ÿWPCD …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe ² B¾v~ÛvÓY D3, 0@_ AOŸÆî 0D´ D/ø B'˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- e r‚  eE[HÓ€³†;$3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJune€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€%)XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9706„CC„00230Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLINCOLN€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€LEE,€JUDGEó óÌò òDEVON€WELLS,€à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)à à(SALE€OF€SCHEDULE€II€DRUG)€Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òJOHN€HARWELL€DICKEYà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defender€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òCURTIS€H.€GANNà àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNER€Ìó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ105€South€Mainà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌP.O.€Box€1119à àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌFayetteville,€TN€37334à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€MICHAEL€McCOWNÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWEAKLEY€E.€BARNARDÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJ.B.€COXÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà0 àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€904€Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àFayetteville,€TN€37334€ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Devon€Wells,€appeals€his€convictions€of€two€counts€of€saleÏof€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Lincoln€CountyÏCircuit€Court.€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€II€Multiple€Offender€to€twoÏconsecutive€sentences€of€nine€(9)€and€seven€(7)€years.€€He€was€also€fined€a€totalÏof€$100,000€for€the€two€convictions.€€In€this€appeal,€Defendant€argues€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€thatÏthe€sentence€imposed€was€excessive€and€contrary€to€law.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€April€26,€1996,€at€approximately€5:00€p.m.€in€the€Scales€Heights€area€ofÏFayetteville,€Tennessee,€Agent€Shane€Daugherty,€an€undercover€officer€with€theÏ17th€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force,€and€Shirley€Neal,€a€confidential€informant,Ïmade€two€purchases€of€less€than€.5€grams€of€crack€cocaine€from€Defendant.€€BothÏAgent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€Neal,€as€well€as€Agent€Robert€L.€Briscoe,€Jr.,€Director€ofÏthe€17th€Judicial€Drug€Task€Force,€and€Ms.€Donna€Flowers,€forensic€chemist€fromÏthe€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€at€trial€on€behalf€of€the€State.ÌÌà àAgent€Daugherty€testified€that€he€met€with€Shirley€Neal,€the€informant,€andÏAgent€Briscoe€in€a€parking€lot€in€the€downtown€area€of€Fayetteville€on€April€26,Í1996€at€approximately€4:30€p.m.€€Agent€Daugherty€searched€Ms.€Neal€and€herÏvehicle,€gave€her€fifty€dollars€in€recorded€confidential€funds,€attached€a€concealedÏmicro€cassette€recording€device,€and€then€left€with€Ms.€Neal€in€her€car.€€AgentÏBriscoe€stayed€in€the€parking€lot€as€Agent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€drove€towardsÏLocust€Street.€€ÌÌà àThe€two€of€them€arrived€at€Locust€Street€at€about€5:00€p.m.€€According€to€€€ÏAgent€Daugherty,€they€were€not€targeting€any€particular€individual€but€were€lookingÏfor€street€dealers€in€general.€€They€were€first€approached€by€a€black€male€wearingÏkhaki€shorts€and€a€white€shirt,€but€Ms.€Neal€did€not€know€his€name€so€theyÏdecided€to€keep€on€looking.€€Agent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€then€saw€DefendantÏstanding€in€front€of€a€green€house€waving€them€over.€€When€Agent€Daugherty€andÏMs.€Neal€indicated€they€wanted€to€purchase€two€fifty€dollar€amounts€of€crackÏcocaine,€Defendant€got€into€the€back€seat€of€Ms.€Nealððs€car€and€told€them€to€circleÏthe€block.ÌÌà àAgent€Daughtery€testified€that€Defendant€was€wearing€black€pants€and€aÏwhite€t„shirt€and€that€he€could€clearly€see€the€movements€of€Defendant€in€the€backÏseat€from€where€he€was€positioned€in€the€front€seat.€€Defendant€pulled€a€clearÏplastic€baggie€out€from€his€front€pocket€and€he€then€handed€Agent€DaughertyÏsome€crack€cocaine€in€exchange€for€fifty€dollars.€€Next,€Defendant€handed€Ms.€NealÍsome€crack€cocaine€to€which€she€responded€by€telling€Defendant€that€she€did€notÏwant€any€ð ðcrumbs.ðð€€He€then€handed€her€another€rock€in€exchange€for€her€fiftyÏdollars.€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àAgent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€then€dropped€the€Defendant€back€off€whereÏthey€had€picked€him€up€and€returned€to€the€parking€lot€where€Agent€Briscoe€wasÏwaiting.€€As€soon€as€Defendant€was€out€of€sight,€Agent€Daugherty€turned€off€theÏrecording€device€and€took€the€crack€cocaine€Ms.€Neal€had€purchased€fromÏDefendant€into€his€possession.€€He€placed€the€two€purchases€in€separateÏbaggies€and€evidence€folders€and€handed€them€over€to€Agent€Briscoe.€€AgentÏDaugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€described€Defendant€to€Agent€Briscoe€and€Ms.€Neal€toldÏAgent€Briscoe€Defendantððs€name.ÌÌà àAgent€Briscoe€testified€that€he€knew€Defendant€prior€to€the€date€upon€whichÏthe€present€offenses€occurred.€€However,€after€Agent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€NealÏturned€over€the€purchased€crack€cocaine€to€him,€along€with€their€description€andÏname€of€the€dealer,€Agent€Briscoe€drove€over€to€Locust€Street€to€verify€for€himselfÏthat€the€person€they€described€as€the€dealer€was€in€fact€Defendant.€€Agent€BriscoeÏwas€able€to€verify€that€it€was€indeed€Defendant€who€sold€the€crack€cocaine€onÏApril€26,€1996.€€Agent€Briscoe€also€testified€that€he€took€into€custody€the€crackÏcocaine€purchased€by€Agent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€and€that€he€turned€thatÍevidence€over€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€for€analysis.€€Ms.€FlowersÏof€the€TBI€testified€that€as€a€forensic€chemist€she€performed€two€tests€on€theÏsubstances€given€to€her€by€Agent€Briscoe,€and€that€they€were€both€in€fact€crackÏcocaine.€€The€two€packets€contained€.2€and€.3€grams€of€cocaine€base.ÌÌà@ àI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÌÌà àDefendant€claims€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€a€finding€ofÏguilt€because€the€evidence€regarding€the€identification€of€Defendant€as€the€dealer€isÏweak.€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosection,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€ÏThis€standard€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏinferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÍwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustratingÏwhy€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€914€S.W.2d€940,€945€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982));€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdictÏapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€allÏconflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.à àÌÌà àIt€is€clear€to€this€Court€that€the€State€proved€all€the€elements€of€the€crimeÏcharged€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Defendant€took€fifty€dollars€each€from€AgentÏDaugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€and€sold€each€of€them€crack€cocaine.€€They€in€turn€gaveÏthe€substances€they€purchased€from€Defendant€to€Agent€Briscoe.€€TheÏsubstances€were€submitted€to€the€TBI€crime€laboratory€where€they€tested€positiveÏfor€cocaine€base.€€Both€Agent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€Neal€unequivocally€identifiedÏDefendant€as€the€person€who€sold€them€the€controlled€substance.€€Furthermore,Íboth€Ms.€Neal€and€Agent€Briscoe€testified€that€they€knew€Defendantððs€identity€œprior›Ïto€the€transaction,€and€Agent€Briscoe€even€drove€back€to€Locust€Street€to€verify€forÏhimself€that€the€description€of€the€dealer€given€by€Agent€Daugherty€and€Ms.€NealÏwas€indeed€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àThere€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€of€the€identification€of€Defendant€as€theÏperson€who€sold€the€crack€cocaine.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.€€SentencingÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€sentences€he€received€for€the€two€convictions€ofÏsale€of€a€controlled€substance€are€excessive€and€contrary€to€law.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÏa€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€There€are,€however,€exceptions€to€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€First,€theÏrecord€must€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÍall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòId.óó€€€Second,€the€presumption€does€not€applyÏto€the€legal€conclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court€in€sentencing.€€Third,€theÏpresumption€does€not€apply€when€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏpredicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€898€S.W.2d€742,€745€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of:€(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€theÏtrial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;€(6)Ïany€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€defendantððsÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€&€„210;€òòsee€State€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€facts€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÏmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Upon€review€ofÍthe€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€followed€proper€statutory€sentencing€procedure,Ïand€therefore,€review€by€this€Court€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€three€enhancement€factors€to€be€applicable:Ï(1)€that€Defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thatÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€(2)€that€Defendant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€probation;€and€(3)€thatÏDefendant€was€on€probation€at€the€time€of€the€present€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€and€(13)(C).€€The€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€to€apply.ÌÌà àDefendant€had€four€prior€felony€convictions€and€several€misdemeanorÏconvictions,€and€as€the€trial€court€noted,€he€was€one€felony€conviction€away€fromÏbeing€sentenced€as€a€Range€III€offender.€€The€trial€court€justifiably€placed€greatÏweight€upon€this€enhancement€factor.€€We€also€find€that€enhancement€factorÏnumber€(8)€was€properly€applied€by€the€trial€court.€€Defendant€previously€violatedÏthe€boot€camp€probation€program€and€was€not€able€to€abide€by€the€terms€andÏconditions€of€his€release€into€the€community.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€was€correctÏin€applying€enhancement€factor€(13)€since€Defendant€was€actually€on€probationÏwhen€he€was€arrested€for€the€present€offense.€€In€fact,€Defendant€had€beenÏreleased€into€the€community€for€only€35€days€when€he€sold€crack€cocaine€to€AgentÏDaugherty€and€Ms.€Neal.€€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210€provides€that€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€C€felony.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€courtÏmust€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€IfÏthe€trial€judge€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€sentencing€and€hisÏfindings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€the€weight€assigned€to€theÏexisting€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€is€generally€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€Sale€of€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance,€a€ClassÏC€felony,€has€a€sentence€range€of€six€(6)€to€ten€(10)€years€for€a€Range€II€MultipleÏoffender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„417(a)(3)€and€(c)(2);€40„35„112(b)(3).€€TheÏtrial€court€correctly€found€three€enhancement€factors€to€apply€and€no€mitigatingÏfactors€to€apply.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€nine€(9)€year€sentence€on€one€countÏand€a€(7)€year€sentence€on€the€other.€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€impose€aÏsentence€which,€in€its€judgment,€best€fits€the€€totality€of€the€circumstances€relating€toÏa€particular€Defendant€and€the€precise€circumstances€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€888€S.W.2d€786,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€The€trial€court€is€not€precluded€under€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€fromÍconsidering€the€fact€that€consecutive€sentences€might€be€appropriate€in€itsÏassessment€of€what€weight€to€give€related€enhancement€factors.€€In€the€instantÏcase,€the€trial€court€clearly€acted€within€its€discretion€in€imposing€the€sentences€ofÏnine€(9)€and€seven€(7)€years.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€was€also€justified€in€imposing€consecutive€sentencing€for€theÏoffenses€involved.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€Defendant€was€on€probation€at€theÏtime€of€the€commission€of€the€present€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).ÏFurthermore,€this€Defendant€has€a€lengthy€history€of€criminal€behavior€andÏconvictions.€€òòSeeóó€40„35„115(b)(2).€€We€also€find€from€the€record€that€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€byÏDefendant€and€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€ofÏthe€offenses€committed.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏThe€trial€court€was€well€within€its€discretion€in€ordering€the€sentences€to€be€runÏconsecutively€to€each€other€and€to€the€prior€sentence€for€which€he€was€onÏprobation€at€the€time€he€committed€the€present€offenses.ÌÌà àDefendant€further€argues€that€his€actions€only€comprised€one€transaction€andÏthat€he€could€not€therefore€be€convicted€of€two€counts€of€sale€of€a€controlledÏsubstance.€€However,€when€Defendant€got€into€the€car,€he€made€two€separateÏsales€of€crack€cocaine,€one€to€Agent€Daugherty€and€one€to€Ms.€Neal.€€Each€ofÏthem€paid€Defendant€fifty€dollars€separately.€€Although€both€sales€may€haveÍoccurred€within€just€minutes€of€each€other,€they€are€still€considered€to€be€twoÏseparate€criminal€actions.€€œòòSeeóó,›€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€524€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1975)Ï(two€separate€and€distinct€offenses€committed€even€though€they€occurred€atÏsubstantially€the€same€time€and€in€the€course€of€a€single€criminal€episode€orÏtransaction);€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€C.C.A.€No.€87„185„III,€Williamson€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€27,€1989)€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990)Ï(kidnapping€of€several€people€at€one€time€is€a€separate€offense€as€to€each€victim).€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àÌà àFinding€no€merit€to€Defendantððs€claims,€we€accordingly€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge