ÿWPCA …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ  0l 0Dt w¸ 0JÔ 0T 0^r 0hÐ 0r8 0|ª 0†& 0¬ 1u< U,± 0dÝ U,AU>m B«U*ÈB)òDC AM^-« D3Øv~ vÓ‰ 0@\ AOœÆë 0D± D/õ B$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»~g ppppdp3|xü ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóì í Dî Ó€ú 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMarch€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€f=XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚Xª ¸ ™XÓÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9505„CR„00138Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àGREENE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€BECKNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌLAWRENCE€SHELTON,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Assault€and€Criminal€Trespass)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGreg€W.€Eichelmanà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ1609€College€Park€Drive,€Box€11à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMorristown,€Tennessee€37812„1618€à àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichelle€L.€LehmannÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€BellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCecil€C.€Mills,ÏJr.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€DistrictÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEric€D.€ChristiansenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à113€West€Church€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€Tennessee€37743ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Lawrence€Shelton,€appeals€as€of€right€the€judgment€ofÏconvictions€of€assault€and€criminal€trespass€entered€against€him€by€the€CriminalÏCourt€of€Greene€County.€€He€argues€on€appeal€that:ÌÓÓ(1)à8 àCount€one€of€a€two„count€indictment€brought€against€himÏwas€not€endorsed€as€"a€True€Bill"€and€was€thereforeÏinvalid.ÌÌ(2)à8 àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€supportÏthe€jury's€verdict.ÌÌ(3)à8 àThe€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€excessive.ÌÌÓÓWe€find€the€appellant's€arguments€to€be€without€merit,€and€accordingly€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌThe€appellant€and€his€neighbor,€Eddie€Lynn€King,€were€involved€in€aÏproperty€dispute€in€Greeneville,€Tennessee.€€There€was€apparently€bad€bloodÏbetween€the€appellant€and€the€victim€for€some€time€as€a€result€of€this€propertyÏdispute.ÌOn€August€13,€1994,€Mr.€King€and€a€neighbor's€grandson€were€riding€in€Mr.ÏKing's€truck€on€their€way€home€from€the€store.€€Mr.€King€testified€that€he€saw€theÏappellant€shaking€his€fist€at€Mr.€King.€€Mr.€King€continued€on€his€way€home€andÏnoticed€that€the€appellant€was€following€him€very€closely€in€his€pickup€truck.€€ÌThe€appellant€contends€that€while€driving€to€work€on€that€afternoon,€the€victimÏfired€a€gun€at€him.€€According€to€the€appellant,€there€was€some€other€skirmishingÏbetween€the€two€men€while€in€their€vehicles€and€on€the€public€roads€of€GreeneÏCounty.€€In€any€event,€the€appellant€either€chased€or€followed€the€victim€to€theÏvictim's€home€where€the€two€began€a€physical€brawl.€€Although€at€trial€both€partiesÏclaimed€that€the€other€man€had€started€the€fight,€the€jury€accredited€the€victim'sÏversion€of€the€events.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€appellant€shoved€him€backwardsÏfrom€the€driveway€into€his€yard€and€then€knocked€him€unconscious.€€When€the€victimÏcame€to,€the€appellant€was€on€top€of€him€beating€him,€and€the€victim's€wife€wasÏwielding€a€.22€caliber€rifle,€attempting€to€shoot€the€appellant.€€Unable€to€release€theÏsafety€on€the€rifle,€the€victim's€wife€began€beating€the€appellant€on€the€back€with€theÏrifle€barrel.€€Mrs.€King€testified€that€the€appellant€beat€the€victim€with€a€rock.€ÍUltimately,€the€victim€recovered€and€was€able€to€get€the€rifle€from€his€wife€and€aim€itÏat€the€appellant.€€This€sent€the€appellant€back€to€his€truck€and€on€his€way€home.€€ÌThe€State€charged€the€appellant€with€aggravated€assault€and€aggravatedÏcriminal€trespass.€€The€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offensesÏof€assault€and€criminal€trespass.€€The€appellant€was€sentenced€to€eleven€(11)Ïmonths€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days€in€the€county€jail€on€the€assault€conviction€andÏthirty€(30)€days€on€the€criminal€trespassing€conviction.€€Additionally,€the€juryÏassessed€a€$250.00€fine€for€the€assault€and€a€$50.00€fine€on€the€trespass€conviction.€ÏThe€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€and€the€trial€court€set€a€thirtyÏpercent€(30%)€release€eligibility€date.€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€VALIDITY€OF€CHARGING€INSTRUMENT€ó óÌBoth€the€state€and€the€appellant€refer€to€the€charging€instrument€in€this€caseÏas€a€two€count€indictment.€€However,€the€instrument€is€labeled€both€as€an€indictmentÏand€a€presentment.€€The€requirements€for€a€valid€presentment€are€different€fromÏthose€necessary€for€a€valid€indictment.€€In€order€to€be€considered€valid,€aÏpresentment€must,€€at€a€minimum,€contain€the€signatures€of€all€twelve€grand€jurors.€ÏòòMartin€v.€Stateóó,€127€Tenn.€324,€155€S.W.€129€(1912).€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„13„105€requires€that€a€valid€indictment€must€be€endorsed€ð ða€true€billðð€andÏsigned€by€the€grand€jury€foreman.€€ÌThe€charging€instrument€in€this€case€was€signed€by€the€grand€jurors,Ïreturned€as€a€True€Bill,€specifically€endorsed€by€the€grand€jury€foreman,€and€signedÏby€the€District€Attorney€General.€€Because€the€instrument€contained€more€than€theÏnecessary€endorsements€to€be€a€valid€indictment€and€was€signed€by€all€the€grandÏjurors,€the€instrument€was€valid.€€€The€appellant€contends€that€because€the€true€billÏendorsement€€was€contained€only€on€the€second€count€of€the€instrument,€count€oneÏof€the€instrument€is€invalid.€€€In€€òòJanow€v.€Stateóó,€567€S.W.2d€483,485€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978),€this€Court€held€that€ð ð[w]here€the€foreman€of€the€grand€jury€endorses€theÏsecond€count€of€the€indictment€to€indicate€that€the€entire€document€is€the€action€of€theÏgrand€jury€in€returning€a€true€bill€ðð€the€statutory€endorsement€requirements€of€theÏgrand€jury€foreman€are€fulfilled.€€€By€analogy€we€conclude€that€grand€jurorsððÏsignatures€on€the€second€count€of€a€two„count€presentment€indicate€that€the€entireÏdocument,€including€€the€first€count,€is€the€action€of€the€grand€jury.€ÌBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€charging€instrument,Ïwhether€an€indictment€or€a€presentment,€is€valid€and€the€trial€court€properly€refusedÏthe€appellantððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€aggravated€assault€charge.€€Ìà@ àò òÌà@ àII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏjury's€finding€him€guilty€of€assault€and€criminal€trespass.€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€theÍevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€this€Court€is€whether,€afterÏreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€61€L.€Ed.€2dÏ560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€ÌA€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory.€€òòStateÏv.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmight€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌIn€order€to€convict€the€appellant€of€assault,€the€State€was€required€to€proveÏthat€the€appellant€intentionally,€knowingly€or€recklessly€caused€bodily€injury€to€theÏvictim€or€that€he€intentionally€or€knowingly€caused€the€victim€to€reasonably€fearÏimminent€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann€Ô€#ÔððÔ€%Ô€39„13„101€(1991€Repl.).€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€the€jury€was€outside€its€province€when€it€disregarded€the€defense'sÏtheory€that€he€acted€in€self„defense.€€While€there€certainly€was€evidence€from€whichÏthe€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€appellant€struck€the€victim€in€self„defense,€itÏchose€not€to€credit€this€testimony.€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,Ïthe€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€notÏthis€Court.€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€ÌSecondly,€the€appellant€contends€that€he€never€knowingly€entered€orÏremained€on€the€property€of€the€victim€and€was€therefore€not€guilty€of€the€crime€ofÏcriminal€trespass.€€The€evidence€at€trial,€which€if€believed€by€the€jury,€was€that€theÏappellant€did€deliberately€enter€and€remain€on€the€posted€property€of€the€victim€inÏorder€to€commit€the€assault€on€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„405(a)Ï(1991€Repl.).€The€juryððs€verdict€of€guilt€for€the€offense€of€trespass€was€more€thanÏadequately€supported€by€the€evidence.€€€ÌA€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€ofÏguilt.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,331€(Tenn.€1977).€€€The€appellant€havingÏfailed€to€overcome€the€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÏmerit.€ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€SENTENCINGó óÌFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€inÏthis€case€was€excessive.€€The€appellant€was€sentenced€to€eleven€(11)€monthsÏtwenty„nine€(29)€days€on€the€assault€conviction€and€thirty€(30)€days€on€the€trespassÍconviction.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€and€the€judgeÏordered€a€thirty€percent€(30%)€release€eligibility€date.€€ÌWhen€reviewing€a€misdemeanor€sentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóóÏreview€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€of€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€òòState€v.€Gilboyóó,€857€S.W.2d€884,€889€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€Ô€#ÔððÔ€%Ô€40„35„401(d)€(1990€Repl.).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„302Ïrequires€that€in€misdemeanor€sentencing€cases€the€trial€court€shall€impose€a€specificÏsentence€"of€[a]€number€of€months,€days€or€hours€.€.€.€consistent€with€the€purposesÏand€principles€of€[the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989]."€€Further,€trial€courtsÏare€required€to€determine€the€percentage€of€the€sentence€that€a€defendant€mustÏserve€before€becoming€eligible€for€release.€€In€misdemeanor€sentencing€theÏminimum€sentence€allowed€by€law€is€not€presumed€to€be€the€appropriate€sentence.€ÏHowever,€trial€courts€are€to€weigh€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€as€in€any€otherÏcase.€€ÌThe€trial€court€imposed€the€maximum€sentence€for€each€conviction€basedÏupon€its€finding€that€the€appellant€had€a€history€of€past€criminal€behavior€and€that€heÏhad€used€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€SpecificallyÏrejecting€the€defendant's€assertion€that€he€acted€under€strong€provocation,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€there€were€no€mitigating€factors.€€Consistent€with€the€purposes€andÏprinciples€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€the€trial€court€further€determined€thatÍin€light€of€the€volatile€situation€giving€rise€to€the€criminal€episode,€a€harsh€sentenceÏwas€in€order.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€offenses€warranted€the€maximumÏsentences€in€order€to€specifically€deter€the€appellant€from€further€violent€actions,€asÏwell€as€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€trial€courtððs€finding€Ïthat€there€was€a€potential€for€renewed€hostilities€between€the€appellant€and€the€victimÏin€this€case€supported€its€determination€that€a€stiff€sentence€was€particularly€suited€toÏprovide€an€effective€deterrence.€€We€find€no€error€with€regard€to€the€sentencesÏimposed.ÌAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€in€all€respects,€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ