[U] State V. Tanner

¶1 Vincent G. Tanner appeals from a corrected judgment of conviction for assault by a prisoner, and from an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. The issues are: (1) the sufficiency of evidence on one element of the offense; (2) the suppression of Tanner's statements; and (3) the trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion in imposing the maximum sentence. We conclude that: (1) the reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence presented at trial were sufficient to meet the State's burden of proof; (2) Miranda warnings are required if the defendant is being interrogated; they do not apply to the defendant's unsolicited volunteered admissions;*fn1 and (3) the trial court's extensive consideration of the primary sentencing factors, and its explanation of the specific purposes for the confinement and extended supervision components of the sentence demonstrate its proper exercise of discretion in imposing the maximum sentence. Therefore, we affirm.