ÿWPC·" …# VUNa %¯ 0(µBÝ4 3 B 0lB 0D® w@ò 0J2 D3| 0T¯ 0^ 0ha 0rÉ 0|; 0†· 0= 1uÍ U,B 0dnU,ÒU>þU*<B)fDC AMÒ BJ<·† 0@=v~}vÓû AOÎ Æ! 0Dã! 0D'" D/k" Bš"˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5E,,,,0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTU_A 3|xË((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¼D½¾D¿ÅDÆUÇDÈDÉ Ê2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2" 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òFebruary€20,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò€à àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellants€also€urge€us€to€broadly€construe€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„408Ï(1991)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€65„21„110€(1993)€to€prohibit€the€recording€of€òòanyóóÏconversation€without€the€consent€of€a€party€to€the€conversation€and,€therefore,€theÏintroduction€into€evidence€of€any€such€recording.€€Clearly,€these€statutory€provisions€areÏinapplicable€to€the€case€before€us.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€relevant€federal€statute€onlyÏprohibits€the€recording€of€an€oral€communication€without€consent€when€the€communicationÏis€"uttered€by€a€person€exhibiting€an€expectation€that€[the]€communication€is€not€subject€toÏinterception€under€circumstances€justifying€such€expectation."€€18€U.S.C.S.Ïðð2510(2)(Law.€Co„op.€1993).€€òòSee€alsoóó€18€U.S.C.S.€ðð2511(Law.€Co„op.€1993€&€Supp.Ï1995).€€In€other€words,€an€oral€communication€under€the€federal€statute€must€be€interpretedÏin€light€of€the€constitutional€standards€set€forth€in€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€88ÏS.Ct.€507€(1967).€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€McKinnonóó,€985€F.2d€525,€527€(11th€Cir.),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€130€(1993)(under€the€federal€statute,€denial€of€motion€toÏsuppress€recording€of€defendant's€pre„arrest€conversations,€which€occurred€while€he€wasÏseated€in€the€back€of€a€police€car,€was€proper€since€he€did€not€have€a€reasonable€expectationÏof€privacy);€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€523„524€(Tenn.€1985)(under€the€federalÏstatute,€denial€of€motion€to€suppress€recording€of€defendant's€post„arrest€conversation,Ïwhich€occurred€in€the€defendant's€jail€cell,€was€proper€since€he€did€not€have€an€actual€orÏreasonable€expectation€of€privacy).€€We€subsequently€conclude€that€the€appellants€in€thisÏcase€had€no€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€police€cruiser.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔòòÑ7€¦}XdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñò òÓ` ˜ˆXe’XÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ ` °œXÓÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` Å `€€LßÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1994óóÌó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLEEà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9312„CR„00407Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€D.€KELLY€THOMAS,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Burglary;€Possession€of€BurglaryÌò òTHOMAS€M.€MORGANó ó€andà à)à à€Tools)Ìò òWILLIAM€C.€TILSON,ó óà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLANTSà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTSóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌMack€Garnerà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÌ318€Court€StreetÌMaryville,€TN€37801à àà àà àRuth€A.€ThompsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMike€FlynnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPhilip€H.€MortonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlount€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37801ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART,ÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:___________________ÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àó óóóThe€appellants,€Thomas€M.€Morgan€and€William€C.€Tilson,€appeal€fromÏconvictions€for€the€offenses€of€burglary,€a€class€D€felony,€€and€possession€ofÏburglary€tools,€a€class€A€misdemeanor,€entered€by€the€Circuit€Court€of€BlountÏCounty.€€The€appellants€received€sentences€of€twelve€years€for€the€burglaryÏand€concurrent€sentences€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€forÏpossession€of€the€burglary€tools.€€Morgan€and€Tilson€challenge€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence€introduced€in€support€of€their€convictions€and€the€admissibilityÏof€a€recorded€conversation€between€the€appellants.€€Morgan€also€disputes€hisÏsentencing€as€a€career€offender.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€convictions€of€both€appellants.€ÏHowever,€we€vacate€Morgan's€sentence€and€remand€his€case€for€resentencing.ÌÌà@ àòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDóóó óÌÌà àOn€January€6,€1992,€at€approximately€2:45€a.m.,€Randall€Glass,€anÏemployee€of€Shore€Trucking,€heard€the€burglar€alarm€activate€at€Big€Jim'sÏCitgo.€€The€service€station€is€located€across€the€street€from€the€truckingÏcompany,€on€Highway€411€in€Blount€County.€€Glass€noticed€that,€although€thereÏwere€no€cars€or€people€around€the€service€station,€the€door€to€the€building€wasÏopen.€€He€called€911€and€reported€the€alarm.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€same€morning,€at€approximately€3:00€or€3:15€a.m.,€Joe€Thornhill,Ïthe€Chief€of€Police€of€Friendsville,€was€standing€outside€a€market€located€onÏHighway€321€in€Blount€County,€roughly€four€miles€from€the€Citgo€Station.€ÏThornhill€was€talking€to€Deputy€Maples,€an€officer€with€the€Blount€CountyÏSheriff's€Department.€€At€this€time,€Thornhill€and€Maples€observed€a€vehicle€onÏthe€highway€pass€the€market€and€then€complete€a€U„turn.€€"Within€a€couple€orÏthree€minutes,"€the€same€vehicle€again€passed€the€market€and€again€executedÏa€U„turn.ÌÌà àThornhill€was€aware€that€several€markets€in€the€area€had€beenÏburglarized.€€Therefore,€given€the€time€of€morning€and€the€location€of€the€U„turns,€he€and€Maples€decided€to€follow€the€car.€€The€officers€soon€came€uponÏthe€car,€parked€beside€the€road,€with€the€lights€off€and€the€engine€running.€€AsÍthe€officers€approached€the€car,€they€observed€two€occupants.€€Maples€saw€theÏpassenger,€Morgan,€pull€a€bandana€away€from€his€face.€€Thornhill€noticed€aÏbumper€jack€between€Morgan's€legs,€similar€to€one€thrown€through€a€store€frontÏwindow€at€a€recent€market€burglary.€€The€officers€also€noticed€numerous€"tireÏtools"€in€the€appellants'€vehicle.€€When€asked,€Tilson,€the€driver€of€the€car,Ïinformed€the€officers€that€he€and€Morgan€were€lost.ÌÌà àAt€this€point,€Thornhill€and€Maples€were€also€aware€of€a€possibleÏburglary€of€Big€Jim's€Citgo.€€The€officers€asked€Morgan€and€Tilson€to€exit€theÏvehicle,€and€Maples€obtained€Tilson's€consent€to€search€the€car.€€This€searchÏand€a€subsequent,€more€thorough,€search€pursuant€to€a€warrant€uncovered€oneÏpair€of€black€gloves,€one€pair€of€brown€work€gloves,€yet€another€pair€of€glovesÏwith€$15.75€in€quarters€in€the€left€glove,€a€blue€jacket,€three€flashlights,€threeÏpairs€of€wire€cutters,€two€pairs€of€pliers,€one€screwdriver,€three€tire€tools,€oneÏbumper€jack,€one€garbage€bag,€and€various€other€items.€€Of€particular€note€wasÏa€tire€tool,€which€apparently€had€been€heated€and€then€bent€at€the€tip.€€The€tipÏhad€also€been€sharpened.€€According€to€the€crime€scene€technician,€tire€toolsÏaltered€in€this€fashion€are€commonly€used€in€burglaries.Ì€Ìà àAt€trial,€Richard€Buechele,€a€special€agent€assigned€to€the€MaterialsÏAnalysis€Unit€of€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation€Crime€Laboratory,€testifiedÏthat€he€compared€the€paint€found€on€two€of€the€tire€tools,€including€the€modifiedÏtire€tool,€with€samples€of€paint€from€the€door€and€door€jamb€at€Big€Jim's€Citgo.€ÍHe€concluded€that€the€paint€on€the€tire€tools€"could€have€originated€from€theseÏsources."€€Specifically,€there€were€layers€of€blue€and€white€enamel€paint€on€oneÏtire€tool€and€white€enamel€paint€on€the€other€tire€tool€that€corresponded€with€theÏlayers€of€paint€on€the€door€and€door€jamb€at€the€service€station.ÌÌà àDuring€the€initial€search,€the€appellants€sat€in€the€back€seat€of€DeputyÏMaple's€police€cruiser.€€They€remained€in€the€police€cruiser€for€approximatelyÏforty„five€minutes.€€Unknown€to€the€appellants,€a€tape€recorder€was€operating€inÏthe€police€car€and€recorded€the€conversation€between€the€appellants,€duringÏwhich€they€made€several€incriminating€remarks.€€At€trial,€the€tape€was€played€forÏthe€jury.€€Deputy€Maples€identified€the€voices€as€those€of€the€appellants.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€initial€search€of€the€appellant's€automobile,€Maples€andÏThornhill€arrested€the€appellants€and€transported€them€to€the€jail.€€A€search€ofÏthe€appellants€at€the€jail€revealed€that€Morgan€had€$270.51€in€his€possessionÏand€Tilson€had€$230.40€in€his€possession.€ÌÌà àJim€McBrayer,€the€owner€of€Big€Jim's€Citgo,€testified€at€trial€that,€on€theÏmorning€of€January€6,€1992,€he€was€called€at€home€and€informed€that€hisÏbusiness€had€been€burglarized.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€station,€he€noticed€thatÏsomeone€had€forced€the€door€open€and€had€also€broken€into€an€amusementÏdevice€inside€the€store.€€McBrayer€was€uncertain€how€much€money€was€takenÏfrom€the€device,€but€he€knew€that,€before€the€burglary,€it€had€contained€a€largeÍnumber€of€bills€and€approximately€$15.00€in€quarters.€€€ÌÌà àThe€appellants€presented€no€proof€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€foundÏthe€appellants€guilty€of€burglary€and€possession€of€burglary€tools.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àThe€appellants€first€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustainÏtheir€convictions€for€burglary€and€possession€of€burglary€tools.€€A€jury€convictionÏremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€initiallyÏcloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal€a€convictedÏdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€mustÏestablish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€noÏ"reasonable€trier€of€fact"€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenseÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2789€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà àMoreover,€an€appellate€court€may€neither€reweigh€nor€reevaluate€theÏevidence€when€determining€its€sufficiency.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€"A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€theÍtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€theÏState's€theory."€€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.€1429€(1984).€€The€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75Ï(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1993).ÌÌà àA€burglary€occurs€if€a€person,€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€propertyÏowner,€"[e]nters€a€building€other€than€a€habitation€...€not€open€to€the€public,€withÏintent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(1)€(1991).€ÏPossession€of€burglary€tools€requires€possession€of€"any€tool,€machine€orÏimplement€with€intent€to€use€the€same,€or€allow€the€same€to€be€used,€to€commitÏany€burglary."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„701€(1991).€€We€conclude€that€theÏrecord€contains€ample,€indeed€overwhelming,€evidence€in€support€of€the€jury'sÏverdicts.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòADMISSIBILITY€OF€THE€TAPED€CONVERSATION€BETWEEN€THE€à@ àà@ àà@ àà@ àà@ àà@ àà0 àà àà@ àAPPELLANTSóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellants€next€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€theÏintroduction€of€a€tape€recording€of€the€appellant's€conversation€in€the€policeÏcruiser.€€The€appellants€argue€that€the€tape€recording€violated€their€right,€underÏthe€Fourth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€ðð€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€to€be€free€from€unreasonableÍsearches€and€seizures.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àApplication€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€and€the€corresponding€provision€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution€depends€on€whether€the€appellants€had€aÏsubjective€expectation€or€desire€for€privacy,€with€respect€to€their€conversation€inÏthe€back€seat€area€of€a€police€car,€and€whether€that€expectation€wasÏreasonable.€€òòSmith€v.€Marylandóó,€442€U.S.€735,€740,€99€S.Ct.€2577,€2580€(1979);€ÏòòKatzóó,€389€U.S.€at€352„353,€360,€88€S.Ct.€at€511„512,€516;€òòState€v.€Roodeóó,€643ÏS.W.2d€651,€652„653€(Tenn.€1982);€€òòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338,€340„341Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€conclude€that€any€expectation€of€privacy€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case€was€unreasonable.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcKinnonóó,€985€F.2d€at€528;€ÏòòPeople€v.€Crowsonóó,€660€P.2d€389,€392„393€(Cal.€1983)(arrested€suspect€did€notÏhave€a€reasonable€expectation€that€he€could€conduct€a€private€conversationÍwith€an€accomplice€in€the€back€seat€of€a€police€car,€even€though€the€two€hadÏbeen€left€alone);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€641€So.2d€849,€852€(Fla.€1994)(a€motorist,Ïplaced€in€the€back€seat€of€a€police€car€for€safety€purposes€during€a€consensualÏsearch€of€his€vehicle,€had€no€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy);€€òòState€v.ÏHusseyóó,€469€So.2d€346,€350„351€(La.€App.€1985)(companions€of€arrestee€hadÏno€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€while€conversing€in€the€back€seat€of€aÏpolice€car);€€òòPeople€v.€Marlandóó,€355€N.W.2d€378,€383„384€(Mich.€App.Ï1984)(detainees,€not€under€formal€arrest,€had€no€reasonable€expectation€ofÏprivacy€in€the€back€seat€of€a€police€car);€€òòState€v.€Wishnofskeóó,€878€P.2d€1130,Ï1133„1134€(Or.€App.€1994)(arrestee€had€no€reasonable€expectation€of€privacyÏin€the€back€seat€of€a€police€car).€€Moreover,€we€do€not€find€it€significant€that€theÏappellants€were€not€under€arrest€at€the€time€of€the€recorded€conversation.€ÏòòMcKinnonóó,€985€F.2d€at€528€(finding€no€persuasive€distinction€between€pre„arrest€and€post„arrest€situations€in€that€case).€€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòMORGAN'S€SENTENCEóóó óÌÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€Morgan€argues€that€his€sentencing€as€a€careerÏoffender€was€erroneous€because€the€trial€court€improperly€denied€his€motion€forÏa€continuance€when€the€State€failed€to€provide€proper€notice€of€enhancedÏpunishment.€€€Thus,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€case€should€be€remandedÏfor€resentencing.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)(1990)€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€"If€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€believes€that€a€defendant€should€be€sentenced€as€aÏmultiple,€persistent€or€career€offender,€he€shall€file€a€statement€thereof€with€theÏcourt€and€defense€counsel€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€or€acceptanceÏof€a€guilty€plea€.€.€.€€."€€The€record€reflects€that€the€State€filed€a€notice€of€intent€toÏseek€enhanced€punishment€of€the€appellant€as€a€career€offender€on€SeptemberÏ8,€1993.€€The€appellant's€trial€was€scheduled€to€proceed€on€September€10,Ï1993.€€Therefore,€based€on€the€State's€late€filing€of€its€notice€of€enhancement,Ïthe€appellant€moved€for€a€continuance.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€appellant'sÏmotion.€€Ìà àThe€appellant€correctly€argues€that€Rule€12.3(a)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure€provides€that,€if€the€notice€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„202(a)€is€filed€within€the€ten€day€period,€"the€trial€judge€òòshallóó€grant€theÏdefendant€upon€his€motion€a€reasonable€continuance€of€the€trial."€€Moreover,€inÏòòState€v.€Loweóó,€811€S.W.2d€526,€527€(Tenn.€1991),€in€a€factual€situationÏanalogous€to€the€case€before€us,€our€supreme€court€held€that€"when€faced€withÏsuch€a€motion€for€continuance,€the€trial€judge€must€either€strike€the€notice€ofÏenhancement€and€proceed€to€trial,€or€grant€a€continuance€of€at€least€ten€daysÏfrom€the€date€of€the€entry€of€the€court€order€resetting€the€case€for€trial."€€€TheÏcourt€further€observed€that,€because€the€trial€judge€refused€to€sustain€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€a€continuance,€it€was€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€12.3€(a),€to€strike€the€notice€of€enhancement.€€òòIdóó.€€Finally,€the€StateÍconcedes€that,€under€the€authority€of€òòLoweóó,€the€appellant€Morgan€is€entitled€to€aÏnew€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€appellants'€convictions€are€affirmed.€€For€the€reasonsÏstated,€we€vacate€the€appellant€Morgan's€career€offender€sentence€and€remandÏhis€case€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing€within€range€I.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò(Not€Participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJERRY€SCOTT,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌPENNY€J.€WHITE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ