ÿWPCà …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 01& 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s 1u 0dx BÜU6ùU./U*]B)‡DC° D3ó AM&is 0@ÜfK‚v~ÍvÓK AOÆm 0D3 D/w B¦˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiR¦"3|xC«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular /0{12{34D5678Ó€(á(3L_$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ûúXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd""""'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMay€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àÑ7À;­XXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€trial€court€retains€jurisdiction,€even€after€final€judgment,€to€modify€theÏpayment€schedule€or€to€reduce€or€remit€entirely€the€amount€of€fines€for€which€the€defendant€may€beÏobligated.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„24„101,€„102€and€„104.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'ÔÑ7€ Ì XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à à€No.€03C01„9606„CC„00242Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Washington€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Arden€L.€Hill,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌROBERT€HARRISON€BLEVINS,à à)à à€(Burglary€and€vandalism€of€property€valuedÌà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€à à€€under€$500)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌDavid€F.€Bautistaà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌDebbie€Huskinsà àà àà àà àSandy€R.€CopousÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€Ï142€East€Market€St.à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌJohnson€City,€TN€37601à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì(AT€TRIAL)Ìà àà àà àà àà àDavid€E.€CrockettÌLaura€Rule€Hendricksà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ606€W.€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àRoute€19,€Box€99ÌP.O.€Box€84à àà àà àà àà àJohnson€City,€TN€37601ÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0084à àà àà àà àandÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àKent€GarlandÌDistrict€Public€Defenderððs€Officeà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ€for€the€1st€Judicial€Districtà àà àà àP.O.€Box€38Ì142€East€Market€Streetà àà àà àJonesborough,€TN€37659ÌJohnson€City,€TN€37601Ì(ON€APPEAL)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌó óóóà àThe€defendant,€Robert€Harrison€Blevins,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€juryÏconviction€in€the€Washington€County€Criminal€Court€for€burglary,€a€Class€E€felony,€andÏvandalism€of€property€valued€under€five€hundred€dollars,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€HeÏwas€sentenced€as€a€career€offender€to€six€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€for€the€felony€and€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€theÏmisdemeanor€to€be€served€concurrently,€but€consecutively€to€previously€imposedÏsentences.€€The€trial€court€also€imposed€fines€totaling€five€thousand,€five€hundredÏdollars.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€states€his€issues€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions;ÌÌà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€six€prior€convictions€for€burglary€to€impeach€theÏdefendantððs€testimony;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€the€prosecutor€violated€the€defendantððs€right€toÏa€fair€trial€by€questioning€him€about€his€prior€convictionsÏand€by€asking€the€trial€court€to€clarify€the€impeachmentÏinstruction€to€the€jury;€andÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€defendantððsÏrequest€for€relief€from€payment€of€fines.ÌÌÓÓWe€hold€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€and€that€no€reversible€error€occurred.ÌÌà àOfficer€Jeff€Stork€of€the€Johnson€City€Police€Department€testified€that€heÏand€Officer€Jeff€Jenkins€responded€to€a€call€reporting€a€burglary€in€progress€near€theÏBroadway€Hotel€and€Perkins€Restaurant€at€approximately€4:00€a.m.€on€July€29,€1994.€ÏHe€explained€that€someone€had€called€Officer€Harrell€and€told€him€that€a€person€wasÏinspecting€the€cars€and€looked€like€they€were€getting€ready€to€break€into€one.€€OfficerÏStork€stated€that€he€was€instructed€to€park€away€from€the€area€to€avoid€scaring€anyoneÏoff.€€He€said€that€he€and€Officer€Jenkins€exited€their€vehicles€and€began€walkingÏamong€the€cars€parked€near€the€back€of€the€parking€lot€while€Sergeant€Michael€Harris,Ïwho€had€also€arrived,€started€checking€the€vehicles€in€the€front€of€the€lot.€€He€recalledÏhearing€Sergeant€Harris,€who€was€approximately€one€hundred€and€fifty€yards€away,Ïyell€at€someone€to€get€their€hands€up.€€Officer€Stork€said€that€he€and€Officer€JenkinsÍran€to€Sergeant€Harris€and€saw€Sergeant€Harris€moving€the€defendant€from€the€frontÏdoor€of€a€gray€Nissan€and€placing€him€over€the€hood€of€the€vehicle.€€He€stated€that€theÏdriverððs€side€window€was€broken€and€the€door€was€open.ÌÌà àSergeant€Michael€Harris€of€the€Johnson€City€Police€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€also€responded€to€the€call€regarding€an€automobile€burglary€in€progress.€€HeÏstated€that€he€parked€his€vehicle€in€the€Perkins€Restaurant€lot€and€walked€towards€theÏBroadway€Motel€parking€lot.€€He€said€that€as€he€walked€towards€the€motel,€heÏcontinued€to€listen€to€his€radio.€€Sergeant€Harris€testified€that€Officer€Harrell,€who€wasÏworking€off„duty€at€a€Wal„Mart€located€nearby,€was€talking€to€an€unidentified€person€onÏthe€phone€regarding€the€burglary€and€was€simultaneously€communicating€to€him€byÏradio€the€information€given€by€the€unknown€caller.€€Sergeant€Harris€said€that€as€heÏwalked€in€the€grass€between€two€motel€units,€he€approached€the€front€of€the€victimððsÏvehicle.€€He€recalled€hearing€a€loud€popping€noise€and€Officer€Harrell€telling€him€overÏthe€radio€that€the€caller€stated€that€a€window€had€just€been€broken€out.€€SergeantÏHarris€said€that€he€then€saw€the€defendant€partially€in€the€victimððs€vehicle€and€that€theÏpassengerððs€side€window€was€broken.€€He€testified€that€he€could€see€the€defendantÏbecause€a€security€light€was€located€very€close€to€the€victimððs€car€and€explained€thatÏthe€defendant€had€two„thirds€of€his€body€in€the€car.€€Sergeant€Harris€said€that€theÏdefendant€was€crouching€down€with€one€leg€on€the€ground€and€the€other€in€theÏvehicle,€attempting€to€conceal€himself.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€had€aÍpocketbook€in€his€hands.€€Sergeant€Harris€stated€that€he€then€told€the€defendant€atÏleast€three€times€to€raise€his€hands,€and€when€the€defendant€did€not€respond,€heÏplaced€him€on€the€front€of€the€car€and€arrested€him.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Sergeant€Harris€admitted€that€he€did€not€interviewÏany€witnesses€at€the€scene€and€that€he€did€not€know€the€name€of€the€person€whoÏcalled€Officer€Harrell.€€He€stated€that€although€he€did€not€question€him€or€obtain€hisÏname,€he€spoke€to€a€man€who€said€that€he€had€called€Officer€Harrell€who€was€at€Wal„Mart€and€told€him€about€the€burglary.€€Sergeant€Harris€also€conceded€that€he€failed€toÏmention€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€he€heard€a€loud€popping€noise€before€seeingÏthe€defendant€in€the€victimððs€car.€€He€acknowledged€stating€at€the€preliminary€hearingÏthat€the€caller€said€that€the€window€was€broken€with€a€rock€and€that€he€searched€theÏvehicle€but€did€not€find€a€rock.€€Sergeant€Harris€also€stated€that€he€did€not€attempt€toÏobtain€fingerprints€from€the€vehicle.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àTraci€Jackson,€the€victim,€testified€that€she€and€some€friends€left€LegendsÏduring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€29,€1994,€and€went€to€Perkins€Restaurant€inÏJohnson€City.€€She€stated€that€she€drove€her€gray€Nissan€and€waited€in€the€car€nearÏthe€entrance€while€Shannon€Vaughn€gave€their€names€for€the€waiting€list.€€The€victimÏrecalled€hearing€the€defendant,€whom€she€did€not€know,€talk€to€Vaughn€for€a€couple€ofÏminutes€before€she€got€back€into€the€car.€€She€testified€that€she€then€parked€herÍvehicle€behind€Broadway€Motel€because€the€restaurantððs€parking€lot€was€full.€€TheÏvictim€stated€that€the€defendant€had€walked€to€where€she€had€parked€her€car€andÏstarted€talking€to€them.€€She€remembered€the€defendant€telling€them€that€his€nameÏwas€Rob€when€Vaughn€asked€him.€€She€said€that€as€they€joined€their€other€friends,Ïshe€realized€that€she€had€locked€her€keys€and€purse€in€the€car€and€told€her€friends.€ÏShe€stated€that€she€attempted€to€open€the€doors€but€both€were€locked.€€The€victim€saidÏthat€her€friends€told€her€that€they€should€eat€first€and€then€either€get€a€spare€set€of€keysÏfrom€her€house€or€call€the€police.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€was€presentÏduring€the€entire€conversation.€€She€also€admitted€that€the€group€may€have€stopped€atÏone€of€her€friendððs€motel€room€before€walking€to€the€restaurant.ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€they€walked€to€the€restaurant€and€that€everyoneÏsat€at€a€booth€except€the€defendant,€who€sat€approximately€three€booths€away€with€twoÏother€men.€€She€recalled€seeing€the€defendant€leave€after€approximately€five€minutes.€ÏShe€stated€that€approximately€forty„five€minutes€later,€they€left€and€walked€to€the€hotelÏoffice€to€call€the€police€or€a€locksmith.€€She€said€that€the€clerk€told€her€that€the€policeÏwere€already€in€the€parking€lot.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€saw€Sergeant€Harris€andÏasked€him€whether€he€could€assist€her€in€unlocking€her€car.€€She€said€that€after€talkingÏto€Sergeant€Harris,€she€discovered€that€someone€had€broken€into€her€car€and€that€theÏpassengerððs€side€window€had€been€completely€shattered.€€She€stated€that€nothing€hadÏbeen€removed€but€that€her€purse€had€been€moved€from€the€passengerððs€sideÍfloorboard€to€the€passengerððs€seat.€€She€also€stated€that€she€noticed€a€large€rock€lyingÏunder€her€seat€that€afternoon€when€vacuuming€the€car.€€The€victim€said€that€she€gaveÏa€description€of€the€defendant€to€Sergeant€Harris.€€She€also€testified€that€the€repair€toÏher€window€costed€one€hundred€and€seventy„nine€dollars.€€The€victim€stated€that€sheÏdid€not€give€the€defendant€permission€to€enter€or€to€damage€her€car.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïòòò òÌà àó óóóChad€Hummon,€an€acquaintance€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€he€sawÏthe€defendant€at€Perkins€Restaurant€on€July€29,€1994,€at€approximately€3:00€a.m.Ïtalking€to€two€women€parked€in€a€dark„colored€car€near€the€entrance€to€the€restaurant.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€waved€at€the€defendant€and€that€he€later€sat€at€a€table€with€him.€€HeÏsaid€that€the€two€women€sat€with€them€for€awhile€before€moving€to€a€separate€booth.€ÏHummon€testified€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€restaurant€with€him€for€about€one€hour.€ÏHe€also€conceded€having€a€prior€conviction€for€secreting€personal€property.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€left€Nashville€Sound€on€July€29,€1994,Ïand€went€to€Perkins€Restaurant€with€a€group€of€his€friends,€including€Hummon.€€HeÏstated€that€he€parked€his€car€in€the€rear€because€the€lot€was€full€and€walked€towardsÏthe€restaurant.€€He€said€that€he€saw€Hummon€starting€to€walk€into€the€restaurant€as€aÏcar€drove€up€to€the€entrance.€€The€defendant€testified€that€the€victim€was€driving,Ïanother€woman€was€in€the€passenger€seat,€and€a€man€was€in€the€back€seat.€€TheÏdefendant€recalled€yelling€at€them€and€the€passenger€asking€him€to€come€to€her€sideÍof€the€car.€€He€said€that€he€then€asked€them€whether€they€wanted€to€party€and€theyÏsaid€that€they€wanted€to€eat€first.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€passenger€got€out€ofÏthe€vehicle,€he€sat€in€the€passenger€seat,€and€the€passenger€sat€on€his€lap€as€theÏvictim€tried€to€find€a€parking€space.€€The€defendant€testified€that€the€lot€was€full€so€theyÏparked€in€the€rear€close€to€his€car.€€He€said€that€the€victim€stopped€at€a€friendððs€motelÏroom€before€they€walked€to€the€restaurant.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€stated€that€he€saw€Hummon€when€he€entered€theÏrestaurant€and€that€he€told€the€victim€and€her€friends€that€he€was€going€to€sit€withÏHummon€instead.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€and€her€friends€sat€at€another€table.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€stayed€for€approximately€an€hour€eating€and€talking€withÏHummon.€€He€said€that€when€he€left€the€restaurant,€he€declined€Hummonððs€offer€for€aÏride€and€walked€to€his€car.€€According€to€the€defendant,€several€uniformed€policeÏofficers€started€yelling€at€him€to€freeze€as€he€started€to€step€over€a€curb€to€go€betweenÏtwo€cars.€€He€denied€being€inside€a€gray€Nissan€or€knowing€anything€about€a€rockÏbeing€thrown€through€the€carððs€window.€€He€also€denied€knowing€that€the€victim€hadÏlocked€her€keys€in€her€car.€€The€defendant€admitted€having€prior€convictions€forÏattempted€first„degree€burglary€in€1987,€four€counts€of€third„degree€burglary€in€1987,Ïaggravated€assault€in€1989,€larceny€from€a€person€in€1989,€third„degree€burglary€inÏ1990,€and€two€counts€of€robbery€in€1990.€ÌÌà àIn€rebuttal,€the€victim€testified€that€the€only€other€person€in€her€vehicleÏwas€Shannon€Vaughn€who€sat€in€the€passenger€seat.€€She€also€denied€that€theÏdefendant€got€into€her€car€and€rode€with€her€to€park€her€car.ÌÑ€.ÑÇà àShannon€Vaughn€testified€that€she€rode€with€the€victim€to€PerkinsÏRestaurant€and€that€she€saw€the€defendant€when€the€victim€parked€in€front€of€theÏrestaurant€and€she€went€inside.€€She€said€that€she€was€the€only€person€with€the€victimÏand€that€she€rode€in€the€passengerððs€seat.€€She€denied€asking€the€defendant€to€get€inÏthe€car€with€them,€that€the€defendant€rode€with€them€to€park,€and€that€she€sat€with€theÏdefendant€at€a€booth€at€the€restaurant.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€sat€two€or€threeÏbooths€away.€€Vaughn€said€that€she€was€not€sure€how€long€the€defendant€stayed€at€theÏrestaurant€but€recalled€that€he€left€before€they€did.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€establish€theÏdefendantððs€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€for€the€offenses€of€automobile€burglaryÏand€vandalism€of€property€valued€under€five€hundred€dollars.€€Essentially,€he€assertsÏthat€had€the€trial€court€excluded€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€forÏautomobile€burglary,€the€jury€could€have€found€that€the€defendantððs€testimony€wasÏcredible€and€rejected€Sergeant€Harrisðð€testimony.€€The€state€argues€that€the€evidenceÏoverwhelmingly€supports€the€convictions€and€that€the€jury€was€entitled€to€reject€theÏdefendantððs€testimony€as€untrue.€€We€hold€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€supportÏthe€convictions.€à àÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).ÌÌà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(4),€a€person€commits€burglary€byÏentering€an€automobile€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€owner€with€the€intent€toÏcommit€a€felony€or€theft.€€Vandalism€is€defined€as€knowingly€causing€damage€to€orÏdestroying€real€or€personal€property€of€another€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€30„14„408(a).€€€Ìà àÌà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€shows€that€SergeantÏHarris€discovered€the€defendant€bending€down€in€the€passenger€seat€of€the€victimððsÏcar€holding€the€victimððs€purse€in€his€hands.€€Also,€a€rock€was€found€underneath€theÏseat,€and€the€passengerððs€side€window€was€broken.€€Although€the€defendant€testifiedÏthat€he€was€merely€stepping€over€a€curb€to€walk€between€two€cars€when€severalÍofficers€ordered€him€to€freeze,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€reject€the€defendantððs€claim€andÏaccredit€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.€€Under€these€circumstances,€weÏconclude€that€ample€proof€existed€to€allow€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€was€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€both€burglary€and€vandalism€ofÏproperty€valued€under€five€hundred€dollars.€ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òII.€€€EVIDENCE€OF€PRIOR€CONVICTIONS€ó ó€€€€€€€€€€òòò òÌÌÓÓà àó óóóNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€byÏallowing€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€burglary€convictions€to€impeach€hisÏcredibility.€€He€argues€that€because€the€prior€convictions€involved€the€same€crime€forÏwhich€he€was€tried,€the€prejudicial€effect€far€outweighed€any€probative€value€forÏcredibility.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€state€should€have€been€limited€to€usingÏconvictions€other€than€the€burglary€convictions€for€impeaching€the€defendant.€€In€theÏalternative,€he€contends€that€the€six€prior€burglary€convictions€should€have€beenÏdescribed€as€six€convictions€for€crimes€involving€dishonesty€rather€than€using€the€termÏburglary.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€prior€convictions.€€We€agree.òòò òÌóóó óÌà àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretionÏand€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839ÏS.W.2d€54,€66€(Tenn.€1992).€€Pursuant€to€the€conditions€and€procedures€set€forth€inÍTenn.€R.€Evid.€609,€the€credibility€of€the€accused€may€be€attacked€by€presentingÏevidence€of€prior€convictions.€€One€condition€requires€that€the€crime€either€be€a€felonyÏor€a€crime€involving€dishonesty€or€false€statement.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2).€€Also,€theÏtrial€court€must€find€that€the€convictionððs€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€itsÏunfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3).€€InÏdetermining€the€probative€value€of€the€prior€convictions,€the€trial€court€must€assess€theÏsimilarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeachingÏconviction.€€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€trialÏcourt€must€next€analyze€the€relevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€ofÏcredibility.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌÌó óà àBefore€trial,€the€state€notified€the€defendant€of€its€intent€to€use€theÏfollowing€convictions€to€impeach€the€defendantððs€credibility€at€trial:€(1)€four€counts€ofÏthird„degree€burglary€in€1987,€(2)€bail€jumping€in€1987,€(3)€attempted€first„degreeÏburglary€in€1987,€(4)€aggravated€assault€in€1989,€(5)€larceny€from€a€person€in€1989,€(6)Ïthird„degree€burglary€in€1990,€and€(7)€two€counts€of€robbery€in€1990.€€The€defendantÏfiled€a€motion€in€limine€to€exclude€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€due€toÏthe€similarity€of€the€offenses€to€the€charged€offense€of€burglary€of€an€automobile.€€In€itsÏruling€on€the€defendantððs€motion€in€limine,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€bail€jumpingÏconviction€was€inadmissible.€€It€also€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€remaining€priorÏconvictions€could€be€introduced€to€impeach€the€defendantððs€credibility€if€he€testifiedÍbecause€the€offenses€of€burglary,€robbery€and€larceny€directly€related€to€theÏdefendantððs€truthfulness€and€the€probative€value€on€his€credibility€was€not€outweighedÏby€any€undue€prejudice.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€relies€upon€Tennessee€case€law€that€has€held€thatÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€an€offense€similar€to€the€one€on€trial€shouldÏnot€be€introduced€for€impeachment€purposes€because€there€is€too€great€a€danger€of€itÏimproperly€showing€a€propensity€to€commit€that€type€of€crime.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏRobertsóó,€703€S.W.2d€146,€147€(Tenn.€1986)€(in€aggravated€assault€case,€could€notÏshow€prior€assault€and€battery€conviction);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€482,€486€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980)€(in€murder€assault€case,€could€not€show€prior€second€degree€murderÏconviction).€€However,€the€fact€that€a€prior€conviction€involves€a€similar€crime€for€whichÏthe€defendant€is€being€tried€does€not€automatically€require€its€exclusion.€€As€previouslyÏnoted,€the€trial€court€must€analyze€the€prior€conviction€and€the€offense€on€trial€toÏdetermine€whether€the€convictionððs€probative€value€on€credibility€is€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice€on€the€substantive€issues.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3);ÏòòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€at€839.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€considered€the€similarity€between€automobileÏburglary€and€the€defendantððs€previous€convictions€for€burglary,€robbery€and€larceny.€€ItÏcorrectly€concluded€that€the€felony€convictions€were€for€crimes€of€dishonesty,€thusÍlending€greater€weight€to€their€probative€value€regarding€credibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏMilleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€559„60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(burglary);€òòState€v.€Caruthersóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€935,€941€(Tenn.€1984)€(robbery);€òòState€v.€Hardisonóó,€705€S.W.2d€684,€686Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(petit€larceny).€€ÌÌà àAlso,€the€defendant€made€his€credibility€an€important€issue€by€denyingÏany€wrongdoing€and€asserting€legitimate€conduct.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€areÏnot€inclined€to€question€the€trial€courtððs€allowing€all€the€convictions€for€the€purpose€ofÏimpeachment.€€Thus,€although€the€prior€burglary€convictions€are€similar€to€the€offenseÏon€trial,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€concluding€that€theÏconvictionsðð€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighed€any€danger€of€unfair€prejudiceÏto€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€in€the€alternative€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏlimited€references€to€his€previous€burglary€convictions€to€his€having€six€priorÏconvictions€for€crimes€involving€dishonesty.€€We€note€that€the€case€upon€which€heÏrelies,€in€which€this€court€allowed€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€such€a€procedure,€did€notÏreceive€the€blessing€of€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ross€Jonesóó,€No.€01C01„9405„CR„00176,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€8,€1995),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€MayÏ1,€1995)€(concurring€in€results€only).€€In€any€event,€òòJonesóó€did€not€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt€is€òòrequiredóó€to€limit€the€reference€to€prior€convictions€as€the€defendant€requests.€ÍRather,€it€only€held€that€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€such€a€procedure€was€not€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€in€that€case.€€In€similar€fashion,€we€believe€that€the€circumstances€in€theÏpresent€case€do€not€reflect€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€not€limiting€anyÏreferences€to€the€defendantððs€previous€convictions€to€felonies€involving€dishonesty.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€PROSECUTOR€CONDUCT€REGARDING€IMPEACHMENTó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€Ïthe€prosecutor€engaged€in€misconduct€by€the€manner€in€which€he€questioned€theÏdefendant€about€prior€burglary€convictions€being€for€automobile€burglaries.€€TheÏdefendant€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€requested€that€the€trial€courtÏinstruct€the€jury€regarding€the€proper€use€of€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€burglaryÏconvictions€as€its€last€instruction€although€an€identical€instruction€had€been€givenÏearlier.€€The€state€argues€that€the€actions€of€the€prosecutor€do€not€rise€to€the€level€of€Ïmisconduct.€€ÌÌà àFirst,€we€note€that€the€defendant€did€not€object€at€the€time€of€theÏprosecutorððs€question€regarding€automobile€burglaries€nor€did€he€include€this€issue€inÏhis€motion€for€new€trial.€€Also,€although€he€objected€at€the€time€of€the€jury€instruction€inÏquestion,€it€was€not€included€as€an€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Pursuant€to€RuleÏ3(e),€T.R.A.P.,€an€issue€is€considered€waived€for€appellate€review€purposes€if€it€is€notÏspecifically€included€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,€but€is€an€issue€for€which€the€resultÍwould€be€a€new€trial.€€Such€is€the€case€before€us.€€Moreover,€in€the€context€of€plainÏerror,€we€see€nothing€that€affects€the€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€52(b).ÌÌà àAfter€the€defendant€acknowledged€on€cross„examination€that€he€wasÏconvicted€in€1987€for€four€counts€of€third„degree€burglary,€the€prosecutor€asked€him€ifÏthe€convictions€were€for€automobile€burglaries.€€The€defendant€replied,€ð ðNo,€I€donððtÏthink€so.ðð€€Needless€to€say,€to€the€extent€that€the€question€was€for€the€purpose€ofÏeliciting€underlying€facts€of€the€former€convictions,€it€was€improper.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏMorganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€1976);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€at€485.€ÏHowever,€the€defendantððs€negative€response€ended€the€inquiry€and€the€matter€wasÏnever€mentioned€again.€€Under€these€circumstances€and€with€the€strong€evidenceÏagainst€the€defendant,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€question€affected€the€jury€verdicts€toÏthe€defendantððs€prejudice.€€ÌÌà àAs€for€the€jury€instruction€claim,€the€defendant€complains€about€theÏprosecutor€getting€the€trial€court€to€repeat€the€instruction€relating€to€consideringÏevidence€of€prior€convictions€only€on€the€issue€of€credibility.€€After€the€trial€court€gaveÏits€instructions€to€the€jury,€the€prosecutor€stated€that€it€had€failed€to€instruct€the€juryÏregarding€both€the€specific€offenses€for€which€the€defendant€had€previously€beenÏconvicted€and€the€proper€consideration€of€them€relative€to€credibility.€€The€prosecutorÍrequested€that€the€trial€court€instruct€the€jury€accordingly,€which€it€did.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€had€already€instructed€the€jury€in€such€a€fashion.€€ÌÌà àObviously,€the€trial€court€should€not€have€instructed€the€jury€twice€relativeÏto€the€specific€prior€convictions€of€the€defendant.€€However,€there€is€no€showing€thatÏthe€prosecutor€intentionally€sought€to€influence€the€jury€by€having€the€instruction€givenÏa€second€time,€immediately€before€deliberation.€€We€note€as€well,€that€the€instructionsÏwere€an€accurate€statement€of€the€law€that€limited€the€jury€in€its€consideration€of€theÏdefendantððs€prior€convictions.€€Again,€under€these€circumstances€and€the€strength€ofÏthe€evidence€against€the€defendant,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€prosecutorððs€requestÏwas€œmisconduct›€or€that€the€trial€courtððs€reinstruction€affected€the€juryððs€verdicts€to€theÏdefendantððs€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344„45€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1976).ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€FINESó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€his€requestÏto€be€relieved€from€the€payment€of€fines€totaling€five€thousand€and€five€hundredÏdollars.€€He€asserts€that€because€he€supports€a€wife€and€two€children€and€isÏuneducated,€unskilled€and€heavily€in€debt,€the€trial€court€should€have€waived€the€finesÏimposed.€€The€state€argues€that€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€the€need€for€deterrenceÏand€the€defendantððs€extensive€criminal€background€justify€the€imposition€of€the€finesÍand€that€a€suspension€or€reduction€of€the€fine€would€only€depreciate€the€seriousnessÏof€the€offense.€ÌÌà àAt€the€trial,€the€jury€returned€a€fine€for€the€burglary€at€three€thousandÏdollars€and€for€the€vandalism€at€two€thousand€five€hundred€dollars,€each€being€theÏmaximum€for€that€class€of€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„11(b)(5)€and€(e)(1).€€At€theÏsentencing€hearing,€no€testimony€was€presented€by€either€party,€which€left€the€filedÏpresentence€report€and€the€proof€at€trial€for€the€trial€courtððs€consideration.€€TheÏdefendant€conceded€that€he€had€enough€prior€convictions€to€have€a€career€offenderÏstatus,€thereby€requiring€imposition€of€the€maximum€length€of€sentence€for€the€felonyÏclass€involved.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„108.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€elevenÏmonths,€twenty„nine€days€for€the€vandalism€offense,€to€be€served€concurrently€with€theÏburglary€sentence.€€ÌÌà àAs€for€the€fines,€the€record€reflects€that€the€parties€and€the€trial€courtÏmisunderstood€the€respective€roles€of€the€jury€and€the€trial€court€in€imposing€the€fines.€ÏThe€defendant€asked€the€court€to€ð ðsuspendðð€the€fines€and€the€prosecutor€asserted€thatÏthe€state€was€opposed€to€a€suspension,€stating€that€ð ðthatððs€the€juryððs€part€of€this,€andÏthatððs€the€only€part€that€theyððre€left€with.ðð€€Then€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àWell,€itððs€a€way€for€the€jury€to€speak,€but,€I€donððt€€thinkÏthe€jury€when€they€set€that€fine€understands€itððsÌà8 àto€„„€in€some€instances€itððs€almost€impossible€to€collect,€butÏweððll€leave€that€for€a€future€day.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€The€motion€to€reduce€theÏfine€is€respectfully€denied.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓEach€judgment€of€conviction€in€this€case€entered€by€the€trial€court€states€the€amount€asÏa€ð ðfine€assessed€by€the€jury.ðð€€In€this€fashion,€the€record€reflects€that€the€parties€and€theÏtrial€court€believed€that€the€fine€to€be€imposed€as€part€of€the€sentence€was€to€be€set€byÏthe€jury.€€Such€is€not€the€case.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€jury€is€to€ð ðfixðð€the€amount€of€the€fine€and€report€it€with€a€guiltyÏverdict,€it€is€the€trial€court€that€is€obligated€to€impose€a€fine,€if€any€„„€not€to€exceed€thatÏfixed€by€the€jury€„„€as€part€of€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„301(b).€€The€trial€courtððsÏimposition€of€a€fine,€if€any,€is€to€be€based€upon€the€factors€and€principles€of€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act,€such€as,€prior€history,€potential€for€rehabilitation,€financial€means,€andÏmitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€that€are€relevant€to€an€appropriate,€total€sentence.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€805€S.W.2d€762,€766€(Tenn.€1991).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€may€notÏsimply€impose€the€fine€as€fixed€by€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€we€need€not€remand€the€case€for€proper€assessment€of€theÏfine,€because€the€record€before€us€is€sufficient€to€justify€affirming€the€amount€of€the€fineÏimposed€by€the€trial€court.€€The€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€twenty„eight„year„old€defendant€held€employment€for€monthly€periods€in€1993€and€1994€with€fourÏseparate€employers.€€No€record€of€employment€before€1993€is€presented.€€The€reportÏshows€that€the€defendant€owns€nothing,€but€claims€a€debt€of€four€thousand€dollars€inÏaddition€to€an€unknown€amount€for€child€support€for€a€child€from€a€previous€marriage.€ÏThe€defendant€is€married€and€also€supports€a€two„year„old€child€who€lives€with€himÏand€his€wife.€€The€defendant€is€a€high€school€dropout€who€obtained€his€GED.€€HeÏclaims€to€be€in€good€physical€and€mental€health,€but€admitted€previously€usingÏmarijuana€about€once€a€week€for€a€few€years.€€He€has€convictions€for€robbery,Ïaggravated€assault,€larceny€from€the€person,€burglaries,€attempted€burglary,€andÏseveral€misdemeanors.€€In€fact,€the€defendant€was€on€parole€when€he€committed€theÏpresent€offenses.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€his€financial€status€and€family€needs€justifyÏless€than€the€maximum€fines.€€Although€indigency€may€in€certain€cases€justify€no€fine,Ïas€previously€stated,€it€must€be€considered€with€the€other€relevant€factors.€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThus,€although€the€defendantððs€ability€to€pay€a€fine€is€aÏfactor€it€is€not€necessarily€a€controlling€one.€€We€recognizeÏthat€an€oppressive€fine€can€disrupt€future€rehabilitation€andÏprevent€a€defendant€from€becoming€a€productive€member€ofÏsociety.€€Such€results€are€not€usually€compatible€with€theÏpurposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€ÏHowever,€a€significant€fine€is€not€automatically€precludedÏjust€because€it€works€a€substantial€hardship€on€a€defendantÏ„„€it€may€be€punitive€in€the€same€fashion€incarceration€mayÏbe€punitive.€€ÌÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).à0 à€à0 àÌÌà àIn€the€œpast,›€the€defendant€has€shown€little,€if€any,€inclination€to€meet€theÏneeds€of€his€family€and€children€through€honest€œeffort.›€€His€proven€record€of€disregardÏfor€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€laws€of€society€does€not€bode€well€for€rehabilitationÏoccurring€in€the€near€future.€€In€fact,€his€compilation€of€such€an€extensive€record€in€hisÏten€years€of€adulthood,€by€itself,€warrants€maximum€fines€for€punishment€andÏdeterrence.€€Relief,€if€any,€from€the€fines€should€await€assessment€under€his€futureÏconduct€and€circumstances.€€œThe€amount€of€the€fines€imposed€by€the€trial€court€isÏproper.›ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏjudgments€of€the€trial€court€are€affirmed.€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge€€Ì€