ÿWPCÏ {ëo4uP`AFIF±ø §0!¦ˆ¼5¨ÍsWAçÆsíѹ$žî2Œcehßtm_6&œK ÂUX¯K4|bUpb!UC÷ÜÉÔP*¿t"¨Ù=Ñ*Ìî*²E1©/î0Rè©´bú×…ÿ –>ÒÓË£ #™‚i&ÎXY£ —|0³÷5r~ ˆá})T`–nøZ ©CÀ?»}ð¯NÍÊIë>£^9_‚òZ¹/þœì0‹Å*}‡ô¾ÆNÓäð.;KùìkêÁöß8öì5/?ˆ}7c˜P"¯Aò²Ç ™&Î/4âŽËâ^"ˆ`Ù5Û›Æ ·Ï{mNcywÍJôÐÔºÙ´WŸ`÷ v£9/…>ÄÙàÅnQ= =#ë‚ ƒ0mRñ«‡e§·§—Ï6›VQþ×ú7±@6‰"Ô¢Y†!Yê|›Îôç@ÃA]VEÓã{ÅC[²&Šø®So¾Nwhàd&éëâs<·sYîæ†l€Ø›‡pÙÌíäh=méÈ$¿Àãe(— V5r‚¾íÆ!=% ư˜‚tÏTêR­úW¸n¥1ÑRå:Þ#ªN¿t [­GeÞ}+ŠëHÝO .h3@=ªb=ÁÝ ïÂÐl`U.@ %nbtUxxxÍn­ÝŠ 0(’ U:º wô 4ø  0™& 0D¿ U: ¿= ^ ü ¨ ’° NBfDª#!¬ mÍfä JJJJJJ BPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP 0Lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm AQ¹Æ  0DÐ 0D 0DXX D3œ<þ6X9`(CourierX ù KÝ ƒ[¯#"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XŒXXXÔÔ€©eXXŒÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XŒX©eÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€22,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô3|x«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial RegulartpO't PTOSHA(I(2ä$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XŒXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular µÑ8€8ÄXXdðXXdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[ì AØ'Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑGtV'  žÝ ƒ $$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÆXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòLynnóó€originated€in€the€same€trial€court. Ï4 ' Tom Kulaga0Tom Kulaga .    \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\јHP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑH d>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 àZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯#$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý(3¯#$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XŒXXXÔÑ€Ñò òÑ€*`ÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:üÿ`  `€€@ÿEÄa ` 8ttxPü` ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@˜ ˜ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ `  ÐÌ€à@FF'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ 8 Ø ÐÌà@CC%àJULY€1999€SESSIONó óˆÐ  ° ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€à À àà  àó ó)Ð ®N Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ š:  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9711„CC„00545Ð €  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àWarren€Countyà x àÐ Lì  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òGARY€THOMAS€MOORE,à À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€Charles€D.€Haston,€Judge€ò òÐ ¸  Ðà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ¤  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óAppellantà h àò òà À àà  àó ó)à p à(Aggravated€Assault,€RecklessÐ êŠ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àEndangerment)ò òÐ Ðp Ðà ` àà ¸ àó ó.ò òà  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)à p àÐ ¶V Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð Nî ÐKEITH€S.€SMARTTà  àà h àà À àó óà  àà p àò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ :Ú ÐAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ &Æ Ð107€College€Street€ÌMcMinnville,€TN€€37110à h àà À àà  àà p àò òKIM€R.€HELPERó óÐ ò ’ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óà  àà p à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÐ Ä"d Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  àà p à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ð ª#J Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òWILLIAM€M.€LOCKEó óÐ \&ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òTHOMAS€J.€MINERó óÐ )´# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  àà p àProfessional€BuildingÐ æ*†!% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMcMinnville,€TN€€37110ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ 2¶(- ÐÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ  î3Ž*/ ÐÑ*`Ñâ âÑ8€NuXXdädÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[ì AØ'Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÓ'X‚X¸ ˜Xÿÿ°œX'ÓÑ8€ Æ XXdæXXdä8ÑÑ€†ÑÑ€† ÑÑ  Ñà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÓÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Gary€Thomas€Moore,€appeals€from€his€Warren€CountyÐ  ² Ðconviction€and€from€the€resulting€sentence€by€the€trial€court.€€A€jury€convicted€theÐ Þ ~ Ðdefendant€of€aggravated€assault€with€a€weapon,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€two€countsÐ ªJ Ðof€reckless€endangerment,€a€Class€E€felony.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trialÐ v  Ðcourt€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€five€years€confinement€for€the€assaultÐ Bâ  Ðconviction€and€one€year€of€confinement€in€each€of€the€reckless€endangermentÐ ®  Ðconvictions,€to€be€served€concurrently€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€Ð Úz  ÐIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)à  àwhether€the€statutoryÐ ¦F Ðviolations€of€the€jury€selection€procedures€violated€the€defendantððs€due€processÐ r Ðrights€and€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€administration€of€justice;€and€Ô& ˜ Ô(2)€whether€theÐ >Þ Ðtrial€court€improperly€sentenced€the€defendant.€€Ô'˜>“ÔAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€theÐ  ª Ðbriefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm.Ð Öv ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€November€22,€1995,€at€around€3:00Ð n# Ða.m.,€two€police€officers€arrived€at€the€defendantððs€home€in€an€isolated€area€ofÐ :%Ú ÐWarren€County.€€The€officers€went€there€to€serve€an€arrest€warrant€against€theÐ '¦! Ðdefendant€because,€earlier€that€the€evening,€he€had€vandalized€his€wifeððs€cousinððsÐ Ò(r# Ðcar.€€The€defendant€was€drunk€and€thought€that€the€police€officers€were€his€wifeððsÐ ž*>!% Ðcousin€and€friends€coming€to€beat€him€up.€€Shots€were€fired.€€The€defendant€hit€theÐ j, #' Ðofficerððs€car€with€one€shotgun€blast€and€the€officers€shot€at€the€defendant,€hittingÐ 6.Ö$) Ðhim€twice.€€The€defendant€had€one€bullet€wound€to€the€neck€and€another€to€the€rightÐ 0¢&+ Ðarm,€near€the€wrist.€€The€defendant€was€angry€and€belligerent.€€He€had€to€beÐ Î1n(- Ðhandcuffed€after€he€backhanded€the€paramedic€tending€him.Ð š3:*/ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€attempted€second€degree€murder,Ð 27Ò-3 Ðaggravated€assault€with€a€weapon,€and€two€counts€of€reckless€endangerment.€€AfterÐ þ8ž/5 Ða€jury€trial,€he€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€with€a€weapon€and€two€countsÐ `  Ðof€reckless€endangerment.€€The€defendant€received€an€effective€sentence€of€fiveÐ , Ì Ðyears€confinement.Ð ø ˜ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Jury€Selection€Processó óÐ 0 ÐÓ4Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€questions€the€validity€of€the€jury€selection€process.€€HeÐ \ü  Ðclaims€that€the€failure€to€follow€statutory€procedures€denied€him€a€fair€trial€and€wasÐ (È  Ðprejudicial€to€the€administration€of€justice.€€We€disagree.€The€statutory€violations,Ð ô”  Ðwhile€unnecessary,€were€not€flagrant€and€unreasonable€to€the€extent€that€theÐ À` Ðadministration€of€justice€was€prejudiced.Ð Œ, ÐÌà ¸ àOne€of€the€jury€commissioners€in€the€case€at€bar€had€her€1984€oathÐ $Ä Ðbut€not€her€appointment€spread€upon€the€minutes€of€the€court.€€The€other€twoÐ ð Ðcommissioners€did€not€have€either€their€appointments€or€oaths€spread€upon€theÐ ¼ \ Ðminutes,€although€each€had€taken€the€oath.€€None€of€the€commissioners€had€theirÐ ˆ"( Ðreappointments€spread€upon€the€minutes.€€The€clerk€of€the€board€of€juryÐ T$ô Ðcommissioners€had€not€taken€an€oath€and€neither€her€appointment€nor€oath€wasÐ  &À  Ðspread€upon€the€minutes.€€The€trial€court€caused€a€òònunc€pro€tuncóó€order€appointingÐ ì'Œ" Ðthe€commissioners€to€be€spread€in€the€minutes,€along€with€their€oaths.Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€alleged€in€his€motion€to€quash€the€indictment€and€theÐ P-ð#( Ðjury€venire€that€the€names€on€the€venire€list€for€one€six„month€period€were€weightedÐ /¼%* Ðin€favor€of€the€residents€of€McMinnville,€and€almost€all€the€names€were€of€registeredÐ è0ˆ', Ðvoters.€€The€commissioners€drew€the€venire€from€the€jury€box€while€the€clerk€wasÐ ´2T). Ðnot€present.€€Ð €4 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àThe€clerk€of€the€jury€commissioners€did€not€ð ðpostðð€the€jury€list€but€keptÐ 8¸.4 Ðthe€list€on€a€shelf,€which€required€the€public€to€ask€to€see€it.€€Also,€the€list€was€notÐ ä9„06 Ðcompiled€until€after€the€term€of€court€began€because€the€list€was€based€on€the€jurorsÐ `  Ðwho€actually€appeared€for€jury€duty.Ð , Ì ÐÌà ¸ àIn€Tennessee,€a€board€of€jury€commissioners€is€appointed€by€theÐ Äd Ðcircuit€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„201(a)€(1997).€€The€commissioners,€withÐ 0 Ðthe€assistance€of€a€clerk,€compile€a€list€of€persons€suitable€for€serving€on€a€jury.€€Ð \ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð22„2„201(1997)€(establishment€of€board€of€jury€commissioners),Ð (È  Є204€(clerkððs€duties),€„302€(selection€of€names€for€jury€list).€€The€jury€list€names€mustÐ ô”  Ðbe€in€proportion€to€the€population€of€each€district€in€the€county,€and€the€voterÐ À` Ðregistration€records€cannot€be€the€sole€or€primary€source€of€names.€Tenn.€CodeÐ Œ, ÐAnn.€ðð€22„2„302(a)(1)€(1997).€€The€commissioners,€in€the€presence€of€the€clerk,Ð Xø Ðselect€a€venire€from€the€venire€list€by€drawing€names€from€the€jury€box.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ $Ä ÐAnn.€ðð€22„2„304€(1997)€(selection€of€names€for€jury€service).€€After€the€names€areÐ ð Ðselected,€the€clerk€provides€the€names€to€the€sheriff€so€that€the€venire€can€beÐ ¼ \ Ðsummoned€for€jury€duty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„305€(1997).€€The€clerk€is€requiredÐ ˆ"( Ðto€publish€the€jury€list€five€days€before€the€term€of€court.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„Ð T$ô Ð306€(1997)€(applies€to€all€counties€except€Davidson€and€Hamilton,€which€requireÐ  &À  Ðpublication€as€soon€as€the€panel€has€been€summoned€and€selected).€€The€list€isÐ ì'Œ" Ðpublished€by€posting€a€copy€in€the€clerkððs€office€for€public€inspection€and€by€makingÐ ¸)X $ Ðcopies€available€for€distribution.€€òòId.óóÐ „+$"& ÐÌà ¸ àThe€first€hurdle€which€the€defendant€must€clear€is€outlined€in€sectionÐ /¼%* Ð22„2„313,€which€requires€that€before€the€validity€of€any€verdict€can€be€questioned,Ð è0ˆ', Ðany€irregularities€in€jury€selection€must€be€specially€pointed€out€and€exceptionsÐ ´2T). Ðtaken€before€the€jury€is€sworn.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„313€(1997).€€The€defendantÐ €4 +0 Ðhas€met€this€initial€burden.€€He€raised€these€issues€after€the€jury€had€been€selectedÐ L6ì,2 Ðbut€before€it€had€been€sworn.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pat€Bondurantóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€„„„,€No.Ð 8¸.4 Ð01S01„9804„CC„00064,€slip€op.€at€9„10€(Tenn.€Sept.€7,€1999)€(because€theÐ ä9„06 Ðdefendant€objected€only€to€the€selection€of€the€special€venire,€he€waived€the€issuesÐ `  Ðregarding€selection€of€the€original€venire,€but€not€the€special€venire).Ð , Ì ÐÌò òA.€€Validity€of€the€Board€of€Jury€Commissionersðð€actionsó óÐ Äd Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€three€members€of€the€board€of€juryÐ 0 Ðcommissioners€had€not€been€properly€selected€and€impaneled€in€accordance€withÐ \ü  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„2„202.€€He€asserts€that€the€circuit€court€hadÐ (È  Ðnot€entered€any€orders€appointing€any€of€the€three€commissioners.€€He€also€assertsÐ ô”  Ðthat€none€of€the€board€members€had€subscribed€to€the€oath€of€office€as€required€byÐ À` Ðsection€22„2„203.€€Further,€he€asserts€that€neither€the€oaths€of€two€of€the€boardÐ Œ, Ðmembers€nor€€the€board€membersðð€reappointment€were€spread€upon€the€minutesÐ Xø Ðof€the€court€as€required€by€section€22„2„203.€€Finally,€the€defendant€asserts€that€theÐ $Ä Ðclerk€of€the€jury€commission€has€not€subscribed€her€oath€of€office€as€required€byÐ ð Ðsection€22„2„204.€€Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„2„203(a)€(1997)€€requires€thatÐ T$ô Ðbefore€performing€any€of€their€duties,€each€member€of€the€board€of€juryÐ  &À  Ðcommissioners€shall€take€the€prescribed€oath.€€Subsection€(b)€requires€that€theÐ ì'Œ" Ðappointment€and€oath€shall€be€spread€upon€the€minutes€of€the€court€during€the€nextÐ ¸)X $ Ðterm€of€court€after€the€appointment.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„203(b)€(1997).€€TheÐ „+$"& Ðclerk€of€the€circuit€court€is,€by€statute,€the€clerk€of€the€board€of€jury€commissioners.Ð P-ð#( ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„204(a)(1)€(1997).€€The€clerk€must€also€take€an€oath€beforeÐ /¼%* Ðacting€as€clerk€of€the€board.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„204(a)(2)€(1997).€Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àWe€have€previously€held€that€the€provision€for€spreading€the€oaths€ofÐ €4 +0 Ðjury€commissioners€on€the€minutes€is€directory€and€failure€to€enter€them,€if€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðcommissioners€are€otherwise€qualified,€does€not€invalidate€the€actions€of€a€grandÐ 8¸.4 Ðjury.€€òòBollin€v.€Stateóó,€486€S.W.2d€293,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€It€has€been€aÐ ä9„06 Ðlong„standing€rule€in€Tennessee€that€ð ðone€legally€appointed€to€an€office€withoutÐ `  Ðqualifying€by€taking€the€oath€or€otherwise€is€an€officer€and€his€official€acts€will€beÐ , Ì Ðvalid€as€to€the€public€and€all€third€persons.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòFarmers€and€Merchants€BankÐ ø ˜ Ðv.€Chesteróó,€25€Tenn.€458€(1846)).€€Ð Äd ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€remembered€swearing€in€theÐ \ü  Ðcommissioners,€but€the€clerk€testified€that€she€did€not€take€the€oath€when€she€tookÐ (È  Ðoffice€in€1994.€€When€these€matters€were€brought€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€courtÐ ô”  Ðduring€the€motion€hearing,€the€trial€court€initiated€corrective€action€by€requesting€theÐ À` Ðpreparation€of€òònunc€pro€tuncóó€orders€and€oaths.€Ð Œ, ÐÌà ¸ àBecause€the€offended€rules€were€directory€and€the€commissioners€andÐ $Ä Ðthe€clerk€were€otherwise€qualified,€the€actions€taken€by€the€board€of€juryÐ ð Ðcommissioners€were€valid€and€any€error€is€harmless.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌò òB.€€Venire€List€PreparationÐ T$ô Ðó óÌÓ  Óò ò(1)ó óÐ ì'Œ" ÐÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€venire€composition,€alleging€that€it€didÐ „+$"& Ðnot€represent€a€fair€cross-section€of€the€community€because€the€statutoryÐ P-ð#( Ðrequirements€were€not€met.€€Defendants€are€constitutionally€entitled€to€a€venireÐ /¼%* Ðwhich€represents€a€fair€cross-section€of€the€community.€€òòDuren€v.€Missourióó,€439€U.S.Ð è0ˆ', Ð357,€99€S.€Ct.€664€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192„3€(Tenn.€1992);Ð ´2T). ÐòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€246€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€745€S.W.2dÐ €4 +0 Ð858,€860€(Tenn.€1988).€€Ð L6ì,2 Ðâ âÐ 8¸.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€alleged€that€54€percent€of€the€venire€were€residents€Ð `  Ðâ âof€McMinnville€and€that€McMinnville€residents€comprised€only€35€percent€of€theÐ , Ì Ðcountyððs€population.€€These€òòallegations€óóaside,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€proofÐ ø ˜ Ðabout€the€percentage€of€Warren€countians€who€live€inside€the€City€of€McMinnville.€Ð Äd ÐAssuming€òòarguendoóó€that€non„city€dwellers€constitute€a€ð ðdistinctive€groupðð€forÐ 0 Ðpurposes€of€determining€unlawful€under„representation€that€results€from€systematicÐ \ü  Ðexclusion,€òò€seeóóòòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€246,€òòbutóó€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Nelsonóó,€603€S.W.2dÐ (È  Ð158,€161„63€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€the€record€nevertheless€establishes€no€basisÐ ô”  Ðfor€concluding€that€this€group€was€deficiently€represented.€€The€references€in€theÐ À` Ðrecord€to€the€population€of€McMinnville€as€opposed€to€the€rest€of€Warren€CountyÐ Œ, Ðand€to€the€make„up€of€the€venire€with€respect€to€residency€inside€the€city€consist€ofÐ Xø Ðunsworn€claims€in€the€defendantððs€motion€to€quash€the€venire€and€the€indictmentÐ $Ä Ðand€of€defense€counselððs€statements€during€argument€on€the€motions.€€Although€theÐ ð Ðstate€agreed€to€stipulate€to€the€facts€surrounding€the€terms€of€office€of€the€juryÐ ¼ \ Ðcommissioners,€it€specifically€declined€to€stipulate€the€population€figures€and€theÐ ˆ"( Ðresidency€breakdown.€€The€trial€court€did€not€take€judicial€notice€of€any€theseÐ T$ô Ðfigures,€nor€was€it€requested€to€do€so.€€During€the€hearings€on€the€defendantððsÐ  &À  Ðmotions,€most€of€the€partiesðð€and€the€courtððs€time€was€devoted€to€the€issue€ofÐ ì'Œ" Ðqualification€of€the€jury€commissioners.€€The€defendant€never€presented€evidenceÐ ¸)X $ Ðon€the€residency€breakdown€of€the€population€or€the€venire.€€Accordingly,€there€isÐ „+$"& Ðno€basis€for€concluding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€this€claim.€€Ð P-ð#( ÐÌÌò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÐ ´2T). ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€preparation€of€the€venire€listÐ L6ì,2 Ðbecause€the€jury€commission,€he€alleges,€violated€the€statute€by€using€the€voterÐ 8¸.4 Ðregistration€list€as€the€primary€source€for€deriving€the€venire.€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ä9„06 Ððð€22„2„302(a)(1)€(1997).€€He€alleges€that€91€percent€of€the€venire€were€registeredÐ `  Ðvoters.€€Although€the€state€apparently€acceded€to€this€percentage€figure€and€the€trialÐ , Ì Ðcourt€accepted€it€as€accurate,€the€defendant€failed€to€even€allege€the€percentageÐ ø ˜ Ðof€eligible€jurors€in€the€county€who€were€registered€voters,€and€he€offered€no€proofÐ Äd Ðwhich€would€have€demonstrated€that€registered€voters€appearing€in€the€venire€at€91Ð 0 Ðpercent€equates€to€using€the€voter€registration€list€as€a€primary€source€for€derivingÐ \ü  Ðjuries.€€Accordingly,€the€record€sets€forth€no€basis€for€concluding€that€the€trial€courtÐ (È  Ðerroneously€rejected€this€claim.Ð ô”  ÐÌà ¸ àWe€find€no€merit€in€the€defendantððs€challenges€to€the€preparation€ofÐ Œ, Ðthe€venire€list.€Ð Xø Ðò òÌC.€€Venire€Selection€and€Publicationó óÐ ð Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€statutory€procedures€contained€inÐ ¼ \ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„2„302(c)(1)€were€not€followed€in€choosingÐ ˆ"( Ðthe€jury€venire€from€the€jury€box.€€He€asserts€€that€the€board€of€jury€commissionersÐ T$ô Ðsubstantially€deviated€from€the€statute€when€they€opened€the€jury€box€without€beingÐ  &À  Ðduly€appointed.€€Also,€he€asserts€that€substantial€deviations€occurred€when€theÐ ì'Œ" Ðvenire€was€selected€without€the€clerk€being€present€and€when€the€clerk€failed€toÐ ¸)X $ Ðproperly€post€or€make€public€the€jury€lists.€€The€defendant€argues€that€these€wereÐ „+$"& Ðunjustifiable€deviations€from€the€statutory€procedures.€Ð P-ð#( ÐÌà ¸ àGenerally,€before€a€criminal€defendant€may€successfully€challenge€anÐ è0ˆ', Ðindictment€or€venire€because€of€improper€jury€selection€procedures,€he€must€showÐ ´2T). Ðthat€he€was€prejudiced€or€that€the€improper€procedures€resulted€from€purposefulÐ €4 +0 Ðdiscrimination€or€fraud.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993);Ð L6ì,2 ÐòòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€822€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€€P.Ð 8¸.4 Ð52(a).€€However,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€ð ðproof€of€actual€prejudice€is€notÐ ä9„06 Ðц Ñâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñrequired€in€circumstances€.€.€.€when€the€deviation€is€flagrant,€unreasonable,€andÐ `  Ðunnecessary.ðð€€òòState€v.€Lynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€892,€898€(Tenn.€1996).€€òòSeeóóòòalsoóó€òòPatÐ , Ì ÐBondurantóó,€„„„S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€11„14.€€Ð ø ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àBoth€òòLynnóó€and€òòPatóó€òòBondurantóó€involved€deviations€in€the€procedure€forÐ 0 Ðselecting€special€venires.€€In€òòLynnóó,€the€clerk€procured€a€special€venire€list€byÐ \ü  Ðopening€the€jury€box,€not€in€open€court,€but€in€her€office,€and€withdrawing€the€namesÐ (È  Ðoutside€the€presence€of€the€judge.€€Neither€party€was€notified€that€a€new€venire€wasÐ ô”  Ðbeing€drawn.€€The€òòLynnóó€court€determined€that,€unlike€the€ð ðinsignificant€departure[s]Ð À` Ðfrom€technical€statutory€requirementsðð€that€were€featured€in€prior€cases,€theÐ Œ, Ðdeviations€in€òòLynnóó€were€ð ðcomplete,ðð€a€situation€ð ðin€which€the€established€statutoryÐ Xø Ðprocedures€for€the€selection€of€a€jury€were€totally€disregarded.ðð€€òòLynnóó,€924€S.W.2dÐ $Ä Ðat€895.€€The€high€court€found€that€the€failure€to€publish€the€new€special€venire€ð ðcast[]Ð ð Ða€further€pall€upon€the€integrity€of€the€jury€selection€process€in€light€of€the€trialÐ ¼ \ Ðjudgeððs€determination€that€the€first€venire€was€tainted€[by€jury€tampering].ðð€òòIdóó.€at€898.Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòPatóó€òòBondurantóó,€the€trial€judge€asked€the€clerk€to€prepare€a€specialÐ  &À  Ðvenire.€€Apparently,€one€or€more€deputy€clerks€drew€the€names€for€the€specialÐ ì'Œ" Ðvenire€from€the€jury€box€outside€the€courtroom€and€the€presence€of€the€trial€judge.€Ð ¸)X $ ÐDeputy€clerks€then€proceeded€to€look€up€telephone€numbers€for€the€names€drawnÐ „+$"& Ðand€to€call€the€persons€to€instruct€them€to€appear€for€jury€service.€€The€supremeÐ P-ð#( Ðcourt€applied€òòLynnóó€and€determined€that€the€òòPatóó€òòBondurantóó€trial€court€ð ðsubstantially,Ð /¼%* Ðflagrantly,€and€unnecessarily€deviated€from€the€statutory€procedures.ðð€€òòPatóóÐ è0ˆ', ÐòòBondurantóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€11„12.Ð ´2T). ÐÌà ¸ àIn€both€òòLynnóó€and€òòPatóó€òòBondurantóó,€because€the€deviations€wereÐ L6ì,2 Ðsubstantial,€flagrant€and€unnecessary,€they€were€an€affront€to€the€judicial€processÐ 8¸.4 Ðand€resulted€in€reversals€even€though€no€specific€prejudice€had€been€shown.Ð ä9„06 ЇÓ  Óò ò(1)ó óÐ `  ÐÌÓ  Óà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€asserts€that€because€the€commissionersÐ ø ˜ Ðwere€not€properly€appointed€and€sworn,€their€actions€were€unauthorized.€€However,Ð Äd Ðas€discussed€previously,€although€the€appointment€of€the€commissioners€and€clerkÐ 0 Ðwas€procedurally€defective,€their€official€actions€were€not€invalid.€€Thus,€the€mereÐ \ü  Ðfact€that€irregularities€occurred€in€the€process€of€qualifying€and€certifying€juryÐ (È  Ðcommissioners€does€not€impugn€the€venire€selection€process.Ð ô”  ÐÌÌÌò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÐ $Ä ÐÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àNext,€we€consider€the€defendantððs€complaints€about€operationalÐ ¼ \ Ðdeviations€in€selecting€the€venire.€€These€are€the€absence€of€the€clerk€during€theÐ ˆ"( Ðcommissionersðð€draw€of€names€from€the€jury€box€and€the€failure€to€timely€andÐ T$ô Ðproperly€post€the€jury€list.Ð  &À  ÐÌà ¸ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„2„304(a)(1)€provides€thatÐ ¸)X $ Ðwhen€the€jury€commission€undertakes€to€select€names€for€jury€service,€it€ð ðcause[s]Ð „+$"& Ðto€be€drawn€[from€the€jury€box]€in€the€presence€of€the€board€and€the€clerk,€by€a€childÐ P-ð#( Ðunder€ten€(10)€years€of€age€or€by€a€person€who€is€securely€blindfolded,€the€numberÐ /¼%* Ðor€names€which€the€trial€judge€has€directed€for€a€regular€panel€of€grand€and€petitÐ è0ˆ', Ðjurors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„304(a)(1)€(1997).Ð ´2T). Ðà ¸ àò òÌó óà ¸ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„2„306(b)€(1997)€requires€thatÐ L6ì,2 Ðfive€days€before€the€term€of€court,€a€true€copy€of€the€regular€jury€panel€list€shall€beÐ 8¸.4 Ðpublished.€€ð ðA€copy€of€such€jury€panel€list€òòshall€be€posted€in€the€clerkððs€officeóó€forÐ ä9„06 Ðpublic€inspection.ðð€€òòId.óó€€(emphasis€added).€Additionally,€the€clerk€shall€makeÐ `  Ðavailable€copies€of€the€jury€panel€list€for€general€distribution.€€òòId.óó€€The€purpose€of€theÐ , Ì Ðstatutory€list€is€ð ðto€provide€notice€to€the€public€that€a€venire€has€been€selected.€€ItÐ ø ˜ Ðpromotes€confidence€in€the€judicial€process€by€subjecting€the€process€to€publicÐ Äd Ðscrutiny.€€Public€disclosure€provides€scrutiny€which€further€secures€that€proper€jurorÐ 0 Ðselection€methods€will€be€used.ðð€€òòLynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€896„97.Ð \ü  ÐÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€consider€the€clerkððs€testimony€about€the€selection€of€namesÐ ô”  Ðfrom€the€jury€box.€€As€clerk€of€the€jury€commission,€she€attended€the€opening€of€theÐ À` Ðbox,€and€thinking€the€law€required€her€absence€during€the€drawing,€she€left€theÐ Œ, Ðroom€during€the€commissionersðð€drawing€of€names,€despite€€the€statutory€mandateÐ Xø Ðthat€the€names€be€drawn€ð ðin€the€presence€of€the€board€and€the€clerk.ðð€€The€clerkððsÐ $Ä Ðpractice€of€leaving€the€room€during€the€drawing€is€a€potentially€serious€deviation.€Ð ð ÐShe€explained€that€two€blindfolds€were€provided€so€that€two€blindfoldedÐ ¼ \ Ðcommissioners€may€draw€names€during€her€absence.€€If€only€two€commissionersÐ ˆ"( Ðwere€present€and€both€of€€them€were€blindfolded,€there€would€be€no€one€to€witnessÐ T$ô Ðthe€drawing€to€attest€that€all€of€the€names€were€drawn€by€someone€who€remainedÐ  &À  Ðblindfolded.€€However,€the€record€does€not€establish€that€this€circumstance€everÐ ì'Œ" Ðoccurred.€€Based€upon€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€clerkððs€absenceÐ ¸)X $ Ðfrom€the€drawing,€although€a€deviation€from€prescribed€procedure,€was€the€resultÐ „+$"& Ðof€a€good€faith€effort€to€comply€with€the€law€and€is€not€so€flagrant€as€to€excuse€theÐ P-ð#( Ðdefendant€from€showing€prejudice.€€Because€he€has€shown€no€prejudice,€he€hasÐ /¼%* Ðfailed€to€establish€his€claim.Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àNext,€we€consider€the€clerkððs€method€of€ð ðpostingðð€the€jury€list.€€Ð €4 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àThe€clerk€failed€to€post€the€list€prior€to€the€five„day€period€before€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðcommencement€of€the€court€term.€€The€clerk€testified€that€the€period€of€time€allowedÐ ä9„06 Ðц Ñâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñby€statute€from€the€drawing€of€names€to€the€deadline€for€posting€„„€a€fifteen€dayÐ `  Ðperiod,€at€most€„„€was€insufficient€time€to€allow€for€the€name„drawing,€preparationÐ , Ì Ðof€the€sheriffððs€list,€and€the€execution€and€return€of€summons.€€Ð ø ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€list€to€be€posted€is€the€list€of€names€who€have€been€selected€òòandÐ 0 Ðsummonedóó,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„306(a)€(1997)€(explaining€that€(forÐ \ü  ÐDavidson€and€Hamilton€Counties)€the€posting€occurs€ð ðimmediately€upon€the€drawingÐ (È  Ðof€the€jury€list€òòand€as€soon€as€the€jury€panel€has€been€summonedóóðð)€(emphasisÐ ô”  Ðadded),€but€Code€section€22„2„306(b)€requires€the€posted€jury€panel€list€to€beÐ À` Ðamended€ð ðas€new€names€are€added.ðð€€This€provision€contemplates€the€adding€ofÐ Œ, Ðnames€as€more€people€from€the€original€list€are€summoned.€€The€clear€implicationÐ Xø Ðis€that€the€clerk€is€expected€to€post€the€list€of€selected€and€summoned€jurors€priorÐ $Ä Ðto€the€five„day€deadline€and€to€amend€the€list€by€adding€newly€summoned€jurors,Ð ð Ðrather€than€waiting€beyond€the€deadline€to€post€the€names€of€jurors€who€show€upÐ ¼ \ Ðat€court.Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¸ àAlthough€code€section€22„2„306(b)€does€not€explain€what€ð ðpost[ing]Ð  &À  Ðin€the€clerkððs€officeðð€means,€it€has€been€interpreted€to€mean€ð ðnotice€to€the€public€thatÐ ì'Œ" Ða€venire€has€been€selected.ðð€€òòLynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€896„97.€€The€clerk€placed€theÐ ¸)X $ Ðcopies€of€the€list€on€a€shelf€adjacent€to€the€public€counter€at€the€front€of€the€clerkððsÐ „+$"& Ðoffice.€€Although€the€clerk€intended€that€the€list€would€be€accessible€to€the€public,Ð P-ð#( Ðit€was€not€ð ðpostedðð€as€required€and€was€not€placed€on€the€shelf€before€the€five„dayÐ /¼%* Ðdeadline.€€Therefore,€the€practice€deviates€from€the€command€of€the€statute.Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àWe€conclude,€however,€that€this€deviation,€though€unnecessary,€is€notÐ €4 +0 Ðflagrant.€€It€does€not€approach€the€degree€of€deviation€described€by€the€supremeÐ L6ì,2 Ðcourt€in€òòLynnóó€or€òòPatóó€òòBondurantóó,€even€when€we€consider€the€combined€deviationsÐ 8¸.4 Ðcumulatively.€€Certainly,€there€has€been€no€total€disregard€of€the€prescribedÐ ä9„06 Ðprocedures.€€Consequently,€the€defendant€is€not€excused€from€establishingÐ `  Ðprejudice,€and€having€failed€to€establish€it,€his€claims€of€a€due€process€violation€dueÐ , Ì Ðto€the€manner€of€selecting€the€venire€must€fail.Ð ø ˜ Ðà ¸ àà  à€€€Ð Äd Ðà ¸ àWe€take€this€opportunity€to€encourage€the€trial€court€to€investigate€theÐ 0 Ðjury€selection€process€as€permitted€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„2„Ð \ü  Ð310€and€take€appropriate€corrective€action.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€We€find€that€the€violations,€althoughÐ (È  Ðnot€rising€to€the€level€of€being€prejudicial€to€justice,€are€unnecessary€and€should€beÐ ô”  Ðimmediately€corrected.Ð À` ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Sentencingó óÐ Xø ÐÓsÓà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€andÐ $Ä Ðalso€asserts€that€he€should€have€received€an€alternative€sentence.€€The€defendantÐ ð Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€the€enhancing€factor€of€prior€criminalÐ ¼ \ Ðhistory€involving€misdemeanors€committed€more€than€twelve€years€before€trial.€€HeÐ ˆ"( Ðalso€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€give€serious€consideration€to€the€mitigatingÐ T$ô Ðfactors.€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€enhancing€factorsÐ  &À  Ðand€found€three.€€The€state€conceded€that€one€of€the€enhancing€factors,€that€thereÐ ì'Œ" Ðwas€more€than€one€victim€involved,€should€not€have€been€considered€because€thereÐ ¸)X $ Ðwere€separate€convictions€for€each€victim.€€The€state€argues€that€the€sentence€wasÐ „+$"& Ðproper€because€two€valid€enhancing€factors€remained€and€no€mitigating€factorsÐ P-ð#( Ðwere€found.€€Finally,€the€state€claims€that€the€issue€of€alternative€sentencing€isÐ /¼%* Ðwaived€because€the€defendant€failed€to€include€the€courtððs€sentencing€ð ðorderðð€in€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðrecord.Ð ´2T). Ðâ âÐ €4 +0 Ðà ¸ àWe€address€the€stateððs€last€claim€first.€€The€state€claims€that€theÐ `  Ðâ ârecord€is€not€complete€and€is€missing€the€courtððs€sentencing€order.€€An€appellateÐ , Ì Ðcourt€is€precluded€from€considering€an€issue€when€portions€of€the€record€uponÐ ø ˜ Ðwhich€the€party€relies€are€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855Ð Äd ÐS.W.2d€557,€560„61€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€record€on€appeal€containsÐ 0 Ðthe€transcripts€and€exhibits€of€the€sentencing€hearings,€including€the€trial€courtððs€oral€Ð \ü  Ðruling.€€The€record€also€contains€the€judgment€forms,€signed€by€the€trial€court,Ð (È  Ðsetting€out€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences.€€The€state€fails€to€point€outÐ ô”  Ðwhat€information€a€sentencing€order€contained€in€addition€to€that€already€in€theÐ À` Ðrecord€on€appeal.€€The€trial€court€made€a€very€detailed€record€regardingÐ Œ, Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€during€the€hearings.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÐ Xø Ðcourt€did€not€create€an€order€and€that€any€reference€to€a€sentencing€ruling€was€aÐ $Ä Ðreference€to€the€trial€courtððs€oral€ruling€or€declaration€of€sentence,€which€appears€inÐ ð Ðthe€record€as€a€part€of€the€transcript.€€Thus,€we€turn€to€the€sentencing€issues.Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÐ T$ô Ðof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€recordÐ  &À  Ðwith€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Ð ì'Œ" ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(1997).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÐ ¸)X $ Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ „+$"& Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ P-ð#( Ð166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€"The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€isÐ /¼%* Ðupon€the€appellant."€€òòId.óó€€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€requiredÐ è0ˆ', Ðconsideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€de€novo.€€òòId.óó€€IfÐ ´2T). Ðappellate€review€reflects€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€andÐ €4 +0 Ðits€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€court€must€affirm€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðsentence,€"even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result."€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð 8¸.4 Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€€Ð ä9„06 Їà ¸ àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÐ `  Ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€thenÐ , Ì Ðdetermines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€byÐ ø ˜ Ðconsidering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,Ð Äd Ð(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÐ 0 Ðsentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÐ \ü  Ðinvolved,€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancementÐ (È  Ðand€mitigating€factors,€(6)€any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€theÐ ô”  Ðdefendant's€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÐ À` Ðtreatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(a),€(b)€(1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Œ, Ððð40-35-103(5)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð Xø ÐÌà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€an€enhancementÐ ð Ðfactor.€€Additionally,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€trial€court€€consideredÐ ¼ \ Ðalternative€sentencing€for€the€defendant.€€Accordingly,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€and€theÐ ˆ"( Ðtrial€courtððs€determination€is€not€accompanied€by€the€presumption€of€correctness.Ð T$ô ÐÌò òÓ  Ó(1)ó óÐ ì'Œ" ÐÌÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(3).€€Tenn.€CodeÐ „+$"& ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1997)€(previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ P-ð#( Ðbehavior)€and€(3)€(the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim).€€The€trial€court€alsoÐ /¼%* Ðused€as€an€enhancement€factor€that€the€victims€were€police€officers€performing€anÐ è0ˆ', Ðofficial€duty.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(d)€(1997)€(revised€in€1998€toÐ ´2T). Ðinclude€probation€officers€and€parole€officers).€€The€defendant€does€not€contest€theÐ €4 +0 Ðapplication€of€this€third€enhancement€factor.€€The€trial€court€considered€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðmitigating€factors€put€forth€by€the€defendant€and€found€that€none€applied.Ð 8¸.4 ÐÐ ä9„06 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancementÐ `  Ðfactor€(1)€and€argues€that€it€should€have€been€given€little€weight€or€not€consideredÐ , Ì Ðat€all.€€The€presentence€report€was€made€an€exhibit€to€the€sentence€hearing€andÐ ø ˜ Ðreflects€that€the€defendantððs€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior€consisted€ofÐ Äd Ðmisdemeanors€committed€more€than€twelve€years€before€the€incident€here.€€HisÐ 0 Ðhistory€included€a€traffic€offense€which€was€dismissed€in€1987,€a€DUI€conviction€inÐ \ü  Ð1984,€a€DUI€conviction€in€1979,€possession€of€marijuana€and€a€weapon€with€theÐ (È  Ðintent€to€go€armed€in€1979,€causing€a€public€disturbance€in€1977,€and€recklessÐ ô”  Ðdriving€in€1975€when€he€was€nineteen€years€old.€€The€record€supports€theÐ À` Ðenhancement€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Œ, Ðsection€40„35„114(1).€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€this€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóóÐ Xø ÐòòState€v.€Hallóó,€No.€03C01„9712„CR„00534€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€30,Ð $Ä Ð1999)€(previous€convictions€that€were€not€numerous€and€were€for€comparativelyÐ ð Ðless€serious€offenses€were€given€moderate€weight).Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€state€properly€concedes€that€enhancement€factor€(3)€does€notÐ T$ô Ðapply€to€the€defendant€because€he€was€convicted€of€separate€offenses€against€eachÐ  &À  Ðvictim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€TheÐ ì'Œ" Ðtrial€court€improperly€applied€this€enhancement€factor.Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€mitigating€factors€(2),€(3),€(8),€and€(11)Ð P-ð#( Ðshould€apply.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2)€(1997)€(defendant€acted€underÐ /¼%* Ðstrong€provocation);€(3)€(substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðconduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense);€(8)€(suffering€from€mental€or€physicalÐ ´2T). Ðcondition€that€significantly€reduced€the€culpability€for€the€offense€but€that€does€not€Ð €4 +0 Ðresult€from€the€voluntary€use€of€intoxicants);€(11)€(the€offense€was€committed€underÐ L6ì,2 Ðâ âsuch€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðlaw€motivated€the€conduct).€€The€trial€court€considered€each€of€these€mitigatingÐ `  Ðfactors€and€found€none€to€apply.€€Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€no€strong€provocation€to€support€mitigating€factorÐ Äd Ð(2).€€The€defendant€claims€that€his€actions€were€motivated€by€his€extreme€reactionÐ 0 Ðto€finding€out€that€his€wife€was€buying€crack€cocaine€and€possibly€having€an€illicitÐ \ü  Ðaffair.€€However,€the€defendant€discovered€this€several€hours€before€hisÐ (È  Ðconfrontation€with€the€police€at€his€home.€€Any€provocation€inciting€the€defendantÐ ô”  Ðto€act€should€have€dissipated€by€the€time€of€the€incident.€€Accordingly,€we€agreeÐ À` Ðwith€the€trial€court€that€mitigating€factor€(2)€was€not€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Garneróó,Ð Œ, ÐNo.€02C01„9508„CR„00223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€19,€1997)Ð Xø Ð(provocation€to€support€mitigating€factor€(2)€not€found€when€victim€had€threatenedÐ $Ä Ðto€kill€the€defendant€and€the€defendant€had€thought€that€the€victim€was€reaching€forÐ ð Ða€gun€at€the€time€of€the€shooting).Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ¸ àWe€disagree€with€the€defendant€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€Ð T$ô Ðmitigating€factor€(3),€that€although€failing€to€establish€a€defense,€substantial€groundsÐ  &À  Ðexisted€that€tended€to€excuse€or€justify€his€criminal€conduct.€€The€defendant€becameÐ ì'Œ" Ðenraged€when€he€found€out€that€his€wifeððs€cousin€was€selling€crack€cocaine€to€hisÐ ¸)X $ Ðwife€and€that€his€wife€was€having€an€affair€with€either€her€cousin€or€another.€€TheÐ „+$"& Ðdefendant€took€his€rage€out€on€the€cousinððs€car.€€He€went€to€visit€his€mother€beforeÐ P-ð#( Ðgoing€home.€€The€defendant€testified€that,€after€3:00€a.m.,€he€was€confronted€at€hisÐ /¼%* Ðhome€by€two€men€whom€he€mistakenly€thought€were€his€wifeððs€cousin€and€anotherÐ è0ˆ', Ðcoming€to€pay€him€back€for€damaging€the€car.€€The€police€officers€were€backlit€byÐ ´2T). Ðtheir€headlights,€which€were€shining€on€the€defendant,€and€the€officers€did€notÐ €4 +0 Ðilluminate€their€blue€emergency€lights.€€However,€the€officersðð€testimony€at€trialÐ L6ì,2 Ðshowed€that€they€identified€themselves€as€officers€and€talked€with€the€defendantÐ 8¸.4 Ðabout€the€warrant€before€the€defendant€fired€the€shotgun€at€them.€€The€trial€courtÐ ä9„06 Ðspecifically€found€that€it€accredited€the€officersðð€testimony€and€discredited€theÐ `  Ðdefendantððs€testimony.€€We€defer€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€about€credibilityÐ , Ì Ðof€witnesses.€€Given€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€which€are€supported€in€the€record,Ð ø ˜ Ðthere€is€no€basis€for€concluding€that€substantial€grounds€existed€that€tend€to€excuseÐ Äd Ðthe€criminal€conduct€because€the€defendant€feared€he€was€about€to€be€assaultedÐ 0 Ðby€vengeful€in„laws.€€There€was€no€error€in€declining€to€apply€mitigating€factor€(3).Ð \ü  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€mitigating€factor€(8)€applied€because€heÐ ô”  Ðwas€taking€medication€at€the€time€and€had€a€history€of€problems€due€to€theÐ À` Ðmedication.€€Evidence€was€presented€that€the€defendant€suffered€serious€sideÐ Œ, Ðeffects€from€medication.€€However,€he€offered€no€evidence€that,€at€the€time€of€theÐ Xø Ðincident,€his€mental€or€physical€condition€significantly€reduced€his€culpability.€€HeÐ $Ä Ðwas€drunk,€but€mitigating€factor€(8)€specifically€excludes€the€effects€due€to€voluntaryÐ ð Ðintoxication.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€mitigating€factor€(8)€does€not€apply.€Ð ¼ \ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hoskinsóó,€No.€01C01„9805„CC„00233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.Ð ˆ"( Ð29,€1999)€(rejecting€application€of€mitigating€factor€(8)€for€lack€of€proof).Ð T$ô ÐÌà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€appliedÐ ì'Œ" Ðmitigating€factor€(11),€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offense€under€such€unusualÐ ¸)X $ Ðcircumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivatedÐ „+$"& Ðhis€conduct.€€In€considering€this€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€court€stated€ð ðthat€is€simplyÐ P-ð#( Ðnot€the€case€here.€€This€man€fired€at€these€officers,€and€there€was€a€stand„off€thereÐ /¼%* Ðthat€lasted€„€I€thought€it€was€more€than€five€minutes.€.€.€.€The€defendant€did€not€actÐ è0ˆ', Ðunder€duress.ðð€€€Although€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€ð ðwas€so€drunk;€IÐ ´2T). Ðdonððt€believe€he€knew€exactly€what€took€place€out€there€that€night,ðð€the€court€foundÐ €4 +0 Ðthat€the€defendant€was€aware€that€the€visitors€were€peace€officers.€€In€fact,€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðâ âdefendant€in€his€trial€testimony€admitted€as€much,€but€he€denied€firing€at€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðofficers.€€In€short,€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€rejection€of€mitigating€factorÐ `  Ð(11).€Ð , Ì Ðâ âÌà ¸ àTaking€all€factors€into€account€òòde€novoóó,€the€five„year€aggravatedÐ Äd Ðassault€sentence€is€justified.€€The€reckless€endangerment€sentences€were€minimumÐ 0 Ðsentences.€€We€affirm€the€lengths€of€the€sentences€imposed.€€Ð \ü  ÐÌÌÌÌò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÐ Xø ÐÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àA€defendant€who€"is€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÐ ð Ðconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€forÐ ¼ \ Ðalternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary."€€Tenn.Ð ˆ"( ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6)€(1997).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€provides€that€ð ðconvictedÐ T$ô Ðfelons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminal€histories€evincingÐ  &À  Ða€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€pastÐ ì'Œ" Ðefforts€at€rehabilitation,€shall€be€given€first€priority€regarding€sentences€involvingÐ ¸)X $ Ðincarceration.ðð€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€Thus,€a€defendant€who€meets€criteria€of€section€40„Ð „+$"& Ð35„102(6)€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing€unless€sufficient€evidenceÐ P-ð#( Ðrebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€act€does€not€provide€that€all€offenders€whoÐ /¼%* Ðmeet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;€rather,€it€requires€that€sentencing€issuesÐ è0ˆ', Ðbe€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstances€presented€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ´2T). Ðv.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð €4 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€is€clearly€eligible€for€alternative€sentencing€in€general,Ð 8¸.4 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5),€(6)€(1997),€but,€having€committed€a€violentÐ ä9„06 Ðoffense,€he€not€eligible€for€placement€in€a€community€corrections€program.€€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(a)(2),€(3)€and€(4)€(1997).€€The€remaining€possibility€forÐ , Ì Ðalternative€sentencing€would€involve€some€form€of€probation.€€òòSeeóóòògenerallyóó€Tenn.Ð ø ˜ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104€(1997).€€The€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€as€anÐ Äd Ðalternative€to€confinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)€(1997).€€The€court€isÐ 0 Ðrequired€to€automatically€consider€probation€an€a€ð ðpart€of€the€sentencingÐ \ü  Ðdetermination€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð (È  Ð35„303(b)€(1997).€€Moreover,€the€defendant€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorableÐ ô”  Ðcandidate€for€alternative€sentencing,€but€the€presumption€of€suitability€forÐ À` Ðalternatives€to€confinement€may€be€overcome€by€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.Ð Œ, ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102(6);€„103(1)€(1997).€€The€burden€rests€with€the€defendantÐ Xø Ðto€show€that€he€should€be€placed€on€probation.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,Ð $Ä Ð455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð ð ÐÌà ¸ àOur€analysis€of€the€appropriateness€of€alternative€sentencing€includesÐ ˆ"( Ðconsideration€of€the€factors€enumerated€in€code€sections€40„35„210(b)€and€„103(5).€Ð T$ô ÐOne€of€these€considerations€is€the€ð ðnature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminalÐ  &À  Ðconduct€involved.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(4)€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ ì'Œ" Ðat€169.€€In€addition,€we€utilize€the€considerations€for€ordering€confinement€thatÐ ¸)X $ Ðappear€in€section€40„35„103(1).€€One€of€these€is€semantically€linked€to€the€natureÐ „+$"& Ðand€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€It€is€the€consideration€that€confinement€may€beÐ P-ð#( Ðordered€when€it€is€ð ðnecessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€Ð /¼%* ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B)€(1997).Ð è0ˆ', Ѐ€Ð ´2T). Ðà ¸ àThe€nexus€between€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€andÐ €4 +0 Ðsentencing€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€is€well€recognized.Ð L6ì,2 ÐòòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€nature€andÐ 8¸.4 Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€may€serve€as€the€òòsoleóó€basis€for€denying€probationÐ ä9„06 Ðwhen€the€acts€are€ð ðespecially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,€reprehensible,€offensiveÐ `  Ðor€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree;€and€it€would€have€to€be€clearÐ , Ì Ðthat,€therefore,€the€nature€of€the€offense,€as€committed,€outweighed€all€other€factors.Ð ø ˜ Ð.€.€€which€might€be€favorable€to€a€grant€of€probation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Travisóó,€622€S.W.2dÐ Äd Ð529,€534€(Tenn.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cleavoróó,€691€S.W.2d€541,€543€(Tenn.Ð 0 Ð1985).€€ð ðThis€standard€has€essentially€been€codified€in€the€first€part€of€T.C.A.Ð \ü  ÐSection€40„35„103(1)(B)€which€provides€for€confinement€if€it€is€necessary€to€avoidÐ (È  Ðdepreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòHartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€at€375.€€Thus,Ð ô”  Ðthe€òòTravisóó€qualifiers€exist€under€the€first€clause€of€section€40„35„103(1)(B)€to€assistÐ À` Ðthe€court€in€determining€when€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÐ Œ, Ðoffense€overcomes€the€presumption€of€suitability€for€alternative€sentencing.€Ð Xø ÐÌà ¸ àAlthough€the€trial€court€made€no€specific€reference€to€alternativeÐ ð Ðsentencing€in€general€or€probation€in€particular,€it€made€findings€which€implicitlyÐ ¼ \ Ðequate€to€a€conclusion€that€the€offense€was€especially€shocking,€reprehensible€andÐ ˆ"( Ðoffensive€and€that,€accordingly,€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÐ T$ô Ðseriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€court€said:Ð  &À  ÐÒ¸ ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓÓ  ÓThe€nature€of€the€crime€.€.€.€is€distressfully€disturbing,Ð ì'Œ" Ðthat€being€trying€to€kill€officers€who€were€out€thereÐ Ò(r# Ðtrying€to€do€their€jobs€.€.€.€.€Mr.€Moore,€this€isÐ ¸)X $ Ðespecially€.€.€.€heinous,€because€you€were€willing€.€.€.Ð ž*>!% Ðto€try€to€hold€off€these€fellows€who€were€there€trying€toÐ „+$"& Ðdo€their€job€.€.€.€.€€So,€you€are€sentenced€to€five€(5)Ð j, #' Ðyears€in€the€State€Penitentiary.Ð P-ð#( ÐÌÒ¸ ÒÒ°` ÒÓ  ÓÓÓThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€resulting€in€the€defendantððsÐ /¼%* Ðconfinement€in€a€penitentiary.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€sentences€of€confinementÐ è0ˆ', Ðimposed€by€the€trial€court.Ð ´2T). ÐÌà ¸ àFinding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð L6ì,2 Ðà ¸ àÌÐ ä9„06 ÐÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ð `  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ F æ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð ®  ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð Œ, ÐJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÔ% € ÔÐ r ÐÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð  ª ÐJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE