ÿWPCÕ Jb—p+ùs‘U£›®½dÍìHDgáÿ;Ñ÷H/I8l6àý'$Ó ”‡$iž$5HƒO99³±÷òÇA´• ñâ ;ü$Ð~Nrµv†Wµ2Šõ~ÿ)P?Cíü>ÆI¾µD:_5¿+ñ¹[÷PÁ´×ߤÙ6ä¥6¦]i˜»ïr˜¤óT†zgùœÂä×(C:=ý›'›Ö;;Ù}ô½ð©·ëH8FñüΜÌUU6¬ùÏjsÈ$*)J¨:ëb|“Ù²ƒDwQf0Á…ºG2ô½+þ05 yA%ÛÀ‰÷N¶Ó³FÉ_FÖ꬇ø¶7¯¹TNšŠŸŒâY¢VÒ5<Œ{[A}ÀvJ_©ö+“\%”L #FvÖ­”22Éô6Ÿãô1u7›÷Ê O^5áˆñÔ¦ÆMER6–ab¬èÑ…C6¡rn™gÒ=Ò)"CYDÌÍà½7_s­i†/ æ†>Kif‰‚ЉÌH¦9òšÂrg˜ª@²ogo|¿¸‚J¥È=àáiW/¿9ÃWàqöïÞèd踅`g-þÇàÜûêüûïò¿*hz¢ÞÕxd¶òºŠ*.ª=QÍÿX‰à%QÄžð5!ßõÍ/zn FJ¢…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c r èz U:b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b Bœ œ œ œ œ D3¹ ¹ ¹ 0Dì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì AO0 Æ  0DE D/‰ B¸˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ¿DÀÁEÂÃDÄEÅDÆÇÈÓ€uM%<=>?@A3|xÑ ÞÔ€ X{aXXXÔÔ€ ¤dX X{aÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X{aX ¤dÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€2,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ŠáЊXXÔÔ€ŠFꊊŠáÐÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€UFXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñÈñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñÈñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9709„CC„00394Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ѐ€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àLINCOLN€COUNTYÐ `  ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€CHARLES€LEE,€JUDGEó óÐ ` ÐÓ  Óò òTIMMY€BEAVERS,€à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€ó óà p àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)ó óà p àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àò òà  à)à p à(ñÆñSECONDñÆññÇñ€ñÇññÆñFIRST€ñÆñDEGREE€MURDER)Ð ` Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð Hè ÐÌò òCURTIS€H.€GANNà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ð 8 Ø Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defender€à h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 8!Ø ÐÌò òDONNA€L.€HARGROVEà h àà À àà  àELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÐ (#È Ðó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ($È Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌò òJOHN€H.€DICKEYó óà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð &¸ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð '¸ ÐÌò òMICHAEL€D.€RANDLESó óà À àà  àà p àò òWILLIAM€MICHAEL€McCOWNÐ )¨  Ðó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ *¨ ! ÐP.O.€Box€1119ÌFayetteville,€TN€37334à h àà À àà  àà p àò òWEAKLEY€E.€BARNARDÐ ø+˜"# Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ø,˜#$ Ðò òGERALD€L.€GULLEY,€JR.ó óà À àà  àà p àMarshall€County€Courthouse,€Room€407Ð ð-$% ÐP.O.€Box€1708à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àLewisburg,€TN€37091€Ð ð.%& ÐKnoxville,€TN€37901„1708Ì(ON€APPEAL€ONLY)ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDñ¿ñ;ñ¿ñ€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEñ¿ñò òó óñ¿ñÐ  ˜9801 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°¯­°ŠŠFêÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠFꊰ°¯­ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà ` àFollowing€the€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress€evidence,€the€Defendant,ÏTimmy€Beavers,€entered€a€best„interest€plea€to€second€degree€murder,€reserving€theÏright€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress€certain€evidence.€€AnÏagreed€upon€sentence€of€thirty€(30)€years€was€entered€by€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà ` àTo€more€clearly€understand€how€this€case€came€before€this€Court,€we€will€giveÏa€brief€recitation€of€the€procedural€history.€€On€October€2,€1995,€a€search€warrantÏwas€issued€and€samples€of€Defendantððs€hair,€saliva,€and€blood€were€obtained.€€OnÏSeptember€17,€1996,€Defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€DNA€samples,€andÏfollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€evidence€to€be€suppressed.€€On€AprilÏ22,€1997,€the€State€filed€a€motion€to€obtain€hair,€saliva,€and€blood€samples€fromÏDefendant.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€and€issued€an€order€andÏsecond€search€warrant€to€obtain€the€samples€from€Defendant.€€On€May€23,€1997,€aÏsuperseding€indictment€was€issued,€charging€Defendant€with€one€count€ofÏpremeditated€murder€and€one€count€of€murder€committed€during€an€attempted€rape.€ÏThe€initial€indictment€was€dismissed€by€the€State.€€On€June€30,€1997,€DefendantÏfiled€a€second€motion€to€suppress€the€seized€samples€of€hair,€saliva,€blood,€andÏsome€clothing.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion€on€September€16,€1997.€€AÏjudgment€was€entered€on€July€29,€1997,€on€Defendantððs€best„interest€guilty€plea€toÏsecond€degree€murder€with€an€agreed€sentence€of€thirty€(30)€years.€€The€judgmentÏform€reflects€that€Defendant€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ð ðruling€onÏmotion€to€suppress.ðð€€Defendant€filed€his€notice€of€appeal.€€ÌÐ ¶9V01 Ðà ` àThis€Court€dismissed€Defendantððs€direct€appeal€on€September€23,€1998,Ïbecause€the€certified€question€noted€on€the€judgment€form€did€not€meet€theÏrequirements€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Pendergrass›óó,€937€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€1996),€òòStateÐ @ à Ðv.€œPreston›óó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988),€or€Rule€37€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ 0Ð ÐCriminal€Procedure.€€Thereafter,€counsel€for€Defendant€discovered€that€the€OrderÏsetting€forth€the€certified€questions€to€be€considered€on€appeal€was€inadvertentlyÏplaced€with€certain€sealed€documents€and€was€therefore€not€made€part€of€the€recordÏon€appeal.€€Defendant€timely€filed€in€this€Court€a€Petition€to€Rehear.€€Attached€asÏexhibits€to€the€Petition€to€Rehear€was€an€Affidavit€of€the€Lincoln€County€Circuit€CourtÏclerk€and€a€certified€copy€of€the€Order€setting€forth€Defendantððs€certified€questions.€ÏÌà ` àIn€the€Affidavit,€the€clerk€stated€that€ð ð[œd]ue›€to€inadvertence€by€the€Clerkððs€officeÏ[€]€this€Order€was€mistakenly€filed€with€certain€documents€that€were€sealed€and€notÏsent€with€the€technical€record.€€As€a€result€of€this€mistake€by€the€Clerkððs€office,€theÏOrder€of€August€4,€1997€was€never€made€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.ðð€€By€OrderÏfiled€October€22,€1998,€this€Court€then€requested€a€response€from€the€State€toÏDefendantððs€Petition€to€Rehear.€€The€State€did€not€contest€Defendantððs€reason€forÏseeking€a€rehearing,€but€nevertheless€argued€that€the€certified€questions€of€lawÏreserved€by€Defendant€did€not€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€the€limits€of€the€legalÏissues.ÌÌà ` àAfter€due€consideration€of€the€trial€courtððs€Order€and€the€certified€questionsÏpresented€therein,€this€Court€granted€Defendantððs€Petition€to€Rehear.€€The€certifiedÏquestions,€as€set€forth€in€the€Order,€read€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à1.€€On€April€22,€1997,€the€State€filed€a€motion€and€affidavitÏto€obtain€certain€evidence€(blood,€saliva,€pubic€hairs,€headÏhairs)€from€the€person€of€Timothy€Beavers.€€After€a€seriesÐ Ð9p02 Ðof€hearings€was€held,€the€Court€granted€the€StateððsÏmotion.€The€certified€question€concerns€the€issue€ofÏwhether€the€Court€erred€in€allowing€hearsay€testimony€andÏin€finding€that€sufficient€probable€cause€existed€to€grantÏthe€Stateððs€motion€to€obtain€said€evidence.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à2.€€On€June€30,€1997,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€toÏsuppress€evidence,€to€wit:€€blood,€saliva,€public€[sic]€hairsÏand€head€hairs,€obtained€pursuant€to€a€search€warrantÏissued€on€May€9,€1997.€€Said€motion€raised€issues€whichÏare€incorporated€by€reference€herein.€€On€July€16,€1997,Ïthe€Court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion,€finding€theÏsearch€warrant€and€subsequent€search€and€seizure€valid.€ÏThe€certified€question€concerns€the€issues€presented€inÏthe€motion€to€suppress€previously€filed€by€the€defendantÏand€whether€the€Court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€said€evidence€by€finding€that€theÏsearch€warrant€and€subsequent€search€and€seizure€wereÏvalid.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ-ÓÌAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€legal€issues€presented,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.€€à ¸ àà  àÐ   @ Ðà ` àÌà ` àRule€œ37(b)(2)(i)›€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€inÏpertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à(b)€An€appeal€lies€from€any€order€or€judgment€in€a€criminalÏproceeding€where€the€law€provides€for€such€appeal,€andÏfrom€any€judgment€of€conviction:€(2)€upon€a€plea€of€guiltyÏor€nolo€contendere€if:€œ(i)›€defendant€entered€into€a€pleaÏagreement€under€Rule€11(e)€but€explicitly€reserved€withÏthe€consent€of€the€State€and€of€the€court€the€right€toÏappeal€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€theÏcase.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓV#Óà ` àÌà ` àOur€supreme€court€has€also€prescribed€guidelines€that€must€be€adhered€to€inÏorder€to€perfect€an€appeal€by€Rule€œ37(b)(2)(i).›€€In€òòState€v.€œPreston›óó,€759€S.W.2d€647Ð 4 *, Ð(Tenn.€1988),€and€again€in€òòState€v.€œPendergrass›óó,€937€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€1996),€theÐ ð5,. Ðâ âcourt€held:€Ð à7€.0 ÐÓÓ€€€€à8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThis€is€an€appropriate€time€for€this€Court€to€make€explicitÐ `  Ðâ âto€the€bench€and€bar€exactly€what€the€appellate€courts€willÏhereafter€require€as€prerequisites€to€the€consideration€ofÏthe€merits€of€a€question€of€law€certified€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€œ37(b)(2)(i)›€or€(iv).€ò òRegardless€of€what€hasÐ @ à Ðappeared€in€prior€petitions,€orders,€colloquy€in€openÏcourt€or€otherwise,€the€final€order€or€judgment€fromÏwhich€the€time€begins€to€run€to€pursue€a€œT.R.A.P.›€3Ïappeal€must€contain€a€statement€of€the€dispositiveÏcertified€question€of€law€reserved€by€defendant€forÏappellate€review€and€the€question€of€law€must€beÏstated€so€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€the€limitsÏof€the€legal€issue€reserved.€For€example,€whereÏquestions€of€law€involve€the€validity€of€searches€andÏthe€admissibility€of€statements€and€confessions,€etc.,Ïthe€reasons€relied€upon€by€defendant€in€the€trial€courtÏat€the€suppression€hearing€must€be€identified€in€theÏstatement€of€the€certified€question€of€law€and€reviewÏby€the€appellate€courts€will€be€limited€to€those€passedÏupon€by€the€trial€judge€and€stated€in€the€certifiedÏquestionó ó,€absent€a€constitutional€requirement€otherwise.Ð @à ÐWithout€an€explicit€statement€of€the€certified€question,Ïneither€the€defendant,€the€State€nor€the€trial€judge€canÏmake€a€meaningful€determination€of€whether€the€issueÏsought€to€be€reviewed€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€Most€ofÏthe€reported€and€unreported€cases€seeking€the€limitedÏappellate€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37€haveÏbeen€dismissed€because€the€certified€question€was€notÏdispositive.€Also,€the€order€must€state€that€the€certifiedÏquestion€was€expressly€reserved€as€part€of€a€pleaÏagreement,€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€consented€toÏthe€reservation€and€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€are€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€OfÏcourse,€ò òthe€burden€is€on€defendant€to€see€that€theseÐ à)€ ! Ðprerequisites€are€in€the€final€order€and€that€the€recordÏbrought€to€the€appellate€courts€contains€all€of€theÏproceedings€below€that€bear€upon€whether€theÏcertified€question€of€law€is€dispositive€and€the€meritsÏof€the€question€certified.ó ó€No€issue€beyond€the€scope€ofÐ à.€%& Ðthe€certified€question€will€be€considered.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÁ&ÓÌòòœPendergrass›óó,€937€S.W.2d€at€836-37€(òòcitingóó€òòœPreston›óó,€759€S.W.2d€at€650)€(emphasisÐ È2h)* Ðadded).€€The€Defendant€bears€the€burden€of€"reserving,€articulating,€and€identifyingÏthe€issue."€€òòœPendergrass›óó,€937€S.W.2d€at€838.€Ð ¨6H-. Ðà ` àÐ ˜88/0 Ðà ` àIn€Defendantððs€appellate€brief,€the€issues€presented€for€review€are€framed€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€by€allowing€the€State€to€petitionÏthe€Court€for€an€Order€allowing€the€State€to€obtainÏsamples€of€bodily€fluids€and€hairs€from€the€Defendant€inÏviolation€of€Tennessee€Constitution€article€I,€ðð€7€and€U.S.ÏConstitution€amendment€œñÀñIñÀññÁññÀñCñÀññÁññÂñVñÂññÃñivñÃñ,›€after€the€trial€courtÏsuppressed€samples€of€the€same€items€earlier€takenÏpursuant€to€a€search€warrant?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€by€finding€that€the€State€hadÏestablished€probable€cause€that€the€Defendant€hadÏcommitted€a€crime€sufficient€to€support€a€search€warrant,Ïor€Order€of€the€Court,€to€obtain€samples€of€theÏDefendantððs€bodily€fluids€and€hair?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÑ1ÓÌIt€appears€that€Defendant€has€substantially€deviated€from€the€certified€questions€ofÏlaw€as€set€forth€previously€in€this€opinion,€despite€the€straightforward€and€mandatoryÏlanguage€found€in€òòœPreston›óó€and€òòœPendergrass›óó.€€Again,€our€review€is€limited€to€theÐ ¨H Ðissues€stated€in€the€certified€questions€set€forth€in€the€trial€courtððs€Order€and€we€willÏnot€go€outside€those€boundaries.€€òòSeeóó€òòœPendergrass›óó,€937€S.W.2d€at€836„37.Ð ˆ#( ÐÌà ` àDefendantððs€first€issue€as€set€forth€in€his€brief€cannot€even€be€liberallyÏinterpreted€as€being€encompassed€in€either€of€the€certified€questions€in€the€trialÏcourtððs€Order.€€Therefore,€the€first€issue€is€not€proper€for€review.€€However,€even€ifÏaddressed€on€the€merits,€it€is€still€without€merit.€€òòState€v.€Bobby€Bakeróó€recognizedÐ 8-Ø#% Ðtwo€procedural€methods€for€obtaining€evidence:€(1)€a€search€warrant€or€(2)€a€motionÏseeking€a€judicial€order€with€an€adversarial€evidentiary€hearing.€€C.C.A.€No.€02„C„01„¼9511„CC„00347,€slip€op.€at€7,€œTipton›€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App,€Jackson,€Jan.€27,Ï1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€Defendant€was€given€an€adversarialÐ ø4˜+- Ðâ âevidentiary€hearing€in€this€case€to€determine€whether€the€evidence€establishedÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðprobable€cause€for€issuance€of€the€search€warrant.€€The€hearing€was€procedurallyÏcorrect€and€Defendantððs€argument€is€without€merit.Ìâ âÌà ` àDefendantððs€first€certified€question€of€law€as€set€forth€in€the€Order€has€notÏbeen€briefed€by€Defendant€and€should€therefore€not€be€addressed.€€However,€evenÏin€addressed€on€the€merits,€we€find€that€Defendantððs€first€certified€question€as€setÏforth€in€the€Order€still€does€not€comply€with€the€requirements€set€forth€inÏòòœPendergrass›óó€and€òòœPreston›óó.€€The€first€certified€question€states€that€it€concerns€ð ðtheÐ ð  Ðissue€of€whether€the€[œc]ourt›€erred€in€allowing€hearsay€testimony€and€in€finding€thatÏsufficient€probable€cause€existed€to€grant€the€Stateððs€motion€to€obtain€saidÏevidence.ðð€€We€do€recognize€that€our€supreme€court€appears€to€have€relaxed€theÏòòœPreston›óó€requirements€somewhat€by€its€order€in€òòState€v.€Sarah€œHutton›€Downeyóó,Ð °P ÐC.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9307„CR„00221,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€ÏJuly€6,€1994),€òòœaffððd›óó€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€òòDowneyóó,€this€Court€dismissed€an€appeal€of€aÐ "0 Ðcertified€question€of€law,€finding€ð ðin€this€case€the€final€order€simply€incorporated€byÏreference€various€issues€the€appellant€raised€in€several€motions€before€the€trialÏcourt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€3.€€Our€supreme€court€remanded€the€case€ð ðfor€consideration€of€theÐ `(  Ðcertified€issue,ðð€and€set€forth€what€it€had€determined€the€certified€issue€to€be.€€òòStateÐ P*ð " Ðv.€Sarah€œHutton›€Downeyóó,€Order€(filed€Oct.€31,€1994).€€However,€we€have€no€suchÐ @,à"$ Ðincorporation€in€this€case.€€Although€this€question€does€identify€hearsay€as€theÏreason€relied€upon€by€Defendant€at€the€suppression€hearing,€it€does€not€indicate€theÏnature€of€the€purported€hearsay€testimony,€what€witness€or€witnesses€allegedlyÏtestified€to€hearsay€testimony,€why€the€hearsay€testimony€was€inadmissible,€or€howÏthe€hearsay€testimony€affected€the€outcome€of€the€suppression€hearing.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€certified€question€is€not€stated€so€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€theÏlimit€of€the€legal€issue€reserved.€€Therefore,€we€must€conclude€on€the€merits€thatÐ Ð9p02 ÐDefendantððs€first€certified€question€is€not€appropriate€for€review.ÌÌà ` àDefendantððs€second€issue€as€set€forth€in€his€brief€can€be€liberally€interpretedÏto€be€encompassed€by€his€second€certified€question€of€law,€but€only€on€the€probableÏcause€issue.€€Also,€since€Defendantððs€second€certified€question€does€incorporate€byÏreference€his€motion€to€suppress,€we€find€the€second€certified€question€to€beÏproperly€before€us.€€The€trial€judge€gave€detailed€findings€of€fact€in€determining€thereÏto€be€probable€cause€to€issue€a€search€warrant.€€Dean€Mason€testified€thatÏDefendant€had€consumed€alcohol€on€the€evening€of€the€stabbing€and€that€DefendantÏhad€told€him€that€he€would€pay€him€back€later€for€the€alcohol.€€At€some€point€duringÏthat€conversation,€Defendant€told€Mason€that€he€would€be€coming€into€a€sum€ofÏmoney€in€the€very€near€future,€possibly€the€next€day.€€Robbie€Byers,€DefendantððsÏroommate,€testified€that€he€and€Defendant€did€not€expect€to€be€compensated€forÏtheir€roofing€work€for€at€least€two€or€three€days€after€the€night€of€the€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àLater€that€evening,€Mason€took€Defendant€to€the€trailer€park€where€DefendantÏshared€a€trailer€with€Robbie€Byers.€€At€approximately€10:30€p.m.,€Rhonda€French,ÏHeather€œSchlatter›€and€Laura€œMeade›€saw€Defendant€and€testified€that€he€appearedÏâ âto€be€intoxicated.€€They€looked€for€Defendant€later€in€the€trailer€park€to€make€sureÐ 8¸.. Ðhe€had€not€passed€out€or€hurt€himself€because€of€his€intoxicated€state,€but€theyÏnever€saw€him€again€that€evening.Ìâ âÌà ` àSometime€later€that€evening,€Defendant€asked€his€roommate€to€take€him€toÏhis€sisterððs€residence€that€was€about€four€or€five€miles€away,€but€his€roommateÏrefused.€€His€roommate€testified€that€he€did€not€see€Defendant€again€after€11:20€p.m.€ÏMr.€Byers€woke€up€about€2:00€a.m.€and€found€Defendant€was€not€in€his€bed.ÌÌà ` àThe€victim€was€stabbed€to€death€sometime€between€10:00€p.m.€and€2:00€a.m.Ïthat€evening.€€It€was€determined€that€some€money€was€stolen€from€a€water€bottle€atÏthe€victimððs€residence.Ìà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€was€next€seen€at€7:00€the€next€morning€by€his€relatives.€€For€œñÄñtheñÄññÅñ›€ñÅñdays›Ïfollowing€the€stabbing,€Defendant€stayed€in€the€woods€behind€his€sisterððs€home€andÏwas€seen€on€occasion€going€into€his€sisterððs€home.€€On€one€of€these€occasions€afterÏthe€discovery€of€the€victimððs€body,€the€police€went€to€Defendantððs€sisterððs€house€inÏan€effort€to€find€Defendant€but€he€refused€to€come€to€the€œdoor.€€The›€court€also€foundÏthat€Defendant€later€left€town€under€what€it€considered€ð ðprecarious€circumstances.ðð€ÏThe€shirt€Defendant€was€seen€wearing€on€the€night€of€the€stabbing€was€found€behindÏhis€sisterððs€residence€with€human€blood€on€it.ÌÌà ` àAs€the€trial€court€noted,€the€State€was€only€required€to€establish€probableÏcause€for€issuance€of€a€court€order€permitting€the€search.€€While€the€proof€may€notÏhave€established€the€guilt€of€Defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€this€standardÏwas€not€the€Stateððs€burden.€€This€Court€is€obliged€to€uphold€the€trial€court's€findingsÐ  :À00 Ðof€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.Ð `  ÐòòState€v.€œOdom›óó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€œStephenson›óó,€878€S.W.2dÐ h  Ð530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€After€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€theÏrecord,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€judge€erred€in€his€ruling€that€there€was€probableÏcause€in€issuing€the€search€warrant.€ÌÌà ` àBased€on€all€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àñÅñœñÅñÌœÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌL.T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge