ÿWPCp …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU * D3© BÜB)ù 0@"DCb AM¥òçüè–äv~zvÓø AOËÆ 0Dà D/$ BS˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¿EÀÁÂEÃÄEÅÆEÇÈÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xÑ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial++++'ÿÿdxd d% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌOctober€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102.Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€)Ô€€Rule€7(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€allows€amendment€of€an€indictmentÏà0 àonly€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant€or€ð ð[i]f€no€additional€or€different€offense€is€thereby€chargedÏand€no€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€are€thereby€prejudiced,€the€court€may€permit€anÏamendment€without€the€defendantððs€consent€before€jeopardy€attaches.ðð€€The€CommitteeÏComment€to€Rule€7€clarifies€subsection€(b)€as€the€limit€by€which€ð ðnon„consensual€amendmentsÏmay€constitutionally€be€made€without€re„submitting€the€matter€to€the€grand€jury.ððÌ ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔ€€Aggravated€Assault€is€a€Class€C€Felony.€€The€sentencing€range€is€from€three€to€six€years€for€aÏà0 àRange€I€offender.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€five€years€with€credit€for€217€days€alreadyÏserved.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€(ŠÔÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€vbXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€/0.;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ01C01„9510„CR„00327›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœMACON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.œ€J.€O.€BONDó óÌò òTAYLOR€J.€HARRISON,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Aggravated€Assault)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œMACON€COUNTYó ó›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœCOMER€L.€DONNELL›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌBOBBY€JAMES€ELLISà àà àà àMARY€ANNE€QUEENÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àLegal€AssistantÌP.O.€Box€192ÌGainesboro,€TN€38562à àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà 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„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTOM€P.€THOMPSON,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€D.€WOOTTEN,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€178Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHartsville,€TN€37074Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à›ÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€)°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€)ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€brings€a€delayed€appeal€from€his€conviction€from€aÏMacon€County€jury€verdict€for€Aggravated€Assault.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€sentencedÏhim€to€five€years€imprisonment€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€The€DefendantÏappeals€his€conviction€and€his€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà à€The€Defendant€argues€six€issues€in€his€delayed€appeal:€(1)€That€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€admitting€uncertified€documents€of€a€prior€conviction€œto›€support€anÏenhancement€factor€for€sentencing;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€the€use€of€aÏdeadly€weapon€as€an€enhancement€factor€for€aggravated€assault;€(3)€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€recognized€several€mitigating€factors;€(4)€that€theÏDefendantððs€sentence€was€excessive€and€unreasonable;€(5)€that€the€indictmentÏwas€ineffectively€amended€and,€therefore,€invalid;€and€(6)€that€the€DefendantÏwas€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€counsel€failed€to€raise,Ïpretrial,€that€œthe€Defendant›€was€illegally€extradited€œto€Tennessee.›ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€brief€summary€of€the€facts,€which€are€best€explained€byÏnoting€the€prior€history€between€the€Defendant€and€the€victim.€€ApproximatelyÏtwo€months€before€the€assault,€Paul€Cook,€the€victim€in€this€case,€found€theÏDefendant,€Taylor€Harrison,€dove€hunting€on€Cookððs€property€withoutÏpermission.€€Cook€had€words€with€the€Defendant,€ordering€him€off€the€property.€ÏThe€conversation€was€apparently€fueled€by€animosity€generated€from€an€earlierÏincident€in€which€the€Defendant€had€an€argument€with€Cookððs€father.€€œCookÏconfronted€the€Defendant,€asking€whether€he€had€previously€mistreated€anÏelderly€man.€€Cook›€œthen€hit›€the€Defendant€in€the€eye,€knocking€him€to€the€ground.€ÏThe€Defendant€had€a€shotgun€and€pointed€it€at€Cook,€but€œhe€was›€disarmed€byÏCookððs€œson,€Stacy.›€€œAfter›€that€incident,€the€Defendant€heard€rumors€that€CookÏbragged€about€it€and€was€ð ðpacking€a€gunðð€for€the€Defendant.€ÌœÌ›à à€On€November€19,€1990,€the€Defendant€was€attending€an€equipmentÏauction€in€Macon€County,€Tennessee,€which€œCook›€also€œattended.›€œ€The›€buildingÏwas€open€and€œan›€estimated€fifty€to€œone€hundred›€œpeople€were€present€at€theÏauction.›€€The€Defendant€and€a€companion€ended€up€standing€next€to€Cook.€ÏWitnesses€observed€the€Defendant€€holding€a€claw€hammer€at€his€side.€€TheÏDefendant€suddenly€raised€the€hammer€and€hit€Cook€at€least€once,€injuring€œhisÏeye.›€The€Defendant€cursed€at€Cook,€€said€ð ðIððm€going€to€kill€youðð,€and€chasedÏœCook,€who›€took€refuge€in€his€truck.ÌÌà àImmediately€after€the€attack,€Cook€was€transported€by€ambulance€to€theÏhospital,€where€he€underwent€surgery€to€repair€a€torn€tear€duct.€A€tube€wasÏinserted€in€his€eye€œto€drain€fluid€and›€remained€there€for€six€œmonths.›€€As€a€resultÏof€the€assault,€his€retina€was€detached€and€Cook€suffers€a€permanent€loss€ofÏvision€in€the€injured€eye.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€on€January€18,€1991,€œbut€that€indictmentÏwas›€dismissed€due€to€a€defect.€€The€Defendant€was€re„indicted€on€February€6,Ï1992,€on€the€same€charges.€€Apparently,€a€change€was€made€on€the€secondÏindictment€to€correct€an€error€in€citing€the€proper€section€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€ÏAt€the€time€of€the€second€indictment,€the€Defendant€was€in€Florida.€€He€wasÏarrested€in€March,€1992€and€released€on€a€$15,000€bond.€€The€Defendant€failedÏto€appear€in€court€as€required€in€June,€1992€and€was€later€located€and€arrestedÏby€the€F.B.I.€in€Texas€in€September,€1992.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€posted€a€bond€in€Texas,€but€refused€to€waive€extradition.€ÏHe€was€extradited€to€Tennessee€in€December,€1992.€€The€Defendant€€was€triedÏon€February€8„9,€1993€and€was€sentenced€on€April€5,€1993.€€He€did€not€pursueÏan€appeal€at€that€time.€He€was€incarcerated€in€the€Riverbend€MaximumÏSecurity€Facility€and€on€December€7,€1993,€the€Defendant€filed€a€petition€forÍpost„conviction€relief.€€He€requested€œthat€counsel›€be€appointed€to€represent€himÏand€subsequently€filed€two€amended€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÏillegal€extradition€and€bias€of€the€trial€court.€€The€Defendant€filed€a€motion€toÏrecuse€the€trial€judge€and€the€district€attorney€involved€in€his€trial€because€he€hadÏa€œfederal›€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€action€œpending€against›€them.ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€œa€special›€judge€found€that€the€DefendantÏwas€denied€his€right€to€appeal€because€the€trial€judge€did€not€inform€him€of€theÏright€and€he€did€not€waive€his€right€to€appeal€in€writing.€€The€Defendant€filed€aÏmotion€for€new€trial,€which€was€denied,€and€he€œnow€takes›€this€delayed€appeal.ÌÌÓ  ÓœÇI.›ÌÌÓ  Óà àWe€first€address€Defendantððs€issues€five€and€six,€that€the€indictment€wasÏœimproperly€or€ineffectively›€amended€and€that€his€counsel€rendered€ineffectiveÏassistance€by€not€raising€œas€a›€pretrial€issue€that€œthe€Defendant›€was€illegallyÏextradited€to€Tennessee.€€We€note€that€œthe€Defendant›€has€not€provided€theÏcomplete€record€in€this€case.€€œThe›€Defendant€bears€the€burden€to€ð ðconvey€a€fair,Ïaccurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€those€issuesÏthat€are€the€bases€of€appeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a).€€This€court€may€notÏmake€a€ruling€when€the€record€is€incomplete.€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ671,€674€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏThis€court€may€only€review€what€is€contained€in€the€record€on€appeal,€and€mustÏnot€presume€facts€or€create€inferences€from€a€partial€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòId.óó€€€As€we€areÏunable€to€adequately€determine€these€issues€without€the€complete€record,€theÏDefendantððs€issues€five€and€six€œhave€been›€waived.€€However,€we€will€brieflyÏaddress€each€one.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€alleges€that€the€indictment€was€œinvalidly€amended›Ïbecause€the€statutory€section€cited€in€the€indictment€was€changed€withoutÍœfollowing€the›€proper€procedure.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›€€He€claims€that€the€indictment€for€a€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€œsection›€œ39„12„101(Criminal›€Attempt)€was€crossedÏout€in€pencil€and€replaced€by€œsection€39„13„102(Aggravated›€Assault).€€ThisÏcourt€has€held€that€an€indictment,€improperly€œdrafted€as›€to€the€substantive€CodeÏsection€citation,€was€an€unintentional€error€œand›€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant.€ÏòòState€v.€Bealóó,€614€S.W.2d€77,€79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óóÏ(Tenn.€1981).€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€there€is€no€record€of€the€indictment,€anÏamendment,€or€any€other€related€proceedings€œbecause›€the€technical€record€forÏDefendantððs€original€trial€was€not€provided.€€With€an€inadequate€record,€we€areÏunable€to€assess€the€circumstances€around€the€indictment€or€the€amendmentÏand€cannot€determine€whether€the€Defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€change.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€he€was€denied€œthe€effective›€assistanceÏof€counsel€because€counsel€did€not€raise€œthe€issue€of€illegal›€extradition€œbefore›Ïtrial.€As€a€result,€the€Defendant€œasserts€that€he€was›€denied€a€hearing€as€to€theÏconduct€of€the€state€officials.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€theÏcourt€must€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counselÏmade€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteedÏunder€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finderÏwould€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÏbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àAfter€a€Defendant€is€brought€into€the€jurisdiction€in€which€he€is€chargedÏwith€a€crime,€neither€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€œnor›€the€validity€of€the€trial€œmay€beÏchallenged€based€on€defects€in€the€extradition€process€if›€œthe€trial€is›€conducted€inÏaccord€with€constitutional€œprocedural€safeguards.€€òòElliot›€v.€Johnsonóó,€816€S.W.2dÏ332,€338„39€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),òò€perm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏHowever,€the€Defendant€is€not€denied€a€remedy€if€the€procedure€by€which€theÏDefendant€was€extradited€to€this€state€œwas€challenged€in€advance€of€trial€andÏwas›€so€ð ðillegal€and€outrageous€as€to€shock€the€conscience€of€the€court,ððÏdepriving€the€court€of€jurisdiction.€œòòSneed€v.€Stateóó,›€872€œS.W.2d,€930,›€œ937€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).;›€òòElliottóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€339.ÌÌà àœBecause€the›€record€is€incomplete,€we€are€unable€to€review€either€prong€ofÏthe€œineffective›€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€Again,€we€have€not€been€providedÏwith€a€record€that€reveals€counselððs€pretrial€strategy€or€failure€to€pursue€theÏDefendantððs€claim.€The€Defendant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€anÏevidentiary€showing€of€outrageous€behavior€by€the€state€officials€procuring€hisÏextradition€because€counsel€did€not€raise€the€issue.€Without€the€complete€record,Ïwe€are€unable€to€assess€whether€counselððs€actions€fell€below€the€level€ofÏcompetence€required.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€and€his€wife€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€denied€a€œhearingÏin€Texas.€›€In€an€affidavit€executed€by€Defendantððs€counsel€in€Texas,€dated€afterÏthe€trial,€counsel€states€that€the€Defendant€was€illegally€extradited€without€aÏhearing.€€€The€Defendant€has€not€specified€which€of€his€counsel€denied€œhimÏeffective›€assistance.€€He€was€represented€by€attorneys€in€both€Texas€andÏTennessee.€ÌÌà àWe€have€also€been€supplied€with€incomplete€facts€and€cannot€surmiseÏwhether€€the€Defendant€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€counselððs€alleged€failureÏto€raise€this€issue.€€Therefore,€œthe€Defendant›€has€waived€this€issue.ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€œchallenges€several›€aspects€of€his€sentence.€When€anÏaccused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,Ïthis€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€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,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).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.€Ô€)XÔððððÔ€)ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„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€court's€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 àFirst,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€uncertifiedÏdocuments€from€the€F.B.I.ððs€N.C.I.C.€printout€listing€a€conviction€for€a€felony€inÏMississippi.€€In€sentencing€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€used€prior€criminalÏconvictions€or€behavior€as€an€enhancement€factor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€N.C.I.C.€reports€have€been€held€to€be€inadmissible€hearsay€andÏcannot€substitute€œfor€certified›€copies€of€convictions.€€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2dÏ600,€607€(Tenn.€1984).ÌÌà àThere€is€evidence,€through€the€Defendantððs€own€testimony,€that€he€wasÏconvicted€of€a€felony€in€Mississippi.€€Inaccuracies€or€unreliability€in€the€N.C.I.C.Ïprintout€were€nullified€by€the€Defendantððs€admission€to€and€description€of€hisÏprevious€criminal€behavior€in€Mississippi.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fosteróó,€No.€01C01„9501„CC„00008,€Wilson€County,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€21,Ï1995).€€Certified€copies€of€other€convictions€were€introduced€that€could€supportÏthe€application€of€factor€(1).€Also,€enhancement€factor€(1)€may€be€supported€byÏevidence€of€ð ðcriminal€behavior.ðð€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð›€40„35„114(1).€This€allows€aÏbroader€œapplication›€than€merely€criminal€convictions€proved€by€certified€records.€ÏThe€totality€of€the€evidence€in€the€record€adequately€supports€the€application€ofÏthis€factor,€œand€therefore,›€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€enhancement€factor€(1).Ìà àÌà àœDefendantððs›€second€sentencing€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€misappliedÏœenhancement€factor›€(9),€that€the€Defendant€used€a€deadly€weapon€inÏcommission€of€the€œcrime.€€òòSeeóó›€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9).€€€He€claims€thatÏthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€an€element€of€the€crime€and€cannot€also€beÏused€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð›€40„35„114.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€œsection›€40„35„114€œprovides€that›œ›Ïœð ðenhancement›€factors,€if€not€themselves€essential€elements€of€the€offense€œasÏcharged›€in€the€indictmentðð€may€be€applied.€€The€crime€of€Aggravated€AssaultÏconsists€of€two€alternative€œelements€by›€which€a€Defendant€may€be€convicted.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102.€€€€A€Defendant€may€commit€Aggravated€AssaultÏby€either€(1)€causing€serious€bodily€injury€to€another€or€(2)€using€or€displaying€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ð𛀜39„13„102(a)(1)(A)„(B).ÌÌà àThe€definition€of€serious€bodily€injury€includes€ðð[p]rotracted€loss€orÏsubstantial€impairment€of€a€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ€or€mentalÏfaculty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(33)(E).€€Here,€the€victim€suffered€aÏserious€injury€to€his€eye,€resulting€in€a€permanent€impairment€of€his€vision.ÌÌà àA€deadly€weapon€includes€ð ð[a]nything€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€orÏintended€use€is€capable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€ðð€39„11„106(a)(5)(B).€€A€pillow,€sock,€telephone€wire,€hairbrush,€and€a€long„handledÏflashlight€have€all€been€held€to€constitute€deadly€weapons€because€of€theÏmanner€in€which€they€were€used.€€òòSeeóó›€òòState€v.€œCrowóó,›€No.€01C01„9310„CR„00348,€Davidson€County,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€11,Ï1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó;€òòState€v.€Winstonóó,€No.€01C01„9302„CR„00069,€Davidson€County,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€28,Ï1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó;€òòState€v.€Ratcliffeóó,€No.€01C01„9103„CC„00068,€Williamson€County,€slip€op.€œat›€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€26,Ï1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€€Using€a€claw€hammer€to€hit€the€victim€in€theÏeye€is€consistent€with€use€as€a€deadly€weapon.€€ÌÌà àAs€the€Defendant€has€not€provided€a€complete€record€that€contains€aÏcopy€of€the€indictment,€it€is€impossible€to€determine€on€what€alternate€groundsÏthe€Defendant€€was€charged€and€subsequently€convicted.€€From€the€recordÏprovided,€however,€€the€facts€would€support€the€existence€of€both€elements.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Eldridgeóó,€€888€S.W.2d€457,€462€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1994).€€It€is€appropriate€to€apply€as€an€enhancementÏfactor,€an€alternate€element€contained€in€the€offense€not€used€to€charge€andÏconvict€the€Defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fosteróó,€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00186,€WilsonÏCounty,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€22,€1996);€òòEldridgeóó,Ï888€S.W.2d€at€462.€œIf€the€Defendant€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€was€convicted€ofÏaggravated€assault€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€then€it€was€improper€to€applyÏenhancement€factor€(9).€€In€that€situation,€however,€the€trial€court€could€haveÏproperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(12),€that€ð ðthe€actions€of€the€defendantÏresulted€in€the€death€of€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€or€person€other€thanÏthe€intended€victim.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(12).€€Thus,€because€theÍfacts€of€this€case€clearly€support€the€existence€of€both€serious€bodily€injury€andÏthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€any€error€in€applying€enhancement€factor€(9)€isÏharmless.›ÌÌà àœThe€Defendantððs›€third€sentencing€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏapplying€mitigating€factors€when€determining€œthe€Defendantððs›€sentence.€€œTheÏDefendant›€contends€that€the€court€should€have€applied€mitigating€factors€(2),Ïthat€ð ð[t]he€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocationðð€and€(3),€that€ð ð[s]ubstantialÏgrounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct.ððÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2)„(3).ÌÌà àHere,€the€prior€incident€between€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€occurredÏtwo€months€before€œthe€assault›€for€which€the€Defendant€was€convicted.€He€hadÏtime€to€plan€a€retaliation€and€attacked€the€victim€without€notice.€€The€onlyÏevidence€of€provocation,€at€most,€was€that€the€victim€spoke€to€him€and€smiled.€ÏThis€does€not€constitute€adequate€provocation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€909ÏS.W.2d€461,€465€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,òò€id.óó€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏThe€trial€court€œdid€not€err€in›€declining€to€apply€factor€(2).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€he€was€justified€in€his€assault€of€the€victimÏas€per€mitigating€factor€(3).€€He€points€to€the€fact€that€he€had€been€previouslyÍassaulted€by€the€victim€and€that€he€feared€future€harm.€€€There€is€nothing€in€theÏrecord€that€suggests€the€Defendant€was€immediately€at€risk€of€being€harmed€byÏthe€victim.€€Retaliation€does€not€justify€the€Defendantððs€actions.€€The€trial€courtÏdid€not€err.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€his€sentence€was€excessive€andÏunreasonable€because€the€trial€court€did€not€correctly€apply€the€enhancementÏand€mitigating€factors.€€œBecause€we›€have€found€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏapplied€the€enhancement€factors€and€found€no€mitigating€factors,€œwe€cannotÏconclude€that€the›€Defendantððs€sentence€was€œinappropriate.× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€We€defer€to€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€and€affirm€the€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE›