ÿWPC° 7â§9\, hÃ"m½ú žy#áýê~é$î^ž¥•낼 âj¢Í¢!OƒnÂcÞÀã¶ïmh¥—á͇¢ò­„±j öåøZÕd±ÊŒ0Xånöì);Ú¼M€<­Si£ßUîBGq+»JVH¶“„UKbŠiLµNÁñ[ö’’‚èÜß0:Ö—ËS}†îÞC( 6²¸_bf–t/ZÑâ–2`ùp@UqÙa—ìÑ]s ¹“xž¿˜_«ê¥õª|çÇ1l*®éº”‰„™Í&¼(ÿƵ_á>: NÄ»zø;Ô]º <ŽJ7jLëŸ4dª%ù€ú;âPlT7£æ”wÇkÈ™dºL T'+·5Qx @,ªç€j'þNP¡'r']úÕP/k͈p&;OAŒ·· E èÕ)Àã/YU½?Cð»JDçiõ ¡Ù½¦ UdžÑÝ%r©÷xy²Ðå# Mi…j˜Ê;·ç$õç»'¦K.KÉ‘Qœ·_ÓÆÊ4ðæõ_I)§Þî­+©ìÃí»m_B…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 | ý„ U:æ»U:¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ BÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛœøøø D3””” 0DÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇ AO ÆZZ 0D  D/d B“˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- dDefgDhDijekr‚lmÓ€uM%3|xv(v(2& $¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xö×XXXÔÔ€ô‰§ôXXö×Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó óÝ ƒ »Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X†ÁXXXÔÔ€ôùÂôXX†ÁÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1998€amendment€rewrote€subsection€(b)€to€provide:Ð `  Ðà0 ` àIn€all€contested€criminal€cases,€except€for€capital€crimes€which€are€governed€by€the€proceduresÏcontained€in€ðððð€39-13-204€and€39-13-205,€and€as€necessary€to€comply€with€the€Constitution€ofÏTennessee,€article€VI,€section€14,€and€ðð€40-35-301,€the€judge€shall€not€instruct€the€jury,€nor€shallÏthe€attorneys€be€permitted€to€comment€at€any€time€to€the€jury,€on€possible€penalties€for€theÏoffense€charged€nor€all€lesser€included€offenses.Ð ` €%` €% Ѐ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€(Supp.€1998).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÜÔ€Xö×XXXÔÔ€è/ XXö×ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xö×X è/ÔÐ  ÐÌApril€23,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d ’Ý ƒ »Ÿ$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X†ÁXXXÔÔ€ôùÂôXX†ÁÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÏof€another.ðð).'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñmññjñ›ñjññmñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š2‹ŠXXÔÔ€Š“_ŠŠŠ2‹ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€FhXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñmñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñmñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9604„CR„00162Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDAVIDSON€ñkñœñkñCOUNTYñlñ€COUNTYñlñÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.ó óÐ Xø  Ðò òJASPER€D.€LEWIS,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal;€First€Degree€MurderÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àand€One€Count€of€Robbery)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌJEFFREY€A.€DEVASHERà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (!È ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À Ð(On€Appeal)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÌDAVID€BAKERà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ %¨ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  à425€5th€Avenue€N.Ð &  Ð(At€Trial)à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð ø&˜ ÐÌJEFFERSON€T.€DORSEYà À àà  àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÐ è(ˆ  ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ à)€ ! Ð(At€Trial)Ì1202€Stahlman€Buildingà h àà À àà  àKATRIN€MILLERÐ Ð+p"# ÐNashville,€TN€€37201à h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÐ È,h#$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSuite€500Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37201ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  p7./ ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„¯„ŠŠ“_ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š“_Š„„¯s #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€FhXXdìXXdì7ÑÌà ` àOn€September€14,€1995,€a€Davidson€County€jury€convicted€AppellantÏJasper€D.€Lewis€of€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€robbery.€ÏThe€trial€court€subsequently€sentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offenderÏto€consecutive€terms€of€life€imprisonment€for€the€first€degree€murder€convictionÏand€five€years€for€the€robbery€conviction.€€Appellant€challenges€both€hisÏconvictions€and€his€sentences,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€Appellantððs€convictions€forÏfirst€degree€murder€and€robbery;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€suppressed€a€statement€thatÏAppellant€made€to€police;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€suppressed€the€pre„trial€identificationÏof€Appellant€by€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€instructed€the€jury€about€theÏminimum€number€of€years€that€Appellant€would€have€to€serve€for€eachÏoffense€before€he€would€become€eligible€for€parole;€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence€for€the€robberyÏconviction;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€the€sentences€to€be€servedÏconsecutively.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓóÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ¼*\!" ÐÌà ` àDaniel€McKell€testified€that€on€October€28,€1994,€he€and€FernandoÏJohnson€were€sitting€in€front€of€an€apartment€building€on€Buchanan€Street€inÏNashville,€Tennessee,€with€some€other€individuals.€Johnson€eventually€left€thisÏgroup€and€joined€Appellant€and€Sam€Hall€in€a€dice€game€about€thirty€to€forty€feetÏaway€from€McKell.€€Appellant€was€wearing€dark€clothing€and€he€had€black€andÏwhite€beads€in€his€hair.Ð \8ü.0 Їà ` àMcKell€testified€that€while€he€was€talking€to€some€other€individuals,€heÏheard€some€gunshots.€€When€McKell€looked€in€the€direction€of€the€dice€game,€heÏsaw€Appellant€shoot€Johnson,€who€was€on€his€knees€shooting€dice.€€McKellÏheard€a€total€of€four€or€five€shots.€€At€this€point,€McKell€ran€to€the€other€side€of€theÏapartment€building.€ÌÌà ` àMcKell€testified€that€later€that€night,€he€gave€the€police€a€description€ofÏAppellant.€€A€few€days€later,€McKell€identified€the€photographs€of€Appellant€andÏHall€out€of€two€groups€of€photographs€that€were€shown€to€him€by€the€police.€ÏMcKell€also€testified€that€he€could€not€remember€whether€he€had€seenÏAppellantððs€photograph€on€television€before€he€identified€the€photograph€ofÏAppellant€shown€to€him€by€the€police.€ÌÌà ` àRobert€Davidson,€Jr.,€testified€that€he€was€about€twenty€feet€away€from€theÏdice€game€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€Davidson€estimated€that€Johnson€hadÏbeen€playing€dice€for€thirty€to€forty„five€minutes€before€he€was€shot.€€€ÌÌà ` àSamuel€Hall€testified€that€he€and€Appellant€drove€to€the€apartments€onÏBuchanan€Street€at€some€time€around€9:30€p.m.€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€ÏHall,€Appellant,€Johnson,€and€Quenton€Carrethers€eventually€began€playing€aÏgame€of€dice.€€During€the€dice€game,€Johnson€won€some€money€from€Appellant.€ÏHall€testified€that€Johnson€and€Appellant€were€engaging€in€ð ðregular€trash€talkððÏduring€the€dice€game.€ÌÌà ` àHall€testified€that€while€Johnson€was€on€his€knees€picking€up€the€money€onÏthe€ground€in€front€of€him,€Appellant€shot€Johnson€in€the€head.€€Appellant€thenÐ Ð9p02 Ðshot€Johnson€four€times€in€the€back€and€then€took€money€that€was€in€JohnsonððsÏhand.€€At€this€point,€Hall€ran€back€to€the€car€that€he€had€driven€to€the€apartmentÏbuilding.€€After€Hall€had€driven€about€three€blocks€from€the€scene€of€the€shooting,Ïhe€saw€Appellant.€€Appellant€then€got€in€the€car€and€Hall€drove€to€AppellantððsÏgirlfriendððs€residence.€€Hall€testified€that€when€he€stated€that€Appellant€had€killedÏJohnson,€Appellant€replied,€ð ðI€ainððt€worried€about€it.€€Thatððs€just€one€less€niggerÏI€have€to€worry€about.ðð€€€ÌÌà ` àHall€testified€that€when€he€and€Appellant€arrived€at€Appellantððs€girlfriendððsÏresidence,€Appellant€changed€his€clothes,€took€the€beads€out€of€his€hair,€and€thenÏwashed€his€gun€and€the€money€that€he€had€taken€from€Johnson.€€After€AppellantÏreloaded€his€gun,€Hall€and€Johnson€went€to€another€friendððs€house€whereÏAppellant€asked€someone€to€call€his€grandmother.€€Appellant€and€Hall€then€wentÏback€to€Appellantððs€girlfriendððs€residence€where€Appellant€met€his€mother€and€hisÏmother€drove€him€away€in€her€car.€ÌÌà ` àJoyce€Baker,€Appellantððs€mother,€testified€that€on€the€night€of€the€shooting,Ïshe€took€a€gun€away€from€Appellant.€€Baker€threw€the€gun€in€a€dumpster€the€nextÏday,€but€she€eventually€contacted€the€police€and€assisted€them€in€recovering€theÏgun.€€Baker€also€testified€that€on€the€night€of€the€shooting,€she€advised€AppellantÏto€travel€to€Indiana€to€stay€with€his€father.€€When€Baker€later€learned€that€aÏwarrant€had€been€issued€for€Appellantððs€arrest,€she€called€Appellant€and€told€himÏto€come€back€to€Nashville.€€After€Appellant€returned€to€Nashville,€Baker€took€himÏto€police€headquarters.€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àDetective€Brad€Putnam€of€the€Metro€Police€Department€testified€that€heÏâ âwas€present€when€police€officers€recovered€a€.380€automatic€handgun€from€aÏdumpster€on€October€30,€1994.€€ÌÌà ` àAgent€Tommy€Heflin€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testified€thatÏhe€had€compared€the€shell€casings€and€bullets€found€at€the€scene€of€the€shootingÏand€the€bullets€recovered€from€the€body€of€Johnson€with€the€.380€automaticÏhandgun.€€Agent€Heflin€concluded€that€the€bullets€and€casings€were€fired€from€theÏgun.€ÌÌà ` àDetective€Mike€Smith€of€the€Metro€Police€Department€testified€that€onÏOctober€30,€1994,€Appellantððs€mother€brought€Appellant€to€police€headquarters.€ÏSmith€then€advised€Appellant€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€Appellant€agreed€toÏwaive€his€rights€and€make€a€statement.€ÌÌà ` àIn€the€statement€that€he€gave€to€police,€Appellant€initially€claimed€thatÏsomeone€else€had€killed€Johnson€after€Appellant€quit€playing€dice€and€walkedÏaway.€€€However,€Appellant€eventually€admitted€that€he€shot€Johnson€with€a€.380Ïautomatic€handgun.€€Appellant€also€admitted€that€after€he€shot€Johnson,€he€tookÏJohnsonððs€money€that€was€on€the€ground.€€Appellant€stated€that€although€he€andÏJohnson€called€each€other€names,€Johnson€never€threatened€him.€Appellant€alsoÏstated€that€although€he€accused€Johnson€of€cheating€during€the€dice€game,€thatÏwas€not€why€he€shot€Johnson.€€Appellant€stated€that€he€did€not€know€why€he€shotÏJohnson.€ÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictionsÏfor€first€degree€murder€and€robbery.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accusedÐ à€ Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÏpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð À` Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðtheÐ  "@ Ð[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ €&  Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€forÏthe€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560Ð @.à$& Ð(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Moñ[ñrgñ[ññ\ñrgñ\ñanóó,€929Ð  2À(* ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€ñ]ñòòñ]ññ^ñState€v.€ñ^ññcññ^ñóóñ^ññcññ^ñMatthewsñ^ññcñóóñcññ_ñ€805€S.W.2d€776,€ñ_ññ`ññ_ñ6ñ_ññ`ññañ779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð7.0 ÐApp.€1990)ñaññ]ñòòñ]ññbñIdñbññ^ñòòñ^ññbñ.ñbñóóñbñ€at€779ñbñ.€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÐ à9€02 Ðprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÏshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà@¼¼®àò òA.€€First€Degree€Murder€Convictionó óˆÐ  À ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder€because€the€State€failed€to€establish€that€heÏkilled€Johnson€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€ÌÌà ` àWhen€Johnson€was€killed€in€1994,€Tennesseeððs€first€degree€murder€statuteÏprovided€that€ð ð[f]irst€degree€murder€is:€[a]n€intentional,€premeditated€andÏdeliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(1994).׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ° P ÐPremeditation€requires€a€showing€of€a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.€ÏòòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€€Deliberation€requires€that€theÐ $0 Ðoffense€be€committed€with€cool€purpose,€free€of€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€òòId.óó€Ð €&  ÐAlthough€premeditation€ð ðmay€be€formed€in€an€instant,€deliberation€requires€someÏperiod€of€reflection,€during€which€the€mind€is€ððfree€from€the€influence€ofÏexcitement,€or€passion.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€538€(Tenn.€1992)Ð P,ð"$ Ð(citation€omitted).€€While€it€remains€true€that€no€specific€length€of€time€is€requiredÏfor€the€formation€of€a€cool,€dispassionate€intent€to€kill,€more€than€a€ð ðsplit„secondððÏof€reflection€is€required€in€order€to€satisfy€the€elements€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€òòId.óó€at€543.€€Ð 4°*, ÐÐ 6 ,. Ðà ` àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€questions€for€the€juryÏwhich€may€be€established€by€proof€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€ÏòòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2dÐ @ à Ð214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Tennessee€courts€have€delineated€severalÏcircumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,€includingÏthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€841;Ð °  Ðfacts€from€which€motive€may€be€inferred,€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222;€andÐ    Ðcalmness€immediately€after€the€killing,€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660.€€€Ð ð  ÐÌà ` àConsidering€the€proof€in€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ïas€we€are€required€to€do,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€establishÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€First,€the€record€indicates€that€Johnson€wasÏunarmed€when€Appellant€shot€him€with€an€automatic€handgun.€€In€addition,ÏMcKell€and€Hall€both€testified€that€Johnson€was€on€his€knees€when€AppellantÏshot€him.€€Further,€the€record€indicates€that€Appellant€placed€his€gun€eitherÏagainst€or€very€near€Johnsonððs€head€when€he€shot€him.€€Second,€the€StateÏintroduced€evidence€from€which€a€jury€could€infer€that€Appellant€had€a€motive€forÏkilling€Johnson.€€The€record€indicates€that€during€the€thirty€to€forty„five€minuteÏdice€game,€Johnson€won€most€of€the€bets€and€took€money€from€several€people,Ïincluding€Appellant.€€In€addition,€Hall€testified€that€after€Appellant€shot€Johnson,ÏAppellant€took€Johnsonððs€money€that€was€on€the€ground.€€In€fact,€AppellantÏadmitted€in€his€statement€to€the€police€that€after€he€shot€Johnson,€he€tookÏJohnsonððs€money€that€was€on€the€ground.€€A€rational€jury€could€infer€from€theseÏfacts€that€Appellant€had€killed€Johnson€in€order€to€take€his€money.€€Third,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€immediately€after€the€killing,€Appellant€was€calm.€€Indeed,ÏHall€testified€that€when€he€picked€up€Appellant€shortly€after€the€killing€and€toldÐ Ð9p02 ÐAppellant€that€Johnson€was€dead,€Appellant€replied,€ð ðI€ainððt€worried€about€it.€ÏThatððs€just€one€less€nigger€I€have€to€worry€about.ðð€€Shortly€thereafter,€AppellantÏwent€to€his€girlfriendððs€residence,€changed€his€clothes,€took€the€beads€out€of€hisÏhair,€washed€the€blood€off€his€gun€and€the€money€that€he€had€taken€fromÏJohnson,€and€then€went€with€Hall€to€the€residence€of€another€friend.€€In€short,€aÏrational€jury€could€conclude€from€these€circumstances€that€Appellant€decided€toÏkill€Johnson€and€then€reflected€on€that€decision€with€cool€purpose€for€some€periodÏthat€was€at€least€more€than€a€ð ðsplit„secondðð€before€he€shot€and€killed€Johnson.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@  #®àò òB.€€Robbery€Convictionó óˆÐ À` ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€robbery.€Under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„401(a),Ïð ð[r]obbery€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€ofÏanother€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼401(a)€(1994).€€Appellant€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€convict€himÏunder€this€statute€because€the€only€evidence€that€he€had€taken€anything€fromÏJohnson€came€from€the€testimony€of€Hall,€and€this€testimony€was€contradictedÏby€Hallððs€previous€statement€to€police.ÌÌà ` àThe€general€rule€in€Tennessee€is€that€ð ðcontradictory€statements€by€aÏwitness€in€connection€with€the€same€fact€cancel€each€other.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,Ð 4°*, Ð888€S.W.2d€446,€450€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€€However,Ïâ âð ð[t]his€rule€of€cancellation€applies€only€when€inconsistency€in€a€witnessðð€testimonyÐ ð7.0 Ðis€unexplained€and€when€neither€version€of€his€testimony€is€corroborated€by€otherÏevidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).Ð P ð Ðâ âÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€it€is€not€clear€that€Hallððs€testimony€at€trial€and€his€pre„¼trial€statement€to€police€were€contradictory.€€The€record€indicates€that€duringÏHallððs€direct€examination,€the€following€colloquy€occurred:ÌÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€He€went€into€the€bedroom.€€When€he€went€to€the€bedroom,€heÏwent€to€go€get€some€clothes,€to€change€his€clothes.€€Then€he€went€into€theÏbathroom€to€wash€his€gun€and€wash€the€money.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€Washing€the€gun€and€washing€the€money?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€Yes,€sir.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€What€money€are€you€talking€about?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$àA:€The€money€that€he€took€from€Fernando€Johnson.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€When€did€he€do€that?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€When€he€wasð"ðwhen€he€shot€him€in€the€head,€he€shot€him€likeÏfour€more€times€in€the€back.€€He€flipped€him€over€and€went€inside€hisÏpockets.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€And€was€there€money€in€Fernandoððs€pockets?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€Yes,€sir.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€How€did€you€see€that?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€Because€when€he€was€pulling€it€out,€the€only€thing€I€seen€was,Ïyou€know,€there€was€some€money€in€front€of€him,€the€money€he€wasÏcounting.€€Then€he€had€some€money€in€his€pocket.€€So€I€seen€him€when€heÏgrabbed€the€money€in€his€hand.€€Then€I€seen€him€when€he€was€goingÏthrough€his€pockets.€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌThe€record€also€indicates€that€the€following€colloquy€occurred€during€the€cross„ÌÌexamination€of€Detective€Smith:ÌÌà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€So€Sam€Hall€told€you€that€he€did€not€seeð"ðif€you€remember€backÏand€think€about€it,€he€told€you€that€he€did€not€see€Jasper€Lewis€takeÏanything€or€go€through€the€victimððs€pockets.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€Iððm€sorry.€€I€stand€to€be€corrected,€sir.€€You€confused€me.€€IÏthought€Hall€himself€said€he€didnððt€rummage€through€the€pockets,€but€heÏsaid€thatð"ðhe€said€that€Jasper€rolled€Fernando€over€and€went€through€hisÏpockets.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€Itððs€true,€is€it€not,€Detective,€that€in€that€taped€statement,€Sam€HallÏtold€you€he€did€not€see€Jasper€Lewis€take€any€money€from€FernandoÏJohnson.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€You€know,€I€havenððt€listened€to€that€taped€statement€in€a€while.€ÏThis€is€a€summary.€€Now,€as€far€as€the€money,€I€donððt€know.€€GoingÏthrough€his€pocket,€Iððmð"ðIððm€sure€Iððm€correct€by€my€transcripts€here.€€SoÏifð"ðif€the€answer€is€I€donððt€have€any€indication€here€of€money€being€taken.€ÏJust€going€through€his€pockets.ÐÐ9p02` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€All€right.€€Well,€I€believe€whatð"ðwhat€Sam€Hall€told€you,€isnððt€itÏcorrect,€thatð"ðthat€Jasper,€according€to€Sam,€rolled€him€over,€but€didnððt€seeÏhim€take€any€money€out€of€the€pockets?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€Apparently€so.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àQ:€Okay.€€So€the€answer€is€yes.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àA:€Yes.€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ¸HÓà ` àContrary€to€Appellantððs€assertion,€this€evidence€merely€establishes€thatÏHallððs€testimony€at€trial€was€somewhat€inconsistent€with€Detective€Smithððs€writtenÏsummary€of€Hallððs€pre„trial€statement,€not€that€Hall€actually€made€a€contradictoryÏstatement.€€When€Smith€testified,€he€did€not€have€Hallððs€actual€statement€andÏthus,€Smith€could€only€testify€that€the€summary€did€not€contain€ð ðany€indication€.Ï.€.€of€money€being€taken.ðð€€Further,€when€Hall€was€asked€about€his€pre„trialÏstatement€during€cross„examination,€he€denied€telling€the€police€that€AppellantÏdid€not€take€any€money€from€Johnson.ÌÌà ` àFurther,€even€if€this€evidence€had€established€that€Hall€had€made€twoÏcontradictory€statements,€the€statements€would€not€cancel€each€other€outÏbecause€Hallððs€testimony€that€he€saw€Appellant€take€Johnsonððs€money€that€wasÏon€the€ground€was€corroborated€by€other€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Indeed,€AppellantÐ h' Ðadmitted€to€police€in€his€pre„trial€statement€that€after€he€shot€Johnson,€he€tookÏJohnsonððs€money€that€was€on€the€ground.€ÌÌà ` àFinally,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€because€HallððsÏtestimony€was€contradicted€by€other€witnesses€who€testified€that€they€saw€Hall,Ïand€not€Appellant,€rummaging€through€Johnsonððs€pockets.€€However,€ð ð[t]heÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÏâ âreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€theÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðjury€as€the€triers€of€fact.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€793€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð `  ÐThe€jury€obviously€believed€Hall.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ìâ âÌà@  ®àò òIII.€€APPELLANTððS€PRE„TRIAL€STATEMENTˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àó óAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€toÐ 0Ð  Ðsuppress€the€pre„trial€statement€that€he€made€to€police.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏclaims€that€his€statement€was€inadmissible€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏbecause€the€statement€was€given€involuntarily.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€in€part€thatÏð ðno€person€.€.€.€shall€be€compelled€in€any€criminal€case€to€be€a€witness€againstÏhimself.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V.€€Similarly,€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€states€that€ð ðin€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€.€.€.€shall€not€beÏcompelled€to€give€evidence€against€himself.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€However,Ïan€accused€may€waive€this€right€against€self-incrimination.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,Ð €(   Ð384€U.S.€436,€444,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1612,€16€L.Ed.2d€694€(1966).€€In€òòMirandaóó,€theÐ p*!" ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€suspectÌÓÓà0 ` àmust€be€warned€prior€to€any€questioning€that€he€has€the€right€to€remainÏsilent,€that€anything€he€says€can€be€used€against€him€in€a€court€of€law,€thatÏhe€has€the€right€to€the€presence€of€an€attorney,€and€that€if€he€cannot€affordÏan€attorney€one€will€be€appointed€for€him€prior€to€any€questioning€if€he€soÏdesires.€€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ)`Ó384€U.S.€at€479,€86€S.Ct.€at€1630.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€suspect€mayÏknowingly€and€intelligently€waive€the€right€against€self-incrimination€only€afterÏbeing€apprised€of€these€rights.€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€a€constitutional€waiver€of€theÐ 8 .0 Ðright€against€self„incrimination€requires€the€accused€to€make€an€intelligent,Ð ð902 Ðknowing,€and€voluntary€waiver€of€the€rights€afforded€by€òòMirandaóó.€€òòId.óó€384€U.S.€atÐ `  Ð444,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612.€€A€court€may€conclude€that€a€defendant€voluntarily€waivedÏhis€rights€if,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€court€determines€that€theÏwaiver€was€uncoerced€and€that€the€defendant€understood€the€consequences€ofÏwaiver.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€545€(Tenn.€1994)€(citationsÐ  À Ðomitted).ÌÌà ` àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Detective€Smith€testified€that€before€AppellantÏmade€his€statement,€Smith€read€Appellantððs€constitutional€rights€to€him.€€SmithÏtestified€that€Appellant€then€stated€that€he€understood€his€rights€and€he€signedÏa€waiver€of€rights€form.€€Appellant€testified€that€Smith€read€his€constitutional€rightsÏto€him,€but€he€claimed€that€he€did€not€understand€his€rights.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€claims€that€his€statement€was€involuntary€because€he€was€underÏthe€influence€of€marijuana€when€he€gave€the€statement.€€Although€AppellantÏtestified€that€he€had€used€marijuana€at€6:00€or€7:00€a.m.€on€the€day€that€he€madeÏthe€statement,€he€admitted€that€he€never€told€Smith€about€this€drug€use€when€heÏmade€his€statement€at€4:40€p.m.€€When€asked€whether€he€was€still€intoxicatedÏwhen€he€made€the€statement,€Appellant€replied€that€he€still€had€ð ðsomeÏsymptomsðð€and€he€was€depressed.€€However,€Smith€testified€that€AppellantÏstated€that€he€was€not€under€the€influence€of€drugs€and€he€did€not€appear€to€beÏunder€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs€when€he€made€the€statement.€€AfterÏlistening€to€this€testimony,€the€trial€court€stated€that€even€if€it€was€true€thatÏAppellant€had€smoked€marijuana€at€7:00€a.m.€on€the€day€that€he€made€theÏstatement,€there€was€no€basis€for€finding€that€Appellant€was€still€under€theÏinfluence€of€marijuana€when€he€made€the€statement.€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àAppellant€also€claims€that€his€statement€was€involuntary€because€it€wasÏcoerced.€€Appellant€testified€that€Detective€Smith€told€him€that€if€he€did€not€giveÏthe€police€something€to€help€their€case,€they€would€charge€Appellantððs€mother€asÏan€accessory€to€murder.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€during€a€five€minute€breakÏthat€was€not€recorded,€Smith€reminded€him€that€murder€carried€a€possible€penaltyÏof€death.€€However,€Smith€testified€that€there€was€never€an€unrecorded€fiveÏminute€break€in€the€interview€and€he€denied€even€mentioning€the€death€penalty.€ÏSmith€also€denied€that€he€ever€threatened€to€charge€Appellantððs€mother€as€anÏaccessory.€€After€listening€to€this€testimony,€the€trial€court€found€that€Smith€hadÏnever€mentioned€the€death€penalty€or€threatened€to€charge€Appellantððs€mother.€ÏThus,€the€trial€court€found€that€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€AppellantððsÏstatement€was€voluntarily€made€after€a€valid€waiver€of€his€rights.€ÌÌà ` àð ð[A]€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheldÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ðð€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,Ð €$  Ð23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€evidence€in€this€case€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@>>®àò òIV.€€PRE„TRIAL€IDENTIFICATION€OF€APPELLANT€BY€A€STATE€WITNESSó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€toÏsuppress€the€pre„trial€identification€of€Appellant€by€McKell.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏclaims€that€the€identification€was€inadmissible€because€the€identificationÏprocedures€used€by€the€police€were€unduly€suggestive.€€We€disagree.Ìâ âÐ ð7.0 Ðà ` à€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€due€process€is€violatedÏâ âif€an€identification€procedure€was€so€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€ð ða€veryÏsubstantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.ðð€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð @ à Ð390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.Ct.€967,€971,€19€L.Ed.2d€1247€(1968).€€However,€theÏSupreme€Court€has€also€stated€that€even€when€pre„trial€identification€proceduresÏare€found€to€be€suggestive,€out-of-court€and€in-court€identifications€may€still€beÏadmissible€if€the€identification€was€reliable.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,Ð    Ð93€S.Ct.€375,€382,€34€L.Ed.2d€401€(1972).€€€It€is€the€likelihood€of€misidentificationÏthat€violates€due€process€and€renders€the€identification€inadmissible.€€òòId.óó€€In€òòNeilóó,Ð à€ Ðthe€Supreme€Court€listed€the€factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€theÏidentification€was€too€unreliable€to€be€admitted€into€evidence:ÌÓÓà ` à1.€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€theÏcrime;Ìà ` à2.€the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention€at€the€time€of€the€crime;Ìà ` à3.€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description;Ìà ` à4.€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€at€the€confrontation;Ìà ` à5.€the€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.ÌÌÓ1uÓ409€U.S.€at€199ð!ð200,€93€S.Ct.€at€382.ÌÌà ` à€Initially,€Appellant€argues€that€the€photographic€line„up€used€by€McKell€toÏidentify€Appellant€was€improperly€suggestive€because€the€photograph€ofÏAppellant€is€the€only€one€in€which€the€subject€is€wearing€a€red€shirt.€€We€cannotÏagree€that€the€photographic€line„up€was€unduly€suggestive€merely€becauseÏAppellant€was€the€only€subject€wearing€a€red€shirt.€€We€have€reviewed€theÏphotographic€array€shown€to€McKell,€and€although€Appellant€is€the€only€manÏwearing€a€red€shirt,€we€note€that€no€one€color€predominates.€€Indeed,€theÏphotographic€line„up€consists€of€ñdñtwoñdññeñthreeñeñ€men€wearing€navy€blue€ñfñor€black€ñfñshirts,€twoÏmen€wearing€white€shirts,€ñgñone€man€wearing€a€black€shirt,ñgññhñ€ñhñand€one€man€wearing€a€red€shirt.€€In€addition,€all€sixÐ Ø8x/1 Ðmen€are€African„American,€appear€to€be€of€the€same€age,€and€have€similar€facialÏfeatures.€€Thus,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€although€it€may€have€beenÏpreferable€if€all€six€men€had€been€wearing€the€same€color€shirt,€the€fact€that€theyÏwere€not€does€not€mean€that€the€line„up€was€unduly€suggestive.€€ò ò€ó óòòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð 0Ð ÐEdwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(stating€that€ð ða€lineupÐ 0Ð Ðwould€be€considered€unduly€suggestive€only€when€the€other€participants€wereÏgrossly€dissimilarðð€to€the€defendant)€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà ` àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€photographic€line„up€was€unduly€suggestiveÏbecause€it€contained€the€same€photograph€of€Appellant€that€McKell€had€seen€onÏtelevision€before€he€was€shown€the€line„up.€€However,€the€record€indicates€thatÏalthough€Appellant€introduced€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€aÏphotograph€of€Appellant€was€shown€on€television,€Appellant€failed€to€introduceÏevidence€at€the€hearing€showing€that€it€was€the€same€photograph€that€was€usedÏin€the€line„up.€€Although€Appellant€introduced€evidence€at€trial€that€it€was€theÏsame€photograph,€the€trial€court€accredited€McKellððs€testimony€that€he€had€notÏseen€the€photograph€on€television,€even€though€McKellððs€mother€testified€that€sheÏbelieved€that€he€had€seen€it.€€ÌÌà ` àEven€if€the€photographic€line„up€could€be€considered€improperlyÏsuggestive,€evidence€of€the€identification€by€McKell€would€still€be€admissibleÏunder€the€test€set€forth€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòNeilóó.€€First,€the€record€indicatesÐ  2À(* Ðthat€McKell€had€a€good€opportunity€to€view€Appellant€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€ÏMcKell€testified€that€he€initially€observed€Appellant€for€fifteen€to€thirty€minutes€andÏhe€then€periodically€observed€Appellant€for€another€hour€while€Appellant€wasÏplaying€dice.€€McKell€also€testified€that€although€it€was€night,€there€was€a€brightÐ à9€02 Ðlight€in€the€area.€€Second,€the€record€indicates€that€McKell€was€paying€attentionÏto€Appellant€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€Although€McKell€admitted€that€he€hadÏno€real€reason€to€pay€attention€to€Appellant€before€the€shooting€occurred,€McKellÏdenied€that€he€never€got€a€good€look€at€Appellant.€€Third,€the€record€indicatesÏthat€McKell€had€given€an€accurate€description€of€Appellant.€€Indeed,€the€recordÏindicates€that€on€the€night€of€the€shooting,€McKell€told€the€police€that€the€shooterÏhad€braids€with€beads€in€them,€was€wearing€dark€clothes,€and€had€darker€skinÏthan€the€other€man€he€was€with.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€McKell€gave€thisÏdescription€before€Appellantððs€photograph€was€shown€on€television.€€Fourth,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€McKell€identified€Appellantððs€photograph€as€soon€as€the€line„¼up€was€shown€to€him.€€Finally,€the€record€indicates€that€the€identification€wasÏreliable€because€it€took€place€only€five€days€after€the€shooting.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStateÐ °P Ðv.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993€)€(holding€thatÐ   @ Ðidentification€that€took€place€one€week€after€the€crime€was€reliable).€€In€short,€weÏhold€that€the€photographic€line„up€was€not€so€suggestive€that€introduction€ofÏevidence€about€McKellððs€identification€of€Appellantððs€photograph€and€McKellððsÏsubsequent€in„court€identification€of€Appellant€violated€due€process.€€This€issueÏhas€no€merit.ÌÌà@¤¤$®àò òV.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óˆÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€instructed€the€juryÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201€about€the€time€periodÏthat€Appellant€would€be€required€to€serve€before€he€would€be€eligible€for€parole.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€claims€that€section€40„35„201€is€unconstitutional.€€WeÏdisagree.Ð à9€02 Їà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€before€trial,€Appellant€filed€several€motionsÏrequesting€jury€instructions€about€the€possible€range€of€punishment€for€each€ofÏthe€charged€offenses€as€well€as€all€lesser€included€offenses.€€At€the€same€timeÏAppellant€filed€these€motions,€Appellant€also€filed€a€motion€stating€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€not€instruct€the€jury€about€parole€eligibility€pursuant€to€section€40„35„¼201€because€that€section€was€unconstitutional.€€In€response€to€AppellantððsÏmotion,€the€trial€court€cautioned€Appellant€that€the€requested€instructions€aboutÏrange€of€punishment€would€require€the€court€to€comply€with€section€40„35„201Ïand€also€instruct€the€jury€about€parole€eligibility.€€At€the€close€of€trial,€the€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€about€both€the€possible€range€of€punishment€and€paroleÏeligibility€for€the€various€offenses.€ÌÌà ` àWhen€Johnson€was€killed€in€1994,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„¼35„201€provided,€in€relevant€part:ÌÓÓà0 ` à(b)(1)€In€all€contested€criminal€cases,€except€for€capital€crimes€which€areÏgoverned€by€the€procedures€contained€in€ðððð€39-13-204€and€39-13-205,Ïupon€the€motion€of€either€party,€filed€with€the€court€prior€to€the€selection€ofÏthe€jury,€the€court€shall€charge€the€possible€penalties€for€the€offenseÏcharged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(2)(A)(i)€When€a€charge€as€to€possible€penalties€has€been€requestedÏpursuant€to€subdivision€(b)(1),€the€judge€shall€also€include€in€theÏinstructions€for€the€jury€to€weigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€aÏsentence€of€imprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€any€lesserÏincluded€offenses.€€Such€instruction€shall€include€an€approximateÏcalculation€of€the€minimum€number€of€years€a€person€sentenced€toÏimprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€lesser€included€offensesÏmust€serve€before€reaching€such€personððs€earliest€release€eligibilityÏdate.€€Such€calculation€shall€include€such€factors€as€the€releaseÏeligibility€percentage€established€by€ðð€40-35-501,€maximum€andÏminimum€sentence€reduction€credits€authorized€by€ðð€41-21-236€andÏthe€governorððs€power€to€reduce€prison€overcrowding€pursuant€to€titleÏ41,€chapter€1,€part€5,€if€applicable.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$àà0¸ T$¸ T$à(ii)€Such€instructions€to€the€jury€shall€also€include€a€statementÏthat€whether€a€defendant€is€actually€released€fromÏincarceration€on€the€date€when€such€defendant€is€first€eligibleÏfor€release€is€a€discretionary€decision€made€by€the€board€ofÏparoles€based€upon€many€factors,€and€that€such€board€hasÐ Ð9p02 Ðthe€authority€to€require€the€defendant€to€serve€the€entireÏsentence€imposed€by€the€court.Ð T$T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(B)€On€an€annual€basis,€the€department€of€correction€shall€provideÏeach€judge€exercising€criminal€trial€court€jurisdiction€with€theÏapproximate€calculation€required€in€subdivision€(2)(A).€€SuchÏcalculation€shall€be€broken€down€to€show€the€effect€of€each€factorÏused€in€making€such€calculation.€€€If€the€calculation€provided€by€theÏdepartment€to€the€judges€changes€because€of€a€change€in€the€lawÏor€correctional€policy,€court€intervention,€the€governor's€prisonÏovercrowding€policy€or€any€other€such€circumstance,€the€departmentÏshall€send€a€revised€calculation€to€the€judges€as€such€changesÏoccur.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ ÐÌÓùŒÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201€(1994).׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Appellant€contends€that€this€statute€isÐ ø˜  Ðunconstitutional€because€it€is€unconstitutionally€vague,€it€violates€due€process,€itÏdeprives€defendants€of€impartial€juries,€and€it€constitutes€an€unconstitutionalÏattempt€by€the€legislature€to€exercise€judicial€powers.€€However,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€previously€analyzed€and€rejected€identical€arguments.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸X ÐòòState€v.€Kingóó,€973€S.W.2d€586€(Tenn.€1998).€€Indeed,€the€supreme€courtÐ ¨H Ðspecifically€held€that€this€statute€was€not€unconstitutionally€vague,€òòid.óó€at€590;€thatÐ ˜!8 Ðan€instruction€under€this€statute€did€not€violate€due€process€by€misleading€theÏjury,€òòid.óó€at€592;€that€an€instruction€under€this€statute€did€not€violate€due€processÐ x% Ðby€depriving€the€defendant€of€an€impartial€jury,€òòid.óó€at€588€n.4;€and€that€this€statuteÐ h' Ðdoes€not€violate€the€Separation€of€Powers€Clause€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,Ð X)ø! Ðòòid.óó€at€592.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.€€Ð H+è!# ÐÌà@#®àò òVI.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óˆÐ (/È%' Ðâ âÐ (1È') Ðà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€sentenced€him€to€aÏâ âlonger€term€than€he€deserves€for€the€robbery€conviction.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€ofÏprobation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novoÏreview€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€action€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€weÐ °P Ðmust€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€defendantððsÏstatements,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€defendantððs€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.Ï1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ `(  Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ P*ð " Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€consider€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€withoutÐ 0.Ð$& Ða€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€robbery€is€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 4 *, Ððð€39„17„401(b)€(1997).€€The€sentence€for€a€Range€I€offender€convicted€of€a€ClassÏC€felony€is€between€three€and€six€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3)Ï(1997).€€When€there€are€enhancement€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€mayÐ Ð9p02 Ðset€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€applicable€sentencing€range.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€(1997).€€When€both€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors€are€applicable€to€a€sentence,€the€court€is€directed€to€begin€withÏthe€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€forÏthe€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e)€(1997).€ÏÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Appellant€to€a€term€of€five€years€for€his€robbery€conviction,Ïthe€trial€court€determined€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€applied€because€AppellantÏhad€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,€that€enhancement€factor€(4)€appliedÏbecause€the€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerable€due€to€age,€and€thatÏenhancement€factor€(8)€applied€because€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€intoÏthe€community.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(4),€&€(8)€(1997).€Ð €$  ÐAlthough€the€record€is€not€entirely€clear,€the€trial€court€apparently€determined€thatÏnone€of€the€enumerated€mitigating€factors€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„35„113€applied.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(1),Ïand€we€conclude€that€it€was€correctly€applied.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€thatÏAppellant€has€previous€convictions€for€attempted€burglary,€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense,€reckless€driving,€a€weapons€offense,€and€two€convictions€for€theft.€€WeÏconclude€in€our€òòde€novoóó€review€that€this€factor€is€entitled€to€significant€weight.Ð ð5,. Ðâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àAppellant€similarly€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancementÏâ âfactor€(8),€and€we€also€agree€that€this€factor€was€correctly€applied.€€Indeed,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€Appellant€has€previously€violated€the€terms€of€probation€andÏthat€violation€resulted€in€the€revocation€of€his€probation.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factorÏ(4).€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€this€factor€should€not€have€been€appliedÏbecause€other€than€his€ageñiñ€of€fifteen€yearsñiñ,€there€was€no€proof€that€Johnson€hadÏany€particular€vulnerability.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(4).€€As€stated€by€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÐ Ðp Ð305,€313€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€ÌÓÓà0 ` à[A]€victim€is€particularly€vulnerable€within€the€meaning€of€this€enhancementÏfactor€when€the€victim€lacks€the€ability€to€resist€the€commission€of€theÏcrime€due€to€age,€a€physical€condition,€or€a€mental€condition.€A€victim€isÏalso€particularly€vulnerable€when€his€or€her€ability€to€summons€assistanceÏis€impaired;€€or€the€victim€does€not€have€the€capacity€to€testify€against€theÏperpetrator€of€the€crime.€€However,€a€finding€that€one€of€these€conditionsÏexists€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€mean€that€this€factor€is€automaticallyÏconsidered.€€The€appellant€must€have€taken€advantage€of€one€or€more€ofÏthese€conditions€during€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€The€state€had€theÏburden€of€establishing€the€limitations€that€render€the€victim€ð ðparticularlyÏvulnerable.ðð€€The€state€also€had€the€burden€of€establishing€that€theÏcondition€which€rendered€the€victim€ð ðparticularly€vulnerableðð€was€a€factorÏin€the€commission€of€the€offense.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÖ­ÓHere,€the€state€failed€to€meet€its€burden.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€record€thatÏJohnsonððs€age€had€any€effect€on€his€ability€to€resist€commission€of€the€robbery,Ïon€his€ability€to€summon€help,€or€his€ability€to€testify€against€Appellant€if€he€hadÏnot€been€killed.€€Further,€there€is€no€proof€that€Appellant€took€advantage€ofÏJohnsonððs€age€or€any€other€condition€when€he€shot€him€in€the€head€and€took€hisÏmoney.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòid.óó€(holding€that€enhancement€factor€(4)€did€not€apply€in€aÐ ð5,. Ðmurder€case€because€the€victimððs€age€had€nothing€to€do€with€resisting€theÏunexpected€firing€of€a€gun).Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àAppellant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€apply€any€mitigatingÏfactors€to€his€sentence.€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€mitigating€factor€(6)Ïapplied€in€that€Appellant€lacked€substantial€judgment€because€of€his€youth.€€òòSeeóóÐ @ à ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6)€(1997).€€When€determining€the€applicability€ofÏthis€mitigating€factor,€the€sentencing€court€should€consider€ð ðthe€defendantððs€age,Ïeducation,€maturity,€experience,€mental€capacity€or€development,€and€any€otherÏpertinent€circumstance€tending€to€demonstrate€the€defendantððs€ability€or€inabilityÏto€appreciate€the€nature€of€his€conduct.ðð€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€33Ð ð  Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€In€support€of€his€contention,€Appellant€merely€states€that€he€wasÏtwenty€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€indicate€howÏhis€age€or€anything€else€affected€his€judgment€when€he€committed€the€robbery.€ÏIndeed,€the€record€indicates€that€Appellant€is€acquainted€with€the€criminal€justiceÏsystem€and€further,€that€he€had€the€presence€of€mind€to€attempt€to€cover€up€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€crime€by€altering€his€appearance,€washing€the€money€and€theÏgun,€and€reloading€the€gun€to€make€it€appear€as€though€it€had€not€been€fired.€ÏThus,€mitigating€factor€(6)€was€not€applicable.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(6)€because€the€injuries€to€the€victim€were€particularly€great€andÏenhancement€factor€(9)€because€Appellant€used€a€firearm€in€the€commission€ofÏthe€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6),€(9)€(1997).€€We€agree.€€ItÐ  0À&( Ðgoes€without€saying€that€death€is€a€ð ðparticularly€greatðð€personal€injury€and€further,Ïit€is€undisputed€that€Appellant€used€a€gun€when€he€committed€the€robbery.€ÏNeither€one€of€these€factors€is€an€element€of€or€is€inherent€in€the€crime€ofÏrobbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(a)€(1997)€(ð ðRobbery€is€theÐ à7€.0 Ðintentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€orÐ Ð9p02 Ðputting€the€person€in€fear.ðð).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏapplied€enhancement€factors€(6)€and€(9)€€to€Appellantððs€sentence€for€robbery.ÌÌà ` àIn€our€de€novo€review,€we€conclude€that€four€enhancement€and€noÏmitigating€factors€apply€to€Appellantððs€sentence€for€robbery.€€Thus,€we€hold€thatÏa€sentence€of€five€years€is€entirely€appropriate€in€this€case.€€This€issue€has€noÏmerit.ÌÌà@ââ ®àò òVII.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€his€sentencesÏto€run€consecutively.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àConsecutive€sentencing€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40-35-115.€€The€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€order€consecutiveÏsentencing€if€it€finds€that€one€or€more€of€the€required€statutory€criteria€exist.€€òòStateÐ €&  Ðv.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Further,€the€court€isÐ p(  Ðrequired€to€determine€whether€the€consecutive€sentences€(1)€are€reasonablyÏrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed;€€(2)€serve€to€protect€the€publicÏfrom€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€offender;€€and€(3)€are€congruent€with€generalÏprinciples€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).Ð 00Ð&( ÐÌà ` àIn€imposing€consecutive€sentences,€the€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€wasÏa€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€lifeÏâ âand€who€has€no€hesitation€in€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€lifeÐ ð7.0 Ðis€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(4)€(1997).€€Specifically,€the€trial€courtÐ `  Ðstated€thatÌâ âÓÓà0 ` à[T]he€act€that€was€committed[,]€that€the€Jury€accepted€and€returned€theirÏverdict€on[,]€has€got€to€be€one€that€would€be€done€by€a€person€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€.€.€.€[I]f€a€youngÏman,€kneeling€down,€rolling€dice€is€shot€one€time€in€the€head€and€fourÏtimes€in€the€back€and€left€to€die€in€a€totally€senseless,€cruel[,]€outrageousÏway,€the€person€who€does€that[,]€that€this€Jury€found€does€that[,]€has€to€beÏa€person€who€considers€very€little€regard€in€connection€with€their€behaviorÏfor€human€life.€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÃÓÌà ` àWe€agree€that€this€brutal€murder€of€a€young€man€who€was€merely€engagedÏin€playing€a€game€of€dice€demonstrates€that€Appellant€is€a€dangerous€offenderÏwho€has€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€has€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€thatÏAppellant€placed€his€gun€on€or€very€near€the€top€of€Johnsonððs€head€whenÏJohnson€was€kneeling€on€the€ground€and€then€shot€Johnson€once€in€the€headÏand€four€times€in€the€back.€€Further,€although€the€trial€court€made€no€expressÏfinding,€we€conclude€in€our€ñZñòòñZñde€novoñZñóóñZñ€review€that€consecutive€sentences€areÐ x% Ðnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€future€criminal€conduct€of€Appellant.€€Indeed,ÏAppellantððs€criminal€record€indicates€that€his€criminal€conduct€has€become€moreÏand€more€serious€over€time.€€In€addition,€his€callous€comment€that€Johnson€wasÏð ðjust€one€less€nigger€[he€had]€to€worry€aboutðð€indicates€that€he€poses€a€continuingÏthreat€to€the€public.€€Finally,€the€cruel€and€senseless€nature€of€AppellantððsÏconduct€indicates€that€consecutive€sentences€are€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€and€are€congruent€with€general€principles€of€sentencing.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð Ø8x/1 ÐÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€SPECIAL€JUDGE