ÿWPCV &Öþ–~ûuÿǼŸ%ºõI¦)vpn[ƒð;kÈ:_ø¥¿QµŠ*hIì–>eµ²Ì *‘‰ì ý•Ô{5Jëø®’ïýÜ»Faž\yè⫈öo§Nß¾ñOy¥ÿižO©&B~6«x>CÔÏå'%=vƒŠxÕî¢Õ& Kñ£v­Î~Q8:ÂÇÙ¢x˜ßáe/ŠóK_l¾]OuÏ hâ†ñm=‡kÄÈ¢zôMžäê2B×ó1÷I°æéð§¼Á¨]D‘ñz"àÌNô¬ED|–B ïC·N•%w. æg^:ø%/ùvà0X:ûv”_W«WÍãñÖ~Ê%è⚬{±¢0 žäŠ›˜¶u—F¨” 5ÎÆìv>õ2Šô()/eÈ]N\*W2ÀƒQ 7­Ö’2[Nï}hÅRøs®ƒ#T$[¤×·!ììašž“¥ &`!•‹TßÉÀíßÌ}L§§*·àž= j8N,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇU :ïb) 0‚1U:³ 0ÔíU:Áw@û4;O^ñfÔW ³+ ¨Þ 0† 8¶sîa&wU: B× 0Dô D38888 AQkƼ 0D‚ 0DÆ D/  B9˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(A5H$Ô€XûÅXXXÔÔ€Š’è ŠXXûÅÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular(‚*2.®$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XUXXXÔÔ€ &Ká&X XUÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular æç[è[éDêDëDìíîïÓ€V&3|xú çÝ ƒ .®$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XUXXXÔÔ€ &Ká&X XUÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝDefendant€was€seventeen€years€old€at€the€time€of€this€crime. ÊÝ ƒ Vf$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xó/XXXÔÔ€ &»Ý&X Xó/ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝòòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€Part€III. ©Ý ƒ Vf$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xó/XXXÔÔ€ &»Ý&X Xó/ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  Ýð ðððRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€ofÐ `  Ðany€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€than€it€wouldÏbe€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401. žÝ ƒ Vf$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xó/XXXÔÔ€ &»Ý&X Xó/ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝAlthough€the€State€introduced€proof€that€the€victim€had€been€paid€approximately€twoÐ `  Ðdollars€for€his€last€fare€before€his€death,€the€record€reflects€that€the€hospital€returned€ð ðsmallÏbillsðð€to€the€deceasedððs€family. &Ý ƒ Vf$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xó/XXXÔÔ€ &»Ý&X Xó/ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝAlthough€this€jury€instruction€was€erroneousð"ða€reckless€mental€state€was€no€longerÐ `  Ðrequired€for€the€offense€of€felony€murder€at€the€time€this€crime€occurredð"ðwe€find€that€suchÏerror€was€harmless€because€it€heightened€rather€than€lowered€the€level€of€proof€necessary€forÏthe€jury€to€convict€Defendant.€€Furthermore,€the€error€was€not€preserved€for€review. .Ý ƒ Vf$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xó/XXXÔÔ€ &»Ý&X Xó/ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝThis€matter€was€addressed€by€counsel€for€Defendant€in€a€jury„out€hearing€prior€to€theÐ `  Ðwitnessððs€testimony.€€ iÝ ƒ Vf$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xó/XXXÔÔ€ &»Ý&X Xó/ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝThe€legislature€has€provided€that€a€person€sentenced€to€life€without€parole€shall€òòneveróóÐ `  Ðbe€eligible€to€be€released€on€parole.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(h)(2). Ñ „ Ñ Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÏl XXXÔÔ€À  XXÏlÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÏl X ÀÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€10,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôOô XXÏlÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý 'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñïñ›ñïñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š°ŠXXÔÔ€Š\ŠŠŠ°ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¬XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñïñßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð Úrß›ñïñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌNOVEMBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9803„CR„00120Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó ó€Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHAMILTON€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€GARY€D.€GERBITZ,ó óÐ `  Ðò òDELIVETRICK€D.€BLOCKER,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Felony€Murder,€Especiallyò òÐ ` Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óà  àAggravated€Robbery)Ð ` ÐÌÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8 Ø ÐÌœPHILIP€L.€DUVAL›à  àà h àà À àà  àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ("È Ð537€Market€Street,€Suite€204à À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  #À ÐChattanooga,€TN€37402Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àR.€STEPHEN€JOBEÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBILL€COXÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRODNEY€STRONGÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSuite€300,€Courts€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àChattanooga,€TN€37402›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€œMODIFIED€IN€PART;›€REMANDEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  x7./S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°j}°ŠŠ\Ôò òòòÑ7€B¦ˆ ˆdXXdð7ќр¿› ÑOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š\а°j}ԛР`  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€Delivetrick€D.€Blocker,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictionsÏand€sentences€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€first€degree€murderÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€FollowingÏsentencing€hearings,€the€jury€sentenced€Defendant€to€life€imprisonment€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole€for€his€murder€conviction;€and€the€trial€court€sentencedÏhim€to€twenty„two€years€for€especially€aggravated€robbery,€to€be€servedÏconsecutive€to€his€life€sentence.€€We€affirm€Defendantððs€conviction€for€felonyÏmurder€and€modify€his€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€to€attemptedÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€appeal,€Defendant€presents€seven€issues€for€review:€(1)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€his€pretrial€statement€to€police,Ï(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€a€witness€to€testify€that€the€victimÏcarried€a€wallet,€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€his€motion€forÏjudgment€of€acquittal€and€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€hisÏconvictions,€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€ordering€theÏsentence€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€to€be€served€œconsecutive€to€his›Ïsentence€of€life€imprisonment€without€parole,€(5)€whether€a€juvenile€may€beÏsentenced€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€and€(6)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€permitting€the€jury€to€sentence€him€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€paroleÏbased€upon€the€single€aggravating€factor€of€felony€murder.Ìâ âÐ Î6n-. Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€proof€at€trial€showed€that€Defendant€and€his€severed€co„¼â âdefendants,€cousin€Robert€Blocker€and€Calvin€Trammell,€who€were€all€juvenilesÏat€the€time€of€this€crime,׃×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€ŠB§ ŠŠŠ\ÔÔ€ŠB§ Š ŠŠB§ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€called€for€a€taxicab€from€a€Hamilton€CountyÐ @ à Ðconvenience€store.€€When€it€arrived,€they€instructed€the€driver€to€take€themÏapproximately€one„half€mile,€to€a€location€that€the€State€characterized€as€woodedÏand€secluded,€along€a€street€with€several€vacant€homes.€€As€the€perpetratorsÏexited€the€car,€Defendant€heard€Robert€Blocker€demand€money€from€the€driver,Ïwho€reached€over€between€the€seats.€€Defendant€told€police€that€he€believed€theÏdriver€was€reaching€for€a€gun,€so€he€pulled€a€sawed„off€shotgun€from€his€pantsÏand€pointed€it€at€the€driver.€€He€then€shot€the€driver€at€a€range€between€six€andÏtwelve€inches€from€his€head.€€All€three€perpetrators€fled€the€scene,€and€an€areaÏhomeowner€discovered€the€victim€when€the€taxicab€crashed€into€her€patio.€€€ÌÌà@††$®àI.€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSˆÌà ` àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€theÏstatement€he€made€to€police€on€the€night€he€was€arrested.€€He€argues€(1)€thatÏofficers€did€not€advise€him€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€until€after€he€made€his€statement,Ð ¸)X  Ðand€(2)€that€waiver€of€his€rights€was€not€voluntary,€knowing,€and€intelligent,€butÏrather€the€product€of€coercion€and€intimidation.€€Both€the€juvenile€court,€prior€toÏDefendantððs€transfer,€and€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€held€œhearings›€onÏthis€matter,€and€both€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.€€We€affirm€this€decision,Ïâ âconcluding€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€finding€that€officersÐ à3€** Ðdid€not€question€Defendant€prior€to€informing€him€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€thatÐ `  Ðhis€waiver€was€voluntary,€knowing,€and€intelligent.Ìâ âÌà@dd#®àòòJuvenile€Court€HearingóóˆÐ x Ðà ` àAt€Defendantððs€suppression€hearing€in€the€Juvenile€Court€for€HamiltonÏCounty,€the€judge€heard€testimony€for€the€State€from€Detective€Tim€Carroll,€whoÏstated€that€he€read€Defendant€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€in€the€presence€of€DefendantððsÐ 0  Ðmother€prior€to€any€questioning€about€the€murder.€€Carroll€denied€having€anyÏdiscussions€regarding€the€outcome€of€the€case,€and€he€denied€making€anyÏpromises€in€exchange€for€a€statement.€€Carroll€also€denied€threatening€DefendantÏto€induce€him€to€provide€a€statement.€€The€detective€testified€that€Defendant€andÏhis€mother€signed€the€waiver€of€rights€form,€and€that€œDetective›€Tommy€WoodsÏand€Ken€McCrary,€a€juvenile€officer,€also€witnessed€Defendantððs€signature.€€ÌÌà ` àOn€cross„examination€at€the€juvenile€court€hearing,€Detective€CarrollÏacknowledged€that€four€or€five€other€officers€accompanied€him€to€DefendantððsÏhome€at€the€time€of€the€arrest,€that€Defendant€was€taken€separately€from€hisÏmother€to€the€police€service€center,€and€that€Defendant€did€not€have€anÏopportunity€to€confer€in€private€with€his€mother€prior€to€his€interview.€ÏFurthermore,€the€detective€stated€that€he€had€a€conversation€with€DefendantÏbefore€he€turned€on€the€tape€recorder€to€record€the€statement,€but€not€before€heÏread€Defendant€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€€€€€€€€Ð 4¨** ÐÌà ` àDefendantððs€mother€testified€that€on€the€day€of€his€arrest,€her€son€openedÏthe€door,€saw€the€officers,€and€said€he€would€get€his€mother.€€According€to€Ms.Ð  :À00 ÐBlocker,€officers€followed€Defendant€back€into€the€house€and€told€Defendant€thatÏthey€were€taking€him€in€for€questioning€about€a€murder.€€They€told€Ms.€Blocker,Ïwhile€in€her€sonððs€presence,€that€she€needed€to€come€to€the€police€service€centerÏbecause€she€ð ðknew€aboutðð€the€crime€and€ð ðcould€also€be€arrested.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àWhen€asked€ð ðat€what€point€[Defendant]€was€read€his€Miranda€rights€in€theÏinterview€room,ðð€Ms.€Blocker€replied,€ð ðAfter€Tim€Carroll€told€him€if€he€bullshittedÏhim,€heððd€make€sure€heððd€get€the€g__d___€chair€and€my€son€said,€okay,€Iððll€tellÏyou€what€you€want€to€know.ðð€€Ms.€Blocker€also€testified,€ð ðIn€my€presence€the€manÏjust€kept€saying€that€he€know€[sic]€what€happened€and€that€I€knew€whatÏhappened€and€if€he€keptð"ðif€he€keptð"ðif€my€son€bullshitted€him,€heððd€make€sureÏhe€got€the€chair€and€he€kept€cursing€my€son.ðð€€She€stated€that€the€òòMirandaóó€rightsÐ ¸X Ðwaiver€form€ð ðwas€read€as€the€man€was€signing€it,€as€the€man€was€writing€out€theÏthing,ðð€and€she€affirmed€that€Defendant€acknowledged€on€tape€that€he€hadÏsigned€the€waiver.€€When€asked€on€tape€whether€they€had€been€threatened,Ïneither€Defendant€nor€his€mother€stated€that€threats€had€been€made.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€also€testified€at€the€juvenile€suppression€hearing.€€He€stated,ÌÓÓà8 ` àWhen€we€came€out€of€the€house€[on€the€night€of€arrest],€DetectiveÏTim€Carroll€pulled€me€away€from€a€female€officer€and€took€meÏacross€the€street€and€he€said€what€do€you€know€about€the€cab€driverÏmurder.€€I€said€I€donððt€know€nothing.€€He€said€before€this€night€isÏover€your€g__d___€ass€is€going€to€know€something€and€he€took€meÏback€over€there€to€her,€to€the€female€officer.€€€€€Óg'ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐHe€affirmed€that€officers€told€his€mother€ð ðshe€could€be€arrested€for€knowingÏsomething€about€the€murder.ðð€€Defendant€stated€that€he€signed€the€rights€waiverÏð ð[a]fter€Tim€Carroll€kept€like€making€his€little€threats€about€the€electric€chair.ðð€€HeÐ 9¼// Ðstated€that€no€one€read€the€form€to€him,€that€the€threats€scared€him,€and€that€heÏwould€not€have€made€a€statement€to€police€had€he€not€been€threatened€with€theÏelectric€chair.€€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€testified,€ð ðFirst,€[Carroll]€asked€me,€asked€me€my€story.€€AfterÏhe€wrote€all€of€that€down,€he€told€með"ðhad€me€to€sign€it€and€he€didnððt€read€it€offÏto€me€or€nothing,€asked€me€to€sign€it.ðð€€He€claimed€that€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€wereÐ 0  Ðread€to€him€for€the€first€time€on€the€tape€recording,€after€he€had€given€his€versionÏof€events€and€signed€the€waiver.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€an€opportunity€to€readÏthe€waiver€before€he€signed€it,€but€stated€that€he€did€not€because€he€was€ð ðtooÏbusyðð€and€ð ðthinking€about€the€threats€[Carroll]€made€and€thinking€about€[his]Ïmama€and€[his]€sisters.ðð€€Finally,€Defendant€acknowledged€that€he€stated€on€theÏtape€recording€that€he€understood€his€rights,€waived€his€right€to€a€lawyer,€andÏwaived€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€juvenile€court€judge€ruled€in€favor€of€the€State,€denying€DefendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€find€evidence€of€coercion€andÏforce€so€as€to€render€the€waiver€of€rights€involuntary.€€Furthermore,€she€stated,€ÌÓÓà8 ` àI€think€there€is€a€logical€time€frame€laid€out€in€this€that€supports€theÏtestimony€of€the€officer€and€œ[is]€also›€supportive€of€the€testimony€ofÏthese€parents€over€here.€.€.€.€I€donððt€find€anything€inconsistent€withÏthe€Stateððs€testimony€and€I€find€nothing€offered€by€the€defendants€onÏthis€through€their€witnesses€to€believe€that€these€were€anythingÏother€than€voluntarily€obtained€by€the€officers€in€the€course€of€thisÏinvestigation€that€night.Ó'/ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌœÌÐ  :À00 Лà@dd#®àòòCriminal€Court€HearingˆÐ `  Ðóóà ` àAfter€Defendant€was€transferred€to€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€toÐ h  Ðbe€tried€as€an€adult,€that€court€held€another€suppression€hearing,€in€which€theÏjuvenile€hearing€transcript€was€entered€into€evidence.€€Detective€Carroll€andÏDefendant€testified€consistently€with€the€prior€hearing.€€Defendantððs€mother,€Ms.ÏBlocker,€reiterated€her€previous€testimony€but€added€that€Detective€Carroll€toldÏher€at€least€three€times€that€ð ðthey€were€going€to€try€to€have€[Defendant]Ïelectrocuted.ðð€€At€the€same€time,€she€testified€that€Carroll€told€Defendant,€ð ð[I]f€youÏtell€me€what€I€want€to€know,€Iððll€go€to€the€Judge€and€Iððll€talk€to€the€Judge€and€tellÏhim€that€you€cooperated€and€Iððll€do€.€.€.€what€I€can€for€you.ðð€€œIn›€addition,€sheÏtestified€that€her€son€could€read€only€at€a€third„grade€levelð"ðnot€well€enough€toÏunderstand€the€òòMirandaóó€waiver€formð"ðand€that€he€had€already€told€officers€hisÐ ¸X Ðstory€twice€before€ever€being€read€those€rights€(during€the€tape€recorded€portionÏof€the€statement).€€€€€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€suppress,€making€several€findings:€(1)Ïthe€defendants€were€properly€arrested;€(2)€the€requests€made€of€the€parents€andÏguardians€to€be€present€were€proper;€(3)€statements€made€to€Ms.€BlockerÏregarding€her€possible€knowledge€of€the€facts€were€not€coercive€in€nature;€(4)€theÏprocedure€in€the€interview€room€and€police€service€center€hallways€wasÏextremely€reasonable,€œtimely,›€and€not€coercive;€(5)€no€questioning€took€placeÏprior€to€proper€admonitions€under€òòMirandaóó;€(6)€the€time€sequence€between€theÐ 4¨** Ðrights€offerings€and€the€actual€taping€of€the€statements€was€extremelyÏâ âreasonable;€(7)€the€interviewing€between€individuals€was€reasonable€and€veryÐ 8¸.. Ðunderstandable;€and€(8)€the€officers€were€not€required€to€inform€the€parents€ofÏtheir€function€to€advise€their€children€during€the€interviewing€process.Ìâ âÌà ` àOur€supreme€court€very€recently€discussed€the€manner€of€analysis€forÏwaiver€of€constitutional€rights€by€juvenile€criminal€defendants.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.Ð €  ÐCallahanóó,€979€S.W.2d€577€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€òòCallahanóó,€the€court€held,€Ð ˆ(  ÐÓÓà8 ` à[J]uvenile€waivers€shall€be€analyzed€under€a€totality„of„the„¼circumstances€test€that€requires€consideration€of€the€followingÏfactors:€€€€€€€Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à(1)€consideration€of€all€circumstances€surrounding€the€interrogationÏincluding€the€juvenileððs€age,€experience,€education,€and€intelligence;€Ï(2)€the€juvenileððs€capacity€to€understand€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€andÐ ¤D Ðthe€consequences€of€the€waiver;€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(3)€the€juvenileððs€familiarity€with€òòMirandaóó€warnings€or€the€ability€toÐ ¬L Ðread€and€write€in€the€language€used€to€give€the€warnings;€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(4)€any€intoxication;€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(5)€any€mental€disease,€disorder,€or€retardation;€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(6)€the€presence€of€a€parent,€guardian,€or€interested€adult.Ó€:ӀР` ü!` ü! ÐòòId.óó€at€583.€€Ð Ä"d ÐÌà ` àRegarding€appellate€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€motions€to€suppressÏevidence,€our€supreme€court€advised,ÌÓÓà8 ` àQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€theÏevidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÏentrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailingÏin€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€thatÏevidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supportsÏthe€trial€court's€findings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€otherÏwords,€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€beÏupheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€.€.€.€ÏHereafter,€the€proper€standard€to€be€applied€in€reviewingÏsuppression€issues€is€the€ð ðpreponderance€of€the€evidenceððÏâ âstandard.Ó?ÓÐ7´--` ü!` ü! ÐòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€From€the€above€recitation€ofÐ `  Ðâ âthe€facts,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€interrogation€when€making€the€decision€to€denyÏDefendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€Furthermore,€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€denial.€€Where€the€trial€judgeÏfound€conflicts€among€the€statements€by€Detective€Carroll,€Defendant,€and€Ms.ÏBlocker,€he€appeared€to€resolve€them€in€favor€of€Detective€Carroll,€which€wasÏreasonable€and€not€œimproper›€in€his€role€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€This€issue€lacks€merit.ÌÌà@dd%®àII.€HABIT€TESTIMONYˆÌà ` àDefendantððs€second€assignment€of€error€involves€the€testimony€at€trial€byÏthe€victimððs€niece,€Terry€Smith.€€Smith,€a€substitute€witness€who€apparentlyÏprovided€substantially€the€same€testimony€as€the€anticipated€witness,€anotherÏmember€of€the€victimððs€family,€responded€to€direct€examination€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àHow€well€did€you€know€your€uncle?ÐÐ%p` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àVery€well.ÐÔ&t` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àPrior€to€October€8,€1995,€how€often€would€you€see€your€à Ð àÐ Ø'x Ðuncle?Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àEveryday.Ðà)€ ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àAre€you€familiar€with€items€that€he€may€have€carried€on€his€à @Ì! àÐ ä*„!! Ðperson?Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àYes,€sir.Ðì,Œ##` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àWould€he€ever€carry€a€wallet?Ðð-$$` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àYes,€sir.Ðô.”%%` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€you€often€see€that€wallet?Ðø/˜&&` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àYes,€sir.Ðü0œ''` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àWhat€type€of€wallet€was€it?Ð2 ((` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àIt€was€a€brown€trifold.Ð3¤))` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àQ.à ¸ àWhat€did€he€have€in€that€wallet?Ð4¨**` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àHe€would€carry€pictures€and€largeð"ðhis€large€bills€he€would€à @Ø! àÐ  5¬++ Ðkeep€in€his€wallet.Ó’FÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐSmith€also€testified€that,€to€her€knowledge,€members€of€her€family€had€notÏreceived€this€wallet€from€the€hospital,€the€police,€or€the€Mercury€Cab€Company,Ð  :À00 Ðthe€victimððs€employer.€€Upon€cross„examination,€Smith€testified€that€she€herselfÏhad€not€been€the€recipient€of€her€uncleððs€personal€items€returned€from€theÏhospital,€police,€and€cab€company.€€In€addition,€she€confirmed€that€some€otherÏitems,€such€as€a€shoe€and€sock,€were€never€recovered.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€charges,€in€essence,€that€Smithððs€statements€should€have€beenÏexcluded€because€the€testimony€is€so€speculative€that€it€lacks€relevance€to€theÏissue€of€whether€the€victim€carried€the€wallet€on€the€day€of€his€death.€€The€issueÏis€significant€because€no€other€evidence€of€theft€exists€in€the€record€to€support€aÏconviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery.׃×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨H ÐÌà ` àThe€State€responds€by€arguing€that€Smithððs€testimony€was€admissible€asÏevidence€that€the€victim€had€a€habit€of€carrying€a€wallet,€introduced€for€theÏpurpose€of€inferring€conduct€in€conformity€therewith€on€the€day€at€issueð"ðin€otherÏwords,€that€because€the€victim€had€been€seen€carrying€a€wallet€in€the€past,€andÏbecause€no€wallet€had€been€returned€to€the€victimððs€family,€Defendant€or€one€ofÏhis€co„perpetrators€must€have€taken€the€wallet.€€ÌÌà ` àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€406€states:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à(a)€Evidence€of€the€habit€of€a€person,€an€animal,€or€of€theÏroutine€practice€of€an€organization,€whether€corroborated€or€not€andÏregardless€of€the€presence€of€eye„witnesses,€is€relevant€to€proveÏthat€the€conduct€of€the€person,€animal,€or€organization€on€aÏparticular€occasion€was€in€conformity€with€the€habit€or€routineÏâ âpractice.Ð 5¬++` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à(b)€A€habit€is€a€regular€response€to€a€repeated€specificÏsituation.€€A€routine€practice€is€a€regular€course€of€conduct€of€anÏorganization.ÓËQÓÐ ` ü!` ü! Ðâ âHabit€evidence€must€be€distinguished€from€character€evidence€governed€byÏTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404.€€Whereas€under€Rule€404(b),€evidence€of€priorÏacts€may€not€be€introduced€ð ðto€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€showÏaction€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait,ðð€there€is€no€such€limitation€onÏevidence€òònotóó€introduced€to€prove€a€trait€of€character.€€One€commentator€hasÐ 0  Ðremarked,€ð ðSince€Rule€406€admits€evidence€that€would€probably€be€admittedÏanyway€under€the€general€relevance€principles€embraced€in€Rule€401,€it€isÏarguable€that€Rule€406€adds€little€new€to€modern€evidence€law.ðð€€Neil€P.€CohenÏet€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€200€(3d€ed.€1995).€Ð °P ÐÌà ` àWe€agree€with€Defendant€that€the€State€did€not€demonstrate€throughÏwitness€Terry€Smith€that€the€victim€habitually€carried€a€wallet,€as€a€regularÏresponse€to€a€repeated€specific€situation.€€However,€because€the€tendency€toÏcarry€a€wallet€daily€cannot€be€construed€as€proof€of€the€ð ðcharacter€of€a€person€inÏorder€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€a€character€trait,ðð€there€are€no€limitationsÏplaced€by€Rule€404(b)€on€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence.€€Therefore,€so€longÏas€the€testimony€was€ð ðrelevantðð€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€401,׃×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€it€need€not€riseÐ ð-$$ Ðto€the€level€of€habit€evidence€under€Rule€406ð"ðto€be€evidence€of€habit€would€onlyÏsupplement€its€admissibility.€ÌÐ 4¨** Ðà ` àAccording€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€103,€ÌÓÓà8 ` à[e]rror€may€not€be€predicated€upon€a€ruling€which€admits€orÏexcludes€evidence€unless€a€substantial€right€of€the€party€is€affected,Ïand€.€.€.€[i]n€case€the€ruling€is€one€admitting€evidence,€a€timelyÏobjection€or€motion€to€strike€appears€of€record,€stating€the€specificÏground€of€objection€if€the€specific€ground€was€not€apparent€from€theÏcontext.׃×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ÓÂZÓÐ|` ü!` ü! ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(1).€€Furthermore,€the€general€ð ðstandard€of€review€where€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€judge€is€based€on€the€relevance€of€the€proffered€evidenceÏunder€Rules€401€and€402€is€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2dÐ ”4  Ð649,€652€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Westóó,€737€S.W.2d€790,€793„94€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð œ< Ð1987)€(citing€òòStrickland€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburgóó,€611€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¤D ÐApp.€1980)).€€ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€we€find€both€(1)€that€no€substantial€right€has€been€affectedÏwithin€the€meaning€of€Rule€103,€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏdiscretion€by€admitting€the€testimony€of€Terry€Smith.€€This€issue€lacks€merit.€€€€€ÌÌà@  ®àIII.€MOTION€FOR€ACQUITTAL/SUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCEˆÌà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€Defendant€moved€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal€on€the€basis€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof,€and€his€motion€was€denied.€ÏHe€argues€now€before€this€Court€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€hisÏconvictions.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€that€this€conviction€should€beÏmodified€to€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€However,€despite€this€lackÐ  5¬++ Ðof€evidence,€Defendantððs€felony€murder€conviction€is€well€supported€by€proof€thatÏhe€committed€an€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€We€therefore€affirmÏhis€conviction€for€first€degree€felony€murder.ÌÌÔ‡Š3Š ŠŠr¢Ôà ` àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indingsÐ €  Ðof€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€byÏa€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumptionÏof€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);Ð  À Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,Ð !  Ð331€(Tenn.€1977));€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.Ð ð" ÐStateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.€1962).Ð à$€ ÐÌà ` àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðtheÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citingÐ  ,@#$ ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð .0%& Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€atÐ €0 '( Ð191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€courtÐ p2)* Ðfind€particular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favorÏof€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ð P6ð,. ÐÔ#†Šr¢ ŠŠŠ3c#ÔÐ @8à.0 Ðà ` àThe€offense€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€is€ð ðrobbery€as€defined€œin€ðð›Ï39„13„401€.€.€.€[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.€[and€w]here€the€victimÏsuffers€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403.€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€39„13„401€defines€robbery€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€ofÏproperty€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ €  Ððð€39„13„401.€€Finally,€ð ð[a]€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€intent€toÏdeprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€controlÏover€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„14„103.Ð ˜8 ÐÌà ` àAs€noted€above€in€Part€II,€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€tending€to€showÏthat€the€victim€carried€a€wallet€at€the€time€of€his€death€consisted€of€Terry€SmithððsÏone„word€affirmations€in€response€to€ð ðWould€he€ever€carry€a€wallet?ðð€and€ð ðDidÏyou€often€see€that€wallet?ðð€€In€addition,€the€only€proof€that€the€victim€carriedÏmoney€on€the€night€of€his€death€was€Smithððs€statement€that€he€sometimes€carriedÏlarge€bills€in€his€wallet.׃×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€No€other€proof€of€a€theft€of€property€is€contained€in€thisÐ Ð%p Ðrecord.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àWe€find€Smithððs€testimony,€and€the€statements€by€Smith€and€anÏinvestigative€officer€that€no€wallet€was€recovered€during€the€investigation,€to€beÏinsufficient€to€permit€the€jury€to€find€a€theft€had€occurred.€€To€hold€otherwise,€thisÏCourt€would€have€to€determine€that€the€jury€properly€inferred€one€of€twoÏscenarios.€€First,€because€the€victim€drove€a€taxicab,€he€must€have€possessedÐ 4¨** ÐÑ¿›ÑÑ „XÑÑ  ÑñîñÑ¿›ÑÑ „XÑÑ  ÑÑ¿›ÑÑ „XÑÑ  Ññîñœmore›€money€at€the€time€of€his€death€than€was€returned€to€his€family,€and€thisÏmoney€must€have€been€taken€by€the€perpetrators.€€Second,€because€the€victimððsÏniece€had€often€seen€him€carry€a€wallet,€he€must€have€carried€one€that€nightÏ(even€though€Smith€never€stated€how€often€she€had€seen€the€wallet,€nor€did€sheÏtestify€to€a€time€frame€prior€to€the€murder€during€which€she€saw€it);€and€becauseÏno€wallet€was€recovered,€the€perpetrators€must€have€taken€the€wallet.€€We€rejectÏboth€scenarios€as€impermissible€leaps€of€faith€for€the€jury.€€Therefore,€we€mustÏmodify€Defendantððs€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€to€one€forÏattempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€€€€à È àÐ  @ ÐÌà ` àConviction€by€a€jury€for€the€greater€offense€necessarily€includes€a€findingÏof€guilt€on€each€element€of€a€lesser€included€œoffense.€€Even›€though€we€modifyÏDefendantððs€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€to€attempted€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery,€we€nevertheless€uphold€his€conviction€for€first€degree€felony€Ïmurder€by€finding€that€the€evidence€was€more€than€sufficient€to€find€that€theÏmurder€was€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€attempted€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€ÌÌà ` àFor€the€indicted€count€of€felony€murder,€the€jury€was€charged€in€part€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree€under€this€count€of€the€indictment,€the€State€must€haveÏâ âproven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€following:Ð4¨**` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à1.€The€defendant€unlawfully€killed€the€victim;€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€à8¸ ` ü!` ü!à2.€The€defendant€acted€recklessly;׃×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ðd ¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðâ âà8 ` àà ¸ à3.€The€killing€was€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€or€theÏattempted€[sic]€to€perpetrate€the€allegedly€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€That€is€that€the€killing€was€closely€connected€to€the€allegedÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€and€was€not€a€separate,€distinct€andÏindependent€event;€Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àAndÐ ` ü!` ü! Ðà ` àà8 ¸ à4.€That€the€defendant€intended€to€commit€the€allegedÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.Ó7wÓÐ ¸ ü!¸ ü! ÐFurthermore,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„12„101€states:€ÌÓÓà8 ` àA€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÏculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense€.€.€.€[a]cts€with€intent€toÏcomplete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€a€result€that€would€constituteÏthe€offense,€under€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€asÏthe€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€the€conduct€constitutes€aÏsubstantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€ÓË{ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(3).ÌÌà ` àDefendantððs€own€statement€to€police€contains€sufficient€evidence€to€convictÏhim€of€felony€murder€based€upon€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€TheÏgroup€of€men,€who€had€been€out€walking€throughout€the€evening,€called€a€taxicabÏand€requested€to€be€taken€a€distance€of€approximately€one„half€mile.€€AsÏDefendant€told€police,€ð ðI€get€œ[sic]€out›€of€the€car€to€go€and€knock€on€the€door€causeÏI€was€going€over€to€a€friend€[sic]€house€and€by€that€time€I€heard€Calvin,€I€turnedÏaround€and€heard€Calvin€asking€the€cab€driver€for€money,€say€did€he€have€anyÏmoney.ðð€€Then,€ð ðCab€driver€started€digging€in€the€side€of€his€seat€then€I€ran€overÏthere,€put€the€gun€to€his€head.ðð€€Defendantððs€statement€later€reflects€thisÏexchange:Ð 4¨** ÐÓÓà8 ` àCarroll:€à  àAnd€what€did€you€tell€him.Ð` ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àD.€Blocker:à  àTold€him€to€start€reaching.Ðd ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àCarroll:à  àGet€his€hands€up.Ðh ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àD.€Blocker:à ¸ àà  àNo.€€Just€.€.€He€was€reaching€through€his€head€and€IÐ l  Ðsay€start€reaching€between,€you€know€what€Iððm€saying,€I€was€sayingÏjust€start€reaching.ÓÆ€ÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐDefendant€then€admitted€that€he€shot€the€victim€and€ran€from€the€scene.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€permit€the€jury€to€find€DefendantÏguilty€of€first€degree€murder€committed€during€the€attempt€to€perpetrate€anÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà ` àBecause€the€jury€convicted€Defendant€of€killing€the€victim€during€anÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€(though€not€supported€by€the€proof),€we€believeÏits€verdict€clearly€incorporated€all€the€elements€of€a€killing€during€an€òòattemptedóóÐ ´T Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery,€which€the€proof€supports.ÌÌÔ‡Š3Š ŠŠr¢Ôà@ÛÛ ®àIV.€MODIFICATION€OF€SENTENCEˆÐ Ì$l Ðà ` àFollowing€Defendantððs€sentencing€for€first€degree€felony€murder,€the€trialÏcourt€held€a€sentencing€hearing€for€Defendantððs€conviction€for€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€and€sentenced€him€to€twenty„two€years€as€a€Range€IÏoffender,€to€be€served€consecutive€to€his€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole.€€ÌÔ#†Šr¢ ŠŠŠ3+…#ÔÔ‡Š3Š ŠŠr¢ÔÌà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÐ L4ì*+ Ða€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÐ :¼01 Ðall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1991).€ÌÌà ` àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€œCourt›€mustÐ 0Ð Ðconsider:€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)Ïthe€presentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡Xn XŠŠ3ÔððÔ#†Š3Š XXnŒ#ÔÔ‡Xn XŠŠ3ÔððÔ#†Š3Š XXnVŒ#Ô€40„35„102,€„103,€œ„210.€€We€use€theÐ À` Ðsame€criteria€to€determine€the€appropriate€modification€of€Defendantððs€sentenceÏin€conjunction€with€our€modification€of€his€conviction€from€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery€to€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.Ô#†Šr¢ ŠŠŠ3 ‡#ÔÔ‡Š3Š ŠŠr¢Ô›Ð "0 ÐÌÔ#†Šr¢ ŠŠŠ3Ð#ÔÔ‡Š3Š ŠŠr¢Ôà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€range€for€œespecially€aggravatedÐ p& Ðrobbery€was›€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years,€and€that€sentencing€considerations€forÏthis€offense€should€begin€at€the€mid„point€of€the€range,€twenty€years.€€œòòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð P*ð " ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€In›€addition,€the€trial€judge€first€found€thatÏenhancement€factor€œoneð"ðthat›€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€œrangeððð"ðwas›€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€Ð 2°(* ÐAlthough€he€did€not€consider€Defendantððs€prior€crimes€to€be€ð ðmajor€offenses,ðð€heÏfound€that€the€crimes€were€concentrated€in€a€very€short€period€of€timeð"ðbetweenÏthe€ages€of€fourteen€œand›€eighteen.€€He€therefore€increased€Defendantððs€sentenceÏfrom€the€twenty„year€mid„point€to€twenty„two€years.€€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àNext,€the€trial€judge€rejected€enhancement€factors€two€and€eightð"ðthatÏð ð[t]he€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€(2)Ïor€more€criminal€actorsðð€and€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÏcommunity,ðð€respectively.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(2),€(8).€€The€judge€noted€that€heÐ  À Ðdid€not€find€ð ðany€significant€basisðð€œto€support€a€determination€that€Defendant›€wasÏthe€leader€in€commission€of€the€robbery,€despite€the€fact€that€Defendant€shot€theÏvictim.€€Furthermore,€he€declined€to€find€œany›€significant€history€of€unwillingnessÏto€comply€with€conditions€of€release€because€Defendant€committed€the€offenseÏas€a€juvenile,€and€all€previous€criminal€convictions€were€from€œthe€juvenile›€court.€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#†Šr¢ ŠŠŠ3)Ž#ÔÔ‡Š3Š ŠŠr¢ÔÐ À` МñêñÌñêñ›à ` àThe€trial€judge€then€considered€and€rejected€the€three€mitigating€factorsÏpresented€by€Defendant.€€First,€the€judge€found€mitigating€factor€œtwoð"ðthat›€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant€acted€under€strong€œprovocationððð"ðinapplicable›€because€this€case€didÏnot€ð ðinvolve€a€theft€case€where€an€individual€is€stealing€food€for€his€family,ðð€andÏbecause€he€found€no€other€proof€of€provocation€in€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„Ð p& Ð113(2).€€Next,€he€rejected€mitigating€factor€eight,€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€wasÏsuffering€from€a€mental€or€physical€condition€that€significantly€reduced€theÏdefendantððs€culpability€for€the€offense.ðð€€In€support,€the€trial€judge€noted€that€heÏfound€nothing€in€the€expert€testimony€presented€to€indicate€a€disability€within€theÏmeaning€of€this€mitigating€factor.€€Finally,€œalthough€he€noted€that€Defendant€wasÏseventeen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€offense,ñëñð ðñëñ€he€also€found€that€the€DefendantÏwas€ñìñð ðñìñstreetwise,ððñæñ€ñæññåñand€therefore€ñåñð ðconsiderably€olderðð€than€seventeen.€€ñîñThus,€ñîññíñTherefore,ÏñíñheÏrejected€mitigating€factor€six,€which€states,€ð ðThe€defendant,€because€of€youth€orÏold€age,€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€40„35„Ð à7€.0 Ð113(6).€€€€€Ô#†Šr¢ ŠŠŠ3¿•#ÔÐ Ð9p02 Їà ` àThe€range€for€a€standard€offender€convicted€of€attempted€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony,€is€between€eight€and€twelve€years.€€òòSeeóó›Ð h  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„107;€39„13„403.€€œAccording€to€sentencing€guidelines,Ïconsideration€should€begin€at€the€minimum€for€the€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„210(c),Ð x Ð(d).€€We›€therefore€enhance€Defendantððs€sentence€in€accordance€with€the€findingsÏof€the€trial€court,€and€we€sentence€Defendant€to€œnine›€years€as€a€standard€rangeÏI€offender€for€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà@<<"®àœV.›€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGˆÌà ` àAfter€concluding€that€Defendant€was€a€dangerous€offender€due€to€theÏnumber€and€increasing€severity€of€his€prior€convictions,€the€type€of€offenses€in€theÏconvictions€at€bar,€the€lack€of€indication€that€rehabilitation€would€be€successful,Ïand€the€need€for€the€public€to€be€protected€from€these€type€of€offenses;€the€trialÏjudge€approved€consecutive€sentencing,€with€Defendantððs€twenty„two€yearÏsentence€to€be€served€consecutive€to€his€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibilityÏof€parole.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„115(a)(4).€€€€Ð Ø'x ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€in€this€appeal€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€improperÏbecause€the€proof€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€he€is€a€dangerousÏoffender.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€fulfilled€its€role€in€the€sentencingÏprocess€such€that€its€findings€œconcerning€consecutive€sentencing€should›€beÏreviewed€ñçñòòñçñdeñçñóóñçñ€ñèñòòñèñnovoñèñóóñèñ€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€After€conducting€thisÐ 4¨** Ðreview,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€finding€Defendant€to€be€aÏdangerous€offender€and€ordering€his€sentences€served€consecutively.€€ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„115€provides€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfinds€œa›€defendant€œto€be›€ð ða€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€orÏno€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÏrisk€to€human€life€is€high,ðð€it€may€order€multiple€sentences€served€consecutively.€ÏòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„115(a)(4).€€Our€supreme€court€has€explained,€ð ðððLack€of€hesitationðð€isÐ €  Ðsemantically€close€to€ððreckless€indifferenceðð€and€signifies€a€conscious€lack€ofÏconcern€for€foreseeable€consequences.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ð 0  Ð937€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€addition,€ð ð[t]he€proof€must€also€establish€that€the€termsÏimposed€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€areÏnecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€at€938.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€general€sentencing€principlesÐ °P Ðcontained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðððð€40„35„102(1),€40„35„103(1),€and€40„¼35„103(2).€€òòId.óó€€Ð À!` ÐÌà ` àThe€transcript€of€Defendantððs€sentencing€hearing€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€these€general€sentencing€principles€as€well€as€the€other€factorsÏenumerated€above.€€Furthermore,€we€have€reviewed€the€record€and€concludeÏthat€it€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€With€regard€to€the€factor€of€protectingÏsociety€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender,€it€has€been€posited€that€thereÏcan€be€no€œnecessity€to›€œòòfurtheróó€protect›€society€from€an€offender€sentenced€to€lifeÐ ø/˜&& Ðimprisonment€without€parole,€and€that€consecutive€sentencing€would€thereforeÏnever€satisfy€this€criteria€in€such€a€case.€€While€this€argument€certainly€bearsÏlogic,œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ5HÝÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔÔ€Šr¢ Š ŠŠr¢ÔòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€we€note€that€our€supreme€court€has€declined€to€give€the€claim€merit,Ð 6°,, Ðdenying€permission€to€appeal€in€several€cases€in€which€an€additional€sentenceÏhas€been€ordered€served€consecutive€to€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€withoutÏparole.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€930€S.W.2d€78,€75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð p  Ð1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Leon€Barnett€Collieróó,€No.Ð x Ð03C01„9602„CR„00072,€1997€WL€9722€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€13,Ï1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Sammie€Lee€Tayloróó,€No.Ð ˆ(  Ð02C01„9501„CR„00029,€1996€WL€580997€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€10,Ï1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€Furthermore,€the€supreme€courtÐ ˜8 Ðhas€upheld€running€a€sentence€consecutive€to€a€sentence€of€death.€€òòState€v.Ð  @ ÐBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€191€(Tenn.€1991).€€œRather€than€attempting€furtherÐ ¨H Ðanalysis,€we›€œdefer€to€the€guidance€of€our€supreme€court€and€to€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€judge€and€order›€the€modified€sentence€of€œnine€years›€for€attemptedÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€to€be€served€consecutive€to€Defendantððs€sentenceÏfor€felony€murder.Ìà ` à€€€€€€Ìà@Ò Ò ®àœVI.›€LIFE€WITHOUT€PAROLE€FOR€JUVENILESˆÌà ` àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€jury€toÏsentence€him€to€life€imprisonment€without€parole€when€he€committed€theseÏcrimes€as€a€juvenile.€€He€argues€that€our€legislature€has€prohibited€sentencing€aÏjuvenile€to€death€in€order€to€grant€juveniles€another€chance€at€life,€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð ø/˜&& ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134(a)(1);€and€he€asserts€that€the€same€rationale€should€applyÏto€a€sentence€of€life€without€parole.€€Furthermore,€he€suggests€that€while€theÏstatute€authorizing€the€penalty€of€life€without€parole€does€not€specifically€excludeÏjuvenile€defendants,€neither€does€the€statute€declare€them€eligible.€€ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€37„1„134€provides€in€part,€ð ðThe€districtÏattorney€general€may€not€seek,€nor€may€any€child€transferred€under€theÏprovisions€of€this€section€[from€the€juvenile€court]€receive,€a€sentence€of€death€forÏthe€offense€for€which€the€child€was€transferred.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€37„1„134(a)(1).€€We€findÐ x Ðthat€the€more€appropriate€rule€of€statutory€construction€would€be€to€assume€theÏlegislature€would€have€also€prohibited€the€penalty€of€life€without€parole€in€theÏsame€code€section,€had€it€so€intended.€€Therefore,€we€decline€to€depart€from€ourÏdecision€in€òòState€v.€Antonio€M.€Byrdóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CR„00232,€1997€WL€1235,Ð ˜8 Ðat€*20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€œJackson,€Dec.€30,€1996),›€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð  @ Ð1997),€in€which€this€Court€observed,€ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€legislature€has€made€a€specific€exception€for€the€death€penalty.€ÏIf€a€specific€exception€were€also€intended€for€the€penalty€of€lifeÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole,€the€legislature€would€have€made€anÏexception€for€that€as€well.€€Moreover,€the€statutes€providing€for€theÏsentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€provide€no€exceptionÏfor€juveniles.ÓšµÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòId.óó€€This€issue€lacks€merit.€€€Ð Ì$l ÐÌà@6 6 ®àœVII.›€FELONY€MURDER€AGGRAVATING€FACTORˆà Ð àà (# àÐ Ü(| Ðà ` àFinally,€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€juryÏto€sentence€him€to€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole€based€uponÏthe€single€aggravating€factor€of€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„Ð ô.”%% Ð204(ñéñòòñéñiñéñóóñéñ)(7)›€(ð ðThe€murder€was€knowingly€committed,€solicited,€directed,€or€aided€byÏthe€defendant,€while€the€defendant€had€a€substantial€role€in€committing€orÏattempting€to€commit€,€or€was€fleeing€after€having€a€substantial€role€in€committingÏor€attempting€to€commit,€any€.€.€.€robbery€.€.€.€.ðð).€€This€issue€was€squarelyÏresolved€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€980€S.W.2d€359€(Tenn.€1998),Ð 9¼// Ðin€which€the€court€stated,€ð ðThe€felony€murder€aggravator€(i)(7)€can€be€used€toÏenhance€a€sentence€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€when€the€defendantÏis€convicted€of€felony€murder.ðð€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@&®àœVIII.›€CONCLUSIONˆÌà ` àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€permit€the€juryÏto€conclude€Defendant€committed€an€especially€aggravated€robbery,€we€modifyÏthis€conviction€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€an€entry€of€conviction€forÏattempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Having€found€no€other€error,€we€affirmÏDefendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€in€perpetration€of€attemptedÏespecially€aggravated€œrobbery.›¹Ó  ÓÓÓœÌÌÌ›à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœL.T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE›