ÿWPCº& bñܪXK+ÛúJ<Ív ¢w•ÕÅ"Q¾î憨ðìC]ÀÍ)È(ýzŒÔNkXTZÌ6ÑI÷2X#2+y‹Qº[Ø—¤1GQq«ÿþÏÌù¤L˹¤B‘†%ÁYq¹µ^)äJ°¿6‹×£îËã ©V"@ÉL«òjÍàr,‡Â%@³ö̆‚#.=ß3á¶iÉk6?c-'P·[D« …y'XùøÜŽIh\íì²òíER#ÖÙtÒI_faý›e•¹Úk  c:±É!¹Ñ&äæHOE¾¸yp$ëJôw_Ä"˜ò§±¾ Óh"¶­³ò¢' /y]ú¬­ÏZË|{»+ݧWjÞ< ¼ ý%†`*„)ÿãÙ”nRÞŽ= ¦CaÊÈΚÜ}÷û—9 V Ì_’k¥X d'°p÷‚fÔ%ÇTÎØÆO|䆆On2ì4 1ñAI›à 67e›¤tÔ/z­¶†Ñ`輈ä¬ÙîΆ÷ÏýAcf=StóÍ(™n£„Õ¬jÀÃÆãæ¬D–Ë-Wœn¾sC…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c †r 0 Æø 0D¾ /41†eËëʶ€U:è»U:£££ÊÝU:§§áˆ!UN!/Þ!U: $ BG$U:d$d$d$d$d$d$d$d$d$d$ D3ž$ž$ž$ 0DÑ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$ AO%Æd%d% 0D*& D/n& B&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- N ODPDQRSeT+UDVWÓ€uM%3|x` |Ý ƒ c($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ X;­XXXÔÔ€ ôDü ôXX;­Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Under€the€criminal€responsibility€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„11„402€(1997),Ð `  Ðit€does€not€matter€whether€it€was€Appellant€or€Mitchem€who€actually€took€property€from€Mr.€or€Mrs.€Veach.(v(2‰p$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X»©XXXÔÔ€ôDêôXX»©Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó %Ý ƒ NÀ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X[ÉXXXÔÔ€ôä¥ôXX[ÉÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€double€jeopardy€clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€ð ðnor€shall€any€person€beÐ `  Ðsubject€for€the€same€offense€to€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V.€€Similarly,Ïthe€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€ð ð[t]hat€no€person€shall,€for€the€same€offense,€be€twice€put€in€jeopardyÏof€life€or€limb.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€10. *Ý ƒ NÀ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X[ÉXXXÔÔ€ôä¥ôXX[ÉÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€worth€noting€that€ð ða€robbery€may€be€actual€or€constructive:€€it€is€actual€when€the€taking€isÐ `  Ðimmediately€from€the€person;€and€constructive€when€in€the€possession€or€in€the€presence€of€the€partyÏrobbed.ðð€€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€700€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€taking€of€the€coins€clearlyÐ Ü | Ðoccurred€in€the€presence€of€Mrs.€Veach. |Ý ƒ NÀ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X[ÉXXXÔÔ€ôä¥ôXX[ÉÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Under€the€criminal€responsibility€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„11„402€(1997),Ð `  Ðit€does€not€matter€whether€it€was€Appellant€or€Mitchem€who€actually€took€property€from€Mr.€or€Mrs.€Veach. ÁÝ ƒ NÀ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X[ÉXXXÔÔ€ôä¥ôXX[ÉÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€contends€that€there€were€no€discrete€acts€in€this€case€because€there€was€no€proof€thatÐ `  Ðthe€property€taken€from€the€Veaches€was€owned€by€them€as€individuals,€rather€than€jointly.€€However,Ïnothing€in€the€aggravated€robbery€statutes€requires€proof€of€ownership.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401€toÏ„402€(1997).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòElliot€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€418,€420,€454€S.W.2d€187,€188€(1970)€(statingÐ š : Ðthat€right€to€possession€of€property€taken€is€not€the€issue€in€the€crime€of€robbery). ÀÝ ƒ c($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X;­XXXÔÔ€ôDü ôXX;­Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMoreover,€we€note€that€this€test€was€cited€to,€with€approval,€in€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€òòSeeÐ `  Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Wayne€Robinson,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01-9207-CR-00234,€1993€WL€273953,€at€*4€(Tenn.Ð  ¾ ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€22,€1993). ÷Ý ƒ c($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X;­XXXÔÔ€ôDü ôXX;­Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€decision€on€this€issue€might€have€been€a€closer€call€if€based€solely€on€cases€decided€beforeÐ `  ÐòòSmithóó.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tommy€Kingóó,€No.€01„C„019111CC00334,€1992€WL€192758,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  ¾ ÐNashville,€Aug.€13,€1992)€(dismissing€kidnapping€conviction€even€though€victimsðð€hands€and€feet€had€beenÏtied);€òòState€v.€Sandersóó,€842€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(dismissing€kidnapping€conviction€evenÐ š : Ðthough€victimsðð€hands€were€bound€with€duct€tape€because€it€did€not€substantially€increase€the€risk€ofÏharm).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€X»©XXXÔÔ€n XX»©ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X»©X nÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€7,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÀÝ ƒ c($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xã# XXXÔÔ€ôD£ô XXã#Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMoreover,€we€note€that€this€test€was€cited€to,€with€approval,€in€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€òòSeeÐ `  Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Wayne€Robinson,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01-9207-CR-00234,€1993€WL€273953,€at€*4€(Tenn.Ð  ¾ ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€22,€1993).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€decision€on€this€issue€might€have€been€a€closer€call€if€based€solely€on€cases€decidedÐ `  Ðbefore€òòSmithóó.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tommy€Kingóó,€No.€01„C„019111CC00334,€1992€WL€192758,Ð L ì Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€13,€1992)€(dismissing€kidnapping€conviction€even€thoughÏvictimsðð€hands€and€feet€had€been€tied);€òòState€v.€Sandersóó,€842€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð $ Ä Ð1992)€(dismissing€kidnapping€conviction€even€though€victimsðð€hands€were€bound€with€duct€tapeÏbecause€it€did€not€substantially€increase€the€risk€of€harm).(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular %Ý ƒ c($ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X;­XXXÔÔ€ôDü ôXX;­Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€double€jeopardy€clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€ð ðnor€shall€any€person€beÐ `  Ðsubject€for€the€same€offense€to€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V.€€Similarly,Ïthe€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€ð ð[t]hat€no€person€shall,€for€the€same€offense,€be€twice€put€in€jeopardyÏof€life€or€limb.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€10.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñSñ›ñSññSññJñ›ñJññSñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š"¶ŠXXÔÔ€ŠAŠŠŠ"¶ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Ö&XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñWñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñWñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9705„CC„00193Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€DONALD€P.€HARRISó óÐ Xø  Ðò òDARRELL€WENTZEL,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Aggravated€Robbery;€AggravatedÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àBurglary;€and€Aggravated€à Ð àà (# àÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àñSñœñSñà  àà h àñSñ›ñSñà À à)à  àKidnapping)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 0!Ð ÐÌEUGENE€J.€HONEAà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ  #À ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ $¸ Ð407„C€Main€Street,€P.€O.€Box€68à  àÐ %° ÐFranklin,€TN€€37065„0068à À àà  àELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÐ &¨ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€BAUGHÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€937Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  ˆ5(,- ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°*0°ŠŠAÔò òòòÔ‡„°Œ „°°*0ÔOPINIONÔ#†°*0° „„°Œ #Ôóóó óÔ€ŠAа°*0ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àOn€December€6,€1996,€a€Williamson€County€jury€convicted€Appellant,ÏDarrell€Wentzel,€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€one€count€of€aggravatedÏburglary,€and€one€count€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€€After€a€sentencing€hearingÏon€January€31,€1997,€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€twelve€years€for€each€count€ofÏaggravated€robbery,€twelve€years€for€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€six€years€forÏaggravated€burglary,€with€all€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.€€On€FebruaryÏ18,€1997,€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€or,€in€the€alternative,Ïa€motion€for€a€new€trial,€claiming€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€for€aÏconviction,€that€the€aggravating€kidnapping€conviction€should€be€dismissedÏbecause€it€was€incidental€to€the€robbery,€that€several€of€the€trial€courtððsÏevidentiary€rulings€were€erroneous,€and€that€the€trial€court€had€misappliedÏenhancement€factors€to€arrive€at€maximum€sentences€on€all€four€convictions.€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€Appellant€challenges€both€his€convictions€andÏhis€sentence,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€plain€error€by€admitting€the€in„courtÏidentification€of€the€Appellant€by€Mary€Ethel€Veach;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€corroborate€the€accompliceÏtestimony€of€Edward€Mitchem;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€Appellantððs€convictions€for€two€counts€of€aggravated€robberyÏconstituted€double€jeopardy;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€rejected€Appellantððs€argument€that€heÏcould€not€be€convicted€of€aggravated€kidnapping€because€it€was€onlyÏincidental€to€the€robbery;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€sentenced€the€Appellant.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓíÓÌà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÐ <:Ü02 Ðà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àOn€May€6,€1996,€the€home€of€Logan€and€Mary€Ethel€Veach€wasÏburglarized€by€two€armed€men€who€bound€and€robbed€them.€€In€addition,€the€twoÏmen€also€bound€Ruth€Poteete,€a€friend€who€was€visiting€the€Veaches.€€One€of€theÏtwo€men,€Edward€Mitchem,€later€confessed€and€testified€for€the€State€at€trial.ÌÌà ` àMitchem€testified€that€he€received€a€phone€call€from€Appellant€in€OctoberÏor€November€1995,€while€Mitchem€was€living€in€Virginia.€€Appellant€told€MitchemÏthat€he€knew€someone€with€a€safe€in€his€home€that€contained€$500,000€and€heÏwanted€Mitchem€to€help€break€into€the€safe.€€Mitchem€testified€that€AppellantÏcalled€him€three€or€four€times€and€Mitchem€agreed€to€come€to€Tennessee€inÏMarch€1996.€€Mitchem€testified€that€he€stayed€at€the€home€of€Appellant€and€hisÏwife€when€he€came€to€Tennessee.€ÌÌà ` àMitchem€testified€that€he€and€Appellant€discussed€robbing€Mr.€Veach,€theÏman€Appellant€identified€as€the€owner€of€the€home€with€the€safe.€€Appellant€toldÏMitchem€that€he€learned€about€Mr.€Veach€from€someone€named€Dudley€whoÏworked€at€the€Coca€Cola€plant.€€Appellant€and€Mitchem€later€drove€by€theÏVeachesðð€home€approximately€ten€to€fifteen€times€to€obtain€information€about€theÏhome.€€Approximately€two€weeks€before€the€robbery,€Mitchem€and€AppellantÏdrove€to€the€Veachesðð€home,€pulled€into€the€driveway,€and€Mitchem,€disguisedÏwith€a€ski€mask,€approached€the€door.€€When€Mrs.€Veach€came€to€the€door€andÏa€dog€began€barking,€Mitchem€returned€to€the€vehicle€and€the€two€men€fled€theÏscene.€ÌÐ à9€02 Ðà ` àMitchem€testified€that€on€May€6,€1996,€he€and€Appellant€drove€to€theÏVeachesðð€home€in€a€plain€white€car€that€belonged€to€Appellantððs€mother„in„law.€ÏMitchem,€who€was€carrying€a€clipboard€and€a€scanner€that€Appellant€hadÏpurchased€from€Radio€Shack,€gained€entry€to€the€Veachesðð€home€by€identifyingÏhimself€as€being€from€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€After€heÏentered€the€home,€Mitchem€drew€a€gun€and€ordered€Mr.€Veach,€Mrs.€Veach,€andÏMrs.€Poteete€to€get€down€on€the€floor€with€their€faces€toward€the€floor.€€€AppellantÏthen€entered€the€home€and€taped€Mr.€Veachððs€and€Mrs.€Poteeteððs€hands€behindÏtheir€backs,€taped€their€feet,€and€placed€tape€over€their€eyes.€€After€she€wasÏbound€with€duct€tape,€Mrs.€Poteete€became€ill€and€indicated€that€she€was€out€ofÏbreath.€ÌÌà ` àMitchem€testified€that€while€Mr.€Veach€was€on€the€floor,€Appellant€tookÏmoney€from€his€pocket.€€While€Appellant€was€looking€for€a€safe€in€another€room,ÏMitchem€took€Mrs.€Veach€to€a€back€bedroom.€€When€Mrs.€Veach€said€that€thereÏwas€no€safe€in€the€house,€Mitchem€and€Appellant€took€some€coins€and€jewelryÏand€left€the€Veachesðð€home.€€Appellant€and€Mitchem€then€split€up€the€coins€andÏmoney€between€them.€€Mitchem€later€became€frightened€that€he€would€be€caughtÏand€he€threw€his€half€of€the€coins€into€a€pond€on€Appellantððs€fatherððs€propertyÏlocated€approximately€150€yards€from€Appellantððs€home.€€Detective€David€BeardÏof€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€coins€were€found€inÏthis€pond€and€they€were€identified€as€those€stolen€from€the€Veach€home€on€MayÏ6,€1996.€ÌÌà ` àMr.€Veach€testified€that€on€May€6,€1996,€he€saw€two€men€pull€up€to€hisÏhome€in€a€white€four„door€car.€€Mr.€Veach€then€saw€Mitchem€enter€his€homeÐ Ð9p02 Ðcarrying€a€note€pad€and€what€appeared€to€be€a€ð ðwalkie„talkie.ðð€€Mr.€VeachÏtestified€that€Mitchem€then€spoke€into€the€ð ðwalkie„talkieðð€and€shortly€thereafter€aÏsecond€man€entered€the€home.€€Mr.€Veach€never€saw€the€second€man€and€heÏcould€not€identify€the€Appellant.€€Mr.€Veach€testified€that€he€had€approximatelyÏ$5,900€in€his€pocket€on€the€day€of€the€robbery.€ÌÌà ` àMrs.€Poteete€testified€that€she€became€ill€while€she€was€bound€and€thatÏshe€was€taped€for€approximately€twenty€minutes.€€She€also€testified€that€she€didÏnot€see€the€man€who€taped€her.€€Neither€man€took€anything€from€Mrs.€Poteete.€ÌÌà ` àMrs.€Veach€testified€that€on€May€6,€1996,€she€let€Mitchem€into€her€homeÏbecause€she€thought€that€he€was€there€from€the€Sheriffððs€Department€in€responseÏto€her€report€that€an€individual€wearing€a€ski€mask€had€previously€been€at€theÏVeachesðð€home.€€Mrs.€Veach€testified€that€she€was€never€blindfolded,€that€sheÏsaw€the€Appellant€when€he€came€in,€and€ð ðgot€a€long€lookðð€at€him€two€or€threeÏtimes.€€When€Mitchem€asked€her€were€the€safe€was,€Mrs.€Veach€told€him€thatÏthere€was€no€safe€and€said€ð ðDonððt€hurt€us.€€Logan€has€some€money,€and€my€sonÏhas€some€coins€in€there„„take€the€money,€just€donððt€hurt€us.ðð€€Mitchem€then€tookÏcoins€from€the€back€room€and€jewelry€from€Mrs.€Veachððs€bedroom.€€€ÌÌà ` àMrs.€Veach€testified€that€she€was€unable€to€identify€Appellant€at€the€pre„¼trial€line„up€because€there€was€something€different€about€him.€€She€explainedÏthat€Appellantððs€hair€was€shorter€and€styled€differently€from€when€she€had€seenÏhim€during€the€robbery.€€€Mrs.€Veach€also€testified:Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 ÐÓÓà0 ` àI€was€under€the€impression€when€[Detective]€Fred€Bennett€called€me€to€theÏâ âjail€that€they€was€[sic]€holding€the€other€guy€there€with€Mr.€Mitchem.€€AndÏI€said,€ð ðNow€Fred,€Iððm€not€going€to€tell€that€this€is€the€man€because€Iððm€notÏfor€sure.ðð€€And€he€said,€ð ðWell,€if€youððre€not€sure€then€youððre€not€going€to€tellÏme€that.ðð€€I€asked€Fred€Bennett€where€my€husband€was€and€he€said€ð ðUpÏin€the€courtroom.ðð€€As€I€walked€into€the€courtroom,€my€family€was€sitting€onÏthe€right;€my€husband€was€on€the€witness€stand;€Mr.€Wentzel€and€someÏpeople€sitting€on€the€left.€€I€says€[sic]€to€my€sister„in„law,€ð ðWell€Iððm€glad€thatÏI€did€not€identify€that€man€theyððve€got€in€jail€out€there€because€there€sits€theÏman€that€came€in€my€house.ðð€€And€it€was€Mr.€Mitchem.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓº(ÓÌAlthough€she€said€ð ðMr.€Mitchem,ðð€Mrs.€Veach€was€apparently€referring€toÏAppellant.€€Mrs.€Veach€also€testified€that€she€thought€she€had€been€looking€atÏsome€kind€of€pictures€at€the€pre„trial€line„up€rather€than€at€live€persons.€€SheÏstated€that€Appellant€could€not€have€been€at€the€line„up€ð ðbecause€I€came€straitÏto€the€courthouse€and€Darrell€Wentzel€was€sitting€with€a€group€of€people€andÏthereððs€no€way€he€could€have€gotten€there€before€I€got€there.ðð€ÌÌà ` àGary€Beasley€testified€that€he€picked€Mitchem€up€at€the€Williamson€CountyÏjail€about€a€week€before€the€robbery€and€took€him€to€the€Appellantððs€home€atÏMitchemððs€request.€€Beasley€testified€that€no€one€was€home,€but€when€he€laterÏbrought€Mitchem€back€to€the€house,€Mitchem€got€out€of€the€car€and€Beasley€leftÏhim€there.€ÌÌà ` àTeresa€Walker,€custodian€of€records€at€First€Farmers€and€Merchants€BankÏin€Columbia,€Tennessee,€testified€that€Appellant€made€a€deposit€of€$1,000€cashÏto€his€account€on€May€7,€1996.€€She€also€testified€that€Appellant€had€written€aÏcheck€to€Radio€Shack€in€March€of€1996.€ÌÌà ` àDudley€Delffs€testified€that€he€works€for€Coca€Cola€and€that€in€October€orÏNovember,€1995,€he€had€a€conversation€with€Appellant€about€people€in€the€areaÐ Ð9p02 Ðwho€ð ðhad€money,ðð€including€Logan€Veach.€€Delffs€testified€that€although€BradÏThompson,€a€relative€of€the€Veaches,€told€him€that€they€had€a€safe€in€their€home,ÏDelffs€did€not€recall€telling€Appellant€that€the€Veaches€had€a€safe€with€$500,000Ïin€it.€€Delffs€testified€that€Appellant€told€him€that€he€needed€money€because€ofÏfinancial€losses€in€Chattanooga€and€several€family€illnesses.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€testified€and€denied€all€involvement€in€the€crimes€and€withÏMitchem.€€Appellant,€his€wife,€and€his€mother€all€testified€that€Mitchem€did€notÏstay€at€Appellantððs€home€as€he€claimed.ÌÌà@  ®àò òII.€€IN„COURT€IDENTIFICATION€BY€MRS.€VEACHó óˆÐ À` ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€it€was€plain€error€for€the€trial€court€to€allow€the€in„¼court€identification€of€Appellant€by€Mrs.€Veach.€€Appellant€concedes€that€thisÏissue€was€not€raised€below€either€in€the€form€of€an€objection€to€her€testimony€orÏin€his€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€or€a€new€trial.€€Accordingly,€AppellantððsÏattack€on€Mrs.€Veachððs€testimony€has€been€waived€under€Rule€3(e)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Rule€3(e)€states:ÌÌÓÓà0 ` à[I]n€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€beÏpredicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€juryÏinstructions€granted€or€refused,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,Ïor€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€same€wasÏspecifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise,€such€issues€will€beÏtreated€as€waived.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓ¤5ÓÌTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€Appellant€attempts€to€circumvent€this€failure€to€complyÏwith€Rule€3(e)€by€arguing€that€the€trial€court€committed€plain€error€under€RuleÏ52(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€which€states:Ð à9€02 ЇÓÓà0 ` àAn€error€which€has€affected€the€substantial€rights€of€an€accused€may€beÏnoticed€at€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€orÏassigned€as€error€on€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€whereÏnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓg8ÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€this€Court€stated€that€the€language€of€Rule€52(b)Ð °  Ðð ðmakes€it€clear€that€appellate€courts€are€to€use€it€ððsparinglyðð€in€recognizing€errorsÏthat€have€not€been€raised€by€the€parties€.€.€.€.€€The€plain€error€rule€is€not€a€run„of„¼the„mill€remedy.ðð€€899€S.W.2d€626,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€This€CourtÏthen€set€out€five€factors€to€determine€whether€an€error€is€plain€error:ÌÌÓÓà0 ` àa)€the€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àb)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àc)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àd)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àe)€consideration€of€the€error€is€ð ðnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ððÐ ` T$` T$ ÐÓ‘;ÓÌòòId.óó€at€641ð!ð42.€€Mrs.€Veachððs€testimony€does€not€satisfy€this€test.€€The€recordÐ x% Ðestablishes€what€happened€in€the€trial€court,€and€it€is€doubtful€that€AppellantððsÏfailure€to€raise€this€issue€at€any€time€before€appeal€was€a€tactical€ploy,€but€noneÏof€the€other€factors€is€applicable.€€Mrs.€Veachððs€testimony€does€not€represent€aÏbreach€of€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law.€€Indeed,€this€is€likely€the€reasonÏwhy€Appellantððs€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€testimony€at€trial.€€Further,€there€isÏno€indication€that€a€substantial€right€of€the€Appellant€was€adversely€affectedÏbecause,€as€explained€in€Section€III,€there€was€other€evidence€sufficient€toÏcorroborate€Mitchemððs€€accomplice€testimony.€€Finally,€consideration€of€thisÏalleged€error€is€not€required€to€do€substantial€justice.€€Thus,€this€issue€has€noÏmerit.Ð Ø8x/1 Їà@åå ®àò òIII.€€CORROBORATING€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€forÏjudgment€of€acquittal€because€the€evidence€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€toÏcorroborate€Mitchemððs€accomplice€testimony.€€This€Court€stated€in€òòState€v.Ð 0Ð ÐAndersonóó,€880€S.W.2d€720€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994):Ð  À  ÐÌÓÓà0 ` àThe€standard€by€which€the€trial€court€determines€a€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal€at€the€end€of€all€the€proof€is,€in€essence,€the€same€standard€whichÏapplies€when€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€after€a€conviction.€ÏA€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state'sÏtheory.€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€and€any€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€theirÏtestimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÏentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€This€court€may€neitherÏreevaluate€the€evidence€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏjury.€€€A€conviction€may€be€set€aside€only€when€the€reviewing€court€findsÏthat€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€ofÏguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓ×BÓÌòòId.óó€at€726€(citations€omitted).€€Ð €&  Ѐ€Ìà ` à€The€appellate€courts€have€addressed€the€nature,€quality,€and€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence€required€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€onÏnumerous€occasions.€€€In€òòState€v.€Griffisóó,€964€S.W.2d€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @.à$& Ð1997),€this€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àThe€rule€of€corroboration€as€applied€and€used€in€this€State€is€thatÏthere€must€be€some€evidence€independent€of€the€testimony€of€theÏaccomplice.€€The€corroborating€evidence€must€connect,€or€tend€to€connectÏthe€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged;€€and,Ïfurthermore,€the€tendency€of€the€corroborative€evidence€to€connect€theÏdefendant€must€be€independent€of€any€testimony€of€the€accomplice.€€TheÏcorroborative€evidence€must€of€its€own€force,€independently€of€theÐ à9€02 Ðaccompliceððs€testimony,€tend€to€connect€the€defendant€with€theÏcommission€of€the€crime.€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓ|HÓ€€à0 ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€.ÐP ð` T$` T$ ÐÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€corroborating€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€mayÏconsist€of€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÏdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€The€quantum€of€evidence€necessaryÏto€corroborate€an€accompliceððs€testimony€is€not€required€to€be€sufficientÏenough€to€support€the€accusedððs€conviction€independent€of€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony€nor€is€it€required€to€extend€to€every€portion€of€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony.€To€the€contrary,€only€slight€circumstances€areÏrequired€to€corroborate€an€accompliceððs€testimony.€The€corroboratingÏevidence€is€sufficient€if€it€connects€the€accused€with€the€crime€in€question.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓ^KÓÌòòId.óó€at€588ð!ð89€(citations€omitted).€€ð ðWhether€a€witnessðð€testimony€has€beenÐ èˆ Ðsufficiently€corroborated€is€a€matter€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòStateÐ Øx Ðv.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,€552€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(citing€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,Ð Èh Ð189€Tenn.€110,€222€S.W.2d€384€(1949)).Ì€Ìà ` àThe€evidence€in€this€case€clearly€established€at€least€the€ð ðslightÏcircumstancesðð€required€to€corroborate€Mitchemððs€accomplice€testimony.€€MostÏobvious,€of€course,€was€the€testimony€of€Mrs.€Veach€that€she€clearly€sawÏAppellant€participate€in€the€robbery.€€However,€even€without€this€identification,Ïthere€was€still€enough€evidence€to€sufficiently€corroborate€Mitchemððs€testimony.€ÏFirst,€Dudley€Delffs€testified€that€in€October€1995,€he€and€Appellant€had€aÏconversation€about€various€individuals€in€the€area€who€had€money€and€thatÏAppellant€mentioned€the€name€of€Logan€Veach.€Delffs€also€testified€thatÏAppellant€told€him€that€he€had€lost€a€lot€of€money.€€Second,€Mr.€Veach€testifiedÏthat€a€white€car€had€been€used€in€the€crimes,€corroborating€Mitchemððs€testimonyÏthat€he€and€Appellant€used€a€white€car€owned€by€Appellantððs€mother„in„law€toÏdrive€to€the€Veachesðð€home.€€Further,€Mitchemððs€testimony€that€he€lived€in€theÏAppellantððs€home€while€they€were€planning€the€robbery€was€corroborated€by€theÐ Ø8x/1 Ðtestimony€of€Gary€Beasley€that€he€took€Mitchem€to€the€Appellantððs€house.€ÏMitchemððs€testimony€that€he€stayed€with€Appellant€was€also€buttressed€by€the€factÏthat€the€police€found€some€of€the€stolen€coins€in€Appellantððs€fatherððs€pond€aboutÏ150€yards€from€Appellantððs€house.€€In€addition,€Mitchemððs€statement€that€he€andÏAppellant€used€a€scanner€in€the€robbery€that€Appellant€purchased€from€RadioÏShack€in€March€1996,€was€corroborated€by€Teresa€Walkerððs€testimony€thatÏAppellant€had€written€a€check€to€Radio€Shack€in€March€1996.€Finally,€theÏevidence€showed€that€Appellant€made€a€$1,000€cash€deposit€into€has€bankÏaccount€on€the€day€after€the€robbery.€ÌÌà ` àIn€short,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€before€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact€toÏdetermine€that€Mitchemððs€testimony€was€sufficiently€corroborated.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@==®àò òIV.€€CONVICTIONS€ON€TWO€COUNTS€OF€AGGRAVATED€ROBBERYó óˆÐ €$  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€convictions€for€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏrobbery€violate€his€rights€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€ConstitutionsÏnot€to€be€convicted€twice€for€the€same€offense.ñJññTñ׃ ×ñTññTñ׃×ñTñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€was€not€raised€in€theÐ P,ð"$ Ðtrial€court.€€Nevertheless,€we€address€this€issue€in€order€to€review€an€alleged€errorÏof€constitutional€dimension.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€958€S.W.2d€736,€738€(Tenn.Ð 00Ð&( Ð1997)€(reviewing€double€jeopardy€issue€even€though€not€raised€below).ÌÐ 4°*, Ðà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€1996),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ `  ÐCourt€extended€double€jeopardy€protection€under€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏbeyond€that€provided€by€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Thus,€while€multipleÏconvictions€for€a€single€criminal€action€could€be€permitted€by€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€under€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€384€U.S.€299,€52€S.€Ct.€180,€76Ð  À ÐL.€Ed.€306€(1932),€the€result€may€be€different€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏUnder€òòDentonóó,€resolution€of€a€double€jeopardy€issue€requires€the€following:Ð    ÐÌÓÓà0 ` à(1)€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€of€the€statutory€offenses;€€(2)€an€analysis€guidedÐ à€ Ðby€the€principles€of€òòDuchac€[v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973)],€of€theÐ Øx Ðevidence€used€to€prove€the€offenses;€€(3)€a€consideration€of€whether€thereÏwere€multiple€victims€or€discrete€acts;€€and€(4)€a€comparison€of€theÏpurposes€of€the€respective€statutes.€€None€of€these€steps€is€determinative;Ïrather€the€results€of€each€must€be€weighed€and€considered€in€relation€toÏeach€other.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓµ\ÓÌòòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381.€€Ð ˜!8 ÐÌà ` àThus,€we€begin€with€the€first€òòDentonóó€factor,€an€analysis€under€theÐ x% ÐòòBlockburgeróó€test.€€Under€this€test,€we€ask€ð ðwhether€each€offense€contains€anÐ h' Ðelement€not€contained€in€the€other;€€if€not,€they€are€the€ððsame€offenseðð€and€doubleÏjeopardy€bars€additional€punishment€and€successive€prosecution.ðð€€òòUnited€StatesÐ H+è!# Ðv.€Dixonóó,€509€U.S.€688,€696,€113€S.€Ct.€2849,€2856,€125€L.€Ed.€556,€568€(1993).€Ð 8-Ø#% ÐIn€this€case,€both€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€contain€an€element€that€is€notÏcontained€in€the€other.€€Count€one€required€proof€that€property€was€taken€fromÏthe€person€of€Logan€Veach€while€count€two€required€proof€that€property€wasÏtaken€from€the€person€of€Mary€Ethel€Veach.ñTñ׃×ñTññTñ׃ ×ñTñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€each€robbery€countÐ ø4˜+- Ðrequired€proof€of€an€element€not€required€by€the€other€count,€the€òòBlockburgeróó€testÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðis€satisfied€and€there€is€no€violation€of€the€federal€double€jeopardy€clause.€ÏHowever,€under€òòDentonóó,€our€analysis€under€the€state€double€jeopardy€clauseÐ P ð Ðdoes€not€stop€there.ÌÌà ` àThe€next€step€in€the€inquiry€is€the€òòDuchacóó€analysis€of€the€evidence€usedÐ  À Ðto€prove€each€offense.€€If€the€same€evidence€is€not€used€to€prove€each€offense,Ïð ðððthen€the€fact€that€both€charges€relate€to,€and€grow€out€of,€one€transaction,€doesÏnot€make€a€single€offense€where€two€are€defined€by€the€statutes.ðððð€€òòDentonóó,€938Ð ð  ÐS.W.2d€at€380€(quoting€òòDuchacóó,€505€S.W.2d€at€239).€€œñUñhñUññVñHñVñere,›€the€evidence€usedÐ à€ Ðto€prove€each€count€was€different,€at€least€in€part.€€Indeed,€count€one€wasÏestablished€by€evidence€that€Appellant€took€money€from€Mr.€Veachððs€pocket€andÏcount€two€by€evidence€that€Mitchem€took€Mrs.€Veach€away€from€Mr.€Veach€to€aÏback€bedroom€where€he€took€possession€of€the€coins.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Count€one€did€not€requireÐ   @ Ðproof€that€anything€was€taken€from€Mrs.€Veach€and€count€two€did€not€requireÏproof€that€anything€was€taken€from€Mr.€Veach.€€Thus,€application€of€òòDuchacóóÐ €$  Ðindicates€that€the€two€offenses€are€different€for€double€jeopardy€purposes.ÌÌà ` àWe€now€turn€to€the€third€double€jeopardy€factor€of€òòDentonóó,€theÐ P*ð " Ðconsideration€of€whether€there€were€different€victims€or€discrete€acts.€€The€twoÏcounts€of€aggravated€robbery€in€this€case€relate€to€two€discrete€acts.€€First,ÏAppellant€tied€up€Mr.€Veach€and€took€money€from€his€pocket.€€A€few€minutesÏâ âlater,€Mitchem€took€Mrs.€Veach€out€of€the€presence€of€Mr.€Veach€to€a€back€roomÐ 2°(* Ðwhere€he€took€the€coins.€€These€two€actions€were€clearly€not€a€single€act.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`  Ðâ âFurther,€there€were€clearly€two€victims€here.€€ð ðThe€fact€that€different€victims€areÏinvolved€suggests€that€separate€prosecutions€would€not€violate€double€jeopardyÏprinciples€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€òòState€v.€Winninghamóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ 0Ð Ð740,€746€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà ` àThe€fourth€and€final€step€under€òòDentonóó€requires€an€analysis€of€theÐ    Ðpurposes€of€the€statutes€involved.€€Because€both€counts€of€aggravated€robberyÏinvolved€the€same€statute,€the€purposes€are€obviously€the€same:€€to€prevent€theÏtheft€of€property€from€persons€by€force.€€However,€no€one€factor€is€determinativeÏand€when€each€factor€is€weighed€and€considered€in€relation€to€the€others,€weÏconclude€that€Appellantððs€convictions€for€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€do€notÏviolate€either€the€federal€or€state€double€jeopardy€clauses.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@ ®àò òV.€€AGGRAVATED€KIDNAPPING€CONVICTIONó óˆÐ p& ÐÌà ` àñSñœñSññOññNñÔ‡ŠƒŠŠŠƒ$ÔñNññOññPññNñÔ‡X;­XŠŠƒ$ÔñNññPññNñAppellant€contends€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€kidnapping€violatesÏhis€right€to€due€process€because€the€kidnapping€was€only€incidental€to€theÏrobbery.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€bothÏrobbery€and€kidnapping€convictions€can€be€upheld€when€each€conviction€arisesÏout€of€the€same€criminal€episode€in€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€€299€(Tenn.Ð  2À(* Ð1991).€€The€court€stated€that€the€relevant€inquiry€isÐ 4°*, ЇñNññQñÓÓñQññNñà0 ` à[W]hether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€essentiallyÏincidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significantÏenough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,Ïtherefore,€sufficient€to€support€such€a€conviction.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñNññQñÓÝqÓñQññNñÌòòId.óó€at€306.€€The€court€cited€the€following€test,€as€taken€from€òòFaison€v.€Stateóó,€426Ð (È ÐSo.2d€963,€965€(Fla.€1983),€with€approval:ÌÌñNññRñÓÓñRññNñà0 ` à[I]f€a€taking€or€confinement€is€alleged€to€have€been€done€to€facilitate€theÏcommission€of€another€crime,€to€be€kidnapping€the€resulting€movement€orÏconfinement:Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(a)€Must€not€be€slight,€inconsequential€and€merely€incidental€to€theÏother€crime;Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(b)€Must€not€be€of€the€kind€inherent€in€the€nature€of€the€other€crime;€ÏandÐ ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà ` àà0 ¸ à(c)€Must€have€some€significance€independent€of€the€other€crime€inÏthat€it€makes€the€other€crime€substantially€easier€of€commission€orÏsubstantially€lessens€the€risk€of€detection.€€Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ ÐñNññRñÓ@tÓñRññNñÌòòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Michael€K.€Christian,€Jr.óó,€No.€03C01„9609„CR„00336,€1998Ð ˜!8 ÐWL€125562,€at€*8ð!ð9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€23,€1998).ÌÌà ` à€It€is€clear€that€under€this€test,€Appellantððs€conviction€for€aggravatedÏkidnapping€must€be€upheld.€€The€binding€of€Mrs.€Poteeteððs€hands€and€feet€withÏduct€tape€was€certainly€not€slight€or€inconsequential.€€Indeed,€this€action€wasÏclearly€a€substantial€interference€with€her€liberty€that€increased€the€chance€thatÏshe€would€suffer€physical€injury.€€Further,€tying€up€the€elderly€Mrs.€Poteete€wasÏnot€the€kind€of€action€that€was€inherent€in€the€crime€of€robbing€the€VeachesÏbecause€it€was€not€necessary€in€order€to€commit€the€robberies.€€In€addition,Ïalthough€it€was€not€necessary€to€bind€Mrs.€Poteete,€it€did€make€the€robberiesÏeasier€by€allowing€both€Appellant€and€Mitchem€to€search€the€house€rather€thanÏrequiring€that€one€of€them€watch€Mrs.€Poteete.€€Finally,€binding€Mrs.€PoteeteððsÐ Ø8x/1 Ðhands€and€feet€and€taping€over€her€eyes€also€lessened€the€risk€of€detection.€€ThisÏissue€is,€therefore,€without€merit.ÌñNññOññNñÔ#†X;­XXX6sHo#ÔñNññOññPññNñÔ#†Šƒ$ŠXX;­{o#ÔñNññPññNñ›ñNññMñAppellant€contends€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€kidnapping€violatesÏhis€right€to€due€process€because€the€kidnapping€was€only€incidental€to€theÏrobbery.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€bothÏrobbery€and€kidnapping€convictions€can€be€upheld€when€each€conviction€arisesÏout€of€the€same€criminal€episode€in€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€€299€(Tenn.Ð  2À(* Ð1991).€€The€court€stated€that€the€relevant€inquiry€isÐ 4°*, ЇÓÓà0 ` à[W]hether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€essentiallyÏincidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significantÏenough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,Ïtherefore,€sufficient€to€support€such€a€conviction.€.€.€.€[O]ne€method€ofÏresolving€this€question€is€to€ask€whether€the€defendantððs€conductÏð ðsubstantially€increased€the€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€that€necessarilyÏpresent€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.ððÐ ` T$` T$ ÐÓ qÓÌòòId.óó€at€306€(citations€omitted).€€However,€as€this€Court€recently€noted€in€òòState€v.Ð °  ÐJohnny€L.€Smithóó,€No.€02C01„9602„CR„00061,€1997€WL€254182€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð    ÐApp.,€Jackson,€May€15,€1997),€ð ðthe€decisions€in€òòAnthonyóó€and€its€companionÐ ð  Ðcases€.€.€.€involved€statutory€offenses€under€the€pre„1989€Criminal€Codeðð€andÏð ð[t]he€court's€focus€in€these€cases€was€ððwhether€the€confinement,€movement€orÏdetention€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€*3.€€€Ð À` ÐHowever,€ÌÌÓÓà0 ` àThe€focus€of€our€[current]€kidnapping€offenses€is€upon€the€specific€harmÏthreatened€as€opposed€to€movement,€confinement€or€detention.€€Under€ourÏcurrent€criminal€code,€before€a€conviction€can€occur€for€any€of€theÏenumerated€kidnapping€offenses,€there€must€be€proof€of€an€unlawfulÏremoval€or€confinement€of€another€so€as€to€ð ðinterfere€substantiallyðð€with€theÏother's€liberty,€coupled€with€specific€conduct€that€causes€or€threatens€aÏspecific€harm.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓéuÓÌòòId.óó€€Ð H+è!# ÐÌà ` àThis€Court€then€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€enactment€of€new€statutory€offenses€ofÏkidnapping€have€not,€however,€obviated€the€guarantees€of€due€process€andÏfundamental€fairness€addressed€in€òòAnthonyóó.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*4.€€This€Court€then€adoptedÐ 3¨)+ Ðthe€following€test,€based€on€the€due€process€concerns€of€òòAnthonyóó€and€theÐ ø4˜+- Ðlegislative€focus€of€current€kidnapping€statutes,€for€determining€the€propriety€ofÏa€kidnapping€conviction€committed€in€the€course€of€another€felonyñJñ׃×ñJññMññJñ׃×ñJññMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×:Ð P ð ÐÌñAñÓÓñAñà0 ` à[I]f€a€taking€or€confinement€is€alleged€to€have€been€done€to€facilitate€theÏcommission€of€another€crime,€to€be€kidnapping€the€resulting€movement€orÏconfinement:€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à1.€Must€not€be€slight,€inconsequential€and€merely€incidental€to€theÏother€crime;€Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àThe€question€should€not€focus€upon€incidental€movement€from€point€A€toÏpoint€B,€but,€rather,€upon€whether€the€confinement€or€removal€ð ðinterfere[d]Ïsubstantiallyðð€with€the€other's€liberty.€€In€other€words,€there€can€be€noÏkidnapping€where€the€only€confinement€involved€is€the€sort€that,€althoughÏnot€necessary€to€the€underlying€felony,€is€likely€to€naturally€accompany€it.Ð ` T$` T$ Ѐ€à0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à2.€Must€not€be€of€the€kind€inherent€in€the€nature€of€the€other€crime;€Ðà€¸ T$¸ T$ Ѐà0 ` àTo€satisfy€this€prong€the€confinement€must€not€be€the€sort€inherent€in€theÐ Øx Ðunderlying€offense.€€For€example,€it€is€not€necessary€to€tie€up€the€victim€inÏorder€to€commit€a€robbery.€€And,€Ð ` T$` T$ Ѐ€à0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à3.€Must€have€significance€independent€of€the€other€crime€in€that€itÐ À` Ðmakes€the€other€crime€substantially€easier€of€commission€orÏsubstantially€lessens€the€risk€of€detection.€Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àð ð[T]he€determination€of€whether€the€confinement€makes€the€other€crimeÏsubstantially€easier€of€commission€or€substantially€lessens€the€risk€ofÏdetection€does€not€depend€upon€the€accomplishment€of€its€purpose.€€TheÏquestion€is€whether€the€initial€confinement€was€intended€to€further€eitherÏof€these€objectives.ðð€€There€can€be€no€bright-line€rule€for€determiningÏwhether€the€ð ðremovalðð€or€ð ðconfinementðð€of€a€victim€to€another€place€is€partÏand€parcel€of€the€accompanying€felony,€or€whether€it€will€support€anÏindependent€criminal€offense.€€The€test€remains€a€subjective€one,€basedÏupon€the€facts€of€each€case.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñAñÓßzÓñAñÌòòId.óó€€ð ð[T]he€question€of€ððwhether€the€defendantððs€conduct€substantially€increasedÐ P*ð " Ðthe€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€that€necessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robberyÏitself.ðð€is€necessarily€inherent€within€each€prong€of€the€test€set€forth€above.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 0.Ð$& Ðat€*4,€n.7.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€clear€that€under€this€test€adopted€by€this€Court€in€òòSmithóó,€AppellantððsÐ 4 *, Ðconviction€for€aggravated€robbery€must€be€upheld.€€Indeed,€this€Courtððs€decisionÐ ð5,. Ðin€òòSmithóó€upholding€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions€was€based€on€facts€thatÐ `  Ðare€similar€to€this€case.€€In€òòSmithóó€this€Court€held€that€factor€one€of€the€test€wasÐ P ð Ðsatisfied€because€tying€up€the€victims€with€a€telephone€cord€and€placing€them€inÏseparate€closets€ð ðinterfere[d]€substantiallyðð€with€their€liberty.€€òòId.óó€at€*5.€€AlthoughÐ 0Ð ÐMrs.€Poteete€was€not€placed€in€a€closet,€binding€her€hands€and€feet€with€ductÏtape€was€likewise€a€substantial€interference€with€her€liberty.€€This€Court€held€inÐ °  ÐòòSmithóó€that€factor€two€was€satisfied€because€ð ðit€was€not€necessary€to€tie€theÐ    Ðvictims€in€order€to€commit€the€robberies.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Here,€tying€up€the€elderly€Mrs.Ð ð  ÐPoteete€was€certainly€not€necessary€in€order€to€rob€the€Veaches.€€Finally,€thisÏCourt€held€in€òòSmithóó€that€factor€three€was€satisfied€because€the€binding€of€theÐ Ðp Ðvictims€ð ðmade€the€robberies€easier€to€commit€and€substantially€lessened€the€riskÏof€detection.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Here,€although€it€was€not€necessary€to€bind€Mrs.€Poteete,€it€didÐ °P Ðmake€the€robberies€easier€by€allowing€both€Appellant€and€Mitchem€to€search€theÏhouse€rather€than€requiring€that€one€of€them€watch€Mrs.€Poteete.€€Clearly,€bindingÏher€hands€and€feet€and€taping€over€her€eyes€lessened€the€risk€of€detection.€€ThisÏissue€is,€therefore,€without€merit.ñJñ׃×ñJññMññJñ׃×ñJññMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð p& ЛñMññLññBñÌ›ñBññBñÌ›ñBññBñÌñBññLññSñ›ñSññSññSñÌà@œœ"®àò òVI.€€APPELLANTððS€SENTENCEó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€because€the€trial€courtÏmisapplied€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€follow€the€appropriate€sentencingÏguidelines.€€Under€Tennessee€law,€ð ð[w]hen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.Ïincluding€the€granting€or€denial€of€probation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€theÏappellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€ÏSuch€review€shall€be€conducted€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€madeÏby€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„¼35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompaniesÏthe€trial€court's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€recordÏthat€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðTheÐ €&  Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ p(  ÐÌà ` àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€40-35-210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€beÏfollowed€in€sentencing.€This€section€mandates€the€court's€consideration€of€theÏfollowing:€ÌÌÓÓà0 ` à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€Ï€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€andÏarguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€€(4)€[t]he€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€€(5)€[e]vidence€andÏinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ à9€02 Ðfactors€in€ðððð€€40-35-113€and€40-35-114;€€and€(6€)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñCñÓ6‘ÓñCñ€ÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210€(1997).€€In€addition,€this€section€provides€that€theÏminimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€areÏenhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentenceÏin€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancementÏfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏmitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€theÐ Ø8x/1 Ðsentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€The€weightÏto€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ð P ð Ð854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Act€further€provides€thatÏð ð[w]henever€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,€it€shall€place€on€the€record€eitherÏorally€or€in€writing,€what€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€it€found,€if€any,€as€wellÏas€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40-35-209.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(f)Ï(1997).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€under€theÏsentencing€guidelines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factors€must€be€recorded€ifÏnone€are€found.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210€(1997)€comment.€€These€findingsÏby€the€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€onÏappeal.€€In€addition,€ð ð[w]hen€imposing€sentences€for€multiple€offenses,€the€trialÏcourt€must€make€separate€findings€as€to€which€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€apply€to€which€convictions.ðð€€òòState€v.€Christopher€Blockettóó,€No.€02C01„Ð   @ Ð9509„CC„00258,€1996€WL€417659,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€26,Ï1996)€(citing€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ð €$  ÐIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€failed€to€make€separate€findings€as€to€whichÏenhancement€factors€applied€to€which€convictions.€€Thus,€the€sentences€carry€noÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€stated€that€in€making€its€sentencing€decision,€it€hadÏconsidered€the€evidence€presented€during€trial,€during€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïand€in€the€presentence€report.€€The€trial€court€found€that€no€mitigating€factorsÏwere€applicable.€€We€agree€that€no€evidence€was€presented€to€support€a€findingÏthat€any€of€the€enumerated€factors€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113Ïwere€present.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€found€that€the€following€enhancementÏfactors€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114€applied:€€(1)€that€AppellantÐ Ð9p02 Ðhad€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€toÏestablish€the€appropriate€range;€(2)€that€Appellant€was€a€leader€in€theÏcommission€of€the€offenses;€(3)€that€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim;Ï(4)€that€the€victims€were€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age;€(6)€that€theÏamount€of€money€taken€from€Mr.€Veach€was€particularly€great;€and€(16)€that€theÏpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€For€the€following€reasons,€weÏhold€that€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(2)€apply€to€all€four€offenses,€that€(3)€andÏ(6)€apply€to€some€of€the€offenses,€but€factors€(4)€and€(16)€do€not€apply€to€any€ofÏthe€offenses.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€was€correct€in€applying€factor€(1).€€Indeed,€Appellant€has€aÏprevious€conviction€in€1979€for€attempt€to€commit€a€felony.€€This€conviction€wasÏnot€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range€because€other€enhancementÏfactors€exist.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„105,€„109€(1997).€€AppellantÐ "0 Ðcontends€that€he€does€not€have€a€prior€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€behaviorÏbecause€one€conviction€cannot€be€a€ð ðhistory.ðð€€However,€this€Court€has€previouslyÏheld€that€factor€(1)€applied€even€though€there€had€been€only€one€previousÏconviction.€€òòState€v.€William€Ray€Rhodesóó,€No.€02C01„9406„CC„00124,€1995€WLÐ P*ð " Ð425046,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Thus,€factor€(1)€could€properly€be€usedÏto€enhance€all€four€of€Appellantððs€convictions,€although€it€deserves€littleÏenhancement€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ  0À&( ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€was€correct€in€applying€factor€(2).€€Indeed,€the€evidenceÏshowed€that€Appellant€was€the€leader€in€all€four€offenses:€€Appellant€came€upÏwith€the€idea,€planned€the€crimes,€and€enticed€Mitchem€to€become€involved.€ÏAppellantððs€contention€that€this€factor€should€not€have€been€applied€because€heÐ Ð9p02 Ðwas€ð ðaðð€leader€rather€than€ð ðtheðð€leader€has€no€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868Ð Ð9p02 ÐS.W.2d€729,€731€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(ð ðOur€cases€have€established€thatÏenhancement€for€being€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€does€not€requireÏthat€the€defendant€be€the€sole€leader€but€only€that€he€be€ððaðð€leader.ðð).€€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€erred€in€applying€factor€(3)€to€the€aggravated€robbery€andÏaggravated€kidnapping€convictions€because€each€of€these€offenses€involved€onlyÏone€victim€and€there€were€separate€convictions€for€each€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð    ÐClaboóó,€905€S.W.2d€197,€206€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(holding€that€factor€(3)€wasÐ ð  Ðan€ð ðimproper€enhancement€factor,€since€there€were€separate€convictions€for€eachÏvictimðð).€€However,€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€this€factor€to€the€aggravatedÏburglary€conviction€because€both€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Veach€were€victims€of€thisÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Derek€Dentonóó,€No.€02C01„9409„CR„00186,€1996€WLÐ °P Ð432338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€2,€1996)€(stating€that€factor€(3)€can€beÏapplied€to€aggravated€burglary€convictions€when€more€than€one€person€is€killed,Ïinjured,€has€property€stolen,€or€has€property€destroyed).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€erred€in€applying€factor€(4)€because€in€committing€theÏoffenses,€Appellant€did€not€take€advantage€of€the€victimsðð€ages€or€physicalÏconditions.€€As€stated€by€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.Ð @,à"$ ÐCrim.€App.€1994),€ÌÌñDñÓÓñDñà0 ` à[A]€victim€is€particularly€vulnerable€within€the€meaning€of€this€enhancementÏfactor€when€the€victim€lacks€the€ability€to€resist€the€commission€of€theÏcrime€due€to€age,€a€physical€condition,€or€a€mental€condition.€A€victim€isÏalso€particularly€vulnerable€when€his€or€her€ability€to€summons€assistanceÏis€impaired;€€or€the€victim€does€not€have€the€capacity€to€testify€against€theÏperpetrator€of€the€crime.€However,€a€finding€that€one€of€these€conditionsÏexists€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€mean€that€this€factor€is€automaticallyÏconsidered.€€The€appellant€must€have€taken€advantage€of€one€or€more€ofÏthese€conditions€during€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€The€state€had€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðburden€of€establishing€the€limitations€that€render€the€victim€ð ðparticularlyÏvulnerable.ðð€€The€state€also€had€the€burden€of€establishing€that€theÏcondition€which€rendered€the€victim€ð ðparticularly€vulnerableðð€was€a€factorÏin€the€commission€of€the€offense.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñDñÓ$«ÓñDñÌòòId.óó€at€313€(citations€omitted).€€Here,€the€state€failed€to€meet€its€burden.€€ThereÐ 0Ð Ðwas€no€evidence€at€all€that€either€of€the€Veaches€was€particularly€vulnerable€andÏthe€only€evidence€that€Mrs.€Poteete€was€vulnerable€was€that€she€ð ðhad€some€kindÏof€spellðð€during€the€robbery€and€needed€a€glass€of€water.€€ò òñEñ(VI€4:53)€€ñEñó óThere€was€no€evidenceÐ    Ðthat€established€that€any€vulnerability€of€the€victims€was€a€factor€in€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€thisÏfactor.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€was€correct€in€applying€factor€(6)€to€the€convictions€forÏaggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Veach€and€for€aggravated€burglary.€€AppellantÏcontends€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€approximately€$6,000€takenÏfrom€Mr.€Veach€was€particularly€great€was€ð ðpurely€arbitrary€and€capricious.ðð€ÏHowever,€the€evidence€showed€that€Mr.€Veach€carries€this€amount€of€money€onÏhis€person€because€he€cannot€read€well€enough€to€use€checks.€€Indeed,€Mr.ÏVeach€testified€that€he€only€ð ðdeals€with€cash.ðð€€Clearly,€Appellantððs€argument€thatÏ$6,000€is€not€a€particularly€great€amount€is€without€merit.€€However,€this€factorÏcannot€be€applied€to€the€other€convictions€because€there€was€no€evidence€thatÏanything€of€particularly€great€value€was€taken€from€the€other€victims€or€that€theyÏsustained€particularly€great€personal€injury.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€erred€in€applying€factor€(16).€€As€to€the€aggravated€burglaryÏconviction,€this€Court€has€stated€that€for€aggravated€burglary€convictions,€ð ða€trialÏcourt€should€not€apply€this€factor€absent€extraordinary€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð Ð9p02 ÐSmithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€There€are€noÐ `  Ðextraordinary€circumstances€in€this€case€which€warrant€the€application€of€thisÏfactor.€€€As€to€the€aggravated€robbery€convictions,€this€Court€has€also€stated€thatÏabsent€any€proof€establishing€risk€to€life€other€than€the€victimððs,€factor€(16)€is€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense€and€it€cannot€be€used€for€enhancement.€€òòStateÐ  À Ðv.€Kingóó,€905€S.W.2d€207,€213€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€This€Court€has€also€heldÐ °  Ðthat€factor€(16)€cannot€be€used€as€an€enhancement€factor€for€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€kidnapping€as€it€is€inherent€in€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Kernóó,€909€S.W.2dÐ ð  Ð5,€7ð!ð8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà ` àEven€though€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€some€of€theÏenhancement€factors,€a€finding€that€enhancement€factors€were€erroneouslyÏapplied€does€not€equate€to€a€reduction€in€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882Ð   @ ÐS.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€There€are€no€mitigating€factors€andÏat€least€two€enhancement€factors€apply€to€each€conviction.€€We€place€greatÏweight€on€each€of€these€enhancement€factors€considering€the€type€of€robberyÏand€burglary€involved.€€Home€invasions€by€armed€hooligans€are€perhaps€one€ofÏthe€most€detestable€and€frightening€forms€of€criminality.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€affirm€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌñFñà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñFñÓ  ÓñFñà ` àÌÌÌñFñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÐ Ð9p02 ЇÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE