ÿWPC¢ ŽŒÚz·U|·¬8+¶@¸rc” tõéJ9ãçZ=‹öXÔÚØù¾ó“Ñ<ÉúpÂŒëÙª éN Ý —9%¹Q£'r½\&—Õ?ÅÜê󣫧ä½ÓJâ^*‘^Ëa*»ÀPÝ*(4/bp©Ÿ%ˆòcdï“ÕtÚ1}Ãñx—Ì??¤¢-ÙzåÙCñâ 0- @§^qý&bÅüû)ýõîaºæŒôö‡ÖlÎbÇë°'÷ôŠËË¡Ž “jf2¢‰\&uÎbj ¢iüòÆÏì¾äÑ–0ƒ1vÑ‘ý¤âñ> F50Ó-t'/1æR|0]ÛM·zûØ@žà’vÛîhÒ%žüRVù÷;¸ÔŠš<n®_2à[ã|p¡*ÀQÑgJ2 ØsRÚŒ´ IP$Ö+µÕ#å\iù$Žz xÂÉW”ÜÍÑO±šx½GûL’êÔ’T3ì ü™º%*hí›aošˆžé\ä×ï±ü×¼-LTÓ7W¬YfìL4öHÔÐQÌyàMûøNîG†åâRÆLB_Q#ţÄbdcêø¾Ö¶&âMk„·2ì¦ÇzXÞÛâ€×CæÞ-‚˜÷ílbUMÿ9V–q¿L$¾}?éèòåÅb %\U@b 0Ÿ¢UNA^ w›4Ÿ z³Ò- ÿ  m #Á' Æè Æ® Æt Æ::NE D1 B5555555bRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 0ZZZZ B\\ 0»y D34 D-g 0K”” AS߯2 0»ø 0D³ A«÷»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (w·$¡¡Ñ8€XùXXdì»»d8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularkó(L ¬sp'¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5'')÷ÿ! dxdxüÿP Pd- ù-(“G2±b$¤¤Ý ƒ·!ÝÑ8€tÜXXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XtÜX»»Ô d(“3²‘$££Ý ƒ·!ÝÑ8€tÜXXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3²‘$¢¢Ý ƒ·!ÝÑ8€tÜXXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ·!ÝÑ8€tÜXXdædÈ8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ€¼ð»»»Ôà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ ¾ ÐÔ‡XtÜX»¼ðÔÌò òÔ#†¼ð»XXtÜX#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€Ô_ÔDESHAWNÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcCLENTONÔ_ÔÔ‡XtÜX»¼ðÔó óÐ ² ÐÓžÓÌà@0 0 ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ ¦ ö Ðà@· · ìàNo.€98„02226,27€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeˆÐ Œ Ü ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<= ` A߈Ð > Ž  ÐÌà@¨ ¨ ìàNo.€W1999„00879„CCA„R3„CD€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Decided€July€11,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР3ƒ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO  Ðó óÌÓÓÓÓThe€Defendant,€Ô_ÔDeShawnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcClentonÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€of€the€offenses€ofÐ ôD  Ðaggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€DefendantÐ Ú*  Ðas€a€career€offender€to€thirty€years€imprisonment€for€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€and€to€sixtyÐ À Ðyears€imprisonment€for€the€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€conviction,€with€the€sentences€to€beÐ ¦ö Ðserved€consecutively.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€Defendant€argues€(1)€that€the€evidence€regardingÐ ŒÜ Ðhis€identity€as€the€perpetrator€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions,€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ r Ðin€ruling€that€his€prior€aggravated€robbery€conviction€and€his€three€prior€attempted€second€degreeÐ X¨ Ðmurder€convictions€were€admissible€to€impeach€his€credibility€if€he€chose€to€testify,€and€(3)€that€theÐ >Ž Ðmovement€and€confinement€of€the€victim€were€essentially€incidental€to€the€accomplishment€of€theÐ $t Ðaggravated€robbery€and€were€therefore€insufficient€to€support€a€separate€conviction€for€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€Ð  Z ÐWe€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð ð@ ÐÓ‚ÓÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right.€€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ ¼  ÐÌòòWelles,€J.Ô#†¼ð»àXtÜ#ÔÔ‡XtÜX.¼ðÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHayes,€J.,óó€and€òòGlenn,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌA.C.€Wharton,€Public€Defender,€Garland€Ô_ÔErgudenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Memphis,€Tennessee,Ð T¤ Ðfor€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔDeShawnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcClentonÔ_Ô.Ð : Š  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð "V" ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General,€Jennifer€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€forÐ ì"<# Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ò#"$ ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ð»XXtÜó #ԈРž%î & ÐÌà  àÔ€XtÜX»¼ðÔThe€Defendant,€Ô_ÔDeShawnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcClentonÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€after€a€jury€trial€of€the€offenses€ofÐ ’'â"( Ðaggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€he€raises€theÐ x(È#) Ðfollowing€three€issues:€€(1)€whether€the€evidence€of€the€Defendant's€identity€as€the€culprit€isÐ ^)®$* Ðsufficient€to€permit€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€him€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(2)€whetherÐ D*”%+ Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€Defendant's€prior€convictions€of€one€aggravated€robbery€andÐ *+z&, Ðthree€attempted€second€degree€murders€were€admissible€for€impeachment€if€the€Defendant€chose€toÐ ,`'- Ðtestify;€and€(3)€whether€the€movement€and€confinement€of€the€victim€were€essentially€incidental€toÐ ö,F(. Ðthe€accomplishment€of€the€aggravated€robbery€and€therefore€insufficient€to€support€a€separateÐ Ü-,)/ýÐ ÐÔ_Ôconviction€for€kidnapping.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€court€below;€accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ ° Ðof€the€trial€court.Ð –æ ÐÌà  àThe€proof€at€trial€established€that€on€the€morning€of€September€8,€1997,€Hazel€Valentine€andÐ b² ÐFloria€McCollough€were€readying€the€Jackson€Avenue€Mrs.€Winner's€Restaurant€for€opening.€Ð H˜ ÐAround€5:15€a.m.,€the€two€women€heard€a€noise€as€a€brick€crashed€through€the€drive„thru€window.€Ð . ~ ÐMs.€McCollough,€who€was€working€in€the€front€area,€turned€to€look€at€the€window,€and€she€saw€aÐ  d Ðblack€man€with€a€silver€gun€trying€to€enter€the€restaurant€through€the€drive„thru€window.€€The€manÐ ú J Ðhad€a€blue€bandana€covering€the€lower€half€of€his€face.€€Realizing€that€a€robbery€was€occurring,€theÐ à 0 Ðtwo€women€ran€from€the€restaurant€and€beat€on€the€door€of€the€Wendy's€restaurant€next€door,€butÐ Æ   Ðthey€were€not€heard€from€inside.€€They€then€ran€to€a€nearby€Amoco€gas€station,€but€the€clerk€wouldÐ ¬ ü  Ðnot€let€them€in.€€While€at€the€Amoco,€the€women€noticed€that€the€robber€had€gotten€into€his€van€andÐ ’â  Ðwas€driving€towards€them.€€They€began€to€run€in€different€directions,€and€then€Ms.€Valentine€lostÐ xÈ  Ðher€balance€and€fell.€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àBy€this€time,€the€man€had€arrived€at€the€Amoco€in€his€van.€€He€got€out€of€his€van€and€grabbedÐ *z  ÐMs.€Valentine€by€the€back€of€the€shirt,€dragging€her€and€causing€her€to€injure€her€arms€and€knees.€Ð ` ÐHe€pointed€the€gun€at€her€and€told€her€to€"[g]et€up€and€get€in€the€van€or€I'll€kill€you€right€here€andÐ öF Ðnow."€€He€put€Ms.€Valentine€in€the€van€and€drove€her€back€to€Mrs.€Winner's,€telling€her€that€heÐ Ü, Ðwanted€her€to€unlock€the€store€and€open€the€safe.€€At€gunpoint,€the€man€forced€Ms.€Valentine€to€openÐ Â Ðthe€safe€in€the€restaurant.€€He€then€told€her€to€lie€on€the€floor,€which€she€did.€€After€he€fled€throughÐ ¨ø Ðthe€back€door€with€the€money,€Ms.€Valentine€got€up€and€went€back€over€to€the€Amoco€station.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àWhen€the€police€arrived,€Ms.€Valentine€was€able€to€give€a€description€of€the€man.€€She€saidÐ Zª Ðat€trial€that€she€told€the€police€he€was€a€black€male€of€medium€weight.€€At€first€she€testified€that€theÐ @ Ðman€was€five€feet€two€inches€or€five€feet€three€inches€in€height;€then€in€her€next€sentence€sheÐ &v Ðclarified,€stating,€"I'm€sorry€it€was€anywhere€from€a€five€feet,€you€know,€on€„„€you€know,€height,€andÐ  \ ÐI€told€them€from€a€five€to€like€a€six€one,€you€know,€in€between€there."€€She€said€that€the€man's€hairÐ òB Ðwas€"going€back."€€She€indicated€that€she€could€identify€the€person€even€though€he€was€wearing€aÐ Ø( Ðbandana€on€the€lower€portion€of€his€face€because€she€saw€the€upper€part€of€his€face,€she€saw€his€eyes,Ð ¾ Ðand€she€heard€his€voice.€€A€few€days€later,€Ms.€Valentine€went€to€the€police€station€to€view€a€line„up.€Ð ¤ô ÐShe€identified€the€Defendant€as€the€perpetrator€based€on€his€physical€appearance€and€his€voice.€€SheÐ Š Ú Ðalso€identified€the€Defendant€at€trial€based€on€his€appearance€and€his€voice.€€She€testified€that€thereÐ p!À  Ðwas€"no€doubt€at€all"€in€her€mind€that€the€Defendant€was€the€person€who€robbed€her€at€Mrs.Ð V"¦! ÐWinner's.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àFloria€McCollough€was€unable€to€identify€the€Defendant€as€the€perpetrator,€but€she€describedÐ %X $ Ðhim€as€a€short,€dark„skinned€man,€who€was€about€five€feet€six€inches€or€five€feet€seven€inches€inÐ î%>!% Ðheight.€€However,€she€said€that€she€was€"just€kind€of€guessing"€about€his€height€because€she€couldÐ Ô&$"& Ðonly€see€parts€of€him€through€the€drive„thru€window.€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àTracy€Loyd,€the€clerk€at€the€Amoco€station,€did€positively€identify€the€Defendant€in€court.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐShe€said€that€she€"remember[ed]€him€plain€as€day€just€like€it€was€yesterday."€€Ms.€Loyd€describedÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âhim€as€"short"€and€€said€that€his€hair€was€"just€like€he€got€it€now,€but€it€was€back€like€a€little€slickÐ R+¢&+ Ðlike€with€Jherri„curls.€€He€had€like€a€little€ponytail€at€the€back."€€She€explained€that€by€"Jherri„curl"Ð ° Ðshe€meant€his€hair€was€"kinda€[a]€little€curly."Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defense€called€one€witness,€Patricia€Sims,€a€hair€dresser€at€Unisex€Styles.€€Ms.€SimsÐ b² Ðtestified€that€she€styled€the€Defendant's€hair€on€September€9,€1997,€the€day€after€the€robbery.€€SheÐ H˜ Ðremembered€the€event€because€as€she€was€styling€the€Defendant's€hair,€her€water€broke€and€she€hadÐ . ~ Ðto€leave€for€the€hospital€to€deliver€her€baby.€€Ms.€Sims€described€the€Defendant's€hair€when€heÐ  d Ðarrived€as€"packed"€or€"nappy€to€his€head,"€like€it€had€not€been€combed.€€She€said€that€she€began€toÐ ú J Ðput€a€"Jherri„curl"€or€"Nouveau"€style€in€his€hair€that€day.€€She€did€not€remember€any€curl€or€waveÐ à 0 Ðin€his€hair€when€he€arrived.€€€€€€€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà@ò ò ìàSUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCE€OF€IDENTIFICATIONˆÐ ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€identification€of€him€as€the€perpetrator.€Ð ^®  ÐÔ‡XtÜXXXtÜÔTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actionsÐ D”  Ðwhether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÐ *z  Ðfindings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€EvidenceÐ ` Ðis€sufficient€if,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÐ öF Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð Ü, ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€by€a€trier€of€factÐ Â Ðdestroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumption€of€guilt,€a€convicted€criminalÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372Ð ŽÞ ÐS.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)€(citingÐ tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.Ð Zª Ð1977));€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.€Stateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.Ð @ Ð1962).Ð &v ÐÌà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongestÐ òB Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ Ø( Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð ¾ Ð1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838Ð ¤ô ÐS.W.2d€at€191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€findÐ Š Ú Ðparticular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€orÐ p!À  Ðtrial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ð V"¦! ÐÔ#†XtÜXXXtÜP(#ÔÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€him€as€the€perpetratorÐ "$r# Ðbecause€there€was€no€physical€evidence€tying€him€to€the€robbery€and€because€the€witnesses'Ð %X $ Ðdescriptions€of€the€perpetrator€after€the€robbery€conflicted€with€the€description€of€the€Defendant€onÐ î%>!% Ðthe€presentence€report,€which€lists€the€Defendant€as€a€man€of€six€feet,€weighing€two€hundred€pounds.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐHe€points€out€that€all€of€the€witnesses€indicated€that€the€perpetrator€was€short,€while€he€is€actuallyÐ º' #' Ðsix€feet€tall.€€He€also€points€out€that€the€witnesses€described€him€as€having€a€"Jherri„curl"€in€his€hair,Ð  (ð#( Ðwhile€his€hairdresser€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€any€curl€in€his€hair€when€he€came€to€get€aÐ †)Ö$) Ð"Jherri„curl"€put€in€his€hair.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àNotwithstanding€any€discrepancies€in€the€description€of€the€perpetrator,€Ms.€ValentineÐ ° Ðâ âtestified€that€she€was€certain€the€Defendant€was€the€person€who€robbed€the€Mrs.€Winner's.€€SheÐ –æ Ðidentified€the€Defendant€in€a€line„up€soon€after€the€robbery,€and€she€identified€him€again€in€court.€Ð |Ì ÐShe€said€her€identification€was€based€on€his€appearance,€his€weight,€and€his€voice.€€Ms.€Loyd€alsoÐ b² Ðidentified€the€Defendant€during€trial€as€the€person€she€saw€by€the€Amoco.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€established€that€the€identity€of€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime€chargedÐ  d Ðis€a€question€of€fact€for€determination€by€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.Ð ú J ÐCrim.€App.€1993).€€The€identification€testimony€of€the€victim€is€sufficient€by€itself€to€support€aÐ à 0 Ðconviction.€€òòId.óó€€As€stated€previously,€any€conflicts€in€the€testimony€must€be€resolved€in€favor€of€theÐ Æ   Ðjury€verdict.€€òòÔ‡XtÜXXXtÜÔTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914Ô#†XtÜXXXtÜ79#Ô.€€The€jury€obviously€accredited€the€identification€testimonyÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€Ms.€Valentine€and€Ms.€Loyd.€€Because€they€positively€identified€the€Defendant€as€the€perpetrator,Ð ’â  Ðthe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà@  ìàUSE€OF€PRIOR€CONVICTIONS€TO€IMPEACHˆÐ D”  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€his€prior€aggravatedÐ ` Ðrobbery€conviction€and€his€three€prior€attempted€murder€convictions€could€be€used€to€impeach€hisÐ öF Ðcredibility€should€he€decide€to€testify.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609(a)€provides,€in€pertinentÐ Ü, Ðpart:Ð Â Ðà8  àà ` àFor€the€purpose€of€attacking€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€evidence€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðwitness€has€been€convicted€of€a€crime€may€be€admitted€if€the€following€proceduresÐ ŽÞ Ðand€conditions€are€satisfied:ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€The€witness€must€be€asked€about€the€conviction€on€cross„examination.€.€.€.ÐZªÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€The€crime€must€be€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€in€excess€of€one€yearÐ @ Ðunder€the€law€under€which€the€witness€was€convicted€or,€if€not€so€punishable,€theÐ &v Ðcrime€must€have€involved€dishonesty€or€false€statement.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€If€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution,€the€StateÐ òB Ðmust€give€the€accused€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeaching€conviction€beforeÐ Ø( Ðtrial,€and€the€court€upon€request€must€determine€that€the€conviction's€probative€valueÐ ¾ Ðon€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€TheÐ ¤ô Ðcourt€may€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€proof€prior€to€the€trial€but€in€any€eventÐ Š Ú Ðshall€rule€prior€to€the€testimony€of€the€accused.€.€.€.Ðp!À Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€balancing€the€probative€value€verses€the€prejudicial€impact€of€a€prior€conviction€"a€trialÐ <#Œ" Ðcourt€should€(a)€'assess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€theÐ "$r# Ðimpeaching€conviction'€and€(b)€'analyze€the€relevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€ofÐ %X $ Ðcredibility.'"€€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(quoting€Neil€P.Ð î%>!% ÐCohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€609.9,€at€288€(2nd€ed.€1990)).€òòóó€However,€evidence€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ða€prior€conviction€which€is€the€same€or€similar€to€the€current€offense€is€not€per€se€inadmissible;€theÐ º' #' Ðtrial€court€must€analyze€the€prior€conviction€and€the€offense€on€trial€to€determine€whether€theÐ  (ð#( Ðconviction's€probative€value€on€credibility€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ †)Ö$) Ðv.€Blevinsóó,€968€S.W.2d€888,€893€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3).€€òòóóThe€trialÐ l*¼%* Ðcourt's€determination€under€Rule€609€will€not€be€reversed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.Ð R+¢&+ ÐBlantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àHere,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€before€trial€to€determine€whether€the€convictionsÐ ° Ðcould€be€used€to€impeach€the€Defendant's€credibility.€€The€Defendant€argued€at€that€hearing€and€heÐ –æ Ðagain€argues€on€appeal€that€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€was€too€prejudicial€because€it€was€theÐ |Ì Ðsame€offense€for€which€the€Defendant€was€on€trial€and€that€the€attempted€murder€convictions€wereÐ b² Ðtoo€prejudicial€because€they€showed€a€propensity€for€violence€and€had€little€relevance€to€truthfulness.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€probative€value€of€the€convictions€outweighed€the€prejudicial€effect,Ð . ~ Ðstating,Ð  d ÐÌà8  àI€understand€your€argument€with€regard€to€the€similarity€of€the€robberies,€being€anÐ à 0 Ðidentical€offense.€€And€if€it€were€an€identical€offense€which€had€no€probative€value,Ð Æ   Ðthen€I€would€think€that€your€argument€would€be€well„taken€and€they€should€not€beÐ ¬ ü  Ðallowed€to€use€that.€€But€since€robbery€is€just€an€enhanced€form€of€larceny,€I€thinkÐ ’â  Ðit€is€the€type€of€offense€that€is€very€probative€with€regard€to€the€issue€of€credibilityÐ xÈ  Ðand€believability.€€And,€after€all,€that€is€the€purpose€of€allowing€these€priorÐ ^®  Ðconvictions€in€anyway.ÐD” Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSo€I€think€that€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€it€is€the€same€offense€that€he's€onÐ *z  Ðtrial€for,€I€think€the€probative€value€outweighs€the€prejudicial€effect€in€the€robberyÐ ` Ðsituation.ÐöFÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€other€three€being€attempt€murder€seconds€are€felonies€that€are€well€withinÐ Ü, Ðthe€ten€years€and€they€are€dissimilar€from€what€he's€being€tried€for€today.€€Therefore,Ð Â ÐI€think€those€are€also€admissible.ШøÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àNow,€those€are€the€types€of€offenses€that,€if€that€were€what€he€was€being€triedÐ ŽÞ Ðfor€today,€perhaps€your€first€argument€would€be€well„taken.€€But€since€they€areÐ tÄ Ðdissimilar,€since€they€are€felonies€that€are€well€within€the€ten€years,€I€think€they€areÐ Zª Ðalso€probative€and€the€probative€value€outweighs€the€prejudicial€effect.€€And,Ð @ Ðtherefore,€I€will€allow€all€four€to€be€used€for€impeachment€purposes€in€the€event€heÐ &v Ðtakes€the€stand.€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ruling€that€the€prior€convictionsÐ Ø( Ðwere€admissible.€€Although€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€was€the€same€type€of€offense€as€theÐ ¾ Ðoffense€for€which€the€Defendant€was€on€trial,€it€was€a€crime€of€dishonesty,€which€lends€greaterÐ ¤ô Ðweight€to€its€probative€value€as€to€credibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlevinsóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€893.€€The€attemptedÐ Š Ú Ðmurder€convictions€were€dissimilar€to€the€crimes€charged.€€Granted,€the€attempted€murderÐ p!À  Ðconvictions€would€be€prejudicial€to€the€Defendant€because€of€the€violent€nature€of€the€offenses,€butÐ V"¦! Ðthe€rule€allows€all€felony€convictions,€whether€they€involve€dishonesty€or€not,€to€impeach€a€witness'sÐ <#Œ" Ðcredibility.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2);€òòBlantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€at€960.€€Because€the€present€case€wasÐ "$r# Ðdependent€entirely€on€the€identification€of€the€Defendant€as€the€perpetrator,€the€Defendant'sÐ %X $ Ðcredibility€as€a€witness€would€have€been€a€critical€issue.€€Thus,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court'sÐ î%>!% Ðruling€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ð Ô&$"& Ðà@ìì*ìàˆ¹Ó  ÓSEPARATE€KIDNAPPING€CONVICTIONÐ  (ð#( ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€movement€and€confinement€of€the€victim€wereÐ l*¼%* Ðessentially€incidental€to€the€accomplishment€of€the€aggravated€robbery€and€were€thereforeÐ R+¢&+ Ðinsufficient€to€support€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping.€€In€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299Ð 8,ˆ', Ð(Tenn.€1991),€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€issue€of€"the€propriety€of€a€kidnapping€convictionÐ ° Ðwhere€detention€of€the€victim€is€merely€incidental€to€the€commission€of€another€felony,€such€asÐ –æ Ðrobbery€or€rape."€€òòId.óó€at€300.€€The€court€reasoned€that€double€jeopardy€analysis€was€inadequate€forÐ |Ì Ðresolving€this€issue€and€focused€instead€on€due€process€guarantees.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€306.€€The€supremeÐ b² Ðcourt€announced€that€in€order€to€resolve€the€constitutional€validity€of€a€separate€kidnappingÐ H˜ Ðconviction€in€such€cases,€courts€must€determine€"whether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detentionÐ . ~ Ðis€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€aÐ  d Ðseparate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrantÐ ú J Ðindependent€prosecution€and€is€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€such€a€conviction."€€òòId.óó€€It€alsoÐ à 0 Ðcommented€that€"one€method€of€resolving€this€question€is€to€ask€whether€the€defendant's€conductÐ Æ   Ð'substantially€increased€[the]€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€that€necessarily€present€in€the€crime€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðrobbery€itself.'"€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòState€v.€Rollinsóó,€606€S.W.2d€828,€830€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àIn€making€its€determination,€the€supreme€court€in€òòAnthonyóó€observed€that€"every€robbery,€byÐ ^®  Ðdefinition,€involves€some€detention€against€the€will€of€the€victim,€if€only€long€enough€to€take€goodsÐ D”  Ðor€money€from€the€person€of€the€victim.€€This€does€not€mean€that€the€legislature€intended€that€everyÐ *z  Ðrobbery€should€also€constitute€a€kidnapping,€even€though€a€literal€reading€of€the€statute€mightÐ ` Ðsuggest€otherwise."€€òòId.óó€òòóó€Ð öF ÐÌà  àSeveral€years€later,€our€supreme€court€again€addressed€the€rule€announced€in€òòAnthonyóó€andÐ Â Ðclarified€that€ruling€by€stating,€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àThe€òòAnthonyóó€decision€should€only€prevent€the€injustice€which€would€occur€if€aÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€could€be€convicted€of€kidnapping€where€the€only€restraint€utilized€was€thatÐ Zª Ðnecessary€to€complete€the€act€of€rape€or€robbery.€€Accordingly,€any€restraint€inÐ @ Ðaddition€to€that€which€is€necessary€to€consummate€rape€or€robbery€may€support€aÐ &v Ðseparate€conviction€for€kidnapping.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532,€534„35€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€court€then€set€forth€a€two„part€test€forÐ Ø( Ðdetermining€whether€a€separate€kidnapping€conviction€violates€due€process.€€The€first€inquiry€isÐ ¾ Ð"whether€the€movement€or€confinement€was€beyond€that€necessary€to€consummate"€the€associatedÐ ¤ô Ðfelony.€€òòId.óó€at€535.€€If€that€question€is€answered€in€the€affirmative,€then€"the€next€inquiry€is€whetherÐ Š Ú Ðthe€additional€movement€or€confinement:€€(1)€prevented€the€victim€from€summoning€help;€(2)Ð p!À  Ðlessened€the€defendant's€risk€of€detection;€or€(3)€created€a€significant€danger€or€increased€the€victim'sÐ V"¦! Ðrisk€of€harm."€€òòId.óó€€If€both€prongs€are€satisfied,€then€the€dual€convictions€do€not€violate€due€process.€Ð <#Œ" ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àAfter€considering€the€facts€of€this€particular€case,€we€conclude€that€the€movement€andÐ î%>!% Ðconfinement€of€the€victim,€Hazel€Valentine,€was€beyond€that€necessary€to€consummate€a€€robbery.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐThe€pursuit€and€capture€of€the€victim€was€certainly€a€significant€intrusion€on€her€liberty€beyond€theÐ º' #' Ðrestraint€which€accompanies€a€robbery.€€We€believe€it€was€significant€enough€to€warrant€independentÐ  (ð#( Ðprosecution€for€kidnapping.€€The€movement€and€confinement€both€prevented€the€victim€fromÐ †)Ö$) Ðsummoning€help€and€increased€the€victim's€risk€of€harm.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Accordingly,€the€movement€andÐ l*¼%* Ðconfinement€of€Hazel€Valentine€was€not€essentially€incidental€to€the€robbery;€it€was€significantÐ R+¢&+ Ðenough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€separate€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àBy€throwing€the€rock€through€the€window€of€the€Mrs.€Winner's€Restaurant,€the€DefendantÐ ° Ðindicated€his€intent€to€rob€the€Mrs.€Winner's.€€When€Ms.€Valentine€and€Ms.€McCollough€ran€fromÐ –æ Ðthe€restaurant,€the€Defendant€gave€chase.€€While€it€may€be€that€the€Defendant's€only€purpose€inÐ |Ì Ðrestraining€the€victim€was€to€accomplish€the€robbery,€we€cannot€say€that€his€actions€were€ð ðmerelyÐ b² Ðincidental"€to€the€robbery.€€He€grabbed€Ms.€Valentine€by€the€back€of€the€shirt,€dragged€her€acrossÐ H˜ Ðthe€pavement€such€that€she€injured€her€arms€and€knees,€and€forced€her€into€his€van€at€gunpoint€soÐ . ~ Ðthat€he€could€transport€her€back€to€the€restaurant.€€We€believe€that€the€grabbing€of€Ms.€Valentine€andÐ  d Ðthe€forced€transport€of€Ms.€Valentine€in€the€van€constituted€restraint€beyond€that€necessary€toÐ ú J Ðconsummate€the€robbery.€€Instead€of€being€a€situation€in€which€the€victim€is€temporarily€restrainedÐ à 0 Ðduring€the€amount€of€time€it€takes€for€the€perpetrator€to€rob€the€victim,€this€is€a€situation€in€whichÐ Æ   Ðthe€perpetrator€took€additional€steps€to€pursue€the€victim€after€the€victim€escaped€from€the€restaurantÐ ¬ ü  Ðand€to€further€confine€the€victim€at€gunpoint.€€As€stated€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòDixonóó,€"òòAnthonyóóÐ ’â  Ðand€its€progeny€.€.€.€are€not€meant€to€provide€the€rapist€[or€robber]€with€a€free€kidnapping€merelyÐ xÈ  Ðbecause€he€also€committed€rape€[or€robbery]."€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€534.€€€€€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àIt€is€clear€that€the€Defendant's€actions€prevented€the€victim€from€summoning€help€andÐ *z  Ðincreased€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€victim.€€Ms.€Valentine€was€running€for€help€when€she€was€forcedÐ ` Ðinto€the€van.€€The€Defendant€thus€thwarted€her€attempts€to€obtain€that€help.€€The€Defendant'sÐ öF Ðargument€that€she€had€already€summoned€help€because€the€clerk€at€the€Amoco€station€had€seen€herÐ Ü, Ðis€unpersuasive.€€Other€than€calling€the€police,€the€clerk€did€not€assist€or€attempt€to€assist€Ms.Ð Â ÐValentine.€€In€addition,€putting€Ms.€Valentine€into€the€van€and€removing€her€from€the€public€streetÐ ¨ø Ðincreased€the€risk€of€harm€to€Ms.€Valentine.€€She€was€removed€from€public€view€where€she€mightÐ ŽÞ Ðhave€had€the€opportunity€to€summon€assistance€or€to€escape€and€was€placed€out€of€public€view€withÐ tÄ Ða€person€who€was€threatening€to€kill€her€with€a€gun.€€Certainly,€this€increased€her€risk€of€harm.€Ð Zª ÐAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€Defendant's€actions€in€restraining€Ms.€Valentine€constituted€aÐ @ Ðkidnapping€and€that€those€actions€were€not€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€robbery.€Ð &v ÐTherefore,€the€separate€kidnapping€conviction€does€not€violate€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€at€306;€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€534„35.€€Ð òB ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÐ  ¾ ÐÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àWe€hold€that€the€evidence€of€the€Defendant's€identity€was€sufficient€to€support€theÐ |Ì Ðconviction,€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ruling€that€the€Defendant's€priorÐ b² Ðconvictions€were€admissible€for€impeachment,€and€that€the€confinement€and€movement€of€Ms.Ð H˜ ÐValentine€were€not€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€robbery.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÐ . ~ Ðcourt€is€affirmed.