ÿWPC,  í%NL“_?‹ª µž’¡8ÔË^c6O\ÚG¥Ì.½^Õ¥LH˜0v.yȾΒs XM­ñ¦UH¿¤aMá›è²|é˜bZ•qKœ£Ý š•Úp<¦*lö#6MYF%%xݪrÍ&¥¯•Ôé5øpÒ¥ê&0eø¼ùYÄŒLn…‡Û+e"AÓŠ !nߟó½ø%ª—¶T,+}ëÂ}8ÿT BƯÑZÆÙ Š«·O¹G\wÈm¾í©’NGª#_‰±\hÙÜFS"ç1D/_7¨‹tÒÜ]b$#:] ÁïòþÜ­´\´Ía‰§¸Ô©óõ²wŒDÃEeÂ~,zwÔ’«ÞÙáGàT¾žñ"䝨ð4:†Ê‹O0¦nþNs„×Ñœ)@­ܽPÔ,T›vè:}+®‰0—`‚­á¨žðZ´Måª' û£K¬L Ä¿sÊ?þbDŠ[[#£-n„P-»ÓÏiÁS„J°ëG¶ØCÎ⥈è4:•ÄόŇYœà{•mï©ðŸ»WͨzÌøEª±L›C˜fÅÂäR#gOvõZºÆ[•obRC¯˜/R°€¶Ò…î1·=º V¢wq*ÆLG}£QFØÑâq†#ÁT % UN 0ˆi UNñ ^ ? wK zO ÒÉ 4› ¯ ¾ mÀ Æ× ÆÆcÆ) CïN  U@ESUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUbkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 0ëssss B^^ 0¤{ D3 D-R 0K ASÊÆ 0¤ã 0D‡ A«Ë Cvvvv B* B*º Cä B*þ B( BE D5b D5— D5Ì B D5 BS D1p D5¡ D5Ö D5  B*@ D5j D5Ÿ B7Ô B7  CB C\ Cv C Cª CÄ CÞ Cø C˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÊsX+â  ˜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.wptòK+CLARKŒöŸ3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿÿÿÿÿd (æ")  Z(Times New Roman  Ñ ° Ñ- ù-(|G2ݺ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[¼»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô%Pò»»Ô d(|3N$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[¼»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[¼»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK ÿÿÿd&õÿP d d&úÿp Pd d÷ÿdÿÿÿd&ÿÿ0 d döÿ  düÿP Pdllll)óÿ!dxdxmmmm)ûÿ!dxdxqqqq)ýÿ!dxdxþÿ dssss)üÿ!dxdxýÿ dmm)÷ÿ! dxdxkkkk)þÿ!dxdxffff)òÿ!dxdxxxxx)øÿ!dxdx&ùÿp d Pdiiii)ùÿ!dxdx{|{|)öÿ!dxdx3øÿ+0 ÿÿÿd ÿÿÿd d3÷ÿ+0 d d dõÿÿÿÿdþÿÿÿÿdýÿ(ÿÿÿdüÿ2ÿÿÿdûÿ<ÿÿÿdúÿFÿÿÿdùÿPÿÿÿdøÿZÿÿÿdöÿÀÀÀdÿÿÿdÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€FŒ»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ñ»»»ÔÑ8€ \XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ€OaÑà@ttìàÔ‡îã]ñÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ñ»îîã]#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€12,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔÌò òÔ#†¼ñ»XX¡"#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€VINCENT€HATCHòòóóÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„07400€€€€€€John€P.€Colton,€Jr.,€Criminal€Court€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01005„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓOne€day€before€his€scheduled€jury€trial€for€first€degree€murder,€the€appellant€sought€and€was€grantedÐ xÈ  Ðthe€right€to€represent€himself.€€He€now€appeals€from€his€conviction€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€for€theÐ d´ Ðoffense€of€first€degree€murder,€asserting€that€the€convicting€evidence€was€insufficient€and€that€theÐ P  Ðtrial€court€denied€him€his€constitutional€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÐ <Œ Ðof€the€trial€court.Ð (x ÐÌÔ#†¼ñ»XX¡—#ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔÓËÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ñ»àX¡#ÔÔ‡X¡X.¼ñÔCornelia€A.€Clark,€Sp.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòNormaÐ Ø( ÐMcGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌA.€C.€Wharton,€Jr.,€District€Public€Defender,€Tony€N.€Brayton,€Assistant€Public€DefenderÔ#†¼ñ»XX¡Ô#ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔ,€and€MaryÐ œì ÐK.€Kent,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Ô#†¼ñ»XX¡ #ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔon€appeal;€Vincent€L.€Hatch,€òòPro€Seóó,€Ô#†¼ñ»XX¡£ #ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔat€trial.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General,€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€William€L.€Gibbons,Ð `° ÐDistrict€Attorney€General,€and€James€A.€Wax,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General.Ð L œ ÐÓ¥ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ñ»XX¡ #ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼ñÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ñ»XX¡| #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¡X»¼ñÔà  àOn€June€11,€1998,€the€appellant,€Vincent€Hatch,€was€indicted€for€the€first€degreeÐ ü#L# Ðpremeditated€murder€of€Rosmari€Pleasure€on€March€2,€1998.€€On€July€21,€1998,€the€Shelby€CountyÐ è$8 $ ÐPublic€Defender€was€appointed€to€represent€the€appellant.€€At€the€same€time€an€order€was€enteredÐ Ô%$!% Ðdirecting€the€appellant€to€be€evaluated€to€determine€his€mental€competency€to€stand€trial€and€hisÐ À&"& Ðmental€capacity€at€the€time€of€the€offense.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àOn€August€20,€1998,€the€trial€court€received€written€notice€that€the€appellant€was€competentÐ „)Ô$) Ðto€stand€trial€and€was,€at€the€time€of€commission€of€the€offense,€able€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÐ p*À%* Ðof€his€actions.€€On€December€14,€1998,€an€order€was€entered€directing€the€appellant€to€be€transferredÐ \+¬&+ Ðto€the€custody€of€the€Commissioner€of€Mental€Health€for€thirty€days€for€further€evaluation.€€OnÐ H,˜', ÐMarch€10,€1999,€the€trial€court€received€a€letter€from€the€Midtown€Mental€Health€Center€stating€thatÐ 4-„(-ý Ðthe€appellantððs€competency€to€stand€trial€had€become€questionable.€€On€March€11,€1999,€an€orderÐ ° Ðwas€entered€transferring€the€appellant€to€the€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€for€furtherÐ œì Ðevaluation.€€On€May€14,€1999,€the€trial€court€received€written€notice€from€the€department€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðappellant€was€capable€of€assisting€in€his€own€defense€and€that€he€did€not€meet€the€criteria€forÐ tÄ Ðestablishing€an€insanity€defense.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€February€28,€2000,€the€appellant€appeared€in€open€court€with€counsel,€who€announcedÐ 8 ˆ Ðshe€was€ready€for€trial.€€The€appellant€then€requested€the€right€to€represent€himself€at€trial,€which€wasÐ $ t Ðscheduled€to€begin€the€next€day.€€The€primary€basis€of€his€request€was€that€he€wished€to€pursue€anÐ  ` Ðinsanity€defense€and€that€his€appointed€counsel€was€not€willing€to€do€so.€€The€trial€judge€addressedÐ ü L  Ðthe€appellant€at€length€in€open€court.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€colloquy,€the€court€granted€the€requestÐ è 8  Ðof€the€appellant€to€proceed€òòpro€seóó.€€The€court€named€the€assistant€public€defender€who€had€preparedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€case€to€serve€as€standby€counsel€during€the€trial.€€However,€the€trial€judge€denied€the€appellantððsÐ À  Ðrequest€to€continue€the€trial€date.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€appellantððs€jury€trial€commenced€February€29,€2000.€€Several€witnesses€testified€for€theÐ „Ô  Ðstate.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAshley€Oates€testified€that€in€early€1998€she€lived€in€one€apartment€of€a€four„apartment€unitÐ H˜ Ðat€207€Hawthorne€€in€Memphis.€€Rosmari€Pleasure€lived€in€the€same€apartment€complex.€€OatesÐ 4„ Ðknew€the€appellant,€Vincent€Hatch,€as€Pleasureððs€boyfriend.Ð  p ÐÌà  àJust€after€noon€on€March€2,€1998,€Oates€was€at€home€for€lunch€when€she€heard€a€scream.€Ð øH ÐShe€looked€out€her€kitchen€window€and€saw€Pleasure€crouched€near€the€back€of€her€apartmentÐ ä4 Ðbuilding.€€The€appellant€was€standing€over€her.€€Oates€thought€Pleasure€might€have€fallen€or€hurt€herÐ Ð  Ðankle.€€Oates€opened€her€door€and€called€out,€asking€Pleasure€if€she€was€all€right.€€Pleasure€answeredÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€appellant€had€a€gun.€€She€asked€Oates€to€call€the€police.€€According€to€Oates,€the€appellantÐ ¨ø Ðthen€spoke€in€a€sarcastic€but€calm€manner€and€confirmed€that€she€should€call€the€police.€€Oates€thenÐ ”ä Ðclosed€her€back€door.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àA€few€seconds€later€Oates€heard€a€gunshot.€€She€looked€out€the€window€and€saw€theÐ X ¨ Ðappellant€standing€over€Pleasure.€€She€also€saw€the€appellant€shoot€Pleasure€a€second€time,€whileÐ D!” Ðstanding€only€two€or€three€feet€from€the€victim.€€Oates€immediately€dialed€911.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àOn€cross€examination€Oates€acknowledged€that€she€was€not€aware€of€any€prior€instances€ofÐ $X" Ðdomestic€violence€between€the€victim€and€the€appellant.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àJerry€Banks€was€a€friend€of€the€appellantððs€for€fifteen€years.€€On€the€afternoon€of€March€3,Ð Ì&"% Ð1998,€Banks€encountered€the€appellant€walking€down€a€sidewalk.€€Banks€stopped€his€car€and€theÐ ¸'#& Ðappellant€entered€it€and€began€talking.€€He€told€Banks€that€he€had€taken€Rosmari€Pleasureððs€life.€HeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdid€not€provide€details.€€The€appellant€had€in€his€possession€some€clothes,€a€bag,€and€a€weapon.€€TheÐ )à$( Ðmen€drove€to€Banksðð€church,€and€Banks€put€the€gun€in€the€trunk€of€his€car.€€Banks€then€drove€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðappellant€to€his€grandmotherððs€house.€€The€police€arrived€a€few€minutes€later,€Banks€told€them€aboutÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€gun,€and€an€officer€removed€the€gun€from€the€trunk€of€the€car.€€According€to€Banks,€the€appellantÐ ° Ðwas€upset€and€crying€at€the€time.€€He€spoke€about€unhappy€events€in€his€past.€€However,€he€wasÐ œì Ðcoherent.€€He€understood€that€he€was€in€trouble,€and€did€not€seem€to€be€out€of€touch€with€reality.€Ð ˆØ ÐHe€also€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àUnder€cross€examination€by€the€appellant,€Banks€testified€that€he€had€never€seen€theÐ L œ Ðappellant€fight,€smoke€cigarettes,€use€drugs,€or€engage€in€an€argument.€€The€appellantððs€behavior€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthis€incident€therefore€came€as€a€surprise€to€Banks.€€He€acknowledged€that€the€appellant€appearedÐ $ t Ðto€have€some€emotional€problems.€€However,€Banks€did€not€fear€harm€to€himself.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOfficer€Larry€Colburn,€a€crime€scene€officer€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department,€testifiedÐ è 8  Ðthat€on€March€3,€1998,€he€was€called€to€a€residence€at€337€Essex.€€There€he€recovered€a€handgunÐ Ô$  Ðfrom€the€trunk€of€a€vehicle.€€The€weapon€was€fully€loaded€with€six€live€.38€caliber€rounds.€€€HeÐ À  Ðidentified€the€weapon€as€the€same€one€Jerry€Banks€had€testified€belonged€to€the€appellant.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àDr.€O.€C.€Smith,€an€expert€in€the€field€of€forensic€pathology€and€wound€ballistics,€is€theÐ „Ô  ÐShelby€County€Medical€Examiner.€€He€performed€an€autopsy€on€the€body€of€Rosmari€Pleasure.€€Dr.Ð pÀ ÐSmith€testified€that€Pleasure€suffered€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€back€of€her€head.€€The€bullet€passedÐ \¬ Ðthrough€the€central€portion€of€her€brain,€producing€bone€chips,€and€lodged€behind€her€right€eyeball.€Ð H˜ ÐPleasure€also€had€bruises€and€abrasions€on€both€sides€of€her€face,€the€tip€of€her€nose,€the€top€of€herÐ 4„ Ðbrow,€and€her€tongue.€€She€had€a€bruise€on€the€front€of€her€chest€near€her€right€armpit,€and€someÐ  p Ðabrasions€on€the€back€of€her€right€hand.€€Pleasure€also€suffered€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€outside€andÐ  \ Ðback€of€her€left€knee.€€Dr.€Smith€confirmed€the€cause€of€her€death€as€multiple€gunshot€wounds.€Ð øH ÐAccording€to€Dr.€Smith€the€weapon€used€to€inflict€the€gunshot€wounds€was€fired€from€a€distance€ofÐ ä4 Ðtwo€or€more€feet€from€the€victim.€€The€abrasions€on€the€left€side€of€the€victimððs€face€were€caused€byÐ Ð  Ðcontact€with€an€object€consistent€with€the€handgun.€€The€bullet€recovered€from€the€victimððs€head€wasÐ ¼  Ðpossibly€a€.38€or€.357€caliber€bullet.€€Dr.€Smith€identified€the€weapon€recovered€from€the€appellantÐ ¨ø Ðas€being€capable€of€producing€wound€ballistics€consistent€with€those€found€on€the€victim.€€Dr.€SmithÐ ”ä Ðalso€testified€about€the€safety€mechanism€found€on€the€appellantððs€weapon,€and€about€how€difficultÐ €Ð Ðit€would€be€to€discharge€it€accidentally.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant,€after€being€advised€of€his€right€against€self„incrimination,€testified€at€trial€thatÐ D!” Ðin€early€1998€€he€was€a€full„time€student€at€the€University€of€Memphis,€and€also€attended€classes€atÐ 0"€  ÐShelby€State€Community€College.€€On€March€2,€1998,€he€was€on€his€way€to€class€when€he€stoppedÐ #l! Ðto€drop€off€some€clothing€at€Rosmari€Pleasureððs€house.€€He€was€carrying€a€gun€because€he€had€beenÐ $X" Ðattacked€several€times€in€the€last€six€years,€the€last€incident€occurring€only€a€few€days€prior.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€described€the€victim,€Rosmari€Pleasure,€as€someone€that€he€loved€very€much.€Ð Ì&"% ÐHowever,€he€also€had€been€experiencing€some€emotional€problems.€€The€appellant€testified€that€asÐ ¸'#& Ðhe€saw€Pleasure€he€ran€toward€her€with€the€gun€in€his€hand.€€He€wanted€the€victim€to€listen€to€him.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€gun€went€off€accidentally.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€was€uncertain€how€the€second€shot€wasÐ )à$( Ðfired.€€He€felt€that€he€may€have€been€hallucinating.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€had€no€realÐ |*Ì%) Ðmemory€of€the€incident.€€However,€he€denied€that€he€was€a€ð ðmad€dog€killerðð.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAppellant€Hatch€described€Pleasure€as€an€innocent€victim,€and€stated€that€he€was€on€trial€forÐ ° Ðkilling€the€wrong€person.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€was€upset€because€he€had€been€having€problemsÐ œì Ðwith€another€woman.€€He€claimed€that€the€other€woman€had€raped€him€and€conceived€a€child€withoutÐ ˆØ Ðhis€consent.€€Although€the€appellant€was€unable€to€tell€the€jury€exactly€what€mental€problems€heÐ tÄ Ðsuffered,€he€asserted€that€he€had€been€receiving€counseling€for€mental€and€emotional€problems€sinceÐ `° Ðage€ten.€€€He€also€testified€about€the€murder€of€his€prostitute€mother;€the€unpleasant€time€he€spentÐ L œ Ðliving€with€his€father,€who€had€a€serious€cocaine€problem€and€an€extensive€criminal€record;€and€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuicide€attempt€in€1992.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAfter€he€realized€what€had€happened,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€drove€around€and€drankÐ ü L  Ðbeer.€€He€then€drove€to€his€motherððs€grave€and€asked€her€to€provide€a€miracle€and€bring€the€victimÐ è 8  Ðback€to€life.€€When€he€encountered€Mr.€Banks€the€next€day,€he€was€on€his€way€back€to€the€cemetery,Ð Ô$  Ðwhere€he€intended€to€commit€suicide.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€spoke€at€length€about€the€unhappy€events€in€his€life.€€He€stated€that€hisÐ ˜è  Ðacademic€prowess€was€unparalleled,€but€that€his€emotional€problems€had€caused€many€troubles.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€cross€examination€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€murdered€Rosmari€Pleasure.€€He€alsoÐ \¬ Ðadmitted€providing€a€full€statement€to€the€police€the€day€after€the€murder.€€In€the€police€statementÐ H˜ Ðthe€appellant€acknowledged€that€he€and€the€victim€had€been€having€problems€and€had€broken€up.€Ð 4„ ÐUpon€his€arrival€at€the€apartment€the€appellant€began€struggling€with€the€victim€because€he€wasÐ  p Ðtrying€to€force€her€to€listen€to€him€and€trying€to€grab€her€key€and€go€into€her€apartment.€€The€gunÐ  \ Ðwent€off.€€According€to€the€statement,€he€shot€the€victim€a€second€time€because€he€was€angry€andÐ øH Ðhurt.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€also€acknowledged€that,€on€the€day€after€the€murder,€he€had€admitted€theÐ ¼  Ðkilling€to€Jerry€Banks.€€He€finally€acknowledged€that€the€gun€he€placed€in€Jerry€Banksðð€car€was€theÐ ¨ø Ðmurder€weapon.€€However,€he€denied€that€the€gun€belonged€to€him,€or€that€he€had€ever€reloaded€it.€Ð ”ä ÐHe€claimed€that€he€was€insane€at€the€time€of€the€offense.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDr.€Samuel€Craddock,€a€clinical€psychologist€with€the€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€HealthÐ X ¨ ÐInstitute€in€Nashville,€was€called€as€an€expert€witness€by€the€appellant.€€He€testified€that€he€hadÐ D!” Ðexamined€the€appellant€in€April€1999.€€Based€on€that€examination,€the€statements€made€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðappellant€to€Banks€and€the€police,€and€other€information,€Dr.€Craddock€concluded€that€the€appellantÐ #l! Ðdid€not€have€a€history€of€serious€mental€illness,€that€he€was€competent€to€stand€trial,€and€that€heÐ $X" Ðcould€not€sustain€an€insanity€defense.€€Dr.€Craddock€believed€the€appellant€was€in€touch€with€reality.€Ð ô$D # ÐEven€though€the€appellant€described€a€very€unhappy€childhood,€he€was€able€to€appreciate€theÐ à%0!$ Ðwrongfulness€of€his€behavior.€€Dr.€Craddock€confirmed€that,€while€in€the€Navy,€appellant€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðdiagnosed€with€personality€disorder.€€However,€he€did€not€define€that€disorder€as€a€serious€mentalÐ ¸'#& Ðillness.€€He€also€did€not€define€chronic€depression€as€a€serious€mental€disorder.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àOn€cross€examination€Dr.€Craddock€confirmed€that€persons€with€borderline€personalityÐ |*Ì%) Ðdisorder€are€subject€to€inappropriate€anger€responses€if€they€perceive€they€are€being€abandoned€byÐ h+¸&* Ða€loved€one.€€Such€persons€often€portray€themselves€as€victims€of€circumstance.€€Dr.€CraddockÐ ° Ðfurther€testified€that€a€person€who€is€not€severely€mentally€ill€cannot€experience€a€brief€period€ofÐ œì Ðinsanity.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argued€to€the€jury€that€it€should€find€him€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€AfterÐ `° Ðdeliberation,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€Because€the€state€did€notÐ L œ Ðseek€additional€penalties,€the€judge€imposed€an€automatic€sentence€of€life€in€prison.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAfter€the€appellantððs€motion€for€new€trial€was€overruled€on€April€14,€2000,€the€trial€courtÐ  ` Ðappointed€the€public€defenderððs€office€to€represent€the€appellant€on€appeal.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓAnalysisóóó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€the€assistance€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel.€€The€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€preparation€and€presentation€of€a€defense€to€aÐ ˜è  Ðcriminal€charge€is€grounded€in€both€the€Tennessee€and€the€United€States€Constitutions.€€Tenn.€Const.Ð „Ô  Ðart.€I,€ðð9;€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI.€€However,€there€also€exists€an€alternative€right€to€self„Ð pÀ Ðrepresentation€which€is€founded€on€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€819,Ð \¬ Ð95€S.Ct.€2525,€2533,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975);€òòState€v.€Northingtonóó,€667€S.W.2d€57€(Tenn.€1984).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€right€to€self„representation€and€the€right€to€counsel€have€been€construed€to€be€alternativeÐ  p Ðones;€ð ðthat€is,€one€has€a€right€òòeitheróó€to€be€represented€by€counsel€òòoróó€to€represent€himself,€to€conductÐ  \ Ðhis€own€defense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€359€(Tenn.€1982).€€ð ðWaiver€of€one€rightÐ øH Ðconstitutes€a€correlative€assertion€of€the€other.€.€.€.€[A]€criminal€defendant€cannot€logically€waive€orÐ ä4 Ðassert€both€rights.ðð€€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€541€S.W.2d€365,€368€(Tenn.€1976)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.Ð Ð  ÐConderóó,€423€F.2d€904,€908€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1970)).€€One€who€knowingly€and€intelligently€waives€the€rightÐ ¼  Ðto€counsel€cannot€later€allege€the€deprivation€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð ¨ø ÐGoodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€35,€41„42,€45€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThere€are€three€prerequisites€to€the€absolute€right€of€self„representation:€€(1)€the€assertion€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€right€must€be€timely;€(2)€the€accusedððs€request€must€be€clear€and€unequivocal;€and€(3)€theÐ X ¨ Ðaccused€must€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€the€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòState€v.Ð D!” ÐHerrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€629„30€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)òòóó€(citations€omitted).€€Appellant€claims€theÐ 0"€  Ðfirst€and€third€conditions€were€not€met€in€this€case.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€because€his€request€to€proceed€òòpro€seóó€was€not€asserted€until€the€dayÐ ô$D # Ðbefore€trial,€the€court€should€not€have€granted€it€unless€a€€continuance€also€was€granted.€€WhileÐ à%0!$ Ðassertion€of€the€right€generally€must€be€made€prior€to€jury€selection€to€be€considered€timely,€òòsee,€Ð Ì&"% Ðe.g.,€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€at€629€(citations€omitted),€we€believe€the€trial€judge€would€have€beenÐ ¸'#& Ðjustified€in€denying€this€request€based€on€its€timing.€€However,€generally,€the€grant€or€denial€of€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontinuance€is€discretionary€with€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Sealsóó,€735€S.W.2d€849€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð )à$( Ðâ â19987).€€The€decision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion€and€a€showing€that,€hadÐ |*Ì%) ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñthe€continuance€been€granted,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐMorganóó,€825€S.W.2d€113,€117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€decisions€of€the€trial€court€concerning€the€timeliness€of€appellantððs€request€to€proceedÐ tÄ Ðòòpro€seóó€and€for€a€continuance€were€matters€of€discretion.€€The€appellant€cites€no€case€law€to€theÐ `° Ðcontrary.€€He€has€not€offered€any€proof€that€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€differentÐ L œ Ðif€a€continuance€had€been€granted.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€ascertain€whether€his€waiver€of€theÐ  ` Ðright€to€assistance€of€counsel€was€intelligent€and€knowing.€€This€pre„condition€is€more€difficult€toÐ ü L  Ðdetermine.€€When€an€accused€desires€to€proceed€òòpro€seóó,€the€trial€judge€must€conduct€an€intensiveÐ è 8  Ðinquiry€as€to€his€ability€to€represent€himself.€òò€Northingtonóó,€667€S.W.2d€at€61.€€The€waiver€of€rightÐ Ô$  Ðto€counsel€must€be€knowingly€and€intelligently€made.€€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€673€S.W.2d€174,€177€(Tenn.Ð À  ÐCrim.€App.€1984);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44.€€In€òòJohnson€v.€Zerbstóó,€304€U.S.€458,€465,€58€S.Ct.€1019,Ð ¬ü  Ð82€L.Ed.€1461€(1938),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€placed€ð ðthe€serious€and€weightyÐ ˜è  Ðresponsibility€.€.€.€of€determining€whether€there€is€an€intelligent€and€competent€waiverðð€directly€uponÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€judge.€€In€a€subsequent€case,€more€specific€guidelines€were€established:Ð pÀ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Ò[A]€judge€must€investigate€as€long€and€as€thoroughly€as€the€circumstances€of€the€caseÐ H˜ Ðbefore€him€demand.€€The€fact€that€an€accused€may€tell€him€that€he€is€informed€of€hisÐ 4„ Ðright€to€counsel€and€desires€to€waive€this€right€does€not€automatically€end€the€judgeððsÐ  p Ðresponsibility.€€To€be€valid€such€waiver€must€be€made€with€an€apprehension€of€theÐ  \ Ðnature€of€the€charges,€the€statutory€offenses€included€within€them,€the€range€ofÐ øH Ðallowable€punishments€thereunder,€possible€defenses€to€the€charges€andÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances€and€mitigation€thereof,€and€all€other€facts€essential€to€a€broadÐ Ð  Ðunderstanding€of€the€whole€matter.€€A€judge€can€make€certain€that€an€accusedððsÐ ¼  Ðprofessed€waiver€of€counsel€is€understandingly€and€wisely€made€only€from€aÐ ¨ø Ðpenetrating€and€comprehensive€examination€of€all€the€circumstances€under€whichÐ ”ä Ðsuch€a€plea€is€tendered.Ð €Ð ÐÒ°AXÒÒ°3XÒÌòòVon€Moltke€v.€Gilliesóó,€332€U.S.€708,€723„24,€92€L.Ed.€309,€68€S.Ct.€316€(1984).€€ò òó óThis€court€hasÐ X ¨ Ðpreviously€ruled€that€trial€judges€should€question€a€defendant€who€wishes€to€proceed€òòpro€seÐ D!” Ðóóaccording€to€the€guidelines€contained€in€ò òOne€Bench€Book€for€United€States€District€Judges€1.02„2Ð 0"€  Ðto€„5€(3d.€Ed.€1986),€ó óalso€contained€in€the€appendix€to€òòUnited€States€v.€McDowellóó,€814€F.2d.€245,Ð  #p! Ð251„52€(6th€Cir.€1987).€òò€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€at€630.Ð $`" ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€establishes€that€the€trial€judge€followed€theòòóó€requirements€of€òòHerrodóó,Ð è%8!$ Ðasking€substantially€all€the€questions€originally€outlined€in€òòMcDowellóó.€€The€colloquy€was€extensive.€Ð Ô&$"% ÐThe€court€warned€the€appellant€that€self€representation€was€unwise,€that€he€would€be€held€to€theÐ À'#& Ðsame€standards€as€an€attorney€trained€in€the€law,€and€that€he€was€not€well€served€in€representingÐ ¬(ü#' Ðhimself.€€The€only€matter€omitted€from€the€colloquy€was€a€discussion€of€possible€lesser€includedÐ ˜)è$( Ðoffenses.€€Ð „*Ô%) ÐÐ p+À&* Ðà  àThe€trial€judge€concluded€by€granting€appellantððs€request€to€designate€former€appointedÐ ° Ðcounsel€as€standby€counsel.€€Counsel€had€already€announced€to€the€court€that€she€was€ready€for€trial.Ð œì ÐWe€find€that€appellantððs€€waiver€of€counsel€was€knowingly€and€intelligently€made.€€This€issue€isÐ ˆØ Ðwithout€merit.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDefendant€finally€contends€that€his€waiver€was€not€voluntary€because€the€trial€court€failedÐ L œ Ðto€secure€the€waiver€in€writing.€€Rule€44(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€Ð 8 ˆ Ðthat,€after€the€colloquy€in€open€court,€the€court€shall€require€the€defendant€to€sign€a€written€waiver,Ð $ t Ðwhich€shall€be€spread€upon€the€minutes€of€the€court€and€made€a€part€of€the€record€of€the€case.€€In€thisÐ  ` Ðcase€no€written€waiver€was€signed€or€filed.€€However,€a€trial€courtððs€failure€to€comply€with€theÐ ü L  Ðwriting€requirement€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44€does€not€necessarily€preclude€a€constitutionally€validÐ è 8  Ðwaiver.€€òòSee€State€v.€Goodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d.€35,€39„40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);òòóó€òòState€v.€MohammedÐ Ô$  ÐF.€Alióó,€No.€03C01„9802„CR„00065,€Washington€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€August€24,Ð À  Ð1999);€and€òòLuther€Fowler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9711„CR„00509,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€July€30,€1999).€€While€we€do€not€condone€this€omission,€we€have€concluded€fromÐ ˜è  Ðour€review€of€the€record€that€such€error€was€harmless.€€The€appearance€of€the€appellant€with€hisÐ „Ô  Ðappointed€counsel€and€the€ensuing€lengthy€dialogue€between€the€trial€judge€and€the€appellant€hasÐ pÀ Ðbeen€transcribed€and€made€a€part€of€the€record.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€appellant€knowingly€andÐ \¬ Ðintelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€his€conviction€for€firstÐ  p Ðdegree€murder.€€€Ô‡X \XXX¡ÔWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standardÐ  \ Ðis€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ úJ Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð ä4 ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€QuestionsÐ Î Ðconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ ¸ Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.Ð ¢ò ÐPappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluateÐ ŒÜ Ðthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€verdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,Ð vÆ Ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÐ `° Ðin€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).Ð J š ÐÌà  àFirst€degree€murder€is€defined,€in€part,€as€the€ð ðpremeditated€and€intentional€killing€ofÐ "n  Ðanotherðð.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(a)(1).€€An€intentional€killing€occurs€when€it€is€theÐ #X! Ðdefendantððs€ð ðconscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€inðð€the€killing€or€to€cause€death.€€òòId.óó€ðð39„11„Ð ò#B" Ð302(a).€€A€premeditated€killing€occurs€when€ð ðdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgmentðð.€Ð Ü$, # ÐòòId.óó€ðð39„13„202(d).€€That€is,€ð ðthe€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itselfðð,€althoughÐ Æ%!$ Ðð ðit€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„exists€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definiteÐ °&"% Ðperiod€of€timeðð.€€òòId.óó€€ð ðThe€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€the€accused€allegedly€decided€toÐ š'ê"& Ðkill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determine€if€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€fromÐ „(Ô#' Ðexcitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditationðð.€€òòId.Ð n)¾$( ÐÌà  àóóBecause€premeditation€entails€proof€of€a€state€of€mind€about€which€there€may€be€no€directÐ B+’&* Ðevidence,€ð ðcases€have€long€recognized€that€the€necessary€elements€of€first€degree€murder€may€beÐ ,,|'+ Ðshown€by€circumstantial€evidenceðð.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð ° ÐPremeditation€is€a€question€of€fact€to€be€determined€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Suttlesóó,€30€S.W.3d€252,€261Ð šê Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€And,€the€jury€may€infer€premeditation€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€theÐ „Ô Ðkilling.€€òòSee€State€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€915€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660Ð n¾ Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Our€Supreme€CourtÐ X¨ Ðhas€enumerated€several€factors€that€may€support€the€existence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,Ð B ’ Ðincluding:€€(1)€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€an€intent€to€kill,€(2)€evidence€of€procurement€of€aÐ , | Ðweapon,€(3)€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€(4)€the€particular€cruelty€of€theÐ  f Ðkilling,€(5)€infliction€of€multiple€wounds,€(6)€preparation€before€the€killing€for€concealment€of€theÐ  P Ðcrime,€(7)€destruction€or€secretion€of€evidence€of€the€murder,€and€(8)€calmness€immediately€after€theÐ ê :  Ðkilling.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€24€S.W.3d€297,€302€(Tenn.€2000)€(citations€omitted).Ð Ô $  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€at€trial€presented€several€of€the€factors€from€which€the€jury€could€inferÐ ¨ø  Ðpremeditation.€€The€appellant€admitted€he€was€angry€at€the€victim€because€she€had€terminated€theirÐ ’â  Ðromantic€relationship.€€The€appellant€procured€a€weapon€before€coming€to€the€victimððs€home.€€HeÐ |Ì  Ðused€the€weapon€on€an€unarmed€victim.€€He€inflicted€multiple€wounds,€first€shooting€the€victim€inÐ f¶  Ðthe€leg€to€immobilize€her,€then€standing€over€her€to€shoot€a€second€time€at€close€range.€€He€alsoÐ P  Ðapparently€struck€her€in€the€face€with€the€gun.€€After€the€killing€the€appellant€calmly€drove€aroundÐ :Š Ðand€drank€beer.Ð $t ÐÌà  àWhether€or€not€premeditation€existed€is€a€jury€question,€and€the€appellant€has€not€met€hisÐ øH Ðburden€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€decision€in€this€matter.€Ð â2 ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ì ÐÌÔ#†X¡XXX \j#Ôà  àThe€appellant€attempted€to€present€an€insanity€defense,€which€would€have€been€an€affirmativeÐ  ð Ðdefense€to€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€appellant€argued€that,€because€of€his€mentalÐ ŒÜ Ðcondition,€he€lacked€the€requisite€intent€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€However,€the€only€expertÐ xÈ Ðevidence€he€presented€was€from€Dr.€Samuel€Craddock,€who€testified€that€he€had€examined€theÐ d´ Ðappellant,€believed€him€competent€to€stand€trial,€and€believed€that€a€defense€of€insanity€could€notÐ P  Ðbe€sustained.€€The€appellant€himself€testified€about€his€unfortunate€childhood€and€his€prior€treatmentÐ <Œ Ðfor€emotional€problems,€but€did€not€explain€specifically€how€these€problems€led€to€his€insanity.Ð ( x ÐÌà  àThe€jury€determined€that,€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€appellant€was€not€suffering€from€anyÐ "P  Ðmental€condition€which€may€have€lessened€his€capacity€to€form€the€intent€to€commit€the€chargedÐ ì"<! Ðoffense.€€The€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€witnesses€for€the€state€andÐ Ø#(" Ðresolves€any€conflicts€in€the€testimony€favorably€for€the€state.€òòState€v.€Eavesóó,€959€S.W.2d€601,€604Ð Ä$ # Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1997).€€The€evidence€was€sufficient€to€prove,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€theÐ °%!$ Ðdefendant€had€the€capacity€to€form€the€requisite€intent€to€commit€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€Ð œ&ì!% ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ˆ'Ø"& ÐÌÐ  `)°$( Ðà  àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð ° ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGE