ÿWPC! …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ U, 0d= U,¡ U*Í B)÷ DC  AMcë° B›v~¸vÓ6 D3  0@< AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ >V?D@DAUBUCDDEÓ€QT»{s í?í?ý‡.+}3|xT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òAugust€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€#$";+'h|` ¤ `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€02„C„01„9409„CR„00208Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJoseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÌCEDRIC€E.€STAMPLEY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Attempt€to€Commit€First€DegreeÏMurder)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÓÓÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:à àÌÓÓCedric€E.€Stampley,€òòproóó€òòseóóà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ#93293151/4„Eà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ201€Poplar€Avenueà àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌSamuel€Perkinsà àà àà àà àà àEllen€H.€PollackÌ22€North€Second€Streetà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ(Elbow€Counsel)à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947Ìà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€C.€Beasley,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€________________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌò òÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÑ7€/¤XXdæXXdæ7ÑØØÙ  ÙÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€appellant,€Cedric€E.€Stampley,€was€convicted€of€an€attempt€to€commitÏmurder€in€the€first€degree,€a€Class€A€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€appellant€was€a€standard€offender€and€imposed€a€Range€I€sentenceÏconsisting€of€confinement€for€twenty„three€(23)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏSix€issues€are€presented€for€review.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€by€(1)€denying€his€motion€for€transcripts€ofÏthe€pretrial€hearings€and€daily€transcripts€during€the€two„day€trial,€(2)€denying€himÏaccess€to€the€courts€by€restricting€his€telephone€privileges,€(3)€admitting€the€victimððsÏpretrial€identification€when€the€photographs€shown€to€the€victim€were€suggestive€andÏprejudicial,€(4)€denying€his€right€to€confront€his€accusers,€(5)€imposing€an€excessiveÏsentence,€and€(6)€denying€his€motion€for€arrest€of€judgment€post„trial.€€After€a€thoroughÏreview€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€authorities€which€govern€theÏissues,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€beÏaffirmed.Ìà àThe€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€ÏHowever,€a€succinct€statement€of€the€evidence€is€essential€to€an€understanding€of€theÍissues€presented€for€review.Ìà àThe€victim,€Lonzo€Nicks,€a€security€guard,€worked€at€an€apartment€complex€inÏMemphis,€Tennessee.€€His€duties€required€that€he€man€a€guard€station€at€the€entranceÏto€the€apartment€complex.Ìà àOn€the€evening€of€October€13,€1993,€James€Richardson,€a€Memphis€policeÏofficer,€€was€investigating€drug€activity€in€the€apartment€complex.€€Officer€RichardsonÏadvised€Nicks€that€he€should€be€wary€of€a€group€of€individuals€who€had€gathered€nearÏa€fence€surrounding€the€apartment€complex.€€Nicks€later€described€the€clothing€wornÏby€one€of€the€individuals€in€the€group.€€The€appellant€was€wearing€the€clothingÏdescribed€by€Nicks.Ìà àShortly€after€Officer€Richardson€left,€a€group€of€teenage€girls€walked€past€theÏguard€station,€stating:€ð ðWeððre€going€to€kill€us€a€security€guard€tonight€because€he€donððtÏknow€how€to€stay€out€of€our€business.ðð€€When€the€group€walked€past€the€guard€stationÏa€second€time,€they€simply€laughed.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€a€passenger€in€a€motor€vehicle€that€left€the€apartmentÏcomplex.€€The€vehicle€stopped€at€the€guard€station.€€The€vehicle€then€exited,€turnedÏaround€after€traveling€€a€short€distance,€and€returned€to€the€apartment€complex.€€AÏpassenger€in€the€vehicle€pretended€that€his€hand€was€a€gun,€pointed€his€finger€atÏNicks,€and€pretended€to€shoot€him.€€The€occupants€of€the€vehicle€exited€andÏcongregated€at€the€fence.Ìà àThe€appellant€subsequently€walked€across€the€street,€got€into€a€motor€vehicle,Ïand€rode€a€short€distance€before€the€vehicle€stopped.€€The€appellant€walked€backÏtowards€the€guard€station.€€When€he€was€approximately€ten€feet€from€the€guard€station,Ïhe€asked€Nicks:€ð ðHow€are€you€doing?ðð€€Nicks€responded:€ð ðFine,€and€yourself?ðð€€TheÍappellant€responded:€ð ðNo,€you€ainððt€doing€so€damn€good.€€You€just€died.ðð€€TheÏappellant€then€opened€fire€with€a€gun.€€He€shot€Nicks€seven€times.€€The€hand€NicksÏused€to€shield€his€face€was€struck€by€three€projectiles€fired€from€the€weapon.€€His€legsÏwere€also€struck€by€three€projectiles.€€The€seventh€projectile€struck€Nicks€in€theÏabdomen.€€The€appellant€began€whistling€as€he€turned€and€walked€away€from€theÏguard€station.€€As€Nicks€struggled€across€the€street€to€obtain€help,€he€heard€a€femaleÏtelling€the€group€gathered€at€the€fence€that€Nicks€had€not€died€and€someone€shouldÏfinish€killing€him.€€The€group€subsequently€dispersed.Ìà àA€Memphis€police€officer€investigating€the€shooting€showed€Nicks€severalÏphotographs.€€One€of€the€photographs€depicted€the€appellant.€€Nicks€made€a€positiveÏidentification€of€the€appellant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€shooting.€€He€also€made€aÏcourtroom€identification€of€the€appellant.Ìà àThis€Court€notes€that€the€record€does€not€contain€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€UnderÏordinary€circumstances,€issues€one€through€four€would€be€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï3(e).€€Included€among€the€pleadings,€however,€is€an€order€denying€a€new€trial.€€AÏportion€of€the€€transcript€includes€the€grounds€asserted.€€Thus,€this€Court€will€considerÏthese€issues€on€the€merits.Ìò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€denying€his€ð ðmotion€for€daily€pretrial€and€trial€proceedings€transcripts.ðð€ÏThe€motion€was€filed€on€September€23,€1994.€€The€appellant€argues€that€a€ð ðdailyÏtranscript€of€pretrial€and€trial€proceedings€would€have€been€appropriate€in€aiding€[theÏappellant]€in€briefing€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€and€preparing€his€brief.ðð€€He€cites€òòStateÍv.€Elliottóó,€524€S.W.2d€473€(Tenn.€1975).Ìò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€hearing€on€the€appellantððs€pretrial€motion€toÏsuppress€was€conducted€on€the€23rd€day€of€August,€1994.€€The€evidence€contained€inÏthe€transcript€consists€of€twenty„two€pages.€The€victimððs€testimony€consumes€tenÏpages€of€the€transcript.€€The€testimony€of€Sergeant€Ronald€R.€Rogers,€an€investigatingÏofficer,€consumes€nine€pages€of€the€transcript.€€€Given€the€length€of€the€transcript,€theÏsuppression€hearing€lasted€less€than€an€hour.Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€the€motion€for€daily€transcription€approximately€one€monthÏafter€the€suppression€hearing€had€been€completed.€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€courtÏordered€that€€the€court€reporter€transcribe€the€suppression€hearing.€€The€appellant€wasÏprovided€with€a€copy€of€the€transcript,€and€he€used€the€transcript€during€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim.€€Therefore,€the€appellant€cannot€now€complain€that€the€trialÏcourt€failed€to€provide€him€with€a€daily€transcript€of€the€suppression€hearing€when€(1)Ïhe€did€not€make€a€request€for€a€daily€transcript€until€a€month€after€the€suppressionÏhearing€had€been€completed,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a),€(2)€he€was€provided€with€aÏtranscript€of€the€suppression€hearing,€and€(3)€he€used€the€transcript€in€an€effort€toÏimpeach€the€victim.€€The€transcript€is€part€of€the€record€transmitted€to€this€Court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€commenced€on€October€31,€1994,€and€concluded€the€next€day,ÏNovember€1,€1994.€€Jury€selection€consumed€the€first€day€of€the€trial.€€The€stateÍpresented€three€witnesses,€the€victim€and€two€police€officers.€€The€appellant€presentedÏfour€witnesses,€two€police€officers€and€two€lay€witnesses.€€One€of€the€officers€testifiedÏas€a€prosecution€witness.€€The€testimony€of€the€witnesses€consumes€124€pages€of€theÏtrial€transcript.Ìà àWhen€the€appellant€argued€this€motion,€he€did€not€give€a€reason€why€a€dailyÏtranscription€of€the€proceedings€was€necessary.€€He€simply€stated:€ð ðA€review€of€dailyÏproceedings€is€essential€to€permit€pro€se€indigent€defendant€to€adequately€prepare€hisÏcase.ðð€€The€court€stated€that€a€daily€transcript€ð ðis€a€luxury€but€not€a€necessity€for€theÏconducting€of€a€fair€trial.ðð€€The€court€further€advised€the€appellant€that€he€would€beÏsupplied€with€ample€paper€and€pencils€to€take€notes€during€the€trial.Ìà àThere€is€no€constitutional€provision,€statute,€rule€or€decision€which€guaranteesÏan€accused€the€right€to€daily€transcripts.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€541Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€Therefore,€the€burden€is€upon€the€accused€to€establish€to€theÏsatisfaction€of€the€appellate€court€that€such€transcripts€were€necessary€to€vindicate€aÏlegal€right.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€402€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï497€U.S.€1010,€110€S.Ct.€3254,€111€L.Ed.2d€764€(1990);€òòState€v.€Elliottóó,€524€S.W.2dÏ473,€475„77€(Tenn.€1975).€€Furthermore,€an€accused€is€not€entitled,€as€a€matter€of€right,Ïto€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings€before€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€ÏòòState€v.€Hillóó,€598€S.W.2d€815,€821€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1980).Ìà àThe€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€denial€of€daily€transcriptsÏprevented€his€right€to€assert€a€legal€right€or€prejudiced€him.€€òòSeeóó€òòStephensonóó,€878ÏS.W.2d€at€541.€€The€presentation€of€evidence€took€less€than€a€day€to€complete.€ÏAssuming€òòarguendoóó€the€€appellant€was€entitled€to€daily€transcripts,€the€trial€would€haveÏbeen€completed€and€the€jury€would€have€returned€its€verdict€before€a€court€reporterÍcould€have€prepared€the€transcript.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€prejudicial€error€byÏrestricting€his€telephone€privileges.€€He€argues€that€this€denied€him€his€constitutionalÏright€of€access€to€the€courts€because€he€was€not€able€to€contact€the€clerkððs€office€orÏwitnesses€essential€to€his€defense.€€The€only€authority€cited€in€support€of€this€issue€areÏthe€Due€Process€Clause€and€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€confined€to€the€Shelby€County€Jail€following€his€arrest.€€TheÏtrial€court€appointed€the€Shelby€County€Public€Defender€to€represent€the€appellant.€ÏThe€lawyer€assigned€to€represent€the€appellant€had€a€staff€investigator€look€into€theÏfacts€surrounding€the€allegations€contained€in€the€indictment.€€Subsequently,€theÏappellant€moved€for€and€was€granted€the€right€to€self„representation.€€The€assistantÏpublic€defender€was€relegated€to€elbow€counsel.€€The€staff€investigator€remainedÏavailable€to€the€appellant.€€When€the€appellant€wanted€research€performed€by€theÏassistant€public€defender,€the€applicable€cases€were€copied€and€given€to€the€appellantÏalong€with€a€list€of€the€cases€that€relied€upon€the€cases€furnished€to€the€appellant.€€Ìà àThe€appellant€obtained€a€telephone€number€that€he€thought€was€the€victimððsÏnumber.€€When€the€appellant€called€the€number,€he€reached€the€victimððs€sister.€€TheÏappellant€advised€the€victimððs€sister€that€he€was€the€person€who€shot€her€brother,€herÏbrother€was€mistaken€in€his€identification€of€the€appellant€as€the€perpetrator,€and€herÍbrother€should€consider€changing€his€testimony.€€On€August€25,€1994,€the€trial€courtÏwas€notified€of€the€telephone€call€and€the€statement€made€by€the€appellant.€€The€stateÏmoved€to€revoke€the€appellantððs€telephone€privileges€in€the€jail.€€On€August€26,€1994,Ïthe€trial€court€entered€an€order€restricting€the€appellantððs€telephone€privileges€in€theÏShelby€County€Jail€to€the€following€telephone€numbers:€the€appellantððs€home,€theÏattorney€serving€as€elbow€counsel,€and€the€staff€investigator€assigned€to€theÏappellantððs€case.Ìà à€€The€factual€findings€made€by€the€trial€court,€as€outlined€in€the€order€of€AugustÏ26,€1994,€are€binding€on€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€courtððs€findings.€€In€this€case,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€findings€made€by€the€trial€court.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€limiting€the€number€of€telephone€numbers€that€the€appellantÏcould€call.Ìà àContrary€to€the€appellantððs€assertion,€he€was€not€denied€access€to€the€courts,Ïaccess€to€the€clerkððs€office,€the€right€to€prepare€his€defense,€or€any€other€due€processÏor€equal€protection€right.€€There€was€an€attorney€and€investigator€available€to€theÏappellant.€€If€he€wanted€witnesses€contacted,€papers€filed€with€the€clerk,€subpoenasÏissued,€research€of€legal€issues,€or€any€other€task€necessary€to€prepare€and€presentÏhis€defense,€both€the€attorney€and€investigator€were€available€to€assist€the€appellant.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€use€the€telephone€to€harass€the€victim€or€theÏvictimððs€relatives.€€Nor€was€he€entitled€to€make€veiled€threats€in€order€to€persuade€theÏvictim€to€change€his€testimony€regarding€the€identification€of€the€appellant€as€theÏperpetrator€of€the€crime€in€question.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€his€motion€toÏsuppress€the€photographic€identification€and€the€victimððs€identification€of€the€appellantÏduring€the€trial.€€He€argues€that€the€photographs€were€suggestive€and€prejudicial.Ìà àThe€victim€gave€the€officers€a€description€of€the€person€who€shot€him.€€TheÏdescription€included€a€clothing€description€as€well€as€a€physical€description€of€theÏperpetrator.€€The€victim€testified€that€he€had€seen€the€appellant€on€two€occasionsÏrunning€from€the€police.€€He€also€saw€the€appellant€when€he€was€a€passenger€in€aÏmotor€vehicle€that€exited€the€apartment€complex,€and,€a€short€time€later,€reentered€theÏcomplex.€€He€also€saw€the€appellant€as€he€approached€the€guard€station.€€TheÏappellant€was€approximately€seven€feet€from€the€victim€when€he€drew€his€weapon€andÏbegan€firing€at€the€victim.€€Ìà àThe€transcript€of€the€suppression€hearing€reveals€that€an€anonymous€personÏprovided€an€officer€with€the€name€of€the€person€responsible€for€shooting€the€victim,Ïand€the€person€gave€the€officer€a€detailed€description€of€the€appellant.€€An€officerÏchecked€the€computer€to€see€if€the€person€named,€the€appellant,€had€ever€beenÏarrested.€€The€computer€revealed€that€the€appellant€had€been€arrested,€and€aÏphotograph€of€the€appellant€was€ordered€by€the€investigating€officers.€€Later,€theÏappellantððs€photograph€and€five€additional€photographs€were€presented€to€the€victim.€ÏThe€victim€immediately€made€a€positive€identification€of€the€appellant€as€theÏperpetrator€of€the€offense.Ìà àAfter€the€shooting,€the€victimððs€employer,€a€guard€service,€commenced€anÍindependent€investigation.€€An€investigator€apparently€developed€the€appellant€as€aÏsuspect€before€the€police.€€The€investigator€showed€the€victim€a€photograph€of€theÏappellant€and€asked€if€he€could€identify€the€person€depicted€in€the€photograph.€€TheÏvictim€identified€the€person€depicted€as€the€person€who€shot€him.€€The€photographÏpresented€by€the€investigator€for€the€guard€service€was€a€different€photograph€than€theÏphotograph€included€in€the€array€of€photographs€the€police€showed€the€victim.Ìà àThe€victim€testified€that€he€had€a€photographic€mind,€and€he€did€not€forgetÏmatters.€€Moreover,€his€training€during€a€career€in€the€military€emphasized€the€need€toÏremember€details.€€He€testified€that€the€lighting€near€the€guard€station€was€excellent.€ÏHe€did€not€hesitate€when€he€identified€the€appellant.Ìà àThis€Court€has€viewed€the€photographs€shown€to€the€victim€by€a€police€officer.€ÏThe€photographs€are€mugshots€taken€from€the€files€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department.€ÏThe€individuals€depicted€in€the€photographs€have€like€or€similar€hair€and€facialÏfeatures.€€If€the€victim€was€not€sure€of€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime,€he€could€easily€haveÏselected€the€photograph€of€another€person.Ìà àThe€question€of€identification€was€of€prime€importance€at€the€trial.€€The€policeÏofficer€and€the€victim€were€cross„examined€in€minute€detail€regarding€this€issue.€€TheÏvictim€never€wavered€in€his€identification€of€the€appellant€as€the€person€who€shot€him.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€have€counsel€present€when€the€photographsÏwere€shown€to€the€victim.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Ashóó,€413€U.S.€300,€93€S.Ct.€2568,€37ÏL.Ed.2d€619€(1973);€òòHouston€v.€Stateóó,€567€S.W.2d€485,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1978);€òòShye€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€169,€174€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973€),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1974).€€€Furthermore,€this€Court€agrees€with€the€analysis€of€the€trialÏcourt€that€based€upon€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€the€photographs€exhibited€to€theÍvictim€were€neither€unreliable€nor€impermissibly€suggestive.€€òòSeeóó€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409ÏU.S.€188,€93€S.Ct.€375,€34€L.Ed.2d€401€(1972);€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.Ï377,€88€S.Ct.€967,€19€L.Ed.2d€1247€(1968);€€Ìà àIt€has€long€been€established€that€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€made€at€theÏconclusion€of€a€suppression€hearing€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.ÏDavisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€955€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€As€aÏresult,€this€Court€is€bound€by€these€facts€if€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€findings€made€by€the€trial€court.€€òòDavisóó,€872€S.W.2d€atÏ955.€€In€this€case,€the€evidence€supports€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€confrontÏhis€accusers€in€violation€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.›€€He€arguesÏthat€€a€police€officer€testified€that€an€unnamed€informant€provided€the€name€of€theÏappellant€as€the€person€who€shot€the€victim,€and€the€informant€provided€the€officer€withÏa€detailed€identification€of€the€appellant.Ìà àThe€following€colloquy€occurred€during€direct€examination:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÓ` „X× –XÓQ.à àDid€you€subsequently€develop€the€name€of€a€suspect?ÌÌA.à àYes,€sir.ÌÌQ.à àHow€did€you€develop€that€name,€please,€sir?ÌÌA.à àAfter€the€shooting€occurred,€at€the€time€before€he€[theÏvictim]€was€transported,€he€told€me€there€was€a€subject€thatÍhe€had€talked€to€earlier€in€the€night€that€was€there€when€IÏhad€first€talked€to€him,€with€a€striped€shirt.€€At€first€thatððs€all€IÏknew.€€Later,€we€developed€a€suspect€from€information€thatÏa€person€who€didnððt€want€to€be€named€came€up€and€told€usÏwhat€the€name€was.ÌÌQ.à àDid€you€include€that€name€in€your€report?ÌÌA.à àYes,€sir.ÌÌQ.à àWhat€was€the€name€of€the€suspect?ÌÌA.à àCedric€Stampley.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ ` „°šXÓà àWhen€an€accused€opts€to€represent€himself,€the€accused€is€bound€by€the€recordÏhe€€created€in€the€trial€court.€€In€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€798€S.W.2d€261,€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€),Ïœòòperóó.€òòappóó.›€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990),€this€Court€stated€that€ð ðone€of€the€penalties€of€self„representation€is€that€[the€appellant]€is€bound€by€his€own€acts€and€conduct€and€held€toÏhis€record.ðð€€(quoting€from€òòUnited€States€v.€Dujanovicóó,€486€F.2d€182,€188€(9th€Cir.Ï1973)).€€òòSeeóó€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€836,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€2541,€45€L.Ed.2dÏ562€(1975).€€€€Here,€the€trial€court€provided€the€appellant€with€an€experienced€criminalÏdefense€lawyer€as€elbow€counsel.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€was€warned€by€the€trialÏcourt€that€he€would€be€expected€to€comply€with€the€rules€of€procedure€and€the€rules€ofÏevidence.Ìà àThis€issue€has€been€waived.€€The€appellant€failed€to€interpose€an€objection€toÏthis€testimony€when€it€was€offered.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(1);ÏòòState€v.€Hutchinsonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€171€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cokeróó,€746€S.W.2dÏ167,€173€(Tenn.€1987),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€488€U.S.€871,€109€S.Ct.€180,€102€L.Ed.2d€149Ï(1988);€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òò€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1994).Ìò òÓ  ÓÌV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€indictment€returned€by€the€Shelby€CountyÏGrand€Jury€fails€to€state€a€crime.€€He€predicates€this€contention€on€the€theory€that€theÏindictment€does€not€allege€an€overt€act.€€The€fallacy€with€this€argument€is€that€theÏindictment€does€not€charge€the€appellant€with€conspiring€to€commit€an€offense.€€TheÏindictment€charges€him€with€the€commission€of€a€substantive€offense,€œattempt€to›Ïcommit€murder€in€the€first€degree.Ìà àThe€indictment,€which€contains€one€count,€alleges€in€œpart:›ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌOn€October€13,€1993,€in€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€andÏbefore€the€finding€of€this€indictment,€[Cedric€E.€Stampley]Ïdid€unlawfully€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€of€First€DegreeÏMurder,€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€39„13„202;€in€that€he,€the€saidÏCEDRICK€E.€STAMPLEY,€did€unlawfully,€intentionally,Ïdeliberately€and€with€premeditation€attempt€to€kill€LONZOÏNICKS,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„12„101,€against€the€peaceÏand€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThis€language€clearly€alleges€that€the€appellant€committed€the€offense€of€œattempt€to›Ïcommit€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€The€state€introduced€evidence€that€established€theÏappellantððs€identity€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€offense€as€well€as€each€essential€elementÏof€the€offense.€€The€jury€found€that€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€this€offense.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  ÓÌVI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€the€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€ÏHe€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€found€three€enhancement€factors€and€usedÏthese€factors€to€enhance€his€sentence€within€the€range.€€Therefore,€the€appellantÏcontends€that€he€is€entitled€to€the€minimum€sentence€for€the€offense,€and€this€CourtÏshould€reduce€his€sentence€from€twenty„three€(23)€years€to€fifteen€(15)€years.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€the€accused€challenges€the€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€ð ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legalÏconclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€which€are€based€upon€uncontroverted€facts€orÏdocuments,€such€as€the€presentence€report.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€311Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òò€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€418€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€determination€of€controverted€facts€since€these€determinations€areÏpredicated€upon€the€witnessesðð€demeanor€and€appearance.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€courtÏencountered€the€appellant,€who€opted€to€represent€himself,€before,€during,€and€afterÍthe€trial.Ìà àThe€accused,€as€the€person€challenging€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,Ïhas€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€erroneous.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€at€311.€€€IfÏthe€accused€fails€to€overcome€the€presumption€of€correctness,€it€is€the€duty€of€thisÏCourt€to€affirm€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€This€Court€cannot€change€orÏmodify€a€sentence€without€a€clear€showing€that€the€sentence€is€excessive€or€theÏmanner€of€serving€the€sentence€is€inappropriate.€€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€773€S.W.2d€913,Ï915€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(1)Ïany€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentenceÏreport,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(4)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€toÏsentencing€alternatives,€if€available€to€the€accused,€(5)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€offense,€(6)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors,€(7)€any€statements€made€by€theÏaccused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(8)€the€accusedððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210.€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,Ï735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€this€case,Ïthe€accused€has€focused€on€the€enhancement€factors€used€by€the€trial€court€toÏincrease€the€sentence€within€the€appropriate€range.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€three€enhancement€factors€were€established€by€theÏevidence.€€The€factors€found€are:€(1)€the€appellant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptionalÍcruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(5),€(2)€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€by€the€appellant€were€particularly€great,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(6),€and€(3)€the€appellant€employed€a€firearm€to€commit€the€offense.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9).€€This€Court€finds€that€the€trial€court€should€have€enhancedÏthe€appellantððs€sentence€within€the€range€because€the€appellant€has€a€history€ofÏconvictions€for€criminal€offenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„114(1).ÌÌ›ò òÓ  Ó(1)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€has€been€convicted€of€selling€a€controlled€substance,€theÏunauthorized€use€of€a€motor€vehicle,€disorderly€conduct,€and€murder.€€There€was€aÏcharge€of€failing€to€appear€pending€against€the€appellant€at€the€time€of€the€sentencingÏhearing.€€This€is€sufficient€to€establish€enhancement€factor€(1).Ìà àWhen€the€record€establishes€an€enhancement€factor€that€was€not€considered€byÏthe€trial€court€when€imposing€sentence,€this€Court€may€consider€the€factor€whenÏconducting€the€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€mandated€by€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,Ï34€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€885€(Tenn.€1993).€€Therefore,€theÏappellantððs€record€will€be€considered€in€conducting€the€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.ÌÌò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€used€factor€(5)€to€enhance€the€appellantððs€sentenceÏwithin€the€range.€€This€factor€is€not€an€element€of€attempt€to€commit€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree.€€The€infliction€of€numerous€wounds€satisfies€this€€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€WilliamÍR.€Waters,€Jr.óó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9404„CR„00145€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€December€22,€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€May€1,€1995)(the€firing€ofÏð ðseveral€roundsðð€into€the€body€of€the€victim€sufficient€);€òòState€v.€Mallory€MichaelÏRobertsóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9309„CR„00295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏAugust€4,€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€December€12,€1994)(multiple€stab€wounds);ÏòòState€v.€Terry€Joseph€Millionóó,€Jackson€County€No.€01„C„01„9303„CC„00100€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€November€24,€1993)(multiple€stab€wounds€sufficient).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€appellant€shot€the€victim€seven€times.€€The€victim€was€unarmed,€Ïand€he€did€not€threaten€the€appellant.€€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÇ(3)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€factor€(6)€when€enhancing€the€appellantððsÏsentence.€€This€is€not€an€element€of€attempt€to€commit€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€AnÏaccused€can€attempt€to€murder€another€person€without€inflicting€injury€to€the€victim.Ìà àThe€victim€sustained€three€gunshot€wounds€to€his€hand.€€As€a€result,€he€sufferedÏpermanent€disability€to€the€hand.€€He€also€was€shot€in€the€hip.€€This€projectile€was€notÏsurgically€removed.€€It€remains€in€the€hip,€and,€when€the€weather€changes,€the€victimÏbegins€to€hurt.€€The€abdominal€wound€caused€nerve€damage.€€Ìà àThis€incident€has€caused€the€victim€to€have€a€feeling€he€never€previouslyÏexperienced:€fear.€€As€the€victim€states€in€the€ð ðVictim€Impact€Statement:ððÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒFor€the€first€time€in€my€life€Iððve€felt€how€it€feels€to€be€robbedÏof€what€I€was€willing€to€give€my€life€for.€€Freedom!€ÏPersonally,€Mr.€Stampley€emotionally€did€something€combatÏcouldnððt€do.€€I€never€feared€nothing€until€now.€€I€donððt€go€outÏat€night€nor€do€I€walk€through€a€group€of€young€men€on€aÏcorner.€€Iððm€hurt€to€know€that€I€have€to€live€in€fear€for€the€restÏof€my€life.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThis€psychological€harm€may€very€well€be€the€greatest€injury€sustained€by€the€victim.€ÏIn€short,€it€stripped€him€of€his€pride,€his€ability€to€persevere€during€difficult€times,€andÏhas€literally€made€the€victim€a€prisoner€in€his€own€home€at€night.Ì€Ìò òÓ  Ó(4)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€factor€(9)€when€enhancing€the€appellantððsÏsentence.€€The€use€of€a€firearm€or€dangerous€weapon€is€not€an€element€of€attempt€toÍcommit€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€This€Court€has€held€that€this€factor€may€be€appliedÏwhen€the€accused€is€convicted€of€an€attempt€to€commit€murder.€€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòButleróó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€312„13;€€òò€State€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓÇC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€placed€great€emphasis€on€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,Ïenhancement€factors€(5)€and€(6).€€This€Court€has€held€on€numerous€occasions€that€theÏweight€to€be€given€an€enhancement€factor€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€888€S.W.2d€786,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€This€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€thisÏdiscretion€if€the€factors€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€œ(1)›€œare€adequately›€supported€byÏthe€record€and€(2)€comply€with€the€purposes€and€principles€contained€in€theÏTennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€òòMarshallóó,€888€S.W.2d€at€788.€ÏThe€factors€utilized€by€the€trial€court€meet€both€criteria.Ìà àThis€Court€places€great€emphasis€upon€the€criminal€record€that€the€appellantÏhas€amassed€in€his€twenty„five€years€of€life€and€the€use€of€a€weapon€to€commit€theÏoffense.€€€The€dockets€of€this€Court€seemingly€contain€an€inordinate€number€ofÏhomicides€or€attempts€to€commit€a€homicide.€€As€a€general€rule,€the€person€whoÏcommitted€the€offense€has€a€prior€record.€€Often€the€record€involves€convictions€forÏcrimes€of€violence.Ìà àThis€Court€adopts€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE