ÿWPC´, …U:V % 0C– 0JÙ 0,#O n­_ 0è 4ô #  w@ 0T[ 0^¯ 0h  0ru 0|ç 0†c 0é 1uy Bî 0d  D3o 0@¢U 6âU *B)BDCk AM®²ûU­rÆt„:!v~¾#vÓ<% AO+Æ^+ 0D$, D/h, B—,<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(Ü(3Ó"$¤¤Ý ƒ¹¢!ÝÑ  ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|x®«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@(À¹¢$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal[  AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Ó»{s ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0  ˜D™PšE›PœPVžDŸV Ó€¬2" 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) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òSeptember30,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÔ€.ôÔÔ€/Ô€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€preliminarily€that€€the€defendant€proceeded€òòproóó€òòseóóò ò€ó óat€the€majority€of€the€proceedings€inÏthe€trial€court,€as€well€as€on€appeal.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€defendant's€retained€counsel€wasÏpermitted€to€withdraw€due€to€conflicts€with€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€appointed€an€assistant€publicÏdefender,€who€was€subsequently€relieved€as€counsel€on€the€defendant's€motion.€€At€each€stage€ofÏthe€proceedings,€the€trial€judge€inquired€into€the€defendant's€desire€to€proceed€òòproóó€òòseóó€andÏdetermined€that€the€defendant€competently€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€44(a).€€Although€the€written€waiver€mandated€in€Rule€44€is€not€in€the€record,€the€trial€judgeÏobserved€on€the€record€that€the€defendant€"refused"€to€sign€a€waiver.€€Likewise,€the€trial€court'sÏwritten€order€relieving€counsel€bears€the€notation,€"defendant€refuses€to€sign."€€The€defendant€hasÏnot€alleged€any€issues€on€appeal€regarding€his€waiver€of€counsel.€€Ô€/XÔÌ hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÔ€/ÔÔ€/ôÔ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóMcCalman's€testimony€was€more€precise€at€trial.€€He€testified€that€the€informant€asked€theÏdefendant€whether€he€"had€the€stuff"€and€that€the€defendant€replied€that€he€did€not€have€the€amountÏthat€was€ordered€but€then€named€a€price.Ô€/XÔÔ€.ÔÌ ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÔ€.ôÔÔ€/ÔÑ @ ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€At€trial,€the€defendant€intimated€that€he€was€not€aware€Lt.€Moore€would€be€called€as€heÏwas€not€listed€on€the€indictment.€€Although€this€ground€was€abandoned€on€appeal,€we€note€thatÏthe€statute€requiring€names€of€witnesses€on€the€indictment€is€directory€only.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏCrabtreeóó,€655€S.W.2d€173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòState€v.€Gilbertóó,€612€S.W.2d€188€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981)€(interpreting€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„17„106).€Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÔ€/ÔÔ€/ôÔ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAccording€to€the€presentence€report,€the€defendant's€prior€criminal€history€includes€convictions€forÏshoplifting,€driving€under€the€influence,€possession€of€drugs,€malicious€mischief,€attempt€to€commit€aÏfelony,€credit€card€fraud,€forging€checks,€and€petit€larceny.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@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€.ÔÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÑ7€–XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€/ÔÙ€€ÙßL€231;+'h|&Ï` à. `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àMARCH€œ1994€SESSION›ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9212„CR„00294Ìà àœAppellee,›à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Arthur€T.ÏBennett,€JudgeÌDOCK€BATTLES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Possession€ofÏCocaine€withÌà àœAppellant.›à àà àà à)à à€Intent€toÏDeliver)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌDock€Battles,€òòProóó€òòSeóóà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌ3037€Dearingà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏœGeneral€of€Tennessee›ÌMemphis,€TN€€38118à àà àà àœà àand›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.ÏMorganÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€œGeneral€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à›à àœ450›ÏJames€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àœà àà àà àà àà àà àand›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€C.€Beasley,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€œAttorney€General›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ201›€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌÌÌ̛̜ÌOPINION€FILED:€€œ__________________Ì›ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudge€ÌœÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÌÌÌÌÌÓ` °S ˜XÓ›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€N€óóÌÌÌÓÓó óà àœThe›€defendant,€Dock€Battles,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€forÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€deliver,€a€Class€B€felony.€€He€received€a€ten„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€one€standard€offender.€€TheÏdefendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓœà8 à(1)›€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidenceÏtainted€by€an€unlawful€œarrest;ÌÌà8 à(2)›€œ€whether›€the€defendant€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€during€a€suppression€hearing;ÌÌœà8 à(3)›€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€€the€defendant'sÏrequest€for€a€hearing€pursuant€to€òòFranks€v.€Delawareóó,€438ÏU.S.€154,€98€S.€Ct.€2674€(1978);ÌÌœà8 à(4)›€€€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€required€theÏprosecution€to€disclose€the€identity€of€a€confidentialÏinformant€and€whether€€the€defendant€was€denied€the€rightÏto€confrontation€at€the€suppression€hearing;ÌÌœà8 à(5)›€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€€the€defendant'sÏmotion€for€an€investigator;ÌÌœà8 à(6)›€€€œwhether€the›€defendant€was€subjected€to€doubleÏjeopardy;ÌÌœà8 à(7)›€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€onÏlesser€included€offenses;ÌÌœà8 à(8)›€€€whether€the€prosecutor's€closing€argument€wasÏimproper;ÌÌœà8 à(9)›€€€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€of€the€amount€ofÏcocaine;ÌÌœà8 à(10)›€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€lawÏenforcement€officer€to€testify€as€to€the€street€value€ofÏcocaine;ÌÌœà8 à(11)›€€whether€the€defendant€was€denied€effective€appellateÏreview;€andÌÌœà8 à(12)›€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€€theÏdefendant€as€a€Class€B€felon;€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓWe€disagree€with€the€defendantððs€contentions€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÇà àà àà@ àò òI€Ìó óà àà àThe€defendantððs€initial€issues€relate€to€his€arrest€and€theÏsuppression€hearing€at€which€he€was€represented€by€an€assistant€public€defender.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€AtÏthe€hearing,€Randy€McCalman,€a€narcotics€officer€with€the€Shelby€County€Sheriff'sÏDepartment,€testified€that€he€received€information€from€an€informant€regarding€aÏcocaine€transaction€in€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.€€He€said€that€he€had€used€theÏinformant€over€ten€times€and€that€the€informant€had€proven€to€be€reliable€and€hadÏprovided€him€with€information€that€had€led€to€other€arrests.€€McCalman€testified€that€theÏinformant€told€him€he€could€buy€one„half€ounce€of€powdered€cocaine€and€one„halfÏounce€of€crack€cocaine€from€a€person€known€as€"Rico"€at€a€Circle€K€convenience€storeÏat€12:00€p.m.€on€March€10,€1990.€€ÌÌà àà àMcCalman€said€that€he€and€other€officers€met€with€the€informantÏand€followed€him€to€the€Circle€K.€€They€searched€the€informant€and€his€vehicle€toÏensure€that€he€was€not€in€possession€of€any€drugs€and€outfitted€him€with€a€wireÏtransmitter€so€they€€could€monitor€any€conversations.€€The€informant€telephoned€"Rico"Íto€arrange€the€meeting.€€Although€ð ðRicoðð€initially€wanted€to€meet€at€a€different€location,Ïat€McCalmanððs€direction€the€informant€called€ð ðRicoðð€back€and€told€him€that€the€meetingÏhad€to€occur€at€the€Circle€K€because€he€was€having€car€trouble.€€"Rico"€agreed.€ÏMcCalman€recalled€that€the€informant€was€to€give€officers€a€prearranged€"take€down"Ïsign€when€he€saw€drugs€in€the€defendantððs€possession.Ìà àÌà àà àA€short€time€later€a€car€dropped€the€defendant€off€in€the€street€nextÏto€the€Circle€K€parking€lot,€and€the€defendant€approached€the€informant.€€The€informantÏtalked€to€the€defendant,€gave€the€"take€down"€signal,€and€walked€into€the€Circle€K.€ÏMcCalman€recalled€approaching€the€defendant€and€seeing€something€in€his€hand.€€HeÏidentified€himself€as€a€police€officer€and€ordered€the€defendant€to€put€up€his€hands.€ÏThe€defendant€then€turned€and€put€his€hand€under€the€open€hood€of€the€informant'sÏpickup€truck.€€Officers€handcuffed€the€defendant€and€looked€under€the€hood€of€theÏtruck€where€they€found€a€bag€of€powdered€cocaine€and€a€bag€of€crack€cocaine.€€AnÏaffidavit€of€complaint€was€later€sworn€by€Officer€McCalman€that€stated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓœà8 àà8 àOn›€3„10„90€at€approx.€12€noon,€officersÏreceived€information€from€a€reliable€informantÏthat€a€m/b€known€as€"Ricco"€would€sell€&Ïdeliver€to€him€approx.€ðð€ounce€of€cocaineÏand€a€number€of€rock€[sic]€at€Winch.€&€KnightÏRd.€on€the€Circle€K€lot.€€The€"Ricco"€subjectÏarrived,€the€take„down€signal€was€given[,]€theÏsubject€delivered€7.8€grms.€[]€of€powderÏcocaine€and€2.3€grms.€[]€of€crack€cocaine.€ÏSubject€was€advised€of€his€rights,€arrested,Ïand€transported€to€the€C.J.C.€ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àMcCalman€did€not€recall€being€told€how€the€informant€in€thisÏinstance€knew€cocaine€could€be€obtained€from€the€defendant.€€Although€he€believedÏthat€the€informant€said€something€to€the€defendant€at€the€scene€about€the€drugs€beforeÏthe€take€down€signal€was€given,€he€could€not€recall€exactly€what€was€said.× ƒ5 ××  ×€ÏMcCalman€also€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€notice€any€other€violations€of€the€lawÏoccurring€between€the€informant€and€defendant€in€the€parking€lot€and€that€he€did€notÏobserve€any€transaction€taking€place.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€testified€during€the€suppression€hearing.€€HeÏinsisted€that€Officer€McCalman€was€in€fact€the€informant,€and€not€a€law€enforcementÏofficer.€€He€further€claimed€that€he€had€smoked€cocaine€with€McCalman€the€nightÏbefore€the€offense.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òA€Ìà àà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€cocaine€was€obtained€as€a€resultÏof€an€unlawful€arrest.€€In€particular,€he€questions€Officer€McCalman's€reliance€on€theÏconfidential€informant,€as€well€as€the€informant's€basis€of€knowledge.€€The€trial€courtÏheld€that€the€defendantððs€arrest€was€based€upon€probable€cause.€€We€agree.€ÌÌà àà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„7„103(a),€officers€may€make€a€warrantlessÏarrest€when€they€have€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€arrestee€has€committed€or€isÏcommitting€a€felony.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€539€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Taysóó,€836€S.W.2d€596,€599€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992).€€Probable€cause€to€arrest€would€exist€if,€at€the€moment€the€arrest€was€made,€theÏofficers€had€"facts€and€circumstances€within€their€knowledge€and€of€which€they€hadÏreasonably€trustworthy€information€[which]€were€sufficient€to€warrant€a€prudent€[person]Ïin€believing€that€the€[arrestee]€had€committed€.€.€.€an€offense."€€òòBeck€v.€Ohioóó,€379€U.S.Ï89,€91,€85€S.€Ct.€223,€225€(1964);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€350€(Tenn.€1982),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€459€U.S.€1137€(1983).€€It€is€a€question€of€probabilities€not€technicalities.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674,€689€(Tenn.€1975).€€€€ÌÌà àà àIf€the€information€possessed€by€the€officers€is€not€of€their€personalÏknowledge€but€is€received€from€an€informant,€probable€cause€under€Article€1,€ðð€7€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution€requires€that€the€officers€must€know€that€(a)€the€informantÏhas€a€basis€for€his€information€that€a€person€was€involved€in€criminal€conduct€and€thatÏ(b)€the€informant€is€credible€or€his€information€is€reliable.€€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778ÏS.W.2d€430,€436€(Tenn.€1989);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€338€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€However,€any€deficiency€in€the€informantððs€information€under€this€two„prong€test€may€be€overcome€by€independent€police€corroboration.€€òòJacuminóó,€778ÏS.W.2d€at€436.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€when€the€informant€gave€police€the€ð ðtake€downððÏsignal,€the€police€were€sufficiently€advised€of€his€basis€of€knowledge.€€According€to€theÏofficersðð€instructions,€the€informant€was€to€signal€when€he€saw€drugs€in€the€defendantððsÏpossession.€€The€basis€of€the€informantððs€knowledge€was€his€observation€of€drugs€onÏthe€defendantððs€person€at€the€scene.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€539Ï(informant's€personal€observation€satisfied€basis€of€knowledge€prong).ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€informantððs€veracity,€McCalman€testified€that€heÏhad€used€the€informant€more€than€ten€times€and€that€the€informant€had€proven€to€beÏreliable€and€had€provided€him€with€information€that€had€led€to€other€arrests.€ÏMcCalmanððs€observations€at€the€scene€further€corroborated€the€informantððs€veracity.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€836€S.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€1992);€òòMarshallóó,€at€540.€€AtÏMcCalmanððs€request,€the€informant€called€ð ðRicoðð€and€told€him€that€the€drug€transactionÏhad€to€take€place€at€the€Circle€K€because€he€was€having€trouble€with€his€truck.€€TheÏinformant€then€opened€the€hood€of€his€truck,€and€a€short€time€later€McCalman€saw€theÏdefendant€exit€a€car€in€the€street€next€to€the€Circle€K€parking€lot€and€approach€theÏinformant.€€He€then€saw€the€informant€signal,€verifying€that€the€defendant€had€drugs.€ÏAs€he€approached€the€defendant,€McCalman€noticed€that€the€defendant€hadÏsomething€in€his€hand,€and€when€he€ordered€the€defendant€to€raise€his€hands,€he€sawÏthe€defendant€put€his€hand€under€the€hood€of€the€truck.€€€€ÌÌ€à àà àBased€on€McCalmanððs€observations€and€on€the€information€heÏreceived€from€the€informant,€we€conclude€that€he€had€probable€cause€to€believe€theÏdefendant€had€cocaine€in€his€possession.€€The€cocaine€seized€is€not€the€fruit€of€anÏillegal€arrest€regardless€of€whether€it€was€incident€to€the€defendantððs€arrest,€òòseeóóÏòòChimel€v.€Californiaóó,€395€U.S.€752,€89€S.€Ct.€2034€(1989);€òòNew€York€v.€Beltonóó,€453ÏU.S.€454,€101€S.€Ct.€2860€(1981)€or€abandoned€before€his€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.ÏHodari€D.óó,€499€U.S.€621,€111€S.€Ct.€1547€(1991).€€The€exigencies€of€the€circumstancesÏallowed€the€officers€to€proceed€as€they€did€without€the€benefit€of€a€warrant.ÌÌà@ àò òBó óÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€during€the€suppression€hearing.€€He€contends€that€counsel€(a)Ïfailed€to€incorporate€the€affidavit€of€complaint€in€the€motion€to€suppress,€(b)€failed€toÏ"brief"€issues€to€be€argued€during€the€hearing,€(c)€failed€to€object€to€hearsay€testimony,Ïand€(d)€improperly€allowed€the€court€to€hear€the€motion€to€suppress€simultaneouslyÏwith€certain€other€motions.€€The€state€contends€that€€the€defendant€has€not€shown€thatÏhe€is€entitled€to€relief.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àà àIn€Tennessee,€the€accused€has€a€constitutional€right€to€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€all€critical€stages€of€a€criminal€prosecution.€€Tenn.ÏConst.€art.€1,€ðð€9;€òòPowell€v.€Alabamaóó,€287€U.S.€45,€52€(1932);€òòMcKeldin€v.€Stateóó,€516ÏS.W.2d€82,€86€(Tenn.€1974).€€A€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€requires€aÍdefendant€to€show€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficiencyÏundermined€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,Ï466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2068€€€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÏ930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€his€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏin€his€efforts€to€have€the€evidence€suppressed.€€Counsel€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€onÏAugust€4,€1992,€and€an€amended€motion€to€suppress€on€September€24,€1992.€€TheÏmotions€clearly€set€forth€allegations€of€an€unlawful€arrest€and€subsequent€seizure.€ÏAlthough€the€motions€do€not€refer€specifically€to€the€affidavit€of€complaint,€the€transcriptÏof€the€suppression€hearing€indicates€that€the€contents€of€the€affidavit€were€read€intoÏevidence€and€that€the€affidavit€itself€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit€for€identification.€€ItÏwas,€therefore,€before€the€trial€court€in€making€its€ruling.€€We€can€find€no€deficiency€inÏcounsel's€performance€with€respect€to€the€suppression€motions.ÌÌà àà àSimilarly,€counsel€was€not€deficient€for€failing€to€object€to€hearsayÏtestimony€during€the€hearing.€€First,€we€must€note€that€€the€defendant's€brief€does€notÏcite€to€the€record€in€this€regard.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€ÏIn€any€event,€our€court€has€held€that€hearsay€evidence€is€generally€admissible€in€aÏsuppression€hearing€to€show€probable€cause€to€search€or€arrest.€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806ÏS.W.2d€at€212;€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€638€S.W.2d€827,€830€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Finally,€theÏdecision€to€hear€the€motions€to€suppress€evidence,€to€disclose€the€identity€of€theÍinformant€and€to€disclose€impeachment€evidence€pertaining€to€the€informant€in€theÏsame€proceeding€was€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Counsel€was€not€deficientÏin€this€regard,€and,€in€fact,€the€transcript€vividly€discloses€his€vigorous€representation€inÏsupport€of€the€motions.€€The€defendantððs€claim€that€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òCó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÏmotion€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€pursuant€to€òòFranks€v.€Delawareóó,€438€U.S.€154,€98€S.ÏCt.€2674€(1978).€€The€motion,€which€was€filed€òòproóó€òòseóó€after€the€suppression€hearing€hadÏbeen€held,€alleged€that€Officer€McCalman€intentionally€and€recklessly€made€numerousÏfalse€statements,€or€material€omissions,€in€swearing€an€affidavit€of€complaint.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€a€òòFranksóó€hearing€because€the€issuesÏraised€were€heard€and€decided€in€the€suppression€hearing.ÌÌà àà à€In€òòFranks€v.€Delawareóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏan€attack€on€a€facially€valid€search€warrant€requires€a€defendant€to€make€"allegationsÏof€deliberate€falsehood€or€of€reckless€disregard€for€truth,€and€those€allegations€must€beÏaccompanied€by€an€offer€of€proof."€€òòIdóó.€at€171,€98€S.€Ct.€at€2684.€€In€this€regard,Ï"[a]ffidavits€or€sworn€or€otherwise€reliable€statements€of€witnesses€should€be€furnishedÏor€their€absence€satisfactorily€explained."€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€there€was€no€search€warrant€to€challenge.€€Further,€theÏdefendantððs€attempt€to€apply€òòFranksóó€to€the€warrantless€arrest€merely€reiterated€theÏgrounds€of€his€previous€motions€to€suppress.€€The€òòFranksóó€motion€contained€conclusoryÏassertions€that€McCalman€lacked€probable€cause€to€make€the€warrantless€arrestÏbecause€the€informant€was€not€named,€the€informant€was€not€shown€to€be€reliable,Ïand€there€was€no€basis€for€the€informant's€knowledge.€€The€identical€issues€wereÏresolved€adversely€to€the€defendant€during€the€suppression€hearing.€€Merely€callingÏthe€same€motion€by€a€different€name€did€not€warrant€an€evidentiary€hearing.€ÌÌà@ àò òDó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€he€was€denied€the€right€toÏconfrontation€because€the€trial€court€refused€to€order€the€prosecution€to€disclose€theÏinformant's€identity.€€The€state€argues€that€defendant's€claim€is€not€supported€by€theÏrecord.ÌÌà àà àGenerally,€"[t]he€state's€privilege€to€withhold€the€identity€of€anÏinformant€yields€when€the€defendant€can€show€that€the€informant€was€a€witness€or€aÏparticipant€in€the€crime€and€thus,€a€material€witness€.€.€.€."€€òòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2dÏ275,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóóÏòòRoviaro€v.€United€Statesóó,€353€U.S.€53,€77€S.€Ct.€623€(1957);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€576,€587€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòRoberts€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€263,€264Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1972).€€In€òòRoviaroóó,€the€Court€noted€thatÍdisclosure€is€necessary€when€"relevant€and€helpful€to€the€defense€of€the€accused,€or€.€.Ï.€essential€to€a€fair€determination€of€a€cause€.€.€.€."€€353€U.S.€at€57„58.€€In€this€case,€theÏtestimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€warranted€a€clear€inference€that€the€informantÏparticipated€in€and€was€a€material€witness€to€the€crime.€€In€fact,€the€informant€arrangedÏthe€meeting€with€€the€defendant,€met€with€the€defendant€in€the€parking€lot,€andÏpresumably€saw€the€narcotics€in€the€defendant's€possession.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€586„87.ÌÌà àà àThe€record,€however,€fails€to€support€the€defendant's€claim€ofÏerror.€€First,€we€must€observe€that€the€defendant's€sworn€testimony€during€theÏsuppression€hearing€was€that€Officer€McCalman€was€the€informant.€€Officer€McCalmanÏdenied€the€allegation.€€The€trial€court€discredited€the€defendant's€testimony.€€We€furtherÏnote€that€the€defendant€testified€that€he€was€with€the€informant€on€the€night€before€theÏoffense,€an€implicit€admission€that€he€was€aware€of€the€informant's€identity.ÌÌà àà àIn€any€event,€the€transcript€of€the€suppression€hearing€reveals€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€rule€on€the€motion€because€the€prosecution€agreed€to€reveal€theÏname€of€the€informant€to€defense€counsel.€€During€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€hearing,Ïdefense€counsel,€who€by€that€time€was€present€only€as€"elbow"€counsel,€advised€theÏcourt€that€the€prosecution€had€in€fact€supplied€the€name€of€the€informant€and€that€he,€inÏturn,€had€given€the€name€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€has€shown€nothing€to€theÍcontrary€in€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal.€€In€short,€he€has€failedÏto€substantiate€his€arguments€and€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.̛̜à àà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà à€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÏrequest€for€the€appointment€of€an€investigator.€€He€alleges€that€he€was€unable€to€checkÏthe€criminal€records€of€witnesses,€to€take€statements€from€witnesses,€to€make€picturesÏof€the€scene,€to€obtain€an€independent€analysis€of€the€drugs,€or€to€discern€theÏwhereabouts€of€the€informant.€€The€state€contends€that€the€defendant€was€not€entitledÏto€the€services€of€an€investigator€because€he€rejected€the€court's€appointment€of€theÏpublic€defender's€office.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree€with€the€state's€contention€that€one€who€rejects€theÏappointment€of€a€public€defender€in€favor€of€exercising€his€or€her€constitutional€right€toÏself„representation€is€automatically€disqualified€from€receiving€expert€or€investigativeÏservices€upon€a€sufficient€showing€of€need.€€Nonetheless,€the€record€fails€to€support€Ïthe€defendant's€claim€that€such€a€need€was€present€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€courts€have€consistently€held€that€there€is€no€statutory€right€toÏexpert€or€investigative€services€for€indigent€persons€in€non„capital€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€411€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073Ï(1984).€€The€statute€in€question,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„14„207(b),€specifically€refers€to€capitalÍcases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Chapmanóó,€724€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1986).€€Nonetheless,€where€the€need€for€services€touches€upon€a€due€processÏconcern,€a€trial€court€may€order€such€services,€even€in€non„capital€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€423,€428€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€696„98€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€583,€585Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€€To€obtain€expert€or€investigativeÏservices,€a€defendant€must€demonstrate€a€"particularized€need."€€The€determination€asÏto€the€sufficiency€of€the€showing€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.ÏEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€1064€(1994)€(TrialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€investigative€services.).ÌÌà àà àHere,€€the€defendant€failed€to€make€a€showing€of€a€particularizedÏneed€for€an€investigator€prior€to€trial.€€In€a€motion€entitled€ð ðForma€PauperisÏProceedings,"€the€defendant€simply€alleged€that€he€would€require€the€investigativeÏservices€of€the€public€defender's€office.€€We€recognize€that€the€defendant€elected€toÏproceed€òòproóó€òòseóó€in€this€cause.€€However,€no€specific€reasons€in€support€of€the€requestÏwere€either€set€forth€in€the€motion€or€related€to€the€trial€court€in€any€pre„trial€hearings.€ÏMoreover,€the€defendant€failed€to€establish€that€the€denial€of€an€investigator€had€aÏprejudicial€effect€on€his€defense.€€The€record€indicates€that€he€was€supplied€withÏdiscovery€and€that€he€has€not€shown€that€evidence€or€information€favorable€to€hisÏdefense€was€available€had€he€had€the€services€of€an€investigator.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€192.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà à€The€defendant€argues€that€it€was€a€violation€of€double€jeopardyÏprinciples€to€indict€him€for€one€count€of€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€and€one€countÏof€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€because€the€underlying€facts€revealed€only€a€singleÏpossession.€€The€state€asserts€that€double€jeopardy€was€not€violated€because€theÏjury's€conviction€for€count€two,€intent€to€deliver,€resulted€in€an€acquittal€on€count€one,Ïintent€to€sell.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€765€S.W.2d€780,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989),€cited€by€both€parties,€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏboth€intent€to€sell€and€intent€to€deliver.€€Our€court€held€that€because€the€facts€of€thatÏcase€showed€only€one€possession,€dual€convictions€violated€double€jeopardyÏprinciples.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Beardóó,€818€S.W.2d€376,€378„79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991).€€By€contrast,€in€the€present€case€the€jury€was€instructed€that€itÏcould€convict€the€defendant€of€only€one€of€the€charged€offenses;€accordingly,€itÏconvicted€the€defendant€of€count€two.€€Its€silence€with€regard€to€count€one€is€anÏacquittal€of€that€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€637€S.W.2d€891,€895€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1982).€€Thus,€the€defendant€was€not€convicted€of€multiple€offenses€for€a€singleÏpossession,€nor€was€he€subjected€to€successive€prosecutions.€€He€is€entitled€to€noÏrelief€on€this€ground.€€€à àà à€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àà à€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏinstruct€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€to€count€one,€possession€with€intent€to€sell.€ÏAlthough€the€trial€court€has€a€mandatory€duty€to€instruct€on€lesser€included€offensesÏraised€by€the€evidence,€the€defendant€has€not€shown€what,€if€any,€offenses€were€in€factÏraised€by€the€evidence€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„110(a);€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919ÏS.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€1996).€€Courts€are€not€obliged€to€instruct€on€lesser€includedÏoffenses€when€the€evidence€does€not€support€an€inference€of€guilt€on€those€charges.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mellonsóó,€557€S.W.2d€497,€499€(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€649€S.W.2dÏ12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€any€event,€theÏdefendant€refers€only€to€count€one€on€this€issue;€as€noted,€the€jury€acquitted€theÏdefendant€of€count€one.€€He€is,€therefore,€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.à àà àÌ̛̜à@ àò òVÌà àà àó ó€The€defendant€claims€that€the€prosecutor€committed€reversibleÏerror€in€making€the€following€remarks€during€his€closing€argument:ÌÓÓœà8 àà8 à[T]he›€term€confidential€informant€you've€beenÏhearing,€was€œsomebody€that›€these€officers€hadÏdealt€with€in€the€past.€€Somebody€had€givenÏœthem›€information€like€this€in€the€past,€andÏalthough€a€lot€of€œpeople€don't›€like€the€termÏconfidential€informant,€don't€€like€€the€Ïœconnotation€.›€.€.€of€somebody€being€anÏinformant,€or€a€snitch,€if€you€œwill.€ÍUnfortunately,›€in€the€society€that€we€live€in,Ïand€unfortunately€in€œthe€war›€that€is€on€goingÏ[sic]€in€the€world€of€drugs,€that€[is]€one€of€theÏonly€œways›€that€the€officers€have€of€makingÏthese€arrest€[sic].ÌÌœà8 àà8 àPeople›€like€[€the€defendant]€aren't€going€toÏvoluntarily€come€forward€to€the€officers€andÏsay,€'I'm€a€drug€seller',€so€unfortunately€theyÏhave€to€use€these€individuals.€€And€yes,€someÏof€these€people€are€motivated,€they€get€paidÏfor€it,€there€are€other€reasons€why€people€turnÏinformant.€€I€don't€know.ÌÌÓÓApparently,€the€defendant's€contention€is€that€the€argument€was€not€supported€by€theÏevidence€because€it€implied€that€the€informant€took€part€in€the€transaction€for€monetaryÏbenefit€and€that€the€informant€was€not€present€to€testify.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€in€closingÏargument€we€are€guided€by€such€factors€as€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case,€the€strength€or€weakness€of€the€evidence,€and€the€curativeÏmeasures,€if€any,€undertaken€by€the€trial€court€in€response€to€the€prosecutor's€conduct.€ÏòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Here,€the€facts€and€theÏòòJudgeóó€factors€weigh€against€the€defendant's€arguments.€€It€is€not€clear€how€theÏargument,€even€if€interpreted€as€the€defendant€suggests,€would€have€prejudiced€theÏdefendant.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€made€no€contemporaneous€objection€to€theÏargument.€€He€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€ÌÌà@ àò òVIó óÌà àà à€The€defendant€argues€that€the€prosecution€failed€to€prove€theÏnature€and€weight€of€the€substances€seized€by€law€enforcement€officers.€€As€noted€byÏthe€state,€€the€defendant's€contentions€are€not€supported€by€the€record.€€An€expertÏwitness€testified€that€samples€of€the€substances€seized€by€officers€tested€positive€forÏpowdered€cocaine€and€crack€cocaine.€€Additionally,€two€law€enforcement€officersÏtestified€that€there€were€7.8€grams€of€powdered€cocaine€and€2.3€grams€of€crackÏcocaine.€€The€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€officers'€testimony.€€He€cannot€nowÏcomplain€of€its€admissibility.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987).€ÌÌà@ àò òVIIó óÌà àà à€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏOfficer€A.E.€Moore€to€testify€as€to€the€street€value€of€crack€cocaine€in€Shelby€County,ÏTennessee.€€He€argues€that€such€testimony€was€irrelevant€and€unduly€prejudicial.× ƒ6 ××  ×€ÏThe€state€argues€that€the€defendant€failed€to€object€properly€and€that,€in€any€event,€theÏevidence€was€properly€admitted.ÌÌà àà àMoore€testified€that€he€had€been€employed€with€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Sheriff's€Department,€Narcotics€Division,€for€six€years.€€He€related€his€variousÏtraining€in€the€field€of€narcotics€and€his€familiarity€with€the€street€values€of€drugs€fromÏhis€law€enforcement€experience€in€Shelby€County.€€He€described€the€differenceÏbetween€powdered€and€crack€cocaine€and€testified€as€to€how€much€crack€cocaineÏcould€be€obtained€from€a€gram€of€powdered€cocaine.€€Moore€also€testified€that€.2€to€.4Ïgrams€of€crack€is€worth€$20.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€contended€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€in€light€ofÏthe€defendant's€opening€remarks€in€which€he€claimed€to€be€a€drug€addict€who€went€toÏthe€scene€to€purchase€crack.€€The€state,€in€effect,€sought€to€demonstrate€that€it€wouldÏbe€unusual€for€an€addict€to€be€involved€in€a€transaction€with€the€large€amounts€ofÏpowdered€and€crack€cocaine€involved€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€possession€with€intentÏto€sell€and€possession€with€intent€to€deliver.€€We€have€previously€held€that€testimonyÏregarding€the€street€value€of€narcotics€is€admissible€in€such€cases€as€it€is€probative€ofÏthe€elements€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€578;€òòState€v.ÏReginald€T.€Smithóó,€No.€02C01„9204„CR„00097,€Shelby€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€17,Ï1993);€òòUnited€States€v.€Solisóó,€923€F.2d€548,€550€(7th€Cir.€1991).€€The€defendant€is€notÏentitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.ÌÌà@ àò òVIIIó óÌà àà à€The€defendant€argues€that€he€was€denied€"appellate€review"€ofÏcertain€issues€due€to€the€trial€court's€failure€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(e)Ïwhich€states€that€"[w]here€factual€issues€are€involved€in€determining€a€motion,€the€courtÏshall€state€its€essential€findings€on€the€record."€€The€defendant€specifically€refers€to€hisÏmotions€to€suppress,€to€require€disclosure€of€the€informant,€to€require€a€bill€ofÏparticulars,€and€to€conduct€a€òòFranksóó€hearing.€€Although€trial€courts€must€comply€withÏRule€12(e),€we€disagree€with€the€defendant€that€the€trial€court's€actions,€or€inactions,Ïwith€respect€to€these€issues€have€denied€him€appellate€review.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€to€suppress€and€stated€itsÏfindings€on€the€record€in€this€regard.€€We€have€fully€reviewed€the€ruling.€€The€trial€courtÏdid€not€rule€or€state€findings€relative€to€the€motion€to€disclose€the€informant's€identityÏbecause€the€prosecution€agreed€to€reveal€the€information€to€€the€defendant's€thenÏcounsel€of€record.€€The€record€further€reflects€that€the€trial€court€denied€the€òòFranksóóÏmotion€by€written€order€on€November€5,€1992.€€The€order€states€the€trial€court'sÏconclusion€that€the€issues€raised€by€the€motion€had€been€raised€and€determinedÏduring€the€suppression€hearing€conducted€on€September€24,€1992.€€Our€review€of€theÏissue,€as€reflected€above,€compelled€us€to€reach€the€same€conclusion.€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars€was€filed€by€theÏdefendant€òòproóó€òòseóó€at€a€time€in€which€he€had€counsel€of€record,€i.e.,€April€26,€1991.€ÏBecause€a€defendant€may€not€proceed€òòproóó€òòseóó€while€simultaneously€represented€byÏcounsel,€the€trial€court€was€not€obligated€to€address€the€motion€at€that€time.€€TheÏdefendant€made€no€subsequent€effort€to€refile€or€renew€the€motion.€€We€note€that€theÏdefendant's€main€contention€in€the€motion€was€that€the€indictment€did€not€containÏsufficient€information€for€him€to€ascertain€what€offenses€were€charged.€€To€the€contrary,Ïthe€indictments€set€forth€the€elements€of€the€offense€and€included€citations€to€theÏstatutes€in€question.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€536„37.€€Moreover,€theÏdefendant€failed€to€demonstrate€during€the€motion€for€new€trial€hearing€how€hisÏdefense€may€have€been€impaired€from€any€lack€of€particulars.€€We€conclude,€therefore,Ïthat€the€record€does€not€warrant€relief€on€these€grounds.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIXó óÌà àà à€The€defendant,€in€his€final€issue,€challenges€his€sentence€as€aÏClass€B€felon.€€He€claims€that€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417(a)€does€not€prescribe€a€penalty€forÏthe€amount€of€cocaine€that€was€involved€in€this€case€and€that,€therefore,€he€should€beÏsentenced€as€a€Class€E€felon€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„113.€€The€latter€statuteÏprovides€that€"[e]very€person€who€is€convicted€of€a€felony,€the€punishment€for€which€isÏnot€otherwise€prescribed€by€a€statute€of€this€state,€shall€be€sentenced€for€a€Class€EÏfelony."€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€further€argues€that€his€ten„year€sentence€is€cruel€andÏunusual€in€that€he€has€never€been€convicted€of€a€drug€related€offense€and€that€T.C.A.€ððÍ39„17„417€is€unconstitutionally€vague€and€arbitrary.€€The€state€contends€that€theÏdefendant€was€properly€sentenced.€€We€agree.€ÌÌà àà à€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€knowingly€possessing€aÏcontrolled€substance€with€the€intent€to€deliver.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4).€€An€offenseÏunder€this€provision€that€involves€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine€is€a€Class€B€felony.€ÏT.C.A.€€ðð€39„17„417(c)(1).€€The€provision€providing€for€Class€E€sentencing€simply€hasÏno€application€in€this€case.€€Moreover,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417€is€clear€in€its€terms€and€isÏnot€unconstitutionally€vague.€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòKolender€v.€Lawsonóó,€461€U.S.€352,€357,€103€S.€Ct.€1855,€1858Ï(1983),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said€that€a€statute€must€"define€the€criminalÏoffense€with€sufficient€definiteness€that€ordinary€people€can€understand€what€conductÏis€prohibited€and€in€a€manner€that€does€not€encourage€arbitrary€and€discriminatingÏenforcement."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2d€at€280.€€The€statutory€provisions€inÏquestion€set€forth€the€elements€of€the€prohibited€conduct,€delivering€cocaine,€and€theÏpenalty€for€a€violation€of€the€statute.€€We€conclude€that€they€are€not€unconstitutionallyÏvague.ÌÌà àà à€The€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€one,€œstandard›€Class€CÏœfelon,›€€for€which€the€applicable€range€of€punishment€is€eight€to€twelve€years.€€òòSeeóóÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„101.€€The€trial€court€enhanced€the€sentence€to€ten€years€based€on€theÍdefendant's€substantial€record€of€prior€criminal€behavior€and€convictions.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€AlthoughÏthe€defendant€has€not€specifically€challenged€the€manner€in€which€the€court€arrived€atÏthe€sentence,€we€have€reviewed€it€under€the€proper€standards€of€review€and€concludeÏthat€no€error€exists€in€the€sentencing€and€that€a€sentence€of€ten€years,€as€properlyÏcalculated€under€the€Sentencing€Act€of€1989,€is€not€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€forÏthis€offense€and€this€offender.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Hinsleyóó,€627€S.W.2d€351€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌœ›à@ àò òXó óÌà àà àAlthough€not€noted€by€either€party,€the€judgment€form€in€the€recordÏindicates€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€possession€with€intent€to€sell.€€In€fact,€asÏpreviously€noted,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver.€ÏThe€jury's€verdict€with€regard€to€the€latter€offense,€count€two€in€the€indictment,€is€clearlyÏreflected€in€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings.€€Both€offenses€are€Class€B€œfelonies,›€œand›Ïas€we€have€discussed,€the€trial€court€properly€enhanced€the€length€of€the€sentenceÏbased€on€the€defendant's€criminal€history.€€ÌÌò òœ›à@ àCONCLUSIONÌó óà àà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________›Ìœà àà à›à àà àà àœà àJoseph›€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌòòœ(Not›€œparticipating)›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€ÌPenny€J.€White,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________€€ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judgeà àà à€