ÿWPCI …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U d 0ˆl 0Dô D38 0Jk 0Tµ 0^ 0hg 0rÏ 0|A 0†½ 0C 1uÓ 0dHU>¬U *êB)DC= AM€)Ív~övÓt BG 0@d AO¤Æó 0D¹ D/ý B,˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- ÿEDEDÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 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 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌNovemberÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtfHHÚ(ÿáÿáùE1À˜ýHHŽxЀxh'dHStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)›à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9602„CR„00061›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœDAVIDSON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œTHOMAS€H.€SHRIVERó ó›Ìœò òCARLOS€L.€ACEVEDO,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Certified€Question€&€Sentencing)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œDAVIDSON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœR.€TODD€HANSROTE›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌFirst€Union€Bank€Buildingà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFourth€Floor,€Suite€431ÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJON€SEABORGÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure€and€Rule€œ37(b)(2)(i)›€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure.€€The€Defendant€pleaded€òònoloóó€òòcontendereóó€to€one€count€of€possessionÏof€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver€and€to€one€count€of€possession€of€œmarijuana.€€InÏhis€petition€to€enter€the€plea,€the€Defendant€noted€that€he€and€the€State€hadÏexplicitly€agreed€to€certify€a€dispositive€question€of€law€concerning€the€validity€ofÏthe€search€which€resulted€in€his€convictions.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÏStandard€Offender€to€eight€(8)€years€for€the€cocaine€conviction€and€to€elevenÏmonths€and€twenty„nine€days€at€thirty€percent€(30%)€for€the€marijuanaÏconviction,€with€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€In€this€appeal,€the€DefendantÏcontends€that€the€search€which€produced€the€evidence€supporting€hisÏconvictions€was€unlawful€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€probation.€ÏWe€conclude€that€the€Defendantððs€issues€lack€merit.€€His€convictions€andÏsentences€are€therefore€affirmed.€ÌÌà àOn€July€9,€1993,€Agent€Gary€Luther€of€the€Twenty„First€Judicial€TaskÏForce€telephoned€Officer€Perry€Buck,€who€was€assigned€to€the€Federal€DrugÏTask€Force€at€the€Nashville€International€Airport.€€Luther€informed€Buck€that€heÍwas€ð ðworkingðð€the€Defendant,€a€drug€courier€who€was€about€to€fly€fromÏNashville€to€Texas.€€Luther€stated€that€he€was€attempting€to€arrive€at€the€airportÏbefore€the€Defendantððs€plane€departed€but€was€unsure€as€to€whether€heÏwould€be€able€to€do€so.€€As€a€result,€Luther€asked€Buck€to€ð ðsurveil›ðð€andÏð ðinterviewðð€the€Defendant.€€He€gave€Buck€the€name€of€the€Defendant€and€aÏphysical€description.ÌÌà àBuck€and€three€other€officers€began€looking€for€the€Defendant.€€As€theyÏwalked€toward€the€gate€of€the€Defendantððs€departing€flight,€they€identified€a€manÏfitting€the€description€given€by€Agent€Luther€sitting€at€a€restaurant€in€theÏconcourse.€€They€approached€him,€identified€themselves,€and€asked€if€theyÏcould€speak€with€him,€to€which€the€Defendant€responded€affirmatively.€€TheÏofficers€asked€the€Defendant€where€he€was€going€and€other€ð ðpreliminaryððÏmatters,€and€then€requested€his€plane€ticket.€€They€informed€the€Defendant€thatÏthey€suspected€him€of€carrying€drugs€and€asked€him€for€consent€to€search€hisÏperson.€€According€to€Buck,€the€Defendant€willfully€consented.€€TheyÏsubsequently€asked€the€Defendant€if€he€wanted€to€go€to€a€more€private€locationÏfor€the€search.€€According€to€Buck,€the€Defendant€responded€affirmatively,€andÏthey€all€went€to€a€œmenððs€restroom€adjacent›€to€the€restaurant.ÌÌà àThe€officers€conducted€a€pat„down€search€of€the€Defendant€whichÏrevealed€no€contraband.€€They€then€asked€the€Defendant€to€remove€his€boots.€ÏAs€the€Defendant€removed€one€of€his€boots,€a€quantity€of€United€StatesÏcurrency€fell€onto€the€floor.€€The€Defendant€fled€the€scene€but€was€apprehendedÏin€the€concourse€after€a€short€chase.€€The€officers€discovered€a€quantity€of€bothÏcocaine€and€marijuana€in€the€Defendantððs€socks.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€subsequently€indicted€for€possession€of€cocaine€withÏintent€to€deliver€and€for€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€deliver.€€On€JuneÏ8,€1994,€he€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€drugs€and€currency€discovered€duringÏthe€search€at€the€airport.€€He€argued€that€the€law€enforcement€officers€had€notÏhad€a€reasonable€suspicion€to€detain€him€under€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€principlesÏset€forth€in€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€motion€to€suppress,€ruling€that€the€discovery€of€the€drugs€andÏcurrency€occurred€pursuant€to€a€lawful€consent€search.€€In€the€wake€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling,€the€Defendant€filed€a€petition€to€enter€a€plea€of€òònoloóó€òòcontendereóó€toÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver€and€simple€possession€ofÏmarijuana.€€In€the€petition,€the€Defendant€stated€the€following:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓDefendant€and€state€explicitly€agree€that€the€Defendant€reserves€theÏright€to€appeal€the€issues€raised€at€the€Motion€to€Suppress€hearing,€toÏwit:€whether€the€stop€and€seizure€of€the€Defendant€at€the€airport€wasÏvalid€based€upon€a€reasonable€and€œarticulable›€suspicion.€€The€centralÏissue€is€whether€the€tip€or€information€given€to€the€airport€police€cameÍfrom€a€reliable€source€with€a€sufficient€basis€of€knowledge€regardingÏthese€events€and€whether€this€information€was€supported€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€based€upon€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€standards€asÏadopted€and€applied€by€Tennessee€Courts€in€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€òòStateÏv.€Colemanóó€and€òòState€v.€Wilsonóó.€€Parties€œagee›€[sic]€that€thisÏsuppression€issue€is€dispositive€of€the€case.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒOn€August€2,€1995,€the€trial€court€accepted€the€plea€of€òònoloóó€òòcontendereóó€through€anÏorder€which€incorporated€the€provisions€of€the€Defendantððs€petition.€€Moreover,€atÏthe€hearing€on€the€plea,€the€trial€court€informed€the€Defendant€of€the€significance€ofÏpleading€guilty€and€specifically€addressed€the€ramifications€of€the€anticipated€RuleÏœ37(b)(2)(i)›€appeal.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€raises€the€search€question€which€he€soughtÏto€preserve€for€appeal€in€his€plea€of€òònoloóó€òòcontendereóó.€€As€the€State€points€out,Ïhowever,€the€final€judgment€form€does€not€contain€a€statement€of€the€dispositiveÏcertified€question€of€law,€as€is€required€under€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647,Ï650€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€Defendant€concedes€that€the€final€judgment€does€notÏcomply€with€the€òòPrestonóó€requirements,€but€nevertheless€asks€this€Court€to€addressÏthe€merits€of€the€issue€because€the€State€allegedly€suffered€no€prejudice€from€theÏsimple€omission€of€the€certified€question€from€the€final€judgment.ÌÌà àIn€òòPrestonóó,€our€Supreme€Court€clarified€the€prerequisites€to€the€considerationÏof€a€question€of€law€certified€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓRegardless€of€what€has€appeared€in€prior€petitions,€orders,€colloquy€inÏopen€court€or€otherwise,€the€final€order€or€judgment€from€which€timeÏbegins€to€run€to€pursue€a€T.R.A.P.€3€appeal€must€contain€a€statementÏof€the€dispositive€certified€question€of€law€reserved€by€defendant€forÏappellate€review€and€the€question€of€law€must€be€stated€so€as€toÏclearly€identify€the€scope€and€the€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒòòPrestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€650.€€Our€Supreme€Court€reiterated€these€unambiguousÏrequirements€in€the€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€In€òòPendergrassóó,€the€defendant€entered€guilty€pleas€to€several€drug€chargesÏand€attempted€to€preserve€a€search€issue€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€defendant€made€the€trial€court€awareÏof€her€intention€to€certify€a€dispositive€question€of€law€for€appeal,€and€whileÏaccepting€the€guilty€pleas,€the€trial€judge€even€explained€the€ramifications€of€a€RuleÏ37€appeal.€€Yet€because€the€judgments€contained€no€reference€to€the€reservationÏof€a€certified€question€of€law,€the€Court€found€that€the€defendant€had€waived€theÏissue.€€òòSeeóó€òòPendergrassóó,€___€S.W.2d€at€___.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€Defendant,€with€theÏagreement€of€the€State€and€the€trial€court,€attempted€to€reserve€a€certified€questionÏconcerning€the€validity€of€the€airport€search.€€It€is€equally€clear,€however,€that€theÍjudgments€entered€on€September€28,€1995€fail€to€comply€with€the€requirements€ofÏòòPrestonóó€and€Rule€37.€€In€fact,€the€judgments€make€no€reference€whatsoever€to€aÏcertified€question€of€law€for€appeal.€€Given€the€clear,€mandatory€language€ofÏòòPrestonóó€and€òòPendergrassóó,€we€must€conclude€that€the€Defendant€has€waived€theÏsearch€issue€which€he€had€attempted€to€preserve€for€appeal.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhim€probation.€€Initially€we€note€that€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€make€appropriateÏreferences€to€the€record.€€As€a€result,€this€issue€has€been€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.ÏCrim.€App.€R.€10(b);€òòState€v.€œKillebrew›óó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòid.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(7)€and€(g).€€Even€if€weÏwere€to€address€the€issue,€however,€we€could€only€conclude€that€it€lacks€merit.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€on€September€28,€1995.€€AtÏthe€sentencing€hearing,€the€Defendant€asserted€several€mitigating€factors€andÏrequested€that€the€trial€court€place€him€on€probation.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€noÏmitigating€factors€applied€to€the€Defendantððs€case€and€discussed€two€possibleÏenhancement€factors:€(1)€that€the€Defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏbehavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€his€range,€and€(2)€that€theÏDefendant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€ofÏa€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114(1)€and€(8).€€It€is€unclear€from€the€transcript€of€the€hearing,€however,€whether€theÏtrial€judge€actually€found€these€enhancement€factors€to€be€applicable.€€In€anyÏevent,€the€trial€court€imposed€the€minimum€sentence€of€eight€(8)€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€for€the€cocaine€conviction€and€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€at€thirty€percent€(30%)€for€the€marijuana€conviction.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€does€not€contend€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€orÏdenied€any€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors,€nor€does€he€contend€that€hisÏsentence€is€excessive.€€Instead,€the€Defendantððs€œmain›€complaint€stems€from€theÏfact€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€specifically€address€the€reasons€supporting€theÏdenial€of€probation.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÏa€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)Ïthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)Ïany€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€theÏdefendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€#XÔððððÔ€#ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€andÏthat€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÏmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àWhen€imposing€a€sentence€of€total€confinement,€our€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€mandates€the€trial€court€to€base€its€decision€on€the€considerations€setÏforth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103.€€These€considerationsÏwhich€militate€against€alternative€sentencing€include:€the€need€to€protect€society€byÏrestraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct,€whetherÍconfinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deter€others€likely€to€commit€aÏsimilar€offense,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€andÏthe€need€to€order€confinement€in€cases€in€which€less€restrictive€measures€haveÏoften€or€recently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€#XÔððÔ€#ŠÔÏ40„35„103(1).€€€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€judge€must€consider€the€natureÏand€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€his€backgroundÏand€social€history,€his€present€condition,€including€his€physical€and€mental€condition,Ïthe€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity,€and€the€likelihood€that€probation€is€in€theÏbest€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€€òòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2dÏ617,€620€(Tenn.€1974).€€The€burden€is€on€the€Defendant€to€show€that€the€sentenceÏhe€received€is€improper€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€probation.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€Defendant€was€statutorily€eligible€for€probationÏbecause€he€received€sentences€of€eight€years€or€less.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€Because€he€was€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€however,€he€was€notÏpresumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€In€considering€possible€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€Defendant€had€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€thatÍmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€had€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€theÏDefendant.€€These€circumstances€militate€against€the€granting€of€probation.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1).€€Furthermore,€as€this€Court€has€previously€held,Ïconfinement€for€drug€convictions€of€this€type€is€particularly€suited€to€deter€others€likelyÏto€commit€similar€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€260€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Accordingly,€from€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€can€only€concludeÏthat€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€his€sentenceÏwas€improper€and€that€he€was€entitled€to€probation.€€His€second€issue€is€thereforeÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€conclude€that€theÏDefendantððs€issues€on€appeal€lack€merit.€€His€convictions€and€sentences€areÏaffirmed.Ìà àà àà àà àà à̛̜ÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE