ÿWPCº 2JÌUN %d 0jU:qw@«4ëÿU. 0JD 0TŽ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ 0d! 0@… D3Å Bø U> U*S B)} DC¦ AMé â6 AQÆi 0D/ 0Ds D/· Bæfv~ivÓçc:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ßZ>$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X³—XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular –D—E˜D™šU›œ•Ó€©¬B\J#3|x¬%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ14,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌ̜ـ*ÙßR€'(&A1-j|•þF` à. `€€@ÿRß›AT€JACKSONÌÌMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9611„CC„00412Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMadison€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWhit€Lafon,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSecond€Degree€MurderÌCARLOS€COMAN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJan€R.€Pattersonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ225€West€Baltimore,€Suite€Bà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌJackson,€TN€38301à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKenneth€W.€RuckerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„4351ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€G.€WoodallÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302„2825ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€W.€ThompsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302„2825ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChristopher€J.€SchultzÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302„2825ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€ „ÔÇœO›€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Carlos€Coman€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€second€degreeÏmurder,€a€Class€A€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court,€finding€the€defendant€toÏbe€a€standard€offender,€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€consisting€of€confinement€forÏtwenty€(20)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€court,€the€defendant€presentsÏfive€issues€for€review.€€He€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction.€€He€also€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€the€statement€he€gave€to€the€police,€excluding€theÏterms€of€the€victimððs€plea€bargain€agreement€prior€to€his€murder,€failing€to€give€anÏinstruction€on€identification,€and€imposing€an€excessive€sentence.€€After€a€thoroughÏreview€of€the€record,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€theseÏissues,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€beÏaffirmed.Ìà àOn€the€evening€of€March€29,€1995,€the€defendant€and€three€companions€went€toÏthe€apartment€of€Jacqueline€Haynes.€€The€defendant€knocked€on€the€door.€€WhenÏHaynes€answered€the€door,€the€defendant,€who€appeared€angry,€asked€her€if€she€hadÏseen€Brent€Love.€€She€told€the€defendant€she€had€not€seen€Love€that€evening.€€TheÏdefendant€and€his€companions€left.€€They€then€went€to€the€apartment€of€Terry€KayÏWallace.Ìà àRoderick€Purdy,€one€of€the€defendantððs€companions,€and€a€co„defendant,€wentÏto€the€door€and€knocked.€€When€Andrew€Thompson€answered€the€door,€Purdy€asked€ifÏLove€was€there.€€According€to€a€statement€given€to€police,€Love€had€removed€theÍhubcaps€from€Purdyððs€automobile€and€Purdy€wanted€to€know€where€the€hubcapsÏwere.€€Love€exited€the€apartment€and€was€shot€five€times.€€Eric€Burton,€who€had€alsoÏbeen€inside€Wallaceððs€apartment,€waited€a€short€time,€exited€the€apartment,€andÏdragged€Love€back€inside€the€apartment.Ìà àTwo€people€were€in€the€process€of€leaving€a€church€directly€across€the€streetÏfrom€the€situs€of€the€murder.€€They€saw€three€or€four€people€congregated€in€front€ofÏWallaceððs€apartment.€€One€person€shot€the€victim.€€They€saw€the€victim€fall.€€TheÏperpetrators€of€the€murder€ran€away.€€Neither€party€could€identify€any€of€the€individualsÏthey€saw€since€it€was€dark.€€Several€witnesses€testified€they€heard€five€or€six€shots€inÏrapid€succession.€€Ìà àLove€appeared€to€be€in€excruciating€pain.€€He€was€breathing€heavily.€€He€thenÏbegan€to€moan€and€gasp€for€breath.€€Later,€he€began€ð ðfading€in€and€out.ðð€€When€BurtonÏand€Thompson€would€call€Loveððs€name,€he€would€respond,€but€would€then€lapse€backÏinto€an€unconscious€state.€€He€died€later€that€night€at€the€hospital.€€Shortly€after€LoveÏwas€dragged€inside€the€apartment,€he€told€Burton€and€Thompson€twice€thatÏð ðBushwickðð€shot€him.€€The€defendantððs€nickname€is€Bushwick.€€The€victim€obviouslyÏknew€the€defendant.Ìà àAn€autopsy€revealed€the€victim€died€of€multiple€gunshot€wounds.€€Three€of€theÏwounds€discovered€by€the€pathologist€were€superficial.€€One€projectile€struck€theÏvictimððs€spine€and€stopped.€€The€remaining€projectile€struck€the€victim€on€the€right€sideÏof€the€chest,€bruised€the€right€lung,€passed€through€both€chambers€of€the€heart,€andÏstruck€the€aorta€as€well.€€This€latter€wound€was€the€cause€of€the€victimððs€death.Ìà àThe€defendant€gave€the€police€a€statement.€€He€admitted€to€the€officers€that€heÍwas€present€when€the€victim€was€shot.€€However,€he€denied€he€was€the€person€whoÏshot€the€victim.€€When€the€shooting€began,€the€defendant€ran€and€hid€in€a€grove€ofÏtrees€behind€a€grocery€œstore.›Ìò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€toÏsupport€his€conviction.€€He€argues€his€conviction€is€predicated€upon€the€dyingÏdeclaration€of€€the€victim,€presented€through€the€testimony€of€Thompson€and€Burton,Ïtwo€convicted€felons.€€He€also€argues€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€convictionÏbased€exclusively€€upon€circumstantial€œevidence.›à àœ›Ìò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏcourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferencesÏfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199ÏTenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.€39,€1ÍL.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.ÌÌÓ  Óà àò òB.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àBefore€an€accused€can€be€convicted€of€second€degree€murder,€the€State€ofÏTennessee€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€accused€knowingly€killed€theÏvictim.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant,€who€appearedÍangry,€asked€Haynes€if€the€victim€was€inside€her€apartment€or€whether€she€had€seenÏthe€victim€that€evening.€€The€defendant€admitted€he€was€present€outside€WallaceððsÏapartment€when€the€victim€was€shot.€€He€also€admitted€he€left€the€situs€of€the€crimeÏrunning.€€The€victim€made€a€dying€declaration€stating€the€defendant€was€the€personÏwho€shot€him.Ìà àThis€court€finds€the€evidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€by€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€second€degree€murder€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€a€statement€he€made€to€a€police€officer.€€€He€arguesÏhe€was€only€sixteen€years€of€age€with€borderline€intellectual€functioning€capacity€at€theÏtime€he€made€the€statement.€€As€a€result,€the€defendant€was€not€capable€of€voluntarily,Ïknowingly,€and€intelligently€waiving€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.ò òÌà àó ó€€€Officer€Barry€Michael€interviewed€the€defendant€shortly€after€the€murder€of€theÏvictim.€€He€read€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€advised€OfficerÏMichael€he€understood€his€rights€and€he€was€willing€to€waive€these€rights.€€TheÏdefendant€did€not€ask€any€questions€about€his€rights.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€asked€to€read€the€first€sentence€on€the€waiver€of€rights€formÍto€test€whether€he€could€read.€€The€defendant€had€no€problem€reading€the€sentence.€ÏOfficer€Michael€then€permitted€the€defendant€to€sign€the€waiver€of€rights€form.€€After€theÏinterview€was€completed,€Officer€Michael€read€the€statement€to€the€defendant.€He€thenÏgave€the€statement€to€the€defendant€to€read€and€make€changes€or€approve€it.€€TheÏdefendant€signed€the€statement€as€prepared€by€Officer€Michael.Ìà àThe€defendant€presented€a€psychologist€to€support€his€contentions.€€TheÏpsychologist€testified€the€defendant€possessed€a€borderline€range€of€intelligence.€€TheÏdefendant€was€found€to€read€at€a€fourth€grade€level.€€According€to€the€psychologist,€aÏperson€must€be€able€to€read€at€the€sixth€grade€level€to€understand€the€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings.€€œÑ€/ÑÇHowever,›€the€psychologist€opined€the€defendant€knew€right€from€wrong,€wasÏcompetent€to€stand€trial,€and€was€capable€of€assisting€counsel.Ìà àThe€defendant€testified€during€the€suppression€hearing.€€He€acknowledged€heÏsigned€the€waiver€of€rights€form,€but€stated€he€did€not€know€why€he€signed€the€form.€ÏHe€also€acknowledged€he€signed€the€statement€attributed€to€him.€€He€refuted€OfficerÏMichaelððs€testimony.€€The€defendant€denied€Michael€read€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€or€theÏstatement€to€him.€€However,€the€defendant€stated€he€was€able€to€read€the€statement.€ÏThe€defendant€also€stated€he€told€the€police€the€truth€when€giving€the€statement,€andÏthat€he€provided€the€police€with€the€information€contained€in€the€statement.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€is€afforded€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€merits€of€his€motionÏto€suppress€a€statement€given€to€a€law€enforcement€officer,€the€findings€of€fact€made€byÏthe€trial€court€are€binding€upon€the€appellate€court€unless€the€evidence€contained€inÏthe€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23Ï(Tenn.€1996);€€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.ÏOððGuinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€565„66€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€478€U.S.€820,€107€S.Ct.€244,Ï93€L.Ed.2d€169€(1986);€òòState€v.€Mosieróó,€888€S.W.2d€781,€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ÏThis€standard€of€review€was€created€because€the€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€mustÏassess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€determine€the€weight€and€value€to€be€affordedÏthe€evidence€adduced€during€the€hearing,€and€the€court€must€resolve€any€conflicts€inÏthe€evidence.€€However,€an€appellate€court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÏof€law.€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€court€that€the€evidenceÏcontained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Í1975);€òòMitchell€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€494,€501,€464€S.W.2d€307,€311,€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€œ(Tenn.€1971).›Ìà àThe€waiver€of€the€constitutional€rights€guaranteed€by€òòMirandaóó€must€beÏvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€made€to€be€valid.€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€465,€472€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€511€U.S.€1046,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128ÏL.Ed.2d€220€(1994);€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.€1992);€òòStateÏœv.€Bentonóó,›€759€S.W.2d€427,€431€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€A€juvenile€can€waive€theseÏconstitutional€rights€if€he€is€fully€advised€of€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€and€his€decision€toÏwaive€these€rights€is€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€made.€€òòState€v.€Gordonóó,Ï642€S.W.2d€742,€745€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1982);€òòBrazielóó,€529ÏS.W.2d€at€506;€òòMitchellóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€501,€464€S.W.2d€at€311;€òòVaughn€v.ÏStateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€54,€62,€456€S.W.2d€879,€883,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1970).€ÏSimilarly,€a€person€with€a€mental€deficiency€may€also€waive€these€rights€under€theÏsame€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981);€òòBrazielóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€506.€€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690ÏS.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985)€(adult€defendantÏclaimed€to€be€intoxicated€and€suffering€from€a€mental€deficiency).Ìà àWhen€determining€whether€an€accused€has€voluntarily,€knowingly,€andÏintelligently€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€this€court€must€consider€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€which€existed€when€the€accused€waived€these€rights.€€òòMiddlebrooksóó,Ï840€S.W.2d€at€326;€òòBentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€431;€òòVaughnóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€60„61,Ï456€S.W.2d€at€883.€€Since€the€defendant€contends€his€waiver€of€the€òòMirandaóó€rightsÏwas€not€voluntarily€or€understandingly€entered€due€to€his€age€and€borderline€range€ofÍintelligence,€this€court€must€consider€such€factors€as€the€defendantððs€age,€educationalÏbackground,€mental€competence€and€ability,€and€the€facts€surrounding€the€waiver€ofÏthese€rights.€€òòBentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€432;€òòState€v.óó€òòBellóó,€690€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985).€€However,€one€of€these€factors,€standingÏalone,€will€not€necessarily€render€a€waiver€of€the€òòMirandaóó€rights€invalid.€€òòBellóó,€690ÏS.W.2d€at€882.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€officers€read€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€to€the€defendant.€€He€wasÏasked€if€he€understood€the€rights.€€He€told€the€officers€he€understood€these€rights,€andÏhe€did€not€ask€any€questions.€€The€officers€had€the€defendant€read€the€first€line€of€theÏwaiver€form€to€see€if€he€could€read.€€He€had€no€problem€reading€the€sentence.€€HeÏthen€executed€the€waiver€form.€€The€officers€stated€the€defendant€appeared€normal.€ÏThe€officers€read€both€the€waiver€form€and€the€statement€to€the€defendant€before€heÏaffixed€his€signature€to€them.Ìà àThe€defendant€admitted€his€signature€appeared€on€the€waiver€form.€€He€statedÏhe€did€not€know€why€he€signed€the€form.€€He€also€acknowledged€his€signatureÏappeared€on€the€statement€he€gave€the€police.€€The€defendant€admitted€he€told€theÏofficers€the€information€contained€in€the€statement€and€the€content€of€the€statementÏwas€true.€€He€testified€he€was€able€to€read€the€statement.Ìà àThis€court€has€considered€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€The€court€is€of€theÏopinion€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏfindings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€It€is€obvious€the€trial€court€accredited€theÏtestimony€of€the€stateððs€witness.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€victim€had€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€aggravated€robbery€pursuant€to€a€pleaÏagreement.€€The€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€ruling€the€terms€of€the€plea€agreement€could€not€be€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€The€defendant€argues€it€was€admissible€to€rebut€the€stateððs€theory€onÏmotive.Ìà àThis€issue€has€been€waived.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€state€authority€inÏsupport€of€this€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€Also,€the€document€containing€theÏplea€agreement€was€not€made€an€exhibit,€and,€therefore,€has€not€been€included€in€theÏrecord€transmitted€to€this€court.€€As€a€result,€this€court€cannot€consider€the€issue.€òòStateÏv.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560„61€(Tenn.€1993).€€€Instead,€this€court€must€presumeÏthe€ruling€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€òòState€v.€Locustóó,€914€S.W.2d€554,€557€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€the€trial€court€completed€reading€the€charge€to€the€jury,€the€court€askedÏcounsel€if€there€were€any€other€matters€counsel€wanted€to€submit.€€Defense€counselÏadvised€the€court€she€did€not€remember€hearing€an€instruction€on€identification.€ÏCounsel€submitted€a€special€request€which€set€forth€the€identification€instructionÍrecommended€by€the€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏThe€trial€court€refused€to€give€the€special€request.€€The€defendant€contends€the€trialÏcourt€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lawÏof€identification.€€The€state€contends€the€defendant€did€not€place€his€identification€inÏissue.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€identifying€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€killed€theÏvictim€is€unique.€The€defendant€and€Roderick€Purdy,€a€co„defendant,€searched€for€theÏvictim.€€They€went€to€the€Haynes€residence€and€asked€Haynes€if€the€victim€was€insideÏor€if€she€had€seen€the€victim€that€evening.€€According€to€€Haynes,€the€defendantÏappeared€angry.€€The€defendant€and€Purdy€then€went€to€the€Wallace€residence€whereÏthe€victim€was€visiting.€€Purdy€went€to€the€door€and€asked€for€the€victim.€€It€appearsÏPurdy€saw€the€victim€and€another€person€steal€his€hubcaps,€and€Purdy€wanted€toÏaddress€the€matter€with€the€victim.€€The€victim€went€outside.€€Shots€were€fired€at€theÏvictim.€€Purdy,€the€defendant,€and€their€friends€ran€away.€€A€person€inside€theÏresidence€went€outside€and€brought€the€victim€into€the€residence.€€The€victim€toldÏthose€inside€the€apartment€ð ðBushwickðð€was€the€person€who€shot€him;€Bushwick€is€theÏdefendantððs€nickname.€€The€defendant€gave€the€police€officers€a€statement€admitting,Ïlike€the€co„defendant,€that€he€was€present€when€the€victim€was€murdered,€but€denyingÏthat€he€fired€the€shots€that€killed€the€victim.Ìà àThe€defendant€predicates€the€necessity€for€an€instruction€on€identification€basedÏupon€the€testimony€of€an€independent€witness,€Sandra€Luanne€Cisco€Holt.€€She€wasÏacross€the€street€from€where€the€murder€occurred.€€It€was€dark€and€she€could€notÏidentify€any€person€who€was€present€when€the€shots€were€fired.€€Holt€saw€the€fireÍcome€from€the€barrel€of€the€pistol;€it€was€the€only€weapon€she€saw€fired.Ìà àDuring€cross„examination€the€witness€was€asked€about€the€identification€sheÏgave€the€police€officers€when€she€was€interviewed.€€Her€answer€was:€ð ðI€just€said€heÏwas€I€think€average€height,€medium€build,€pretty€much.ðð€€When€asked€what€theÏaverage€height€of€a€man€was,€she€stated:€ð ðI€guess€somewhere€around€5'€7"€or€six€foot.Ïð ð€When€asked€about€the€height€of€the€person€who€fired€gun,€she€responded:€ð ðI€reallyÏdonððt€[know].€€I€couldnððt€tell€how€tall€he€was.€€Thatððs€why€I€just€said€he€was€average,€youÏknow.€€Nothing€stood€out€to€me€to€make€„„€you€know€„„€so€I€just€said€he€was€average.ðð€ÏShe€saw€the€defendant€at€a€prior€court€hearing€and€she€viewed€the€defendant€duringÏthe€trial.€€The€witness€said€on€both€occasions€the€defendant€was€shorter€than€theÏheight€of€the€average€man€she€had€previously€described.Ìà àThe€basis€of€the€identification€in€this€case€was€the€dying€declaration€made€byÏthe€victim.€€Of€course,€the€testimony€by€Haynes€placed€Purdy€and€the€defendantÏtogether€shortly€before€the€shots€were€fired.€€Both€admitted€to€being€present€when€theÏshots€were€fired.€€Holt€could€not€identify€the€person€who€shot€the€victim.€€Moreover,€sheÏgave€a€generic€description€of€the€person€who€fired€the€weapon.€€Nevertheless,€theÏdefendant€argues€€for€an€identification€instruction€based€on€Holtððs€testimony€on€cross„examination.Ìà àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:€ð ðThe€Court€further€charges€you€thatÏthe€mere€presence€of€a€person€in€an€area€where€a€crime€was€committed€is€notÏsufficient€for€a€finding€of€guilt€of€such€crime€by€that€person.ðð€€In€this€case,€this€instructionÏwas€sufficient€based€on€the€evidence.€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€court€should€haveÏincluded€the€identification€instruction€in€its€charge€to€the€jury.€€However,€the€failure€toÍdo€so€constituted€harmless€error€in€the€context€of€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  ÓV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive.€ÏHe€argues€the€trial€court€found€one€enhancement€factor€and€one€mitigating€factor.€ÏTherefore,€the€court€should€have€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€presumptiveÏminimum€sentence€of€fifteen€years.€€The€defendant€also€contends€the€trial€court€did€notÏconsider€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€all€of€the€factual€circumstances.€€Thus,€thisÏcourt€should€grant€him€a€new€sentencing€hearing.Ìà àWhen€an€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€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€takenÏare€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€uponÏthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€comply€with€the€òòAshbyóóÏrequirement.€€When€sentencing€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€simply€said:€ð ðItððs€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€that€youððll€be€sentenced€to€the€penitentiary€for€a€period€of€20Ïyears.€€Youððre€now€sentenced.ðð€€Therefore,€the€presumption€does€not€apply,€and€thisÏcourt€will€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€without€a€presumption€that€the€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt€are€correct.Ìà àThere€are€four€enhancement€factors€supported€by€the€record.Ìà àThe€defendant€has€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€convictions.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€juvenile€record€of€an€accused€can€beÏconsidered€€when€determining€whether€the€state€has€established€this€enhancementÏfactor.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.€1993),€òòrevððdóó€òòonóó€òòotheróó€òògroundsóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Croweóó,€914€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Stocktonóó,€733€S.W.2d€111,€112„13Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€The€presentence€report€listsÏnumerous€juvenile€convictions.€The€defendant€€has€been€convicted€of€an€attempt€toÏcommit€voluntary€manslaughter,€carrying€a€weapon€on€school€grounds,€simple€assault,Ïcriminal€trespass,€vandalism,€evading€arrest,€and€other€minor€offenses.€€He€admitted€toÏthe€presentence€officer€he€smoked€marijuana€and€drank€alcohol€daily.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏKeelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€419€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àThe€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€Ìðð€40„35„114(2).€€It€was€the€defendant€who€asked€if€the€victim€was€at€the€HaynesÏresidence€or€whether€Haynes€had€seen€the€victim€on€the€night€in€question.€€€TheÏdefendant€was€also€the€person€who€armed€himself.Ìà àA€pistol€was€used€to€commit€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9).€€TheÏuse€of€the€weapon€is€not€an€element€of€second€degree€murder.€€This€court€has€heldÏthis€enhancement€factor€may€be€applied€when€the€accused€is€convicted€of€murder€inÏthe€second€degree.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€312„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÍ(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àThe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€When€the€shots€were€firedÏthere€were€numerous€people€near€the€situs€of€the€shooting.€€There€were€people€insideÏthe€residence.€€There€were€people€across€the€street€leaving€a€church€service.€€Also,Ïthe€defendantððs€friends€were€very€close€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,Ï50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àThe€mental€capacity€of€the€defendant€is€the€only€mitigating€factor€supported€byÏthe€record.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8).Ìà àThe€weight€to€be€given€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€rests€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€123.€€In€this€case,€theÏenhancement€factors€are€to€be€given€great€weight.€€The€defendantððs€prior€conviction€forÏcrimes€of€violence,€including€an€attempt€to€commit€voluntary€manslaughter,€assault,Ïand€weapons€offenses,€require€this€court€to€give€enhancement€factor€(1)€great€weight.€ÏThe€remaining€enhancement€factors€are€also€to€be€given€serious€consideration.€€TheÏmitigating€factor€is€entitled€to€little€weight€as€it€did€not€enter€into€the€equation€in€theÏmurder€of€the€victim.€€The€sentence€of€twenty€(20)€years€is€reasonable€considering€theÏdefendant€is€a€violent€person,€the€public€deserves€protection€from€this€criminal€activity,Ïand€the€length€of€the€sentence€conforms€to€the€nature€of€the€offense.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌà àÌà àÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGE