€felony.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€formerÐ tÄ Ðand,€thus,€has€received€a€lesser€penalty€based€upon€the€location€of€the€crime.Ð `° ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€that€he€repaid€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðstore€where€he€cashed€the€forged€check€before€he€was€charged€with€these€offenses.€€At€the€sentencingÐ $ t Ðhearing,€the€defendant€denied€committing€the€offenses€and€explained€the€presence€of€his€name€onÐ  ` Ðthe€forged€check€by€relating€that€he€sold€some€tires€to€a€woman,€who€wrote€him€a€check.€€He€saidÐ ü L  Ðthat€he€would€not€have€endorsed€the€check,€written€his€social€security€number€on€it,€or€cashed€it€ifÐ è 8  Ðhe€had€known€that€it€was€stolen.€€His€attorney€reminded€the€court€that€the€defendant€could€not€readÐ Ô$  Ðor€write.€€The€defendant€stated€that€a€Union€County€detective€talked€to€him€about€the€check.€€He€saidÐ À  Ðthat€after€speaking€with€the€detective,€he€repaid€the€store€in€Union€County€at€which€he€cashed€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcheck.€€He€stated€that€about€one€week€later,€he€went€to€court€in€Union€County€and€was€brought€toÐ ˜è  ÐGrainger€County€for€the€burglary€of€the€meat€company.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àA€trial€court€may€mitigate€the€defendantððs€sentence€if€before€ð ðdetection,€the€defendantÐ \¬ Ðcompensated€or€made€a€good€faith€attempt€to€compensate€the€victim€of€criminal€conduct€for€theÐ H˜ Ðdamage€or€injury€the€victim€sustained.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(5).€€Although€the€defendantÐ 4„ Ðclaims€to€have€repaid€the€store€before€being€charged€with€the€burglary€of€the€meat€company,€it€doesÐ  p Ðnot€appear€that€he€repaid€the€store€before€the€police€became€involved€in€the€matter€of€the€forgedÐ  \ Ðchecks.€€Mitigating€factor€(5)€does€not€apply€because€the€defendant€did€not€compensate€the€victimÐ øH Ðbefore€detection.€€On€the€other€hand,€a€defendantððs€repayment€of€the€check€after€detection€may€beÐ ä4 Ðconsidered€under€the€catchall€provision€of€mitigating€factor€(13).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mary€McNabbóó,€No.Ð Ð  Ð03C01„9404„CR„00135,€Sullivan€County,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€8,€1995).€€EvenÐ ¼  Ðconsidering€that€the€defendant€repaid€the€store€at€which€he€passed€the€stolen€check,€this€factor€isÐ ¨ø Ðentitled€to€little€weight€in€light€of€his€extensive€criminal€record.€€We€affirm€the€sentences€of€twelveÐ ”ä Ðyears€for€the€burglary€and€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€misdemeanor€theft.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€conviction.Ð X ¨ Ѐ€€€€Ð D!” ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE