ÿWPCõ ú“§DÛygÕõâ=ÔüáÊ9×É»/-zŸìJ6ÎÝêdžê}:f-™üQ5• 5þHzc›Òd±$IP¸.Ç£VeŸÙmÖ+«’·sÎjÿù=«F¯0 !ôÜPOÊÚxßQhh‰ÆiƒGðPIƒ¹M‚µZlFJmÅ^¿;ÿ4–éQšÒÑš ŠE•Oèêz¬¼)4ï_.BçÖÄxû¯Ü»×tÙ¬^R>&Ùª”ÔY%œS_Ç ÃäÈ Gh¹m½Z—ÿ¼gW•!‹>äC<ý4>ŠL¡‡€¥NÏ.&³ÔdÉÉÂëbf@ 9÷Þ™šéœêô´°9„U0§CWŒQ,q`Vкú™[ 2ƒ¤9ÑáÇfVíªoH-É ½rÞÕrä>Ô{]äû è\£ßã9«í$§Ü3¨Û*¡d9ÿû`‹|Jˆz߯½•?öm9kï&a™Ä!kÀß {{Ws×&ª릛@îða˜çŸÌP»¾°hI¢_w*h[ÙÎw4HÛ£3E‘æ)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿw@4G[ 0Æj 0D0 AQt ÅFÏ oU :„ B¾)ÛU:>>>>>>> BFÆc 0D) 0Dm 0D±± D/õõž$ D3˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- WeXeYPZV[D\]D^_Ó€kn~<$3|xk(v(2@ $¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XØÅXXXÔÔ€ôgšôXXØÅÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ Ý ƒ 8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XèíXXXÔÔ€ôWÂôXXèíÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€trial€court€made€an€express€finding€that€there€was€clear€andÐ `  Ðconvincing€evidence€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€prior€crimes€or€made€an€express€determination€thatÏthe€danger€of€prejudice€did€not€outweigh€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€as€required€by€òòState€v.Ð Ü | ÐPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985).€€However,€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€ruled€that€it€would€allowÐ š : Ðevidence€of€the€crimes€themselves,€but€not€evidence€of€the€convictions€for€those€crimes,€indicates€that€theÏcourt€had€made€these€required€determinations.€€When,€as€in€this€case,€a€trial€court€substantially€compliesÏwith€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€rule,€its€determination€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€òòState€v.€Duboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997). <Ý ƒ 8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XèíXXXÔÔ€ôWÂôXXèíÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€his€good€employment€history€as€aÐ `  Ðmitigating€factor.€€While€the€trial€court€could€have€considered€this€fact€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ40„35„113(13),€the€trial€court€was€not€required€to€do€so€and,€even€if€it€had,€this€fact,€when€balancedÏagainst€the€violent€nature€of€this€offense,€would€have€been€entitled€to€little€weight. eÝ ƒ 8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XèíXXXÔÔ€ôWÂôXXèíÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€based€the€enhancement€of€the€sentencesÐ `  Ðon€its€decision€not€to€impose€consecutive€sentences.€€However,€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€enhance€Appellantððs€sentences€on€this€basis.€€Rather,€the€trial€court€merely€stated€that,€for€someÏreason€that€is€not€clear,€it€believed€that€it€could€not€apply€enhancement€factors€(3)€and€(9)€to€consecutiveÏsentences.€ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularüÿP Pd Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XdXXXÔÔ€;!XXdÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XdX;!ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€30,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôô› ôXXdÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'÷ÿ dxd ”Ý ƒ 8$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XèíXXXÔÔ€ôWÂôXXèíÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÏof€another.ðð).'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñXñ›ñXññXññSñ›ñSññXñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š2¢ŠXXÔÔ€ŠpŠŠŠ2¢ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†cXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óœò òñkññkññkññ_ñœñ_ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð Úrßñkññ_ññ_ññkññkñIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐñkññkñÌñkñœßt€ (>.*jx!` `€€@Ea ` ttx$M` ð Õtß›ñkñJACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9508„CC„00216Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àMADISON€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JOHN€FRANKLIN€MURCHISONó óÐ Xø  Ðò òEDWARD€LEE€MOONEY,€SR.,)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Attempted€First€à (# àÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àœñYñà h àñYñ›à À à)à  àDegree€Murder€and€Possession€of€aÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDeadly€ñXññTñœñTññXñWeapon€with€Intent€to€à (# àÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àñXññWñ›ñWññXñà À à)à  àEmploy€it€in€the€Commission€of€anÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àOffense)ñWññTñ›ñTññWñÐ Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8"Ø ÐÌPATRICK€MARTINà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ($È ÐD.€TYLER€KELLYà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  %À Ð213€E.€Lafayette€St.ÌJackson,€TN€€38301à h àà À àà  àCHARLOTTE€H.€RAPPUHNÐ '° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€WOODALLÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDON€ALLENÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€2825Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJackson,€TN€€38301ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x9019 ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„„ŠŠpÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠpŠ„„o#ÔÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àOn€September€28,€1994,€a€Madison€County€jury€convicted€Appellant,ÏEdward€Lee€Mooney,€Sr.,€of€two€counts€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€and€oneÏcount€of€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon€with€intent€to€employ€it€in€theÏcommission€of€an€offense.€€On€November€8,€1994,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏAppellant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€concurrent€sentences€of€twenty„five,Ïtwenty„two,€and€two€years.€€Appellant€challenges€both€his€convictions€and€hisÏsentences,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions€forÏattempted€first€degree€murder;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€the€jury€on€the€elementsÏof€aggravated€assault,€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,€and€attemptedÏcriminally€negligent€homicide;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€when€it€admittedÏevidence€about€Appellantððs€prior€criminal€record€and€other€criminalÏbehavior;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€mistrial€when€theÏprosecutor€commented€on€defense€counselððs€closing€argument;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€Appellantððs€sentences€are€excessive.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ?ÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ Ä)d ! ÐÌà ` àOn€November€20,€1993,€at€approximately€11:30€p.m.,€Melvin€Eckford€wentÏto€a€club€in€Jackson,€Tennessee€for€a€night€of€socializing.€€Soon€after€he€arrived,Ïhe€met€his€friend,€Darrel€Womack.€€At€one€point€when€Eckford€was€alone,ÏAppellant€approached€him€and€said,€ð ðTell€Darrel€Iððve€got€something€for€him€andÏIððve€got€something€for€you.ðð€€Appellant€then€went€outside,€and€Eckford€followedÏhim.€€Eckford€then€saw€Appellant€reach€under€the€driverððs€seat€of€his€car€and€pullÏout€a€gun.€€When€Eckford€turned€around€and€saw€Womack€coming€out€of€theÐ T9ô/1 Ðclub,€Eckford€yelled€ð ðRun.€€Heððs€behind€us.€€Heððs€got€a€pistol.ðð€€Eckford€andÏWomack€then€ran€in€opposite€directions.€ò ò€ó óAfter€Eckford€and€Womack€ran€away,Ð P ð ÐAppellant€waited€by€Womackððs€car€for€twenty€to€thirty€minutes.€€When€AppellantÏfinally€left,€Eckford€and€Womack€waited€for€another€ten€to€fifteen€minutes€beforeÏthey€got€into€Womackððs€car€and€drove€away.€ÌÌà ` àAs€Womack€and€Eckford€drove€down€the€street€on€their€way€to€EckfordððsÏhouse,€Appellant€pulled€his€car€out€of€a€parking€lot€and€began€shooting€atÏWomack€and€Eckford.€€Appellant€followed€Womackððs€car,€shot€out€the€backÏwindow,€and€attempted€to€pull€alongside€the€car.€€Appellant€fired€approximatelyÏfour€to€five€shots€at€Womackððs€car,€and€one€of€these€shots€hit€Eckford€in€the€arm.€ÏThere€were€also€bullet€holes€in€the€roof,€the€driverððs€headrest,€and€the€back€doorÏon€the€driverððs€side.€€ÌÌà ` àWhen€Appellant€was€directly€behind€Womackððs€car,€Womack€slammed€onÏthe€brakes€and€Appellant€ran€into€him.€€Appellant€then€turned€his€car€around€andÏleft.€€Womack€and€Eckford€then€went€to€Womackððs€house€and€WomackððsÏgirlfriend,€Jeanetta€Ann€Brooks,€took€them€to€the€hospital.€€Eckford€remained€inÏthe€hospital€for€four€days€for€surgery€and€treatment€of€two€nerves€in€his€left€armÏthat€were€paralyzed€as€a€result€of€the€gunshot€injury.€€€ÌÌà ` àEckford€testified€that€on€the€night€he€was€admitted€to€the€hospital,€he€toldÏthe€police,€ð ðI€knew€who€shot€me,€and€Iððll€take€care€of€it€myself.ðð€€Eckford€explainedÏthat€he€made€this€statement€when€he€ð ðwas€all€out€of€it.ðð€€Eckford€subsequentlyÏtold€the€police€that€Appellant€was€the€one€who€shot€him.€ÌÐ à9€02 Ðà ` àEckford€testified€that€he€had€never€had€any€problems€with€Appellant.€ÏWomack,€however,€testified€that€he€had€been€in€several€confrontations€withÏAppellant.€€The€first€incident€occurred€two€to€three€years€before€the€NovemberÏ1993€shooting,€when€Appellant€pulled€a€knife€on€Womack€while€they€were€bothÏat€Brooksðð€home.€€Later,€Appellant€went€to€Womackððs€residence,€pulled€a€gun,Ïfired€several€shots€at€Womack,€and€threatened€to€kill€him.€€A€few€months€beforeÏthe€November€1993€shooting,€Appellant€went€to€Womackððs€residence,€pulled€aÏgun€on€him,€and€threatened€to€kill€him.€ÌÌà@LL®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OR€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions€for€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€Appellant€claims€thatÏthere€was€no€evidence€that€he€intended€to€kill€Womack€and€Eckford,€and€even€ifÏthere€was€evidence€that€he€intended€to€kill€them,€there€was€no€evidence€that€hisÏintent€to€kill€was€deliberate€or€premeditated.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð  2À(* ÐS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€aÏpresumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replacesÏit€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,Ð ð7.0 Ðon€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€to€demonstrate€theÐ à9€02 Ðinsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€toÐ `  Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð @ à Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏcontested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75;€òòJackson€v.Ð    ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€InÐ ð  Ðconducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€fromÏreweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð À` ÐApp.€1990).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€thoseÏdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€779.€€Finally,€RuleÐ   @ Ð13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides,€ð ðfindings€of€guiltÏin€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.Ð `(  ÐÌà ` àUnder€Tennessee€law,Ìà0 ` àA€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€of€culpabilityÏotherwise€required€for€the€offense:Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(1)€Intentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€result€that€wouldÏconstitute€an€offense€if€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conductÏwere€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be;Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€theÏoffense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result€withoutÏfurther€conduct€on€the€personððs€part;€€orÐ ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(3)€Acts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€a€resultÏthat€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€conduct€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðconduct€constitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ ÐÌÓü+ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)€(1997).€€At€the€time€of€the€events€in€questionÏhere,€Tennesseeððs€first€degree€murder€statute€provided€that€ð ð[f]irst€degree€murderÏis:€[a]n€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„202€(1993).׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€element€of€premeditation€requires€a€previouslyÐ ¸  Ðformed€design€or€intent€to€kill.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)Ð ¨  Ð(citation€omitted).€€Deliberation€requires€that€the€offense€be€committed€with€coolÏpurpose,€free€of€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€In€addition,Ð èˆ Ðthe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€questions€for€the€jury€whichÏmay€be€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.Ð Èh ÐBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Facts€showing€theÐ ¸X Ðdefendantððs€planning€activity,€motive,€and€nature€of€the€killing€can€all€provideÏevidence€from€which€premeditation€and€deliberation€can€be€inferred.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ˜!8 Ðv.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€4ð!ð5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð ˆ#( ÐÌà ` àIt€is€clear€that,€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€convict€Appellant€of€two€counts€ofÏattempted€first€degree€murder.€€First,€any€reasonable€juror€could€conclude€thatÏAppellant€intended€to€kill€Eckford€and€Womack€when€he€fired€four€or€fiveÏgunshots€into€their€moving€vehicle.€€Second,€the€jury€could€have€inferred€from€theÏevidence€that€Appellant€had€ð ða€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.ðð€€Indeed,ÏAppellant€had€assaulted€Womack€with€a€weapon€on€three€prior€occasions€andÏhad€threatened€to€kill€Womack€on€two€of€those€occasions.€€In€regard€to€Eckford,Ð ø4˜+- Ðthe€evidence€showed€that€Appellant€tried€to€entice€both€men€into€the€parking€lotÏwhere€he€would€be€waiting€with€his€loaded€gun€by€telling€Eckford€that€ð ðIððve€gotÏsomething€for€him€and€Iððve€got€something€for€you.ðð€€The€jury€could€haveÏconcluded€that€Appellantððs€premeditation€was€shown€by€his€attempt€to€entice€theÏtwo€men€into€the€parking€lot,€his€waiting€for€them€by€Womackððs€car,€and€hisÏwaiting€for€them€down€the€street€until€they€drove€by.€€Third,€the€jury€could€haveÏinferred€that€Appellant€had€acted€with€deliberation€form€the€evidence€that€heÏquietly€waited€by€Womackððs€vehicle€for€approximately€thirty€minutes€before€heÏfinally€left€to€wait€for€them€down€the€street.€€The€evidence€of€intent,€premeditationÏand€deliberation€is€abundant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@’’#®àò òIII.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óˆÐ °P ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€the€jury€onÏthe€offenses€of€aggravated€assault,€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,€andÏattempted€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€In€general,€a€defendant€has€a€ð ðright€toÏa€jury€instruction€on€all€lesser€included€offenses€where€ððany€facts€.€.€.€areÏsusceptible€of€inferring€guilt€of€any€lesser€included€offense.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919Ð `*!" ÐS.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.Ð P,ð"$ ÐCrim.€App.€1981)).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€clearly€did€not€err€when€it€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏaggravated€assault€because€under€Tennessee€law,€€aggravated€assault€is€not€aÏlesser€grade€or€class€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€at€311ð!ð12.Ð 6 ,. Ðâ âÐ ð7.0 Ðà ` àFurther,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏâ âattempted€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Under€Tennessee€law,€ð ð[v]oluntaryÏmanslaughter€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passionÏproduced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€actÏin€an€irrational€manner.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a)€(1997).€€There€isÏabsolutely€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Appellant€was€provoked€or€that€he€wasÏenraged€at€any€time€during€the€events€in€question€here.€€ð ð[W]here€the€recordÏclearly€shows€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€is€devoidÏof€any€evidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense,€it€is€not€errorÏto€fail€to€charge€on€a€lesser€offense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.Ð Ðp Ð1990)€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà ` àFinally,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏattempted€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€This€Court€has€previously€held€that€theÏcrime€of€attempted€criminally€negligent€homicide€does€not€exist€under€TennesseeÏlaw€because€one€cannot€intend€to€perform€an€unintentional€act.€€òòState€v.€DaleÐ p& ÐNolanóó,€No.€01C01-9511-CC-00387,€1997€WL€351142,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð `(  ÐNashville,€June€26,€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Kimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.Ð P*ð " Ð1996)).€€Thus,€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@RR%®àò òIV.€€PRIOR€BAD€ACTSó óˆÐ  0À&( ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€violated€Rule€404(b)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€when€it€admitted€evidence€of€his€misdemeanorÏâ ârecord€and€prior€criminal€behavior.€€Rule€404(b)€states€thatÐ ð7.0 Ðà0 ` àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€theÏâ âcharacter€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€TheÏconditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓÓà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury'sÏpresence;Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÏconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€requestÏstate€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÏadmitting€the€evidence;€€andÐ ¸ T$¸ T$ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` T$` T$à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð ¸ T$¸ T$ ÐÌÓøEÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€after€a€hearing€outside€of€the€juryððs€presence,€theÏtrial€court€ruled€that€evidence€of€the€prior€threats€and€assaults€by€AppellantÏagainst€Womack€were€admissible€to€prove€both€intent€and€motive.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WomackÐ ˜!8 Ðthen€testified€that€Appellant€had€pulled€a€knife€on€him€on€one€occasion€and€hadÏpulled€a€gun€on€him€and€threatened€to€kill€him€on€another€occasion.€€When€theÏprosecutor€asked€Womack€when€this€second€incident€had€occurred,€WomackÏstated,€ð ðYou€will€have€to€go€back€and€get€the€police€report.€€I€reported€it.ðð€€ÏWomack€then€testified,€without€objection,€that€Appellant€had€pulled€a€gun€andÏthreatened€to€kill€him€on€a€third€occasion€and€that€he€had€also€reported€thatÏincident€to€the€police.€€Appellant€claims€that€this€evidence€should€have€beenÏexcluded€because€its€prejudicial€effect€outweighed€its€probative€value.€€WeÐ 1¸') Ðdisagree.€€This€evidence€was€clearly€probative€on€the€issues€of€intent€and€motive.€ÏFurther,€Womack€only€testified€that€he€had€reported€two€of€these€incidents€to€theÏpolice,€he€never€testified€that€Appellant€was€either€charged€or€convicted€of€theseÏoffenses.€€Whether€to€admit€evidence€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€court,€and€itsÏdecision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.Ð  À ÐBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).€€Given€the€highly€probative€natureÐ °  Ðof€this€evidence€and€its€limited€potential€for€prejudice,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€finding€that€this€evidence€was€admissible.ÌÌà ` à€Appellant€also€argues€that€he€was€prejudiced€when€Womack€stated€inÏresponse€to€a€question€about€where€he€was€living€during€the€events€in€question:Ïð ðthe€morning€Jeanetta€Brooks€got€shot,€Mr.€Mooney€did€that€too.ðð€€AlthoughÏWomackððs€comment€was€prejudicial€to€Appellant,€the€record€indicates€that€hisÏanswer€was€unresponsive€and€was€in€no€way€elicited€by€the€prosecutor.€ÏMoreover,€the€trial€court€immediately€admonished€Womack€to€confine€himself€toÏhis€trouble€with€Appellant.€€The€court€subsequently€instructed€the€jury€that€theyÏwere€to€disregard€this€comment€because€there€was€no€proof€that€Appellant€hadÏanything€to€do€with€that€incident€or€that€it€had€any€relevance€to€this€case.€€WeÏpresume€that€the€jury€followed€this€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2dÐ @,à"$ Ð643,€649€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@LL$®àò òV.€€CLOSING€ARGUMENTSó óˆÐ 2°(* ÐÌà ` àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€grant€a€mistrialÏwhen€the€prosecutor€commented€on€defense€counselððs€closing€argument.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€during€closing€argument,€defense€counsel€suggested€thatÐ à9€02 ÐWomack€and€Eckford€were€shot€at€during€a€drug€transaction€that€had€somehowÏgone€awry€and€that€they€had€blamed€the€shooting€on€Appellant€in€order€to€coverÏup€their€own€wrongdoing.€€During€the€Stateððs€closing€argument,€the€prosecutorÏstated€that€there€had€been€no€evidence€that€drugs€were€involved€in€this€case€andÏthat€defense€counsel€was€ð ðtrying€to€muddy€the€watersðð€by€interjecting€somethingÏthat€was€not€in€the€proof.€€ÌÌà ` àWe€agree€with€Appellant€that€the€prosecutorððs€comment€was€improper.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€395€(Tenn.€1989)€(stating€that€it€wasÐ à€ Ðimproper€for€prosecutor€to€tell€jury€that€defense€counsel€was€ð ðtrying€to€throw€sandÏin€the€eyes€of€the€juryðð€and€ð ðblowing€smoke€in€the€face€of€the€juryðð).€€ð ðWhereÏargument€is€found€to€be€improper€the€established€test€for€determining€whetherÏthere€is€reversible€error€is€ððwhether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€theÏverdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,Ð "0 Ð737€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,Ð €$  Ð759€(1965)).€ð ðWe€must€consider:€€1)€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€lightÏof€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€€2)€the€curative€measures€undertakenÏby€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€€3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€theÏimproper€statement;€€4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€anyÏother€errors€in€the€record;€€and€5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€ÏòòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€Ð  0À&( ÐÌà ` àThe€application€of€the€above€test€indicates€that€although€the€prosecutorððsÏstatement€was€improper,€it€was€harmless€because€it€did€not€affect€the€verdict€toÏthe€prejudice€of€Appellant.€€First,€the€record€indicates€that€the€conductÏcomplained€of€consisted€of€one€brief,€isolated€statement.€€Second,€the€trial€œcourtñZñÐ  Ð9p02 ÐñZññ]ññZñÐ  `  ÐÐ  `  ÐÐ  `  ÐÐ  `  ÐÐ  `  ÐñZññ]ññ[ñ›€ñ[ñimmediately›€instructed€the€jury€that€this€statement€was€just€ð ðlawyer€talkðð€and€thatÏthe€two€attorneys€were€merely€giving€their€interpretation€of€what€the€proofÏshowed.€€The€trial€court€also€assured€the€jury€that€defense€counsel€had€not€doneÏanything€unethical€during€his€closing€argument.€Third,€there€is€no€indication€thatÏthe€prosecutor€was€acting€it€bad€faith.€€It€appears€that€his€intention€was€merely€toÏrefocus€the€jury€on€deciding€the€case€based€on€the€evidence€actually€presentedÏat€trial.€€Fourth,€we€cannot€say€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€this€error€and€anyÏother€errors€justifies€relief€because€we€have€not€found€any€error€with€respect€toÏAppellantððs€previous€œissuesñ\ñ.ñ\ñ›€€Finally,€the€Stateððs€case€was€relatively€strong.€€BothÏvictims€identified€Appellant€as€the€shooter.€Thus,€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@**'®àò òVI.€€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ °P ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences€for€theÏattempted€murder€convictions.€€ð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€includingÏthe€granting€or€denial€of€probation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€the€appellate€courtÏshall€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shallÏbe€conducted€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€fromÏwhich€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€Ïð ðHowever,€the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððsÏaction€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€weÐ 4°*, Ðmust€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€appellantððsÏstatements,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€appellantððs€potentialÐ à9€02 Ðfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.Ï1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ P ð Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ @ à Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€de€novo€withoutÏa€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà ` àIn€making€its€sentencing€determinations,€the€trial€court€found€that€noÏsignificant€mitigating€factors€were€applicable.€€Although€the€trial€court€found€thatÏAppellantððs€good€behavior€in€jail€was€a€mitigating€factor,€the€court€concluded€thatÏthis€factor€was€not€significant€because€it€was€not€one€of€the€enumerated€factorsÏof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113.€€We€agree€that€this€factor€wasÏentitled€to€very€little€weight€and€that€no€evidence€was€presented€to€support€aÏfinding€that€any€of€the€enumerated€factors€of€were€present.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€applied€to€bothÏconvictions€for€attempted€murder€because€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€toÏestablish€the€appropriate€range.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1997).Ð @,à"$ ÐAppellant€concedes€that€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€this€factor,€and€we€agreeÏthat€it€applied€to€both€counts€of€attempted€murder.Ìâ âÐ 2°(* Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(3)€applied€because€theÏâ âoffense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3)Ð P ð Ð(1997).€€We€conclude€that€the€court€improperly€applied€this€factor€because€eachÏcount€of€attempted€murder€involved€only€one€victim€and€there€were€separateÏconvictions€for€each€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Claboóó,€905€S.W.2d€197,€206€(Tenn.Ð  À ÐCrim.€App.€1995)€(holding€that€factor€(3)€was€an€ð ðimproper€enhancement€factor,Ïsince€there€were€separate€convictions€for€each€victimðð).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(6)€applied€to€the€convictionÏfor€attempted€murder€of€Eckford€because€Eckford€sustained€serious€injuries.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ðp ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6)€(1997).€€The€trial€court€correctly€applied€thisÏfactor.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€that€the€bullet€that€entered€Eckfordððs€left€armÏparalyzed€two€of€his€nerves€and€that€Eckford€had€to€have€surgery€to€repair€theÏdamage.€€Further,€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€this€factor€can€be€appliedÏto€enhance€a€conviction€for€attempted€first€degree€murder€because€particularlyÏgreat€injuries€are€not€essential€to€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Nixóó,Ð p& Ð922€S.W.2d€894,€903€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1996)ñ^ñ.ñ^ñ›ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(9)€applied€to€bothÏconvictions€for€attempted€murder€because€Appellant€employed€a€firearm€in€theÏcommission€of€the€offenses.€€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)€(1997).€Ð  0À&( ÐAppellant€contends€that€this€factor€was€not€applicable€because€he€was€alsoÏconvicted€of€the€firearms€charge.€€However,€this€Court€has€previously€stated€thatÏfactor€(9)€can€be€applied€regardless€of€whether€a€defendant€has€also€beenÏconvicted€of€an€offense€involving€a€weapon.€€òòState€v.€Timothy€N.€Mosieróó,€No.€2,Ð à7€.0 Ð1991€WL€93019,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€June€5,€1991).Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(10)€applied€becauseÏAppellant€had€no€hesitation€in€committing€an€offense€when€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10)€(1997).€€However,€the€trialÐ @ à Ðcourt€clearly€erred€in€applying€this€factor€because€a€high€risk€to€human€life€isÏinherent€in€the€offense€of€attempted€murder.€€òòState€v.€Griffisóó,€964€S.W.2d€577,Ð  À Ð603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€also€applied€one€nonstatutory€enhancement€factorð"ðtheÏplace€where€the€offense€occurred.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€took€judicial€noticeÐ à€ Ðof€the€fact€that€the€street€where€the€shooting€occurred,€Royal€Street,€was€theÏmain€thoroughfare€in€Jackson.€€The€court€stated€that€even€though€no€evidenceÏhad€been€introduced€about€the€matter,€it€was€likely€that€other€people€and€vehiclesÏhad€been€present€on€this€busy€street€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€The€trial€courtððsÏapplication€of€this€nonstatutory€enhancement€factor€was€clearly€erroneous.€ÏRegardless€of€whether€the€court€erred€when€it€took€judicial€notice€of€the€natureÏof€Royal€Street,€it€is€well€settled€that€nonstatutory€factors€cannot€be€used€toÏenhance€a€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Grissomóó,€956€S.W.2d€514,€518€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `(  Ð1997);€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð P*ð " ÐÌà ` àEven€though€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€some€of€theÏenhancement€factors,€a€finding€that€enhancement€factors€were€erroneouslyÏapplied€does€not€equate€to€a€reduction€in€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882Ð 2°(* ÐS.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Two€enhancement€factors€wereÐ 4 *, Ðcorrectly€applied€to€the€conviction€for€the€attempted€murder€of€Womack€and€threeÏfactors€were€correctly€applied€to€the€conviction€for€the€attempted€murder€ofÏEckford.€€Further,€we€agree€that€the€mitigating€factor€in€this€case€is€entitled€to€littleÏweight.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€record€supports€aÏsentence€near€the€upper€end€of€the€range€for€both€counts€of€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€SPECIAL€JUDGE