Conviction and sentence for attempted murder, aggravated mayhem, and first-degree burglary is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) there was insufficient evidence of specific intent to support his aggravated mayhem conviction; 2) the court had a duty to instruct, sua sponte, on unreasonable self-defense which would have amounted to instructions as to lesser included offenses; 3) his trial attorney rendered ineffective counsel by failing to request for instructions on lesser offenses, referring to him as "strange" and "paranoid" in closing, and not calling a witness at trial; 4) the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing matters outside the record; 5) the trial court violated his confrontation rights by limiting cross-examination about a witness's prior conviction; and 6) his sentence was unconstitutionally disproportional.