ÿWPCÝ$ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø B 0TJ 0^ž 0hü nXd ¼ 1mÄ 0c1 UB” U.Ö 0r 0|v 0†ò 0x 1uU,} 0d© B  0D* D3nU,¡U>Í 0@ B)KDCt AM·0Ë4v~ÿvÓ} 0wP 0ŠÇ 0 Q 0´ñ 0Ç¥ 0Ûl! 0ïG" AQ6#Ƈ# 0DM$ D/‘$ BÀ$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¬î­U®£¯£°£±£²£³D´ µæQ+!-"|xµ((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  Ô«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXPtuvwxyz#Ö+37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;4$´´Ô2Ö+ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi%ä2¼A`ArialTT2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òSeptember€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€€We€note,€as€does€the€State€on€appeal,€that€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€which€indicates€thatÏthe€defendant€provided€proper€notice€of€his€intention€to€rely€upon€a€renunciation€defense,€as€is€necessaryÏunder€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„204(c).€€The€State,€however,€did€not€object€at€trial€to€the€lack€of€notice€and€did€notÏappear€to€be€hampered€by€its€absence.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€State€has€waived€any€complaintÏregarding€the€defendantððs€failure€to€comply€with€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„204(c).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(OG<$µµà0  àÔ2Ö+ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bæ¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2Ö+ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(x%S$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2Ö+Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(Œ˜$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2Ö+Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸbF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2Ö+Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³õ$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2Ö+ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ç|$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2Ö+ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€(-‚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  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ  Ñò òÑ X ÑÔ€,ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€kXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€01/;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à àà àòŒòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌóŒóÌòŒòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àœ›à à)óŒóÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àòŒò)óŒóà àòŒòC.C.A.€NO.€óŒó€òŒò03C01„9511„CR„00357óŒóÌà àà àAppellee,à àòŒò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYóŒóÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àòŒò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€RUSSELL€C.€HINSON,ÌCHARLES€EDWARD€JACKSON,à à)à àœJUDGE€BY€DESIGNATION›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)óŒóÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àòŒò)óŒóà à(Attempted€First„DegreeÏMurder)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌòŒòARDENA€J.€GARTHà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONóŒóÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌÌòŒòDONNA€ROBINSON€MILLERà àà àà àDARIAN€B.€TAYLORóŒóÌAsst.€District€Public€Defender€à àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.ÌChattanooga,€TN€€37402à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòŒòGARY€D.€GERBITZóŒóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòŒòLELAND€DAVISóŒóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€St.,€Third€Fl.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌòŒòAFFIRMEDóŒóÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÑ Ü Ñà@ àòŒòòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóŒóóóÌÌÌÌÓÓœ›à àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€in€the€indictment€with€attemptedÏfirst„degree€murder.€€He€was€found€guilty€at€a€jury€trial€and€wasÏsentenced€to€twenty„two€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€thisÏappeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence€and€the€length€of€his€sentence.€€We€find€that€theÏdefendantððs€issues€are€without€merit,€and€his€conviction€and€sentenceÏare€therefore€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€not€in€serious€dispute.€€The€defendantÏmet€the€victim,€Nora€Kimbell,€in€the€summer€of€1993,€and€they€began€aÏromantic€relationship€in€September€of€1993.€€In€January€of€1994,€they€bothÏagreed€not€to€date€any€other€individuals,€making€their€romanticÏrelationship€an€exclusive€one.€€On€February€23€or€24,€1994,€Kimbell€spokeÍto€the€defendant€to€confirm€their€plan€to€ride€the€defendantððs€motorcycleÏalong€a€scenic€route€from€Chattanooga€into€Georgia€on€Saturday,ÏFebruary€26.€€Kimbell€took€a€vacation€day€on€February€25€and€had€lunchÏwith€Mark€Bailey,€a€current€friend€and€former€boyfriend.€€After€lunch,€sheÏwent€to€the€defendantððs€home,€arriving€at€approximately€4:00€in€theÏafternoon.€€Although€the€defendant€was€tired€from€having€worked€theÏprevious€night,€the€couple€went€to€Chattanooga€Honda€to€run€an€errandÏand€then€to€dinner.€€They€returned€to€the€defendantððs€home€and€spent€aÏquiet€night€there.€€Nothing€out€of€the€ordinary€took€place,€but€the€victimÏdid€notice€that€the€defendant€was€quite€ð ðintenseðð€in€telling€her€how€muchÏhe€cared€for€her.€€Unbeknownst€to€Kimbell,€the€defendant€hadÏtelephoned€Helen€Harris,€the€mother€of€his€ex„wife,€earlier€in€the€day€andÏtold€her€in€an€upset€tone€that€he€had€ð ða€problem.ðð€€He€also€told€her€notÏto€worry,€however,€and€that€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€take€care€of€it.ððÌÌà àà àThey€first€awakened€at€approximately€7:00€a.m.€on€theÏmorning€of€February€26.€€The€defendant€got€out€of€bed€and€looked€out€aÏwindow€to€check€the€weather.€€He€returned€to€bed€and€told€the€victimÏthat€it€looked€cold€outside,€meaning€that€their€motorcycle€trip€to€GeorgiaÏwould€be€delayed.€€They€went€back€to€sleep,€and€the€victim€nextÍawakened€at€approximately€9:00€a.m.,€getting€up€to€use€the€bathroom.€ÏWhen€she€returned€to€bed,€the€defendant€was€awake€and€was€lying€onÏhis€side€facing€her€half€of€the€bed.ÌÌà àà àAs€the€victim€climbed€back€into€bed,€the€defendant€began€toÏexhibit€unusual€behavior.€€He€started€talking€to€the€victim,€saying€ð ðI€knowÏeverything€about€you,€I€know€all€about€your€childhood.ðð€€He€then€stated,Ïð ðI€donððt€like€it€whenever€you€go€up€the€road.ðð€€The€victim€assumed€thatÏthe€defendant€was€referring€to€her€lunch€with€Mark€Bailey€because€BaileyÏlived€near€the€defendant.€€She€told€the€defendant€that€she€could€not€giveÏup€her€friends.€€The€defendant€then€stated€ð ðthat€he€was€a€ghost,€that€heÏhad€died€twice€and€that€he€knew€everything.ðð€€He€continued€talkingÏabout€some€individuals€who€had€done€ð ðsomething€real€badðð€to€his€ex„wife,€stating€that€he€had€ð ða€one„way€ticket€to€hellðð€for€one€of€theÏindividuals.ÌÌà àà àAt€this€point,€Kimbell€decided€that€the€conversation€hadÏbecome€too€odd€and€started€to€get€out€of€the€bed.€€The€defendantÏproduced€a€kitchen€knife€with€a€seven„inch€blade€which€he€had€hiddenÏnear€the€bed€the€previous€day,€forced€the€victim€back€onto€the€bed,€andÍstabbed€her€in€the€chest.€€The€defendant€and€the€victim€began€toÏstruggle€over€the€knife.€€Although€Kimbell€was€stabbed€in€the€chest€onÏmultiple€occasions,€she€was€able€to€block€some€of€the€defendantððsÏblows.€€On€one€of€those€occasions,€the€victim€managed€to€block€a€blowÏwith€her€foot,€resulting€in€the€knife€slicing€her€foot.€€Upon€that€occurrence,Ïthe€defendant€ð ðgrinnedðð€and€said,€ð ðyou€cut€your€little€foot€didnððt€you.ðð€ÏThe€struggle€resumed€and€Kimbell€was€actually€able€to€wrest€control€ofÏthe€knife€from€the€defendant€and€drop€it€on€the€floor.€€The€defendant€thenÏbegan€to€strangle€her.€€She€managed€to€remove€the€defendantððs€handsÏfrom€her€neck€at€least€partially,€prompting€the€defendant€to€recover€theÏknife€from€the€floor.€€Another€struggle€ensued€in€which€Kimbell€grabbedÏthe€defendantððs€hand€as€he€was€attempting€to€stab€her€again.€€TheÏdefendant€told€Kimbell€that€if€she€calmed€down,€he€would€call€anÏambulance.€€When€she€released€hold€of€his€hand,€however,€he€stabbedÏher€in€the€chest€once€again,€this€time€leaving€the€knife€protruding€from€herÏbody.€€After€approximately€fifteen€minutes,€during€which€time€the€victimÏpleaded€with€the€defendant€to€remove€the€knife€due€to€the€pain€it€wasÏcausing€her,€the€defendant€asked€Kimbell€if€she€felt€the€end€was€near.€ÏShe€responded€affirmatively,€and€the€defendant€pulled€the€knife€out€ofÏher€chest.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€next€two€and€a€half€to€three€hours,€Kimbell€lay€nakedÏand€bleeding€on€the€bed€with€the€defendant€lying€or€standing€beside€herÏfor€most€of€that€time.€€As€he€had€done€during€the€physical€attack,€theÏdefendant€kept€repeating€that€they€were€ð ðboth€going€to€die.ðð€€AccordingÏto€his€statement€to€police,€the€defendant€had€made€up€his€mind€theÏprevious€day€to€kill€the€victim€and€then€to€kill€himself€with€the€same€knife.€ÏKimbell€talked€almost€constantly€during€the€hours€after€the€attack€in€orderÏto€maintain€consciousness.€€At€one€point,€she€told€the€defendant€howÏugly€it€was€for€her€to€die€like€this€and€for€her€mother€to€find€her€naked€andÏdead€from€the€stab€wounds.€€The€defendant€replied€that€there€ð ðwasnððtÏgoing€to€be€anything€left€for€[her]€mother€to€find.ðð€€At€a€later€time,€KimbellÏcomplained€about€the€pain€from€the€wounds€and€asked€the€defendantÏwhy€he€didnððt€attempt€to€kill€her€in€a€more€humane€way.€€The€defendantÏthen€offered€to€finish€strangling€her,€but€Kimbell€refused€the€offer.ÌÌà àà àApproximately€three€hours€after€the€attack,€the€tone€of€theÏdefendant€changed.€€He€no€longer€repeated€that€they€were€both€going€toÏdie,€but€instead€began€to€say€ð ðwhat€about€me.ðð€€The€defendant€then€leftÏthe€bedroom€and€telephoned€a€neighbor,€Dennis€Sampson.€€He€askedÍSampson€to€come€to€his€home,€but€Sampson€informed€the€defendantÏthat€he€did€not€have€time€to€do€so.€€The€defendant€walked€back€into€theÏbedroom€where€the€victim€was€still€lying€naked€and€bleeding.€€At€thisÏpoint,€the€victim€pleaded€with€the€defendant€to€call€911.€€The€defendantÏleft€the€bedroom€and€did€in€fact€call€911.€€He€returned€to€the€bedroomÏand€the€victim€once€again€pleaded€with€the€defendant€to€call€911,€sayingÏthat€she€did€not€believe€aid€was€coming.€€The€defendant€left€theÏbedroom€and€telephoned€Helen€Harris,€the€mother€of€his€ex„wife.€€HeÏasked€Harris€to€come€to€his€home€because€he€needed€to€talk.€€HeÏinformed€her€that€he€had€hurt€his€girlfriend€ð ðreal€badðð€and€that€the€policeÏwere€on€their€way€to€his€home.€€The€defendant€then€called€DennisÏSampson€again,€asking€him€to€call€911.€€At€this€time,€approximately€12:30Ïp.m.,€an€ambulance€drove€by€Sampsonððs€home€and€the€defendant€hungÏup.€€He€returned€to€the€bedroom,€covered€the€victim€with€a€sheet,€andÏtold€her€that€he€did€not€want€her€to€die€and€that€help€was€on€the€way.ÌÌà àà àLaw€enforcement€officers€arrived€shortly€after€the€ambulanceÏand€led€the€medical€team€into€the€defendantððs€home.€€The€defendant€metÏthem€at€the€door,€telling€the€officers€that€he€had€stabbed€Kimbell€andÏthat€she€was€in€the€back€bedroom.€€The€victim€was€transported€to€aÍhospital,€and€the€defendant€was€arrested€and€taken€to€the€county€jail,Ïwhere€he€gave€a€voluntary€statement€concerning€the€attack.€€TheÏdefendant€could€not€explain€exactly€why€he€had€stabbed€Kimbell,€otherÏthan€that€he€was€just€a€ð ðjealous€typeðð€of€person€and€he€was€afraid€heÏwas€going€to€lose€her,€even€though€there€were€no€indications€thatÏsomething€was€amiss€in€their€relationship.€€As€far€as€what€prompted€theÏdefendant€to€call€911,€the€defendant€stated€simply€that€he€was€ð ðtired€ofÏwatching€[Kimbell]€hurtðð€and€that€he€no€longer€wanted€her€to€die.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Robert€Headrick,€Jr.€testified€that€he€had€been€theÏsurgeon€for€the€victim€once€she€had€arrived€at€the€hospital.€€The€victimððsÏinjuries€included€five€stab€wounds€to€the€chest€and€a€laceration€of€oneÏfoot.€€The€victim€also€exhibited€wounds€about€her€neck€which€indicatedÏan€attempt€at€strangulation.€€Headrick€testified€that€although€the€victimððsÏwounds€had€been€quite€serious,€she€had€the€good€fortune€that€none€ofÏthe€stab€wounds€had€penetrated€a€major€organ€or€artery.€€If€any€of€theÏstab€wounds€had€penetrated€a€major€organ€or€artery,€Kimbell€would€haveÏdied€within€a€matter€of€minutes.€€Headrick€was€able€to€close€the€victimððsÏwounds€and€she€eventually€recovered,€but€he€did€testify€that€KimbellÏwould€have€died€from€her€wounds€without€medical€treatment.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€More€specifically,€the€defendantÏclaims€that€he€adequately€raised€the€affirmative€defense€of€renunciationÏand€the€State€failed€to€negate€the€existence€of€the€defense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€as€is€required€under€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(3).€€TheÏrenunciation€defense€is€defined€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ 4 ÒÓÓÌIt€is€an€affirmative€defense€to€a€charge€of€criminalÏattempt€...€that€the€person,€after€committing€theÏcriminal€attempt€...€prevented€the€successfulÏcommission€of€the€offense€attempted€...€underÏcircumstances€manifesting€a€complete€andÏvoluntary€renunciation€of€the€personððs€criminalÏpurpose.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒT.C.A.€ðð€39„12„104€(1991).€€The€defendant€contends€that,€by€telling€theÏvictim€that€he€did€not€want€her€to€die€and€by€calling€911€for€medical€aid,Ïhe€clearly€renounced€his€criminal€attempt€to€murder€the€victim.ÌÌà àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution€in€determining€whether€"òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€ÍòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ï(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€requiredÏto€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€containedÏin€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚ences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weightÏand€value€to€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€byÏthe€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approvedÏby€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State,Ïand€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòStateÏv.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€theÏburden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€ThisÏCourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidenceÏunless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€beÍdrawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trierÏof€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€of€affirmative€defenses€such€as€renunciation,€theÏburden€of€raising€the€defense€rests€with€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„204(d)€(1991);€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„204(e)€(1991);€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„104ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant,€asÏdid€the€trial€court,€that€he€adequately€raised€the€renunciation€defense€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€as€is€required€under€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„204(e).× ƒ2 ××  ×€€In€fact,€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€regarding€theÏrenunciation€defense.€€The€essence€of€the€defendantððs€argument,€then,€isÏthat€the€proof€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€demonstrate€that€theÏState€negated€the€renunciation€defense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àà àFrom€a€review€of€the€entire€record€in€this€case,€we€mustÏconclude€that€the€proof€is€sufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€demonstrateÍthat€the€State€negated€the€renunciation€defense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€The€record€reveals€that€the€defendant€decided€to€murder€theÏvictim€on€February€25€and€concealed€a€knife€for€that€purpose.€€OnÏFebruary€26,€he€stabbed€Kimbell€five€times€in€the€chest€and€attempted€toÏstrangle€her.€€After€approximately€three€hours€of€waiting€for€the€victim€toÏdie,€during€which€time€the€defendant€had€been€steadfast€in€saying€thatÏhe€intended€to€end€both€of€their€lives,€the€defendantððs€tone€changed€andÏhe€began€to€think€of€himself,€repeating€ð ðwhat€about€meðð€to€the€victim.€ÏHe€then€called€911€in€response€to€the€victimððs€pleading€for€her€life.€€FromÏthe€verdict€of€guilt,€we€can€infer€that€the€jury€did€not€consider€theseÏcircumstances€to€manifest€a€complete€and€voluntary€renunciation.€€TheÏjury€apparently€drew€a€distinction€between€a€complete,€voluntaryÏrenunciation€and€the€defendantððs€simple€failure€to€achieve€his€criminalÏpurpose€followed€by€actions€to€ð ðcut€his€lossesðð€in€some€way.€€It€seemsÏthat€the€principal€reason€for€the€victimððs€survival€of€the€attack€was€theÏsheer€luck€that€none€of€the€knife€wounds€penetrated€a€major€organ€orÏartery,€while€the€defendantððs€actions€in€summoning€aid€were€secondary.€ÏMoreover,€it€appears€from€the€record€that€the€defendant€was€simply€tiredÏof€watching€the€victim€die€rather€than€truly€not€wanting€her€to€die.ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€of€renunciation€was€one€for€the€jury€to€resolve€afterÏhearing€all€of€the€relevant€proof,€and€they€resolved€it€against€theÏdefendant.€€We€find€that€there€is€evidence€to€support€the€juryððsÏconclusion€that€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€commission€of€theÏoffense€do€not€indicate€a€voluntary,€complete€renunciation€on€the€part€ofÏthe€defendant.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€we€can€only€conclude€thatÏthe€facts€are€legally€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€theÏdefendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€defendant€has€failedÏto€carry€his€burden,€and€his€first€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue€on€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges€theÏlength€of€his€sentence.€€More€specifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€hisÏtwenty„two€year€sentence€is€excessive€under€the€facts€of€his€case,Ïgiven€the€fifteen€to€twenty„five€year€possible€range€of€his€sentence.€€HeÏcontends€that€the€only€applicable€enhancing€factor€is€that€he€allowed€theÏvictim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(5).€€In€contrast,€the€defendantÏclaims€that€the€fact€that€he€called€911,€his€excellent€employment€history,Ïthat€he€has€no€prior€record€other€than€convictions€for€harassing€telephoneÏcalls€in€1992€and€malicious€mischief€in€1976,€that€he€acceptedÍresponsibility€for€the€crime,€that€he€felt€remorse,€and€that€he€cooperatedÏfully€with€law€enforcement€officials€should€all€have€been€consideredÏpursuant€to€the€ð ðcatchallðð€mitigating€factor,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€ÏAccordingly,€after€weighing€the€various€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,Ïthe€defendant€argues€that€he€merits€a€sentence€closer€to€fifteen€years.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€mustÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€isÏupon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,Ïhowever,€"is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€thatÏthe€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€atÏT.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followedÏin€sentencing.€€This€section€mandates€the€court's€consideration€of€theÏfollowing:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€andÏthe€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentenceÏreport;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€andÏarguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteris‚tics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(5)€[e]vidence€and€information€offered€byÏthe€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]nyÏstatement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€ownÏbehalf€about€sen‚tencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ ¢ ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€andÏmitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏrange€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancementÏfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€forÏthe€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€setÏthe€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€ÏThe€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€"[w]henever€the€court€imposes€aÏsentence,€it€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€whatÍenhance‚ment€or€mitigating€factors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€factÏas€required€by€ðð€40„35„209."€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancingÏand€mitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absenceÏof€these€factors€must€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210Ïcomment.€€These€findings€by€the€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€toÏallow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àOn€April€13,€1995,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearingÏin€the€present€case.€€The€State€offered€testimony€from€the€victimÏconcerning€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€commission€of€the€offense,Ïand€the€defendant€offered€no€proof€on€his€behalf.€€Both€the€State€and€theÏdefendant€agreed€that€certain€portions€of€the€presentence€report€shouldÏnot€be€considered€for€sentencing€purposes.€€Other€than€the€testimony€fromÏthe€victim€and€the€undisputed€information€in€the€presentence€report,€bothÏthe€State€and€the€defendant€relied€solely€upon€argument€presented€to€theÏtrial€court€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€After€hearing€all€of€the€proof€and€theÏargument€from€counsel,€the€trial€court€took€a€short€recess€to€review€theÏpresentence€report€and€the€statutory€sentencing€guidelines.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€then€found€that€the€defendant€had€treated€theÏvictim€with€exceptional€cruelty,€rendering€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(5)€applicableÏas€an€enhancing€factor.€€The€trial€court€found€further€that€the€defendantÏdeserved€ð ðsome€credit€for€making€the€911€call,ðð€presumably€renderingÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€applicable€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€In€weighing€theÏvarious€factors,€however,€the€trial€court€expressly€stated€that€theÏð ðexceptional€crueltyðð€enhancement€factor€deserved€significant€weight€dueÏto€the€egregious€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€courtÏset€the€defendantððs€sentence€at€twenty„two€years.ÌÌà àà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€all€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€offense.€€The€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court,Ïwhen€discussing€the€mitigating€factors€applicable€to€the€case€at€bar,€didÏnot€comment€upon€his€work€history,€his€acceptance€of€responsibility,€or€hisÏcooperation€with€police€officers.€€Yet€at€no€time€during€the€sentencingÏhearing€did€the€defendant€specifically€bring€this€information€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€attention,€either€through€witness€testimony€or€argument.€€Moreover,Ïthe€trial€court€was€already€generally€aware€of€these€facts€from€the€proof€atÏtrial€and€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€It€seems€that€the€trial€court€simplyÍfound€that€the€information€did€not€merit€consideration€as€a€mitigating€factor.€ÏFrom€the€great€weight€assigned€by€the€trial€court€to€the€ð ðexceptionalÏcrueltyðð€enhancement€factor,€it€is€obvious€that€these€facts€had€a€minimalÏimpact€on€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€The€trial€court€was€in€a€far€betterÏposition€to€appreciate€the€cruel€nature€of€this€offense€and€to€weigh€itÏagainst€the€defendantððs€actions€near€the€end€of€the€victimððs€three€hourÏordeal.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€as€the€State€points€out€on€appeal,€the€trial€courtÏcould€properly€have€found€other€enhancement€factors.€€Because€theÏdefendant€used€a€knife€in€his€attempt€to€murder€the€victim,€the€recordÏsupports€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€nine,€that€the€defendantÏpossessed€or€employed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(9).€ÏThe€record€also€supports€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€fifteen,€thatÏthe€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„114(15).€€The€defendant€made€up€his€mind€to€kill€the€victim€and€thenÏtook€advantage€of€his€intimate€relationship€with€her€to€gain€the€opportunityÏto€attack€while€she€was€alone€in€his€home€and€acutely€vulnerable.€€Thus,€weÍconclude€that€the€trial€court€considered€relevant€factors€and€that€its€findingsÏof€fact€were€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€It€is€not€this€CourtððsÏfunction€to€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€defendant€hasÏfailed€to€carry€his€burden€to€demonstrate€that€his€sentence€is€improper,€andÏhis€second€issue€therefore€lacks€merit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€out€in€the€foregoing€discussion,€we€findÏthat€the€defendantððs€issues€on€appeal€are€without€merit.€€His€convictionÏand€sentence€are€therefore€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óó ó