ÿWPC¬" …U.V %„bŠŽn­ž 0(KU:sw@­4í 0™ 0Dš U:Þ 0J b 0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ 0dý BaB)~DC§U *ê AM D3aë”f 0@å$%¼INv~bvÓà 0T³ AO!ÆV! 0D" D/`" B"<þ6X9`(CourierX ù3|x†«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular rsEtuvDwxDyEz{Ó€‹â (I(24Ô$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XøeXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 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 d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd áÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAugust€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝKey€has€apparently€used€the€alias€"Larry€Wayne€King."€€He€is€named€inÏthe€presentment€as€"Larry€Wayne€Key."€€In€accord€with€the€policy€of€this€court,Ïwe€use€the€defendant's€name€as€it€appears€in€the€presentment.€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStateÏv.€Jenny€Wilsonóó,€No.€03C01„9508„CC„00221,€slip€op.€at€2,€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€24,€1996).Ì ²Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€considered€whether€the€eleven€day€period€between€the€BeelerÏburglary€and€law€enforcement's€discovery€of€the€defendants€in€possession€ofÏthe€Beelers'€property€constitutes€possession€of€"òòrecentlyóó€stolen€property."€€OnÏthe€facts€of€this€case,€we€hold€it€does.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€738€S.W.2d€200,Ï202„05€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòcfóó.€òòState€v.€Sheila€Elaine€Thomasóó,€No.€01C01„9304„CC„00131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€23,€1996)€(propertyÏrecovered€in€defendant's€home€two€to€three€months€after€burglaries€inÏquestion),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Donald€Ray€Veasleyóó,€No.Ï01C01„9404„CC„00153€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€15,€1995)€(12€days),Ïòòperm.€app.€dismissedóó€(Tenn.€1996).Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòJennings€v.€Reesóó,€800€F.2d€72€(6th€Cir.€1986).€Ì DÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€example,€a€law€enforcement€officer€acts€reasonably€in€conducting€aÏmore€intrusive€search€for€a€gold€nugget€ring€than€a€lawnmower.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔßR€)+'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌ›ÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€œ01C01„9601„CC„00002›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òANDREW€WILLIAM€BYERSó óà àà à)à àHonorable€Donald€P.€Harris,ÏJudge€ò òand€LARRY€WAYNE€KEYó óà àà à)à àÌò òa/k/a€LARRY€WAYNE€KINGà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Burglary,Ìà àà àAppellants.à àà àà à)à àTheft€of€Property)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT€BYERS:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJOHN€HENDERSONà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€68ÌFranklin,€TN€€37065„0068à àà àà àà àDARIAN€B.€TAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT€KEY:à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌD.€STUART€CAULKINSÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àJOSEPH€D.€BAUGH,€JR.Ì212€E.€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌFranklin,€TN€€37064Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMARK€PURYEARÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌò òÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌó óÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÑ€,ÑÇØØÙ  ÙÑ7€ øe XXdðXXdÈ7ÑØØÑ  ÑÌÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendants,€Andrew€œWilliam›€Byers€and€Larry€Wayne€Key,× ƒ. ××  ×Ïwere€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property€by€a€jury€of€theirÏpeers€in€the€Williamson€County€Criminal€Court.€€Byers€received€a€24€yearÏeffective€sentence€for€his€crimes€„„€12€years€for€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€CÏfelony,€at€Range€3,€œand€12›€years€for€theft€of€property,€a€Class€D€felony,€at€CareerÏOffender€status.€€These€sentences€were€imposed€consecutively,€for€an€effectiveÏ24€year€sentence.€€€Key€received€a€27€year€effective€sentence€„„€15€years€forÏaggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€at€Range€3,€and€12€years€for€theft€ofÏproperty,€a€Class€D€felony,€at€Career€Offender€status.€€Both€defendants'Ïsentences€were€imposed€consecutively€to€each€other€and€to€the€sentences€theyÏwere€serving€at€the€time€of€the€convictions.€€In€this€appeal,€both€defendants€raiseÏissues€pertaining€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€Byers€also€raisesÏan€issue€pertaining€to€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€pre„trial€motion€to€suppressÏevidence€seized€from€his€home.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àà àOn€March€11,€1993,€numerous€items€were€taken€from€theÏBrentwood€home€of€Dan€and€Tammy€Beeler.€€Entry€was€obtained€by€pryingÏopen€a€back€door.€€Among€the€items€taken€from€the€home€were€a€gold€CrossÏpen€and€pencil€set,€a€Honda€jacket,€a€fraternity€jacket,€several€baseball€capsÏwith€distinctive€lettering€and€markings,€a€pair€of€cowboy€boots,€a€"paint€ball"€gunÏand€"paint€ball"€equipment.€€Mrs.€Beeler€discovered€the€burglary€during€theÏafternoon€hours€when€she€returned€home€from€work.€€She€notified€theÏBrentwood€Police€Department,€and€Detective€Thomas€Campsey€began€anÏinvestigation.ÌÌà àà àAs€a€result€of€surveillance€activities€growing€out€of€an€investigationÏof€an€unrelated€offense,€Nashville€Metro€officers€were€aware€Defendant€ByersÏwas€living€in€a€rental€duplex€in€south€Nashville,€and€Key€had€been€seenÏentering€and€leaving€the€Byers€residence.€€Arrest€warrants€were€obtained€for€theÏtwo,€and€they€were€arrested€on€March€22,€1993,€as€they€drove€away€from€œByers'›Ïresidence.€€Within€a€few€hours,€a€warrant€authorizing€the€search€for€itemsÏrelevant€to€the€unrelated€offense€was€executed€at€œByersðð›€home€by€NashvilleÏMetro€officers.€€According€to€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€hearing€on€the€motionÏto€suppress,€the€officers€found€other€items€which€they€suspected€were€the€fruitsÏof€one€or€more€burglaries€in€Williamson€County€in€the€course€of€executing€thisÍsearch€warrant.€€One€of€the€Nashville€Metro€officers€involved€in€searching€theÏByers€home€was€Detective€Mike€Chastain,€who€was€familiar€with€the€burglariesÏon€the€Davidson/Williamson€County€line,€and€who€had€been€in€contact€with€Det.ÏCampsey€regarding€the€crimes.€€From€these€communications,€Chastain€wasÏaware€of€the€paint€ball€gun€and€accessories€missing€from€the€Beeler€home.€€HeÏfound€items€matching€this€description€in€plain€view€in€a€bedroom€of€the€ByersÏhome,€and€he€confirmed€they€were€those€taken€in€the€Beeler€burglary€byÏtelephoning€Campsey€and€confirming€the€serial€number€on€the€paint€ball€gun.€ÏOther€officers€then€inquired€whether€other€items€which€they€had€come€acrossÏduring€the€course€of€the€Byers€search€matched€property€which€had€beenÏreported€missing€as€a€result€of€the€€Williamson€County€burglaries.€€CampseyÏtestified€one€such€inquiry€was€from€Det.€Harry€Boner,€who€asked€whetherÏCampsey€was€missing€any€cowboy€boots,€as€Boner€found€a€pair€of€boots€in€aÏboot€bag€during€the€search.€€Campsey€advised€a€pair€of€size€10„1/2€brownÏleather€Dan€Post€bootsò ò€ó óhad€been€taken€from€the€Beeler€residence.€€The€paintÏball€equipment€and€boots€were€seized€by€the€Metro€officers.€€€Additionally,€oneÏof€the€officers€spotted€a€fraternity€jacket€belonging€to€Dan€Beeler€in€the€ByersÏresidence,€although€he€was€unaware€it€was€stolen€property€until€he€described€itÏto€Det.€Campsey€after€the€search€was€completed.ÌÌà àà àA€second€search€warrant€was€obtained€for€the€Byers€residence€atÏthe€request€of€Det.€Campsey,€probable€cause€being€supported€by€stolenÏproperty€discovered€in€the€first€search.€€When€that€warrant€was€executed,€noÏfurther€evidence€€was€found,€although€additional€items€taken€in€the€BeelerÏburglary€were€recovered€with€the€consent€of€a€neighbor,€James€Gentry,€whoÏadmitted€moving€items€from€the€Byers€residence€to€his€own€residence€afterÏByers€was€arrested.€€These€items€consisted€primarily€of€jackets€and€hats€withÏunique€markings.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€the€defendants€were€arrested,€a€gold€Cross€pen€wasÏfound€on€the€person€of€Key.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendants€were€charged€in€a€four„count€presentment€withÏtwo€counts€each€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property€valued€overÏ$1,000€of€the€Beeler€residence€and€a€second€residence€in€the€BeelerÏneighborhood.€€€The€counts€pertaining€to€the€two€residences€were€severed€forÏtrial.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€state's€evidence€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€theÏBeelers,€James€Gentry,€who€was€œByers'›€cousin€and€neighbor,€and€various€lawÍenforcement€officers.€€Dan€Beeler€testified€to€the€condition€of€his€home€followingÏthe€burglary€and€the€items€missing.€€He€estimated€50€items€valued€at€a€total€ofÏ$3,400.79€were€taken.€€He€recovered€some€of€the€items€taken€from€his€home,Ïincluding€the€paint€ball€equipment,€the€cowboy€boots,€various€jackets€and€hats,Ïa€gold€Cross€pencil,€€an€air€compressor,€and€tools.€€He€also€testified€he€visitedÏthe€Metro€impound€lot,€where€he€identified€the€air€compressor,€tools€and€a€goldÏCross€pen€or€pencil€which€were€inside€a€Mazda€truck€seized€from€œByers'›Ïresidence.ÌÌà àà àTammy€Beeler's€testimony€was€essentially€corroborative€of€that€ofÏher€ex„husband,€Dan€Beeler.€€She€estimated€the€value€of€the€stolen€property€atÏ$3,200€to€$3,400.ÌÌà àà àDetective€Mike€Chastain€testified€regarding€his€communicationÏwith€Det.€Campsey€about€burglaries€on€the€Davidson/Williamson€County€lineÏduring€the€relevant€time€period.€€He€also€recounted€his€involvement€as€aÏmember€of€the€team€of€officers€who€executed€the€first€search€warrant€on€theÏByers€residence€and€his€discovery€of€the€paint€ball€equipment€in€plain€view€inÏthe€bedroom€he€was€assigned€to€search.€€He€recognized€it€as€the€same€type€ofÏproperty€Det.€Campsey€had€previously€described€to€him,€and€he€confirmed€thatÍthe€property€was€stolen€by€phoning€Campsey€and€matching€the€serial€numberÏon€the€gun.€€He€also€testified€that€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€of€theÏdefendants,€he€was€aware€Byers€resided€at€the€address€which€was€the€subjectÏof€the€two€search€warrants.€€Chastain€also€testified€about€returning€to€theÏresidence€with€the€second€search€warrant,€finding€nothing,€and€obtainingÏconsent€to€search€James€Gentry's€house€next€door,€where€several€items€takenÏin€the€Beeler€burglary€were€discovered.€€He€testified€that€the€Mazda€truck€thatÏwas€later€searched€at€a€tow„in€lot€and€that€is€shown€in€the€photograph€markedÏas€Exhibit€22€was€discovered€in€the€driveway€at€the€œByers›€residence.ÌÌà àà àNorris€Tarkington,€another€member€of€the€Metro€force,€testified€heÏconducted€a€personal€search€of€Key€as€part€of€the€arrest€process€andÏinventoried€the€items€found.€€One€of€the€items€was€a€gold€Cross€pen€thatÏappears€in€the€photograph€marked€as€Exhibit€14.ÌÌà àà àJames€Gentry€testified€he€is€œByers'›€cousin€and€lived€next€door€toÏhim€in€March€1993.€€As€a€result€of€œByers'›€arrest,€Gentry€obtained€a€key€to€œByers'›Ïhome€€and€entered€the€home€to€get€œByers'›€bird€for€the€purpose€of€feeding€him.€ÏHe€also€took€some€personal€property€and€put€it€in€his€own€home.€€He€saw€theÏofficers€conducting€both€searches€of€the€Byers€home,€and€he€was€asked€byÍCampsey€at€the€time€of€the€second€search€whether€he€had€taken€property€fromÏthe€Byers€home.€€Gentry€admitted€he€had€and€allowed€Campsey€and€ChastainÏinto€his€home,€where€they€discovered€additional€stolen€property.ÌÌà àà àMetro€Detective€Harryò ò€ó óBoner€testified€he€was€involved€in€theÏinvestigation€of€the€defendants€and€participated€in€the€first€search.€€He€found€theÏcowboy€boots€in€a€boot€bag€in€the€attic.€€He€had€not€personally€talked€withÏCampsey€prior€to€execution€of€the€search€warrant,€but€he€knew€Chastain€andÏCampsey€had€been€in€communication€about€burglaries€in€Williamson€County.ÌÌà àà àDetective€Campsey€testified€he€is€often€in€communication€with€lawÏenforcement€officials€from€other€jurisdictions€because€much€of€the€crimeÏperpetrated€on€the€residents€of€Brentwood€is€committed€by€residents€of€otherÏparts€of€Williamson€€County€or€Davidson€County,€particularly€South€Nashville.€ÏHe€recalled€discussing€œwith€Chastain€the›€paint€ball€gun€taken€from€the€BeelerÏœburglary.›€€This€was€an€unusual€item.€€He€confirmed€his€telephone€conversationÏwith€Chastain€about€the€paint€ball€gun€during€the€execution€of€the€first€searchÏwarrant.€€He€corroborated€Chastain's€and€Gentry's€testimony€regarding€theÏsecond€search€warrant€and€the€discovery€of€several€items€of€stolen€property€inÏGentry's€home.€€He€confirmed€additional€stolen€items€were€recovered€from€theÍtruck€impounded€by€Metro,€including€a€leatherette€tool€œkit,›€an€air€œcompressor,›Ïœand›€a€gold€pen.€€He€testified€that€both€the€pen€and€pencil€were€recovered,€andÏhe€was€present€when€one€of€the€two€was€returned€to€Mr.€Beeler.€€He€alsoÏtestified€the€surface€of€a€Cross€pen€or€pencil€was€not€conducive€to€recovery€ofÏfingerprint€evidence.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€denied€both€defendants'€motions€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal.€€Neither€defendant€elected€to€present€proof.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€jury€returned€findings€of€guilt€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theftÏof€property€valued€at€over€$1,000€as€to€both€defendants.€€The€jury€assessedÏfines€of€$10,000€for€each€defendant€for€aggravated€burglary€and€$5,000€forÏeach€defendant€for€theft€of€property.ÌÌà àà àByers,€a€Range€3€offender€on€the€conviction€of€aggravatedÏburglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€was€sentenced€to€12€years.€€For€theft€of€property,€aÏClass€D€felony,€he€was€classified€as€a€Career€Offender€and€given€a€12€yearÏsentence.€€These€sentences€were€imposed€consecutively,€for€an€effective€24Ïyear€sentence.€€€Key,€a€Range€3€offender€for€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction,Ïreceived€15€years.€€He€was€classified€a€Career€Offender€for€the€theft€of€propertyÍconviction€and€sentenced€to€12€years.€€His€sentences€were€likewise€imposedÏconsecutively,€for€a€27€year€effective€sentence.€€Both€defendants€were€orderedÏto€serve€these€sentences€consecutively€to€those€for€which€they€wereÏincarcerated€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€and€the€fines€imposed€by€the€jury€wereÏset€aside.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àBoth€Byers€and€Key€allege€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€isÏinsufficient€to€sustain€their€convictions.€€When€an€accused€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€is,€whetherÏafter€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóóÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ï2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÏevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ïthe€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawnÏby€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286ÏS.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€of€TennesseeÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€asÏall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€€€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòÏJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634ÏS.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€However,€before€an€accused€may€beÏconvicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€everyÏother€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,Ï225€Tenn.€478,€470€S.W.2d€610€(1971);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€€€€InÏother€words,€"[a]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€whichÍhe€cannot€escape€and€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€drawÏno€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€at€613;€òòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2dÏ304,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌÓ  ÓA.€€Byers.ÌÓ  Óà àà àByers€contends€there€is€no€evidence€he€entered€a€habitation€orÏany€portion€thereof€or€that€he€obtained€property€owned€by€the€victims,€essentialÏelements€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property,€respectively.€€Therefore,Ïhe€argues€the€state's€proof€at€trial€was€fatally€deficient€and€he€is€entitled€toÏreversal€of€his€convictions.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€he€cites€a€passage€fromÏòòCorpus€Juris€Secundumóó€for€the€proposition€that€a€conviction€is€not€proper€onÏcircumstantial€evidence€alone.€€This€is€not€the€law€in€Tennessee.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòDuchacóó,€505€S.W.2d€237.€ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€is€that€severalÏitems€of€the€Beelers'€stolen€property€were€found€in€the€Byers€home,€from€whichÏByers€and€Key€had€just€departed€when€they€were€arrested.€€œByers'›€cousin€ledÏauthorities€to€additional€stolen€property€he€admitted€removing€from€œByers'›Ïhome.€€A€truck€seized€from€œByersðð›€driveway€likewise€contained€œitems›€belongingÍto€Dan€Beeler.ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€presented€by€the€prosecution€was€sufficient€to€show€ÏByers€was€in€possession€of€property€recently€stolen€in€a€burglary.€€It€has€longÏbeen€the€law€in€this€State€that€proof€of€the€possession€of€recently€stolen€goods,Ïif€not€satisfactorily€explained,€gives€rise€to€the€inference€that€the€possessor€hasÏstolen€them,€€òòBush€v.€Stateóó,€541€S.W.2d€391€(Tenn.€1976);€òòState€v.€Landóó,€681ÏS.W.2d€589,€591€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€and€has€committed€the€burglaryÏantecedent€to€the€theft.€€òòState€v.€Hamiltonóó,€628€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1981)€(citations€omitted).€€In€this€case,€no€explanation€whatsoever€wasÏoffered,€and€the€jury€was€certainly€within€its€province€in€finding€Byers€guilty€ofÏeach€and€every€element€of€the€offenses€by€inference€from€his€possession€of€theÏstolen€property€at€a€time€proximate€to€the€burglary€and€theft.× ƒ/ ××  ×€In€short,€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€this€case€present€no€other€reasonable€hypothesis€forÍœByers'›€possession€of€the€property€save€his€guilt€of€the€crimes€of€which€he€wasÏconvicted.€€Thus,€the€evidence€sufficiently€supports€Byers's€guilt€of€the€crimes€ofÏaggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property.ÌÌÓ  ÓB.€€Key.ÌÓ  Óà àà àKey€contends€his€possession€of€a€Cross€pen€or€pencil€at€the€timeÏof€his€arrest€is€insufficient€proof€he€knowingly€obtained€the€implement€in€theÏWilliamson€County€burglary€of€the€Beeler€residence.€€We€agree.€€However,€hisÏmere€possession€of€a€pen€or€pencil€of€œthe›€type€stolen€is€not€the€only€basisÏsupporting€his€convictions,€and€although€the€issue€raised€makes€it€a€close€case,Ïwe€affirm€for€the€reasons€given€below.ÌÌà àà àThe€probative€links€between€Key€and€the€Beeler€burglary€are€theÏdiscovery€of€a€gold€Cross€pen€on€his€person€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€theÏdiscovery€of€œthe€second›€piece€of€the€stolen€Cross€pen€and€pencil€set,€and€hisÏkeeping€company€with€Byers.€€On€March€22,€1993,€he€was€seen€at€the€ByersÏresidence€and€was€with€Byers€when€œthey›€were€detained€and€arrested€on€thatÏdate.€€Concerning€the€pen,€some€facts€were€clearly€shown.€€After€the€burglary,ÏMr.€Beeler€reported€the€theft€of€a€number€of€items,€including€a€box€containing€aÏgold€Cross€pen€and€pencil€set.€€The€two€pieces€were€matched€and€were€notÍonly€similar€in€appearance€to€each€other€but€were€similar€in€appearance€toÏother€gold€Cross€œpens›€and€pencils.€€They€bore€no€engraving,€and€Mr.€BeelerÏcould€articulate€no€distinctive€markings€of€any€kind.€€After€the€officers€recoveredÏsome€of€the€Beeler€property,€the€pencil€but€not€the€pen€was€returned€to€Mr.ÏBeeler.€€Neither€item€was€physically€offered€into€evidence;€rather,€the€stateÏoffered€photographs€which€Mr.€Beeler€and€other€witnesses€testified€depictedÏone€or€the€other€œpiece›€of€the€Cross€set.€€Exhibit€14€depicted€a€Cross€instrumentÏin€a€plastic€bag,€but€Mr.€Beeler€testified€he€could€not€discern€from€the€pictureÏwhether€the€bag,€which€was€held€by€Metro€Police€at€their€evidence€room,Ïcontained€a€pen€or€a€pencil.€€Exhibit€22€depicted€some€items€placed€on€the€topÏof€a€side€rail€of€a€Mazda€pick„up€truck,€and€although€the€items€depicted€cannotÏbe€discerned€in€the€photograph,€Mr.€Beeler€testified€that€the€picture€shows€oneÏof€the€pieces€of€the€Cross€set€that€was€found€in€the€truck.ÌÌà àà àBeyond€these€facts,€the€stateððs€proof€was€chaotic,€if€not€confusing.€ÏWhile€Detective€Campsey€testified€that€Mr.€Beeler€identified€both€Cross€items,Ïone€at€the€tow„in€lot€where€the€Mazda€was€located€and€one€at€the€MetroÏevidence€room,€Mr.€Beeler€did€not€specify€in€his€testimony€which€of€the€twoÏCross€items€he€viewed€at€each€location.€€He€œtestified›€merely€that€one€of€theÏpieces€was€viewed€at€the€tow„in€lot€and€one€was€viewed€in€the€evidence€roomÍtwo€days€later,€although€at€one€point,€he€casually€says€that€the€pen€is€depictedÏin€Exhibit€22,€the€picture€taken€at€the€tow„in€lot.€However,€he€does€testify€thatÏone€of€the€items€was€a€pen€and€one€was€a€pencil.€€Detective€Tarkington,€whoÏassisted€in€Keyððs€arrest,€testified€unequivocally€that€he€found€a€gold€Cross€penÏon€Key€and€that€this€pen€is€the€item€depicted€in€Exhibit€14.€€On€the€other€hand,ÏDetective€Campsey,€who€accompanied€Beeler€to€the€tow„in€lot€and€whoÏapparently€photographed€the€Mazda€truck€and€then€delivered€to€Metro€theÏpersonal€items€found€in€the€truck,€testified€once€that€Exhibit€14€shows€the€pencilÏand€once€that€it€shows€the€pen.€€Furthermore,€he€testified€once€that€Exhibit€22Ïshows€the€pen€òòoróó€pencil€and€twice€that€it€shows€the€pen.€€Compounding€thatÏconfusion,€he€testified€œthat€on›€April€8,€1993,€he€saw€another€detective€return€theÏpen€to€Mr.€Beeler€but€later€testified€that€on€April€8€the€pencil€was€returned€to€Mr.ÏBeeler.ÌÌà àà àThe€Mazda€truck€shown€in€Exhibit€22€was€discovered€in€theÏdriveway€at€the€Byers€residence€on€March€22.€€It€was€towed€to€the€lot€whereÏCampsey€and€Beeler€discovered€inside€the€truck€a€tool€kit€and€an€airÏcompressor€belonging€to€Mr.€€Beeler€and€a€gold€Cross€pen€or€pencil.€€ThereÏwas€no€proof€as€to€the€ownership€of€the€truck€nor€as€to€the€use€or€control€of€it€byÏeither€Byers€or€Key.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Beelerððs€conclusory€testimony€that€the€Cross€items€shown€inÏthe€photographs€were€his€property,€as€well€as€Campseyððs€testimony€that€BeelerÏpersonally€inspected€and€identified€each€Cross€item€as€being€his€(Beelerððs)Ïown,€cannot€be€effective€to€establish€Beelerððs€ownership€of€these€very€items.€ÏThere€were€no€distinguishing€features.€€Mr.€Beeler€even€had€difficultyÏdistinguishing€between€the€pen€and€the€pencil.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€ifÏthe€Cross€item€found€on€Key€is€to€be€linked€to€the€Beeler€burglary,€it€must€beÏdone€circumstantially,€the€fact€that€Key€possessed€a€pen€or€pencil€of€the€typeÏstolen€being,€of€course,€one€of€the€circumstances.ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,Ïsupports€the€following€findings:€(1)€Based€upon€Tarkingtonððs€unequivocalÏtestimony,€the€item€found€on€Keyððs€person,€being€the€one€that€appeared€inÏExhibit€14,€was€the€pen.€€(2)€€One€item€was€a€pen€and€one€was€a€pencil,€andÏconsequently,€the€item€recovered€from€the€truck,€the€one€depicted€in€Exhibit€22,Ïwas€necessarily€the€pencil.€€(3)€The€pencil€was€discovered€in€a€vehicle€that€wasÏparked€at€the€Byers€residence.€€(4)€Other€property€items€which€were€stolen€fromÏthe€Beelers€were€found€in€the€truck€and€in€the€Byers€residence.€€(5)€Eleven€daysÏafter€the€Beeler€burglary,€Key€was€seen€at€the€Byers€residence,€and€on€thatÍsame€day,€Byers€and€Key€were€together€when€they€were€arrested.€€Also,€on€theÏsame€day,€the€Mazda€truck€was€seized.€€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€question€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€circumstantialÏevidence€supporting€a€finding€that€Key€possessed€Mr.€Beelerððs€pen€is€a€closeÏone,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€based€upon€grounds€that€areÏnot€revealed€in€the€defendantððs€brief€and€not€argued€by€the€state.€€The€fact€thatÏwe€find€to€be€controlling€is€the€juxtaposition€of€the€two€pieces€of€the€Cross€set.€€ItÏis€critically€important€that€the€state€established€that€one€recovered€Cross€itemÏwas€a€pencil,€shown€to€have€been€found€in€the€truck,€and€one€was€a€Cross€pen,Ïfound€on€the€defendant€Key.€€The€convergence€of€these€œfacts€justifies›€the€trier€ofÏfact€in€finding€that€it€was€Beelerððs€pen€that€was€found€in€Keyððs€possession.€€InÏour€view€this€conclusion€could€not€be€reached€had€œnot€the›€pen€and€pencil€œ›€haveÏbeen€accounted€for€separately.€€It€takes€the€presence€of€the€pencil,€foundÏamong€other€items€known€to€have€been€stolen€from€Mr.€Beeler,€to€complementÏand€supply€meaning€to€the€discovery€of€the€pen.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€having€proven€to€our€satisfaction€that€defendant€KeyÏpossessed€property€stolen€from€Mr.€Beeler,€the€same€inference€about€theÏpossession€of€recently€stolen€property€that€supports€œByersð𛀜convictions›€supportsÍthe€œconvictions›€of€Key.€€òòSeeóó€òòBushóó,€541€S.W.2d€391;€òòLandóó,€681€S.W.2d€at€591;ÏòòHamiltonóó,€628€S.W.2d€at€746.€€Key€chose€to€let€the€stateððs€case€stand€or€fallÏbased€upon€its€own€strength.€€The€possession€of€the€pen€was€unexplained.€ÏBased€upon€our€finding€that€the€stateððs€case€ð ðstands,ðð€the€conviction€isÏsupported€by€œsufficient€proof.›ÌÌà àà àà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€an€issue€raised€by€Byers€alone,€he€challenges€the€trial€court'sÏdenial€of€his€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized€which€was€outside€theÏscope€of€the€first€search€warrant,€that€is,€the€paint€ball€equipment€and€cowboyÏboots.€€On€appellate€review,€a€trial€court's€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress€will€beÏupheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€lower€court's€findings.€ÏòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€first€search€warrant€executed€on€œByers'›€house€œauthorized€aÏsearch›€and€seizure€ofÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓA€semi„automatic€pistol,€shotgun,€a€Lima€.22€semi„automatic€pistol,Ïchrome€plated,€with€engraving€on€the€barrel€and€white€grips,€grayÏduct€tape,€a€gold€nugget€ring,€brown€leather€style€jacket,€blackÏsweatshirt,€black€ski€mask,€brown€with€white€stripe€[sic]€ski€mask,Ïsunglasses€with€strings€attached,€flex€cuffs.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓByers€argues€the€officers'€impermissibly€broad€search€of€his€home€beyond€theÍconfines€of€the€warrant€constituted€the€execution€of€a€general€warrant,€inÏcontravention€of€the€U.S.€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€However,€inÏTennessee,€the€prohibition€against€general€searches€does€not€òòper€seóó€prohibitÏlaw€enforcement€officers€who€are€involved€in€the€lawful€execution€of€a€searchÏwarrant€from€seizing€other€property€used€in€a€crime€which€is€not€described€in€theÏwarrant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McColganóó,€631€S.W.2d€151,€155€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)Ï(citation€omitted).€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€urges€that€the€issue€of€the€seizure€of€the€paint€ballÏequipment€is€resolved€by€reference€to€the€plain€view€doctrine.€€Byers€does€notÏdirectly€attack€the€applicability€of€the€plain€view€doctrine;€rather,€he€contendsÏgenerally€the€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing€did€not€establish€theÏreasonableness€of€the€seizure€of€the€property.€€We€agree€with€the€positionÏadvanced€by€the€state.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€its€most€general€terms,€the€plain€view€doctrine€allows€lawÏenforcement€officials€to€seize€items€in€"plain€view"€while€executing€a€searchÏwarrant€naming€other€objects.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,Ï91€S.€Ct.€2022€(1971).€€In€Tennessee,€the€plain€view€doctrine€applies€where€(1)Ïthe€objects€seized€were€in€plain€view;€(2)€the€viewer€had€a€right€to€be€in€positionÍfor€the€view;€(3)€the€discovery€of€the€seized€object€was€inadvertent,€and€(4)€€theÏincriminating€nature€of€the€object€was€immediately€apparent.€€òòState€v.€Horneróó,Ï605€S.W.2d€835,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(citing€òòArmour€v.€Tottyóó,€486ÏS.W.2d€537,€538„39€(Tenn.€1972)).€€The€Supreme€Court€dispensed€with€theÏinadvertent€discovery€requirement€in€òòHorton€v.€Californiaóó,€496€U.S.€128,€110€S.ÏCt.€2301€(1990).€€In€addition,€the€police€must€have€the€right€to€be€in€the€positionÏto€seize€the€item.€€òòHortonóó,€496€U.S.€137,€110€S.€Ct.€2308.€€ÌÌà àà àDetective€Chastain,€who€was€in€œByers'›€home€executing€a€searchÏwarrant,€saw€the€paint€ball€equipment€in€plain€view.€€He€was€aware€fromÏdiscussions€with€œDet.›€Campsey€that€this€type€of€property€was€missing€from€aÏhome€in€Williamson€County.€€According€to€Det.€Campsey,€the€property€wasÏsomething€out€of€the€ordinary.€€Based€on€this€knowledge,€Det.€ChastainÏproceeded€to€confirm€the€identification€of€the€equipment€by€telephoning€Det.ÏCampsey€while€at€œByers'›€home.€€These€facts€sufficiently€meet€the€test€of€theÏplain€view€doctrine.€€The€seizure€of€this€property€was€supported€by€probableÏcause,× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€the€trial€court€correctly€declined€to€suppress€the€evidence.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€issue€of€suppression€of€the€cowboy€boots,€Byers€argues€theÍsearch€went€so€far€afield€of€the€search€warrant€that€it€was€an€impermissibleÏgeneral€search.€€The€state€simply€concedes€there€was€no€direct€evidence€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€that€the€cowboy€boots€were€in€plain€view,€but€theirÏadmission€was€harmless€error.€€We€depart€from€the€positions€advanced€by€bothÏparties€and€hold€the€search€for€the€items€in€question€necessarily€brought€theÏcowboy€boots€into€plain€view.€€ÌÌà àà àA€review€of€the€search€warrant€discloses€that€by€the€very€nature€ofÏsome€of€the€items€described,€they€are€small€and€easily€concealable€in€closedÏcontainers€or€small€spaces€and€would€necessarily€require€officers€to€conduct€aÏmore€detailed€search€than€would€be€mandated€if€the€objects€were€larger€items.× ƒ1 ××  ×€ÏThis€court€has€previously€said€that€law€enforcement€officers€in€the€course€ofÏsearch€warrant€execution€"have€lawful€access€to€all€locations€on€[the€searched]Ïproperty€which€can€reasonably€contain€the€items€specified€in€the€.€.€.€warrant."ÏòòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(in€context€ofÏdiscussion€of€where€officers€may€search€pursuant€to€a€warrant€that€is€onlyÏpartially€valid);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHortonóó,€496€U.S.€128,€110€S.€Ct.€2301€(search€notÏunreasonable€where€officers€searching€for€items€including€three€gold€coin€ringsÍdiscovered€weapons€of€type€used€in€crime);€2€Wayne€R.€LaFave,€òòSearch€andÏSeizureóó€ðð€4.10(d)€(police€may€look€into€containers€such€as€bags,€pouches,Ïbottles,€briefcases,€and€the€like€"if€at€least€one€of€the€items€described€in€theÏwarrant€as€an€object€of€the€search€could€be€concealed€therein").ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing€reflects€Campsey€talkedÏwith€Boner€during€the€search,€and€Boner€inquired€whether€Campsey€wasÏmissing€any€cowboy€boots,€as€he€found€a€pair€of€boots€during€the€course€of€theÏsearch.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€whether€Boner€immediately€inquiredÏwhether€boots€had€been€stolen€in€Williamson€County€upon€finding€the€bag€orÏwhether€he€opened€the€bag€to€continue€to€search€for€the€items€covered€by€theÏwarrant€and€thereafter€inquired€about€the€boots.€€This€discovery€was€madeÏduring€the€search.€€Several€of€the€items€described€in€the€search€warrant€couldÏbe€concealed€inside€a€pair€of€boots€or€a€boot€bag.€€No€matter€whether€BonerÏsaw€the€boots€and€bag€and€made€his€inquiry€or€whether€he€opened€the€bag€toÏcontinue€his€search€and€later€made€the€inquiry,€the€cowboy€boots€and€their€bagÏnecessarily€came€into€plain€view€during€the€lawful€execution€of€the€searchÏwarrant.€Under€either€set€of€circumstances,€it€is€apparent€the€seizure€of€theÏboots€was€based€upon€probable€cause.ÌÌà àà àIn€reaching€our€conclusion€that€the€search€warrant€execution€inÏthis€case€was€not€unduly€broad,€we€factually€distinguish€our€decision€from€thatÏin€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€òòMeeksóó,€theÏofficers€executing€the€search€warrant€allowed€an€officer€from€another€jurisdictionÏwho€was€in€no€way€related€to€the€investigation€to€which€the€search€warrantÏpertained€to€accompany€them€to€the€search€situs.€€Thereafter,€the€searchingÏofficers€seized€evidence€at€the€direction€of€the€non„searching€officer€whichÏpertained€to€another€crime.€€In€holding€the€lower€court€should€have€suppressedÏthe€evidence€obtained€in€this€manner,€we€focused€on€the€lack€of€a€causalÏconnection€between€many€of€the€seized€items€and€the€crime€which€was€theÏsubject€of€the€search€warrant,€as€well€as€the€lack€of€inadvertent€discovery€by€theÏofficers.€€òòMeeksóó€presented€a€situation€where€a€limited€search€warrant€wasÏessentially€converted€into€a€general€warrant€because€the€officers€went€into€theÏpremises€with€the€apparent€expectation€of€finding€items€outside€the€warrant.€ÏThey€went€so€far€as€to€allow€an€officer€with€no€connection€to€the€search€warrantÏto€use€their€search€warrant€to€further€his€own€investigation€of€a€separate€crime.€ÏIn€contrast,€where€the€searching€officers€are€aware€of€the€possibility€of€findingÏevidence€of€other€crimes,€and€upon€discovering€such€evidence€at€the€searchÏsitus€proceed€to€seize€it,€the€seizure€is€reasonable.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcColganóó,€631€S.W.2dÏat€154„55.€ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourt's€denial€of€Byers'€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€œaffirmed.›ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE