ÿWPCÚ ?# ‚UN %Û 0(á4  0ˆ,b´¼wÄ 0DÚ 0DÆb 0@( AOh 0D· 0Jû 0TE 0^™U@÷ 0h7 0rŸ B 0|. D3ª 0†Ý D/c 0’ B" 1u? U,´ 0dà U,D U>p U *® B)Ø DC AMDý‘¡ŽZ/v~‰vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¨vÙ @ d3|x(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- Ó€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô**'÷ÿ dxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd "#%') ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd8Cþÿ << Gÿÿ óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ€6ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔó óÌò òÔ€6¼ÔAugust€2,€1996ó óÔ€6XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€!Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€!ÂÔÔ€6ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€!XÔ —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ôÔThe€appellant€was€also€charged€with€attempted€felony€murder.€€However,€the€trial€judgeÏdeclared€a€mistrial€as€to€this€count€when€the€jury€could€not€reach€a€unanimous€verdict.Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ôÔThe€trial€judge€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€testimony€regarding€aÏprevious€incident€involving€the€victim€and€appellant.€€The€judge€ruled€that€the€prejudiceÏoutweighed€the€probative€value€of€the€testimony.€€He€instructed€counsel€that€the€only€permissibleÏmention€of€the€incident€would€be€that€the€two€had€had›€trouble€previously.€€œ›€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÓ&€44X„d&ÓÑ#€44Xd#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€6ԛр ÑÑ7€«XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñœò òIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ÙÓ  ÓœßL€9:8;+'h|÷þâ `€€Lß›ÌÓ  ÓAT€JACKSONÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓMAY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9601„CC„00008€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Dyer€County€€ÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€Joe€G.€Riley,€Judge€€€€€Ìò òà àó óà à)ò òÌREIKO€NOLEN,€€€€€€€ó óà à)€(Especially€Aggravated€Robbery)€à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌCharles€S.€Kelly€€€€€€€€à àCharles€W.€BursonÌ802€Troy€Avenue€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌDyersburg,€TN€€€38025Ì€€€(On€Appeal)à àRobin€L.€Harris€Ìà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌG.€Stephen€Davisà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌP.O.€Box€742à àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌDyersburg,€TN€€€38025„0742Ì€€€€(At€Trial)à àC.€Phillip€BivensÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àDyer€County€Courthouse€€€€€€€€Ìà àDyersburg,€TN€€€38024ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€R.€SUMMERS,ó óÌSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌà àÌÌÓ ` °§XÓÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Reiko€Nolen,€was€convicted€of€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery× ƒ; ××  ×€and€received€a€twenty„year€œsentence.›€œ€In›€this€appeal€he€claims€that:ÓÓÌÌÌà0 àà0 à1.à0 àHe€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,ÌÌà0 àà0 à2.à0 àThe€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€for€a€mistrialÏwhen€the€victim€made€reference€to€the€appellantððs€priorÏcriminal€history,ÌÌà0 àà0 à3.à0 àHis€sentence€is€excessive,€andÌÌà0 àà0 à4.à0 àThe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict.ÌÌÌÓÓFollowing€our€review,€we€affirm€the€convictions€and€sentences.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€trial€revealed€that€on€or€about€September€17,€1994,€theÏvictim€and€two€of€his€friends€were€parked€in€the€œð ðprojectsðð›€area€of€Dyersburg,ÍTennessee.€€A€blue€Chevrolet€with€tinted€windows€pulled€beside€them.€€TheÏvictim€said€he€could€not€see€who€occupied€the€Chevrolet.€€However,€he€knewÏthe€car€belonged€to€a€man€they€called€ð ðDark€Wing.ðð€€The€victim€moved€hisÏvehicle€to€another€area.ÌÌà àThe€victim€went€to€the€apartment€of€a€woman€he€had€met€earlier€but€sheÏwas€not€at€home.€€When€he€proceeded€towards€the€home€of€his€friend,€AnthonyÏScott,€he€saw€the€blue€Chevrolet€driving€up€the€street.€€The€passengers€in€theÏvehicle€rolled€their€windows€down€as€the€vehicle€rolled€slowly€by.€€The€victimÏsaid€the€first€person€he€saw€in€the€vehicle€was€the€appellant,€who€was€sitting€inÏthe€back€seat.€€The€appellant€said€to€the€victim,€ð ðI€got€[sic]€you€now.ðð€€BecauseÏthe€victim€œhad€had›€problems€with€the€appellant€in€the€past,€he€becameÏfrightened€and€ran.€€As€the€victim€ran,€he€heard€a€gunshot€and€œfell›€to€the€ground.€ÏœHe›€œsaid€he€felt€as€if€he€had€broken€his€leg€and€could›€not€move€his€lower€body.ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€he€saw€the€appellant€leaning€down€with€a€gun.€ÏThe€other€occupants€stole€the€victimððs€beeper€and€$35.00.€€They€unsuccessfullyÏtried€to€steal€the€victimððs€tennis€shoes.€€The€perpetrators€sped€away€when€theyÏheard€someone€approach.ÌÌà àDeshawn€œCurry›€was€in€the€area€and€heard€the€shooting.€€Curry€explainedÏthat€when€he€heard€someone€yelling,€he€called€911.€€He€also€heard€tiresÏœsquealing€and€saw€the€victim€through€his›œ›€œbinoculars.›œ›€ÌÌà àœOfficer›€Chuck€Barrineau€responded€to€the€call€and€found€the€victim€with€aÏgunshot€wound€in€his€lower€back.€€œThe›€victim€œidentified›€the€appellant€as€the€manÏwho€had€shot€him.€€œThe›€victim€was€flown€to€Memphis€where€he€was€hospitalizedÏfor€three€weeks.€€The€bullet€could€not€be€removed.€€œThe€victim›€underwentÏextensive€physical€therapy€to€learn€to€walk€again.€€œHe›€also€lost€control€of€hisÏbladder.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€denied€that€he€was€insideÏthe€vehicle€belonging€to€Dark€Wing€or€that€he€shot€the€victim.€€Instead,€heÏargued€that€he€had€checked€into€a€hotel€near€the€time€of€the€œincident.€€TheÏappellant€offered€the€testimony€of€his€mother€and€his€motherððs€boyfriend.€€BothÏessentially€said€that€the€appellant€seemed€surprise€when€they€told€him€theÏpolice€were€looking€for€him€as€a€suspect€in€the€shooting.€€The€appellant€alsoÏintroduced€the€receipt€from€Budget€Motel€where€he€claims€he€stayed€on€theÏnight€in€question.€€›ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€insists€that€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€when€defense€counsel€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€testimony€ofÍappellantððs€previous€criminal€conduct.œ× ƒ< ××  ×›€€In€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ï668€(1984),€the€Supreme€Court€established€a€two„prong€analysis€when€anÏappellant€claims€that€counsel's€assistance€was€so€defective€so€as€to€require€aÏreversal.€€First,€the€appellant€must€show€that€counsel's€performance€wasÏdeficient€and€second,€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€him€to€the€pointÏthat€(s)he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€687.€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€appropriate€test€forÏdetermining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€isÏwhether€his€or€her€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÏof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ï1975).€€Ì€Ìà àThe€appellantððs€claim€centers€around€a€response€he€gave€to€defenseÏcounselððs€question.€€As€his€last€question€on€direct€examination,€counsel€askedÏthe€appellant€if€he€had€ever€had€a€problem€with€the€victim.€€The€appellantÏunequivocally€answered,€ð ðno.ðð€€A€bench€conference€ensued€from€which€the€trialÏjudge€determined€that€the€state€would€be€permitted€to€delve€into€this€subjectÏbecause€the€appellant€ð ðopened€the€door.ððÌÌà àThe€district€attorney€questioned€the€appellant€about€an€incident€whichÏhad€occurred€some€two€weeks€earlier.€€The€appellant€described€the€event€as€anÏattempted€drug€sale€to€the€victim€involving€$200.€€He€said€that€before€the€saleÏwas€consummated,€the€police€arrived€and€he€left€with€the€victimððs€money.€ÏHowever,€he€denied€that€he€robbed€the€victim€or€that€he€used€a€gun.€€OnÏrebuttal,€the€state€elicited€testimony€from€the€victim€regarding€the€incident.€€TheÏvictim€said€the€appellant€tried€to€sell€him€dope€but€he€told€the€appellant€he€didÏnot€ð ðfool€with€drugs€anymore.ðð€€According€to€the€victim,€the€appellant€retrieved€aÏsawed„off€shotgun€from€his€vehicle€and€took€the€$200.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€counselððs€question€constituted€a€deficientÏperformance€which€œprejudiced›€œhim.›€€We€disagree.€€To€prove€the€first€prong€ofÏthe€òòStricklandóó€test,€the€appellant€must€prove€that€counsel's€representation€fellÏbelow€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòIdóó.€at€688.€€This€evaluationÏmust€be€accompanied€by€a€strong€presumption€in€the€reviewing€court€thatÏcounsel's€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€acceptable€professionalÏassistance.€€òòIdóó.€at€689.€€In€this€instance,€the€presumption€has€not€beenÏovercome.€€Counselððs€question€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€deficientÏperformance.ÌÌà àEven€assuming€the€representation€was€deficient€in€any€way,€theÏappellant€Ìhas€similarly€failed€to€meet€the€second€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test.€€In€thisÏprong,€the€appellant€must€prove€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€showing€there€was€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€errors,€the€result€of€theÏproceedings€would€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó.€at€694.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€agreed€that€the€door€had€been€opened€and€permittedÏinquiry€into€the€alleged€earlier€robbery.€€However,€when€the€questioning€began,Ïthe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€the€question€would€relate€only€to€credibilityÏand€not€to€the€appellantððs€propensity€to€commit€the€crime€for€which€he€wasÏcharged.€€The€trial€judge€mitigated€any€prejudicial€effect€with€his€limitingÏinstruction€and€we€must€presume€the€jury€complied€with€it.€€òòFrazier€v.€Stateóó,€566ÏS.W.2d€545,€551€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€Furthermore,€based€on€the€strengthÏof€the€evidence,€the€result€would€œnot€have€been€different.›€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€under€œeither€the›€òòStricklandóó€œor›ÏòòBaxteróó€standards.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Motion€for€Mistrialó óÌà àSecondly,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€declaredÏa€mistrial€following€the€victimððs€reference€to€a€ð ðdrug€bustðð€involving€theÏappellant.€€The€prosecutor€was€establishing€the€victimððs€prior€knowledge€of€theÏvehicle€driven€by€Dark€Wing€when€he€asked,€ð ðYou€knew€that€car€...€[i]t€had€beenÍimpounded€once€before€by€the€Dyersburg€Police€Department,€hadnððt€it.ðð€€TheÏvictim€responded,€ð ðYes€sir,€ððcause€Reiko€Nolen€got€busted€with€drugs€in€it.ððÌÌà àDefense€counsel€objected€and€moved€for€a€mistrial.€€The€trial€judgeÏdenied€the€motion€but€gave€the€following€limiting€instruction:€ð ðDisregard€the€lastÏstatement€of€the€witness€...€itððs€non„responsive€...€[and]€itððs€œirrelevant.ðð€€In€aÏcriminal€case,€a€mistrial€will€be€declared€only€if€there€is€a€ð ðmanifest€necessityððÏrequiring€such€action.€€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,€794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1977).€€The€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1987).€€TheÏappellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€the€existence€of€a€ð ðmanifest€necessity.ðð€ÏòòArnoldóó,€563€S.W.2d€at€794.€€Here,€he€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden.ÌÌà àThe€brief€answer€given€by€the€victim€does€not€constitute€a€ð ðmanifestÏnecessity.ðð€€The€trial€judgeððs€immediate€curative€instruction€likely€curtailed€anyÏprejudicial€effect€the€statement€may€have€had.›€€Again,€we€must€presume€the€juryÏfollowed€the€courtððs€instruction.€€òòFrazieróó,€566€S.W.2d€at€œ551.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€reference€to€the€ð ðdrug€bustðð€is€clearly€dissimilar€to€theÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€charge€for€which€he€was€being€tried.€€TheÏstrength€of€the€proof€likely€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect€the€statement€mayÍhave€had.€€Any€error€would€have€been€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€is€meritless.›ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Excessive€Sentenceó óÌà àThe€appellantððs€third€complaint€is€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€OurÏreview€of€the€trial€courtððs€sentence€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€of€the€trial€judge€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€TheÏpresumptive€sentence€shall€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€if€noÏenhancement€or€mitigating€factors€exist.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„210›œ(c)›Ï(1990).€€When€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€exist,€the€trial€judge€mustÏstart€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€withinÏthe€range€as€appropriate.€€The€trial€judge€will€then€reduce€the€sentence€withinÏthe€range€as€appropriate€in€light€of€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„210(d)€&€(e)€(1990).ÌÌà àAs€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€judge€found€that:€œ€the›€appellant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€behavior€or€criminal€convictions;€the€appellant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€release€into€theÏcommunity;€and€the€appellant€was€on€bail€when€the€offenses€were€committed.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114(1),€(8)€&€(13)€(1990).€€In€mitigation€the€trial€judgeÏfound€that€the€appellant,€because€of€his€youth,€lacked€substantial€judgment€inÏcommitting€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6)€(1990).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€enhancement€factor€one€should€not€have€beenÏconsidered€because€his€three€prior€convictions€were€misdemeanors.€€WeÏdisagree.€€Factor€one€simply€requires€a€finding€that€the€appellant€has€a€historyÏof€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior.€€The€record€supports€such€a€finding.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€makes€one€other€general€challenge€to€the€weight€andÏconsideration€given€to€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€As€a€Range€IÏoffender,€the€appellant€faced€a€sentence€ranging€from€fifteen€to€twenty„fiveÏyears.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„403€(1991)€&€40„35„112(a)(1)€(1990).€€In€lightÏof€the€three€enhancement€factors€and€one€mitigating€factor,€the€mid„rangeÏsentence€was€entirely€proper.€€œThe›€weight€given€enhancement€or€mitigatingÏfactors€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727ÏS.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986).€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€œThe›€appellantÏhas€failed€to€overcome€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌà àThough€œworded›€in€various€ways,€the€appellantððs€final€issue€is€simply€a€Ïchallenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€In€a€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏchallenge,€the€relevant€question€on€appellate€review€is€whether,€after€viewingÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€aÍreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,Ï698€S.W.2d€63€(Tenn.€1985);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€aÏcriminal€trial.€€A€jury€verdict€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€state's€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405Ï(Tenn.€1983).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€replaces€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏenjoyed€at€trial€with€the€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€theÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòIdóó.€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€beÏdrawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àEspecially€aggravated€robbery€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowingÏtheft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€inÏfear€...€[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€...€and€...€[w]here€the€victim€suffersÏserious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„401(a)€&€„403(a)(1)€&€(2)Ï(1991).€€The€testimony€indicated€that€the€victim€was€shot€in€the€lower€back€with€aÏhandgun.€€While€the€victim€was€lying€on€the€ground,€he€was€robbed€of€cash€andÏa€beeper.€€Further€proof€revealed€that€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.€ÏAlthough€the€appellant€may€argue€that€he€did€not€œactively€participate›€in€theÏrobbery,€he€was€still€criminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€his€cohorts,€whichÍthe€trial€judge€so€charged.€€Without€question,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€verdict.€€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€R.€SUMMERS,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge