ÿWPCÐB ”ô©¯íM'ˆ¬«ž2è“šŽ ù =§:8,” ë¸~þuEjÅŠ‰fPý?Â~Œèþ!°Ur"Ì”™ü!È_ÀZÁŸ±¡@S;v‰€…÷•Gû4À‘ÉPÙø–`ä¡ÿoØÁ¤ר!üv>¼È0h8M¿wt¼îÄO0°ógZ³d»PQX`Q… ÐS Â ΟcŒålÝxìöa` ÐÌ?ŒõFÿ·ð VµÂœ¿{ÛklpÄÀæÝ ý)_ê•e…š{¯ äT਒ÛÔÊ:×ÂáÊ6Æs£Ã‰³d‰¢Ú)ãv#pu%þŒ½Çl׊铕Px§ç®†ðWQ1¾ÅמÝDEÊCøÅ1`(г>šô"ðéfZkC¶„·l2±Õ"—tµ'Jß?!ùÚÌ-)B²ÍÈÝ•[ÕÕ(h‰Ó’¯]\ À‚‹Ô¦·±zS¼ƒ„Œ”;Ù߽½G{Ù8íÔô²Pc¿Ÿ\ñ$x^–ÈÑ9XñA?õf§è¡ÿ[€Ûý»¿kkª¿ÖÈ=Û4êÓ4jlHØ Èšã”ĤŒ–]¥¢±ÞM®Õ@”…‹R'ûnÒy¦z†[Z۷ņr´hµ4ÅêLµî¯g,•)½Ó\€žGü(ìf#Á” %U N[ 0ˆ] U Nå 3 U@; z{ Òõ zÇ ÒA ^  w Æ# Æé ƯÆu4;NOQ`Eb mdUN{ 0DÉ 0ô % 0ñ&U> 0îU 0ëC 0è. 0å 0âû 0ßÝ 0ܼ 0☠0ßz 0ÜY 0Ù5 0Ö 0Óä 0з 0͇! 0ÊT"b# 0á&# 0Þ$ 0Ûå$ 0ØÀ% 0Õ˜& 0Òm' 0Ï?( 0Ì) 0ÉÚ) 00£* 0<Ó* 0¾+ 0>Í+ 0v , 0`, 0`á, 0`A- 0`¡- 0`. 08a. 0Ò™. 02k/ 0ü/ 0:™0 0YÓ0 0_,1 0 ‹1 0j•2 0„ÿ3 B*ƒ5 D/­5 0„Ü5 D/`7 0Î7 06]8 0ë“8 0~9 0:†: 0^À: B; 0<;; 0¤w; D3< D-N< 0K{<U6Æ< ASü<ÆO= 0¤> 0D¹> A«ý>U>¨?U*æ?æ?À@˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular (ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÛ~O+ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÖJ~'  24¥£3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó Ý ƒR0&$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôùòòôùÔÔ_ÔÔ‡òùòòôùÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€of€prior€felonyÐ ° Ðconvictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,Ð tÄ ÐSentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô‡òE òòòùÔ2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó<@ˆÐ9Z &Courier Regular2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€M(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡c%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dL)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€O(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡c%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓL)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó(|G20&$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»Ô8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô d2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(|3Çr$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó<þ6X9`(‹Courier New^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çr$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial ¶Ý ƒR0&$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôùòòôùÔAlthough€the€ground€was€not€included€in€a€motion€for€new€trial,€no€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed.€€In€fact,€theÐ ° Ðrecord€also€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€did€not€file€a€timely€notice€of€appeal.€€Counsel€on€appeal,€who€was€notÐ tÄ Ðinvolved€in€the€trial,€sought€and€received€a€waiver€of€the€requirement.€€In€granting€the€request,€this€court€found€that€theÐ 8ˆ Ðappeal€should€be€granted€€in€the€interest€of€justice.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€Ô#†ôùòòôù~#ÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼@»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼@»»¼@Ôà@ttìàԇ@ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼@»î+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€17,€2001à @ àà @` à€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼@ÔÌò òÔ#†¼@»XXI2#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóPATRICIA€Ô_ÔADKISSONÔ_ÔÔ‡XIX»¼@Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔHickmanÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„5039CR„I€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNos.€M2000„01079„CCA„R3„CD,€M2000„02319„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€Ô_Ô10/12/01Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Patricia€Ô_ÔAdkissonÔ_Ô,€who€was€charged€with€253€counts€of€animal€cruelty€and€one€countÐ xÈ  Ðof€tampering€with€evidence,€was€convicted€on€three€counts€of€Ô#†¼@»XXIË#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼@Ôanimal€cruelty.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð d´ Ððððð€39„14„202,€Ô#†¼@»XXI!#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼@Ô39„16„503.€€TÔ#†¼@»XXI¶#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼@Ôhe€trial€court€imposed€three€consecutive€terms€of€11€months,€29€days,Ð P  Ðand€granted€supervised€probation.€€As€a€condition€of€probation,€the€defendant€was€prohibited€fromÐ <Œ Ðowning€any€caged€animals€for€a€period€of€five€years.€€The€defendant€appealed.€€Later,€the€trial€courtÐ (x Ðrevoked€probation€and€a€second€appeal€followed.€€In€this€consolidated€proceeding,€the€defendantÐ d Ðclaims€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€her€motion€to€suppress€evidence€gathered€during€theÐ P Ðinitial€search€of€her€property;€(2)€the€evidence€was€insufficient;€(3)€the€sentence€was€improper;€andÐ ì< Ð(4)€the€trial€court€lacked€authority€to€revoke€her€probation.€€Because€the€search€of€the€defendant'sÐ Ø( Ðpremises€violated€constitutional€principles,€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€the€evidenceÐ Ä Ðwhich€led€to€the€convictions.€€Accordingly,€the€convictions€are€reversed€and€the€causes€areÐ ° Ðremanded.Ð œì ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversed;€Causes€Remandedó óÐ tÄ ÐÓ  ÓÌòòÔ#†¼@»àXI#ÔÔ‡XIX.¼@ÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJohnÐ L œ ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌJohn€P.€Ô_ÔCauleyÔ_Ô,€Franklin,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€and€Douglas€T.€Bates,€III,€Ô_ÔCentervilleÔ_Ô,€TennesseeÐ #`" Ð(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Patricia€Ô_ÔAdkissonÔ_Ô.Ð ü#L# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ Ô%$!% ÐJudson€Phillips€and€Kenneth€K.€Ô_ÔCritesÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€StateÐ À&"& Ðof€Tennessee.Ð  ¬'ü"'ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼@»XXI #ÔÔ‡XIX»¼@ԈР° ÐÌÔ#†¼@»XXIÔ#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼@Ôà  àOn€December€17,€1998,€Kathy€Wilkes„Myers€and€Mary€Sexton,€the€vice„president€andÐ ˆØ Ðpresident,€respectively,€of€the€Hickman€County€Humane€Society,€traveled€to€the€residence€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant,€Patricia€Adkisson,€to€investigate€an€anonymous€complaint€Ô#†¼@»XXI-#ÔÔ€XIX»¼@Ôregarding€the€care€she€providedÐ `° Ðto€her€animals.€€Deputy€Richard€Warden€of€the€Hickman€County€Sheriff's€Department€accompaniedÐ L œ ÐMs.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€to€the€site.€€After€viewing€the€property,€Ms.€Sexton€and€OfficerÐ 8 ˆ ÐWarden€left€to€obtain€a€search€warrant.€€Although€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€remained€on€the€property,€sheÐ $ t Ðdid€not€conduct€any€further€investigation€during€the€absence€of€Ms.€Sexton€and€the€officer.€€UponÐ  ` Ðtheir€return€and€in€reliance€upon€a€search€warrant,€Ms.€Sexton€photographed€the€defendant's€animalsÐ ü L  Ðand€their€living€areas.€€There€were€one€hundred€ninety„five€animals,€consisting€mostly€of€a€varietyÐ è 8  Ðof€canine€breeds.€€As€a€result€of€the€search,€nine€dogs€were€removed€from€the€property€and€taken€toÐ Ô$  Ða€veterinary€hospital.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€next€morning,€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€returned€to€the€property,€accompaniedÐ ˜è  Ðby€a€second€officer€and€the€defendant's€attorney.€€Upon€their€arrival,€they€discovered€that€a€majorityÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€animals€had€been€moved€to€another€location.€€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€removedÐ pÀ Ðthose€that€remained.€€On€advice€of€counsel,€the€defendant€eventually€surrendered€a€large€number€ofÐ \¬ Ðother€dogs,€which€were€purportedly€those€that€had€been€moved€during€the€night.€€A€total€of€253Ð H˜ Ðanimals€were€evacuated€from€the€defendant's€property.Ð 4„ ÐÌà@ÍÍ*ìàIˆÐ  \ Ðà  àFirst,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€her€motion€to€suppress€theÐ øH Ðevidence€gathered€from€the€initial€search€of€her€property.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion,€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€contended€that€the€search€was€illegal€because€it€was€conducted€without€a€warrant€andÐ Ð  Ðwithout€her€consent;€she€also€argued,€and€the€state€conceded,€that€the€search€warrant€wasÐ ¼  Ðinappropriately€executed€by€members€of€the€Humane€Society€rather€than€the€Hickman€County€SheriffÐ ¨ø Ðor€a€deputy.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ ”ä Ðdetermined€that€because€the€search€warrant€was€improperly€executed,€all€of€the€evidence€collectedÐ €Ð Ðpursuant€thereto€would€be€excluded.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€however,€as€it€related€to€theÐ l¼ Ðinitial€warrantless€inspectionòòóó:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àI€don't€think€that€the€state€has€carried[]€.€.€.€its€burden€of€proving€that€there€was€aÐ 0"€  Ðwillful€and€knowing€consent€to€search€her€property€given€by€Ms.€Adkisson€.€.€.€.Ð #l! Ð[T]hen€the€issue€becomes€whether€there€was€sufficient€state€involvement€to€result€inÐ $X" Ða€suppression€of€what€was€seen€by€Ms.€Sexton€and€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers.€.€.€.€€And€IÐ ô$D # Ðfind€that€there€was€not.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€officer€accompanied€these€two€ladies€to€Ms.€Adkisson's€property,€but€it'sÐ ¸'#& Ðclear€that€he€was€doing€that€at€their€request.€€His€only€participation,€really,€was€givingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsome€advice,€and€even€that€advice€indicates€that€it€was€not€his€action,€he€told€Ms.Ð )à$( Ðâ âAdkisson€that€he€believed€that€these€ladies€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€thereÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€cruelty€to€animals,€and€he€probably€was€correct€in€that.€€But,€still,€what€he€toldÐ ° Ðher€indicated€that€it€was€their€action€and€not€his.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo€I€don't€think€there€was€sufficient€state€action€.€.€.€until€the€time€of€theÐ L œ Ðsearch€warrant,€to€result€in€the€suppression€of€any€evidence.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€were€acting€"under€color€ofÐ  ` Ðlaw."€€She€contends€that€their€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€ConstitutionÐ ü L  Ðand€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€must€be€attributed€to€the€state.€€The€stateÐ è 8  Ðargues€that€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€were€not€state€actors€and,€in€the€alternative,€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€consented€to€their€inspection€of€her€property.€€On€review,€this€court€must€uphold€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Keithóó,€978€S.W.2d€861,Ð ¬ü  Ð864€(Tenn.€1998).€€This€court's€review€of€the€trial€court's€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts,€however,Ð ˜è  Ðis€òòdeóóòònovoóó.€€òòId.óóÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€state€argues€that€because€the€defendant€failed€to€present€the€issue€in€a€motionÐ \¬ Ðfor€new€trial,€the€ground€is€waived.€€The€state€also€asserts€that€the€issue€does€not€rise€to€the€level€ofÐ H˜ Ðplain€error.€€Generally,€the€failure€to€present€an€issue€in€a€motion€for€new€trial€results€in€a€waiver.€Ð 4„ ÐRule€3(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€that€for€appeals€"in€all€cases€triedÐ  p Ðby€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusionÐ  \ Ðof€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,€.€.€.€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€isÐ øH Ðsought,€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€willÐ ä4 Ðbe€treated€as€waived."€€Whether€properly€assigned€or€not,€however,€this€court€may€consider€plainÐ Ð  Ðerror€upon€the€record€under€Rule€52(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€òòState€v.€Ogleóó,Ð ¼  Ð666€S.W.2d€58€(Tenn.€1984).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àBefore€an€error€may€be€so€recognized,€it€must€be€"plain"€and€must€affect€a€"substantial€right"Ð €Ð Ðof€the€accused.€€The€word€"plain"€is€synonymous€with€"clear"€or€equivalently€"obvious."€€òòUnitedÐ l¼ ÐStates€v.€Olanoóó,€507€U.S.€725,€732€(1993).€€Plain€error€is€not€merely€error€that€is€conspicuous.€€PlainÐ X ¨ Ðerror€is€especially€egregious€error€that€strikes€at€the€fairness,€integrity,€or€public€reputation€of€judicialÐ D!” Ðproceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€In€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€court€defined€"substantial€right"€asÐ #l! Ða€right€of€"fundamental€proportions€in€the€indictment€process,€a€right€to€the€proof€of€every€elementÐ $X" Ðof€the€offense€and€.€.€.€constitutional€in€nature."€€In€that€case,€this€court€established€five€factors€to€beÐ ô$D # Ðapplied€in€determining€whether€an€error€is€plain:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  à(a)€The€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;€Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(d)€the€accused€[must€not€have€waived]€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€and€Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(e)€consideration€of€the€error€must€be€"necessary€to€do€substantial€justice."€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇòòId.óó€at€641„42.€€Our€supreme€court€characterized€the€òòAdkissonóó€test€as€a€"clear€and€meaningfulÐ ° Ðstandard"€and€emphasized€that€each€of€the€five€factors€must€be€present€before€an€error€qualifies€asÐ œì Ðplain€error.€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€282„83€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€record€clearly€establishes€that€the€defendant€challenged€the€evidence€in€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt,€which€determined€that€neither€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€nor€the€FourthÐ L œ ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€was€applicable€to€the€search.€€Because,€however,€ourÐ 8 ˆ Ðresearch€suggests€that€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€fit€within€the€definition€of€"state€actor"Ð $ t Ðand,€therefore,€were€subject€to€constitutional€limitations,€the€trial€court's€ruling€appears€to€haveÐ  ` Ðbreached€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€and€adversely€affected€a€substantial€right€of€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€defendant€waived€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons.׃e×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,Ð è 8  Ðit€is€our€view€that€consideration€of€the€suppression€issue€is€"necessary€to€do€substantial€justice."€Ð Ô$  ÐBecause€all€factors€appear€to€be€present,€this€court€chooses€to€address€the€question€as€plain€error.Ð À  ÐÌà  àUnder€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€theÐ ˜è  ÐUnited€States€Constitution,€made€applicable€to€the€states€by€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€aÐ „Ô  Ðwarrantless€search€or€seizure€is€presumptively€unreasonable€and€any€evidence€discovered€therebyÐ pÀ Ðis€subject€to€suppression€unless€one€of€the€narrowly€defined€exceptions€applies.€€U.S.€Const.€amends.Ð \¬ ÐIV,€XIV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€7;€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€450€(1971);€òòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐBartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,€229-30€(Tenn.€1996).€€There€is,€however,€no€constitutional€protectionÐ 4„ Ðagainst€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€by€private€individuals.€€Ô‡XIXXXIÔòòBurdeau€v.€McDowellóó,€256€U.S.Ð  p Ð465€(1921).Ô#†XIXXXIù8#Ô€€It€is€only€when€an€individual€acts€as€an€agent€of€the€state€that€a€constitutional€violationÐ  \ Ðmay€be€utilized€to€preclude€the€admission€of€evidence.€€Ô‡XIXXXIÔòòCoolidgeóó,€403€U.S.€at€487.Ô#†XIXXXI(:#ÔÐ øH ÐÌÔ‡XIXXXIÔà  àIn€òòState€v.€Burroughsóó,€our€supreme€court,€citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Waltheróó,€652€F.2d€789€(9thÐ Ð  ÐCir.€1981),€recognized€two€factors€as€relevant€to€the€determination€of€whether€private€conduct€isÐ ¼  Ðchargeable€to€the€state€in€connection€with€an€allegedly€unreasonable€search:€€à8 @® à(1)€whether€theÐ ¨ø Ðgovernment€has€knowledge€of€and€acquiesces€in€the€search;€and€(2)€the€intent€of€the€party€performingÐ ”ä Ðthe€search.€€926€S.W.2d€243,€246€(Tenn.€1996).€€Describing€this€two„pronged€analysis€as€theÐ €Ð Ð"legitimate€independent€motivation"€test,€our€supreme€court€in€òòBurroughsóó€determined€that€a€privateÐ l¼ Ðindividual€who€had€conducted€a€warrantless€search€of€a€dormitory€room€was€not€a€state€agent.€€InÐ X ¨ Ðseveral€of€the€federal€cases€cited€with€approval€in€òòBurroughsóó,€it€was€held€that€so€long€as€the€privateÐ D!” Ðparty€acts€for€a€reason€independent€of€the€purpose€of€the€state,€there€is€no€state€agency€and,€inÐ 0"€  Ðconsequence,€no€protection€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.Ô#†XIXXXI :#ÔÐ #l! ÐÌà  àBy€the€application€of€the€òòBurroughsóó€test€to€these€circumstances,€it€is€our€view€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðconduct€of€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€in€their€initial€search€of€the€property€is€chargeable€toÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€state.€€In€our€view,€Officer€Warden€of€the€Hickman€County€Sheriff's€Department,€who€clearly€hadÐ Ì&"% Ðknowledge€of€the€initial€search,€acquiesced€in€its€execution€by€accompanying€the€two€women€to€theÐ ° Ðproperty€and€lending€the€credibility€and€authority€of€law€enforcement€to€the€Humane€Society.€€TheÐ œì Ðstate€argues€that€the€deputy€was€present€in€this€instance€merely€to€provide€protection€to€Ms.€Wilkes„Ð ˆØ ÐMyers€and€Ms.€Sexton.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€testified€that€HickmanÐ tÄ ÐCounty€Humane€Society€representatives€"always€call€a€deputy€sheriff€to€accompany€[them]€becauseÐ `° Ða€lot€of€times€.€.€.€isolated€locations€[are€involved]€and€[they]€just€do€that€for€[their]€protection."€€TheÐ L œ Ðrecord€reflects,€however,€that€the€deputy's€involvement€extended€beyond€providing€security€to€Ms.Ð 8 ˆ ÐWilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton.€€Officer€Warden€testified€that€he€attempted€to€calm€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðafter€Ms.€Sexton€advised€her€of€the€nature€of€the€investigation.€€He€then€informed€the€defendant€that,Ð  ` Ðin€his€opinion,€a€dead€puppy€they€had€observed€near€their€vehicles€supplied€the€necessary€probableÐ ü L  Ðcause€for€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant.€€When€the€defendant€indicated€that€she€would€allow€anÐ è 8  Ðinspection€of€her€property€so€long€as€photographs€were€not€made,€the€officer€called€for€back„upÐ Ô$  Ðassistance€at€the€scene.€€After€inspecting€the€property,€Officer€Warden€assisted€Ms.€Sexton,€as€sheÐ À  Ðobtained€a€search€warrant,€by€signing€an€affidavit€in€support€of€its€issuance.€€During€this€process,€Ms.Ð ¬ü  ÐWilkes„Myers€was€left€alone€with€the€defendant€and,€by€all€appearances,€she€did€not€require€anyÐ ˜è  Ðprotection€from€law€enforcement.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àApplication€of€the€second€factor€yields€the€same€result.€€It€is€our€view€that€Ms.€Wilkes„MyersÐ \¬ Ðand€Ms.€Sexton€were€performing€a€law€enforcement€function€at€the€time€of€their€initial€search.€€InÐ H˜ Ðthe€words€of€Ms.€Sexton,€she€and€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers,€as€representatives€of€the€Hickman€CountyÐ 4„ ÐHumane€Society,€"were€there€due€to€an€anonymous€complaint€of€animals€being€in€poor€conditionsÐ  p Ðand€deplorable€housing€and€filth€and€.€.€.€to€substantiate€that€complaint."€€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€testifiedÐ  \ Ðthat€the€Humane€Society€"go[es]€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€cruelty€laws,€that's€what€[the€organizationÐ øH Ðtries]€to€enforce."€€Humane€societies€which€are€chartered€by€the€state,€such€as€the€Hickman€CountyÐ ä4 ÐHumane€Society,€are€specifically€vested€with€the€power€to€arrest€and€prosecute€animal€crueltyÐ Ð  Ðoffenders:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€agents€of€any€society€which€is€incorporated€for€the€prevention€of€crueltyÐ ”ä Ðto€animals,€upon€being€appointed€thereto€by€the€president€of€such€society€in€anyÐ €Ð Ðcounty,€may,€within€such€county,€òòmake€arrests,€and€bring€before€any€courtóó€thereofÐ l¼ Ðoffenders€found€violating€the€provisions€of€this€part€with€regard€to€non-livestockÐ X ¨ Ðanimals.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„210(a)€(emphasis€added).€€"While€county€humane€societies€may€engageÐ #l! Ðin€certain€activities€that€are€not€governmental€in€nature,€the€above€statute[]€demonstrate[s]€that€theÐ $X" Ðprimary€purpose€of€such€organizations€is€law€enforcement€.€.€.€."€€òòStuder€v.€Seneca€County€HumaneÐ ô$D # ÐSocietyóó,€No.€13„99„59,€2000€WL€566738,€at€*3€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€May€4,€2000)€(holding€that€humaneÐ à%0!$ Ðsociety€was€political€subdivision€of€Ohio€for€purposes€of€immunity€statutes);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòPutnam€CountyÐ Ì&"% ÐHumane€Society€v.€Woodwardóó,€740€So.2d€1238,€1240€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(holding€that€PublicÐ ¸'#& ÐRecords€Act€was€applicable€to€humane€society€because€"[w]here€the€[s]ociety€ha[d]€used€its€statutoryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðauthority€to€investigate€acts€of€animal€abuse€and€.€.€.€to€seize€animals,€it€ha[d]€acted€as€an€agent€ofÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€state").€€Here,€there€is€no€indication€that€either€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€or€Ms.€Sexton€had€a€legitimateÐ |*Ì%) Ðmotivation€to€search€the€property€independent€of€her€affiliation€with€the€Hickman€County€HumaneÐ ° ÐSociety.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àHaving€determined€that€Ms.€Wilkes„Myers€and€Ms.€Sexton€qualified€as€state€actors€inÐ tÄ Ðconducting€the€search,€it€is€also€our€conclusion€that€the€initial€search€of€the€property€wasÐ `° Ðunreasonable.€€As€the€trial€court€also€recognized,€the€state€has€failed€to€carry€the€burden€ofÐ L œ Ðestablishing,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€the€search€fell€within€one€of€the€recognizedÐ 8 ˆ Ðexceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoolidgeóó,€403€U.S.€at€454-55.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court,Ð $ t Ðhaving€seen€and€heard€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€and€having€reviewed€the€evidence€firsthand,Ð  ` Ðdetermined€that€the€defendant€did€not€consent€to€the€search.€€This€court€Ô‡XIXXXIÔis€obliged€to€uphold€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€864;€òòÔ#†XIXXXIÛU#ÔStateÐ è 8  Ðv.€McCraryóó,€45€S.W.3d€36,€41€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€It€does€not€do€so€in€this€case.€€Because€theÐ Ô$  Ðinitial€search€was€unreasonable€and€the€defendant€did€not€consent€thereto,€the€evidence€which€ledÐ À  Ðto€each€of€the€convictions€must€be€suppressed.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@®®)ìàIIˆÐ „Ô  Ðà  àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence,€even€if€it€had€been€properly€admitted,€wasÐ pÀ Ðinsufficient€to€support€her€convictions.€€She€contends€that€there€is€no€evidence€of€the€appropriateÐ \¬ Ðstandard€of€care€and€no€proof€that€any€deviation€from€that€standard€caused€or€contributed€to€theÐ H˜ Ðconditions€of€the€animals€for€which€the€state€obtained€convictions.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÐ  \ Ðall€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÐ ä4 Ðreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€€òòByrge€v.Ð Ð  ÐStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÐ ¼  Ðchallenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÐ ”ä Ðreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€Ð €Ð ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ l¼ Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð298,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€against€a€defendant€removes€theÐ D!” Ðpresumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convicted€criminal€defendant€bearsÐ 0"€  Ðthe€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€a€guilty€verdict.€€òòState€v.Ð #l! ÐEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAnimal€cruelty€is€committed€when€a€person€intentionally€or€knowinglyÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€[t]ortures,€maims€or€grossly€overworks€an€animal;и'#&Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€[f]ails€unreasonably€to€provide€necessary€food,€water,€care€or€shelter€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€animal€in€the€person's€custody;Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€[a]bandons€unreasonably€an€animal€in€the€person's€custody;Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€[t]ransports€or€confines€an€animal€in€a€cruel€manner;€€orаРР Ðà8  àà ` à(5)€[i]nflicts€burns,€cuts,€lacerations,€or€other€injuries€or€pain,€by€any€method,Ð œì Ðincluding€blistering€compounds,€to€the€legs€or€hooves€of€horses€in€order€to€makeÐ ˆØ Ðthem€sore€for€any€purpose€including,€but€not€limited€to,€competition€in€horse€showsÐ tÄ Ðand€similar€events.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„202(a).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€on€counts€4,€11,€and€26€of€the€indictment.€€Counts€fourÐ  ` Ðand€26€charged€the€defendant€with€cruelty€by€unreasonable€failure€"to€provide€necessary€food,€water,Ð ü L  Ðcare€or€shelter"€to€a€female€Chihuahua€and€a€female€Maltese,€respectively.€€At€trial,€Cindy€Wasden,Ð è 8  Ða€Hickman€County€Human€Society€member,€testified€that€she€took€possession€of€the€Chihuahua€onÐ Ô$  ÐDecember€21.€€When€she€removed€the€animal€from€the€two„by„four„foot€cage€in€which€it€was€beingÐ À  Ðtransported€with€14€to€16€other€dogs,€she€discovered€that€its€back€legs€were€paralyzed.€€She€notedÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€dog€was€thin€and€covered€with€sores.€€It€was€euthanized€at€a€veterinarian's€recommendation.€Ð ˜è  ÐWith€regard€to€the€Maltese,€Ms.€Wasden€testified€that€the€dog€was€thin,€toothless,€covered€in€mudÐ „Ô  Ðand€feces,€and€had€an€obvious€cough.€€The€Maltese€was€also€euthanized.€€The€defendant€does€notÐ pÀ Ðdeny€that€the€dogs€were€in€her€custody€and€care.€€On€these€facts,€a€jury€could€have€properly€foundÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€defendant€failed€to€provide€the€necessary€care€for€the€Chihuahua.€€Even€though€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðwas€not€shown€to€have€caused€the€dog's€paralysis,€the€dog€had€a€number€of€untreated€open€sores€onÐ 4„ Ðits€body.€€A€jury€could€also€have€properly€found€that€the€Maltese,€which€was€living€in€its€ownÐ  p Ðexcrement€and€obviously€ill,€was€not€provided€proper€care€or€shelter.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àCount€11€of€the€indictment€charged€the€defendant€with€animal€cruelty€by€the€"torture€andÐ ä4 Ðmaim[ing]"€of€a€female€toy€fox€terrier.€€Ms.€Wasden€testified€that€when€she€removed€the€terrier€fromÐ Ð  Ðits€cage,€she€observed€that€it€was€unable€to€stand.€€One€of€the€dog's€front€legs€was€twisted€and€itsÐ ¼  Ðback€leg€was€mangled€and€bleeding.€€Additionally,€there€was€blood€and€pus€coming€from€theÐ ¨ø Ðanimal's€rectum.€€Ultimately,€the€terrier€was€also€euthanized.€€For€purposes€of€animal€offenses,Ð ”ä Ð"torture"€is€defined€as€"every€act,€omission,€or€neglect€whereby€unreasonable€physical€pain,Ð €Ð Ðsuffering,€or€death€is€caused€or€permitted."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„201(4).€€While€there€was€noÐ l¼ Ðevidence€of€what€caused€the€terrier's€injuries,€it€was€within€the€jury's€province€to€infer€from€theÐ X ¨ Ðcircumstances€that€the€defendant's€neglect€of€those€injuries€resulted€in€unreasonable€pain€andÐ D!” Ðsuffering€to€the€terrier.€€In€summary,€had€there€been€a€valid€search,€the€evidence€would€have€beenÐ 0"€  Ðsufficient€to€support€each€of€the€three€convictions.€€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà@)ìàIIIˆÐ ô$D # Ðà  àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€the€maximum€term€for€eachÐ à%0!$ Ðconviction,€ordering€consecutive€sentences,€and€prohibiting€her€from€owning€caged€animals€for€fiveÐ Ì&"% Ðyears.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€trial€courts€are€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€aÐ )à$( Ðreasonable€opportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð |*Ì%) Ððð€40„35„302(a).€€The€sentence€must€be€specific€and€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€the€CriminalÐ h+¸&* ÐSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€Not€greater€than€75€percent€ofÐ ° Ðthe€sentence€should€be€fixed€for€service€by€a€misdemeanor€offender;€however,€a€DUI€offender€mayÐ œì Ðbe€required€to€serve€the€full€one€hundred€percent€of€his€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d);Ð ˆØ ÐòòPalmer€v.€Stateóó,€902€S.W.2d€391,€393„94€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€determining€the€percentage€of€theÐ tÄ Ðsentence€to€be€served,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€theÐ `° Ðlegislative€purposes€and€principles€related€to€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àUpon€service€of€the€required€percentage€of€the€sentence,€the€administrative€agency€governingÐ $ t Ðthe€rehabilitative€program€determines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€available€is€appropriate.€Ð  ` ÐòòId.óó€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€on€probation€either€immediately€orÐ ü L  Ðafter€a€term€of€periodic€or€continuous€confinement.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(e).€€TheÐ è 8  Ðlegislature€has€encouraged€courts€to€consider€public€or€private€agencies€for€probation€supervisionÐ Ô$  Ðprior€to€directing€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-302(f).€Ð À  ÐThe€statutory€scheme€is€designed€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuing€jurisdiction€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmisdemeanor€case€and€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€€The€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€notÐ ˜è  Ðentitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829,€832€(Tenn.Ð „Ô  ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€€Appellate€review€of€misdemeanor€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€ofÐ pÀ Ðcorrectness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271€(Tenn.€1998).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€observed€that€the€"sentence€imposed€should€be€the€least€severe€measureÐ 4„ Ðnecessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð  p Ð103(4).€€In€an€effort€to€protect€any€animals€in€the€defendant's€custody,€the€trial€court€ruled€as€follows:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€do€think€that€she€is€guilty€of€animal€cruelty€in€these€counts.€.€.€.€€I€also€thinkÐ ä4 Ðthat€she€at€least€knowingly€treated€the€animals€cruelly€in€that€she€knew€that€she€wasn'tÐ Ð  Ðable€to€take€care€of€them€and€kept€having€puppies€and€it€got€out€of€hand.€€But€sheÐ ¼  Ðknew€that€and,€of€course,€knowingly€is€part€of€this€criminal€statute.€€And€she€wasÐ ¨ø Ðmaking€a€living€at€that,€so€I€think€consecutive€sentencing€is€appropriate.€€I€willÐ ”ä Ðsentence€her€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€the€Hickman€CountyÐ €Ð ÐWorkhouse€in€each€case€and€fine€her€in€the€amount€of€one€thousand€dollars.€€ThoseÐ l¼ Ðsentences€to€run€consecutively€one€with€another.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€will€suspend€the€sentences€and€place€her€on€eleven€months€and€twenty„nineÐ 0"€  Ðdays€probation€in€each€case€and€order€that€as€a€condition€of€probation€.€.€.€for€a€periodÐ #l! Ðof€five€years€that€she€have€no€dogs€or€any€animals€that€are€ordinarily€kept€in€cagesÐ $X" Ðunless€she€gives€a€written€consent€to€the€Hickman€County€Humane€Society€to€searchÐ ô$D # Ðher€premises€outside€the€actual€residence€where€she€lives€at€any€time,€and€then€sheÐ à%0!$ Ðallows€them€to€do€it.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAnimal€cruelty,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€is€punishable€by€"not€greater€than€eleven€(11)Ð ¤(ô#' Ðmonths€twenty„nine€days€or€a€fine€not€to€exceed€two€thousand€five€hundred€dollars€($2,500),€orÐ )à$( Ðboth."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„202(f);€40„35„112(e)(1).€€Upon€conviction,€the€defense€agreed€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðproceed€to€sentencing€without€a€presentence€report€or€a€separate€sentencing€hearing.€€When€invitedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€be€heard€on€the€issue,€defense€counsel€stated€that€"everything€that€[he]€would€tell€the€[c]ourt€cameÐ ° Ðout€on€direct€examination."€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€does€not€argue€the€application€of€anyÐ œì Ðparticular€mitigating€factors.€€Rather,€she€argues€that€"[i]mposition€of€the€most€sever[e]€sentence€.Ð ˆØ Ð.€.€is€simply€not€justified€in€this€case."€€As€indicated,€however,€there€is€no€presumptive€minimum€inÐ tÄ Ðmisdemeanor€sentencing.€€Moreover,€it€is€our€view€that€the€sentences€of€11€months,€29€days,€wouldÐ `° Ðhave€been€warranted€by€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses.€€The€evidence,€photographs€andÐ L œ Ðotherwise,€established€that€the€defendant,€a€commercial€dog€breeder,€maintained€over€250€animalsÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€poor€conditions.€€By€all€appearances,€their€level€of€care€was€pitiful.€€After€the€Hickman€CountyÐ $ t ÐHumane€Society€discovered€the€improprieties,€the€defendant€hid€the€majority€of€the€dogs.€€EvenÐ  ` Ðthough€there€were€only€three€convictions,€the€state€clearly€established€severe€neglect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ü L  ÐWinfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000)€(holding€that€sentencing€court€may€consider€factsÐ è 8  Ðunderlying€an€offense€for€which€the€defendant€has€been€acquitted€where€the€facts€have€beenÐ Ô$  Ðestablished€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence).€€That€the€trial€court€suspended€all€three€of€theÐ À  Ðdefendant's€sentences€and€ordered€total€probation€exhibited€leniency.€€Had€the€convictions€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðupheld,€it€would€be€our€determination€that€the€lengths€of€the€sentences€were€warranted.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€questions€the€propriety€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€Prior€to€the€enactmentÐ pÀ Ðof€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€the€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€ofÐ \¬ Ðconsecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€caseÐ H˜ Ðour€supreme€court€ruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€oneÐ 4„ Ðof€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€the€court€establishedÐ  p Ðan€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€or€more€statutory€offenses€involvingÐ  \ Ðsexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,€additional€words€of€caution:Ð øH ÐÌà8  à[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€be€imposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregateÐ Ð  Ðmaximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€be€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€theÐ ¼  Ðoffenses€involved.òòШøÐ Ð  ÐÌId.óó€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ €Ð ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codificationÐ l¼ Ðof€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€exist:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÐ #l! Ð[himself]€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÐ ô$D # Ðextensive;Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€so€declared€byÐ Ì&"% Ða€competent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÐ ¸'#& Ðsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€has€been€characterized€by€a€patternÐ ° Ðof€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€to€consequences;МìÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€orÐ ˆØ Ðno€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€theÐ tÄ Ðrisk€to€human€life€is€high;€€€€à h à€€€€Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÐ L œ Ðinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravatingÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim€orÐ $ t Ðvictims,€the€time€span€of€defendant's€undetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scopeÐ  ` Ðof€the€sexual€acts€and€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€theÐ ü L  Ðvictim€or€victims;Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€on€probation;ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€length€of€the€sentence,€when€consecutive€in€nature,€must€be€"justly€deserved€in€relationÐ pÀ Ðto€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(1),€and€"no€greater€than€thatÐ \¬ Ðdeserved"€under€the€circumstances,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3€S.W.3d€456Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€ordered€consecutive€sentencing€because€the€defendant€"was€making€aÐ  \ Ðliving"€as€a€commercial€breeder€notwithstanding€her€failure€to€properly€care€for€the€large€number€ofÐ øH Ðanimals€in€her€possession.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€apparently€relied€upon€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ä4 Ðsection€40„35„115(b)(1),€that€the€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÐ Ð  Ðher€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.€€In€our€view,€however,€that€factor€isÐ ¼  Ðinapplicable.€€Although€the€defendant€committed€criminal€acts€in€connection€with€her€livelihood,Ð ¨ø Ðbreeding€and€selling€dogs,€the€business,€properly€operated,€is€not€inherently€criminal.€€There€are€noÐ ”ä Ðother€applicable€criteria€that€would€support€consecutive€sentencing.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€prohibiting€her€from€keepingÐ X ¨ Ðcaged€animals€for€a€period€of€five€years.€€Such€a€requirement€would€have€been€an€appropriateÐ D!” Ðcondition€for€the€full€term€of€the€defendant's€probation.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(d)(9).€Ð 0"€  ÐTrial€courts,€however,€may€only€suspend€a€sentence€"for€a€period€of€time€.€.€.€up€to€and€including€theÐ #l! Ðstatutory€maximum€time€for€the€class€of€the€conviction€offense."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(c).€Ð $X" ÐThe€state€concedes€error€by€the€trial€court€in€extending€the€term€to€five€years.€€This€court€must€agree.€Ð ô$D # ÐNo€conditions€of€probation,€such€as€the€prohibition€against€dog€ownership,€could€have€extendedÐ à%0!$ Ðbeyond€the€term€of€the€sentence.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà@……)ìàIVˆÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àAs€her€final€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€revoking€her€probationÐ )à$( Ðbecause€her€sentence€was€automatically€stayed€pending€the€outcome€of€her€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐLyonsóó,€29€S.W.3d€48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€Citing€òòState€v.€Conneróó,€919€S.W.2d€48€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð h+¸&* ÐApp.€1995),€the€state€responds€that€a€trial€court€always€retains€jurisdiction€over€a€probationer,€evenÐ ° Ðwhen€the€sentence€is€not€in€effect.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€jurisdiction€of€this€court€"attaches€upon€the€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€and,€therefore,Ð tÄ Ðthe€trial€court€loses€jurisdiction."€€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€937€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€1996);€òòseeÐ `° ÐalsoóóòòState€v.€Peakóó,€823€S.W.2d€228,€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Although€the€defendant€filed€herÐ L œ Ðnotice€of€appeal€nearly€two€months€late,€this€court€granted€the€defendant's€motion€to€waive€timelyÐ 8 ˆ Ðfiling€on€May€24,€2000,€concluding€that€the€notice€was€considered€timely€filed€as€of€May€8.€€At€thatÐ $ t Ðtime,€almost€two€months€before€the€filing€of€the€probation€revocation€warrant€on€July€8,€2000,€theÐ  ` Ðtrial€court€lost€jurisdiction.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€òòState€v.€Conneróó€is€distinguishable€from€this€case.€€In€òòConneróó,€the€defendant€pledÐ Ô$  Ðguilty€to€driving€under€the€influence,€fourth€offense,€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€He€receivedÐ À  Ðan€effective€sentence€of€11€months,€29€days,€with€all€but€150€days€suspended.€€The€sentence€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€a€prior€felony€sentence.€€Later,€the€district€attorney€general€filedÐ ˜è  Ða€petition€to€revoke€probation,€asserting€that€the€defendant€had€failed€to€return€from€a€furlough€andÐ „Ô  Ðhad€also€received€another€driving€under€the€influence€conviction.€€The€defendant€argued,€amongÐ pÀ Ðother€things,€that€the€trial€court€was€without€authority€to€revoke€his€probation€because€his€sentenceÐ \¬ Ðhad€not€actually€commenced.€€This€court€disagreed,€holding€that€a€trial€court€may€revoke€a€term€ofÐ H˜ Ðprobation€based€on€acts€committed€after€sentencing,€but€before€the€commencement€of€a€probationaryÐ 4„ Ðterm.€€òòId.óóat€51.€€There€is€one€critical€procedural€difference€between€òòConneróóand€this€case:€At€the€timeÐ  p Ðof€the€revocation€petition€in€òòConneróó,€no€notice€of€appeal€had€been€filed€and€the€judgment€hadÐ  \ Ðbecome€final.€€Here,€of€course,€a€notice€of€appeal€had€been€filed€and€the€trial€court's€jurisdiction€hadÐ øH Ðended€prior€to€the€July€8€probation€revocation€warrant.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOur€conclusion€does€not€turn€on€the€fact€that€the€sentence€of€the€defendant€was€stayedÐ ¼  Ðpending€her€appeal.€€Rather,€it€is€a€matter€of€jurisdiction.€€The€state€argues€that€such€a€holding€willÐ ¨ø Ðgive€probationers€"òòcarte€blancheóó€to€violate€the€law€during€a€period€when€the€sentence€is€not€inÐ ”ä Ðeffect."€€The€hands€of€a€trial€court,€however,€are€not€tied€under€these€circumstances.€€UnderÐ €Ð ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„311(a)€and€the€rule€in€òòConneróó,€a€trial€court€couldÐ l¼ Ðappropriately€consider€a€probation€revocation€warrant€based€on€a€criminal€offense€committed€duringÐ X ¨ Ðappeal€after€completion€of€the€appeal€and€return€of€jurisdiction€to€the€trial€court.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àBecause€the€evidence€resulting€from€the€initial€search€of€the€defendant's€property€should€haveÐ #l! Ðbeen€suppressed,€the€convictions€are€reversed€and€the€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court.Ð $X" ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE