ÿWPC4 …# V %a 0gUB‚ w@Ä 4  ' UN/ 0_} 0DÜ 0J 0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆU,ý 0d)U, B¹U>ÖU.B)BDCk AM®U*û¦% D3Ëv~þvÓ| 0@O AOÆÞ 0D¤ D/è B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0  X(óÔ”$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒh°ÒÓÓÑ  ÑÑ7€^"XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ²e³E´EµU¶P·E¸P¹DºD»Ó€à~| 3|xÆ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3œ$¤¤Ý ƒÔ”!ÝÒ4°ÒÒh°ÒÓÓÑ  ÑÑ7€ƒ·XXdÈdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ä àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÓÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ29,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÓÓÑ  ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßL€')&;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àJANUARY€SESSION,€1993ÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9112„CR„00414Ìà àAppellee,€à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àCockeÏCountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€J.ÏKenneth€Porter,€JudgeÌDONNIE€WEBB,€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(RecklessÏEndangerment)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€theÏAppellee:óóÌÌGordon€Ballà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌSuite€750,€Sovran€Centerà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌ550€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àà àà àC.€AnthonyÏDaughtreyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,ÏTN€37243„0485ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAlÏSchmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrictÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEdwardÏBaileyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMain€Street€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNewport,€TNÏ37821ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€VACATED€IN€PART€à àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌÌÌPER€CURIAMÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÓÓÌà àThe€defendant,€Donnie€Webb,€appeals€his€convictions€of€two€counts€of€recklessÏendangerment,€for€which€he€received€concurrent€sentences€of€two€years€in€the€state€penitentiaryÏand€fines€totaling€three€thousand€dollars.€€All€but€ninety€days€of€the€sentences€were€suspended.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€presented€three€issues€for€review.€€First,€he€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€admitting€his€confession€because€it€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€SixthÏAmendment€right€to€counsel.€€In€his€second€and€third€issues,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€imposing€the€maximum€two„year€sentence€and€in€denying€him€full€probation.ÌÌà àInitially,€although€not€raised€by€either€party,€we€hold€that€plain€error€existsÏpursuant€to€Rule€52(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€that€requires€one€conviction€to€be€vacated€in€order€toÍdo€substantial€justice.€€Reckless€endangerment€occurs€when€one€ð ðrecklessly€engages€in€conductÏwhich€places€or€may€place€another€person€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„103(a).€€Felony€reckless€endangerment€is€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„103(b).€€In€this€case,€there€was€one€act€„„€the€firing€of€one€bullet€from€the€pistol.€ÏThe€state€alleged€and€apparently€proved€to€the€juryððs€satisfaction€that€both€Roger€Hooper€andÏRobert€Williamson,€Jr.,€were€placed€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€by€theÏfiring€of€a€single€shot.€€However,€this€does€not€justify€separate€convictions€under€the€recklessÏendangerment€statute,€given€the€facts€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995).€€For€example,€if€an€individual€fires€a€gun€into€a€crowded€stadium,€striking€noÏone,€he€would€not€be€guilty€of€hundreds€of€acts€of€reckless€endangerment,€but€would€only€beÏguilty€of€one€single€act€that€placed€the€stadium€spectators€in€danger.€€Similarly,€in€this€case,€theÏdefendant€committed€a€single€act€of€reckless€endangerment€and€the€trial€court€should€have€mergedÏthe€counts€and€entered€only€one€judgment€of€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment.€ÌÌà àOn€December€21,€1990,€the€defendant€fired€a€hand€gun€at€Roger€Hooper.€€TheÏbullet€missed€Mr.€Hooper€and€hit€the€windshield€of€Mr.€Williamsonððs€truck€as€Mr.€WilliamsonÏapproached€an€exit€from€Interstate€40.€€Glass€from€the€windshield€struck€Mr.€Williamson€on€theÏforearm.€€Mr.€Williamson€then€pulled€off€to€the€side€of€the€road.€€When€he€opened€the€door€of€hisÏtruck€he€discovered€a€bullet.€€He€gave€the€bullet€to€Ross€Elbert€Haynes,€an€agent€of€the€TennesseeÏBureau€of€Investigation.ÌÌà àOn€the€same€day,€Roger€Hooper€charged€the€defendant€with€recklessÏendangerment€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€of€Cocke€County,€Tennessee.€€The€charge€wasÏvoluntarily€dismissed€on€December€24,€1990.€€Later,€in€February€1991,€the€defendant€and€Mr.ÏHooper€exchanged€words€during€a€high€school€basketball€game€and€Mr.€Hooper€had€the€warrantÏreissued€on€February€8,€1991.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€notified€of€this€development€and€went€to€the€Cocke€CountyÏSheriffððs€Office€on€February€9,€1991,€at€which€time€the€warrant€was€executed€by€Daryll€Nichols.€ÏDuring€the€course€of€making€bond€arrangements,€and€after€joking€about€another€matter,€theÏdefendant€told€the€dispatcher,€Lorene€Hartsell,€ð ðI€want€a€lawyer.ðð€€Ms.€Hartsell€then€telephonedÏthe€general€sessions€judgeððs€office€and€got€the€bond€approved.€€A€preliminary€hearing€date€was€setÏfor€February€26,€1991,€and€the€defendant€was€released€on€bond€without€being€questioned€aboutÏthe€incident.ÌÌà àOn€February€22,€1991,€Roger€Hooper€was€murdered.€€On€that€date€the€defendant,Ïhis€wife€and€child€were€en€route€to€Washington,€D.C.€€The€Sheriff€of€Cocke€County,€TunneyÏMoore,€telephoned€the€defendant€in€Virginia€at€one€or€two€oððclock€in€the€morning€and€told€theÏdefendant€that€he€was€in€ð ðbig€troubleðð€and€that€he€should€go€immediately€to€the€sheriffððs€officeÏupon€returning€to€Cocke€County.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€returned€to€Cocke€County€on€February€24,€1991,€and€telephonedÏthe€sheriffððs€office.€€He€was€asked€to€report€to€the€sheriffððs€office€ð ðright€thenðð€and€he€did€so.€€HeÏwas€questioned€by€Agent€Haynes,€who€was€investigating€the€murder€of€Mr.€Hooper.ÌÌà àAgent€Haynes€testified€that€he€was€aware€of€the€reckless€endangerment€chargeÏpending€against€the€defendant.€€He€stated€that€he€knew€that€his€interview€with€the€defendant€wouldÏinvolve€questions€about€the€reckless€endangerment€charge€because€he€needed€to€explore€theÏdefendantððs€relationship€to€Mr.€Hooper€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€had€a€motive€forÏkilling€Mr.€Hooper.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€Agent€Haynes€told€him€that€he€would€not€discuss€theÏpending€reckless€endangerment€charges€but€only€wanted€to€ask€questions€about€the€homicide.€ÏThe€defendant€said€that€when€Agent€Haynes€informed€him€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€he€told€AgentÏHaynes,€ð ðI€need,€I€guess€I€need€a€lawyer.ðð€€To€this€he€said€Agent€Haynes€replied€that€he€did€notÏneed€a€lawyer€if€ð ðyouððve€not€done€anything.ðð€€Agent€Haynes€denied€that€either€of€these€statementsÏwere€made.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€never€told€Agent€Haynes€directly€that€he€wanted€anÏattorney.ÌÌà àDuring€the€interview,€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€shot€a€pistol€on€the€entranceÏramp€to€I„40€at€the€Wilton€Springs€exit.€€Later,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€theÏstatement,€asserting€that€it€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€thatÏhe€asserted€on€February€9,€1991€to€Ms.€Hartsell.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantððs€request€for€counsel€on€February€9th€cameÏin€the€context€of€ð ðcasual€conversationðð€and€held€that€it€could€not€be€considered€an€assertion€of€theÏright€to€counsel€because€the€statement€was€made€in€ð ðsomewhat€of€a€light€vein.ðð€€It€also€found€thatÏthe€defendant€understood€his€right€to€counsel€at€the€February€24th€interrogation,€that€he€was€awareÏof€the€scope€of€the€interview€and€that€he€voluntarily€subjected€himself€to€questioning€regarding€theÏreckless€endangerment€charges.€€It€concluded€that€the€defendant€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏwaived€his€right€to€counsel.ÓÓÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€at€a€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€have€theÏweight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€findings.€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.2d€161,€162€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€WeÏconclude€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€recognized€that€the€right€to€counsel€attaches€when€an€arrestÏwarrant€is€ð ðtaken€outðð€on€a€person€because€it€is€ð ða€decisive€commitment€to€prosecute.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏMitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,€283€(Tenn.€1980).€€€In€this€case€an€arrest€warrant€was€issued€for€theÏdefendant.€€The€warrant€was€a€decisive€commitment€to€prosecute€him.€€Thus,€the€defendantððsÏFifth€and€Sixth€Amendment€rights€to€counsel€had€attached.€€òòMitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€at€283.ÌÌà àWhen€the€defendant€was€making€bond,€he€told€the€dispatcher€that€he€wanted€aÏlawyer.€€However,€this€request€was€made€during€a€time€when€the€defendant€was€not€about€to€beÏinterrogated€and€during€a€time€that€he,€by€his€own€testimony,€was€joking€around€with€lawÏenforcement€officers.€€By€the€defendantððs€own€admission,€the€statement€was€not€a€serious€requestÏand€was€not€made€at€a€time€when€any€interrogation€was€pending.€€Had€it€been€a€serious€requestÏfor€counsel,€the€authorities€would€have€been€precluded€from€initiating€further€communicationsÏwith€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475€U.S.€625,€106€S.€Ct.€1232€(1986).€ÏNevertheless,€because€the€defendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€had€attached€relative€toÏthe€reckless€endangerment€charges€and€there€was€no€request€for€counsel,€we€must€determineÏwhether€the€defendant€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel€at€the€February€24thÏinterrogation€initiated€by€Agent€Haynes.€€òòSeeóó€òòPatterson€v.€Illinoisóó,€487€U.S.€285,€291„92,€108€S.ÏCt.€2389,€2394€(1988).€€In€òòPattersonóó,€the€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€giving€full€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings€is€ordinarily€sufficient€in€the€context€of€postindictment€questioning€to€apprise€theÏaccused€of€the€nature€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€rights,€and€the€consequences€of€abandoning€thoseÏrights,€so€that€a€waiver€will€be€considered€a€knowing€and€intelligent€one€for€both€Fifth€and€SixthÏAmendment€purposes.€òòIdóó.€at€2397.€€€€€€ÌÌà àAfter€making€bond€on€February€9th€and€before€the€defendantððs€preliminary€hearingÏon€February€26th,€authorities€contacted€the€defendant€in€Virginia€and€asked€him€to€report€promptlyÏto€the€sheriffððs€office€upon€his€return€to€Cocke€County.€€The€defendant€voluntarily€reported€to€theÍsheriffððs€office€two€days€later.€€The€defendant€was€asked€to€talk€to€Agent€Haynes€who€wasÏinvestigating€the€defendant€as€a€suspect€in€Mr.€Hooperððs€murder€based€upon€his€knowledge€of€theÏreckless€endangerment€charge.ÌÌà àAgent€Haynes€testified€that€he€knew€that€the€interview€with€the€defendant€wouldÏinvolve€questions€about€the€reckless€endangerment€charge€because€he€needed€to€explore€theÏrelationship€between€the€defendant€and€Mr.€Hooper€in€order€to€determine€if€the€defendant€had€aÏmotive€for€murder.€€Agent€Haynes€testified€that€he€knew€that€he€would€have€to€ask€questionsÏabout€the€shooting€incident.€€Agent€Haynes€also€stated€that€he€advised€the€defendant€that€questionsÏwould€be€asked€regarding€the€shooting€incident.€€Agent€Haynes€testified€that€he€read€the€defendantÏhis€òòMirandaóó€rights€because€of€the€pending€reckless€endangerment€charges.€€The€interrogation€ofÏthe€defendant€was€neither€recorded€nor€transcribed.€€The€questioning€lasted€for€about€one€and€one„half€hours,€then€the€defendantððs€answers€were€reduced€to€paragraph€form,€read€to€the€defendantÏand€initialed€and€signed€by€him.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€defendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€had€attached€upon€the€issuance€of€the€arrestÏwarrant.€€However,€there€was€no€request€for€counsel€when€the€defendant€made€bond€on€FebruaryÏ9th.€€Furthermore,€the€record€shows€that€the€defendant€fully€understood€the€scope€of€the€FebruaryÏ24th€interview€and€that€he€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€counsel.€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€à àIn€his€second€and€third€issues,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏsentencing€him€to€the€maximum€term€within€the€applicable€range€and€in€denying€his€request€to€beÏallowed€probation€without€serving€any€time€in€jail€at€all.€€The€state€argues€that€the€sentence€wasÏnot€excessive.ÌÌà àSentencing€issues€are€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€by€this€court,€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€statutory€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)€any€evidenceÏreceived€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,€(c)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(e)€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€and/or€statutory€enhancement€factors,€(g)€anyÏstatement€made€by€the€offender€on€his€own€behalf€and€(h)€the€offenderððs€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€considered€all€of€the€factors€outlined€above€and€concluded€that€theÏdefendant€should€be€sentenced€to€two€years€on€each€count.€€The€defendant€contends€that,€in€lightÏof€his€background€and€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€he€should€have€been€sentenced€at€theÏlower€end€of€Range€I€and€considered€for€full€probation.€€ÌÌà àEnhancement€of€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€appropriate€in€this€case€because€theÏoffense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(3).€€The€fact€that€the€defendantÏintentionally€shot€the€pistol€at€another€person€establishes€a€culpability€beyond€that€necessary€toÏsustain€a€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment€and€is€significant€in€assessing€the€weight€of€thisÏenhancement€factor.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€contention€that€he€should€have€been€granted€fullÏprobation,€the€state€argues€that€the€defendant€is€not€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencingÍbecause€his€actions€involved€a€serious€offense,€and€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciatingÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€to€deter€others€who€might€act€similarly.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€€In€support,€the€state€asserts€that€shooting€at€someone€is€equivalent€to€attemptedÏhomicide€and€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€created€a€substantial€danger€to€others,€as€evidenced€byÏthe€fact€that€another€personððs€truck€was€hit.€€The€state€also€asserts€that€in€view€of€the€ease€withÏwhich€the€defendantððs€inability€to€control€his€anger€could€have€escalated€into€the€killing€of€anÏinnocent€victim,€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€deter€others.ÌÌà à€Absent€evidence€to€the€contrary,€the€defendant€is€a€presumptive€candidate€forÏalternative€sentencing€options.€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(5)€and€(6).€€€However,€given€the€potentiallyÏdangerous€consequences€and€the€intentional€nature€of€the€defendantððs€actions,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€full€probation€and€the€imposition€of€ninety€daysÏconfinement.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€recklessÏendangerment€under€count€one€of€the€indictment€is€vacated€and€the€offense€is€merged€into€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment€under€count€two€of€the€indictment.€€TheÏjudgment€of€conviction€for€count€two€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.Ì€€€€€€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àò òPER€CURIAMÌà àà àà àà àà àó ó(Scott,€Tipton€and€White,€JJ.)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌ