ÿWPCà …U:V %–nX¦ 04þ42 w@F † 0JŽ 0xØ 0DP 0T” 0^è 0hF 0r® 0| 0†œ 0" 1u² 0d' B‹B)¨DCÑ AMU*a鋿t D3Zv~vÓ  0@Þ AOÆm 0D3 D/w B¦<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|xO «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼¼Œþ6X@ÉDQ¼@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó ƒØ"ÿÿÿÿ ; D< D= > ? D@ A DB +C D Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(((3Ýé$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJune€26,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€€€€€€€€€€Ïbased€on€a€specific€number€of€prior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€€€€€€€€Ïsentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏAnn.ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ì'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àÔ€¼ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌà@ àAT€€KNOXVILLEÌ̜ـ€ÙßR€&(%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àDECEMBER€1994€SESSIONÌÔ€XÔÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÔˆˆÔð#ðÌÔˆˆÔðð€€€€Ìò òÔ€¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,Ô$$ÔÔ€XÔðð€€No.€03C01„9402„CR„00069Ì€€€€€€€€€€€AppelleeÔ  Ôðð€ÔÿÿÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÔÀÀÔðð€€JEFFERSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à€vs.ÔP P Ôð*ð€ÌÔˆˆÔðð€€Hon.€Rex€Henry€Ogle,€JudgeÌÔˆˆÔðð€Ìò òÔ€¼ÔJ.Y.€SEPULVEDA,€€€€€ó óÔ˜˜ÔÔ€XÔðð€€(First€Degree€Murder,€Esp.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€AppellantÔ((Ôðð€€€Agg.€Burglary€&€Theft)ÌÔˆˆÔð$ðÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌÌDavid€B.€Hill€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Charles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌ301€E.€Broadway€ÌNewport,€TN€37821€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sharon€S.€Selby€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌR.J.€Tucker€€€€€à àà àà àà à€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà à€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ317€East€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌNewport,€TN€€37821Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Alfred€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€James€Gass€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Asst€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Sevier€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Sevierville,€TN€€37801ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIED€IN€PARTÔ€XÔÌÌó óRobert€E.€Burchò òÌó óSpecial€JudgeÌà à€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€†ÖXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓÓà àà àFollowing€a€jury€trial,€Appellant€was€found€guilty€ofÏFelony€Murder,€Especially€Aggravated€Burglary€and€Theft€of€lessÏthan€five€hundred€($500)Dollars.€€The€jury€sentenced€Appellant€toÏlife€for€the€murder€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€ten€yearsÏfor€the€burglary€and€eleven€months€twenty„nine€days€for€the€theft.€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€burglary€sentence€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€the€murder€sentence,€while€the€theft€sentence€beÏserved€concurrently€therewith.€€He€appeals€of€right€to€this€CourtÏassigning€four€issues€for€review:Ìà àà à1).€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppressÏthe€statement€made€by€Appellant€on€the€day€of€his€arrest€becauseÏsaid€statement€was€obtained€in€violation€of€the€appellantððs€FifthÏand€Sixth€Amendment€rights€under€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÏStates.Ìà àà à2).€Whether€Appellantððs€subsequent€statements€shouldÏhave€been€suppressed€because€he€did€not€receive€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€connection€therewith.Ìà àà à3).€Whether€the€evidence€in€the€record€in€this€case€wasÏsufficient€to€convict€the€appellant€of€murder€in€that€it€was€notÏestablished€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€death€of€theÏdeceased€was€a€consequence€of€the€beating€inflicted€upon€her€byÏAppellant.Ìà àà à4).€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏappellant€to€consecutive€sentences€in€light€of€the€facts€of€thisÏcase.Ìà àWe€find€that€none€of€these€issues€constitute€error€and€affirmÏthe€felony€murder€and€theft€convictions.€€The€conviction€forÏespecially€aggravated€burglary€must€be€modified€to€aggravatedÏœburglary€and€the€sentence€is€modified€for€that€offense.›ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌà àOn€August€6,1991,€friends€of€ninety„five€year€old€Mrs.€CoraÏNicholson€noticed€a€broken€window€at€her€residence€and€stopped€toÏinvestigate.€€They€noticed€Appellant,€his€wife€and€his€motherÏstanding€in€the€driveway€of€the€house€next€door€where€AppellantÏand€his€wife€lived.€€When€Mrs.€Nicholson€did€not€answer€theirÏknock€on€the€door,€the€police€were€called.€€When€the€policeÏarrived,€Mrs.€Nicholson€was€found€lying€injured€on€the€floor€ofÏher€home,€apparently€the€victim€of€a€beating.€€At€the€time€she€wasÏfound,€the€victim€was€conscious€and€asked€to€speak€to€her€friendsÏwho€were€standing€on€the€porch.€€The€victim€was€transported€to€aÏlocal€hospital.Ìà àAs€the€police€investigated,€they€noticed€blood€on€the€brokenÍwindow€and€inside€the€house.€€They€also€noticed€that€Appellant€hadÏan€apparently€fresh€cut€on€his€hand.€€Upon€inquiry,€AppellantÏstated€that€he€had€cut€his€hand€trying€unsuccessfully€to€get€intoÏthe€house€to€aid€the€victim.€€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€rightsÏat€the€scene€and€was€requested€to€come€to€the€police€station€forÏquestioning.€€He€was€given€the€option€of€having€his€wife€drive€himÏto€the€police€station€or€accompanying€the€officers.€€AppellantÏchose€to€accompany€the€officers€in€the€patrol€car.€€As€theyÏprepared€to€leave,€Officer€McCarter€and€Chief€Deputy€ShawÏoverheard€Appellant€tell€a€family€member€to€call€Richard€Talley,€aÏDandridge€attorney.Ìà àAfter€arriving€at€the€police€station,€Appellant€waited€in€theÏlobby€of€the€jail€for€his€attorney.€€He€was€later€joined€there€byÏhis€wife.€€Appellant€waited€for€over€an€hour€and€a€half€in€theÏlobby,€but€his€attorney€never€appeared.€€It€does€not€appear€in€theÏrecord€that€Mr.€Talley€was€ever€contacted.€€Although€AppellantÏtestified€that€Officer€McCarter€came€out€several€times€and€angrilyÏinquired€whether€Appellant€would€talk€to€him,€all€of€the€otherÏwitnesses€who€testified€stated€that€no€one€approached€AppellantÏnor€did€anyone€ask€him€anything€during€his€wait€in€the€lobby.€ÏAfter€nearly€two€hours,€Appellant€approached€Officer€Dentonððs€dutyÏstation€and€asked€to€speak€with€Officer€McCarter.€€After€signing€aÏwaiver€of€having€his€attorney€present,€Appellant€was€advised€ofÏhis€rights,€signed€a€waiver€of€these€rights€and€gave€a€statementÏto€Officer€McCarter.€€In€this€statement,€Appellant€admittedÏbreaking€into€the€house€with€one€David€Johnson,€AppellantððsÍbrother„in„law,€but€insisted€that€Johnson€had€inflicted€the€woundsÏto€the€victim€and€that€Appellant€had€only€acted€to€prevent€furtherÏinjury€to€her.€€Appellant€was€then€arrested€for€the€burglary.Ìà àAppellant€remained€in€jail€and,€in€subsequent€weeks,€gave€twoÏadditional€statements€to€the€police€which€were€essentially€theÏsame€as€the€first€statement.Ìà àSubsequent€to€these€statements,€the€police€arrested€DavidÏJohnson.€€Due€to€conflict€in€the€statements€of€the€two€suspects,Ïthe€police€requested€each€to€take€a€polygraph€test.€€AppellantÏagreed.€€While€the€T.B.I.€agent€was€preparing€to€give€theÏpolygraph€test€to€Appellant,€he€explained€the€operation€of€theÏmachine€to€Appellant€and€asked€Appellant€several€preparatoryÏquestions.€€While€answering€these€questions,€Appellant€suddenlyÏconfessed€that€it€was€he€who€had€beaten€the€victim.Ìà àIn€the€ensuing€weeks€after€her€injury,€the€victimððs€conditionÏcontinued€to€deteriorate.€€She€was€subsequently€transferred€fromÏthe€hospital€to€a€nursing€home.€€After€nearly€twelve€weeks€and€theÏday€before€Appellantððs€third€statement,€Mrs.€Nicholson€died€due€toÏmedical€conditions€brought€on€by€her€injuries.ÌÌà@ àò òSTATEMENTS€OF€THE€APPELLANTÌà@ à€(FIRST€AND€SECOND€ISSUES)Ìà àó óAppellant€gave€a€total€of€four€statements€to€the€police€priorÏto€the€trial€of€this€case.€€The€first€statement€was€given€on€theÏdate€of€the€arrest€of€Appellant€(issue€#1)€and€the€other€threeÏwere€given€on€subsequent€days€after€counsel€had€been€appointed€forÍAppellant€(issue€#2).€€He€insists€that€the€trial€court€was€inÏerror€in€refusing€to€suppress€all€of€these€statements.€€Since€theÏstandard€of€review€is€essentially€the€same€in€both€of€theseÏissues,€we€shall€initially€treat€them€togetherÌthen€analyze€them€separately.Ìà@ àò òStandard€of€reviewó óÌà àA€determination€by€the€trial€court€that€a€confession€has€beenÏgiven€voluntarily€and€without€coercion€is€binding€upon€theÏappellate€court€in€the€absence€of€a€showing€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€ruling.€€òòLowe€v.€State€óó584€S.W.2d€239Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€has€the€burdenÏof€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó€529€S.W.2d€501(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1975).€€A€trial€court's€determination€at€a€suppression€hearing€isÏpresumptively€correct€on€appeal.€This€presumption€of€correctnessÏmay€only€be€overcome€on€appeal€if€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€court's€findings.€òòState€v.€KellyóóÏ603€S.W.2d€726,€729€€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€appellate€courts€of€thisÏstate€are€bound€to€accept€that€determination€by€the€trial€courtÏthat€a€confession€was€freely€and€voluntarily€given€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€that€finding.€òòStateÏv.€Adamsóó€859€S.W.2d€359,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Findings€ofÏfact€made€by€the€trial€judge€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€of€aÏmotion€to€suppress€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€andÏan€appellate€court€will€not€set€aside€the€trial€court's€judgmentÏunless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÍthe€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó€928€S.W.2d€18Ï(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àThe€determination€of€whether€a€confession€has€been€obtainedÏimproperly,€by€coercive€or€improper€inducement,€can€only€be€madeÏby€examining€all€the€surrounding€circumstances€involving€theÏinterrogation€leading€to€the€confession.€òòMonts€v€Stateóó€400€S.W.2dÏ722(Tenn.€1966).€€The€question€in€each€case€is€whether€the€conductÏof€the€law€enforcement€officers€was€such€to€undermine€theÏaccused's€free€will€and€critically€impair€his€capacity€forÏself„determination€so€as€to€bring€about€an€involuntary€confession.ÏòòColumbe€v.€Connecticutóó€367€U.S.€568,€602,€81€S.€Ct.€1860,€1879,€6ÏL€Ed.€2d€1037,€1057„58€(1961);€òòState€v.€Kellyóó€603€S.W.2d€726,Ï728(Tenn.€1980).€Ìà àWith€respect€to€the€statement€made€on€the€day€of€his€arrest,ÏAppellant,€in€addition€to€his€allegations€of€involuntariness€andÏnon„waiver€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€submits€that€his€request€forÏcounsel€was€not€honored€and€that€he€was€subsequently€coerced€intoÏgiving€an€uncounselled€statement.Ìà àAppellant€insists€that,€as€to€the€remaining€three€statements,Ïhis€appointed€counsel€was€ineffective€in€allowing€the€police€toÏspeak€with€him€in€the€absence€of€counsel.Ìà àFindings€of€fact€made€by€a€trial€court€on€issues€surroundingÏthe€giving€of€a€custodial€statement€are€binding€upon€appellateÏreview€if€there€is€any€evidence€to€support€them.òò€State€v.€O'GuinnóóÏ709€S.W.2d€561,€566€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Chandleróó€547€S.W.2dÏ918,€923€(Tenn.€1977).€€This€includes€the€waiver€of€the€right€toÍcounsel.€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó€864€S.W.2d€465,€473€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€16€L.€Ed.€2dÏ694(1966),€renders€inadmissible€as€evidence„in„chief€incriminatingÏstatements€obtained€as€the€result€of€custodial€interrogation€priorÏto€the€accused€being€advised€that€he€has€the€right€to€remainÏsilent€and€the€right€to€counsel.€The€Court€in€òòMirandaóó€foundÏcustodial€interrogation€to€be€inherently€coercive€and€declared€theÏright€to€counsel€to€be€a€necessary€procedural€safeguard€to€protectÏthe€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€An€accused's€assertedÏ"right€to€cut€off€questioning"€must€be€scrupulously€honored,"€butÏmay€be€waived.€òòMichigan€v.€Mosleyóó,€423€U.S.€96,€104,€96€S.Ct.€321,Ï326€(1975).€When€an€accused€invokes€his€right€to€counsel,€allÏ"interrogation€must€cease€until€an€attorney€is€present."€òòMirandaóó,Ï384€U.S.€at€474.€€Repeating€the€Miranda€warning€and€obtaining€aÏwaiver€is€not€compliance.€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€101ÏS.Ct.€1880€(1981).€However,€the€right€to€counsel€must€be€claimed.ÏSee€òòState€v.€Claybrookóó,€736€S.W.2d€95€(Tenn.€1987).€A€confessionÏmade€after€a€request€for€counsel€is€admissible€only€if€the€accusedÏinitiates€further€discussion€with€the€police€and€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€waives€his€Miranda€rights.€òòOregon€v.€Bradshawóó,€462ÏU.S.€1039,€103€S.Ct.€2830€(1983);€òòState€v.€Claybrookóó,€supra.€ÏWhether€the€appellant€did€or€did€not€make€an€equivocal€orÏunequivocal€request€for€an€attorney€is€a€question€of€fact.€€òòStateÏv.€Farmer€óó€927€S.W.2d€582€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ìà@ àò òAnalysis€„€Statement€on€day€of€Crime€(Issue€#1)Ìó óà àAppellantððs€account€of€the€facts€surrounding€the€firstÍstatement€(August€8,€1991)€differs€dramatically€from€thoseÏtestified€to€by€the€police€officers.€€The€trial€court€accreditedÏthe€version€given€by€the€police€officers.€€We€agree.Ìà àAppellant€testified€at€the€hearing€of€the€motion€to€suppressÏthat€he€told€Officer€McCarter€of€his€desire€to€speak€to€a€lawyer;Ïthat€while€Appellant€sat€in€the€lobby€of€the€jail€waiting€for€hisÏlawyer,€Officer€McCarter€came€out€into€the€lobby€three€timesÏasking€if€Appellant€would€talk€to€him€and€seemed€angry€whenÏAppellant€stated€that€he€desired€to€wait€for€his€lawyer;€that€theÏfemale€officers€came€out€ð ðonce€or€twiceðð€and€asked€if€AppellantÏwould€talk€to€Officer€McCarter;€that€Appellant€was€never€advisedÏof€his€rights€prior€to€giving€the€statement;€that€he€signed€theÏwaivers€at€the€same€time€that€he€signed€the€statement€itself;€thatÏOfficers€McCarter€and€Shaw€threatened€him€and€promised€thatÏAppellant€would€not€be€prosecuted€for€breaking€into€his€uncleððsÏgarage€if€he€would€ð ðcooperateðð,€causing€him€to€give€the€statement.Ìà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€officers€testified€that€AppellantÏnever€told€them€that€he€desired€to€talk€to€a€lawyer€but€thatÏOfficers€Shaw€and€McCarter€overheard€Appellant€tell€a€familyÏmember€to€call€Richard€Talley,€a€Dandridge€attorney.€€Because€theyÏhad€heard€that€communication,€the€officers€told€Appellant€to€sitÏin€the€lobby€of€the€jail€to€await€his€lawyer.€€No€officer€spoke€toÏAppellant€during€his€one€to€two€hour€wait.€€Finally,€AppellantÏhimself€contacted€Officer€Denton€and€requested€to€talk€to€OfficerÏMcCarter,€stating,€ð ð...€Iððm€ready€to€talk€without€a€lawyer.€€IððmÏtired€of€waiting.ðð€€Even€then€Officer€McCarter€refused€to€talk€toÍAppellant€until€he€had€executed€a€written€waiver€of€counsel.€ÏAppellant€dictated€a€simple€waiver€to€Officer€Denton€and€signedÏthe€same€in€her€presence.€€Once€again,€Appellant€was€advised€ofÏhis€rights.€€He€then€signed€a€waiver€and€gave€police€the€statementÏcomplained€of.€€At€no€time€was€Appellant€threatened€nor€was€heÏmade€any€promises.Ìà àThe€import€of€Appellantððs€original€statement€was€that€DavidÏJohnson€(Appellantððs€brother„in„law)€was€the€one€who€actually€beatÏthe€victim€and€that€Appellant€was€present€and€pulled€Johnson€awayÏfrom€the€victim.Ìà àThe€exhibits€establish€that€Appellant€signed€his€statementÏthat€he€would€talk€to€Officer€McCarter€without€Richard€TalleyÏbeing€present€at€12:45€p.m.€and€that€he€signed€a€waiver€of€hisÏrights€at€the€same€time€before€Officers€Denton€and€Feisko.€€AnÏadditional€waiver€was€signed€by€Appellant€at€1:12€p.m.€ÏAppellantððs€statement€was€signed€by€him€at€1:57€p.m.Ìà àAppellantððs€recitation€of€the€facts€surrounding€his€firstÏstatement€paint€a€picture€of€unprofessionalism,€ineptness,Ïmalevolence€and€outright€stupidity€on€the€part€of€the€police.€IfÏAppellant€was€telling€the€truth,€the€police€violated€hisÏconstitutional€rights€in€every€conceivable€manner.€Ìà àThe€trial€judge€accredited€the€facts€given€by€the€policeÏofficers.€€Appellant€often€contradicted€himself€within€a€œfewÏsentences›€and€told€a€story€which€was€simply€too€farfetched€toÏbelieve.€€The€various€officersðð€testimony€supported€each€other€andÏwas€supported€by€the€exhibits,€which€Appellant€himself€signed.€ÍThus,€the€facts€testified€to€by€the€officers€are€the€facts€byÏwhich€the€statement€is€tested.Ìà àThe€State€insists,€perhaps€correctly,€that€none€of€the€rightsÏwhich€Appellant€complains€were€violated€had€attached€because€theÏinterrogation€was€not€a€custodial€one.€€We€will€assume€òòabÏarguendoóó,€however,€that€the€interrogation€was€custodial€in€orderÏto€reach€Appellantððs€complaints.Ìà àAppellate€complains€that€he€was€questioned€in€spite€of€theÏfact€that€he€had€requested€counsel.€€When€a€suspect€invokes€theÏright€to€counsel,€further€questioning€by€the€police€in€the€absenceÏof€an€attorney€is€constitutionally€prohibited.€€òòEdwards€v.ÏArizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€485,€101€S.€Ct.€1880,€1885€(1981).€€In€thisÏcase,€under€the€facts€found€by€the€trial€judge,€although€theÏAppellant€did€not€tell€a€police€officer€that€he€wanted€to€haveÏcounsel€present,€the€police€overheard€him€request€that€a€familyÏmember€call€an€attorney.€€As€a€result,€the€police€declined€toÏquestion€the€Appellant€until€counsel€was€present,€a€restraint€thatÏwas€appropriate€under€the€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.ÏPorteróó,€764€F.2d€1,€6„7,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€481€U.S.€1048€(1987)Ï(Attempt€to€contact€counsel€by€telephone€in€the€presence€of€theÏpolice€constituted€an€exercise€of€right€to€counsel,€even€thoughÏthere€was€no€express€statement€to€the€police€that€the€defendantÏwanted€an€attorney€present.)Ìà àHowever,€subsequent€facts€establish€that€the€Appellant€waivedÏhis€right€to€have€counsel€present€when€he€reinitiated€contact€withÏOfficer€McCarter.€€An€accused€having€expressed€his€desire€to€dealÍwith€police€only€through€counsel€is€not€subject€to€furtherÏinterrogation€by€the€authorities€until€counsel€has€been€madeÏavailable€to€him,€unless€the€accused€himself€initiates€furtherÏcommunication,€exchanges,€or€œconversations›€with€the€police.€ÏòòEdwardsóó,€451€U.S.€at€484„85,€101€S.€Ct.€at€1885;€òòsee€State€v.ÏGoforthóó,€678€S.W.2d€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Appellant€didÏjust€œthat.€›€œHe›€went€to€the€window€of€the€counter€where€OfficerÏDenton€was€working€and€ð ðpeckedðð€on€the€glass€to€attract€herÏattention.€€Officer€Denton€then€relayed€Appellantððs€request€toÏtalk€to€Officer€McCarter€who€refused€to€speak€with€him€untilÏAppellant€had€signed€a€written€waiver€of€the€presence€of€counsel.€ÏAppellant€dictated€a€simple€statement€of€his€desire€to€talk€toÏOfficer€McCarter€without€the€presence€of€his€lawyer€to€OfficerÏDenton€and€signed€the€same€before€her.€€It€is€readily€apparentÏthat€Appellant€initiated€the€contact€with€the€police€and€that€theÏpolice€scrupulously€honored€his€indirect€request€for€counsel€to€beÏpresent€until€Appellant€himself€initiated€further€contact.€€As€theÏtrial€judge€found,€Officer€McCarter€did€everything€except€run€awayÏfrom€the€appellant.Ìà àAppellant€was€twice€advised€of€his€rights€and€twice€waivedÏthem€in€writing€before€being€questioned€by€Officer€McCarter.€€TheÏquestioning€was€proper€and€nothing€was€done€to€render€theÏstatement€involuntary.€€On€the€contrary,€in€this€matter€andÏthroughout€the€entire€investigation,€these€officers€acted€with€aÏhigh€degree€of€integrity€and€professionalism.Ìà àAppellantððs€allegations€that€he€had€been€drinking€and€takingÍpills€that€night€are€not€supported€by€the€testimony€at€the€motionÏto€suppress.€€From€our€examination€of€the€record,€we€find€noÏindication€that€Appellant€was€impaired€in€any€manner.Ìà àIn€addition€to€the€above€Fifth€Amendment€rights,€AppellantÏinsists€that€he€was€deprived€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€toÏcounsel.€€Appellant€was€not€arrested€until€after€he€had€given€theÏstatement€to€the€police.€€Prior€to€that€time,€he€sat€unguarded€inÏthe€lobby€of€the€jail€for€nearly€two€hours.€€The€Sixth€AmendmentÏright€to€counsel€attaches€only€when€adversarial€judicialÏproceedings€have€been€initiated€by€a€formal€charge.€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Gouveiaóó€467€U.S.€180,€104€S.Ct.€2292€(1984).€€Appellantððs€rightÏto€counsel€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€had€not€yet€attached.Ìà àIssue€number€one€is€found€to€be€without€merit.Ìà@ àà@ àò òAnalysis€„€Subsequent€Statements€(Issue€#2)ó óÌà àIn€an€innovative€and€novel€use€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€rightÏto€counsel,€counsel€for€Appellant€insists€that€his€laterÏstatements€should€have€been€suppressed€in€that€he€was€denied€hisÏright€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€before€the€trialÏbecause€Appellantððs€counsel€at€that€time€allowed€the€police€toÏinterview€Appellant€without€counsel€attending.€€From€the€first€twoÏof€these€post„arrest€interviews€came€statements€of€the€AppellantÏwhich€were€not€much,€if€any,€more€incriminating€than€AppellantððsÏfirst€statement.€€In€the€final€interview,€Appellant€confessed€forÏthe€first€time€that€it€was€he€who€inflicted€the€fatal€blows€uponÏthe€deceased.€€Present€counsel€for€Appellant€insist€that€hisÏcounsel€at€the€time€should€never€have€allowed€such€questioning.Ìà àFirst,€we€have€examined€the€circumstances€of€the€threeÏstatements€and€agree€with€the€trial€judge€that€Appellantððs€rightsÏwere€properly€protected€by€the€police€and€that€the€statements€wereÏvoluntary.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€policeÏconducted€these€three€subsequent€interviews€in€the€same€manner€inÏwhich€they€conducted€the€initial€interview.Ìà àWe€are€left€with€Appellantððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€prior€to€the€trial.€€Questions€of€this€nature€almostÏalways€arise€during€the€hearing€of€a€post€conviction€reliefÏpetition.€€Although€the€claim€may€be€novel€at€this€stage€of€theÏproceedings,€it€may€form€the€basis€of€relief€in€a€proper€case.€Ìà à€To€prevail€on€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,Ïthe€defendant€must€ultimately€show€that€the€adversarial€processÏfailed€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2dÏ744,€747€(Tenn.€1993)€[citing€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ï668,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674,€104€S.€Ct.€2052€(1984)];€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ï789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990)€[also€citing€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€supra].€Ìà àProving€failure€of€the€adversarial€process€because€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€requires€the€defendant€toÏsatisfy,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€both€prongs€of€aÏtwo„pronged€test.€Seeòò€Butleóór,€supra€at€899.€First,€the€defendantÏmust€prove€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€in€that€itÏfailed€to€meet€the€threshold€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÏin€criminal€cases.€òòButleróó,€supra€at€899.€Second,€the€defendantÏmust€prove€actual€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficientÍperformance.€òòCooperóó,€supra€747€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€supra€at€687).€ÏActual€prejudice€is€established€by€demonstrating€that,€but€for€hisÏcounsel's€deficient€performance,€the€results€of€his€trial€wouldÏhave€been€different€and,€thus,€the€adversarial€process€failed€toÏproduce€a€reliable€result.€€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).à àÌà àWhile€the€trial€court€found€all€statements€were€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€made,€it€expressed€concern€with€aspects€of€theÏperformance€of€defense€counsel:€€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIn€all€candor,€the€Court€must€say€that€heÏwished€that€[trial€counsel]€had€inquiredÏfurther€of€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€investigation€by€the€officers.€ÏHe€obviously€has€the€right€to€rely€upon€whatÏhis€client€tells€him.€€All€of€us€who€haveÏrepresented€people€have€that€right,€assumingÏit€is€reasonable.ÌÌà àThis€court€does€believe€that€theÏdefendant's€statements€to€[trial€counsel]€wereÏconsistent€with€that€he€had€told€on€the€AugustÏ6th€statement.€€I€have€no€reason€to€findÏotherwise.€€I€must€say,€however,€and€it€painsÏthis€Court€to€have€to€say€this,€that€anÏattorney€should€not€send€their€client€offÏunattended€time€after€time,€especially€to€aÏcritical€proceeding€like€a€polygraph€exam.€ÏI've€represent[ed]€cooperating€defendants;€allÏof€us€have.€€But€I€don't€think€that€it€risesÏto€the€level€expected€of€us€under€the€sixthÏamendment€to€send€our€clients€off€unattendedÏfor€polygraph€examinations.€...€€I€don't€thinkÏthat's€proper.ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àA€number€of€problems,€however,€often€arise€when€a€claimÏof€the€denial€of€effective€counsel€is€considered€in€a€directÏappeal:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àRaising€issues€pertaining€to€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€theÏfirst€time€in€the€appellate€court€is€aÏpractice€fraught€with€peril.€€The€appellantÏruns€the€risk€of€having€the€issue€denied€dueÏto€a€procedural€default,€or,€in€theÏalternative,€having€a€panel€of€this€CourtÏconsider€the€issue€on€the€merits.€€The€betterÏpractice€is€to€òònotóó€raise€the€issue€on€directÏappeal€....€€The€issue€can€be€subsequentlyÏraised€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€if€theÏappellant's€direct€appeal,€as€here,€is€notÏsuccessful.ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌÓÓòòState€v.€Sluderóó,€No.€1236,€slip€op.€at€16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€œÌÌKnoxville,›€March€14,€1990).ÌÓÓÌà àà àThis€rationale€applies€to€the€circumstances€in€thisÏcase.€€A€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€this€timeÏis,€in€our€view,€premature.€€The€record€is€simply€not€adequatelyÏdeveloped€for€a€final€disposition.€€Thus,€we€decline€to€consider€Ïthe€second€claim€as€it€relates€to€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.ÌÌà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àIn€his€third€issue,€Appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€evidence€in€the€record€of€his€trial€to€sustain€a€conviction€ofÏmurder€in€that€the€proof€does€not€establish€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€death€of€the€deceased€was€the€consequence€of€theÏbeating€inflicted€upon€her€by€Appellant.Ìò òà@ àStandard€of€Reviewó óÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÍlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó€571ÏS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€verdict€of€guilt,€approved€by€theÏtrial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòStateÏv.€Townsendóó€525€S.W.2d€842€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€presumption€ofÏinnocence€is€thereby€removed€and€a€presumption€on€guilt€exists€onÏappeal.€òòAnglin€v.€Stateóó€553€S.W.2d€616€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€ÏThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption.€ÏòòState€v.€Brown€óó551€S.W.2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).Ìà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged€on€appeal,Ïthe€test€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€òòState€v.€Duncan€óó698€S.W.2d€63€(Tenn.€1985);€òòRule€13(e),ÏT.R.A.P.Ìò òóóà@ àAnalysisó ó€ò òÌó óà àThe€victim€in€this€case€was€a€95€year€old€lady€who€livedÏalone€and€was€capable€of€caring€for€herself.€€The€proof€in€theÏcase€did€not€establish€that€she€had€any€serious€medical€conditionÏprior€to€the€beating€of€August€6,€1991.€€On€said€date,€the€factsÏfound€by€the€jury€and€accredited€by€the€trial€judge€establish€thatÏAppellant€entered€the€house€of€the€victim,€knocked€her€to€theÏfloor,€choked€her€and€kicked€her€in€the€head.€€She€was€found€lyingÏon€the€floor€by€friends.€€The€victim€was€taken€to€a€hospital,Ïthence€to€a€nursing€home.€€Her€medical€course€was€one€of€steadyÍdecline€until€her€death€on€October€27,€1991.Ìà àThe€expert€forensic€pathologist€called€by€the€state€testifiedÏthat€he€performed€an€autopsy€on€the€body€of€the€deceased.€€HeÏdetermined€that€the€cause€of€her€death€was€extensive€subduralÏhemorrhage€which€was€consistent€with€multiple€blunt€trauma€such€asÏbeing€hit€in€the€head€by€fists€or€kicked€in€the€head.€€The€finalÏcause€of€Decedentððs€death,€he€opined,€was€the€accumulation€ofÏfluid€in€her€lungs€while€she€was€in€a€weakened€state€due€to€theÏinjuries€mentioned€above.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€deceasedÏhad€suffered€a€stroke.Ìà àAppellantððs€own€medical€witness€was€the€physician€who€caredÏfor€the€deceased€from€her€injury€until€her€death.€€He€testifiedÏthat,€to€his€knowledge,€the€deceased€had€received€no€trauma€to€herÏhead€except€that€inflicted€by€the€appellant.Ìà àThe€fact€that€nearly€twelve€weeks€elapsed€between€injury€andÏdeath€does€not€prevent€Appellantððs€actions€from€being€the€cause€ofÏDecedentððs€death.€€The€proof€establishes€a€direct€connectionÏbetween€Appellantððs€actions€and€the€death€of€the€deceased.€€TheÏfact€that€the€deceased€may€have€actually€expired€due€to€secondaryÏcauses€brought€on€by€the€injuries€inflicted€by€Appellant€does€notÏallow€him€to€escape€responsibility€for€this€homicide.€òòEvans€v.ÏState€óó557€S.W.2d€927(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€The€issue€is€withoutÏmerit€as€to€the€felony€murder.€Ìà àHowever,€we€note€that€a€conviction€for€especially€aggravatedÏburglary€was€inappropriate€in€this€case.€€The€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€statute€provides€as€follows:€ð ðActs€whichÍconstitute€an€offense€under€this€section€may€be€prosecuted€underÏthis€section€or€any€other€applicable€section,€but€not€both.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„14„404(d).€€Courts€have€interpreted€thisÏstatute€to€mean€that€if€the€serious€bodily€injury€element€used€toÏestablish€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€offense€is€the€sameÏinjury€that€is€an€element€of€an€accompanying€offense,€theÏdefendant€may€not€be€convicted€of€both€the€especially€aggravatedÏburglary€and€the€accompanying€offense.€€òòSee€State€v.€Olleróó,€851ÏS.W.2d€841,€843€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860ÏS.W.€2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ìà àIn€a€recent€case€similar€to€the€present€one,€when€theÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€both€especially€aggravated€burglary€andÏfirst€degree€murder,€this€court€stated€that€the€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€conviction€must€be€reduced€to€an€aggravatedÏburglary€conviction€because€the€ð ðact€of€killing€the€victimÏconstituted€the€ððserious€bodily€injuryðð€that€was€used€to€enhanceÏthe€burglary€offense€to€especially€aggravated€burglary.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏJehiel€Fieldsóó,€No.€03C01„9607„CC„00261,€Bradley€County,€slip€op.Ïat€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€18,€1997).€€Thus,€in€order€to€doÏsubstantial€justice€in€this€case,€we€believe€that€the€convictionÏfor€especially€aggravated€burglary€constitutes€plain€error€and€weÏmodify€the€conviction€to€aggravated€burglary.€€òòSee€Hollandóó,€860ÏS.W.2d€at€60.€€Furthermore,€for€the€same€reasons€provided€by€theÏtrial€court€in€sentencing€the€defendant€to€ten€years€for€theÏespecially€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€B€felony,€we€conclude€thatÏa€sentence€of€five€years€shall€be€imposed€for€the€offense€ofÍaggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony.€€ÌÌà@ àò òCONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óÌà àLastly,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏordering€his€sentence€for€Especially€Aggravated€Burglary€to€runÏconsecutively€to€his€life€sentence€for€Felony€Murder.€We€willÏconsider€his€claim€as€it€relates€to€the€five„year€sentence€we€haveÏimposed€for€aggravated€burglary.Ìà@ àò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÌà àThe€standard€of€review€in€sentencing€in€criminal€cases€is€aÏòòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€sentence€set€by€theÏtrial€court€is€correct€if€the€record€shows€that€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€principles€of€the€Sentencing€Act€of€1989,€consideredÏthe€relevant€factors€and€made€proper€findings€of€fact€in€theÏrecord.€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991).€€If€this€is€done,€then€we€must€affirm€even€if€we€would€haveÏpreferred€a€different€result.€Id.€€The€burden€of€showing€that€theÏsentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€Appellant.€Id.Ìà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€atÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€toÏbe€followed€in€sentencing.€This€section€mandates€the€court'sÏconsideration€of€the€following:€Ìà àà à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€à àà à€€€Ïsentencing€hearing;Ìà àà à(2)€the€presentence€report;€à àÌà àà à(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€à àà à€€€Ísentencing€alternatives;Ìà àà à(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€à àà à€€€Ïconduct€involved;Ìà àà à(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€à àà à€€€Ïthe€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€à àà àà à€€€Ï40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€Ìà àà à(6)€any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€à àà à€€€Ïown€behalf€about€sentencing.€Ìà àThe€record€before€us€indicates€that€the€trial€judgeÏconsidered€all€of€the€above€factors€which€applied€to€this€case.€ÏWe,€therefore,€must€presume€that€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€wasÏcorrect.Ìà àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏof€1989€the€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2dÏ391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case,€our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÏaggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€anyÏone€of€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2dÏ227€(Tenn.€1987),€the€court€established€an€additional€category€forÏthose€defendants€convicted€of€two€or€more€statutory€offensesÏinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,€additionalÏwords€of€caution:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€beÏroutinely€imposed€...€and€...€the€aggregateÏmaximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses€involved.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ739€S.W.2d€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€theÍcautionary€language.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€actÏis,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€andÏòòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentenced€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€Ìmore€of€the€following€criteriaœ× ƒ) ××  ×›€exist:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminalÏwho€has€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminalÏacts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€recordÏof€criminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentallyÏabnormal€person€so€declared€by€a€competentÏpsychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€anÏinvestigation€prior€to€sentencing€that€theÏdefendant's€criminal€conduct€has€beenÏcharacterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifferenceÏto€consequences;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offenderÏwhose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regardÏfor€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€humanÏlife€is€high;€€€€à à€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€orÏmore€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuseÏof€a€minor€with€consideration€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances€arising€from€theÏrelationship€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏor€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant'sÏundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€andÏscope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€the€extent€of€theÏresidual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€theÏvictim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminalÏcontempt.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€before€consecutiveÏsentencing€could€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerous€offender,€as€nowÏdefined€by€subsection€(b)(4)€in€the€statute,€other€conditions€mustÏbe€present:€€(a)€that€the€crimes€involved€aggravatingÏcircumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€a€necessaryÏmeans€to€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€and€(c)€that€theÏterm€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àà àMore€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ï938€(Tenn.€1995),€our€high€court€reaffirmed€those€principles,Ïholding€that€consecutive€sentences€cannot€be€required€of€theÏdangerous€offender€"unless€the€terms€reasonably€relate[]€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€toÏprotect€the€public€(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€thoseÏpersons€who€resort€to€aggravated€criminal€conduct."€€The€òòWilkersonóóÏdecision,€which€modified€somewhat€the€strict€factual€guidelinesÏfor€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€in€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2dÏ378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€described€sentencing€as€a€"humanÏprocess€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixedÏand€mechanical€rules."€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€ÌÌà@ àò òAnalysisó óÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€was€a€dangerous€offenderÏin€that€his€behavior€indicated€"little€or€no€regard€for€humanÏlife,"€and€that€he€did€not€hesitate€"about€committing€a€crime€inÏwhich€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€The€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€commission€of€the€offense€were€found€by€the€trialÏcourt€to€have€been€aggravated.€The€trial€court€was€impressed,€asÏare€we,€that€Appellant€broke€into€the€house€of€a€ninety„five€yearÏold€lady€knowing€her€to€be€home,€stole€her€medicine€from€her€andÏbeat€her€and€kicked€her€far€beyond€the€extent€necessary€toÏaccomplish€the€theft€of€the€drug.€€Appellant€knew,€or€should€haveÏknown,€that€a€person€of€this€advanced€age€would€be€extremelyÏsusceptible€to€injury€and€that€even€an€injury€which€would€not€beÏserious€to€a€younger€person€could€prove€fatal€to€a€person€ofÏadvanced€age.Ìà àThe€trial€court€expressly€found€that€confinement€for€anÏextended€period€of€time€is€necessary€to€protect€society€fromÏAppellant's€unwillingness€to€lead€a€productive€life€and€his€resortÏto€criminal€activity€in€furtherance€of€his€œanti„societalÏlifestyle.›€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€that€AppellantÏhave€two€juvenile€burglary€convictions€in€1982€(just€before€heÏturned€eleven€years€old),€a€being€under€the€influence€of€alcoholÏjuvenile€conviction€in€1989€and€two€months€later€a€conviction€forÏdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€This€offence€wasÏcommitted€in€August€of€1991€when€Appellant€was€nineteen€years€old.€ÏThe€trial€court€recited€it€finding€that,€ð ð...this€defendant,€evenÏat€this€young€age,€has€already€indicated€his€unwillingness€to€leadÍa€productive€live,€and€has€no€hesitation€about€resorting€toÏcriminal€activityðð.€€In€fact,€the€court€found€Appellant€to€beÏð ðtotally€out€of€controlðð.Ìà àFinally€the€trial€court€found€that€the€aggregate€length€ofÏthe€sentences€reasonably€related€to€the€offenses€of€which€theÏappellant€was€convicted.€€The€actions€of€the€appellant€were€brutalÏand€vicious.€We€do€not€find€that€the€appellant€possesses€theÏcharacteristics€necessary€to€rehabilitate€himself€while€servingÏhis€life€sentence.€€In€fact,€all€of€the€facts€which€appear€in€theÏrecord€indicate€that€Appellantððs€prospects€for€rehabilitation€areÏslight.€Due€to€this€fact,€the€seriousness€of€the€offensesÏinvolved,€and€the€aggravated€circumstances€surrounding€thoseÏoffenses,€we€conclude€that€the€aggregate€sentence€is€consistentÏwith€the€principles€of€sentencing.Ìà àThe€first€degree€murder€judgment€is€affirmed.€€The€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€conviction€is€modified€œto€one›€for€aggravatedÏburglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€a€sentence€of€five€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€is€imposed,€to€be€served€consecutively€toÏthe€life€sentence€imposed€for€the€first€œdegree€murder.›ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ_______________________________________›Ìœ›à àà àà àà àà àRobert€E.€œBurch,€Special›€JudgeÌÌÓÓÌœò òÔ€¼ÔÇCONCUR:ó óÔ€XÔ›ÌÓÓÌ_________________________Ì€Gary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌ_________________________Ì€Joseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌ