ÿWPCÌ  jÁ¸“m\¢¸ËÚ ¡É|­Ü+ˆÉ¤|GÜÛµáèÔÏ× Óâp# ùíÕ}X'#• Òpd>Ùüc<9ˆÊBèð°ì@R#U•õkM”´²ÈSPèþ¯T`­¬èÁòCßRYÉr£«XFô ñ¾z{ò ãžPtê›O>ÅuH|d‹xª£œ¨H{ÉGöÞÌ¿€q•H¼Ñà…oüç[û*9OÂá· Ú\Að‹—‹}Šˆêæߜ᫓vÒu9v¬pûýB™(#-î· ¬€IQX65ox¿€ ‚4‰Å6ÎìsüÁày¾•h¥¢ï;ñž`ÛÖg|HJib3é?‹Ü 6ìKÝ6ÐùøÖ˜`h¨+ Ø\OÚعèk€ÄVèiškX¾NbÊAbmÂ(‡p¬ZûW´]Z …]BêoÂù–2<}Ã$龉l«ƒFÓi ø–?ÊúF,>¹}/7ÒóIÓ×jÑ™¼ôœ6ÔØ%€+Y›Z‰¼yZŠà¾>nÍ0„ÕX’­Ì„Áv û˜ð±Žø½öÛ~xrø”vPõÃÍ:rÿâ¥qUeØ椿²–yë³…Þ×ÑL\0µÿxþ,³6(kÿ­Uf'D°Y’8ôÓoYV“¿Ȫ‹ó·P,# hU>s %± 0í·UB¤4æún­ U:¶fðV"^w@€-À&íU:               BM M 0Dj D3® ® ® ® AQá Æ2 0Dø 0D< D/€ B¯ ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiV&3|xZ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ FEGHEIJDKLMDN •OÓ€ #Ñ#€Xd#Ñ Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xü¯XXXÔÔ€XAXXü¯ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xü¯XXAÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€16,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô×ãôXXü¯ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ÛÀXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑÜ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒœñNñÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñNñ›ÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ Xü¯XXXÔÑ7€ ü¯ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑñNñœñNññNñÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñNññOñœßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñOñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€œ03C01„9706„CñFñRñFññLñRñLññMññGñCñGññMñ„00198›Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHamilton€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌNATHAN€LEE€COLQUIT,à h àà À à)à  àAggravated€burglary,€aggravated€robberyÐ h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌArdena€J.€Garthà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ Ѐ€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v ÐKarla€G.€Gothardà  àà h àà À àà  àElizabeth€B.€MarneyÐ d\ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ð JB Ð701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x à€€à Ð àÐ 0 ( ÐChattanooga,€TN€37402à h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð ! Ð(AT€TRIAL)Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌArdena€J.€Garthà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ È#À  ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ®$¦! Ѐ€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBates€Bryan,€Jr.Ð ”%Œ" ÐDonna€Robinson€Millerà h àà À àà  àRebecca€J.€SternÐ z&r# ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÐ `'X $ Ð701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à h àà À àà  àCounty„City€Building,€Third€FloorÐ F(>!% ÐChattanooga,€TN€37402à h àà À àà  à600€Market€StreetÐ ,)$"& Ð(ON€APPEAL)à  àà h àà À àà  àChattanooga,€TN€37402Ð * #' ÐÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARY€SENTENCE€MODIFIEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639S ÐÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ  ÐÌóóó óà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Nathan€Lee€Colquit,€appeals€as€of€right€from€hisÐ ¸ ° Ðconvictions€by€a€jury€in€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€of€aggravated€burglary,€aÏClass€C€felony,€and€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony.€€For€the€aggravated€burglaryÏconviction,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender€to€fifteen€yearsÏconfinement€to€be€served€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€For€theÏaggravated€robbery€conviction,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€toÏfifteen€years€confinement€to€be€served€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏThe€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€defendant€presents€theÏfollowing€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motionÏto€suppress€the€fruits€of€two€warrantless€searches€andÏseizures€of€the€car€he€was€driving€when€arrested;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppressÏthe€victimððs€identification€of€him€from€a€photographÏarray;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€theÏjury€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€assault€andÏaggravated€assault;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€for€theÏaggravated€burglary€conviction.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€affirm€the€convictions€upon€the€jury€verdicts€but€modify€the€sentence€for€aggravatedÏburglary€to€reflect€a€sentence€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€to€ten€years€confinement.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€evidence€at€trial€established€that€on€November€8,€1993,€KathrynÏWalker€returned€to€her€home€to€find€that€it€had€been€ransacked.€€When€Ms.€WalkerÏscreamed,€the€defendant€ran€down€the€hall,€wielding€a€gun,€and€ordered€her€to€stopÏscreaming€or€he€would€kill€her.€€The€defendant€pushed€Ms.€Walker€to€the€floor,€coveredÏher€with€a€bedspread€and€fled.€€Ms.€Walker€described€the€assailant€to€Lieutenant€JohnÏBradford€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department,€and€she€provided€Bradford€with€a€listÏof€items€that€were€stolen,€which€included€a€mink€coat,€jewelry,€credit€cards€and€cash.€Ð Š8‚17 ÐMs.€Walker€later€identified€the€defendant€as€the€assailant€from€a€photograph€array,€and€€Ïshe€testified€at€trial€that€the€defendant€was€the€assailant.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Bradford€testified€that€he€received€aÏtelephone€call€on€November€11,€1993,€from€Captain€Bobby€Persinger€of€the€CatoosaÏñEñœñEñCounty€SheriffððsñEñ›ñEñ€ñEñœñEñDepartment€in€Georgia.ñEñ›ñEñ€€Bradford€said€Persinger€told€him€that€onÏNovember€9,€1993,€Persinger€was€involved€in€a€car€chase€with€the€defendant€and€thatÏin€the€car,€Persinger€found€a€mink€coat€ñEñœñEñbearingñEñ›ñEñ€the€embroidered€name€ð ðKathy€ñEñœñEñWalkerððÏinside€of€it.ñEñ›ñEñ€€Bradford€said€he€met€with€Persinger€that€day€and€photographed€the€coat,Ïthen€he€and€Persinger€went€to€the€impound€lot€where€the€car€was€located.€€He€said€thatÏwhen€he€looked€in€the€car,€he€saw€a€camera,€jewelry€and€other€items,€which€heÏphotographed.ÌÌà ¸ àBradford€testified€that€he€met€with€the€defendant,€who€was€being€held€inÏGeorgia€on€charges€of€evading€arrest,€reckless€driving€and€possession€of€crackÏcocaine.€€He€said€that€when€he€advised€the€defendant€of€his€rights,€the€defendantÏrefused€to€sign€a€waiver€but€agreed€to€talk.€€Bradford€said€the€defendant€told€him€thatÏon€November€8,€1993,€he€was€staying€with€a€friend€at€a€motel,€he€took€the€friend€toÏwork€in€the€morning,€then€he€went€back€to€the€room€and€slept.€€The€defendant€told€himÏthat€the€car€belonged€to€a€female€named€Jan€who€loaned€him€the€car€in€exchange€forÏcrack€cocaine.€€The€defendant€told€him€that€he€knew€nothing€of€the€mink€coat€until€heÏwas€arrested€and€that€he€knew€nothing€about€the€burglary.€€ÌÌà ¸ àBradford€testified€that€he€took€a€photograph€of€the€defendant.€€He€statedÏthat€he€constructed€a€photograph€array€but€that€he€did€not€include€the€photograph€of€theÏñNñÑ í:ÑñNññNñÑÜÜÑñNññNñÑÑñNññNñÑ  ÑñNñdefendant€that€he€took€on€November€11.€€He€said€that€instead,€he€included€aÏphotograph€of€the€defendant€from€1991.€€He€said€he€asked€the€victim€to€look€at€theÏphotograph€array€and€to€determine€if€she€recognized€the€assailant.€€He€testified€that€theÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñGñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñGññEñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñEñvictim€identified€the€defendant€and€that€she€felt€fear€when€looking€at€his€photograph.€ÏHe€admitted€that€before€the€victim€looked€at€the€array,€he€told€her€that€a€suspect€hadÏbeen€arrested,€but€he€said€that€he€did€not€suggest€to€the€victim€which€man€in€the€arrayÏwas€the€suspect.€€He€said€the€victim€also€identified€photographs€of€the€mink€coat€andÏjewelry,€and€he€then€returned€to€Georgia€and€took€possession€of€the€victimððs€property.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Bradford€testified€that€the€victim€described€theÏassailant€as€a€slender€black€male,€twenty„five€to€thirty€years€old,€six€feet€tall,€oneÏhundred€and€eighty€pounds€and€wearing€a€red€bandana€over€his€hair.€€He€said€theÏvictim€did€not€describe€the€defendant€as€having€facial€hair€nor€did€she€describe€theÏdefendantððs€teeth,€voice,€clothing,€or€distinguishing€facial€characteristics.€€He€said€that€inÏarranging€the€photograph€array,€he€tried€to€choose€people€who€looked€similar€to€theÏdefendant,€keeping€in€mind€the€victimððs€description.€€He€said€that€he€chose€men€withÏfacial€hair€for€the€array€because€the€defendant€had€facial€hair€in€the€photograph€heÏused,€and€he€did€not€want€the€defendant€to€look€different€from€the€other€men.€€He€saidÏhe€used€the€1991€photograph€of€the€defendant€instead€of€the€more€recent€one€becauseÏthe€older€photograph€had€a€background€similar€to€the€photographs€of€the€other€men€inÏthe€array.€€He€said€the€recent€photograph€had€a€yellow€brick€background.ÌÌà ¸ àBradford€said€that€when€he€met€with€Persinger€on€November€11,ÏPersinger€brought€the€mink€coat€and€a€maroon€pouch€containing€jewelry.€€He€admittedÏthat€he€did€not€have€a€search€warrant€when€he€met€with€Persinger€or€when€he€andÏPersinger€went€to€the€impound€lot.€€He€said€that€when€they€went€to€the€impound€lot,€heÏlooked€in€the€car€before€he€opened€the€door€and€saw€a€camera€ñEñœñEñonñEñ›ñEñ€the€passengerððsÏside.€€He€said€he€removed€the€camera€from€the€car€and€found€some€jewelry€in€theÏtrunk.€€He€said€he€took€the€items€to€Chattanooga€after€photographing€them,€and€heÏshowed€the€items€to€the€victim€that€night€and€released€them€to€her€when€she€identifiedÏthem.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àCaptain€Bobby€Persinger€of€the€Catoosa€ñEñœñEñCounty€SheriffððsñEñ›ñEñ€DepartmentÏtestified€that€on€November€11,€1993,€he€received€a€report€from€Officer€Kelly€HolcombeÏthat€Holcombe€had€tried€to€pull€over€a€car€but€that€the€car€did€not€stop€and€a€chase€wasÏunderway.€€Persinger€testified€that€about€that€time,€he€saw€the€cars€pass€by€him,€and€heÏfollowed€behind€Holcombe€who€was€behind€the€defendant.€€He€said€the€defendant€wasÏdriving€a€ñEñœñEñgray,ñEñ›ñEñ€1986€Buick€Skyhawk€and€was€traveling€around€fifty€miles€per€hour€in€aÏforty€mile€per€hour€zone.€€He€said€that€as€the€chase€continued,€the€speeds€escalated€toÏbetween€fifty€and€sixty€miles€per€hour.€€He€said€the€defendant€passed€traffic€on€the€leftÏside€of€the€road,€several€times€when€cars€were€approaching€in€the€opposite€direction.€ÏHe€said€the€defendant€struck€another€car€at€an€intersection€but€continued€driving.€€HeÏsaid€eventually€the€defendant€pushed€his€brakes,€causing€his€car€to€spin€backwards€andÏslide€off€the€road€before€it€hit€a€curb€and€stopped.€ÌÌà ¸ àPersinger€testified€that€the€passenger,€Wilbur€ð ðShakyðð€Wilkes,€got€out€ofÏthe€car€and€was€handcuffed.€€He€said€that€although€officers€were€yelling,€the€defendantÏwould€not€get€out,€and€his€door€was€locked€and€could€not€be€opened.€€He€said€theÏdefendant€was€leaning€over€and€had€his€hands€down€toward€one€of€his€legs.€€He€saidÏan€officer€broke€the€car€ñEñœñEñwindowñEñ›œñEñ,€apprehendedñEñ›ñEñ€and€handcuffed€the€defendant.€€He€saidÏthe€car€registration€was€checked€and€revealed€that€the€car€belonged€to€a€woman€fromÏthe€area.€€He€said€he€tried€to€verify€the€owner€of€the€car€but€never€made€contact€withÏanyone.ÌÌà ¸ àPersinger€testified€that€a€wrecker€was€called€to€tow€the€car€because€it€wasÏnot€fit€to€drive.€€He€said€that€a€tire€and€rim€were€gone€and€a€window€was€busted.€€HeÏtestified€that€officers€normally€inventory€a€car€before€it€is€towed,€and€an€officerÏinventoried€the€car€in€the€present€case.€€Persinger€said€he€looked€in€the€back€seat€ofÏthe€car€and€saw€a€mink€coat.€€He€said€the€coat€caught€his€attention€because€it€did€notÏmatch€the€car,€and€he€took€it€out€and€noticed€a€name€inside€the€coat.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àCaptain€Persinger€testified€that€soon€after,€he€saw€a€newspaper€articleÏthat€mentioned€that€a€mink€coat€had€been€stolen€in€a€burglary€in€Chattanooga.€€He€saidÏhe€called€Lieutenant€Bradford€in€Chattanooga€and€asked€him€if€the€stolen€coat€wasÏreported€to€have€a€name€inside€of€it.€€Persinger€told€Bradford€that€he€thought€he€had€theÏcoat.€€He€said€that€the€coat€remained€in€the€car€after€it€was€inventoried€and€towed€andÏthat€he€went€to€the€impound€lot€and€retrieved€the€coat€after€speaking€with€Bradford.€€HeÏsaid€he€met€with€Bradford,€and€Bradford€identified€the€coat.€€He€said€Bradford€brought€aÏlist€of€property€stolen€from€the€victim,€and€they€went€to€the€impound€lot€and€found€aÏcamera€and€jewelry€in€the€car.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Persinger€testified€that€Officer€Holcombe€originallyÏtried€to€stop€the€defendant€for€making€an€improper€turn.€€He€said€the€pursuit€began€inÏCatoosa€County,€Georgia,€and€ended€in€Walker€County€where€the€inventory€wasÏperformed.€€He€said€his€officeððs€policy€is€that€if€a€suspect€flees€from€an€officer,€theÏsuspectððs€car€is€towed.€€He€said€this€is€not€a€written€policy.€€He€said€the€inventory€policyÏis€that€if€a€car€is€towed,€it€is€inventoried.€€He€identified€his€officeððs€written€standardÏoperating€procedures€regarding€vehicle€inventory€and€impoundment€and€pointed€to€aÏpolicy€that€states€that€if€there€is€no€one€present€who€is€authorized€and€capable€ofÏremoving€a€vehicle,€it€should€be€towed.€€He€said€he€did€not€remember€asking€theÏdefendant€if€he€wanted€the€car€towed€or€disposed€of€in€another€way.€€He€said€the€carÏñNñÑ †ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñNñwas€not€driveable€because€of€the€tire,€and€he€could€not€find€anyone€to€pick€up€the€carÏbecause€he€could€not€make€contact€with€the€owner.€€He€admitted€that€he€thought€theÏmink€coat€did€not€fit€with€ñEñœñEñthe€twoñEñ›ñEñ€men€in€the€car€and€that€he€did€not€see€the€nameÏembroidered€in€the€coat€until€he€removed€it€from€the€car.€€He€said€that€when€he€andÏBradford€went€to€the€impound€lot,€it€was€not€to€conduct€an€inventory€but€to€retrieveÏproperty€determined€to€be€stolen.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñGñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñGññEñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñEñà ¸ àOfficer€Terrence€Kelly€Holcombe€of€the€Catoosa€County€SheriffððsÏâ âDepartment€testified€that€he€saw€the€defendant€make€an€improper€turn.€€He€said€heÏpulled€behind€the€defendant€and€ñEñœñEñturnedñEñ›ñEñ€on€his€blue€lights,€but€the€defendant€would€notÏstop.€€He€said€the€defendant€accelerated€to€forty€or€forty„five€miles€per€hour€on€a€curvyÏroad€and€continued€to€accelerate€to€around€seventy€miles€per€hour€once€out€of€theÏcurvy€road.€€He€said€that€Persinger€eventually€pulled€behind€him.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€struck€a€Bronco,€went€into€a€ditch€and€came€out€with€a€flat€tire€but€that€theÏdefendant€continued€to€drive.€€He€said€the€defendant€stopped€four€to€five€miles€laterÏwhen€he€spun€out€of€control€and€ran€off€the€road.€€ÌÌà ¸ àHolcombe€testified€that€the€driverððs€side€door€was€locked,€and€theÏdefendant€was€bent€down€in€the€floorboard.€€He€said€the€officers€on€the€scene€thoughtÏthe€defendant€might€have€a€gun,€and€they€broke€the€driverððs€side€window.€€HolcombeÏsaid€the€glove€box€was€ñEñœñEñopen,ñEñ›ñEñ€and€there€was€a€lot€of€jewelry€in€the€glove€box€and€on€theÏfloorboard.€€He€said€a€wrecker€was€called,€and€he€prepared€an€inventory€list€before€theÏcar€was€towed.€€He€said€he€marked€the€ð ðclothesðð€box€on€the€inventory€sheet€to€indicateÏthe€mink€coat.€€He€testified€that€he€had€checked€the€license€plate€number€during€theÏchase€and€that€œñHñitñHññIñthe€carñIñ›€was€registered€to€a€woman.€€He€said€he€did€not€know€if€anyoneÏwas€able€to€contact€the€owner.€€He€said€that€after€the€inventory€was€complete,€the€carÏwas€towed.€€He€said€that€most€of€the€items€remained€in€the€car€but€that€some€jewelryÏwas€taken€out€for€evidence€and€was€noted€on€the€inventory€sheet.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Holcombe€testified€that€cars€are€inventoried€everyÏtime€there€is€an€arrest€and€a€vehicle€is€involved.€€He€said€that€the€inventories€areÏperformed€to€protect€the€officers€and€the€owners€of€the€property.€€He€said€he€laterÏlearned€that€a€woman€had€been€contacted,€and€she€had€said€that€the€defendant€andÏShaky€had€permission€to€borrow€the€car.€€He€said€the€coat€was€in€the€back€seat€whenÏhe€performed€the€inventory.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€suppress,€finding€that€the€jewelry€hadÏfallen€out€of€the€glove€compartment€and€was€in€plain€view,€as€was€the€mink€coat.€€ItÏfound€that€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€would€ñEñœñEñcauseñEñ›ñEñ€any€reasonable€ñEñœñEñpersonñEñ›œ›œ›ñEñÏsuspicion€and€that€there€ñEñœñEñwereñEñ›ñEñ€ð ðenough€articulable€and€specific€facts€.€.€.€that€these€itemsÏcould€very€well€be€the€fruits€of€a€crime€.€.€.€.ðð€€It€further€found€that€the€ñEñœsearchs›ñEññEñsearchesñEñ€andÏñEñœñEñseizuresñEñ›ñEñ€were€proper€because€they€were€pursuant€to€an€inventory.€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€SEARCH€AND€SEIZUREÐ œ”  Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€toÐ tl Ðsuppress€the€evidence€obtained€from€the€warrantless€searches€and€seizures€thatÏoccurred€on€November€9€and€11.€€He€argues€that€the€items€did€ñEñœñEñnotñEñ›œñEñ€fall€withinñEñ›ñEñ€the€plainÏview€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€because€their€incriminating€nature€was€notÏapparent.€€He€further€argues€that€the€impoundment€and€subsequent€inventory€wereÏimproper€because€no€other€methods€of€removing€the€vehicle€were€offered€to€him€andÏbecause€the€state€failed€to€show€that€the€impoundment€was€necessary.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€initially€argues€that€the€defendant€waived€the€issue€of€theÏimproper€impoundment€by€failing€to€raise€it€in€the€motion€to€suppress€or€in€the€motionÏfor€a€new€trial.€€It€argues€that,€in€any€event,€the€impoundment€was€necessary€becauseÏthe€car€was€not€ñEñœñEñdriveable,ñEñ›ñEñ€and€there€was€no€other€alternative.€€The€state€further€arguesÏthat€the€evidence€was€in€plain€ñEñœñEñview,ñEñ›ñEñ€and€its€incriminating€nature€was€apparent.€€In€theÏalternative,€it€argues€that€the€discovery€of€the€mink€coat€and€jewelry€was€the€result€of€aÏlook,€not€a€search.€€With€respect€to€the€second€search€of€the€car€at€the€impound€lot,€theÏstate€argues€that€when€impoundment€is€necessary,€any€subsequent€search€of€theÏimpounded€vehicle€is€legal.ÌÌà ¸ àA€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€conclusive€onÏappeal.€€This€court€will€not€reverse€a€trial€courtððs€findings€unless€the€evidenceÐ ˜706 Ðpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.Ð  ÐCrim.€App.€1988).ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.€€NOVEMBER€9€SEARCH€AND€SEIZUREÐ l d ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€initial€warrantless€search€of€the€car€heÐ D< Ðwas€driving€on€November€9€when€he€was€arrested€and€the€seizure€of€the€mink€coat€thatÏoccurred€when€Persinger€removed€the€coat€from€the€car€violated€the€FourthÏAmendmentððs€prohibition€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€search€was€not€justified€as€an€inventory€search€because€the€police€had€no€right€toÏimpound€the€vehicle.€€We€conclude€that€the€November€9€search€and€seizure€were€validÏas€both€a€seizure€pursuant€to€an€inventory€search€and€a€search€incident€to€a€lawfulÏarrest.ÌÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€state€contends€that€the€defendant€did€not€raiseÏthe€issue€of€impoundment€in€his€motion€to€suppress€or€ñEñœñEñhis€motionñEñ›ñEñ€for€a€new€trial.€€WeÏbelieve€that€the€issue€of€the€legality€of€the€search,€which€was€raised€in€both€motions,€isÏinherently€œdependñJñañJññKñeñKñnt›€upon€the€validity€of€the€impoundment.€€Thus,€the€issue€is€properlyÏbefore€this€court.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€thatÏcitizens€have€a€right€to€be€ð ðsecure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers€and€effects,€againstÏunreasonable€searches€and€seizures€.€.€.€.ðð€€Consequently,€due€process€requires€thatÏevidence€obtained€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€be€inadmissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòMapp€v.Ð œ.”', ÐOhioóó,€367€U.S.€643,€655,€81€S.€Ct.€1684,€1691€(1961).€€Generally,€warrantless€searchesÐ h0`). Ðare€unreasonable€òòperóó€òòseóó€and€are€subject€to€only€a€few€exceptions.€€òòSeeóó€òòKatz€v.€UnitedÐ 42,+0 ÐStatesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€357,€88€S.€Ct.€507,€514€(1967).€ò òÐ 4ø,2 Ðâ âÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðà ¸ àó óOne€such€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€is€the€ð ðroutine€inventoryÏâ âsearch€of€an€automobile€lawfully€impounded.ðð€€òòSouth€Dakota€v.€Oppermanóó,€428€U.S.Ð ÔÌ Ð364,€365,€96€S.€Ct.€3092,€3095€(1976).€€The€inventory€search€pursuant€to€a€lawfulÏimpoundment€ñEñœñEñisñEñ›ñEñ€justified€ñEñœñEñby€theñEñ›ñEñ€need€to€protect€the€ownerððs€property€while€in€policeÏcustody,€the€need€to€protect€police€against€claims€of€lost€property,€and€the€need€toÏprotect€police€from€potential€danger.€€ñEñœñEñòòOppermanóó,ñEñ›ñEñ€428€U.S.€at€369,€96€S.€Ct.€at€3097.ò òÐ ü  Ðó óOur€supreme€court€has€delineated€guidelines€for€determining€whether€an€impoundmentÐ ÐÈ  Ðis€lawful,€and€thus,€a€subsequent€inventory€search€valid.€€òòDrinkard€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2dÐ œ”  Ð650,€653€(Tenn.€1979).€€In€òòDrinkardóó,€the€court€stated€that:Ð h` ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[I]f€the€circumstances€that€bring€the€automobile€to€theÏattention€of€the€police€in€the€first€place€are€such€that€theÏdriver,€even€though€arrested,€is€able€to€make€his€or€herÏown€arrangements€for€the€custody€of€the€vehicle,€or€ifÏthe€vehicle€can€be€parked€and€locked€withoutÏobstructing€traffic€or€endangering€the€public,€the€policeÏshould€permit€the€action€to€be€taken€rather€thanÏimpound€the€car€against€the€will€of€the€driver€and€thenÏsearch€it.€€Just€cause€to€arrest€the€driver€is€not,€alone,Ïenough;€there€must€be€reasonable€cause€to€take€hisÏvehicle€into€custody.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓId.óó€€The€burden€of€proving€the€propriety€of€the€impoundment€and€subsequent€searchÐ ü!ô Ðrests€with€the€party€seeking€to€introduce€the€fruits€of€the€search.€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).Ð È#À  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€maintains€that€the€impoundment€and€subsequent€inventoryÏsearch€of€his€car€were€unlawful.€€He€relies€on€òòState€v.€Lunsfordóó,€655€S.W.2d€921,€924Ð ,)$"& Ð(Tenn.€1983).€€In€that€case,€a€police€officer€stopped€the€defendantððs€car€and€arrestedÏthe€defendant€on€the€suspicion€of€burglary.€€The€officer€asked€the€defendant€if€he€wouldÏconsent€to€the€search€of€his€trunk,€and€the€defendant€asked€the€officer€if€he€had€aÏsearch€warrant.€€The€officer€said€that€he€did€not,€and€no€further€conversation€ensued.€ÏThe€officer€impounded€the€defendantððs€car€and€during€an€inventory€search,€the€officerÏfound€stolen€property.€€Our€supreme€court€held€that€the€impoundment€and€subsequentÏsearch€of€the€defendantððs€car€were€unlawful€and€quoted€with€approval€from€a€FloridaÏSupreme€Court€opinion€holding€that€an€officer€should€ð ðððadvise€a€present,€silent€arresteeÐ Œ7„06 Ðthat€his€car€will€be€impounded€unless€he€can€provide€a€reasonable€alternative€toÏimpoundment.ðððð€€òòLunsfordóó,€655€S.W.2d€at€924€(quoting€òòSanders€v.€Stateóó,€402€So.2dÐ ÔÌ Ð973,€974€(Fla.€1981)).€€The€defendant€in€the€present€case€contends€that€the€officers€didÏnot€consult€with€him€about€alternatives€to€impoundment.€€However,€in€òòLunsfordóó,€theÐ l d Ðcourt€also€quoted€with€approval€from€òòSandersóó€that€ð ðððthe€extent€of€the€consultation€withÐ 80 Ðthe€arrestee€is€a€factor€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€in€determining€whether€theÏimpoundment€was€reasonable€and€necessary.ðððð€òòLunsfordóó,€655€S.W.2d€at€924€(quotingÐ ÐÈ  ÐòòSandersóó,€402€So.2d€at€974).€Ð œ”  ÐÌà ¸ àWe€hold€that€despite€the€officerððs€failure€to€ask€the€defendant€if€he€had€anÏalternative€to€towing€the€car,€the€impoundment€and€subsequent€inventory€search€wereÏreasonable€and€necessary.€€First,€there€was€no€one€present€at€the€scene€to€take€controlÏof€the€car.€€The€defendant€had€been€arrested€and€Shaky€Wilkes€was€handcuffed€andÏhad€no€driverððs€license.€€Although€the€record€indicates€that€the€owner€of€the€car€mayÏhave€been€contacted,€she€was€never€at€the€scene€to€take€control€of€the€car.€ÏFurthermore,€the€car€was€not€driveable€and€could€not€have€been€left€where€it€came€toÏrest.€€One€of€the€tires€was€inoperable€and€a€window€ñEñœñEñwasñEñ›ñEñ€broken.€ò ò€ó óIn€light€of€theÐ È#À  Ðforegoing,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€reasonable€alternative€to€having€the€carÏtowed.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€the€search€was€proper€as€anÏinventory€search€pursuant€to€the€lawful€impoundment€of€the€car.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robergeóó,Ð 8)0"& Ð642€S.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.€1982)€(holding€that€towing€and€inventory€of€car€wereÏproper€where€occupants€were€either€too€young€or€too€intoxicated€to€drive€and€made€noÏreasonable€or€plausible€suggestions€for€the€disposition€of€the€car).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€urges€that€the€search€and€subsequent€seizure€were€validÏbecause€the€contents€of€the€car€were€in€plain€view.€€However,€in€order€to€fall€within€theÏplain€view€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement,€the€incriminating€nature€of€theÏevidence€must€be€apparent.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€433,€466,€91Ð ˜706 ÐS.€Ct.€2022,€2038€(1971).€€Although€Officer€Holcombe€testified€that€he€thought€the€minkÏcoat€did€not€fit€with€ñEñœñEñthe€twoñEñ›ñEñ€men€in€the€car,€the€incriminating€nature€of€the€mink€coat€andÏthe€other€items€in€the€car€was€not€sufficiently€apparent,€particularly€upon€confirmationÏthat€a€woman€owned€the€car.€€It€was€not€until€Captain€Persinger€learned€that€a€minkÏcoat€had€been€stolen€that€the€incriminating€nature€of€the€items€in€the€car€becameÏapparent.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àAlthough€not€raised€by€either€party,€we€ñEñœñEñconcludeñEñ›ñEñ€that€the€search€was€validÏas€a€search€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Robinsonóó,€414€U.S.€218,Ð h` Ð235,€94€S.€Ct.€467,€477€(1973).€€Having€placed€the€defendant€under€arrest,€OfficerÏHolcombe€was€entitled€to€conduct€a€search€of€the€entire€passenger€compartment€of€theÏcar.€€òòSeeóó€òòNew€York€v.€Beltonóó,€453€U.S.€454,€460,€101€S.€Ct.€2860,€2864€(1981);€òòState€v.Ð ÌÄ ÐWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€295„96€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€summary,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ˜ ÐNovember€9€search€and€seizure€were€valid€as€both€an€inventory€search€following€aÏlawful€impoundment€and€as€a€search€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€€NOVEMBER€11€SEARCH€AND€SEIZUREó óÐ È#À  ÐÓ  Óò òà ¸ àó óNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€November€11€warrantless€searchÐ  %˜" Ðand€seizure€at€the€impound€lot€violated€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€He€relies€on€the€sameÏarguments€made€with€respect€to€the€November€9€search€and€seizure.€€The€stateÏcontends€that€when€an€impoundment€is€necessary,€any€subsequent€search€of€theÏimpounded€vehicle€is€legal.ÌÌà ¸ àThis€court€considered€a€similar€issue€in€òòState€v.€J.R.€Sandersóó,€No.€01C01„Ð h0`). Ð9003„CR„00091,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€9,€1990).€€In€òòSandersóó,€theÐ 42,+0 Ðdefendant€was€a€wholesale€cocaine€dealer€who€supplied€cocaine€to€a€retailer.€€TheÏretailer€was€arrested€with€cocaine€in€the€defendantððs€truck,€and€the€truck€was€seizedÏand€taken€to€police€headquarters€where€an€inventory€search€was€conducted.€€TheÐ ˜706 Ðofficer€found€documents€relating€to€the€defendantððs€ownership€of€the€truck€and€deeds€toÏproperty€owned€by€the€defendant.€€The€officer€seized€the€items€relating€to€the€ñEñœñEñtruckððsñEñ›ñEñÏownership€but€left€the€deeds€in€the€truck.€€Fourteen€months€ñEñœñEñlaterñEñ›ñEñ€and€two€weeks€beforeÏthe€defendantððs€trial€for€conspiracy€to€sell€and€possession€of€cocaine,€an€officerÏreturned€to€the€truck€and€seized€the€deeds,€which€were€used€as€evidence€against€theÏdefendant€at€trial.€ÌÌà ¸ àThis€court€concluded€that€the€original€search€was€valid€as€a€searchÏincident€to€a€lawful€arrest,€but€the€defendant€argued€that€the€second€search€fourteenÏmonths€later€was€a€separate€warrantless€search€that€was€unreasonable.€€In€upholdingÏthe€validity€of€the€second€search€and€seizure,€this€court€concluded€that€the€officerÏð ðmerely€seized€later€what€he€could€have€seized€earlier.€€No€Fourth€Amendment€violationÏis€implicated€in€this€conduct.ðð€€òòSandersóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€For€similar€reasons,€we€concludeÐ ˜ Ðthat€the€November€11€search€and€seizure€were€valid.€€€€€ò òÐ d\ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€PHOTOGRAPH€ARRAYÌó óÓÇ}Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€theÐ à#Ø  Ðvictimððs€identification€of€him€from€a€photograph€array.€€He€argues€that€the€array€wasÏunduly€suggestive,€thereby€making€the€victimððs€identification€unreliable.€€Specifically,€heÏtakes€issue€with€the€fact€that€the€photograph€of€the€defendant€was€two€years€old,€thatÏLieutenant€Bradford€chose€photographs€of€men€who€looked€like€the€defendant,€not€menÏwho€matched€the€victimððs€description,€and€that€Bradford€told€the€victim€that€someoneÏwas€arrested€for€the€crime€before€the€victim€examined€the€array.€€The€state€contendsÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€arrayÏwas€not€unduly€suggestive.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àWhen€the€constitutionality€of€an€out„of„court€identification€is€challenged,Ïsuppression€is€only€required€when€there€is€an€unnecessarily€suggestive€procedure,€andÐ ¤7œ06 Ðthe€totality€of€the€circumstances€shows€that€the€identification€was€unreliable€because€ofÏthe€suggestiveness.€€òòSeeóó€òòManson€v.€Brathwaiteóó,€432€U.S.€98,€114,€97€S.€Ct.€2243,Ð ÔÌ Ð2253€(1977).€€The€Supreme€Court€has€identified€the€following€factors€to€be€consideredÏwhen€determining€whether€an€identification€is€reliable€and€thus€admissible:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€atÏthe€time€of€the€crime,Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention,Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€theÏcriminal,€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€atÏthe€confrontation,€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€the€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€198,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€381„82€(1972).€€Furthermore,€aÐ ÌÄ Ðvictimððs€description€need€not€be€perfect€to€be€reliable.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€factors€set€forth€in€òòNeilóó,€as€applied€to€the€instant€case,€support€theÐ 0 ( Ðadmissibility€of€the€victimððs€identification.€€Although€the€victim€had€only€a€relatively€shortÏamount€of€time€to€view€the€defendant,€she€was€able€to€remember€the€defendantððsÏapproximate€height,€weight€and€build.€€Nothing€in€the€photograph€of€the€defendantÏsubmitted€as€part€of€the€array€suggests€that€the€victimððs€description€was€inaccurate.€ÏFurthermore,€the€victim€did€not€waver€in€her€identification€of€the€defendant,€and€only€aÏshort€period€of€time,€approximately€three€days,€had€lapsed€between€the€crime€and€theÏidentification.€€ÌÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€complaint€that€Lieutenant€Bradford€used€aÏtwo„year„old€photograph€instead€of€the€recent€one,€Bradford€explained€that€the€recentÏphotograph€was€noticeably€different€from€the€photographs€of€the€other€men€in€the€array.€ÏFar€from€making€the€identification€unreliable,€we€believe€that€the€officer€merely€tookÏsteps€to€ensure€that€the€array€was€fair.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€Bradford€choseÐ Œ7„06 Ðphotographs€of€men€who€resembled€the€defendant,€not€men€who€matched€the€victimððsÏdescription.€€On€the€contrary,€Bradford€testified€that€he€chose€photographs€of€men€whoÏresembled€the€defendant,€keeping€in€mind€the€victimððs€description.€€Again,€the€recordÏshows€that€Bradford€used€care€to€ensure€that€the€array€was€not€unduly€suggestive,€andÏa€review€of€the€photographs€of€the€other€men€in€the€array€shows€that€they€matched€theÏvictimððs€description.€€Finally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€array€was€suggestiveÏbecause€Bradford€told€the€victim€that€he€had€arrested€a€suspect€before€the€victimÏlooked€at€the€array.€€However,€Bradford€never€suggested€to€the€victim€which€man€ñEñœñEñin€theÏarray€wasñEñ›ñEñ€the€ñEñœñEñsuspectñEñ›œñEñ.ñEñ›ñEñ€€Rather,€the€victim€identified€the€defendant€on€her€own,€and€sheÏdid€not€waver€in€that€identification.€€Based€on€these€facts,€we€hold€that€the€identificationÏwas€properly€admitted.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€LESSER€INCLUDED€OFFENSESÐ ˜ Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€theÐ ph Ðjury€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€assault€and€aggravated€assault.€€The€stateÏcontends€that€the€issue€is€waived€because€the€defendant€did€not€request€an€instructionÏon€assault€or€aggravated€assault€nor€did€he€raise€it€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ô#Ì  ÐT.R.A.P.€3(e).€€It€argues€that€the€issue€is€nevertheless€without€merit€because€the€recordÏshows€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€the€greater€offenses,€and€there€is€no€evidence€toÏsupport€a€finding€of€guilt€for€assault€or€aggravated€assault.ÌÌà ¸ àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„110(a),€a€trial€court€is€required€ð ðto€charge€theÏjury€as€to€all€of€the€law€of€each€offense€included€in€the€indictment,€without€any€requestÏon€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.ðð€€When€the€evidence,€introduced€by€either€theÏstate€or€the€defendant,€is€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt€of€a€lesser€grade€or€class€or€aÏlesser€included€offense€of€the€charged€offense,€ñEñœñEñthe€trial€court€hasñEñ›ñEñ€a€mandatory€ñEñœñEñduty€toñEñ›ñEñÏcharge€such€lesser€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„110(a);€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2dÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ð305,€310€(Tenn.€1996);€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975);€òòState€v.Ð ˜706 ÐHowardóó,€926€S.W.2d€579,€585„86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€However,€the€instruction€isÐ  Ðnot€required€if€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesserÏoffense.€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.Ð   ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€stateððs€argument€that€the€issue€is€waived€because€theÏdefendant€failed€to€request€the€instruction€on€the€lesser€included€offenses,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼18„110(a)€instructs€otherwise.€€However,€the€state€correctly€argues€that€the€defendantÏfailed€to€raise€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€thus€we€are€barred€from€review.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€In€any€event,€the€issue€is€without€merit.€€While€we€agree€that€assaultÐ h` Ðand€aggravated€assault€are€lesser€included€offenses€of€aggravated€robbery,€we€do€notÏagree€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€warrants€an€instruction€on€either€offense.€€TheÏuncontested€evidence€shows€that€the€defendant,€brandishing€a€gun,€stole€items€fromÏthe€victimððs€home.€€The€evidence€establishes€that€the€defendant€is€either€guilty€of€theÏgreater€offense€of€aggravated€robbery€or€not€guilty€at€all.€€Nothing€in€the€recordÏsuggests€that€the€defendant€could€be€found€guilty€of€assault€or€aggravated€assault.€€TheÏdefendant€was€not€entitled€to€an€instruction€on€those€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€619Ð ü!ô ÐS.W.2d€546,€549€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(holding€that€evidence€showing€that€theÏdefendant€was€guilty€of€robbery€or€no€offense€at€all€did€not€justify€a€jury€instruction€onÏthe€offense€of€assault).ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€SENTENCING€FOR€AGGRAVATED€BURGLARYÐ ø*ð#( Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€sentenced€him€toÐ Ð,È%* Ðfifteen€years€incarceration€for€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€€Specifically,€heÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€used€his€Georgia€cocaine€conviction€to€sentenceÏhim€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender€in€the€present€case.€€He€asks€this€court€toÏdetermine€an€appropriate€Range€II€sentence.€€The€state€concedes€that€the€defendantÏshould€have€been€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€However,€the€state€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€correctly€applied€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€and€contends€thatÐ ˜706 Ðbecause€the€defendant€received€the€maximum€sentence€as€a€Range€III€offender,€heÏshould€receive€the€ten„year€maximum€sentence€as€a€Range€II€offender.ÌÌà ¸ àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÐ l d Ðpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„401(d).€ÏAs€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€note,€the€burden€is€now€onÏthe€defendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequatelyÏsupported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÏand€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€mayÏnot€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805Ð ø ÐS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€ð ðthe€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ È#À  Ðmeaningful€appellate€review,€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€theÏspecific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factorÏfound,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€andÏbalanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(f)€(1990).€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1995).Ð v/n(- ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ¸ àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ð (2 +0 Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÐ Œ7„06 Ðfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,Ð ÔÌ Ð823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).€Ð   ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€Class€B€or€C€felony€isÏpresumptively€the€minimum€in€the€range€when€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigatingÏfactors€present.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€theÏsentence€within€Ñ€Ñthe€range€based€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(d)Ïand€(e).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretionÏso€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€andÏits€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€SentencingÏCommission€Comments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€Ð ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€had€three€priorÏClass€D€felony€convictions€and€one€Class€E€felony€conviction.€€The€record€also€reflectsÏthat€on€November€9,€1993,€one€day€after€the€defendant€committed€the€offenses€in€theÏpresent€case,€the€defendant€was€charged€in€Georgia€with€a€cocaine€offense.€€The€trialÏcourt€in€the€present€case€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€maximum€sentence€of€fifteenÏyears€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender.€€ÌÌà ¸ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„107(b)(1)€provides€that€for€theÏpurpose€of€determining€the€proper€sentencing€range,€a€prior€conviction€is€one€thatÏoccurs€before€the€commission€of€the€offense€for€which€the€defendant€is€beingÏsentenced.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blouvettóó,€904€S.W.2d€111,€113€(Tenn.€1995).€€Because€theÐ (2 +0 ÐGeorgia€cocaine€offense€did€not€occur€until€one€day€after€the€defendant€committed€theÏâ âoffense€in€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€could€not€consider€that€offense€for€theÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑÑÑ7€+¾XXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñNñÑÑÑ7€küXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñNññIñÑÑÑ7€ëŽXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñIñpurpose€of€classifying€the€defendant€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender.€€Thus,€theÏñNñÑÑÑ7€+¾XXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñNññIñÑÑÑ7€küXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑñIñdefendant€should€have€been€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€application€ofÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€defendant€does€not€point€to€any€error€in€theÏrecord,€and€we€are€unable€to€find€any.€€The€record€supports€the€maximum€Range€IIÏsentence€of€ten€years€confinement€to€be€served€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€Ì€€à8 ¸ à€Ðh`¸ x¸ x Ðà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏconvictions€upon€the€jury€verdicts€of€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€burglary.€€TheÏaggravated€burglary€sentence€is€modified€to€reflect€a€sentence€as€a€Range€II,€multipleÏoffender€to€ten€years€confinement€to€be€served€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€concurrent€with€the€aggravated€robbery€sentence.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ__________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€Judge