ÿWPCB …# VU:a %› 0(¡w|É4E Y U.h 0”– 0D* n 0Jv 0TÀ 0^ 0hr 0rÚ 0|L 0†È 0N 1uÞ U,S 0dU,ãB) B8DCU AM˜èå Ív~Ù D3WvÓŠ 0@] AOÆì 0D² D/ö B%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡âãDäåEæç{èéDêëDìíDîïDð)eñòóDôeõÓ€ypÑ ÔÔô3|x%ä2¼A`ArialTT(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJuly€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€filed€three€appellate€briefs€in€this€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßL€&'%;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03„C„01„9503„CR„00107Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)à àCarter€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌDANIEL€G.€HAMPTON,à àà àà à)à à(DUI,€Driving€on€a€RevokedÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€License,€and€Violation€ofÌà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)à à€Implied€Consent€Law)ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÓÓDaniel€G.€Hampton,€òòproóó€òòseóóà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌRoute€8,€Box€1885à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌElizabethton,€TN€37643à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDarian€B.€TaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€E.€CrockettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRoute€19,€Box€99Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnson€City,€TN€37601ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSteven€R.€FinneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCarter€County€Courthouse€AnnexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àElizabethton,€TN€37643ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òÇÑ7€¯ÞXXdæXXdæ7ÑØØÙ  Ù€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óà àThe€appellant,€Daniel€G.€Hampton,€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence,Ïsecond€offense,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€two€counts€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license,ÏClass€B€misdemeanors,€and€violation€of€the€implied€consent€law€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€ÏThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€theÏCarter€County€€Jail€with€all€but€seventy€days€suspended€for€the€driving€under€theÏinfluence,€second€offense;€six€months€suspended€in€the€Carter€County€Jail€for€drivingÏon€a€revoked€license€on€April€9,€1994€which€was€ordered€to€run€concurrently€with€theÏother€sentences;€and€six€months€in€the€Carter€County€Jail€with€all€but€twenty€daysÏsuspended€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€on€April€1,€1994€which€was€ordered€to€runÏconsecutively€to€the€driving€under€the€influence,€second€offense€conviction.€Ìà àThe€appellant€appeared€òòproóó€òòseóó€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€In€this€Court,€theÏappellant€contends€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€insufficient,€as€a€matterÏof€law,€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€He€challenges€the€authority€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€toÏconduct€roadblocks.€€He€claims€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€a€trial€by€aÏjury.€€Finally,€the€appellant€claims€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial.€€After€a€thorough€review€ofÏthe€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€these€issues,€this€Court€is€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€convictions€and€sentences€should€be€affirmed.ÌÌò òà@ àFACTSÌÌà àó óOn€the€evening€of€April€9,€1994,€the€appellant€was€stopped€at€a€TennesseeÏHighway€Patrol€roadblock€in€Elizabethton,€Tennessee.€€The€appellant€had€bloodshotÏeyes,€an€odor€of€an€intoxicating€beverage€on€his€breath,€and€his€speech€was€ð ðjust€aÏlittle€bit€slurred.ðð€€An€alcohol€detection€device€called€a€passive€alcohol€sensorÏindicated€a€strong€presence€of€alcohol€coming€from€the€appellantððs€vehicle.€€TheÏsensor€indicated€that€the€sample€of€air€was€.10€or€above.€€Tennessee€Highway€PatrolÏOfficer€Glover€administered€field€sobriety€tests.€€The€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€testÏresulted€in€nystagmus€during€smooth€pursuit€and€at€maximum€deviation€with€the€angleÏof€onset€at€approximately€45€degrees.€€While€performing€the€HGN€test,€the€appellantÏwas€unsteady€on€his€feet.€€He€swayed€back€and€forth.€€He€refused€to€perform€the€one„leg„stand€test€and€the€walk„and„turn€test€due€to€an€alleged€pulled€hamstring€muscle€inÏhis€leg.€€Based€upon€his€observations€and€training,€Trooper€Glover€believed€theÏappellant€was€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€read€the€implied€consent€form.€€He€advised€the€state€trooperÏthat€he€would€not€submit€to€a€chemical€breath€test.€€The€appellantððs€refusal€to€submit€toÏa€breath€test€was€admitted€at€trial.ò ò€€ó óAppellant€signed€a€written€waiver€of€his€right€to€anÏattorney€and€voluntarily€and€knowingly€exercised€his€right€to€self„representation.ò òÌà àó óÌà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCE€FOR€DRIVING€ON€A€REVOKEDÏLICENSEó óÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÍ"to€support€the€finding€of€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÍdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€support€aÏguilty€verdict€on€the€charges€of€driving€a€motor€vehicle€after€his€driverððs€license€wasÏrevoked€because€(1)€the€state€could€not€revoke€his€license€when€he€consciously€let€theÏlicense€expire,€and€(2)€he€did€not€have€the€criminal€intent€to€violate€the€law€because€heÏwas€unaware€that€his€driverððs€license€had€been€revoked.Ìà àThe€custodian€of€the€Tennessee€State€Driving€Records€for€the€Department€ofÏHighway€Safety€in€Nashville€testified€that€the€appellantððs€license€was€revoked€on€JuneÏ17,€1986.€€The€appellantððs€license€was€on€revoked€status€when€he€committed€theÏoffenses.Ìà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€makes€it€illegal€for€any€person€to€drive€aÏmotor€vehicle€on€any€public€road€ð ðwhen€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€canceled,Ïsuspended,€or€revoked.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„102€(42)€defines€ð ðRevocation€ofÏdriver€licenseðð€as€ð ðthe€termination€.€.€.€of€a€personððs€driver€license€or€privilege€toÏoperate€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€public€highways.ðð€€Here,€the€appellant€intended€to€driveÏhis€car€knowing€that€his€right€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€had€been€terminated€by€theÏstate.€€The€fact€that€appellant€did€not€know€or€understand€that€the€law€proscribed€theÏconduct€he€intentionally€undertook€provides€no€legal€excuse.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899ÏS.W.2d€175,€182€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,Ï894€S.W.2d€320€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òLEGALITY€OF€THE€ROADBLOCKó óÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12€(b)(3)€requires€that€all€motions€to€suppress€be€filed€prior€toÏthe€day€of€the€trial.€€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1084,€109€S.Ct.€1541,€103€L.Ed.2d€845€(1989).€€The€appellant€filed€aÏmotion€to€œ›suppressœ›€on€September€22,€1994,€prior€to€the€September€27,€1994€trial.€ÏHowever,€appellant€did€not€get€a€motion€date€for€a€suppression€hearing€on€the€motion.€ÏRather,€appellant€wanted€his€motion€heard€on€the€day€of€trial.€€The€trial€court€informedÏthe€appellant€that€he€was€required€to€schedule€a€hearing€so€the€motion€could€be€heardÏprior€to€trial.€€As€such,€the€appellant€has€waived€this€issue.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(f);ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€€An€accused€who€validly€asserts€his€constitutional€right€toÏrepresent€himself€does€so€at€his€own€peril.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€835„36,Ï95€S.Ct.€2525,€2541,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975).€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€considered€the€motion€to€suppress€while€the€jury€was€excused.€ÏAppellantððs€motion€to€suppress€raised€the€following€issue:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àDefendantððs€Fourth€Amendment€rights€were€violated€due€toÏan€unconstitutional/unlawful€stop€by€said€named€officer,Ïwithout€probable/reasonable€cause€in€a€ð ðD.U.I.€SobrietyÏCheckpoint€Roadblockðð.€€Defendant€also€holds€that€aÏTennessee€Statute€granting€authorization€for€such€anÏunlawful€stop€does€not€exist.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion.ò òÌà àó óThe€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,€with€the€help€of€local€officers,€was€conducting€aÏroadblock€as€part€of€a€program€called€ð ðCheckpoint€Tennessee,ðð€which€is€sponsored€byÏthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety.€€The€officers€stopped€all€vehicles€travelingÏtowards€and€traveling€away€from€Elizabethton€on€Highway€67.€€Once€stopped,€theÏofficers€checked€the€driversðð€licenses,€vehicle€registration,€and€looked€for€signs€ofÏintoxication.€€If€there€was€no€indication€that€the€driver€had€been€drinking€and€the€driverÏhad€a€valid€driverððs€license€and€registration,€he€or€she€was€allowed€to€drive€away.€ÏHowever,€if€the€officer€developed€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€the€driver€had€beenÏdrinking,€he€or€she€was€detained€for€investigation€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€Ìà àThe€appellant€alleges€that€roadblocks€are€illegal€because€they€are€conductedÏwithout€a€suspicion€of€wrong„doing.€€However,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€hasÏheld€that€such€stops€do€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€òòMichigan€Dept.€of€StateÏPolice€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444,€110€S.Ct.€2481,€110€L.Ed.2d€412€(1990).€€Article€I,€SectionÏ7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€is€interpreted€no€differently€than€the€FourthÏAmendment€in€the€context€of€suspicionless€roadblock€stops.€€òòState€v.€Sarah€HuttonÏDowneyóó,€Hamilton€County€No.€03„C„01„9307„CR„00221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏOctober€10,€1995),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.,€April€1,€1996).€€Given€the€strong€interest€ofÏthe€state€in€preventing€drunk€driving,€the€minimal€intrusion€imposed€on€individualsÏstopped€in€this€roadblock,€and€the€lack€of€officer€discretion€in€deciding€which€vehiclesÏto€stop,€this€roadblock€did€not€violate€the€Tennessee€or€United€States€Constitutions.Ìà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€no€law€exists€which€authorizes€the€HighwayÏPatrol€to€conduct€these€roadblocks.€€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€Officers€have€theÏstatutory€duty€€to€enforce€all€laws€regulating€the€use€of€Tennessee€Highways.€€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€4„7„104.€€This€would€obviously€include€laws€against€drunk€driving.€€ThereÏare€no€laws€prohibiting€the€use€of€roadblocks€for€drunk€driving€detection.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ àò òNOTICE€OF€THE€CHARGESó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€complains€that€despite€repeated€requests€of€the€trial€court€and€theÏassistant€district€attorney€general,€he€was€never€offered€laws€or€statutes€to€inform€himÏof€€ð ðthe€nature€and€cause€of€the€accusations.ðð€€Based€on€the€transcript€of€theÏproceedings,€the€appellantððs€main€complaint€is€that€when€the€trial€court€denied€hisÏmotions€to€suppress€and€to€dismiss,€it€did€not€cite€an€exact€statute€or€case€law€that€theÏappellant€was€charged€with€violating.€€Ìà àThe€transcript€indicates€that€the€appellant€was€furnished€with€a€copy€of€theÏindictment€which€contained€all€of€the€charges€against€him€prior€to€trial.€€Each€countÏidentified€the€specific€statute€the€appellant€was€charged€with€violating.€€A€review€of€theÏindictments€indicates€adequate€notice€of€the€charges€facing€the€appellant.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Mayesóó,€854€S.W.2d€638,€640€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Sowderóó,€826€S.W.2d€924,€928Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€229,€126€L.Ed.2d€184Ï(1993).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òRIGHT€TO€WAIVE€A€TRIAL€BY€JURYó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€required€him€to€be€tried€by€a€jury€overÏhis€objection.€€The€only€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€appellant€waived€his€right€€to€aÏtrial€by€jury€appears€at€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€appellant€recalled€that€at€hisÏarraignment€he€ð ðsimply€made€the€statement€that€[he]€did€not€feel€a€jury€was€necessaryððÏand€was€then€told€by€the€judge€ð ð[w]eððre€going€to€have€a€trial€by€jury.ðð€€The€court€did€notÏremember€this€conversation.€€The€appellant€admitted€that€he€never€filed€a€writtenÏmotion€to€waive€the€jury€trial.€€The€record€supports€this€assertion.€€Absent€a€writtenÏwaiver€of€the€right€to€a€trial€by€jury,€the€court€must€provide€a€trial€by€jury.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€23(a);€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€814€S.W.2d€353,€359€(Tenn.€1991)€(citing€òòState€v.€Dursoóó,€645ÏS.W.2d€753,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)).€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òDUE€PROCESSÌÌà àó óThe€appellant€claims€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because€he€did€not€know€theÏtrial€would€start€the€same€day€the€jury€was€selected.€€However,€the€record€does€notÏcontain€a€defense€motion€for€continuance.€€Nor€does€the€record€indicate€that€theÏappellantððs€lack€of€preparation€was€brought€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court.€ÏAppellantððs€brief,€which€was€€filed€on€November€17,€1995,× ƒ( ××  ×€indicates€that€he€did€notÏpresent€a€defense€in€the€trial€court€because€he€mistakenly€believed€he€could€introduceÏfacts€in€this€Court.€€This€issue€is€therefore€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.ÏMcPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);ÍòòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€€v.€Thomasóó,€818ÏS.W.2d€350,€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1991).€Ìà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€his€trial€was€fundamentally€unfair€because€theÏtrial€court€refused€to€consider€the€law€cited€in€the€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€As€aÏresult,€the€appellant€chose€to€ð ðstand€muteðð€during€the€trial.€€Ìà àThe€appellantððs€decision€to€ð ðstand€muteðð€during€the€trial€was€a€knowing€andÏvoluntary€choice.€€The€appellant€was€not€denied€the€opportunity€to€present€his€case,Ïcross„examine€witnesses,€or€appeal€the€judgeððs€rulings€of€law.€€Moreover,€theÏappellant€executed€a€written€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel.€€The€appellant€felt€it€in€hisÏbest€interest€to€represent€himself€even€after€all€the€verdicts€in€this€case€except€theÏsecond€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€were€returned.€€The€following€colloquyÏtook€place€in€regards€to€additional€charges€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:à0 à[Y]ou€have€the€„„€the€same€three€choicesÏregarding€representing€yourself,€hiring€anÏattorney,€or€asking€the€Court€to€appoint€you€anÏattorney€as€we€„„€as€I€explained€the€last€time.€.€.Ï.€[W]hat€do€you€want€to€do€in€that€caseÏregarding€a€lawyer?ÌÌà8 àà8 àAppellant:à0 àRepresent€myself.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:à0 àAnd,€state€for€the€record€why€you€want€to€doÏthat.ÌÌà8 àà8 àAppellant:à0 àI€feel€itððs€my€best€interest.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:à0 à[A]re€you€still€under€the€belief€what€you€told€meÏabout€Abraham€Lincoln?ÌÌà8 àà8 àAppellant:à0 àOh,€I€still€believe€that.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:à0 àWhat€„„€what€did€Mr.€Lincoln€say?ÌÌà8 àà8 àAppellant:à0 àHe€said,€anyone€who€has€a€„„€anyone€whoÏrepresents€himself€in€a€court€of€law€has€a€foolÏfor€a€client,€and€Abraham€Lincoln€was€anÏattorney.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court:à0 àThis€is€true.€€So,€you€understand€that€„„€thatÏyou€are€„„€are€held€to€all€of€the€technicalÏknowledge€„„€Rules€of€Evidence,€Rules€ofÏProcedure€that€„„€that€a€lawyer€would€be?ÌÌà8 àà0 àAppellant:à0 àYes,€sir.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€took€extra€precautions€to€assure€a€fair€trial.€€The€court€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóóÏexcluded€testimony€elicited€by€the€state€that€was€objectionable.€€In€short,€the€appellantÏwas€not€denied€a€fair€trial.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌ€€€€€€€€€€€JOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌ€€€€€€€DAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌ