ÿWPC& …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0CH 0v‹ 0J 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hý 0re 0|× 0†S 0Ù 1ui U,Þ 0d  BnU,‹U>·U*õB)DCH AM‹þØçÖv~½ D3;vÓn 0@A AOÆÐ 0D– D/Ú B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ 1U2U3D4U5D6U7U89:Ó€ypÑ X,˜ng3|xE(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(-!2Vf$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ôÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJune€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô€"ôÔ1€€€€€€€€Ò € ÒÒ ¦ Òà à€Ô€#Ôò òThe€sentence€imposed€in€this€case€for€the€Class€A€felony€of€AttemptedÏFirst€Degree€Murder€must€follow€the€prior€sentencing€law.€€An€amendment€to€thisÏcode€section€which€became€effective€July€1,€1995€now€authorizes€a€presumptiveÏmidpoint€sentence€for€Class€A€felonies.ó óÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#Ôò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àJUNE€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9503„CR„00061Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCocke€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€William€Holt,€Jr.,€JudgeÌTIM€FOX,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Attempted€First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌóóÌSusanna€Laws€Thomasà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ102€Mims€Avenueà àà àà àà àà àandÌNewport,€TN€37821„3614à àà àà àGeorge€LinebaughÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAl€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€301ÌÓ` °ŽXA(0*ŒXÓà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37862ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJ.€S.€DanielÌSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ ` Ñó óÑ7€VXXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àòòò òO›€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌà àò òóóThe€appellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€attempted€first€degreeÏmurder.€€€A€timely€Motion€for€New€Trial€was€filed€and€overruled.€ÏThereafter,€this€conviction€was€appealed€as€a€matter€of€œright.€›€Rule€œ3(b),ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.›€€This€appeal€advances€two€grounds€as€error€by€the€trialÏcourt€justifying€a€new€trial.€€First,€the€appellant€contends€that€theÏevidence€adduced€at€trial€is€insufficient€on€the€issue€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation€to€support€a€conviction€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€ÏSecond,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€judge€improperly€weighedÏthe€aggravating€and€mitigating€factors€in€imposing€a€twenty€year€Range€IÍStandard€Offender€sentence.€ÌÌà àAfter€carefully€considering€the€record€of€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing,€we€conclude€that€the€issues€presented€are€without€merit€andÏthat€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€well€as€the€sentence€should€beÏaffirmed.ÌÌà àIn€order€to€address€the€appellantððs€claim€that€insufficient€evidenceÏexists€to€support€a€conviction€in€this€case,€we€will€briefly€recount€theÏfacts€as€established€by€the€record.€€Mrs.€Betty€Weston€Fox,€the€wife€of€theÏappellant,€testified€that€Mrs.€Ball,€who€is€the€appellantððs€sister,€hadÏsolicited€the€appellantððs€assistance€in€the€killing€of€her€husband.€€TheÏmotive€behind€the€act€was€to€collect€insurance€proceeds€on€Mr.€Ballððs€lifeÏand€to€resolve€marital€difficulties€that€she€and€Mr.€Ball€were€having.€€Mrs.ÏFox€recounted€in€her€testimony€that€she€had€overheard€severalÏconversations€by€Kathy€Ball€and€the€appellant€about€killing€or€havingÏHarlan€Ball€killed.€€Part€of€these€conversations€centered€around€the€factÏthat€Mr.€Ball€had€a€$20,000.00€insurance€policy€on€his€life€through€hisÏemployer€and€an€agreement€was€made€whereby€Mrs.€Ball€promised€toÍpay€the€appellant€$4,500.00€of€these€insurance€proceeds€and€to€provideÏa€car€if€the€appellant€was€successful€in€this€endeavor.€€€In€furtherance€ofÏthis€plan,€the€appellant€procured€a€weapon,€a€hunting€knife,€that€wasÏused€in€the€stabbing€from€a€mutual€friend.€€This€weapon€was€obtainedÏtwo€days€before€the€assault.€€After€the€stabbing€the€appellant€was€pickedÏup€by€Mrs.€Fox€in€the€family€automobile€and€driven€back€to€the€home€ofÏthe€owner€of€the€knife€where€the€weapon€was€hidden.€€€Prior€to€the€actualÏstabbing€Kathy€Ball€had€advanced€the€appellant€$500.00€for€anÏautomobile€down€payment€in€furtherance€of€the€murder€plot.Ìà àÌà àThe€original€plan€for€this€murder€provided€that€at€Mrs.€BallððsÏinsistence€Mr.€Ball€was€to€stop€at€a€local€store€for€Pepsi€on€the€return€tripÏfrom€Morristown€and€a€visit€to€Mrs.€Ballððs€parentsðð€home.€€The€appellantÏwas€to€precede€Mr.€Ball€to€the€store€and€be€waiting€for€him.€€When€BallÏstopped,€the€appellant€was€to€assault€and€kill€him€and€take€his€body€to€aÏnearby€river€where€the€body€was€to€be€dumped€and€Mr.€Ballððs€automobileÏhidden.€€Mrs.€Fox€was€to€follow€in€the€family€vehicle€in€order€to€provideÏtransportation€from€the€scene€of€the€disposition€of€the€body.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€appellant€was€waiting€at€the€appointed€location€thisÏplan€went€awry€when€Mr.€Ball€failed€to€stop€at€the€market€.€€The€appellantÏthen€proceeded€to€the€Ball€residence€in€Cocke€County.€€There,€in€order€toÏget€Mr.€Ball€away€from€the€residence,€Mrs.€Ball€asked€Mr.€Ball€to€go€to€theÏstore€and€purchase€Pepsi.€€Mr.€Ball€did€this€and€the€appellantÏaccompanied€him.€€Upon€returning€to€the€residence€and€without€anyÏconversation€or€provocation,€the€appellant€grabbed€Mr.€Ballððs€arm,€struckÏhim€in€the€back€and€stabbed€him€in€the€heart.ÌÌà à€€A€week€prior€to€the€assault€Mr.€Ball€€had€found€that€his€automobileÏhad€been€tampered€with.€€On€this€occasion€he€found€that€a€wire€had€beenÏrun€to€his€fuel€tank€from€a€running€light€on€the€vehicle.€€Prior€to€startingÏthe€vehicle€ÌMr.€Ball€had€recognized€the€hazard€and€disabled€the€wire.€€He€had€notÏseen€the€culprit€who€had€booby€trapped€his€automobile€but€after€theÏstabbing€incident,€recalled€that€he€had€seen€both€his€wife€and€theÏappellant€in€the€automobile€working€on€the€running€lights€prior€to€theÏincident.€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€asserts€that€there€was€not€sufficient€evidence€toÏsupport€his€conviction€of€attempt€to€commit€murder€in€the€first€degree,Ïand€that€he€should€have€been€convicted€of€attempt€to€commit€murder€inÏthe€second€degree.ó ó€€ò òThis€basically€constitutes€an€assertion€that€the€proofÏwas€insufficient€as€to€the€culpable€mental€state€necessary€for€aÏconviction€of€murder€in€the€first€degree€had€a€death€resulted€from€thisÏassault.€€ÌÌà àIf€a€death€had€occurred€in€this€case€it€would€have€been€presumedÏto€be€second€degree€murder.€€òòWitt€v.€Stateóó,€46€Tenn.€5,€8€(1868).€€TheÏstate€must€prove€both€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€order€to€elevateÏthe€offense€from€second€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòBailey€v.€Stateóó,€479ÏS.W.2d€829,€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€The€mens€rea€elements€of€firstÏdegree€murder€must€be€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€for€aÏconviction€to€stand€for€the€offense€of€an€attempt€to€commit€first€degreeÏmurder€as€these€elements€are€incorporated€in€the€criminal€attemptÏstatute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(2):€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ"A€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€actingÏwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€forÏthe€offense.€.€.(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€resultÍthat€is€an€element€of€the€offense,€and€believes€theÏconduct€will€cause€the€result€without€furtherÏconduct€on€the€person's€part;.€.€."ÓÓÒ € ÒÒ ¦ ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)Ïprovides€that€œð ðthe€intentional,›€premeditated€œand€deliberate›€killing€ofÏœanotherðð›€makes€out€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€€Tenn.€Code€AnnÏðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€and€(2)€defines€these€terms.€€€A€"deliberate€act"€isÏone€performed€with€a€cool€purpose€and€a€"premeditated€act"€is€oneÏdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.€€In€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€the€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏdeliberation€requires€some€time€interval€between€the€decision€to€killÏand€the€act€itself.ÌÌœà àWhere›€a€complaint€is€raised€concerning€the€sufficiency€ofÏevidence€to€support€a€conviction,€our€standard€of€review€requires€us€toÏview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€œstate›€and€toÏdetermine€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€settingÏaside€a€conviction€only€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏjuryððs€finding.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€Once€the€defendant€isÍfound€guilty€of€the€crime€with€which€he€is€charged,€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€is€replaced€with€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973),€which€the€appellant€has€theÏburden€to€overcome.€€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.Ïœ1983);›€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï551€S.W.2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àOn€appeal€from€a€conviction,€the€State€is€entitled€to€have€theÏappellate€court€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÏall€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€it€in€its€favor.€ÏòòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1993);›€òòState€v.ÏKinnairdóó,€823€S.W.2d€571€(Tenn.Crim.App.€œ1991);›€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€œ1978).›ÌÌà àApplying€the€existing€law€on€the€subject€to€the€facts€of€this€caseÏresults€in€the€conclusion€that€sufficient€evidence€exists€in€this€record€toÏestablish€premeditation€and€deliberation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏHere€the€appellant€is€shown€to€have€plotted€the€act€with€his€sister€moreÏthan€a€week€before€the€incident.€€A€weapon€was€coolly€procured€from€aÍthird€source€and€after€the€stabbing,€hidden.€€An€escape€plan€wasÏestablished€by€the€use€of€a€separate€vehicle€and€the€aid€of€theÏappellant's€wife.€€Finally,€the€original€plan€for€the€assault€included€theÏlying€in€wait€for€the€victim€of€the€offense.€€Unquestionably€proof€existsÏof€an€intentional,€deliberate€and€premeditated€attempted€murder.€€ThisÏassignment€of€error€is€overruled.€€€ÌÌà àThe€crime€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€is€punishable€byÏimprisonment€as€a€Class€A€Felony.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„117Ï(a)(2).ó ó€€ò òThe€trial€court€held€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„209€and€„210›€and€at€thatÏtime€determined€that€the€appropriate€range€for€punishment€would€be€asÏa€Range€I€Standard€Offender.€€Therefore,€the€complete€range€ofÏpunishment€for€sentencing€was€not€less€than€fifteen€(15)€years€norÏmore€than€twenty„five€(25)€years€in€the€Department€of€Corrections.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„112(a)(1).›€€After€conducting€a€sentencingÏhearing,€a€mid„range€sentence€of€twenty€(20)€years€was€assessed.€€ÏThe€appellant€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determination€andÏcontends€that€the€court€inappropriately€weighed€the€enhancement€andÍmitigating€sentencing€factors.€€It€is€the€position€of€the€appellant€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€enhancement€findings€are€implicit€in€the€crime€itself€and,Ïtherefore,€were€inappropriate€for€enhancement.€€Therefore,€it€œis›Ïcontended€that€the€sentence€should€not€exceed€the€minimum€fifteenÏ(15)€years€authorized€in€the€range.€ÌÌà à€In€imposing€a€sentence,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€impose€aÏdeterminative€sentence€with€a€presumptive€sentence€being€theÏminimum€sentence€in€the€Range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(c)× ƒ( ××  ×.€ÏThe€court,€in€making€€sentencing€decisions,€must€begin€the€sentencingÏinquiry€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€and€then€may€increaseÏthe€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€enhancement€factors€areÏestablished€by€the€proof,€and€then€must€reduce€the€sentence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€mitigating€factors€are€established€by€the€proof.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e)€and€(f).€€ÌÌà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€isÏimproper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d),ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€isÏconditioned€upon€an€affirmative€Ñ  Ñœshowing›€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.1991).Ì€Ìó óÔ€"Ôà àœò òÔ€#ÔThe›€present€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€found€twoÏenhancement€factors€and€one€mitigating€factor€after€conducting€aÏsentencing€hearing.€€As€enhancement€factors€the€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€appellant€employed€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€theÏoffense€and€that€the€appellant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(9)€and€(10).€€€As€a€mitigating€factor€the€court€found€that€theÏappellant€assisted€the€authorities€and€told€the€truth€in€his€statements€toÏthe€authorities.€€Therefore,€mitigating€factor€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(9)€and/or€(13)€applied.€€ÌÌà àIn€reaching€its€conclusions€about€sentencing€the€trial€courtÏdescribed€the€conduct€of€the€appellant€as€similar€to€a€ð ðsucker€punchððÏwhere€the€victim€was€completely€defenseless€and€without€any€warningÏof€the€impending€assault.€€The€court€concluded€that€had€death€ensuedÏfrom€the€assault€that€the€offense€would€have€been€ð ðcold€bloodedððÏmurder€and€that€the€taking€of€another€human€life€was€the€mostÏegregious€offense€under€the€law.ó óÌÌà àò òThis€record€is€reflective€of€a€complexly€plotted€scheme€whichÏincluded€a€planned€lying€in€wait€and€evidence€of€an€earlier€attemptedÏassault.€€These€schemes€were€envisioned€by€the€appellant€in€collusionÏwith€his€sister€and€were€eventually€carried€out€by€the€appellant.€€ÏAlthough€not€a€part€of€the€trial€courtððs€œfindings,›€we€conclude€as€a€partÏof€our€de€novo€review€that€two€other€enhancement€factors€are€made€outÏby€this€record.€€We€find€that€the€appellant€œÌÌÌwas›€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€(2)€or€moreÏcriminal€actors€and€that€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victimÏwere€particularly€great.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(2)€and€(6).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€enhancement€factors€found€byÏthe€trial€court€are€themselves€essential€elements€of€the€offense€andÏtherefore€cannot€be€used€in€€sentencing€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€In€sentencing€the€trial€court€is€limited€inÏenhancing€the€sentence€greater€than€the€minimum€within€the€range€toÏfindings€of€specific€enhancement€factors€authorized€by€the€statute.€€ÏWhere€the€proposed€enhancement€factor€is€also€an€essential€elementÏof€the€offense,€that€enhancement€factor€may€not€be€used€to€increaseÏthe€punishment.€€The€obvious€purpose€of€this€limitation€is€to€excludeÏenhancement€factors€which€are€based€on€facts€which€are€used€to€proveÏthe€offense.€€ð ðFacts€which€establish€the€elements€of€the€offenseÏcharged€may€not€also€be€the€basis€of€an€enhancement€factor€increasingÏpunishmentðð.€€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn€1994).ÌÌà àThis€court€has€previously€determined€that€enhancement€factorsÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(6)€and€(9)€are€appropriate€forÏconsideration€by€trial€courts€in€sentencing€those€convicted€of€attemptedÏfirst€degree€murder€because€murder€may€be€attempted€without€actuallyÏcausing€any€injury€and€through€means€other€than€the€use€of€a€œweapon.€ÍòòState€v.€Scott€Houston€Nixóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00211,€Knox€Co.Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€21,€1995).›€€€In€this€case€we€find€that€the€trialÏcourt€properly€enhanced€the€appellantððs€sentence€because€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€by€the€use€of€the€huntingÏknife€were€particularly€great.€€The€victim€miraculously€survived€aÏstabbing€into€the€heart€only€as€a€result€of€being€life€flighted€to€a€majorÏtrauma€center€where€emergency€œÌsurgery›€was€performed.€€The€victim€was€hospitalized€for€thirteen€daysÏand€would€have€died€absent€immediate€care.€ÌÌà àWe€also€conclude€as€a€part€of€our€de€novo€review€of€the€recordÏthat€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseÏinvolving€two€or€more€criminal€actors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114Ï(2).€€Here€the€appellant€was€jointly€tried€with€his€sister€and€the€jury€wasÏunable€to€reach€a€verdict€in€her€case.€€Clearly€the€evidence€supportsÏthe€conclusion€that€both€the€appellant€and€his€sister€were€inextricablyÏinvolved€in€this€murder€plot.€€The€record€and€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÏreflect€that€by€procuring€the€weapon,€plotting€the€assault€œÌand›€improvising€the€ultimate€attack,€the€appellant€was€a€leader€in€theÏcommission€of€the€crime.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€sentence€should€be€enhancedÏbecause€the€appellant€ð ðhad€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crimeÏwhen€the€risk€to€human€life€was€highðð.€€œTenn.›€œCode›€œAnn.›€ðð€40„35„114Ï(10).€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€inappropriately€considered€thisÏenhancement€factor.€€This€enhancement€factor€is€one€appropriate€forÏconsideration€where€the€conduct€of€the€person€has€caused€orÏincreased€risk€either€to€human€life€in€general€or€to€the€victim€inÏparticular€and€risk€to€human€life€is€not€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€œ1994);›€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741ÏS.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Risk€to€human€life€appearsÏto€be€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€murder€or€attemptedÏmurder€to€such€a€degree€that€this€factor€would€only€be€capable€of€beingÏused€in€limited€circumstances,€such€as€where€the€attempted€killingÏoccurred€in€the€presence€of€others€who€were€exposed€to€œÌÌÌÌthe›€potential€of€injury€or€death€by€the€misdirected€actions€of€the€personÏbeing€sentenced.€€Even€œthough›€this€factor€was€misapplied€we€find€noÍbasis€to€modify€the€twenty€(20)€year€sentence€based€on€the€otherÏenhancement€factors€found€by€the€trial€court€and€established€by€theÏrecord.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€reduceÏthe€sentence€by€several€mitigating€factors€advanced€by€the€defense€orÏto€give€them€their€appropriate€weight€in€mitigation€to€those€factors€thatÏthe€court€did€find.€€In€addition€to€the€mitigating€factor€found€by€theÏcourt,€these€claims€included€the€assertion€that€the€appellant€actedÏunder€strong€provocation,€believing€that€the€œÌvictim›€was€abusive€to€his€sister€and€her€children,€as€well€as€the€factÏthat€he€had€limited€mental€abilities.€€These€were€not€found€by€the€courtÏand€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€thatÏdetermination.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€particular€value€assigned€to€the€various€mitigation€orÏenhancement€factors.€€The€weight€afforded€to€such€factors€is€derivedÏfrom€balancing€relative€degrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case€involved.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2dÏ532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€weight€assigned€to€any€existingÍfactor€is€generally€left€to€the€trial€judgeððs€discretion.€€In€this€case€weÏfind€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€this€discretion€and€that€after€a€deÏnovo€review€of€the€sentencing€the€(20)€year€sentence€imposed€is€anÏappropriate€one.€€This€assignment€of€error€is€overruled.Ì̜Ǜà àWe€conclude€that€the€conviction€and€sentence€approved€by€theÏtrial€court€should€be€affirmed€in€its€entirety€for€the€reasons€set€forthÏœherein.€€Costs€are€adjudged€against€the€appellant,€for€which€letÏexecution€issue,€if€necessary.›ÌÌ€€œÌ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJ.€S.€Daniel,€Special€JudgeÌÌ̛̜ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge̛̜ÌÌòò(not€participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€òòÌóóJerry€Scott,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌà àó óœÔ€"Ô