ÿWPC´" 4# èU:ó %- 03w@74w‹ 0Hš 0Dâ 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä " 0h* 0r’ 0| 0†€ 0 1u– 0d 0@o D3¯ U *â B B))DCR AM•áâ AQÃÆ 0DÚ 0D D/b B‘7®Ýå¡Âv~cvÓá˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ  E  E E! " # U$ 1e% & Ó€äzz!3|x1 (ø(3Z$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ï‡XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ26,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔWe€note€that€appellant€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Ordinarily,€thisÏconstitutes€waiver.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€However,€as€an€exercise€of€our€discretion,€we€have€chosen€to€address€the€issue.€€Furthermore,Ïwe€are€mindful€that€the€supreme€court€has€alluded€that€the€omission€of€the€alibi€defense€in€juryÏinstructions€may€constitute€plain€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€500€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1973)Ï(holding€that€an€appellate€court€is€not€precluded€from€considering€an€unassigned€error€on€appeal€if€itÏseriously€affects€the€fairness,€integrity,€or€public€reputation€of€judicial€proceedings).Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔAs€a€result,€appellantððs€failure€to€request€the€instruction€at€trial€is€of€no€consequence€on€appeal.Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔWe€are€aware€that€the€date€of€the€offense€was€not€conclusively€established.€€Based€onÏinformation€from€the€victim,€Evelyn€Day,€the€State€proceeded€on€the€theory€that€the€offense€occurred€onÏJune€24,€1994.€€Whether€that€was€the€exact€day€of€the€offense€was€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€toÏdecide.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€*ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌÌà@ à€€NOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9606„CC„00205€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WHIT€œLAFON›,ÌCHRISTOPHER€M.€BARHAM,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Assault)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌStephen€P.€œSpracher›à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ227€West€Baltimoreà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌJackson,€TN€38301Ì(At€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àMary€M.€œBers›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌGeorge€Morton€œGooge›à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì227€West€BaltimoreÌJackson,€TN€38301Ì(On€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àà àJames€G.€(Jerry)€œWoodall›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€W.€ThompsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à225€Martin€Luther€King€DriveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Christopher€M.€Barham,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€in€theÏMadison€County€Circuit€Court€of€one€count€of€assault.€€Appellant€was€sentenced€toÏthe€maximum€eleven€(11)€months,€twenty„nine€(29)€days€for€the€misdemeanorÏoffense.€€This€sentence€was€ordered€to€run€consecutively€to€prior€sentencesÏunrelated€to€this€conviction.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Barham€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€neglecting€to€instructÏthe€jury€on€the€defense€of€alibi.€€He€also€objects€to€the€consecutive€nature€of€hisÏsentence.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€failure€of€the€trialÏcourt€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€alibi€when€it€was€fairly€raised€by€theÏevidence€constitutes€reversible€error.€€Therefore,€the€appellantððs€assault€conviction€isÏreversed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.Ìà àOn€a€Friday€afternoon€in€the€summer€of€1994,€appellant€went€to€Evelyn€DayððsÏhome€in€Jackson€to€visit€his€four„year„old€daughter,€œLakesha›.€€Evelyn€Day€was€theÏmother€of€the€child€and€Lakeshaððs€primary€caretaker.€€Appellant€had€recently€pursuedÏhis€visitation€rights€and€a€court€had€ordered€a€regular€visitation€schedule.€€ThatÏparticular€day,€however,€was€not€one€of€the€scheduled€occasions.€€Ìà àWhen€Ms.€Day€came€to€the€door,€appellant€asked€to€see€Lakesha.€€The€childððsÏmother€let€him€in€the€house€and€they€sat€down€on€the€couch€in€the€den.€€According€toÍMs.€Day,€they€started€ð ðplaying€around.ðð€€However,€appellant€soon€began€twisting€herÏarm.€€She€told€him€that€it€hurt€because€she€was€suffering€from€carpal€tunnelÏsyndrome.€€They€wrestled€to€the€floor,€where€appellant€then€put€her€in€a€head€lock.€ÏLakesha€was€in€the€room€and€observed€these€events.€€Fearful€that€he€was€hurting€herÏmother,€she€went€over€to€appellant€and€started€hitting€him.€€Appellant€became€upsetÏand€picked€up€Lakesha,€put€her€on€his€lap,€and€spanked€her.€€Lakesha€then€orderedÏher€father€out€of€the€house,€a€sentiment€that€was€echoed€by€Ms.€Dayððs€mother,€whoÏhad€witnessed€the€incident.€Ìà àAppellant€went€outside€and€asked€Evelyn€Day€to€accompany€him€to€talk.€€SheÏcomplied€by€following€him€into€the€garage.€€Appellant€sat€down€in€a€patio€chair,€Ïexposed€his€genitals€to€Day,€and€asked€her€to€have€sex€with€him.€€She€declined€hisÏadvances€and€a€shouting€match€ensued.€€Appellant€then€left.€€In€August€of€1994,€Ms.ÏDay€reported€these€events€to€the€authorities€after€learning€that€she€could€not€obtain€aÏrestraining€order€against€appellant.€€As€a€result,€appellant€was€indicted€for€two€countsÏof€assault,€one€against€Evelyn€Day€and€another€against€Lakesha.€€He€was€alsoÏindicted€for€indecent€exposure.€€Ìà àAt€trial,€when€questioned€about€which€day€the€assault€occurred,€Ms.€DayÏcandidly€admitted€that€she€did€not€remember€the€exact€date.€€However,€she€testifiedÏthat€she€distinctly€remembers€that€it€occurred€on€a€Friday.€€Also,€she€stated€that€it€wasÏð ðaround€like€two€weeks€before€the€4th€of€Julyðð€and€that€it€was€close€to€the€end€of€theÍmonth.€€Relying€upon€a€1994€calendar,€it€was€determined€œthat€that›€date€would€haveÏbeen€June€24.€€She€further€testified€that€the€incident€occurred€between€4:30€p.m.€andÏ5:30€p.m.€€She€had€gotten€off€work€at€4:00€p.m.€and€appellant€stopped€by€just€shortlyÏafter€she€arrived€home.€€Specifically,€she€remembers€looking€at€the€clock€at€5:10€andÏappellant€had€been€there€for€a€few€minutes.€€She€testified€that€the€assault€occurredÏsoon€thereafter.Ìà àMost€of€Ms.€Dayððs€testimony€was€confirmed€by€her€mother,€Ruby€Day,€withÏwhom€she€resided.€€Ruby€Day€stated€that€she€was€washing€dishes€when€the€eventsÏoccurred.€€She€was€able€to€observe€her€daughter€and€appellant€because€her€kitchenÏand€den€adjoin€in€one€large€area.€€Ms.€Ruby€Day€observed€appellant€twistingÏEvelynððs€arm€and€also€when€he€put€her€in€a€head€lock.€€She€confirmed€that€sheÏordered€him€to€leave€the€house.€€Ms.€Day€had€no€firsthand€knowledge€about€theÏevents€that€occurred€in€the€garage.€€Ìà àThree€witnesses€testified€on€behalf€of€appellant.€€Phoebe€Pearson€wasÏappellantððs€girlfriend€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€She€testified€that€on€the€day€of€theÏincident€she€and€appellant€rode€the€bus€downtown€in€the€morning€and€then€theyÏparted€ways.€€Later€that€day,€she€encountered€appellant€at€the€Hello€GorgeousÏBeauty€Shop€where€he€was€having€his€hair€done.€€She€and€appellant€left€the€shopÏaround€3:00€p.m.,€and€she€drove€him€to€his€home€where€he€changed€his€clothes€forÏwork.€€She€dropped€him€off€at€work€sometime€between€4:00€and€5:00.€€On€cross„examination,€she€admitted€that€she€was€not€sure€of€the€actual€date€when€thatÏhappened.€€Pearson€remembered€that€those€activities€occurred€one€day,€but€wasÏrelying€on€appellantððs€assertion€that€the€assault€happened€on€June€24,€1994.€€SheÏalso€agreed€that€she€had€previously€told€an€investigator€that€it€could€not€have€beenÏon€a€Friday.€€Other€inconsistencies€from€her€earlier€statement€were€revealed€as€well.Ìà àVanessa€Watkins,€a€stylist€at€the€Hello€Gorgeous€Beauty€Shop,€also€testifiedÏon€appellantððs€behalf.€€She€was€aware€of€the€day€the€alleged€incident€happened,€butÏcould€not€recall€the€particular€events€of€that€day.€€She€did€not€remember€whetherÏappellant€was€in€her€shop€on€the€day€of€the€incident.€€Watkins€said€she€often€does€notÏwrite€down€appellantððs€appointments€and€she€had€no€notation€concerning€him€onÏthat€day.Ìà àFinally,€the€appellantððs€supervisor€at€Po€Folks€restaurant,€where€he€worked€atÏthe€time€of€the€incident,€testified€and€introduced€computerized€records€from€theÏrestaurant.€€Those€records€reflect€that€on€June€24,€1994,€appellant€clocked€in€at€5:06Ïp.m.€and€clocked€out€at€11:07€p.m.€€She€had€no€independent€recollection€of€the€hoursÏthat€appellant€actually€worked€that€night.Ìà àThe€jury€found€appellant€guilty€of€assaulting€Evelyn€Day,€but€acquitted€him€ofÏthe€assault€of€Lakesha€Day€and€the€indecent€exposure€charge.€€No€fine€wasÏimposed.€€The€trial€court€later€sentenced€appellant€to€eleven€(11)€months,€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€the€maximum€for€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€sentence€wasÏordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€appellantððs€unserved€prior€sentences.€€€Ìà àAppellant€first€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€theÏdefense€of€alibi.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€He€contends€that€he€filed€a€notice€of€the€alibi€defense€prior€to€trialÏand€that€such€defense€was€supported€by€the€proof.€€As€a€result,€he€argues€that€it€wasÏmandatory€for€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€on€this€defense.€€He€further€contendsÏthat€the€failure€to€do€so€is€reversible€error.€€We€are€compelled€to€agree€with€appellant.Ìà àIt€is€incumbent€upon€a€trial€court€to€give€the€jury€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏapplicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€œHarbison›óó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€476€U.S.€1145,€106€S.Ct.€2261,€90€L.€Ed.€2d€706€(1986)€(citationÏomitted).€€Trial€courts€have€an€affirmative€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€on€every€issueÏraised€by€the€proof.€€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€369€S.W.2d€385,€386€(Tenn.€1963).€€This€duty€forÏa€full€exposition€of€the€applicable€law€extends€to€the€accusedððs€theory€of€defense,Ïincluding€the€defense€of€alibi.€€òòPoe€v.€Stateóó,€370€S.W.2d€488,€491€(Tenn.€1963).€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(citationsÏomitted).€€When€a€defendant€pursues€an€alibi€defense€at€trial,€the€trial€court€mustÍinstruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€when€it€is€ð ðfairly€raisedðð€by€the€evidence.€€òòManning€v.ÏStateóó,€500€S.W.2d€913,€916€(Tenn.€1973);€òòPoeóó,€370€S.W.2d€at€491.€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòChristian€v.€Stateóó,€555€S.W.2d€863,€864€(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Hardinóó,€691€S.W.2dÏ578,€581€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€This€duty€exists€irrespective€of€a€request€for€theÏinstruction€by€the€defendant.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòPoeóó,€370€S.W.2d€at€491.€€Ìà àOur€supreme€court€has€provided€three€scenarios€reflecting€when€an€alibiÏdefense€has€been€ð ðfairly€raised,ðð€thereby€making€the€instruction€mandatory.€ÏòòManningóó,€500€S.W.2d€at€916.€€Those€scenarios€are:ÌÓÓ€à8 à(1)€where€the€defendantððs€alibi€has€been€corroborated€by€other€credibleÏwitnesses;€Ìà8 à(2)€where€the€victim€has€been€unable€to€identify€the€defendant;€or€Ìà8 à(3)€where€the€proof€against€the€defendant€is€wholly€circumstantial.Ì€€òòÌÓÓId.óó€€Only€where€the€evidence€fairly€raises€the€defense€by€meeting€one€of€the€aboveÏcircumstances€does€the€trial€court€have€an€unequivocal€duty€to€instruct€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€€InÏcontrast,€where€the€evidence€does€not€meet€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€is€notÏrequired€to€give€such€instructions.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHardinóó,€691€S.W.2d€at€581;ÏòòAlmonrode€v.€Stateóó,€567€S.W.2d€184,€186€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Because€theÏevidence€at€appellantððs€trial€satisfies€the€circumstances€in€the€first€example,€we€findÏthat€an€instruction€on€the€defense€of€alibi€was€warranted.Ìà àAppellantððs€only€defense€at€trial€was€that€he€was€not€present€in€Evelynððs€houseÏat€the€time€of€the€assault.€€Although€he€did€not€testify€at€trial,€appellantððs€alibi€defenseÏwas€introduced€through€Phoebe€Pearsonððs€testimony€and€corroborated€by€ShereeÏHixson,€his€supervisor€at€Po€Folks.€€Pearson€testified€that€she€took€appellant€to€workÏon€the€day€of€the€assault€between€4:00€p.m.€and€5:00€p.m.€€Hixson€produced€timeÏrecords€from€the€restaurant€where€appellant€worked.€€Those€records€reflected€that€onÏJune€24,€1994,€the€alleged€day€of€the€assault,€appellant€began€work€at€5:06€p.m.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àThis€created€a€direct€conflict€in€factual€testimony.€€Evelyn€Day€testifiedÏpositively€that€appellant€was€at€her€house€at€5:10€p.m€on€the€day€of€the€assault.€ÏAppellant€asserted,€through€Hixsonððs€testimony,€that€he€was€at€work€that€day€at€5:06Ïp.m€and€remained€there€until€after€11:00€p.m.€€Appellant€could€not€be€in€two€places€atÏthe€same€time.€€Thus,€appellant€fairly€raised€the€defense€of€alibi€and€it€was€for€the€juryÏto€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€decide€this€factual€issue.€€In€order€toÏproperly€perform€its€duty€of€applying€the€law€to€the€facts,€the€jury€must€be€instructedÏon€the€law€applicable€to€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€proof,€including€the€alibiÏdefense.€€Thus,€appellant€was€entitled€to€an€instruction€on€that€defense€to€aid€the€juryÏin€properly€evaluating€the€proof.Ìà àAppellant€also€satisfied€the€inherent€requirement€that€his€alibi€be€corroboratedÏby€a€credible€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnny€Wayne€Brownóó,€No.€88„153„III,€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€28,€1989)€(holding€that€alibi€defense€could€not€beÏconsidered€fairly€raised€where€it€was€not€supported€by€credible€evidence).€€Here,€theÏcredibility€of€the€corroborating€witness,€Hixson,€was€never€at€issue.€€From€allÏappearances,€she€was€a€disinterested€witness€and€the€State€never€attacked€herÏcredibility.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€neither€appellant€nor€Hixson€worked€at€the€restaurant.€€ÏThus,€appellantððs€defense€of€alibi€was€corroborated€by€credible€evidence,€therebyÏmaking€it€incumbent€upon€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€on€this€defense.€€Ìà àFinding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€jury€charge€by€omitting€the€alibiÏinstruction,€we€cannot€say€that€it€is€harmless€error.€€When€the€defense€of€alibi€is€fairlyÏraised€by€the€proof€at€trial,€the€failure€to€so€instruct€the€jury€is€reversible€error.€€òòPoeóó,Ï370€S.W.2d€at€490„91;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòManningóó,€500€S.W.2d€at€916.€€When€an€alibi€isÏsupported€by€the€proof,€the€instruction€is€fundamental€to€the€defense€and€essential€toÏa€fair€trial.€€òòPoeóó,€370€S.W.2d€at€491.€€It€follows€that€appellantððs€conviction€must€beÏreversed€œand€a›€new€trial€ordered.Ìà àFor€the€benefit€of€the€trial€court€on€remand€we€will€address€the€alleged€errorsÏin€sentencing.€€Appellant€argues€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€order€hisÏmisdemeanor€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€his€prior€sentences.€€ContraryÏto€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€he€contends€that€such€an€order€was€not€mandated€by€law.€€InÍaddition,€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€him€to€serve€oneÏhundred€percent€of€this€sentence.€€Ìà àAt€his€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€had€been€on€parole€atÏthe€time€of€his€conviction€in€this€case€and€his€parole€was€thereafter€revoked€in€part€forÏthis€conviction€and€in€part€for€an€unrelated€parole€violation.€€As€the€trial€court€wasÏpronouncing€its€judgment€regarding€the€appellantððs€sentence€for€this€offense,€theÏprosecutor€advised€the€trial€court€that€by€law€the€sentence€for€this€assault€convictionÏwas€required€to€be€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€sentence€being€servedÏby€the€appellant€following€his€parole€revocation.€€The€trial€court€agreed€andÏaccordingly€ordered€the€appellant€to€serve€his€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€dayÏsentence€consecutively€to€his€prior€conviction.€€Ìà àRule€32€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€outlines€thoseÏinstances€where€consecutive€sentences€are€mandatory.€€Since€the€appellant€wasÏconvicted€of€misdemeanor€assault€in€this€case,€Rule€32€did€not€make€a€consecutiveÏsentence€mandatory.€€Therefore,€upon€retrial,€if€the€appellant€is€again€convicted,€theÏtrial€court€should€use€its€sound€discretion€in€determining€whether€a€sentence€in€thisÏcase€should€be€served€consecutively€or€concurrently€with€any€other€sentences.€€ThatÏdecision,€of€course,€should€be€made€based€upon€the€record€and€in€accordance€withÏthe€principles€and€guidelines€of€the€Sentencing€Act.€€Ìà àFinally,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€appellant€serve€one€hundred€percent€ofÏthis€misdemeanor€sentence.€€The€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute€provides€for€aÏmaximum€of€seventy„five€percent€service.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)€(Supp.Ï1996).€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€one€hundred€percent€service€may€beÏordered€in€DUI€cases€only.€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€may€not€order€the€appellant€to€serve€more€than€seventy„fiveÏpercent€of€any€new€misdemeanor€sentence€he€may€receive€upon€subsequentÏconviction.€€Ìà àAs€stated,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€in€failing€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€alibi€when€it€was€fairly€raised€by€the€proof€at€trial.€ÏAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€assault€and€remand€this€causeÏto€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge