ÿWPCï# …UBV %˜U .žÌnXÜ 0 P4 4„ 0”˜ 0D, w.p ž ž 0J¤ 0Tî 0^B 0h  0r Bz 0|— 0† 0™ 1u)U,ž D3Ê 0dý 0@aU,¡U 6ÍB)DC, AMoC¼Hÿ­G½ôú±N«v~ùvÓw AOJ"Æ™" 0D_# D/£# BÒ#<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XO«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó÷}± (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<=>D?@AÓ€MHB2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J 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)< Œ 9p`(Modern$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d55557Border 1dd€-6Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ20,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔÔ€Ô"Evidence€of€a€conviction€under€this€rule€is€not€admissible€if€a€period€of€more€than€ten€years€hasÏelapsed€between€the€date€of€release€from€confinement€and€commencement€of€the€action€orÏprosecution;€if€the€witness€was€not€confined,€the€ten„year€period€is€measured€from€the€date€ofÏconviction€rather€than€release.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid›.€609(b).Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔÔ€ÔPrior€to€the€adoption€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b),€our€Supreme€Court€adopted€substantially€theÏsame€language€from€Fed.€R.€Evid.€609(b)€in€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385€(Tenn.€1976).Ì ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔÔ€ÔWe€also€note€that€the€State€did€not€include€this€conviction€in€its€notice€of€range€enhancementÏfiled€in€this€case.€€Thus,€the€State€failed€to€satisfy€the€notice€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„202(a).Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔÔ€ÔAlthough€not€a€part€of€the€record,€the€defendantððs€lawyer€(inappropriately)€attached€to€his€briefÏa€copy€of€the€judgment€which€was€finally€entered€on€this€offense.€€The€judgment€was€entered€onÏDecember€9,€1994:€long€after€the€commission€of€the€instant€offense.Ì DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ôÔÔ€ÔThe€defendant€also€admitted€at€trial€that€he€had€been€convicted€of€this€particular€offense.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÓ&€33X„d&ÓÑ#€33Xd#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€7ÓXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€786;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àFEBRUARY€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€œ03C01›„9502„CR„00049ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSEVIERÏCOUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏREX€HENRY€OGLE,ÌRONNIE€ROBERTS,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Aggravated€burglary;€theft)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òROGERÏœHOOBAN›à àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óP.O.€Box€1483à àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óKnoxville,€TN€€€37901ò òÌó ó€€€€€€(On€Appeal)à àà àò òà àà àà àœDARIAN›ÏB.€TAYLORó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌò òEDWARD€MILLERó óà àà àà àà àà à450ÏJames€Robertson€Pkwy.à àDistrict€PublicÍDefenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌò òSUSANNA€THOMASó óà àò òà àà àà àALFRED€C.€œSCHMUTZER›,€JR.ó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ102€œMims›€Ave.ÌNewport,€TN€€€37821à àò òà àà àà àG.€SCOTT€GREENó óÌ€€€€€€(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Ave.,€SuiteÏ301à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœSevierville›,€TN€€€37862ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;ÌSENTENCE€MODIFIEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ Ü Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€burglary€and€misdemeanorÏtheft.€€After€a€jury€trial,€he€was€convicted€of€both€offenses.€€At€his€sentencing€hearing,Ïhe€was€determined€to€be€a€persistent€offender€and€was€sentenced€to€fifteen€years€onÏthe€aggravated€burglary€conviction,€and€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€on€the€theftÏconviction,€with€the€sentences€to€run€consecutively.€€The€trial€court€also€orderedÏthese€sentences€to€run€consecutively€to€a€prior€sentence€on€a€conviction€in€KnoxÏCounty.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€now€appeals,€raising€the€following€five€issues:ÌÓÓà àà àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò1.€€The€State€failed€to€provide€exculpatory€evidence€in€violation€ofÏòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963);ÌÌ2.€€He€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial;ÌÌ3.€€The€prosecutor€made€improper€remarks€during€closingÏargument;ÌÌ4.€€The€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€give€a€requested€juryÏinstruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€burglary;ÏandÌÌ5.€€The€defendantððs€sentence€does€not€comport€with€theÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record€in€this€matter,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€convictions€butÏmodify€his€sentences€as€set€forth€below.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€early€evening€of€December€12,€1993,€James€Gilreath€receivedÏnotice€that€his€daughterððs€alarm€system€had€been€triggered.€€He€got€his€38€pistol€andÏdrove€over€to€her€house.€€Initially,€he€saw€no€one€present.€€He€then€walked€aroundÏone€side€of€the€house,€along€the€back€and€started€walking€up€the€other€side.€€At€thatÏpoint,€he€testified,€he€ð ðsaw€a€man€standing€there€at€the€window.ðð€€Gilreath€testifiedÏthat€the€man€ð ðmade€a€move€at€me€and€I€started€shooting.ðð€€The€man€was€theÏdefendant.€€Gilreath€shot€twice€at€the€defendant,€hitting€him€once€in€the€back.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€he€was€hit,€the€defendant€crawled€around€to€the€front€of€the€houseÏwhere€Gilreath€told€him€to€wait€until€the€police€arrived.€€Gilreath€testified€that€he€hadÏseen€his€daughterððs€typewriter€lying€on€the€ground€ð ðjust€outside€the€window.ðð€ÏGilreath€denied€that€he€had€been€in€the€house€before€the€police€arrived€and€statedÏthat€he€did€not€have€a€key€to€the€house€with€him€when€he€got€there.ÌÌà àà àDetective€John€David€Brown€testified€that€he€arrived€on€the€scene€atÏabout€6:30€p.m.€€At€that€time€he€found€Officer€Dana€McReynolds,€Gilreath€and€theÍdefendant.€€The€defendant€was€lying€in€the€front€yard€and,€according€to€OfficerÏBrown,€was€wearing€a€belt€with€a€knife€sheath€on€his€side€and€also€a€pair€of€grayÏwork€gloves.€€Officer€Brown€testified€that€the€knife€sheath€had€been€empty€and€heÏhad€not€found€the€knife€near€the€defendant.€€He€advised€the€defendant€of€hisÏconstitutional€rights€and€asked€him€what€he€was€doing€there.€€He€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€replied€that€he€had€been€drinking€with€some€friends€and€they€had€letÏhim€out€and€he€thought€he€was€at€home.€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Brown€then€proceeded€to€investigate€the€scene,€including€theÏinside€of€the€house,€taking€photographs€as€he€went.€€Introduced€into€evidence€at€trialÏwere€photographs€of€a€broken€window,€the€typewriter€lying€outside€the€window,€a€cutÏscreen€that€had€been€found€lying€on€the€ground€in€front€of€the€window,€a€knife€thatÏhad€been€found€inside€the€house€near€the€window,€a€ceramic€figurine€that€had€beenÏfound€broken€in€the€house€near€the€window,€and€the€work€gloves€that€the€officer€hadÏretrieved€from€the€front€yard.€€Officer€Brown€testified€that€there€had€been€broken€glassÏfound€both€inside€and€outside€of€the€window.€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Matthew€Cubberly,€who€had€been€sent€to€the€hospital€to€guardÏthe€defendant€while€he€was€there€after€having€been€shot,€testified€that€he€hadÏoverheard€the€defendant€telling€the€doctor€ð ðthat€him€and€two€of€his€friends€were€outÍriding€around€drinking€and€the€two€friends€dropped€him€off€and€.€.€.€€that€he€thoughtÏthat€it€was€his€house€when€he€broke€the€window.ðð€€Officer€Cubberly€also€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€had€indicated€that€he€wanted€to€tell€the€officer€what€had€happened,Ïthat€he€had€then€advised€the€defendant€of€his€constitutional€rights,€and€that€theÏdefendant€had€then€told€him€the€same€story€he€had€overheard€the€defendant€tellingÏthe€doctor.€€Officer€Cubberly€then€asked€the€defendant€if€he€knew€a€Kenneth€LoweryÏor€a€Donnie€Pittman,€and€the€defendant€denied€knowing€either€one€of€them.€€At€thatÏpoint€Officer€Cubberly€informed€the€defendant€that€both€of€these€persons€were€beingÏquestioned€about€the€burglary€and€shooting.€€Officer€Cubberly€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€then€told€him€that€Lowery€was€his€stepson€and€Pittman€was€a€friend€ofÏLoweryððs.€€€Officer€Cubberly€testified€that€the€defendant€went€on,€telling€him€ð ðthat€heÏbroke€into€the€house€to€see€if€he€could€find€some€gas€and€look€around€for€some€otherÏthings.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€riding€around€in€a€car€with€hisÏstepson€and€a€friend€of€his€stepsonððs€and€that€he€had€been€taking€Valium€andÏdrinking.€€He€and€the€other€occupants€of€the€car€were€arguing€so€he€told€them€to€letÏhim€out€and€he€would€find€his€own€way€home.€€He€testified€that€he€had€walked€up€toÏthe€house€at€issue€and€knocked€on€the€door,€hoping€to€use€the€phone.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€had€been€ð ðhitting€[the€door]€pretty€hardðð€and€that€the€burglar€alarm€had€goneÍoff€while€he€was€beating€on€the€door.€€No€one€answered€the€door,€so,€he€testified,€ð ðIÏwas€starting€around€the€side€of€the€building€and€Mr.€Gilreath€come€in€around€theÏback€side€of€the€house.ðð€€He€further€testified€that€ð ðHe€[Gilreath]€said€hold€it€right€thereÏor€Iððll€kill€you€and,€you€know,€I€didnððt€know€what€was€going€on€so€I€just€turned€to€run.ðð€ÏAt€that€point,€according€to€the€defendant,€Gilreath€shot€him.€€Subsequently,€heÏtestified,€ð ðWell,€I€was€laying€there,€you€know,€I€couldnððt€move€and€I€was€getting€realÏdizzy,€you€know,€I€was€about€to€go€out€of€it€and€I€seen€Mr.€Gilreath€walking€away,Ïback€towards€the€house.€€You€know,€I€didnððt€know€why€he€was€leaving€me€for,€youÏknow,€because€heððd€done€come€up€and€told€me€he€should€just€kill€me,€heððd€doneÏkicked€me€in€the€face,€said€I€ought€to€just€kill€you.€€And€he,€after€he€sees€Iððm€about€outÏof€it,€about€to€pass€out,€he€walks€away€around€the€side€of€the€house.€€I€donððt€knowÏwhat€he€does€or€anything€because€Iððm€œgoing›€out€of€it.ðð€€The€defendant€deniedÏbreaking€the€window€and€entering€the€house,€denied€taking€the€typewriter,€deniedÏbreaking€the€figurine,€and€denied€that€he€œhad€had›€any€gloves.€€He€did,€however,Ïadmit€to€ownership€of€the€knife€that€was€found€inside€the€house.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€first€issue€the€defendant€complains€that€the€State€failed€to€furnishÏhim€with€certain€police€reports€which€would€have€impeached€the€officerððs€andÏGilreathððs€credibility€and€supported€his€own.€€Accordingly,€he€claims,€the€StateÏviolated€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€and€he€is€therefore€entitled€to€a€newÍtrial.ÌÌà àà àUnder€òòBradyóó€the€State€must€furnish€to€the€defendant,€upon€request,Ïexculpatory€evidence€and€favorable€information€that€pertains€to€the€guilt€orÏinnocence€of€the€accused€and/or€the€punishment€which€may€be€imposed€if€theÏdefendant€is€convicted.€€Three€prerequisites€must€be€met€before€the€prosecution€isÏrequired€to€furnish€this€evidence€and/or€information:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒFirst,€the€evidence€must€be€material.€€Second,€the€evidence€mustÏbe€favorable€to€the€accused,€his€defense,€or€the€sentence€that€willÏbe€imposed€if€found€guilty.€€Third,€the€accused€must€make€aÏproper€request€for€the€production€of€the€evidence€unless€theÏevidence,€when€viewed€by€the€prosecution,€is€obviouslyÏexculpatory€in€nature€and€will€be€helpful€to€the€accused.ÌÌòòÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€ð ð[œt]he›Ïprosecution€is€not€required€to€disclose€information€that€the€accused€alreadyÏpossesses€or€is€able€to€obtain.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€233.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€the€defendant€complains€that€certain€reports€prepared€byÏthe€police€were€not€disclosed€to€him.€€Specifically,€as€he€states€in€his€brief,ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Òthe€[œS]tate›€violated€the€òòBradyóó€doctrine€in€refusing€to€disclose€theÏstatements€regarding€the€shooter,€James€Gilreath,€and€theÍstatements€of€the€two€officers€who€indicated€that€the€accused€wasÏnot€wearing€gloves€when€they€came€onto€the€scene.€€Of€course,Ïthese€statements€ran€counter€to€those€of€actual€witnesses€calledÏto€testify€by€the€[œS]tate›,€and€would€have€surely€been€exculpatoryÏto€the€defendant.ÌÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓà àà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€actual€document€which€the€defendant€claimsÏwas€undisclosed€to€him€is€described€in€the€defendantððs€ð ðAmended€Motion€for€a€NewÏTrialðð€as€ð ða€supplementary€report€to€the€offense€report,ðð€a€copy€of€which€was€attachedÏas€an€exhibit€to€the€defendantððs€amended€motion.€€This€exhibit€consists€of€whatÏappears€to€be€a€computer€printout,€and€it€includes€a€ð ðSupplementary€ReportððÏapparently€prepared€by€Officer€Brown€and€a€ð ðBrief€Narrativeðð€apparently€prepared€byÏOfficer€McReynolds.€€Officer€McReynolds€was€the€first€officer€on€the€scene;€OfficerÏBrown€was€the€second.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€unclear€from€the€record€whether€or€not€these€reports€were€actuallyÏprovided€to€and/or€made€available€to€the€defendant€prior€to€trial.€€However,€assumingÏòòarguendoóó€that€they€were€not,€we€find€that€the€nondisclosure€did€not€violate€theÏprinciples€of€òòBradyóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€information€regarding€Gilreath€contained€in€the€SupplementaryÍReport€is€as€follows:€€"Officer€McReynolds€asked€[the€defendant]€who€[shot€you]?€€Mr.ÏGilreath€replied€ððI€shot€him.ðð€€Mr.€Gilreath€advised€he€did€shoot€him,€he€tried€to€runÏand€he€tried€to€jump€me."€€The€Brief€Narrative€recites€that,€after€Officer€McReynoldsÏasked€Gilreath€if€he€had€shot€the€defendant,€€ð ðMr.€Gilreath€said€ððYes,ðð€ððHe€tried€to€run.ððÏððHe€tried€to€jump€œme.ðð€ð𛀀Apparently,€the€defendant€is€arguing€that€this€information€isÏexculpatory€because€Gilreathððs€statement€ð ðhe€tried€to€jump€meðð€follows€the€statementÏð ðhe€tried€to€run,ðð€thereby€creating€an€inference€that€no€ð ðjumpingðð€actually€occurredÏand€Gilreath€added€those€words€as€an€afterthought€to€protect€himself€from€theÏconsequences€of€shooting€someone€without€sufficient€provocation.€€We€cannot,Ïhowever,€draw€that€conclusion€from€what€amounts€to€less€than€a€scintilla€of€evidence.€€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€gloves,€the€Supplementary€Report€reflects€that€theÏdefendant€ð ðwas€wearing€grey€working€gloves,ðð€which,€contrary€to€the€defendantððsÏallegations€in€his€brief,€is€consistent€with€what€Officer€Brown€testified€to€at€trial.€€Thus,Ïthis€report€does€not€afford€any€impeachment€or€otherwise€exculpatory€material€aboutÏthis€issue.€€Officer€McReynoldsðð€report€states€that€he€found€the€defendant€with€ð ða€pairÏof€gray€work€gloves€wadded€up,€holding€them€in€his€hands.ðð€€Officer€McReynolds€wasÏnot€called€to€testify€at€the€trial.€€However,€given€that€Officer€McReynolds€arrived€at€theÏscene€before€Officer€Brown€did,€we€do€not€conclude€from€this€difference€in€theirÏrespective€reports€that€one€of€them€was€necessarily€mistaken€in€or€lying€about€theirÍobservations.€€It€is€œplausible›€that€the€defendant€put€the€gloves€on€during€the€intervalÏbetween€the€first€and€second€officersðð€arrivals.€ÌÌà àà à€Moreover,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€statement€contained€in€OfficerÏMcReynoldsðð€report,€even€though€different€from€the€statement€in€Officer€BrownððsÏreport,€could€have€been€used€to€the€defendantððs€benefit€at€trial.€€Officer€Brown€couldÏnot€have€testified€to€what€Officer€McReynolds€saw€or€claimed€to€have€seen,€andÏtherefore€could€not€have€been€impeached€with€Officer€McReynoldsðð€observations.€ÏThe€defendantððs€lawyer€did€cross„examine€Officer€Brown€about€whether€he€in€factÏsaw€the€defendant€wearing€the€gloves,€and€Officer€Brown€consistently€maintainedÏthat€he€had.€ÌÌà àà àThe€only€way€that€the€defendant€can€even€attempt€to€argue€that€thisÏinformation€in€Officer€McReynolds€report€was€exculpatory€is€to€claim€that,€had€he€hadÏthe€report€pretrial,€he€would€have€subpoenaed€Officer€McReynolds€and€elicited€theÏð ðinconsistentðð€observation€about€the€state€of€the€defendantððs€hands.€€However,€we€failÏto€see€how€this€testimony€would€have€been€material.€€ð ðThe€evidence€is€material€onlyÏif€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÏdefense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€ððreasonableÏprobabilityðð€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€ÍòòUnited€States€v.€œBagley›óó,€473€U.S.€667,€œ682›€(1985).€€Clearly,€the€investigating€officersððÏobservations€of€the€defendantððs€hands€and€gloves€do€not€meet€this€definition€ofÏmaterial.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€Supplementary€Report€includes€Officer€Brownððs€observationÏof€ð ða€very€strong€odor€.€.€.€€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€upon€[the€defendantððs]€breath.ðð€ÏWhile€we€agree€that€this€statement€is€consistent€with€the€defendantððs€own€testimony,Ïwe€fail€to€see€how€its€nondisclosure€affected€the€outcome€of€this€trial€in€any€respect.€ÏWhile€it€corroborates€the€defendantððs€testimony€that€he€had€been€drinking€prior€toÏcommitting€the€offenses,€there€was€never€any€contrary€evidence€introduced.€ÏTherefore,€corroboration€on€this€point€was€unnecessary€and€not€helpful€to€the€extentÏof€being€material.€€Additionally,€the€only€way€this€statement€could€have€been€used€forÏimpeachment€purposes€was€if€Officer€Brown€had€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÏbeen€sober.€€He€did€not€do€so.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€claim€that€the€State€violated€òòBradyóó€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€defendantððs€second€issue€he€claims€that€he€was€denied€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€his€trial€lawyer,ÏAssistant€Public€Defender€Susanna€Thomas,€did€not€spend€sufficient€time€with€himÍpreparing€his€case;€did€not€subpoena€witnesses;€and€asked€him€inappropriateÏquestions€on€direct€examination€about€his€prior€criminal€record€without€having€firstÏobtained€a€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€ruling.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€defendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€defendant€"must€show€that€counsel'sÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌ€à àà àThe€only€proof€in€the€record€as€to€Ms.€Thomasðð€failure€to€spendÏsufficient€time€with€the€defendant€and€preparing€the€case€was€elicited€immediatelyÏbefore€the€trial€of€this€matter.€€At€that€time€the€defendant€complained€to€the€court€thatÏhe€didnððt€think€his€lawyer€was€doing€anything€for€him,€that€she€wasnððt€trying€to€helpÏhim€out€ð ða€bit,ðð€that€ð ðsheððs€just€not€trying,ðð€and€that€he€didnððt€think€sheððd€done€all€sheÍcould€to€help€him.€€With€respect€to€this€last€assertion,€he€specifically€mentioned€hisÏinterest€in€suing€Gilreath.ÌÌà àà àIn€response€to€these€allegations€Ms.€Thomas€responded,€ð ðI€had€noÏcontact€with€Mr.€Roberts€until€the€day€before€his€case€was€set€for€trial€last€week,€whenÏI€called€him.€€He€advised€me€that€he€had€been€too€busy€to€contact€me.€€I€asked€him€ifÏhe€wanted€a€trial€or€to€enter€a€plea.€€He€said€that€he€guessed€he€would€just€enter€aÏplea.€€I€negotiated€the€plea€and€came,€we€prepared€to€enter€the€plea€and€he€saidÏheððd€rather€have€a€trial.€€He€appeared€today€and€said€heððd€rather€have€anotherÏlawyer.€€He€has€not€made€any€effort€to€contact€me€or€to€provide€me€with€anyÏinformation€that€could€be€used€as€any€sort€of€defense€in€this€case.ðð€€She€also€askedÏthe€defendant,€ð ðHave€you€ever€called€my€office€or€contacted€me€in€any€way€aboutÏyour€case?ðð€€The€defendant€responded,€ð ðNo,€the€only€time€Iððve€seen€you€is€up€hereÏwhen€you€called€me.€.€.€.€Iððve€seen€you€about€three€times€up€here.ððÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€told€the€defendant,€ð ðbased€on€what€youððve€told€the€Court,Ïthe€Court€does€not€feel€that€a€change€of€counsel€is€going€to€solve€any€problem€youÏhave€nor€based€on€what€has€been€said€at€the€bench€here€is€there€anything€the€CourtÏfeels€that€Ms.€Thomas€has€done€or€not€done€that€has€interfered€or€has€deprived€youÏof€the€ability€to€have€a€fair€trial€in€this€case.ðð€€We€agree€with€this€ruling€by€the€trialÍcourt.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€no€proof€whatsoever€in€the€record€that€the€Ms.€Thomas€failed€toÏsubpoena€any€witnesses€that€would€have€been€helpful€to€the€defendant€had€theyÏtestified.€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€has€shown€no€prejudice€from€this€ð ðfailureðð€and,Ïhence,€no€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àà àOn€direct€examination,€Ms.€Thomas€elicited€testimony€from€theÏdefendant€about€a€1993€felony€conviction€involving€drugs.€€She€also€asked,€ð ðIÏbelieve€that€some€years€ago€you€have€also€suffered€other€felony€convictions,ðð€toÏwhich€the€defendant€responded,€ð ðYes,€maððam.ðð€€She€then€established€that€theseÏð ðseveral€felony€convictionsðð€had€occurred€more€than€ten€years€ago.€€During€thisÏquestioning,€the€trial€court€òòœsua›óó€òòsponteóó€told€the€jury,€ð ðIn€regards€to€previous€felonyÏconvictions,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€those€may€be€considered€by€you€not€for€theÏpurpose€of€his€guilt€œo[r›]€innocence€in€this€proceeding€but€may€be€used€by€you€solelyÏto€determine€his€credibility€as€a€witness.ðð€€On€cross„examination,€the€State€thenÏquestioned€the€defendant€about€1978€convictions€for€concealing€stolen€property,Ïsecond„degree€burglary,€and€the€temporary€use€of€an€automobile;€a€1976€convictionÏfor€burglary€of€an€automobile;€and€a€1989€conviction€for€aggravated€assault.€€TheÏdefendant's€lawyer€did€not€object€during€this€portion€of€the€Stateððs€cross„examination.€€Nor,€apparently,€had€she€sought€any€ruling€from€the€court€about€theÏadmissibility,€for€any€purpose,€of€any€of€these€convictions.à àÌÌà àà àWe€are€concerned€that€the€defendant's€lawyer€did€not€seek€a€ruling€withÏrespect€to€the€admissibility€of€œhis›€prior€convictions€and€that€she€did€not€object€whenÏthe€State€cross„examined€the€defendant€about€convictions€which€were€more€than€tenÏyears€old.€€We€find€that€her€failures€to€do€so€satisfy€the€first€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóóÏtest.€€However,€the€defendant€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€proving€that€herÏinadequate€performance€in€this€regard€prejudiced€him€to€the€extent€required€by€theÏsecond€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test.€€à àÌÌà àà àHad€counsel€motioned€the€court€to€exclude€the€defendantððs€previousÏconvictions,€it€would€have€been€a€proper€exercise€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€toÏhave€allowed€the€1989€and€1993€felony€convictions€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a).€ÏThat€rule€œprovides,›€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€that€convictions€less€than€ten€years€old€for€crimesÏpunishable€by€imprisonment€of€over€one€year€are€admissible€for€impeachmentÏpurposes€where€the€ð ðprobative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicialÏeffect€on€the€substantive€issues.ðð€€Here,€the€prior€convictions€were€for€possession€ofÏdrugs€with€intent€to€sell€and€aggravated€assault.€€These€€convictions€were€properlyÏadmissible€in€the€defendantððs€trial€for€aggravated€burglary€and€theft.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStateÍv.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€922,€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(proper€exercise€of€discretionÏto€admit,€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a),€a€prior€felony€drug€possession€conviction€in€aÏmurder€trial);€òòState€v.€œRatliff›óó,€673€S.W.2d€884€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(prior€felonyÏconvictions€of€assault€with€intent€to€commit€second„degree€murder€and€escapeÏadmissible€for€impeachment€purposes€in€prosecution€for€concealing€stolen€property).€ÏMoreover,€even€though€the€trial€court€had€not€been€requested€to€make€a€ruling€on€theÏadmissibility€of€these€convictions,€it€gave€the€appropriate€limiting€instruction€underÏRule€609€to€the€jury€after€the€defendant's€counsel€questioned€him€about€his€recordÏon€direct€examination.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€1976€and€1978€convictions€were€not,€however,Ïadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b)€permits€the€use€of€convictions€more€than€ten€yearsÏoldœ× ƒ9 ××  ×›€where€ð ðthe€[State]€gives€to€the€[defendant]€sufficient€advance€notice€of€intent€toÏuse€such€evidence€to€provide€the€[defendant]€with€a€fair€opportunity€to€contest€theÏuse€of€such€evidence€and€the€court€determines€in€the€interests€of€justice€that€theÏprobative€value€of€the€conviction,€supported€by€specific€facts€and€circumstances,Ïsubstantially€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.ðð€€Here,€the€State€had€filed€a€ð ðNotice€ofÍRange€Enhancementðð€which€listed€all€of€the€felonies€about€which€it€cross„examinedÏthe€defendant.€€While€this€notice€was€filed€almost€a€month€before€the€trialÏcommenced,€it€did€not€satisfy€the€notice€requirement€of€Rule€609(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€159€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(pretrial€written€notice€of€priorÏconvictions€provided€for€sentencing€purposes€was€not€adequate€to€give€notice€of€theÏintent€to€impeach€with€remote€convictions).€€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€the€probative€value€of€these€convictions€as€to€theÏdefendantððs€credibility€did€not€substantially€outweigh€their€prejudicial€effect.€€Two€ofÏthese€remote€convictions€involved€theft€crimes,€and€the€other€two€were€burglaries:Ïthe€very€types€of€offenses€for€which€the€defendant€was€on€trial.€€While€theft€crimesÏand€burglaries€are€considered€probative€of€a€defendantððs€dishonesty,€and€thereforeÏcredibility,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€626€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1981),€and€òòState€v.€Milleróó,Ï737€S.W.2d€556,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€we€think€the€similarity€between€theÏprior€convictions€and€the€instant€offenses€here€created€a€prejudicial€effect€that€wasÏsimply€not€sufficiently€outweighed€by€the€probative€value€of€the€prior€convictions€toÏsatisfy€the€requirements€of€Rule€609(b).€ÌÌà àà àHowever,€this€does€not€mean€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€newÏtrial.€€While€we€find€the€admission€of€the€1976€and€1978€convictions€to€have€beenÍerror,€we€also€find€that€error€to€have€been€harmless.€€The€proof€of€the€defendantððsÏguilt€in€this€case€can€fairly€be€characterized€as€overwhelming.€€His€own€statementsÏabout€why€he€was€at€the€victimððs€house€were€inconsistent€and€incredible.€ÏAccordingly,€this€error€does€not€ð ðaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€result€of€theÏtrial€on€the€merits.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€751€S.W.2dÏ154€at€159€(trial€courtððs€erroneous€admission€of€convictions€over€ten€years€old€wasÏð ðharmless€in€view€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€defendantððs€guilt.ðð)€€Additionally,Ïbecause€we€find€the€error€to€have€been€harmless,€we€also€find€that€the€defendant'sÏlawyer's€failures€with€respect€to€this€proof€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant€as€requiredÏunder€òòStricklandóó.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€note€that€the€error€in€failing€to€get€a€ruling€on€the€admissibilityÏof€the€remote€convictions€was€attributable€to€the€State€rather€than€to€the€defendantððsÏattorney€(although€this€does€not€excuse€her€from€failing€to€object€to€the€StateððsÏimproper€questions).€€ð ðWhen€evidence€[of€convictions€more€than€ten€years€old]€isÏgoing€to€be€offered€to€impeach€under€œòòMorgan,óó× ƒ: ××  ×›€the€state€should€request€the€jury„outÏhearing€before€blurting€out€questions€about€prior€convictions€as€was€done€in€thisÏcase.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€741€S.W.2d€120,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€becauseÏthe€prosecuting€attorney€made€improper€remarks€during€closing€argument.€ÏSpecifically,€the€defendant€points€to€the€prosecutorððs€repeated€references€to€his€priorÏcriminal€record,€and€to€the€prosecutorððs€comments€about€the€defendantððs€failure€toÏcall€his€stepson€as€a€witness.ÌÌà àà àIn€order€for€the€defendant€to€be€granted€a€new€trial€on€this€ground,€he€isÏrequired€to€show€that€the€argument€was€so€inflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improperÏthat€it€affected€the€verdict€to€his€detriment.€€òòœHarrington›€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759Ï(Tenn.€1965).€€In€reviewing€an€allegation€of€improper€conduct,€this€Court€shouldÏconsider€several€factors€including€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€the€curative€measuresÏwhich€were€undertaken€by€the€court,€the€improper€conduct€viewed€in€context€and€inÏlight€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€remarksÏwith€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€ÏòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€controlling€the€argument€ofÏcounsel.€€That€discretion€will€not€be€interfered€with€on€appeal€in€the€absence€of€anÏabuse€thereof.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€prosecutorððs€remarks€about€the€defendantððs€priorÏrecord,€the€statements€about€which€the€defendant€objects€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒThis€man€right€here,€not€a€one„time,€not€a€two„time,€but€a€seven„time€convicted€felon€can€come€in€here€and€out„swear€aÏgentleman€who€for€seventy„two€years€has€never€broken€the€law.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒandÌÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒTake€the€word€of€this€convicted€felon€over€[Officer€Brownððs]?€ÏWeððre€in€a€heap€of€trouble.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒandÌÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒI€submit€to€you€when€you€look€at€œall€of›€the€credible€evidence,€thereÏis€one€and€only€one€verdict€that€can€be€done€in€justice.€€And€thatÏis€that€this€convicted€felon€is€again€convicted€of€the€felony€ofÏAggravated€Burglary€and€the€commission€of€a€theft.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe€defendantððs€lawyer€objected€to€these€comments.€€The€trial€court€overruled€herÏobjection.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court.€€œThe›€prosecutor€was€not€using€theÏdefendantððs€prior€convictions€as€proof€of€the€defendantððs€guilt,€but€rather€as€proofÏagainst€the€defendantððs€credibility.€€This€is€a€permissible€use€of€these€convictions.€ÏòòState€v.€œHardison›óó,€705€S.W.2d€684,€687€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1985).€€Moreover,€givenÏthe€overwhelming€nature€of€the€proof€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€in€this€case,€any€error€inÏthe€Stateððs€reference€to€the€defendant€as€ð ðthis€convicted€felonðð€was€harmless.›ÌÌà àà àThe€comments€concerning€a€missing€witness€about€which€theÏdefendant€complains€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒWhere€is€the€step„son?€€Right€there.€€Now€this€is€the€man€rightÏhere€thatððs€trying€to€tell€you€that€he€was€going€down€the€road€withÏhis€step„son€and€another€man€and€they€got€in€an€argument€andÏthey€let€him€out.€€Did€that€step„son€take€the€stand€and€support€himÏin€that?ÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒandÌÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒHe€got€up€there€and€tried€to€lie€his€way€out€of€it.€€And€couldnððtÏeven€get€his€step„son€to€get€up€here€and€get€in€the€lie€with€him.€ÏDidnððt€hear€it€from€either€one€of€those€people€that€would€haveÏsupported€or€corroborated€what€he€had€to€say.€€And€theyððre€sittingÏright€here€in€the€Courtroom.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAgain,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€lawyerððs€objection.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòœDelk›€v.€Stateóó,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€party€may€commentÏabout€an€absent€witness€when€the€evidence€demonstrates€œð ð[1]€that›€the€witness€hadÏknowledge€of€material€facts,€[2]€that€a€relationship€exists€between€the€witness€and€theÏ[adverse]€party€that€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€œ[that]›€party€and€[3]€thatÏthe€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€Court€for€œthe€trial.ð𛀀590ÏS.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979).€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòState€v.€Francisóó,€669€S.W.2d€85,€88€(Tenn.Ï1984).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€had€been€riding€around€in€a€car€with€his€stepsonÍimmediately€prior€to€showing€up€at€Gilreathððs€daughterððs€house.€€Thus,€his€stepsonÏhad€knowledge€about€why€the€defendant€had€gotten€out€of€the€car,€a€material€fact€atÏissue.€€The€familial€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€his€stepson€would,Ïpresumably,€naturally€incline€the€stepson€to€favor€the€defendant.€€Finally,€the€stepsonÏwas€available€to€the€process€of€the€trial€court:€he€was€present€in€the€courtroom.€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€overruled€theÏdefendantððs€objection€and€allowed€these€remarks€to€be€made.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€fourth€issue€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€whenÏit€refused€his€request€for€a€jury€instruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€attemptedÏburglary.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€of€his€intoxication,€together€withÏhis€prior€statements€to€the€police€that€he€thought€he€was€at€his€own€house,€raised€theÏpossibility€that€he€had,€in€fact,€tried€to€break€into€the€house,€but€only€because€he€wasÏmistaken€as€to€whose€house€it€was.€€However,€at€trial€the€defendant€flatly€denied€thatÏhe€had€even€tried€to€break€into€the€house.€€Based€on€the€defendantððs€testimony€atÏtrial,€the€lower€court€correctly€denied€the€requested€instruction.ÌÌà àà àEven€if€the€defendantððs€story€at€trial€had€matched€his€prior€statements€toÏthe€police,€however,€an€instruction€on€attempted€burglary€would€not€have€beenÍproper.€€An€attempted€burglary€requires€the€accused€to€have€been€ð ðacting€with€theÏkind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€œoffenseðð›€of€burglary.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„12„101.€ÏThe€ð ðkind€of€culpabilityðð€required€for€the€offense€of€burglary€is€œunconsented›€entry€òòwithÏthe€intent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theftóó.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„402.€€Had€the€defendant€actuallyÏbelieved€he€was€at€his€own€house,€any€effort€he€made€to€enter€the€house€would€notÏhave€been€made€with€the€requisite€intent.€€Thus,€an€instruction€on€attempted€burglaryÏwould€not€have€been€appropriate:€only€an€acquittal€(or€dismissal)€of€any€burglaryÏcharge€would€have€been€correct.ÌÌà àà àThe€lesser€included€charge€of€attempted€burglary€would€have€beenÏappropriate€only€if€there€had€been€proof€that€the€defendant€had€unsuccessfully€triedÏto€break€into€the€house€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€theft€or€felony€within.€€There€wasÏno€such€proof€by€either€the€State€or€the€defendant.€€œWhere€there€is€no€evidence€toÏsupport€any€lesser€included€offenses,€the€practice€of€so€charging€is€not€fa‚vored.€ÏòòState€v.€Mellonsóó,€557€S.W.2d€497,€499€(Tenn.€1977);€òòWhitwell€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2dÏ388,€343€(Tenn.€1975).€This›€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€ÏSpecifically,€he€alleges€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€on€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€are€incorrect;€that€he€should€not€have€received€maximum€sentences;€that€hisÍsentences€for€these€two€offenses€should€not€œhave€been›€run€consecutively€to€oneÏanother€or€to€a€prior€sentence;€and€that€he€is€not€a€persistent€offender.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€"isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€inÏsentencing.€€This€section€mandates€the€court's€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€[œt]he›€presentence€report;€(3)€[œt]he›Ïprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(4)€[œt]he›€nature€and€characteris‚tics€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[œe]vidence›€and€informationÏoffered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€Ìðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[œa]ny›€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€senƒtencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÏrange€is€the€presumptive€œsentence€for€Class€B,€C€and€D€felonies.€€The€presumptiveÏsentence€for€A€felonies€is€mid„range.›€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€and€mitigating€factors,Ïthe€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentenceÏas€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€ÏThe€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.ÏœShelton›óó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€"[œw]henever›€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,Ïit€òòshall€place€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigatingÏfactors€it€found,€if€any,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209."€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factorsÏmust€be€recorded€if€none€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€byÍthe€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÌÔ€4ÔÌà àà àÔ€ÔThe€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€ofÏa€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€œCreasy›óó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ÏHowever,€in€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence€to€be€served€in€actualÏconfinement,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€asÏthe€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€and€theÏcourt€should€not€impose€such€percentages€arbitrarily.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„302(d).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary,€aÏœClass›€C€felony,€and€theft€in€an€amount€under€five€hundred€($500)€dollars,€a€œClass›€AÏmisdemeanor.€€He€was€sentenced€on€the€felony€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender,€toÏfifteen€years:€the€maximum€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(c)(3).€€He€was€sentencedÏon€the€misdemeanor€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€at€œseventy„five€percentÏrelease€eligibility,›€also€the€maximum€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„111(e)(1);€40„35„302(d).ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree€with€the€defendant€that€the€court€erred€when€it€classifiedÏhim€as€a€persistent€offender.€€ð ðA€œððpersistent›€œoffenderðð›€is€a€defendant€who€has€received:Ï(1)€Any€combination€of€five€(5)€or€more€prior€felony€convictions€within€the€convictionÍclass€or€higher,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felony€classes.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„107(a).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€offered€proof€of€three€prior€Class€EÏfelonies€(two€automobile€burglaries€and€concealing€stolen€property€over€one€hundredÏ($100)€dollars)€and€two€prior€Class€C€felonies€(aggravated€assault€and€secondÏdegree€burglary).€€The€State€also€offered€proof€of€a€1978€felony€conviction€forÏtemporary€use€of€an€automobile,€and€argues€that€this€is€an€additional€Class€E€felony.€ÏWhile€this€felony€is€not€contained€in€the€conversion€table€for€the€classification€of€priorÏfelony€offenses,€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„118,€€nor€is€œit€expressly›€classified€as€an€E€felony€inÏthe€ð ðcatch„allðð€conversion€provision€because€it€occurred€prior€to€July€1,€1982,€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„119,€it€is€still€a€prior€felony€conviction.€€òòAllóó€prior€felony€convictions,€includingÏthose€which€occurred€before€November€1,€1989,€are€to€be€included€in€making€aÏpersistent€offender€determination.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„107(b)(2).€€Moreover,€that€theÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€reclassified€joy€riding€as€a€misdemeanor€for€offensesÏoccurring€after€November€1,€1989,€does€not€help€the€defendant.€€It€remains€a€priorÏfelony€for€purposes€of€range€enhancement.€€òòState€v.€Stoneóó,€No.€œ01C01›„9310„CC„00350,€Marshall€County€(filed€December€1,€1994,€at€œNashville).€€Thus,€it€must€beÏconsidered€at€least€a€Class€E€felony,€and€as€such€is€within€the€next€two€lower€felonyÏclasses€of€the€defendantððs€Class€C€conviction€in€this€case.›ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€attorney€argued€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€theÍsecond„degree€burglary€and€concealing€stolen€property€convictions€must€be€countedÏas€a€single€conviction€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„107(b)(4)€because€the€State€offered€noÏcompetent€evidence€that€these€offenses€occurred€on€different€days.€€The€StateÏconceded€this€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Thus,€one€of€the€Class€E€felonies€ð ðmergesððÏinto€one€of€the€Class€C€felonies.ÌÌà àà àThe€State€also€offered€proof€of€a€1993€conviction€which€it€now€concedesÏcannot€be€considered€a€ð ðprior€convictionðð€in€the€persistent€offender€calculus€under€ourÏSupreme€Courtððs€ruling€in€òòœState€v.›€œBlouvett›óó,€œ__€S.W.2d€__€(Tenn.€1995).›€€Although€theÏdefendant€admitted€during€his€trial€that€he€had€been€convicted€in€1993€of€a€felonyÏdrug€offense€in€Knox€County,€the€State€did€not€introduce€a€copy€of€any€judgmentÏentered€in€this€conviction.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€Indeed,€the€only€other€proof€in€the€record€relative€to€thisÏconviction€is€in€the€presentence€report.€€It€is€there€stated€that€the€defendant€had€pledÏguilty€but€that€the€judgment€was€ð ðreserved€and€pending.ðð€€In€òòœBlouvett›óó€the€court€heldÏthat€a€ð ð€ððprior€convictionðð€means€a€conviction€that€has€been€adjudicated€prior€to€theÏcommission€of€the€more€recent€offense€for€which€sentence€is€to€be€imposed.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ÍHere,€there€is€no€proof€as€to€when€this€prior€conviction€was€adjudicated.× ƒ< ××  ×Ì€€Ìà àà àAccordingly,€the€State€proved€two€Class€E€felonies,€two€Class€CÏfelonies,€and€one€felony€of€undetermined€class.€€However,€since€there€is€no€class€ofÏfelonies€lower€than€E,€and€none€higher€than€A,€all€felonies€are€ð ðwithin€the€[C]Ïconvictions€class€or€higher,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felony€classes.ðð€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„107(a).€€Thus,€€the€defendant€was€properly€found€a€persistent€offender.€€òòIdóó.€€AsÏa€persistent€offender,€the€defendant€was€properly€sentenced€within€Range€III.€€œT.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„107(c).›ÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing€the€trial€court€found€and€applied€fourÏenhancement€factors:ÌÓÓà àà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ  Ò„„€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range;ÌÌ„„€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors;ÌÌ„„€the€defendant€possessed€a€deadly€weapon€during€theÏcommission€of€the€offense;€andÌÌ„„€the€defendant€was€either€on€probation€or€parole€at€theÏtime€he€committed€the€offenses.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(2),€(9),€œ(13)(B),€(C).›€€The€court€found€ð ðabsolutely€no€mitigatingÏfactors€that€apply.ððÌÌà àà àThe€State€correctly€concedes€that€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€theÏsecond€and€fourth€enhancement€factors€listed€above€was€incorrect.€€There€was€noÏcompetent€proof€in€the€record€to€support€the€application€of€these€two€factors.€ÏHowever,€the€other€two€enhancement€factors€were€properly€applied.€€The€defendantÏhas€been€convicted€of€at€least€two€felonies€that€were€not€used€to€classify€him€as€aÏpersistent€offender,€and€the€defendant€used€a€large€knife€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffenses.€€Moreover,€the€presentence€report€states€that€the€instant€offenses€wereÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€on€bail€for€a€felony€of€which€he€was€ultimatelyÏconvicted.œ× ƒ= ××  ×›€€This€is€another€applicable€enhancement€factor.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(13)(A).€œ›€Furthermore,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏfinding€no€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àà àThe€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€lack€of€any€mitigating€factorsÍsupport€€maximum€sentences€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€ordered€his€sentences€for€these€two€offenses€to€run€consecutively,€weÏdisagree.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðan€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€œis›€extensive.ðð€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€makingÏthis€finding,€and€the€consecutive€sentencing€is€therefore€proper.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€erred,€however,€when€it€ordered€these€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively€to€œthe›€sentence€imposed€for€the€1993€conviction€in€Knox€County.€€AsÏset€forth€above,€no€copy€or€other€proof€of€a€final€judgment€in€this€prior€felony€wasÏintroduced.€€A€sentence€for€a€subsequent€conviction€cannot€be€run€consecutively€toÏthe€sentence€for€a€prior€conviction€unless€a€final€judgment€has€previously€beenÏentered€in€the€prior€conviction.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„20„111(a);€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€824€S.W.2dÏ176€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€lower€courtððs€order€thatÏthe€instant€sentences€run€consecutively€to€the€sentence€for€the€Knox€County€offense.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€convictions.ÏWe€reverse€the€lower€courtððs€order€that€his€sentences€run€consecutively€to€hisÍsentence€for€the€Knox€County€offense.€€The€defendantððs€sentences€are€otherwiseÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌœWILLIAM›€M.€BARKÔ% € ÔER,€Judge