ÿWPCÇ eµ<ôVox±£bh¾V̯¢8¼$z05\L{5%8yæ1_^øÇ}®‘ 2æ¸Û p™1û¨û‡á÷¥<Ÿ§…+¬Ø8„Oø~v¦ŸÃìÃÚÝ^!Ó—g;,…önQIÀáVfö&ØŸ¹ŠžÄòÓ”7 –—œ™ DéS¾=ÁWПR"ØN’ÿ›‚žƒSÒ3JÞÂTC@Øo*ô¤lŽÔ3=j€ủ›ü? U_ ÅÚ¦€zÊ쾘¨¥²­ßM‡–8‰+£"!nÄ=AÜrµÉÔA,ÑiâQoZp¿p£ÈíM~B"$jĪÒ 5PÈ¿‘ºÇ¢Ùæv^ÿœ•rú§ƒ?Œ'>ïîE Îº<”á’±lDU~dßN$ŠHæh7üAr£ÝßDõbË!t¦xr»ÿM¥´ÑÚ<Ä>·“¢®eµ_ƒÐÄ ¥žøâÿnâóüôiE5à2Cä%Mà /é2õ¯&³*š­ìãºÊ(œÛ×1ù$ý¬%½Ò­ÂœÀ ß%”þ–ž:('ê~Ä‘!äšI;8¼húFÿ#ü òeü\øQç2®Ú<ᆕüž–Z´r1es+]“9ãrÉÖõŸÀJLÖ8gè……š‡HIb %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*ZxU>Ò ^  z Ò– wh 4l €  Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã m©NÀ#ÁÂëƒEnppppppppppppppppppp 0Dxxxxb¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ 0ëÄÄÄÄ B¯¯ 0¤Ì D3p D-£ 0KÐÐ ASÆn 0¤4 0DØ A«»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular PÝ ƒRÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€as€required€under€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607,€612Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1995),€where€eyewitness€identification€testimony€is€at€issue.Ð tÄ Ðô\  `‹&Times New Roman‰,s  ˜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.wptYo†)¤î¦¼‘«3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 áÝ ƒRÁ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Defendantððs€presentence€report€indicates€that€the€Defendant€is€five€feet€five€inches€tall.€€ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2Á$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«½ò»»Ô d(|3?y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Õ»»»ÔÑ8€GéXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÄÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Õ»îîÄ#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€February€5,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XGéX»¼ÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼Õ»XXGé/#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€EDDIE€LEE€TAYLORÔ‡XGéX»¼ÕÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„192€€€€€€Roy€B.€Morgan,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01077„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€April€4,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Eddie€Lee€Taylor,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€aggravated€robbery.€€He€wasÐ xÈ  Ðsubsequently€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€sixteen€years€in€the€Department€ofÐ d´ ÐCorrection.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€toÐ P  Ðsupport€his€conviction.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð <Œ ÐÓºÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Õ»àXGé›#ÔÔ‡XGéX.¼ÕÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð ì< ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌClayton€F.€Mayo,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Eddie€Lee€Taylor.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€JerryÐ ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jody€S.€Pickens,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓóÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Õ»XXGé"#ÔÔ‡XGéX»¼ÕÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Õ»XXGé #ÔÔ‡XGéX»¼ÕÔÓ  Óà  àMs.€Carolyn€Curtis€Brand€testified€that€she€was€the€manager€of€the€Star€Beauty€Supply€storeÐ #`" Ðin€Ô#†¼Õ»XXGé` #ÔÔ€XGéX»¼ÕÔJackson,€Tennessee.€€She€opened€the€store€at€about€9€oððclock€on€the€morning€of€August€16,€1999.€Ð ü#L# ÐAt€about€9:30,€a€man€Ms.€Brand€had€never€seen€before€entered€the€store€and€began€looking€around.€Ð è$8 $ ÐWhen€she€asked€him€if€she€could€help€him,€he€replied€that€he€had€forgotten€what€he€had€come€in€for.€Ð Ô%$!% ÐA€few€minutes€later,€the€man€returned€and€asked€to€use€the€phone,€explaining€that€he€had€car€trouble.€Ð À&"& ÐMs.€Brand€allowed€the€man€to€use€the€phone,€and€he€then€left.€€A€short€time€later,€the€man€returnedÐ ¬'ü"' Ðto€the€store.€€Ms.€Brand€identified€the€man€as€the€Defendant,€and€stated€that€he€had€been€wearing€aÐ ˜(è#( Ðblue€ball€cap,€a€blue€t„shirt,€and€blue€jeans.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àUpon€his€third€trip€into€the€store,€Ms.€Brand€testified,€the€Defendant€selected€an€item€fromÐ \+¬&+ Ða€shelf€and€laid€it€on€the€counter.€€She€rang€up€the€purchase€on€the€cash€register€and€told€him€theÐ H,˜', Ðprice.€€At€that€point,€she€stated,€the€Defendant€produced€a€gun€and€said,€ð ðCheck€this€out.ðð€€Ms.€BrandÐ 4-„(-ýZ ÐÔ_Ôdescribed€the€gun€as€a€black€automatic.€€The€Defendant€then€came€around€the€counter€and€told€Ms.Ð ° ÐBrand€to€lock€the€door,€which€Ms.€Brand€did.€€The€Defendant€then€ordered€Ms.€Brand€to€the€backÐ œì Ðof€the€store€into€the€storage€room,€and€followed€her€there.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€told€Ms.€Brand€to€stay€in€the€back,€and€he€returned€to€the€front€of€the€store.€Ð `° ÐHe€then€returned€to€the€storage€room€and€ordered€Ms.€Brand€to€take€off€her€clothes.€€Ms.€BrandÐ L œ Ðrefused,€and€the€Defendant€again€went€to€the€front€of€the€store.€€Ms.€Brand€heard€the€cash€registerÐ 8 ˆ Ðdrawer€open.€€Ms.€Brand€testified€that€there€was€approximately€$250€in€the€cash€register.€€TheÐ $ t ÐDefendant€again€came€to€the€storage€room,€and€again€ordered€Ms.€Brand€to€undress.€€When€she€againÐ  ` Ðrefused,€the€Defendant€became€nervous€and€left€the€store.€€Ms.€Brand€then€returned€to€the€frontÐ ü L  Ðcounter,€pushed€the€silent€alarm€button,€and€went€up€the€street€to€the€drug€store€to€call€the€police.€Ð è 8  ÐAs€she€left€the€store,€she€saw€the€Defendantððs€back€as€he€was€headed€toward€the€TNE€MerchandiseÐ Ô$  Ðstore.Ð À  ÐÌà  àLoye€Costner€testified€that€he€was€the€pharmacist€in€the€drug€store€from€which€Ms.€BrandÐ ˜è  Ðcalled€the€police.€€He€stated€that€the€Defendant€had€been€in€his€store€earlier€that€morning,€and€thatÐ „Ô  ÐMr.€Costner€had€not€recognized€him.€€Mr.€Costner€spoke€with€the€Defendant,€and€stated€that€theÐ pÀ ÐDefendant€was€vague€about€what€he€wanted.€€The€Defendant€then€left€and€Mr.€Costner€saw€himÐ \¬ Ðwalking€in€the€direction€of€Star€Beauty€Supply.€€Mr.€Costner€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€beenÐ H˜ Ðwearing€blue€jeans,€and€that€he€was€short.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Costner€testified€that€Ms.€Brand€came€into€his€storeÐ 4„ Ðto€call€the€police€about€ten€to€fifteen€minutes€after€the€Defendant€left€his€store.Ð  p ÐÌà  àMr.€Steve€Sherrod€testified€on€behalf€of€the€Defendant,€explaining€that€he€owned€andÐ øH Ðoperated€a€store€across€the€street€from€Star€Beauty€Supply.€€Mr.€Sherrod€testified€that€he€did€not€seeÐ ä4 Ðthe€Defendant€enter€the€Star€Beauty€Supply€store,€and€did€not€notice€anything€out€of€the€ordinaryÐ Ð  Ðuntil€the€police€arrived.€€Mr.€Sherrod€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€did€not€keep€a€watch€onÐ ¼  Ðthe€Beauty€Supply€store,€and€that€he€would€not€necessarily€have€seen€people€entering€and/or€leavingÐ ¨ø Ðthe€store.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àMr.€William€Roan€testified€as€the€latent€fingerprint€examiner€for€the€Jackson€PoliceÐ l¼ ÐDepartment.€€He€explained€that€he€had€obtained€two€fingerprints€which€were€suitable€for€comparisonÐ X ¨ Ðpurposes€from€the€item€that€the€Defendant€placed€on€the€Beauty€Supply€store€counter.€€€He€stated€thatÐ D!” Ðneither€of€these€prints€matched€the€Defendantððs.€€He€stated€on€cross„examination€that€the€itemÐ 0"€  Ðappeared€to€have€other€fingerprints€on€it,€but€that€they€were€not€suitable€for€comparison€purposes.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified,€stating€that€he€had€ð ðnever€been€in€Star€Beauty€Supply€before€in€[his]Ð ô$D # Ðlife.ðð€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€in€the€Jackson€unemployment€office€that€day,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel€entered€proof€that€the€Defendant€had€checked€into€the€unemployment€office€at€12:34€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðafternoon.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àThe€only€issue€raised€in€this€appeal€is€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Specifically,€theÐ ° Ðâ âDefendant€contends€that,€ð ð[b]ecause€no€direct€physical€evidence€against€[the€Defendant]€wasÐ œì Ðdiscovered€or€presented€at€trial,€and€because€the€only€eyewitness€testimony€presented€at€trial€wasÐ ˆØ Ðimpeached€and€contained€inaccuracies,€inconsistencies,€and€contradictions€that€are€highly€improbableÐ tÄ Ðand€unsatisfactory,€reasonable€doubt€of€[the€Defendantððs]€guilt€exists€as€a€matter€of€law€and€theÐ `° Ðverdict€should€be€overturned.ðð€Ð L œ ÐÔ‡XGéXXXGéÔà  àÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guilt€in€criminalÐ $ t Ðactions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ  ` Ðthe€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Evidence€is€sufficient€if,€afterÐ ü L  Ðreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ è 8  Ðhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ð Ô$  Ð443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€278€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€addition,€becauseÐ À  Ðconviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumption€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðguilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,Ð „Ô  Ð105„06€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992);òòóó€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).òòóóÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongest€legitimateÐ 4„ Ðview€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ  p Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914;òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€279.€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð  \ Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€191;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBuggsóó,Ð øH Ð995€S.W.2d€at€105.òòóó€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€find€particular€conflicts€in€the€trialÐ ä4 Ðtestimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,Ð Ð  Ð639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÐ ¼  Ðgiven€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€the€appellate€courts.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€788,€795€(Tenn.€2000);€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐCrim.€App.€1987).Ð €Ð ÐÔ#†XGéXXXGé!#ÔÌà  àAggravated€robbery€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€anotherÐ X ¨ Ðby€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear,€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð D!” Ððð€39„13„402(a)(1).€€The€Defendant€does€not€contend€that€Ms.€Brand€was€not€the€victim€of€anÐ 0"€  Ðaggravated€robbery,€but€contends€only€that€the€proof€of€his€identity€as€the€perpetrator€is€notÐ #l! Ðsufficient.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ms.€Brand€identified€the€Defendant€at€trial€as€the€man€whoÐ $X" Ðentered€the€Star€Beauty€Supply€store,€produced€a€gun,€and€ordered€her€to€remain€in€the€back€roomÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€store€while€he€opened€the€cash€register.€€She€described€the€perpetrator€at€trial€as€ð ð[h]is€faceÐ à%0!$ Ðwas€round.€€He€had€a€prominent€nose.€€The€eyes€was€kind€of€squinty.€€He€had€full€lips.€€Face€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðclear€and€no€hair€on€his€face.ðð€€The€jury€was€able€to€compare€this€description€with€the€DefendantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðactual€appearance€as€he€sat€in€the€courtroom.€€On€cross„examination,€defense€counsel€was€able€toÐ ° Ðestablish€that€Ms.€Brand€had€made€some€prior€inconsistent€statements€about€the€circumstances€ofÐ œì Ðthe€robbery.€€These€did€not€involve,€however,€the€Defendantððs€identity€or€description.€€Mr.€CostnerÐ ˆØ Ðalso€identified€the€Defendant€at€trial€as€the€man€who€was€in€his€drug€store€a€few€minutes€before€Ms.Ð tÄ ÐBrand€came€in€to€report€the€robbery,€and€the€jury€was€also€able€to€determine€whether€Mr.€CostnerððsÐ `° Ðdescription€of€the€Defendant€as€ð ðshortðð€was€accurate.Ð L œ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€essence,€the€Defendant€is€asking€this€Court€to€overturn€the€juryððs€determination€that€Ms.Ð $ t ÐBrandððs€testimony€was€more€credible€than€the€Defendantððs.€€This,€we€cannot€do.€€As€this€Court€hasÐ  ` Ðpreviously€noted:€Ð ü L  ÐÔ‡XGéXXXGéÔà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€credible€testimony€of€one€identification€witness€isÐ è 8  Ðsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€if€the€witness€viewed€the€accusedÐ Ô$  Ðunder€such€circumstances€as€would€permit€a€positive€identification€toÐ À  Ðbe€made.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87„88€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.€1993)òò.óó€Inconsistency,€inaccuracy€and€omissions€in€theÐ ˜è  Ðdescription€of€a€defendant€by€a€witness€who€is€otherwise€able€toÐ „Ô  Ðpositively€identify€the€defendant€are€questions€for€the€jury€to€considerÐ pÀ Ðin€determining€the€weight€to€be€given€the€testimony.€òòSee€generallyóóÐ \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)òò.óóÐ H˜ ÐFurther,€although€inconsistencies€or€inaccuracies€may€make€ò òó ótheÐ 4„ Ðwitness€a€less€credible€witness,€the€juryððs€verdict€will€not€be€disturbedÐ  p Ðunless€the€inaccuracies€or€inconsistencies€are€so€improbable€orÐ  \ Ðunsatisfactory€as€to€create€a€reasonable€doubt€of€the€appellantððs€guilt.Ô#†XGéXXXGé%4#ÔÐøH` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Radleyóó,€29€S.W.3d€532,€537€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Stateððs€witnesses€were€firm€and€unwavering€in€their€identification€of€the€Defendant.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðlack€of€physical€evidence,€and€the€minor€inconsistencies€in€Ms.€Brandððs€testimony€about€matters€notÐ ”ä Ðinvolving€the€Defendantððs€identity,€do€not€create€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€Defendantððs€guilt€soÐ €Ð Ðas€to€require€this€Court€to€overturn€the€juryððs€verdict.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAlthough€not€raised€by€either€party€in€this€appeal,€we€take€this€opportunity€to€note€the€trialÐ D!” Ðcourtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€robbery.€€Prior€to€the€trial€judgeÐ 0"€  Ðissuing€his€charge,€he€spoke€to€the€prosecutor€and€defense€counsel€about€the€necessity€of€chargingÐ #l! Ðrobbery.€€Both€attorneys€agreed€that€this€was€an€ð ðall€or€nothingðð€case,€given€the€Stateððs€undisputedÐ $X" Ðproof€that€a€gun€was€involved,€and€given€the€Defendantððs€theory€that€he€was€not€the€perpetrator,Ð ô$D # Ðregardless€of€the€crime€committed.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court,€together€with€both€lawyers,Ð à%0!$ Ðdetermined€that€a€charge€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€robbery€was€not€necessary.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€recently€stated€that,€ð ð[a]s€a€general€rule,€evidence€sufficient€to€warrantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€instruction€on€the€greater€offense€also€will€support€an€instruction€on€a€lesser€offense€under€partÐ )à$( Ð(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test.ðð€€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€__€S.W.3d€__,€__,€2002€Tenn.€LEXIS€76,€*11„12€(Tenn.€2002).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐRobbery€is€a€lesser„included€offense€under€part€(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test€because€all€of€its€statutoryÐ h+¸&* Ðelements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6Ð ° ÐS.W.3d€453,€466€(Tenn.€1999);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„401(a),€39„13„402(a)(1).€€Thus,€ð ð[i]nÐ œì Ðproving€the€greater€offense€the€State€necessarily€has€proven€the€lesser€offense€because€all€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðstatutory€elements€of€the€lesser€offense€are€included€in€the€greater.ðð€€òòAllenóó,€__€S.W.3d€at€__,€2002Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€LEXIS€76,€at€*12.€€Moreover,€the€òòAllenóó€court€admonished€that€ð ð[t]he€trial€court€must€provideÐ `° Ðan€instruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense€supported€by€the€evidence€even€if€such€instruction€is€notÐ L œ Ðconsistent€with€the€theory€of€the€State€or€of€the€defense.€€The€evidence,€not€the€theories€of€the€parties,Ð 8 ˆ Ðcontrols€whether€an€instruction€is€required.ðð€€òòId.óó,€__€S.W.3d€at€__,€2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXISÐ $ t Ð76,€at€*11.€€We€must€conclude,€then,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€theÐ  ` Ðlesser„included€offense€of€robbery.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àHowever,€reversal€of€the€Defendantððs€conviction€and€remand€of€this€matter€for€a€new€trialÐ Ô$  Ðis€not€required€where€ð ðit€appears€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€outcomeÐ À  Ðof€the€trial.ðð€€òòAllenóó,€__€S.W.3d€at€__,€2002€Tenn.€LEXIS€76,€at€*22.€€In€making€this€determination,Ð ¬ü  Ðthis€Court€must€ð ðconduct€a€thorough€examination€of€the€record,€including€the€evidence€presented€atÐ ˜è  Ðtrial,€the€defendantððs€theory€of€defense,€and€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€If€this€Court€findsÐ „Ô  Ðat€the€conclusion€of€this€examination€that€the€proof€of€the€element€distinguishing€the€greater€offenseÐ pÀ Ðfrom€the€lesser€was€uncontested€and€supported€by€overwhelming€and€uncontroverted€evidence,€aÐ \¬ Ðdetermination€that€the€error€in€failing€to€give€an€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offense€wasÐ H˜ Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€is€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòAllenóó,€__€S.W.3d€at€__,€2002€Tenn.€LEXISÐ 4„ Ð76,€at€*17„18.€€òòóóÐ  p ÐÌà  à€In€this€case,€the€proof€at€trial€that€the€perpetrator€of€the€aggravated€robbery€was€armed€withÐ øH Ða€gun€was€uncontested€and€uncontroverted,€and€supported€by€the€eyewitness€testimony€of€the€victim.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€Defendantððs€theory€of€defense€was€misidentification:€not€that€he€committed€the€offense€withoutÐ Ð  Ða€deadly€weapon.€€In€essence,€the€Defendant€conceded€that€the€perpetrator€of€the€offense€was€armed.€Ð ¼  ÐAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„includedÐ ¨ø Ðoffense€of€robbery€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ”ä ЀÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð l¼ ÐòòóóÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE