ÿWPC  í†Lñ+ŒÊ÷?Ì85ß$@oÀvÜ-ñŽYï r•äasOÛË볋ÊÝí(9‘ ¸†ýÏ4@ Õ»×…– ¥Õû1ÛÝ%ÉÂÙŒ>Ž4¾÷´ôÐåF‘¤Å ç'ÞiÌi,\÷KK'ïŠÖ–w“„!Ò’R[ï”2[Û¬û1"\´5nçÜøž6#ÑÜ@!‚Ë,o*Dkö£úà"²©t>á²ÇCP1¼ÓLŸïË)Áµ)Y†1”«6Æ o¡å$Î?}1Ãàä=#*œÖÄ_øÿü}hÆÄ~â\ÓhR|õÝœ\æ;OCÍŽßH“ŸÊœ+bfÝï5CÓŒrur (õ¢ cCêdÛ\2ÆmG25M í«×ox“õdƒWÏJ²‡L>¥*Ìs8–'e'^‰Íl%x¦}žMiƒW#ÁÂUNƒ %Ñ 0:×b UN ^ g ws 4w ‹ š mœ U@³ Nó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó Eõ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ B÷ ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô- ù-(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularïs*+ ÖJ~'p}.bk13|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡î´ÕîXXÔÔ‡ î´Õîîî´ÕÔÑ€ÑÑ8€éˆXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° Ðà@@WW$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#† XéˆXî î´ÕI#ÔÔ‡ ¼a'»X XéˆÔÐ Ö& ÐJune€20,€2001€SESSIONÐ üL ÐÔ#† XéˆX» ¼a'j#ÔÔ‡ î´ÕîX XéˆÔÌò òÔ#† XéˆXî î´Õë#ÔÔ‡ ¼a'»X XéˆÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JAMES€ELBERT€TAYLOR,€JR.òòóóó óÐ 4 „ ÐÔ#† XéˆX» ¼a'1#ÔÔ‡ î´ÕîX XéˆÔÌò òÔ#† XéˆXî î´ÕÅ#ÔAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ n ¾ Ðà@@. . ìàNo.€641„1999€€€€€€Jane€W.€Ô_ÔWheatcraftÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Z ª ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ n  ÐÒe°ÒÌà@@ˆ ˆ ìàNo.€M2000„01802„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ i  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dEð` AßÐ ñA  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€James€Elbert€Taylor,€Jr.,€was€convicted€for€the€aggravated€burglary,€aggravatedÐ ì< ÐÔ_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€and€aggravated€assault€of€his€estranged€wife,€Jennifer€Albert.€€The€trial€court€sentencedÐ Ø( Ðthe€Defendant€to€four€years€for€the€aggravated€burglary,€ten€years€for€the€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€andÐ Ä Ðthree€years€for€the€aggravated€assault.€€The€court€further€ordered€that€the€sentences€run€consecutivelyÐ ° Ðto€each€other€and€to€Defendantððs€previous€conviction€in€Louisiana.€€The€Defendant€raises€these€issuesÐ œì Ðon€appeal:€1)€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€evidence€of€Defendantððs€prior€case€in€Louisiana,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðwas€not€relevant€under€Rule€404;€2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€the€Defendant€could€beÐ tÄ Ðimpeached,€under€Rule€609,€with€proof€of€a€conviction€for€attempted€manslaughter€in€Louisiana;€andÐ `° Ð3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€consecutive€sentencing€without€making€specific€findings€underÐ Lœ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€€After€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð 8ˆ ÐÓÓÓ  ÓÌÓ Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.Ð ` Ðó óÓ ÓÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó€and€òòTerryÐ è8 ÐÔ_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ôóó,€Ô_ÔSp.J.Ô_Ô,€joined.Ð Ô$ ÐÌRandy€P.€Lucas,€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€Elbert€Taylor,€Jr.Ð ¬!ü  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð „#Ô" ÐLawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€Ron€Ô_ÔBlantonÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð p$À# Ðand€Cara€Ô_ÔLoefflerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð \%¬ $ ÐÓ£ ÓÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONÔ‡ î´ÕîX XéˆÔÐ 4'„"& ÐÔ#† XéˆXî î´Õ#ÔÌó óÓû ÓÓ  Óà ½ àOn€the€morning€of€May€20,€1999,€Jennifer€Albert,€the€victim€and€the€Defendantððs€estrangedÐ  )\$( Ðwife,€was€walking€out€the€door€of€her€apartment,€when€the€Defendant€attacked€her€and€pushed€herÐ ø)H%) Ðback€into€the€apartment.€€(At€the€time€of€this€incident,€the€victim€was€in€the€process€of€obtaining€aÐ ä*4&* Ðdivorce€from€the€Defendant).€€The€Defendant€locked€the€deadbolt€on€the€door€and€pulled€out€a€knifeÐ Ð+ '+ Ðas€he€began€to€ð ðrant€and€raveðð€at€the€victim.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€was€afraid€and€that€sheÐ ¼, (, Ðexplained€to€the€Defendant€that€she€had€to€go€to€work.€€However,€the€Defendant€continued€his€angryÐ ¨-ø(- ÐÔ_Ôbehavior€and€told€the€victim€that€ð ðhe€should€have€killed€[her],€like€he€should€have€done€that€bitch,Ð ° ÐKim.ðð€€The€victim€pleaded€with€the€Defendant€and€asked€him€not€to€leave€her€daughter€motherless.€Ð œì Ð(The€victimððs€daughter€was€staying€with€friends€on€the€day€of€this€incident.)€€The€Defendant€held€theÐ ˆØ Ðvictim€for€approximately€one€and€one„half€hours.€€During€this€time,€the€Defendant€threatened€to€killÐ tÄ Ðthe€victim,€poked€her€in€her€chest,€injured€her€shoulder€as€she€was€trying€to€escape,€grabbed€her€byÐ `° Ðthe€arms,€and€pushed€her.€€At€one€point,€the€victim€became€ill€and€threw„up.€€Ô#†XéˆXX Xéˆh#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔAlso,€the€victim€testifiedÐ L œ Ðthat€she€had€sex€with€the€Defendant€out€of€fear€that€he€would€harm€her€if€she€refused.€€The€victimÐ 8 ˆ Ðstated€that€she€had€not€had€consensual€sex€with€the€Defendant,€since€December€of€1998.€€After€havingÐ $ t Ðintercourse€with€the€Defendant,€the€victim€convinced€the€Defendant€that,€if€he€let€her€go€to€work,€thenÐ  ` Ðshe€would€not€tell€anyone€about€what€had€happened.€€The€Defendant€told€the€victim€that€he€wouldÐ ü L  Ðkill€her€if€she€notified€anyone€about€this€incident.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà ½ àThe€victim€got€in€her€car€and€drove€approximately€two€blocks€to€her€job€at€HendersonvilleÐ À  ÐHospital,€where€she€worked€as€a€surgical€scrub€technologist.€€She€proceeded€to€her€work€and€tried€toÐ ¬ü  Ðpretend€that€she€was€alright.€€At€some€point,€she€was€able€to€speak€with€Beth€Bean,€her€immediateÐ ˜è  Ðsupervisor,€and€describe€how€the€Defendant€had€attacked€her€earlier€that€morning.€€Bean€testified€that,Ð „Ô  Ðwhen€she€saw€the€victim,€the€victim€ð ðwas€upset,€shaking€and€trembling,€[and]€crying.ðð€She€furtherÐ pÀ Ðstated€that€the€victim€complained€of€left€shoulder€pain,€had€scratches€on€her€neck,€a€cut€on€her€hand,Ð \¬ Ðand€blood€on€her€lab€coat.€€Bean€took€the€victim€to€the€directorððs€office,€and€eventually,€the€victimÐ H˜ Ðwas€taken€to€the€emergency€room.€€The€victim€was€treated€for€the€cuts€on€her€hand,€given€a€tetanusÐ 4„ Ðshot,€medicine€for€pain€and€a€prescription€for€anxiousness.€€Later,€the€police€were€called€and€OfficerÐ  p ÐNewberry€arrived€to€get€a€report€from€the€victim.€€Afterwards,€Mary€Guldeman,€the€victimððs€co„Ð  \ Ðworker€and€good€friend,€took€the€victim€to€obtain€an€order€of€protection.€€Then,€the€victim€was€takenÐ øH Ðback€to€her€apartment€to€gather€some€personal€items,€so€that€she€and€her€daughter€could€stay€with€theÐ ä4 ÐGuldemans€for€three€or€four€days.€€Mary€Guldeman€testified€that,€while€they€were€at€the€victimððsÐ Ð  Ðapartment,€she€ð ðnoticed€some€papers€on€the€floor€and€greasy,€dirty€skid€marks€by€the€front€door.ðð€Ð ¼  ÐGuldeman€stated€that€she€knew€the€victim€to€be€ð ðan€immaculate€housekeeper.ðð€€The€victim€explainedÐ ¨ø Ðthat€the€marks€were€where€the€Defendant€ð ðhad€entered€and€slid€across€the€floor€chasing€her.ððò òÐ ”ä ÐÌó óà ½ àAt€this€point,€the€State€rested€its€case„in„chief.€€The€Defendant€made€a€motion€for€judgmentÐ l¼ Ðof€acquittal,€which€the€trial€court€denied.€€The€Defendant€declined€to€testify,€after€examination€by€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court,€due€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€evidence€surrounding€his€prior€conviction€in€LouisianaÐ D!” Ðwould€be€admissible€to€impeach€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€stated€that€he€did€not€want€to€beÐ 0"€  Ðsubject€to€impeachment€and€questioning€related€to€the€guilty€plea€for€attempted€manslaughter€heÐ #l! Ðentered€in€Louisiana.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€on€all€three€counts€of€the€indictment.€€ThisÐ $X" Ðappeal€followed.ò òÐ ô$D # ÐÌòòÓ  ÓANALYSISó óóóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÓw!Óò òI.€Admissibility€Of€Louisiana€Conviction€Under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€609ó óÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that,€if€he€testified,€he€could€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðimpeached€by€proof€of€a€guilty€plea€he€entered€in€Louisiana€in€1993€for€attempted€manslaughter.€TheÐ h+¸&* ÐDefendant€argues€that€the€guilty€plea€was€not€a€conviction,€because€the€trial€judge€in€Louisiana€hadÐ ° Ðnot€sentenced€him€or€entered€a€final€judgment.€He€concedes€that€the€attempted€manslaughter€is€a€priorÐ œì Ðbad€act.€€However,€he€asserts€that€the€attempted€manslaughter€was€a€crime€of€violence€and€not€ofÐ ˆØ Ðdishonesty.€€He€also€argues€that€given€the€similarity€between€the€Louisiana€conviction€and€the€offenseÐ tÄ Ðcharged,€the€admission€of€the€prior€conviction€would€only€be€propensity€evidence,€and€be€unfairlyÐ `° Ðprejudicial.Ô#†XéˆXX XéˆN#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔ€€Ô#†XéˆXX X鈬%#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔThe€record€shows€that€the€Defendant€left€Louisiana€after€entering€a€guilty€plea€for€theÐ L œ Ðattempted€manslaughter€of€his€ex„girlfriend,€and€he€was€on€fugitive€status€in€Louisiana.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†XéˆXX Xéˆð%#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔÌÓ  Óà ½ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€Defendantððs€reliance€upon€Rule€32€(e),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€isÐ  ` Ðmisplaced.€€Rule€32€(e)€sets€forth€the€required€contents€of€a€judgment€of€conviction€and€the€methodÐ ü L  Ðfor€entering€such€a€judgment.€€However,€this€rule€provides€no€guidance€for€our€determination€ofÐ è 8  Ðwhether€the€Defendantððs€guilty€plea€was€a€ð ðconvictionðð€for€purposes€of€€impeachment.€€Moreover,Ð Ô$  Ðwe€find€that,€under€Tennessee€law,€Defendantððs€guilty€plea€was€a€conviction€for€impeachmentÐ À  Ðpurposes.€€The€Defendantððs€case€is€similar€to€the€situation€in€which€a€trial€court€permits€the€State€toÐ ¬ü  Ðuse€a€defendantððs€conviction€to€impeach€credibility,€even€though€that€conviction€is€pending€on€appeal.Ð ˜è  ÐÔ#†XéˆXX Xéˆ'#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔ€òòSeeóó€òòMcgee€v.€Stateóó,€332€S.W.2d€507,€508„09€(Tenn.€1960)€(holding€that€trial€courtððs€admission€ofÐ „Ô  Ðdefendantððs€prior€conviction,€€for€impeachment€purposes,€did€not€constitute€error,€though€an€appealÐ pÀ Ðwas€pending€from€that€prior€conviction)òòóó.€€In€this€case,€a€final€judgment€had€not€been€entered€againstÐ \¬ Ðthe€Defendant,€because€the€Defendant€absconded€and€failed€to€return€to€Louisiana€for€his€sentencing,Ð H˜ Ðafter€being€permitted€to€return€to€Tennessee€to€work.€€€A€transcript€of€a€phone€conference€betweenÐ 4„ Ðthe€trial€court€and€the€Louisiana€trial€judge,€with€counsel€present,€indicated€that€the€judge€hadÐ  p Ðaccepted€the€Defendantððs€plea€of€guilty€to€attempted€manslaughter,€and€the€plea€agreement€cappedÐ  \ Ðthe€Defendantððs€sentence€at€ten€years.€€The€Louisiana€judge€stated€that€the€only€remaining€steps€wereÐ øH Ðthe€sentencing€of€the€Defendant€and€the€entrance€of€a€final€judgment.€€We€find€that€€the€trial€judge€inÐ ä4 Ðthis€case€correctly€ruled€that€the€Defendantððs€guilty€plea€was€a€conviction.Ð Ð  ÐÌà ½ àNext,€in€addressing€the€issue€before€us,€we€look€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€609,€whichÐ ¨ø Ðsets€forth€several€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€the€State€can€use€a€judgment€of€convictionÐ ”ä Ðto€impeach€a€Defendant.€€The€pertinent€conditions€are€as€follows:Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°ÒÒeÒà ` à(2)€The€crime€must€be€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€of€oneÐ X ¨ Ðyear€under€the€law€under€which€the€witness€was€convicted€or,€if€not€so€punishable,Ð D!” Ðthe€crime€must€have€involved€dishonesty€or€false€statement.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà ` à(3)€If€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution,Ð $X" Ðthe€State€must€give€the€accused€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeachingÐ ô$D # Ðconviction€before€trial,€and€the€court€upon€request€must€determine€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðconviction's€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€onÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€substantive€issues.€€The€court€may€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€proof€priorÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€trial€but€in€any€event€shall€rule€prior€to€the€testimony€of€the€accused.€€If€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourt€makes€a€final€determination€that€such€proof€is€admissible€for€impeachmentÐ )à$( Ðpurposes,€the€accused€need€not€actually€testify€at€the€trial€to€later€challenge€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpropriety€of€the€determination.Ð h+¸&* ÐÒ°å0ÒÒeó0ÒTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2)-(3).€€€Ô#†XéˆXX X鈼*#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔIn€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€a€prior€conviction€onÐ ° Ðthe€issue€of€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues,€a€trial€courtÐ œì Ðshould€(a)€ð ðassess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeachingÐ ˆØ Ðconvictionðð€and€(b)€ð ðanalyze€the€relevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðð€Ð tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€LawÐ `° Ðof€Evidenceóó€ðð€609.9,€at€376€(3d€ed.€1995).€€ð ðThe€standard€is€not€whether€there€is€òòanyóó€prejudice€to€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€by€allowing€the€state€to€use€the€prior€conviction€for€impeachment,€but€whether€the€possibleÐ 8 ˆ Ðprejudice€is€outweighed€by€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€as€to€the€defendantððs€credibility€as€aÐ $ t Ðwitness.ðð€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€403,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(italics€in€original).€€Ô#†XéˆXX Xéˆú5#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔOnÐ  ` Ðappeal,€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€under€Rule€609€will€not€be€reversed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóóÐ ü L  ÐòòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ô#†XéˆXX Xéˆ~:#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔÐ è 8  ÐÓ8'ÓÓ5ÓÌà ½ àPrior€to€trial,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€in€limine€to€have€evidence€of€his€prior€acts€andÐ À  Ðconviction€from€Louisiana€excluded€from€the€trial.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€court€denied€theÐ ¬ü  ÐDefendantððs€motion.€€€The€findings€of€the€trial€court€were€not€provided€in€the€appellate€record.€Ð ˜è  ÐÔ#†XéˆXX X鈟;#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔHowever,€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€Defendantððs€motion€in€limine€was€included€in€the€record,€andÐ „Ô  Ðstates:Ð pÀ ÐÌÓã;ÓÒ°ÒÒeÒò òÓ  ÓORDERó óÐ H˜ ÐÓj>ÓÓ*ÓÌà ` àTHIS€CAUSE€is€before€the€Court€this€the€17òòthóó€day€of€March,€2000€upon€aÐ  p ÐDEFENDANTððS€MOTION€IN€LIMINE€TO€EXCLUDE€PRIOR€ACTS€OFÐ  \ ÐMISCONDUCT.à  àÐ øH ÐÌIT€IS€THEREFORE,€ORDERED€by€the€court€that€the€MOTION€IN€LIMINE€TOÐ Ð  ÐEXCLUDE€PRIOR€ACTS€OF€MISCONDUCT€BY€THE€DEFENDANT€is€DENIEDÐ ¼  Ðfor€reasons€set€out€on€the€record.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ` àThis€the€17òòthóó€day€of€March,€2000.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌÓ£>ÓÓ  ÓÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€/S/€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ D!” Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJANE€W.€WHEATCRAFTÐ 0"€  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCRIMINAL€COURT€JUDGEÐ #l! ÐÓà@ÓÒeY>ÒÒ°K>ÒÔ#†XéˆXX Xéˆ=#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔÌÓ  Óà ½ àThe€record€also€contains€a€transcript€of€the€motion€in€limine€held€on€March€16,€2000,€whichÐ ô$D # Ðreflects€the€arguments€made€for€and€against€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence.€€At€the€end€of€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðmotion,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€would€provide€the€parties€with€its€ruling€either€by€the€end€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðday€or€as€quickly€as€possible.€€€Yet,€those€findings€are€not€provided€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€From€theÐ ¸'#& Ðlanguage€in€the€trial€courtððs€order,€it€appears€that€another€hearing€was€held,€at€which€time€the€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourt€stated€its€ruling€on€the€record.€€The€Defendant€has€not€provided€us€with€the€record€of€thatÐ )à$( Ðâ âhearing.Ô#†XéˆXX XéˆØB#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔ€Therefore,€we€are€unable€to€make€a€determination€as€to€whether€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiscretion,€because€the€appellate€record€presented€for€our€review€is€inadequate€and€fails€to€provideÐ ° Ðsufficient€information€for€this€Court€to€thoroughly€review€this€issue.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà ½ àThe€appellant€has€the€burden€to€prepare€a€record€on€appeal€that€presents€a€complete€andÐ tÄ Ðaccurate€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issues€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.Ð `° ÐApp.€P.€24(b).€€The€failure€to€do€so€results€in€a€waiver€of€such€issues€and€a€presumption€that€theÐ L œ Ðfindings€of€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€lack€of€a€complete€record€presents€us€from€determining€whether€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ $ t Ðdiscretion€in€this€case.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€has€waived€the€right€to€a€review€of€this€issue.€€Ô#†XéˆXX XéˆF#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔÐ  ` ÐÔ#†XéˆXX XéˆnJ#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔÌÓøBÓò òÓ  ÓII.€Admissibility€Of€Louisiana€Conviction€Under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401Ô#†XéˆXX XéˆÅJ#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔ€andÐ è 8  Ð404(b)Ð Ô$  ÐÓøJÓÓ@ÓÌó óà ½ àThe€Defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€upon€Rules€401€and€404(b),€Tenn.€R.Ð ¬ü  ÐEvid.,€to€admit€certain€statements€made€by€the€Defendant€to€the€victim,€during€commission€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðoffenses.€€The€Defendant€contends€that,€even€if€this€evidence€was€relevant,€the€probative€value€wasÐ „Ô  Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€At€trial,€the€victim€testified€as€follows:Ð pÀ ÐÌÒ°Òà ½ àQ€[Prosecutor].à0 Å àWhat€happened€once€he€made€it€into€the€door€and€locked€youÐ H˜ Ðin?Ð4„Å Ð Å Ð  ÐÌà ½ àA€[victim].à0 m àà0Å m Ð m Ð àHe€was€just€ranting€and€raving.€€He€had€told€me€„„€well,€I,Ð  \ Ðwhen€he€came€in,€ð ðWhat€are€you€doing€here?€€You€need€to€getÐ øH Ðout,ðð€because€I€didnððt€have€time€for€that.€€I€had€to€be€at€work.€Ð ä4 ÐI€wasnððt€wanting€to€argue€with€him.ÐÐ Å Ð Å Ð  ÐÌà0 ½ àà0 ½Ð ½Ð àà0m  Ð  Ð àà0Å m Ð m Ð àHe€was€like,€ð ðTalk€shit€now,€bitch,ðð€and€òòwas€referring€to€thatÐ ¨ø Ðhe€should€have€killed€me,€like€he€should€done€to€that€bitch,Ð ”ä ÐKim.óóЀÐÅ Ð Å Ð  ÐÌà ½ àQ.€à0  àà0m  Ð  Ð àà0Å m Ð m Ð àDid€you€know€what€he€meant?ÐX ¨Å Ð Å Ð  ÐÌÒ°ÉMÒà ½ àA.€à0  àà0m  (# (#àà0Å m (#m (#àYeah.Ð0"€ Å (#Å (# ÐÌ(emphasis€added).€€Defendantððs€objection€is€to€the€emphasized€portion€of€the€testimony.€€However,Ð $X" Ðwe€find€that€the€appellate€record€presented€for€our€review€is€inadequate€and€fails€to€provide€sufficientÐ ô$D # Ðinformation€for€this€Court€to€thoroughly€review€this€issue.€€As€stated€above,€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ à%0!$ Ðwere€not€included€in€the€record.€€The€Defendant€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€providing€a€completeÐ Ì&"% Ðand€accurate€record€of€the€trial€court€proceedings€with€respect€to€this€issue.€€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€Ð ¸'#& ÐTherefore,€this€issue€is€also€waived€and€we€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€correct.€€òòOodyóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð823€S.W.2d€at€559.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà ½ àNonetheless,€we€note€that€this€testimony€did€not€provide€the€jury€with€any€evidence€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âDefendantððs€prior€Louisiana€conviction.€€The€victimððs€testimony€merely€addressed€the€DefendantððsÐ œì Ðill€intentions€toward€the€victim€and€another€woman€named€Kim.€€The€jury€was€not€made€aware€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðdetails€surrounding€the€Defendantððs€attack€on€Kim.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€this€statement€did€notÐ tÄ Ðunfairly€prejudice€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ô#†XéˆXX XéˆvK#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔÐ `° Ðò òó óÌÓÙKÓò òÓ  ÓIII.€Sentencingó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓóWÓÓ@Óà ½ àThe€Defendantððs€final€issue€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case.€Ð  ` ÐHe€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€him€to€serve€the€sentences€imposed€for€this€incidentÐ ü L  Ðconsecutively€to€each€other,€as€well€as€consecutively€to€his€Louisiana€conviction€for€attemptedÐ è 8  Ðmanslaughter,€which€he€contends€is€not€a€conviction.€€He€further€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€toÐ Ô$  Ðfollow€the€mandates€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€and€erroneously€found€him€to€be€a€dangerousÐ À  Ðoffender€under€subsection€40„35„115(b)(4).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà ½ àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€theÐ „Ô  Ðreviewing€court€must€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€were€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€We€conditionÐ \¬ Ðthe€presumption€of€correctness€ð ðupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ð[T]he€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€for€arriving€atÐ  p Ðthe€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÐ  \ Ðfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancementÐ øH Ðfactors€have€been€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2dÐ ä4 Ð597,€599-600€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€a€sentence€is€improper€is€on€the€appealingÐ Ð  Ðparty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(sentencing€commission€comments).€€In€reviewing€the€record,Ð ¼  Ðthis€court€must€consider€(a)€the€evidence€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentenceÐ ¨ø Ðreport,€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÐ ”ä Ðof€the€offenses,€and€(f)€the€appellant's€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210;€Ð €Ð Ðòòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102€&€103.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà ½ àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€was€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÐ D!” Ðbehavior€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€inÐ 0"€  Ðwhich€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-115(b)(4).€€However,€when€a€trialÐ #l! Ðcourt€uses€this€factor,€it€must€also€decide€whether€consecutive€sentences€(1)€reasonably€relate€to€theÐ $X" Ðseverity€of€the€offenses€committed;€(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€byÐ ô$D # Ðthe€offender;€and€(3)€are€congruent€with€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€€Regarding€consecutive€sentencing,€€the€trial€court€stated€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfollowing:Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ7XÓÓPÓÌÒ°ÒÒeÒà ` àNow,€the€Court€has€to€determine€whether€the€sentences€should€be€servedÐ )à$( Ðconsecutively€or€concurrently,€and€there€are€certain€things,€by€statute,€that€this€CourtÐ |*Ì%) Ðhas€to€look€at€in€determining€whether€I€think€consecutive€sentencing€is€proper.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðdefendant€has€been€convicted€of€more€than€one€criminal€offense.€€Also,€the€CourtÐ ° Ðfinds,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€this€particular€defendant€is€aÐ œì Ðdangerous€offender,€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÐ ˆØ Ðhe€has€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€to€which€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€Ð tÄ ÐThis€is€the€second€very,€very€serious€assault€that€this€defendant€has€committed.€€€Ð `° ÐÌà ` àThe€assault€in€Louisiana,€to€which€he€pled€guilty€of€attempted€manslaughter,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwas€horrendous.€€The€victim€was€hurt€very,€very€badly.€€This€defendant€pled€guilty.€Ð $ t ÐHe€did€not€return€to€the€Court€to€be€sentenced.€€Instead,€he€just€fled€the€jurisdictionÐ  ` Ðand€came€to€Tennessee.€€I€guess,€now€he€is€in€the€status€of€a€fugitive€from€justiceÐ ü L  Ðfrom€the€State€of€Louisiana.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà ` àThen€he€comes€up€here€and€gets€convicted€of€two€C€and€B€felonies;€again,Ð À  Ðcrimes€against€persons,€or€a€crime€against€a€person,€and€the€circumstances,€again,€areÐ ¬ü  Ðextremely€serious.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà ` àI€think€that€since€he€has€been€convicted€of€two€or€more€offenses,€that€I€do€findÐ pÀ Ðhim€to€be€a€dangerous€offender€under€section€(4);€that€while€his€criminal€activity€isÐ \¬ Ðnot€extensive,€it€certainly€is€serious€in€the€nature€of€the€offenses€that€he€hasÐ H˜ Ðcommitted.€€And€I€find€that€the€aggregate€length€of€all€these€sentences,€when€I€runÐ 4„ Ðthem€consecutively,€is€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€for€which€heÐ  p Ðhas€been€convicted.Ð  \ ÐÒ°eÒÒe›eÒÌà ½ àWhile€the€trial€court€may€not€have€explicitly€stated€the€òòWilkersonóó€factors€as€outlined€by€theÐ ä4 ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court,€we€are€able€to€glean€from€the€above€language€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ Ð  Ðconsidered€the€factors€in€òòWilkersonóó.€€òòóóÔ#†XéˆXX X鈥W#ÔÔ‡XéˆXXXéˆÔThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€sentences€imposed€in€thisÐ ¼  Ðcase€should€run€consecutively,€because€this€is€the€second€offense€of€this€nature€that€the€Defendant€hasÐ ¨ø Ðcommitted,€which€addresses€the€need€ð ðto€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€theÐ ”ä Ðoffender.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€the€length€of€the€sentences€ð ðreasonably€related€to€theÐ €Ð Ðseverity€of€the€offenses.ðð€€Finally,€the€trial€court€considered€general€sentencing€principles€when€itÐ l¼ Ðdetermined€that€the€serious€nature€of€the€offenses€justified€this€extensive€sentence.€€An€exhibit€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðguilty€plea€hearing€in€Louisiana€shows€that€the€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€attempted€manslaughterÐ D!” Ðof€his€girlfriend,€who€he€dragged€into€a€ditch,€ð ðpunched€in€the€face,ðð€and€pounded€her€in€the€head€withÐ 0"€  Ða€hammer.€€Therefore,€this€offense€is€the€second€time€the€Defendant€has€used€a€deadly€weapon.Ð #l! ÐFurthermore,€the€presentence€report€showed€that€the€Defendant€was€on€fugitive€status€in€Louisiana,Ð $X" Ðbecause€he€failed€to€return€for€his€sentencing€hearing.€€The€record€shows€that€the€trial€court€followedÐ ô$D # Ðthe€sentencing€principles€and€properly€ordered€the€Defendant€to€serve€the€sentences€in€this€caseÐ à%0!$ Ðconsecutively.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà ½ àAdditionally,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€ordering€the€Defendant€to€serve€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsentences€in€this€case€consecutively€to€his€sentence€in€Louisiana.€€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÐ )à$( ÐProcedure€32(c)(2)€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€that:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÒeÒÒ°ÒIf€the€defendant€has€additional€sentences€or€portions€thereof€to€serve€as€a€result€of€aÐ ° Ðconviction€in€òòother€statesóó€or€in€federal€court,€the€sentence€imposed€òòshall€beÐ œì Ðconsecutiveóó€thereto,€unless€the€Court€shall€determine,€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion,Ð ˆØ Ðthat€good€causeòò€óóexists€to€run€the€sentences€concurrently€and€explicitly€so€orders.€€ò òÐ tÄ ÐÒe—vÒÒ°¥vÒÌó ó(emphasis€added).€€Ô#†XéˆXXXéˆso#ÔÔ‡ XéˆXXXéˆÔThis€rule€requires€the€Defendant€to€serve€his€Tennessee€sentence€consecutive€toÐ L œ Ðhis€Louisiana€sentence,€unless€the€trial€court€exercises€its€discretion€to€order€the€sentences€to€runÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcurrently.€€There€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€is€notÐ $ t Ðentitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð  ` ÐÓ|eÓÌò òòòÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONóóó óÐ è 8  ÐÓŽzÓÓ  ÓÌà ½ àBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð À  ÐÌÔ#†XéˆXX XéˆËx#Ôà0 ½ àà0 ½(#½(#àà0m  (# (#àà0Å m (#m (#àà0Å (#Å (#àà0u(#(#àà0Íu(#u(#à___________________________________€à Ý" àà @Ý" àà @Ý" àà @Ý" àà @Ý" àà @Ý" àà @Ý" àÐ ˜è  ÐTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ„Ô Í(#Í(# ÐÓÏzÓÑ  Ñ