ÿWPC×& I# U> %W 0 í]UBJ4Œ n­¯U:\– 0Lžw@ê 01* 0D[ 0JŸ 0Té 0^= 0h› 0r 0|u 0†ñ 0w 1u 0d| Bà 0@ý D3= AQpÆÁ 0D‡ 0DË D/ B>U 6[U.‘U *¿B)éDC AMU‡¢è)f¾w¥5_Ú9v~:vÓ¸ 0L‹&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiB\J#3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à ÿKeUDDbUÓ€(á(3¬$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€›ÕXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd*+#,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd*#4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òDecember€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€0ôÔÔ€2ÔÑ7À›ÕXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€After€the€briefs€were€filed€in€this€case,€the€defendant€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€ð ðAmended€Petition€toÏthe€Original€Appealðð€seeking€to€present€additional€issues.€€However,€a€defendant€may€not€proceed€òòproóó€òòseóóÏon€appeal€when€he€or€she€is€also€represented€by€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€541€S.W.2d€365,€371€(Tenn.Ï1976);€òòState€v.€Coleóó,€629€S.W.2d€915,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ7ÀËÜXXdÈXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔ€We€note€that€the€provision€defining€felony€murder€was€amended€in€1995€to€delete€theÏreckless€mens€rea€element.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202.€€ð ðNo€culpable€mental€state€is€required€for€convictionÏunder€[the€felony€murder]€subdivision€.€.€.€except€the€intent€to€commit€the€enumerated€offenses€or€acts€.€.€.Ï.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202.€€Ô€0Ô€€€Ì ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€0ôÔÔ€2ÔÑ7ÀËÜXXdÈXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€defendant€was€indicted€for€first€degree€murder€in€separate€counts€allegingÏalternative€theories€of€first€degree€murder:€premeditated€and€deliberate€murder€and€reckless€killingÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€and€(2)€(1991).€€The€juryÏreturned€a€guilty€verdict€for€felony€murder€only.Ì UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔ€Ô€2ÔThe€second€photo€offered€by€the€state€is€not€contained€in€the€record.Ì ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€0ôÔÔ€2ÔÑ7ÀËÜXXdÈXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€presentence€report€does€not€state€what€felony€was€attempted.€€However,€it€reflectsÏthat€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€rape€and€received€a€sentence€of€three€years.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 àÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€11Xd#ÑÑ#€11Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2Ô›Ñ7€ ,™ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ*ÙßR€564A1-j|’ýË` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9508„CC„00245Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àGibson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Dick€Jerman,€Jr.,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌTIMOTHY€ROBERSON,€€€€€à à)à à(First€degree€murder€and€especiallyÌà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€aggravated€robbery)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌMike€Mosier€andà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJ.€Colin€Morrisà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌP.O.€Box€1623à àà àà àà àà àandÌ204€West€Baltimoreà àà àà àMichelle€L.€LehmannÌJackson,€TN€38302„1623à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àClayburn€L.€PeeplesÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à109€E.€First€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TN€38382„1841ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Timothy€Roberson,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€jury€verdictÏof€guilt€in€the€Gibson€County€Circuit€Court€for€first€degree€murder€and€for€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery,€a€Class€A€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€lifeÏimprisonment€without€parole€for€the€first€degree€murder€conviction€and€to€fifteen€yearsÏin€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€for€theÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€On€appeal,€theÏdefendant€contends€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€forÏfelony€murder;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€felony€murder€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2),€isÏunconstitutional;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€into€evidence€over€hisÏobjection€a€photograph€of€the€victim;ÌÌà8 à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€charge€the€juryÏregarding€the€lesser€offenses€of€robbery€and€theft;ÌÌà8 à(5)€the€statutory€aggravator€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€is€unconstitutional€because€it€is€vague€and€cannotÏbe€understood€and€applied€by€jurors;€andÌÌà8 à(6)€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€consecutive€sentences.× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓWe€hold€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€felony€murder€conviction€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€committed€no€reversible€error.€ÌÌà àClyde€Smith,€the€father€of€the€victim,€Robert€Smith,€testified€that€he€sawÏhis€son€at€approximately€9:30€p.m.€on€November€26,€1993.€€He€said€that€on€NovemberÏ28,€his€mother€called€and€told€him€that€she€had€not€seen€the€victim€over€theÏThanksgiving€weekend€and€that€he€always€came€by€on€Saturday.€€Mr.€Smith€statedÏthat€he€and€his€other€son,€Charles€Smith,€went€to€the€victimððs€apartment.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€discovered€the€door€to€the€apartment€open€and€the€lights€out.€€According€to€Mr.ÏSmith,€Charles€entered€the€apartment€and€called€the€victimððs€name,€and€when€theÍvictim€did€not€respond,€they€left€the€apartment,€believing€that€the€victim€had€steppedÏoutside.€€He€said€that€they€returned€at€about€6:30€p.m.€and€discovered€the€victim€dead,Ïlying€on€his€back€in€a€pool€of€blood€in€the€kitchen.€€He€testified€that€the€apartment€hadÏbeen€ransacked.€€Mr.€Smith€stated€that€he€later€found€several€items€missing€from€theÏvictimððs€apartment,€including€a€VCR.€€He€also€said€that€he€told€Sergeant€Morris€that€theÏvictim€generally€carried€a€large€sum€of€cash€with€him.€€According€to€Mr.€Smith,€theÏvictim€had€some€learning€disabilities,€although€he€was€not€classified€as€being€mentallyÏretarded€and€was€able€to€function€in€society.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Jerry€Francisco,€a€pathologist,€testified€that€he€along€with€Dr.€VioletÏHnilica€conducted€an€autopsy€of€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€the€examination€of€theÏvictim€showed€that€the€cause€of€death€was€multiple€injuries€to€the€body.€€He€said€thatÏthe€victim€suffered€blunt„force€injuries€to€the€head,€cuts€to€the€neck€and€a€group€of€stabÏwounds€to€the€chest.€€In€Dr.€Franciscoððs€opinion,€any€of€the€types€of€injuries€could€haveÏcaused€the€victimððs€death.€€He€testified€that€the€injuries€caused€damage€to€the€brain,Ïthe€voice€box,€the€lungs€and€the€heart.€€He€stated€that€there€were€thirteen€stab€woundsÏto€the€chest€that€were€deep,€penetrating€the€victimððs€heart,€lungs€and€ribs.€€He€said€thatÏtwo€of€the€cuts€to€the€victimððs€neck€severed€the€jugular€vein.€€Dr.€Francisco€describedÏthe€victimððs€blunt„force€injuries€to€the€head€as€a€broken€skull€extending€to€the€base€ofÏthe€skull.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Francisco€testified€that€it€was€possible€that€deathÏor€unconsciousness€could€have€occurred€after€the€first€few€injuries€were€inflicted.€€HeÍalso€conceded€that€if€the€victim€was€unconscious€after€the€first€few€injuries€wereÏinflicted,€he€would€not€have€felt€any€pain.€€Dr.€Francisco€admitted€that€there€was€noÏway€for€him€to€determine€how€quickly€the€victim€died,€but€he€said€that€it€would€haveÏtaken€at€least€minutes.€€€€Ìà àÌà àSergeant€Jerry€Morris€of€the€Milan€Police€Department€testified€that€heÏresponded€to€a€call€regarding€the€victim.€€He€said€that€he€discovered€the€victim€lying€onÏhis€back€and€partially€on€his€right€side€in€the€kitchen€surrounded€by€blood€on€the€floor,Ïwall€and€refrigerator.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€was€wearing€a€T„shirt€and€jeans€and€didÏnot€have€shoes€or€socks€on.€€Sergeant€Morris€testified€that€he€found€a€towel€with€bloodÏon€it€hanging€on€a€towel€rack€in€the€bathroom.€€He€also€said€that€the€bedroom€hadÏbeen€ransacked€in€that€clothes€had€been€taken€out€of€drawers€and€thrown€at€the€foot€ofÏthe€bed.€€Sergeant€Morris€stated€that€the€television€in€the€living€room€was€on€but€thatÏthe€cable€had€been€disconnected.€€ÌÌà àSergeant€Morris€testified€that€the€defendant€was€interviewed€by€the€MilanÏPolice€Department€on€three€occasions:€(1)€during€the€initial€investigation,€(2)€onÏNovember€29,€1993,€after€Sergeant€Morris€talked€to€the€defendantððs€girlfriend,€ClaraÏLangley,€and€an€informant,€and€(3)€on€December€5,€1993.€€He€said€that€he€obtained€aÏring€from€Ms.€Langley€and€that€the€informant€told€him€about€seeing€the€defendant€withÏthe€VCR€and€the€movies.€€Sergeant€Morris€said€that€during€the€second€and€thirdÍinterviews€of€the€defendant,€the€defendant€gave€a€statement.€€He€testified€that€theÏdefendant€also€gave€a€statement€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€onÏNovember€30,€1993.€€Sergeant€Morris€stated€that€after€the€defendantððs€secondÏinterview,€he€recovered€the€victimððs€ring,€approximately€nine€movies,€VCR€and€aÏremote€control,€with€the€movies€and€the€VCR€being€found€at€the€defendantððs€home.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€verified€that€the€VCR€belonged€to€the€victim.€€He€testified€that€he€alsoÏrecovered€the€victimððs€wallet€and€diamond€ring.€€Sergeant€Morris€stated€that€theÏdefendant€took€him€to€where€the€defendant€disposed€of€the€wallet€in€a€bushÏapproximately€fifty€feet€from€Salinger€Road.€€He€testified€that€he€recovered€the€victimððsÏpaycheck€from€a€Texaco€Station€in€Milan.€€He€also€identified€the€defendantððs€hikingÏboots€and€stated€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€was€wearing€the€boots€during€theÏtime€of€the€victimððs€death.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€statement€given€to€the€Milan€Police€Department€onÏNovember€29,€1993,€reflects€that€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€was€at€his€brotherððsÏhouse€and€then€went€to€the€house€of€Nikki€Wright€between€the€hours€of€9:00€p.m.€andÏ2:00€a.m€on€November€26,€1993.€€It€also€shows€that€the€defendant€told€SergeantÏMorris€that€he€purchased€a€ring€and€VCR€from€a€guy€who€was€driving€a€1991€or€1992ÏGrand€Prix€about€10:30€or€11:00€p.m.€€It€states€that€the€defendant€told€the€officers€thatÏhe€paid€fifty€dollars€for€the€ring€and€that€he€traded€an€air€pump€for€the€VCR,€althoughÏhe€did€not€know€who€owned€the€items.€€The€statement€reflects€that€the€defendantÍasserted€that€he€got€the€airpump€from€the€mother€of€his€girlfriend€and€that€the€moviesÏbelonged€to€other€people.€€It€also€states€that€the€defendant€denied€harming€the€victimÏand€that€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€not€seen€the€victim.€€In€the€interview,€theÏdefendant€explained€that€his€prints€could€be€in€the€apartment€because€he€visited€theÏvictimððs€home€approximately€three€to€four€months€earlier.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€written€statement€given€to€the€TBI€on€November€30,Ï1993,€reflects€that€the€defendant€admitted€killing€the€victim.€€The€defendant€told€theÏofficers€that€he€was€addicted€to€crack€cocaine€and€that€he€had€borrowed€money€fromÏthe€victim,€with€whom€the€defendant€worked,€on€previous€occasions€to€purchase€drugs.€ÏHe€told€them€that€he€and€the€victim€were€paid€on€the€Wednesday€before€ThanksgivingÏand€that€he€spent€two€hundred€dollars€on€crack€cocaine€which€he€smoked€on€Friday.€ÏThe€defendant€said€that€he€went€to€the€victimððs€apartment€between€11:30€p.m.€andÏmidnight€because€he€was€out€of€money€and€wanted€to€get€some€more€crack€cocaine.€ÏThe€defendant€said€that€the€victim€was€watching€television€when€he€arrived€and€thatÏhe€was€wearing€a€T„shirt€and€pants€but€no€socks€or€shoes.€€He€said€that€he€asked€theÏvictim€for€twenty„five€dollars,€but€the€victim€refused,€saying€that€the€defendant€owedÏhim€twenty„five€dollars€from€one€week€earlier.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€becameÏmad€and€that€he€and€the€victim€argued,€pushed€and€shoved€each€other€near€the€diningÏtable.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€told€him€to€leave€and€then€slapped€him€on€the€right€sideÏof€his€face.€€ÌÌà àThe€statement€also€reflects€that€the€defendant€told€the€officers€that€heÏð ðlost€itðð€when€the€victim€slapped€him€and€that€he€grabbed€a€brown€kitchen€knife€andÏstruck€the€victim€in€the€middle€of€the€chest.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€could€not€stopÏand€that€after€the€knife€broke,€he€began€kicking€the€victim€in€the€head,€shoulders€andÏside€while€the€victim€was€lying€in€the€kitchen€floor.€€He€said€that€he€then€picked€up€aÏsilver€knife€and€stabbed€the€victim€again€in€the€chest,€although€he€could€not€recall€howÏmany€times.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€that€the€victim€was€still€alive€and€wasÏtrying€to€remove€a€box€cutter€from€his€left€pocket€to€try€to€stop€him€when€he€took€the€boxÏcutter€from€the€victim€and€cut€the€victimððs€throat.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€was€soÏmad€that€he€could€not€stop€and€claimed€that€he€did€not€mean€to€do€it€but€that€he€lost€hisÏmind.€€According€to€the€defendantððs€statement,€the€defendant€went€to€the€bathroomÏand€wiped€his€hands€on€a€towel€at€some€point.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€statement€to€the€TBI€also€shows€that€the€defendant€saidÏthat€he€looked€throughout€the€apartment€for€money€or€anything€to€sell,€including€theÏdefendantððs€bedroom€dresser€drawers.€€He€also€admitted€taking€the€victimððs€wallet,Ïkeys,€ring,€VCR€and€movies€from€the€victimððs€apartment.€€According€to€the€defendant,Ïthe€victimððs€wallet€contained€one€hundred€and€fifty€dollars€in€cash€and€a€paycheck€inÏthe€amount€of€one€hundred€and€fifty„nine€dollars.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€thatÏhe€went€to€his€cocaine€dealerððs€apartment€in€Milan€immediately€after€leaving€theÍvictimððs€apartment€and€purchased€crack€cocaine.€€According€to€the€defendant,€he€tookÏthe€VCR€and€movies€to€his€apartment€and€threw€the€victimððs€wallet€into€a€field.€€TheÏstatementÑ€8ÑÇreflects€that€the€defendant€conceded€cashing€the€victimððs€paycheck€at€a€Texaco€theÏnext€morning€and€using€the€money€to€purchase€more€crack€cocaine.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àSergeant€Morris€also€testified€that€the€defendant€gave€a€statement€onÏDecember€5,€1993.€€The€statement€reflects€that€the€defendant€denied€killing€the€victimÏand€that€he€claimed€that€he€had€blackout€spells€and€when€he€awoke,€he€saw€a€ð ðfigure,ððÏalthough€he€saw€no€one.€€On€cross„examination,€Sergeant€Morris€testified€that€theÏdefendant€was€crying€and€appeared€to€be€remorseful€during€the€statement€given€to€theÏpolice€department€on€November€30,€1993.€€He€also€stated€that€his€investigation€did€notÏreveal€anything€that€would€conflict€with€what€the€defendant€told€him€had€occurred€onÏthe€night€of€the€murder.€€ÌÌà àMike€Cleary,€an€employee€of€Texaco,€testified€that€the€defendant€cameÏinto€the€store€at€approximately€5:30€a.m.€and€asked€him€to€cash€the€victimððs€payrollÏcheck.€€He€said€that€he€cashed€the€check,€although€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€didÏnot€have€any€identification€with€him.ÌÌà àBobby€Mosley,€owner€of€the€Jewel€Box€in€Milan,€identified€a€ladyððsÏdiamond€ring€that€he€sized€for€the€defendant.€€He€testified€that€he€had€earlier€sold€theÏring€to€the€victim.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€Ìà àClara€Langley€testified€that€she€was€living€with€the€defendant€at€the€timeÏthe€offense€occurred€and€that€she€worked€with€both€the€defendant€and€the€victim.€€SheÏidentified€the€ladyððs€diamond€ring€as€the€one€the€defendant€gave€to€her€at€4:00€a.m€onÏthe€Saturday€morning€after€the€victimððs€death€when€the€defendant€asked€her€to€marryÏhim.€€Ms.€Langley€said€that€she€asked€him€where€he€got€the€ring€and€that€theÏdefendant€told€her€that€he€got€it€at€a€jewelry€store€in€Humboldt.€€She€also€identified€theÏVCR,€remote€control€and€videotapes€and€stated€that€the€defendant€brought€them€intoÏtheir€house€on€either€Saturday€or€Sunday.€€She€said€that€when€she€asked€theÏdefendant€where€he€got€the€VCR,€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€had€gotten€the€itemsÏfrom€a€man€who€had€a€flat€tire€and€he€claimed€that€he€traded€an€air€pump€for€the€VCR.€ÏOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€Langley€testified€that€she€suspected€that€the€defendant€wasÏspending€a€lot€of€money€on€drugs€around€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€She€also€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€was€real€nervous€on€Saturday€morning.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Lynn€Zager,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€that€she€examined€theÏdefendant€on€November€2,€9,€and€16,€1994,€to€determine€the€defendantððs€competencyÏto€stand€trial€and€his€mental€condition€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€She€said€that€herÏevaluation€showed€that€the€defendant€was€an€alcoholic€and€was€addicted€to€cocaineÏand€marijuana.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense.€€In€Dr.€Zagerððs€opinion,€the€defendantððs€behavior€was€partly€a€result€of€hisÏintoxication,€and€the€defendantððs€intoxicated€state€compromised€the€defendantððs€abilityÍto€conform€his€behavior€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€Dr.€Zager€testified€that€theÏdefendantððs€initial€denial€of€guilt€was€consistent€with€his€determination€that€theÏdefendant€suffered€from€substance€abuse.€€She€stated€that€she€found€the€defendant€toÏbe€remorseful€about€his€conduct.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Zagerððs€psychological€evaluation€report€shows€that€the€defendantððsÏfather€was€an€alcoholic€and€that€his€brother€and€sister€have€serious€substance€abuseÏproblems.€€It€reflects€that€his€parentððs€divorced€at€an€early€age€and€that€the€defendantððsÏstepfather€was€verbally€abusive€to€the€defendant.€€The€report€states€that€the€defendant,Ïa€high€school€graduate,€began€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana€at€age€eighteen€andÏbegan€using€cocaine€in€1991.€€It€shows€that€the€defendantððs€substance€abuse€becameÏcritical€in€1992€when€he€lost€his€car€and€his€job.€€The€report€reflects€that€the€defendantÏstopped€using€drugs€and€alcohol€for€a€period€of€time€but€began€abusing€alcohol,Ïmarijuana€and€cocaine€approximately€three€weeks€before€the€offense€occurred.€€TheÏresults€of€the€report€are€that€although€the€defendant€has€maintained€a€relatively€stableÏwork€history,€he€engages€in€behaviors€that€would€warrant€a€diagnosis€of€a€conductÏdisorder€or€antisocial€personality€disorder.€€It€states€that€the€defendant€functions€in€theÏlow€average€range€of€intelligence.€€The€report€shows€that€Dr.€Zagerððs€findings€wereÏthat€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€and€that€although€the€defendantððsÏability€to€conform€his€behavior€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€was€compromisedÏbecause€of€his€substance€abuse,€the€defendantððs€ability€to€appreciate€theÍwrongfulness€of€his€behavior€was€not€significantly€impaired.€€In€Dr.€Zagerððs€opinion,€theÏdefendant€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€offense.ÌÌà àRichard€Clark,€a€friend€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€the€defendant€cameÏby€his€house€at€approximately€1:30€a.m€on€November€27,€1993.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€was€ð ðhighðð€from€smoking€crack€cocaine,€ð ðkind€of€nervous,ðð€and€ð ðjittery.ðð€€Mr.ÏClark€stated€that€the€defendant€had€some€crack€cocaine€with€him€and€that€theÏdefendant€smoked€while€he€was€with€him.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€juryððsÏverdict€finding€him€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€aÏrobbery.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€proof€does€not€establish€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€robbery€was€closely€related€to€the€homicide.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€evidence€instead€establishes€that€the€killing€occurred€collateral€to€and€not€in€theÏperpetration€of€the€aggravated€robbery.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€he€went€to€theÏvictimððs€home€intending€to€borrow€money€from€the€victim€and€not€with€the€intent€to€robÏthe€victim.€€He€claims€that€it€was€only€after€the€killing€occurred€that€he€decided€to€takeÏthe€victimððs€money.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€concludedÏthat€the€murder€was€accomplished€so€that€the€defendant€could€take€the€victimððs€moneyÏfrom€him.€€We€agree.€€In€our€view,€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€€€€ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€killing,€felony€murder€was€defined€as€the€unlawful,Ïð ðreckless€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrateÏany€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€theft,€kidnapping€or€aircraftÏpiracy.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„201(a)€and€„202(a)(2)€(1991)× ƒ9 ××  ×.€€A€person€ð ðacts€recklessly€withÏrespect€to€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€or€the€result€of€the€conduct€when€theÏperson€is€aware€of€but€consciously€disregards€a€substantial€and€unjustifiable€risk€thatÏthe€circumstances€exist€or€the€result€will€occur.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„302(c).ÌÌà àThe€proof€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€establishes€thatÏthe€defendant€went€to€the€victimððs€home€to€borrow€some€money€from€him€to€purchaseÏdrugs.€€When€the€victim€refused€to€give€him€any€money,€the€defendant€became€upsetÏand€began€arguing€with€the€victim.€€The€defendant€and€the€victim€shoved€each€other,Ïand€when€the€victim€slapped€the€defendant,€the€defendant€grabbed€a€knife€andÏstabbed€the€victim€in€the€chest€several€times.€€When€the€knife€broke,€the€defendantÏretrieved€a€second€knife€and€stabbed€the€victim€in€the€chest€again.€€As€the€victim€wasÏlying€on€the€kitchen€floor,€the€defendant€kicked€the€victim€in€his€head,€shoulders€andÏside,€and€he€also€took€the€victimððs€box€cutter€and€cut€the€victimððs€throat.€€Then,€theÏdefendant€took€the€victimððs€ring,€keys,€VCR,€movies€and€a€wallet€containing€oneÏhundred€and€fifty€dollars€in€cash€and€a€paycheck.€€The€defendant€took€the€VCR€andÏmovies€to€his€home,€gave€the€ring€to€his€girlfriend,€and€used€the€victimððs€money€to€buyÏcrack€cocaine.€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏdetermined€that€the€defendant€intended€to€rob€the€victim€once€the€victim€refused€toÏgive€him€any€money€and€that€the€killing€occurred€during€the€perpetration€of€theÏaggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòMullendore€v.€Stateóó,€191€S.W.2d€149,€152€(Tenn.€1945)Ï(evidence€that€the€defendant€took€the€victimððs€money€and€appropriated€it€to€his€ownÏuse€permitted€the€jury€to€infer€that€the€defendant€intended€to€rob€the€victim,€although€noÏprior€intent€to€rob€was€otherwise€shown).€€We€hold€that€the€proof€is€sufficient€toÏestablish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€defendantððs€guilt€for€felony€murder.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€CONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€FELONY€MURDER€STATUTEó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€challenges€his€conviction€by€arguing€that€T.C.A.€ððÏ39„13„202(a)(2)€is€unconstitutional.€€He€argues€that€the€felony€murder€statute€isÏoverbroad€because€a€literal€reading€of€the€statute€authorizes€the€application€of€theÏstatute€for€a€homicide€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€misdemeanor€theft.€€First,€weÏnote€that€the€defendant€was€not€charged€with€or€convicted€of€felony€murder€relative€toÏa€misdemeanor€theft;€thus,€he€is€not€affected€by€the€part€of€the€law€about€which€heÏcomplains.€€Regardless,€our€supreme€court€has€concluded€that€the€felony€murderÏstatute€is€constitutional.€€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€893€S.W.2d€429,€430€(Tenn.€1995).€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€ADMISSION€OF€A€PHOTOGRAPH€OF€THE€VICTIMó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€intoÏevidence€a€photograph€of€the€victim€lying€in€a€pool€of€blood,€because€it€has€little€or€noÏprobative€value.€€He€also€argues€that€even€if€the€photograph€has€probative€value,€itÏwas€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€inflaming€the€jury€and€of€denying€theÏdefendant€a€fair€trial.€€He€asserts€that€the€photograph€should€not€have€been€admittedÏinto€evidence€because€he€did€not€dispute€at€trial€the€cause€of€death€or€that€he€killed€theÏvictim€and€because€Sergeant€Morris€and€Dr.€Francisco€gave€detailed€descriptions€ofÏthe€location€and€condition€of€the€body€and€of€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€victimððsÍinjuries.€€The€state€responds€that€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€establishÏpremeditation€and€deliberation× ƒ: ××  ×€in€that€it€showed€the€brutality€of€the€defendantððs€attackÏon€the€victim.ÌÌà àThe€leading€case€in€Tennessee€regarding€the€admissibility€ofÏphotographs€of€murder€victims€is€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978),€inÏwhich€the€supreme€court€held€that€the€determination€of€admissibility€is€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€after€considering€the€relevance,€probative€value€andÏpotential€unfair€prejudicial€effect€of€such€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€TheÏgeneral€rule,€as€stated€in€òòBanksóó,€is€that€ð ðphotographs€of€the€corpse€are€admissible€inÏmurder€prosecutions€if€they€are€relevant€to€the€issues€on€trial,€notwithstanding€theirÏgruesome€and€horrifying€character.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€950„51.€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðif€they€are€notÏrelevant€to€prove€some€part€of€the€prosecutionððs€case,€they€may€not€be€admitted€solelyÏto€inflame€the€jury€and€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€951.ÌÌà àThus,€even€relevant€evidence€should€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€In€òòBanksóó,€the€court€stated,€ð ðThe€more€gruesome€theÍphotographs,€the€more€difficult€it€is€to€establish€that€their€probative€value€and€relevanceÏoutweigh€their€prejudicial€effect.ðð€€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€ÌÌà àThe€color€photograph€introduced€by€the€state€in€this€case€is€from€aÏPolaroid€instant€camera€and€is€three€inches€by€three€inches€in€size.€€It€shows€the€victimÏlying€in€the€kitchen€on€his€back,€feet€first,€with€his€head€almost€totally€blocked€by€hisÏbody.€€It€is€not€a€close„up€shot.€€The€victim€is€wearing€blue€jeans€and€a€white€tee„shirt,Ïbut€his€feet€are€bare.€€There€is€blood€on€the€lower€walls,€the€refrigerator,€and€the€floorÏlocated€next€to€the€body.€€The€tee„shirt€is€partially€blood€soaked.€€A€closer€lookÏdiscloses€cuts€on€one€arm€and€blood€on€both€forearms.€€The€photograph€has€a€dullÏquality,€without€vivid€or€clear€colors.ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€prosecutor€sought€to€introduce€theÏphotograph€of€the€victim€contending€that€it€showed€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€theÏcondition€of€the€victim.€€He€contended€that€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€show€thatÏthe€defendant€was€at€home€ready€for€bed€when€he€was€attacked€by€the€defendant€whoÏcame€to€his€door.€€The€prosecutor€argued€that€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€rebut€theÏdefendantððs€assertion€during€opening€statement€that€the€victim€and€the€defendantÏbegan€arguing€after€the€victim€let€the€defendant€into€his€apartment.€€Defense€counselÏasserted€in€the€opening€statement€that€the€proof€would€show€that€the€killing€by€theÏdefendant€was€not€premeditated€and€deliberate€but€rather€was€an€impulsive€andÍimpassioned€act.€€Defense€counsel€stated€that€the€evidence€would€establish€secondÏdegree€murder€only.€€In€ruling€that€the€photograph€was€admissible,€the€trial€court€statedÏthat€the€photograph€was€less€obtrusive€than€another€picture€offered€by€the€state.× ƒ; ××  ×€ÌÌà àWe€note€that€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€fact€that€repeated€blowsÏor€shots€were€inflicted€on€the€victim€is€not€sufficient,€by€itself,€to€establish€premeditationÏand€deliberation€for€a€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,Ï542€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€court€reasoned€that€repeated€blows€can€also€be€delivered€inÏthe€heat€of€passion€without€any€design€or€reflection,€and€thus,€only€when€the€multipleÏð ðblows€are€inflicted€as€a€result€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€can€they€be€said€toÏprove€first„degree€murder.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,€based€on€our€supreme€courtððs€holding€inÏòòBrownóó,€we€conclude€that€the€photograph€was€not€admissible€to€establishÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌà àHowever,€our€supreme€court€also€stated€that€photographs€of€the€victimÏmay€be€admitted€ð ðas€evidence€of€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€the€extent€of€the€forceÏused€against€the€victim,€from€which€the€jury€could€infer€malice,€either€express€orÏimplied.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€551;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€576€(Tenn.€1993)€(TrialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€admitting€a€photograph€of€the€victim€when€the€trialÏcourt€stated€that€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€show€ð ðððpremeditation,€malice€andÍintent€because€of€the€multiplicity€of€these€wounds€and€an€obvious€intent€of€whoeverÏwas€inflicting€these€wounds.ðððð).€€In€this€case,€the€prosecution€was€required€to€establishÏthat€the€killing€was€intentional.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991).€€Though€theÏdefendant€admitted€killing€the€victim,€he€asserted€during€opening€statement€that€theÏproof€would€establish€second€degree€murder€but€not€first€degree€premeditated€andÏdeliberate€murder.€€The€picture€of€the€victim€demonstrates€that€the€defendantððs€attackÏof€the€victim€was€a€brutal€one€and€thus€is€probative€to€the€issue€of€the€defendantððsÏintent.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€pictureððs€probative€value€is€somewhat€diminished€givenÏthe€other€evidence€in€the€case.€€Sergeant€Morris€testified€that€he€discovered€the€victimÏlying€in€a€pool€of€blood€in€the€kitchen€and€that€there€was€blood€on€the€refrigerator,€theÏwall€and€the€floor.€€Dr.€Francisco€provided€a€detailed€description€of€the€victimððs€injuries.€ÏThe€defendant€did€not€contest€that€he€killed€the€victim€or€that€he€inflicted€the€injuriesÏdescribed€by€Dr.€Francisco.€€Because€this€testimony€was€presented,€the€admission€ofÏthe€photograph€could€be€viewed€as€cumulative€evidence,€and€the€need€for€it€on€theÏissue€of€the€defendantððs€intent€was€minimized.ÌÌà àIn€weighing€the€probative€value€of€the€photograph€against€its€risk€of€unfairÏprejudice,€though,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€single€photograph€is€particularlyÏgruesome€or€graphic.€€In€our€review,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€its€probative€valueÍwas€substantially€outweighed€by€the€risk€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€ÏTherefore,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€theÏphotograph€into€evidence.€€€€à àà àÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€LESSER€INCLUDED€OFFENSESó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€requestÏto€charge€the€jury€regarding€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€robbery€and€theft.€€TheÏstate€asserts€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€requested€juryÏinstructions€because€the€record€does€not€support€a€finding€of€guilt€for€either€robbery€orÏtheft.€€We€agree.€€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„110(a),€a€trial€court€is€required€ð ðto€charge€theÏjury€as€to€all€of€the€law€of€each€offense€included€in€the€indictment,€without€any€requestÏon€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.ðð€€When€the€evidence,€introduced€by€either€theÏstate€or€the€defendant,€is€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt€of€a€lesser€grade€or€class€or€aÏlesser€included€offense€of€the€charged€offense,€there€is€a€mandatory€duty€upon€the€trialÏcourt€to€charge€such€lesser€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„110(a);€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919ÏS.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996);€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975);ÏòòState€v.€Howardóó,€926€S.W.2d€579,€585„86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€However,€theÏinstruction€is€not€required€if€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€to€support€a€conviction€forÏthe€lesser€offense.€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.ÌÌà àThough€we€agree€that€robbery€is€a€lesser€grade€and€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€and€that€theft€is€a€lesser€included€offense€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€weÏdo€not€agree€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€warrants€an€instruction€on€either€offense.€ÏHere,€the€uncontested€proof€established€that€the€defendant€robbed€and€killed€theÏvictim€after€the€victim€refused€to€give€the€defendant€any€money.€€The€evidenceÏestablishes€that€the€defendant€is€either€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€or€not€guilty€at€all.€€Nothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€theÏdefendant€could€be€found€guilty€of€simple€robbery€or€theft.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€entitled€to€an€instruction€on€the€lesser€offenses€of€robbery€and€theft.Ì€à àÌÓÓà@ àò òV.€€CONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€HEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS€Ìà@ àAND€CRUEL€AGGRAVATING€FACTORó óÓÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€and€cruelðð€statutoryÏaggravating€factor€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€is€unconstitutional€because€itÏis€vague€and€cannot€be€understood€and€applied€by€lay€persons€serving€on€the€jury.€ÏHe€relies€upon€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€854€F.€Supp.€1305€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994)€(ð ðdepravity€ofÏmindðð€instruction€is€unconstitutionally€vague€without€a€further€limiting€instruction).€€TheÏstate€notes€that€òòRickmanóó€is€distinguishable€because€the€instruction€given€in€theÏpresent€case€did€not€include€the€ð ðdepravity€of€mindðð€language.€€In€any€event,€ourÏsupreme€court€has€concluded€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€under€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€is€constitutional.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€24„26€(Tenn.€1996).€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.Ì€Ìà@ àò òVI.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óÌà àThe€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€he€shouldÏserve€his€sentence€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€consecutive€to€the€sentenceÏimposed€for€his€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€imposed€concurrent€sentences.€€The€state€contends€that€the€record€supports€theÏtrial€courtððs€determination€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€and€that€theÏrecord€supports€consecutive€sentences.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€AsÏthe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€notes,€the€burden€is€now€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequatelyÏsupported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÏand€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€mayÏnot€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ÏT.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„210(f)€(1990).€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ïif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€236„37€(Tenn.€1986).€ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€for€the€felony€murder,€Gibson€CountyÏDeputy€Jailer€John€Sporsick€testified€that€he€was€working€when€the€defendant€wasÍheld€in€jail.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€never€caused€problems€and€was€polite,Ïfriendly,€and€very€talkative.€€He€said€that€he€could€not€have€asked€for€a€better€inmate.€ÏDeputy€Jailer€Sporsick€also€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€defendant€was€amenableÏto€rehabilitation.€€ÌÌà àThe€then€twenty„seven„year„old€defendant,€a€high€school€graduate,Ïtestified€that€he€had€always€had€a€job€and€had€worked€steadily.€€He€stated€that€hisÏsubstance€abuse€problem€involving€alcohol€and€marijuana€started€when€he€wasÏeighteen€years€old,€and€he€said€that€he€began€using€cocaine€in€1991.€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€some€of€his€brothers€and€sisters€also€have€experienced€substance€abuseÏproblems.€€The€defendant€expressed€remorse€for€committing€the€offense€and€statedÏthat€he€accepted€full€responsibility€for€what€happened.€€On€cross„examination,€theÏdefendant€admitted€that€he€initially€lied€about€his€involvement€in€the€crimes,€but€heÏclaimed€that€he€was€scared.€€The€defendant€asserted€that€he€used€drugs€usually€onÏthe€weekends€and€that€his€drug€use€did€not€interfere€with€his€work€performance.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing€for€the€especially€aggravated€robberyÏconviction,€no€witnesses€testified.€€The€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendantÏhas€a€prior€felony€conviction€in€1987€for€attempt€to€commit€a€felony× ƒ< ××  ×.€€It€also€reflects€thatÍthe€defendant€admitted€that€he€had€used€alcohol€and€marijuana€since€he€wasÏeighteen€and€that€he€began€using€cocaine€in€either€1992€or€1993.€€The€report€showsÏthat€the€defendant€attended€counseling€and€Alcoholics€Anonymous€meetings€as€aÏcondition€of€parole.€€Regarding€the€defendantððs€employment€history,€the€report€statesÏthat€the€defendant€worked€briefly€as€a€cook€at€a€restaurant€and€as€a€stocker€for€aÏsupermarket€and€also€reflects€that€the€defendant€had€been€fired€from€a€factory€job.€€ItÏshows€that€the€defendant€worked€continuously€for€approximately€two€years€as€a€forkliftÏdriver€before€his€arrest€for€the€present€offenses.€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€fifteen€years,€the€minimum€sentenceÏwithin€the€range.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1).€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€hadÏconsidered€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€that€had€been€presented€andÏfound€that€they€were€equally€balanced.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€sentence€should€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentence€for€lifeÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole€because€the€defendant€met€all€the€criteria€forÏdangerous€offender€status€as€outlined€in€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391€(Tenn.€1976).€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€make€specific€findingsÏthat€would€warrant€a€consecutive€sentence,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€makeÏsuch€findings€warrants€the€modification€of€his€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.€ÍWe€agree€that€the€trial€court€should€have€made€more€detailed€findings€as€required€byÏthe€1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Act€and€subsequent€case€law.€€However,€its€relianceÏupon€the€òòGrayóó€criteria€reflects€its€consideration€of€the€appropriate€factors.€ÌÌà àConsecutive€sentencing€may€be€considered€if€the€trial€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€is€ð ða€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€This€finding,Ïalong€with€other€considerations€must€be€made.€€In€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ï939€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€stated:€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à[T]he€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€on€an€offenderÏfound€to€be€a€dangerous€offender€requires,€in€addition€toÏthe€application€of€general€principles€of€sentencing,€theÏfinding€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protectÏthe€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendantÏand€that€the€consecutive€Ñ ° Ñœsentences›€must€reasonably€relateÏto€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThese€factors€were€noted€in€òòGrayóó,€as€well.ÌÌà àAs€the€trial€court€found,€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses€demonstrateÏthat€the€defendant€had€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€When€the€victim€refused€toÏgive€the€defendant€any€money€to€buy€drugs,€the€defendant€stabbed€the€victim€severalÏtimes€in€the€chest,€penetrating€the€victimððs€heart,€lungs€and€ribs.€€When€the€knife€theÍdefendant€was€using€broke,€he€began€kicking€the€victim€in€his€head,€shoulders€andÏside.€€The€defendant€then€retrieved€a€second€knife€and€stabbed€the€defendant€again€inÏthe€chest.€€When€the€victim€tried€to€remove€a€box€cutter€from€his€pocket€to€protectÏhimself€from€the€defendantððs€attack,€the€defendant€took€the€box€cutter€from€the€victimÏand€slit€the€victimððs€throat,€severing€his€jugular€vein.€€Any€one€of€the€types€of€injuriesÏcould€have€caused€the€victimððs€death.€€These€facts€establish€that€the€defendant€is€aÏdangerous€offender€under€òòWilkersonóó.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€a€prior€conviction€for€an€offense€that€involved€a€crimeÏagainst€a€person€and€has€a€history€of€alcohol€and€drug€abuse.€€Although€theÏdefendantððs€youth,€good€school€record,€and€steady€work€history€indicate€a€capabilityÏfor€rehabilitation,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€the€criteria€for€consecutive€sentencing€exist€in€this€case.€€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€record€sufficiently€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€consecutive€sentencing€decision.€ÌÌœ›à àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏdefendantððs€judgments€of€conviction.€€œÌ›ÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòòœÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€