ÿWPCb0 …# VU:a %› 0 ¡w@¥ 4å ù  0H 0DX 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU*ÝB) B0DCM AM¼Ý™œ D3ªÝèì 0@Ô¿’Ó"e%v~l'vÓê( AO½.Æ / 0DÒ/ D/0 BE0˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ û+ýEþDÿDEEÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x(ø(3U2$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ŸÙXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌJuneÏ6,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔThis€was€the€time€provided€by€Jones.€€The€other€witnesses€provided€varying,€but€much€later,Ïestimates€of€the€time€of€appellantððs€arrival.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔProof€reflected€that€both€McGill€and€Jones€were€approximately€6'3"€in€height€and€weighed€300Ïpounds.€€Appellantððs€size€is€not€apparent€in€the€record.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔWe€are€mindful€that€a€determination€on€disqualification€of€the€entire€office€rests€in€part€on€aÏshowing€that€screening€procedures€were€in€place€at€the€District€Attorneyððs€office€in€question.€€òòState€v.ÏWillie€Claybrookóó,€No.€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€February€5,€1992).€€Nickellððs€testimonyÏdemonstrated€that€measures€were€taken€in€this€regard€which€reinforces€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔThe€1995€statutory€amendments€to€the€first€degree€murder€statute€delete€the€element€ofÏdeliberation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996)€(providing€that€first€degree€murder€is€ð ðaÏpremeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€anotherðð).€€However,€at€the€time€of€this€offense€deliberationÏremained€an€element€and€the€State€was€required€to€prove€its€presence.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔThis€proof€was€circumstantial.€€McGill€had€won€certain€sums€of€money€during€the€night€in€theÏcrap€game.€€Vincent€Wilson€specifically€testified€that€he€lost€about€$160€to€McGill€that€night.€€JonesÏtestified€that€McGill€should€have€been€in€possession€of€about€$200.€€To€support€its€theory€of€robbery,Ïthe€State€relied€upon€the€fact€that€McGillððs€shorts€were€found€lying€beside€his€body€and€had€beenÏremoved€prior€to€his€death.€€The€only€items€found€in€those€shorts€were€cigarettes,€a€lighter,€and€32€centsÏin€change.€€No€wallet€or€any€sum€of€cash€was€discovered€on€or€near€the€body.€€Ì ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔAt€the€sentencing€phase,€the€jury€found€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€ð ðmurder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€any€attempted€murderðð€(emphasis€added).€ÏThe€jury€did€not€find€that€the€murder€occurred€during€a€robbery€as€the€State€also€argued.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔWe€also€note€that€the€trial€court€provided€a€limiting€instruction€to€the€jury€which€further€reducedÏthe€potential€for€prejudice€to€the€appellant.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€DECEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9603„CC„00103€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMAURY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,ÌSTEVE€MASON,à àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(First€Degree€Murder€and€AttemptedÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌœShara€Ann€Flacyà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ209€W.€Madison€Streetà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌPulaski,€TN€38478à àà àà àà àà àDaryl€J.€Brandà àà àÌ(At€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJohn€Damronà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ209€W.€Madison€StreetÌPulaski,€TN€38478à àà àà àà àà àMichael€T.€Bottomsà àà àÌ(At€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌJohn€E.€Herbisonà àà àà àà àà àRobert€C.€Sandersà àà àÌ2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌNashville,€TN€37204à àà àà àà à10€Public€SquareÌ(On€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€TN€38402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Steve€Mason,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€in€the€MauryÏCounty€Circuit€Court€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€attempted€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder.€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€in€prison€for€the€first€degree€murderÏconviction€and€received€a€sixty€(60)€year€consecutive€sentence€as€a€career€offenderÏon€the€attempted€offense.€€The€jury€also€assessed€a€$50,000€fine.Ìà àAppellant€argues€on€appeal€that:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àcount€two€of€the€indictment€is€insufficient€because€it€does€notÏcontain€necessary€facts€to€comprise€every€element€of€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder;ÌÌà8 à(2)à àthe€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€disqualify€the€District€AttorneyððsÏoffice€from€prosecution€in€his€case;ÌÌà8 à(3)à àthe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€the€elements€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€on€both€counts;ÌÌà8 à(4)à àthe€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€appellantððs€prior€convictions€forÏaggravated€robbery€and€attempted€aggravated€robbery;€andÌÌà8 à(5)à àthe€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌÓÓFinding€that€no€reversible€error€was€committed€by€the€trial€court,€we€affirm€appellantððsÏconvictions€and€sentences.€Ìà@ àò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àOn€August€4,€1994,€Timothy€McGill€and€Jesse€Tate€Jones€were€shot€numerousÏtimes€following€a€crap€game€which€took€place€on€Broadway€Avenue€in€Mt.€Pleasant.€ÍMcGill€suffered€three€gunshot€wounds€and€died€from€these€injuries.€€Jones,€McGillððsÏstepfather,€was€shot€twice.€€After€surgery€and€hospitalization,€he€recovered€fully€andÏsuffered€no€permanent€injuries.€€Jones€and€other€eyewitnesses€identified€appellantÏas€the€assailant.€€Several€days€after€the€incident,€appellant€turned€himself€in€toÏauthorities€in€Louisville,€Kentucky€and€was€returned€to€this€State€for€prosecution.Ìà àThe€Stateððs€proof€demonstrated€that€shooting€dice,€or€ð ðcrapsðð€as€it€is€commonlyÏcalled,€was€played€regularly€in€and€around€the€Broadway€Avenue€area€of€Mt.ÏPleasant.€€The€location€is€a€ð ðhigh€crime€area.ðð€€On€the€evening€of€August€3,€1994,€aÏgame€began€at€about€8:00€p.m.€and€continued€well€into€the€morning€hours€of€AugustÏ4,€concluding€around€3:00€a.m.€€The€victims€were€in€control€of€the€game,€at€least€oneÏof€them€acting€as€ð ðhousemanðð€of€the€game€at€all€times.€€The€ð ðhousemanðð€is€theÏperson€who€supplies€the€dice€and€oversees€the€betting.€€Throughout€the€evening,€theÏgame€had€varying€numbers€of€participants,€including€as€many€as€twelve€people€atÏone€point.€€Appellant€arrived€on€Broadway€around€11:00€p.m.× ƒ( ××  ×€and€remained€until€theÏgameððs€conclusion,€but€he€only€participated€in€the€game€for€a€short€while.€€He€left€theÏarea€once€around€2:00€a.m.€and€was€gone€for€about€20€to€30€minutes.€€Upon€hisÏreturn,€those€present€at€the€game€noticed€that€appellant€had€changed€clothes.€€PriorÏto€leaving,€appellant€had€been€dressed€in€light„colored€clothing,€primarily€a€white€T„shirt€and€white€pants.€€When€he€returned,€he€was€dressed€in€all€black,€including€hisÏshoes,€shorts,€shirt€and€jacket.€€€Ìà àThe€testimony€of€Jesse€Tate€Jones,€the€surviving€victim,€revealed€thatÏappellant€was€present€as€the€game€began€to€draw€to€a€close.€€Anthony€Webster,Ïappellantððs€roommate€and€friend,€had€just€lost€a€sum€of€money€and€declined€to€playÏthe€game€any€longer.€€Jones€urged€Webster€to€continue€playing.€€Webster€respondedÏthat€he€might€play€again€tomorrow.€€Jones€replied,€ð ðIt€may€not€be€no€tomorrow.ðð€ÏAppellant€then€jumped€up€from€where€he€was€sitting,€pulled€out€a€gun€and€said,Ïð ðThatððs€what€I€say,€wonððt€be€no€tomorrow.ðð€€He€then€began€firing€the€weapon.€ÏAppellant€first€shot€Jones€in€the€jaw,€who€fell€facedown€on€the€street.€€Appellant€thenÏturned€the€gun€on€McGill€and€shot€him€once€in€the€upper€portion€of€his€chest,€justÏbelow€the€neck.€€He€immediately€whirled€back€toward€Jones€and€shot€him€again€inÏthe€back€of€the€neck,€as€Jones€lay€facedown€on€the€street.€€By€that€time,€McGill€hadÏfled€on€foot€and€was€running€down€the€street.€€Jones€watched€appellant€chase€afterÏMcGill,€firing€the€pistol.€€Two€shots€struck€McGill,€one€in€the€lower€back€and€one€nearÏthe€upper€arm.€€The€men€disappeared€from€Jonesðð€sight.€€Ìà àBy€then,€all€the€remaining€participants€had€left€the€scene.€€Fortunately,€JonesÏwas€able€to€walk€to€his€truck€parked€nearby€and€drive€the€short€distance€to€the€policeÏstation.€€He€reported€the€incident€and€was€then€taken€to€the€hospital€for€treatment.€ÏJones€testified€that€no€argument€or€cross€words€were€exchanged€prior€to€theÍshooting.€€He€also€stated€that€appellantððs€weapon€looked€like€a€.25€caliber€automaticÏpistol.Ìà àThe€testimony€of€Terrence€Williams€and€Vincent€Wilson,€who€were€bothÏeyewitnesses€to€the€shooting,€substantiated€the€events€detailed€by€Jones.€€WilsonÏadded€that€he€lost€approximately€$160€to€McGill€that€night.€€He€also€stated€that€heÏhad€played€the€game€for€four€or€five€hours€that€night€and€there€had€been€noÏarguments€or€fights.€€Anthony€Webster,€appellantððs€roommate,€testified€in€similarÏfashion.€€However,€he€stated€that€he€and€appellant€did€not€arrive€on€Broadway€untilÏafter€1:00€a.m.€when€they€both€got€off€work.€€He€further€explained€that€appellant€lostÏ$30€in€the€game€and€then€borrowed€money€from€him,€which€he€also€lost.€€It€was€thenÏthat€appellant€left€and€went€home.€€He€returned€wearing€the€black€clothing.€€WebsterÏlikewise€denied€that€any€argument€occurred€prior€to€the€shooting.Ìà àAppellantððs€uncle€by€marriage,€Vernon€Johnson,€Sr.,€also€testified€for€theÏState.€€He€reported€that€appellant€appeared€on€his€doorstep€in€the€early€morningÏhours€of€August€4,€1994.€€Appellant€was€very€nervous€and€had€a€silver€.25€caliberÏautomatic€pistol€in€his€hands.€€He€proceeded€to€tell€Johnson€that€he€had€shot€McGillÏand€Jones.€€Appellant€then€asked€Johnson€to€help€him€leave€town.€€Johnson€firstÏdeclined,€but€was€afraid€for€his€familyððs€safety€and€offered€to€take€appellant€whereverÏhe€needed€to€go.€€Johnson€then€took€appellant€to€Columbia€and€left€him€there.€€HeÍsaid€that€en€route,€they€made€one€stop€and€appellant€disposed€of€the€gun€at€anotherÏpersonððs€home.€€€€€Ìà àLaw€enforcement€officials€who€investigated€the€crime€scene€discoveredÏMcGillððs€body€on€the€sidewalk€of€Broadway€Avenue€in€front€of€a€funeral€home,Ïapproximately€230€to€240€feet€from€the€place€where€the€shooting€began.€€The€bodyÏwas€found€facedown€on€the€pavement€and€the€victim€was€dead€when€officialsÏarrived.€€A€pair€of€green€shorts,€later€identified€as€McGillððs,€were€found€next€to€theÏbody.€€The€pockets€contained€cigarettes,€a€lighter,€and€32€cents€in€change.€€McGillððsÏflip€flops€were€also€recovered€near€the€scene€of€the€initial€shooting.€€Bullet€casingsÏwere€found€several€feet€from€where€the€shooting€began€and€one€spent€casing€wasÏalso€found€on€the€porch€of€the€funeral€home.€€These€were€identified€as€having€beenÏfired€from€a€.25€caliber€firearm€and€all€were€fired€from€the€same€weapon.€€TheÏmedical€examiner€reported€at€trial€that€McGill€died€from€loss€of€blood,€primarily€as€aÏresult€of€the€first€gunshot€wound€which€pierced€his€right€lung.Ìà àAlthough€appellant€did€not€deny€shooting€the€victims,€his€trial€testimonyÏdescribed€a€somewhat€different€turn€of€events.€€He€stated€that€on€August€3,€heÏworked€from€3:30€p.m.€until€1:00€a.m.€at€Shipperððs€Paper€Products€along€withÏAnthony€Webster.€€After€work,€someone€drove€him€and€Webster€to€Broadway€whereÏhe€then€walked€to€his€house€nearby.€€He€changed€from€his€work€clothes€and€put€onÏblack€shoes,€white€socks,€black€shorts,€black€jacket,€black€shirt€and€black€toboggan.€ÍAppellant€was€carrying€the€weapon€with€him€at€this€time.€€He€then€proceeded€to€theÏcrap€game.Ìà àAfter€arriving€at€the€game,€he€watched€for€a€while€and€noticed€that€a€lot€ofÏcheating€was€occurring,€accomplished€by€either€Jones€or€McGill€ð ðswitching€the€dice.ðð€ÏHe€testified€that€everyone€was€losing€money€to€them.€€He€departed€the€game,€wentÏhome€and€procured€his€own€dice.€€Appellant€then€returned€to€participate€in€the€gameÏusing€his€own€dice.€€However,€Jones€and€McGill€refused€to€use€his€dice€and€heÏwalked€up€the€street€to€the€corner.€€After€about€five€minutes,€appellant€returned€to€theÏgame€to€convince€Jones€and€McGill€to€gamble€with€his€dice.€€This€time€they€agreed.€ÏAppellant€stated€that€he€began€to€win€some€money.€€As€a€result,€he€claimed€thatÏMcGill€got€angry,€started€cursing€him€and€made€derogatory€comments€aboutÏappellantððs€father.€€While€McGill€was€ð ðyapping,ðð€appellant€noticed€Jones€wasÏreaching€around€behind€his€back,€which€made€appellant€think€Jones€had€a€gun.€ÏJones€also€commented€to€the€effect€that€if€McGill€tried€anything€he€would€ð ðwatch€hisÏback.ðð€€Ìà àAppellant€testified€that€McGill€started€coming€towards€him€and€he€was€scared.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÏHe€stated€that€he€pulled€out€his€pistol€and€just€started€shooting;€he€remembers€firingÏfive€shots.€€Appellant€denied€chasing€McGill€with€the€gun,€saying€instead€that€all€theÍshots€were€fired€in€one€location.€€He€then€ran€down€the€street€and€ducked€into€anÏalleyway€because€he€was€afraid€Jones€was€going€to€run€over€him€with€his€truck.€ÏAppellant€insisted€that€he€shot€Jones€first€because€he€thought€Jones€was€reachingÏfor€a€gun.€€He€also€explained€that€McGill€was€well„known€as€a€drug€dealer€whoÏalways€carried€a€gun.Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€appellant€stated€that€he€took€the€pistol€with€him€to€workÏthat€day€and€carried€it€in€his€right€front€pocket.€€He€denied€going€home€to€get€the€gun,Ïalleging€instead€that€he€had€it€with€him€throughout€the€game.€€He€also€professed€thatÏthe€gun€belonged€to€Webster.€€Furthermore,€he€declared€that€Webster,€Wilson€andÏWilliams€could€not€have€heard€the€argument€between€him€and€McGill€because€theyÏwere€down€the€street€when€it€happened.€€He€also€expressed€his€belief€that€WebsterÏdid€not€testify€truthfully€about€the€eveningððs€events.€€Specifically,€he€repudiatedÏWebsterððs€testimony€that€he€borrowed€money€from€him.€€€Ìà àUnder€continued€cross„examination,€appellant€was€unable€to€explain€why€theÏbullet€casings€were€found€in€different€areas.€€However,€he€claimed€that€he€shot€McGillÏas€he€ran€away€because€he€was€scared€and€he€ð ðjust€commenced€to€shooting.ðð€€InÏaddition,€appellant€insisted€that€Johnson€was€mistaken€about€him€having€the€gunÏwhen€he€asked€for€help€because€he€threw€the€gun€ð ðto€a€certain€personðð€as€he€ranÏfrom€Jonesðð€truck.€€The€State€concluded€its€cross„examination€by€introducingÍappellantððs€previous€convictions:€€four€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€two€forÏattempted€aggravated€robbery.Ìà àThe€manager€of€the€temporary€employment€agency€for€whom€appellantÏworked€also€testified.€€She€introduced€copies€of€appellantððs€time€records€whichÏreflected€that€on€August€3,€1994,€appellant€worked€from€3:30€p.m.€until€1:00€a.m.€ÏFinally,€appellant€recalled€Anthony€Webster€to€the€stand€to€provide€evidence€of€theÏvictimððs€reputation€for€violence.€€Webster€also€opined€that€appellant€could€not€haveÏtaken€the€gun€to€work€with€him€that€day,€and€that€he€must€have€brought€it€back€to€theÏgame€when€he€changed€clothes.Ìà àThe€jury€returned€verdicts€finding€appellant€guilty€of€the€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder€of€Timothy€McGill€and€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€ofÏJesse€Tate€Jones.€€It€also€imposed€a€$50,000€fine€on€the€attempted€murderÏconviction.€€Immediately€thereafter,€a€jury€sentencing€hearing€was€held€for€the€murderÏconviction.€€The€State€sought€life€imprisonment€of€appellant€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole.€€It€introduced€evidence€of€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€that€appellantÏwas€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies€involving€the€use€of€violence€andÏ(2)€that€the€murder€was€committed€during€an€attempted€robbery€or€attempted€murder.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(2),€(7)€(Supp.€1996).€€Appellant€presented€aÏsubstantial€amount€of€evidence€in€mitigation€through€the€testimony€of€teachers€andÏrelatives.€€Although€the€jury€found€that€both€aggravating€factors€were€supported€byÍthe€proof,€it€nevertheless€sentenced€appellant€to€life€in€prison.€€At€a€later€sentencingÏhearing€on€the€attempted€murder€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentenced€appellant€toÏsixty€(60)€years€as€a€career€offender€and€ordered€that€sentence€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€the€life€sentence€and€appellantððs€previous€unserved€sentences.Ìà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àAppellant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictment€charging€him€withÏthe€attempted€first€degree€murder€of€Jesse€Tate€Jones.€€He€contends€that€theÏindictment€did€not€contain€factual€allegations€sufficient€to€state€the€elements€of€theÏoffense€and€urges€dismissal€of€the€conviction.€€We€find€the€indictment€sufficient.Ìà àCount€two€of€the€indictment€states:ÌÓÓà8 àAnd€the€Grand€Jurors€aforesaid,€upon€their€oath€aforesaid,€to€[sic]Ïfurther€present€that€on€or€about€the€4th€day€of€August,€1994,€in€the€StateÏof€Tennessee€and€County€of€Maury,€that€Steve€Mason,€before€theÏfinding€of€this€indictment,€did€unlawfully,€intentionally,€deliberately€andÏwith€premeditation€attempt€to€kill€Jesse€Jones,€in€violation€of€òòTennesseeÏCode€Annotatedóó€39„12„101,€and€òòTennessee€Code€Annotatedóó€39„13„202€.€.€.€€€ÌÌÓÓIt€is€well„settled€law€in€this€State€that,€to€be€valid,€an€indictment€must€accomplishÏthree€purposes:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€provide€notice€to€the€defendant€of€the€precise€charges€against€whichÏhe€or€she€has€to€defend;ÌÌà8 à(2)€notify€the€trial€court€of€the€charges€against€the€defendant€so€the€trialÏcourt€can€enter€an€appropriate€judgment€and€sentence;€andÌ€Ìà8 à(3)€protect€the€defendant€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòÌÌÓÓState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€309€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,Ï82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€that€the€indictment€meets€the€three€requirementsÏof€òòTrustyóó.€€It€clearly€states€the€crime€with€which€the€appellant€is€charged,€attemptedÏfirst€degree€premeditated€murder.€€The€indictment€also€names€the€victim€and€the€dateÏof€the€offense.€€In€addition,€the€indictment€avers€the€culpable€mental€state€of€theÏaccused.€€This€is€sufficient€to€notify€the€appellant€of€the€precise€charges.€€òòState€v.ÏDavisóó,€748€S.W.2d€206,€207€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(holding€that€an€indictmentÏwhich€tracked€the€statutory€language€on€premeditated€murder€and€named€the€victim,Ïas€well€as€the€date€of€the€offense,€is€sufficient).€Ìà àAppellant€contends,€however,€that€more€factual€averments€were€necessary€toÏconstitute€a€valid€indictment,€such€as€how€the€attempt€upon€Jonesðð€life€wasÏperpetrated.€€We€do€not€agree.€€If€it€were€necessary€for€appellantððs€defense€to€knowÏmore€particular€facts€about€the€commission€of€the€offense,€a€request€for€a€bill€ofÏparticulars€would€have€been€available.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(c);€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,Ï666€S.W.2d€54,€56€(Tenn.€1984)€(holding€that€a€bill€of€particulars€is€to€provideÏdefendant€with€information€about€the€details€of€the€charge€that€are€necessary€to€theÏpreparation€of€his€or€her€defense€and€to€avoid€prejudicial€surprise€at€trial).€Ìà àThe€indictment€also€notified€the€trial€court€that€a€judgment€and€sentence€forÏattempted€first€degree€murder€was€proper€upon€conviction.€€Finally,€the€indictmentÏprotects€the€appellant€from€double€jeopardy€by€providing€enough€detail€about€theÏoffense€to€prevent€a€duplicate€prosecution.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAppellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€disqualify€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€office€from€prosecuting€his€case.€€The€record€reflects€that€at€his€preliminaryÏhearing,€the€appellant€was€represented€by€Larry€Nickell€of€the€Public€DefenderððsÏoffice.€€Approximately€two€months€after€the€preliminary€hearing,€Nickell€left€the€PublicÏDefenderððs€Office€and€joined€the€District€Attorneyððs€Office.€€It€is€upon€these€facts€thatÏappellant€contends€the€entire€office€of€the€District€Attorney€should€have€beenÏdisqualified€from€the€prosecution.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€appellantððs€disqualification€motion€duringÏwhich€the€appellant€and€Nickell€testified.€€That€testimony€revealed€that€the€appellantÏtalked€with€Nickell€on€two€occasions.€€He€discussed€all€aspects€of€his€case€withÏNickell€in€preparation€for€the€preliminary€hearing.€€He€further€asserted€he€would€onlyÏhave€disclosed€such€information€in€confidence€to€his€attorney.Ìà àNickell€testified€that€he€met€with€appellant€and€represented€him€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing.€€He€informed€the€trial€court€that€he€had€not€participated€in€theÏprosecution€of€appellant€or€divulged€any€information€regarding€appellant€to€anyoneÏin€the€District€Attorneyððs€office.€€In€fact,€he€had€never€discussed€appellantððs€case€inÍthat€office.€€Additionally,€Nickell€explained€that,€upon€beginning€employment€in€theÏDistrict€Attorneyððs€office,€District€Attorney€Bottoms€instructed€him€not€to€have€anyÏcontact€with€the€prosecutors€on€any€case€in€which€the€Public€Defender€was€involved.€ÏHe€declared€that€he,€as€well€as€all€the€other€members€of€the€District€Attorneyððs€staff,Ïhad€scrupulously€followed€this€instruction.€€No€member€of€the€office€attempted€toÏspeak€to€him€about€appellantððs€case.€€Appellantððs€counsel€declined€to€questionÏNickell€at€this€hearing.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€there€was€no€proof€that€Nickell€had€participated€in€orÏhad€any€contact€in€any€way,€shape,€form€or€fashion,€with€appellantððs€case.€€Therefore,Ïhe€saw€no€reason€to€disqualify€the€entire€District€Attorneyððs€office.€Ìà àWhen€this€Court€reviews€a€decision€by€the€trial€court€on€disqualification€of€aÏdistrict€attorney,€we€may€not€reverse€the€decision€unless€we€find€that€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€has€occurred.€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€925€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€In€evaluating€whether€disqualification€is€necessary,€three€considerations€areÏrelevant.€€òòId.óó€€First,€we€must€consider€whether€the€circumstances€establish€an€actualÏconflict€of€interest;€if€so,€there€must€be€disqualification.€€If€no€actual€conflict€isÏdiscovered,€we€must€determine€whether€there€is€an€appearance€of€improprietyÏwarranting€disqualification.€€Finally,€if€disqualification€is€required€under€either€theory,Ïwe€must€consider€whether€the€entire€staff€of€the€district€attorneyððs€office€must€beÍdisqualified.€€òòId.óó€€Applying€this€test€in€appellantððs€case,€we€find€that€it€wasÏunnecessary€to€disqualify€the€entire€District€Attorneyððs€office.€€Ìà àIt€is€patently€obvious€that€had€Nickell€been€involved€in€appellantððs€prosecution,Ïthere€would€have€been€an€actual€conflict€of€interest€requiring€his€disqualification.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòTateóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€552;€òòState€v.€Locustóó,€914€S.W.2d€554,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€672€S.W.2d€427Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€Robert€Westóó,€No.€01C01„9107„CC„00202€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€31,€1992).€€However,€appellant€did€not€make€such€aÏcontention.€€Rather,€he€asserted€that€Nickellððs€mere€presence€in€the€District€AttorneyððsÏoffice€while€in€possession€of€privileged,€confidential€information€pertaining€toÏappellant€warranted€disqualification€of€the€entire€office.€€We€disagree.€€Ìà àGenerally,€the€entire€office€of€the€district€attorney€need€not€be€disqualified€asÏlong€as€the€attorney€at€issue€does€not€disclose€confidences€or€otherwise€participateÏin€the€prosecution.€€òòTateóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€556€(citing€òòMattress€v.€Stateóó,€564€S.W.2dÏ678,€680€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)).€€In€the€absence€of€proof€to€the€contrary,€broadÏdisqualification€is€unnecessary€to€preserve€the€appearance€of€a€fair€trial€or€to€protectÏthe€appellantððs€rights.€€òòMattressóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€680.€€There€is€absolutely€no€proof€inÏappellantððs€case€that€Nickell€shared€any€information€with€the€prosecutor€for€the€caseÏor€that€he€participated€in€any€capacity€in€the€prosecution€of€appellant.€€The€trial€courtÍdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€appellantððs€motion€to€disqualify€the€entireÏDistrict€Attorneyððs€office.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Ìà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€evidence€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€elements€of€first€degree€murder.× ƒ, ××  ×€€When€an€accusedÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€inÏthe€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trierÏof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€òòJackson€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€required€to€afford€theÏState€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record,€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1979).Ìà àAll€murder€is€presumed€to€be€in€the€second€degree€and€the€State€bears€theÏburden€of€proving€that€the€killing€was€premeditated€and€deliberate.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.€1992).€€Statutorily,€premeditation€is€defined€as€an€actÍdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.€€It€requires€that€the€intent€to€kill€beÏformed€prior€to€the€act€itself,€although€it€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€of€time.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(d)€(Supp.€1996).€€In€a€similar€vein,€deliberation€requires€that€the€offense€beÏcommitted€with€cool€purpose,€free€of€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€€PremeditationÏand€deliberation€are€determinations€for€the€jury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€mannerÏand€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995)€(citation€omitted).€€The€proof€at€trialÏsupported€these€elements.Ìà àIn€evaluating€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€are€compelled€to€consider€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State.€€òòJacksonóó,€443€U.S.€at€319.€€TheÏStateððs€theory€of€the€case,€credited€by€the€juryððs€verdict,€was€that€appellant€formed€theÏintent€to€kill€when€he€lost€his€money€to€the€victims,€which€he€believed€was€a€result€ofÏtheir€cheating.€€This€proof€of€motive€is€relevant€to€an€inference€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222€(quoting€2€W.€LaFave€and€A.€Scott,€Jr.,ÏòòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð7.7€(1986)).€€The€Stateððs€theory€was€that€appellantÏdecided€to€murder€the€victims,€went€to€his€home,€changed€clothes€to€reduce€theÏlikelihood€of€detection,€procured€a€firearm€to€accomplish€the€task,€and€then€returnedÏto€the€game.€€Facts€about€what€the€appellant€did€before€the€killing€which€show€heÍwas€engaged€in€planning€activity€also€support€an€inference€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541€(recognizing€that€procuring€aÏweapon€to€commit€the€homicide€is€circumstantial€evidence€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation).€€Ìà àAlthough€no€quantifiable€time€is€necessary,€it€is€apparent€that€appellant€hadÏample€time€to€reflect€upon€the€intent€to€kill.€€At€least€twenty€minutes€passed€after€heÏobtained€the€gun€and€before€he€executed€the€plan.€€We€also€find€that€the€killing€wasÏcommitted€with€a€cool€purpose.€€Although€the€appellant€testified€that€he€and€McGillÏexchanged€heated€words,€none€of€the€eyewitnesses€testified€to€such€a€disagreement.€ÏTheir€testimony€reflected€that€appellant€acted€wholly€without€provocation.€€Moreover,Ïappellantððs€conduct€did€not€correlate€with€his€theory€of€self„defense,€thus€yieldingÏcredence€to€the€Stateððs€theory.€€While€we€cannot€infer€premeditation€and€deliberationÏfrom€appellantððs€concealment€of€the€weapon€after€the€shooting,€concealment€doesÏcontradict€the€appellantððs€theory€of€self„defense€by€illustrating€fear€of€detection.€€òòWestóó,Ï844€S.W.2d€at€151.€€Similarly,€appellantððs€efforts€to€leave€town€to€avoid€lawÏenforcement€officials€is€contrary€to€a€theory€of€self„defense.€€The€juryððs€guilty€verdictÏdiscredited€appellantððs€theory€and€demonstrates€the€ample€evidence€supporting€aÏfinding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).€Ìà àAppellantððs€next€issue€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€admissibility€ofÏhis€prior€convictions€for€impeachment€purposes.€€His€contention€is€two„fold.€€First,Ïappellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€applied€an€incorrect€standard€whenÏdetermining€their€admissibility.€€Alternatively,€he€argues€that€the€prior€convictionsÏwere€similar€to€the€crime€on€trial€and€for€that€reason€the€convictions€should€haveÏbeen€excluded.€€Although€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€incorrectly€apply€the€standardÏfor€admissibility,€it€was€not€error€to€admit€evidence€of€the€prior€convictions.Ìà àAt€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€to€determineÏwhether€appellantððs€prior€convictions€would€be€admissible€in€the€event€he€chose€toÏtestify.€€The€State€sought€to€introduce€proof€of€appellantððs€four€previous€convictionsÏfor€aggravated€robbery€and€two€previous€convictions€for€attempted€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€After€hearing€argument,€the€court€ruled:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€crime€on€trial€is€first€degree€murder€and€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder,€which€is€a€crime€of€extreme€violence.€€The€similarity€toÏthat,€in€the€Courtððs€opinion,€and€the€prior€convictions€that€are€listed€inÏthe€Stateððs€notice€is€the€extreme€act€of€violence;€that€is,€that€theÏaggravated€robbery€is€a€crime€of€violence,€and€suggests€violence,€soÏthat€similarity€would€be€sufficient.Ìà8 àà àÌà8 àà àThe€relevance.€€The€Court€should€analyze€the€relevance€that€theÏimpeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility,€and€I€thinkÏcertainly€any€crime€of€violence,€especially€aggravated€robbery€and/orÏhomicide,€would€certainly€go€to€a€personððs€credibility.Ìà8 àÌà8 àà àSo€for€those€reasons,€the€Court€is€going€to€allow€it.ÌÌÓÓFollowing€the€courtððs€ruling,€appellantððs€counsel€requested€that€the€court€provide€theÏjury€with€a€limiting€instruction,€which€it€did.Ìà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609€sets€forth€specific€procedures€to€be€followedÏbefore€prior€convictions€of€a€criminal€accused€may€be€admitted€into€evidence€forÏimpeachment€purposes.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€State€must€provide€the€accused€with€writtenÏnotice€of€the€impeaching€conviction(s).€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3).€€When€requested€toÏdo€so,€the€trial€court€must€determine€that€the€convictionsðð€probative€value€onÏcredibility€outweigh€their€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€òòId.óó€€ThisÏruling€must€be€given€prior€to€the€accusedððs€testimony.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,Ï841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ìà àIn€weighing€the€probative€value€of€prior€convictions€against€their€prejudicialÏeffect,€the€court€should€analyze€two€considerations:€(1)€the€similarity€between€theÏcrime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeaching€conviction;€and€(2)€theÏrelevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€on€the€issue€of€credibility.€€òòFarmeróó,€841ÏS.W.2d€at€839€(quoting€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð609.9€atÏ288€(2d.€ed.€1990)).€€Often,€the€similarity€between€the€prior€convictions€and€theÏoffense€on€trial€make€admissibility€more€prejudicial€than€probative€of€credibility.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€922,€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€greater€theÏsimilarity€between€the€crimes,€the€more€likely€the€prejudicial€effect,€i.e.€that€the€juryÏwould€consider€the€convictions€on€issues€other€than€credibility.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€etÍal,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð609.9€at€376€(3d.€ed.€1995);€òòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€atÏ840.€€€€Ìà àWe€may€only€reverse€the€decision€of€the€trial€court,€however,€if€we€find€that€itÏabused€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€convictions.€€òòTuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€927.€€Here,€itÏis€apparent€from€the€courtððs€ruling€that€it€incorrectly€applied€the€proper€standard.€€TheÏtrial€court€erroneously€concluded€that€similarity€between€the€crimes€favoredÏadmissibility.€€Although€the€trial€judge€employed€an€incorrect€analysis,€heÏnevertheless€did€not€err€in€admitting€the€convictions.€€Ìà àComparing€the€crime€on€trial€here€to€the€impeaching€convictions,€we€find€thatÏthey€are€inherently€dissimilar.€€Appellant€was€being€tried€for€first€degree€murder€andÏattempted€first€degree€murder.€€The€impeaching€convictions€all€involved€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€Apart€from€the€violence€present€in€both,€the€elements€of€these€crimes€areÏquite€different.€€Ìà àOf€far€more€substantial€significance€is€the€probative€value€the€convictions€haveÏon€the€defendantððs€credibility.€€Courts€frequently€admit€the€impeaching€convictionÏwhen€it€is€particularly€probative€of€credibility,€even€if€it€is€identical€to€the€crime€beingÏtried.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€692€S.W.2d€32,€37€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(admittingÏrobbery€conviction€for€impeachment€in€trial€for€armed€robbery);€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€684ÏS.W.2d€650,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(admitting€armed€robbery€conviction€asÏimpeachment€in€trial€on€armed€robbery€charge);€òòState€v.€Fluellenóó,€626€S.W.2d€299,Í300€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(permitting€armed€robbery€conviction€to€be€used€forÏimpeachment€in€trial€for€armed€robbery);€òòState€v.€Bobby€Bakeróó,€No.€02C01„9511„CC„00347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€January€27,€1997)€(admitting€burglary€and€theftÏconvictions€for€impeachment€in€trial€for€aggravated€burglary);€òòState€v.€Mario€A.ÏLavender€and€Eric€L.€Hobbsóó,€No.€01C01„9506„CR„00202€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏNashville,€November€8,€1996)€(admitting€prior€robbery,€burglary€and€theft€convictionÏas€impeachment€in€trial€for€robbery€and€theft);€òòState€v.€Larry€Van€Davisóó,€No.€01C01„9111„CC„00348€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€23,€1992)€(upholding€theÏadmission€of€six€prior€burglary€convictions€in€a€trial€for€burglary€and€theft).€ÏAppellantððs€argument€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€similarity€between€the€priorÏconvictions€and€evidence€that€appellant€robbed€McGill€during€commission€of€thisÏoffense× ƒ. ××  ×€is€without€merit.× ƒ/ ××  ×Ìà àHere,€all€of€appellantððs€prior€convictions€were€highly€probative€of€credibility.€ÏEach€one€involved€robbery€which€implicates€the€critical€element€of€dishonesty.€€òòStateÍv.€Caruthersóó,€676€S.W.2d€935,€941€(Tenn.€1984),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€469€U.S.€1197,€105ÏS.Ct.€981,€83€L.Ed.2d€982€(1985)€(citations€omitted);€òòGoadóó,€692€S.W.2d€at€37.€€As€aÏtestifying€witness€who€contradicted€much€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€his€credibility€wasÏcrucial.€€The€strong€probative€value€of€these€convictions€outweighs€any€prejudicialÏeffect.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòCaruthersóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€941€(holding€that€admission€of€defendantððsÏprevious€armed€robbery€conviction€was€proper€in€trial€for€first€degree€murder).€€TheÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€convictions,€albeit€the€result€ofÏan€incorrect€analysis.Ìà àAppellantððs€final€issue€challenges€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences.€ÏAppellant€contends€that€the€statutory€factors€found€by€the€trial€court€were€notÏsupported€by€the€evidence.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ìà àIn€its€ruling,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€three€statutory€factors€in€concluding€thatÏthe€sixty€(60)€year€sentence€should€run€consecutive€to€the€juryððs€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment.€€The€trial€court€found€that€(1)€the€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal;Ï(3)€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person;€and€(4)€the€defendant€isÏa€dangerous€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„115(b)€(1990).Ìà àWhen€we€review€an€order€of€consecutive€sentencing,€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€review€apply.€€When€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€weÍmust€conduct€a€de€novo€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€uponÏthe€appealing€party.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.€€This€presumption,€however,€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showingÏin€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ìà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€beÏfollowed€in€sentencing.€€This€section€mandates€the€courtððs€consideration€of€theÏfollowing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencingÏand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€andÏinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210€(Supp.€1996).Ìà àAppellant€disputes€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€appellant€was€a€professionalÏcriminal€because€there€was€no€finding€that€his€criminal€acts€were€ð ða€major€source€ofÏlivelihood.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„115(b)(1)€(1990).€€Although€notÏspecifically€stated€by€the€trial€court,€the€record€supports€such€a€finding.€€Four€ofÏappellantððs€prior€convictions€were€for€aggravated€robberies€in€which€he€took€variousÍsums€of€money.€€In€at€least€one€of€the€robberies,€appellant€took€over€$1000.€ÏAlthough€appellant€was€employed€at€the€time€the€instant€offenses€were€committed,Ïthe€presentence€report€reflects€that€appellantððs€employment€history€was€sporadic.€€ItÏreflected€only€brief€periods€of€work€for€three€other€employers.€€The€record€reflects€noÏother€source€of€income.€€This€leads€to€a€reasonable€inference€that€appellant€used€hisÏcriminal€activity€as€a€ð ðmajor€source€of€livelihood.ðð€€This€factor€is€appropriate.Ìà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€is€a€dangerousÏmentally€abnormal€person.€€Such€a€finding€requires€proof€that€appellant€has€been€soÏdeclared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€as€the€result€of€an€investigation€ordered€prior€toÏsentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„115(b)(3)€(1990).€€Appellant€asserts€that€noÏsuch€information€was€before€the€court€and€the€factor€was€inappropriately€considered.€ÏWe€agree.€€Without€the€specific€proof€required€by€the€statute,€this€factor€may€not€beÏapplied.€€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ìà àAppellant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€him€as€a€dangerousÏoffender.€€As€required€by€the€statute,€the€court€found€that€appellant€had€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€that€he€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€whereÏthe€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„115(b)(4)€(1990).€€TheÏcircumstances€of€his€prior€offenses,€as€well€as€those€of€the€instant€offenses,€justifyÏthese€findings.€€However,€appellant€faults€this€classification€because€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€make€additional€findings€in€accordance€with€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2dÍ933€(Tenn.€1995).€€Although€òòWilkersonóó€had€not€been€decided€at€the€time€ofÏappellantððs€sentencing,€we€find€that€the€òòWilkersonóó€factors€are€present€in€appellantððsÏcase.Ìà àBefore€a€court€may€find€a€defendant€to€be€a€dangerous€offender€in€accordanceÏwith€the€statutory€definition,€it€must€also€be€demonstrated€that€an€extended€sentenceÏis€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendantÏand€that€the€consecutive€sentences€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted.€€òòIdóó€at€938„39.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€appellant€was€twenty„one€years€of€age.€ÏHe€had€been€convicted€of€six€felonies.€€Each€robbery€was€perpetrated€at€aÏconvenience€store€or€fast€food€restaurant€in€which€the€appellant€used€a€firearm€toÏthreaten€employees.€€Such€severe€and€violent€criminal€acts€committed€repetitiouslyÏso€early€in€adulthood€demonstrate€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protectÏthe€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€this€appellant.€€Additionally,€the€sentencesÏreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.€€Not€only€did€appellant€fatally€woundÏMcGill€with€his€first€gunshot,€he€continued€to€fire€at€McGill€as€he€ran€away,€hittingÏMcGill€twice€in€the€back.€€His€other€victim€was€also€severely€wounded.€€After€failing€toÏend€Jonesðð€life€with€the€first€shot,€he€again€shot€Jones€in€the€back€of€the€head€as€heÏlay€on€the€ground.€€Appellantððs€cruelty€and€cold„blooded€brutality€demonstrated€byÏthese€offenses€indicate€that€the€sentences€are€reasonable.€€Ìà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àUpon€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€error€requiring€reversal.€ÏAppellantððs€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge