ÿWPC5/ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0ñ¥U:– w@Ð 4 $ >3 q 0Dw » 05É 0Òþ 0:Ð 0d în 1m\ {dÉ 0Ä- 0Xñ 0LI {Ê• {R_ {¾±ÆoÆ5 0cû 0z^ÆØÆž 0d 0˜|Æ BÚ 0@÷ 0L7 D3ƒ 0L¶ 0J 0TL 0^  0hþ D+f 0r‘ 0|! 0†! 0" 1u•" 0d # A©n# 0K$U6b$U*˜$B)Â$DCë$ AO.%ˆ}%v~'vÓƒ( AOV. 0D¥. D/é. B/˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(É›Ÿ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€X.XXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÝÞßDàDáâãDäåDæÓ€jj]!9 Z 3|xï SAMSS.W.2dLockhartClenny Crim AppHellardYacuzzoPuryearGaddis GMC SakBrentwood Kwik2d L.EdWingo WongMelsonH (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóBursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffin(å(3µ†$¤¤Ý ƒ›Ÿ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XžøXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóZ<< KY.quotesindentions for quotesÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓZpp ?·2opinionsopinions text styleÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )ÔÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )Ô(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóóFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlin#?e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó^1$F¯$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔòòÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óóóóó(_¸Ç$ÈÈà0  àòòÔ  ÔÔ 8Ôóó(WV $ÆÆò òÔ  ÔÔ Ôó ó^4'FÚâ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ ÓÓ  ÓòòÔ  Ôòòò òÔ !ÔÓ ÓÓ  Óóóóóó ó(WÙë$ÅÅò òòòÔ  ÔÔ Ôó óóó^.!FšÐ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ ÓóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3Ä$´´Ô2?eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à6"" U 4cite-caseÔ‡XIXXXIÔòòÔ‡XIXXXIÔóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5|NN T2statutesquoted material no indent first lineÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓX  ÏÁ23 inchesindent 3 inches inÓ ¸ ÓÓÓÓ ¸ ÓÓÓ…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à&&&&'ÿÿdxd> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô'ÈÈÈÈdxd2@ 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./124567 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ';3›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 dDDDD7Border 1dd!';ECþÿ << Gÿÿ ~Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€BÔÑ  ÑÔ€CÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€CÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€CXÔÌÌDecemberÏ13,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€BÔÑ  ÑÔ€CÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙßR€FGEA1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9511„CC„00389€ÌÌà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTY€ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHonorable€Donald€P.€Harris,€Judge€ÌÌHORACE€C.€GADDIS,à àà à*à à(Aggravated€Burglary;€Theft€Over€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à$500.00)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà à*à àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:óóÌÌJohn€T.€Conners,€IIIà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌCounsel€for€the€Appellantà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€Ì134€Riverwood€DriveÌFranklin,€TN€€37069à àà àà àKaren€M.€YacuzzoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Division€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkway€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMark€Puryearà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÇòòò òÑ7€e3XXdÈXXdæ7Ñà@ àOPINIONó óóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theft€overÏ$500.00.€€The€trial€court€imposed€concurrent,€range€I€sentences,€six€and€two€years,Ïrespectively.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏreview:€€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€the€defendant's€confession€toÏthe€police€was€not€the€fruit€of€an€unlawful€arrest,€and€(2)€€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€ruling€that€the€delay€in€the€prosecution€did€not€deny€the€defendant€aÏspeedy€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€April€6,€1993,€the€victim,€Kelly€Little,€returned€to€her€home€to€find€aÏburglary€in€progress.€€As€she€pulled€into€her€driveway,€she€saw€a€primer„grayÏpickup€truck€parked€by€her€door.€€She€described€the€truck€as€an€older„model,€GMCÏpickup.€€The€GMC€trademark€on€the€tailgate€was€a€distinct€red€with€raised€lettering.€ÏThere€was€a€temporary€Tennessee€license€tag€taped€in€the€back€window;€theÏexpiration€date€was€April€18.Ìà àÌà àà àUpon€her€arrival,€the€victim€saw€one€of€two€male€burglars€get€into€theÏpassenger€seat€of€the€truck.€€A€second€man€ran€from€the€back€door€of€her€residenceÏto€the€driver's€side€of€the€vehicle.€€The€vehicle€was€then€driven€through€the€victim'sÏback€yard€and€out€to€the€street.€€The€victim€followed€them€in€her€mini„van€for€a€shortÏwhile;€the€truck,€however,€was€driven€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€and€was€soon€out€ofÏher€sight.€ÌÌà àà àPolice,€who€arrived€at€the€scene€shortly€after€the€burglary,€wereÏunable€to€find€any€evidence€that€would€help€identify€the€burglars.€€The€victim,€whoÏclaimed€to€have€a€better€view€of€the€driver,€gave€police€a€general€description€of€theÏpassenger:€€white€male,€between€the€age€of€nineteen€and€twenty„two,€with€aÏmedium€to€dark€complexion,€and€dark,€stringy€hair,€cut€short€in€front€and€longer€inÏback.€€She€recalled€that€he€wore€a€dark€bandana€around€his€head,€a€dark€coloredÏT„shirt,€and€perhaps€blue€jeans.€€Based€upon€this€description,€the€defendant€wasÏsubsequently€apprehended€and€gave€a€statement€detailing€his€participation€in€theÏcrimes.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€in€this€appeal€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏsuppressed€the€confession€as€acquired€incident€to€an€unlawful€arrest.€€Because,Íhowever,€the€issue€was€not€presented€in€advance€of€trial€and€not€included€in€the€Ïmotion€for€new€trial,€it€has€been€waived€for€purposes€of€appeal.€€A€criminalÏdefendant€may€make€an€appeal€of€right€if€the€issue€"was€specifically€stated€in€aÏmotion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€3(e).€€Even€if€the€ground€could€have€been€addressed,€however,€it€would€notÏhave€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€his€arrest€was€unlawful€thus€tainting€anyÏconfession€he€made€afterward.€€The€state€insists€that€the€police€had€probableÏcause.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€it€was€established€that€some€three€days€afterÏthe€burglary,€in€response€to€a€traffic€violation,€Nashville€Metro€police€stopped€theÏdefendant€and€a€companion€in€Davidson€County€at€a€Kwik€Sak€ConvenienceÏMarket.€€The€officer€then€realized€the€two€men€fit€the€description€of€suspects€in€aÏWilliamson€County€crime€unrelated€to€the€burglary€of€the€victim's€residence€andÏcontacted€a€Detective€Boner.€€When€the€detective€arrived€at€the€scene,€heÏdetermined€that€these€men€and€their€vehicle€fit€the€descriptions€provided€by€JamesÏPettit.€€ÌÌà àà àDetective€Boner€then€contacted€Detectives€Barrett€and€Campsey,€whoÏhe€knew€were€investigating€the€Pettit€burglary.€€When€they€arrived€at€the€scene€ofÍthe€arrest,€they€noticed€that€the€bed€of€the€pickup€truck€was€primer„gray€and€that€theÏGMC€trademark€on€the€tailgate€was€raised€with€black€lettering.€€A€scratch€on€the€"G"Ïrevealed€red€paint€underneath.€€A€temporary€Tennessee€license€tag€was€taped€inÏthe€back€window€with€an€expiration€date€of€April€18,€1993.€€ÌÌà àà àAbout€two€and€a€half€hours€after€the€initial€stop,€Detectives€Barrett€andÏCampsey€took€the€defendant€and€his€companion€into€custody€and€transported€themÏto€the€Brentwood€police€station.€€While€there,€the€defendant€was€read€his€òòMirandaóóÏrights€twice.€€The€defendant€signed€a€waiver,€gave€a€statement,€and€wasÏphotographed€and€fingerprinted.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€propriety€of€the€conduct€of€theÏNashville€Metro€Police,€who€originally€detained€him.€€Nor€does€he€challenge€theÏconduct€of€Detective€Boner.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€did€notÏquestion€the€validity€of€the€stop€by€Davidson€County€officers.€€The€defendant€onlyÏchallenges€the€conduct€of€Detectives€Barrett€and€Campsey€who€made€the€arrest€forÏthe€Pettit€burglary.€€In€our€view,€the€record€establishes€that€the€arresting€officersÏacted€upon€probable€cause.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€fact€that€an€accused€has€been€unlawfully€arrested€only€becomesÏrelevant€when€any€evidence€tainted€thereby€is€sought€to€be€introduced€by€the€state.€ÏAn€illegal€warrantless€arrest€or€an€arrest€made€under€the€color€of€an€invalid€warrantÏhas€no€adverse€effect€upon€an€indictment€or€a€presentment€returned€by€a€grandÏjury€subsequent€to€the€arrest.€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€332€S.W.2d€662,€667€(Tenn.€1960);ÏòòNelson€v.€Stateóó,€470€S.W.2d€32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€Even€if€an€arrest€isÏillegal,€a€confession€which€follows€might€often€be€purged€of€the€primary€taint.€ÏòòDunaway€v.€New€Yorkóó,€442€U.S.€200€(1979);€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590€(1975);ÏòòState€v.€Chandleróó,€547€S.W.2d€918€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àà àIf€the€officers€had€probable€cause€to€arrest€the€defendant€then€the€Ïconfession€would€not€be€tainted.€€If€they€lacked€probable€cause,€the€confession€isÏnot€necessarily€a€fruit€of€an€illegal€arrest€and€it€requires€further€analysis.€€If€theÏarrest€was€illegal,€pretextual,€or€based€upon€inadequate€probable€cause,€the€rule€ofÏthe€poisonous€tree€doctrine€applies.€€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471Ï(1963).€€However,€an€incriminating€statement€may€be€admitted€anywayÔ% € Ô€if€voluntaryÏand€"sufficiently€an€act€of€free€will€to€purge€the€primary€taint."€€òòIdóó.€at€486.€€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings,€standing€alone,€do€not€always€purge€the€taint€of€an€illegal€arrest.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Chandleróó,€547€S.W.2d€918€(Tenn.€1977).€ÌÌà àà à€Probable€cause€has€been€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[W]hether€at€that€moment€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏwithin€their€knowledge€and€of€which€they€hadÏreasonably€trustworthy€information€were€sufficient€toÏwarrant€a€prudent€man€in€believing€that€the€petitionerÏhad€committed€...€an€offense.ÌÌÓÓòòBeck€v.€Ohioóó,€379€U.S.€89,€91€(1964).ÌÌà àà àThe€minimum€standard€for€arrests€is€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„103€(3),€which€provides€that€an€officer€may€make€a€warrantless€arrest€for€a€felonyÏwhen€"he€has€reasonable€cause€for€believing€the€person€arrested€...€committed€[theÏcrime]."€€Our€courts€make€little,€if€any,€distinction€between€the€terms€"reasonableÏcause"€and€"probable€cause"€in€determining€whether€there€exists€a€basis€for€anÏarrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€459€U.S.Ï1137€(1983).€€"If€there€is€'reasonable€cause'€under€the€statute€or€'probable€cause'Ïunder€either€œart.›€I,€ðð€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€or€the€fourth€amendment€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution,€the€arrest€is€lawful€...."€€òòDraper€v.€United€Statesóó,€358ÏU.S.€307,€310„11€(1959);€òòState€v.€Taysóó,€836€S.W.2d€596,€598„99€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992).€€In€1975,€our€supreme€court€defined€reasonable€or€probable€cause€forÏarrest:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€dealing€with€probable€cause,€one€deals€withÏprobabilities.€€These€are€not€technical;€they€are€theÍfactual€and€practical€considerations€of€everyday€life€onÏwhich€reasonable€and€prudent€men,€not€legalÏtechnicians,€act.ÌÓÓÓÓÌÓÓòòState€v.€Jeffersonóóòò,óó€529€S.W.2d€674,€689€(Tenn.1975).€ÌÌ€à àà àOnce€Detectives€Barrett€and€Campsey€arrived€at€the€scene,€theyÏconcluded€that€the€defendant€fit€the€victim's€description€of€the€passenger€in€theÏpickup€truck.€€His€vehicle€was€an€older„model€truck€and€had€a€temporaryÏTennessee€license€plate€with€the€identical€temporary€expiration€date€given€by€theÏvictim€in€this€offense.€€The€truck,€black€when€first€observed€by€the€arresting€officers,Ïappeared€to€have€a€fresh,€quick€coat€of€paint;€the€bed€of€the€pickup€was€primer„gray.€€These€circumstances,€in€our€view,€established€reasonable€and€probableÏcause€for€arrest€on€the€Pettit€burglary.€€In€our€opinion,€the€officers€had€reasonableÏcause€under€our€statute€and€probable€cause€under€either€constitution€to€make€theÏarrest.€€Because€officers€had€probable€cause€for€the€warrantless€arrest,€there€is€noÏmerit€to€the€argument€that€the€confession€is€the€fruit€of€an€illegal€arrest.ÌÌò òà@ àIIÌà àà àó óThe€second€issue,€that€he€was€denied€a€speedy€trial,€has€also€beenÏwaived.€€The€defendant€failed€to€include€his€claim€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€3(e).€€We€have€decided,€however,€to€address€this€issue€anyway.ÌÌà àšà àThe€preliminary€hearing€was€continued€three€times.€€While€theÏdefendant€testified€that€he€attended€every€setting,€the€warrant€indicates€he€mayÏhave€failed€to€appear€for€the€June€date.€€At€the€final€preliminary€hearing,€onÏSeptember€22,€1993,€the€prosecution€entered€a€voluntary€dismissal.€€FifteenÏmonths€later,€the€grand€jury€for€Williamson€County€returned€presentments€forÏaggravated€burglary€and€theft€over€$500.00.ÌÌà àà àBefore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€the€delay€betweenÏthe€offense€and€the€initiation€of€adversarial€proceedings,€the€accused€must€proveÏthat€(a)€there€was€a€delay,€(b)€the€accused€sustained€actual€prejudice€as€a€directÏand€proximate€result€of€the€delay,€and€(c)€the€state€caused€the€delay€in€order€toÏgain€tactical€advantage€over€or€to€harass€the€accused.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2dÏ250,€256€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€€€ÌÌÓÓÓÓà àà àThe€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€founded€in€the€constitution€of€Tennessee,Ïœart.›€1€ðð€9.€€This€same€right€has€been€codified€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„101Íwhich€provides:€€"In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€is€entitled€to€a€speedyÏtrial€...."€€In€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81€(Tenn.1973),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€adopted€a€four„factor€test€for€determining€whether€one€has€been€denied€hisÏright€to€a€speedy€trial.€€Adopting€a€test€first€established€in€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.Ï514€(1972),€our€court€identified€the€factors€asÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€length€of€the€delay;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€the€reason€for€the€delay;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€defendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€the€prejudice€which€accrued€to€the€defendant€as€aÏresult€of€the€delay.ÌÌòòÓÓBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84€(citing€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€at€530).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBarkeróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€"[t]he€length€ofÏthe€delay€is€to€some€extent€a€triggering€mechanism.€€Until€there€is€some€delayÏwhich€is€presumptively€prejudicial,€there€is€no€necessity€for€inquiry€into€the€otherÏfactors€that€go€into€the€balance."€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530.€€Here,€the€defendant€wasÏarrested€on€April€9,€1993.€€His€indictment€was€in€December€of€1994€and€his€trialÏwas€the€following€May.€€The€defendant€presented€no€evidence,€other€than€his€ownÏtestimony,€that€he€was€present€for€the€preliminary€hearings.€€There€is€little€whichÍsuggests€the€state€was€responsible€for€the€delay.€€No€reason€has€otherwise€beenÏshown.€€That€factor€would€also€weigh€against€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€asserted€his€right€to€speedy€trial€only€six€days€beforeÏtrial.€€This€was€approximately€five€months€after€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€ThisÏfactor€also€weighs€against€the€claim€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àPrejudice,€the€most€important€of€the€considerations,€is€assessed€in€theÏlight€of€three€interests€to€the€defendant:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€to€prevent€oppressive€pretrial€incarceration;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€to€minimize€anxiety€and€concern€of€the€accused;€€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€to€limit€the€possibility€that€the€defense€will€beÏimpaired.ÌÌòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defense€provided€no€proof€that€the€defendant€was€incarceratedÏfor€an€excessive€amount€of€time€in€advance€of€the€trial.€€To€the€contrary,€the€arrestÏwarrant€indicates€he€was€able€to€meet€his€conditions€of€pretrial€release.€€There€hasÏbeen€no€showing€of€anxiety€other€than€that€which€might€have€naturally€evolvedÏfrom€the€defendant's€other€pending€charges.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€claimed€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay€becauseÏhe€was€unable€to€serve€the€present€sentence€concurrently€with€his€other€sentences.€ÏThis€claim€is€untrue.€€The€defendant€was€on€parole€on€a€Texas€felony€whenÏarrested€in€this€state.€€The€record€indicates€the€defendant€was€arrested€for€anÏunrelated€theft€eight€days€before€his€arrest€in€this€case.€€The€defendant€wasÏarrested€on€another€aggravated€burglary€December€24,€1992,€four€months€beforeÏthese€charges.€€On€November€11,€1994,€he€was€charged€with€still€another€burglary.€ÏAll€three€arrests€led€to€convictions.€€ÌÌà àà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„20„111(b)€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€any€case€in€which€a€defendant€commits€a€felony€whileÏsuch€defendant€was€released€on€bail€...€and€theÏdefendant€is€convicted€of€both€such€offenses,€the€trialÏjudge€òòshall€not€have€discretion€as€to€whether€theÏsentences€shall€run€concurrently€or€cumulatively,€butÏshall€order€that€such€sentences€be€served€cumulativelyóó.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€defendant€did€not€qualify€for€a€concurrent€sentence€on€theÏ1992€charge.€€He€may€not€have€qualified€for€concurrent€sentences€on€the€1994Ïcharge.€€Thus,€there€is€little€to€suggest€any€delay€in€this€prosecution€bore€anyÏrelationship€to€the€imposition€of€concurrent€sentences.€€Because€the€defendant€wasÍnot€prejudiced€by€the€delay,€no€other€compelling€factors€would€suggest€otherwise,Ïhis€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€not€violated.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌL.T.€Lafferty,€Special€JudgeÌÓÓ