ÿWPC ÙeõsMbÅ„TPYm[5ļÚ!3+«\^‘\¶×GΘ凉ŒJºt¶ÿ ÏႬúe/6ý¶™ÍoTû — ¾£»œA2 JrW¾rMƒ|®ÆÄrÈ„RÇÛŽ%ÈgÂîàœs8ýÞ?KÀ!Sº–lm™ßýÁêŽ {Ûàìöâ©` ‚B˜zµØõ¥U&ª€RÐë3„)f:©6Ü…åPz‹ëé°Ï}äûf…©<5ÙIÙ´ëDéË$‰}¤ÕUÙ8*êm,¾€v žæêdx [úø'¤êDƒXÀ/Z¶>¹]Pí9A*Ì·cú ç´ÒGùŠ}È& /¨°+öíç…/äk"EĤ_4¬ÝPÅчï+æ/;V«éR»Žº¦¸±t{û;èecFß‹ ÀnŒc–£ ,g¸Š4¸À2Ô˘û>YËK¥®‹¼fDöôdBÓ‰pb×s‰¹IÉõýÄa|†Âˆ{À°UôÏŦ95sˆ(÷ÏdKíõÒQoªˆŸ7x\?ƒ£ »½˜6»é,»è§J˜Š§Ciƒú>#›àßJ¸§”ŠÀ]Ø%zxÈ|ãíÞ†h…kF|‚c´;À;‚X‘7lÐ íU(ãr˜œÅb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÔªg-s  ˜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.wpt3j1,3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Éî$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôù…ò»»Ô d(|3G†$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G†$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B­»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼B­»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îK<B­ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼B­»îîK< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àFebruary€26,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XáX»¼B­ÔÌò òÔ#†¼B­»XXá#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JAMES€Ô_ÔSPURLINGÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XáX»¼B­Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„348;€248A€€€€€€Carroll€L.€Ross,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00601„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€7,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XáXXXáÔThe€defendant,€James€Ô_ÔSpurlingÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€offenses€of€attempted€first€degreeÐ xÈ  Ðmurder€and€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€trial€court€merged€the€assault€conviction€into€theÐ d´ Ðattempted€murder€conviction€and€sentenced€the€defendant€to€twenty„three„years€incarceration€in€theÐ P  Ðstate€penitentiary.€€In€this€appeal€the€defendant€raises€three€issues:€(1)€whether€there€is€sufficientÐ <Œ Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€premeditated€the€attempted€murder;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ (x Ðadmitting€into€evidence€certain€photographs€of€the€victim;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ d Ðsentencing€the€defendant.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€evidence€and€the€applicable€law,€we€find€noÐ P Ðreversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†XáXXXá#ÔÔ#†¼B­»XXá­#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­ÔÐ ì< ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼B­»àXá #ÔÔ‡XáX.¼B­ÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó€andÐ œì ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌLee€Ô_ÔLedbetterÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Athens,€Tennessee€and€Ô_ÔMerrilynÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔFiermanÔ_Ô,€Nashville,Ð `° ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€Ô_ÔSpurlingÔ_Ô.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐJerry€N.€Ô_ÔEstesÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Chuck€Pope,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€forÐ #`" Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓË ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼B­»XXáú #ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼B­»XXá#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XáXXXáÔà  àOn€March€23,€2000,€the€defendant€and€the€victim€attempted€to€buy€crack€cocaine.€€TheÐ ¬'ü"' Ðdefendant€apparently€gave€the€victim€some€money€to€buy€the€drugs.€€When€the€victim€returned€toÐ ˜(è#( Ðthe€apartment€where€the€defendant€was€waiting,€the€victim€had€no€cocaine.€€He€was€also€unable€toÐ „)Ô$) Ðreturn€either€all€or€some€of€the€money€the€defendant€had€given€him.€€Following€a€discussion€in€whichÐ p*À%* Ðthe€victim€tried€to€explain€the€missing€money,€the€defendant€cut€the€victimððs€throat€and€stabbed€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âvictim€six€times€causing€extensive€injuries.Ð H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€defendant€did€not€generally€dispute€the€scenario€outlined€above,€but€he€stated€that€duringÐ ° Ðâ âthe€argument€the€victim€reached€in€his€pocket€and€produced€what€the€defendant€thought€was€a€gun.€Ð œì ÐAt€this€point€the€defendant€cut€the€victim€allegedly€in€self„defense.€€The€defendant€also€claimed€heÐ ˆØ Ðhad€no€memory€of€the€six€stabs,€and€he€posited€that€the€victim€had€inflicted€those€wounds€on€himself.€Ð tÄ Ðà  àThe€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€lost€the€knife€used€to€cut€and€stab€the€victim.€€This€knifeÐ `° Ðwas€recovered€by€police€in€a€field€near€a€dairy€farm.€€The€defendant€also€claimed€that€he€had€not€runÐ L œ Ðaway€after€the€altercation,€as€witnesses€stated,€but€rather€that€he€simply€went€ð ðacross€the€hillðð€to€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðauntððs€house.€€He€was€found€and€arrested€by€the€police€while€hiding€in€the€trunk€of€his€auntððs€car.Ð $ t Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌà@iiìàòòSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceóóó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal€the€defendant€maintains€that€the€evidence€that€he€premeditated€the€attack€onÐ À  Ðthe€victim€is€insufficient€to€support€a€verdict€for€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€We€must€respectfullyÐ ¬ü  Ðdisagree.Ð ˜è  Ðà  àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€is€obliged€to€reviewÐ „Ô  Ðthat€claim€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€A€verdict€of€guilty,€rendered€by€a€jury€andÐ pÀ Ðð ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theðð€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€allÐ \¬ Ðconflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State.€€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Ð H˜ ÐòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€although€the€accused€is€originally€cloakedÐ 4„ Ðwith€a€presumption€of€innocence,€the€jury€verdict€of€guilty€removes€this€presumption€ð ðand€replacesÐ  p Ðit€with€one€of€guilt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€theÐ  \ Ðburden€of€proof€rests€with€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð øH ÐòòId.óó€The€relevant€question€the€reviewing€court€must€answer€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ ä4 Ðhave€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€In€making€this€decision,€we€are€to€accord€the€State€ð ðtheÐ ¼  Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€mayÐ ¨ø Ðbe€drawn€therefrom.ðð€òòSeeóó€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€As€such,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€re„Ð ”ä Ðweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence€in€evaluating€the€convicting€proof.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð l¼ ÐApp.€1990).€€Moreover,€we€may€not€substitute€our€own€ð ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€ofÐ X ¨ Ðfact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€779.€€Of€course,€ð ða€criminal€offenseÐ D!” Ðmay€be€established€exclusively€by€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€396Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ô#†XáXXXá #ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÔ#†¼B­»XXáu#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­Ô;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899-900€(Tenn.€1987)òòóó.Ð #l! ÐHowever,€the€trier€of€fact€must€be€able€to€ð ðdetermine€from€the€proof€that€all€other€reasonable€theoriesÐ $X" Ðexcept€that€of€guilt€are€excluded.ðð€€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€atÐ ô$D # Ð900.Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€Tennessee€attempt€statute€provides:Ð Ì&"% Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€A€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:Ф(ô#'` x` x Ðà0  ààHàˆà8` (#(#à(1)€Intentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€result€that€would€constitute€anÐ )à$( Ðoffense€if€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€were€as€the€personÐ |*Ì%) Ðbelieves€them€to€be;Ðh+¸&*` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#à(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€the€offense,€andÐ ° Ðbelieves€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result€without€further€conduct€on€theÐ œì Ðpersonððs€part;€orЈØ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#à(3)€Acts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€a€result€thatÐ tÄ Ðwould€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ `° Ðconduct€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€the€conduct€constitutes€aÐ L œ Ðsubstantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.Ð8 ˆ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#à(b)€Conduct€does€not€constitute€a€substantial€step€under€subdivision€(a)(3)Ð $ t Ðunless€the€personððs€entire€course€of€action€is€corroborative€of€the€intent€toÐ  ` Ðcommit€the€offense.Ðü L ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#à(c)€It€is€no€defense€to€prosecution€for€criminal€attempt€that€the€offenseÐ è 8  Ðattempted€was€actually€committed.ÐÔ$ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101.€€Thus,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€defendant,€in€an€attempt€to€kill€the€victim,€acted€with€the€ð ðkind€of€culpabilityðð€necessary€for€firstÐ ˜è  Ðdegree€murder.Ð „Ô  Ðà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„202(a)(1)€defines€first€degree€murder€in€pertinentÐ pÀ Ðpart€as€ð ða€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„Ð \¬ Ð13„202(d)€provides:Ð H˜ Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àAs€used€in€subdivision€(a)(1)€ð ðpremeditationðð€is€an€act€done€after€the€exerciseÐ 4„ Ðof€reflection€and€judgment.€€ð ðPremeditationðð€means€that€the€intent€to€killÐ  p Ðmust€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€theÐ  \ Ðpurpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€ofÐ øH Ðtime.€€The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€the€accused€allegedlyÐ ä4 Ðdecided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determine€whether€theÐ Ð  Ðaccused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capableÐ ¼  Ðof€premeditation.Шø` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€Therefore€the€State€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÐ €Ð Ðdoubt€that€the€defendant€attacked€the€victim€with€ð ðpremeditation.ððÐ l¼ Ðà  àð ð[W]hether€premeditation€is€present€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury,€and€it€may€be€inferredÐ X ¨ Ðfrom€the€circumstances€surrounding€theðð€commission€of€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Billy€Gene€Debow,€Sr.óó,Ð D!” ÐNo.€M1999„02678„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€595,€at€*10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ 0"€  ÐNashville,€Aug.€2,€2000);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòóóÔ#†¼B­»XXá= #ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­ÔÔ#†XáXXXáû#ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔ€òòState€v.Ð #l! ÐAndersonóó,€835€S.W.2d€600,€605€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Some€relevant€factors€which€tend€toÐ $X" Ðsupport€the€existence€of€premeditation€include:€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim;Ð ô$D # Ðthe€particular€cruelty€of€the€killing;€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€an€intent€to€kill;€evidence€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðprocurement€of€a€weapon;€preparations€before€the€killing€for€concealment€of€the€crime,€[]€calmnessÐ Ì&"% Ðimmediately€after€the€killing,ðð€and€evidence€that€the€victim€was€retreating€or€attempting€to€escapeÐ ¸'#& Ðwhen€killedÔ#†XáXXXáø0#ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÔ#†¼B­»XXá¶0#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­Ô.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992).Ð ¤(ô#' Ðð ð[T]he€fact€that€repeated€blows€(or€shots)€were€inflicted€on€the€victim€is€not€sufficient,€by€itself,€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âestablish€first„degree€murder.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1992).Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àLooking€at€the€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€which€we€are€required€to€do,€weÐ ° Ðâ âfind€that€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€element€of€ð ðpremeditationðð€in€this€caseÐ œì Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€victim€in€this€case€attempted€to€reason€with€the€defendant€about€theÐ ˆØ Ðmissing€money€and€attempted€to€leave€the€altercation€when€the€defendant€attacked€him.€€The€attackÐ tÄ Ðitself€was€upon€an€unarmed€victim€and€was€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€attack€itselfÐ `° Ðwas€savage€and€far€beyond€that€necessary€to€repel€the€alleged€attack€by€the€victim.€€At€least€oneÐ L œ Ðwitness€overheard€the€defendant€say€he€was€going€to€get€a€gun€and€return€to€the€scene.€€Under€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstances€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.Ð $ t ÐÌÌà@^ ^ ìàò òòòAdmission€of€Photographs€Showing€the€Victimððs€Woundsóóó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€photographs€of€the€victim€graphically€displaying€the€victimððsÐ À  Ðwounds€should€not€have€been€admitted€into€evidence€at€trial.€€At€trial€the€defendant€did€not€objectÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€admission€of€one€graphic€photograph€but€complained€that€the€admission€of€more€than€one€suchÐ ˜è  Ðpicture€was€ð ðcumulatively€prejudicial.ððÐ „Ô  Ðà  àGraphic,€gruesome,€or€even€horrifying€photographs€of€crime€victims€may€be€admitted€intoÐ pÀ Ðevidence€if€they€are€relevant€to€some€issues€on€trial€and€their€prejudicial€effect€is€outweighed€by€theirÐ \¬ Ðprobity.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949„51€(Tenn.€1978).€The€decision€as€to€whether€suchÐ H˜ Ðphotographs€should€be€admitted€is€one€entrusted€to€the€trial€court,€and€that€decision€will€not€beÐ 4„ Ðreversed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€òòId.óó€at€949;€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€90,€92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð  \ Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case€the€photographs€of€the€victim€lying€in€a€hospital€bed€graphicallyÐ øH Ðdemonstrate€the€location€and€nature€of€the€victimððs€wounds.€€They€were€used€at€trial€by€the€physicianÐ ä4 Ðwho€treated€the€victim€to€illustrate€his€testimony€regarding€the€location€and€nature€of€the€wounds.€Ð Ð  ÐThese€photographs€corroborate€both€the€victimððs€and€physicianððs€testimonies€about€the€wounds.€Ð ¼  ÐMoreover,€the€pictures€are€relevant€to€counter€the€defendantððs€contention€that€he€simply€ð ðcut€andÐ ¨ø Ðrunðð€out€of€self„defense.€€The€pictures€indicate€a€sustained€violent€attack.€€The€photographs€are€notÐ ”ä Ðespecially€gruesome€or€horrifying€as€such€pictures€go€and,€as€noted€above,€their€probity€is€significant.€Ð €Ð ÐUnder€these€circumstances€we€cannot€say€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€admitting€theseÐ l¼ Ðpictures.€€This€issue€does€not€merit€reversal.Ð X ¨ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà@%ìàò òòòSentencingóóó óˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€his€twenty„three„year€sentence€is€excessive€because€theÐ ô$D # Ðtrial€judge€failed€to€apply€as€a€mitigating€factor€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€acted€under€strongÐ à%0!$ Ðprovocation.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2).€€We€again€must€respectfully€disagree.Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novo€reviewÐ ¸'#& Ðon€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ )à$( Ð40„35„401(d).€€ð ðHowever,€the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€actionÐ |*Ì%) Ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÐ h+¸&* Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð ° Ð169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€must€consider€the€defendantððs€potential€forÐ œì Ðrehabilitation,€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing€evidence,€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€sentencingÐ ˆØ Ðprinciples,€the€sentencing€alternative€arguments,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€theÐ tÄ Ðenhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€and€the€defendantððs€statements.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„Ð `° Ð103(5),€„210(b);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€We€are€to€also€recognize€that€the€defendant€bears€theÐ L œ Ðburden€of€demonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àHere€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€AÐ $ t Ðfelony.€€As€such,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210(c)€the€trial€judge€beganÐ  ` Ðhis€sentencing€at€the€midpoint€of€the€potential€fifteen€to€twenty„five€year€sentence.€€The€Court€foundÐ ü L  Ðthat€enhancement€factors€(1),€(5),€(8)€and€(9)€were€applicable€and€he€raised€the€sentence€to€twenty„Ð è 8  Ðfour€years.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1),€(5),€(8),€(9).Ô#†XáXXXá½3#ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÔ#†¼B­»XXáÿ3#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼B­Ô€€He€then€mitigated€the€sentence€to€twenty„Ð Ô$  Ðthree€years€based€on€a€finding€that€the€defendant€did€suffer€from€some€mental€condition€that€reducedÐ À  Ðhis€culpability.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€The€trial€judge€refused€to€apply€the€mitigatingÐ ¬ü  Ðfactor€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2).Ð ˜è  Ðà  àWe€find€no€error€in€the€sentence.€€The€trial€judge€followed€the€sentencing€guidelines€andÐ „Ô  Ðprinciples.€€He€also€found,€and€we€agree,€that€the€mere€fact€that€this€attack€stemmed€from€anÐ pÀ Ðargument€is€insufficient€to€establish€the€ð ðstrong€provocationðð€necessary€to€mitigate€a€sentence.€€WeÐ \¬ Ðfind€the€sentence€is€appropriate€under€the€circumstances.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionóóó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.€€Ô#†XáXXXá¯K#ÔÔ#†¼B­»XXáñK#ÔÔ€XáX»¼B­ÔÐ ä4 ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE