ÿWPC¼  ¨cÕvIŸ½«ðm“©7#º¶Û€ÇaUÄÜ¥ôíOsØó‡5A®ÑS[!ë-Ãŧ¬¦[ì‡D@õ‡´ÂzÉ ‹@®ÎìX¤-W´Ó9EŽáR”Íðñȃ+ûr\Âüqx=‹L<âásûdÐŒú‡.zÂîˆÐ¯L¬ïõ6!>Ôð뀂¨wŠØ¨œÀ5’ÆZV}ÌâE¥îµ÷¥¼í=i/(—VXÑ—ô5sœ$¥Æ–"ø¸qÂÞPLE¢”ÈG[Ä|µVI”Ãt³REznæÍ Fdô”çJá/Ó®¶,4ëiƒþòéu€ô$ixZojœf“*j¹ãL£ËÍgÿw§o´mÒ¬8µ³j¹FHãv êßIkéÐ4*ê_š²áM> ¨ œÏLEЕÒq´Ôú7Ô#âxÜÆ¼ü>?bwKC±À®©ÍlÅ~¬} /ZØ”9@¹J¢òlÌÁo Mï‘­M¼‘ƒòç<ƒ~Ô@ësÎlíîú¤½E/7bç-Æ~Ç®¥w×!¹< •”òÉ ?UøëS† aÕ¹Z ™Ç–©3‚íK9²‡ìœ’rïù¤’þ~ô4çyC|?O¬® »³r`j2íåƒOÈá­¤ø‡÷ÞßQ•‘®x;®± —%UB %HU .N|nXŒ 0Pä44H 0ÒP 0c"w@…U:ÅU :ÿU:9999ésC\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ BŸ <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT|X`«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÑ+&(‚(2Í$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ô YôXXÔÔ€ôw®ôôô YÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó WEXYEZ[\D]D^_D`g"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ßÝ ƒ Í$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ô YôXXÔÔ€ôw®ôôô YÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€judgment€form€is€internally€inconsistent,€in€that€in€one€place,€it€states€that€all€but€fifty„fiveÐ `  Ðdays€is€suspended€while€in€another€place,€it€states€that€all€but€sixty€days€is€suspended.€€Both€partiesÏrepresent€in€their€briefs€that€all€but€fifty„five€days€of€the€sentence€is€suspended. 9Ý ƒ Í$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ô YôXXÔÔ€ôw®ôôô YÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€looking€at€the€1990€judgment€form,€a€Davidson€County€probate€court€clerk€testified€thatÐ `  Ðthe€judgment€form€listed€the€offenderððs€name€as€ð ðMark€J.€Turner.ðð€€The€copy€of€the€judgment€formÏcontained€in€the€record€on€appeal,€however,€lists€the€offenderððs€name€merely€as€ð ðMark€Turner.ðð€€BecauseÏneither€party€questions€this€discrepancy,€however,€neither€will€we. dÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ñ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€X¬EXXXÔÑ7€ ¬E XXdìdÈ7Ñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@yy:MàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@ŸŸ6MàJANUARY€œ1998›€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ ìŒ  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9703„CR„00071ó óÐ à€  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð Ôt  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÐ Èh  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð ¼\  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€FRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€JR.,Ð °P  ÐMARK€JOHN€TURNER,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ ¤D Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó€ò òÐ ˜8 Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellant.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Driving€Under€the€Influence)ò òÐ Œ, Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ Dä ÐÌÌò òC.€EDWARD€FOWLKESà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ  ¨ Ðó ó172€Second€Ave.,€Northà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ü œ ÐSuite€214ÌNashville,€TN€37201„1908à ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYó óÐ Ô"t Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà ¨ àà àó óà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð ´$T Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€Ð  %@ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÐ d(! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àBERNARD€F.€McEVOYó óÐ 0+Ð!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€District€Attorney€Generalà p# àÐ $,Ä"% Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à222€Second€Ave.,€NorthÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ H6è,0 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ 9´/3 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ô:”15( ÐÑÜXÑÓ  Óà@££:Màò òòòÔ‡¼u…¼XX¬EÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†X¬EX¼¼u…„#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓÔ‡ X¬EXXX¬EÔà ¨ àà àIn€1996,€the€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€driving€under€theÐ H è Ðinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€(DUI),€second€offense.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€elevenÏmonths,€twenty„nine€days€incarceration,€all€but€fifty„five€days€suspended,׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ X¬EXX X¬EÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€with€theÐ ø˜ Ðbalance€to€be€served€on€probation.€€He€now€presents€several€arguments€whyÏenhancement€to€second„offense€DUI€was€improper.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€weÏaffirm.ÌÌà ¨ àà àTo€enhance€the€defendantððs€DUI€conviction€to€second„offense€DUI,€theÏState€relied€upon€a€1990€conviction€for€DUI.€€The€defendant€sought€to€have€the€1990Ïconviction€declared€void€as€an€enhancement€factor€on€the€basis€that€the€record€did€notÏreflect€strict€compliance€with€statutory€provisions€regarding€the€election€of€the€specialÏjudge€who€accepted€the€guilty€plea€that€led€to€the€conviction.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏdefendantððs€motion.ÌÌà ¨ àà àDuring€that€portion€of€the€defendantððs€trial€relating€to€whether€his€DUIÏoffense€was€a€second€offense,€the€State€introduced€into€evidence€a€copy€of€the€judgmentÏfrom€the€1990€conviction.€€The€1990€judgment€reflected€that€the€defendant€in€that€case,Ïð ðMark€Turner,ðð€pled€guilty€to€first„offense€DUI€and€was€sentenced€to€eleven€months,Ïtwenty„nine€days€incarceration,€with€all€but€forty„eight€hours€suspended.׃Ð×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ X¬EXX X¬EÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€copy€ofÐ x.%( Ðthis€judgment€is€not€certified€and€the€only€stamp€reflected€on€it€is€one€dated€March€4,Ð P0ð&* Ð1997,€which€is€the€date€the€appellate€record€was€prepared.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€State€also€introduced€into€evidence€a€copy€of€the€arrest€warrantÏunderlying€the€1990€conviction,€a€copy€of€the€arrest€warrant€in€the€present€case,€and€theÏtestimony€of€a€Davidson€County€probate€court€clerk.€€Through€the€clerkððs€testimony,€theÏState€compared€the€arresteeððs€personal€information€and€physical€characteristics€listedÏon€the€arrest€warrant€from€the€1990€DUI€conviction€with€those€on€the€arrest€warrant€in€thisÏcase€in€an€effort€to€prove€that€the€offender€in€both€cases€was€the€defendant.€€In€so€doing,Ïthe€clerk€testified€that€both€arrest€warrants€reflected€that€the€arrestee€was€a€5'11"€whiteÏmaleÔ#†X¬EXX X¬E#ÔÔ‡ X¬EXXX¬EÔ€named€Mark€John€Turner€and€born€October€29,€1958.€€She€testified€that€the€arrestÐ ø˜ Ðwarrant€in€the€present€case€reflected€the€defendant€weighed€170€pounds€and€had€hazelÏeyes€and€brown€hair,€while€the€prior€arrest€warrant€reflected€the€arrestee€weighed€160Ïpounds€and€had€green€eyes.€€When€asked€what€color€of€hair€the€prior€arrest€warrantÏreflected,€the€clerk€noted€that€the€abbreviation€ð ðBLðð€was€used€and€explained€that€notationÏcould€mean€either€black€or€blond€hair.€€The€residential€addresses€listed€on€the€two€arrestÏwarrants€were€different.Ìò òÌó óà ¨ àà àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€theÐ È(h" Ðnotations€of€physical€characteristics€listed€on€the€prior€arrest€warrant€for€the€purpose€ofÏproving€identity,€that€is,€that€the€defendant€was€the€same€person€arrested€for€andÏultimately€convicted€of€DUI€in€1990.€€He€argues€that€the€admission€of€this€evidenceÏviolated€his€rights€under€the€Confrontation€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏviolated€the€hearsay€rule€as€stated€in€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(8).ÌÌà ¨ àà àThis€Court€has€held€that€the€admission€of€court€records€into€evidence€forÏthe€purpose€of€proving€habitual€offender€status€does€not€violate€a€defendantððsÐ ˆ7(.2 Ðconstitutional€right€to€confront€his€or€her€accusers.€€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€608€S.W.2d€158,€160„Ð `  Ð61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€A€defendant€does€not€have€the€right€to€re„examineÏwitnesses€from€proceedings€relating€to€prior€offenses€because€he€or€she€had€the€right€toÏconfront€them€during€the€prior€proceedings.€€òòIdóó.€at€161€(citing€òòPeople€v.€Bryanóó,€83€Cal.Ð èˆ ÐRptr.€291,€303€(Ct.€App.€1970)).€€This€reasoning€is€applicable€here.€€Thus,€theÏdefendantððs€constitutional€challenge€to€the€admission€of€the€prior€arrest€warrant€must€fail.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€admitting€the€prior€arrest€warrant€intoÏevidence€violated€the€rule€against€hearsay€and€that€this€type€of€evidence€is€specificallyÏforbidden€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(8).€€Rule€803€provides,€in€pertinent€part:€Ìà8 ¨ àà8 ¨ ò"¨ ò"àà X àThe€following€are€not€excluded€by€the€hearsay€rule:Ð  š š  Ðà ¨ àà àà X à.€.€.Ìà8 ¨ àà8 ¨ ò"¨ ò"àà X à(8)€Public€Records€and€Reports.€€ÓÓUnless€the€source€ofÏinformation€or€the€method€or€circumstances€of€preparationÏindicate€lack€of€trustworthiness,€records,€reports,€statements,Ïor€data€compilations€in€any€form€of€public€offices€or€agenciesÏsetting€forth€the€activities€of€the€office€or€agency€or€mattersÏobserved€pursuant€to€a€duty€imposed€by€law€as€to€whichÏmatters€there€was€a€duty€to€report,€excluding,€however,Ïmatters€observed€by€police€officers€and€other€lawÏenforcement€personnel.Ói#ÓÐ  š š  ÐÌà ¨ àà àThe€State€argues€that€because€Rule€803(8)€has€language€similar€to€theÏcorresponding€federal€rule,€we€should€follow€the€federal€cases€that€allow€into€evidenceÏas€a€hearsay€exception€those€police€records€that€are€prepared€in€a€ð ðroutine,€non„¼adversarial€setting.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Quezadaóó,€754€F.2d€1190,€1194€(5th€Cir.€1985),Ð 0¸&* Ðòòcited€inóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Brownóó,€9€F.3d€907,€911€(11th€Cir.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ð1(, ÐGradyóó,€544€F.2d€598,€604€(2d€Cir.€1976).€€These€cases€are€distinguishable€from€theÐ È3h*. Ðinstant€case.ÌÐ x7.2 Ðà ¨ àà àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Gradyóó,€Irish€police€records€containing€serial€numbers€ofÐ `  Ðexported€guns€were€admissible€under€the€public€records€exception€for€ð ðthe€limitedÏpurposeðð€of€showing€that€specified€weapons€were€found€in€North€Ireland€after€theirÏpurchase€from€the€defendant€dealer.€€òòGradyóó,Ô#†X¬EXX X¬Eß#ÔÔ‡ X¬EXXX¬EÔ€544€F.2d€at€604.€€Similarly,€in€òòUnited€StatesÐ èˆ Ðv.€Quezadaóó,€the€court€held€that€admitting€a€warrant€of€deportation,€which€includedÐ À` Ðevidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€arrest€and€deportation€such€as€the€defendantððsÏthumbprint,€was€admissible€under€the€public€records€exception€to€prove€that€theÏdefendant€had€in€fact€been€previously€arrested€and€deported.€òòQuezadaóó,€Ô#†X¬EXX X¬Ex)#ÔÔ‡ X¬EXXX¬EÔ754€F.2d€atÐ Hè  Ð1194Ô#†X¬EXX X¬E]+#Ô„95.€€The€òòQuezadaóó€court€acknowledged€that€under€different€circumstances,€otherÐ  À Ðfederal€courts€have€applied€the€public€records€exception€in€a€more€strict€manner,€but€itÏdetermined€that€the€information€on€the€warrant€of€deportation€reflected€merely€ð ðroutine,Ïobjective€observationsðð€that€were€more€reliable€than€observations€of€law€enforcementÏpersonnel€investigating€crime,€the€type€of€observations€it€perceived€was€targeted€by€theÏspecific€exclusion€in€the€public€records€exception.€€òòId.óó€1194,€1193€&€n.9.€€Persuaded€byÐ X!ø Ðthis€reasoning,€the€Eleventh€Circuit€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Brownóó€held€that€a€property€receiptÐ 0#Ð Ðfor€a€confiscated€gun€admissible€under€the€business€records€exception€did€not€run€afoulÏof€the€exclusionary€language€in€the€public€records€exception,€where€the€gun€wasÏaccidentally€destroyed€prior€to€trial€and€the€property€receipt€was€admitted€presumably€toÏprove€the€gun€had€existed.€€òòBrownóó,€9€F.3d€at€911„12.Ð *0!$ ÐÌà ¨ àà àThese€federal€cases€have€one€thing€in€common,€that€is,€the€informationÏadmitted€into€evidence„„„a€thumbprint,€a€property€receipt,€serial€numbers€from€guns„„„wasÏgathered€and€recorded€in€a€strictly€routine€manner,€such€that€it€could€be€considered€moreÏreliable€than€subjective€observations.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€9€F.3d€at€911„12;€òòQuezadaóó,€754€F.2dÐ È3h*. Ðat€1193„94;€òòGradyóó,€544€F.2d€at€604.€€The€notations€of€the€arresteeððs€personalÐ  5@,0 Ðcharacteristics€on€the€prior€warrant,€however,€do€not€appear€to€fall€into€this€category.€€TheÐ x7.2 Ðtrial€court€surmised€that€the€physical€characteristics€might€have€been€copied€from€theÏarresteeððs€driver€license,€but€the€record€fails€to€reflect€that€this€was€the€case.€€For€asÏmuch€as€the€record€shows,€the€arresting€officer€could€have€relied€upon€his€own€subjectiveÏobservations€of€the€arresteeððs€physical€characteristics€in€order€to€complete€this€portionÏof€the€arrest€warrant.€€The€name€and€birthdate€reflected€on€the€prior€arrest€warrant€wouldÏbe€admissible€into€evidence€because€gathering€that€information€does€not€depend€uponÏa€police€officerððs€subjective€observations.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodallóó,€729€S.W.2d€91,€95Ð p  Ð(Tenn.€1987)(where€defendant€did€not€challenge€identity,€arrest€warrants€were€admissibleÏto€prove€dates€of€prior€offenses€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€habitual€offender€status).€ÏHad€the€record€established€that€the€arresting€officer€did€not€use€his€subjectiveÏobservations€of€the€arresteeððs€physical€characteristics€and€had€instead€copied€theseÏstatistics€from€the€arresteeððs€driver€license,€for€example,€then€these€notations€might€alsoÏhave€been€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€842€S.W.2d€261,€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð €  Ð1992)(defendantððs€driving€record€admissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(8));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÐ X!ø Ðv.€Reaóó,€865€S.W.2d€923,€924€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)(Alabama€traffic€ticket€admissibleÐ 0#Ð Ðto€prove€defendantððs€prior€DUI€conviction,€where€ticket€reflected€the€case€number,€courtÏaction,€and€disposition).€€However,€because€this€was€not€the€case,€we€think€this€evidenceÏis€the€type€of€evidence€the€plain€language€of€Rule€803(8)€excludes€from€evidence.€€Thus,Ïwe€hold€this€evidence€was€improperly€admitted€under€Rule€803(8).ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€error€in€admitting€that€evidence,€however,€was€harmless.€€The€properlyÏadmitted€evidence€established€that€the€person€arrested€and€ultimately€convicted€of€DUIÏin€1990€shared€the€same€name€with€the€defendant,€which€is€prima€facie€evidence€ofÏidentity.€€òòState€v.€Cottrellóó,€868€S.W.2d€673,€678€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€evidenceÐ È3h*. Ðalso€showed€that€the€defendantððs€birthdate€and€the€birthdate€of€the€person€previouslyÏarrested€and€ultimately€convicted€for€DUI€were€identical.€€The€defendant€offered€noÐ x7.2 Ðevidence€to€œrebut€the€prima€facie€evidence›€that€he€was€in€fact€the€person€the€StateÏsought€to€prove€he€was,€i.e.,€the€ð ðMark€John€Turnerðð€previously€arrested€and€ultimatelyÏconvicted€of€DUI€in€1990.€€Thus,€the€error€in€admitting€the€notations€of€physicalÏcharacteristics€listed€on€the€prior€arrest€warrant€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€haveÏaffected€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€DUI,Ïwhich€prevents€a€reversal€on€the€basis€of€this€error.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€regarding€hisÏidentity€as€the€person€convicted€of€DUI€in€1990.€€The€defendant€argues€that€without€theÏevidence€of€physical€characteristics€noted€on€the€prior€arrest€warrant,€the€record€containsÏno€evidence€he€was€previously€convicted€of€œDUI.€€ñ[ñAs€we€have€stated,€however,€the€ñ[ññ\ñBecause€the€ñ\ñnameÏand€birthdate€listed€on€the€prior€arrest€warrant€is€ample€proof€of€identityñYññVñ€andñVññYññ]ññZñ,€however,ñZññ]ññWññVñ€ñVññWññYññXñ,€in€conjunction€ñXññYññ]ñ€this€point€is€mootñ]ñ.›œñ_ñÌñ_ñ›œñ_ñÌ›ñ_ññ`ñ€€ñ`ññ^ñà ¨ àà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendantððs€argument€is€based€on€a€false€premise,Ïin€that€all€evidence€submitted€to€the€factfinder,€not€just€the€properly€admitted€evidence,Ïmust€be€considered€when€testing€the€sufficiency€of€evidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð %¨ ÐLongstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97€(Tenn.1981);€òòState€v.€Ricky€Raymond€Bryanóó,€No.€01C01„Ð à&€  Ð9704„CC„00136,€Rutherford€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€12,€1998,€atÏNashville).€€Even€so,€as€mentioned€previously,€the€State€made€a€prima€facie€showing€ofÏidentity€by€offering€proof€that€the€warrant€underlying€the€1990€conviction€reflected€theÏsame€name€that€appears€on€the€indictment€in€this€case€and€the€same€birthdate€thatÏappears€on€the€arrest€warrant€in€this€case.€ñ^ñ›€òòSeeóó€òòCottrellóó,Ð ¨H Ð868€S.W.2d€at€678.€€Moreover,€the€State€presented€a€copy€of€the€1990€judgment,€whichÏreflects€a€DUI€conviction€and€sentence€for€ð ðMark€Turner.ðð€€This€judgment€was€notÏcertified,€so€it€was€not€self„authenticating€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€902(4).€ÏOur€independent€review€of€the€transcript€reveals€that€the€1990€judgment€was€not€properlyÏauthenticated€by€an€individual€with€personal€knowledge€that€the€writing€met€theÏrequirements€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€901,€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€LawÐ ¸(X" Ðof€Evidenceóó€ðð€901.8,€at€621€(3d€ed.€1995),€but€our€independent€review€also€reveals€thatÐ *0!$ Ðthe€defendant€failed€to€object€to€the€lack€of€authentication,€which€constitutes€waiver€ofÏthat€issue,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€396€(Tenn.€1995)("A€trial€court€cannotÐ @.à$( Ðbe€held€in€error€when€it€is€not€given€an€opportunity€to€rule€on€an€issue€at€an€appropriateÏtime€during€the€course€of€the€trial.");€òòState€v.€Robert€Jay€Bridwellóó,€No.Ð ð1(, Ð03C01-9708-CC-00326,€Blount€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€15,€1998,€atÏKnoxville).€€The€prior€arrest€warrant€and€the€1990€judgment€œprovide›€sufficient€evidenceÏto€support€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€DUI.€Ð x7.2 ÐÔ‡ X¬EXXX¬EÔÌà ¨ àà àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motionÏto€dismiss€the€indictment€and/or€strike€the€enhancement€factors€because€the€courtÏminutes€from€the€1990€DUI€conviction€fail€to€reflect€that€the€special€judge€who€acceptedÏthe€guilty€plea€was€duly€elected€and€was€administered€the€oath€of€office€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€17„2„118€and€ðð€17„2„120.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏallowing€him€to€present€as€a€defense€to€second„offense€DUI€his€contention€that€the€1990Ïjudgment€was€facially€invalid€and€thus€œcould€not›€serve€as€a€basis€for€enhancement.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€record€supporting€the€1990€judgment€consists€of€the€arrest€warrant€andÏthe€court€minutes€of€a€guilty€plea€hearing.€€The€court€minutes€begin€with€the€followingÏstatement:€ð ðCOURT€MET€PURSUANT€TO€ADJOURNMENT,€PRESENT€ANDÏPRESIDING€THE€HONORABLE€SETH€NORMAN,€SPECIAL€JUDGE€FOR€THEÏHONORABLE€JAMES€R.€EVERETT€JR.,€JUDGE€OF€THE€PROBATE€COURT€FORÏDAVIDSON€COUNTY,€TENNESSEE€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€record€fails€to€show€that€the€1990Ïjudgment€was€ever€reviewed€by€direct€appeal,€post„conviction€petition,€or€petition€for€writÏof€habeas€corpus.Ô#†X¬EXX X¬E˜H#ÔÐ à&€  ÐÌà ¨ àà àThe€documents€in€the€record€pertaining€to€the€1990€conviction€show€onÏtheir€face€that€the€convicting€court€had€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€and€the€parties,Ïand€thus,€ð ðððwe€must€indulge€every€intendment€in€favor€of€the€validity€of€the€judgments.ðððð€Ð @.à$( ÐòòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€271€(Tenn.€1987)(quoting€òòSmith€v.€Leedyóó,€42€Tenn.Ð 0¸&* ÐApp.€117,€123,€299€S.W.2d€29,€31€(1956)).€€Moreover,€the€record€gives€every€indicationÏthat€the€special€judge€was,€at€a€minimum,€a€òòde€factoóó€judge,€that€is,€that€he€acted€ð ðwithÐ È3h*. Ðcolor€of€rightðð€and€was€ð ðregarded€as,€and€[had]€the€reputation€of,€exercising€the€judicialÏfunction€he€assum[ed].ðð€€48A€C.J.S.€òòJudgesóó€ðð€2€(1981),€òòquoted€inóó€òòState€ex€rel.€NewsomÐ x7.2 Ðv.€Biggersóó,€911€S.W.2d€715,€718€(Tenn.€1995).€€There€was€no€objection€to€the€specialÐ `  Ðjudgeððs€exercise€of€authority€at€the€time€the€plea€was€entered€in€1990,€and€no€appeal€was€takenÏfrom€the€resulting€conviction.€€ð ð[L]ike€any€judgment,€a€presumption€of€regularity€in€theÏproceedings€attaches€upon€becoming€final.ðð€€òòMcClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€at€270.€€BecauseÐ Äd Ðthe€special€judge€acted€with€òòde€factoóó€authority€and€because€this€authority€was€notÐ 0 Ðchallenged€during€trial€or€on€appeal,€the€defendant€cannot€now€attack€the€integrity€of€theÏjudgment.€€òòBiggersóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€719.Ð (È  ÐÌà ¨ àà àEach€of€the€defendantððs€challenges€to€his€conviction€lacks€merit.€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àœññà ¸ àññ_________________________________ññ___ññ›Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àœñ ñà ¸ àñ ñJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÔ‡ XTXXXTÔÐ ð ÐÌÌÌœñ!ñÌñ!ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________ñ"ñ_____ñ"ñ›ÌJERRY€L.€SMITHÔ#†XTXX XT‰T#ÔÔ‡ XTXXXTÔ,€JUDGEÔ#†XTXX XT9U#ÔÔ‡ XTXXXTÔÐ '¦! ÐÌÌœñ$ñÌñ$ñ______________________________ñ#ñ_____ñ#ñ›ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÔ#†XTXX XT‚U#Ôà ` à