ÿWPC7 1UB¾ %U.U:4nn~ 04µw@½4ý B.U@.en 0Jo 0P¹ 0T  0^]Æ» 0h 0ré AQ[ 0D¬ 0|ð 0†l 0ò 1u‚ 0d÷ 0@[ D3› D/Î U6ý B3 B)P DCy AM¼ Ý v~ævÓd<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTarcpi¼¼gä2¼P±Q¼P( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó ýþÿDDDÓ€äzz!2¼ d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô((3 ¹$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 526 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2J 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(Courier NewüÿP Pd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd$,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€XÔó óÌò òÔ€¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€ Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ ÂÔÔ€ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔßR€-.,A1-j|àÿÀâ `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà8 àœIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9504„CC„00097Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àObion€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliam€B.€Acree,€JudgeÌSTEVE€JOHNSON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Robbery)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌBill€R.€Barronà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJ.€Mark€Johnsonà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ124€East€Court€Squareà àà àà àà àœ450›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌTrenton,€TN€38382à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌJames€David€Kendallà àà àà àà àHunt€S.€BrownÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ407€Perkins€Streetà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌUnion€City,€TN€38261à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àThomas€A.€ThomasÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌJoseph€P.€Atnipà àà àà àà àà à414€Fourth€Street,€SouthÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€38261Ì111€Main€StreetÌDresden,€TN€38225ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€œREMANDED€FOR€A€NEW€TRIAL›ÌÌÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÑ7€yûXXdæXXdÈ7ÑÔ€¼Ôò òÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà àÔ€XÔThe€appellant,€Steve€Johnson,€was€convicted€of€robbery,€a€Class€C€felony,€by€aÏjury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€found€the€appellant€was€a€persistent€offender€andÏimposed€a€Range€III€sentence€consisting€of€confinement€for€fifteen€(15)€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€In€this€Court,€the€appellant€contends€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction,€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€permitting€theÏstate€to€introduce€(a)€his€prior€felony€convictions€to€impeach€him,€(b)€evidence€of€flight,Ïand€(c)€prior€statements€to€question€a€prosecution€witness.€€In€addition,€the€appellantÏcontends€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€excessive.€€After€a€thoroughÏreview€of€the€record,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€authorities€governingÏthe€issues,€it€is€the€opinion€of€the€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€beÏreversed€œand€remanded€for€a€new€trial€for›€the€reasons€set€forth€in€this€opinion.€Ìà àOn€the€evening€of€January€8,€1994,€the€victim,€Royce€Patterson,€went€to€the€HotÏSpot€bar€in€Union€City.€€He€shot€two€games€of€pool€with€the€appellant.€€The€victim€didÏnot€know€the€appellant€before€the€pool€games.€€Keith€Pettigrew€was€also€inside€the€barÍthat€night.€€Pettigrew€left€the€bar€first.€€He€was€subsequently€seen€looking€through€theÏwindows€of€the€bar.Ìà àThe€victim€left€the€bar€after€the€pool€games.€€The€appellant€left€the€bar€shortlyÏafter€the€victim.€€The€victim€went€to€a€convenience€store,€made€a€few€purchases,€andÏbegan€walking€home.€€He€was€attacked€a€short€distance€from€the€bar€by€two€men.€€HeÏwas€knocked€to€the€ground.€€The€men€took€his€wallet€and€ran€away.€€The€walletÏcontained€approximately€$300€in€cash€and€two€payroll€checks€in€the€amounts€ofÏ$492.97€and€$241.80.€€The€victim€subsequently€called€the€police€from€theÏconvenience€store.Ìà àWhile€a€police€officer€was€interviewing€the€victim€inside€the€convenience€store,Ïthe€appellant€entered€the€store.€€The€victim€informed€the€officer€the€appellant€was€oneÏof€the€men€who€robbed€him.€€He€got€a€glimpse€of€the€appellant€while€the€robbery€wasÏin€progress.€€He€did€not€see€the€second€man.€€The€appellant€was€arrested€and€takenÏinto€custody.€€He€was€wearing€a€red€sweatshirt€with€a€hood€under€his€coat.€€The€victimÏhad€just€advised€the€officers€one€of€the€men€was€wearing€such€a€garment.€€The€victimÏwas€positive€about€the€identification.€€The€victim€also€made€a€positive€courtroomÏidentification€of€the€appellant€as€one€of€the€perpetrators€of€the€robbery.€€The€appellantÏwas€arrested€and€taken€into€custody.€€He€was€charged€with€public€intoxication€andÏrobbery.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€insufficient,€as€aÍmatter€of€law,€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€robberyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€argues€the€State€of€Tennessee€failed€to€establish€heÏwas€one€of€the€perpetrators€of€the€robbery.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  Óà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÍGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òB.ó óÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€State€of€Tennessee€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÏappellant€was€one€of€the€men€who€robbed€the€victim.€€The€victim€made€a€positiveÏidentification€of€the€appellant€on€the€night€in€question.€€He€also€made€a€positiveÏidentification€of€the€appellant€during€the€trial.€€The€victim€described€one€of€theÏgarments€the€appellant€was€wearing€when€he€was€arrested.€€In€short,€the€evidenceÏcontained€in€the€record€is€more€than€adequate€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€ofÏfact€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€robbery€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(e).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€ruling€the€State€of€Tennessee€could€use€his€prior€convictions€to€impeach€him€as€aÏwitness.€€He€argues€the€conviction€for€aggravated€assault€should€not€have€been€usedÏto€impeach€him€due€to€its€similarity€to€the€crime€of€robbery.€€He€also€argues€hisÏconvictions€for€theft,€larceny,€and€receiving€stolen€property€are€also€similar€to€theÏoffense€of€robbery€because€robbery€is€an€aggravated€form€of€these€offenses.€€HeÏfurther€argues€the€trial€court€should€have€barred€the€state€from€using€his€convictions€forÏforgery€because€someone€forged€the€victimððs€name€on€the€two€payroll€checksÏcontained€in€the€victim's€wallet€and€cashed€the€checks.€€The€state€contends€the€trialÏcourt€properly€held€all€of€the€appellant's€prior€convictions€could€be€used€to€impeachÏhim€if€he€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.Ìà àThe€parties€agreed€the€credibility€of€the€prosecution€and€defense€witnessesÏwould€be€pivotal€in€determining€the€guilt€of€the€appellant.€€The€state€advised€the€trialÏcourt€it€would€prove€the€appellant€was€one€of€the€men€who€robbed€the€victim.€€DefenseÏcounsel€advised€the€court€the€appellant€did€not€contest€the€fact€the€victim€was€robbed,Ïbut€the€appellant€was€not€present€when€the€perpetrators€committed€the€robbery.€€InÏshort,€the€sole€issue€was€the€identity€of€the€appellant€as€one€of€the€men€who€robbedÏthe€victim.Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€gave€the€appellant€notice€pursuant€to€Rule€609,ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€it€would€use€the€prior€convictions€to€impeach€him€if€heÏtestified€in€support€of€his€defense.€€The€notice€included€the€following€prior€convictions:€Ïaggravated€assault,€six€counts€of€forgery,€receiving€stolen€property,€and€theft€ofÏproperty€under€$500.€€The€parties€agreed€one€count€of€forgery€had€been€dismissed,Ïand€this€conviction€was€stricken€from€the€notice.Ìà àThe€trial€court,€noting€the€importance€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€ruled€theÏstate€could€use€all€of€the€prior€convictions€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€he€opted€to€testifyÏin€support€of€his€defense.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€the€probative€value€of€theseÏprior€convictions€"outweigh[ed]€any€prejudicial€effect€that€it€might€have."€€The€trial€courtÏgave€the€appellant€the€option€of€permitting€the€state€to€ask€if€he€had€committed€theÏdesignated€offense€or€restrict€the€state's€inquiry€to€the€fact€he€had€committed€a€specificÏclass€of€the€offense,€i.e.,€a€Class€C,€Class€D,€or€Class€E€felony.€€Defense€counselÏadvised€the€trial€court€the€appellant€wanted€the€state€to€ask€him€if€he€committed€aÏspecific€crime€as€opposed€to€the€class€of€the€offenses.ÌÌÓÓò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÌà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€may€use€a€prior€conviction€to€impeach€an€accused€ifÏthe€conviction€meets€the€criteria€established€by€Rule€609,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€The€criteria€established€by€Rule€609€are:€(a)€the€conviction€was€for€a€crimeÏpunishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€of€one€(1)€year€or€a€misdemeanorÏconviction€involving€dishonesty€or€a€false€statement;€(b)€less€than€ten€(10)€years€hasÍelapsed€between€the€date€the€accused€was€released€from€confinement€and€theÏcommencement€of€the€prosecution;€(c)€the€State€of€Tennessee€must€give€reasonableÏwritten€notice€of€the€particular€convictions€it€intends€to€use€to€impeach€the€accusedÏprior€to€trial;€and€(d)€the€trial€court€must€find€the€probative€value€of€each€conviction€onÏthe€issue€of€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841ÏS.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€first€three€requirements,€(a)€through€(c),€have€been€satisfied,Ïand€the€appellant€does€not€contest€these€prerequisites.€€The€only€issue€which€thisÏCourt€must€resolve€is€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€felonies€and€misdemeanor€inÏquestion€outweigh€their€prejudicial€effect.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà à€€In€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€a€prior€conviction€to€be€used€toÏimpeach€an€accused€outweighs€the€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€issues€to€beÏresolved€by€the€jury,€the€trial€court€should€(a)€"assess€the€similarity€between€the€crimeÏon€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeaching€conviction,"€and€(b)€"analyze€theÏrelevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility."€€N.€Cohen,€D.ÏPaine,€and€S.€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€609.9€at€p.€376€(3rd€ed.Ï1995);€€òòseeóó€€òòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€at€839.€€When€this€analysis€is€applied€to€theÏappellant's€prior€convictions€in€the€context€of€this€case,€it€is€clear€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€ruling€the€convictions€for€forgery,€receiving€stolen€property,€petitÏlarceny,€and€theft€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€he€opted€to€testify€inÍsupport€of€his€defense.€€All€of€these€crimes€involve€dishonesty€and€are€particularlyÏrelevant€to€the€issue€of€credibility.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€642€S.W.2d€720,€724€n.1€(Tenn.Ï1982)(concealing€stolen€property);€òòState€v.€Craneóó,€780€S.W.2d€375,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€495€U.S.€906,€110€S.Ct.€1928,€109€L.Ed.2d€291Ï(1990)(concealing€stolen€property);€òòPrice€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€929,€931„32€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1979)(larceny);€òòState€v.€Andrew€Waltonóó,€ShelbyÏCounty€No.€02„C„01„9109„CR„00205€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€August€12,Ï1992)(larceny€and€theft);€òòState€v.€Dan€Andersonóó,€Sullivan€County€No.€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€April€1,€1991),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdismissedóó€(Tenn.€1991)(forgery);€€òòState€v.ÏAndrew€Otey,€Roy€Waters,€and€Anna€Watersóó,€Williamson€County€No.€01„C„01„9002„CC„00046€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€December€20,€1990)(forgery);€òòState€v.ÏThomas€Dupreeóó,€Greene€County€No.€263€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€29,Ï1987)(forgery);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€626€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1981).Ìà àThe€trial€court€should€have€ruled€the€conviction€for€aggravated€assault€could€notÏbe€used€to€impeach€the€appellant€in€the€context€of€this€case.€€This€crime€has€minusculeÏrelevance€for€impeachment€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€òòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€at€839„40.€€However,Ïthe€error€was€harmless€in€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€permitting€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€introduce€evidence€of€flight.€€He€argues€theÍevidence€introduced€during€the€trial€did€not€constitute€evidence€of€flight.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÇA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€was€arrested€on€Saturday€evening,€January€8,€1994.€€A€UnionÏCity€police€officer€notified€the€General€Sessions€judge€of€the€arrest€on€SundayÏmorning,€January€9,€1994.€€The€General€Sessions€judge€arraigned€the€appellantÏaround€noon€on€January€9th.Ìà à€€The€judge€advised€the€appellant€of€"his€rights,"€the€nature€of€the€offense,€andÏthe€appellant's€right€to€be€represented€by€counsel.€€The€judge€advised€the€appellantÏnot€to€make€any€œstatements›€regarding€his€guilt.€€Counsel€was€appointed€to€representÏthe€appellant,€bond€was€set,€and€the€preliminary€hearing€was€scheduled€for€JanuaryÏ13,€1994.€€The€appellant€was€given€a€form€which€contained€the€date€and€time€of€theÏpreliminary€hearing€and€the€attorney€who€would€be€representing€him.€€A€mittimus€wasÏissued,€and€the€appellant€was€confined€to€the€Obion€County€Jail.Ìà àEventually,€the€Obion€County€sheriff,€concerned€about€jail€overcrowding,€toldÏthe€jailer€to€release€the€appellant.€€It€is€uncertain€whether€this€occurred€on€SundayÏafternoon€or€Monday€morning,€January€10,€1994.€€The€appellant€was€given€hisÏproperty€and€released€from€jail€without€giving€bond€to€secure€his€attendance€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing.Ìà àThe€Union€City€police€officers€investigating€the€robbery€went€to€the€jail€toÏinterview€the€appellant.€€They€were€interested€in€determining€the€name€of€the€secondÏperpetrator.€The€officers€discovered€the€appellant€had€been€released.€The€officersÏbegan€searching€for€the€appellant.€€He€could€not€be€found€in€Obion€County.€TheÏofficers€decided€to€wait€until€the€preliminary€hearing€to€talk€to€the€appellant.€€TheÍappellant€failed€to€appear€for€the€preliminary€hearing€on€January€13th€and€a€benchÏwarrant€was€issued€for€his€arrest.Ìà àThe€Obion€County€Sheriff's€Department€and€the€Union€City€Police€DepartmentÏbegan€looking€for€the€appellant.€€The€officers€of€both€agencies€were€notified€theÏappellant€had€a€warrant€outstanding€and€he€was€to€be€arrested€if€found.€Officers€calledÏthe€appellant's€residence€and€talked€to€the€appellant's€friends.€€Other€measures€wereÏtaken€to€locate€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€could€not€be€found€in€Obion€County.Ì€€à àThe€appellant€was€arrested€in€Cobb€County,€Georgia€in€February€of€1994.€€TheÏCobb€County€officers€made€œa›€N.C.I.C.€check€to€determine€if€the€appellant€was€wanted.€ÏThey€discovered€the€appellant€was€wanted€by€the€Obion€County€authorities.€€TheÏappellant€was€returned€to€Obion€County€and€appeared€before€the€General€SessionsÏCourt€in€May€of€1994.Ìò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIt€is€a€well„established€rule€of€law€that€any€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€attempt€to€avoidÏprosecution€is€relevant€to€the€determination€of€an€accused's€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòMarable€v.ÏStateóó,€203€Tenn.€440,€456„57,€313€S.W.2d€451,€459€(1958).€€This€rule€has€existed€forÏat€least€150€years.€€òòSeeóó€œòòTyner›€v.€Stateóó,€24€Tenn.€383€(1844).€€The€enactment€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€did€not€affect€this€rule.€€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€and€S.ÏSheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€401.8€at€p.€94€(3d€ed.€1995).Ìà àAn€attempt€to€avoid€apprehension€or€prosecution€is€relevant€because€it€tends€toÏ"show€guilt,€consciousness€of€guilt,€or€knowledge."€€òòBuckingham€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2dÏ660,€665€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€429€U.S.€1049,€97€S.Ct.€739,€50ÍL.Ed.2d€764€(1976);€òòMitchell€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€153,€161,€458€S.W.2d€630,Ï633€(1970),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970).€€This€evidence€may€be€considered€by€the€trierÏof€fact€"as€one€of€a€series€of€circumstances€from€which€guilt€may€be€inferred."€€òòState€v.ÏBraggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€883,€886€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€œ1980);›€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€74€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€113ÏS.Ct.€1368,€122€L.Ed.€746€(1993);€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€813€(Tenn.Ï1985),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€478€U.S.€1010,€106€S.Ct.€3309,€92€L.Ed.2d€722€(1986);€òòHill€v.ÏStateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€331,€334,€461€S.W.2d€50,€52€(1970),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1970);€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€491,€501,€455€S.W.2d€182,€186€(1970),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970).€€Evidence€of€flight€is€not€conclusive.€€The€accused€is€permitted€toÏintroduce€evidence€to€rebut€by€"credible€explanation"€the€fact€he€or€she€fled€to€avoidÏapprehension€or€prosecution.€€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€381,€385,€472ÏS.W.2d€230,€232€(1971),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1971).€Ìà àAs€a€general€rule,€the€flight€of€an€accused€occurs€shortly€after€the€commission€ofÏthe€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739€S.W.2d€6,€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€However,€the€application€of€this€rule€is€not€limited€by€time€or€theÏstage€of€the€prosecution.€òòCraig€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€510,€516,€455€S.W.2d€190,Ï193€(1970),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970)(accused€escaped€five€days€after€commission€ofÏcrime€when€taken€to€the€courtroom€for€a€preliminary€hearing);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,Ï688€S.W.2d€842,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985)(escapedÏfrom€jail€after€arrest);€€òòBuckinghamóó,€540€S.W.2d€at€665€(accused€escaped€from€custodyÏwhile€awaiting€trial);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€661€S.W.2d€695,€698€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983)(accused€attempted€to€escape€from€the€booking€room€shortly€afterÍhis€arrest).Ìà àFlight€evidence€is€multi„dimensional.€€It€may€occur€when€the€accused€leaves€theÏstate€shortly€after€committing€the€offense,€òòZagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€at€813;€òòRhodenóó,€739ÏS.W.2d€at€15;€òòLedune€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€936,€940€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€It€alsoÏmay€occur€when€the€accused€leaves€the€county€where€the€offense€occurred€andÏtravels€to€another€county€after€learning€he€is€going€to€be€arrested€for€the€crime,€òòState€v.ÏGoodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€381„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1982),Ïor€hides€from€the€police€to€avoid€being€arrested€within€the€county€where€the€crimeÏoccurred.€€òòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€at€886;€òòRogersóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€501,€455ÏS.W.2d€at€186.€€€Also€relevant€is€the€accused's€resisting€arrest€when€officers€attemptedÏto€take€him€into€custody,€òòZagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€at€813,€attempts€to€escape,€òòTayloróó,€661ÏS.W.2d€at€698;€òòChapple€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2d€62,€63€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1975),€escapes€from€the€courtroom€incident€to€a€preliminary€hearing,€òòCraigóó,€2ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€at€515„16,€455€S.W.2d€at€193,€or€escapes€from€jail€while€awaitingÏtrial,€òòTownsendóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€844;€€òòBuckinghamóó,€540€S.W.2d€at€665.€€€€Ìà àBefore€an€instruction€on€flight€is€warranted,€the€evidence€must€establish€(a)€theÏaccused€engaged€in€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€conduct€and€(b)€the€purpose€of€the€conduct€was€toÏavoid€prosecution.€€òòState€v.€Whittenmeiróó,€725€S.W.2d€686,€689€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1986),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€and€S.€Sheppeard,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€401.8,€p.€96€(3d€ed.€1995).€€This€may€be€established€byÏdirect€or€circumstantial€evidence.Ìà àWhen€the€state€presents€sufficient€evidence€to€establish€flight,€the€state€isÏentitled€to€have€an€instruction€included€in€the€charge€setting€forth€the€law€of€flight.€€òòSeeóóÍòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254„55€(Tenn.€1993),€_____€U.S.€_____,€114€S.Ct.Ï1339,€127€L.Ed.2d€687€(1994);€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€74.€€The€giving€of€such€anÏinstruction€does€not€invade€the€province€of€the€jury.€€òòHillóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€334,Ï461€S.W.2d€at€52.€€Ìà à€€à àÌò òÓ  ÓC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€case€made€a€prima€facie€case€of€flight.€€The€appellant€wasÏreleased€from€jail;€he€could€not€be€found€in€Obion€County€after€his€release€fromÏcustody€or€after€he€failed€to€appear€for€the€preliminary€hearing.€€The€appellant€wasÏaware€of€the€date,€time,€and€place€of€the€preliminary€hearing.€€The€appellant€wasÏlocated€in€the€State€of€Georgia€approximately€one€month€after€the€failure€to€appear.Ìà àThis€case€is€similar€to€òòState€v.€Dowellóó,€705€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1985).€€In€òòDowellóó,€the€officers€attempted€to€locate€Dowell,€butÏshe€could€not€be€found€in€the€county€where€she€lived€and€the€crime€occurred.€€ThisÏCourt€held€the€state€was€entitled€to€an€instruction€on€flight€based€on€these€facts.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€permitting€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€use€the€prior€inconsistent€statements€made€byÏKen€Henry,€a€prosecution€witness,€to€impeach€Henry€as€a€witness.€€He€argues€theÍState€of€Tennessee€knew€Henry€had€repudiated€the€two€statements€prior€to€trial.€€TheÏappellant€predicates€this€argument€upon€the€case€of€òòMays€v.€Stateóó,€495€S.W.2d€833Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1973).Ìà àHenry€was€confined€to€the€Obion€County€Jail€after€being€convicted€for€"someÏ[bad]€checks€charge[s]."€€The€appellant€and€Henry€were€confined€in€the€same€cellÏblock.€€Henry€gave€officers€two€separate€statements.€€The€first€statement€was€given€onÏMay€24,€1994.€€The€second€statement€was€given€on€July€1,€1994.€€Henry€told€theÏofficers€in€both€statements€the€appellant€admitted€to€him€that€he,€the€appellant,€hadÏrobbed€the€victim.€€The€statements€gave€details€on€what€had€occurred,€including€theÏrobbery€was€committed€along€with€a€second€person.Ìà àThe€appellant€moved€the€trial€court€òòinóó€òòlimineóó€to€prevent€the€state€from€using€theÏtwo€statements€to€impeach€Henry.€€According€to€defense€counsel,€Henry€contacted€himÏthe€day€prior€to€trial€and€stated€"he€didn't€know€anything€about€the€case."€€€Henry€alsoÏapproached€the€District€Attorney€General€and€asked€that€he€not€be€called€as€a€witness.€ÏHenry€stated€he€was€afraid€either€he€or€his€family€would€be€hurt€if€he€testified€againstÏthe€appellant.€€The€District€Attorney€General€refused€to€discuss€the€matter€with€Henry.€ÏHenry€then€saw€one€of€the€officers€who€was€present€when€he€gave€one€of€theÏstatements.€€He€told€the€officer€he€knew€nothing€about€the€case.Ìà àThe€next€morning€Henry€approached€the€same€officer€and€advised€him€he€hadÏno€knowledge€about€the€case.€€The€officer€played€the€audio€recording€of€the€statementÏfor€Henry.€€After€listening€to€the€tape,€Henry€told€the€officer€the€appellant€did€not€tell€himÏabout€the€robbery.€€He€claimed€the€information€came€from€Keith€Pettigrew,€theÏappellant's€co„conspirator€in€the€perpetration€of€the€robbery.€€In€short,€the€state€knewÍbefore€trial€Henry€intended€to€repudiate€his€statements.Ìà àA€jury„out€hearing€was€conducted€after€defense€counsel€interposed€anÏobjection€to€the€use€of€the€statements.€€Henry€admitted€making€the€two€statements,€butÏhe€testified€the€appellant€did€not€tell€him€about€the€robbery.€€The€trial€court€ruled€theÏDistrict€Attorney€General€could€use€the€prior€inconsistent€statements€to€impeach€Henry.Ìà àHenry€told€the€jury€he€made€the€statements,€but€the€information€contained€in€theÏstatements€was€inaccurate.€€He€stated€he€did€not€get€the€information€from€theÏappellant.€€The€District€Attorney€General€then€used€the€statements€to€question€Henry.Ìà àThe€District€Attorney€General€asked€Henry€if€he€told€an€officer€the€appellantÏstated€"he€had€robbed€a€man€and€taken€some€checks€and€cash."€€Henry€admitted€heÏtold€this€to€the€officer.€€Henry€was€then€asked€if€the€appellant€told€him€"he€had€changedÏclothes€and€.€.€.€took€the€glasses€off"€after€the€robbery.€€Henry€admitted€he€gave€theÏofficer€such€information.€€The€District€Attorney€General€then€asked€Henry€if€theÏappellant€told€him€"there€was€someone€else€with€him€[during€the€robbery]."€€HenryÏstated€he€made€such€a€statement€to€the€officer.€€All€of€this€information€was€contained€inÏthe€first€statement.Ìà àThe€District€Attorney€General€then€questioned€Henry€about€the€content€of€theÏsecond€statement.€€He€asked€Henry€if€he€heard€the€appellant€"say€from€his€mouth€thatÏhe€had€robbed€a€man€and€taken€checks€and€cash."€€Henry€testified€he€made€thatÏstatement€to€the€officer.Ìà àIt€was€developed€during€direct€and€cross„examination€Henry€made€theÏstatements,€but€the€statements€were€inaccurate€because€Henry€did€not€hear€theÏappellant€make€these€statements.€€When€asked€why€he€made€these€statements,€HenryÍstated€he€and€the€appellant€had€problems€while€confined€in€the€Obion€County€Jail.€ÏThey€argued€the€entire€time.€€Giving€these€statements€was€a€means€of€retaliation€orÏrevenge€for€the€appellant's€conduct.Ìà àIt€appears€the€District€Attorney€General€researched€the€issue€during€the€noonÏhour.€€He€then€approached€the€trial€court€about€striking€Henry's€testimony.€€The€trialÏcourt€related€what€had€transpired.€€A€short€colloquy€occurred€between€counsel€and€theÏcourt.€€The€trial€court€struck€Henry's€testimony.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€in€part:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  Ò[Y]ou€are€not€to€consider€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Henry€in€anyÏrespect€whatsoever.€€You€are€not€to€consider€the€priorÏstatements€about€which€he€was€questioned,€either€asÏevidence€to€impeach€his€testimony€or€for€any€other€purpose.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThis€Court€must€decide€if€it€was€error€for€the€District€Attorney€General€to€questionÏHenry€regarding€the€content€of€his€statements,€and,€if€error,€was€it€harmless€error€orÏprejudicial€error€warranting€a€reversal.€€Ìà àIn€òòMays€v.€Stateóó,€495€S.W.2d€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1973),€the€State€of€Tennessee€knew€in€advance€of€trial€that€two€prosecution€witnessesÏwould€repudiate€the€statements€given€to€the€police€during€the€investigative€stage€of€theÏproceedings.€€The€state€called€the€two€witnesses.€€When€the€witnesses€in€fact€declaredÏthey€were€unaware€of€any€facts€indicating€the€appellants€committed€the€arson,€theÏstate€used€the€witnesses'€prior€statements€to€question€them.€€The€statements€containedÏinformation€which€implicated€some€of€the€defendants.€€This€Court,€holding€theÏprocedure€constituted€reversible€error,€stated:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  Ò[T]he€witnesses€professed€to€know€nothing€about€the€crime,Íwere€merely€reluctant€to€give€testimony,€testified€to€nothingÏprejudicial€to€the€State.€€Under€these€circumstances€thereÏwas€nothing€to€impeach.€€Impeachment€was€calculated€toÏand€did€serve€only€one€purpose€which€was€to€put€before€theÏjury€the€out€of€court€statements.€.€.€.€€We€think,€it€was€error€toÏpermit€the€State€to€impeach€the€witnesses€and€introduceÏtheir€out€of€court€statements.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Ò495€S.W.2d€at€837.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€rule€announced€in€òòMaysóó€was€not€affected€by€the€Tennessee€Rule€ofÏEvidence.€€òòSeeóó€€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine€and€S.€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,Ïðð€613.1€at€405„06€(3d€ed.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Roy€L.€Payneóó,€Washington€County€No.€03„C„01„9202„CR„00045€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€February€2,€1993).€€In€òòPayneóó,€Carder,Ïa€co„defendant€confessed€her€guilt€to€the€police.€€She€admitted€selling€cocaine,€andÏshe€implicated€the€appellant€in€the€transaction.€€The€trial€court€suppressed€theÏstatement.€€During€the€trial,€the€charges€against€Carder€were€dismissed€and€she€wasÏgranted€immunity€to€testify€as€a€prosecution€witness.€€Before€calling€Carder€to€theÏwitness€stand,€the€state€was€advised€she€would€repudiate€her€confession€„„€she€wouldÏdeny€she€ever€sold€or€delivered€cocaine.€€When€Carder€was€called€as€a€witness,€sheÏdid€in€fact€repudiate€the€statements€of€guilt€contained€in€the€confession.€€The€stateÏused€her€confession€to€examine€her.€€In€holding€this€was€reversible€error,€this€CourtÏsaid:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒAfter€close€review€we€must€agree€with€the€defendant'sÏargument.€€The€State€was€indeed€on€notice€that€Ms.€CarderÏintended€to€reverse€her€expected€testimony€and€notÏcooperate.€€From€this€record€it€appears€that€the€State€calledÏher€to€the€stand€for€the€primary€purpose€of€impeaching€herÏby€introducing€her€prior€statement€and€improperly€placing€itÏbefore€the€jury,€an€action€sufficient€to€warrant€reversible.€.€.€.€ÍWhile€a€party€may€now€impeach€his€or€her€own€witnessÏunder€the€new€rules,€such€impeachment€cannot€be€a€mereÏruse€to€introduce€highly€prejudicial€and€improper€testimony.ÌÌAlthough€there€was€other€significant€evidence€against€theÏdefendant,€the€error€here€was€of€such€a€prejudicial€natureÏthat€no€charge€to€the€jury€to€ignore€the€substantive€valueÏcould€have€been€effective.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà à€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€struck€Henry's€testimony€and€gave€the€instructionÏhereinabove€set€forth.€€The€question€posed€is:€€did€the€striking€of€the€testimony€and€theÏsubsequent€instruction€cure€the€prejudicial€damage€inflicted€by€presenting€Henry€andÏthe€use€of€the€statements€to€question€him?Ìà àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€the€striking€of€Henry's€testimony€and€the€curativeÏinstruction€were€insufficient€to€overcome€the€serious€prejudicial€effect€of€putting€the€outÏof€court€statements€made€by€Henry€in€front€of€the€jury.€€Considering€the€record€as€aÏwhole,€the€error€involved€a€substantial€right€which€affected€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€ÏMoreover,€such€errors€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P€36(b);ÏòòMaysóó,€òòsupraóó;€€òòPayneóó,€òòsupraóó.Ìò òÓ  ÓV.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€trial€court€found€the€existence€of€three€statutory€factors€to€enhance€theÏappellantððs€sentence:€(a)€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€30„35„114(1),€(b)€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2),€and€(c)€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€sentence€involvingÏrelease€in€the€community,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€The€trial€court€found€noÏmitigating€factors.€€The€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€factor€(2)€toÍenhance€his€sentence.€€He€further€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€find€he€didÏnot€threaten€serious€bodily€injury€or€inflict€serious€bodily€injury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€ð ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÏ305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€basedÏupon€the€witnessesðð€demeanor,€appearance,€and€inflection€in€their€voices.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accusedððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àWhen€the€accused€is€the€appellant,€the€accused€has€the€burden€of€establishingÏthat€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€erroneous.€€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòButleróó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€311.€€Thus,€this€Court€will€undertake€a€review€of€the€record,€based€upon€theÏforegoing€guidelines,€to€determine€if€the€appellant€has€established€the€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€was€erroneous.Ìà àThe€appellant€contends€he€could€not€be€the€leader€in€the€offense€because€theÏproof€shows€at€most€he€was€an€equal€participant€in€the€crime.€€Equal€participation€in€aÏcrime€does€not,€by€itself,€preclude€the€use€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2)€toÏenhance€a€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€Angele€Franklinóó,€Sevier€County€No.€03„C„01„9402„CR„00061€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€September€27,€1995),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€JamesÏTeagueóó,€Sevier€County€No.€03„C„01„9102„CR„00060€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏFebruary€19,€1992),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€trial€court€found€the€appellantÏwas€a€leader€in€the€offense€because€he€initiated€contact€with€the€victim€and€engagedÏthe€victim€in€a€game€of€pool€before€committing€the€crime.€€While€the€trial€court€foundÏthis€factor€to€be€met,€it€stated:€ð ð[t]he€court€does€not€place€a€great€deal€of€emphasis€onÏthis€enhancement€factor.ðð€€Ìà àThe€appellant€also€contends€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€a€mitigating€factor€Ïestablished€by€the€record.€€He€argues€the€appellant€did€not€threaten€serious€bodilyÏinjury€and€the€victim€did€not€suffer€serious€bodily€injury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€According€to€the€appellant,€this€factor€should€mitigate€the€sentence€in€thisÏcase.€€The€appellant€overlooks€the€fact€the€crime€was€accomplished€by€the€use€ofÏphysical€force€and€intimidation,€and€the€victim€actually€suffered€injury.€€The€victimÏsustained€abrasions€on€both€knees€when€he€was€thrown€to€the€sidewalk.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€properly€rejected€this€factor.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE