ÿWPC\ g‹ 䊗!¤ÐWž™Àþ yå“^%ç±u2Ǩ&¯ï–j@UaÔu8ˆ÷P>Ÿ§UäC[•§Þ Éaû+Úñ¬AWƒ¿ÐõÒíɉN×°å ŠŽ ð䩘uš­ JXJ À%.Ë7Ë­3b˜‰£F0Ź»Ã®5.±†Ç{ÒÑ'¤¹Ù CníÅ×Ó"ìé?»2)Lª¥[×Tg™gç'L£Æ` p—FxérüvÑò“0i{q€J¢6-JfÃQ2SpŽ1Ä‚ Ã$WÖ4õíÿ“È+´e]²r'¡ß$ðŽŠ-“¤ž~Y‹D›è„Ïg`Kd;ëkg%Íà;XPZY6§ ÐG6¾€@·\ Š©Îyžÿƒ#b¥ æá¸EȉPö‘Ù›Ð^Á Τ£}€_µ‚Á‰cgé¥Yïèæ~u!ŽþÎõM5 »[æ£:ùK!ãƒûšËqŸ(DÚ¾((`¦ßöIM¯5šA@ìP¬©w#ikÀË?‘= 6jÕ‰¾Â5þE;­Ú;Ëz‹øf1n&TaóÎÎÉS&áÙj‰þv3·)5én~‡]6¹ËG µ°à>˜*Ù߿ɄáÉÐÿâ÷#Ф > ¾%… %F U:L 0(† UN® ü ´ WË w@"4bv mx 0lž 0D "NU:pª#!²ÓNÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ BÝÝÝ D3úúú 0D-------------------------------------------------- 0Dqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq AQµÆ 0DÌ D/ B?X, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ò°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€also€convicted€defendant€of€aggravated€assault,€which€the€trial€court€mergedÐ ° Ðinto€the€coinciding€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery. ªÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýð ð[¢T]hose£€factors€based€on€facts€which€are€used€to€prove€the€offense€or€which€establishÐ ° Ðthe€elements€of€the€offense€are€excluded.ðð€€òòState€v.€Carlos€D.€¢Haywood£óó,€C.C.A.€No.€¢02C01£„Ð œì Ð9707„CR„00289,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€11,€1998,€at€Jackson). MÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€sentence€on€the€Haynes€attempted€robbery€was€run€consecutively€to€the€lifeÐ ° Ðsentence€for€the€murder.€€The€sentence€on€the€carjacking€was€run€consecutively€to€the€sentenceÏon€the€Haynes€attempted€robbery. š›[œDDžŸ D¡E¢D£Ó€{Z='j‡UÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ3|x£((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô€X¯ÛXXXÔÔ€îáÃîXX¯ÛÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ØîîáÃÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€8,€1999Ð ¸¸ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôsõ ØÔAppellate€CourtÐ ˜˜ ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0  d'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€_-‚*Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ£ñ›ñ£ñÒ°ÒÔ€X¯ÛXXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€“_XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  Ññ£ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E±tt0(H°¨Ùrßñ£ñÔ_ÔÌà ` àà@˜ ˜ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ –æ ÐÌà@=='àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌà@CC%àJULY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ ö F  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òNO.€03C01„9810„CR„00366€ó óÐ â 2  Ðà ` àAppellee,à@÷÷-à)ˆÐ Î  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÐ ´  Ðò òVS.ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ  ð  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,Ð ŒÜ  ÐMICHAEL€LEBRON€TAYLOR,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ xÈ  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆÌà ` àAppellant.à@÷÷-à)ˆà p à(First€Degree€Murder;€Carjacking;Ð Jš Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à€€Attempted€Especially€AggravatedÐ 0€ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à€€Robbery)Ð f ÐÌÌÌÒ(ä „¸ @(#(#(Òò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð ®þ ÐÌJOHN€ALLEN€BROOKSÌó ó736€Georgia€Ave.Ð r ÐSuite€600ÌChattanooga,€TN€€€37402ÌÐ $t Ðò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð ®þ ÐÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ †Ö ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òTODD€R.€KELLEYó óÐ >Ž" ÐAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òWILLIAM€H.€COX€IIIó óÐ ¨#ø( ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òC.€LELAND€DAVISÐ `&°!+ ÐCALDWELL€H.€HUCKABAYó óÐ L'œ", ÐAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌ600€Market€Street,€Ste.€300ÌChattanooga,€€TN€€37402Ð *T%/ ÐÒ(ä „¸ @ìì(ÒÐ Ð+ '/ ÐÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ œ-ì(1 ÐÌÌÌCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€ÌSENTENCE€MODIFIED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ  è581: Ðó óÌà@ÉÉ'àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ –æ ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àThe€defendant,€Michael€¢Lebron£€Taylor,€was€convicted€by€a€Hamilton€CountyÏjury€of€first€degree€murder,€carjacking,€and€two€counts€of€attempted€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I€standard€offenderÐ Ì   Ðto€life€imprisonment€for€the€murder;€ten€consecutive€years€on€the€carjacking;€tenÏconsecutive€years€on€one€count€of€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery;€andÏten€concurrent€years€on€the€other€count€of€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery,Ïfor€an€effective€sentence€of€life€plus€twenty€years.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,Ïdefendant€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓœà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à1.›à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€sever€œÐ ”ä Ðà  àthe›€œoffenses;›Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌœà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à2.›€à  àwhether€the€state€engaged€in€œprosecutorial€à @ àà @ àÐ F– Ðmisconduct;›Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌœà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à3.›€à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€œÐ øH Ðà  àto›€œexamine›€one€of€œits€witnesses›€through€leading€œ¼à  àquestions;›Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌœà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à4.›à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€œallow€Ð  à Ðà  àhim›€to€œquestion›€a€witness€about€defendantððs€œà @Ž àà @Ž à¼statement›€to€the€œpolice;›€andà p àÐ\"¬!¸ x¸ x ÐÌœà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à5.›à  àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€a€œà @² àÐ ($x# Ðpartially›€œconsecutive›€œsentence.€€›Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€ò òREDUCEó ó€one€of€defendant's€sentences€from€tenÐ Ú&*"& Ðto€eight€years,€but€otherwise€ò òAFFIRMó ó€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ²($( ÐÌà@ÎÎ+àò òFACTSó óˆÐ V,¦', ÐÌà ` àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€11,€1996,€defendant€was€riding€aroundÏin€a€van€driven€by€Allen€Russell.€€Also€in€the€van€were€Joe€Anderson,€€AngelaÏAnderson,€and€¢Latika£€Fountain.€€Fountain€had€been€complaining€that€she€neededÏmoney€to€pay€her€rent,€and€Anderson€and€defendant€had€earlier€discussedÐ ^5®06 Ðcommitting€a€robbery.€€The€van€pulled€up€in€front€of€a€house€where€Travis€HaynesÏwas€sitting€on€the€porch.€€¢Ricus£€Langston€and€Cheryl€Ranson€were€standing€on€theÏporch€with€him.€€Anderson€and€defendant€got€out€of€the€van,€each€carrying€a€gun.€ÏAnderson€approached€Langston€while€defendant€stood€nearby€in€the€yard.€ÏAnderson€asked€Langston€for€some€marijuana€and€pulled€his€gun.€€Langston€andÏRanson€ran€into€the€house.€€Anderson€turned€to€Haynes,€stuck€the€gun€in€his€face,Ïand€said,€"Give€up€the€cheese."€€Anderson€then€shot€Haynes€in€the€neck/shoulderÏarea,€and€he€and€defendant€ran€off.€€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€and€Anderson€got€back€in€the€van,€saying,€"Let's€go,"€and,€"Yeah,Ïthat's€another€dead€slob."€€As€they€were€driving€around,€they€saw€a€parked€tractor„¼trailer.€€Anderson€told€Russell€to€stop;€he€wanted€to€rob€the€driver.€€DefendantÏagreed,€stating,€"I'm€down€for€mine.€€I'm€willing€to€die€tonight."€€Russell€pulled€over,Ïstating€he€wanted€nothing€to€do€with€it€and€was€going€to€leave.€€Anderson€andÏdefendant€left€the€van,€each€carrying€a€gun.€€Russell€waited€a€moment,€and€heardÏa€gunshot€as€he€was€leaving.€€A€police€car€pulled€the€van€over€and€delayed€RussellÏand€the€others€for€questioning€about€the€Haynes€shooting.€€The€police€officer€hadÏnot€heard€the€gunshot€and€did€not€question€them€about€the€tractor„trailer€incident.€ÏAfter€the€questioning,€Russell€and€the€remaining€van€occupants€left€and€went€home.ÌÌà ` àA€short€time€later,€defendant€approached€Bernice€Hudson€as€she€sat€in€herÏparked€car,€put€a€gun€in€her€face,€and€told€her€to€get€out€of€the€vehicle€and€run.€€SheÏcomplied,€and€defendant€got€in€her€truck€and€left.ÌÌà ` àSometime€later,€¢Daren£€King€was€found€dead€in€the€cab€of€the€tractor„trailer.€ÏHe€had€been€killed€by€a€single€gunshot€to€the€head,€fired€from€one€to€two€feet€away.€ÏThe€bullet€recovered€from€his€body€matched€a€bullet€recovered€from€the€sceneÏwhere€Haynes€had€been€shot.€€Both€bullets€had€been€fired€from€the€same€.25Ïcaliber€gun.€€The€proof€at€trial€established€that€Anderson€had€a€.25€caliber€gun€that€œÌÐ Ì84: Ðnight.›€€The€investigation€also€revealed€defendant's€fingerprint€on€the€cab€of€theÏtractor„trailer.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@]]!àò òI.€€SEVERANCE€OF€OFFENSESó óˆÐ  d ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€that€each€of€the€offenses€committed€on€the€night€inÏquestion€was€separate€from€the€others;€therefore,€he€was€entitled€to€a€severance.€ÏThe€trial€court€disagreed,€as€do€we.€€€Ìà@··,àò òA.ó óˆÐ l Ðà ` àA€motion€for€severance€of€offenses€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exerciseÏof€this€discretion€unless€it€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record€that€the€accused€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€courtððs€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€642€(Tenn.Ð X¨ ÐCrim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€¢Wiseman£óó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð $t Ð1982).€€œWhether›€œseverance›€should€be€granted€ð ðdepends€upon€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€involved€in€the€various€crimes€charged.ðð€€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€788€S.W.2dÐ ¼  Ð820,€822€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€trial€court€is€required€to€hold€a€pre„trialÏhearing€to€determine€the€appropriateness€of€severance.€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2dÐ T#¤" Ð935,€944„45€œ(Tenn.›€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€court€must€make€a€determination€thatÏthe€evidence€of€one€crime€is€relevant€to€a€material€issue€in€the€trial€of€the€other.€€òòId.óóÐ ì&<"& Ðat€945.€€The€court€must€then€consider€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€evidenceÏoutweighs€any€prejudicial€effect.€€òòId.óóÐ ˆ*Ø%* ÐÌà ` àTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€for€mandatory€andÏpermissive€joinder€of€offenses€charged€in€separate€indictments.€€It€is€permissible€toÏjoin€offenses€under€Rule€8(b)€ð ðif€the€offenses€constitute€parts€of€a€common€schemeÏor€plan€or€if€they€are€of€the€same€or€similar€character.ðð€€Under€Rule€14(b)(1)€aÏdefendant€shall€have€the€right€to€severance€of€the€offenses€unless€the€offenses€areÏ(a)€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€and€(b)€the€evidence€of€one€would€beÏadmissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.€€œòòñœñState›€v.›€ñœñHoytóó,›€928€S.W.2d€at€943;€òòState€v.€¢Hallock£óó,Ð ì8<4: Ð875€S.W.2d€285,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€To€avoid€severance,€both€portionsÏof€the€rule€must€be€satisfied.€òò¢Hallock£óó,€875€S.W.2d€at€289.Ð |Ì ÐÌà ` àRule€14(b)(1)€requires€the€trial€court€to€find€a€common€scheme€or€plan€toÏmeet€the€first€prong.€€òòHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€943.€€There€are€three€categories€of€Ð à 0 Ðcommon€scheme€or€plan€evidence:€(1)€distinctive€design€or€signature€crimes;€(2)€aÏœlargerñ˜ñ,ñ˜ñ›€continuing€plan€or€conspiracy;€and€(3)€same€transaction.€N.€Cohen,€òòet€al.óó,Ð xÈ  Т£ò òTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceó ó€ðð€404.11€(3d€ed.€1995).€Ð H˜  ÐÌà ` àThe€second€prong€of€Rule€14(b)(1)€requires€that€the€evidence€of€the€offensesÏbe€admissible€at€the€trial€of€the€œother.€›€òòHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€943;€òòState€v.€¢McKnight£óó,Ð ¸ Ð900€S.W.2d€36,€€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ò ò€œó óñ™ñð ðñ™ñEvidence›€that€the€accusedÐ „Ô Ðcommitted€crimes€independent€of€those€for€which€he€is€on€trial€is€generallyÏinadmissible€because€such€evidence€lacks€relevance€and€invites€the€finder€of€factÏto€infer€guilt€from€œpropensity.ñšñððñšñ›€€òòHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€944;€ñ›ñòòñ›ñœseeñ›ñóóñ›ñ›€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).Ð ôD ÐHowever,€evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€may€be€admissible€for€otherÏpurposes.€€òòHoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€944.€€ò òÐ !à  Ðó óÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€¢Parton£óó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985),€the€Supreme€CourtÐ (%x $ Ðheld€that€proof€of€other€crimes€may€be€admissible€if,€after€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trialÏcourt€determines:€€(1)€the€evidence€is€relevant€to€an€issue€at€trial,€such€as€identity,Ïand€(2)€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€404(b)€was€drafted€in€accordance€with€these€standards.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð X,¨', ÐEvid.€404,€Advisory€Commission€Comments.Ìà@´´,àò òB.ó óˆÐ ô/D+0 Ðà ` àWe€first€address€the€"common€scheme€or€plan"€requirement.€€In€this€case,ÏAnderson€and€defendant's€scheme€was€to€be€driven€up€to€a€potential€victim,€attemptÏto€rob€the€victim€at€gunpoint,€and€then€leave€the€scene€by€the€same€vehicle€whichÏdropped€them€off.€€The€scheme€went€awry€after€the€second€attempted€robberyÏbecause€a€police€officer€pulled€the€van€over€and€made€the€intended€escapeÐ ü8L4: Ðimpossible.€€Defendant€was€then€forced€to€find€a€different€mode€of€transportation,Ïwhich€he€did€by€committing€a€carjacking.€€Defendant's€resourcefulness€in€adjustingÏthe€scheme€as€circumstances€dictated€does€œnot€entitle›€him€to€claim€that€theÏcarjacking€was€not€part€of€the€plan€so€as€to€entitle€him€to€a€severance.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€find€that€the€first€prong€of€Rule€14(b)(1)€is€met.€ÌÌà ` àWe€turn€now€to€whether€the€evidence€of€one€crime€would€be€admissible€uponÏthe€trial€of€the€others.€€Certainly,€the€bullet€found€at€the€Haynes€crime€scene€wasÏrelevant€to€prove€that€the€same€gun€was€later€used€to€kill€King.€€A€link€in€identifyingÏthe€perpetrators€was€thereby€established.€€Evidence€of€defendant's€fingerprint€onÏKing's€truck€cab€was€likewise€relevant€to€prove€the€inference€that€Anderson€andÏdefendant€were€attempting€to€rob€their€victims€while€together.€€Testimony€thatÏdefendant€was€armed€each€time€he€left€the€van€supports€the€state's€theory€that€heÏwas€armed€during€the€carjacking.€€Proof€that€the€van€became€unavailable€after€theÏsecond€attempted€robbery€supports€the€state's€theory€as€to€defendant's€motive€inÏcarjacking€Hudson's€vehicle.€€In€this€case,€the€evidence€of€each€crime€was€relevantÏto€show€identity,€guilty€knowledge,€intent,€or€motive€with€respect€to€the€other€crimes.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€œòòññState›€v.›€ññHoytóó,›€928€S.W.2d€at€944.€€Moreover,€the€probative€valueÐ <#Œ" Ðof€this€evidence€outweighs€any€prejudicial€effect€on€defendant.€€Accordingly,€theÏevidence€was€properly€admissible,€and€the€second€requirement€for€disallowing€aÏseverance€was€œmet.›€€ÌÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@kkàò òII.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óˆÐ Ô/$+0 ÐÌà ` àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconductÏby€changing€its€theory€about€who€shot€"the€victim"€after€Anderson's€trial.€ÏDefendant's€brief€does€not€make€clear€to€which€victim€he€is€referring.€€Moreover,Ïthere€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€support€this€assertion,€and€defendant€has€failed€toÐ Ü8,4: Ðcite€any€legal€authority€to€bolster€his€contention.€€This€issue€is,€therefore,€waived.€ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b).ÌÌà ` àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconductÏwith€respect€to€his€not€testifying€at€trial.€€During€closing€argument,€the€prosecutorÏreviewed€the€attempted€robbery€of€Haynes,€and€stated,€ÌÓÓà ` àà8 ¸ à[Haynes]€didn't€have€any€cheese,€and€they€shot€him.€€They€runÏback€to€the€van,€and€they€get€in.€€And€what€do€they€do?€€WhatÏdoes€everybody€in€the€van€do?€€Did€Mike€Taylor€ever€once,€didÏyou€hear€any€testimony€where€Mike€Taylor€said,€Whew,€Joe,Ïman,€don't€do€that?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓDefense€counsel€objected€and€moved€for€a€mistrial,€which€the€trial€court€denied.€€œÌÌ›à ` àWe€acknowledge€that€it€is€"constitutionally€impermissible€for€a€prosecutor€toÏcomment€upon€an€accused's€silence€during€the€course€of€a€trial."€€òòState€v.€¢Transou£óó,Ð @ Ð928€S.W.2d€949,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òò¢Griffen£€v.€Californiaóó,€380Ð  \ ÐU.S.€609,€615,€85€S.Ct.€1229,€14€L.Ed.2d€œ106ñžñ,€110ñžñ›€(1965).€€However,€given€theÏcontext€of€the€remark€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€the€prosecutor€was€trying€toÏemphasize€that€neither€Russell,€nor€Angela€Anderson,€nor€Fountain€„„€all€of€whomÏwere€witnesses€at€trial€„„€testified€that€defendant€had€objected€to€Anderson's€actionsÏin€shooting€Haynes.€€Mere€argument€by€the€State€that€œñŸñits€ñŸñproof›€œñ ñon›€a›€certain›€point›€ñ ñis›€¢unrefuted£€orÏuncontradicted€is€not€an€improper€comment€upon€a€defendant's€failure€to€testify.€Ð Ø&("& ÐòòState€v.€¢Thomas£óó,€818€S.W.2d€350,€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Moreover,€evenÐ ¤(ô#( Ðif€the€prosecutor's€remark€was€improper,€no€new€trial€is€required€if€the€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€œòòñ¡ñState€›v.€ñ¡ñ¢Transou£óó,›€928€S.W.2d€at€960.€€We€have€noÐ <,Œ', Ðtrouble€€concluding€here€that€no€prejudice€inured€to€defendant€as€a€result€of€theÏalleged€transgression.€€ÌÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÐ  85ˆ06 Ðà@F F àò òIII.€€STATE'S€EXAMINATION€OF€ANGELA€ANDERSONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€the€stateÏto€examine€Angela€Anderson€with€leading€questions.€€We€disagree.€€Prior€to€Ms.ÏAnderson's€testimony,€the€state€informed€the€court€(outside€the€presence€of€the€jury)Ïthat€she€was€"very€hostile€to€the€State."€€The€prosecutor€stated€that€he€would€try€toÏexamine€her,€but€might€be€asking€that€she€be€treated€as€a€hostile€witness.€ÏSubsequently,€during€Ms.€Anderson's€direct€testimony,€defense€counsel€objectedÏto€a€leading€question€and€the€prosecutor€requested€permission€to€ask€leadingÏquestions.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€state's€request,€finding€that€Ms.€Anderson€wasÏ"not€being€responsive"€to€the€state's€questions.€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àÐ ´ ÐÌà ` àA€trial€court€may€permit€leading€questions€upon€direct€examination€when€aÏwitness€is€determined€to€be€hostile.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(c).€€Moreover,€the€propriety,Ïscope,€manner€and€control€of€the€examination€of€witnesses€is€a€matter€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge,€subject€to€appellate€review€for€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòState€v.€¢Caughron£óó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€540€(Tenn.€1993).€€Our€review€of€Ms.Ð |!Ì  МAnderson's›€testimony€in€this€case€reveals€no€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€ÌÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@c c àò òIV.€€DEFENDANT'S€EXAMINATION€OF€TIM€CARROLLó óˆà Ð àÐ x*È%* ÐÌà ` àDefendant€next€complains€about€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€allow€him€toÏexamine€Officer€Tim€Carroll€about€the€statement€he€gave€Officer€Carroll€precedingÏhis€arrest.€€Defendant€made€no€offer€of€proof€at€trial€about€the€content€of€thisÏstatement,€but€we€assume€it€was€self„serving.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€was€correct.€ÏAn€accused€does€not€have€the€right€to€introduce€his€or€her€self„serving€hearsay€œÌÌÐ ä844: Ðstatements.›€€òòState€v.€¢Turnmire£óó,€762€S.W.2d€893,€897€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòHallÐ ° Ðv.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€417,€418€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@'àò òV.€€SENTENCESˆÐ ¬ ü  Ðà@¦¦"àA.€€Length€of€SentencesˆÌó óà ` àAlthough€defendant€does€not€challenge€specifically€the€length€of€hisÐ \¬  Ðsentences€for€the€attempted€especially€aggravated€robberies€and€the€carjacking,€heÏchallenges€the€trial€court's€application€of€enhancement€factors.€€We€agree€withÏdefendant€that€some€of€the€enhancement€factors€were€misapplied.€€ÌÌà ` àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€withÐ X¨ Ða€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumptionÏis€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judgeÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€¢Ashby£óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trial€court€fails€to€complyÐ Œ!Ü  Ðwith€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€our€reviewÏis€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð $%t $ ÐÌà ` àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€theÏminimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2dÐ X,¨', Ð803,€806€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð (.x). Ð1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€court€should€start€at€the€minimumÏsentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€for€enhancement€factorsÏand€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€for€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€theÏstatute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏas€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€theÐ ð8@4: Ðsentencing€act€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€¢Leggs£óó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€848€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð |Ì ÐApp.€1997);€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116,€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóóÐ H˜ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,Ïshould€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€a€trialÏcourt€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„210(d);€òòseeóó€œòòñ¢ñState›€v.›€ñ¢ñLavenderóó,›€967€S.W.2d€at€806;€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2dÐ |Ì  Ð635,€638€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court's€findings€are€insufficient€to€œallow›€the€presumptionÏof€correctness.€€Accordingly,€our€review€is€òòde€novo.óóÐ ° ÐÌà ` àAttempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€carjacking€are€Class€BÏfelonies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„107(a);€39„13„403(b);€and€39„13„404(b).€Ð h ÐSince€defendant€is€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€the€range€of€sentencing€for€eachÏof€these€crimes€is€eight€to€twelve€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2).€€InÏsetting€the€sentences€at€the€mid„range€point€of€ten€years€for€each€of€theseÏconvictions,€the€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€but€applied€the€following€fourÏenhancement€factors:ÌÓÓà ` àà8 ¸ à(6)€€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€ofÏdamage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€great;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(10)€€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ àà ` àà8¸ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð à(12)€€During€the€commission€of€the€felony,€theÏdefendant€willfully€inflicted€bodily€injury€upon€anotherÏperson;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(16)€€The€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€underÏwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€Defendant€contends€that€each€of€theseÏenhancement€factors€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offenses€of€attempted€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€and€œcarjacking›€and€cannot€be€used€to€enhance€his€sentences.€ÏTo€a€limited€extent,€we€must€agree.Ð Ü8,4: Їà ` àAttempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€is€the€attempted€intentional€orÏknowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€theÏperson€in€fear,€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€causing€serious€bodilyÏinjury€to€the€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403(a).€€This€Court€has€previouslyÏheld€that€enhancement€factor€(6)€is€inherent€in€this€offense,€and€its€application€toÏthis€crime€œis,›€œtherefore,›€inappropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Holly€Lack€Earlsóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð ¬ ü  Т01C01£„9612„CC„00506,€Coffee€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Jan.€16,1998,€atÏNashville).€€Factor€(12)€is€also€an€element€of€the€offense€and,€therefore,Ïinapplicable.€€Factors€(10)€and€(16)€are€also€elements€of€the€crime.€€However,€in€theÏcase€of€the€attempted€robbery€of€Haynes,€two€other€people€were€present€on€theÏporch€when€Anderson€pulled€his€gun.€€Indeed,€Anderson€first€pulled€the€gun€onÏLangston,€at€which€point€he€and€Ranson€ran€in€the€house.€€Thus,€in€the€attemptedÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€against€Haynes,€there€were€other€potential€victimsÏin€the€area€subject€to€injury.€€Under€these€circumstances,€application€of€factors€(10)Ïand€(16)€was€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ü, Ð1995).€€With€respect€to€the€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€of€King,€on€theÏother€hand,€there€was€no€proof€of€any€other€potential€victims€present.€€Thus,€noneÏof€these€enhancement€factors€should€have€been€applied€to€the€sentence€on€thisÏoffense.ÌÌà ` àWe€find,€therefore,€that€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€two€enhancementÏfactors€for€the€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€against€Haynes,€and€weÏœsee›€no€reason€to€reduce€the€mid„range€ten„year€sentence.€€None€of€theÏenhancement€factors€should€have€been€applied€on€the€other€attempted€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€conviction,€and€we€must,€therefore,€reduce€that€sentence€toÏeight€years.€€ÌÌà ` àœCarjacking›€is€defined€as€the€intentional€or€knowing€taking€of€a€motor€vehicleÏfrom€the€possession€of€another€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€force€orÏintimidation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„404(a).€€œIn›€reviewing€the€application€of€factorÐ Ô8$4: Ð(6),€we€first€note€that€there€was€no€proof€of€any€personal€injuries€inflicted€during€theÏcourse€of€the€carjacking.€€Nor€was€there€any€proof€of€property€damage.€€TheÏproperty€taken€was€the€victim's€vehicle.€€While€this€might€otherwise€qualify€as€aÏ"particularly€great"€amount€of€property€taken€from€a€victim,€in€this€case€it€is€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense.€€Accordingly,€this€enhancement€factor€should€notÏhave€been€applied.€€Factor€(12)€was€also€inapplicable€because,€as€noted€above,Ïthere€was€no€proof€of€bodily€injury€being€inflicted€by€defendant€during€the€course€ofÏthe€carjacking.€€ÌÌà ` àWith€respect€to€factors€(10)€and€(16),€defendant's€use€of€a€gun€in€committingÏthis€crime€was€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.¢œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›£€€And,€since€there€is€"necessarilyÐ ¨ø Ða€high€risk€to€human€life€and€the€great€potential€for€bodily€injury€whenever€a€deadlyÏweapon€is€used,"€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€922€S.W.2d€894,€903€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€theseÐ @ Ðfactors€should€ordinarily€not€be€applied€to€a€sentence€for€carjacking.€€However,€asÏin€the€attempted€robbery€against€Haynes,€the€proof€at€trial€established€that€Hudson'sÏboyfriend€was€standing€near€her€vehicle€when€defendant€carjacked€it.€€Indeed,ÏHudson's€boyfriend€was€close€enough€to€recognize€defendant.€€Thus,€under€òòSimsóó,Ð p!À  Ðwe€find€the€application€of€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€appropriate€in€thisÏcase.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€defendant's€ten€year€sentence€for€the€carjackingÏconviction.Ìà@!àò òB.€€Consecutive€Sentencesó óˆÐ  (ð#( Ðà ` àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€"¢consecutizing£"€his€sentencesÏfor€the€carjacking€and€for€the€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€againstÏHaynes.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€imposed€these€consecutive€sentences€after€findingÐ .`). Ðdefendant€to€be€a€"dangerous€offender."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€Ð Ü/,+0 МÐ ¬1ü,2 ÐThe›€trial€court€made€no€other€findings€with€respect€to€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences.ÌÌà ` àA€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that:ÌÓÓ€à8 ` à[¢t]he£€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€littleÐ ¬ ü  Ðor€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€œhighñ¡ñ›ñ¡ñ...›Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4);òò€see€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912Ð D”  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Furthermore,€the€court€is€required€to€determine€whetherÏthe€consecutive€sentences€(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted;€(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€theÏoffender;€and€(3)€are€congruent€with€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.Ð xÈ ТWilkerson£óó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ð D” ÐÌà ` àAlthough€the€trial€court€made€no€findings€with€respect€to€the€òò¢Wilkerson£óóÐ Ü, Ðfactors,€our€òòde€novoóó€review€indicates€that€the€consecutive€sentences€imposed€in€thisÐ ¨ø Ðcase€are€appropriate.€€With€a€gun€in€his€hand€each€time,€defendant€participated€inÏthree€life„threatening€offenses€within€a€short€period€of€time,€one€of€which€resultedÏin€an€innocent€man's€murder.€€These€offenses€are€among€the€most€severe,€andÏtherefore,€deserve€severe€sentencing.€€The€offenses€were€committed€againstÏordinary€citizens€who€in€no€way€provoked€defendant,€and€who€were€given€noÏopportunity€to€protect€themselves€from€the€violence€of€the€defendant€and€his€cohort.€ÏAll€of€these€offenses€were€vicious€attacks€against€the€public,€and€the€public€clearlyÏneeds€protection€from€future€criminal€activity€by€defendant.€€We€also€find€that€the€œÌconsecutive€sentences›€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€andÏare€congruent€with€the€general€principles€of€œsentencing.›€€Accordingly,€we€holdÏdefendant's€consecutive€sentences€to€be€appropriate.ÌÌœÌÐ Ô8$4: Лà@\\(àò òCONCLUSIONó ó€ˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€having€improperly€enhanced€defendant's€sentence€for€one€ofÏthe€attempted€especially€aggravated€robberies,€we€ò òREDUCEó ó€his€sentence€for€theÐ  p Ðattempted€especially€aggravated€robbery€against€King€to€eight€years.€€The€trialÏcourt's€order€regarding€consecutive€service€of€defendant's€sentences€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó,Ð Ä   Ðand€defendant's€effective€sentence,€therefore,€remains€at€life€plus€twenty€years.€ÏThe€trial€court's€judgment€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó€in€all€other€respects.Ð h¸  Ѐ€€€€€ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEó óÐ òB ÐÌÌò òCONCUR:Ð ªú ÐÌÌó ó_______________________________ò òÐ n¾ ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€œJUDGE›ÌÌÌÌó ó_______________________________ò òÐ  T ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEó ó