WPC+$ # VUNa % 05U: w@$ 4d x  0y 0D 0JL 0T 0^ 0hH 0r 0|" 0 0$ 1uU,) 0dUU,U>U*# BMU*jB)DC AM D3Mu 0@v~5v AO"" 0D# D/# B$HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX( ڱ$X  X)XXX7XXdXXd7  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT,  AZ"Arial Regular oPpqUrEs etDuvxyӀ~| 3|x()(3$ ڱ!X  XXXX7&mXXdd7  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   `   0  (#$  0  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 d<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G%%%%'dxd  !  #d##   X      $#d#  \RA'\  $   YYY FILED$X April16,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.$AppellateCourtClerk  k !  #d##   X      $#d#  \RA'\   $       ݀$Inanyevent,contrarytotheimplicationinthemajorityopinion,Idoubtthatwecanclaimthatthiscourthasfoundthatthe Anthonyprinciplesapplyincasesnotinvolvingkidnappingthecrimethatisnecessarilyprovenuponproofofsuchassaultivecrimesasrapeorrobbery.AsforthereferencetoStatev.CorneliusT.Luster,No.02C019201CR00019,ShelbyCo.(Tenn.Crim.App.Nov.29,1992),themajorityopinionfailstonotethattheleadopinionsapplicationofAnthonyapparentlydidnotgainthesupportoftheothertwomembersofthepanel,oneconcurringinresultsonlyandtheotherexpresslyrejectingtheuseofAnthony.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##   X      $#&&Xd##&&Xd#  \RA'\  ` ,` XL)+(;+'h|` - `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@   OCTOBER1994SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) ̀    ) Appellee,  ) No.03C019407CR00262    )    ) SullivanCountyv.    )    ) Hon.R.JerryBeck,Judge    )PHILLIPS.ROBERTS, ) (AttemptedTheft;Burglary)    ) Appellant.  )   ̀ CONCURRINGANDDISSENTINGOPINION  Iconcurwiththeaffirmanceoftheoneburglary,theattemptedtheftandthepossessionofburglaryinstrumentsconvictions.Idissentfromthereversalanddismissaloftheremainingthreeburglaryconvictions.IbelievethattheevidencejustifiesalloftheconvictionsthatthedefendantreceivedandthatweneednotdetermineinthiscasewhetherStatevAnthony,817S.W.2d299(Tenn.1991),appliesinanyfashiontotheoffensesofburglaryandattemptedtheft. ,   כTheveryfactthatnoteveryattemptedcartheftinvolvesaburglaryapointconcededinthemajorityopinionrendersthereasoninginAnthonyinapplicabletothiscase. Ifwewereconfrontedwithacaseinwhichthesoleproofforanattemptedtheftwasthebreakingintoacar,thenitmightbeworthconsideringanAnthonydueprocessanalysisbecause,then,everyburglarywouldnecessarilyprovethecrimeofattempttocommitthefelonyortheftintended.Butwearenot.Ineachinstance,thedefendantcommittedactsinsidethecarsthatwereunrelatedtothebreakingandentering,butwereevidenceofattemptedthefts.Iwouldholdthattheseparateconvictionsarejustified.     򀀀     JosephM.Tipton,Judgè