ÿWPC4! …UNV %¤ 0 (ªw@Ò4& 0†5 0D»ÿ 0J 0TQ 0^¥ 0h 0rk 0|Ý 0†Y 0ß 1uo 0dä BH U>e U*£ B)Í DCö AM9 D3†ã¹œ 0@±¤ñO•íämÑv~>vÓ¼ AOÆÞ 0D¤ D/è B!(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ {E|}D~ €‚†U‡Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x(6(2Ä:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌDecember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Defendant€Davisðð€name€is€also€spelled€ð ðJonathonðð€in€various€court€documents.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€›We€do€not€imply€that€an€arrest€of€a€defendant,€pursuant€to€an€arrest€warrant,€thatÏoccurs€within€another€personððs€residence,€without€a€search€warrant,€is€illegal€òòas€to€theÏarrested€defendantóó.€€òòSteagaldóó€concerned€the€òòrights€of€the€residential€owneróó,€not€the€arrestedÏperson.€€An€arrest€warrant€alone€is€sufficient€to€enter€the€dwelling€in€which€the€suspectÏlives€when€there€is€reason€to€believe€he€is€present.€€òòPayton€v.€New€Yorkóó,€445€U.S.€573,Ï603,€100€S.Ct.€1371,€63€L.€Ed€2d€639€(1980).€€ÌÌà àWe€also€note€the€issue€of€consent€to€enter€the€premises€was€not€litigated€during€theÏmotion€to€œsuppress.€€The›€record€implies€that€the€police€were€given€consent€to€enter€theÏhome€of€Watkinsðð€œgrandmother.›€Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó€òòLee€v.€Illinoisóó,€476€U.S.€530,€106€S.Ct.€2056,€90€L.Ed.2d€514€(1986),€as€toÏevidence€directly€admissible€against€the€defendant.Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó€òòLee€v.€Illinoisóó,€òòsupraóó.Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€was€amended€in€1995€to€make€insanity€anÏaffirmative€defense€requiring€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€The€test€for€insanity€was€alsoÏmodified.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€)+(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9701„CC„00004ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òMAURY€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€JAMES€L.ÏWEATHERFORD,ÌWILLIAM€EDWARD€WATKINSó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEÌand€JONATHAN€DAVIS,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à à(Felony€Murder€andÌà àAppellants.à@ à)à àAttempted€Aggravated€Robbery)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€APPELLANT€WATKINSóó:ÌÌSHARA€ANN€FLACY€(at€trial)ó óÌDistrict€Public€DefenderÌÌò òWILLIAM€C.€BRIGHT€(at€trial)ó óÌ209€W.€Madison€StreetÌP.O.€Box€1208ÌPulaski,€TN€38478„1208ÌÌò òJOHN€E.€HERBISON€(onÏappeal)ó óÌ2016€Eighth€Avenue€SouthÌNashville,€TN€37204ÌÌò òòòFOR€APPELLANT€DAVISóó:ÌÌDICK€CLARK€(at€trial)ó óÌ3354€Perimeter€Hill€Drive,€Suite€112ÌNashville,€TN€37211ÌÌò òGUY€R.€DOTSON€(at€trial)ó óÌ102€S.€Maple€StreetÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37130„3530ÌÌò òGARY€M.€HOWELL€(onÏappeal)ó óÌP.O.€Box€442ÌColumbia,€TN€38402„0442ÌÉò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òT.€MICHAEL€BOTTOMSó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òROBERT€C.€SANDERSó óÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ10€Public€SquareÌP.O.€Box€1619ÌColumbia,€TN€€38402„1619ÉÉÒÒò òÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÓÓó óÑ7€¶hXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendants,€William€Edward€Watkins€and€Jonathan€Davis,œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€appealÏjury€convictions€for€one€(1)€count€of€attempted€aggravated€robbery€and€two€(2)Ïcounts€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€Both€defendants€were€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment€for€each€count€of€felony€murder€and€three€(3)€years€for€theÏattempted€aggravated€œrobbery.›€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€runÏconsecutively.€€On€appeal,€Watkins€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà à(1)à8 àwhether€there€was€a€fatal€variance€in€the€indictmentÏand€proof€as€to€the€name€of€the€victim€of€theÏattempted€aggravated€robbery;ÌÌà à(2)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€his€post„arrest€statement€œafter€an€illegal€arrest;›ÌÌà à(3)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€defendantððsÏmotion€to€sever€defendants;ÌÌà à(4)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€theÏjury€on€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€felony€murder;€andÌÌà à(5)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences.ÌÌÓÓDavis€joins€in€the€severance€and€sentencing€issues€and€raises€three€furtherÏissues€for€our€consideration:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€accepting€hisÏtransfer€from€juvenile€court€to€be€tried€as€an€adult;€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€admitting€his€post„arrest€statement;€and€(3)€whether€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€he€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€œoffenses.Ìà àWe›€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÌà àOn€March€28,€1994,€Watkins€borrowed€a€gun€from€Lamont€Orr.€€He€metÏsome€friends€at€Columbia€Gardens€Apartments,€and€they€began€discussing€aÏproposed€plan€to€rob€the€Richland€Inn.€€Davis€approached€the€group€andÏagreed€to€rob€the€Richland€Inn.€€Watkins€gave€Davis€the€.22€caliber€handgunÏand€a€ski€mask,€and€they€both€walked€towards€the€motel.€€The€others€in€theÏgroup€decided€that€they€did€not€want€to€participate€in€any€criminal€activity€andÏstayed€behind.Ìà àElwood€Sinson,€a€guest€at€the€Richland€Inn,€was€meeting€a€businessÏassociate€in€his€room€on€the€ground€floor.€€As€he€was€waiting€for€his€associate€toÏopen€the€door,€he€saw€Davis€jump€from€a€brick€wall€on€the€side€of€the€parking€lotÏand€walk€towards€him.€€Davis€quickened€his€speed€and€aimed€the€gun€atÏSinson€and€said,€ð ðyour€money€or€your€life.ðð€€Sinson€was€able€to€get€inside€theÏmotel€room€before€Davis€could€do€anything€further.Ìà àAfter€the€failed€robbery€attempt€at€the€Richland€Inn,€Watkins€and€DavisÏœdecided›€to€rob€Lamont€Orr.€€They€went€to€Orrððs€trailer,€where€he€lived€with€hisÏgirlfriend,€Elizabeth€Smith.€€Orr€left€with€them€when€Watkins€and€Davis€told€himÏthat€they€were€going€to€participate€in€œa›€œcocaine›€transaction.€€Orr€drove€WatkinsÏand€Davis€to€the€parking€lot€of€Brownððs€School.€€Upon€arrival€at€the€parking€lot,ÏœDavis€without€any›€œprovocation€shot›€Orr€in€the€head.€€Orr€was€also€shot€a€secondÍtime€in€the€head€and€died€as€a€result€of€these€wounds.€€Although€Orr€was€seenÏwith€15„20€rocks€of€crack€cocaine€earlier€that€day,€no€drugs€were€found€on€hisÏperson€after€his€death.Ìà àBecause€Smith€had€seen€Orr€leave€with€them,€Watkins€and€DavisÏreturned€to€the€trailer.€€Smith€was€fatally€shot€once€in€the€head.€€Earlier€thatÏevening,€Smith€was€seen€with€$100.€€No€money€was€found€at€the€trailer€after€theÏhomicide,€and€there€was€also€evidence€that€some€cocaine€was€missing€from€theÏtrailer.€€Davis€was€subsequently€seen€wearing€rings€which€he€claimed€he€hadÏtaken€from€Smith.Ìà àWatkins€was€arrested€two€days€later€on€an€unrelated€forgery€charge.€ÏAfter€being€questioned€on€the€murders,€Watkins€gave€a€statement€implicatingÏhimself€and€Davis€in€the€attempted€robbery€of€Sinson€and€the€homicides€of€OrrÏand€Smith.€€Davis€subsequently€confessed€to€the€crimes€as€well.̛̜à àAfter€a€joint€jury€trial,€both€defendants€were€convicted€of€one€(1)€count€ofÏattempted€aggravated€robbery€and€two€(2)€counts€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€ÏFor€both€defendants,€the€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€of€lifeÏimprisonment€for€each€count€of€felony€murder€and€three€(3)€years€for€attemptedÏaggravated€robbery.€€From€these€convictions€and€sentences,€defendants€bringÏthis€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òòòWATKINS€„€FATAL€VARIANCE€IN€THE€INDICTMENT€AND€PROOFó óóóÌÌà àWatkins€contends€that€the€evidence€œof›€the€victimððs€name€at€trial€differsÏsubstantially€from€that€alleged€in€the€indictment,€and€the€variance€is€œfatal.€€The›Ïindictment€alleged€that€the€victim€of€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€€wasÏð ðEdward€Sensor.ðð€€At€trial,€the€state€presented€proof€that€the€victimððs€name€wasÏactually€ð ðElwood€Sinson.ðð€€The€state€announced€prior€to€Sinsonððs€testimony€thatÏhis€name€was€incorrectly€listed€on€the€indictment.€€Neither€defendant€objected.Ìà àThis€issue€was€not€presented€in€Watkinsðð€motion€for€new€trial.€€This€failureÏwaives€appellate€review.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910ÏS.W.2d€381,€386€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àNevertheless,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€In€order€for€a€variance€betweenÏthe€indictment€and€the€proof€to€be€fatal,€the€variance€must€be€both€material€andÏprejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Mayesóó,€854€S.W.2d€638,€640„41€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€590,€592€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€variance€is€notÏmaterial€ð ðwhere€the€allegations€and€proof€substantially€correspond,€the€varianceÏis€not€of€a€character€which€could€have€misled€the€defendant€at€trial€and€is€notÏsuch€as€to€deprive€the€accused€of€his€right€to€be€protected€against€anotherÏprosecution€for€the€same€offense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€at€592.€€TheÏdefendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€variance€between€the€indictmentÏand€the€proof€was€material.€€Moreover,€defendant€has€not€shown€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€discrepancy€in€the€victimððs€name.ÌÌà@ àò òòòWATKINS€„€ADMISSION€OF€STATEMENTó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€next€assignment€of€error,€Watkins€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€his€post„arrest€statement€into€evidence€at€trial.€€He€asserts€that€he€wasÏillegally€arrested€in€his€grandmotherððs€home€without€a€òòsearchóó€warrant.€€òòSeeóóÏòòSteagald€v.€United€Statesóó,€451€U.S.€204,€101€S.Ct.€1642,€68€L.Ed.2d€38€(1981).€ÏTherefore,€he€urges€that€his€confession€was€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€andÏshould€have€been€suppressed.Ìà àIn€a€pre„trial€hearing,€Watkins€moved€to€suppress€his€statement€on€theÏground€that€he€was€illegally€arrested€without€an€òòarrestóó€warrant.€€After€heÏpresented€his€evidence€in€favor€of€the€motion€to€suppress,€defense€counselÏacknowledged€that€there€was€an€òòarrestóó€warrant,€withdrew€his€FourthÏAmendment€ground€and€proceeded€on€whether€or€not€the€confession€wasÏvoluntary.€€The€need€for€a€òòsearchóó€warrant€was€not€raised€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWatkins€did€not€raise€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€theÏissue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€Moreover,€the€abandonment€of€the€issueÏin€the€motion€to€suppress€would€serve€as€a€waiver€of€the€issue€as€well.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).Ìà àThis€issue€œhas€been€waived.›ÌÌà@ àò òòòWATKINS€AND€DAVIS€„€SEVERANCE€OF€DEFENDANTSó óóóÌÌà àWatkins€and€Davis€both€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theirÏrespective€motions€to€sever€their€trials.€€€Each€defendant€claims€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€admission€of€his€codefendantððs€post„arrest€statement€at€trial.Ìà àBefore€the€state€presented€its€proof,€the€trial€court€determined€that€theÏconfession€of€each€defendant€would€be€admissible€at€trial.€€œHowever,›€the€trialÏcourt,€under€the€authority€of€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441,€446€(Tenn.Ï1988),€ruled€that€portions€of€each€statement€which€exposed€the€other€defendantÏto€an€increased€risk€of€conviction€should€be€redacted.€€Nevertheless,€theÏredacted€versions€of€each€defendantððs€statement€œadmitted€at€trial€still›€implicatedÏthe€other€defendant€in€the€œcrimes.Ìà@ àò òA.€€ó óÌ›à àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(c)€governs€the€granting€or€denial€of€a€severance€ofÏdefendants.€€The€decision€as€to€whether€or€not€to€grant€a€severance€is€left€to€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€this€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€unlessÏthe€defendant€is€unfairly€or€unduly€prejudiced.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€619ÏS.W.2d€112,€116€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€211€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Kygeróó,€787€S.W.2d€13,€20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);ÏòòState€v.€Hodgkinsonóó,€778€S.W.2d€54,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.ÏWisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Stated€in€anotherÏmanner,€a€trial€court€will€not€be€found€to€have€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€aÏseverance€unless€ð ðthe€defendant€was€clearly€prejudiced€to€the€point€that€the€trialÍcourtððs€discretion€ended€and€the€granting€of€[a]€severance€became€a€judicialÏduty.ðð€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(quotingÏòòHunter€v.€Stateóó,€222€Tenn.€672,€682,€440€S.W.2d€1,€6€(1969)).Ìà@ àœò òB.ó ó›Ìà àIn€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€88€S.Ct.€1620,€20€L.Ed.2d€476Ï(1968),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€an€inculpatory€confession€of€aÏnontestifying€codefendant€is€not€admissible€in€a€joint€trial€with€a€defendant€whoÏhas€not€confessed€his€participation€in€the€crime.€€In€a€later€decision,€a€plurality€ofÏthe€Court€held€that€an€ð ðinterlockingðð€confession€of€a€nontestifying€codefendantÏwith€proper€limiting€instructions€would€not€offend€the€defendantððs€rights€underÏthe€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòParkerÏv.€Randolphóó,€442€U.S.€62,€99€S.Ct.€2132,€60€L.Ed.2d€713€(1979).Ìà àThe€ruling€in€òòParker€v.€Randolphóó€based€upon€ð ðinterlockingðð€confessionsÏwas€later€undercut€by€the€Courtððs€decision€in€òòCruz€v.€New€Yorkóó,€481€U.S.€186,Ï107€S.Ct.€1714,€95€L.Ed.2d€162€(1987).€€In€òòCruzóó,€the€Court€held€that€theÏConfrontation€Clause€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€bars€the€admission,€in€a€jointÏcriminal€trial,€of€a€nontestifying€codefendantððs€confession€which€incriminates€theÏdefendant€and€which€is€not€directly€admissible€against€the€defendant.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€481ÏU.S.€at€193.€€This€is€true€even€if€the€jury€is€instructed€not€to€consider€theÏcodefendantððs€confession€against€the€defendant,€and€even€if€the€defendantððsÏown€confession€is€admitted€against€him.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àHowever,€a€defendantððs€confession€may€be€considered€at€trial€in€order€toÏassess€ð ðwhether€his€codefendantððs€statements€are€supported€by€sufficientÏððindicia€of€reliabilityðð€to€be€directly€admissible€against€him€(assuming€theÏððunavailabilityðð€of€the€codefendant)€despite€the€lack€of€opportunity€for€cross„examinationðð× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€ð ðòòmay€be€considered€on€appeal€in€assessing€whether€anyÏConfrontation€Clause€violation€was€harmlessóó.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€194€(emphasis€added).€ÏThis€holding€was€followed€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746ÏS.W.2d€at€446,€and€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Cameronóó,€909€S.W.2d€836,€852„53Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€œthose€portions€ofÏthe›€statement€of€each€defendant€œthat›€implicated€the€other€defendant€in€theÏcrimes.€€However,€when€each€defendantððs€confession€is€viewed€by€itself€inÏconjunction€with€the€other€evidence€presented,€excluding€the€codefendantððsÏconfession,€the€evidence€of€guilt€as€to€each€defendant€is€overwhelming.€€We,Ïtherefore,€conclude€that€the€òòBrutonóó€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,Ï746€S.W.2d€at€446;€òòState€v.€Cameronóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€853;€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(b).Ìà@ àœò òC.ó ó›Ìà àWatkins€further€contends€that€Davisðð€confession€was€inadmissibleÏbecause€it€was€hearsay,€and€no€hearsay€exception€applies.€€This€issue€was€notÏpresented€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€ÏFurthermore,€as€stated€above,€its€admission€was€harmless€as€to€Watkins.€€Tenn.ÍR.€App.€P.€36(b).Ìà@ àœò òD.ó ó›Ìà àWatkins€argues€that€he€was€further€prejudiced€because€the€trial€courtððsÏredactions€of€his€statement€violated€the€rule€of€completeness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRobinsonóó,€622€S.W.2d€œ62,71›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€After€a€review€of€theÏentire€statement,€we€find€that€Watkins€has€not€shown€how€ð ðfairnessðð€required€theÏadmission€of€his€entire€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€106.€€There€is€nothing€inÏthe€excluded€portions€of€Watkinsðð€statement€which€would€mitigate€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€crimes.€€Furthermore,€the€jury€was€not€misled€as€to€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€crimes.€€In€short,€he€has€not€demonstrated€how€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€œredactions.€€At€most,€this€was€harmless€errror.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRobinsonóó,€622€S.W.2d€at€71.€€›Ìà@ àœò òE.ó ó›Ìà àIn€support€of€his€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€motionÏto€sever€the€defendants,€Davis€also€argues€that€relevant€portions€of€hisÏstatement€were€redacted.€€He€also€claims€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÏintroduction€of€evidence€that€Watkins€had€escaped€from€jail.Ìà àDefendant€has€failed€to€make€appropriate€references€to€the€record€andÏhas€failed€to€cite€authority€to€support€his€argument.€€Therefore,€this€issue€isÏwaived.€€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b);€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€358Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€875€S.W.2d€278,€283„84€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);Ïòòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)€and€(g).Ìà àFurthermore,€defendant€has€not€shown€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€theseÏalleged€errors.ÌÌà@ àò òòòWATKINS€„€FAILURE€TO€INSTRUCT€ON€SECOND€DEGREEÏMURDERó óóóÌÌà àWatkins€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏsecond€degree€murder.€€He€maintains€that€second€degree€murder€is€a€lesserÏgrade€of€felony€murder€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€He€claims€that€the€trial€court€had€a€mandatory€duty€to€charge€the€jury€onÏlesser€grades€or€classes€of€the€charged€offense€as€supported€by€the€evidence,Ïwithout€any€request€by€the€defendant€to€do€so.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a).€€Therefore,€he€insists€that€the€failure€to€charge€the€jury€on€secondÏdegree€murder€warrants€a€reversal€and€a€new€trial.Ìà àThis€issue€was€not€presented€to€the€trial€court€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€ÏTherefore,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).ÌÌà@ àò òòòDAVIS€„€ACCEPTANCE€FOR€TRIAL€AS€ADULTó óóóÌÌà àDavis€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€accepting€his€transfer€fromÏjuvenile€court€to€be€tried€as€an€adult.€€He€argues€that€he€sufficiently€raised€theÏissue€of€his€mental€illness.€€œHe›€maintains€that€once€the€issue€of€mental€illness€isÏraised,€the€state€must€prove€that€the€defendant€is€not€committable€to€anÍinstitution.€€He€urges€that€the€state€did€not€carry€its€burden;€therefore,€he€shouldÏhave€been€tried€as€a€juvenile.Ìà àA€juvenile€may€be€transferred€from€juvenile€court€to€be€tried€as€an€adult€ifÏthe€court€finds€that€there€are€reasonable€grounds€to€believe€that:€(1)€the€childÏcommitted€the€delinquent€act;€(2)€the€child€is€ð ðnot€committable€to€an€institutionÏfor€the€mentally€retarded€or€mentally€illðð;€and€(3)€ð ðthe€interests€of€the€communityÏrequire€that€the€child€be€put€under€legal€restraint€or€discipline.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€37„1„134(a)(4).Ìà àAt€the€acceptance€œhearing€conducted€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„159(d),›€both€the€state€and€Davis€presented€psychological€proof.€€The€stateððsÏexpert€testified€that€he€saw€no€evidence€that€Davis€was€mentally€retarded€orÏsuffered€from€mental€illness.€€The€defense€expert€diagnosed€Davis€withÏsituational€depression€and€described€him€as€having€ð ðparanoid€tendencies.ðð€ÏHowever,€œthe€defense€expert›€further€testified€that€she€found€that€Davis€was€notÏcommittable€to€an€institution€for€the€mentally€retarded€or€mentally€ill.Ìà àThe€trial€court€specifically€found€that€Davis€was€not€ð ðsuffering€from€mentalÏillness€and€heððs€not€subject€to€commitment€to€any€institution.ðð€€We€find€that€theÏrecord€supports€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€that€Davis€was€not€committable.€ÏMoreover,€the€trial€court€found€and€the€record€supports€that€Davis€committed€theÏð ðdelinquent€act€as€alleged,ðð€and€that€the€interests€of€the€community€required€thatÏDavis€be€put€under€legal€restraint€or€discipline.€€The€trial€court€properlyÏaccepted€Davis€to€be€tried€as€an€adult.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòDAVIS€„€ADMISSION€OF€STATEMENTó óóóÌÌà àDavis€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€his€post„arrestÏstatement€to€be€introduced€at€trial.€€He€bases€this€argument€on€two€premises:€(1)Ïhis€statement€was€taken€in€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Juv.€P.€7(d),€and€(2)€he€did€notÏknowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€rights€due€to€his€mental€state.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àRule€7(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Juvenile€Procedure€provides,€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€feasible,€a€parent€or€guardian€should€be€present€duringÏquestioning.€In€any€event,€no€child€having€been€placed€in€andÏpresent€in€a€detention€facility€shall€be€interrogated€concerning€anÏalleged€violation€of€law€unless€the€child€intelligently€waives€inÏwriting€the€right€to€remain€silent.ÌÌÓÓDavis€contends€that€his€parents€were€at€the€police€station€while€he€was€beingÏquestioned,€but€the€officers€would€not€allow€him€to€see€his€parents.Ìà àHowever,€it€is€well„settled€that€the€failure€to€follow€this€rule€will€notÏexclude€the€introduction€of€a€validly€obtained€confession€in€a€trial€in€criminalÏcourt.€€òòCoyler€v.€Stateóó,€577€S.W.2d€460,€463€(Tenn.€1979);€òòState€v.€Turnmireóó,Ï762€S.W.2d€893,€896„97€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€729€S.W.2dÏ272,€274€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€Raybin,€òòTennessee€CriminalÏPractice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€8.12€(1984).€€Therefore,€the€only€inquiry€becomesÏwhether€the€confession€was€the€result€of€a€knowing€and€intelligent€waiver€ofÏDavisðð€constitutional€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lundyóó,€808€S.W.2d€444,€446€(Tenn.Í1991).Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àThe€record€of€the€suppression€hearing€is€sparse.€€Neither€the€defendantÏnor€the€officer€who€took€the€confession€testified.€€The€only€persons€who€actuallyÏtestified€were€a€clinical€psychologist,€defendantððs€mother€and€defendantððs€step„father.€€However,€other€documentation€was€admitted€into€œevidence.›Ìà àDavis€was€two€(2)€months€shy€of€his€eighteenth€birthday€when€he€wasÏtaken€into€custody€and€interrogated.€€The€subjects€of€the€suppression€hearingÏwere€two€(2)€separate€confessions€by€Davis;€namely,€a€written€confession€takenÏat€6:47€p.m.€on€March€30,€1994,€and€a€tape€recorded€confession€beginning€atÏ8:14€p.m.€that€same€day€and€ending€at€8:35€p.m.€€There€is€no€issue€as€to€DavisÏhaving€been€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€The€issue€is€whether€DavisððÏmental€state€prevented€his€confession€from€being€voluntary.Ìà àA€clinical€psychologist,€who€evaluated€Davis€in€August€1995,€some€oneÏand€one„half€(1ðð)€years€after€the€confession,€opined€that€Davis€was€aÏparanoid€schizophrenic€functioning€in€the€low€average€range€of€overallÏintelligence.€€He€further€opined€that€Davis€had€serious€relationship€problemsÏand€conflict€with€authority;€was€suggestible,€gullible€and€confused;€had€aÏlearning€œdisability;›€suffered€from€delusions€and€hallucinations;€lacked€emotionalÏself„control;€and€was€distrustful.€€In€an€atmosphere€of€interrogation,€theÏpsychologist€believed€Davis€would€be€fearful€of€being€exploited€and€would€haveÏa€desire€to€escape€the€situation.€€In€light€of€Davisðð€mental€capabilities,€theÏpsychologist€did€not€believe€Davis€would€understand€the€consequences€ofÍconfessing€and€waiving€his€constitutional€rights.€€Ìà àAlso€admitted€at€the€suppression€hearing€were€the€results€of€anÏevaluation€of€Davis€performed€by€the€Forensic€Services€Division€of€MiddleÏTennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€in€March€1995,€approximately€one€(1)€yearÏafter€the€confession.€€As€a€result€of€this€evaluation,€Davis€was€found€capable€ofÏadequately€defending€himself€in€a€court€of€law€in€that€he€understood€theÏcharges€against€him€and€possible€consequences€and€was€able€to€adviseÏcounsel€and€participate€in€his€own€defense.€€The€evaluation€concluded€that€aÏdefense€of€insanity€could€not€be€supported€and,€further,€that€Davis€did€not€meetÏthe€standards€for€commitment€to€a€mental€health€institute.€€Ìà àDocumentation€was€also€introduced€relating€to€an€evaluation€performedÏon€May€25,€1994,€by€The€Adolescent€Center€of€the€Children€and€YouthÏPrograms€of€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute.€€This€evaluation€wasÏperformed€approximately€two€(2)€months€after€the€confession.€€Davis€was€foundÏto€be€alert€and€oriented,€yet€suffered€from€paranoid€thoughts€and€wasÏsuspicious€of€others.€€His€full€scale€IQ€was€92,€which€placed€him€within€theÏaverage€range€of€intelligence.€€He€read€at€a€12.9€grade€level€and€did€math€at€aÏ6th€grade€level.€€He€was€thought€to€be€a€risk€of€harm€to€himself€and€others;Ïhowever,€he€did€not€meet€standards€for€commitment€to€an€institution€for€theÏmentally€œill.›Ìà àDefendantððs€mother€testified€that€Davis€appeared€to€be€in€ð ða€state€ofÏshockðð€and€ð ðin€a€dazeðð€when€she€saw€him€at€the€police€station€on€the€night€ofÏthe€œinterrogation.›€€She€did€not€believe€he€understood€what€he€was€doing.Ìà àDavisðð€step„father€testified€that€he€and€his€wife€were€allowed€to€talk€toÏDavis€at€the€police€station.€€Davis€was€able€to€relate€to€them€what€hadÏhappened€and€understood€why€he€was€there.€€Davis€appeared€to€be€nervous,Ïbut€the€step„father€did€not€see€anything€particularly€wrong€with€him€on€thatÏœoccasion.›Ìà àThe€written€confession€was€in€the€handwriting€of€Davis.€€It€is€concise,Ïunderstandable€and€details€the€basic€facts€relating€to€the€homicides.€€Ìà àLikewise,€the€tape€recorded€statement€of€Davis€gives€a€very€clear,Ïdetailed€accounting€of€the€attempted€robbery€and€the€two€(2)€homicides.€€ThereÏis€nothing€in€the€statement€to€indicate€that€Davis€did€not€understand€what€heÏwas€œdoing.›ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€confessions€were€freely,€voluntarily€and€understandingly€made.€ÏThe€motion€to€suppress€was€overruled.€€Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€determination€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€theÏconfessions€were€voluntary€is€presumptively€correct€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€determination€isÏconclusive€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thatÏfinding.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€933€S.W.2d€450,€455€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603ÏS.W.2d€726,€729€(Tenn.€1980).€€Ìà àThe€test€of€voluntariness€for€confessions€under€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€theÍTennessee€Constitution€is€broad€and€more€protective€of€individual€rights€thanÏunder€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544.€€In€Tennessee,€the€particular€circumstances€ofÏeach€case€must€be€examined€as€a€whole.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€455;ÏòòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€218€Tenn.€31,€400€S.W.2d€722,€733€(1966).€€The€fact€that€oneÏsuffers€from€certain€mental€deficiencies€does€not€necessarily€prevent€thatÏperson€from€understanding€and€waiving€constitutional€rights.€€òòSee€generallyóó,ÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€327€(Tenn.€1992);€òòIV€WhartonððsÏCriminal€Evidenceóó€ðð€643,€p.€169€(14th€ed.€1987).€€Ìà@ àò òD.ó óÌà àAfter€a€careful€examination€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€the€confessionsÏwere€voluntarily€given.€€Certainly,€the€testimony€suggests€that€Davis€indeed€hadÏcertain€Ìœmental›€deficiencies;€however,€these€deficiencies€do€not€establish€that€hisÏconfessions€were€involuntary.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ì̛̜à@ àò òòòDAVIS€„€SANITYó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€next€assignment€of€error,€Davis€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€regarding€his€sanity.€€He€argues€that€the€state€did€not€prove€beyond€aÍreasonable€doubt€that€he€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€theÏoffenses.Ìà@ àò òA.Ìó óà àœAt€the€time€of€the€commission€of€these€offenses,€insanity›€œwas›€a€defense€toÏprosecution€if€ð ðat€the€time€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect,€the€[defendant]€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€theÏwrongfulness€of€[his€or€her]€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„11„501(a)(1991).× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€œThere›€œwas›Ïa€presumption,€rebuttable€in€nature,€that€the€defendant€in€a€criminal€proceedingÏœwas›€sane.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436,€440€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€defendantÏœhad›€the€initial€burden€of€showing€that€sanity€œwas›€an€issue.€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€607,€615€(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€if€evidence€œwas›€adduced€during€trialÏwhich€œraised›€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€sanity,€then€sanity€of€theÏdefendant€œbecame›€an€element€of€the€crime€which€the€state€œhad€to›€prove€beyondÏa€reasonable€œdoubt.€›€òòIdóó.€at€615„16€(quoting€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,Ï544€(Tenn.€1977)).Ìà àIn€order€to€prove€sanity,€the€state€was€required€to€prove:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€the€defendant€was€not€ð ðsuffering€from€a€mental€illness€at€theÏtime€of€the€commission€of€the€crime,ðð€orÌÌà8 à(2)€the€illness€proved€did€not€ð ðprevent€his€knowing€theÏwrongfulness€of€the€actðð€and€did€not€ð ðrender€him€substantiallyÏincapable€of€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€lawÏhe€is€charged€with€violating.ððÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440€(quoting€òòState€v.€Claytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€344,Ï351€(Tenn.€1983)).Ì̛̜à@ àò òB.Ìó óà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€stateððs€proof,€Davis€presented€evidence€from€twoÏpsychologists€and€a€licensed€counselor.€€Pat€Fitzpatrick,€a€counselor€at€theÏChattanooga€Counseling€Clinic,€testified€that€Davis€was€extremely€paranoid.€ÏDr.€Alden€Kline,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist,€described€Davis€as€ð ðactivelyÏpsychotic,ðð€anxious,€tense,€paranoid€and€experiencing€auditory€and€visualÏhallucinations.€€Dr.€Kline€diagnosed€him€with€a€ð ðschizophrenic€reaction,€œaÏparanoid›€type.ðð€€Dr.€Kline€concluded€that€Davisðð€schizophrenia€would€haveÏœimpaired›€his€judgment.€€Dr.€Kenneth€Anchor,€a€psychologist,€also€diagnosedÏDavis€as€a€paranoid€schizophrenic,€characterized€by€hallucinations€andÏdelusions.€€Dr.€Anchor€further€testified€that€this€mental€illness€was€such€as€toÏprevent€Davis€from€knowing€the€wrongfulness€of€his€actions€and€rendered€himÏincapable€of€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.Ìà àOn€rebuttal,€the€state€presented€testimony€from€Dr.€Amen€Azema.€€HeÏtestified€that€Davis€was€not€suffering€from€mental€illness,€and€an€insanityÏdefense€could€not€be€supported.€€Specifically,€Dr.€Azema€stated€that€DavisÏcould€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€behavior€and€could€conform€hisÏbehavior€to€society€and€the€law.€€He€œtestified›€that€Dr.€Anchor€relied€upon€invalidÍtest€results€for€his€diagnosis.Ìà àLynn€Daniels,€a€licensed€clinical€social€worker,€found€no€evidence€thatÏDavis€was€experiencing€any€thought€disorder.€€Dr.€Palmeda€Taylor€testified€thatÏshe€conducted€a€personality€inventory€test€on€Davis€to€determine€if€he€wasÏsuffering€from€a€mental€disease.€€Her€results€were€invalid€in€that€œshe€foundÏDavis€was›€ð ðmaking€a€conscience€[sic]€attempt€to€impress€poorly,€or€.€.€.€to€ððfakeÏbad.ððððÌà@ àò òC.à0 àà àÌó óà àOnce€Davis€and€the€state€had€presented€their€proof,€the€issue€of€sanityÏwas€a€question€for€the€jury€to€determine.€€They€were€able€to€weigh€and€assessÏthe€credibility€of€the€expert€witnesses€on€both€sides.€€The€jury€was€properlyÏinstructed€on€the€insanity€defense.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððsÏfinding€that€Davis€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offenses.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòWATKINS€AND€DAVIS€„€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óóóÌÌà àBoth€defendants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€that€theirÏsentences€run€consecutively.€€Davis€claims€that€the€trial€court€improperly€reliedÏupon€enhancement€factors€submitted€by€the€state.€€Watkins€argues€that€the€courtÏdid€not€give€proper€consideration€to€consecutive€sentencing€criteria€as€outlinedÏby€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà@ àò òA.€€ó óÌà àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€€€ThisÏpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€burdenÏis€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ìà àConsecutive€sentencing€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€AÏcourt€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€one€or€more€of€the€required€statutoryÏcriteria€exist.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏFurthermore,€the€court€is€required€to€determine€whether€the€consecutiveÏsentences€(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed;Ï(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€offender;€andÏ(3)€are€congruent€with€the€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,Ï905€S.W.2d€at€939.Ìà@ àò òB.€€ó óÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€both€defendants€were€dangerous€offendersÏð ðwhose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€We€agree.Ìà àOur€òòde€novoóó€review€further€indicates€that€consecutive€sentencing€isÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€both€defendants.€ÍWe€also€find€that€the€sentences€are€congruent€with€the€general€principles€ofÏsentencing.€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€make€the€findings€required€byÏòòWilkersonóó,€we€find€that€these€factors€are€present€under€our€power€of€òòde€novoóóÏreview.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€859€S.W.2d€359€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€ConsecutiveÏsentencing€is€appropriate.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.̛̜ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌòòœÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ̛̜Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€œJUDGEó ó›