ÿWPCO …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÉv~ævÓd D37 0@j AOªÆù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- PžPŸD P¡U¢V£V¤U¥D¦Ó€ ƒØ"3|x±2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJune€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€UsXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÓ` °ˆXüÈ“XÓÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9603„CR„00113Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àò òà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€RAY€L.€JENKINS,€JUDGEó óÌò òFERNANDO€REMIRUS€HAYLES,à à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)à à(VOLUNTARYÏMANSLAUGHTER)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òKIMBERLY€A.€PARTONà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óAttorney€at€Law€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ407€Union€Avenue,€Suite€209ÌKnoxville,€TN€€37902ò òà àà àà àWILLIAM€D.€BRIDGERSÌó óà 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 àò òRANDALL€E.€NICHOLS€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òS.€JO€HELM€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à400€Main€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1468Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37901„1468ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌà àÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant,€Fernando€Remirus€Hayles,€appeals€as€ofÏright€according€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€ÏFollowing€a€jury€trial,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€voluntary€manslaughter€inÏthe€Criminal€Court€of€Knox€County.€€He€was€sentenced€by€the€trial€court€toÏserve€six€(6)€years€€imprisonment€as€a€Range€I€Standard€Offender.€€TheÏDefendant€raises€two€issues€in€his€appeal:€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€toÏallow€testimony€which€would€tend€to€support€the€Defendantððs€theory€of€self„defense€on€the€issue€of€the€first€aggressor;€and€(2)€€the€sentence€imposed€byÏthe€trial€court€was€excessive€due€to€the€trial€courtððs€improper€consideration€ofÏboth€aggravating€and€mitigating€factors.€€We€affirm€the€Defendantððs€conviction.ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€Defendant€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€a€short€recitation€of€the€facts€is€necessary€for€our€review.€€On€April€16,Ï1994,€the€Defendant€and€the€victim,€James€Lawrence€Lewis,€became€involvedÏin€a€verbal€argument€after€arriving€in€different€vehicles€in€the€area€of€Goins€DriveÏin€Knoxville.€€The€Defendant€and€the€victim€had€been€friends€for€several€years.€ÏIt€was€not€uncommon€for€the€two€to€argue,€but€prior€to€this€date€the€argumentsÏhad€never€resulted€in€violence.€€On€this€particular€evening,€their€argumentÍbecame€heated.€€Witnesses€testified€the€Defendant€appeared€ð ðwide„eyed€andÏfrightened.ðð€€Subsequently,€the€Defendant€pulled€out€a€gun€from€underneath€hisÏjacket€and€fired€several€times€at€the€victim.€€Several€persons€were€standing€inÏthe€immediate€area.€€Three€bullets€struck€the€victim,€and,€shortly€thereafter,€heÏdied.€€The€Defendant€ran€away€from€the€scene,€but€he€later€turned€himself€in€toÏthe€police.€€Indicted€for€second€degree€murder,€the€jury€found€him€guilty€of€theÏlesser€grade€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.ÌÌà@ àI.ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€admissionÏof€testimony€which€would€tend€to€support€the€Defendantððs€theory€of€self„defense.€Whether€or€not€the€Defendant€acted€in€self„defense€is€a€question€forÏthe€jury€to€determine.€€òòSeeóó€òòArterburn€v.€Stateóó,€216€Tenn.€240,€391€S.W.2d€648,Ï653€(Tenn.€1965);€òòState€v.€Fugateóó,€776€S.W.2d€541,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€Defendant€sought€to€prove€through€both€cross„examination€of€StateððsÏwitnesses€and€through€direct€examination€of€defense€witnesses€that€hisÏshooting€the€victim€was€only€as€a€result€of€the€victimððs€acts€of€aggression.€ÏThrough€various€witnesses€the€Defendant€sought€to€introduce€threats€the€victimÏmade€against€the€Defendant.€€After€hearing€various€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏtrial€court€ruled€these€statements€were€inadmissible€hearsay.ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€803€sets€forth€the€hearsay€evidenceÏexceptions.€€The€ð ðstate€of€mindðð€exception€provides€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àThen€existing€Mental,€Emotional€or€Physical€Condition.€„„AÏstatement€of€the€declarantððs€then€existing€state€of€mind,€emotion,Ïsensation,€or€physical€condition€(such€as€intent,€plan,€motive,Ïdesign,€mental€feeling,€pain,€and€bodily€health),€but€not€including€aÏstatement€of€memory€or€belief€to€prove€the€fact€remembered€orÏbelieved€unless€it€relates€to€the€execution,€revocation,€identification,Ïor€terms€of€declarantððs€will.ÌÌÓÓCase€law€which€predates€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€EvidenceÏprovides€that€statements€by€the€victim€which€tend€to€show€the€victimððs€animosityÏtoward€the€defendant€in€a€case€where€self„defense€is€an€issue€are€admissible€ifÏrelevant€to€explain€the€conduct€of€the€deceased€in€establishing€who€was€theÏfirst€aggressor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€626€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1981).ÌÌà àà àThis€Court€recently€held€that€a€victimððs€state€of€mind€was€relevantÏto€the€defendantððs€claim€of€self„defense€and€admissible€pursuant€to€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€òòButleróó.€€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,Ï778„79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àHowever,€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€made€no€offer€ofÏproof€as€to€what€the€witnesses€would€testify€regarding€threats€made€by€theÏvictim.€€In€addition,€in€one€of€the€situations€where€Defendant€claims€error€by€theÍtrial€court,€counsel€stated€in€the€record€that€she€was€not€asking€the€witness€toÏtestify€as€to€the€declarantððs€statement,€but€was€only€asking€the€witness€if€aÏcertain€question€was€asked€the€declarant.€€While€the€record€is€clear€that€defenseÏcounsel,€at€certain€points,€was€anticipating€the€witnesses€would€testify€as€toÏthreats€made€by€the€victim,€without€any€offer€of€proof,€we€are€unable€toÏdetermine€whether€or€not€the€witnesses€could€actually€testify€as€to€whether€anyÏthreats€were€made€by€the€victim€toward€the€Defendant.€€ÌÇà àà àRule€103€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€in€part€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òRule€103.€Rulings€on€Evidenceó 󀄀(a)€Effect€of€erroneous€ruling.€„„ÏError€may€not€be€predicated€upon€a€ruling€which€admits€orÏexcludes€evidence€unless€a€substantial€right€of€the€party€isÏaffected,€andÌÓÓÓ€ÓÌÓÓÓÓà@ à*€*€*Ìà8 à(2)€Offer€of€Proof.€„„€In€case€the€ruling€is€one€excluding€evidence,Ïthe€substance€of€the€evidence€and€the€specific€evidentiary€basisÏsupporting€admission€were€made€known€to€the€court€by€offer€orÏwere€apparent€from€the€context.€ÌÓÓÌà àà àThis€Court€has€held€that€there€are€two€purposes€of€an€offer€ofÏproof:€(1)€the€proof€informs€the€trial€court€what€the€party€intends€to€prove€so€thatÏthe€court€may€make€an€intelligent€ruling€and€(2)€an€offer€of€proof€creates€a€recordÏso€that€the€appellate€court€can€determine€whether€or€not€there€was€reversibleÏerror€in€excluding€the€evidence.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€815€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€particular€case,€we€are€unable€to€determine€whether€or€notÏreversible€error€occurred€absent€an€offer€of€proof€by€the€Defendant€at€trial.€ÏAccordingly,€pursuant€to€Rule€103,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€six€(6)€year€sentence€imposed€byÏthe€trial€court€was€excessive€given€consideration€of€the€facts€as€they€relate€toÏthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionsÏ40„35„113€and€„114.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€theÏmanner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€Ïtrial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€inÏthe€record.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Even€if€weÏwould€have€preferred€a€different€result,€if€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€afterÏhaving€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principalsÏset€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€supported€the€findings€of€fact€adequatelyÏfrom€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence,€this€court€mustÏconsider:€€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;Í(b)€the€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€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,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌÌà àà àFor€the€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter,€the€legislature€hasÏdesignated€a€Class€C€felony€sentence€of€not€less€than€three€years€nor€moreÏthan€six€years€for€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€In€applying€the€maximum€range€of€punishment€of€six€years,€the€trialÏcourt€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€used€the€following€enhancement€factors:€(1)€theÏDefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÏof€a€sentence€involving€release;€(2)€the€Defendant€possessed€or€employed€aÏfirearm€during€the€commission€of€the€crime;€(3)€the€Defendant€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;€(4)€the€crimeÏwas€committed€under€circumstances€in€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€aÏvictim€was€great;€(5)€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€Defendant€was€onÏrelease€from€probation€of€a€felony€conviction€in€the€juvenile€system.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€the€Defendantððs€presentence€report€documents€hisÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€his€earlier€probation€in€the€juvenileÏsystem.€€The€Defendant€was€to€continue€to€attend€high€school€and€to€meet€aÏvariety€of€other€conditions,€including€paying€court€costs€and€restitution€and€doingÏcommunity€service€work.€€At€the€time€of€the€report,€the€Defendant€had€droppedÏout€of€school.€€Furthermore,€the€presentence€report€indicates€that€Defendant€wasÏasked€by€the€reporting€officer€why€he€had€dropped€out€of€school€during€hisÏsenior€year.€€The€Defendant€replied€that€ð ðI€got€lazy€and€started€running€with€theÏwrong€crowd.ðð€€Application€of€the€first€enhancement€factor€was€thereforeÏappropriate.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€commission€of€the€crime,€Defendant€possessed€andÏemployed€a€handgun,€and€therefore€application€of€this€particular€enhancementÏfactor€was€also€appropriate.€€As€use€of€a€firearm€is€not€an€element€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter,€this€sentencing€factor€can€be€used€to€enhance€the€DefendantððsÏsentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);ÏòòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€312„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€enhancementÏfactors€of€a€lack€of€hesitation€to€commit€the€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€isÍgreat€and€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€in€which€theÏpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great€together.€€As€the€facts€of€thisÏcase€show,€the€crime€was€committed€by€the€Defendant€firing€up€to€five€shotsÏfrom€his€handgun€at€a€time€when€several€people€were€in€the€immediate€area,Ïtherefore€application€of€both€these€enhancement€factors€is€appropriate.€€òòState€v.ÏRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909ÏS.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àHowever,€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€the€enhancement€factorÏthat€the€crime€was€committed€while€the€Defendant€was€on€probation€from€aÏprior€felony€conviction.€€Defendant€was€on€probation€from€a€finding€ofÏdelinquency€in€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Knox€County.€€While€the€act€committed€byÏthe€Defendant€as€a€juvenile€may€have€constituted€a€felony€if€committed€by€anÏadult,€the€Defendant€did€not€have€a€prior€felony€conviction,€and€therefore€hisÏrelease€status€was€not€from€a€prior€felony€conviction.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€raised€the€following€mitigation€factors€at€theÏsentencing€hearing:€(1)€the€Defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation;€(2)Ïsubstantial€grounds€existed€to€excuse€the€Defendantððs€criminal€conduct,€thoughÏfailing€to€establish€a€defense;€(3)€because€of€his€youth,€the€Defendant€lackedÏsubstantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense;€(4)€the€Defendant€assisted€theÍauthorities€in€recovering€persons€or€property€involved€in€the€crime;€(5)€theÏDefendant,€though€guilty€of€the€crime,€committed€the€crime€under€such€unusualÏcircumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivatedÏhis€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€It€is€evident€from€our€review€ofÏthe€record€that€the€trial€court€used€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€inÏdenying€application€of€these€mitigation€factors.€€Even€if€some€evidence€ofÏmitigation€existed,€where€the€mitigation€factors€are€strongly€outweighed€by€theÏenhancement€factors,€as€in€this€case,€the€maximum€sentence€is€warranted.€ÏòòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àEven€though€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€one€enhancementÏfactor,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€placed€great€weight€on€the€remainingÏenhancement€factors,€and€the€record€reflects€that€the€appropriate€enhancementÏfactors€strongly€outweigh€any€evidence€of€mitigation.€€ÌÌà àœà àWe›€therefore€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€sentence€of€six€(6)€years.ÌÓӜǛÌÓÓà àœà àFinding›€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€œcourt.Ì›œÓ  Ó›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________à àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:̛̜Ì___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge