ÿWPC & 6 %U .  0C8 0J{ÅnÕ 04Ø U: 0TN 0^¢ 0h 0rh 0|Ú 0†Vw@Ü4 00 1uÀ 0d5 0@™ BÙ D3ö B)) DCR AQ• Ææ 0D¬ 0Dð D/4 Bc AM€ îÍ ¹ »ºt!.v~OvÓÍ X%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô#|X²«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpi„„…ä2¼P±Q„P( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2" 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  Ô žUŸ?e t¡¢/£+¤/¥+¦Ó€²äzz! Æ2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d""""'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd* (Cþÿ << Gÿÿ äÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJune€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¯ Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóBeyond€the€times€indicated€as€continuances€for€the€defendant,€the€followingÏdelays€occurred:Ìà àOn€August€11,€1993,€Judge€Weinman€recused€himself€at€the€defendantððsÏrequest,€causing€the€matter€to€be€rescheduled.Ìà àOn€December€14,€1993,€the€defendant€indicated€he€desired€elbow€counsel.€ÏThe€trial€court€inquired€if€there€was€someone€in€particular€the€defendant€desired.€€TheÏdefendant€indicated€he€wished€to€discuss€the€matter€with€his€prospective€elbowÏcounsel€before€he€gave€the€court€any€name.€€The€court€therefore€continued€the€matterÏto€January€7,€1994€to€consider€the€appointment€of€elbow€counsel.Ìà àOn€June€16,€1994,€the€defendant€was€not€feeling€well€and€asked€that€theÏmotions€scheduled€to€be€heard€on€that€day€be€continued€until€August€15,€1994,€theÏtrial€date.Ìà àOn€August€15,€1994,€the€prosecution€asked€that€the€trial€be€continued€as€one€ofÏthe€stateððs€witnesses€was€out€of€town;€on€the€defendantððs€request,€the€motionsÏscheduled€for€this€day€were€reset€for€September€1,€1994€and€the€trial€scheduled€forÏNovember€2,€1994.Ìà àOn€September€1,€1994,€the€cause€was€reset€for€September€20€as€the€defendantÏhad€not€filed€all€the€motions€he€wished€to€have€heard.€€For€reasons€unexplained€by€theÏrecord,€these€motions€were€continued€until€October€18,€on€which€date€the€courtÏcontinued€the€motions€until€November€2€as€the€court€had€not€received€requestedÏinformation€from€the€defendant€supporting€his€motion€for€a€change€of€venue,€motion€forÏa€hearing€device,€and€motion€to€subpoena€videotapes€from€television€stations.Ìà àOn€January€12,€1995,€after€another€delay€the€record€does€not€attribute€to€eitherÏside,€the€trial€judge€ordered€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€wasÏinformed€that€if€he€was€evaluated€at€the€Shelby€County€Jail,€the€evaluation€more€likelyÏwould€be€complete€by€the€then„scheduled€trial€date,€February€13.€€If,€however,€heÏinsisted€on€not€being€incarcerated€at€the€Shelby€County€Jail,€the€evaluation€wouldÏoccur€at€the€TennesseeÌDepartment€of€Correction€and€likely€would€not€be€complete€until€after€February€13.€ÏThe€defendant€indicated€that€he€was€willing€to€postpone€his€trial€in€that€event.€€TheÏevaluation€occurred€on€March€29,€1995.Ìà àOn€March€17,€1995,€Judge€Carolyn€Wade€Blackett€recused€herself€to€avoid€aÏconflict€of€interest€as€the€defendant€filed€a€complaint€against€her€in€the€TennesseeÏCourt€of€the€Judiciary.Ìà àThe€case€was€therefore€reassigned€to€the€court€of€the€Honorable€W.€Fred€Axley.€ÏJudge€Axley€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€prosecute,€butÏgranted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€an€interlocutory€appeal€under€Rule€10€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.Ìà àThe€case€was€thus€held€in€abeyance€pending€the€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals,€which€denied€the€defendantððs€request€for€an€extraordinary€appealÏon€June€19,€1995.€€On€August€6,€1995,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€in€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€requesting€an€emergency€stay€of€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.€ÏThis€motion€was€denied€and€the€case€proceeded€to€trial.Ìà àNeither€party€is€listed€as€requesting€any€of€these€continuances€in€the€technicalÏrecord,€however,€with€the€exception€of€the€stateððs€one€continuance,€the€blame€for€eachÏof€these€delays€rests€squarely€with€the€defendant.Ì °Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDelays€by€the€court€as€it€attempted€to€manage€its€calendar,€which€occurredÏfollowing€a€defense€delay,€are€not€credited€against€the€defendant€in€this€calculation.€ÏHowever,€most€of€the€202€days€regarded€as€the€courtððs€management€of€its€calendarÏoccurred€after€defense€delays.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDowney€deceased€on€July€25,€1994.€€The€defendant€filed€his€motion€to€dismissÏfor€failure€to€prosecute€on€September€16,€1994.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒœÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ*ÙßR€/0(A1-j|fÿ` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌSEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà à€€APPELLEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9505„CR„00136Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWill€V.€Doran,€Judge€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSitting€by€DesignationÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRONNIE€BRADFIELD,à àà àà à)à à(Attempted€First€Degree€Murder,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCarrying€a€Firearm€during€a€Judicial€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àProceeding,€Possession€of€a€FirearmÌà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)à àAfter€Being€Convicted€of€a€Felony)Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Ìà àà àà àÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌRonnie€Bradfield,€Pro€Seà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌRoute€1,€Box€330à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌTiptonville,€TN€38079„9775à àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDeborah€A.€TullisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37343„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€L.€GibbonsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€3„01Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnny€R.€McFarlandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€3„01Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAlanda€HorneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€3„01Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______________________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÑ7€™¶XXdðXXdæ7ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€îÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€„Ôó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Ronnie€Bradfield€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€attempted€œfirst„degree€murder,€a€Class€A€felony,€carrying€a€firearm€during€judicial€proceedings,€aÏClass€E€felony,€and€possession€of€a€firearm€after€being€convicted€of€a€felony,€a€Class€EÏfelony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court,€finding€the€defendant€was€a€persistentÏoffender,€imposed€a€Range€III€sentence€consisting€of€confinement€for€sixty€(60)€years.€ÏAs€to€the€remaining€two€offenses,€the€trial€court€found€the€defendant€was€a€multipleÏoffender€and€imposed€a€Range€II€sentence€of€four€(4)€years€for€each€offense.€€In€thisÏCourt,€the€defendant€raises€a€multitude€of€issues.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€theÏrecord,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€the€issues€presentedÏfor€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€beÏaffirmed.Ìà àOn€March€25,€1993,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€three€counts€of€second„degree€murder€in€Division€II€of€the€Criminal€Court€for€the€Thirtieth€Judicial€District.€€TheÍtrial€court€held€a€sentencing€hearing€on€May€20,€1993.€€The€defendant€was€sentencedÏto€serve€nine€(9)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€in€each€case.€€The€trial€courtÏrevoked€the€defendant's€bail€and€he€was€taken€into€custody.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€taken€to€a€detention€area€adjacent€to€the€courtroom.€€AÏcourtroom€door€permitted€ingress€and€egress€between€the€courtroom€and€theÏdetention€area.€€Deputy€Spencer€Edwards,€a€courtroom€bailiff,€ordered€the€defendantÏto€remove€the€contents€from€his€pockets.€€The€defendant€complied€and€sat€down.€ÏDeputy€Edwards€told€him€to€stand€because€he€had€to€search€the€defendant's€body.€ÏWhile€Deputy€Edwards€was€standing€over€the€defendant,€the€defendant€removed€aÏpistol€from€his€shoe.€€A€struggle€ensued.€€Another€courtroom€bailiff,€Deputy€Ron€Ray,Ïheard€the€struggle€and€went€to€the€detention€area.€€He€immediately€tried€to€take€theÏpistol€from€the€defendant's€hand.€€The€defendant€bit€Deputy€Ray's€arm€the€first€twoÏtimes€he€attempted€to€take€the€pistol.€€He€was€able€to€wrestle€the€pistol€from€theÏdefendant€on€the€third€attempt.€€The€defendant€quit€struggling€once€the€pistol€wasÏtaken€from€him.Ìà àSince€the€defendant€had€previously€been€in€the€courtroom€for€the€sentencingÏÑ  Ñhearing,›€he€was€charged€and€indicted€for€the€offense€of€carrying€a€firearm€during€aÏjudicial€proceeding.€€The€defendant€had€also€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony.€ÏHe€was€also€charged€and€indicted€for€possessing€a€firearm€after€being€convicted€of€aÏfelony.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€contends€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€denied.€€He€furtherÏcontends€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€dismiss€the€charges€against€him€becauseÏthe€state€failed€to€prosecute.€€Ìà àThe€crimes€in€question€occurred€on€May€20,€1993.€€The€defendantððs€trial€in€thisÏcase€lasted€two€days.€€It€commenced€on€September€11,€1995€and€concluded€on€theÏfollowing€day.€€The€defendantððs€case€was€reset€and€continued€many€times.€€Most€of€theÏcontinuances€were€attributable€to€the€defendantððs€actions.€€The€record€indicates€theÏcause€was€reset€seven€times€at€the€request€of€the€defendant,€never€at€the€request€ofÏthe€state.€€This,€however,€does€not€tell€the€whole€story.€€The€transcript€of€the€pre„trialÏproceedings€indicates€the€cause€was€delayed€eighteen€times€due€to€the€actions€of€theÏdefendant€and€once€for€the€prosecution€when€a€witness€was€out€of€town.× ƒ1 ××  ×ò òà àó óÌà àA€total€of€844€days€elapsed€between€the€crime€and€the€first€day€of€trial.€€ThisÏCourt€estimates€563€days€of€the€delay€is€directly€attributed€to€the€defendant;€79€days€ofÏthe€delay€can€be€attributed€to€the€stateððs€continuance.€€The€actions€of€the€defendantÏaccounted€for€approximately€67€percent€of€the€time€between€the€crime€and€the€trial;€theÏstateððs€lone€continuance€accounted€for€nine€percent€of€the€time.€€The€remaining€timeÏcan€be€attributed€to€the€courtððs€management€of€its€calendar.× ƒ2 ××  ×Ìà àTo€determine€whether€an€appellantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€violated,Íthis€Court€must€consider€four€factors:€1)€the€length€of€the€delay,€2)€the€reason€for€theÏdelay,€3)€whether€the€defendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€and€4)€whether€theÏdefendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€530,€92€S.Ct.Ï2182,€2192,€33€L.Ed.2d€101€(1972);€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).Ìà àAs€stated€above,€844€days€elapsed€between€the€date€of€the€crime€and€theÏdefendantððs€trial.€€The€overwhelming€majority€of€the€time€is€directly€attributed€to€theÏactions€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€did€assert€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€ÏTherefore,€the€only€question€which€remains€is€whether€the€defendant€sufferedÏprejudice,€the€most€important€factor€in€our€consideration.€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2dÏat€778.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€the€delay,€the€defendant€contends€three€witnesses€could€not€beÏcalled€to€testify;€two€could€not€be€located€and€the€third€witness€died.Ìà àThe€defendant€has€yet€to€offer€the€content€of€the€three€witnessesðð€testimony.€ÏThe€defendant€stated€at€one€of€the€motion€hearings€two€of€the€missing€witnesses€wereÏin€the€courtroom€the€day€of€the€incident€and€that€the€third€helped€him€get€ready€forÏcourt€before€he€left€home.€€We€know€nothing€more€of€the€defendantððs€missingÏwitnesses.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice.Ìà àAdditionally,€after€the€death€of€James€Downey,€one€of€the€missing€witnesses,Ïthe€defendant€delayed€the€proceedings€eight€times,€causing€a€delay€of€264€days.€€AfterÏhe€filed€his€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€prosecute,€he€delayed€the€proceedings€sixÍtimes,€causing€a€delay€of€245€days.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€defendant€may€not€complain€of€the€two„yearÏdelay€between€his€initial€court€appearance€and€his€trial€when€he€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€prejudice€and€is€responsible€for€the€bulk€of€that€delay,€much€of€which€heÏcaused€after€the€alleged€prejudice€he€insufficiently€asserts.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€appears€to€argue€his€self„representation€was€impaired€becauseÏhe€was€not€released€on€bail.€€The€defendant,€over€the€advice€of€three€trial€judges,Ïchose€to€represent€himself.€€He€understood€the€perils€of€self„representation€and€wasÏspecifically€made€aware€that€his€ability€to€investigate€his€case€would€be€impaired€byÏhis€incarceration.€€à àOn€August€23,€1993,€the€defendant€appeared€before€JudgeÏLockard€and€inquired€who€was€responsible€for€prosecuting€his€case.€€The€judgeÏinformed€him€he€would€have€to€contact€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€Office€to€learnÏthat€information.€€The€defendant€complained€he€was€unable€to€call€them€as€he€wasÏincarcerated.€€Judge€Lockard€informed€the€defendant€that€this€was€one€of€the€problemsÏwith€self„representation.Ìà àThe€defendantððs€defense€was€likely€impaired€by€his€incarceration;€however,€heÏwas€repeatedly€offered€appointed€counsel.€€There€is€no€right€to€the€effective€assistanceÏof€òòproóó€òòseóó€counsel;€the€trial€court€was€under€no€duty€to€release€him€on€bail€merelyÍbecause€the€defendant€opted€to€forego€the€assistance€of€a€trained€lawyer€capable€ofÏinvestigating€the€defendantððs€case.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€834,€95€S.Ct.Ï2525,€2541,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€n.46€(1975).€€For€the€defendant,€the€heightened€difficultyÏof€preparing€his€case€from€a€jail€cell€was€ð ðone€of€the€penalties€of€self„representation.ðð€ÏòòCole€v.€Stateóó,€798€S.W.2d€261,€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àAlso,€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€three€serious€felonies.€€The€trial€courtÏrevoked€the€defendantððs€bail.€€In€other€words,€the€defendant€was€serving€the€sentencesÏimposed€for€these€felonies.€€This€fact€had€to€be€considered€at€any€bail€hearing.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌA.ó óà àÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€appears€to€argue€the€trial€court€interfered€with€his€right€to€self„representation€when€it€appointed€standby,€or€elbow€counsel.€€The€defendant€states,Ïð ðFrom€the€onset€of€the€defendantððs€preliminary€proceedings€the€defendant€requestedÏto€represent€himself,€and€the€judge€was€in€error,€to€only€allow€the€defendant€to€proceedÏpro€se,€only€if€he€takes€on€standby€counsel.ððÌÓ  Óà àA€defendant€does€have€a€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€proceed€without€theÏassistance€of€counsel.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€821,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€2534,Ï45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975).€€However,€a€ð ðdefendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€rights€are€notÏviolated€when€a€trial€judge€appoints€standby€counsel€„„€even€over€the€defendantððsÏobjection€„„€to€relieve€the€judge€of€the€need€to€explain€and€enforce€basic€rules€ofÍcourtroom€protocol€or€to€assist€the€defendant€in€overcoming€routine€obstacles€thatÏstand€in€the€way€of€the€defendantððs€achievement€of€his€own€clearly€indicated€goals.ðð€ÏòòMcKaskle€v.€Wigginsóó,€465€U.S.€168,€184,€104€S.Ct.€944,€954,€79€L.Ed.2d€122€(1984).Ìà àThe€defendant€actually€requested€elbow€counsel€and€hand„picked€the€personÏto€be€so€appointed.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€asserts€he€was€denied€his€right€to€self„representation€when€theÏtrial€court€ð ðorderedðð€him€to€listen€to€the€advice€of€elbow€counsel.Ìà àThroughout€the€proceedings,€pre„trial€and€at€the€trial€itself,€the€presiding€judgeÏinstructed€the€defendant€to€refer€to€his€elbow€counsel€for€advice.€€In€one€poignantÏexample,€on€the€day€of€trial,€the€defendant€moved€for€a€continuance,€claiming€he€wasÏnot€notified€he€was€going€to€trial€on€that€day,€he€was€unable€to€summon€certainÏwitnesses€over€the€weekend,€he€did€not€have€his€pleadings€with€him,€he€had€beenÏgassed€over€the€weekend,€and€at€some€point€after€he€was€gassed,€he€passed€out€andÏwas€placed€in€a€van€by€the€prison€guards€where€he€awoke€on€his€way€to€trial,€with€iceÏin€his€trousers.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€defendant€that€he€would€not€have€hisÏcourtroom€turned€into€a€circus€and€further€instructed€the€defendant€to€refer€to€his€elbowÏcounsel€for€advice.Ìà àAs€previously€stated,€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏprovides€a€criminal€accused€either€the€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€or€the€right€toÍrepresent€himself.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€821,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€2534,€45ÏL.Ed.2d€562€(1975).€€ð ðIn€determining€whether€a€defendantððs€òòFarettaóó€rights€have€beenÏrespected,€the€primary€focus€must€be€on€whether€the€defendant€had€a€fair€chance€toÏpresent€his€case€in€his€own€way.ðð€€òòMcKaskle€v.€Wigginsóó,€465€U.S.€176,€177,€104€S.Ct.Ï944,€950,€79€L.Ed.2d€122€(1984).Ìà àA€òòproóó€òòseóó€defendant€is€entitled€to€preserve€actual€control€over€the€case€heÏchooses€to€present€to€the€jury€and€unsolicited€participation€by€elbow€counsel€shouldÏnot€be€allowed€to€destroy€the€juryððs€perception€the€defendant€is€representing€himself.€ÏòòMcKaskleóó,€465€U.S.€at€178,€104€S.Ct.€at€951.€€The€defendantððs€right€to€proceed€òòproóó€òòseóóÏis€preserved€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€if€the€defendant€is€allowed€ð ðto€addressÏthe€court€freely€on€his€own€behalf€and€if€disagreements€between€the€defendant€andÏelbow€counsel€are€resolved€in€the€defendantððs€favor€whenever€the€matter€is€one€thatÏwould€normally€be€left€to€the€discretion€of€counsel.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ìà àThe€defendant€alleges,€and€the€record€supports,€only€that€the€trial€court€told€theÏdefendant€to€refer€to€elbow€counsel€for€instruction€on€ð ðbasic€rules€of€courtroomÏprotocolðð€and€rudimentary€concepts€of€law.€€At€no€point€did€the€court€accept€theÏjudgment€of€elbow€counsel€over€that€of€the€defendant€or€require€the€defendant€toÏaccept€the€advice€of€elbow€counsel.€€A€defendant€representing€himself€is€governed€byÏall€the€rules€relating€to€trial€practice€including€the€contempt€power€of€the€court.€€òòSeeóóÏòòCole€v.€Stateóó,€798€S.W.2d€261,€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€ÏThe€trial€courtððs€attempt€to€assist€the€defendant€in€abiding€by€the€laws€and€rules€ofÏcourt€which€bound€his€actions€did€not€inhibit€the€defendantððs€efforts€to€representÏhimself.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€incoherently€states€something€about€being€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€If€the€defendant€is€claiming€his€own€ineffective€assistance,€hisÏargument€is€without€merit€as€the€òòproóó€òòseóó€€defendant€ð ðassumes€the€responsibility€for€hisÏinadequacies.ðð€€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€798€S.W.2d€at€264.€€ð ð[A]€defendant€who€elects€toÏrepresent€himself€cannot€thereafter€complain€that€the€quality€of€his€own€defenseÏamounted€to€a€denial€of€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422ÏU.S.€806,€834,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€2541,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€n.46€(1975).Ìà àIf€the€defendant€is€claiming€ineffective€assistance€of€his€standby,€or€elbow,Ïcounsel€his€point€is€also€without€merit.€€ð ðThe€right€of€a€defendant€to€participate€in€hisÏown€defense€is€an€alternative€one.€€That€is,€one€has€a€right€òòeitheróó€to€be€represented€byÏcounsel€òòoróó€to€represent€himself,€to€conduct€his€own€defense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638ÏS.W.2d€342,€359€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€459€U.S.€1137,€103€S.Ct.€770,€74€L.Ed.2dÏ983€(1983)€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€defendant€waived€the€right€to€counsel,Ïproceeded€òòproóó€òòseóó,€and€even€claims€in€this€Court€the€trial€court€interfered€with€hisÏabsolute€right€to€self„representation.€€The€defendant€therefore€may€not€contest€theÏadequacy€of€his€elbow€counsel.€€Moreover,€the€record€is€void€of€evidence€that€elbowÏcounsel€was€ineffective.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÇIV.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€contends€he€was€prejudiced€by€having€to€face€the€jury€in€prisonÏattire.€€In€a€pre„trial€order,€the€defendant€had€been€granted€the€right€to€appear€in€courtÏin€civilian€clothes.Ìà àOn€the€day€of€trial,€the€defendant€appeared€in€his€prison€uniform€and,€afterÏmaking€several€frivolous€motions€to€continue€his€case,€requested€the€right€to€changeÏout€of€his€prison€attire.€€The€trial€court€asked€if€the€change€of€clothes€had€been€broughtÏinto€the€courtroom.€€The€bailiff€responded€that€the€defendant€œhad€had›€the€opportunity€toÏchange€into€his€court€clothes€since€9:30,€but€had€not€done€so.€€Hearing€this,€the€trialÏcourt,€without€affording€the€defendant€an€opportunity€to€change,€summoned€the€juryÏback€into€the€courtroom€and€proceeded€with€the€trial.Ìà àOrdinarily,€a€defendant€may€not€be€forced€to€appear€in€shackles€or€in€prisonÏgarb,€òòEstelle€v.€Williamsóó,€425€U.S.€501,€504„05,€96€S.Ct.€1691,€1693,€48€L.Ed.2d€126Ï(1976),€however,€the€defendant€waived€his€right€to€appear€in€civilian€clothes€when€heÏfailed€to€take€the€opportunity€provided€him€to€change.€€However,€if€this€was€error,€it€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓV.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏwhen€it€denied€his€motion€for€a€continuance€on€the€day€of€trial.€€The€defendant€movedÍfor€a€continuance€on€the€grounds€(a)€he€had€not€been€able€to€summon€certainÏwitnesses,€(b)€he€had€been€gassed€over€the€weekend,€(c)€he€œhad€had›€ð ðblank„outÏattacks,ðð€and€(d)€unaware€he€was€to€be€tried€that€day,€he€awoke€with€ice€in€his€pants€inÏa€van€taking€him€to€court.Ìà àA€motion€for€a€continuance€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòStateÏv.€Goodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€35,€44€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ253,€261€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed.2d€644Ï(1995).€€The€defendant€offered€nothing€to€substantiate€his€outrageous€allegations.€€TheÏtrial€court€did€not€err€in€concluding€that€a€continuance€was€unwarranted€and€a€furtherÏattempt€by€the€defendant€to€delay€the€proceedings.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€failed€toÏfollow€the€proper€procedure€for€a€continuance€on€the€ground€of€a€missing€witness.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓVI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€claims€he€was€prejudiced€in€that€he€was€not€informed€of€his€trialÏdate.€€On€August€6,€1995,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€an€emergency€stay€of€theÏproceedings€in€the€trial€court.€€In€that€motion€he€stated€he€had€been€ð ðadvised€that€heÏwill€be€tried€on€òòSeptember€11,€1995óó.ðð€€(emphasis€in€original.)€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€therefore€utterly€without€merit.Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓVII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€judge€erred€by€not€recusing€himself.€€As€theÏdefendant€states€it,€ð ðThe€judge€which€was€very€noticeable€to€the€defendant€short„tempered,€and€raised€his€voice€to€the€defendant€on€several€occasions,€which€to€sayÏthe€least€intimidation€to€the€defendant,€which€put€him€in€a€position€of€frustration€whichÏhamper€his€presentation€of€his€motion(s)€which€should€not€have€been€allowed.€[sic]ððÌà àA€judgeððs€comments€must€reflect€more€than€insensitivity€and€lack€of€sympathyÏon€the€part€of€the€trial€judge€before€his€words€can€require€reversal.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€810,€822€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€defendant€has€alleged€only€that€heÏwas€intimidated€by€the€judge€and€the€judge€made€rulings€adverse€to€his€position.€€TheÏdefendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate,€as€he€must€to€prevail€on€this€point,€that€the€judgeÏwas€biased€against€him.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  ÓÌÇVIII.ÌA.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€claims€his€ð ðopening€statement€was€hampered€and€violated€byÏthe€judge.ðð€€During€the€opening€statement,€the€defendant€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àI€have€been€asking€the€court€to€take€me€to€trial.€€I€filed€aÏmotion€stating€ordering€the€court€to€get€this€behind€me,€butÏwhen€I€assert€my€right€to€be€tried€early€in€this€court€date,€theÏstate€wouldnððt€even€bring€me€to€trial.€€The€state€was€onlyÏwilling€to€try€me€once€my€defense€was€lost.€€I€have€been€toÏcourt€over€forty„five€times€trying€to€get€this€behind€me€„„„.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€assistant€district€attorney€general€objected€on€the€ground€the€defendant€wasÏtestifying€to€the€jury€and€the€trial€judge€sustained€the€objection.€€The€trial€court€imploredÏthe€defendant€to€merely€state€his€defense,€not€testify.Ìà àA€òòproóó€òòseóó€defendant€is€not€allowed€to€use€the€opening€statement€as€a€vehicle€toÏtestify.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€properly€limited€the€defendantððs€opening€statement.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€also€appears€to€argue€the€trial€court€improperly€limited€hisÏclosing€statement.€€The€defendant€was€not€interrupted€by€either€the€trial€judge€or€theÏassistant€district€attorney€general€during€his€closing€statement.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIX.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€defendant€lists€as€one€of€his€issues€on€appeal,€ð ðWether€[sic]€improper€juryÏinstructions€.€.€.€prejudice[d]€.€.€.€the€defendant.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€the€juryÏshould€have€been€given€an€instruction€on€circumstantial€evidence.€€Incidentally,€theÏCourt€notes€this€is€one€of€those€rare€cases€in€which€absolutely€no€circumstantialÏevidence€was€offered€in€the€stateððs€case€in€chief.€€Moreover,€it€is€not€error€to€fail€toÏcharge€on€circumstantial€evidence€when€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence€isÏintroduced€at€the€trial€absent€a€special€request.Ìà àThe€defendant€further€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€the€juryÏthe€state€was€required€to€disprove€all€reasonable€theories€except€that€of€guilt.€€This€isÏbut€another€attack€on€the€failure€to€charge€on€circumstantial€evidence.Ìà àThe€defendant€has€waived€both€these€issues€by€failing€to€request€€the€desiredÏjury€instruction.€€Rule€36(a),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.;€òòState€v.€Reeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861Ï(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€626€S.W.2d€283,€285€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓX.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€contends€he€was€prejudiced€because€the€presiding€judge€wasÏunfamiliar€with€the€pre„trial€process€in€his€case.€€The€defendantððs€pre„trial€proceedingsÏfill€36€volumes€and€reveal€his€multiple€attempts€to€bring€the€wheels€of€justice€to€aÏgrinding€halt.€€The€defendantððs€argument€that€he€was€prejudiced€because€the€trialÏcourt€was€unfamiliar€with€his€dilatory€actions€is€preposterous€and€waived€as€he€fails€toÍoffer€any€argument€or€authority€for€his€position.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7),€(h);€Tenn.€Ct.ÏCrim.€App.€R.€10(b).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓXI.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€appears€to€contest€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÍresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ìà àAs€Deputy€Edwards€attempted€to€take€the€defendant€into€custody,€the€defendantÏreached€for€his€gun€and€as€the€two€struggled€for€the€weapon,€the€defendant€informedÏthe€deputy€that€he€might€as€well€give€up€because€the€defendant€was€going€to€ð ðshootÏ[his]€ass.ððÌà àThe€jury€could€infer€the€defendant€took€a€substantial€step€toward€his€stated€goal,Ïnamely€shooting€the€victim.€€Though€not€a€necessary€inference,€the€jury€certainly€couldÏhave€inferred€the€defendant€meant€to€shoot€and€kill€the€victim.€€The€evidence€is,€inÏother€words,€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€attempted€first„degree€murder.€€And,Ïas€this€incident€occurred€in€a€courtroom€immediately€after€the€defendantððs€sentencingÏon€three€attempted€second„degree€murder€counts,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏa€verdict€of€guilty€on€the€charges€of€being€a€felon€in€possession€of€a€firearm€andÏcarrying€a€firearm€in€a€judicial€proceeding.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓXII.ÌA.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€considered€a€presentence€report€whichÏcontained€incorrect€information.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€similarlyÏobjected€to€the€introduction€of€a€report€containing€incorrect€information.Ìà àThe€defendant€has€failed€to€identify€the€allegedly€incorrect€informationÏcontained€in€the€presentence€report.€€Nor€has€the€defendant€prepared€a€supplement€toÏthe€report€as€permitted.€€We€therefore€may€not€consider€this€point€of€error.ò òÌÌÓ  ÓB.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€contends€his€sentences€are€excessive.€€The€trial€court€found€theÏdefendant€to€be€a€persistent€offender€for€the€attempted€first„degree€murder€convictionÏand€a€multiple€offender€for€the€firearms€convictions.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€aggravating€factors€for€the€attempted€murderÏconviction:€the€defendant€possessed€a€firearm€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9);€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€theÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10);€theÏfelony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€incarcerated,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(14);€and€the€defendant€committed€the€crime€when€the€potential€for€bodily€injuryÏwas€great,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).Ìà àOn€the€conviction€for€carrying€a€firearm€into€a€judicial€proceeding,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€defendant€possessed€a€firearm,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9),€hadÏno€hesitation€about€committing€the€offense€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€and€committed€the€felony€while€on€bail,€probation,€orÏother€type€of€release,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13).Ìà àOn€the€conviction€for€possession€of€a€weapon€by€a€felon,€the€trial€judge€foundÏthat€the€defendant€possessed€a€firearm,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9),€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€the€offense€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€and€committed€the€felony€while€incarcerated,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(14).Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€"the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÏ305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court's€determination€of€theseÍfacts€is€predicated€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor€and€appearance€when€testifying.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burdenÏof€establishing€that€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€atÏ311.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€the€sentences€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.Ìà àIt€seems€self„evident€the€charges€of€possession€of€a€weapon€in€a€judicialÏproceeding€and€being€a€felon€in€possession€of€a€weapon€may€not€be€enhancedÏbecause€the€defendant€demonstrated€the€audacity€to€commit€these€crimes€whileÏpossessing€a€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Elijah€Walker€Grahamóó,€Hardin€County,€No.€02„C„01„9311„CC„00257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€August€17,€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Billy€Ratcliffeóó,€Williamson€County,€No.€01„C„01„9303„CC„00099Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€3,€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€ThisÏfactor€may,€however,€properly€be€applied€to€enhance€the€attempted€murder€charge.€ÏPossession€of€a€weapon€is€not€necessarily€implied€in€the€charge€of€attempted€first„degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€313€(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(10).€€While€DeputyÏEdwards€was€the€victim,€Deputy€Ray€was€present€in€the€detention€area,€and,€therefore,Ïwas€in€harmððs€way.€€It€is€conceivable€that€if€the€gun€was€fired,€the€projectile€could€haveÏbounced€off€a€wall€or€other€object€and€struck€someone€in€the€courtroom.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(16).€€Again,€Deputy€RayÏwas€in€harmððs€way,€and,€if€the€defendant€had€fired€a€projectile,€the€projectile€couldÏhave€bounced€off€a€wall€or€other€object€and€struck€someone€in€the€courtroom.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);ÏòòMakokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€373.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€incarcerated€when€he€attempted€to€kill€Deputy€Edwards,Ïwas€free€on€bond€when€he€walked€into€the€courtroom€with€the€weapon€and€possessedÏa€weapon€as€a€felon€while€incarcerated.€€These€factors€are€entitled€to€great€weight€andÏindicate€that€the€defendant€is€not€amenable€to€complying€with€societyððs€rules,€whetherÏin€or€out€of€prison.Ìà àEven€though€we€find€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€certain€factors,€attachingÏgreat€weight€to€those€properly€applied,€we€affirm€the€judgment€and€sentence€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ