ÿWPCí …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 0”  0D4 w@x ¸ 0J¾ 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 0|” 0† 0– 1u& 0d› Bÿ D3U6OB)… 0@®DCî AM1&~¤f¬åv~÷vÓu AOHÆ— 0D] D/¡ BÐ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xi «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ¡¨ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó W EX DY £Z D[ š\ š] E^ U_ ` Ó€H2 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$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarchÏ27,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€ÔThe€defendant€denied€Officer€Creselious€had€previously€been€to€this€house.€€The€court€belowÏmade€no€specific€finding€of€fact€with€respect€to€this€issue.€However,€the€court€below€did€overrule€theÏsuppression€motion.€€This€ruling€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witness,€Officer€Creselious.Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€ÔFor€instance,€when€prescribed€by€a€licensed€physician€and€purchased€from€a€licensedÏpharmacist.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„308.Ì ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€ÔIndeed,€as€previously€noted€by€this€Court,€ð ðcontrolled€substancesðð€is€a€valid€description€ofÏdrugs€in€a€search€warrant.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnsonóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€900.€€The€warrant€in€this€case€described€theÏtylox€capsules€as€containing€a€controlled€substance.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€G×XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßR€/0.A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àJANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01›„9602„CC„00050ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœFENTRESS›€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€LEE€œASBURY›,ÌœRICKY›€C.€œCONATSER›,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Certified€question)ò òÌó óÌÌÔ% € ÔÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJOHN€E.€œAPPMAN›à àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€œBURSON›Ìó óP.O.€Box€99à àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óJamestown,€TN€€€38556ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àDARYL€J.€BRANDó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àWILLIAM€PAUL€PHILLIPSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€W.€œGALLOWAY›,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€99à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJamestown,€TN€€€38556Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€œPEAY›,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ ° ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€possessing€tylox€capsules,€containingÏœoxycodone›,€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance,€with€intent€to€sell;€possessingÏmethadone,€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance,€with€intent€to€sell;€and€possessingÏapproximately€28.7€grams€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell.€€He€filed€a€motion€toÏsuppress€evidence€obtained€pursuant€to€a€search€of€his€residence,€which€the€courtÏbelow€denied€after€a€hearing.€€He€subsequently€pled€guilty€to€felonious€possessionÏof€oxycodone,€possession€of€methodone,€and€possession€of€marijuana.€€InÏconjunction€with€his€guilty€plea,€the€defendant€properly€reserved€certified€questionsÏof€law€regarding€the€efficacy€of€the€search€warrant€upon€which€the€incriminatingÏevidence€was€seized.€€After€our€review€of€the€record€and€analysis€of€the€questionsÏreserved,€we€affirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€first€attacks€the€search€warrant€on€the€grounds€that€theÏproperty€to€be€searched€was€not€adequately€described€therein.€€The€warrant€containsÏthe€following€description:€ð ðthe€residence€of€Ricky€Conatser,€which€is€a€house€withÏwood€siding€and€field€stone,€on€Hwy€154€about€10.3€miles€from€the€intersection€ofÏHwy€154€and€Hwy€127.ðð€€The€warrant€also€contains€a€reference€to€an€attached€map,Ïbut€the€record€is€unclear€as€to€whether€this€map€was€actually€attached€to€the€warrantÍor€to€the€underlying€affidavit.€€Since€the€warrant€did€not€specifically€incorporate€theÏaffidavit,€we€will€determine€the€sufficiency€of€the€description€based€on€the€quotedÏlanguage€contained€in€the€body€of€the€warrant€alone.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œSundee›€LeighÏœBaer›óó,€No.€œ01C01›„9401„CR„00001,€Clay€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€April€28,Ï1994,€at€Nashville)€(ð ðBecause€an€affidavit€is€not€part€of€a€warrant€it€may€not€be€lookedÏat€to€satisfy€the€requirement€of€a€particular€description€unless€reference€orÏincorporation€is€made€ððsufficient€to€direct€the€attention€of€the€person€executing€it€toÏsuch€portion€of€the€affidavit€as€may€be€referred€to€in€the€warrant€proper,€and€toÏauthorize€him€to€use€the€same€to€strengthen€the€inadequacyðð€itselfðð)€(citationsÏomitted).ÌÌà àà àOur€federal€constitution€requires€a€search€warrant€to€ð ðparticularlyÏ[describe]€the€place€to€be€searched.ðð€€œU.S.Const›.,€amend.€IV.€€A€warrant€satisfies€thisÏrequirement€if€it€describes€the€place€to€be€searched€with€such€particularity€that€theÏsearching€officer€may€with€reasonable€effort€ascertain€and€identify€the€intendedÏplace.€€òòU.S.€v.€œGahagan›óó,€865€F.œ2d›€1490,€1496€(œ6th›€Cir.€1989).€€Tennessee€lawÏprohibits€general€warrants,€Tenn.€Const.,€art.€I,€ðð€7,€and€requires€search€warrants€toÏdescribe€ð ðparticularly€.€.€.€€the€place€to€be€searched.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„6„103.€€ThisÏrequirement€is€satisfied€if€the€description€ð ðparticularly€points€to€a€definitelyÏascertainable€place€so€as€to€exclude€all€others,€and€enables€the€officer€to€locate€theÍplace€to€be€searched€with€reasonable€certainty€without€leaving€it€to€his€discretion.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€572€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðDiscrepancies€between€theÏwarrantððs€description€with€regard€to€distances€to€the€place€to€be€searched€and€theÏactual€distance€to€the€building€searched€do€not€invalidate€the€warrant€if€this€test€isÏsatisfied.ðð€€òòState€v.€œBostic›óó,€898€œS.W.2d›€242,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€attacks€the€warrantððs€description€on€the€grounds€that€itsÏð ðbeginning€point€is€indefiniteðð;€the€direction€of€travel€from€the€intersection€is€notÏdesignated;€the€color€of€the€house€is€not€designated€nor€that€the€house€is€coveredÏwith€ð ðœ4x8›€panelsðð;€and€that€the€distance€from€the€intersection€is€10.8€miles,€not€10.3Ïmiles.€€We€first€note€that€the€beginning€point€is€not€patently€indefinite:€the€beginningÏpoint€is€stated€to€be€ð ðthe€intersection€of€Hwy€154€and€Hwy€127.ðð€€The€defendantððsÏclaim€of€indefiniteness€is€actually€a€claim€of€possible€ambiguity€which€might€ariseÏfrom€an€officer€attempting€to€follow€the€directions€set€forth.€€That€is,€proof€adduced€atÏthe€hearing€established€that€there€are,€in€fact,€three€different€intersections€of€Hwy€154Ïand€Hwy€127.€€However,€the€record€also€establishes€that€the€searching€officer,€OfficerÏTruman€Creselious,€was€the€affiant€for€the€warrant€and€knew€of€his€own€personalÏknowledge€where€the€defendant€lived.€€Officer€Creselious€testified€at€the€hearing€thatÍhe€had€previously€been€to€the€defendantððs€house€at€the€described€location.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò[W]hen›€the€warrant€is€facially€accurate€about€the€description€andÏlocation€of€the€place€to€be€searched,€but€a€claim€is€made€that€anÏambiguity€will€be€reasonably€perceived€by€an€officer€following€theÏroute€provided€in€the€warrant,€the€legal€effect€of€such€a€possibleÏambiguity€may€be€determined€by€considering€the€fact€that€theÏexecuting€officer€was€the€affiant€and€personally€knew€where€theÏplace€to€be€searched€was€located.̛̜ÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓòòBosticóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€246.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòU.S.€v.€Williamsonóó,€1€F.œ3d›€1134,€1136€(œ10th›€Cir.Ï1993)€(acknowledging€that€ð ðan€executing€officerððs€knowledge€[of€the€place€to€beÏsearched]€may€be€a€curing€factor.ðð)€€Therefore,€we€find€this€ð ðambiguityðð€to€beÏinsignificant€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€same€reason,€we€find€the€omission€of€the€direction€to€follow€onÏHwy€154€to€be€insignificant.€€Moreover,€Officer€Creselious€testified€that€the€correctÏdirection€in€which€to€travel€toward€the€defendantððs€house€on€Hwy€154€from€Hwy€127Ïwas€north.€€He€also€testified€that€the€portion€of€Hwy€154€south€of€the€Hwy€127Ïintersection€did€not€extend€for€ten€miles.€€Thus,€had€an€officer€turned€in€the€wrongÏdirection€on€Hwy€154€from€the€intersection€with€Hwy€127,€he€or€she€would€haveÏquickly€discerned€their€mistake,€turned€around€and€headed€in€the€correct€direction.€ÍThe€omission€of€this€information€did€not€raise€the€possibility€that€the€searching€officerÏwould€had€to€have€used€his€or€her€discretion€in€order€to€determine€which€house€wasÏto€be€searched.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ì€Ìà àà àWith€respect€to€the€warrantððs€description€of€the€exterior€of€the€house,Ïand€the€fact€that€the€actual€distance€was€10.8€miles€rather€than€10.3€miles,€theÏdefendant€testified€that€there€were€six€houses€within€a€half€mile€on€either€side€of€hisÏhouse.€€When€asked€whether€any€of€those€houses€had€fieldstone€on€them,€heÏtestified,€ð ðAh,€probably€the€foundation.ðð€€He€then€admitted€that€the€fieldstone€on€hisÏhouse€came€up€above€the€foundation€ð ðalmost€two€foot€[sic]ðð€to€where€it€met€the€siding.€ÏOfficer€Creselious€also€testified€that,€of€the€houses€in€the€same€vicinity€as€theÏdefendantððs,€his€was€the€only€one€with€fieldstone.€€Thus,€the€one„half€mileÏdiscrepancy€was€harmless€under€the€circumstances€of€this€warrant€and€its€execution.€ÏAs€to€the€warrantððs€use€of€the€term€ð ðwood€siding,ðð€the€defendant€contends€that€hisÏhouse€is€in€fact€sided€with€ð ðœpressboard›.ðð€€We€fail€to€see€the€significance€of€thisÏdistinction.€€The€exterior€of€the€house€was€described€with€sufficient€particularity.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€attacks€the€affidavit€on€which€the€warrant€wasÏbased,€claiming€that€it€did€not€contain€sufficient€facts€to€establish€probable€cause€andÏthereby€justify€issuance€of€the€warrant€because€it€did€not€specify€the€number€of€tyloxÍcapsules€possessed€or€that€they€were€possessed€illegally.€€We€first€note€that€aÏmagistrateððs€probable€cause€determination€is€accorded€ð ðgreat€deferenceðð€by€aÏreviewing€court.€€òòState€v.€œJacumin›óó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€431„32€(Tenn.€1989).€€ð ðTheÏreviewing€courtððs€standard€is€whether€the€magistrate€had€a€substantial€basis€forÏconcluding€that€a€search€warrant€would€uncover€evidence€of€wrongdoing.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ432.€œÌ›Ìà àà àWith€respect€to€the€tylox€capsules,€the€affidavit€provided,€in€pertinentÏpart,€that€the€defendant€ð ðis/are€in€possession€of€the€following€described€property:Ïtylox€capsules,€which€contain€oxycodone,€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance[.]ðð€TheÏaffidavit€further€provided€that€the€confidential€informant€from€whom€information€wasÏobtained€ð ðtold€the€affiant€that€he/she€had€been€to€the€[defendantððs]€residence€at€aÏtime€within€the€past€10€days€and€purchased€tylox€capsules€from€[the€defendant]€atÏ[his]€residence.ðð€€The€affidavit€later€states€that€this€same€informant€ð ðalso€told€theÏaffiant€that€over€the€past€at€least€90€days€and€[sic]€he/she€has€made€numerousÏpurchases€of€tylox€capsules€from€[the€defendant]€at€his€residence€and€that€[theÏdefendant]€usually€always€had€tylox€or€œpercocet›€to€sell.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àð ð[œP]robable›€cause€is€a€reasonable€ground€for€suspicion,€supported€byÏcircumstances€indicative€of€an€illegal€act.ðð€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€854€S.W.€897,€899Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€portions€of€the€affidavit€cited€above€certainly€set€forthÏcircumstances€indicative€of€illegal€sales€of€a€controlled€substance€and€support€aÏreasonable€ground€for€suspicion€of€same.€€Although€controlled€substances€may€beÏlegally€possessed€and€conveyed€under€very€limited€circumstances,× ƒ2 ××  ×€the€affidavitÏdescribed€activities€inconsistent€with€legal€possession€and€sale.€€The€defendant€citesÏno€authority€for€the€proposition€that€the€affidavit€must€specifically€state€that€the€drugsÏfor€which€the€warrant€is€sought€are€ð ðillegally€possessed.ððœ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€Nor€has€he€cited€anyÏauthority€for€the€proposition€that€the€affidavit€must€set€forth€the€specific€quantity€ofÏdrugs€thought€to€be€possessed€by€the€accused.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€attacks€the€warrant€on€the€grounds€that€it€wasÏbased€on€ð ðstaleðð€information.€€As€set€forth€above,€the€affidavit€in€support€of€theÏwarrant€provided€that€the€confidential€informant€had€purchased€tylox€from€theÏdefendant€ð ðwithin€the€past€10€daysðð€as€well€as€numerous€other€times€during€the€pastÏ90€days€or€more.€€This€Court€has€previously€held€thatÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò[a]lthough›€the€lapse€of€time€between€the€occurrence€of€a€crimeÍand€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€may€affect€the€likelihoodÏthat€incriminating€evidence€will€be€found,€probable€cause€must€beÏdetermined€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€In€making€this€decision,€theÏissuing€magistrate€should€consider€whether€the€criminal€activityÏunder€investigation€was€an€isolated€event€or€of€a€protracted€andÏcontinuous€nature,€the€nature€of€the€property€sought,€and€theÏopportunity€those€involved€would€have€had€to€dispose€ofÏincriminating€evidence.̛̜ÌÓÓÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒòòState€v.€œMeeks›óó,€876€S.W.2d€121,€124„25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€ÏIn€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€this€Court€consideredÏan€affidavit€in€support€of€a€search€warrant€which€stated€that€the€informant€had€seenÏcocaine€at€the€involved€residence€at€some€point€during€the€ten€days€precedingÏissuance€of€the€warrant.€€The€affidavit€also€contained€information€that€the€defendantÏð ðwas€keepingðð€cocaine€on€the€premises.€€This€Court€noted€that€ð ð[œw]hen›€the€illegalÏactivity€described€is€ongoing,€courts€have€generally€held€that€the€affidavit€does€notÏbecome€stale€with€the€passage€of€time.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€357.€€Further,€we€held€that€ð ðeven€if€theÏdelay€between€the€observance€and€the€application€for€the€search€warrant€was€the€fullÏ10€days,€we€do€not€think€that€[is]€inordinately€long€under€these€circumstances.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ357.€€We€reach€the€same€conclusion€here.€€The€affidavit€contained€information€thatÏthe€drug€sales€were€an€ongoing€activity€from€the€same€residence.€€A€delay€of€up€toÏten€days€was€not€fatal.€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€maintains€that€the€ð ðsearch€warrant€and€affidavitÍdid€not€contain€separate€[sic]€exhibits€but€rather€shared€one€common€exhibit.ðð€€BothÏthe€warrant€and€affidavit€state€ð ðSee€the€attached€E„911€map€attached€hereto€asÏExhibit€1.ðð€€The€E„911€map€provided€visual€directions€to€the€defendantððs€residence.€ÏThe€record€contains€the€original€warrant,€original€œaffidavit,›€and€a€copy€of€the€mapÏthat,€apparently,€was€included€with€the€originals.€€It€also€includes€the€issuing€judgeððsÏcopy€of€the€warrant€and€affidavit,€with€another€copy€of€the€map.€€Apparently,€one€copyÏof€the€map€was€kept€with€each€set€of€warrant€and€affidavit.€€It€is€impossible€to€discernÏwhether€the€copy€of€the€map€was€attached€to€the€warrant€or€to€the€affidavit.€€However,Ïsince€we€determined€above€that€the€description€of€the€property€to€be€searchedÏcontained€in€the€body€of€the€warrant€was€sufficient€without€reference€to€the€map,€weÏconclude€that€it€is€irrelevant€whether€or€not€the€warrant€had€attached€to€it€a€copy€ofÏthe€map.€€œFinally,›€we€note€that€the€defendant€cites€us€to€no€authority€for€theÏproposition€that€a€ð ðsharedðð€(or€missing)€exhibit€renders€a€search€warrant€invalid.€ÏIssues€not€supported€by€legal€authority€are€waived.€€œCt.€Crim.€App.€R.›€œ10(b).›€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à______________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌDAVID€H.€œWELLES›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌJOE€G.€œRILEY›,€Judge