WPC # VUNa % 0(bw@4% 9 H 0JP 0T 0^ 0hL 0r 0|& 0 0( 1u U,- 0dY U, U> U*'B)QDCz B AM,'v~Sv D3 0@ AOf 0D, D/p BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - ijDklmDnoDpqDrӀyp 3|x}2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G " !  #d#!  ""   YYY FILED"X June27,1996CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &  Xd&#  Xd#!     ` !"\RA'\7F?XXdd7      L&'$;+'h|`  `LߛINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATKNOXVILLE̜APRILSESSION,1996  ӜSTATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.Ϝ03C019503CR00078     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) JEFFERSONCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.REXHENRYOGLE JOSHUAMCCRAY,   ) JUDGE      )  Appellant.   ) (AggravatedRobbery)   ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHE̜CIRCUITCOURTOFJEFFERSONCOUNTY   FORTHEAPPELLANT:   FORTHEAPPELLEE:̜EDWARDC.MILLER   CHARLESW.BURSONPublicDefender    AttorneyGeneralandReporterFourthJudicialDistrictP.O.Box416    ELIZABETHT.RYANDandridge,TN37725   AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493      ALSCHMUTZER,JR.      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      JAMESGASS      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      SevierCountyCourthouse,Suite301      Sevierville,TN37862OPINIONFILED________________________̜AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE  " OPINION "   ThisisadirectappealpursuanttoRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.TheDefendantwasconvictedbyajuryofaggravatedrobbery.Heappealshisconviction.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. InJanuaryof1993,aBurgerKinginJeffersonCitywasrobbed.Twomenenteredtherestaurant,orderedcheeseburgers,andaskedforapplications.Oneofthemenjumpedthecounterandputapistoltothemanagersthroat.Thesecondmanheldthecustomersatbaywhilethemanagerandthefirstmanwenttothesafe.Severalhundreddollarswastakenintherobbery.Themanagernoticedathirdmanreachinghishandthroughthedrivethroughwindowandshakingthedrawer.WitnessesidentifiedtheDefendantastherobberwhoheldtheguntothemanager. TheDefendantarguesthreeissues:(1)Thatthetrialcourterredingrantingthestateacontinuancebecauseoftheabsenceofawitness;(2)thatthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuppresstheDefendantsstatementtoadetective;and(3)thattheDefendantwasdeniedhisrighttoafairtrialanddueprocessinthattheStatewasguiltyofprosecutorialmisconductbecausetheDefendantwasnotprovidedwithcertaindiscoverableandexculpatoryinformation(photographalbumsshowntoeyewitnesses).̜  ӛI.  Ӝ̛ TheDefendantfirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingtheStateacontinuancebecauseaStatewitnesswasabsent.Theprosecutoraskedforthecontinuanceandstatedthatthewitnesswasindispensableandwouldnotgiveanycumulativetestimony.Heaskedforabenchwarrantforthewitnesssarresttoensureherpresence.Thetrialcourtgrantedthecontinuanceandsetthenewdatefortwodayslater. Thegrantingordenialofacontinuanceisamatterlefttothediscretionofthetrialjudge,whosedecisionwillnotbedisturbedabsent aclearshowingofgrossabuseofthisdiscretiontotheprejudiceofthedefendant.Baxterv.State,503S.W.2d226,230(Tenn.Crim.App.1973).Thiscourthaspreviouslystatedthat [t]heonlytestiswhetherthedefendanthasbeendeprivedofhisrightsandaninjusticedone.Statev.Goodman,643S.W.2d375,378(Tenn.Crim.App.1982). TheDefendantdoesnotarguehowhewasdeprivedofhisrightsbythegrantingofthecontinuance.WedonotfindanyevidenceofundueorunfairprejudicetotheDefendant.Therefore,wecannotconcludethatthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretioningrantingthecontinuance. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.̜  ӛII.   TheDefendantssecondargumentisthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuppresstheDefendantsstatementmadetoadetective.AtthehearingontheMotiontoSuppress,thedetectivetestifiedthathegavetheDefendanthisMirandawarningsandthentooktheDefendantsstatement.TheDefendantthensignedaMirandarightswaiverbeforethedetectivewroteouttheDefendantsstatement. TheAssistantPublicDefender,whorepresentedtheDefendantathisPreliminaryHearing,alsotestifiedatthesuppressionhearing.ShetestifiedthatsheinterviewedthedetectivebeforethePreliminaryHearing.Aftershereviewedhernotesfromtheinterview,shetestifiedthatthedetectivetoldherthathetooktheDefendantsstatementandthenadvisedtheDefendantofhisMirandarights.Oncrossexamination,shetestifiedthatshecouldnotremembertheconversationwithouthernotes. AttheendofthesuppressionhearingthetrialjudgefoundthattheDefendantsstatementhadbeenmadeafterhehadbeenadvisedofhisMirandarights.Whenatrialcourtmakesafindingoffactafterahearingonthemerits,thefactualfindingsarebindingontheappellatecourtunlessthereisevidencewhichpreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfinding.Statev.Aucoin,756S.W.2d705,710(Tenn.Crim.App.1988);Statev.Johnson,717S.W.2d298,30405(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).Theevidenceintherecorddoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings.TheAssistantPublicDefenderstestimonywasbasednotonhermemory,butonhernotes.Thesenoteswerediscussedingreatdetailatthehearingandappeartobequitecryptic.Shestatedinhertestimonythat inlookingat[thenotes]itscleartomewhatthe,Iguess,thebarebonesofourconversationwas.Shewasunabletotestifytothespecificsoftheinterview,suchaswhenandwhereitoccurred.Wedonotfindevidencewhichpreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindings. ThedetectivetoldtheDefendantwhathewasaccusedofandthedatethattheincidentoccurred.TheDefendantsstatementwasthathewasinGeorgiaonthedateinquestionandgavethedetectiveawomansnamewithwhomhesaidhehadbeen.EvenifitwaserrortofailtosuppresstheDefendantsstatement,itwasharmless.Thisstatementisnotincriminating.Therewereseveraleyewitnesseswhotestifiedastotheperpetratorsidentity.Wecannotconcludethattheexclusionofthisstatementwouldhavechangedtheoutcomeofthetrial.Therefore,anyerrorwasharmless.T.R.A.P.36(b);Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a).  III.   TheDefendantsthirdargumentisthathewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrightstoafairtrialanddueprocessinthattheStatewasguiltyofprosecutorialmisconductbecausetheStatefailedtoprovidetheDefendantwithcertaindiscoverableandexculpatoryinformation,whichconsistedofphotographalbumsshowntotheeyewitnessestothecrime.TheDefendantarguesthathewasnotinformedthatwitnessesatthecrimescenewereshownamugbookonthenightofthecrime.Hearguesthatoneofthewitnessesstatedinhertestimonythatshepickedoutsomeonefromthebookatthattime.TheϜDefendantsphotographwasnotinthebook.Hearguesthattheidentificationfromthebookisexculpatoryinformationthatshouldhavebeenprovidedtohim.Theofficerwhotookthebooktothecrimescenetestifiedthatthewitnessdidnotinformhimofanyidentificationsfromthebook. InBradyv.Maryland,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthat thesuppressionbytheprosecutionofevidencefavorabletoanaccuseduponrequestviolatesdueprocesswheretheevidenceismaterialeithertoguiltorpunishment,irrespectiveofthegoodfaithorbadfaithoftheprosecution.Brady,373U.S.at87.TheCourtlaterstatedinUnitedStatesv.Agurs,427U.S.97(1976),thatiftheevidencethatwasnotsuppliedtothedefensewouldnotdeprivethedefendantofafairtrial,thenthereisnoconstitutionalviolation.Id.at108.TheCourtthenheldthat evidenceismaterialonlyifthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,hadtheevidencebeendisclosedtothedefense,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Areasonableprobabilityisaprobabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.UnitedStatesv.Bagley,473U.S.667,682. Inthecasesubjudice,thereisnoevidencethattheprosecutionknewthatthewitnesshadmadeanidentificationattherestaurant.Thedetectivetestifiedthatthewitnessdidnotinformhimofanidentification.IftheStatedidnotknowabouttheidentificationthenitdidnotsuppresssuchinformationinviolationofBrady.Wealsoconcludetherewasnoprosecutorialmisconductforthesamereason.Wealsopointoutthatattrialthewitnesstestifiedabouttheidentificationfromthebookandthedefensewasabletocrossexamineherconcerningtheidentification.Thedefendantalsorecalledthewitnessashisown.WecannotconcludethatdisclosureoftheexculpatoryidentificationwouldϜhavechangedtheoutcomeofthetrialbecausetheinformationwasinfactplacedinevidenceatthetrial.Therefore,therewasnoBradyerrorandnoprosecutorialmisconductbecausetheStatedidnotknowoftheevidence,andtherefurtherwasnoreversibleerrorbecausetheinformationcameintoevidenceattrial.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.      ____________________________________     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________̜GARYR.WADE,JUDGE___________________________________̜WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUDGE