ÿWPCç …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dl ° w@° 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX 0dÍ U>1B)oDC˜ AMÛU*(âR B4fQÇ·v~~vÓü D3Ï 0@ AOBÆ‘ 0DW D/› BʘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡DÒ ÔøÔô3|xa((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó OPPPQERSETUDVDWÓ€a2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ØÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌOctober€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó d \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔThe€1995€Acts€of€the€Tennessee€Legislature€now€require€a€judge€to€consider€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€à0 àClass€A€felony€to€be€the€mid„point€of€the€range€where€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€€òòTennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ððóó40„35„210€(c)€(1995€Supp.)€€The€Appellant,€however,€is€entitled€to€be€sentenced€under€the€terms€ofÏthe€prior€law€which€provided€that€the€presumptive€sentence€was€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€for€all€classes€ofÏfelonies.€€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„210€(1990).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9411„CC„00390Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àDICKSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHONORABLE€ALLEN€W.€WALLACEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCIRCUIT€COURT€JUDGEÌCALVIN€WAYNE€SUGGS,€€à àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à à(SECOND„DEGREE€MURDER€AND)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à€RECKLESS€ENDANGERMENT)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóà àÌÌShipp€R.€Weemsà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSteve€Stack€à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0493ÌAssistant€Public€Defender€Ì23rd€Judicial€District€à àà àà àà àà àDarian€B.€Taylor€ÌP.O.€Box€160à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCharlotte,€TN€€37036€à àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Division€Ì(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkway€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌJerry€V.€Smith€ÌLittleton,€Smith€&€Robertsà àà àà àà àRobert€S.€Wilson€Ì300€N.€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àà àandÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|ëò` ç `€€LßDickson,€TN€Ï37055à àà àà àà àà àChristopher€L.€Young€Ì(atÏtrial)à àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€160Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharlotte,€TN€€37036€ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÑ€%ÑÇÑ7€õ9XXdìXXdì7ÑÓ  Óò òòòÇO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓóóó óà àFrom€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€finding€the€Defendant€guilty€of€second„degreeÏmurder€and€reckless€endangerment,€and€sentencing€him€to€serve€twenty€(20)€years€as€a€Range€IÏStandard€Offender€for€the€conviction€for€murder,€and€two€(2)€years,€concurrently,€for€recklessÏendangerment,€the€Defendant€appeals.€€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€presents€three€issues€for€review.€€First€he€asserts€that€he€was€denied€aÏfair€trial€because€the€State€failed€to€provide€information€to€the€defense€concerning€a€potentialÏwitness€until€immediately€before€trial,€and€the€Court€denied€the€Appellant's€motion€forÏcontinuance.€€€Second,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€evidence€presented€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€a€finding€that€the€Appellant€was€guilty€of€the€charges.€€Third,€the€Appellant€asserts€thatÏthe€Court€failed€properly€to€follow€the€sentencing€guidelines,€failing€properly€to€state€enhancingÏfactors€on€which€the€Court€relied,€and€in€failing€to€consider€mitigating€factors€advanced€by€theÏAppellant.€€Ìà àThe€facts€show€that€the€deceased,€Timothy€Hartley€was€a€laborer€who€had€worked€forÏthe€Appellant's€father,€Vernie€Suggs€on€the€farm€operated€by€the€Appellant's€father.€€OnÏSeptember€4,€1993,€the€Appellant€felt€as€though€Hartley€should€have€come€to€work€for€theÏAppellant€and€the€Appellant's€father,€but€instead€Hartley€went€with€his€brother„in„law,€BryceÏSwift€and€a€third€individual,€Shawn€Lenn,€to€cut€tobacco€on€the€farm€of€a€Mr.€Smith.€€TheÏAppellant€called€the€Hartley€residence,€by€telephone,€during€the€day€on€September€4,€leaving€aÏmessage€for€Hartley.€€On€the€evening€of€September€4,€when€Hartley,€Swift€and€Lenn€returnedÏto€the€Hartley€residence,€Hartley's€wife€told€Hartley€about€the€telephone€call€she€had€receivedÏfrom€the€Appellant,€which€upset€the€Appellant.€€When€Hartley€and€Swift€were€unable€to€reachÍthe€Appellant€or€his€father€by€telephone,€Swift€and€Hartley€went€to€the€Appellant's€father'sÏresidence€to€talk€with€the€Appellant€and€his€father€to€resolve€the€misunderstanding.€€€Lenn€leftÏthe€Hartley€residence,€but€did€not€go€with€Swift€and€Hartley€to€the€Appellant's€father'sÏresidence.€Ìà àA€number€of€persons,€including€family€members€were€gathered€at€the€Suggs'Ïresidence,€enjoying€a€barbecue.€€€The€Appellant€asserted€that€Hartley€appeared€to€be€very€angryÏupon€his€arrival€at€the€Suggs'€residence,€and€expressed€anger€to€the€Appellant€regarding€theÏtelephone€call€which€Appellant€had€made€earlier€to€Hartley's€wife.€€€Further€words€wereÏexchanged,€and€the€Appellant€went€into€his€father's€residence,€picked€up€a€shotgun,€and€tookÏthe€gun€outside,€where€the€Appellant's€father,€Swift,€and€Hartley€were€talking.€€The€AppellantÏasserted€that€he€took€the€gun€to€the€discussion€for€his€protection,€but€upon€his€arrival€outsideÏthe€residence,€the€Appellant's€father€told€the€Appellant€to€put€the€gun€down.€€The€AppellantÏtestified€that€he€put€the€gun€down,€but€the€evidence€shows€that€he€retrieved€the€weapon,€andÏshot€Hartley€through€the€heart,€killing€him€instantly.€€€The€Appellant's€father,€Vernon€SuggsÏwas€also€injured€by€the€gun€blast.€€€The€Appellant€relied€upon€defenses€of€accident€and€self„defense,€alleging€that€he€did€not€intend€to€shoot€the€gun,€nor€did€he€remember€having€fired€it,Ïand€also€asserting€that€the€deceased€lunged€at€him€immediately€before€he€fired.Ìà àThe€only€information€that€the€Appellant€asserts€that€Shawn€Lenn€would€have€been€ableÏto€provide€surrounded€Lenn's€work€with€Swift€and€the€deceased€during€the€day€of€SeptemberÏ4.€€€Questions€arose€as€to€whether€the€deceased€had€been€drinking€as€he€worked,€and€as€toÏwhether€the€deceased€and€his€wife€quarreled€prior€to€the€time€when€Swift€and€the€deceasedÏwent€to€the€Suggs'€residence.€€€At€the€time€of€the€hearing,€Lenn€was€serving€in€the€Army,Ïstationed€in€Korea.€€The€Appellant€asserts€that€more€than€six€€months€prior€to€trial€the€State€hadÍpossession€of€an€investigative€memorandum€mentioning€Lenn,€although€not€by€name€andÏindicating€that€the€testimony€of€Lenn€would€contradict€the€testimonies€of€Swift€and€the€wife€ofÏthe€deceased€in€two€particulars.€€Swift€testified€Hartley€had€little€to€drink€during€the€afternoonÏbefore€going€to€the€Suggs'€residence€while€the€memorandum€suggested€Lenn€would€testify€thatÏHartley€had€consumed€several€beers.€€€Mrs.€Hartley€denied€the€occurrence€of€any€argumentsÏshe€had€with€her€deceased€husband.€€€The€memorandum€suggests,€the€Appellant€asserts,€thatÏLenn€would€testify€that€he€left€the€Hartley€residence€because€he€did€not€wish€to€be€presentÏwhile€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Hartley€continued€their€arguments.€€€The€Appellant€made€discoveryÏrequests€in€November€of€1993,€but€the€State€did€not€provide€information€concerning€theÏwitness€to€the€Appellant€until€approximately€one€week€prior€to€trial.€€€€The€Appellant€moved€forÏa€continuance€shortly€before€the€trial,€asserting€that€Lenn€was€an€indispensable€witness,Ïseeking€time€to€secure€his€presence.€€The€Court€denied€the€motion€for€continuance.€€Ìà àAt€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense€herein,€the€Appellant€was€under€aÏsuspended€sentence€from€the€order€of€the€Dickson€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€€He€hadÏalso€sustained€an€injury€earlier€to€his€knee,€as€a€result€of€an€incident€in€which€the€Appellant€andÏthe€deceased€were€engaged€in€horseplay.€€The€Appellant€had€suffered€the€tearing€of€ligamentsÏin€his€knee,€and€subsequently€required€two€surgeries.€€€€€At€the€trial,€the€testimony€of€theÏassistant€medical€examiner€who€performed€the€autopsy€showed€that€the€deceased€died€from€aÏgunshot€blast€fired€from€as€close€as€two€and€a€half€feet€away,€or€as€far€as€nine€feet€away.€€SheÏfurther€testified€that€the€blood€alcohol€level€of€the€deceased€indicated€that€he€had€consumedÏapproximately€five€and€one„half€beers€shortly€before€being€killed.€€€The€testimony€of€the€doctorÏcontradicts€the€testimony€of€the€Appellant's€father,€who€stated€that€"the€gun€went€off"€during€aÏstruggle€between€the€Appellant€and€the€deceased,€and€contradicts€the€testimony€of€Swift€that€theÍdeceased€had€consumed€only€a€small€amount€of€alcohol€immediately€prior€to€his€death.Ìà àEvidence€was€presented€from€which€the€jury€could€have€found€that€the€Appellant€actedÏunder€provocation.€€Evidence€was€presented€that€the€deceased€appeared€angry€when€he€arrivedÏat€the€Appellant's€father's€home,€and€interrupted€a€family€barbecue.€€€Words€were€exchangedÏbetween€the€deceased€and€the€Appellant.€€€Evidence€further€was€presented€that€the€deceasedÏfrequently€bragged€about€his€service€in€the€military€forces,€and€particularly€his€service€duringÏDesert€Storm.€€€€Further,€because€of€the€deceased's€size€(two€hundred€and€twenty„five€pounds)Ïthe€Appellant's€physical€disabilities€due€to€the€earlier€horseplay€incident€between€the€AppellantÏand€the€deceased,€and€the€circumstances€of€the€prior€incident€between€the€deceased€and€theÏAppellant,€€the€Appellant€asserts€that€he€was€fearful€of€the€deceased€on€the€evening€in€question.€€ÏBoth€the€Appellant€and€the€deceased€had€been€drinking,€but€the€deceased€was€unarmed.€€TheÏdeceased€was€accompanied€by€his€friend€Bryce€Swift,€while€a€number€of€the€Appellant'sÏfriends€and€relatives€were€present.ÌÇà àThe€Appellant€first€complains€that€the€Trial€Court€should€have€granted€his€motion€forÏcontinuance,€when€he€discovered€only€one€week€prior€to€trial€the€identity€of€Shawn€Lenn,Ïwhom€the€Appellant€wished€to€call€as€a€witness.€€€It€is€undisputed€that€Lenn€was€not€presentÏwhen€the€offense€occurred.€€Apparently€the€testimony€which€he€could€have€provided€is€veryÏlimited.€€It€appears€Lenn€could€have€testified€that€he€cut€tobacco€on€the€farm€of€another€all€dayÏon€September€4,€together€with€Bryce€Swift€and€the€deceased.€€€The€memorandum€suggests€heÏcould€testify€as€to€alcohol€consumption€by€the€deceased€and€Swift€during€the€day€on€whichÏHartley€was€killed,€and€he€could€present€testimony€whether€the€deceased€had€argued€with€hisÏspouse€or€others€prior€to€going€to€the€Appellant's€father's€home.€€The€Appellant€asserts€thatÏLenn€indicated€that€the€deceased€had€been€drinking€heavily,€and€fighting€with€his€wife€prior€toÏgoing€to€the€Appellant's€father's€residence.€€€We€find€none€of€these€issues€to€be€sufficientlyÏsignificant€to€show€that€the€Trial€Judge€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€to€grant€a€continuance.€ÏThe€fact€that€Lenn,€Swift,€and€the€deceased€had€been€cutting€tobacco€for€another€person€isÏundisputed.€€Whether€he€argued€with€his€wife€earlier€in€the€evening€is€irrelevant,€and€that€theÏdeceased€had€consumed€more€than€five€beers€immediately€prior€to€the€incident€was€establishedÏby€the€testimony€of€the€medical€examiner.€€€There€was€no€other€information€that€Mr.€LennÏcould€provide€to€the€Court.€€We€recognize€that€Lenn's€testimony€perhaps€would€haveÏcorroborated€the€doctor's€testimony€concerning€alcohol€consumption€of€the€victim,€and€in€someÏmanner€may€have€contradicted€the€testimonies€of€Swift€and€the€victim's€wife,€Alicia€Hartley.€ÏAt€the€same€time,€Lenn€was€stationed,€the€record€reflects€in€Korea,€in€the€military€service.€ÏObtaining€his€live€testimony€would€have€necessitated€rescheduling€the€case€at€a€time€when€LennÏwould€voluntarily€return,€could€obtain€leave,€or€could€be€brought€€back€to€this€country€forÏpurpose€of€obtaining€his€testimony.€€A€number€of€witnesses€testified€in€this€cause,€and€theÍrecord€reflects€that€Lenn's€testimony€would€be€largely€cumulative.€€€Ìà àThe€issue€of€the€granting€of€continuances€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€testimony€ofÏwitnesses€rest€largely€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€Trial€Court.€€€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€552ÏS.W.2d€782,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)òò€cert.€deniedóó.€€€Absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€ofÏthat€discretion€and€a€manifest€showing€of€prejudice€to€the€Appellant,€we€should€not€reverse€theÏTrial€Court's€decision€denying€a€continuance€due€to€the€unavailability€of€a€witness.€€€òòLatham€v.ÏStateóó,€560€S.W.2d€410,€411€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1978).€€€In€thisÏcause,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€Trial€Judge.€€€There€was€no€showing€ofÏany€evidence€that€the€absent€witness€would€provide€other€than€cumulative€testimony€orÏtestimony€which€surrounded€events€earlier€in€the€day€which€were€either€irrelevant€or€of€veryÏmarginal€consequence.€€The€Court€recognizes€that€the€defense€was€hampered€in€its€lateÏdiscovery€of€the€existence€of€Lenn,€yet€the€record€reflects€that€he€was€employed€in€the€militaryÏservice,€stationed€on€the€other€side€of€the€world,€and€there€was€no€indication€of€any€time€atÏwhich€he€would€reasonably€be€available€for€testimony€in€the€foreseeable€future.€€€Given€theseÏcircumstances,€we€find€that€the€Trial€Judge€soundly€exercised€the€discretion€which€the€lawÏprovides€to€him€in€such€matters.€€Ìà àNext€the€Court€must€consider€whether€the€State€committed€violations€which€demandÏreversal€of€this€cause€for€the€reason€that€the€memorandum€containing€information€surroundingÏShawn€Lenn€was€not€provided€to€the€defense€in€a€more€timely€manner.€€Counsel€for€theÏdefense€filed€a€Motion€for€Discovery€and€Inspection€on€November€18,€1993.€€While€the€StateÏanswered€that€motion€on€January€27,€1994,€Lenn€was€not€listed€as€a€potential€witness,€and€theÏState€answered€that€there€was€no€exculpatory€evidence€in€the€case.€€€The€case€was€set€for€trialÏon€March€23,€1994,€and€one€week€prior€to€trial,€on€March€16,€1994,€the€District€AttorneyÍprovided€to€counsel€for€the€Appellant€the€memorandum€in€question€concerning€a€call€which€hadÏbeen€received€by€a€law€enforcement€agency,€identifying€a€caller€from€Clarksville,€Tennessee,Ïwho€told€authorities€she€had€received€a€call,€apparently€from€Shawn€Lenn,€while€Lenn€wasÏstationed€in€Korea,€although€she€did€not€identify€Lenn€according€to€the€police€memorandum.€€ÏThe€caller€stated€to€authorities€ÌÓÓà8 àshe€was€told€by€unidentified€soldier€that€he€was€at€Hartleys€(sic)€SaturdayÏevening.€€Other€unidentified€people€were€present.€€Hartley€and€his€wife€wereÏfussing€+€fighting.€€Hartley€was€drinking.€€This€man€tried€to€calm€Hartley€downÏthen€left€because€he€was€tired€of€listening€to€them.€€ÌÌÌÓÓThe€memorandum€was€written€on€a€document€entitled€"Supplementary€Report"€and€bore€theÏdate€of€September€10,€1993,€some€six€days€following€the€death€of€the€victim.€€€Ìà àExculpatory€evidence€has€been€defined€to€include€evidence€favorable€to€a€defendantÏpertaining€to€the€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence€and/or€punishment€which€may€be€imposed€if€theÏdefendant€is€convicted.€€€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€Constitutional€due€processÏis€violated€where€favorable€evidence€is€not€provided,€despite€good€faith€of€the€state.€€òòIdóó.€€at€87.€ÏThe€duty€to€provide€information€to€the€defendant€extends€not€only€to€admissible€evidence,€butÏany€favorable€information€which€is€unknown€to€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2dÏ231„32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó.€€à àÌà àThus€we€have€held€that€three€elements€must€be€satisfied€before€the€Court€finds€a€dueÏprocess€violation.€€First,€the€prosecution€must€have€suppressed€the€evidence,€whetherÏexercising€good€or€bad€faith.€€Second,€the€evidence€which€is€suppressed€must€have€beenÏfavorable€to€the€defendant.€€€And€third,€the€evidence€must€have€been€material€to€the€questionsÏbefore€the€Court.€€€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€òòperm.Ïapp.€deniedóó.Ìà àIn€this€cause,€we€recognize€that€it€is€undisputed€that€the€State€provided€theÏmemorandum€in€question€to€the€defense,€but€did€so€only€seven€days€prior€to€trial.€€€A€discoveryÏmotion€was€filed€more€than€four€months€prior€to€trial,€requesting€that€the€information€subject€toÏdiscovery€be€provided€"as€soon€as€practicable€and€that€newly€found€discoverable€material€beÏprovided€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€before€the€trial€of€this€matter,€if€discovered€prior€to€thatÏdate."€€The€State€insists€that€it€has€complied€at€least€with€the€constitutional€requirementsÏinvolving€the€discovery€of€exculpatory€evidence.€€We€find,€however,€that€the€State€had€in€itsÏpossession,€or€available€to€it€the€memorandum€in€question€before€the€Motion€for€DiscoveryÏwas€filed.€€The€State€had€a€duty€to€disclose€that€memorandum€to€the€defendant€in€a€reasonableÏperiod€of€time.€€The€State€delayed€the€delivery€of€the€memorandum€to€the€defendant€until€soÏclose€to€trial€that€the€defendant€was€unable€effectively€to€utilize€the€memorandum€in€preparationÏfor€trial,€but€only€upon€motion€for€new€trial€which€was€heard€more€than€three€months€post„trial.€€Suppression€of€exculpatory€evidence€for€such€a€period€of€time€after€requests€for€deliveryÏof€such€information€have€been€made€by€a€defendant€that€the€defendant€is€unable€effectively€toÏutilize€the€information€constitutes€a€violation€of€the€òòBradyóó€rule.€€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€526,€548€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2d€533,€535€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1969)€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1970).€€Ìà àThus,€we€find€that€the€State€violated€the€first€of€the€three€requirements€which€must€beÏmet€to€show€a€failure€on€the€part€of€the€State€to€deliver€exculpatory€information.€€Ìà àWe€must€next€consider€whether€the€evidence€suppressed€by€the€State€was€favorable€toÏthe€defendant.€€€Here€the€position€of€the€Appellant€is€not€as€strong.€€€€There€is€no€contentionÏupon€the€part€of€the€Appellant€that€the€memorandum€which€was€suppressed€was€evidenceÏwithin€itself,€but€that€it€would€in€fact€lead€to€admissible€evidence.€€€Ultimately,€the€reviewingÍcourt€must€subjectively€determine€the€injury€to€the€defense€caused€by€the€State's€misconduct.€€ÏòòState€v.€Caughron,€supraóó,€at€547.€€€The€memorandum€which€was€not€timely€provided€led€theÏdefense€in€some€five€days€to€the€partial€identity€of€the€witness€who€had€been€with€the€victimÏduring€most€of€the€day€of€his€death.€€€Although€the€presence€of€the€witness€was€never€secured,Ïthe€fact€that€he€was€serving€in€the€United€States€Army€in€Korea,€and€his€rank€was€ascertainedÏprior€to€trial.€€€Prior€to€the€filing€of€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€first€name€of€the€witness€wasÏsecured,€but€no€statement€was€obtained€from€him.€€€Thus,€despite€the€statements€contained€inÏthe€suppressed€memorandum€and€the€assertions€of€the€counsel€for€the€Appellant,€the€recordÏcontains€no€testimony€of€this€witness,€and€no€evidence€which€will€aid€this€Court€in€determiningÏthat€the€witness€would€have€testified€in€a€manner€favorable€to€the€Appellant,€other€than€theÏwritten€double€hearsay€contained€in€the€police€memorandum€of€September€10,€1994.€ÏInformation€which€may€be€used€by€defense€counsel€in€impeachment€of€witnesses€must€beÏdisclosed.€€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€€Even€withoutÏthe€presence€of€the€witness,€Shawn€Lenn,€the€memorandum€provided€opportunities€for€crossÏexamination€of€witnesses€who€testified€for€the€State€concerning€the€peacefulness€of€the€victim,Ïor€lack€thereof€and€his€consumption€of€alcohol€on€the€day€in€question.€€We€find€that€the€tardyÏdelivery€of€the€memorandum€to€the€defense€did€not€hamper€the€presentation€by€the€defense€inÏcourt€in€conduct€of€cross€examination.€€€We€further€find€that€without€information€in€the€recordÏother€than€the€memorandum€containing€double€hearsay,€the€record€does€not€establishÏinformation€sufficient€for€us€to€determine€that€the€information€which€the€defense€wouldÏreasonably€have€secured€had€the€memorandum€been€timely€provided€would€have€beenÏfavorable€or€unfavorable.€€€There€is€no€suggestion€that€the€absent€witness€ever€went€to€theÏAppellant's€father's€residence,€and€no€assertion€that€he€had€any€knowledge€except€that€he€hadÍworked€all€day€with€the€victim€and€was€with€him€during€the€evening€at€some€point€before€theÏvictim€went€to€the€Appellant's€father's€residence€and€was€killed.€€Ìà àThe€third€factor€which€we€will€consider,€despite€the€fact€that€we€have€already€found€thatÏthe€record€does€not€supply€information€from€which€we€can€determine€that€favorable€testimonyÏwould€have€been€provided€by€the€absent€witness€had€the€State€timely€provided€theÏmemorandum€in€question,€is€that€the€information€must€be€material.€€The€record€reflects€thatÏevidence€was€introduced€at€trial€concerning€the€peacefulness€of€the€victim€during€the€evening€atÏsome€point€prior€to€the€victim's€travel€to€the€residence€where€he€was€killed.€€€Evidence€was€alsoÏpresented€as€to€the€amount€of€alcohol€which€the€victim€had€consumed€during€the€day€andÏevening€hours€prior€to€his€death.€€While€the€peacefulness€of€the€victim€at€the€scene€where€heÏwas€killed€certainly€is€material,€we€find€the€question€of€his€peacefulness€earlier€in€the€eveningÏto€be€a€collateral€issue.€€€Evidence€concerning€the€general€reputation€of€the€victim€for€violenceÏor€peacefulness€may€be€admitted,€but€specific€events€of€violence€or€peacefulness€separate€andÏapart€from€the€scene€in€question€generally€are€not€material€and€at€best€are€collateral€in€nature.€ÏòòSee,€State€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€òòperm.€app.€denied;€ÏState€v.€Paytonóó,€781€S.W.2d€490,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€òòperm.€app.€denied;€€State€v.ÏMcDougleóó,€681€S.W.2d€578,€583€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€When€questions€are€asked€of€aÏwitness€as€to€a€collateral€issue,€the€party€questioning€the€witness€concerning€that€collateral€issueÏis€bound€by€the€answer€provided€by€the€witness,€and€is€precluded€from€presenting€furtherÏwitnesses€or€substantive€evidence€on€that€collateral€issue.€€òò€State€v.€Mayoóó,€735€S.W.2d€811,Ï817€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€598€S.W.2d€815,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó;€€òò€See,€State€v.€Wilsonóó,€687€S.W.2d€720,€724€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)Ïòòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€1985).€€Thus€we€find€that€even€had€the€State€provided€theÍmemorandum€in€a€timely€fashion€which€it€was€required€to€do,€and€which€it€failed€to€do,€and€ifÏthe€suggested€witness€had€been€produced€within€a€reasonable€time,€and€had€been€presented€toÏtestify€in€response€to€the€witnesses€presented€by€the€State€upon€the€issue€of€the€earlierÏpeacefulness€or€lack€thereof€on€the€part€of€the€victim,€the€Court€would€properly€have€denied€theÏAppellant's€right€to€present€this€witness€to€testify€upon€this€issue,€for€the€reason€that€the€matterÏin€question€was€collateral€in€nature.€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€also€suggests€that€the€witness,€if€produced,€would€testify€that€the€victimÏhad€consumed€a€large€amount€of€alcohol€earlier€in€the€day.€€While€this€issue€also,€strictly,€isÏirrelevant€to€the€matters€before€the€Court,€the€Court€recognizes€obviously€that€the€questionÏwhether€one€has€consumed€alcohol€earlier€in€the€day€has€bearing€upon€his€sobriety€later€on€thatÏsame€day.€€€Similarly,€the€degree€of€intoxication€of€the€victim€may€also€have€some€bearingÏupon€his€violence€or€peacefulness€at€the€time€and€place€of€his€death.€€While€the€State€presentedÏwitnesses€who€testified€that€the€victim€had€drunk€very€little€earlier€in€the€day,€the€State€alsoÏpresented€the€medical€examiner,€truly€a€disinterested€witness,€who€presented€evidenceÏconcerning€blood€samples€taken€from€the€victim€which€appear€unequivocally€to€prove€the€bloodÏalcohol€level€of€the€victim€at€the€time€of€his€death,€and€further€presented€credible€expertÏtestimony€as€to€the€amount€of€alcohol€which€the€deceased€consumed€earlier€in€the€day€prior€toÏhis€death.€€At€best,€the€evidence€presented€by€Shawn€Lenn,€the€missing€witness,€would€haveÏbeen€cumulative€as€to€this€issue.€€Ìà àThus,€subjectively,€we€find€that€the€failure€of€the€State€to€disclose€the€exculpatoryÏmemorandum€to€the€defense€in€a€timely€fashion€was€not€prejudicial€to€the€defense€and€does€notÏwarrant€reversal.€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€also€presents€to€the€Court€the€question€whether€the€evidence€presentedÍsupports€the€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury.€€€We€have€previously€recited€the€facts€which€the€juryÏheard.€€€The€jury€found€the€Appellant€guilty€of€murder€in€the€second€degree€and€recklessÏendangerment.€€Upon€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€in€its€favor.€€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€524€S.W.2d€470,€472€(Tenn.€1975);€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,Ï598€S.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó.€€A€verdict€renderedÏagainst€a€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence,€and,€upon€appeal,€raises€aÏpresumption€of€guilt,€which€the€Appellant€must€overcome.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,Ï569€(Tenn.€1993).€€After€careful€consideration€of€the€evidence€presented,€we€find€that€thereÏwas€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€finding€of€the€jury€in€both€counts€of€the€indictment.€€€ÏThis€assignment€of€error€likewise€must€be€respectfully€denied.Ìà àThe€Appellant€also€suggests€to€the€Court€that€in€determining€whether€the€jury€properlyÏdecided€the€issues,€the€Court€must€consider€the€absence€of€Shawn€Lenn.€€We€have€previouslyÏdiscussed€at€length€the€effect€of€Lenn's€absence,€and€find€that€his€failure€to€testify€is€not€aÏfactor€which€the€Court€should€consider€in€determining€the€weight€and€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence.€€€As€we€have€previously€found,€the€record€does€not€contain€direct€testimony€as€to€theÏknowledge€of€the€missing€individual,€Shawn€Lenn,€and€upon€the€hearsay€informationÏcontained€in€the€record,€we€find€that€had€such€testimony€been€properly€presented€in€the€record,Ïit€would€have€been€either€cumulative€or€collateral.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àFinally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€failed€to€properly€follow€theÏsentencing€guidelines€set€forth€under€Tennessee€law.€€€On€this€issue,€we€must€concur,€and€weÏmodify€the€sentence€ordered€by€the€Trial€Court.Ìà àThe€Trial€Court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€twenty€years€as€a€Standard,€Range€IÏoffender,€for€his€conviction€for€second„degree€murder,€and€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serveÍtwo€years€for€reckless€endangerment,€also€as€a€Standard,€Range€I€offender.€€€Tennessee€lawÏprovides€that€the€range€of€punishment€for€second„degree€murder,€a€Class€A€felony,€is€fifteen€toÏtwenty„five€years.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„112€(A1)€(1990).€€Likewise,€TennesseeÏlaw€provides€the€range€of€punishment€for€reckless€endangerment,€a€Class€E€felony,€to€be€notÏless€than€one€nor€more€than€two€years.€€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„112€(a)€(5)Ï(1990).€€€Upon€review€of€a€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€sentencingÏissues€raised€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏWhere€the€record€does€not€reflect,€however,€that€the€Trial€Court€properly€considered€theÏprovisions€of€the€Tennessee€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumptions€of€correctness€which€otherwiseÏapply€to€the€sentence€determined€by€the€Trial€Court€fail.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€Appellant.€€ÏòòId.óóÌà àIn€sentencing€a€defendant,€the€Court€must€first€consider€the€presumptive€minimumÏsentence€provided€by€law,€and€then€determine€whether€that€sentence€should€be€increased€due€toÏstatutorily€provided€enhancement€factors,€or€reduced€due€to€statutorily€provided€mitigatingÏfactors.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„210€(c)€(d)€(e)€(1990).× ƒ& ××  ×€€€€Ìà àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€the€crime€was€"an€especially€violent€and€horrifying€andÏreprehensible€offense,"€and€that€"there€seemed€to€be€no€hesitation€about€committing€the€crimeÏin€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high."€€The€Court€further€found€that€the€Appellant€was€onÏprobation€for€assault,€a€crime€of€violence,€and€for€those€reasons€sentenced€the€Appellant€toÍserve€twenty€years€for€murder€in€the€second„degree.€€€Apparently€using€the€same€criteria,€theÏTrial€Court€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€the€maximum€of€two€years€for€the€crime€of€recklessÏendangerment.€€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„114€provides€factors€the€sentencing€CourtÏmay€consider€for€purposes€of€enhancing€or€increasing€the€punishment€ordered€for€a€defendant.€ÏòòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„114€(1995€Supp.).€€We€find€that€the€Trial€Court€improperlyÏapplied€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(10),óó€that€the€"defendant€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high."€€Given€that€the€record€doesÏnot€clearly€demonstrate€that€there€were€individuals€other€than€Hartley€and€Vernon€Suggs€inÏdanger€of€being€wounded,€we€conclude€that€the€high€risk€to€human€life€was€inherent€in€theÏoffenses€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòTennessee€Code€Annotatedóó€ðð€40„35„114€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments;€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€314€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€That€the€offenseÏwas€"an€especially€violent€and€horrifying€and€reprehensible€offense"€is€not€a€factor€which€mayÏbe€statutorily€considered€to€enhance€the€punishment€provided€for€a€defendant,€and€we€mustÏconsider€that€the€legislature€intended€those€factors€to€have€been€made€a€part€of€the€minimumÏsentence€for€a€crime€of€murder€in€the€second„degree,€a€Class€A€felony.€€Similarly,€as€the€StateÏacknowledges,€the€Court€may€not€consider€whether€the€Defendant€was,€at€the€time,€onÏprobation€for€a€crime€of€violence.€€The€Court€could€have€considered€this€factor€in€determiningÏwhether€the€sentence€placed€upon€the€Appellant€was€to€be€served€concurrently€orÏconsecutively,€but€it€is€not€an€appropriate€enhancement€factor.€€òòCompare,€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ððóó40„35„114€(1995€Supp.)€òòwithóó€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„115€(1990).€€€Ìà àThe€State€suggests€that€the€Trial€Court€further€applied€the€following€enhancementÏfactor:€€"The€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense."€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„114€(1995ÍSupp.).€€The€record€reflects€that€the€Trial€Court€did€not€apply€this€enhancement€factor.€€UponÏour€òòde€novoóó€review,€however,€we€find€that€it€is€applicable€to€the€defendantððs€sentence€forÏsecond€degree€murder€since€the€use€of€a€firearm€is€not€an€element€of€that€offense.€€òòState€v.ÏRainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòButler,€supraóó€at€312„313.€€ThisÏenhancement€factor€is€not€applicable€to€the€defendantððs€sentence€for€reckless€endangermentÏbecause€felony€reckless€endangerment€requires€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòTennessee€CodeÏAnnotatedóó€ðð€39„13„103(b)€(1991).€€In€addition,€due€to€the€defendantððs€prior€conviction€forÏassault,€we€find€that€the€ð ðprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behaviorððÏenhancement€factor€is€applicable€to€the€defendantððs€sentences€for€both€second€degree€murderÏand€reckless€endangerment.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotatedóó€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1990).€€Furthermore,Ïwith€regard€to€the€defendantððs€sentence€for€reckless€endangerment,€we€find€òòTennessee€CodeÏAnnotatedóó€ðð€40„35„114(12),€that€ð ð[d]uring€the€commission€of€the€felony,€the€defendantÏwillfully€inflicted€bodily€injury€upon€another€person,ðð€to€be€applicable.€€As€a€result,€weÏconclude€that€there€are€two€enhancing€factors€properly€applicable€to€each€of€the€defendantððsÏsentences.Ìà àThe€Appellant€suggests€that€four€mitigating€factors€should€be€applied:€€€(1)€€that€theÏdefendant€acted€under€strong€provocation;€€(2)€€that€substantial€grounds€existed€tending€toÏexcuse€or€justify€the€actions€of€the€defendant€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense;€€(3)€€that€theÏdefendant€suffered€a€physical€or€mental€condition€significantly€reducing€his€culpability€for€theÏcommission€of€the€offense;€€and€(4)€€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offense€under€unusualÏcircumstances€such€that€it€was€unlikely€that€the€defendant€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€ÏòòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó40„35„113€(2),€(3),€(8),€(11)€(1990).€€The€sentencing€court€failedÏto€address€any€of€these€mitigating€factors,€and€we€find€from€the€silent€record€that€the€CourtÍfound€them€all€to€be€inapplicable.€€We€concur.€€The€evidence€fails€to€establish€provocationÏsufficient€to€apply€this€enhancement€factor.€€€The€proof€shows€that€the€Appellant€had€beenÏinjured€some€months€before€in€a€horseplaying€incident,€the€injury€having€been€occasioned€byÏthe€deceased.€€The€evidence€further€showed€that€the€victim€may€have€been€angry€at€the€time€heÏarrived€at€the€Appellant's€father's€residence,€although€this€factor€was€controverted.€€TheseÏfactors,€though,€are€insufficient€to€establish€any€provocation€for€the€killing€of€the€victim.€€WeÏfail€to€find€any€evidence€which€would€tend€to€excuse€or€justify€the€actions€of€the€Appellant€inÏkilling€the€victim,€nor€do€we€find€the€physical€disability€from€which€the€Appellant€suffered,Ïbeing€his€prior€injury€occasioned€by€the€carelessness€of€the€victim€to€establish€mitigatingÏfactors.€€Finally,€we€find€no€unusual€circumstances€sufficient€to€find€that€it€is€unlikely€that€theÏAppellant€sustained€the€intent€to€violate€the€law€in€the€killing€of€the€victim.€€€We€also€find€noÏevidence€that€any€of€these€mitigating€factors€is€applicable€to€the€conviction€for€recklessÏendangerment.€€Ìà àAfter€consideration€of€the€issue€of€sentencing,€upon€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€that€itÏis€appropriate€to€modify€the€sentence€which€the€Trial€Court€imposed€upon€the€Appellant€for€theÏoffense€of€murder€in€the€second„degree,€and€find€that€a€sentence€of€seventeen€years€in€the€stateÏpenitentiary€as€a€Standard,€Range€I,€thirty€percent€offender€is€appropriate.€€We€find€further€thatÏa€sentence€of€one€year€in€the€state€penitentiary,€to€be€served€concurrent€with€the€other,€isÏappropriate€for€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment.Ìà àWe€therefore€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court,€and€modify€the€sentence€ordered.€€Ìà àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòÌà àà àà àà àà àóóóóROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÇIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9411„CC„00390Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àDICKSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHONORABLE€ALLEN€W.€WALLACEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCIRCUIT€COURT€JUDGEÌCALVIN€WAYNE€SUGGS,€€à àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à à(SECOND„DEGREE€MURDER€AND)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à€RECKLESS€ENDANGERMENT)ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òJUDGMENTÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óóóà àCame€the€Appellant,€Calvin€Wayne€Suggs,€by€and€through€counsel,€and€also€theÏAttorney€General€on€behalf€of€the€State,€who€submitted€this€cause€to€the€Court€upon€briefs,€andÏthe€entire€record€on€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Dickson€County,€Tennessee,€and€uponÏconsideration€thereof,€we€find€that€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€should€be€affirmed,€in€thatÏthe€Defendant€is€guilty€of€murder€in€the€second„degree,€and€reckless€endangerment.€€AfterÏconsideration€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€Trial€Court,€we€find€that€the€sentence€should€beÏmodified,€in€that€the€Appellant€shall€serve€seventeen€years€in€the€Tennessee€State€PenitentiaryÏfor€the€offense€of€murder€in€the€second„degree€and€one€year€in€the€State€Penitentiary€for€theÏoffense€of€reckless€endangerment,€those€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€Ìà àIn€accordance€with€the€Opinion€filed€herein,€it€is€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€CourtÏthat€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Dickson€County€for€the€collection€of€costs€accrued€below.Ìà àBecause€the€Appellant,€Calvin€Wayne€Suggs,€is€indigent,€costs€will€be€paid€by€the€StateÍof€Tennessee.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌ