ÿWPCú œ¾æH•¶ôö áõꬪŽ1—Ä“‘ ‰sœË¤ÓÏ9’÷ÿõói^‰ÒÍm­:vÑ|&Ñ,©AXB ‡" ÍyËæ•hV78ÿš¸”êáp+saµ¾J=’a'iìgcÜD;›J^‡!Bò4 á¦@³†a*‹«\J”ÞÇ4/­$·m°*8–½ _̃0gòdÅó·bIiíÑÆ£´#\1ø/Ñ‹¸„&då»›+æ¿ã ¼¯ƒu[¥àÑÒ¾Ãm,X97k«£B4$ù? zÕ-çE—Ò4ç–! ¢I„écÓDQg„KͲ_oÇдo¦9*qª$/™Hi,I4œjˆß7DVc'¸(Úó“&Ð õ®.ohüÒÛ?k!v#ß°]ñmæ®ÒXL&rë.»¸ù^daòŠ–‰aTâ'O&óÍÆ:…7h¬: Äžé¡²A7{à^Ò iO½Êtš^ÛÓìÄ7kgÅ8}#ÄBŽÙ—z‘ª'SkPñ­?–Ý\i‡DËÞ5õnìÐ=F[ñ×Á/ª8ÉW¼m>[åߎÜdDãÎT…‡ßèâ†âÌ¿0z(ZÙCâăëP#·ï8s£bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 0DéN- 1/ 0c¼E 1! 1®x; 1u³ 1(‘µoF 72µçççççççççççççççbïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïï 0ë÷÷÷÷ Bââ 0¤ÿ D3£ D-Ö 0K ASNÆ¡ 0¤g 0D  A«O(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓíœM) ÖJ~'Œw¥3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)0ÆÙCEMU]emu}AutoList3(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) nÝ ƒR$³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôS•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôS•òòôS•ÔIn€a€ð ðSentencing€Opinionðð€filed€by€the€court,€the€following€ruling€is€noted:€ð ðThe€two€aggravated€assaultÐ ° Ðconvictions€merge€into€one€as€they€arise€out€of€the€same€course€of€events.ðð€€Subsequent€to€this€ruling,€the€trial€courtÐ n¾ Ðentered€separate€judgments€of€conviction€for€both€aggravated€assault€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€(Count€1)€andÐ ,| Ðaggravated€assault€causing€serious€bodily€injury€(Count€2).3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ‡Ý ƒR$³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôS•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡ ôS•òòôS•ÔInitially,€the€trial€court€interchanged€Count€1€with€Count€2.€€Count€1€should€have€charged€the€defendant€withÐ ° Ðaggravated€assault€by€the€use€or€display€of€a€deadly€weapon,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(B).€€Count€2€shouldÐ n¾ Ðhave€charged€the€defendant€with€aggravated€assault€by€causing€serious€bodily€injury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð ,| Ð102(a)(1)(A).€€The€trial€judge€later€corrected€his€mistake€and€correctly€stated€the€law. eÝ ƒR$³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôS•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôS•òòôS•ÔA€fifth€issue€was€raised€in€the€appellantððs€brief€challenging€the€indictmentððs€validity€based€upon€an€improperlyÐ ° Ðsworn€or€appointed€jury€foreman.€€This€issue€was€withdrawn.€€i) - ù-(|G2$³$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€4»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôS•ò»»Ô d(|3]$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€4»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3]$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€4»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€4»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼4»»»ÔÑ8€[íXXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î4ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼4»îî #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X[íX»¼4ÔÌò òÔ#†¼4»XX[í#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€THOMAS€EDWARD€FORDòòóóÔ‡X[íX»¼4Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Warren€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€F„7601,€Charles€D.€Haston,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„2362„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€13,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԀРeµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X[íXXX[íÔThe€appellant,€Thomas€Edward€Ford,€was€convicted€of€Class€C€felony€aggravated€assault€and€ClassÐ &v  ÐD€vandalism.€€The€Circuit€Court€of€Warren€County€sentenced€the€appellant€to€five€years€forÐ  \ Ðaggravated€assault€and€two€years€for€vandalism.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€consecutively.€Ð òB ÐUpon€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€the€following€issues€for€review:€(1)€propriety€of€the€five„yearÐ Ø( Ðsentence;€(2)€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences;€(3)€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€aggravatedÐ ¾ Ðassault;€and€(4)€misleading€jury€instruction.€€After€review,€we€find€no€error.€€Accordingly,€theÐ ¤ô Ðjudgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Warren€County€is€affirmed.Ð ŠÚ ÐÔ#†X[íXX X[í·#ÔÔ#†¼4»XX[í‰#ÔÔ‡X[íX»¼4ÔÓ«ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.ó óÐ V¦ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼4»àX[í'#ÔÔ‡X[íX.¼4ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó€andÐ "r ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð X ÐÌBernard€K.€Smith,€McMinnville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Thomas€Edward€Ford.Ð Ô$ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Todd€R.Ð  ð ÐKelley,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Dale€Potter,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Thomas€J.€Miner,Ð † Ö  ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð l!¼! ÐÔ#†¼4»XX[íã#ÔÔ‡X[íX»¼4ÔÌÓ´ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼4»XX[í~ #ÔÔ‡X[íX»¼4ÔÐ $n$ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼4»XX[íñ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X[íX»¼4ÔÔ‡ X[íXXX[íÔà  àThe€appellant,€Thomas€Edward€Ford,€was€convicted€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Warren€CountyÐ ê%:!& Ðon€three€counts:€(1)€aggravated€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon;€(2)€aggravated€assault€by€causingÐ Ð& "' Ðserious€bodily€injury;€and€(3)€vandalism€over€$1,000.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€fiveÐ ¶'#( Ðyears€for€aggravated€assault€and€to€two€years€for€vandalism.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€further€ordered€that€theÐ œ(ì#)ý Ðsentences€run€consecutively,€resulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€seven€years.€€On€appeal,€theÐ ° Ðappellant€asserts€the€following€errors:€(1)€The€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€appellant€to€fiveÐ –æ Ðyears€for€the€aggravated€assault€count;€(2)€The€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€appellantððs€sentencesÐ |Ì Ðto€run€consecutively;€(3)€The€trial€court€erred€in€convicting€the€appellant€for€aggravated€assaultÐ b² Ðbecause€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€appellant€ever€struck€the€victim€with€the€bat;€and€(4)€The€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourtððs€jury€charge€was€confusing€and€misleading.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€review,€we€find€no€error.€€Thus,€theseÐ . ~ Ðissues€are€without€merit,€and€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Warren€County€is€affirmed.Ð  d Ðò òÓ  ÓÌÌBackgroundÐ Æ   ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àIn€1993,€Linda€Ford€was€involved€in€a€romantic€relationship€with€David€Nunley.€€SoonÐ ’â  Ðthereafter,€Linda€became€pregnant€with€Nunleyððs€child€and€gave€birth€to€a€baby€girl€named€Chelsea.€Ð xÈ  ÐNunley€and€Linda€never€married.€€In€July€of€1994,€Linda€married€Thomas€Edward€Ford,€theÐ ^®  Ðappellant.€€At€the€time€of€their€marriage,€Chelsea€was€approximately€six€months€old.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àOn€November€16,€1997,€the€appellant€and€his€wife,€Linda,€helped€a€friend€move€a€storageÐ ` Ðbuilding.€€During€this€time€period,€the€appellant€consumed€two€beers.€€On€this€particular€day,€four„Ð öF Ðyear„old€Chelsea€was€with€her€father,€Nunley,€for€visitation.€As€the€appellant€and€Linda€were€drivingÐ Ü, Ðhome€to€meet€Nunley€for€the€purpose€of€picking€up€Chelsea,€the€appellant€began€asking€LindaÐ Â Ðquestions€about€Nunley.€€In€response€to€the€appellantððs€questions,€Linda€replied,€ð ðNunley€has€beenÐ ¨ø Ðgood€to€me€and€the€kids€about€loaning€us€a€vehicle€and€about€helping€us€get€a€home.ðð€€The€appellantÐ ŽÞ Ðbecame€enraged€at€Lindaððs€response,€shoved€her€against€the€door€of€the€truck,€and€informed€her€thatÐ tÄ Ðhe€was€going€to€ð ðwhipðð€Nunley€when€he€arrived€to€drop€Chelsea€off€at€their€home.€€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àWhen€the€appellant€and€Linda€arrived€at€their€house,€Nunley€was€already€there.€€Nunley€was€Ð &v Ðsitting€in€his€vehicle€and€Chelsea€was€in€his€lap.€€The€appellant€ran€over€to€Nunleyððs€vehicle,€jerkedÐ  \ Ðopen€his€truck€door,€and€began€hitting€Nunley€through€the€driverððs€side€window.€€At€some€point,Ð òB ÐLinda€was€able€to€retrieve€Chelsea€from€Nunleyððs€vehicle€and€left€the€scene.€€€€The€appellant€sprayedÐ Ø( Ðmace€in€Nunleyððs€face€and€continued€to€punch€and€kick€him.€€The€appellant€then€took€a€pocketknifeÐ ¾ Ðand€slashed€all€four€of€the€tires€on€Nunleyððs€vehicle.€€He€then€returned€to€kicking€and€beatingÐ ¤ô ÐNunley.€€The€appellant€next€retrieved€a€baseball€bat€from€his€car€and€began€to€break€all€of€theÐ Š Ú Ðwindows€out€of€Nunleyððs€1989€GMC€Jimmy.€€The€appellant€threw€the€bat€down€and€returned€toÐ p!À  Ðpunching€and€kicking€Nunley.€€The€blows€left€Nunley€with€substantial€injuries,€including€a€brokenÐ V"¦! Ðleft€arm.€€Throughout€the€encounter,€Nunley€did€not€fight€back€and€refused€to€exit€his€vehicle€for€fearÐ <#Œ" Ðof€his€life.Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àSeveral€minutes€later,€the€appellant€calmed€down€and€convinced€Nunley€to€go€inside€theÐ î%>!% Ðhouse€and€clean€up.€€Nunley€tried€to€use€the€phone,€but€was€unable€to€dial€the€number.€€The€appellantÐ Ô&$"& Ðâ âthen€offered€to€drive€Nunley€where€he€needed€to€go.€€Nunley€eventually€accepted€the€offer,€and€theÐ º' #' Ðappellant€drove€Nunley€to€a€nearby€relativeððs€home.€€Nunleyððs€relative€took€him€to€the€emergencyÐ ° Ðroom,€where€Nunley€was€treated€for€his€injuries.Ð –æ Ðâ âÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sentencing€on€Aggravated€AssaultÐ b² Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€sentencing€him€to€five€years€forÐ H˜ Ðaggravated€assault.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€placed€improper€emphasis€on€his€pastÐ . ~ Ðcriminal€record€since€ð ðthose€offenses€occurred€more€than€eleven€years€before€the€incident€in€thisÐ  d Ðcase.ðð€€Second,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€relying€on€ð ðuncharged€assaultsðð€which€wereÐ ú J Ðnot€explored€by€the€State,€but€were€mentioned€briefly€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Third,€the€appellantÐ à 0 Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€considering€the€appellantððs€violation€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€notÐ Æ   Ðto€visit€with€or€contact€Linda€or€Chelsea.€€€Lastly,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ ¬ ü  Ðfinding€that€no€mitigating€factors€were€supported€by€the€evidence€presented.€€After€review,€we€findÐ ’â  Ðall€of€these€issues€to€be€without€merit.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÐ D”  Ðwas€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€168€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,Ð *z  Ð473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ` ÐAppellate€review€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÐ öF Ðcourt€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d);€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð Ü, ÐS.W.2d€at€169.€€In€determining€whether€the€appellant€has€carried€the€burden,€this€court€must€considerÐ Â Ðthe€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€principlesÐ ¨ø Ðof€sentencing,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offenses,€existingÐ ŽÞ Ðmitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€statements€made€by€the€offender,€and€the€potential€forÐ tÄ Ðrehabilitation.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169òòóó;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€C€felony.€Ð &v ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(d).€€Because€he€is€a€Range€I€Standard€offender,€the€appropriateÐ  \ Ðsentencing€range€for€the€appellant€on€the€aggravated€assault€conviction€is€three€to€six€years.€€Tenn.Ð òB ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€Furthermore,€the€presumptive€sentence€would€be€the€minimumÐ Ø( Ðsentence€in€that€range€if€there€are€no€enhancing€or€mitigating€factors€present.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ¾ Ð35„210(c).€€Thus,€the€presumptive€starting€point€in€the€present€case€is€three€years.€€If€there€areÐ ¤ô Ðenhancing€and€mitigating€factors€present,€the€trial€court€must€ð ðenhance€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÐ Š Ú Ðas€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriateÐ p!À  Ðfor€the€mitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€appellant's€sentence€is€notÐ V"¦! Ðdetermined€by€the€mathematical€process€of€adding€the€sum€total€of€enhancing€factors€present€thenÐ <#Œ" Ðsubtracting€from€this€figure€the€mitigating€factors€present€for€a€net€number€of€years.€€Rather,€theÐ "$r# Ðweight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€the€courtÐ %X $ Ðcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequatelyÐ î%>!% Ðsupported€by€the€record.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€weightÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€be€afforded€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancing€relative€degrees€ofÐ º' #' Ðculpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€involved.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€òòóó932€S.W.2dòòÐ  (ð#( Ðóóat€476;òò€See€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€placed€improper€emphasis€on€his€past€criminalÐ R+¢&+ Ðrecord,€since€his€last€conviction€occurred€more€than€eleven€years€before€the€present€incident.€€AÐ 8,ˆ', Ðsentence€may€be€enhanced€if€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ ° Ðbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð –æ Ð114(1).€€In€€the€present€case,€the€appellantððs€past€criminal€history€included€(1)€a€1980€misdemeanorÐ |Ì Ðconviction€for€assault;€(2)€€a€1986€conviction€for€second„degree€murder;€(3)€a€1986€misdemeanorÐ b² Ðconviction€for€throwing€a€missile€calculated€to€produce€injury;€(4)€a€1986€malicious€mischiefÐ H˜ Ðconviction,€and€numerous€traffic€offenses.€There€is€no€set€time€period€by€which€an€appellantððsÐ . ~ Ðprevious€convictions€become€moot,€for€purposes€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€Instead,€theÐ  d Ðtrial€court€has€great€discretion€when€considering€and€weighing€past€offenses€during€sentencing.€€EvenÐ ú J Ðif€the€trial€court€weighed€this€factor€more€heavily€than€the€appellant€feels€appropriate,€the€court'sÐ à 0 Ðdecision€to€do€so€is€proper€given€the€discretion€allowed€a€trial€court€in€considering€enhancementÐ Æ   Ðfactors.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.1986);€€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€475.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐSince€the€record€clearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€enhance€the€appellantððs€sentence€basedÐ ’â  Ðon€his€prior€criminal€history,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€address€the€appellantððs€allegations€that€theÐ xÈ  Ðsentence€was€improper€because€the€trial€court€considered€ð ðuncharged€assaults.ðð€€Enhancement€factorÐ ^®  Ð(1)€is€unequivocally€met.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€considering€his€violation€of€the€trialÐ ` Ðcourtððs€warning.€€Following€his€conviction,€the€appellant€was€warned€by€the€trial€court€to€stay€awayÐ öF Ðfrom€Linda€and€Chelsea.€€On€Christmas€Eve,€after€conviction€and€before€sentencing,€the€appellantÐ Ü, Ðknocked€on€Lindaððs€back€door€and€informed€her€that€he€was€leaving€presents€for€Chelsea€on€the€frontÐ Â Ðporch.€€Such€conduct€was€in€direct€violation€of€the€trial€courtððs€order.€€In€the€trial€courtððs€sentencingÐ ¨ø Ðopinion,€it€lists€the€appellantððs€conduct€as€an€example€of€the€appellantððs€ð ðcomplete€lack€of€remorseÐ ŽÞ Ðand€ongoing€hatred€for€the€victim€and€the€defendantððs€wife.ðð€€We€do€not€find€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ tÄ Ðinclusion€of€this€information€was€for€the€purpose€of€enhancing€the€appellantððs€sentence,€but€ratherÐ Zª Ðwas€included€primarily€as€a€condition€of€bail€pending€appeal.€€Indeed,€the€record€reflects€that€theÐ @ Ðappellantððs€bond€was€revoked€based€upon€a€violation€of€this€no„contact€condition.€€Consequently,Ð &v Ðthis€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€no€mitigating€factorsÐ Ø( Ðwere€present.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€utilized€theÐ ¾ Ðfollowing€factors€to€mitigate€his€sentence:Ð ¤ô ÐÌà8  à(3)€à8` Ð Ð àSubstantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€defendantððsÐ p!À  Ðcriminal€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense;ÐV"¦!` x` x ÐÓ€ (¶Ù83ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ @ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú8Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€or€physical€condition€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðsignificantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense;€however,€the€voluntaryÐ "$r# Ðuse€of€intoxicants€does€not€fall€within€the€purview€of€this€factor;݃3£ @E@ÝŒÐ%X $` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ (¦Ù88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£ "ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ŠBÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú11Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,€committed€the€offense€underÐ î%>!% Ðsuch€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€followÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€law€motivated€his€conduct;݃3£ŠBÃB݌к' #'` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£ "ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£IDÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú12Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€acted€under€duress€or€under€the€domination€of€another€person,Ð  (ð#( Ðeven€though€the€duress€or€the€domination€of€another€person€is€not€sufficientÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€constitute€a€defense€to€the€crime;݃3£ID‚DÝŒÐl*¼%*` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£ "ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£FÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú13Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝAny€other€factor€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€this€chapter.݃3£FGFÝŒÐR+¢&+` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÐ 8,ˆ', ÐòòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€€In€effect,€the€appellant€argues€that€factors€(3)€and€(12)€aboveÐ ° Ðshould€have€been€used€to€mitigate€his€sentence€because€ð ðNunleyððs€continuous,€unwarrantedÐ –æ Ðinterference€with€the€Fordsðð€marriage€drove€[him]€to€commit€this€crimeðð€and€because€ð ðNunley€placedÐ |Ì Ðincredible€duressðð€upon€him.€€€The€appellant€also€asserts€that€factor€(8)€above€should€have€been€usedÐ b² Ðbecause€he€ð ðsimply€snapped.ðð€€€He€also€asserts€that€factor€(11)€above€should€have€been€used€becauseÐ H˜ Ðð ðhe€had€been€a€law€abiding€citizen€since€1986.ðð€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€that€factor€(13)Ð . ~ Ðabove€is€applicable€because€the€appellant€did€not€leave€Nunley€after€attacking€him,€but€ð ðassistedÐ  d ÐNunley€by€transporting€him€to€a€relativeððs€house€so€that€he€could€seek€medical€attention.ðð€€WeÐ ú J Ðdisagree€that€these€mitigation€factors€were€appropriate€and€find€no€error€with€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àFirst,€there€was€no€proof€in€the€record€that€any€ð ðimproperðð€relationship€existed€betweenÐ ¬ ü  ÐNunley€and€the€appellantððs€wife.€€Accordingly,€it€can€not€be€said€that€the€appellantððs€sentence€shouldÐ ’â  Ðbe€mitigated€based€solely€on€his€defense€that€he€ð ðthoughtðð€something€was€going€on€between€his€wifeÐ xÈ  Ðand€€Nunley.€€Second,€the€appellant€asserts€he€was€under€duress.€€The€record€simply€does€not€supportÐ ^®  Ðthis€position.€€The€appellant€was€suspicious€of€an€affair.€Without€any€proof€or€provocation,€theÐ D”  Ðappellant€went€up€to€Nunley€and€began€beating€him€senselessly.€€There€was€no€duress€under€theseÐ *z  Ðcircumstances.€€Third,€the€appellant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€mitigation€factor€(8)€because€heÐ ` Ðð ðsimply€snapped.ðð€€The€appellant€was€not€suffering€from€a€mental€or€physical€condition,€but€simplyÐ öF Ðbecame€angry.€€He€understood€what€he€was€doing€and€even€told€his€wife€what€he€intended€to€doÐ Ü, Ðseveral€minutes€before€they€arrived.€Fourth,€the€appellantððs€assertion€that€he€is€entitled€to€€mitigationÐ Â Ðfactor€(11)€because€he€has€been€a€law€abiding€citizen€since€1986€also€fails.€€Although€it€is€true€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€appellant€had€not€been€convicted€of€a€crime€since€1986,€the€appellant€did,€however,€testify€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðhe€had€been€involved€in€numerous€barroom€fights.€€Moreover,€at€the€time€of€this€incident,€theÐ tÄ Ðappellant€had€been€discharged€from€his€parole€on€the€murder€conviction€for€less€than€five€months.€Ð Zª ÐAdditionally,€this€crime€was€not€committed€under€unusual€circumstances.€€Therefore,€mitigationÐ @ Ðfactor€(11)€would€not€apply.€€Finally,€the€appellant€asserts€that€mitigation€factor€(13)€should€applyÐ &v Ðbecause€he€drove€the€victim€to€a€relativeððs€house€after€he€severely€beat€him.€€We€are€not€persuadedÐ  \ Ðthat€the€appellantððs€ð ðkindness,ðð€which€followed€the€victimððs€unprovoked€beating,€supportsÐ òB Ðmitigation.€€Therefore,€these€issues€are€without€merit€and€the€sentence€of€five€years€for€aggravatedÐ Ø( Ðassault€was€proper.Ð ¾ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Consecutive€SentencingÐ Š Ú Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€his€aggravated€assault€sentence€toÐ p!À  Ðbe€served€consecutively€to€his€sentence€for€vandalism.€€Specifically,€he€asks€this€Court€to€reverse€theÐ V"¦! Ðtrial€courtððs€judgment€and€order€that€the€sentences€run€concurrently.Ð <#Œ" Ðà  àWith€reference€to€the€particular€facts€of€this€case,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1)„(7)Ð "$r# Ðprovides€that€the€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÐ %X $ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that:Ø! !ØÐ î%>!% ÐÓ€ (ÆÙ88ÓÌØ! !Øà0  àà ° àà8(#(#à(2)à8` (#(#àThe€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive;к' #'` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓ€ (ÖÙ88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£¢YÝÔ2ÖÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÐ  (ð#( Ðregard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€risk€to€human€life€is€great.݃3£¢YÛYÝŒÐl*¼%*` Ð ` Ð  Ðâ âŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐR+¢&+Ð Ð  ÐThis€courtððs€review€of€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âdetermination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€Likewise,€theÐ –æ Ðappellant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€impropriety€of€the€consecutive€nature€of€the€sentencesÐ |Ì Ðimposed.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àBefore€consecutive€sentences€can€be€imposed,€the€trial€court€must€(1)€first€determine€that€oneÐ . ~ Ðor€more€of€the€statutorily€enumerated€criteria€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€exists,€òòsee€also€óóòòGrayÐ  d Ðv.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976);€and€(2)€if€the€defendant€is€found€to€be€a€dangerousÐ ú J Ðoffender,€find€that€the€aggregate€sentence€is€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€isÐ à 0 Ðnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€activity€of€the€offender.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905Ð Æ   ÐS.W.2d€933,€937€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999)(holdingÐ ¬ ü  ÐòòWilkersonóó€factors€were€limited€to€sentencing€of€ð ðdangerous€offendersðð).€€Notwithstanding€proof€ofÐ ’â  Ðthese€criteria,€a€sentencing€court€retains€the€discretion€of€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€OnÐ xÈ  Ðappeal,€the€exercise€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€is€afforded€great€weight,€provided€the€courtÐ ^®  Ðcorrectly€applied€the€principles€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€€€Moreover,€in€determining€whether€theÐ D”  Ðtrial€court€providently€exercised€its€discretion,€ð ðthe€overriding€concernðð€is€the€fairness€of€theÐ *z  Ðresulting€sentence€under€all€the€circumstances.Ð ` ÐÌà  àIn€its€sentencing€opinion,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€consecutive€sentences€andÐ Ü, Ðreasoned€in€part€as€follows:Ð Â ÐÌà8  àThe€defendantððs€sentences€of€5€and€2€years€shall€be€served€consecutively€one€to€theÐ ŽÞ Ðother.€€The€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€is€anÐ tÄ Ðoffender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.€€He€has€no€hesitation€toÐ Zª Ðcommit€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€He€has€previously€committedÐ @ Ðmurder.€€In€the€case€at€bar€he€assaulted€an€individual€with€such€violence€as€to€breakÐ &v Ða€bone€and€displayed€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€course€of€the€assault...DefendantÐ  \ Ðindicates€no€remorse€for€his€offenses€and€believes€he€was€justified€in€committing€thisÐ òB Ðassault€and€murder.€€He€poses€an€ongoing€danger€to€the€community.ÐØ(Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌAlthough€the€trial€courtððs€findings€allude€to€both€classifications€of€ð ðextensive€criminal€historyðð€andÐ ¤ô Ðð ðdangerous€offender,ðð€the€record€clearly€supports€the€finding€that€the€appellant€is€a€dangerousÐ Š Ú Ðoffender.€€As€such,€any€review€of€the€appellantððs€classification€as€an€offender€possessing€anÐ p!À  Ðextensive€criminal€history€is€unnecessary.€€Moreover,€although€the€trial€court€appeared€to€co„mingleÐ V"¦! Ðthe€classifications,€we€find€the€courtððs€references€to€the€appellantððs€criminal€history€were€primarilyÐ <#Œ" Ðmade€within€the€context€of€finding€the€appellant€a€dangerous€offender.€€Clearly€the€trial€court€wasÐ "$r# Ðwarranted€in€considering€the€fact€that€the€appellant€was€previously€convicted€of€assault€and€murderÐ %X $ Ðwhen€finding€him€to€be€a€dangerous€offender.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€the€appellant€had€no€hesitationÐ º' #' Ðto€commit€a€crime€where€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€states,€€ð ðHereÐ  (ð#( ÐDefendant€punched€and€kicked€Nunley€several€times,€and€destroyed€his€car€with€a€baseball€bat.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐThese€actions,€while€certainly€reprehensible,€do€not€evidence€an€intent€to€place€human€life€at€risk.ðð€Ð l*¼%* ÐWe€disagree.€€The€appellant€decided€he€was€going€to€ð ðwhipðð€Nunley€during€his€drive€home.€TheÐ R+¢&+ Ðappellant€followed€through€with€his€plan€and€severely€beat€Nunley€without€any€provocation€orÐ 8,ˆ', Ðreason.€€The€appellant€also€risked€injuring€or€killing€Chelsea,€as€she€was€sitting€in€Nunleyððs€lap€whenÐ ° Ðthe€appellant€started€beating€him.€€The€appellant€then€proceeded€to€take€a€baseball€bat€and€demolishÐ –æ ÐNunleyððs€car.€€In€the€process,€he€broke€Nunleyððs€arm.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€by€finding€that€theÐ |Ì Ðappellant€exhibits€no€hesitation€to€commit€crimes€where€the€risk€to€human€life€is€great.Ð b² ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€the€appellant€poses€anÐ . ~ Ðongoing€danger€to€the€community.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€asserts€that€ð ðthis€crime€was€promptedÐ  d Ðby€a€discrete,€unusual€set€of€circumstances,€Nunleyððs€persistent€and€unwarranted€interference€withÐ ú J Ðthe€Fordððs€marriage€over€a€number€of€years.ðð€€We€disagree€with€the€appellantððs€assertion€and€onceÐ à 0 Ðagain€find€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€correct.€€This€incident€was€not€ð ðprompted€by€a€discrete,€unusualÐ Æ   Ðset€of€circumstances,ðð€as€the€appellant€suggests.€€Rather,€the€appellant€decided€to€beat€a€manÐ ¬ ü  Ðsenselessly€because€he€had€a€suspicion€that€his€wife€and€the€man€were€having€an€affair.€€TheÐ ’â  Ðappellantððs€past€convictions,€along€with€the€present€incident,€clearly€reveal€that€the€appellant€is€anÐ xÈ  Ðongoing€danger€to€the€community.Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àSentencing€is€inescapably€a€human€process€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€setÐ *z  Ðof€fixed€and€mechanical€rules.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€trialÐ ` Ðcourt€imposed€consecutive€sentences€of€five€years€for€the€aggravated€assault€charge€and€two€yearsÐ öF Ðfor€the€vandalism€charge,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€seven€years.€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€weÐ Ü, Ðconclude€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€was€appropriate,€as€the€proof€established€thatÐ Â Ðthe€aggregate€€sentence€imposed€is€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€wasÐ ¨ø Ðnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€of€this€appellant.€€Accordingly,€this€issueÐ ŽÞ Ðis€without€merit.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ àà @p àà @È àà @  àà @x àò òIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ @ Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€assault€must€be€reversed€becauseÐ &v Ðð ðthere€is€no€clear€evidence€that€[he]€struck€Nunley€with€the€bat.ðð€€€In€effect,€he€argues€that€theÐ  \ Ðevidence€produced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€convict€him€of€aggravated€assault.€€We€disagree.Ð òB ÐÌà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ ¾ Ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ ¤ô Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð Š Ú ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ p!À  Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ V"¦! ÐCourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€provinceÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€trier€of€€fact.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€646€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.Ð "$r# ÐBurlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€718„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€defendant€must€establishÐ %X $ Ðthat€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ î%>!% Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ð Ô&$"& Ð319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð º' #' Ð513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ  (ð#( Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ †)Ö$) Ðtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert€denied,óó€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.Ð l*¼%* Ð1368€(1993).Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€assault€cannotÐ ° Ðstand€because€there€was€no€ð ðclear€evidenceðð€that€he€ever€struck€Nunley€with€the€baseball€bat.€€TheÐ –æ Ðappellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(B),€whichÐ |Ì Ðprovides€that€a€ð ðperson€commits€aggravated€assault€who€intentionally€or€knowingly€commits€anÐ b² Ðassault€as€defined€in€ðð€39„13„101€and€uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€Thus,€there€is€noÐ H˜ Ðrequirement€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(B)€that€the€appellant€must€actually€use€theÐ . ~ Ðbat€to€be€convicted€of€aggravated€assault.€€The€fact€that€the€appellant€displayed€the€baseball€bat€isÐ  d Ðsufficient€to€convict.€€When€asked€whether€he€was€actually€hit€by€the€baseball€bat,€the€victimÐ ú J Ðtestified,€ð ðas€far€as€I€know,€the€bat€hit€me€right€there€[in€the€left€arm].€€It€had€to,€because€it€was€in€andÐ à 0 Ðout€of€the€cab,€and€he€tried€it€several€times.ðð€€Moreover,€the€appellant€himself€admitted€to€using€theÐ Æ   Ðbaseball€bat€during€this€incident.€€Consequently,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðappellant€guilty€of€aggravated€assault€under€Count€1,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð ’â  Ð102(a)(1)(B),€and€€guilty€of€aggravated€assault€under€Count€2,€causing€serious€bodily€injury,Ð xÈ  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(A).€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€evidence€legallyÐ ^®  Ðsufficient€to€support€both€aggravated€assault€convictions€charged€in€Counts€1€and€2.€€Ð D”  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€Jury€InstructionsÐ ` Ðòòó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€courtððs€jury€charge€was€ð ðhopelessly€confusing€and€misleadingÐ öF Ðto€the€jury.ððòòò òóó€€ó óIn€response,€the€State€asserts€that€ð ðwhile€the€trial€court€did€initially€misstate€whichÐ Ü, Ðcount€of€the€indictment€charged€the€defendant€with€aggravated€assault€by€causing€bodily€injury€byÐ Â Ðuse€or€display€of€a€deadly€weapon€the€issue€was€clarified€by€the€Assistant€District€Attorney.ðð€€AtÐ ¨ø Ðtrial,€the€following€dialogue€between€the€trial€court€and€the€State€took€place€during€the€trial€courtððsÐ ŽÞ Ðjury€instructions:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€à8Ð Ð àAggravated€assault€is€defined€thusly€inÐ @ Ðthe€law:€Any€person€who€commits€theÐ &v Ðoffense€of€aggravated€assault€is€guiltyÐ  \ Ðof€the€crime.€€For€you€to€find€theÐ òB Ðdefendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€theÐ Ø( ÐState€must€have€proved€beyond€aÐ ¾ Ðreasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðfollowing€essential€elements.€€UnderÐ Š Ú ÐCount€No.€1.€you€have€got€to€find€thatÐ p!À  Ðthe€defendant€„€all€right.€€I€am€going€toÐ V"¦! Ðre„start€that€a€little€bit.€€Ladies€andÐ <#Œ" Ðgentlemen€of€The€Jury,€for€you€to€findÐ "$r# Ðthis€defendant€guilty€under€Count€No.Ð %X $ Ð1,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€State€toÐ î%>!% Ðprove€to€you€these€elements:€(1)€ThatÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€defendant€acted€intentionally€orÐ º' #' Ðknowingly€causing€bodily€injury€toÐ  (ð#( Ðanother.€€Under€Count€No.€2,Ð †)Ö$) Ðaggravated€assault€by€display€of€aÐ l*¼%* Ðdeadly€weapon,€the€State€must€proveÐ R+¢&+ Ðto€you€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðelement:€That€the€defendantÐ ° Ðintentionally€or€knowingly€causedÐ –æ Ðanother€person€to€reasonably€fearÐ |Ì Ðimminent€bodily€injury€and€that€theÐ b² Ðdefendant€used€or€displayed€a€deadlyÐ H˜ Ðweapon.ò òÐ. ~ÈÈ ÐÌà8  àó óMR.€MINOR:€à8Ð Ð àYou€may€have€gotten€them€backwards.Ðú JÈÈ ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€à8Ð Ð àOkay.€€Now,€under€Count€1€„€ÐÆ  ÈÈ ÐÌà8  àMR.€MINOR:€à8Ð Ð àDeadly€weapon€count€is€first.€€I€thinkÐ ’â  Ðyou€correctly€stated€the€law.ÐxÈ ÈÈ ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€€à8Ð Ð àOkay.€€Under€Count€2€that€theÐ D”  Ðdefendant€caused€serious€„€that€isÐ *z  Ðunder€Count€1„€right€„€caused€seriousÐ ` Ðbodily€injury€to€another.€€That€isÐ öF ÐCount€1.ÐÜ,ÈÈ ÐÌà8  àMR.€MINOR:€à8Ð Ð àNo.€€Count€1€is€did€cause€bodily€injuryÐ ¨ø Ðby€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€YourÐ ŽÞ Ðhonor,€I€have€the€statute€that€readsÐ tÄ Ðmore€clearly.ÐZªÈÈ ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€à8Ð Ð àYeah.€€Just€give€me€the€statute,€andÐ &v Ðletððs€see€if€that€is€not€more€clear.€€AllÐ  \ Ðright.€€I€will€try€again.€€Any€personÐ òB Ðwho€commits€the€offense€ofÐ Ø( Ðaggravated€assault€is€guilty€of€a€crime.€Ð ¾ ÐFor€you€to€find€this€defendant€guilty€ofÐ ¤ô Ðthis€offense,€the€State€must€haveÐ Š Ú Ðproved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÐ p!À  Ðexistence€of€the€following€essentialÐ V"¦! Ðelements:€That€the€defendantÐ <#Œ" Ðintentionally€or€knowingly€commits€anÐ "$r# Ðassault€and€causes€serious€bodilyÐ %X $ Ðinjury€to€another€or€uses€or€displays€aÐ î%>!% Ðdeadly€weapon€or€recklessly€commitsÐ Ô&$"& Ðan€assault€and€causes€serious€bodilyÐ º' #' Ðinjury€to€another€or€uses€or€displays€aÐ  (ð#( Ðdeadly€weapon.І)Ö$)ÈÈ ÐÌThe€appellant€contends€that€because€the€trial€judge€read€straight€from€the€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð R+¢&+ Ððð€39„13„102,€€and€ð ðdid€not€explain€that€the€ððdeadly€weaponðð€type€of€aggravated€assault€formed€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbasis€of€Count€I€and€the€ððserious€bodily€injuryðð€type€formed€the€basis€of€Count€II,ðð€that€the€chargeÐ ° Ðwas€confusing€and€misleading€to€the€jury.€€We€disagree.Ð –æ ÐÌà  àAlthough,€the€trial€judge€did€initially€interchange€Counts€1€and€2,€the€State€pointed€out€theÐ b² Ðmistake,€and€the€trial€judge€corrected€the€error€by€correctly€stating€the€law.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€More€importantly,Ð H˜ Ðhowever,€is€the€appellantððs€failure€to€include€in€the€record€the€written€instructions€submitted€to€theÐ . ~ Ðjury€for€their€use€in€deliberations.€€The€written€charge€would€have€contained€the€trial€courtððsÐ  d Ðinstructions€as€to€the€essential€elements€required€to€be€proven€for€the€alternative€counts€of€aggravatedÐ ú J Ðassault.€Absent€those€jury€instructions,€we€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€written€charge€wasÐ à 0 Ðcorrect.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Æ   ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONÐ ’â  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€of€either€indictedÐ ^®  Ðcount€of€aggravated€assault,€and€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€proper.€€Furthermore,Ð D”  Ðthe€jury€charge€was€not€misleading€or€confusing.€€Accordingly,€all€issues€presented€by€the€appellantÐ *z  Ðare€without€merit.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Warren€County.Ð ` ÐÔ#†X[íXX X[íz #ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE