ÿWPC, F¿.…Cå=2àk¼¡õû&Õk7¯p)_®Z4Ô2Yä=”ÙórÀ‡Ï¡×z–"üû~#µØ7ù¨䥯[s€IPÆ»ÍÀ±¢ü­ÉÍ P[Ͽެ^Â_½Å ½d_âbƒÅ¸yŒG(¿ZÀs,“XOÊ\2ÌQ.ûዪè9ŒXe•ø l›4Ñ$5>S—ߟÌÁº«ÛØï¨¹ž•4Â@–››‡ø0‚«i$A&*ò¹`õ¢¶R†é©|Ñ‡Ž£ŽaĬ]Mçµ¾Å/©‹Ã¥bسÅSî©åÈ´Ô87œ5DYòg«Kßœ…qŠÁéœyŽ v%ÑaîDì4—’îÍ,Å¥\ÿ£·z5,Xþ*M¤¡Ô…øJtª:$ÖŽm¶vù³â$|øƒÏZ[VãŽ/eì×Úõµ '…} S{ lĵCQb>ÿ3Kx}r[úà6«SG1H)'æ@åØZ$”*fÞ2]ì¹Y6ðëVN”FÝ(׆q¡IKúDZ²XRf,ÝŠò»5§Vö^ÙótRçÛŸ‘NTéþëŠS-ÔßY|·•8–øPüÔ´D]‘yUŒØßÞ¯aÊ«ûš £Â‡2pƒ1 ×sw‰ŒZðºÝtUNX %¦ 0ˆ¬^ 4 w@ 4D X zg Òá ³ mµ #ÁÌ UN ÆÛ Æ¡ ÆgÆ-üóNïïïEññññññññññññññññññññññññbóóóóóó 0:û 0Y55555555555555555555555鎎 0Dwv»»»1 0ëìí××× BÄÄ 0¤á D3… D-¸ 0Kåå AS0ƃ 0¤I 0Dí A«1ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 0NÞ(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó{›W-s üPH,`¦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 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 BurnesCoughlanTorrySeaborgTywaunTonyaTylersW]here DreParchman Crim EvidrebuttableBiggersPhilpott OdomTugglereweighBurlisonCazes P]remeditationStricklandAshbyWinfieldRainesImfeld- ù-4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô ßÝ ƒR_Ã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽÜò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellantððs€sentence€was€calculated€as€follows:€Count€I€„€first€degree€murder,€life€imprisonment;€CountÐ ° ÐII€„€felony€murder,€merged€with€Count€I;€Count€III€„€especially€aggravated€robbery,€twenty„five€years€at€100%;€CountÐ tÄ ÐIV€„€attempted€first€degree€murder,€twenty„five€years€at€30%;€Count€V€„€especially€aggravated€robbery,€twenty„five€yearsÐ 8ˆ Ðat€100%.€€Counts€III€and€IV€were€run€consecutive€to€Count€I,€and€Count€V€was€to€run€concurrent€with€Count€III,€resultingÐ üL Ðin€a€total€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€plus€fifty€years.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó lÝ ƒR_Ã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽÜò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEnhancement€factor€(9)€would€not€apply€to€the€Appellantððs€convictions€for€especially€aggravated€robberyÐ ° Ðbecause€employment€of€a€firearm€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403€(1997). ±Ý ƒR_Ã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽÜò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€presentence€report€is€not€included€in€the€record.(|G2_Ã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€:´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽÜò»»Ô ãÝ ƒR_Ã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŽÜò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€testimony€established€that€Mays,€whose€first€name€is€Andre,€is€commonly€referred€to€as€Dre. d(|3s$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€:´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3s$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€:´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€:´»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼:´»»»ÔÑ8€jHXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î=%:´ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼:´»îî=% #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€à @ àà @` àAugust€13,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XjHX»¼:´ÔÌò òÔ#†¼:´»XXjH #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€ANDRE€MAYS€and€CORTEZ€BENNETTòòóóÔ‡XjHX»¼:´Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„D„2341€€€€€€Steve€Dozier,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02151„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€22,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XjHXXXjHÔÌThe€Appellants,€Andre€Mays€and€Cortez€Bennett,€were€convicted€by€a€Davidson€County€Jury€of€firstÐ d´ Ðdegree€murder,€attempted€first€degree€murder,€and€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€Ð P  ÐMays€and€Bennett€were€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€plus€fifty€years.€€On€appeal,€Mays€argues€thatÐ <Œ Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€juror€to€remain€on€the€panel€after€reading€a€prejudicial€newspaperÐ (x Ðarticle€during€the€trial.€€Bennett€€raises€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ d Ðerred€in€not€suppressing€the€photographic€line„up;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€supportÐ P Ðthe€verdicts;€and€(3)€whether€his€sentence€was€proper.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€the€judgmentÐ ì< Ðof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†XjHXX XjHÌ#ÔÔ#†¼:´»XXjHŸ#ÔÔ‡XjHX»¼:´ÔÐ Ø( ÐÓÀÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼:´»àXjH›#ÔÔ‡XjHX.¼:´ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ ˆØ ÐOgleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌMonte€D.€Watkins,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Andre€Mays;€Cynthia€F.€Burnes,Ð L œ ÐNashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Cortez€Bennett.Ô#†¼:´»XXjHj #ÔÔ‡XjHX»¼:´ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Peter€M.Ð #`" ÐCoughlan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Victor€S.€(Torry)€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€andÐ ü#L# ÐJon€Seaborg,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÔ#†¼:´»XXjHû #ÔÔ‡XjHX»¼:´ÔÓ; ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼:´»XXjH§ #ÔÔ‡XjHX»¼:´ÔÐ À&"& ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˜(è#( ÐòòóóÔ#†¼:´»XXjH #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XjHX»¼:´ÔÌà  àOn€June€29,€1999,€the€Appellants,€Andre€Mays€and€Cortez€Bennett,€were€together€with€EricÐ p*À%* ÐBooth€and€Tywaun€Morrow€drinking.€€Earlier€that€day,€they€had€ð ðsnorted€cocaine€and€smokedÐ \+¬&+ Ðmarijuana€laced€with€cocaine.ðð€€During€the€evening,€Mays€discussed€with€the€others€the€robbery€ofÐ H,˜', ÐTonya€and€Wesley€Tyler€Sr.€at€their€residence€in€Nashville.€€Booth€drove€to€the€area€and€parkedÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôseveral€houses€away€from€the€Tylersðð€residence.€€Morrow€and€the€Appellants€exited€the€vehicle€andÐ ° Ðwent€towards€the€house.€€Bennett€was€carrying€a€ð ðtech€nine,ðð€a€large€handgun,€and€Mays€had€a€smallÐ œì Ðcaliber€revolver.€€Morrow€returned€to€the€car€shortly€thereafter.€€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAround€11:00€p.m.,€Wesley€Tyler€Sr.€heard€his€dog€barking.€€He€went€downstairs€to€quiet€theÐ `° Ðdog;€while€downstairs,€Mr.€Tyler€heard€his€wife€call€his€name.€€Mr.€Tyler€then€proceeded€upstairsÐ L œ Ðand,€as€he€came€up€the€steps,€he€ð ðsaw€Bennett€there€with€gun€on€[his€two]€children€there€on€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðfloor.ðð€€Another€child€was€asleep€in€a€bedroom.€€Hearing€Mr.€Tyler€come€up€the€stairs,€Bennett,€whoÐ $ t Ðwas€wearing€a€ski„mask,€pointed€the€gun€at€him.€€Mr.€Tyler€turned€and€ran€back€downstairs€butÐ  ` Ðstopped€when€he€heard€Mays€call€his€name.€€Mr.€Tyler€recognized€Mays€voice,€having€previouslyÐ ü L  Ðmet€him€several€times.€€Mays€pointed€a€gun€at€Mr.€Tyler,€told€him€to€ð ðshut€up,ðð€and€forced€himÐ è 8  Ðupstairs.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àMays€took€money€from€the€Tylersðð€dresser€and€then€asked,€ð ð[W]hereððs€the€safe?ðð€€Mrs.€TylerÐ ¬ü  Ðresponded€that€the€safe€was€downstairs.€€Mr.€Tyler€offered€to€go€get€it,€but€Mays€grabbed€Mrs.€TylerÐ ˜è  Ðand€forced€her€downstairs.€€He€stated€to€Mr.€Tyler€that€he€ð ðwas€going€to€take€care€of€[him]€later.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐBennett€stayed€in€the€living€room€with€the€children€and€Mr.€Tyler.€€After€several€minutes€had€passed,Ð pÀ ÐMays€and€Mrs.€Tyler€returned€upstairs€with€the€safe.€€Then,€Mays€and€Mrs.€Tyler€went€to€herÐ \¬ Ðbedroom€to€retrieve€the€key.€€Upon€their€return€to€the€living€room,€Mr.€Tyler€said,€ð ðyouððve€gotÐ H˜ Ðeverything,€you€know,€that€we€can€give€you.€€I€mean,€man,€just€take€it€and€go.€€Mays€then€toldÐ 4„ ÐBennett€to€ð ðhold€on€[before€leaving€the€residence],€.€.€.€Iððm€going€to€take€care€of€a€little€businessÐ  p Ðfirst.ðð€€Mays€asked€for€Bennettððs€gun,€and€Bennett€refused.€€Mays€ordered€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Tyler€toÐ  \ Ðstand€up€and€go€into€the€bathroom.€€Mr.€Tyler€sat€in€the€tub,€and€Mrs.€Tyler€sat€on€the€toilet.€€MaysÐ øH Ðfollowed€the€couple€into€the€bathroom,€and€Bennett€stood€outside€the€bathroom€doorway.€€Mr.€andÐ ä4 ÐMrs.€Tyler€began€to€pray.€€Mays€proceeded€to€shoot€Mr.€Tyler€three€times€in€the€head.€€Mr.€TylerÐ Ð  Ðð ðlaid€over€as€if€[he]€was€dead,€but€[he]€wasnððt€dead.ðð€€Mays€then€turned€the€gun€on€Mrs.€Tyler€andÐ ¼  Ðshot€her€twice€in€the€head.€€The€Appellants€ran€from€the€residence,€carrying€a€small€grey€safe€andÐ ¨ø Ðguns.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àMr.€Tyler,€hearing€his€children€ð ðrunning€around,ðð€got€out€of€the€tub€and€checked€on€his€wife,Ð l¼ Ðwho€was€not€moving.€€He€then€crawled€into€the€kitchen€and€phoned€911,€but€he€was€unable€to€speakÐ X ¨ Ðbecause€his€vocal€cords€and€jawbone€were€damaged.€€Wesley€Tyler€Jr.,€then€five€years€old,€spokeÐ D!” Ðwith€the€911€officer€and€gave€her€the€pertinent€information.€€Both€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Tyler€wereÐ 0"€  Ðtransported€to€the€hospital€for€treatment.€€Mrs.€Tyler€died€as€a€result€of€her€injuries;€however,€Mr.Ð #l! ÐTyler€survived.€€During€the€ambulance€ride€to€the€hospital,€Mr.€Tyler€wrote€on€a€bag,€ð ðDre€fromÐ $X" Ðnorth€Sixth€shot€me.ðð׃S×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAfter€leaving€the€residence,€the€Appellants€and€Booth€and€Morrow€drove€to€a€nearbyÐ Ì&"% ÐNashville€residence€and€divided€the€money.€€The€Appellants€and€Booth€returned€to€the€car€and,€inÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âa€nearby€alley,€threw€out€the€revolver,€the€safe,€some€gloves,€and€a€dark€shirt.€€Subsequently,€WesleyÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTyler€Sr.€and€Jr.€identified€Mays€from€a€photo€array,€but€only€Wesley€Tyler€Sr.€was€able€to€identifyÐ ° ÐBennett€from€a€photo€array.€€Rings,€belonging€to€Tonya€Tyler,€were€discovered€in€Maysðð€pocket.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAll€four€men€were€arrested€and,€on€October€19,€1999,€were€indicted€for€Count€I,€first€degreeÐ tÄ Ðmurder€of€Tonya€Tyler;€Count€II,€felony€murder€of€Tonya€Tyler;€Count€III,€especially€aggravatedÐ `° Ðrobbery€of€Tonya€Tyler;€Count€IV,€attempted€first€degree€murder€of€Wesley€Tyler€Sr.;€and€Count€V,Ð L œ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€of€Wesley€Tyler€Sr.€€After€a€trial€by€jury,€Bennett€and€Mays€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðfound€guilty€of€all€charges.€€Count€II€was€merged€with€Count€I,€and€the€Appellants€received€a€totalÐ $ t Ðsentence€of€life€imprisonment€plus€fifty€years.€This€appeal€followed.€€€€Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ è 8  ÐÌò òI.€€Removal€of€Juroró óÐ À  ÐÌÓœ#Óà  àThe€Appellant€Mays€argues€that€ð ðthe€Trial€Court€made€a€serious€error€in€allowing€a€juror€toÐ ˜è  Ðremain€on€the€jury€after€she€violated€his€instruction€not€to€read€any€newspaper€articles€about€theÐ „Ô  Ðtrial.ðð€ò òÐ pÀ Ðó óWhen€there€is€extraneous€prejudicial€information€or€any€outside€influence€is€brought€to€bear€on€aÐ \¬ Ðjuror,€the€validity€of€the€verdict€is€questionable.€€òòState€v.€Parchmanóó,€973€S.W.2d€607,€612€(Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1997).€€Rule€606(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€prohibits€a€juror€from€givingÐ 4„ Ðtestimony€on€ð ðany€matter€or€statement€occurring€during€the€course€of€the€jury's€deliberations€or€toÐ  p Ðthe€effect€of€anything€upon€any€juror's€mind€or€emotion€as€influencingðð€his€or€her€vote.€€òòóóTenn.€R.Ð  \ ÐEvid.€606(b);òò€see€also€State€v.€Blackwellóó,€664€S.W.2d€686,€689€(Tenn.€1984).€€However,€the€ruleÐ øH Ðallows€a€juror€to€ð ðtestify€on€the€question€of€whether€any€extraneous€prejudicial€information€wasÐ ä4 Ðimproperly€brought€to€the€jury's€attention€[or]€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperly€broughtÐ Ð  Ðto€bear€upon€any€juror.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b).€€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àÔ4‚bÝ ÔÔ5  ÔÝ‚5ÿÝòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ6S)ÔÝ‚sÍOÿÿÿÿÐaÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý g)ÔIf€it€is€shown€that€one€or€more€jurors€has€been€exposed€to€extraneous€prejudicial€informationÐ ”ä Ðor€improper€influence,€there€arises€a€rebuttable€presumption€of€prejudice,€and€the€burden€then€shiftsÐ €Ð Ðto€the€prosecution€to€explain€the€conduct€or€to€demonstrate€the€harmlessness€of€it.€€òòParchmanóó,€973Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€at€612;€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€866€S.W.2d€194,€196€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€In€order€to€shift€theÐ X ¨ Ðburden€to€the€prosecution€to€demonstrate€the€harmlessness€of€the€communication€with€the€jury,€theÐ D!” Ðthreshold€question€is€whether€the€statement€communicated€to€the€jury€was€prejudicial€to€theÐ 0"€  ÐAppellant.€òòParchman,€óó973€S.W.2dòò€óóat€612.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAt€the€motion€for€new€trial€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€mean,€there€was€a€juror,€that€the€Court€became€aware€of,€had€read€an€articleÐ Ì&"% Ðin€the€ð!ð€dealing€with€the€trial€on€the€last€day€of€trial.€€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Court€brought€that€juror€down,€and€the€juror€was€emphatic€that€there€wasÐ )à$( Ðâ âno€information€that€she€would€consider€from€that€article,€if€there€was€any€informationÐ |*Ì%) Ðor€ð!ð€there€was,€obviously,€information€in€the€article€about€the€trial€ð!ð€but€that€sheÐ ° Ðcould€set€that€aside€and€not€consider€it.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àThe€Court€looked€at€the€article€and€determined€there€was€absolutely€nothingÐ tÄ Ðin€there€that€was€ð!ð€would€be€prejudicial€in€any€way€to€Mr.€Mays,€in€terms€of€forÐ `° Ðinstance,€prior€convictions€or€pending€cases€or€anything€extraneous,€that€was€notÐ L œ Ðtestified€to€at€the€trial.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€mean,€did€the€juror€violate€the€Courtððs€order?€€Sure.€€But,€after€interviewingÐ  ` Ðthe€juror,€with€Counsel€here,€I€donððt€think€it€was€error€to€allow€her€to€continue€withÐ ü L  Ðthe€trial.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌAfter€review€of€the€newspaper€article,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€article€was€not€prejudicialÐ À  Ðto€the€Appellant€because€it€did€not€contain€any€information€that€was€not€testified€to€at€trial.€€The€jurorÐ ¬ü  Ðtestified€€that€the€newspaper€article€would€not€effect€her€impartiality€when€deciding€the€AppellantððsÐ ˜è  Ðguilt.€€The€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€prejudice€resulting€from€the€juror€reading€the€newspaperÐ „Ô  Ðarticle.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error€or€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€ÓÓò òÐ pÀ ÐÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€Suppression€of€Photo€Arrayó óÐ 4„ ÐÌÓ5Óà  àThe€Appellant€Bennett€argues€that€the€trial€court€ð ðerred€in€not€suppressing€the€photographicÐ  \ Ðline„up€of€the€defendant€in€that€it€was€unduly€prejudicial.ðð€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€photoÐ øH Ðidentification€procedure€was€unduly€suggestive€because€the€Appellant€was€the€only€person€in€theÐ ä4 Ðline„up€who€had€a€ð ðlazy€eye,ðð€and€this€characteristic€made€him€stand€out€in€the€photographic€array.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòNeil€v€Biggersóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€established€a€two„part€analysis€to€assessÐ ¨ø Ðthe€validity€of€a€pretrial€identification.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€198„99,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€381„82Ð ”ä Ð(1972).€€First,€the€court€must€determine€whether€the€procedure€used€to€obtain€the€identification€wasÐ €Ð Ðunduly€suggestive.òò€€Id.€óóat€198.òò€€óóA€violation€of€due€process€has€occurred€if€the€identification€procedureÐ l¼ Ðis€so€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.€€òòIdóó.òòóó€Ð X ¨ ÐThis€standard€has€been€adopted€by€our€state's€supreme€court.€€òòBennett€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€511,Ð D!” Ð512-15€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€if€the€identification€was€unduly€suggestive,€the€court€must€determine,Ð 0"€  Ðunder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€whether€the€identification€is€nevertheless€reliable.€€òòNeil€v.Ð #l! ÐBiggersóó,€409€U.S.€at€199.€€A€finding€that€the€pre-trial€identification€was€unreliable€will€also€requireÐ $X" Ðthe€exclusion€of€a€subsequent€in-court€identification€by€the€same€witness.€€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€394,€400€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),òò€perm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€Although€anÐ à%0!$ Ðidentification€process€may€be€suggestive,€it€may€satisfy€due€process€as€reliable€and€admissible€if€theÐ Ì&"% Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances€so€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ð1990).€òòóóFactors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€a€violation€of€due€process€has€occurred€are:Ð  ¤(ô#' Ðà8  à(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;аРР Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  à(2)€the€witness'€degree€of€attention€at€the€time€of€the€crime;Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  à(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€the€criminal;Ð `° Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  à(4)€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€at€the€confrontation;€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  à(5)€the€time€elapsed€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.Ð  ` ÐÌòòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€at€199;€sòòee€also€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€400.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theÐ À  Ðsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€prevailing€party.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ ¬ü  Ð420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€òòóóIn€considering€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€the€fact-finding€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðsuppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,€and€resolvingÐ pÀ Ðconflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòId.;€see€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001).€€Indeed,Ð \¬ Ðthese€findings€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòDaniel,€óó12€S.W.3d€atÐ H˜ Ð423.€€òòóóIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€motion€to€suppress,€finding€that:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThere€was€no€evidence€or€argument€presented€at€the€hearing€that€theÐ  \ Ðprocedure€conducted€by€Detective€Baltimore€was€suggestive€in€any€way.€€TheÐ øH Ðdetective€explained€the€process€used€in€constructing€the€lineup€is€computerized€andÐ ä4 Ðthat€he€had€no€control€over€where€the€pictures€are€placed€on€the€sheet.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðphotographic€arrays€depicted€African€American€individuals€with€very€similar€facialÐ ¼  Ðcharacteristics,€hair€color,€and€hair€length.€€A€photo€line„up€such€as€this€is€undulyÐ ¨ø Ðsuggestive€only€where€the€other€photo€participants€are€ð ðgrossly€dissimilar.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ”ä Ðv.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€participantsÐ €Ð Ðincluded€in€both€of€the€photographic€line„ups€are€clearly€not€ð ðgrossly€dissimilarðð€inÐ l¼ Ðappearance.€€In€fact,€many€of€the€photos€are€strikingly€similar.€€Additionally,€theÐ X ¨ Ðtestimony€of€Detective€Baltimore€and€Mr.€Tyler€Sr.€indicated€that€the€photo€arraysÐ D!” Ðwere€presented€in€a€non„suggestive€manner.€€When€presenting€the€arrays€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictims,€Det.€Baltimore€gave€no€indication€that€either€of€the€defendantððs€picturesÐ #l! Ðwould€be€included.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌAdditionally,€the€trial€court,€applying€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€found€that:€(1)€€Mr.€Tyler€Sr.€had€a€sufficientÐ à%0!$ Ðopportunity,€between€twenty„five€to€thirty„five€minutes,€to€view€the€Appellant€at€the€time€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcrime;€(2)€€because€of€the€nature€of€the€crime,€Mr.€Tyler€Sr.€had€a€high€degree€of€attention€at€the€timeÐ ¸'#& Ðof€the€incident;€and€(3)€€the€level€of€certainty€and€the€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðidentification€favored€admissibility.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€record€clearly€supports€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€photoÐ ° Ðâ âidentification€procedure€was€not€unduly€suggestive.€€The€individuals€in€the€photographs€areÐ œì Ðð ðstrikingly€similar.ðð€€Contrary€to€the€assertions€of€the€Appellant,€his€ð ðlazy€eyeðð€does€not€make€himÐ ˆØ Ðstand€out€in€the€photographic€array.€€Mr.€Tylerððs€identification€was€not€aided€by€the€officer.€Ð tÄ ÐFurthermore,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó.€€Mr.€Tyler€had€€aÐ `° Ðsufficient€opportunity€to€view€the€Appellant€at€the€time€of€the€crime€and€had€a€high€degree€ofÐ L œ Ðattention€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€He€exhibited€a€high€level€of€certainty€at€the€confrontation,Ð 8 ˆ Ðidentifying€the€Appellant€in€ð ðabout€thirty€seconds€to€a€minute,€minute€and€a€half€or€so,ðð€and€theÐ $ t Ðlength€of€time€between€the€crime€and€the€identification€was€relatively€short,€three€days.€€Therefore,Ð  ` Ðwe€conclude€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓ™QÓà  àThe€Appellant€Bennett€argues€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€supportÐ ¬ü  Ðhis€convictions€for€first€degree€murder,€attempted€first€degree€murder,€and€two€counts€of€especiallyÐ ˜è  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€We€recite€the€Appellantððs€sufficiency€argument€in€its€entirety:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€this€case,€there€was€no€physical€evidence€linking€the€defendant€to€the€sceneÐ \¬ Ðof€the€crime.€€All€of€the€items€found€recovered€were€from€the€alley€way€„€a€publicÐ H˜ Ðarea.€€There€is€no€link€between€those€items€and€the€defendant€in€this€case.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àMr.€Tyler€identifies€the€defendant€as€the€person€in€the€house,€but€he€alsoÐ  \ Ðadmitted€that€the€person€in€the€house€had€a€mask€over€his€face.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ Ð  Ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ ¼  Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ¨ø ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ ”ä Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ €Ð Ðcourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€15€S.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€1999);€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ð713,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€Appellant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presentedÐ D!” Ðat€trial€was€so€deficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);òò€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,Ð #l! Ð99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994)òòóó.€€Moreover,€the€StateÐ $X" Ðis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€mayÐ ô$D # Ðbe€drawn€therefrom.òò€€State€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€These€rules€are€applicableÐ à%0!$ Ðto€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðboth€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ð1990).Ð  ¤(ô#' ÐÐ Ðà  àFirst€degree€murder€is€defined€as€"a€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.Ð œì ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1997).€€Attempted€first„degree€murder€also€requires€proof€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðattempted€murder€was€premeditated€and€intentional.€€The€statute€defines€premeditation€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  à"[P]remeditation"€is€an€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.Ð L œ Ð"Premeditation"€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€actÐ 8 ˆ Ðitself.€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accusedÐ $ t Ðfor€any€definite€period€of€time.€The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€theÐ  ` Ðaccused€allegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determineÐ ü L  Ðwhether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€beÐ è 8  Ðcapable€of€premeditation.€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d)€(1997);€Ý‚4ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýsee€also€State€v.€SimsÝ‚4ÿÿÿ.aƒÝóóÝ  Ý,€45€S.W.3d€1,€8€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐIntentional€conduct,€with€regard€to€the€Appellantððs€convictions,€for€murder€and€attempted€murder,Ð ˜è  Ðrefers€to€a€person€who€acts€intentionally€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€person'sÐ „Ô  Ðconscious€objective€or€desire€to€cause€the€death€of€the€alleged€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„Ð pÀ Ð106(a)(18)€(1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Pageóó,€No.€M2001„01853„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ \¬ ÐNashville,€Apr.€16,€2002).€€Especially€aggravated€robbery€is€a€robbery,€defined€as€"the€intentionalÐ H˜ Ðor€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€in€fear,"€accomplishedÐ 4„ Ðwith€a€deadly€weapon€and€where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„Ð  p Ð13„401,€„403€(1997).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€proof,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€established€that,€Mr.€Tyler€positivelyÐ ä4 Ðidentified€the€Appellant€from€a€photo€array€and€again€at€trial.€€The€Appellantððs€co„defendantsÐ Ð  Ðtestified€that€they€stopped€at€the€Tyler€residence€and€Bennett€and€Mays€went€inside€the€home€andÐ ¼  Ðreturned€to€the€vehicle€with€ð ða€safe€and€guns€in€their€hands.ðð€€After€splitting€up€the€money,€theÐ ¨ø Ðrevolver,€the€safe,€a€pair€of€gloves,€and€a€dark€shirt€were€thrown€in€an€alley€near€the€AppellantððsÐ ”ä Ðgirlfriendððs€residence.€€The€determination€of€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€testimony€of€witnessesÐ €Ð Ðand€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€that€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€trier€of€fact,Ð l¼ Ðand€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€Likewise,€the€credibilityÐ X ¨ Ðof€eyewitness€testimony€identifying€the€accused€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€criminal€offense€for€whichÐ D!” Ðhe€stands€trial€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€determination€of€the€jury€upon€consideration€of€allÐ 0"€  Ðcompetent€proof.€€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1993).€€The€credibleÐ #l! Ðtestimony€of€one€identification€witness€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€if€the€witness€viewed€theÐ $X" Ðaccused€under€such€circumstances€as€would€permit€a€positive€identification€to€be€made.€€òòId.€óóat€87„88.€Ð ô$D # ÐDespite€the€numerous€conflicts€within€the€proof€at€trial,€as€the€arbiters€of€the€credibility€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðwitnesses,€the€jury€chose€to€accredit€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witnesses€and€reject€the€claims€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€Appellant.€€The€Appellant€has€had€his€day€in€court.€€This€court€may€not€reevaluate€the€evidenceÐ ¸'#& Ðor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.2d€at€835.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€testimony€of€the€accomplices,€Eric€Booth€and€Tywaun€Morrow,€and€the€corroboratingÐ ° Ðâ âtestimony€of€the€victim,€Mr.€Tyler,€sufficiently€supports€the€Appellantððs€convictions.€€TheirÐ œì Ðtestimony€is€not€so€improbable€or€unsatisfactory€as€to€create€a€reasonable€doubt€of€the€AppellantððsÐ ˆØ Ðguilt.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€Sentencingó óÐ L œ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€Bennett€argues€that€a€life€sentence€plus€fifty€years€as€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðwas€excessive.׃L×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€factors.€€When€an€accusedÐ  ` Ðchallenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conductÐ ü L  Ða€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€courtÐ è 8  Ðare€correct.€€€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  Ð1991).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòAshbyóó,€823Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€at€169.€€When€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€òòóóthis€court€must€consider:€(a)€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€pre„sentence€report;€(c)€theÐ „Ô  Ðprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€andÐ pÀ Ðcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;Ð \¬ Ð(f)€any€statement€that€the€Appellant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potentialÐ H˜ Ðfor€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210€(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ðat€168.€€òòóóFurthermore,€we€emphasize€that€facts€relevant€to€sentencing€must€be€established€by€aÐ  p Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€and€not€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Winfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,Ð  \ Ð283€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997)).€òòóóÐ øH ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposedÐ Ð  Ða€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€andÐ ¼  Ðprinciples€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supportedÐ ¨ø Ðby€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€differentÐ ”ä Ðresult.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€where€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€provisions€of€sentencing,€appellate€review€isÓÓ€òòde€novoóó€withoutÐ l¼ Ða€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòóóIn€the€case€before€us,€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€didÐ X ¨ Ðnot€properly€consider€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€apply€the€presumption.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€determining€the€Appellantððs€sentence,€the€trial€court€considered€six€enhancement€factors:Ð #l! Ð(1)€The€Appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€toÐ $X" Ðthose€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€(2)€The€Appellant€was€the€leader€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðcommission€of€the€offense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors;€(3)€The€offense€involved€moreÐ à%0!$ Ðthan€one€victim;€(6)€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€of€damage€to€propertyÐ Ì&"% Ðsustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great;€(9)€The€Appellant€possessed€orÐ ° Ðemployed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;Ð œì Ðand€(10)€The€Appellant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€wasÐ ˆØ Ðhigh.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-114(1),€(2),€(3),€(6),€(9),€(10)€(1997).€€These€factors€were€used€toÐ tÄ Ðenhance€the€Appellant's€class€A€felony€convictions€within€the€appropriate€range,€fifteen€to€twenty„Ð `° Ðfive€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1)€(1997).€€ò òó ó€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àÓÓThe€Appellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(9)€to€eachÐ $ t Ðconviction.€€We€agree.€€The€Appellant's€criminal€history€includes€ð ðone€prior€felony€that€involved€aÐ  ` Ð(sic)€eighteen„month€sentence.ðð׃Q×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Such€past€criminal€behavior€adequately€supports€application€ofÐ ü L  Ðenhancement€factor€(1)€above€to€all€of€the€Appellantððs€convictions.€€Furthermore,€the€recordÐ è 8  Ðunquestionably€shows€that€the€Appellant€possessed€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€Ð Ô$  ÐAccordingly,€enhancement€factor€(9)€does€apply€to€the€Appellantððs€conviction€for€attempted€firstÐ À  Ðdegree€murder.׃OT×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€contested€enhancement€factor€(2),€the€Appellant€was€the€leader€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðcommission€of€the€offenses,€we€find€that€the€proof€in€the€record€supports€its€application.€Clearly,€itÐ pÀ Ðwas€Bennett€and€Mays€who€exited€the€vehicle,€leaving€behind€Morrow€and€Booth,€and€entered€theÐ \¬ ÐTyler€residence€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€robbery€therein.€€The€Appellant€carried€an€ð ðUzi„typeÐ H˜ Ðweapon,€and€was€holding€that€weapon€on€Mr.€Tyler€and€Mr.€ð!ð€and€the€children€that€were€in€theÐ 4„ Ðhouse.ðð€€This€court€has€held€that€ð ðenhancement€for€being€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseÐ  p Ðdoes€not€require€that€the€Appellant€be€the€sole€leader€but€only€that€he€be€ððaðð€leaderðð€in€theÐ  \ Ðcommission€of€the€offense.€€Ý‚4ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝState€v.€HicksÝ‚4ÿÿÿš‡òòDÝóóÝ  Ý,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citationÐ øH Ðomitted).€€Based€upon€these€facts,€we€find€the€Appellant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€theseÐ ä4 Ðoffenses.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€trial€court's€application€of€enhancement€factor€(2)€to€all€of€theÐ Ð  ÐAppellantððs€convictions€was,€therefore,€proper.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€offenses€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€This€court€has€defined€"victim,"€as€used€inÐ ”ä ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(3),€as€being€limited€in€scope€to€a€person€or€entity€that€isÐ €Ð Ðinjured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€property€destroyed€by€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€òòStateÐ l¼ Ðv.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€ThisÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€has€also€held€that€factor€(3)€may€not€be€applied€to€enhance€a€sentence€when€the€Appellant€isÐ D!” Ðseparately€convicted€of€the€offenses€committed€against€each€victim.€€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€943€S.W.2dÐ 0"€  Ð25,€31€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citations€omitted).€€Additionally,€our€supreme€court€hasÐ $X" Ðheld€that€there€cannot€be€multiple€victims€for€any€one€offense€where€the€indictment€specifies€aÐ ô$D # Ðnamed€victim.€€òòState€v.€Imfeldóó,€70€S.W.3d€698,€706€(Tenn.€2002).€€Because€the€Appellant€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðconvicted€of€offenses€involving€specific€named€victims€in€the€indictments€for€first€degree€murder,Ð Ì&"% Ðattempted€first€degree€murder,€and€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðimproperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(3)€during€sentencing€to€all€convictions.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(6),€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€Mr.€TylerÐ tÄ Ðwere€particularly€great,€to€the€Appellantððs€conviction€for€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€In€anyÐ `° Ðhomicide€case,€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€are€by€definition€"particularly€great"Ð L œ Ðbecause€the€killing€of€a€person€necessarily€includes€the€infliction€of€great€bodily€injury.€€òòSee€StateÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€602€(Tenn.€1994)òò;€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€82;€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Broganóó,€No.Ð  ` ÐE2001„00712„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€25,€2002).€€However,€this€rationaleÐ ü L  Ðdoes€not€apply€to€òòattemptedóó€homicide€cases€because€the€infliction€of€great€bodily€injury€is€notÐ è 8  Ðrequired€to€sustain€a€conviction,€the€Appellant€need€only€attempt€to€inflict€great€bodily€injury.€€Tòòóóhus,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€trial€court€properly€used€this€factor€to€enhance€the€Appellant's€sentence€within€the€appropriateÐ À  Ðrange.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€enhancement€factor€(10),€the€Appellant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crimeÐ „Ô  Ðwhen€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€was€also€used€to€enhance€the€Appellantððs€sentence.€€The€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourt€found€that€this€factor€applied€becauseÐ \¬ ÐÌà8  àyou€had€not€only€one€person€killed€and€one€person€shot€in€the€head,€but€for€thisÐ 4„ Ðenhancing€factor,€you€had€young€children,€according€to€my€recollection,€who€wereÐ  p Ðð!ð€at€least,€at€the€time€the€guns€were€being€discharged,€Mr.€Tyler€sees€them€runningÐ  \ Ðaround€the€house€and,€at€some€time€during€the€testimony,€indicated€that€Mr.€BennettÐ øH Ðwas€holding€the€gun,€both€on€Mr.€Tyler€and€making€sure€no€one€in€the€living€room,Ð ä4 Ðthe€children,€were€causing€any€problems.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòóóEnhancement€factor€(10)€may€be€applied€where€the€Appellant€creates€a€high€risk€to€the€life€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðperson€other€than€the€victim,€because€the€facts€establishing€the€enhancement€factor€would€be€separateÐ ”ä Ðfrom€the€facts€necessary€to€establish€a€high€risk€of€death€to€the€victim.€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603;Ð €Ð ÐòòWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€83òò;€State€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),Ð l¼ Ðòòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€(òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€9€(Tenn.€2001));òòóó€òòLambertóó,€741€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ðat€134.€€òòóóSince€the€evidence€certainly€suggests€that€this€was€the€case,€use€of€factor€(10)€is€proper€forÐ D!” Ðenhancing€all€of€the€Appellant's€sentences.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àWhen€there€are€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€there€is€no€presumptiveÐ $X" Ðsentence€and€the€court€may€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ððÐ ô$D # Ð40-35-210(d)€(1997).€Enhancement€factors€(2),€(6),€and€(10)€are€of€particular€weight€in€this€case€toÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€above€referenced€convictions.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€was€justified€inÐ Ì&"% Ðimposing€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€plus€fifty€years.Ð  ¸'#& ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ œì ÐÌÓdÓà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€allowing€a€juror€to€remainÐ tÄ Ðon€the€panel€after€reading€a€newspaper€article€recounting€trial€testimony€or€in€denying€the€motionÐ `° Ðto€suppress€the€photographic€array.€€The€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€AppellantsððÐ L œ Ðconvictions.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€plus€fifty€years€imposed€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€trial€court€was€not€excessive€as€to€length.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Davidson€CountyÐ $ t ÐCriminal€Court€is€affirmed.Ð  ` ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE