ÿWPC˜ …# VULa %­ 0(³4ÛïU:þ8 w@@ 0J€ 0lÊ 0D6 0Tz 0^Î 0h, 0r” 0| 0†‚ 0 B˜ 1uµ 0d*U*Ž D3¸B)ëDC 0@W AM—íäeÑl6v~¢vÓ  AOóÆB 0D D/L B{˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 .@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡z!¸p¸€3|xÔ@"Arial Regular ÀDÁDÂTà UÄDÅDÆEÇÈÓ€Ô2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial 'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òNovember€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€)ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€witness€was€present€during€the€argument€of€the€motion€for€new€trialÏbut€was€not€permitted€to€testify.€€Counsel€did€attempt€to€summarize€theÏsubstance€of€her€testimony.Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€)ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNeither€party€argued€the€issue€whether€the€existence€of€otherÏcorroborating€evidence€eliminated€the€question€of€identification€as€a€materiallÏissue.€€òòSeeóó€899€S.W.2d€at€612.ÌPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® 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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)Ô›ÌÌà@ àòòò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€./,;+'h|à+` Å `€€Lß›Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONóóÌÌà@ àJULY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€œ02C01„9505„CR„00146›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Robbery)ÌJACK€D.€WILLIAMS,à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à)à àNo.€91„06115€BELOW€€ÌÌÌó óÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBENJAMIN€F.€HEADà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ147€Jefferson,€Suite€408à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà à€€€ÌJackson,€TN€38301à àà àà àà àKATHY€MORANTEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌGLENN€I.€WRIGHTà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ200€Jefferson€Avenueà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌSuite€800à àà àà àà àà àÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJENNIFER€NICHOLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÑ7€ €þ XXdæXXdð7ÑÌà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÑ X ÑÌÓÓà àDefendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€aggravated€robbery.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€eight€years€as€a€standard€offender€and€was€assessed€a€fine€ofÏ$2,000.00.€€Defendant€appeals€of€right€and€raises€three€issues:€(1)€whether€heÏwas€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€two€jurors€appeared€to€be€sleeping€duringÏmaterial€testimony;€(2)€whether€his€right€to€speedy€trial€was€violated€when€theÏœtrial€continuances›€granted€led€to€the€unavailability€of€a€material€witness;€and€€(3)Ïwhether€the€proof€is€sufficient€to€support€the€œguilty€verdict.€€We€find€that€theÏdefendantððs€issues€on€appeal€lack€merit,€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.›ÌÌà àOn€February€21,€1991,€Dr.€Judith€Soberman€attended€a€dinner€forÏwomen€in€medicine€at€Grisantiððs€Restaurant€in€Memphis.€€She€arrived€aboutÏ7:00€p.m.€and€parked€her€car€in€the€restaurant€parking€lot€underneath€a€light.€ÏShe€left€the€restaurant€between€9:00€and€9:15€p.m.€€As€she€neared€her€car€sheÏheard€a€man€say€something€like,€ð ðHeyðð.€€She€looked€up€and€observed€a€manÏcoming€toward€her.€€She€began€to€open€her€car€door,€but€the€man€started€to€runÍtoward€her,€reached€her€car€door,€and€prevented€her€from€getting€in€the€car.€ÏThe€man€grabbed€her€arm€and€shoulders.€€She€started€to€yell.€€She€could€seeÏthat€he€had€a€gun€in€his€hand.€€Dr.€Soberman€took€her€keys,€attempted€to€slashÏat€the€man,€and€then€tossed€her€keys€away.€€She€began€to€yell,€scream,€kickÏand€push,€but€could€not€get€away€from€him.€€As€the€pair€struggled,€they€movedÏaway€from€the€car.€€Dr.€Soberman,€wearing€high€heels,€ultimately€lost€herÏbalance€and€fell€to€the€ground.€€The€man€grabbed€her€large€leather€bag€and€ranÏoff.€€People€immediately€came€running€out€of€the€restaurant€and€began€to€chaseÏthe€man.ÌÌà àThe€confrontation€between€the€two€people€took€thirty€to€forty„fiveÏseconds.€€Dr.€Soberman€got€a€good€look€at€her€œattacker.€€One€salient€item€wasÏthat€he€was€wearing€a€white€cap.›ÌÌà àThe€owner€of€the€restaurant€and€his€son€heard€a€noise€from€the€parkingÏlot€and€saw€the€struggle.€They€immediately€ran€outside€and€chased€theÏassailant€as€he€ran€off.€€They€caught€up€with€the€assailant,€but€the€elder€Mr.ÏGrisanti€heard€Dr.€Ñ ° ÑSoberman€yelling€that€he€had€a€gun.€€Both€men€then€gave€upÏthe€chase,€but€the€younger€Mr.€Grisanti€got€into€his€truck€to€help€find€the€man€inÏquestion.€€Several€minutes€later€he€saw€œthe€same€man€walking›€œinto€a€nearbyÏconvenience€store.›€€He€tracked€down€a€police€officer€and€informed€him€whereÏœthe€man›€was€located.ÌÌà àThe€officer€who€arrested€defendant€located€him€œoutside€the€sameÏconvenience€market,€where›€he€was€using€a€pay€phone.€€œThe€defendantÏmatched€the€description€previously€given€to€the€officer.€€The›€officer€found€aÏloaded€pistol€in€defendantððs€back€rear€pocket.€€Defendant€also€had€a€white€capÏin€his€possession.€€œThe›€œofficer€drove›€defendant€to€the€œrestaurant,›€which€wasÏabout€two€minutes€from€the€œconvenience€market.›€€He€made€sure€the€capÏdefendant€had€with€him€was€not€on€his€head€at€the€time€of€the€identification.€ÏThis€was€about€fifteen€to€twenty€minutes€after€the€initial€encounter.ÌÌà àWhen€the€police€car€arrived€at€the€scene,€Dr.€Soberman€was€standingÏabout€fifteen€to€twenty€feet€away€in€the€doorway€of€the€restaurant.€€She€was€ableÏto€see€defendantððs€face,€and€positively€identified€him€as€the€person€whoÏattacked€her.€€She€was€not€allowed€to€go€directly€up€to€the€car€and€look€in€theÏwindow.€€She€also€could€not€see€defendantððs€clothing€while€he€was€seated€inÏthe€police€car.€€She€could€see€that€he€was€not€wearing€a€hat.€€Another€officerÏtestified€that€the€œinitial€description›€given€by€Dr.€Soberman€at€the€scene€wasÏconsistent€with€the€description€of€defendantððs€appearance€and€clothing.ÌÌà àThe€day€after€the€robbery,€a€nearby€store€owner€noticed€a€leather€bagÏnear€his€trash€can€and€gave€it€to€the€police.€€œIt€belonged€to€Dr.›€œSoberman.€ÏSome€contents€were€also€returned.€€Dr.€Soberman€did›€not€recover€eightyÏdollars,€a€travelerððs€check,€and€a€small€œdictaphone.Ì›Ìà àDefendant€testified€at€trial€and€denied€having€anything€to€do€with€theÏcrime.€€œOn€the€day€of›€the€offense€he€was€working€in€construction€and€got€offÏwork€about€5:00€p.m.€€He€went€home€from€work,€gathered€his€laundry,€and€tookÏit€to€the€œlaundromat›€to€wash.€€Upon€arrival€he€went€to€the€market€next€door€toÏpurchase€detergent€and€get€coins€for€the€machine.€€He€completed€his€laundryÏand€returned€home.€€He€put€away€his€clothes€and€left€his€house€again€to€place€aÏphone€call€to€a€friend.€€He€went€into€a€convenience€store,€purchased€some€beerÏand€obtained€quarters,€and€then€went€to€the€phone€œbooth€outside.›€€During€hisÏphone€conversation€he€was€approached€by€a€police€officer€who€searched€him,Ïplaced€him€in€the€patrol€car,€and€eventually€took€him€to€Grisantiððs.€€HeÏacknowledged€that€he€always€carried€a€loaded€gun€for€his€own€protection.̛̜à@ àI.Ìà àDefendant€first€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€twoÏjurors€slept€through€a€material€part€of€the€original€trial€testimony€and€wereÏtherefore€incapable€of€rendering€a€fair€verdict.€€This€issue€was€raised€for€the€firstÏtime€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Defendant€apparently€brought€it€to€his€counselððsÏattention€only€after€the€trial€was€concluded.€€€Defendant€contends€that€the€eventÏoccurred€on€the€second€day€of€the€two„day€trial€during€the€testimony€of€policeÏofficers€Richard€Davis€and€Dexter€Moss.€€The€only€information€presented€aboutÏthis€issue€during€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€the€statement€of€counsel.€€TheÏentire€colloquy€proceeded€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Your€Honor,€one€last€argument.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€You€may€summarize.ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Your€Honor,€please,€it€was€brought€to€myÏattention€after€talking€to€my€client€that€apparently€there€were€twoÏjurors€that€were€asleep€for€a€substantial€part€of€the€trial.€€I€believe€itÏwas€jurors„„one€juror€by€the€name€of€Ruthy€Joiner€and€a€juror€byÏthe€name€of€Janet€Nicks.€€It€had€been€brought€to€my€attention€thatÏwe€feel„„ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€When€did€your€client€tell€you€that?ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Iððm€sorry,€Your€Honor.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€When€did€your€client€tell€you€that?ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€We€talked€about€it€sometime€after€the€trial,€YourÏHonor,€when€we€were€„„„Ì̛̜à8 àà àTHE€COURT:€I€said,€when€did€you„„Did€you€see€someoneÏsleeping?€€Although€sleeping€is€no€grounds€for„„ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Well,€I„„ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€But€usually€when€I€see€somebody€napping€orÏlooks€weary€or€doing€that,€Iððll€try„„Iððll€take€a€recess€or€tell€them€to€tryÏto€stay€awake€so€they€can€hear€the€evidence€or€take€a€recess€untilÏthey€can€do€that.€€Thatððs€the€procedure.€€Now,€I€was€asking€thatÏbecause€if€you€bring€it€to€my€attention,€you€see€somebody€look€likeÏtheyððre€sleeping€or€falling€off,€let€the€Court€know;€and€weððll€have€aÏrecess,€give€them€some€water€and€things€like€that.ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Unfortunately,€Your€Honor,€my€client€probablyÏwas€not€aware€of€all€those€procedures€at€the€time.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€No,€Iððm€talking€about„„Thatððs€why€I€asked€youÏif€you€knew„„ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Oh,€Iððm€sorry.€€€Iððm€sorry.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€If€you€knew„„During€the€time€the€trial€wasÏgoing,€did€he€say€that€so€and€so€is€sleeping?ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:à àIt€was€after€that€we€discussed€it,€Your€Honor.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€Did€you€see€them€sleeping?€€Or€he€told€youÏthat€he€saw€them€sleeping„„ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€He€advised„„ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€„„after€the€trial.ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€He€advised€me€that€he€saw€them€sleeping;€and,Ïof€course,€I€saw€somebody€kind€of„„their€head€shaking;€but€I€didnððtÏknow€how€long€it€was€or€what€a€substantial€part€of€it€was.€€And€soÏafter€discussing€it,€he€brought€it€to€my€attention€more€so.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€All€right.ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€HEAD:€And€I€just€want€to€bring€that€to€the€Court€andÏhave€it€on€the€record.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Thank€you.ÌÌà0 àà àMR.€HEAD:€Thank€you€very€much,€Your€Honor.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€mere€fact€that€a€juror€becomes€drowsy€for€a€short€time€is€not€of€itself€aÏground€for€a€new€trial.€€òòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643€S.W.2d€343,€346€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1982).€€In€order€to€be€a€ground€for€new€trial€an€objection€must€be€promptlyÏraised€Ñ  Ñœand›€prejudice€must€be€shown.€€œòòId.óó€€This›€issue€was€not€raised€to€the€trialÏcourt€at€any€time€during€the€trial.€€Even€during€the€motion€for€new€trial€counselÏfor€defendant€could€not€assert€any€facts€to€show€prejudice.ÌÌà àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€arrested€February€21,€1991€and€was€tried€October€3,Ï1994.€€He€contends€that€his€right€to€speedy€trial€was€violated€because€the€delayÏresulted€in€his€inability€to€locate€and€present€Pamela€Williams,€a€materialÏwitness.ÌÌà àBoth€federal€and€state€constitutions€and€our€statutes€guarantee€criminalÏdefendants€a€speedy€trial.€€U.€S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð9;ÏT.C.A.€ðð40„14„101.€€If€the€defendant€was€in€fact€denied€a€speedy€trial,€then€hisÏconviction€must€be€reversed€and€the€charges€dismissed.€€To€determine€if€aÏdefendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€violated,€this€court€must€apply€aÏbalancing€test€which€requires€the€consideration€of€four€factors:€(1)€the€length€ofÏthe€delay;€(2)€the€reason€for€the€delay;€(3)€whether€the€defendant€asserted€hisÏright€to€a€speedy€trial;€and€(4)€whether€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€theÏdelay.€€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„84€(Tenn.€1973);€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,Ï407€U.S.€514,€92€S.Ct.€2182,€33€L.Ed.2d€101€(1972).€€The€single€most€importantÏfactor€is€whether€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay,€and€the€mostÏimportant€issue€concerning€prejudice€is€the€impairment€of€the€ability€to€prepareÏa€defense.€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€noting€there€is€little€proof€in€the€record€relevantÏto€œthe›€factors€to€be€considered.€€It€is€defendantððs€duty€to€have€prepared€anÍadequate€record€in€order€to€allow€a€meaningful€review€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.Ï24(b);€òòState€Ñ  ÑÑ ° Ñv.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983).€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€ÏS.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€When€little€evidence€is€preserved€inÏthe€record€for€review,€we€are€hampered€in€our€consideration€of€the€issue.̛̜à àThe€length€of€the€delay€from€indictment€to€trial€was€forty„four€(44)€months.€ÏThis€is€a€lengthy€delay€and€warrants€review€on€the€merits€and€application€of€theÏbalancing€test.€€The€reasons€for€the€delay€vary.€€The€first€trial€setting€was€forÏJune1,€1992.€€The€case€was€ultimately€continued€nine€times.€€On€several€ofÏthose€occasions€the€state€requested€the€continuance€or€no€reason€is€shown€inÏthe€record.€€On€at€least€four€of€those€occasions,€the€defendant€made€the€requestÏfor€continuance.€€It€appears€that€the€cause€for€at€least€some€of€the€defenseÏrequests€was€the€continued€inability€to€locate€the€witness€in€question,€PamelaÏWilliams.€€Defendant€was€afforded€several€opportunities€to€locate€the€witness.€ÏœAbsent€more€specific€information,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the›€reasons€for€delayÏœweigh›€in€favor€of€a€finding€of€speedy€trial€violation.ÌÌà àThe€third€òòBarkeróó€factor€asks€whether€the€defendant€asserted€his€right€to€aÏspeedy€trial.€€No€speedy€trial€motion€was€ever€filed,€and€the€issue€was€notÏraised€until€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€that€theÏdefendant€objected€to€any€of€the€continuances€earlier€granted.€€This€factor€hasÏnot€been€œmet.›ÌÌà àThe€fourth€factor€is€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€Defendant€cannot€showÏhe€has€suffered€prejudice€œwhen€the›€trial€was€delayed€œat€his€request€on›€priorÏoccasions€precisely€because€the€same€witness€had€not€appeared.€€At€theÏbeginning€of€trial,€the€court€indicated€that€it€would€issue€an€instanter€subpoena€ifÏthat€witness€had€been€subpoenaed€at€the€previous€setting.€€That€apparently€hadÏnot€been€done.ÌÌœÌÑ ° ÑÑ  Ñ›à àDuring€the€motion€for€new€trial€counsel€made€a€statement€about€theÏexpected€testimony€of€this€witness.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€According€to€counsel,€she€was€employedÏat€the€convenience€market€and€knew€defendant.€€She€would€have€testified€thatÏshe€saw€the€defendant€in€the€market€just€before€he€was€picked€up€and€that€heÏlooked€calm.€€His€demeanor€was€such€that€it€did€not€appear€he€had€just€run€fromÏa€robbery.€€Even€assuming€the€witness€had€so€testified,€this€proof€does€notÏœdirectly€contradict›€any€proof€presented€by€the€officer€who€arrested€defendant,Ïnor€does€it€present€substantial€confirmation€that€the€defendant€did€not€commitÏthe€crime.€€Therefore,€prejudice€has€not€been€shown.ÌÌà àAfter€careful€consideration,€we€find€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àIII.Ìà àDefendant€finally€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïœbased›€on€lack€of€physical€evidence€connecting€him€to€the€crime€scene€andÏinaccuracy€of€the€eyewitness€identification.Ìà àÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€mustÏreview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determiningÏwhether€ð ðany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€€307,€319,€99ÏS.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weightÏand€value€to€be€given€Ñ ° Ñto€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòId.óó€at€835.ÌÌà àA€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judgeÏaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state,€and€a€presumption€of€guiltÏreplaces€the€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilty€removes€the€presumption€ofÍinnocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€theÏburden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.Ï1982).ÌÌà àThe€primary€issue€raised€by€the€defendant€is€the€adequacy€of€theÏidentification€by€the€victim€and€the€discrepancies€in€the€descriptions€given€byÏthe€victim€at€various€times.€€At€trial€Dr.€Soberman€was€questioned€at€lengthÏabout€the€discrepancies€in€details€she€provided€the€police.€€At€one€point€she€toldÏpolice€that€the€person€who€attacked€her€had€a€large€silver€gun€that€seemed€toÏwiden€as€it€went€toward€the€robberððs€hand.€€The€defendantððs€.25€automatic€wasÏnot€large.€€At€different€times€she€gave€descriptions€of€the€individual€and€his€gun.€ÏSome€details€varied.€€In€general€she€described€him€as€being€in€his€twenties,€fiveÏfeet€ten€inches,€one€hundred€fifty€to€one€hundred€sixty€pounds,€wearing€a€redÏshirt,€textured€jacket,€dark€pants,€a€white€hat,€a€gold€chain,€and€white€shoes€thatÏwere€not€smooth.€€He€was€African„American€with€a€medium€complexion€andÏdark€eyes.€€A€police€officer€testified€that€her€description€was€consistent€withÏdefendantððs€appearance.ÌÌà àConcerning€any€discrepancies€in€the€various€descriptions€given€theÏpolice,€Dr.€Soberman€testified€that€she€was€very€angry€when€she€originallyÏdescribed€her€attacker€on€the€phone€to€the€dispatcher,€because€she€feared€theÏpolice€were€not€coming.€€By€the€time€the€man€was€brought€back€to€the€restaurantÍfor€identification€she€was€entirely€œcalm.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87„88€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1993),€thisÏcourt€held€that€the€testimony€of€a€victim€identifying€a€perpetrator€is€sufficient€inÏand€of€itself€to€support€a€conviction.€€From€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€canÏonly€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àIn€his€appellate€brief€defendant€raised€for€the€first€time€a€questionÏconcerning€the€jury€instruction€on€identification.€€In›€a€recent€opinion,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€modified€the€law€regarding€jury€instructions€on€theÏidentification€of€criminal€defendants.€€In€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607€(Tenn.Ï1995),€the€court€held€that€identity€will€be€a€material€issue€when€the€defendantÏputs€it€at€issue€or€the€eyewitness€testimony€is€uncorroborated€by€circumstantialÏevidence.€€The€court€promulgated€a€new€jury€instruction€on€identification€andÏheld€that€it€was€plain€error€not€to€give€the€instruction€when€witness€identificationÏwas€a€material€issueœ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€and€the€instruction€was€requested€by€defendantððsÏcounsel.ÌÌà àIn€òòDyleóó€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€value€of€identification€evidenceÍdepends€on€several€factors:ÌÓӜ̛à8 àà à(1)à àthe€witnessðð€capacity€and€opportunity€to€observe€theÏoffender;ÌÌà8 àà à(2)à àthe€degree€of€certainty€expressed€by€the€witnessÏregarding€the€identification€and€the€circumstances€under€which€itÏwas€made,€including€whether€it€is€the€product€of€the€witnessðð€ownÏrecollection;ÌÌà8 àà à(3)à àthe€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€the€defendant€failedÏto€make€an€identification€of€the€defendant,€or€made€anÏidentification€that€was€inconsistent€with€the€identification€at€trial;Ïand€ÌÌà8 àà à(4)à àthe€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€the€witness€made€anÏidentification€that€was€consistent€with€the€identification€at€trial,€andÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€such€identification.̛̜ÌòòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607,€612€(Tenn.€œ1995).€€ÓÓDefendant›€did€not€raise€theÏjury€instruction€issue€at€any€time€prior€to€filing€his€brief€in€this€court.€€However,Ïwe€consider€this€issue€on€the€merits€because€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòDyleóó€madeÏits€ruling€specifically€applicable€to€all€cases€tried€or€on€appeal€as€of€or€after€theÏdate€of€its€release.ÌÌà àœBecause€defense€counsel€did€not€request€any€special€instruction,€ourÏreview€must€be€based€upon€the€harmless€error€standard.€€òòId.óó€at€612.€€There€canÏbe€no€reversal,€ð ðexcept€for€errors€which€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€theÏresult€of€the€trial€on€the€meritsðð.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€the€failure€to€give€the€instruction€was€harmless€error.€€TheÍproof€of€identification€was€sufficient.€€The€victim€observed€her€assailant€in€aÏlighted€area€for€an€adequate€period€of€time€to€see€him€clearly.€€Her€descriptionsÏwere€generally€consistent.€€There€was€no€point€at€which€the€victim€misidentifiedÏor€failed€to€identify€the€defendant.€€It€was€the€prerogative€of€the€jury€to€assess€theÏcredibility€of€those€who€testified.€€Any€error€created€by€the€failure€to€provide€theÏòòDyleóó€instruction€was€harmless.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€out€in€the€discussion€above,€we€find€that€theÏdefendantððs€issues€on€appeal€all€lack€merit.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JR.ÌJUDGEÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLESÌJUDGEÌÌÑ7€ ƒÉ XXdì XXdì7Ñà@ àòòò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONóóÌÌà@ àJULY›€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9505„CR„00146Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Robbery)ÌJACK€D.€WILLIAMS,à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à)à àNo.€91„06115€BELOW€€ÌÌÌÌó óà@ àòòò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòò òJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÌà àCame€the€appellant,€Jack€Williams,€by€counsel€and€also€came€theÏattorney€general€on€behalf€of€the€state,€and€this€case€was€heard€on€the€recordÏon€appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€of€Shelby€County;€and€upon€considerationÏthereof,€this€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€court€that€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏShelby€County€for€execution€of€the€judgment€of€that€court€and€for€collection€ofÏcosts€accrued€below.ÌÌÌà àCosts€of€the€appeal€will€be€paid€into€this€Court€by€the€appellant,€JackÏWilliams,€for€which€let€execution€issue.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPer€CuriamÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPeay,€Welles,€ClarkÌœÌÌÌÌÌ›œÌ›œ›