ÿWPCå" …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 1m˜ 0d w i s 0”{ 0D 0JS 0T 0^ñ 0hO 0r· 0|) 0†¥ 0+ 1u»U,0 B\ 0dyU,ÝU6  D3?B)rDC› 0@Þ AM9kM¤v~ñvÓo 0B 0ŠÑ 0 [ 0´û 0ǯ 0Ûv 0ïQ AO@!Æ! 0DU" D/™" BÈ"<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XS«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ¡¨  tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  àJÓ€(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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)< Œ 9p`(Modern dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New 'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ /Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMayÏ16,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€€The€defendant€cites€the€following€cases€in€support€of€his€argument:€òòRipley€v.€Stateóó,€227ÏS.W.2d€26,€29€(Tenn.€1950);€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€836€S.W.2d€600,€603„604€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);ÏòòConner€v.€State,óó€531€S.W.2d€119,€123„125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975);€and,€òòPennington€v.€Stateóó,€478ÏS.W.2d€892,€898€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ7€wÞXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€./,;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àœNOVEMBER›€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€ó ó€ò òœ01C01›„9506„CC„00166ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSEQUATCHIE€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏTHOMAS€W.€GRAHAM,ÌCHRIS€BILLINGSLEY,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Burglary;ÏTheft€of€Property)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJERRY€H.ÏSUMMERSà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏœBURSON›ó óÌSummers,€œMcCrea›€&€Wyattà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌ500€Lindsay€St.ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402„1490ò òà àà àà àMICHAELÏJ.€œFAHEY›,€IIó óÌà àà àà àà à€à àà àà àœAsst›.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJ.€MICHAEL€TAYLORó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJAMES€W.€POPE,€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ12th›€Judicial€DistrictÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFirst€American€Bank€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDayton,€TN€37321Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÑ Ü Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€in€the€indictment€with€one€count€of€burglaryÏand€one€count€of€theft€of€property€valued€over€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000).€€OnÏMay€17,€1994,€he€was€convicted€at€a€jury€trial€on€both€counts.€€The€trial€court€imposedÏconcurrent€sentences€of€six€years€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€on€each€count.€€InÏthis€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€five€issues€for€review:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌ1.€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€thatÏRonald€Green€was€either€an€accomplice€at€law€or€an€accompliceÏas€a€question€of€fact;ÌÌ2.€€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€and€corroboration€ofÏaccomplice€testimony€to€support€the€defendantððs€convictions;ÌÌ3.€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€juryÏpursuant€to€two€of€the€defendantððs€requested€instructions;ÌÌ4.€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant€as€aÏRange€II€multiple€offender;€and,ÌÌ5.€€whether€the€defendant€should€be€œgranted›€a€new€trial€based€onÏnewly€discovered€evidence€pertaining€to€the€testimony€of€RonaldÏGreen.ÌÒ œ ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓWe€find€that€the€defendantððs€issues€lack€merit,€and€his€convictions€and€sentences€areÏtherefore€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àThe€charges€in€the€present€case€arose€out€of€the€theft€of€many€itemsÏfrom€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop€in€Sequatchie€County€on€June€20„21,€1993.€ÏThe€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop€is€a€retail€store€located€alongside€Highway€127€inÏthe€city€of€Dunlap,€Tennessee.€€Karen€Phipps€and€Alfred€Myers,€the€manager€and€theÏowner€of€the€store€respectively,€both€testified€that€when€they€arrived€at€the€store€onÏthe€morning€of€Monday,€June€21,€1993,€the€front€window€had€been€broken€and€theÏback€door€had€been€unlocked.€€The€store€appeared€to€have€been€ransacked,€andÍmany€articles€of€clothing€as€well€as€Nascar€collectibles€were€missing.€€PhippsÏtestified€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€items€missing€was€approximately€sevenÏthousand€two€hundred€dollars€($7200).€€Myers€testified€that€he€had€checked€the€storeÏon€Sunday,€June€20,€1993,€at€approximately€6:00€or€6:30€p.m.€and€had€foundÏnothing€out€of€the€ordinary.€€Both€Phipps€and€Myers€testified€further€that€they€had€notÏgiven€anyone€permission€to€remove€any€items€from€the€store.ÌÌà àà àLloyd€Grant€and€Clyde€Johnson,€both€law€enforcement€officers€inÏSequatchie€County,€testified€that€they€had€worked€from€the€night€of€Sunday,€June€20,Ï1993,€to€the€morning€of€Monday,€June€21,€1993.€€They€testified€further€that€they€bothÏknew€the€defendant€and€knew€that€he€drove€a€white€Chevy€S10€pickup€truck€at€theÏtime.€€During€their€shifts,€they€both€saw€a€white€Chevy€S10€pickup€truck€driving€upÏand€down€Highway€127€in€Dunlap€several€times.€€Although€Grant€could€not€identifyÏthe€occupants€of€the€truck,€he€did€testify€that€it€had€appeared€there€were€twoÏindividuals€in€the€vehicle.€€On€cross„examination,€both€officers€testified€that€thereÏwere€several€white€Chevy€S10€pickup€trucks€in€Dunlap,€that€they€had€never€seen€theÏtruck€in€question€near€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop€on€the€night€of€June€20„21,Ïand€that€young€people€generally€drove€up€and€down€or€ð ðcruisedðð€Highway€127€on€aÏregular€basis.ÌÌà àà àDavid€Roberson,€a€deputy€with€the€Sequatchie€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment,€testified€that€he€had€spoken€with€Dane€Sweeton€between€June€21€andÏJune€24,€at€which€time€Sweeton€denied€any€involvement€in€the€theft€from€theÏCumberland€Speciality€Shop.€€On€June€24,€1993,€Roberson€accompanied€SheriffÏMay€to€the€home€of€the€defendantððs€aunt,€Ann€Cartwright,€located€north€of€Dunlap€justÏover€the€Sequatchie€County€line.€€They€recovered€several€items€from€CartwrightððsÏbarn€which€had€been€taken€from€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop.€€Upon€furtherÏquestioning,€Sweeton€admitted€being€involved€in€the€theft€with€the€defendant.€€HeÏalso€stated€that€Ronald€Green€had€been€involved€in€the€disposal€of€the€stolenÏmerchandise.ÌÌà àà àIt€was€stipulated€that€one€fingerprint€matching€Dane€SweetonððsÏfingerprints€was€retrieved€from€a€stolen€clock€discovered€in€Cartwrightððs€barn.€€OtherÏthan€that€print,€no€other€fingerprints€of€value€were€recovered€from€the€merchandiseÏdiscovered€at€Cartwrightððs€barn.ÌÌà àà àDane€Sweeton,€the€admitted€accomplice€of€the€defendant,€testified€onÏbehalf€of€the€State.€€He€stated€that€he€had€been€driving€around€Dunlap€on€Sunday,ÏJune€20,€1993,€when,€at€approximately€10:30€p.m.,€he€encountered€the€defendant.€ÏSweeton€agreed€to€ride€around€with€the€defendant€in€the€latterððs€white€Chevy€S10Ípickup€truck,€and€the€two€simply€ð ðcruisedðð€around€town€for€two€to€three€hours.€€TheÏdefendant€then€asked€Sweeton€if€he€wanted€to€make€some€money,€and€SweetonÏresponded€affirmatively.€€The€defendant€drove€to€the€Cumberland€Speciality€ShopÏand€shattered€a€front€window€of€the€business€with€a€lug€wrench.€€They€leftÏimmediately€and€drove€through€town€to€ensure€that€no€one€had€witnessed€theÏbreaking€of€the€window.€€Shortly€thereafter€they€returned€to€the€store,€drove€the€truckÏaround€to€the€back€door,€and€loaded€many€articles€of€clothing€and€other€collectiblesÏinto€the€bed€of€the€truck.€€They€then€drove€to€a€barn€with€which€Sweeton€wasÏunfamiliar€and€unloaded€the€items€from€the€truck,€completing€the€task€just€beforeÏdawn€on€Monday,€June€21,€1993.€€On€the€evening€of€June€21,€the€defendant€askedÏSweeton€if€the€latter€wanted€to€accompany€him€to€Florida€to€sell€the€merchandise.€ÏSweeton€declined€the€offer,€and€the€defendant€told€Sweeton€that€he€had€someoneÏelse€he€could€ask€to€go€with€him.€€On€cross„examination,€Sweeton€testified€that€heÏhad€five€prior€felony€convictions.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€had€lied€to€police€officersÏduring€his€initial€oral€statement€in€which€he€denied€involvement€in€the€theft.ÌÌà àà àRonald€Green€testified€that€he€had€been€friends€with€the€defendant€for€aÏcouple€of€years.€€On€June€24,€1993,€the€defendant€came€to€Greenððs€house€in€MarionÏCounty,€Tennessee,€and€asked€if€he€wanted€to€accompany€the€defendant€to€FloridaÏto€see€a€stock€car€race.€€The€defendant€was€driving€a€white€Chevy€S10€pickup€truckÍwhich€contained€five€bags€of€merchandise€such€as€hats,€jackets,€and€tee€shirts€withÏHarley„Davidson€emblems.€€He€told€Green€that€the€items€were€stolen€merchandiseÏwhich€he€had€purchased€from€Dane€Sweeton.€€Green€accompanied€the€defendant€toÏFlorida,€and€the€defendant€sold€the€five€bags€of€merchandise€to€an€individual€he€metÏon€one€of€the€beaches€in€the€vicinity€for€approximately€five€hundred€dollars€($500).€ÏGreen€testified€that€he€had€received€none€of€the€profit€from€the€sale€of€the€stolenÏmerchandise.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€wife,€Roxanna€Billingsley,€testified€on€his€behalf€at€trial.€ÏShe€stated€that€the€defendant€had€been€out€of€their€home€on€the€evening€of€Sunday,ÏJune€20,€1993,€but€returned€around€midnight.€€Sometime€later€Dane€SweetonÏarrived€at€their€home€and€asked€the€defendant€if€he€could€store€some€items€in€theÏbasement.€€The€defendantððs€wife€protested,€and€the€defendant€told€Sweeton€that€heÏcould€not€store€anything€in€the€house.€€Sweeton€then€left€without€putting€any€items€inÏthe€basement.€€On€cross„examination,€Mrs.€Billingsley€admitted€that€although€lawÏenforcement€officials€investigated€the€offenses€for€nearly€three€months,€she€neverÏmentioned€Dane€Sweetonððs€alleged€late„night€visit€to€the€police€during€theÏinvestigation.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€first€issue€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÍfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€that€Ronald€Green€was€either€an€accomplice€at€law€or€anÏaccomplice€as€a€question€of€fact.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€need€forÏcorroboration€of€accomplice€testimony,€generally€following€the€appropriateÏTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€specifically€chargedÏthe€jury€that€Dane€Sweeton€was€an€accomplice€of€the€defendant€and,€therefore,€hisÏtestimony€must€be€corroborated.€€The€trial€court€did€not€mention€Ronald€Green€in€theÏinstructions€pertaining€to€corroboration€of€accomplice€testimony.€€The€defendantÏcontends€that€the€fact€that€Green€and€the€defendant€were€friends€and€that€GreenÏaccompanied€the€defendant€to€see€a€stock€car€race€in€Florida,€admittedly€knowingÏthat€the€merchandise€contained€in€the€defendantððs€truck€was€stolen,€merits€a€juryÏinstruction€to€the€effect€that€Green€was€an€accomplice€at€law€or€that€Greenððs€role€as€aÏpossible€accomplice€was€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€resolve.ÌÌà àà àAn€accomplice€is€an€individual€who€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€withÏcommon€intent€unites€with€the€principal€offender€in€the€commission€of€a€crime.€€òòSeeóóÏòòClapp€v.€Stateóó,€94€Tenn.€186,€30€S.W.€214,€216€(1895);€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€794€S.W.2dÏ363,€369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€question€of€who€determines€whether€anÏindividual€is€an€accomplice€depends€upon€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€€WhenÏan€individualððs€participation€in€a€criminal€offense€or€lack€thereof€is€clear€andÏundisputed,€the€question€of€who€is€an€accomplice€is€one€for€the€trial€court€to€decide.€ÍWhen,€however,€the€facts€of€an€individualððs€participation€in€a€criminal€offense€are€inÏdispute€or€are€susceptible€of€an€inference€that€the€individual€may€or€may€not€be€anÏaccomplice,€the€question€of€who€is€an€accomplice€is€one€for€the€jury€to€decide.€€òòSeeóóÏòòLawsonóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€369;€òòBethany€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€900,€903€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€although€the€defendant€goes€to€great€lengths€toÏcompare€his€situation€to€a€number€of€cases€in€which€Tennessee€courts€have€requiredÏan€instruction€on€accomplice€as€a€question€of€fact,€there€is€simply€no€factual€questionÏas€to€Ronald€Greenððs€lack€of€involvement€in€the€burglary€and€theft€of€merchandiseÏfrom€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop€in€Sequatchie€County€on€June€20„21,€1993.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÏGreen€himself€testified€that€he€had€encountered€the€defendant€and€the€stolenÏmerchandise€for€the€first€time€on€June€24,€1993,€at€the€formerððs€home€in€MarionÏCounty.€€The€defendant,€through€the€testimony€of€his€wife,€relied€primarily€on€an€alibiÏdefense€and€implied€that€Dane€Sweeton€was€responsible€for€the€crimes.€€There€wasÏno€testimony€offered€by€anyone€at€trial€which€implicated€Green€in€the€June€20„21Ïevents.€€Our€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€there€is€no€evidence€even€suggestingÍthat€Green€was€involved€in€the€June€20„21€burglary€and€theft€of€the€CumberlandÏSpeciality€Shop.ÌÌà àà àIf€the€defendant€had€been€charged€with€theft€of€property€by€exercisingÏcontrol€on€June€24,€the€day€that€he€met€Green€and€drove€to€Florida€to€sell€the€stolenÏmerchandise,€œthen›€there€would€œhave€been›€a€factual€question€as€to€GreenððsÏinvolvement€in€the€crime.€€In€that€case,€it€œwould€have€been›€appropriate€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€instruct€the€jury€that€they€should€determine€whether€Green€was€anÏaccomplice.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€however,€a€host€of€pre„trial€motions€narrowed€theÏtime€of€the€alleged€offenses€to€between€6:30€p.m.€on€June€20,€1993,€and€9:30€a.m.Ïon€June€21,€1993.€€From€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€can€only€conclude€thatÏthere€is€no€factual€question€as€to€Greenððs€lack€of€involvement€in€the€chargedÏoffenses.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€instruct€the€jury€regardingÏGreenððs€alleged€role€as€an€accomplice.€€The€trial€courtððs€instruction€pertaining€toÏaccomplice€testimony€was€a€correct€and€adequate€statement€of€the€law€and,€thus,€theÏdefendantððs€first€issue€lacks€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue€the€defendant€contends€that€there€was€insufficientÏevidence€and€corroboration€of€accomplice€testimony€to€support€his€convictions.€ÏSpecifically,€the€defendant€claims€that€Greenððs€testimony€is€so€unrelated€toÍSweetonððs€testimony€that€it€does€not€corroborate€Sweeton€with€respect€to€theÏelements€of€the€charged€offenses.€€As€a€result,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÏcorroborating€evidence€is€legally€insufficient.ÌÌà àà àThe€rule€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€a€defendant€cannot€beÏconvicted€on€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€204ÏTenn.€427,€321€S.W.2d€811,€814€œ(1959).›€€An€accomplice€is€defined€as€"a€person€whoÏknowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€with€the€principal€offender,€unites€inÏthe€commission€of€a€crime."€€òòClapp€v.€Stateóó,€94€Tenn.€186,€30€S.W.€214,€216€œ(1895).›€ÏTo€corroborate€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice,€"there€should€be€some€fact€testifiedÏto,€entirely€independent€of€the€accomplice's€evidence,€which,€taken€by€itself,€leads€toÏthe€inference,€not€only€that€a€crime€has€been€committed,€but€also€that€the€defendantÏis€implicated€in€it."€€òòClappóó,€30€S.W.€at€216.€€This€corroboration€must€consist€of€someÏfact€or€circumstance€which€affects€the€identity€of€the€defendant.€€The€necessaryÏcorroboration,€however,€need€be€only€rather€slight€circumstances.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòBethanyóó,€565€S.W.2d€at€904€(citing€òòGarton€v.€Stateóó,€332€S.W.2d€169€(Tenn.€1960);ÏòòAlexander€v.€State,óó€229€S.W.2d€331€(Tenn.€1950)).€€Furthermore,€the€jury€is€toÏdetermine€the€degree€of€evidence€necessary€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€anÏaccomplice,€and€it€is€sufficient€"if€there€is€some€other€evidence€fairly€tending€toÏconnect€the€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime."€€òòClappóó,€30€S.W.€at€217.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€Sweeton€testified€that€he€and€the€defendant€hadÏbroken€into€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop€and€stolen€merchandise€on€June€20„21,€1993.€€They€placed€the€merchandise€in€the€defendantððs€white€Chevy€S10€pickupÏtruck€and€later€concealed€it€in€a€barn.€€Two€law€enforcement€officers€testified€that€theyÏhad€seen€a€white€Chevy€S10€pickup€truck€driving€up€and€down€Highway€127,€theÏroad€fronting€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop.€€Police€officers€later€recovered€someÏof€the€stolen€merchandise€from€a€barn€which€was€owned€by€the€defendantððs€aunt.€ÏRonald€Green€testified€that€he€had€seen€several€bags€containing€merchandiseÏmatching€the€description€of€items€stolen€from€the€Cumberland€Speciality€Shop€in€theÏdefendantððs€truck.€€Green€testified€further€that€the€defendant€had€stated€that€the€itemsÏwere€stolen.ÌÌà àà àTaken€together,€we€find€that€this€evidence€sufficiently€corroborates€theÏtestimony€of€the€defendantððs€accomplice,€Dane€Sweeton.€€Possession€of€recentlyÏstolen€merchandise€gives€rise€to€an€inference€that€the€possessor€has€stolen€theÏmerchandise.€€It€is€also€sufficient€corroboration€to€support€a€conviction€for€burglary.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hamiltonóó,€628€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€òòSmart€v.€Stateóó,Ï544€S.W.2d€109,€110„111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976);€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€855,Ï856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€The€defendant€makes€much€of€Greenððs€testimony€thatÍhe€told€Green€that€he€had€purchased€the€stolen€merchandise€from€Sweeton.€€Yet€theÏcircumstantial€force€of€the€inference€which€arises€from€possession€of€recently€stolenÏmerchandise€does€not€simply€vanish€in€light€of€the€defendantððs€alleged€statement€toÏGreen.€€Instead,€it€is€the€juryððs€duty€to€weigh€the€inference€against€the€defendantððsÏexplanation.€€òòSeeóó€òòBush€v.€Stateóó,€541€S.W.2d€391,€395€(Tenn.€1976).€€From€theÏverdict€of€guilt,€it€is€apparent€that€the€jury€rejected€the€defendantððs€explanation.€ÏBased€on€our€review€of€the€record,€we€can€only€conclude€that€there€is€sufficientÏcorroborating€evidence€which€tends€to€connect€the€defendant€with€the€commission€ofÏthe€charged€offenses.€€The€defendantððs€second€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€instruct€the€jury€pursuant€to€two€of€the€defendantððs€requested€instructions.€ÏThe€first€such€special€request€instructed€the€jury€that€the€testimony€of€an€ð ðinformant,ððÏdefined€primarily€as€an€individual€who€chooses€to€testify€by€agreement€with€theÏgovernment€in€order€to€escape€punishment,€must€be€examined€with€greater€scrutinyÏthan€an€individual€whose€testimony€is€not€motivated€by€self„interest.€€The€requestedÏinstruction€then€identified€Dane€Sweeton€as€an€informant.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€requested€instruction€ignores€the€fact€that€DaneÏSweeton€specifically€testified€at€trial€that€he€had€no€agreement€with€the€governmentÍregarding€his€testimony.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€their€role€asÏthe€judges€of€the€credibility€of€a€witness.€€In€that€instruction,€the€trial€court€identifiedÏthe€interest€or€lack€of€interest€of€a€witness€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial€and€any€potentialÏbias€of€a€witness€as€worthy€considerations€in€the€juryððs€evaluation€of€credibility.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€credibility€adequately€addressed€theÏdefendantððs€concerns€expressed€in€his€special€request€regarding€ð ðinformantððÏcredibility.ÌÌà àà àThe€second€special€request€of€which€the€defendant€complains€onÏappeal€involved€the€effect€of€a€felony€conviction€on€witness€credibility.€€TheÏrequested€instruction€informed€the€jury€that€the€testimony€of€a€witness€may€beÏdiscredited€or€impeached€by€evidence€revealing€that€the€witness€has€been€convictedÏof€a€felony.€€The€trial€courtððs€general€instruction€on€credibility,€however,€advised€theÏjury€that€the€general€character€of€a€witness€as€well€as€evidence€concerning€aÏwitnessðð€reputation€for€truth€and€veracity€are€proper€considerations€in€the€juryððsÏevaluation€of€credibility.€€œFurthermore,€at›€œtrial›€the€defendant€ably€focused€the€juryððsÏattention€on€the€criminal€records€and€reputations€for€truthfulness€of€variousÏwitnesses,€especially€Dane€Sweeton.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€instructionÏregarding€witness€credibility€fully€and€fairly€stated€the€applicable€law.€€As€a€result,€theÏtrial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€special€requests€concerning€informantÍcredibility€and€the€effect€of€a€felony€conviction€on€witness€credibility.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòStateÏv.€Bryantóó,€654€S.W.2d€389,€390€(Tenn.€1983).€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€thirdÏissue€lacks€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€fourth€issue€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏsentencing€the€defendant€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€He€argues€that€his€priorÏclass€E€felony€conviction€for€petit€larceny€in€1988€should€not€have€been€consideredÏin€calculating€his€sentencing€range€because€that€crime€would€today€constitute€only€aÏclass€A€misdemeanor.€€The€defendant,€however,€concedes€that€this€Court€recentlyÏrejected€this€argument€in€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€836€S.W.2d€130€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÏHe€therefore€asks€this€Court€to€revisit€the€issue€and€to€reverse€òòWrightóó.€€We€decline€toÏalter€the€holding€in€òòWrightóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€defines€a€multipleÏoffender€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106.€€In€determining€the€number€of€prior€felony€convictionsÏa€defendant€has€received,€ð ð[œa]ll›€prior€felony€convictions,€including€those€occurringÏprior€to€November€1,€1989,€are€included.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106(b)(2)€(1990).€€As€thisÏCourt€stated€in€òòWrightóó,€the€legislature€ð ðwas€aware€that€some€offenses€which€wereÏfelonies€under€prior€law€were€no€longer€felonies€under€the€new€Act.€€There€appearsÏto€be€no€doubt€that€the€legislature€intended€to€permit€consideration€of€all€prior€felonyÍconvictions€occurring€during€the€defendantððs€life.ðð€€òòWrightóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€136.€€Thus,Ïin€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€defendantððs€1988€petitÏlarceny€conviction€as€a€prior€felony€for€purposes€of€determining€the€appropriateÏsentencing€range.€€The€defendantððs€fourth€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€fifth€and€final€issue€the€defendant€claims€that€he€should€beÏawarded€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence€pertaining€to€the€testimonyÏof€Ronald€Green.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€informed€his€counsel€shortly€after€theÏconclusion€of€the€trial€that€(1)€Ronald€Green€had€paid€for€the€trip€to€Florida,€(2)€GreenÏhad€in€fact€sold€the€stolen€merchandise€while€the€defendant€was€in€jail,€and€(3)ÏGreen€had€received€half€of€the€four€hundred€fifty€dollars€($450)€profit€from€the€sale€ofÏthe€stolen€merchandise.€€The€defendant€allegedly€did€not€mention€these€facts€to€hisÏcounsel€before€or€during€trial€because€he€wanted€ð ðto€avoid€getting€anyone€else€inÏtrouble.ðð€€He€now€contends€that€these€additional€facts€cast€doubt€on€GreenððsÏcredibility€and€role€as€an€accomplice.€€As€a€result,€he€argues€that€this€evidence€mightÏeasily€have€changed€the€result€of€the€trial,€especially€given€the€key€role€Green€playedÏin€the€corroboration€of€Dane€Sweetonððs€testimony.ÌÌà àà àIn€seeking€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€theÏdefendant€must€establish€(1)€reasonable€diligence€in€attempting€to€discover€theÍevidence;€(2)€materiality€of€the€evidence;€and€(3)€that€the€evidence€would€likelyÏchange€the€result€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737€(Tenn.Ï1994)€(citing€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€358„360€(Tenn.€1983)).€€In€order€toÏshow€reasonable€diligence,€the€defendant€must€demonstrate€that€neither€he€nor€hisÏcounsel€had€knowledge€of€the€alleged€newly€discovered€evidence€prior€to€trial.€€òòSeeóóÏòòJones€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€160,€452€S.W.2d€365,€367€(1970).€€The€grantingÏor€refusal€of€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€evidence€rests€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòHawkins€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€383,€417€S.W.2d€774,Ï778€(1967).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€admits€that€he€was€fully€aware€of€theÏð ðnewly€discoveredðð€evidence€regarding€Ronald€Greenððs€testimony€even€before€trial.€ÏGiven€the€defendantððs€personal€knowledge€of€the€facts€at€issue,€we€cannot€concludeÏthat€the€defendant€has€exercised€reasonable€diligence€in€presenting€the€ð ðnewlyÏdiscoveredðð€evidence.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€aÏnew€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€€The€defendantððs€fifth€issue€isÏnot€meritorious.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€stated€in€the€foregoing€discussion,€we€find€that€theÏdefendantððs€issues€on€appeal€lack€merit.€€We€therefore€affirm€his€convictions€and€hisÍsentences.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€III,€Special€Judge