ÿWPC+# 8#  UN+ %y 0 (U:§w@á4!5 0DD 0Jˆ 0TÒ 0^& 0h„ 0rì 0|^ 0†Ú 0` 1uð 0de É 0DÑ AQ Æf 0D, 0@p B° U>Í D/ U*: Bd D3 U*´ B)Þ DC AMJ (— ¯¿ºnb( 0â0uð‡cwv~ÚvÓX˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular {ˆD|ˆD}ˆD~ˆDˆD€ˆˆI‚ˆ©eƒˆÓ€ˆê‚_##3|xˆ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman(('÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(ArialüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌApril€27,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThese€statutory€provisions€are€as€follows:Ìà8 àð ð(5)€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€crueltyÏduring€the€commission€of€the€offense;ððÌà8 àð ð(10)€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high;ðð€and€Ìà8 àð ð(16)€The€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ðð€Ì °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEach€defendant€had€been€charged€with€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€one€count€ofÏaggravated€burglary,€and€one€count€of€theft.€€Prior€to€trial,€Hobbs€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€the€theftÏcharge.€€A€jury€trial€was€held€on€the€other€charges,€at€the€end€of€which,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€ofÏguilty€of€robbery€as€to€each€defendant,€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€of€aggravated€burglary€as€to€eachÏdefendant,€and€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€theft€as€to€Lavender.Ì- ù-(’(29Í$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑȰÑÑÚ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X ÖXXXÔÔ€ôrÉôXX ÖÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€the€midpoint€of€the€range€if€there€are€noÏenhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendants€rely€upon€several€unreported€decisions€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏto€support€their€argument€that€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€are€essential€elements€of€theÏoffense€of€robbery€in€every€case.€€Some€of€the€decisions€relied€upon€support€that€proposition.€ÏOthers€refute€the€proposition€and€apply€the€enhancement€factors€as€warranted€by€the€particularÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€each€case.€€To€the€extent€these€unreported€decisions€conflict€with€ourÏholding€herein,€they€are€overruled.Ì YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThose€statutory€enhancement€factors€are€as€follows:ðð(1)€[t]he€defendant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range;ð ð€and€ð ð(8)€[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€withÏthe€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.ððÌPtPtHHØ(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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€'ԛр1ÑÑ7€6LXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñò òØ ØÓ&€**X°d&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€'¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,òòà àóóà àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€April€27,€1998Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÙ€!ÙœßR€-.,A1-j|Ñôà` ç `€€@ÿRß›MARIO€A.€LAVENDER€and,à àà àà à)ÌERIC€L.€HOBBS,€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àAppellants.à àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„S01„9704„CR„00088Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌÌÌòòÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTSà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEE:ÌóóAttorney€for€Mario€A.€Lavenderà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDeanna€Bell€Johnsonà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌNashville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌAttorneys€for€Eric€L.€Hobbsà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà àÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àMarvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.ÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌJoan€A.€LawsonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNicholas€D.€BaileyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€Carpenterà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÔ€'„Ôà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÌÓÓà àThe€defendants,€Mario€A.€Lavender€and€Eric€Hobbs,€each€were€convictedÏÑ , ÑÑ K ÑÑ  ÑÑ€+ §u` ÑÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñon€two€counts€of€robbery€and€one€count€of€theft.€€With€respect€to€Lavender,€theÏtrial€judge€imposed€consecutive€sentences€of€six€years€on€each€robberyÏconviction,€and€four€years€on€the€theft€conviction,€for€an€effective€sentence€ofÏsixteen€years.€€With€respect€to€Hobbs,€the€trial€judge€imposed€consecutiveÏsentences€of€ten€years€on€each€robbery€conviction,€and€four€years€on€the€theftÏconviction,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty„four€years.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€the€defendants€permission€to€appeal€primarily€toÏconsider€whether€certain€enhancement€factors,€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(5),€(10),€and€(16)€(1997€Repl.),× ƒ/ ××  ×€should€have€been€applied€to€enhanceÏthe€sentences€of€each€defendant€in€this€case.€€After€careful€consideration,€weÏhold€that€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16),€are€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€of€robbery,€and€may€be€properly€utilized€when€imposingÏa€sentence€for€robbery€so€long€as€the€facts€which€establish€the€elements€of€theÏoffense€are€not€also€relied€upon€to€establish€the€enhancement€factors.€€This€is€aÏdetermination€which€must€be€undertaken€on€a€case„by„case€basis.€€We€also€holdÏthat€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€were€properly€applied€in€this€case.€ÏAlthough,€the€proof€does€not€support€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5),€weÏhave€determined€that€the€sentences€imposed€are€appropriate,€and€therefore,Ïaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àWhile€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€not€an€issue,€the€following€briefÏstatement€of€relevant€facts€is€necessary€to€analyze€the€sentencing€issue.€€TheÏproof€at€trial€showed€that€between€1:00€and€1:15€a.m.€on€January€3,€1994,€theÏWilson€family€was€awakened€by€noises€emanating€from€outside€their€residence.€ÏLooking€out€the€window€to€investigate€the€source€of€the€noise,€Mr.€WilsonÏobserved€two€males€standing€on€the€patio€outside€his€residence.€€When€heÏturned€on€the€exterior€lights,€the€men€fled€across€the€street,€and€€into€a€concreteÏdrainage€ditch€which€ran€parallel€to€the€home€of€William€and€Carolyn€Newbill.€ÌÌà àMr.€Wilson€summoned€the€police,€and€two€marked€police€cars€arrivedÏaround€2:00€a.m.,€patrolled€the€area€for€approximately€20€to€30€minutes,€andÏseeing€nothing€suspicious,€left.€€During€the€time€the€police€were€in€theÏneighborhood,€the€defendants,€Lavender€and€Hobbs,€were€inside€the€NewbillÏhome.€€They€had€used€a€tire€iron€to€open€sliding€doors€at€the€rear€of€theÏresidence.€€Ìà àMr.€Newbill€was€awakened€by€one€of€the€defendants€who€said,€ð ðTurn€overÏand€face€the€wall€or€Iððll€blow€your€brains€out.ðð€€As€Mr.€Newbill€turned€over,€heÏnoticed€the€clock€beside€his€bed€and€recalled€at€trial€that€it€had€been€1:30€a.m.ÏAfter€he€had€turned€over,€Mr.€Newbill€said€he€felt€something€hard€sticking€him€inÏthe€back.€€He€ð ðassumed€it€was€a€gun.ðð€€The€intruder€told€Mr.€Newbill€to€cover€hisÏhead€with€a€pillow,€and€then€asked€if€anyone€else€was€in€the€house.€€Mr.€NewbillÏput€the€pillow€over€his€head,€and€told€the€intruder€that€his€wife€was€asleep€in€theÏbedroom€across€the€hall.€€One€of€the€intruders€awakened€Mrs.€Newbill€and€toldÏher,€ð ðDonððt€look.€€Take€this€pillow€and€cover€your€head.€€We€have€a€gun€on€yourÏhusband€and€weððll€shoot€him€if€you€donððt€[cooperate].ððÌÌà àThe€defendants€remained€inside€the€Newbill€residence€for€over€an€hour,Ïransacking€the€house€and€forcing€the€Newbills€to€disclose€the€location€of€money,Ïjewelry,€and€guns.€During€this€time,€Mr.€Newbill,€a€heart€patient,€began€havingÏchest€pains€and€shortness€of€breath.€€He€asked€the€defendants€if€he€could€get€upÏfrom€the€bed.€€When€they€refused,€Mr.€Newbill€asked€for€and€was€given€a€glass€ofÏwater.€€Eventually,€the€defendants€allowed€Mr.€Newbill€to€get€up€from€the€bed€andÍgo€to€the€bathroom.€€Mrs.€Newbill€was€forced€to€remain€on€the€bed,€her€headÏcovered€with€a€pillow,€for€the€duration€of€the€incident.ÌÌà àThe€defendants€eventually€left€the€residence€taking€with€them€cash€andÏpersonal€property€in€excess€of€$10,000.€€They€drove€away€from€the€scene€in€Mr.ÏNewbillððs€pickup€truck€which€had€a€value€of€$9,600.€€Although€she€could€provideÏno€description€of€the€men,€Mrs.€Newbill€had€looked€out€the€window€and€seen€theÏtwo€men€getting€into€the€pickup€truck€to€leave.€ÌÌà àThe€Newbills€notified€the€police,€who€located€the€pickup€truck€with€theÏdefendants€inside€at€approximately€5:00€a.m.€€The€defendants,€with€two€patrolÏcars€in€pursuit,€drove€into€a€neighborhood,€slowed€the€vehicle,€leaped€from€itÏwhile€it€was€still€moving,€and€ran€in€opposite€directions.€€The€truck€came€to€a€stopÏwhen€it€collided€with€a€utility€pole.€€The€police€apprehended€the€defendants€aÏshort€distance€from€the€pickup€truck.€€Both€Lavender€and€Hobbs€had€dropped€aÏpistol€as€they€were€attempting€to€evade€the€officers.€€Some€of€the€property€takenÏfrom€the€Newbillsðð€home€and€large€sums€of€cash€were€found€on€the€defendantsÍwhen€they€were€arrested.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€trial,€the€defendants€were€each€convicted€of€two€counts€ofÏrobbery€and€one€count€of€theft.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€foundÏevidence€of€the€following€four€enhancement€factors:€ð ð(1)€[t]he€defendant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;ðð€ð ð(5)€[t]he€defendant€treated€orÏallowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense;ðð€ð ð(10)€[t]he€defendants€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crimeÏwhen€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;ðð€ð ð(16)€[t]he€crime€was€committed€underÏcircumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(5),€(10)€&€(16)€(1997€Repl.).€€€The€trial€courtÏfound€no€mitigating€factors.€€Lavender€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standardÏoffender,€to€consecutive€sentences€of€six€years€on€each€robbery€conviction€andÍfour€years€on€the€theft€conviction,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€sixteen€years.€ÏHobbs€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender,€to€consecutive€sentencesÏof€ten€years€on€each€robbery€conviction€and€four€years€on€the€theft€conviction,€forÏan€effective€sentence€of€twenty„four€years.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€includingÏapplication€of€the€enhancement€factors.€€With€respect€to€Hobbs,€the€intermediateÏcourt€noted€that€another€enhancement€factor€should€have€been€applied,€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÏof€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8)€(1997€Repl.).€€Hobbs€had€been€on€probation€at€the€time€these€offensesÏwere€committed.€€In€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€one€judge€on€theÏintermediate€court,€agreed€that€the€sentences€imposed€were€proper,€but€opinedÏthat€factors€(10)€and€(16)€should€not€have€been€applied€because€the€facts€whichÏsupported€the€factors€also€supported€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€ofÏrobbery.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€permission€to€appeal,€and€for€the€reasons€thatÏfollow,€now€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌòòò òà@ àSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWóóó óÌà àImposition€of€a€sentence€pursuant€to€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989Ïrequires€that€the€trial€court€first€determine€the€applicable€range€of€punishmentÏbased€upon€the€severity€of€the€offense€and€the€defendantððs€prior€criminalÏconvictions.€€These€statutory€classifications,€as€well€as€the€applicable€ranges€ofÏpunishment,€are€established€by€the€General€Assembly.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ40„35„106€to€„109€(1997€Repl.).€€For€most€offenses,€the€presumptive€sentence€toÏbe€imposed€under€the€Act€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€appropriate€range.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÏHowever,€where€there€are€enhancement€factors,€but€no€mitigating€factors€in€theÏrecord,€the€trial€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range.€€IfÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€are€supported€by€the€proof,€the€trial€courtÏmust€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€enhance€the€sentence€withinÏthe€range€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c),€(d),€&€(e)€(1997€Repl.);€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,Ï95€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€601€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àTo€facilitate€appellate€review,€a€trial€court€ð ðmust€place€on€the€record€itsÏreasons€for€arriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€the€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specific€facts€supporting€eachÏenhancement€factor€found,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancementÏfactors€have€been€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ðð€òòJonesóó,Ï883€S.W.2d€at€601;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(1997€Repl.).€€If€theÏtrial€court€complies€with€these€requirements,€an€appellate€court€reviewing€theÏlength,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€ofÏthe€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€If,€however,€the€trial€court€fails€to€comply€with€these€statutoryÏrequirements,€an€appellate€court€applies€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€without€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€96;€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€600.€ÏIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€complied€with€the€statutory€requirements;€therefore,€inÍconsidering€whether€or€not€the€enhancement€factors€were€appropriately€applied,Ïwe€review€the€trial€courtððs€findings€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà@ àòòò òENHANCEMENT€FACTORSóóó óÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendants€urge€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applyingÏenhancement€factors€(10),€high€risk€to€human€life,€and€(16)€great€potential€forÏbodily€injury,€because€they€are€essential€elements€of€the€offense€of€robbery€inÏevery€case.€€The€State€argues,€on€the€other€hand,€that€the€determination€ofÏwhether€these€two€enhancement€factors€may€be€applied€to€enhance€a€sentenceÏfor€robbery€must€be€undertaken€on€a€case„by„case€basis,€and€in€this€case,€theÏfactors€were€appropriately€applied.ÌÌà àUnder€the€1989€Act,€only€those€enhancement€factors€enumerated€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1997€Repl.)€may€be€utilized€to€enhance€a€sentence.€ÏThe€factors€must€be€ð ðappropriate€for€the€offenseðð€and€ð ðnot€themselves€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„25„114€(1997€Repl.);€òòPooleóó,€945ÏS.W.2d€at€95.€€The€rationale€for€these€limitations€is€to€ÌÓÓà8 àexclude€enhancement€factors€which€are€not€relevant€to€the€offenseÏand€those€based€on€facts€which€are€used€to€prove€the€offense.€ÏFacts€which€establish€the€elements€of€the€offense€charged€may€notÏalso€be€the€basis€of€an€enhancement€factor€increasing€punishment.€ÏThe€legislature,€in€determining€the€range€of€punishment€within€theÏclassifications€of€offenses,€necessarily€took€into€account€theÏculpability€inherent€in€each€offense.ÌÓÓÌòòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€601.€€As€we€stated€in€òòJonesóó,€and€recently€reaffirmed€inÏòòPooleóó,€the€determination€of€whether€or€not€a€particular€enhancement€factorÏshould€be€applied€is€a€task€which€must€be€undertaken€on€a€case„by„case€basis.€ÏòòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€96;€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€601.€€Therefore,€we€decline€theÏdefendantsðð€invitation€to€adopt€a€rule€which€automatically€would€precludeÏapplication€of€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€in€every€robbery€case.× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€a€particular€enhancement€factor€may€be€applied€inÏa€specific€case,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€elements€of€the€offense€and€theÍevidence€adduced€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing.€€If€the€facts€which€establishÏthe€elements€of€the€offense€charged€also€establish€the€enhancement€factor,€thenÏthe€enhancement€factor€may€not€be€used€to€increase€punishment.€€òòJonesóó,€883ÏS.W.2d€at€601.ÌÌà àApplying€that€test,€we€conclude€that€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)Ïwere€appropriately€applied€in€this€case.€€Robbery€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€intentional€orÏknowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€theÏperson€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401€(1997€Repl.).€€A€person€commitsÏð ðtheft€of€propertyðð€if,€ð ðwith€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€personÏknowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððsÏeffective€consent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1997€Repl.).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€proof€shows€that€Mr.€Newbill€was€awakened€and€told€if€heÏdid€not€cooperate,€he€would€be€killed.€€Mrs.€Newbill€was€awakened€and€told€ifÏshe€did€not€cooperate,€her€husband€would€be€killed.€€Having€placed€the€victims€inÏfear,€the€defendants€demanded€that€the€victims€direct€them€to€all€their€jewelry,Ímoney,€and€guns.€€The€victims€complied,€and€the€defendants€obtained€control€ofÏthe€property,€and€left€the€premises€with€it,€without€the€Newbillsðð€effective€consent.€ÏThe€foregoing€facts€support€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€robbery.ÌÌà àHowever,€in€this€particular€case,€the€robbery€was€committed€by€theÏdefendants€inside€the€victimsðð€home€at€approximately€1:30€a.m.,€a€time€when€it€isÏlikely€that€the€residents€of€the€home€are€present€and€sleeping.€€In€fact,€there€wereÏthree€cars€parked€in€the€driveway€when€the€defendants€gained€entry€to€theÏNewbillsðð€home.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€judge€that€ð ðsomeone€could€have€easilyÏbeen€killedðð€when€the€defendants€entered€a€home,€in€the€middle€of€the€night,Ïunder€circumstances€where€the€residents€obviously€were€present.€€Therefore,€theÏrisk€to€human€life€was€high,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(10),€ð ð[t]he€defendant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.ðð€ÏòòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€602.ÌÌà àThe€record€also€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€applicationÍof€enhancement€factor€(16),€ð ð[t]he€crime€was€committed€under€circumstancesÏunder€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ðð€€The€defendantsÏremained€inside€the€Newbillsðð€home€for€over€an€hour,€kept€the€victims€separatedÏfor€the€entire€time,€and€threatened€to€kill€Mr.€Newbill€if€either€victim€moved€orÏrefused€to€cooperate.€€Both€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Newbill€testified€that€they€feared€for€theÏsafety€of€each€other.€€Mrs.€Newbill€said€she€heard€Mr.€Newbill€asking€forÏpermission€to€get€up€and€complaining€of€chest€pains.€€Fortunately€for€Mr.€Newbill,Ïshe€did€not€attempt€to€check€on€him,€but€these€circumstances€posed€a€greatÏpotential€for€bodily€injury.€€Moreover,€though€the€jury€did€not€convict€theÏdefendants€of€aggravated€robbery,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€defendants€wereÏarmed.€€These€facts€illustrate€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodilyÏinjury€to€either€victim€was€great.€€In€sum,€the€facts€in€this€case€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€application€of€enhancement€factors€(10)€&€(16).ÌÌà àHowever,€we€agree€with€the€defendants€that€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5),€that€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€duringÍthe€commission€of€the€offense.ðð€€In€applying€this€factor,€the€trial€court€stated€thatÏthe€defendants€had€taken€personal€property€and€jewelry€from€the€victims€thatÏð ðmeant€something€to€them,€what€is€that,€other€than€treating€them€with€cruelty.ðð€ÏSince€the€fact€that€the€defendants€had€taken€the€property€of€the€victims€wasÏutilized€to€establish€an€element€of€the€offense€of€robbery€it€should€not€have€alsoÏbeen€relied€upon€to€establish€the€enhancement€factor.€€Moreover,€there€is€noÏother€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€application€of€the€exceptional€crueltyÏenhancement€factor€in€this€case.€€Though€the€defendants,€by€threat€of€violence,Ïforced€the€victims€to€remain€on€their€beds€with€their€heads€covered€during€theÏordeal,€the€victims€were€not€physically€assaulted.€€Indeed,€Mrs.€Newbill€testifiedÏthat€neither€defendant€touched€her€during€the€ordeal,€and€Mr.€Newbill€testifiedÏthat€the€defendants€touched€him€only€once€by€sticking€something€hard€in€hisÏback.€€Though€the€defendants€initially€would€not€allow€Mr.€Newbill€to€get€up€fromÏthe€bed€when€he€complained€of€chest€pains,€they€honored€his€request€for€a€glassÏof€water€immediately,€and€the€defendants€eventually€allowed€Mr.€Newbill€to€go€toÏthe€bathroom.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Mr.€Newbill€requested€hisÏheart€medication€during€the€episode.€€Mr.€Newbill€testified€that€it€was€after€theÍdefendants€had€departed€that€he€had€taken€his€medication.€€While€the€NewbillsÏcertainly€endured€a€harrowing€ordeal,€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€findingÏthat€they€were€treated€with€ð ðexceptional€crueltyðð€as€that€enhancement€factor€hasÏbeen€described€in€prior€cases.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€259€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€825€S.W.2d€109,€113€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Ï(factor€normally€applied€in€cases€of€physical€abuse€or€torture).Ì€Ìà àHowever,€elimination€of€this€enhancement€factor€does€not€require€aÏreduction€of€the€sentences€imposed€in€this€case.€€With€respect€to€Hobbs,€fourÏenhancement€factors€are€supported€by€the€proof.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1),€(8),€(10),€and€(16)€(1997€Repl.).€€In€this€Court,€Hobbs€did€not€challengeÏapplication€of€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(8),× ƒ5 ××  ×€and,€as€previously€explained,Ïthe€facts€of€this€case€support€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factorsÏ(10)€and€(16).€€€With€respect€to€Lavender,€three€enhancement€factors€areÍsupported€by€the€proof.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1),€(10),€and€(16)€(1997ÏRepl.).€€Again,€Lavender€did€not€challenge€application€of€enhancement€factor€(1)Ïin€this€Court,€and€we€have€previously€found€the€facts€of€this€case€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€application€of€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16).€€The€trial€court€alsoÏcorrectly€held€that€there€were€no€mitigating€factors.€€Lavender€was€twenty„seven„years€old€at€the€time€this€offense€was€committed.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€recordÏto€indicate€that€his€age€played€any€role€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€As€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€noted,€he€previously€had€been€convicted€of€two€drugÏoffenses€before€committing€the€crimes€in€question€in€this€case.€€Considering€theÏweight€of€the€enhancement€factors,€the€sentences€imposed€as€to€each€defendantÏare€appropriate.€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€discussed,€the€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€thisÏrobbery€also€support€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€consecutive€sentencing€and€findingÏthat€the€defendants€are€dangerous€offenders€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÏrisk€to€human€life€is€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€(b)(4)€(1997€Repl.).€€ThisÍfinding€is€further€supported€by€the€defendantsðð€determination€to€commit€thisÏoffense.€€Rather€than€abandoning€their€plan€to€invade€a€home€when€Mr.€WilsonÏturned€on€his€exterior€lights€and€almost€apprehended€them,€they€persisted€andÏimmediately€entered€the€Newbillsðð€home€across€the€street.€€This€behaviorÏcertainly€indicates€an€attitude€of€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held,€the€sentences€imposedÏreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offense€committed€by€the€defendants,€andÏare€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€at€the€handsÏof€these€defendants.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€TheÏtrial€court€emphasized€that€the€severity€of€this€offense€should€not€be€depreciated.ÏThe€trial€court€stated€that€the€circumstances€of€this€crime,€involving€personalÏconfrontations€inside€the€victimsðð€own€home,€amounted€to€a€nightmare.€€As€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€pointed€out,€both€defendants€have€prior€criminalÏrecords€and€have€served€jail€or€prison€sentences€for€past€offenses€whichÏobviously€have€not€deterred€them€from€continuing€to€commit€crimes.€€The€recordÏsupports€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.ÌÌ€à@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€herein€stated,€we€conclude€that€enhancement€factors€(10)Ïand€(16),€are€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€essential€elements€of€the€offense€of€robbery,Ïand€may€be€properly€utilized€when€imposing€a€sentence€for€robbery€so€long€asÏthe€facts€which€establish€the€elements€of€the€offense€are€not€also€relied€upon€toÏestablish€the€enhancement€factors.€€This€determination€is€dependent€upon€theÏparticular€facts€of€each€case.€€Considering€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€weÏconclude€that€the€enhancement€factors€were€properly€applied.€€Even€though€theÏproof€does€not€support€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5),€we€haveÏdetermined€that€the€length€of€the€sentences€and€imposition€of€consecutiveÏsentencing€are€appropriate€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌò òConcur:ó óÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌBirch,€Holder,€JJ.ÌÓÓÌReid,€J.€„€Not€Participating.Ì