andhertestim atthesentencinghearing. Thedefendant argues that theStateproducednom inary ony aterial
credibletestim of thedefendant'sguilt. ony
Adefendant challengingthesufficiencyof theproof hastheburdenofillustratingtothisCo whytheevidence urt
isinsufficient tosupport theverdict returnedby thetrierof fact inhisor hercase. This Court will notdisturb averdict ofguilt for
lack of sufficient evidence unless th fa co ine intherec an a infe ce w m bedra n fro thefac a e cts nta d ord d ny ren s hich ay w m ts re
insufficient, asamatterof law,forarational trierof fact tofindthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt. Statev. Tuggle,
639S.W.2d913, 914(Tenn. 1982).
W anaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyof theconvictingevidence, wem reviewtheevidenceinthe hen ust
light m t fav bleto th p ec n inde ining w the "any rational trierof fact couldhavefoundtheessential elem os ora e ros utio term he r ents
of thecrim beyondareasonabledoubt." Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. 307,319(1979). W donotreweighor re-evaluatethe e e
evidence and are required to afford the State the strongest legitim view of the proof contained in the record as well as all ate
reasonable a leg ateinference w m b draw therefrom Statev. Cabbage 571S.W.2d832, 835(Tenn. 1978). nd itim s hich ay e n . ,
Questionsconcerningthecredibilityof witnesses, theweight andvalueto begiventotheevidence, aswell
asfactual issuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrierof fact, not thisCourt. Cabbage 571S.W.2d832, 835. Aguilty ,
verdict rendered by the jury and approved by the trial judge accredits the testim of the witnesses for the State, and a ony
presum ofguilt replacesthepresum ofinnocence. State v. Grace, 493S.W.2d474, 476(Tenn. 1973). ption ption
Thedefendant claim that theevidenceisinsufficient tosupport hisconvictionbecauseof inconsistencies s
inthevictim'sstatem tothepoiceandhertestimon H ev th e a ent l y. ow er, es llegedinc siste iesco ernwhether thedefendant on nc nc
exposedhimsef tothevictim,theextentofthevictims disability, andthevictim claim that shehit thedefendant andbit hishand l ' 's s
eventhoughOfficer Bentontestifiedthat hedidnot seeanymarksonthedefendant orhisclothing. Thedefendant hasnot alleged
anyinconsistenciesinthevictim testim or statem regardingfactsestablishingthe elem ofaggravatedsexu battery. 's ony ent ents al
In addition, it is within the province of the trier of fact, in this case thejury, to determne the credibility of witnesses. In the case i
at bar,thejuryobviouslycreditedthetestim of thevictim Asthat iswithintheirprovince, thedefendant'scontentioniswithout ony .
merit.
The defendant next contends that his sentence is excessive. W a defendant complains of his or her hen
sentence, wem conductadenovoreviewwithapresum ofcorrectness. T .A §40-35-401(d). Theburdenof showing ust ption .C .
that the sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) Sentencing Com ission Com ents. This m m
presumption, how r, "is co eve nditionedupontheaffirm sh inginthere rdthat th tria court c ere these ative ow co e l onsid d ntencing
principlesan a relev t fac a circu sta es Statev. Ashby, 823S.W.2d166, 169(Tenn. 1991). d ll an ts nd m nc ."
Indetermningthespe fic sentenceandthepossiblecombinationofsentencingalternatives, thecourt shall i ci
consider thefollowing: (1) anyevidencefromthetrial andsentencing hearing, (2) thepresentencereport, (3) theprinciplesof
sentencingandtheargum concerningsentencingalternatives, (4) thenatureandcharacteristicsof theoffense, (5 in ation ents ) form
offe bytheStateor thedefendant concerningenhancingandm red itigatingfactors asfoundinT.C.A.§§40-35-113and-114, and
(6) thedefendant'sstatem inhisor herownbehalf concerningsentencing. T.C.A.§40-35-210(b). ents
In addition, T.C.A. § 40-35-210 provides that the m umsentence wthin the rang is the presu ptive inim i e m
sentence. If thereareenhancingandmitigatingfactors,thecou m start atthem im sentenceintherangea en rt ust in