ÿWPC„" -# †U:‘ %Ë 0 (Ñw@ù49M\ 8dU .œ 0 ”Ê 0D^ 0J¢ì 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡ ?ë ó*SpjŠZôyNPÇÿv~ B”vÓ±˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ µ¶·¸¹º»}e¼D½¾B\J#‘’“”•–—˜™š›œ3|x¾C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\OPINION%ä2¼A`ArialTT(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€state€contends€in€its€brief€that€the€defendant€made€an€oral€motion€for€newÏtrial€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€The€state€cites€to€the€minutes€in€theÏtechnical€record€which€indicate€that€a€motion€was€made.€€The€state€argues€that€whenÏan€oral€motion€is€made€the€defendant€must€reduce€the€motion€to€writing€within€30€daysÏof€the€date€when€the€order€of€the€sentence€is€entered.€Ìà àThe€transcripts€of€the€trial€and€sentencing€do€not€indicate€that€an€oral€motionÏwas€made.€€It€is€an€elementary€principle€of€law€that€when€there€is€a€conflict€betweenÏthe€transcript€and€the€minutes€of€the€trial€court€the€recitation€in€the€transcript€controls.€ÏòòState€v.€Davisóó€706€S.W.2d€96,€97€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1986).€Furthermore,€the€order€of€sentence€was€executed€August€18,€1996;€the€motionÏfor€new€trial€had€been€heard€and€denied.€€Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€motion€only€raised€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€judgment€form€originally€bore€the€date€June€6,€1996.€That€date€wasÏmarked€out€and€ð ðjudgment€executed€August€18,€1996"€was€written€above€it.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€defendant€said€he€had€been€out€of€work€for€some€time€because€his€carÏwas€not€working.€Ì `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€had€assaulted€his€wife€on€an€earlier€occasion.€She€brought€aÏdomestic€violence€charge€against€him€and€applied€for€a€protective€order.€€SheÏchanged€the€locks€in€her€house€and€put€her€husband€and€children€out€of€the€home.€ÏThe€husband€called€his€wife€at€work€and€threatened€her,€then€went€to€the€maritalÏresidence,€found€the€locks€changed,€kicked€in€the€door,€and€shot€his€wife.€òòOððNealóó,€658ÏN.E.2d€at€1103.Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€said,€ð ða€spouse€cannot€be€excluded€from€the€marital€residence€inÏthe€absence€of€a€court€order.ðð€€òòOððNealóó,€658€N.E.2d€at€1103.Ì oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFurther,€it€was€his€position€at€trial€that€he€was€a€homeowner€and€could€not€beÏguilty€of€the€aggravated€burglary€of€his€own€home.€€His€argument€would€apply€likewiseÏto€criminal€trespass.Ì FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€being€impeached€by€the€state,€she€acknowledged€that€she€had€toldÏpolice€the€defendant€had€beaten€her€before€and€threatened€her€with€a€gun.€Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà8 à(3)€The€victim€was€a€participant€in€the€defendantððs€conduct€Ìà àà àor€consented€to€the€act;ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 àà8 à*€*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 à(5)€The€defendant€was€an€accomplice€in€the€murderÏcommitted€by€another€person€and€the€defendantððsÏparticipation€was€relatively€minor;ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 àà8 à*€*€*€*€ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 à(7)€The€youth€or€advanced€age€of€the€defendant€at€the€timeÏof€the€crime;ÌÌà0 àà àà0 àà àà8 àTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„204(j).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJULY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °‡XÚÈ“XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9703„CR„00099Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àArthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌGEORGE€LANGFORD,à àà à)à à(First€Degree€Felony€Murder,€AggravatedÏBurglary,Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Aggravated€Assault,€and€RecklessÏEndangerment)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌON€APPEAL:à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌW.€Mark€Wardà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201à àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0497ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RyanÌAT€TRIAL:à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌLoyce€D.€Lambertà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947à àà àWilliam€L.€GibbonsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌRonald€S.€Johnsonà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947Ì201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947à àà àJohn€W.€CampbellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌA€C€Wharton,€Jr.à àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌPublic€DefenderÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201à àà àDavid€B.€ShapiroÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947à àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌò òÓ  ÓÑ7€ºŠXXdæXXdæ7ÑÓÓÔ€ îÔO€P€I€N€I€O€N€Ô€ XÔó óÔ € àðÔÌÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€appellant,€George€Langford€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€first€degreeÏfelony€murder,€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€CÏfelony,€and€reckless€endangerment,€a€Class€E€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€juryÏsentenced€the€defendant€toò ò€ó ólife€without€the€possibility€of€parole€for€felony€murder.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€a€standard€offender€and€imposed€the€followingÏRange€I€sentences:€Count€II,€aggravated€burglary,€confinement€for€four€(4)€€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction,€Count€III,€aggravated€assault,€confinement€for€five€(5)€yearsÏin€the€Department€of€Correction,€and€Count€IV,€reckless€endangerment,€confinementÏfor€€two€(2)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€ordered€theÏsentences€in€Counts€II,€III,€and€IV€to€run€concurrently€with€each€other€and€consecutivelyÏto€the€sentence€of€life€without€parole.€€€The€effective€sentence€imposed€was€life€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole€plus€five€(5)€years.Ìà àThe€defendant€presents€four€issues€for€review.€€He€contends€(a)€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€convictions€for€aggravated€burglary€and€felony€murderÏcommitted€during€the€commission€of€aggravated€burglary;€(b)€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminal€trespass;€(c)€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€refusing€defendantððs€request€for€special€jury€instructions€on€non„statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances;€and€(d)€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€consecutiveÏsentencing.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,Ïand€the€law€governing€the€issues€presented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€CourtÏthat€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.Ìà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€10,€1995,€the€defendant€went€to€a€duplexÏrented€by€his€girlfriend,€Diana€Wilson,€to€see€his€children€and€get€some€of€his€clothes.€ÏHe€often€stayed€there€but€had€been€gone€for€several€weeks€prior€to€April€10.€€TheÏdefendant€became€jealous€when€he€saw€Wilson€had€a€male€visitor.€€Also€in€the€duplexÏat€the€time€were€Wilsonððs€female€cousin,€who€was€with€another€man€in€one€of€theÏbedrooms,€Wilson€the€defendantððs€two€small€children,€and€the€15„year„old€victim,ÏTamara€Gales.€Ì€à àWilson€refused€to€allow€the€defendant€in€the€home.€€The€defendant,€who€wasÏÑ  Ñaccompanied€by€his€brother€and€two€friends,€obtained€a€gun€and€fired€into€the€livingÏroom€window.€€The€bullet€just€missed€striking€Wilson€who€was€sitting€on€the€couch.€TheÏbullet€pierced€an€inner€wall€and€entered€a€neighboring€apartment.€€After€the€shot€wasÏfired,€Wilson€grabbed€her€10„month„old€son€and€ran€to€hide€in€a€bedroom€closet.€€SheÏwas€joined€by€the€victim.€€Everyone€else,€including€Wilsonððs€other€child,€€escaped€out€aÏback€window.Ìà àThe€defendant€tried€to€kick€in€the€front€door,€but€was€unable€to€get€the€doorÏopen.€The€defendant€and€his€friend€then€forced€the€door€open.€€Once€inside€he€ranÏthrough€the€house€looking€for€Wilson€and€the€male€visitor.€€He€entered€the€bedroom,Ïtore€away€at€least€one€door€from€the€closet,€and€shot€into€the€closet€where€the€victimÏwas€hiding€with€Wilson€and€her€son.€€The€bullet€struck€Tamara€Gales,€who€was€fifteenÏyears€of€age,€in€the€right€temple€just€above€the€right€eye.€€The€bullet€passed€throughÏthe€brain,€the€neck,€and€lodged€at€the€spine€in€the€back€of€the€neck.€The€fatal€injuryÏcaused€bruising€to€her€throat,€swelling€of€the€neck,€and€an€inability€to€breathe.€€TheÏvictim€died€as€a€result€of€the€injuries€caused€by€the€projectile.Ìà àWilsonððs€cousin,€who€had€escaped€out€the€back€window,€overheard€€Wilson€andÏthe€defendant€standing€outside€the€duplex€talking€after€the€shooting.€€She€heardÏWilson€tell€the€defendant€he€had€killed€the€teenager€to€which€the€defendant€replied,Ïð ðhe€didnððt€give€a€f„„„.ðð€The€defendant€fled€to€Mississippi€and€eventually€to€Milwaukee,ÏWisconsin,€where€he€remained€for€about€a€month.Ìà àThe€defendant€took€the€stand€at€trial€and€said€the€shootings€were€accidental.€ÏHe€claimed€he€was€using€the€gun€to€break€the€window€and€it€went€off€when€the€gunÏstruck€the€glass.€€Also,€while€he€attempted€to€slide€the€closet€doors€back€looking€for€theÏmale€visitor€and€during€that€action,€the€gun€accidentally€went€off.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€state€contends€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€was€not€timely€filed€and,Ías€a€result,€the€defendant€has€waived€two€of€the€issues€presented€for€review.× ƒ! ××  ×€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€on€March€1,€1996.€€His€attorney€filedÏa€ð ðskeletalðð× ƒ" ××  ×€motion€for€new€trial€on€April€17,€1996.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€held€onÏJune€6,€1996.€€On€August€6,€1996,€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€or€in€theÏalternative,€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed.€The€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€wasÏheard€August€18,€1996.€The€judgment€was€executed€August€18,€1996.× ƒ# ××  ×€€Notice€ofÏAppeal€was€filed€August€20,€1996.Ìà àA€motion€for€new€trial€is€required€to€be€filed€within€thirty€(30)€days€of€the€date€theÏorder€of€sentence€is€filed€in€this€cause.€The€motion€for€new€trial€was€actually€heardÏbefore€the€judgment€was€executed.€€The€motion€was€timely€filed.Ìà àThe€stateððs€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓII.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€he€was€guilty€ofÏaggravated€burglary€and€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€an€aggravated€€burglaryÏbecause€he€was€entering€his€own€home.€€Furthermore,€he€argues€there€wasÏinsufficient€proof€that€the€entry€was€made€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€owner.Ì€à àÓ  Óò òÇA.ó ó€ÌÌÓ  Óà 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€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.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€of€illustratingÏwhy€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€aÏverdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€theÏrecord€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€theÏaccused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.€ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€contends€he€was€one€of€the€owners€of€the€property€and€in€lawfulÏpossession€of€the€property€at€the€time€of€entry€and,€thus,€can€neither€be€guilty€ofÏaggravated€burglary€nor€felony€murder€resulting€from€the€aggravated€burglary.€TheÏdefendant€presents€this€Court€with€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€Ìà àDiana€Wilson,€the€defendantððs€girlfriend€and€one€of€the€victims€in€the€case,Ïtestified€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€lived€together€since€1989€in€various€places.€ÏShe€has€two€children€by€the€defendant.€€She€told€jurors€the€defendant€lived€with€her€inÏthe€duplex,€kept€his€clothing€there,€and€helped€with€the€bills× ƒ$ ××  ×€and€with€raising€hisÏchildren.€€She€said€it€was€not€unusual€for€the€defendant€to€come€and€go€as€he€pleased;Ïsometimes€he€would€stay€away€overnight.€€Prior€to€the€shooting€he€had€been€gone€forÏtwo€weeks.€€Wilson€testified€he€was€free€to€return€home.€Ì€à àWilson€and€the€defendant€both€testified€that€Wilsonððs€name€was€the€only€one€onÏthe€lease.€€In€order€for€Wilson€to€obtain€reduced€rent€under€Section€8€Assisted€PublicÏHousing,€only€Wilson€and€her€children€could€apply€for€the€duplex.€€Both€Wilson€and€theÏdefendant€testified€the€defendant€was€not€suppose€to€stay€there.€€The€utilities€wereÏalso€in€Wilsonððs€name.Ìà àDespite€Wilsonððs€testimony,€the€evidence€indicated€the€defendant€could€notÏcome€and€go€as€he€pleased.€€Wilson€refused€him€entry€when€he€asked€to€come€intoÏthe€duplex€to€see€his€children€and€get€some€clothing.€€Ìà àThe€testimony€showed€the€defendant€even€lived€with€another€woman€at€anotherÏaddress€approximately€eight€months€before€the€shooting.Ì€Ìò òÓ  ÓÇC.€ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAggravated€burglary€occurs€when€a€person€without€the€effective€consent€of€theÏowner€enters€a€private€residence€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft€or€entersÏand€does€commit€or€attempts€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðððð€39„14„402,€„403.€€ð ðOwnerðð€means€ð ða€person€in€lawful€possession€of€property,€whether€theÏpossession€is€actual€or€constructive.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„14„401.€€Ìà àBurglary€is€an€offense€against€the€possession,€rather€than€the€legal€title€or€theÏpossessor.€€òòHindman€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€127,€132,€384€S.W.2d€18,€20€(1964).€€ð ðTheÏspecific€ownership€of€a€building€is€not€an€essential€element€and€title,€as€far€as€the€lawÏof€burglary€is€concerned,€follows€the€possession€and€possession€constitutes€sufficientÏownership€as€against€the€burglar.ðð€€òòHobby€€v.€Stateóó,€480€S.W.2d€554,€556€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1972).€€The€defendantððs€girlfriend€who€was€one€of€the€victimsÏin€this€case€leased€the€duplex.€€Consequently€she€was€an€ð ðownerðð€within€the€meaningÏof€the€statute.€òòState€v.€Bobby€Bakeróó,€Tipton€County€No.€02„C„01„9511„CC„00347,€slipÏop.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€January€€27,€1997),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(SeptemberÏ8,€1997,€Tenn.).Ìò òÓ  Ó(1)ó ó€ÌÌÓ  Óà àBoth€the€defendant€and€the€state€rely€on€authority€from€other€jurisdictions.€€WhileÏcourts€seem€to€agree€on€the€general€proposition€that€one€cannot€burglarize€oneððs€ownÏhome,€courts€have€upheld€convictions€of€spouses€who€have€illegally€entered€theÏformer€marital€home€or€the€other€spouseððs€home.€These€cases€usually€involveÍsituations€where€a€separation€has€occurred€between€the€parties,€€or€where€one€partyÏhas€established€or€is€establishing€himself€or€herself€as€the€sole€proprietor€of€the€home.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòCladd€v.€Stateóó,€398€So.2d€442€(Fla.€1981)€(Court€said€marriage€does€not€precludeÏstate€from€establishing€burglary;€property€was€in€wifeððs€sole€possession;€husbandÏmade€uninvited€entry.);€òòState€v.€Divelyóó,€431€N.E.2d€540€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1982)€(The€mereÏfact€of€conjugal€status€does€not€preclude€a€spouse€from€committing€€an€offense€againstÏthe€property€of€the€other€spouse.);€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€526€So.2d€443€(La.€Ct.€App.€1988)Ï(Husbandððs€entry€into€his€estranged€wifeððs€apartment€was€unauthorized€because€heÏhad€no€proprietary€interest€in€the€apartment,€which€was€being€used€by€his€wife€andÏchildren.);€òòParham€v.€Stateóó,€556€A.2d€280€(Md.€Ct.€Spec.€App.€1989)€(The€maritalÏrelationship€does€not€preclude€a€conviction€for€burglary.€€The€court€noted€the€victimÏwas€in€the€process€of€putting€property€in€her€name,€the€defendant€was€living€with€hisÏsister,€and€his€name€was€not€on€the€title.€€While€he€had€a€few€belongings€in€the€house,Ïhe€had€items€in€other€places€as€well,€and€he€had€been€out€of€the€home€for€six€weeks.);ÏòòState€v.€Coxóó,€326€S.E.2d€100€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1985),€òòreviewóóòòdeniedóó,€330€N.E.2d€612Ï(N.C.€1985)€(The€defendant€had€no€proprietary€interest€in€the€house€because€the€wifeÏpaid€the€rent€and€utilities,€he€had€not€resided€there€for€more€than€one€year,€and€sheÏhad€refused€him€entry.);€òòState€v.€Herrinóó,€453€N.E.2d€1104€(Ohio€App.€1982)€(AnÏindividual€can€trespass€against€property€of€which€he€is€the€legal€owner€whenÏdefendant,€estranged€from€his€wife,€entered€the€home€they€both€owned€and€sheÏcontrolled;€the€defendant€had€been€living€elsewhere.);€òòKnox€v.€Commonwealthóó,€304ÏS.E.2d€4€(Va.€1983)€(Husbandððs€right€of€consortium€was€subordinate€to€wifeððsÏexclusive€possession€of€her€apartment;€husband€had€no€proprietary€interest€in€herÍapartment.);€òòState€v.€Schneideróó,€673€P.2d€200€(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1983)€(Even€thoughÏhusband€and€wife€owned€house,€wife€was€not€invited€or€privileged€to€enter€the€houseÏwhich€was€occupied€first€by€tenant€and€then€by€the€tenant€and€husband;€the€wife€hadÏnever€lived€there;€she€was€separated€from€her€husband€and€lived€somewhere€else.)€€€Ìò òÓ  ÓÌ(2)ó óà àÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€relies€primarily€on€òòState€v.€OððNealóó,€658€N.E.2d€1102€(Ohio€App.Ï1995),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€651€N.E.2d€1309€(Ohio€1995).€€The€defendantððs€reliance€on€thisÏcase€is€misplaced.€€In€òòOððNealóó,€a€trial€court€via€pretrial€motion€dismissed€burglary„related€charges€against€a€husband€charged€with€killing€his€wife€at€the€maritalÏresidence.× ƒ% ××  ×€€The€trial€court€found€that€a€spouse€could€not€be€a€trespasser€in€his€or€herÏown€home.× ƒ& ××  ×€€The€state€appealed.€Ìà àThe€issue€as€stated€by€the€appellate€court€was€ð ðwhether€OððNeal€could€beÏconvicted€of€any€of€the€aggravated€burglary€charges€and€specifications.ðð€€The€OhioÏCourt€of€Appeals€said€that€the€issue€of€whether€the€state€can€prove€the€defendantÏtrespassed€on€the€premises€is€to€be€determined€at€trial,€not€on€a€pretrial€motion.ÍòòOððNealóó,€658€N.E.2d€at€1103.€€€If€the€evidence€at€the€close€of€the€stateððs€case€isÏinsufficient,€then€the€defendant€can€move€for€an€acquittal€of€those€charges.€€The€courtÏof€appeals€then€went€on€to€provide€ð ðfurther€guidanceðð€to€the€trial€court.€€The€court€saidÏthat€in€other€cases€where€convictions€had€been€upheld€it€was€clear€spouses€hadÏestablished€separate€residences;€their€actions€had€amounted€to€more€than€changingÏthe€locks€and€ð ðputting€outðð€spouses.€€òòOððNealóó,€658€N.E.2d€at€1004.€The€court€continued:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[w]e€hold€that€in€the€absence€of€a€restraining€order€or€anÏorder€granting€one€party€exclusive€possession€of€the€maritalÏresidence,€the€question€of€whether€one€spouse€has€the€soleÏpossessory€interest€in€the€house€depends€on€whether€theÏevidence€shows€that€both€parties€had€made€the€decision€toÏlive€in€separate€places.€Both€parties€must€have€understoodÏthat€the€possessory€interest€of€one€was€being€relinquished,Ïeven€if€it€was€relinquished€begrudgingly€or€reluctantly.Ì€ÌÓÓ658€N.E.2d€at€1104.€€The€court€reversed€the€trial€court€and€remanded€allowing€theÏstate€to€go€forward€with€its€proof.€€658€N.E.2d€at€1105.Ìà àThe€issue€in€òòOððNealóó€was€whether€the€dismissal€of€the€charge€was€improper€andÏwhether€the€state€should€be€allowed€to€go€forward€with€its€proof.€€The€court€of€appealsÏanswered€that€in€the€affirmative.€€€Ìò òÓ  ÓD.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€stateððs€proof€against€the€defendant€established€that€he€had€a€history€ofÏliving€at€places€other€than€the€duplex€in€question.€€The€defendant€and€Wilson€were€notÏmarried.€€His€name€was€not€on€the€lease.€The€utilities€were€in€her€name.€€In€fact,€heÏadmitted€he€knew€he€was€not€supposed€to€be€living€there€because€Wilson€would€notÏqualify€for€subsidized€rent.€€He€was€not€free€to€come€and€go€as€he€wanted€becauseÍshe€refused€him€entrance.€€By€its€verdict,€the€jury€found€the€proof€was€sufficient€toÏestablish€Wilson€was€the€owner€of€the€duplex€and€the€defendant€was€not€the€owner;Ïwhen€he€was€staying€there,€he€was€not€staying€there€ð ðlawfully;ðð€and€the€defendant€didÏnot€have€effective€consent€to€enter.€Ìà àThe€evidence€demonstrated€that€when€the€defendant€entered€he€had€the€intentÏto€commit€a€felony.€€He€shot€through€the€living€room€window€at€his€girlfriend€beforeÏentering€the€home.€€He€continued€to€brandish€the€gun€as€he€ran€through€the€duplexÏlooking€for€Wilson€and€the€male€companion.Ìà àA€rational€jury€could€find€that€he€was€not€a€joint€owner€or€possessor€and€thus€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€him€of€aggravated€burglary€and€felony€murder€in€theÏcommission€of€an€aggravated€burglary.€€€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ï443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìò òÓ  ÓE.ó óÌÌò òÓ  Óà àó óThe€defendant€also€contends€the€burglary€statute€requires€a€lack€of€consentÏfrom€all€joint€possessors.€The€defendant€bases€this€argument€on€the€language€of€theÏstatute€which€says€ð ðwithout€the€effective€consent€of€òòtheóó€property€owner.ðð€€TheÏdefendant€argues€€all€joint€possessors€must€deny€entry€for€a€burglary€conviction€toÏstand.Ìà àThe€defendantððs€argument€is€based€upon€the€assumption€that€he€was€a€jointÏpossessor.€€In€the€context€of€this€case,€he€was€not€a€joint€possessor.Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.€ò òÌà àà àÓ  ÓF.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€argues€Wilson€had€no€lawful€right€to€exclude€him€from€the€jointÏresidence€without€notice€or€court€action.€Wilson€was€the€leaseholder€of€record.€€TheÏdefendantððs€name€was€not€on€the€lease.€€She€had€every€right€to€exclude€him€as€theÏone€lawfully€in€possession.€Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€refusing€his€request€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€offense€of€criminalÏtrespass,€a€Class€C€œmisdemeanor.›€œ€Tenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„405.€€This€CourtÏdisagrees€with€this€contention.€€While€criminal€trespass€is€a€lesser€included€offense€ofÏaggravated€burglary,€òòState€v.€Boyceóó,€920€S.W.2d€224,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),ÏòòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€the€defendant€was€notÏentitled€to€an€instruction€of€this€lesser€included€offense€based€upon€the€evidence.€€AsÏthis€Court€stated€in€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€649€S.W.2d€22,€24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983):€€ð ðThe€proof€clearly€makes€out€the€offense€for€which€the€defendantÏwas€convicted,€and€there€was€òòno€credible€viewóó€of€the€evidence€under€which€theÏdefendant€could€have€been€found€guilty€of€a€lesser€offense.ðð€€(emphasis€added).€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Roy€L.€Sherrodóó,€Shelby€County€No.€02„C„01„9510„CR„00331€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€26,€1996),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó(Tenn.€€1997).€Ìà àUnlike€the€situations€in€€òòVanceóó€and€òòBoyceóó,€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÍintent€€clearly€shows€the€defendant€committed€the€greater€offense€of€aggravatedÏburglary.€€€As€charged,€the€defendant€would€be€guilty€of€the€aggravated€burglary€orÏnothing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Edward€Frenchóó,€Blount€County€No.€03„C„01„9503„CR„00096€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€28,€1996),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).ÏTherefore,€there€is€no€error€in€failing€to€charge€the€lesser€offense€of€criminal€trespass.× ƒ' ××  ×€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€854€S.W.2d€904,€906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏMoffettóó,€729€S.W.2d€679,€681(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);ÏòòMartin€v.€Stateóó,€497€S.W.2d€583,€586€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1973).Ìà àIn€this€case€the€defendant€asked€to€enter€his€girlfriendððs€duplex.€€Wilson€refusedÏto€admit€him.€€He€armed€himself€with€a€handgun€and€fired€a€bullet€through€the€livingÏroom€window€where€she€was€sitting€on€the€couch.€The€bullet€just€missed€her€head,Ïpassed€through€a€wall,€and€entered€the€other€side€of€the€duplex.€€When€Wilson€aroseÏand€fled€the€room€with€her€son,€the€victim,€and€a€male€visitor,€€the€defendant€and€aÏfriend€broke€down€the€front€door€and€entered.€The€defendant€followed€his€girlfriendÏthrough€the€duplex€and€found€her€hiding€in€a€closet€with€their€son€and€the€15„year„oldÏvictim.€€The€defendant€pulled€the€closet€doors€away€and€shot€into€the€closet€striking€theÏ15„year„old€in€the€head.€€He€claimed€his€gun€accidentally€discharged€both€times.ÏGiven€these€facts,€the€evidence€only€supports€the€offense€of€aggravated€burglary,€notÏcriminal€trespass.Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  ÓÌIVó ó.ÌÓ  Óà àÌà à€When€the€trial€court€and€counsel€discussed€the€sentencing€charge€to€be€givenÏto€the€jury,€defense€counsel€asked€the€court€to€instruct€the€jury€on€twelve€specific€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„204(e)€andÏ(j)(9).€€They€included:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€George€Langford€is€a€product€of€a€broken€home.Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€George€Langford€was€reared€without€the€assistance€ofÏand€influence€of€a€mother€or€matriarchal€figure.€Ìà8 àà8 à(3)€George€Langfordððs€actions€were€influenced€by€emotions,Ïpassion,€and€love€for€a€woman€who€has€been€with€him€all€ofÏhis€adult€life.Ìà8 àà8 à(4)€That€George€Langford€has€expressed€remorse€and\orÏregret€for€the€death€of€Tamara€Gales.Ìà8 àà8 à(5)€That€George€Langford€has€expressed€sorrow€for€theÏvictim€and€her€family.Ìà8 àà8 à(6)€That€George€Langford€has€a€sense€of€personal€guilt€andÏconcern€about€his€past€inability€to€abide€by€the€law.Ìà8 àà8 à(7)€That€George€Langford€is€treatable€in€a€prison€setting.Ìà8 àà8 à(8)€That€George€Langford€voluntarily€acknowledged€wrongÏdoing€at€an€early€stage€of€the€criminal€process.€à àÌà8 àà8 à(9)€As€jurors€in€this€case,€based€upon€the€evidenceÏpresented€in€this€case,€you€may€take€into€account€bothÏmercy€and€forgiveness€in€reaching€your€decision.Ìà8 àà8 à(10)€That€George€Langford€can€be€treated€and€rehabilitated.Ìà8 àà8 à(11)€That€George€Langford€has€the€support€and€love€ofÏfriends€and€family€in€the€community.Ìà8 àà8 à(12)€That€George€Langford€did€not€go€to€2986€Elbert€withÏthe€intent€to€kill€Tamara€Gales.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€refused€to€include€these€in€the€jury€instructions€on€mitigation.€€Instead,Ïthe€trial€court€told€jurors€they€could€consider€the€statutory€mitigating€factors€found€atÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(1)„(8)€and€could€consider€ð ð[a]ny€other€mitigating€factorÍraised€by€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(9).€€The€court€also€told€jurorsÏð ðno€distinction€shall€be€made€between€mitigating€circumstances€one€through€eight€andÏthose€otherwise€raised€in€the€evidence€which€are€specifically€requested€by€the€state€orÏthe€defense.ðð€Ìà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)€Ïis€mandatory,€not€discretionary.€Consequently,€the€trial€court€committed€error€ofÏprejudicial€dimensions€by€refusing€to€incorporate€his€special€requests€into€the€charge.€Ìò òÓ  ÓÌA.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àUntil€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),€the€appellate€courts€of€thisÏstate€had€consistently€held€that€a€trial€court€was€not€required€to€include€specific€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€in€the€charge€given€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734„35€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1114,€115€S.Ct.Ï909,€130€L.Ed.2d€791€(1995);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€267„68€(Tenn.€1994),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1006,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed.2d€644€(1995);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€1,€15€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€996,€114€S.Ct.€561,€126€L.Ed.2dÏ461€(1993);€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€118€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€478ÏU.S.€1010,€106€S.Ct.€3308„09,€92€L.Ed.2d€721€(1986).€The€òòOdomóó€opinion€wasÏreleased€June€3,€1996,€òòafteróó€the€trial€in€this€case.€Ìà àIn€òòOdomóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€language€found€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„204(e)€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€said:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€legislature€intended€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€juryÍon€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstance€when€raised€by€theÏevidence€and€specifically€requested€by€either€the€state€orÏthe€defendant.ÌÌÌòòÓÓOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€30.€€Since€the€trial€court€in€Odomððs€case€failed€to€follow€theÏstatutory€mandate,€the€supreme€court€deemed€this€reversible€error.€€òòOdomóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€at€30.€€The€court€also€said€the€instructions€were€not€constitutionally€mandated.€ÏòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€30.Ìò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court€must€next€consider€whether€the€enumerated€circumstancesÏpresented€by€the€defendant€are€in€fact€mitigating,€and,€if€so,€were€the€mitigatingÏcircumstances€raised€by€the€evidence.€€Mitigating€circumstances€can€pertain€to€anyÏaspect€of€the€defendantððs€character€or€record,€his€background€or€his€character,Ïcircumstances€of€the€crime€that€the€defendant€offers€as€a€basis€for€a€sentence€less€thanÏdeath,€and€any€evidence€relevant€to€the€defendantððs€culpability.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2dÏ30„31.€Once€the€factors€are€deemed€appropriate€mitigating€circumstances,€the€trialÏcourt€must€determine€if€they€are€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Ìà àFive€of€the€twelve€instructions€requested€by€the€defendant€were€not€supportedÏby€the€evidence.€ò ò€ó óRequested€instruction€number€(6)€that€the€defendant€ð ðhas€a€sense€ofÏpersonal€guilt€and€concern€about€his€past€inability€to€abide€by€the€lawðð€was€notÏsupported€by€either€his€testimony€during€the€guilt€phase€or€the€sentencing€phase.€€€HeÏmaintained€at€trial€that€this€fatal€shooting€was€an€accident.€€In€the€sentencing€phaseÏwhile€testifying€about€a€prior€conviction€for€manslaughter€for€a€shooting€death€in€WestÍHelena,€Arkansas,€he€said€that€was€also€an€accident.€€He€has€not€acknowledged€anyÏguilt€or€recognition€that€€he€is€a€ð ðwrongdoerðð€or€that€he€broke€the€law€because€heÏclaims€these€fatal€shootings€were€accidents.Ìà àAs€for€requested€instructions€numbers€(7)€and€(10),€that€the€defendant€wasÏð ðtreatable€in€a€prison€settingðð€and€that€he€could€be€ð ðtreated€and€rehabilitated,ðð€theÏrecord€is€completely€void€of€any€evidence€to€support€these€mitigating€circumstances.Ìà àLikewise,€evidence€is€lacking€to€support€requested€instruction€number€(8)€thatÏthe€defendant€voluntarily€acknowledged€wrongdoing€at€an€early€stage€of€the€criminalÏprocess.€€Immediately€after€the€shooting€he€stated€ð ðhe€didnððt€give€a€f„„„ðð€that€a€teenagerÏhad€been€killed.€€He€then€fled€and€disposed€of€the€weapon.€€He€went€first€toÏMississippi,€then€to€Covington,€Tennessee,€and€later€to€Milwaukee,€Wisconsin,€whereÏhe€stayed€for€about€a€month.€€He€returned€to€Tipton€County,€where€he€was€picked€upÏby€authorities.€€While€he€did€initially€tell€authorities€he€was€sorry€for€what€happened,€heÏmaintained€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident.€€This€is€not€an€acknowledgment€ofÏwrongdoing.Ìà àRequested€instruction€number€(9)€is€inappropriate€because€it€deals€with€mercyÏon€the€part€of€the€jury€and€does€not€address€the€defendant€or€his€crime.€€The€trialÏcourtððs€refusal€to€give€instructions€(6),€(7),€(8),€(9),€and€(10)€was€not€error.Ì€Ó  Óò ò(3)ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€remaining€requested€instructions€would€be€appropriate€and€wereÏsupported€by€the€evidence,€although€several€of€them€are€duplicative€of€otherÏinstructions.€Requested€instructions€(1)€and€(2)€refer€to€the€same€circumstances€as€doÍinstructions€(4)€and€(5).€€Ìà àInstruction€number€(3)€is€duplicative€of€the€statutory€instruction€(4),€ð ðthe€murderÏwas€committed€under€circumstances€which€the€defendant€reasonably€believed€toÏprovide€a€moral€justification€for€the€defendantððs€conductðð€and€of€instruction€(6),€that€theÏdefendant€acted€under€extreme€duress.€€In€effect,€four€of€the€instructions€from€theÏdefendantððs€submitted€list€would€be€appropriate:€a€combination€of€circumstances€(1Ïand€2)€and€(4€and€5),€and€then€circumstances€(11)€and€(12).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓD.€Ì€ó óà àà àÌÓ  Ó€à àThe€remaining€proffered€instructions€submitted€by€the€defendant€are€factuallyÏspecific.€€When€jurors€are€given€fact„specific€instructions,€an€implication€exists€that€theÏjudge€has€made€findings€of€fact€in€contravention€of€Article€VI,€ðð€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€355„56€(Tenn.€1997);€òòOdomóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€at€32.€€Instructions€must€be€stated€in€general€categories,€such€as€telling€jurorsÏthey€can€consider€the€defendantððs€ð ðhistory€of€childhoodðð€instead€of€listing€the€specificÏdetails€of€a€defendantððs€childhood.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€355.€€If€the€instructions€areÏnot€submitted€to€the€court€in€general€categories,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€reviseÏthe€instruction€and€remove€the€factual€specificity.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€356.€€€OfÏcourse,€a€trial€court€has€no€duty€to€give€non„statutory€instructions€that€are€not€timelyÏrequested.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€356.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€failed€to€revise€the€remaining€mitigating€instructionsÏfrom€factually€specific€to€general€categories€and€give€them€to€the€jury.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓE.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court€now€examines€whether€this€error€was€harmless.€€It€is€emphasizedÏthat€the€supreme€court€said€in€òòOdomóó€and€òòHodgesóó€the€non„statutory€mitigatingÏinstructions€are€not€constitutionally€mandated.€€The€right€to€these€instructions€derivesÏsolely€from€the€applicable€statute.€€Thus,€the€question€before€this€Court€is€whether€theÏtrial€courtððs€failure€to€adhere€to€the€statute€constitutes€error€which€affirmatively€appearsÏto€have€affected€the€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Would€the€jury€have€reached€theÏsame€conclusion€as€to€sentence€(life€without€the€possibility€of€parole)€had€it€beenÏspecifically€instructed€on€the€defendantððs€requested€mitigating€circumstances?€€If,€inÏthe€context€of€the€entire€record,€the€violation€does€not€affect€the€judgment€or€result€inÏprejudice€to€the€judicial€process,€the€violation€may€be€classified€as€harmless.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€violation€was€harmless.€Ìò òÓ  ÓÌ(1)Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€took€the€stand€in€both€the€guilt€phase€and€sentencing€phase.€€ÏThe€defendant,€through€his€own€testimony€and€that€of€his€witnesses,€told€the€jury€theÏsubstance€of€his€requested€instructions.€For€example,€he€said€he€was€sorry€for€whatÏhappened€and€asked€forgiveness€from€the€victimððs€family.€€He€said€he€was€driven€byÏjealousy€because€his€girlfriend€had€a€male€visitor€in€the€house.€€He€talked€about€hisÏupbringing€in€poverty,€living€with€his€father€and€his€siblings,€and€how€he€wantedÍsomething€better€for€his€children.€€He€told€jurors€if€his€life€was€spared,€his€childrenÏcould€visit€him€in€prison.€Ìà àHis€girlfriend€also€took€the€stand€in€both€phases€of€the€trial.€€She€asked€forÏleniency€in€the€sentencing€phase;€she€told€jurors€he€was€a€good€person€and€a€goodÏand€loving€father.× ƒ( ××  ×€Jurors€also€heard€from€the€defendantððs€mother,€sister,€and€aunt€whoÏtestified€about€the€defendantððs€family€and€upbringing;€all€of€the€women€asked€forÏleniency.€€Jurors€heard€testimony€regarding€factors€(1)„(5),€(11),€and€(12).ÌÌò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAlthough€the€court€denied€the€specific€non„statutory€mitigating€instructions,€theÏcourt€told€defense€counsel€they€could€discuss€specific€mitigating€circumstances€duringÏargument€for€the€sentencing€phase€and€ask€the€jury€to€apply€any€circumstancesÏsupported€by€the€evidence.€€The€transcript€of€the€sentencing€arguments€was€notÏincluded€in€the€record€presented€to€this€Court.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€toÏconsider€ð ð[a]ny€other€mitigating€factor€raised€by€the€evidence.ðð€€€€Ìò òÓ  Ó(3)Ìó ó€ÌÓ  Óà àIn€addition,€since€the€release€of€the€òòOdomóóopinion,€the€Tennessee€GeneralÏAssembly€has€passed€a€law€amending€a€section€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€which€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAfter€closing€arguments€in€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trialÏjudge€shall€include€in€the€instructions€for€the€jury€to€weighÏand€consider€any€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€set€forth€in€subsection€(i)€which€may€beÏraised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencingÏhearing,€or€both.€€The€trial€judge€shall€also€include€in€theÏinstructions€for€the€jury€to€weigh€and€consider€any€mitigatingÏcircumstances€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guilt€orÏsentencing€hearing€or€both€which€shall€include,€but€notÏlimited€to,€those€circumstances€set€forth€in€subsection€(j).€ÏThese€instructions€and€the€manner€of€arriving€€at€a€sentenceÏshall€be€given€in€the€oral€charge€and€in€writing€to€the€jury€forÏits€deliberations.€òòHowever,€a€reviewing€court€shall€not€setÏaside€a€sentence€of€death€or€of€imprisonment€for€life€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€specifically€instruct€the€jury€as€to€a€requested€mitigatingÏfactor€that€is€not€enumerated€in€subsection€(j).ÌÌÌÓÓóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)€(italicized€portion€added€by€amendment).€€TheÏlegislature€also€deleted€a€sentence€which€read:€ð ðNo€distinction€shall€be€made€betweenÏmitigating€circumstances€as€set€forth€in€subsection€(j)€and€those€otherwise€raised€byÏthe€evidence€which€are€specifically€requested€by€either€the€state€or€the€defense€to€beÏinstructed€€to€the€jury.ðð€€This€law€took€effect€in€April€of€1997.ÌÌò òÓ  Ó(4)Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€jury€heard€the€testimony€in€support€of€mitigation.€Jurors€were€told€this€Ïinformation€could€be€used€in€reaching€a€sentencing€verdict.€€The€jury€declined€toÏimpose€the€death€penalty€and€opted€to€sentence€the€defendant€to€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole.€The€error€was€harmless.€òò€Seeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Leroy€Hallóó,€HamiltonÏCounty€No.€03„C„01„9303„CR„00065€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€December€30,Í1996)€(The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€a€defendantððs€specific€non„statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances€because€ð ðthe€record€does€not€disclose€any€measure€ofÏprejudice€to€the€defendant€from€deviating€from€the€òòOdomóó€procedures.ðð).Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  Ó(5)Ìó óÌò òÓ  Óà àó óThe€trial€court€also€instructed€the€jury€to€consider€statutory€mitigating€factorsÏ(j)(1)€through€(8).€€While€neither€party€has€raised€this€as€an€issue,€this€Court€notesÏthree€of€those€factors€were€not€raised€by€the€evidence€(òòi.eóó.,€(3),€(5),€and€(7)).× ƒ) ××  ×€€It€is€errorÏfor€the€trial€court€to€charge€any€statutory€mitigating€circumstance€not€raised€by€theÏevidence.€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€188€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€478€U.S.Ï1010,€106€S.Ct.€3308„09,€92€L.Ed.2d€721€(1986);€òòState€v.€Leon€Barnett€Collieróó,ÏHamilton€County€No.€03„C„01„9602„CR„00072€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€JanuaryÏ13,€1997),€òòapplicationóó€òòtoóó€òòappóó.€òòpendingóó.€€This€error€benefited€the€defendant€and€doesÏnot€merit€reversal€absent€a€showing€of€prejudice.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€15Ï(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó,€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€996,€114€S.Ct.€561,€126€L.Ed.2d€461€(1993).€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓV.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€defendant€next€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€defendantððsÏsentences€for€burglary,€assault,€and€reckless€endangerment,€which€are€to€be€servedÏconcurrently,€to€run€consecutively€to€the€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole.€€€He€argues€he€is€not€a€ð ðdangerous€offenderðð€and€further€argues€the€court€failedÏto€follow€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938„39€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìò òÓ  ÓÌA.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€"the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÏ305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court's€determination€of€theseÏfacts€is€predicated€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor€and€appearance€when€testifying.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burdenÏof€establishing€that€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€atÏ311.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€the€sentences€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.Ìò òÓ  ÓB.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€four€(4)€years€for€aggravatedÏburglary,€five€(5)€years€for€aggravated€assault,€and€two€(2)€years€for€recklessÏendangerment€to€run€concurrently€for€an€effective€sentence€of€five€(5)€years.€€ThisÏsentence€was€ordered€to€run€consecutively€to€the€sentence€of€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole€for€an€effective€sentence€of€life€plus€five€(5)€years.Ìà àThe€defendant€contends€first,€he€is€not€a€ð ðdangerous€offenderðð€and€second,€theÏtrial€court€failed€to€correctly€apply€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó€in€determining€whether€toÏsentence€the€defendant€to€consecutive€sentences.€€This€Court€does€not€have€toÏaddress€those€issues€because€consecutive€sentencing€is€warranted€on€other€grounds.€Ìà àHere,€the€defendant€was€on€probation€when€he€committed€the€offenses€inÏquestion.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(6).€The€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏmanslaughter€on€September€16,€1991,€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Phillips€County,ÏArkansas.€€He€was€placed€on€five€years€probation.€The€offenses€in€question€occurredÏApril€10,€1995.Ìà àThis€Court€does€note€that€given€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€forÏmanslaughter€and€a€weapons€offense,€and€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€citizens€ofÏTennessee€need€to€be€protected€from€the€defendantððs€future€criminal€conduct.€€TheÏdefendant€had€several€criminal€offenses€as€a€juvenile,€including€two€sales€of€cocaineÏand€auto€theft.€€He€was€23€years€old€when€he€committed€the€offenses€in€this€case.€€InÏaddition,€the€defendant€admitted€to€using€alcohol€and€the€illegal€use€of€marijuanaÏregularly€from€the€age€of€15€until€his€arrest.Ìà àThe€nature€of€the€crimes€in€this€case€clearly€establishes€the€defendant€has€littleÏor€no€regard€for€human€life.€While€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€find€the€defendantÏwas€a€ð ðdangerous€offender,ðð€the€record€certainly€supports€it.€€Furthermore,€theÏextended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€the€defendantððs€furtherÏcriminal€conduct,€and€the€sentences€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted.€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938„39€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.à àÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìà à€€€JOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌ