ÿWPC£ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñb 0‹ 0D“ × ß ç w ï ù 0J 0TK Ÿ 0^§ 0h 0rm 0|ß 0†[ 0á 1uq 0dæ BJ D3gU>šU *Ø 0@B)BDCk AM®èûÝãíÀv~­vÓ+ AOþÆM 0D D/W B†˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡R¦"½¬ @ d3|x - ù-(;(20$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÓ€2 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$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òMay€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€,ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€rescue€worker€testified€that€has€been€a€paramedic€for€over€ten€years€and€has€been€a€member€of€the€rescue€squadÏsince€1982.€€He€testified€that,€as€a€member€of€the€rescue€squad,€he€has€extracted€bodies€from€wrecked€cars€somewhere€betweenÏ300€to€500€times.Ô€,XÔÌ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ôÔÔ€,ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant's€presentence€report€indicates€that€he€has€been€arrested€and/or€convicted€for€the€following€crimes:€Ïrobbery,€aggravated€robbery,€possession€of€a€controlled€substance,€public€intoxication,€criminal€trespassing,€DUI,€assault€andÏbattery,€carrying€a€weapon€with€intent€to€go€armed,€reckless€driving,€evading€arrest,€several€moving€violations,€€and€severalÏparole€violations.€€It€should€be€noted€that€the€appellant€has€been€arrested€and/or€convicted€of€several€of€the€above€listed€crimes€onÏmore€than€one€occasion.€€€€Ô€,XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€01/A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€àQ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àà àMARCH€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cDÓà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€€œ03C01„9607„CR„00277›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)à àKnox€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)à àHonorable€Richard€R.€Baumgartner,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌDONALD€C.€LEE,ó óà à)à à(Felony€murder,€robbery,€recklessÌà àà à)€€€endangerment,€aggravated€assault,€andÏà àAppellant.à à)€€€vehicular€homicide)€€€€€€€€€€à àÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌLeslie€M.€Jeffressà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€Ì1776€Riverview€TowerÌ900€S.€Gay€Streetà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àGregory€H.€HarrisonÌà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCity„County€BuildingÌà à400€Main€Street,€P.O.€Box€1468Ìà àKnoxville,€TN€37901„1468ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€†XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÓ ` ¸ pÓò òÔ  Ôà àà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓÓÌÓ ` °§XÓà àThe€appellant,€Donald€C.€Lee,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€felony€murder,Ïrobbery,€reckless€endangerment,€aggravated€assault,€and€vehicular€homicide.€ÏHe€was€sentenced€to€life€for€the€felony€murder€conviction.€€This€sentence€wasÏordered€to€run€consecutively€to€the€37€years€he€received€on€the€otherÏconvictions.€€He€appeals€raising€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 à1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€felony€murderÏconviction;€€à8 àÌÌà8 à2)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€vehicularÏhomicide€conviction;ÌÌà8 à3)€whether€a€state€rebuttal€witness€was€properly€allowed€toÏexpress€his€opinion€regarding€the€driver€of€the€appellant's€vehicle;Ïand€ÌÌà8 à4)€whether€his€sentence€is€proper.€ÌÌÓÓUpon€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óThe€appellant€entered€the€Super„X€drug€store€in€Knoxville.€€He€forced€theÏpharmacist€to€open€the€safe€and€give€him€all€Schedule€II,€III,€and€IV€narcotics.€€AÏwitness€saw€him€leaving€the€pharmacy€in€a€white€truck.€€The€driver€of€the€whiteÏtruck€let€the€appellant€out€in€an€adjacent€parking€lot.€€The€police€immediatelyÏapprehended€the€driver.€€He€informed€the€police€that€the€appellant€left€in€aÏbrown€Ford€containing€one€passenger.€€Approximately€25€minutes€later€theÏappellant€was€spotted€by€the€police€and€a€high„speed€chase€ensued.€€In€anÏeffort€to€get€away,€the€appellant€struck€the€side€of€the€police€car.€€He€erraticallyÏcut€in€front€of€other€motorists.€€He€slammed€on€his€brakes€causing€the€police€carÏto€slam€into€the€rear€of€his€car.€€The€appellant€eventually€swerved€into€theÏoncoming€lane€of€traffic€and€struck€a€Jeep.€€The€appellant's€passenger€and€theÏdriver€of€the€Jeep€were€killed€in€the€head„on€collision.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI€ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€his€first€issue€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficientÏto€support€a€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€He€argues€that€the€killing€of€the€victimÏdid€not€occur€during€the€perpetration€of€the€robbery.€€€He€claims€that€he€hadÏsuccessfully€completed€the€robbery€and€made€a€successful€getaway€when€theÏpolice€chase€ensued.€€We€disagree.€Ìà àÌà àThe€purpose€of€Tennessee's€felony€murder€statute€is€to€prevent€the€deathÏof€innocent€persons€likely€to€occur€during€the€commission€of€certain€inherentlyÏdangerous€felonies.€€The€applicable€statute€reads€in€pertinent€part:€€ÌÓÓà8 àFirst€degree€murder.€(a)€First€degree€murder€is€defined€as:ÌÌà à(2)€€A€reckless€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€orÏà8 àattempt€to€perpetrate€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,Ïburglary,€theft,€kidnaping€or€aircraft€piracy.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1991).€€The€appellant's€contention€isÏsimply€that€the€robbery€had€been€completed€when€he€collided€with€the€JeepÏcausing€the€death€of€its€driver.€€We€note€that€the€protraction€of€events€over€timeÏand€distance€accentuate€the€problem€of€determining€whether€the€underlyingÏfelony€had€reached€completion€before€the€death€occurred.€€However,€otherÏjurisdictions€have€held€that€a€person€is€engaged€in€the€commission€orÏperpetration€of€a€robbery€while€the€criminal€is€trying€to€escape€with€the€propertyÏtaken€in€such€robbery.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€227€So.€2d€873€(Fla.€1969).€€FactorsÏto€be€considered€in€determining€whether€there€has€been€a€break€in€the€chain€ofÏcircumstances€include€the€relationship€between€the€underlying€felony€and€theÏhomicide€in€point€of€time,€place,€and€causation.€€One€commentator€suggests€thatÏin€the€case€of€flight,€the€most€important€consideration€is€whether€the€fleeingÏfelon€has€reached€a€"place€of€temporary€safety."€€LaFave,€Substantive€CriminalÏLaw,€ðð€7.5€(1986).€€We€also€note€that€the€determination€of€whether€the€act€ofÏescape€or€flight€is€a€continuous€part€of€the€accomplished€crime€or€whether€theÏdefendant€has€reached€a€place€of€temporary€safety€is€a€question€for€the€trier€ofÏfact.€€òòSeeóó€òòCommonwealth€v.€Delleloóó,€209€N.E.2d€303€(Mass.€1965).ÌÌà àIn€this€case€the€appellant€was€spotted€by€a€police€officer€approximatelyÏ25€minutes€after€the€robbery€occurred.€€The€appellant,€in€his€brief,€states€that€heÏand€his€accomplice€planned€to€rendezvous€and€split€up€the€fruits€of€the€robbery.€ÏWe€find€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€find,€and€indeed€did€find,€that€theÏhomicide€occurred€in€furtherance€of€the€robbery.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicatesÏthat€the€appellant€had€reached€a€place€of€temporary€safety.€€The€homicide€wasÏclearly€a€result€of€the€high„speed€chase€necessitated€by€the€appellant's€attemptÏto€flee€the€area€of€the€crime.€€€It€is€a€legitimate€and€logical€assumption€that€oneÏwho€plans€a€robbery€and€carries€it€out€has€also€planned€to€escape€from€theÏscene€of€the€crime.€€His€flight€is€an€integral€part€of€the€crime.€€Since€asportationÏis€an€element€of€robbery,€the€felony€is€still€in€progress€while€the€defendant€isÏfleeing€from€the€scene€with€the€stolen€property.€€€€We€find€the€evidence€sufficientÏto€support€the€appellant's€felony€murder€conviction.€€€€€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIIÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€he€cannot€be€convicted€of€vehicularÏassault€because€there€was€insufficient€proof€that€he€was€the€driver€of€theÏvehicle.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àJury€verdicts€accredit€state's€witnesses€and€resolve€all€evidentiaryÏconflicts€in€the€state's€favor.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.Í1983);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€state€is€entitled€to€both€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€When€appellants€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€this€Court€must€only€determine€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€inÏa€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€a€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698ÏS.W.2d€63€(Tenn.€1985).€Ìà àÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€vehicle€was€registered€to€the€appellant.€€AtÏtrial€two€police€officers€testified€that€they€observed€the€appellant€driving€theÏvehicle€during€the€high€speed€chase.€€Also,€an€uninterested€motorist€identifiedÏthe€appellant€as€the€driver€of€the€car.€€Finally,€a€member€of€the€rescue€squadÏtestified.€€He€stated€that€when€he€arrived€on€the€scene€the€appellant's€car€wasÏfound€resting€on€the€driver's€side€door.€€The€appellant's€right€foot€was€entangledÏin€the€driver€side€floorboard,€and€he€was€trapped€behind€the€steering€wheelÏunderneath€the€other€passenger€in€the€car.€€Ìà àÌà àBased€upon€the€evidence€supplied€by€several€witnesses,€a€rational€trierÏof€fact€could€have€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€driving€the€vehicle€when€theÏdeadly€collision€occurred.€€We€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€theÏappellant's€conviction€for€vehicular€assault.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIIIÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€rebuttalÏtestimony€of€a€rescue€squad€worker€in€the€form€of€opinion€testimony.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€rescue€worker€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert€in€accident€reconstructionÏand€should€not€have€been€allowed€to€give€his€opinion.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial€the€appellant€attempted€to€defend€the€vehicular€assault€charge€byÏproving€that€he€was€not€driving€the€Ford€when€the€collision€occurred.€€In€rebuttal,Ïthe€state€called€the€member€of€the€rescue€squad€that€extracted€the€appellantÏfrom€the€wreckage.€€The€witness€testified€that€he€had€years€of€experience€inÏremoving€individuals€from€wrecked€vehicles.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€He€testified€regarding€theÏpositions€of€the€bodies€in€the€appellant's€car€and€the€process€of€removal.€€HeÏthen€gave€his€opinion€that€the€appellant€had€been€driving€the€car.€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€is€ambiguous€as€to€whether€the€trial€judge€considered€theÏrescue€worker€to€be€an€expert.€€It€does€reveal€that€he€considered€the€appellant'sÏobjection€and€allowed€the€rescue€worker€to€state€his€opinion.€€We€think€thisÏdecision€was€proper.ÌÌà àThis€Court€finds€that,€had€the€proper€procedures€been€followed,€theÏrescue€worker€would€have€qualified€as€an€expert.€€His€extensive€experience,Ïskill,€and€training€qualified€him€to€testify€in€this€capacity.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€ÏHowever,€regardless€of€his€status€as€a€expert€or€lay€witness,€his€testimony€wasÏproper.€€His€testimony€was€rationally€based€on€his€perception€and€was€helpful€toÏgain€a€clear€understanding€of€his€testimony.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701(a).€€ÏFurthermore,€we€note,€that€if€there€was€error€regarding€this€testimony,€it€wasÏharmless.€€The€state€produced€three€other€witnesses€that€testified€that€theÏappellant€was€the€driver€of€the€vehicle.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIVÌÓ  Óà àó óÌà àIn€his€final€issue€the€appellant€contends€that€his€sentences€are€excessive.€ÏHe€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€factors€and€improperlyÏran€the€sentences€consecutively.€€ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àWhen€a€sentencing€issue€is€appealed,€this€Court€shall€conduct€a€òòde€novoóóÏreview€with€the€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€correct.€€òòState€v.ÏByrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ìà àThe€appellant€was€classified€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114(1),€(2),€and€(13)€enhancement€factorsÏapplied€to€all€of€the€appellant's€convictions.€€The€appellant€offered€no€mitigationÏevidence.€€Our€review€of€the€record€suggests€that€none€exists.€€After€carefulÍconsideration,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€principles€of€sentencing.€ÏThe€sentences€imposed€were€proper.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ò òÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àó óRegarding€the€issue€of€consecutive€sentences,€the€record€reveals€that€theÏtrial€court€found€the€appellant's€record€of€criminal€activity€to€be€extensive.€× ƒ3 ××  ×€€TheÏtrial€court€also€found€that€the€appellant€was€clearly€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€crimes€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€Furthermore,€theÏappellant€was€on€parole€when€he€committed€these€crimes.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€society€needs€protection€from€the€appellant.€€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€interpreted€and€applied€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€40„35„115€in€ordering€theÏappellant's€sentences€consecutively.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAfter€carefully€considering€the€appellant's€issues,€we€find€no€error€of€lawÏmandating€reversal.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€ò òÌÌÌÌÌÌà àÌÓÓó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€Judge