# FILED
Au gust 27, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE ATJA CKSON JULY SES SION, 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9704-CC-00132 ) Appell ee, ) ) ) CARROLL COUN TY VS. ) ) HON. C. CREED MCGINLEY MAURICE PI ERRE TEAGUE, ) JUDGE ) Ap pella nt. ) (Agg ravated Burg lary)

ON AP PEA L FROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COU NTY FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : STEP HEN D. JAC KSON JOHN KNOX W ALKUP 161 Cou rt Squa re Attor ney General and Reporter P.O. Box 471 Huntingd on, TN 38344 KENNETH W . RUCKER Assist ant Attor ney General Cordell Hull Buil ding, 2nd Floor 425 5th A ven ue N orth Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 ROBERT RADF ORD Dist ri ct Attor ney General ELEANO R CAH ILL Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General P.O. Box 686 Huntingd on, TN 38344
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE1 Tenn . Code A nn. § 39-14-40 3(a). -2- 

# OPINION

Th is is an appeal as of r ightpursuantto Rul e 3, Tennessee Rul es of Ap pella te Procedure. The Defendant, Mauric e Pier re Teague, wasconvi cted by a C arro ll Cou nty jury ofaggravat ed burglary 1 . The t ri al court sent enced him as a Range I offenderto si x years in t he Department ofCorrect ion. The Defendant appeals bo th hi s convi cti on and hissentence and rai ses the f oll owing issu es in this app eal : ( 1) Th at the ev idence wasinsuffi cientto conv ictthe Def endant of aggravat ed bu rgla ry w he n th e ju ry ac qu itted him of aggravated assaul t; (2) that the trial c ou rt err ed in ap plyin g ce rtain sen tence enhanc ement fact ors; and (3) thatthe ind ictm en t wa s fa tally flawed. W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

The Sta te p res en ted the follo win g pro of at trial. T he tu m ultuo us e ven ts lea din g to t he Defendant’ s convi cti on revol ve around the home of Susan Ho llow ell in H un ting do n. M s. H ollo we ll testifie d th at, in the ea rly morn ing hou rs ofDe cem ber 1 3, 19 95, s he w as a t her h om e, a p ublic h ous ing fa cilityinto which she had just m ove d. Also presentwere herchil dren; her two-year-ol d daughter and he r thre e-m on th-o ld son . Ra nd y C ary k no cke d o n th e d oo r an d sh e le t him in and the y ta lked for a whi le. Ms. Holl owell had known Cary for a number of years and had a pe rson al rela tions hip w ith him in the p ast. An h our or so later, someone knocked at the door. Cary tol d Ms. Hollowell not to answer i t because it wa s th e D efe nd an t an d h e d id n ot w an t to ta lk to h im . Ap pro xim ate lyan hour later, about3:00 a. m., St even Gibbs, Bil lyTed Littl e, and a s tra nger ar ri ved. Ms. Ho llow ell and Gibbs had mo re rec entl y been seei ng each othe r i n a personal-3-

rel ati onship. Gibbs want ed to come i n and li e down because he and th e othe rs had been dri nking ata bar i n Jackson, Tennessee. She l et t he three in and they and Ca ry talke d. T he s trang er left sh ortly afte r they a rrived. Gibbs smelled li ke he ha d b ee n d rink ing an d L ittle app eare d ob vious ly drun k. They argued because Little wanted to l eave. Gibbs t ookLittle to a pa y tele ph on e b ec au se Ms . Ho llow ell did not h ave a ph one . Th ey re turne d an d C ary a nd L ittle exch ang ed w ords
. Little started a f ightwith Cary. They struggled on the f loor unti l Gibbs broke them up. Caryleft t he house.

A few minut es l at er , C a ry retur ned wit h his brother , Terry Cary, the De fend ant, Da vid Myles and a fifth pe rso n (M ars ha ll Ha m pto n). G ibb s an d L ittle hid in the b athro om after th e five c alled into th e hou se fo r them to co m e ou t. Ms. Ho llowe ll talked with th e m en th roug h the wind ow , but re fuse d to letthem in. She turned and walked to t he back of t he house when she heard a fro nt wi ndow break. She saw Randy Cary with a two-by -four pi ece of lumber. Cary al so pull ed a gun . At tha t poin t, the Def endant st ated: “Pop a cap i n her. ” The men cam e in the house and Ms. Hol lowel l headed to the backbedroom wit h the children. C ary handed the gun to t he Defendant . The fi ve were yell ing atGibbs and Littl e in t he bath room to come out. The men broke open the door wi th t he two- by-four and began fi ghti ng Gibbs and Little . Little ha d a wh iske y bo ttle. M s. H ollo we ll did not see if the De fen da nt s till had the gun duri ng the figh t in the h ous e. T he m en le ft and she hel ped Gibbs and Li tt le, who were i njured.

S teven Gi bb s als o te stifie d a t trial. H e a nd Little we nt to Ms . Ho llow ell’s house to v isi t because he had been datin g he r. He did notknow Cary before t he incide nt. Little wa s dru nk a nd g ot into an argument wi th Cary . They sc uff led and-4-

he broke up t he fi ght. Cary l eft . Gibbshelped Li tt le cl ean up h is bloo died mo uth and Ms. Holl owell asked t hem to l eave. W hen theytr ied t o leav e, t hey sawCary and the ot hermen ou t si de
. Gi bb s a nd Li t t l e w en t t o t he ba t hroo m. Gibb s hea rd the wind ow brea k an d M s. Ho llow ell tal king t o them. He heard someone say “shoother” or “s hoot t he bit ch.”Ms. Holl owell letthem in an d the grou p beg an bea ting o n the bath room doo r.

Gibbs tes tified tha t he gra bb ed a w his ke y bo ttle a nd tha t Little had a large “Rambo” knif e. Afterthe group broke down t he bathroom door, Li tt le saw t he gun and lai d down the kni fe. Cary hi t Gibbswit h the two-by- fourwh ile he was on t he f loor
. Gibbs managed to ge t up, but was hi t f rom behind and o thers took t urns kick ing him. Teague t ook the g un, poi nt ed it at G ibb s he ad , an d sa id “H ow ’s it feel to be on the ground, whi te boy?” Gibbs’ eye, arm and knee we re in jure d in the figh t.

On cross- examinat ion, Gibbs admitted t hat he was dat ing M s. H ollo we ll wh ile he was separat ed from his w ife, b ut s aid t ha t t he y we r e reu ni t ed att he t i me oftr ial . He st ated t hat someone broke open the do or to his house someti me after the inci dent i n questi on. He deni ed an all egati on by C ary th at h e a nd Little took Ca ry’s money duri ng the f irst scu ff le. Gibbs al so test if ied thathe neversaw a gun when the group was outside t he house and could not positi vely i dentify the voi ce sayi ng “shootthe bi tch”as the Def endant’ s. Gi bbs saw the Def endant wi th a gun aft erthe men broke open the bathroom door. On redirect , Gi bbs stat ed that Little had money thatnightbecause Gibbs wastaki ng him to c ourtthe next day and he h ad th e m one y to pa y a fine
.-5- Offi cerJohnnyRay Hil l ofthe Hunt ingdon Pol ice Department t esti fi ed that he intervie we d the De fend ant. The Def end ant a dm itted hitting Little an d tha t, duri ng the brawl, someone dropped a gun and he pi cked it up an d p lac ed it in his waist band. The Defendant s tat ed thathe was cal led t o come overto the house because someone took money and theythoughtGibbs and Li tt le had c ocaine.

The De fe nd an t tes tified in his ow n b eh alf. H e st ate d th at M ars ha ll Hampton call ed him and sai d Cary had been assaul ted and robbed and to meet at Hampton’s house. Hampton’s house was jus t down t he stree t fr om M s. Ho llow ell’s house. The Def endant deni ed thathe had any i ntent ion t o fi ght, that he had a gun, t hat he sai d “Pop a cap i n her, ” or thathe broke t he window ofthe house. He testif ied thathe foll owed Cary in the house and thatCary was t ell ing Gibbs and Littl e to retur n the money. He stat ed tha t he f irst obt ained t he gun aft eritwas dro pp ed du ring the scu ffle. H e p ut th e g un in his pan ts. He admitt ed hitti ng Littl e aft er Li tt le f irst hi t hi m in the face. He also admitted t o pull ing Gibbs off Cary.

On cross- examinat ion, the Def endant deni ed point ing a gun atGibbs, but admitt ed tha t Gib bs go t into a co rne r an d sa id “P lea se do n’t kill me .” The Def endantdenied goi ng int o the house to beatup the men, but admitted go in g in to getthe m one y bac k an d “so that h e [C ary] w ould n’t be jum ped on a gain .” He den ied th at the grou p ha d the inte n t t o fi ght. The Defendant den ied t hat anyone point ed a gun at Ms. Holl owell when theywere st anding outside t he house.-6- Randy Cary test if ied thathe went t o Holl owell ’s hous e to v isi t. He knew she was awake bec a use he tal ked to her boyf ri end, Dani el Al ton, aft er he saw him leav ing Hol lowel l’ s house. He stat ed tha t he ha d d oz ed off in a recl iner when Gibbs, Little an d a stra ng er s ho we d u p. T he y exc ha ng ed wo rds , le ft, and ret urned and “j umped” him. They took some moneyfrom his j acket poc ketand a house key. Cary l eftthe house and organi zed the group , i ncludi ng the De fend ant. Th ey w ent to Ho llowe ll’s hou se. Cary admitted t o carryi ng a gun at thatti me. He denied t hat t he Defendantpossessed a gun. Cary t esti fi ed thathe had no inten tion to fi ght, but he want ed to gethis money bac k. He st ated t hat he tookhis g un ou t of h is jac ke t po cke t an d lo ad ed on e b ulle t an d D avid My les said “Pop a cap in he r.” Ms. Holl owell saw the gun at t hat poi nt. He test if ied t hat t he gun was lost du ring th e figh t and that D avid M yles re turne d it to him
.
The Defe nda nt was charg ed w ith one co unt of ag gravate d burg lary a n d thr ee cou nts of a gg rava ted ass au lt. Th e ju ry ac qu it t ed the Defendant on each count of ag grav ated ass ault, bu t con victed him of ag grav ated burg lary. Th e Defendant now appeals his co nvi cti on and sente nce.

We first a dd res s th e D efe nd an t’s thi rd i ssue, t hat t he indi ctment was fata lly fl awed. Th e in dic tm en t ch arg ing the De fen da nt w ith a gg rava ted bu rgla ry in th is case is as fol lows: That RA ND Y L. C AR Y, T ER RY RA Y C AR Y, D AV ID EARL E MYLES, MAURI CE PIERRE TEAGUE a nd MAR SHALL HA MPTO N, heret ofor e, ON OR ABO UT TH E 13T H D AY OF DE CEMBE R, 1995, befor e the fi nding of this in dictm ent, i n the C ou nty a nd Sta te a fore sa id, d id inte ntio na llyor knowi nglyenter the habi tat ion ofSUSAN HOLLO W ELL, 1 09 DREW COURT, HUNTI NGDON, CA RROLL COUNT Y , TENNESSEE w it hou t the o wn er’s e ffective con sen t, with inte nt to co m m it a fel ony , t hereby c omm itti ng t he of fe nse o f AGGRAVATED-7- BURG LARY, in vi ol at io n ofT.C. A. 39-14-403(a), against t he peace and digni ty o f t he Stat e of Tennessee. (em ph as is added). The Defendant as sert s thatthe i ndict ment is d efec ti ve because i t does notspeci fy t he fel ony i ntended t o be committ ed.

An indi ctmentor pr esentment mustprovi de noti ce of t he off ense charged, a n adeq uate b asis for the e ntry of a prop er judgm ent, and suitable p ro tec tio n againstdou ble jeo pard y. Sta te v. T rusty , 919 S. W .2d 305, 31 0 (T enn . 1996 ); Sta te v. Byrd , 820 S.W .2d 7 39, 7 41 (T enn . 199 1); State v. L indsay , 637 S. W .2d 886, 89 0 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 98 2). T he ind ictm en t “m us t sta te th e fa cts in ordi nary and c oncise langua ge in a m ann er that wo uld ena ble a pe rs on o f common underst anding t o know what i s int ended, and wi th a degree ofcerta inty wh ich wo uld enable t he courtupon convi cti on, t o pronounce t he proper judg m ent.” W arden v . S tate , 214 T enn . 391, 38 1 S.W .2d 24 4, 245 (1964 ); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 13-202.

A law ful acc usa tion is a n es sen tial jurisdic tiona l elem ent, th us, a prosecut ion cannot proceed wit hout an i ndict ment thatsuff ici entl y i nfor ms the accused of t he essenti al el ements ofthe offense. State v. Per kinson , 867 S. W .2d 1, 5 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 2); State v.Mor gan , 59 8 S
. W.2d 79 6, 79 7 ( Ten n. Cr i m. App. 1979). A judgment ba sed on an i ndict ment thatdoes not all ege all the essenti al elem ents of the offen se is a nullity. W arde n v. Sta te , 381 S. W .2d at 245 ; Mc Cra cke n v. S tate , 489 S.W .2d 4 8, 53 (Te nn. C rim. A pp. 1 972 ).

The Stat e argues thatthe Def endant has wai ved consi derat ion ofthe i ssue on appeal bec ause he did not raise t he iss ue pri or t o tr ial . Rul e 12(b) (2) of the-8-

Tennessee Rules ofCrimina l Proc edure provi des that“[ d]ef enses and object ions based on d efe cts i n the i nd ict ment . . . ot her t han thatitfai ls .
. . to charge an off ense” must be rai sed in apret rial m otio n. Te nn. R . Crim. P . 12(b)(2). Fu rth ermore, failure to raise d efens es an d objec tions pretrial con stitutes a wa iver. Tenn. R. Cri m. P. 12( f). W e note t he waiv er rul e does not applywhen an indi ctmentfai ls t o charge an essential element of an off ense because no offense has bee n ch arge d. State v. Per kinson , 867 S. W .2d 1, 5-6 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 199 2).

In the cas e at bar , t he De fen da nt h as no t alle ge d th at th e in dic tm en t fails to charge an offense. Rather, he clai ms that t he indi ctment has fai led t o descri be the offe ns e w ith th e “d eg ree of ce rtain ty” re qu ir ed a nd th eref ore t he indi ctment is void. Aggrav ated burglary i s burgl ary ofa habit ati on as defi ned in s ecti ons 39-14-40 1 and 39-14 -402. T enn . Cod e An n. § 39 -14-40 3(a). “ A pe rson com m its burglary who, wi thoutthe effect iv e consent of t he property o wne r: (1) Enters a buil ding ot her than a habit ation ( or any porti on thereof) not open to the publi c, with int ent t o commit a f elony , theft or assa ult.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-402(a ) (em ph as is add ed). The De fendant cit es State v. Haynes , 720 S. W .2d 76 ( Tenn. Cr i m. App. 1986) , quot ing Hooks v. State , 289 S .W . 529, 52 9 (Te nn. 19 26), which state s tha t an ind ictm ent f orburgl ary “ must set out and def ine t he fel ony intende d to be com mitted.” Hooks , 289 S.W . at 52 9.

The Defendanthas fi rstrai sed the i ssue i n his ap peal. Because he f ail ed to rai se the i ssue pret ri al as req uired by R ule 12(b ), thi s iss ue has been wai ved. More over, the Def endant coul d have, but di d not f il e a motion fora bil l of particulars purs uan t to Ru le 7(c) of t he Rules ofCrimina l Proc edure t o clar ify th e-9-

offense wit h which he was cha rged
. See State v. J oyner , 759 S.W .2d 422, 424- 25 (Tenn. Cri m. App. 1987) . I nstead, he clea rl y proc eeded to t ri al wi th a defense thathe had no i ntentto commitany ofthe assaul ts when he ar ri ved atthe house. We beli eve t he Defen da nt h as wa ived an y co ns ide ratio n b y this Co urt o f this issue.

The Defendantalso c hall enges the suff ici ency of the evi dence convi cti ng him of agg r ava ted bu rgla ry. H e co nte nd s th at b ec au se he wa s ac qu itted of a ll agg ra vat ed assaul t charges, t he burgl ary c onvi cti on cannot s tand becaus e the ass aults were th e und erlying felonies com pri sing an element of the offense of burglary.

W hen an accused chal lenges t he suff ici ency ofthe conv ict ing ev iden ce , the standa rd is wh eth er, a fter re view ing the evid en ce in the light m os t favo rab le to the pro se cu tion , an y ratio na l trier o f fac t co uld have fo und the ess enti al elem ents oft he cr i me be yon d a rea so na ble dou bt. Ja cks on v. Vir gin ia , 4 43 U. S. 307, 319 (197 9). Q uesti ons concern ing t he credi bil ity ofthe wi tnesses, the weightand val ue to be gi ven t he evi dence, as well as all fact ual issue s rai sed by the evi dence, are resol ved by t he tr ierof f act, notthis co urt. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 6 23 (T enn . Cri m . App . 1 987). Nor may thi s courtrewei gh or reev alua te the e viden ce. State v. Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d 832, 835 (Ten n. 197 8).

A jury verdictapproved by t he tr ial judge ac credi ts t he Stat e ’s wi tnesses and reso lves a ll conflicts in favo r of the State
. State v. Grace , 493 S. W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) . On appea l, the St at e is en titled to th e stro nge st legitim ate-10-

vi ew of t he evi dence and all infere nce s the refrom
. Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d at835. Because a ve rdic t of g uilt removes t he presumpti on of i nnocence and r eplaces it wit h a presu mp tion of guilt, the acc used has the burde n in this cou rto f il lust rat ing why t he evi dence isinsuffi cientto supportthe v erdi ct retur ned by t he tri erof fact. Sta te v. T ug gle , 639 S.W .2 d 91 3, 91 4 (T enn . 198 2); Grace , 493 S.W .2d at476.

We fi rstaddress t he content ion t hat, because t he jury acqui tt ed the Defendantof a ll aggravat ed assaul t charges, t he evi dence to c onvi ct f or aggravat ed burgl ary i s insu ff ici ent. The Defendant c hall enges the s uff ici ency of proofof t he element t hat he ente red a hab itation w ithou t con sen t “with inte nt to co m m it a fe lon y.” T en n. C od e A nn . § 3 9-1 4-4 02 (a)( 1). T he crim e o f bu rgla ry is com plete and has b een com mitt ed when an entry has been made wi thout consentand wit h the i ntentto commita fel ony once i nside. State v. L indsay , 637 S.W .2d 886, 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). The eventu al cons umm ati on of t he int ended cri me is notrequi red t o supporta convi cti on for aggravat ed burgl a ry. See Pe tree v. S tate , 530 S.W .2d 9 0, 92 (Te nn. C rim. A pp. 1 975 ). The inte nt re qu ir ement is ge nera l in natu re an d the re is n o ne ed to prove that th e intru der s ucc eed ed in carryin g ou t t he in te nt for which the struc ture w as b roke n into
. Th erefo re, if one brea ks into the dwel li ng ofanoth er with the inte nt to com mit m urder o r any othe r felo ny h e is guilty ofburgl ary ev en ifhe leav es wit hout fi nding hi s int ended vi cti m or witho ut ha ving c om m itted an y felon y in the dwe lling. Id. (quo ti ng Du cha c v. Sta te , 505 S. W .2d 237, 239-40 ( Tenn. 1973)( cit ati ons om itted))
. Thus, i t i s of no c onsequence t hat t he Defendantin t he case sub judice was acquitted ofthe actual aggravated assault s.-11- The Defendantalso makes a gene ral ar gument thatthe proof was insuffi cientto show an inten t on his pa rt to commitan assaul t when he entered Ms. Ho llo well’s hou se. He highlights the facts that he and R and y Cary b ot h test if ied t ha t t he y we ntt o t he ho us e o nl y t o g etCar y’ s mo ne y. He notes t hat Ca rytest if ied t hat no ass au lts w ou ld h ave occ urre d if Gib bs an d L ittle h ad sim ply ret urned the mo ney. Yet, we are mindf ul t hat t he int ent t o commit a f elonymay be prov ed b y circu m stan tial evide nce . Ha ll v. State , 490 S. W .2d 495, 496 (Tenn. 197 3); State v. Chr isman , 885 S .W .2d 83 4, 838 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 994 ).

On appeal we mustconsi der t he evi dence in the l ightmost favorabl e to t he State. Obviousl y th e jury rej ected t he De fen da nt’s proffer ed reason for ent eri ng Ms. Holl owell ’s hous e. Th ere is evi dence in the record t hat t he Defendantjoi ned a group ofmen organi zed by Randy Cary afterhe got i nto a f ightwit h Bil lyTed Littl e. There i s evi dence thatCary was angry wi th bot h Gibbs and Li tt le. The group of me n arrived w ith Cary ho lding a two -by-f our b oard. There is al so evidence thatCary had a handgun and t hat t he Defendantstat ed: “ Pop a cap in her.” Both Ms. Holl owell and Gibbs t esti fi ed thatthe crowd outsi de was yel li ng for the two men to come outsi de. Non e of the S tate’s witnes ses tes tified that Cary orth e ot hers we re atth e ho use togetCa ry ’s money back. There is al so evidence that C ary sm ash ed a wind ow and that, once in side t he house, t he group of men hitand kic ked Gibbs and Li tt le.

In consi deri ng the ev idence i n the record, we concl ude thatthe jury c ou ld ha ve fo und bey ond a r eas ona bl e do ubtth atth e Def end antent er ed Ms
. Ho llow ell’s hou se w ith the in tent to exactret ri buti on for Cary byassaul ti ng Gibbs and Litt le. W e a lso not e thatthe t ri al j udge charged t he jury wi th cr iminal-12-

resp ons ibilityfor the con duct of a nothe r a n d the l esser offense offaci li tat ion of a felo ny. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 11-402; 39-11- 403. The j ury c ould hav e convi cted of the l esser offense, but chose to conv ictthe Def endant f or t he great er off ense. Furt hermor e, t he jury coul d have conv ict ed the Def endant based on cri minal responsi bil ity fo rthe con du ct o f an oth er. T his would onl y requi re t hat t he Defendantacte d “with int ent t o promote or assis t t he commission of the offen se.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11 -402. The jury coul d reas on ab ly inf er t hat t he Defendantacted wi th t he intentto assistCary with ent ering t he house to a ssa ult the victims. In any e vent, we c an on ly specu late rega rding the theory upon which the juryreli ed. In ei ther case, t he evidence was suff ici ent t o supporta fi nding of guilt. T his iss ue is witho ut m erit.

Fi nally, the D efend ant arg ues tha t the trial court imp osed an exc es siv e sentence bymisappl yi ng two sent ence enhancement f actors. When an accused chall enges the l ength, range, or t he ma nne r of se rvice o f a senten ce, this cou rt has a dutyto conduct a de novo revi ew of the sentence with a presumpti on that the deter minati ons made by the trial c ourt a re co rrect. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 401 (d). This presumption is " con dit ioned upon t he aff ir mativ e showing i n the record tha t the trial c ourt consi dered t he sentenc ing pr inci ples and all rel evant facts and circum stan ces ." State v. Ashby , 823 S .W .2d 16 6, 169 (Ten n. 199 1).

In cond ucting a de no vo review of a sen tence , this court m ust con sider: (a) the evide nce , if any, rec eived at the trial and the s ente ncin g he aring ; ( b) t he presentence report; (c) the pr inci ples ofsentenci ng and ar gu me nts a s to sentenci ng alt ernat iv es; ( d) t he nature and characteri stics of the cr iminal conduct inv olv ed; ( e) any s tatuto ry m itigating or en han cem ent fa ctors ; (f) any st atement-13-

thatthe def endant made on his own b eha lf ; and ( g) t he potent ial or l ack of potent ial for reh abilitatio n or tre atm ent. T enn . Co de A nn. §§ 40-35- 102, - 103, and -210 ; see Sta te v. Sm ith , 735 S .W .2d 85 9, 863 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 987 ).

Ifour r evi ew ref lect s thatthe t ri al court f oll owed the st atut ory s entenci ng procedure, imposed a lawf ul sent ence aft er havi ng giv en due consi derat ion and properweightto t he fact ors and pr inci pals s et outunder t he sentenci ng law, and thatthe t ri al court' s fi ndings of factare adequat elysupport ed by t he record, t hen we may notmodify t he sent ence ev en i f we would ha ve preferred a differ ent resu lt. State v. Fl etcher , 805 S .W .2d 78 5, 789 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 991 ).

The Defendant ’s sen tenci ng heari ng was conduct ed on October9, 1996. His prese ntenc e repo rt indi cates t hat, atthe time of sente ncing, h e wa s twen tyfouryea rs o ld and sin gle. He dropped outof hi gh school in t he elev enth grade. It ref lect s thatthe Def endant had near lythi rtymisdemea no r conv ict ions asan ad ult and more as a juv enil e. He deni ed regul ar al cohol or dr ug ab us e, y etso me ofhis c onvi cti ons were f or possessi on of dr ugs. The Defenda nt r eport ed a sporadi c employment hi story. He had one uncle l iv ing in M cK en zie and a fouryear- old daught er i n Trenton.

At the sentenci ng heari ng, t he Stat e proposed sixenhancement f actors of which the t ri al court f ound fi ve t o be appli cable. Those appli ed were t hat ( 1) The defendanthas a prev ious hi story ofcri minal convi cti ons; ( 8) The defenda nt has a pre vi ous history of unwil li ngness to comply with t he conditi ons of a sentence inv olv ing rel ease in the community; ( 9) The defenda nt poss essed or empl oyed a fire arm duri ng the commissi on of t he off ense; ( 10) The defend ant had no-14-

hesit ati on about committi ng a cri me when the risk to human li fe was hi gh; and (13)(c) The felon y wa s co m m itted w hile the defe nda nt wa s on prob ation
. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1),( 8),(9) ,(10), (13)(c)
. The tri al court consi dered and reject ed the applicat ion of any mit igati ng factors.

The trial co urt also eva luated the Defe nda nt’s am ena bility to alternative sentenci ng pursuantto Tennessee Code Annot ated sect ion 40- 35-102. The tr ial court ref used alt ernat iv e sentenci ng b ased on the Defendant’ s past c ri minal history, incl uding a di srespectforthe l aw manifest ed in co nvi cti ons for failure to appearand escape. Aggravated burglary is a Class C f elony and the sentence range a R ang e I off end er is thre e to si x years. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-1 4- 403 (b); 40 -35 -10 1. T he trial c ou rt se nte nc ed the De fen da nt to the m axim um in the range of si x years in t he Department of Correcti on.

The Defendantargues thatthe t ri al court er red by apply ing enhanc ement f actor s (9), thatthe Def endant poss essed or empl oyed a f ir earm duri ng the commission ofthe offense and ( 10) t hat t he Defendanthad no hesi tat ion about committi ng a cri me when the ri sk to hu man lif e was high. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-11 4(9),(10). W e agree wi th t he D efend ant’s con tention tha t the trial court misappli ed enhancement fact or (9) , butwe do not reach our conc lusi on based on the Defendant’s r eas oning. He argues t hat, because he was acqui tt ed of t he aggravat ed assaul ts, the use o f a weapon can not be used to en hance the burgl ary c on victio n. T he Sta te c ou nte rs th at tw o o f the ag gra vate d a ssa ult charges were based on ser ious bodi lyinj ury ratherthan use of a weapon.-15- Ho weve r, a caref ul revi ew of t he record reveal s thatther e is s implyno evidence thatthe De fe ndant poss essed the gun duri ng the per petrati on of t he ag gravat ed bu rgl ary. Ms. Holl owell test if ied t hat Caryhanded the gu n to t he Defendantaft er t hey ent ered t he house. Gibbs t esti fi ed thathe sa w the Defendantwit h a gun when the group broke down the b athroom door. The Defendantdenied hav ing a gun unti l he pi cked i t up d ur ing the sc uffle. Cary test if ied thathe had possessi on of t he gun in his p ants when the group entered the hous e. As we ha ve p revio us ly sta ted , the crim e o f bu rgla ry is complete and has bee n co m m itted w hen an e ntry ha s be en m ade witho ut co nse nt an d with the int ent to co m m it a felon y onc e ins ide. Lindsay , 637 S .W .2d a t 889. Thus, b ec ause the record i s devoi d of ev idence t hat t he Defendantpossessed or employed a wea pon while effecting the en try i nto Ms. Holl owell ’s home, the appli cati on offact or (9) was error. W e do not bel iev e the proof suff ici entlyli nks the gun to t he Defendantto a ll ow enha nce m ent b ase d on this fac tor. W e conclude, however, that t he error was harmless.

Ne xt, the Def endant cont ends thatthe t ri al court misappl ied enhanc ement fact or(10), that he committed a cri me whe n the ri sktohuma n l i fe was hi gh. He argue s thatthi s was an el ement of t he aggrav ated assau lt s of whi ch he was acquitted, ther efor e, the t ri al court coul d not appl y i t t o the aggra vated b urglary. We disa gree . See St ate v . Jones , 88 3 S .W .2d 59 7, 6 03 (T en n. 1 99 4). T his Co urt has hel d thata burgl ary c onvi cti on may be enhanced u sin g fact or (10 ) when the c ircum stan ces crea te a risk to hu m an life. See State v. J ohn L. Go odw in, III , C. C. A. No. 01 C01 - 96 01 - CR- 00 01 3, Su mne rCou nty ( Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p., Na shville, J ul. 23 , 199 7); State v . Jimm y R ay Pott er , C.C. A. No. 01C01- 9301-CC-00021, Fe nt r es s C ou nty ( Ten n. Cr i m. App., Nashvil le, Mar. 17, 1994 );-16-

cf. State v. A very , 8 18 S. W .2d 3 65, 3 69 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1991). Here, t he Defendantwas partof a group of men who brandi shed weapons, smashed in a wind ow, and threatened to shoota woman, all whil e she was vi sibl e through the windowholdi ng her t hree-mont h-ol d-son. The Defendant k new thatthe men they soughtwe re in the ho m e a nd an en try w ou ld like ly res ult in a c onfrontat ion. This, we fee l, is suff ici ent proof t o supportthe appl icat ion ofenha ncem ent factor (1 0).

Even though we con clude t hat t he trial court misappl ied one enha ncement factor, we be lieve the rem ain ing en ha nc em en t fac tors justify the sen ten ce of six yea rs in the De partm ent o f Co rrectio n.
The judgment ofthe t ri al court i s aff ir med.

____________________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOE B. JONE S, PRES I DI NG JU DGE

___________________________________ JOE G. RI LEY , JUD GE