ÿWPCÇ* ³aÕ»‹7Κ$s§ó¸Œ&že‚q 4›ëWMdª +‚µÜœ¹Žøm+Ü}DÓõëË(N¡Š \:П5NŸQC³\#ˆëй(‰«¯ÙxõpMKV ýJ0|G¤Pñ)Eù ™].û£\-]㣸ľ¥¹±”)6rozn[Ý üá^qŸH7O¸¶t†ŒP| «Œ·RÉPù I²š†ë-"·“—¥ç ìŒL1.qm»oWž†‰Ükè'z¹’܉f˜(jpüëK:¬óBÍ_ã29Q^dÉ5wVaµŽÁÝ h13²º¦ñ‘8tòæ¸{Ò–›á™çW„›ãØ"ì°•ñ-tyM£ê!±¸á_œœÊ‚L·¢ ß½ÈFþë»êQâ¯i†Ù?ßG—3¢&‚’Znð"7´ú<èÊŠpKÍY5Üa&ìü›úØùoê¹8šŸ¦Âã[x…CNå_ º0yþùT’zœMðÉQ ÝJ§Ð$cáÀÐó•P\ÑÙƒ÷ZTtR¹óx$öXt(+¡5¶´mÖ¿föëÛX³Û£htzœb›‡)îâ«w¯nwUqtîvQˆÖ'²c7Ej.:÷üÛ¬f`hp)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿw@4G[jÖ„ 0 §Z 0D ÏE ì™UN™cçJÖbUN8ì†UNr#ÏÀ#UN&Ý& AQå&)6'U:_(_( B™(ƶ( 0D|) 0DÀ) 0D** D/H*H* Bw* D3”*˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- KELMeNUODPDQURSÓ€_n~<$3|x_ Ý ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€used€the€proper€standard€when€it€instructed€the€jury€on€first€degreeÐ `  Мmurder.ò òó ó ÌÝ ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€the€facts€had€not€demonstrated€€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incidentÐ `  Ðto€the€crime,€the€trial€court€could€still€have€applied€theses€factors€because€ð ð[b]oth€factors€may€be€applied€in€situationsÏwhere€individuals€other€than€the€victim€are€in€the€area€and€are€subject€to€injury.ðð€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50Ð è ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€Dicksonððs€young€daughter€could€easily€have€been€injured€during€theÏkidnapping€of€her€father€and€subsequent€shooting€in€the€next€door€apartment.(W(2"$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôéêôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÅÝ ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝJeffries€was€sentenced€to€three€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Anderson,€eight€years€for€theÐ `  Ðaggravated€robbery€of€Dickson,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€assault€of€Todd,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€assaultÏof€Pamplin,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€burglary€of€Dicksonððs€apartment,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€burglaryÏof€Pamplinððs€apartment,€fifteen€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Dickson,€and€life€imprisonment€forÏthe€first€degree€murder€of€Anderson.€€All€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently.ò ò€ó ó âÝ ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€twenty„three€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€ofÐ `  ÐDickson,€ten€years€for€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Dickson,€and€four€years€for€the€aggravated€burglary€of€DicksonððsÏapartment,€with€these€three€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonmentÏfor€the€first€degree€murder€of€Anderson,€four€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Anderson,€four€years€forÏthe€aggravated€assault€of€Todd,€four€years€for€the€aggravated€assault€of€Pamplin,€and€five€years€for€the€aggravatedÏburglary€of€Pamplinððs€apartment,€with€these€five€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€court€then€ordered€the€sentencesÏfor€the€crimes€against€Dickson€to€run€consecutive€to€the€crimes€against€Anderson,€Todd,€and€Pamplin,€for€anÏeffective€sentence€of€life€plus€twenty„three€years.€ Ý ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝInitially,€Appellant€argues€that€there€was€not€enough€proof€for€the€trial€court€to€conclude€by€aÐ `  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€was€involved€in€the€previous€robbery.€€However,€the€record€indicates€thatÏClifton€Jackson€testified€that€he€was€with€Appellant€and€another€man€when€they€went€to€a€residence,€kicked€down€theÏdoor,€identified€themselves€as€police,€and€entered€the€residence€for€the€purpose€of€stealing€drugs€and€money.€€AtÏsome€point,€Jackson€was€shot.€€€Foxy€Branch,€who€was€living€at€thatò ò€ó óapartment€at€the€time,€testified€that€three€menÐ p  Ðbroke€into€the€apartment,€that€numerous€gunshots€were€fired,€and€that€after€the€incident€there€was€blood€everywhere.€ÏDonald€Ross€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€testified€that€Appellant€had€admitted€taking€two€men€to€this€locationÏon€the€night€in€question.€€ò òó óThis€is€clearly€enough€proof€for€the€trial€court€to€conclude€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ ¾^ Ðevidence€that€Appellant€was€involved€in€this€previous€criminal€act.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular YÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Initially,€Appellant€argues€that€there€was€not€enough€proof€for€the€trial€court€to€concludeÐ `  Ðby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€was€involved€in€the€previous€robbery.€€However,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€Clifton€Jackson€testified€that€he€was€with€Appellant€and€another€man€whenÏthey€went€to€a€residence,€kicked€down€the€door,€identified€themselves€as€police,€and€entered€theÏresidence€for€the€purpose€of€stealing€drugs€and€money.€€At€some€point,€Jackson€was€shot.€€€FoxyÏBranch,€who€was€living€at€thatò ò€ó óapartment€at€the€time,€testified€that€three€men€broke€into€theÐ ü œ Ðapartment,€that€numerous€gunshots€were€fired,€and€that€after€the€incident€there€was€bloodÏeverywhere.€€œDonald›€Ross€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€testified€that€Appellant€hadÏadmitted€taking€two€men€to€this€location€on€the€night€in€question.€€œò òó óThis›€is€clearly€enough€proofÐ Äd Ðfor€the€trial€court€to€conclude€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€Appellant€was€involved€inÏthis€previous€criminal€act. Ý ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€used€the€proper€standard€when€it€instructed€the€jury€on€first€degreeÐ `  Ðmurder.ò òó ó ÌÝ ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€the€facts€had€not€demonstrated€€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incidentÐ `  Ðto€the€crime,€the€trial€court€could€still€have€applied€theses€factors€because€ð ð[b]oth€factors€may€be€applied€in€situationsÏwhere€individuals€other€than€the€victim€are€in€the€area€and€are€subject€to€injury.ðð€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50Ð è ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€Dicksonððs€young€daughter€could€easily€have€been€injured€during€theÏkidnapping€of€her€father€and€subsequent€shooting€in€the€next€door€apartment.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular âÝ ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€twenty„three€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€ofÐ `  ÐDickson,€ten€years€for€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Dickson,€and€four€years€for€the€aggravated€burglary€of€DicksonððsÏapartment,€with€these€three€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonmentÏfor€the€first€degree€murder€of€Anderson,€four€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Anderson,€four€years€forÏthe€aggravated€assault€of€Todd,€four€years€for€the€aggravated€assault€of€Pamplin,€and€five€years€for€the€aggravatedÏburglary€of€Pamplinððs€apartment,€with€these€five€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€court€then€ordered€the€sentencesÏfor€the€crimes€against€Dickson€to€run€consecutive€to€the€crimes€against€Anderson,€Todd,€and€Pamplin,€for€anÏeffective€sentence€of€life€plus€twenty„three€years.€(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÅÝ ƒ {2$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôyµôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝJeffries€was€sentenced€to€three€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Anderson,€eight€years€for€theÐ `  Ðaggravated€robbery€of€Dickson,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€assault€of€Todd,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€assaultÏof€Pamplin,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€burglary€of€Dicksonððs€apartment,€three€years€for€the€aggravated€burglaryÏof€Pamplinððs€apartment,€fifteen€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Dickson,€and€life€imprisonment€forÏthe€first€degree€murder€of€Anderson.€€All€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently.ò ò€ó ó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XêXXXÔÔ€¥,XXêÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XêX¥,ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€29,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôJ ôXXêÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñSñ›ñSñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š‰ŠXXÔÔ€Š#ŠŠŠ‰ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÖNXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ_ññSñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð ÚrßñSññ_ññ_ññ_ññ_ññSñ›ñSññ_ññ_ññ_ññ_ñ›ñ_ññ_ñ›ñ_ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌñ_ñœßt€(>.*jx³` `€€@E  ` ttx$D` h ‡ tß›ñ_ñÌAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9711„CR„00439Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€CHRIS€CRAFTó óÐ Xø  Ðò òKIMBERLY€WILLIAMS,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àœ(ñRñDirect€Appeal€„€First€Degree€MurderñRññRñAFFIRMEDñRñ)›Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌEDWARD€G.€THOMPSONà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À Ð200€Jefferson,€Suite€725ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à h àà À àà  àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ð #° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€R.€KITCHENÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDANIEL€S.€BYERÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à201€Poplar€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  p6-.9 ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ÐÁ„ŠŠ#ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š#Š„„ÐÁæ #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àOn€February€27,€1997,€a€Shelby€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€KimberlyÏWilliams€of€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravatedÏrobbery,€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault,€andÏtwo€counts€of€aggravated€burglary.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing€on€March€17Ïand€26,€1997,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€total€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€plusÏtwenty„three€years.€€Appellant€challenges€his€sentence€for€each€conviction€as€wellÏas€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murder,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€firstÏdegree€murder:Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€applied€various€enhancement€factors€toÏAppellantððs€sentences;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€Appellant€to€a€longer€term€ofÏimprisonment€than€his€co„defendant;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€list€of€theÏStateððs€witnesses€for€the€sentencing€hearing.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓ—ÓÌAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ¼*\!" ÐÌà ` àOn€February€27,€1996,€at€approximately€1:00€a.m.,€Coleman€Dickson,€whoÏhad€been€sleeping€on€the€floor€next€to€his€daughter,€was€awakened€by€RodneyÏJeffries,€who€was€pointing€a€black€nine€millimeter€pistol€at€Dicksonððs€head.€ò ò€ó óWhenÐ Œ2,)* ÐJeffries€asked€ð ðWhere€is€the€dope€at,ðð€Dickson€responded€that€he€did€not€haveÏany€drugs€in€his€apartment.€Appellant€then€entered€the€apartment€and€tied€upÏDickson€and€then€blindfolded€him.€Dickson€subsequently€told€the€two€men€whereÐ l8 /0 Ðhis€.357€handgun€was€hidden€and€Appellant€then€retrieved€the€gun€and€loadedÏit.€€The€two€men€also€took€$70,€a€gold€chain,€a€ring,€a€pager,€and€some€keys€fromÏDickson.€ò òÐ @ à Ðó óÌà ` àWhen€Dickson€told€them€that€he€had€previously€purchased€marijuana€fromÏhis€neighbor,€Appellant€and€Jeffries€decided€to€enter€the€neighborððs€apartment.€ÏThe€two€men€then€cut€the€bonds€on€Dicksonððs€feet€and€took€him€across€the€hall,Ïdespite€his€pleading€to€be€left€with€his€children€and€his€statement€that€he€wasÏafraid€that€if€he€went€into€the€other€apartment€he€would€be€shot€by€whoever€wasÏin€it.€€Appellant€then€kicked€in€the€back€door€of€the€neighborððs€apartment€andÏDickson,€who€was€still€blindfolded€and€had€his€hands€tied€behind€his€back,€wasÏshoved€in€first.€€Dickson€remained€blindfolded€during€all€of€the€subsequent€eventsÏin€the€second€apartment.€€ò òÐ   @ ÐÌà ` àó óGwendolin€Pamplin€was€in€bed€with€Artelia€Anderson€when€she€heard€theÐ $0 Ðgunmen€kick€in€the€door€to€her€apartment€and€yell€ð ðPolice,€that€[sic]€is€a€bust.ðð€ÏBefore€they€could€go€out€the€bedroom€door,€one€of€the€gunmen€brought€TabithaÏTodd€into€the€bedroom€while€holding€a€gun€to€her€back.€€€After€the€secondÏgunman€entered€the€bedroom,€they€ordered€everyone€to€lay€on€the€floor€andÏbegan€asking€for€drugs€and€money.€€After€Anderson€said€that€they€didnððt€have€anyÏdrugs€or€money,€Appellant€took€Anderson€out€of€the€bedroom.€ÌÌà ` àAs€Appellant€was€taking€Anderson€out€of€the€bedroom,€Anderson€brokeÏfree€and€attempted€to€lock€himself€in€the€bathroom.€€Jeffries€then€left€the€bedroomÏand€joined€Appellant.€€Appellant€then€kicked€open€the€bathroom€door€and€beganÏhitting€Anderson€in€the€head€with€the€.357€handgun.€€Todd€testified€that€duringÐ à9€02 Ðthis€time,€one€of€the€gunmen€yelled€ð ðPut€him€in€the€bathð"ðput€this€nigger€in€theÏbathtub€so€we€can€shoot€himðð€and€ð ðLook€at€my€face,€nigger,€before€I€kill€you.ðð€ÏAnderson€then€begged€the€gunmen€not€to€kill€him.€€After€a€scuffle,€one€of€theÏgunmen€said€ð ðShoot€that€nigger,ðð€and€shots€were€fired.€€Jeffries€testified€thatÏAppellant€shot€twice€and€then€Jeffries€shot€twice.€ò òÐ  À Ðó óÌà ` àAn€autopsy€revealed€that€Anderson€was€shot€once€in€the€back€and€onceÏin€the€thigh,€with€both€shots€severing€major€arteries.€€The€autopsy€also€revealedÏthat€Anderson€had€sustained€several€injuries€to€his€head€that€were€consistent€withÏhis€being€struck€several€times€with€a€pistol.€€€The€cause€of€Andersonððs€death€wasÏmultiple€gunshot€wounds.€ÌÌà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ   @ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€Appellant€does€not€contend€thatÏthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€prove€that€he€killed€Anderson,€Appellant€merelyÏcontends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€for€a€reasonable€jury€to€find€him€guiltyÏof€ð ðintentional€deliberate€premeditated€murder.ðð€€Initially,€we€note€that€AppellantððsÏargument€that€there€was€no€proof€of€deliberation€is€irrelevant.€€The€crimes€in€thisÏcase€were€committed€after€the€1995€amendment€that€eliminated€deliberation€asÏan€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)Ð  2À(* Ð(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€ofÏanother.ðð).ñGñ׃×ñGññGñ׃ ×ñGñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 6 ,. Їà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€State's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€aÏpresumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replacesÏit€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,Ð ð  Ðon€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€to€demonstrate€theÏinsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€toÐ Ðp Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð °P Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏcontested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75;€òòJackson€v.Ð p& ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€InÐ `(  Ðconducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€fromÏreweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383Ð @,à"$ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 0.Ð$& ÐApp.€1990).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€thoseÏdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€779.€€Finally,€RuleÐ 2°(* Ð13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides,€ð ðfindings€of€guiltÏin€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€780.Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àAlthough€premeditation€requires€that€ð ðthe€intent€to€kill€must€have€beenÏformed€prior€to€the€act€itself,ðð€ð ð[i]t€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„existÏin€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€of€time.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ30„13„202(d)€(Supp.€1998).€€The€element€of€premeditation€is€a€question€for€theÏjury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòStateÐ  À Ðv.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ð °  ÐÌà ` àLooking€at€the€facts€in€the€present€case€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏstate,€as€we€are€required€to€do,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€jury's€finding€of€premeditation.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€showed€thatÏboth€Appellant€and€Jeffries€were€armed€when€they€kicked€in€the€door€and€enteredÏthe€apartment€were€the€killing€occurred.€€After€Anderson€broke€free€andÏattempted€to€lock€himself€in€the€bathroom,€Appellant€kicked€open€the€bathroomÏdoor€and€began€hitting€Anderson€in€the€head€with€the€.357€handgun.€€ToddÏtestified€that€during€this€time,€one€of€the€gunmen€yelled€ð ðPut€him€in€the€bathð"ðputÏthis€nigger€in€the€bathtub€so€we€can€shoot€himðð€and€ð ðLook€at€my€face,€nigger,Ïbefore€I€kill€you.ðð€€Anderson€then€begged€the€gunmen€not€to€kill€him.€€Todd,ÏPamplin,€and€Dickson€all€testified€that€they€heard€one€of€the€gunmen€give€anÏorder€to€shoot€Anderson€before€the€shots€were€fired.€€Clearly,€a€reasonable€juryÏcould€infer€from€this€sequence€of€events€that€Appellant€had€time€to€reflect€on€whatÏhe€was€doing€before€he€shot€Anderson€and€thus,€that€his€actions€were€intentionalÏand€premeditated.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@¨¨!®àò òIII.€€APPELLANTððS€SENTENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€made€several€errors€in€determiningÏhis€sentence.€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€misappliedÏseveral€enhancement€factors.€€€€Under€Tennessee€law,€ð ð[w]hen€reviewingÏsentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€of€probation€and€the€lengthÏof€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record€ofÏsuch€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€which€accompanies€the€trial€court's€action€is€conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ ° P Ð166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€theÏsentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ $0 ÐÌà ` àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€40-35-210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€beÏfollowed€in€sentencing.€This€section€mandates€the€court's€consideration€of€theÏfollowing:€ÌÌñAñÓÓñAñà0 ` à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€Ï(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€andÏarguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€€(4)€[t]he€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€€(5)€[e]vidence€andÏinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð€€40-35-113€and€40-35-114;€€and€(6€)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðâ â€Ð è8ˆ/1 ÐñAñÓM7ÓñAñTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210€(1997).€€In€addition,€this€section€provides€that€theÏâ âminimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€areÏenhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentenceÏin€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancementÏfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏmitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€theÏsentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€The€weightÏto€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ð ð  Ð854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Act€further€provides€thatÏð ð[w]henever€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,€it€shall€place€on€the€record€eitherÏorally€or€in€writing,€what€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€it€found,€if€any,€as€wellÏas€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40-35-209.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(f)Ï(1997).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors€under€theÏsentencing€guidelines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factors€must€be€recorded€ifÏnone€are€found.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210€(1997)€comment.€€These€findingsÏby€the€trial€judge€must€be€recorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€onÏappeal.€€In€addition,€ð ð[w]hen€imposing€sentences€for€multiple€offenses,€the€trialÏcourt€must€make€separate€findings€as€to€which€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€apply€to€which€convictions.ðð€€òòState€v.€Christopher€Blockettóó,€No.€02C01„Ð @,à"$ Ð9509„CC„00258,€1996€WL€417659,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€26,Ï1996)€(citing€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ð  0À&( ÐBecause€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€of€AppellantsððÏsentences€is€de€novo€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àIn€determining€the€sentence€for€each€of€Appellantððs€convictions,€the€trialÏâ âcourt€found€that€the€only€mitigating€factor€that€applied€was€the€fact€that€AppellantÏassisted€the€authorities€in€locating€Jeffries.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(9)Ð @ à Ð(1997).€€The€court€gave€little€weight€to€this€factor€because€Appellant€did€this€onlyÏafter€he€had€been€arrested€and€he€essentially€tried€to€blame€everything€onÏJeffries.€€We€agree€that€no€evidence€was€presented€to€support€a€finding€that€anyÏother€mitigating€factors€were€present.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€at€least€two€of€the€enhancement€factors€listedÏin€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114€applied€to€each€of€AppellantððsÏconvictions.€€First,€the€court€found€that€factor€(1)€applied€because€Appellant€hadÏa€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior.€€Appellant€argues€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€when€it€applied€this€factor€because€it€found€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€that€Appellant€had€previously€participated€in€a€similar€homeÏinvasion€robbery.ñGñ׃×ñGññGñ׃×ñGñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€this€criminalÐ €$  Ðepisode€violates€his€constitutional€rights€because€he€had€not€yet€been€convictedÏof€the€offense€in€a€jury€trial.€€This€argument€has€no€merit.€€The€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€a€trial€court€may€utilize€criminal€behavior€shown€byÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€to€enhance€sentence,€without€violating€dueÏprocess€rights€under€the€federal€or€state€constitutions.€€òòState€v.€Caricoóó,€968Ð 0.Ð$& ÐS.W.2d€280,€287€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€addition,€Appellant€had€prior€convictions€forÐ  0À&( Ðdriving€on€a€suspended€license€and€simple€assault.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€wasÏclearly€correct€in€applying€factor€(1)€to€the€sentences€for€all€of€AppellantððsÏconvictions.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€also€applied€factor€(8),€that€the€defendant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€release€into€the€community,Ïto€all€of€Appellantððs€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8)€(1997).€Ð    ÐHowever,€the€court€did€not€give€this€factor€much€weight€because€it€involved€aÏmisdemeanor€sentence.€€Appellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€thisÏfactor€and€we€agree€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€applying€it.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(2)€applied€to€the€convictionsÏfor€the€aggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€DicksonÏbecause€Appellant€was€the€leader€in€those€two€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð "0 Ððð€40„35„114(2)€(1997).€€The€court€based€its€decision€on€the€fact€that€AppellantÏhad€stated€in€his€pre„trial€confession€that€he€was€the€one€who€tied€Dickson€up,Ïtook€his€necklace,€and€intended€to€take€him€across€the€hall€to€the€other€robbery.€ÏThe€court€also€based€its€decision€on€other€evidence€which€established€thatÏAppellant€was€the€one€who€took€Dicksonððs€gun.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€factÏthat€Jeffries€was€the€one€who€drove€the€car€to€the€apartment€and€was€the€oneÏwho€entered€Dicksonððs€apartment€first€shows€that€Appellant€was€not€the€leader.€ÏWe€disagree.€€This€Court€has€stated€that€ð ðenhancement€for€being€a€leader€in€theÏcommission€of€an€offense€does€not€require€that€the€defendant€be€the€sole€leaderÏbut€only€that€he€be€ððaðð€leader.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð5,. ÐApp.€1993)€€Further,€ð ð[b]oth€of€two€criminal€actors€may€be€ðða€leader€in€theÏcommission€of€an€offense.ðððð€€òòId.óó€€Indeed,€this€Court€found€in€òòHicksóó€that€while€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðco-defendant€led€the€preparation,€the€defendant€clearly€led€the€perpetration€andÏthus,€both€were€leaders€in€the€commission€of€aggravated€robbery.€€€òòId.óó€€Thus,Ð P ð Ðeven€if€Jeffries€led€the€preparation,€as€Appellant€apparently€claims,€the€trial€courtÏcould€still€conclude€that€Appellant€was€the€leader€in€the€perpetration€of€theÏoffenses€against€Dickson.€€Because€we€must€review€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€Appellant€was€a€leader€in€these€two€offenses€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€inÏapplying€factor€(2).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(9),€that€Appellant€possessedÏa€firearm€during€the€commission€of€an€offense,€only€applied€to€the€aggravatedÏburglary€of€Pamplinððs€apartment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)€(1997).€Ð °P ÐAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€this€factor€and€we€agree€that€itÏwas€correctly€applied€because€use€of€a€firearm€is€not€an€element€of€the€offenseÏof€aggravated€burglary.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€956€S.W.2d€8,€17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð €$  Ð1997).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16),€that€AppellantÏhad€no€hesitation€in€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high€andÏthat€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€to€the€victim€was€great,€applied€only€to€the€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€of€Dickson.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€(16)€(1997).€€ItÐ 2°(* Ðis€true€that€generally,€a€court€could€not€apply€these€factors€to€enhance€a€sentenceÏfor€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction€because€a€high€risk€of€death€orÏbodily€injury€is€inherent€in€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Claybrooksóó,€910€S.W.2d€868,Ð à7€.0 Ð872€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(ð ðAlthough€not€a€designated€element€of€the€offense,Ð Ð9p02 Ðany€enhancement€factor€which€is€inherent€in€the€offense€itself€may€not€be€usedÏto€increase€the€defendantððs€sentence.ðð).€€However,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€has€stated€that€enhancement€factors€which€are€inherent€in€the€nature€of€theÏoffense€may€be€applied€to€the€sentence€if€they€ð ðdemonstrate€a€culpability€distinctÏfrom€and€appreciably€greater€that€incident€to€the€crime.ðð€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€645Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€93,€98€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€expressly€stated€that€itÏwas€not€relying€on€Appellantððs€use€of€a€gun€when€it€found€that€these€factorsÏapplied.€€The€court€stated€that€it€found€that€these€factors€applied€becauseÏAppellant€and€Jeffries€had€taken€Dickson€out€of€his€apartment€and€thrown€himÏinto€the€second€apartment€knowing€that€there€might€be€gunfire.€€We€agree.€€ByÏforcing€Dickson€into€the€second€apartment€ahead€of€themselves,€knowing€thatÏthere€was€a€great€possibility€that€he€would€be€shot,€Appellant€and€JeffriesÏdemonstrated€ð ðculpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€thanðð€that€inherentÏin€the€crime€itself.€€Dickson€had€already€been€subjected€to€risk€of€death€or€bodilyÏharm€when€he€was€tied€up€at€gunpoint€and€taken€out€of€his€apartment€into€theÏhall.€€By€throwing€him€into€the€second€apartment€ahead€of€themselves€andÏleaving€him€partially€tied€up€while€shots€were€being€fired,€Appellant€and€JeffriesÏgreatly€increased€this€risk€beyond€what€was€necessary€to€complete€the€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping.€€The€trial€court€correctly€applied€factors€(10)€and€(16)€toÏthe€sentence€for€this€offense.ñGñ׃ ×ñGññGñ׃×ñGñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àIn€short,€Appellant€has€not€met€his€burden€of€showing€that€the€trial€courtÏmisapplied€any€enhancement€factors.€€In€addition,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trialÐ 4 *, Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€determining€the€length€of€each€sentence.ñGñ׃×ñGññGñ׃×ñGñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThisÐ `  Ðissue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@uu!®àò òIV.€€DISPARITY€IN€SENTENCESó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€sentence€should€be€reduced€because€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€comply€with€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€when€it€sentencedÏhim€to€a€longer€term€of€imprisonment€than€co„defendant€Jeffries.ñGñ׃°×ñGññGñ׃°×ñGñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Appellant€citesÐ    Ðthe€case€of€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€733€S.W.2d€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€asÐ ð Ðsupport€for€this€proposition.€€While€it€is€true€that€this€Court€did€state€that€theÏdisparity€in€sentences€in€that€case€should€be€eliminated,€this€was€because€theÏdisparity€was€unjustified.€€òòId.óó€at€533.€€Indeed,€this€Court€has€stated€that€under€theÐ À` Ð1989€Act,€ð ðÌÌñBñÓÓñBñà0 ` à[A]€case-by-case€approach€to€sentencing€underlies€this€Act€as€aÏfundamental€policy.€€An€individual€criminal€is€sentenced€based€on€theÏnature€of€the€offense€and€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€which€it€wasÏcommitted,€including€the€defendantððs€background.€€Any€case-by-caseÏapproach€will€embody€discretion,€since€all€of€the€appropriate€factors€andÏcircumstances€must€be€weighed€and€considered€as€a€whole€for€theÏdisposition€of€each€case.€€But,€[ñMññHñœñHñi]nequñMññIñalñIññKññJñALñJññKññMññLñalñLñitiesñMññMñinequalitiesñMñ€in€sentences€that€are€unrelatedÏto€a€purpose€of€this€chapter€should€be€avoided.€€The€implication€is€that,Ïwhile€more€uniformity€of€sentences€is€one€goal€of€the€Act€.€.€.€some€justifiedÏdisparity€or€inequality€in€sentences€necessarily€results€from€a€case-by-caseÐ H-è#% Ðmethod€by€which€an€offender€receives€the€sentence€he€deserves€but€notÏa€sentence€greater€than€that€.€.€.€for€the€offense€committed.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñBñÓÏcÓñBñÌòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(quoting€òòStateÐ @ à Ðv.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€235ð!ð36€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)).€€Thus,€not€allÐ 0Ð Ðdisparities€in€sentencing€must€be€eliminated,€only€those€that€are€unjustifiedÏrequire€elimination.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€gave€several€reasons€why€it€was€sentencingÏJeffries€and€Appellant€to€different€terms€of€imprisonment.€€The€court€stated€thatÏAppellantððs€case€was€ð ðcompletely€differentðð€from€that€of€Jeffriesðð€because€inÏAppellantððs€case,€the€State€had€shown€that€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€ofÏcommitting€similar€ð ðcrimes€involving€weapons€and€danger.ðð€€Further,€the€courtÏstated€that€while€ð ðJeffries€is€extremely€remorseful€and€has€done€everything€heÏcan€to€make€up€for€what€he€did,ðð€ð ð[Appellantððs]€whole€attitude€during€the€trial€wasÏone€of€ððMr.€Jeffries€did€everything.ðððð€€The€court€also€stated€that€while€it€believedÏthat€Jeffries€was€ð ðnot€a€danger€to€society,ðð€Appellant€was€ð ðan€extremelyÏdangerous€person,€and€for€that€reason,€he€needed€the€appropriate€sentencingÏthat€he€got€to€protect€society€from€him.ðð€€The€court€also€found€that€theÏenhancement€factors€in€Jeffries€case€were€ð ðmore€than€made€up€for€by€the€factÏthat€he€is€so€remorseful.ðð€€We€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€was€wrong€in€makingÏthese€determinations.€€Indeed,€ð ð[t]he€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact€at€sentencingÏhearings,€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€and€the€demeanor€of€theÏwitnesses.€€Consequently,€this€Court€gives€great€weight€to€the€determinationsÏmade€by€the€trial€court€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses;€€and€this€CourtÏwill€not€interfere€with€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€in€this€regard€unless€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€clearly€preponderates€against€these€findings.ðð€Ð Ð9p02 ÐòòState€v.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€202€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€short,€we€holdÐ `  Ðthat€the€trial€court€was€justified€in€sentencing€Appellant€and€Jeffries€to€differentÏterms€of€imprisonment.ÌÌà ` àIn€addition€to€justifiably€imposing€a€longer€term€of€imprisonment€onÏAppellant,€the€trial€court€was€also€justified€in€ordering€the€consecutive€sentencingÏof€Appellant.€€Consecutive€sentencing€is€governed€by€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€40-35-115.€The€trial€court€may€order€consecutive€sentencing€if€itÏfinds€that€one€or€more€of€the€required€statutory€criteria€exist.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Further,€the€court€is€required€toÏdetermine€whether€the€consecutive€sentences€(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed;€€(2)€serve€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€conduct€by€the€offender;€€and€(3)€are€congruent€with€general€principlesÏof€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€thisÐ "0 Ðcase,€the€court€found€that€the€statute€was€satisfied€because€Appellant€was€aÏdangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€lifeÏand€he€had€no€hesitation€in€committing€an€offense€when€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„34„115(4)€(1997).€€The€court€based€thisÐ P*ð " Ðdecision€on€the€fact€that€Appellant€had€no€hesitation€in€committing€the€crimes€inÏthis€case€after€he€had€participated€in€the€previous€armed€home€invasion€whereÏone€of€his€accomplices€was€shot.€€The€court€also€found€that€consecutiveÏsentencing€was€reasonably€related€to€the€offenses€committed€because€of€the€wayÏAppellant€treated€Anderson€before€he€killed€him€and€because€armed€homeÏinvasion€is€ð ðone€of€the€most€horrible€crimes€that€can€be€committed.ðð€€The€courtÏalso€concluded€that€consecutive€sentences€would€be€the€best€way€to€protectÏsociety.€€€Finally,€although€the€trial€court€did€not€expressly€state€that€it€hadÐ Ð9p02 Ðconsidered€whether€consecutive€sentences€were€congruent€with€the€generalÏprinciples€of€sentencing,€we€conclude€in€our€de€novo€review€that€this€requirementÏis€satisfied€in€this€case.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€when€it€imposed€consecutive€sentences€on€Appellant€when€it€had€notÏdone€so€with€Jeffries.Ì€€Ìà@™ ™ ®àò òV.€€DENIAL€OF€APPELLANTððS€PRE„TRIAL€MOTIONó óˆÐ    ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€pre„trialÏmotion€for€a€list€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€for€the€sentencing€hearing.€€We€agree.€ÏIn€fact,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,Ð Ðp Ð606€(Tenn.€1984),€that€it€was€error€for€a€trial€court€to€overrule€the€defendantððsÏobjection€to€the€testimony€of€two€witnesses€during€the€sentencing€hearingÏbecause€the€State€had€failed€to€list€names€of€witnesses€in€response€to€theÏdefendantððs€pre-pretrial€motion€for€discovery.€€Further,€this€Court€has€previouslyÏstated€that€the€State€has€a€statutory€duty€to€disclose€the€identity€of€the€witnessesÏit€intends€to€use.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€661€S.W.2d€695,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);Ð p(  ÐòòState€v.€Ronald€David€Leeóó,€No.€03C01„9410„CR„0039,€1995€WL€395840,€at€*7Ð `*!" Ðn.2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€6,€1995).ÌÌà ` àHowever,€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€Appellantððs€motionÏdoes€not€mean€that€he€is€automatically€entitled€to€relief.€€Indeed,€the€StateððsÏstatutory€duty€to€disclose€witness€names€is€merely€directory,€not€mandatory.€ÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€68€(Tenn.€1992).€€ð ðThe€determination€of€whetherÐ 6 ,. Ðto€allow€[an€undisclosed]€witness€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€883€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€ð ðA€defendantÐ à9€02 Ðwill€be€entitled€to€relief€for€nondisclosure€only€if€he€or€she€can€demonstrateÏprejudice,€bad€faith,€or€undue€advantage.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€howÐ P ð Ðhe€was€prejudiced€by€the€nondisclosure€of€the€names€of€witnesses€to€be€calledÏat€the€sentencing€hearing.€€In€his€brief,€Appellant€only€challenges€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€regarding€Appellantððs€participation€in€another€armedÏrobbery€for€which€he€was€not€convicted.€€However,€the€record€reveals€thatÏAppellantððs€trial€counsel€ably€cross„examined€these€witnesses.€€Further,€there€isÏnothing€in€the€record€that€indicates€that€Appellantððs€trial€counsel€objected€to€theÏtestimony€of€these€witnesses€on€nondisclosure€grounds.€€Appellant€has€failed€toÏshow€what€more€he€could€or€would€have€done€if€he€had€known€the€names€ofÏthese€witnesses€before€trial.€€What€Appellant€really€appears€to€be€concerned€withÏis€the€substance€of€the€witnessesðð€testimony,€not€the€fact€that€their€names€wereÏnot€disclosed€before€trial.€€However,€ð ð[I]n€this€context,€it€is€not€the€prejudice€whichÏresulted€from€the€witnessðð€testimony€but€the€prejudice€which€resulted€fromÏdefendantððs€lack€of€notice€which€is€relevant€to€establish€prejudice.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€short,Ð €$  ÐAppellant€has€failed€to€show€that€any€prejudice€resulted€for€nondisclosure€and€heÏhas€not€even€alleged€bad€faith€or€undue€advantage.€€We€see€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€by€the€trial€judge€in€allowing€these€witnesses€to€testify.ÌœñOññCñÌ›ñCññOññCññOññCñÌ›ñCññOññCññOññCñÌñCññOñ›ñCñœñCññOññNñÌñNñ›ñNñÌñNñ›ñNñÌñNñ›ñNñÌñNññOñ›Ìà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌœñPñÌñPñ›Ó  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌœñQñÌñQñ›œñQñÌñQñ›œñQñÌñQñ›œñQñÌñQñ›Ð Ð9p02 ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE