WPCC !^^>A^ EVAOsU>N M[DuRL$s&^52J?cg4L .R Z:x_:v=d|Tg[jh4;~6z5ͣ٫ ?Voa (=FGy%۞I_㚙yMu U,GC~zHzGnDno8v W2WȔ]cV Ӕ?-LCkRf0~l8nE% W .>"#hB1Ri܁}ĩ,0_J#dG$0e{RtRcg@f`䛤V;@QtaP%/TjĕB!!+ w&`} br=b&KW$$pZྡ2ž4X4Rݒi-jٜA|33q/G Nsp % ^ & 02U#Nw 4  z/  { m} # UN]  q7 0DN E 0U 0 0 0 0V 0 0 0o 0 0 0| 0M 0 0 0T 0 0 0% 0 0t! 0B" 0" 0#b@$ 0H$ 0$ 0~% 0& 0& 0L' 0 ( 0>( 0) 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0- 0h. 0"/ 02/ 0&0 0:"1 0Y\1 0_1 0 2 03 04 B*6 D/6 0c6 0b7 D/h9 09 06e: 0: 0:; 0^; 0<;< 0w< 1eb= AM= 0N> Bb>U6> 0> D5Y? D-? 0K?U>@ ASD@@ 0]A 0DB AEBU*BBBBBBBBBBBB 1uC 72Cs/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulary.:i+003|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 U\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R-$      1    _Thefortyfouryearsentenceconsistedofafortyyearsentencefortheattemptedfirstdegreemurderconviction  andafouryearsentenceforthefelonyfirearmconviction.Inaddition,thesentenceswereorderedtobeserved q consecutivelytoafederalsentenceforfirearmconvictions. TERRANCETiptonCurwood WittBraytonNicholsWeirichVerlesWagermanFarettaNorthingtonZerbstMoltke CrimLariceCuretonDominyBinkley uncontrovertedByrgea]ctscarr[ying*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  - -(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?b%2A`Arial?  S\\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dG)1dxd(;3$2#  0  .3  0  <:zTop of For7K(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?b%2A`Arial?  S\\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  G)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2-$ !.8qdXXd8         0   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.X[ZA<< c(O$ d<6X9`(Courier New(|3$ !.8qdXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  \  `&Times New Roman^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8qdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ni) !.8qdd8     _   q8oXXdd8@hh9.qINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#q9. #Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsJune3,2003 F XoXq #qXXo#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.TERRANCEG.MOTLEYXoXq  ? @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  9 @@Nos.0001715,16JosephB.Dailey,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200202079CCAR3CDFiledNovember14,_2003_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^      XXXXoTheAppellant,TerranceG.Motley,wasconvictedbyaShelbyCountyjuryofcriminalattemptto ? commitfirstdegreemurderandbeingafeloninpossessionofafirearm.Hewassentencedtoan (x effectivesentenceoffortyfouryearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Attrial,Motleywaivedhis a righttoberepresentedbycounselandproceededprose.Onappeal,Motleyraisesthreeissuesfor J ourreview:(1)whetherthetrialcourtdeniedhimhisconstitutionalrighttotheassistanceofcounsel 3 byfailingtoascertainifhiswaiverwasknowinglyandintelligentlygiven;(2)whetherthetrialcourt  erredinfailingtoinstructthejuryonthelesserincludedoffenseofcriminalattempttocommit  voluntarymanslaughter;and(3)whethertheevidencewassufficienttosupportthejurysverdict#XoXX X# XXXXo#  X X# XX  .  Afterareviewoftherecord,weconcludethatissues(1)and(3)arewithoutmerit.Withregardto  issue(2),weconcludethatfailuretogiveaninstructiononthelesserincludedoffenseofattempted p voluntarymanslaughterwaserror,butharmless.Accordingly,thejudgmentsofconvictionare Y affirmed.#XoXX X##qXXo #XoXq B  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed.  M   #qXo #XoX.qDavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJamesCurwoodWitt,Jr.,J., ! ! joined;JosephM.Tipton#qXXo #XoXq,J.,concurring. " " RobertWilsonJones,ShelbyCountyPublicDefender;TonyN.Brayton,AssistantPublicDefender, $$ Memphis,Tennessee,onappeal,fortheAppellant,TerranceG.Motley. t% % PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;ThomasE. F'"' Williams,III,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and /(#( JenniferNicholsandAmyWeirich,AssistantDistrictAttorneysGeneral,fortheAppellee,Stateof )h$) Tennessee.  *Q%* _#qXXo #XoXq @@OO& OPINION #qXXoe#XoXq   FactualBackground   #qXXo#  XoXq  OnApril2,1998,twentynineyearoldVerlesMorriswasridinghisbicycletoagrocery V storeinhisMemphisneighborhood,whentheAppellant,speedingdownthestreetinaburgundy ?  Chevroletsedan,nearlyhithim.UpsetbytheAppellantsaction,Morrisproceededupthestreet ( x towheretheAppellanthadstoppedhisvehicle.TheAppellantwassittinginthecarwithafemale  a identifiedonlyasTara.MorrisapproachedthecarandknockedontheAppellantswindow.The  J Appellant,afternoticingthatsomeofMorrisfriendshadquicklygathered,triedtohandMorrishis  3  jewelry.MorrisexplainedthathehadnointentionofrobbingtheAppellant,thatheonlywanted    himtoslowdownbecausetherewerechildrenplayinginthestreet.Afterthisbriefdiscussion,the   twomenshookhands.Withtheirdifferencesseeminglyresolved,Morrisrodeawayonhisbike.     Secondslater,theAppellant,nowaloneinthecar,backedontothestreetandaccelerated p  towardsMorris.TheAppellantslowedashenearedMorris,yelledaslurtogethisattention,aimed Y  hishandgunatMorris,and unloaded.Morris,shotfirstinthehip,wasknockedfromthebikeand B felltotheground.Usingthebikeasashield,heattemptedtoavoidfurtherinjury.However,before +{ theAppellantspedaway,Morriswasshotthreemoretimes,resultingingunshotwoundstothe d ankle,stomach,andchest.ThecaseremainedunsolvedforoverayearuntilMorriscoincidentally M sawtheAppellantagainattheShelbyCountyCourthouseinNovemberof1999.Morrisascertained 6 theAppellantsnamefromthedocketsheetandcontactedthepolice.Morriswassubsequentlyable  toidentifytheAppellantfromaphotolineup.TonyFowlerwitnessedtheshootingandidentified  theAppellantastheshooter.Inaddition,policelearnedthattheAppellantsmotherowneda  burgundyChevroletatthetimeoftheshooting,whichtheAppellantoftendrove.    AfteridentifyingtheAppellant,MorriswasapproachedonthestreetbytheAppellants \ brotherVernon.VernonMotleyrequestedthatMorrisaccompanyhimtotheofficeofHoward E Wagerman,theAppellantsretainedattorney.WhileMorriswentintotheoffice,Vernonand .~ anothermanremainedinthewaitingareainordertotakeMorrishome.Morrisgaveanotarized g statementthattheAppellantwasnotthepersonwhohadshothim.Morristestifiedattrialthatthis  P statementwasalieandthathehadonlygiventhestatementbecauseofhisfearofVernonMotley.  9   OnFebruary22,2000,aShelbyCountygrandjuryreturnedanindictmentagainstthe " ! Appellantcharginghimwithattemptedfirstdegreemurderandpossessionofahandgunbya #" convictedfelon.TheAppellantsretainedprivatecounselfiledamotiontowithdrawascounselon $# July23,2001,baseduponthepossibilitythathecouldbecalledasawitnesstotestifyregardinghis v% $ involvementwiththeAppellantsbrother.ThetrialcourtofferedtheAppellanttheappointment _&!% ofapublicdefender.TheAppellantrefused,statingthathewantedhisretainedcounseltocontinue H'"& inhisrepresentationratherthantestifyasawitness.Thetrialcourtdeniedthisrequestandinformed 1(#' theAppellantthathecouldacceptrepresentationbythepublicdefendersoffice,retainnewcounsel, )j$( orproceedprose.Afterahearingonthisissue,theAppellantexecutedawrittenwaiverofhisright *S%) tocounsel,whichwasacceptedbythetrialcourt. *<&* Ѐ +%'+   AjuryfoundtheAppellantguiltyaschargedonbothcountsonMarch27,2002.Thetrial  courtsubsequentlysentencedtheAppellantasaRangeIIoffendertoaneffectivesentenceofforty  fouryearsintheDepartmentofCorrection. #  1      ׀TheAppellantfiledamotionfornewtrial,whichthe  trialcourtoverruledonJuly26,2002.AnorderwassubsequentlyenteredappointingtheShelby k CountyPublicDefendersOfficetorepresenttheAppellantonappeal. T 0   @&(#(# Analysis & v I.RighttotheAssistanceofCounsel  J   Ashisfirstissue,theAppellantarguesthathewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrighttothe    assistanceofcounsel.Specifically,hecontendsthatthetrialcourtfailedtoadequatelyascertain   whetherthewaiverofhisrighttocounselwasmadeknowinglyandintelligently.      Therighttotheassistanceofcounselinthepreparationandpresentationofadefensetoa s  criminalchargeisgroundedinboththeTennesseeandUnitedStatesConstitutions.SeeU.S. \  CXXoONST#XoX&#.amend.VI;TXXoENN.#XoX!'#CXXoONST#XoXi'#.art.I,9.Therealsoexistsanalternativeright,therighttoself E representation,whichisnecessarilyimpliedbythestructureoftheSixthAmendment.Farettav. .~ California,422U.S.806,814,95S.Ct.2525,2530(1975);Statev.Northington,667S.W.2d57, g 60(Tenn.1984).However,theexerciseoftherighttoselfrepresentationdependsinlargepartupon P aknowingandintelligentwaiveroftherighttocounsel.Northington,667S.W.2dat60. 9 Consequently,incaseswheretheaccusedstatesadesiretorepresenthimselforherselfattrial,the " trialcourthasadutytofirstdeterminewhetherthewaiverisknowingandintelligent.InJohnson   v.Zerbst,304U.S.458,465,58S.Ct.1019,1023(1938),theUnitedStateSupremeCourtplaced   theseriousandweightyresponsibility...ofdeterminingwhetherthereisanintelligentand  competentwaiverdirectlyuponthetrialjudge.Morespecificguidelinesweresubsequently v establishedinVonMoltkev.Gillies,332U.S.708,72324,68S.Ct.316,323(1948),whereinthe _ SupremeCourtheldthat: H 8  [A]judgemustinvestigateaslongandasthoroughlyasthecircumstancesofthecase j beforehimdemand.Thefactthatanaccusedmaytellhimthatheisinformedofhis  S righttocounselanddesirestowaivethisrightdoesnotautomaticallyendthejudges  < responsibility.Tobevalidsuchwaivermustbemadewithanapprehensionofthe !%  natureofthecharges,thestatutoryoffensesincludedwithinthem,therangeof "! allowablepunishmentsthereunder,possibledefensestothechargesand #" circumstancesinmitigationthereof,andallotherfactsessentialtoabroad $# understandingofthewholematter.Ajudgecanmakecertainthatanaccuseds y% $ professedwaiverofcounselisunderstandinglyandwiselymadeonlyfroma b&!% penetratingandcomprehensiveexaminationofallthecircumstancesunderwhich K'"& suchapleaistendered. 4(#'   Ї Similarly,Rule44(a)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureprovides:  8  Everyindigentdefendantshallbeentitledtohavecounselassignedinallmatters  necessarytothedefenseandateverystageoftheproceedings,unlessthedefendant k executesawrittenwaiver.Beforeacceptingsuchwaiverthecourtshallfirstadvise T theaccusedinopencourtoftherighttotheaidofcounselateverystageofthe =  proceedings.Thecourtshall,atthesametime,determinewhethertherehasbeena & v competentandintelligentwaiverofsuchrightbyinquiringintothebackground,  _ experienceandconductoftheaccusedandsuchothermattersasthecourtmaydeem  H appropriate.  1     Clearly,thetrialcourtisobligatedtoconductafairlyintensiveinvestigationintotheaccuseds   abilitytorepresenthimselfwhentheissueisraised.   TheAppellantarguesthatthetrialcourtfailed   toconductadiligentandpenetratinginquiryasrequiredbyVonMoltke.Specifically,hearguesthat   thecourtfailedtoconductanyinquiryintofiveofthesixfactorslisted:(1)whethertheAppellant o  hadanapprehensionofthenatureofthechargesagainsthim;(2)whethertheAppellantunderstood X  statutoryoffensesincludedwithinthechargedoffenses;(3)whethertheAppellantunderstoodthe A rangeofpunishmentofthechargedoffenseoranylesserincludedoffenses;(4)whetherthe *z Appellantunderstoodorwasawareofanycircumstanceswhichmightbeofferedinmitigationto c thechargedoffenseoranylesserincludedoffenses;and(5)whethertheAppellantunderstoodthe L possibledefensestothechargedoffensesoranylesserincludedoffenses. 5   Therecordbefore usdemonstratesthatthetrialcourtconductedathoroughexaminationof  theAppellantbeforeallowinghimtoproceedprose.Thefollowingcolloquyoccurredatthe  hearing:  8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxHowfardidyougoinschool?[xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxIgotmyGED.-}xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxOkay.Haveyouevenbeentocollege O orlawschool? 8xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxNo,YourHonor." !xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxHaveyoueversatthroughanactual $# trialasopposedtoaguiltyplea?u% $xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxNo,YourHonor.G'"&xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxDoyouknowhowtoselectajuryor )i$( examineawitnessorwhattherulesof *R%) procedureandrulesofevidencemight *;&* beinthestateofTennessee?+$'+xx Ї8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor.xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxYoudo.Okay.Anddoyoufeel  confidentthatyoucanrepresent k yourselfinacriminaltrialwherethe T stakesaresohigh?ThisisanA =  felonyyouretalkingaboutherewith & v potentialgreatexposureofprison  _ time....Doyoufeelconfidentthat  H youcanrepresentyourselfinanA  1  felonyinwhichyourexposureisso    great? xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor. xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxDoyouunderstandthatyouobviously W  havearighttoanattorneyyouhired @ Mr.Wagerman,andIveappointed )y Ms.Kenttorepresentyou.Isityour b desiretogiveupyourrighttoan K attorneyandproceedrepresenting 4 yourself?xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor.xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxDoyouunderstandthatyouwouldbe q heldtothesamestandardasan Z attorneywouldbe?Cxx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor.exx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxIfyougetinabindanddontknow  7 howtoobjectorhowtopresentproof !   ordosomethingthatisbeyondwhat " ! therulesallow,youllbeheldtothe #" samestandardsasanattorney;you $# wontbegivenanyspecial t% $ preferentialtreatmentbecauseyoure ]&!% representingyourself.You F'"& understandthat?8@xx /(#' 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor.*Q%)xx   *:&* 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxAndyourestillpreparedanddesirous   ofgoingforwardandrepresenting  yourselfinthismatter?xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor.Txx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxAnddoyouknowdoyouunderstand & v thatinmyopinion,youremakinga  _ mistakedoingthis?Inmyopinion,  H youwouldbemuchbetteroffwithan  1  attorneyrepresentingyou?  xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYes,YourHonor.... xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxYoubetterreviewtherulesof n  evidenceW xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYourHonor,Imreadyformytrial )y today,asscheduled,likeitwas b scheduledyesterday.Imreadyto K stayonmytrialtoday.4xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhx...Ifyouregoingtorepresent  yourself,youregoingtohavetime.  Whetheryouusethetimeornot,Im  goingtogiveyousufficienttimeto q reviewtherulesofevidence,rulesof Z procedure,whattheproofisinthe C case,andreviewhowtoselectthe ,| jury,thingsofthatsort,sothatwhen e youdogototrial,representing N yourselfonanAfelony,youhavehad  7 someopportunitytoprepareyourself. !   ..." !xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYourHonor,Immorefamiliarwith $# mycasethananyone,...t% $xx 8  8`   THECOURT:0h` x` x0hxhxWell,youmaywellbefromafactual F'"& standpoint,butfromalegal /(#' preparationstandpoint,yourenota )h$( lawyer,youveneverbeentolaw *Q%) school,youveneverbeentocollege, *:&* andyouveneversatthroughatrial +#'+ fromstarttofinish,andImnotgoing  toallowthecasetogototrialwith  yourepresentingyourself,today,this  beingthefirstdaythatIveallowed k youtorepresentyourselfwithout T havingtimetoadequatelyprepare =  yourselfandequipyourselfwiththe & v knowledgetorepresentyourselfina  _ seriouscase.... Hxx 8  8`   0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx0hxhxFromafactualstandpoint,youmaybe  1  right.Youmaybeasfamiliarwith      thisasanyoneelse.Butfromalegal   preparationstandpoint,Idontbelieve   youareready,andImnotgoingto   allowyoutogoforwardwiththetrial n  today....W xx 8  8`   THEDEFENDANT:0h` x` x0hxhxYourHonor,Idonthaveany )y witnesses.ThatswhyIreallyam b ready.Mywholedefenseisbasedon K thattheprosecutorhaswitnessesand 4 alltheirstatementsareconflicting.I  wouldbasemywholedefenseon  whetherornotthejurydecideswho  theywanttobelieve.Irepeatedlylet  Mr.Wagermanknowthiswasmy q groundsofdefense;thatwasgoingto Z letthejurydecidewhichsidethey C wantedtobelieve.,|xx 8  8`   0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx0hxhxFurthermore,IfeelIamreadyto e representmyself.Ihavebeen N incarcerated goingontwentyone  7 months,andIhavestudiedthelaw.I !#  havenotjuststudiedthefactsofmy " ! case.Ihavenotjuststudiedthe #" discoveryevidence.Ijustgotmy $# indictmentsyesterdaywhereIvenot w% $ studied.Thefactualissuesofmy `&!% case,Ivebeenstudying.Tennessee I'"& RulesofEvidence,TennesseeRules 2(#' ofCriminalProcedures,asfaras )k$( goingthroughatrial,Imfamiliar *T%) withatrialandtherulesofatrialand *=&* therulesofevidence. +&'+xx Ї  Althoughnotaskingtheexactlitanyofquestionssuggested,thisfailuredoesnotnecessarily  precludeaconstitutionallyvalidwaiver.LutherE.Fowlerv.State,No.03C019711CR00509  (Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,July30,1999).Thequestionsidentifiedwerenotspecifically  utilizedbythetrialcourtinmakingadeterminationontheissueofwaiverofcounsel,buttherewas, k inourview,substantialcompliance.ThecourtexaminedtheAppellantsbackgroundandeducation, T andconsideredthefactthathehadbeenstudyingtherulesofevidenceandcriminalprocedurefor =  manymonths.ThetrialcourtmadenumerousreferencestothefactthattheAppellantwascharged & v withanAfelonyandfacedgreatexposuretoprisontime.ThecourtadvisedtheAppellantthathe  _ wouldnotbegivenspecialtreatmentduringthetrial,makingitclearthathewouldbesubjecttothe  H samestandardsasanattorney.TheAppellantwasclearandunequivocalastothefactthathe  1  wantedtoproceedproseandthathewascapableofrepresentinghimself.Indeed,heinformedthe    trialcourtthathehadalreadydeterminedthebestdefenseavailableinthecase.Regardless,thetrial   courtmadeclearthat,initsview,theAppellantwasunwisetocontinuewithselfrepresentation.   WeconcludethatthetrialadequatelyascertainedthattheAppellantswaiverofhisrighttocounsel   wasmadeknowinglyandintelligently.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  n  II.AttemptedVoluntaryManslaughterasaLesserincludedOffense  A   Next,theAppellantallegesthatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerrorbyfailingto d instructthejuryonthelesserincludedoffenseofattemptedvoluntarymanslaughter.TheAppellant M arguesthatthetrialcourtisrequiredtoinstructthejuryonalllesserincludedoffenses,whetheror 6 nottheAppellantrequestssuchinstructions,iftheevidenceislegallysufficienttosupporta  convictionforthelesseroffense.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,464(Tenn.1999).Thetrialcourt  instructedthejuryonlyonthechargedoffenseofattemptedfirstdegreemurderandthelesser  includedoffenseofattemptedseconddegreemurder.    First,wenotethatthetrialinthiscasebeganonMarch25,2002.TennesseeCodeAnnotated \ Section4018110(c)(2003),asamended,providesthat theActshallgovernalltrialsconducted E onorafterJanuary1,2002.Theprovisionsofthisstatutewerenotaddressedattrialoronappeal. .~ TheGeneralAssemblyin2001amendedthissectiontoprovidethataninstructionastoalesser g includedoffenseiswaivedunlessadefendantrequestsinwriting,priortothetrialcourtscharge  P tothejury,thatsuchaninstructionbeprovidedtothejury.Tenn.CodeAnn.4018110(c).  9 BecausetheAppellantdidnotrequestaninstructiononthelesserincludedoffenseofvoluntary !"  manslaughter,theAppellanthasnotpresentedagrounduponwhichreliefmaybegranted.Id.;see " ! alsoBrianLariceCureton,No.M200200835CCAR3CD(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Oct. #" 8,2003). $#   EvenifthelegislaturehadnotamendedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4018110(c), v% $ thetrialcourt'sfailuretochargethelesserincludedoffenseofvoluntarymanslaughterwouldnot _&!% bereversibleerrorastheAppellantargues.Thelawissettledthatattemptedvoluntarymanslaughter H'"& isalesserincludedoffenseofattemptedfirstdegreemurderunderpart(b)oftheBurnstest.State 1(#' v.Dominy,6S.W.3d472,477(Tenn.1999);Statev.WilliamBinkley,No.M200100404CCAR3 )j$( CD(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Apr.5,2002);Statev.JakeChristopherReynolds,No.M2000 *S%) 00210CCAR3CD(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,May23,2001).However,becausevoluntary *<&* manslaughterisnotaBurnspart(a)lesseroffense,itdoesnotfallwithinthegeneralrulethatan +%'+ instructionmustbegiven.Statev.WalterWilson,No.W200101463CCAR3CD(Tenn.Crim.  App.atJackson,Sept.4,2002),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.2003).    TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasadoptedatwostepprocessfordeterminingifthe k evidencejustifiesajuryinstructiononalesserincludedoffense.Thetrialcourtmustfirstdetermine T whetherthereisevidencethat reasonablemindscouldaccepttoestablishthelesserincluded =  offense.Burns,6S.W.3dat649.Inmakingthisdetermination,thecourtmustviewtheevidence & v liberallyinalightmostfavorabletotheexistenceofthelesserincludedoffensewithoutjudgingits  _ credibility.Id.;seealsoStatev.Ely,48S.W.3d710,722(Tenn.2001).Next,thecourtmust  H determineiftheevidence,viewedinthislight,is legallysufficienttosupportaconvictionforthe  1  lesserincludedoffense.Burns,6S.W.3dat469. Theguidingprincipleisthatifthereisevidence    intherecordfromwhichthejurycouldconcludethatalesserincludedoffensewascommitted,there   mustbeaninstructionforthelesseroffense.Statev.BenMills,W199901175CCAR3CD(Tenn.   Crim.App.atJackson,May3,2002).Itistheevidence,notthetheoriesoftheparties,that   determineswhetheraninstructiononalesserincludedoffenseshouldbegiven.Statev.Allen,69 n  S.W.3d181,188(Tenn.2002).Furthermore,thedecisiontoconvictonalesserincludedoffense W  shouldnotbetakenfromthejurysimplybecausetheelementdistinguishingthegreateroffensefrom @ thelesseroffenseis uncontroverted.Id.at189.Iftheevidencejustifiesaninstruction,thefailure )y tochargetheoffenseiserroreventhoughtheevidencewasalsosufficienttosupportthegreater b offense.Burns,6S.W.3dat471. K   UnderTennesseelaw, voluntarymanslaughteristheintentionalorknowingkillingof  anotherinastateofpassionproducedbyadequateprovocationsufficienttoleadareasonableperson  toactinanirrationalmanner.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913211(a)(1997).TheAppellantarguesthat  thevictimstestimonyoftheeventspriortotheshootingsupportafindingoftherequired stateof  passion.ThevictimtestifiedattrialthatheangrilyapproachedtheAppellantandconfrontedhim q abouthisrecklessdrivingthroughtheneighborhood.Althoughthevictimtestifiedthathispurpose Z inapproachingtheAppellantwastodiscusshisconcernsaboutthesafetyofchildreninthestreet, C theAppellantbegantalking crazyasthevictimapproachedthevehicle.Specifically,the ,| Appellantstated, Whatyoudoingknockingonmycarwindowman,whatstheproblem,whats e upwithyou,whatyoutryingtodo.ThevictimfurthertestifiedthattheAppellantappearedto N thinkthatthevictimandhisfriendsweretryingtorobhimbecauseheattemptedtohandthevictim  7 hisjewelry.Althoughthetwomenshookhandsandthevictimassumedtheirdifferenceswere !   resolved,theAppellantbackedhiscarontothestreetandacceleratedtowardsthevictim.Wefind " ! thattheevidence,viewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheexistenceofthelesserincludedoffense #" ofattemptedvoluntarymanslaughter,raisedanissuethattheAppellantwasactingunderastateof $# passionproducedbyadequateprovocationsufficienttoleadareasonablepersontoactinan t% $ irrationalmanner.Accordingly,baseduponthesefacts,theinstructionshouldhavebeengiven. ]&!% Ѐ  Nevertheless,whilethetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructthejuryonvoluntarymanslaughter /(#' waserror,weconcludethatthiserrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtbecauseofthejurys )h$( rejectionofthelesserincludedoffenseofattemptedseconddegreemurder.Thereisgeneral *Q%) agreementthattheconstitutionalerrorinfailingtoinstructmaybedeclaredharmlesswhenthejury, *:&* byfindingadefendantguiltyofthehighestoffensetotheexclusionoftheimmediatelylesser +#'+ offense,necessarilyrejectedallotherlesserincludedoffenses.Statev.Allen,69S.W.3d181,190  91(Tenn.2002);Statev.Williams,977S.W.2d101,106(Tenn.1998),modifiedbyStatev.Ely,48  S.W.3d710(Tenn.2001).Thus,thisissueiswithoutmerit.   III.SufficiencyoftheEvidence T    TheAppellantalsochallengesthejurysverdictfindinghimguiltyofattemptedfirstdegree ( x murderandbeingafeloninpossessionofafirearm.Whenanappellantchallengesthesufficiency  a oftheevidence,thiscourtmustdetermine whether,afterviewingtheevidenceinthelightmost  J favorabletothe[State],anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofacrime  3  beyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979).    TheStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferences   thatmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).     Thecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightoftheirtestimony,andthereconciliationofconflicts p  intheevidence,aremattersentrustedexclusivelytothetrieroffact.Statev.Gentry,881S.W.2d Y  1,3(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)(citingByrgev.State,575S.W.2d292,295(Tenn.Crim.App.1978)). B AjuryverdictfortheStateaccreditsthetestimonyoftheStateswitnessesandresolvesallconflicts +{ infavoroftheState.Statev.Williams,657S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983).Moreover,aguilty d verdictremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceenjoyedbydefendantsattrialandreplacesitwitha M presumptionofguilt.Statev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Thus,anappellant 6 challengingthesufficiencyoftheevidencecarriestheburdenofillustratingtothiscourtwhythe  evidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdict.Statev.Freeman,943S.W.2d25,29(Tenn.Crim.  App.1996).    Onappeal,theAppellantspecificallyarguesthat,thoughsomeevidencesupportshis s convictions,itisinsufficientunderJacksonv.Virginiatojustifyarationaltrieroffacttofindhim \ guiltyoftheoffensesbeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginiaaddressestwoimportant E aspectsofasufficiencyreview:(1)themannerofreviewoftheconvictingevidenceand(2)the .~ standardofreviewforlegalsufficiency.Thescopeofourexaminationoftheevidenceisnot g equivalenttothatofthejury.Inachallengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtdoesnot  P retrytheAppellant.Weemphasizethatourexaminationinasufficiencyreviewisnottorevisit  9 inconsistent,contradicting,implausible,ornoncredibleproof,astheseissuesareresolvedsolely !"  bythejury.Rather,welooktotherecordtodetermine,inthelightmostfavorabletotheState, " ! whethertherewassubstantiveprobativeevidencetosupporttheverdict.Thesecondinquiry,the #" questionoflegalsufficiency,thenfollows:whethertherecordcontainsevidencefromwhichthejury $# couldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Everyreasonable v% $ hypothesisofinnocenceneednotbedispelled;itisonlynecessarythatthereexistsproofwhich _&!% supportstheelementsofthecrime. H'"&   TheAppellantwasconvictedofattemptedfirstdegreemurder.Applicabletothiscase, )j$( criminalattemptiscommittedwhenaperson, *S%)   *<&* 8  actingwiththekindofculpabilityotherwiserequiredfortheoffense:...(2)[a]cts   withintenttocausearesultthatisanelementoftheoffense,andbelievesthe  conductwillcausetheresultwithoutfurtherconductonthepersonspart[.]...     Tenn.CodeAnn.3912101(a)(1997).Firstdegreemurderisdefinedas [a]premeditatedand T intentionalkillingofanother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(1)(Supp.2002). =    TheAppellantarguesthattheonlyevidencesupportinghisconvictionsareidentifications,  _ madeoveroneyearaftertheshooting,bythevictimandhis closefriend,andthatnophysical  H evidencetiedtheAppellanttothecrime.Hearguesthisisinsufficientunderthestandard.We  1  disagree.ThevictimandTonyFowlerbothmadepositiveidentificationsoftheAppellant.Proof    establishedthattheAppellantsmotherownedaburgundyChevroletsedan,whichtheAppellant   oftendrove.SeveralwitnessesidentifiedthecardrivenbytheAppellantasbeingatthesceneof   thecrime.TheprooffurtherestablishedthatTara,thefemalewhomthevictimidentifiedasthe   personinthecardrivenbytheAppellant,wastheAppellantsgirlfriend. n    TheAppellantwasalsoconvictedunderTennesseeCodeAnnotated39171307(1997) @ ofbeingafeloninpossessionofafirearm.Theoffenseisdefinedas carr[ying]withtheintentto )y goarmedafirearm,...[andhaving]beenconvictedofafelonyinvolvingtheuseorattempteduse b offorce,violenceoradeadlyweapon.Tenn.CodeAnn.39171307(a)(1),(b)(1)(A).The K evidencebeforethejurywassufficienttoestablishthisoffense.TheStateintroducedaprior 4 judgmentofconvictionestablishingthat,in1994,theAppellantwasconvictedofaggravatedassault.  HavingacceptedthetestimonythattheAppellantwasarmedwithafirearmandthatheshotthe  victimfourtimes,itwasclearthattheAppellantwasinpossessionofafirearm.Takeninthelight  mostfavorabletotheState,theevidencewasmorethansufficientforarationaltrieroffacttohave  foundtheAppellantguilty,beyondareasonabledoubt,ofthecrimesforwhichhewasconvicted. q @GG% CONCLUSION C    Basedupontheforegoing,weconcludethattheAppellantdidknowinglyandintelligently g waivehisrighttocounselandtheevidenceislegallysufficienttosupporthisconvictionsfor  P attemptedfirstdegreemurderandbeingafeloninpossessionofafirearm.Althoughweconclude  9 thatthefailuretochargethejuryuponthelesserincludedoffenseofattemptedvoluntary !"  manslaughterwaserror,sucherrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Accordingly,the " ! judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. #"    `     h     ___________________________________ *S%)    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE