ÿWPCQ1 …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 0 ”˜ 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â H 0H w@Ø 1uU , B¹ 0dÖ D3: 0@mU,­U 6ÙB)DC8 AM{EÈ© ¶*º™äæ}Ûcy> ·# Æ$ŒÏ%v~[(vÓÙ) AO¬/Æû/ 0DÁ0 D/1 B41<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xà «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óà~| (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 ¯ ° E± ² E³ ´ Uµ U¶ U· D¸ Ó€ ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(Modern dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ16,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔCase€nos.€S34,710,€S34,712,€and€S34,713.€€The€case€numbers€of€the€burglary€convictionsÏare€noted€because€they€carry€different€sentences€and€we€do€not€reach€the€same€result€as€to€all.Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔCase€no.€S34,711.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔThe€court€here€was€applying€the€so„called€ð ðBlockburger€test.ðð€€In€determining€whetherÏseparate€convictions€and€punishments€may€be€had€for€acts€occurring€in€the€same€criminal€episode,€thatÏtest€asks€whether€each€statute€requires€proof€of€a€fact€which€the€other€does€not.€€If€so,€then€under€theÏBlockburger€test€separate€convictions€and€punishments€are€not€in€violation€of€double€jeopardyÏprinciples.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€302„303.€€(citing€òòIannelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€420€U.S.€770€(1975),€andÏòòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€299€(1932).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔNotwithstanding€our€holding€with€respect€to€the€three€counts€of€burglary€that€were€linked€withÏthe€three€counts€of€attempted€theft,€the€defendant's€conviction€on€the€fourth€count€of€burglary€(of€theÏBuick)€is€affirmed.€€In€its€discretion,€the€State€chose€to€prosecute€the€defendant€for€burglary€for€the€actsÏhe€performed€regarding€this€vehicle,€but€not€for€attempted€theft.€€Since€no€attempted€theft€of€the€BuickÏwas€prosecuted,€the€acts€which€constituted€the€burglary€thereof€cannot€be€said€to€be€essentiallyÏincidental€to€any€alleged€attempted€theft€of€the€same€automobile.€€Thus,€the€defendant's€argument€forÏreversal€of€the€conviction€for€burglary€of€the€Buick€has€no€merit.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔÔ€ÔòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Valentineóó,€659€S.W.2d€27€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€which€affirms€convictionsÏfor€burglary€and€attempted€petit€larceny.€€This€opinion,€however,€predates€the€Tennessee€RevisedÏCriminal€Code€of€1989€and€òòAnthonyóó.Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔRule€609(b)€provides€that€if€the€prior€conviction€is€less€than€ten€years€old,€under€theÏà àmethod€of€calculation€explained€therein,€the€probative€value€must€merely€outweigh€the€possibleÏprejudicial€effect.€€If€the€prior€conviction€is€older€than€ten€years,€however,€the€probative€value€mustÏòòsubstantiallyóó€outweigh€the€possible€prejudicial€effect.€€The€prior€convictions€in€question€here€are€all€lessÏthan€ten€years€old,€and€therefore€are€subject€to€the€less€strict€standard.€€Ì oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McGheeóó,€746€S.W.2d€460,€463€(Tenn.€1988)€(prior€armed€robbery€convictionÏadmissible€to€impeach€credibility€as€a€witness€of€defendant€on€trial€for€armed€robbery);€òòState€v.€Gibsonóó,Ï701€S.W.2d€627,€628„629€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(prior€drug€offense€convictions€admissible€toÏimpeach€credibility€as€a€witness€of€defendant€on€trial€for€sale€of€controlled€substance);€òòState€v.€Eatonóó,ÏNo.€03C01„9209„CR„00044€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€29,€1992,€at€Knoxville)€(prior€convictionsÏfor€aggravated€burglary€and€breaking€and€entering€admissible€to€impeach€credibility€as€a€witness€ofÏdefendant€on€trial€for€theft).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔT.C.A.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(4).Ì ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔT.C.A.€ðð€39„14„103.Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔThe€defendant€insisted€in€his€testimony€at€trial€and€again€here€on€appeal€that€he€only€intendedÏto€borrow€a€car€to€go€and€visit€his€girlfriend.€€It€is€not€surprising€that€the€jury€chose€to€disbelieveÏdefendantððs€testimony€given€that€he€could€not€state€his€alleged€girlfriendððs€last€name€with€certainty€andÏthat,€when€asked€where€his€girlfriend€lived,€he€replied,€ð ðI€ainððt€figured€that€out€yet.ððÌPtPtHHÚ(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:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÓ&€..X„d&ÓÑ#€..Xd#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€÷€XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€231;+'h|` 81 `€€Lßà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àOCTOBER€1994ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9407„CR„00262ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€R.ÏJERRY€BECK€,ÌPHILLIP€S.€ROBERTS,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Theft;ÏAttempted€Theft;€Burglary)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òGALE€K.ÏFLANARYà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óP.€O.€Box€839ò òÌó óBlountville,€TN€€37617à àà àà àà àò òCLINTONÏJ.€MORGANó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertsonÍPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àCARL€K.€KIRPATRICKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àPHYLLIS€MILLERó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€37617Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€AND€DISMISSED€IN€PARTó óÌÌÌò òPER€CURIAMó óÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àAt€his€jury€trial,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€four€counts€of€burglary,Ïthree€counts€of€attempted€theft€of€property€valued€at€more€than€one€thousand€dollarsÏbut€less€than€ten€thousand€dollars,€and€one€count€of€possession€of€burglariousÏinstruments.€€He€was€sentenced€to€imprisonment€for€four€years€for€each€of€theÏattempted€theft€offenses,€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€possession€ofÏburglarious€instruments€offense,€and€four€years€for€three€of€the€four€burglaryÏoffenses.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€These€sentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently€with€one€another.€€TheÏfourth€burglary€offense× ƒ5 ××  ×€resulted€in€a€sentence€of€two€years€imprisonment€which€is€toÏrun€consecutively€to€the€other€sentences,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€six€years.€€TheÏdefendant€raises€three€issues€on€appeal€challenging€the€judgment€below.€€He€firstÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€dismiss€the€auto€burglary€charges.€€InÏhis€second€issue€he€contends€that€the€court€erred€in€allowing€cross„examination€ofÏthe€defendant€as€to€his€€prior€convictions.€€Finally,€he€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€as€to€the€attempted€theft€charges.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant€on€hisÍfirst€issue€and€reverse€his€convictions€and€dismiss€three€of€the€burglary€charges.ÌÌÓ  Óò òFACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àà àAt€approximately€3:30€a.m.€on€August€21,€1993,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,Ïpolice€officers€Brian€Taylor€and€Tim€Candler€were€off€duty€and€in€the€apartment€theyÏshared€at€the€Cross€Creek€apartment€complex.€€€Mr.€Taylor€heard€a€noise€outside€theÏapartment€which€prompted€him€to€look€out€his€window.€€He€observed€a€man€insideÏhis€neighborððs€Ford€Probe€automobile€looking€around€the€ignition€and€steeringÏcolumn€area€of€the€car.€€Mr.€Taylor€continued€to€watch€as€the€man€left€the€Probe€andÏwent€to€a€nearby€Mazda,€entering€it€by€using€a€tool.€€The€man€focused€his€attentionÏagain€on€the€ignition€and€steering€column€of€the€Mazda€as€he€did€in€the€first€car.€€Mr.ÏTaylor€observed€the€man€as€he€went€to€a€third€car,€a€Buick,€and€entered€it€using€aÏtool€as€with€the€Mazda.€€He€could€not€see€what€the€man€did€after€he€entered€the€thirdÏcar.€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Taylor€woke€Mr.€Candler€and€they€called€the€police€department.€ÏMessrs.€Taylor€and€Candler€then€went€to€the€parking€lot€to€apprehend€and€arrest€theÏman,€who€is€before€this€court€as€the€defendant.€€Upon€apprehending€the€defendant,Ïthe€officers€found€on€his€person€an€array€of€burglary€tools,€including€a€screwdriverÍwith€red€paint€on€the€tip€and€a€mask€made€from€a€red€T„shirt€over€his€head€and€face.€ÏOn„duty€police€officers€arrived€immediately€thereafter€and€took€custody€of€theÏdefendant€along€with€the€mask€and€tools.€€Ìò òÌÓ  ÓISSUE€IÌÓ  Óó óà àà àFor€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€four€convictions€forÏburglary€of€four€automobiles€should€be€dismissed€because€the€acts€of€entry€intoÏthose€automobiles,€which€were€the€bases€of€the€burglary€convictions,€were€merely€aÏpart€of€the€attempted€theft€of€those€same€vehicles,€and€therefore€may€not€supportÏseparate€convictions€for€burglary€in€addition€to€the€convictions€for€attempted€theft.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€relies€chiefly€on€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299Ï(Tenn.€1991),€in€making€his€argument.€The€defendants€in€òòAnthonyóó€were€convicted€ofÏboth€aggravated€kidnapping€and€armed€robbery€for€conduct€arising€out€of€the€sameÏepisode.€€The€defendants€had€held€the€employees€of€a€restaurant€at€gunpoint€whileÏthey€robbed€it.€€òòId.óó€at€301.€€The€court€explained€that€the€dual€convictions€did€not€raiseÏa€double€jeopardy€issue,€because€the€offenses€of€aggravated€kidnapping€and€armedÏrobbery€clearly€involved€separate€elements€such€that,€even€for€conduct€arising€out€ofÍthe€same€episode,€convictions€for€both€would€not€violate€double€jeopardy€principles.× ƒ6 ××  ×€ÏòòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€303.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€10;€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V.ÌÌà à€à àHowever,€the€Court€continued,€such€a€kidnapping€conviction€wouldÏviolate€due€process€guarantees,€if€the€facts€on€which€the€conviction€was€based€wereÏinsufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€The€relevantÏinquiry€is€whether:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò[the€act€on€which€the€kidnapping€conviction€is€based]€is€essential…ly€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,Ïsufficient€to€support€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€orÏwhether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrantÏindependent€prosecution€and€is,€therefore,€sufficient€to€supportÏsuch€a€conviction.ÌòòÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓId.óó€ÌÌà àà àEvery€robbery,€the€Court€noted,€by€the€actððs€very€nature€involves€someÏdetention€of€the€victim.€€This€does€not€mean,€however,€that€the€General€AssemblyÍintended€that€each€robbery€should€also€constitute€a€kidnapping,€even€though€a€literalÏreading€of€the€kidnapping€statute€might€suggest€so.€€The€task€in€each€case,€the€CourtÏexplained,€is€to€apply€the€statute€narrowly,€so€as€to€make€its€reach€fundamentally€fairÏand€guard€each€defendantððs€due€process€rights.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.Ìà àÌà àà àApplying€this€analysis,€the€Court€in€òòAnthonyóó€found€that€the€detention€ofÏthe€employees€that€was€the€basis€of€the€kidnapping€convictions€was€not€any€moreÏthan€was€necessary€to€accomplish€the€armed€robbery€itself.€€Accordingly,€the€CourtÏaffirmed€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€reversal€of€the€kidnapping€convictions.€€òòId.óó€atÏ307.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòAnthonyóó€the€Court€made€clear€that€its€decision€did€not€preclude€theÏpossibility€that€convictions€for€both€robbery€and€kidnapping€could€be€had€for€conductÏarising€out€of€the€same€episode.€€Had€the€victims€in€the€òòAnthonyóó€situation€been€takenÏhostage,€for€example,€then€perhaps€the€facts€would€have€been€sufficient€to€support€aÏkidnapping€conviction.€€òòId.óó€at€308.ÌÌà àà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€since€found€that€the€òòAnthonyóóÏprinciples€outlined€above€do€not€apply€only€to€cases€involving€robbery€and€kidnap…ping.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€579€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)Ï(applying€òòAnthonyóó€to€convictions€for€first„degree€murder,€aggravated€rape,€andÏkidnapping);€òòState€v.€Lusteróó,€No.€02C01„9201„CR„00019,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€November€25,€1992,€at€Jackson)€(applying€òòAnthonyóó€to€convictions€forÏattempted€aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€assault).€€This€case,€however,€isÏdistinguishable€from€òòAnthonyóó€and€its€progeny€because€the€attempted€theft€of€aÏvehicle€does€òònotóó,€by€definition,€involve€a€breaking€and€entering€into€the€vehicle.€€ForÏinstance,€a€hitchhiker€willingly€picked€up€may€(unsuccessfully)€attempt€to€hot„wire€theÏvehicle€while€the€driver€stops€at€a€convenience€store€and€takes€the€car€keys€with€him.€ÏWhile€the€hitchhiker's€actions€would€constitute€an€attempted€theft€of€the€vehicle,€noÏactions€consistent€with€a€burglary€would€have€preceded€the€offense.€€Thus,€òòAnthonyóóÏis€not€strictly€applicable€to€this€defendant's€case.ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€we€conclude€that€the€due€process€concerns€underlyingÏthe€holding€of€òòAnthonyóó€mandate€a€similar€result€under€these€particular€facts.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€HereÍthe€burglary€indictments€each€allege€that€the€defendant€entered€each€vehicle€withÏthe€intent€to€commit€a€theft.€€The€theft€allegedly€intended€in€each€instance€was€ofÏeach€automobile.€€As€required€by€the€theft€of€property€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„103,€theÏindictments€for€attempted€theft€each€allege€that€the€defendant€attempted€to€obtainÏand€exercise€control€over€property,€òòi.e.óó,€each€vehicle,€with€the€intent€to€deprive€theÏowner€thereof.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€intent€elements€in€the€indictments€for€burglary€and€attempted€theft,Ïthough€expressed€in€different€language,€are€the€same.€€Each€alleges,€in€essence,Ïthat€the€defendant€acted€with€the€singular€intent€to€commit€a€theft€of€each€vehicle.€ÏThe€substance€of€the€proof€presented€by€the€State€at€trial€is€consistent€with€theÏindictments.€€The€acts€of€entry€into€each€vehicle€as€alleged€and€proven€at€trial,Ïtherefore,€were€only€incidental€to€the€attempt€to€steal€each€vehicle.€€Just€as€everyÏrobbery€involves€some€detention€of€the€victim,€òòseeóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306,€inÏthis€case€each€attempt€to€steal€each€vehicle€involved€an€entry€into€each€vehicle.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€it€is€not€generally€a€violation€of€double€jeopardy€or€dueÍprocess€protections€to€convict€and€punish€a€defendant€for€both€burglary€and€theft.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€ÏòòState€v.€Davisóó,€613€S.W.2d€218,€221€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€721€S.W.2dÏ813,€818€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Burglary,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„402,€and€theft€ofÏproperty,€T.C.A.€€ðð€39„14„103,€are€codified€in€different€sections;€they€each€require€atÏleast€one€different€element;€they€protect€different€interests;€and€neither€is€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€the€other.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavisóó,€613€S.W.2d€218,€at€221.€€If,€for€example,Ïthe€State€had€alleged€and€shown€that€the€defendant€entered€each€vehicle€with€theÏintent€to€commit€some€felony,€theft,€or€assault€other€than€to€steal€the€vehicle,€such€asÏto€steal€the€radio€or€other€articles€from€within,€and€then€attempted€to€steal€the€vehicle,Ïthen€those€alleged€facts€would€likely€require€a€different€result€from€the€one€we€reachÏhere.€€However,€here€the€acts€of€entry€into€the€vehicles€as€alleged€and€proven€by€theÏState€are€merely€an€essential€and€incidental€step€in€the€attempted€theft€of€theÏvehicles€themselves.€€The€act€of€breaking€into€the€vehicles€is€not€significant€enough,Ïin€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€where€the€defendant€is€alsoÏconvicted€of€attempted€theft.€€We€hold€that,€under€the€facts€of€these€cases,€convictionsÏfor€both€burglary€and€attempted€theft€violate€the€principles€of€òòAnthonyóó.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€defendantððs€convictions€for€burglary€in€counts€one,€three€and€five€are€reversedÍand€dismissed.Ìà àÌÓ  Óò òISSUE€IIó óÌÓ  Óà àà àFor€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€State€should€notÏhave€been€allowed€to€use€his€prior€convictions€for€breaking€and€entering€into€aÏbusiness€with€intent€to€commit€larceny,€grand€larceny,€and€bringing€stolen€propertyÏinto€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€impeach€his€testimony.€€He€specifically€complains€thatÏthose€prior€convictions€were€too€similar€to€the€offenses€with€which€he€was€charged€inÏthe€court€below€to€be€admissible.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€theÏapplicable€law,€we€find€that€the€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àRule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€that€the€StateÏmay€use€prior€convictions€for€felonies€or€crimes€of€dishonesty€to€impeach€theÏcredibility€of€a€witness€after€the€witness€has€testified€on€direct€examination.€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€609(a).€€When€the€witness€in€question€is€the€defendant€in€a€criminal€prosecu…tion,€the€State€must€give€reasonable€notice€to€the€defense€and€the€trial€court€of€itsÏintent€to€introduce€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€should€the€defendant€testify.€€òòId.óóÏat€609(a)(3).€€Upon€request,€the€trial€court€must€rule€before€the€defendant€takes€theÏwitness€stand€on€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€prior€conviction€outweighs€theÍpossible€prejudicial€effects€on€the€substantive€issues€before€the€fact„finder.€€òòId.óó€ÏCareful€consideration€of€this€question€is€especially€in€order€where€the€prior€convic…tion€to€be€introduced€is€similar€to€or€the€same€as€the€charge€under€consideration€atÏtrial€against€the€defendant.€€This€is€to€avoid€the€impression€on€the€fact„finder€that,€ifÏthe€defendant€committed€the€same€or€similar€crime€before,€then€he€or€she€probablyÏcommitted€the€offense€on€trial€as€well.€€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€probative€valueÏoutweighs€the€possible€prejudicial€effect,€then€the€State€may€introduce€the€priorÏconvictions€to€impeach€the€witnessðð€credibility€once€he€or€she€has€testified€on€directÏexamination.€€òòId.óó× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àEvidence€of€a€prior€conviction€that€is€similar€to€or€the€same€as€anÏoffense€being€prosecuted€against€a€defendant€is€not€per€se€inadmissible€to€impeachÏthe€defendantððs€credibility€as€a€witness.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€standard€is€not€whether€there€is€òòanyÍóóprejudice€to€the€defendant€by€allowing€the€State€to€use€the€prior€conviction€forÏimpeachment,€but€whether€the€possible€prejudice€is€outweighed€by€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€evidence€as€to€the€defendantððs€credibility€as€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏGibsonóó,€701€S.W.2d€627,€629€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676ÏS.W.2d€542,€549€(Tenn.€1984).€€ÌÌà àà àFor€purposes€of€this€review,€this€Court€does€not€re„evaluate€whether€theÏprobative€value€of€the€Stateððs€use€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€outweighs€theÏpossible€prejudicial€effect€it€might€have€had.€€We€only€evaluate€whether€the€trialÏjudge€abused€his€discretion€in€ruling€that€the€State€could€use€the€prior€convictions€forÏimpeachment€of€the€defendantððs€testimony.€€We€find€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuseÏhis€discretion.ÌÌà àà àThe€State€presented€strong€proof€at€trial,€including€the€eyewitnessÏaccount€of€a€police€officer,€as€to€what€the€defendant€did€in€and€around€the€vehicles€inÏquestion.€€But€the€State€also€had€the€burden€to€demonstrate€the€defendantððs€underly…ing€intent.€€Specifically,€the€State€had€to€show€that€the€defendant€had€the€intent€toÍcommit€a€felony€or€theft€when€he€entered€the€cars€under€the€burglary€counts,× ƒ; ××  ×€andÏthat,€as€he€tried€to€start€each,€he€intended€to€permanently€deprive€the€owner€of€his€orÏher€car€under€the€attempted€theft€counts.× ƒ< ××  ×€€Because€the€defendant€did€not€communi…cate€his€intent€to€anyone€as€he€committed€these€acts,€the€State€had€to€rely€entirely€onÏcircumstantial€evidence€to€demonstrate€to€the€jury€that€the€defendant€had€the€intentÏnecessary€to€support€guilty€verdicts€in€each€of€the€counts€charged.ÌÌà àà àIn€light€of€the€Stateððs€overwhelming€proof€as€to€what€the€defendant€did,Ïit€would€have€been€all€but€useless€for€the€defendant€to€attempt€in€his€testimony€toÏshow€that€he€did€not€enter€the€cars€or€attempt€to€start€them.€€However,€the€State€mightÏreasonably€have€anticipated€that€the€defendant€would€attempt€to€convince€the€juryÏthatÌhe€had€some€intent€other€than€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft,€such€as€to€joyride,€aÏmisdemeanor,€as€he€indeed€did€testify.€€The€defendantððs€credibility€as€a€witness€wasÏtherefore€a€critical€issue.€€Accordingly,€it€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€allowÏthe€State€to€use€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€to€impeach€his€credibility€as€aÍwitness.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€even€if€it€had€been€error€for€the€trial€court€to€rule€that€theÏprosecution€could€use€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€to€impeach€his€credibility,Ïsuch€error€would€have€been€harmless€in€light€of€the€overwhelming€proof€that€theÏState€produced€as€to€the€defendant's€actions€on€the€night€in€question€and€theÏpatently€unconvincing€nature€of€the€defendantððs€testimony€as€to€his€intent,× ƒ= ××  ×€whichÏwe€will€note€again€in€the€discussion€of€the€third€issue€in€this€appeal.€€The€jury€hadÏmore€than€sufficient€evidence€from€which€to€find€€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€theÏoffenses€charged€without€having€to€rely€on€any€prejudicial€impressions€that€mayÏhave€resulted€from€the€introduction€of€his€prior€convictions€for€similar€crimes.ÌÌò òà àà àó óWhile€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€commit€error€by€ruling€admissi…ble€for€impeachment€purposes€the€defendant's€prior€convictions,€we€do€not€agreeÏwith€the€State€that€the€defendant€waived€this€issue€when€he€testified€about€theseÏprior€convictions€on€direct€examination.€€In€òòState€v.€McGheeóó,€746€S.W.2d€460€(Tenn.Í1988),€our€Supreme€Court€addressed€this€waiver€issue€in€a€similar€context.€€In€thatÏcase,€the€defendant,€who€was€on€trial€for€armed€robbery,€filed€a€motion€in€limine€toÏprevent€his€impeachment€by€proof€of€a€prior€armed€robbery€conviction.€€After€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€made€a€"clear€and€definitive€ruling"€that€the€conviction€wasÏadmissible.€€òòMcGheeóó,€746€S.W.2d€ÌÌat€463.€€The€defendant€then€took€the€stand€and€testified€on€direct€examination€aboutÏthe€prior€conviction.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€held€that€the€defendant's€own€testimonyÏabout€his€prior€conviction€waived€any€issue€about€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€OurÏSupreme€Court€held€our€ruling€to€be€error,€stating,€"it€was€not€necessary€for€counselÏfurther€to€object€to€that€ruling.€€After€the€ruling€had€been€made,€clearly€and€unequivo…cally,€in€our€opinion€the€issue€was€sufficiently€preserved€for€further€review€on€appealÏwithout€the€making€of€any€further€objection."€€òòIdóó.€€In€support€of€its€ruling,€our€SupremeÏCourt€explained€that€it€was€"not€inclined€to€require€counsel€to€make€technical,Ïargumentative€or€repetitious€objections€to€issues€which€have€already€been€ruledÏupon."€€òòMcGheeóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€464.ÌÌà àà àThus,€the€defendant€has€not€waived€his€right€to€contest€the€trial€court'sÏruling€that€his€prior€convictions€were€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes.€€As€setÍforth€above,€however,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.Ìò òÌà@ àISSUE€IIIó óÌà àà àLastly,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÏinsufficient€to€convict€him€on€the€three€attempted€theft€charges.€€Specifically,€theÏdefendant€insists€that€the€prosecution€did€not€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏhe€possessed€the€requisite€intent€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€crimes.€€After€a€thoroughÏreview€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€find€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€principles€which€govern€this€Courtððs€review€of€a€conviction€by€a€juryÏare€settled.€€This€Court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adducedÏat€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€the€finding€of€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€reason…able€doubt.€€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€determinations€of€guilt€predicat…ed€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€thereof.€€òòState€v.ÏMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àà àA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdictÏreturned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€ofÍguilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€anyÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€forÏa€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌ€à àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evi…dence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€"òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÍof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€emphasizes€in€his€brief€that€the€State€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€citing€òòRoe€v.€Stateóó,€358€S.W.2d€308€(Tenn.Ï1962);€òòHardin€v.€Stateóó,€355€S.W.2d€105€(Tenn.€1962);€òòMarshall€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2dÏ823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€We€obviously€concur€with€that€proposition,€but€find€thatÏthe€State€has€proven€this€defendantððs€guilt€on€all€three€attempted€theft€charges€byÏproving€each€and€every€element€of€the€offenses,€including€the€defendant's€intent.ÌÌà àà àIt€has€been€long€established€that€a€jury€may€infer€a€criminal€defendantððsÏintent€from€the€surrounding€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Loweryóó,€667€S.W.2dÏ52,€57€(Tenn.€1984);€òòHall€v.€Stateóó,€490€S.W.2d€495,€496€(Tenn.€1973);€òòBurns€v.€Stateóó,Ï591€S.W.2d€780,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Indeed,€the€actions€of€a€defendantÏconstitute€circumstantial€evidence€of€his€intent.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€59Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Barkeróó,€642€S.W.2d€735,€737€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1982).€€Moreover,€ð ð[œi]ntent›€may,€and€necessarily€must€in€most€cases,€be€inferred€fromÏthe€facts;€as€from€the€fact€that€a€felony€is€actually€committed€or€attempted€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòHollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€at€59€n.€14,€quoting€Justin€Miller,€òòCriminal€Lawóó€ðð108,€at€338Í(1934).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€State€produced€circumstantial€evidence€as€to€theÏdefendantððs€intent€from€which€the€jury€could€reasonably€infer€that€the€defendantÏpossessed€the€requisite€intent€to€permanently€deprive€each€of€the€owners€of€theirÏautomobiles.€€The€State€showed,€and€the€defendant€did€not€refute,€that€he€came€toÏthe€apartment€parking€lot€(1)€in€the€dark,€very€early€morning;€(2)€while€wearing€aÏmask€which€hid€his€face;€and€(3)€armed€with€an€array€of€burglary€tools.€€The€StateÏalso€produced€an€off„duty€police€officer€as€an€eyewitness€who€testified€that€he€sawÏthe€defendant€focusing€on€the€ignition€and€steering€column€of€two€of€the€vehicles€inÏquestion,€and€the€proof€linked€red€paint€observed€in€the€ignition€switch€of€the€thirdÏvehicle€to€red€paint€on€the€tip€of€a€screwdriver€the€defendant€had€on€his€person€at€theÏtime€of€his€apprehension.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€insisted€in€his€testimony€at€trial€and€again€here€onÏappeal€that€he€only€intended€to€borrow€a€car€to€go€and€visit€his€girlfriend.€€It€is€notÏsurprising€that€the€jury€chose€to€disbelieve€defendantððs€testimony€given€that€he€couldÏnot€state€the€alleged€girlfriendððs€last€name€with€certainty€and€that,€when€asked€whereÏthis€girlfriend€lived,€he€replied,€ð ðI€ainððt€figured€that€out€yet.ðð€ÌÌà àà àBased€on€this€evidence,€it€is€clear€that€the€jury€could€properly€infer€thatÏthe€defendant€intended€to€permanently€deprive€the€owners€of€their€vehicles.€€Even€ifÏother€reasonable€inferences€could€be€drawn€from€the€surrounding€facts€and€circum…stances,€that€would€not€be€a€proper€inquiry€for€this€Court.€€The€adoption€or€exclusionÏof€potential€inferences€based€on€circumstantial€evidence€is€a€question€within€theÏjury's€prerogative.€€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€947€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);ÏòòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€371,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àà àThe€judgments€of€conviction€for€attempted€theft€are€affirmed.€€TheÏconviction€of€the€burglaryò ò€ó óof€the€Buick€in€count€seven€(No.€34,713)€is€affirmed.€€TheÏconvictions€of€the€burglaries€of€the€Ford€in€count€one€(No.€34,710),€the€BMW€in€countÏthree€(No.€74,711),€and€the€Mazda€in€count€five€(No.€34,712)€are€reversed€andÏdismissed.€€The€conviction€of€possession€of€burglarious€instruments€is€affirmed.€€TheÏdefendant's€sentences€are€adjusted€accordingly.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(SCOTT€AND€PEAY)Ì