ÿWPCO …# VUNa %¯ 0(µÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]bª² BÉv~ævÓd D37 0@j AOªÆù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ æVçèDéêëìEíîDïÓ€·‚^!3|xú2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ- ù- Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òApril€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€#ÑÑ7€åyXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€"$!A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9601„CR„00036Ìà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,€JUDGE€€ó ó€€€Ìò òJOSEPH€LEBRON€DERRICK,€)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(SECOND€DEGREE€MURDER)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òGREGORY€D.€SMITHó óà àà àà àò òCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌó óAttorney€for€Appellantà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌOne€Public€Square,€Ste.€321ÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àò òM.€ALLISON€THOMPSONó óÌ(On€Appeal)€à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌò òARDENA€J.€GARTHó óà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌDistrict€Public€DefenderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òBILL€COX€ÌWILLIAM€A.€DOBSON,€JR.à àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ701€Cherry€Street,€Ste.€300à àà àò òYOLANDA€MITCHELLó óÌChattanooga,€TN€37402„1910à àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€Building€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€his€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€TheÏAppellant€was€indicted€for€first€degree€murder€in€Hamilton€County.€€A€jury€foundÏhim€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€Appellant€toÏtwenty€(20)€years€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender.€€The€Appellant€arguesÏthree€issues€in€his€appeal:€(1)€The€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€notÏallowing€a€State€witness€to€be€fully€cross„examined€regarding€inconsistentÏstatements;€(2)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€secondÏdegree€murder;€(3)€the€Appellantððs€sentence€was€excessive.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€and€the€victim€were€patrons€at€a€nightclub€in€ChattanoogaÏthe€night€of€the€incident,€June€11,€1994.›€€The€two€became€involved€in€anÏaltercation.€€The€bouncers€at€the€club€separated€the€two€men,€and€they€madeÏthe€Appellant€leave€the€club.€€The€victim€soon€decided€to€leave€the€club€as€well.€ÏThe€Appellant€was€waiting€outside€the€club.€€The€Appellant€either€was€handedÏa€gun€or€picked€one€up€off€of€the€ground,€and€began€chasing€the€victim€throughÏa€parking€area€while€shooting€at€him.€€The€victim€was€shot€and€killed€in€theÍparking€area.€€The€Appellant€left€the€scene€in€a€car,€and€he€turned€himself€inÏwhen€he€heard€his€name€in€connection€with€the€victimððs€death€on€the€television.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Appellantððs€first€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÏby€not€allowing€œexamination›€of€œa€police€detective,›€œconcerning€prior›€inconsistentÏœstatements€of€a€witness,€David€Wilson.›€€At€trial,€the€Appellant€attempted€to€askÏthe€investigating€detective€about€some€notes€he€took€during€œan›€œinterview€withÏMr.€Wilson.›€€The€Appellant€felt€œthat€Wilsonððs›€testimony€in€the€Stateððs€case€didÏnot€match€up€with€the€detectiveððs€notes.€€œThe›€trial€court€did€not€allow€theÏAppellant€to€ask€questions€concerning€the€notes€of€the€witness€interview€in€frontÏof€the€jury,€but€did€allow€the€Appellant€to€enter€an€offer€of€proof€into€the€record.ÌÌà àThe€detective€had€been€the€first€witness€called€by€the€State.€€He€was€notÏasked€questions€concerning€the€witness€interview€at€that€time.€œ€Mr.€Wilson›€wasÏalso€presented€in€the€Stateððs€case.€€On€cross„examination€by€the€Appellant,Ïthe€following€exchange€œoccurred€between€Mr.€Wilson€and€Appellantððs€counsel:›ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÌA.€Detective€Swafford€came€to€my€house.ÌQ.€Oh,€okay.€€When€he€came€to€your€house,€did€you€not€tell€himÏthen€that€Red€was€firing€the€gun€wildly?ÌA.€Yes.€€I€told€him€he€was€firing€like€on€them€video€rap€things,€heÏwas€firing€sideways.ÌQ.€Did€you€not€use€the€word€ð ðwildlyðð?ÌA.€Probably€did,€I€donððt€remember,€but€probably€did.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àIn€his€brief,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€allowingÏthe€Appellant€to€œexamine›€the€detective€concerning€a€prior€inconsistent€statementÏof€David€Wilson.€œ€During€the€Appellantððs€case,€he€called€the€detective€to€testify.€ÏIn€the€Appellantððs€offer€of€proof,€he€had€€the€detective€read€from€his€notes.€€TheÏcontradictory€statement€from€the€notes€is,€ð ðHe€didnððt€see€the€male€give€the€gun€toÏRed€but€saw€Red€pull€the€slide€action€back€on€what€appeared€to€be€a€semi„automatic€nine„millimeter€then€start€firing€wildly.ðð€€Appellantððs€counsel€thenÏquestioned€the€detective€and€asked,€ð ðQ.€And€do€you€recall€[the€witness]€tellingÏyou€that€Red€started€firing€wildly?€A.€Yes.ðð€€The€Appellant€argues€that€theÏdetectiveððs€notes€contradicted€the€testimony€of€the€witness€and,€therefore,€shouldÏcome€in€as€prior€inconsistent€statements.€€ÌÌà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€testimony€of€the€detective€contradicts€the€testimonyÏof€the€witness.€€Therefore,€there€was€no€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€TheÏwitness€testified€that€he€probably€told€the€detective€that€the€Appellant€was€firingÏthe€gun€wildly.€€The€witness€did€not€deny€that€he€had€stated€that€the€AppellantÏfired€the€gun€wildly.€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€not€allowing€theÏAppellant€to€question€the€detective€concerning€this€issue.€€This€evidence€wasÏalready€in€front€of€the€jury€through€the€testimony€of€the€witness.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Appellantððs€second€issue€is€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€toÏsupport€a€conviction€of€second€degree€murder.€€When€an€accused€challengesÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€afterÏreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€byÏthe€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àSecond€degree€murder€is€defined€as,€ð ða€knowing€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÌð ðKnowingðð€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€knowingly€with€respect€toÏthe€conduct€or€to€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€theÏperson€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€that€theÏcircumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€aÏresult€of€the€personððs€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€theÏconduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.€€ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(20).ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€testified€at€trial€that€he€shot€the€victim.€€The€AppellantÏstates€in€his€brief€that€the€incident€should€have€resulted€in€a€conviction€forÍvoluntary€manslaughter€as€opposed€to€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€ÏVoluntary€manslaughter€is€defined€as,€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€killing€ofÏanother€in€a€state€of€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€toÏlead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„211.ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€argues€in€his€brief€that,€when€a€homicide€occurs€fromÏmutual€combat,€it€is€voluntary€manslaughter€and€not€second€degree€murder.€ÏòòHunt€v.€Stateóó,€202€Tenn.€227,€231„32,€303€S.W.2d€740,€742€(1957);€òòMosley€v.ÏStateóó,€477€S.W.2d€246,€248„49€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€There€must€haveÏbeen€a€mutual€intention€to€fight€and€a€deadly€weapon€or€weapons€must€haveÏbeen€used.€€òòHuntóó,€202€Tenn.€at€232€,€303€S.W.2d€at€742€(quoting€C.J.S.ÏHomicide€ðð€48,€Subsec.€(b),€p.€912).ÌÌà àOur€court€recently€addressed€the€issue€of€mutual€combat€and€whether€aÏdefendant€should€be€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€or€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€In€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),Ïthe€defendant€and€the€victim€became€involved€in€an€altercation€in€the€middle€ofÏthe€street,€and€the€defendant€shot€and€killed€the€victim.€€The€jury€found€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€second€degree€murder,€and€the€defendant€appealed€on€theÍgrounds€that€the€evidence€supported€a€conviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïbut€not€second€degree€murder.€€Our€court€wrote:ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓMutual€combat€is€not€a€statutory€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„203,€„204,€and€„501€through€„621.€€TheÏunderlying€facts€may€qualify,€however,€as€ð ðadequate€provocationÏsufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrationalÏmanner.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a).€€Whether€the€actsÏconstitute€a€ð ðknowing€killingðð€(second€degree€murder)€or€a€killing€dueÏto€ð ðadequate€provocationðð€(voluntary€manslaughter)€is€a€questionÏfor€the€jury.€€Had€the€jury€here€found€that€the€killing€had€resulted€fromÏa€quarrel€in€a€mutual€fight,€and€upon€equal€terms,€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€would€have€been€the€likely€result.€€Obviously,€theÏjury€did€not€so€find.€€The€issue€for€our€consideration€is€merelyÏwhether€the€evidence€established€all€of€the€elements€of€secondÏdegree€murder.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòJohnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€464.ÌÌà àThe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€similar€in€nature.€€The€jury€concluded€that€theÏAppellant€is€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€We€merely€have€to€considerÏwhether€the€evidence€established€the€elements€of€second€degree€murder.€€TheÏAppellant€chased€the€victim€through€a€parking€lot€while€he€was€shooting€at€him.€ÏWe€find€that€the€element€of€knowing€is€met€by€the€Appellant€intentionallyÏchasing€the€victim€and€shooting€at€him.€€The€jury€could€infer€that€the€AppellantÏsurely€knew€that€shooting€at€the€victim€was€reasonably€certain€to€kill€him.€ÏTherefore,€there€was€a€knowing€killing,€and€sufficient€evidence€for€a€secondÏdegree€murder€conviction.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Appellantððs€third€issue€is€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÏwas€excessive.€€The€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€twenty€years€as€a€Range€IÏStandard€Offender.€€When€a€challenge€is€made€to€the€length,€range,€or€mannerÏof€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€ð ðde€novo€review€.Ï.€.€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€theÏappeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€showÏthe€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€There€are,€however,€exceptions€to€theÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€First,€the€record€must€demonstrate€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Second,€the€presumptionÏdoes€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court€in€sentencing.€ÏThird,€the€presumption€does€not€apply€when€the€determinations€made€by€theÍtrial€court€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€898€S.W.2dÏ742,€745€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€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€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€&€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence,€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€applied€three€enhancing€factors€and€two€mitigating€factors.€ÏThe€enhancing€factors€used€were€that€the€Appellant€has€a€previous€history€ofÍcriminal€behavior,€that€the€Appellant€used€a€firearm€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffense€and€that€the€Appellant€committed€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(9)€&€(10).€€The€mitigating€factorsÏused€€were€that€the€Appellant€lacked€substantial€judgment€because€of€hisÏyouth€and€that€he€was€supporting€his€child.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6)€&Ï(13).ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€challenges€the€application€of€the€first€and€thirdÏenhancement€factors.€€The€first€enhancement€factor€correctly€applies.€€TheÏAppellant€has€two€prior€misdemeanor€convictions,€and€they€constitute€previousÏcriminal€convictions.€€The€third€enhancement€factor€also€applies.€€In€òòState€v.ÏMakokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€court€held€that€while€thisÏfactor€is€inherent€when€the€victim€is€the€only€person€who€is€in€danger€of€beingÏhurt,€if€there€are€others€present€who€could€be€injured,€the€factor€applies.€ÏòòMakokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€373.€€At€the€time€of€the€incident,€there€were€severalÏpeople€standing€outside€the€bar.€€There€were€other€individuals€present€whoÏmight€have€been€injured.€€The€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€shooting€andÏrunning€away€from€the€crowd€and,€therefore,€this€factor€should€not€apply.€€WeÏdo€not€find€this€argument€persuasive.€€There€were€other€people€present€and€itÏwas€pure€luck€that€no€one€else€was€hurt€when€the€Appellant€chased€the€victimÍthrough€the€parking€lot€shooting€a€gun.€€Therefore,€all€three€enhancement€factorsÏare€applicable€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€also€argues€that€additional€mitigating€factors€should€applyÏin€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€These€mitigating€factors€are€that€he€acted€under€strongÏprovocation,€substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€justify€his€criminal€conduct€andÏhe€committed€the€crime€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€thereÏwas€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2),€(3),Ï&€(11).€€He€argues€that€these€factors€apply€because€the€victim€started€the€fightÏinside€the€bar.€€We€disagree€with€the€Appellant.€€The€testimony€showed€thatÏseveral€minutes€passed€between€the€fight€in€the€bar€and€the€incident€outside.€€AÏfist€fight€in€a€bar€is€not€strong€provocation€or€justification€for€chasing€someoneÏwhile€shooting€a€gun€in€that€personððs€direction.€€We€also€do€not€find€that€thereÏwas€not€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€€One€of€Appellantððs€priorÏconvictions€was€a€weapons€offense.€€Therefore,€Appellantððs€use€of€a€firearm€inÏthe€commission€of€a€criminal€act€is€not€an€isolated€incident.€€Chasing€down€aÏvictim€while€firing€multiple€shots€at€him,€after€a€ð ðcooling€offðð€period€following€anÏaltercation,€also€weighs€against€application€of€this€mitigating€factor.ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€also€wants€us€to€consider€the€Appellantððs€remorse€as€aÏmitigating€factor€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113(13).€€HeÍpoints€out€that€he€turned€himself€in€the€next€day€after€learning€that€the€victimÏwas€dead.€€However,€in€his€testimony€at€trial€the€Appellant€stated€that€he€heardÏhis€own€name€on€television€in€connection€with€the€death€of€the€victim€and€thenÏturned€himself€in.€€The€Appellant€did€not€testify€at€his€sentencing€hearing.€ÏTherefore,€there€was€no€statement€of€remorse€from€the€Appellant€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€The€Appellant€testified€at€trial,€but€made€no€statements€ofÏremorse€concerning€the€killing€of€the€victim.€€We€cannot€find€evidence€of€theÏAppellantððs€remorse€from€this€record.€€We€do€not€find€that€this€mitigating€factorÏshould€apply€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€three€enhancing€factors€and€twoÏmitigating€factors.€€The€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€twenty(20)€years€as€aÏRange€I€offender€for€a€conviction€of€second€degree€murder.€€Second€degreeÏmurder€is€a€Class€A€felony.€€At€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€minimum€sentence€forÏa€Range€I€Standard€Offender€was€fifteen€(15)€years€and€the€maximumÏsentence€is€twenty„five€(25)€years.€€We€find€that€a€twenty€(20)€year€sentence€isÏproper€in€this€case€where€there€are€three€enhancing€factors€and€two€mitigatingÏfactors.ÌÌà àTherefore€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÇÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES›,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE