ÿWPCÝ ÐaRéŸ[!ÆÜš-~¢•xîjý²Ò¦“¸G™Šà‰CïUÙ#šÃ"áFîf º¥”ɉN ÈnEJ÷ÙAì7“À¸ !GÝÑ¥¹.³0u.ÏHãGW‡x6k÷9½€ù¥«žƒ~ÃÀ)N=â6s¥·Bð’+å ä”´ƒ²ùШ:ÒZ984«eÂR‚ÈÿäyG+=ÚÕç‹2KZ°9ÛZÐÜë6ïvž¶±ŠŠÑ˜Ó¥ùLÁ4J5­Xb4Õ¬C½p‰#jý€W²]ØÃVºè¦áœ—N«¾Ð9§mQ,’™ /×4¢V«onq|ô y/ÙÈ]fò$³,=ƒð.wRˆêÐ[#çškñ³ª‚´5žy:‘rtÃпébS‰Û‘”¾º’3`ßRú‚V¹¦òâ¼a¹ƒ¿œ†Ó’›nT+÷i Òl)8Lï%ã©ÝX4‘àt’8}azåq}+2#\ùßÿ4ÖÿKýu£Mv`6Hzk»RÿXiy°Ù^‚FM۱ݚï ›÷¶yü‘Ы˜`æ;͉6ظŽíœþ·}:Ï[¶—;·å •¨YÃ܈_vª· 飬mà9ŽwllFo ¨Œ= [ê÷i¤òq±…# F %Q UNW 0Æ¥ k 4s ‡ U:–  Ð w@ð U:0U:jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj B¤¤¤¤¤ D3ÁÁÁ 0Dôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôô AO8Ƈ‡ 0DM D/‘ BÀ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓƒƒ '3|xs , øð AZ"Arial Regular Ô€ XSöXXXÔÔ€ îÍÖîX XSöÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ sûî îÍÖÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€24,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôë§ô sûÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó _ P` a Eb c Dd e f g h Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýñh ñ›ñh ñÑ7€'`XdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ XSöXXXÔñh ñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@Ehf  tt0" ` ¨Ørß›ñh ñà@g g ÚàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  Ðà@*ÚàòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóˆÐ , Ì Ðà@––'ÚàMARCH€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9802„CR„00065Ð 0 Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àand€#€03C01„9809„CR„00310Ìà Œ àAppellee,à < àà ” àà ì à*Ð \ü  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àWASHINGTON€COUNTYÌœVS.›à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àÐ (È  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àHon.€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÌœMOHAMED€F.€ALI,€›à ” àà ì à*à D àÐ ô”  Мñ_ ñà Œ àñ_ ññ_ ñà ä àñ_ ññ_ ñà < àñ_ ññ_ ñà ” àñ_ ññ_ ñà ì àñ_ ññ_ ñà D àñ_ ñ(Rape€and€Attempted€Bribery›Ìœà Œ àAppellant.€€à < à›à ” àà ì à*à D àœñ` ñof€a€Witness)ñ` ñ›Ð À` Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àœñ` ñof€a€Witness)ñ` ñ›Ìœà Œ àà ä àà < à›à ” àœña ñà ì à*à D àña ñ›ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð ð ÐÌClifford€K.€McGown,€Jr.,€Attorneyà ì àà D àPaul€G.€Summers€Ð ¼ \ Ð113€North€Court€Squareà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ¢!B ÐP.O.€Box€26à ä àà < àÐ ˆ"( ÐWaverly,€TN€€37185à ” àà ì àà D àMichael€E.€Moore€Ð n# Ð(on€appeal)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àSolicitor€General€Ð T$ô Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àÌDavid€F.€Bautista€€à < àà ” àà ì àà D àEllen€H.€Pollack€Ð  &À  ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ '¦! Ðandà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÐ ì'Œ" ÐDeborah€Black€Huskinsà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð Ò(r# ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð ¸)X $ Ð142€E.€Market€StreetÌP.O.€Box€996ÌJohnson€City,€TN€€37605€Ì(at€trial€and€of€counsel€on€appeal)ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ  þ8ž/5S ÐÓÓà@33-ÚàòòOPINIONóóˆÐ `  Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Mohamed€F.€Ali,€was€convicted€of€rape€and€attemptingÏto€bribe€a€witness.€€Although€represented€by€counsel€at€trial,€the€defendant€servedÏas€his€own€counsel€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€court€imposed€Range€I,Ïconsecutive€sentences€of€twelve€years€for€the€rape€and€three€years€for€theÏattempted€bribery.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€court€remanded€the€cause€to€the€trial€courtÏto€determine€whether€the€defendant€had€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€rightÏto€counsel€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€òòState€v.€Mohamed€F.€Alióó,€No.€03C01„9405„Ð ô”  ÐCR„00171€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€26,€1996).€€Afterward,€the€trial€courtÏdetermined€that€the€defendant€had,€in€fact,€knowingly€and€intelligently€œwaivedñb ñ€hisÏright€to€ñb ññc ñ›€ñc ñcounsel›€and€that€a€new€sentencing€hearing€was€not€required.€€ApproximatelyÏtwo€months€later,€the€defendant,€this€time€represented€by€counsel,€filed€a€motionÏseeking€a€reduction€of€sentence.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€defendantÏappealed€each€ruling.€€This€court€consolidated€the€appeals.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€issues€presented€for€review€are€whether€the€defendant€knowinglyÏand€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel€and€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€anÏexcessive€sentence.€€We€affirm€each€of€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àA€factual€summary€is€in€order.€€The€defendant€is€a€physician.€€In€1989,Ïone€of€his€female€patients,€the€victim,€went€to€the€defendant€to€have€her€cholesterolÏchecked.€€After€taking€a€blood€sample,€the€defendant€put€on€a€rubber€glove,€pulledÏup€the€victim's€dress,€and€placed€his€hand€inside€her€underwear.€€The€defendantÏthen€administered€an€injection€which€he€explained€was€for€muscle€spasms€andÏdirected€her€to€the€examination€table.€€The€victim€described€her€state€afterwards€asÏin€a€"dream€world"€or€"in€œla€la›€land."€€The€defendant€removed€the€victim's€underwear,Ïfondled€her€privates,€and€stated€that€he€would€have€to€show€the€victim€how€she€andÐ 8¸.4 Ðher€husband€should€have€intercourse.€€The€victim€remembered€that€the€defendantÏunzipped€his€pants€and€placed€his€penis€into€her€vagina€and€that,€when€she€tried€toÏpull€away,€he€forced€her€back.€€She€described€the€incident€was€"over€quickly."€ÏWhen€the€victim€stepped€away€from€the€examination€table,€she€noticed€whatÏappeared€to€be€a€semen€stain€on€the€paper€covering.€€She€recalled€that€she€wasÏunable€to€find€her€underwear.€€The€defendant€then€directed€her€to€the€receptionÏdesk€to€make€another€appointment.€€After€leaving€the€office,€the€victim€stopped€at€aÏconvenience€market€and€called€her€husband.€€When€her€husband€arrived€at€theÏmarket,€he€found€that€her€speech€was€slurred.€€The€victim€informed€him€that€she€hadÏbeen€raped€by€the€defendant€and€could€not€find€her€underwear.€€The€matter€wasÏthen€reported€to€the€police.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOfficers€later€found€a€semen€stain€on€the€examination€table.€€TestingÏindicated€that€the€defendant€could€have€been€the€source€of€the€semen.€€€Later,€theÏvictim's€husband€met€with€the€defendant€privately.€€A€recording€of€the€conversationÏconfirmed€that€the€defendant€claimed€to€have€given€the€victim€an€injection€dosage€ofÏa€steroid€which€he€contended€had€caused€her€to€imagine€that€the€rape€hadÏoccurred.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€had€contacted€his€insurance€company€andÏhad€been€authorized€to€pay€$20,000.00€in€cash€for€the€wrongful€injection.€€TheÏdefendant€had€also€offered€to€pay€for€psychiatric€counseling€for€the€victim.€€à T$ àÐ „+$"& ÐÌà Œ àà ä àTestimony€by€a€representative€of€the€defendant's€malpracticeÏinsurance€carrier€contradicted€the€defendant's€claims.€€A€blood€and€urine€analysis€ofÏthe€victim€contradicted€the€defendant's€claim€that€he€had€administered€depo„medrol,Ïa€steroid;€instead,€tests€indicated€a€high€level€of€hydroxyzine,€a€sedative€used€as€aÏpre„anesthetic.€€Expert€testimony€indicated€that€the€drug€could€make€one€physicallyÏhelpless.Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àIn€the€prior€opinion€on€direct€appeal,€a€majority€of€the€court€ruled€inÏpertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€record€reflects€that€after€the€appellant€wasÏconvicted,€his€attorney€moved€to€withdraw€because€theÏappellant€[had]€filed€a€malpractice€suit€against€theÏattorney.€€This€motion€was€followed€by€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€remove€the€attorney€because€of€certain€allegedÏfailures€in€the€representation.€€The€record€on€appealÏcontains€no€indication€of€judicial€resolution€of€theÏmotions,€but€the€record€subsequent€to€these€motionsÏreflects€that€the€appellant€acted€pro€se€relative€to€hisÏsentencing€and€new€trial€motion€hearings.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWe€believe€the€trial€court€was€obligated€to€conduct€aÏhearing€on€the€record€to€determine€if€the€defendant'sÏdecision€to€proceed€pro€se€was€knowingly€andÏintelligently€made.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà@ee/Úà***ˆÌÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àòòBecause€the€record€before€us€does€not€include€aÐ $Ä Ðtranscript€of€any€hearing€regarding€the€appellant'sÏrequest€to€proceed€pro€se,€we€are€unable€to€determine€ifÏthe€appellant's€decision€was€knowingly€and€intelligentlyÏmade.€€A€new€sentencing€hearing€may€not€be€necessary,€Ïif€such€a€hearing€was€conductedóó.€€Therefore,€we€vacateÐ ¢!B Ðthe€sentences€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€itÏto€determine€if€a€record€exists€showing€the€appellant'sÏaffirmative€waiver€of€counsel.€€If€the€trial€court€determinesÏthat€such€a€record€of€waiver€exists,€it€shall€reinstate€theÏsentences€previously€imposed.€€However,€if€no€suchÏrecord€exists,€the€trial€court€shall€conduct€a€newÏsentencing€hearing.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌòòÓÓState€v.€Mohamed€F.€Alióó,€No.€03C01„9405„CR„00171€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ ¸)X $ ÐKnoxville,€Sep.€26,€1996),€œòòappñd ñ.ñd ñ›€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€June€2,€1997)€(emphasis€added€andÐ „+$"& Ðcitations€omitted).€€ÌÌà@¾¾0ÚàIˆÌà Œ àà ä àThe€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€has€the€constitutional€right€toÏrepresent€himself€and€to€proceed€pro€se€without€the€assistance€of€counsel.€€Tenn.ÏConst.,€art.€I,€ðð€9;€U.S.€Const.,€amend.€VI;€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806€(1975).€Ð L6ì,2 ÐHowever,€before€the€defendant€is€allowed€to€proceed€on€his€own€behalf,€the€trialÐ 8¸.4 Ðcourt€must€determine€that€the€defendant's€decision€is€based€upon€a€knowing€andÏintelligent€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€673€S.W.2d€174,€177Ð , Ì Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Rule€44(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÏprovides€that€indigent€defendants€should€execute€a€written€waiver€before€beingÏallowed€to€proceed€pro€se.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€McDowellóó,€814€F.2d€245,€251„52€(6th€Cir.€1987)Ð (È  Ð(quoting€"Guideline€for€District€Judges"€from€òòI€Bench€Book€for€United€States€DistrictÐ ô”  ÐJudgesóó,€1.02„2€to€„5€(3d€ed.€1986)),€a€series€of€questions€was€suggested€as€aÐ À` Ðmeans€of€assuring€a€knowing€and€intelligent€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel.€€In€òòSmithÐ Œ, Ðv.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998),€this€court€adopted€thoseÐ Xø Ðquestions€as€a€guideline€in€order€to€assure€a€proper€waiver.€€This€record€includes€aÏtranscript€of€the€hearing€on€October€26,€1993.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€discharged€his€trial€counsel€several€weeks€after€guiltyÏverdicts€were€returned€on€the€charges€of€rape€and€attempting€to€bribe€a€witness.€ÏThe€sentencing€hearing€was€scheduled€on€the€date€the€motion€was€filed.€€In€his€proÏse€pleadings,€the€defendant€sought€both€self„representation€and€the€assistance€ofÏthe€public€defender.€€When€the€trial€court€suggested€a€procedure€by€which€a€publicÏdefender€would€be€appointed,€the€defendant€sought€to€withdraw€the€motion€for€theÏassistance€of€the€public€defender€and€represent€himself.€€The€trial€court€and€theÏdefendant€then€engaged€in€a€lengthy€exchange€regarding€the€request€to€proceed€proÏse.€€The€transcript€establishes€that€the€defendant€graduated€from€Cairo€UniversityÏSchool€of€Medicine€in€1978.€€Afterwards,€he€completed€his€residency€and€a€post„¼graduate€program€at€East€Tennessee€State€University€Medical€School.€€He€practicedÏmedicine€from€1985€through€1989.€€The€defendant€expressed€his€understanding€thatÏif€he€represented€himself€that€he€would€be€treated€just€as€if€he€knew€the€law€and€heÐ 8¸.4 Ðasserted€that€he€had€read€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€the€Constitution€ofÏthe€United€States.€€At€the€time,€he€had€in€his€possession€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€studying€constitutional€law€andÏhad€brought€a€treatise€on€the€subject€to€the€sentencing€hearing.€€When€he€wasÏasked€whether€he€was€aware€of€the€content€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution,€the€defendant€stated€that€there€was€a€guarantee€to€the€right€toÏthe€assistance€of€counsel€and€the€right€of€self„representation.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€reiterated€that€the€purpose€of€the€inquiry€of€theÏdefendant€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearing€was€to€determine€whether€the€choice€ofÏself„representation€was€a€knowledgeable€and€intelligent€choice.€€When€the€trial€courtÏwarned€that€the€self„representation€would€pose€a€disadvantage,€the€defendantÏstated€that€he€understood.€€When€asked€if€he€knew€what€Abraham€Lincoln€saidÏabout€one€who€represented€himself,€the€defendant€answered,€"A€man€who€hasÏhimself€for€his€attorney€has€a€fool€for€an€attorney...."€€At€that€point,€when€theÏdefendant€asked€if€he€could€at€sometime€in€the€future€elect€to€have€counsel,€the€trialÏcourt€answered€in€the€affirmative€but€warned€that€"that€does€not€mean€that€[we]€goÏback€and€retry€something...."€€The€trial€court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àòòBut€you€see€things€just€work€out€a€whole€lot€better€if€youÐ ¸)X $ Ðare€going€to€have€a€lawyer€and€hire€him€or€her€and€haveÏthe€continuity€of€representationóó.€€It€...€makes€forÐ „+$"& Ðconfusion€with€the€court.€€It€makes€it€difficult€for€counsel.€ÏA€lawyer€coming€in€after€you€make€...€some€serious€legalÏerrors€in€representing€yourself.€€Well,€a€lawyer€[in€thatÏsituation]€is€at€a€severe€disadvantage....€€òòSo€you€areÐ /¼%* Ðbetter€off€if€you€are€going€to€obtain€counsel€to€do€so€atÏthis€pointóó.€€Ðè0ˆ',ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€Afterwards,€the€defendant€responded,€"Who€knows,€maybeÏduring€the€next€week€or€so€I€might€find€someone....€€But€for€today's€hearing,€I€wouldÏlike€your€honor€to€rule€on€my€eligibility€to€represent€myself."€€ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€inquiry,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantÏwas€intelligent,€capable,€and€fluent€in€the€language.€€It€determined€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€previously€able€to€represent€himself€in€filing€a€civil€lawsuitÏagainst€his€prior€attorney€which€indicated€a€familiarity€with€the€language€and€legalÏconcepts:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àòòI€am€of€the€opinion€that€you€are€probably€making€aÐ \ü  Ðmistake€by€representing€yourselfóó,€[but€the€court]€findsÐ Bâ  Ðthat€you€are€competent,€informed€and€knowledgeableÏand€that€this€is€a€knowing€and€intelligent€decision€on€yourÏpart.€€[All€right],€you€represent€yourself....Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àAt€the€hearing€on€remand€from€this€court,€the€trial€court€not€onlyÏreviewed€the€October€26,€1993,€transcript,€but€also€permitted€testimony.€€TrialÏcounsel€for€the€defendant€asserted€that€prior€to€his€discharge,€he€was€"one€hundredÏpercent€confident"€that€he€had€advised€the€defendant€of€the€potential€penalties€forÏhis€crimes.€€The€defendant€claimed€otherwise.€€He€was€allowed€to€testify.€€TheÏdefendant€stated€that€he€would€not€have€signed€a€waiver€of€his€right€to€counselÏbecause€of€the€permanency€of€his€act.€€He€stated€that€he€was€able€to€draft€the€civilÏcomplaint€against€his€former€attorney€only€because€he€had€used€a€malpractice€suitÏfiled€against€him€as€a€form.€€He€claimed€that€his€trial€counsel€never€advised€him€ofÏthe€range€of€punishment€for€his€crimes€and€that€he€was€unaware€that€he€was€facingÏsentencing€on€the€date€he€sought€to€represent€himself.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòSmithóó,€this€court€set€aside€a€conviction€when€the€trial€court€did€notÐ è0ˆ', Ðmake€an€extensive€inquiry€and,€in€particular,€failed€to€warn€the€defendant€of€theÏspecific€dangers€of€self„representation,€"the€area€of€primary€concern."€€987€S.W.2dÏat€877.€€While€the€suggested€questions€identified€in€òòMcDowellóó€and€adopted€in€òòSmithóóÐ L6ì,2 Ðwere€not€specifically€utilized€by€the€trial€judge€in€making€a€determination€on€the€issueÐ 8¸.4 Ðof€waiver€of€counsel,€there€was,€in€our€view,€substantial€compliance.€€In€one€way€orÏanother,€the€trial€court€touched€on€each€of€the€subjects€included€in€the€guideline.€ÏDespite€the€defendant's€failure€to€actually€sign€a€waiver€as€required€by€Rule€44,€it€isÏapparent€that€the€defendant€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€the€record€establishes€that€the€trial€judge€did€makeÏreference€to€the€applicable€range€of€punishment€and€that€the€defendant€confirmedÏhis€understanding.€€On€the€remand,€the€trial€court€declined€to€accredit€the€assertionsÏof€the€defendant€that€his€waiver€of€counsel€was€neither€knowingly€nor€intelligentlyÏmade.€€The€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€motion€for€dismissal€of€defense€counselÏconstituted€a€written€waiver:€€"[the€defendant€did€file€a€written]€motion€for€dismissalÏof€defense€counsel€[wherein€he€sought]€to€act€as€his€own€defense€counsel."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€these€facts€are€similar€to€those€in€òòState€v.€œGñf ñoñf ñodwinóó,›€909Ð ¼ \ ÐS.W.2d€35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€in€which€a€panel€of€this€court€ruled€that€theÏdefendant€had€validly€waived€his€right€to€counsel€after€an€inquiry€which€includedÏquestions€about€his€age€and€education€and€a€warning€that€proceeding€pro€se€wasÏfraught€with€peril.€€In€œòòGoñg ñoñg ñdwinóó,›€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€"clearlyÐ ì'Œ" Ðunderstood€the€hazards€of€representing€himself"€and€was€aware€that€he€would€beÏresponsible€for€understanding€the€Rules€of€Evidence€and€the€rules€of€court.€€ÌÌà@¢¢/ÚàIIˆÌÔ‡X°XX X°Ôà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€sought€a€reduction€of€his€sentence,€pursuant€to€RuleÐ è0ˆ', Ð35,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€In€the€initial€appeal,€a€panel€of€this€court€concluded€that€theÏtrial€court€should€"reinstate€the€sentences€previously€imposed"€if€it€found€that€thereÏhad€been€a€valid€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel.€€òòAlióó,€separate€op.€at€6.€€Thus,€thisÐ L6ì,2 Ðcourt€had€conditionally€affirmed€the€sentences€imposed.€€On€January€22,€1998,Ð 8¸.4 Ðfollowing€a€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€the€defendant's€waiver€of€his€right€to€counselÏwas€valid,€the€trial€court€reinstated€the€sentences€originally€imposed.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€his€March€13,€1998,€motion€to€reduce€the€sentence,€the€defendantÏcontended€that€the€maximum€sentences€were€excessive€and€requested€that€he€beÏpermitted€to€serve€his€sentences€concurrently€rather€than€consecutively.€€On€MarchÏ19,€1998,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€without€œñe ña€ñe ñfurther›€hearing,€with€theÏfollowing€commentary:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€defendant€in€this€cause€has€never,€in€any€courtÏproceeding,€taken€the€slightest€responsibility€forÏcommitting€these€offenses,€nor€has€he€shown€anyÏremorse€for€his€actions€of€raping€his€patient€while€he€wasÏa€physician.€€Considering€this€and€the€totality€of€the€proofÏin€the€sentencing€hearing€in€this€cause,€the€court€is€of€theÏopinion€that€the€motion€for€reduction€of€sentence€shouldÏbe€denied.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓKÓÌà Œ àà ä àRule€35€permits€a€trial€court€to€reduce€a€sentence€in€the€"interests€ofÏjustice."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€35€and€Advisory€Commission€Comments.€€The€trial€courtÏmay€but€is€not€required€to€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòId.óó€€In€our€view,€theÐ :%Ú Ðsentences,€as€imposed,€are€entirely€appropriate€and€justice€would€not€be€served€byÏa€reduction€in€the€sentence.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€861€S.W.2d€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ô#† X°XXX°õF#ÔÐ ž*>!% ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÐ  š3:*/ ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌCornelia€A.€Clark,€Special€Judge€