ÿWPCÙ ?±YªÃª#ïýu ÞkP AœaQ‰æÁóIþ’yÆj ò°”ŒíYç™ù§P à½èÚA!Ä8òêù¶Äu¸Á¿ïH+߇Â}M ÉQÍ(T=dä<Qyqh%åP ‘Z-¿r-“ÎUÙonôT—ò·Y®Ú꾊"€3ô8)¥¤C¾œ¢×@mmp6¬Àby\zÇøj`tÈàG?¥äÄÚ=ŽÍSè'™ SÇÝJ_jõúh¼z0ú]Ïí ;ÜÞ*ªnr]o’z±ËzÉŒ VwC)‘vEpT´™úb"›·U!±Ù|wFþ¥²¶ñuúþgýÙuXEÓâùdM9 <®.w\ÐðR“9±®õ½»ÒÂ~]ÿí¸¶û—o:¿§X¯Te…œË8¡»›'UØßTç?ʤ™JË.tôU£5·CÒü¡(ÊgÇ™ÀN˜ñ±M¦ÿžÙDU« 'Õ©¢$‘s»‡ÑãlJU5 ;nÂ~–JÁ¸SS¼)¢Ù¬Fô<‘­/“hò÷H Ï„åêÛ’t4=XBð+¬©!ÒA¾‡&ù±u¿ëÞäÒ¤Ñwm|W𠈛1çíaÒ×ÞQapl˜hWfbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N; 1= 0cÊE-U@/°o 1u 72”ÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆbÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ 0ëÖÖÖÖ BÁÁ 0¤Þ D3‚ D-µ 0Kââ AS-Æ€ 0¤F 0Dê A«.(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Óª©å,â ÐVì(F¥B¦3|x ˜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 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(× CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ¦Ý ƒRÿ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«Åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellant€also€seems€to€imply€that€the€testimony€at€trial€is€ð ðirreconcilableðð€because€Ms.€Hyde€testifiedÐ ° Ðthat€there€was€a€written€form€and€the€State€never€produced€it.€During€trial,€Ms.€Hyde€testified€that€she€ð ðthoughtðð€theÐ xÈ ÐAppellant€signed€a€consent€form€to€have€blood€withdrawn€for€the€blood€alcohol€test.€€Ms.€Hyde€later€testified,€however,Ð @ Ðthat€there€was€a€possibility€that€she€could€be€mistaken€about€the€written€form€because€some€time€had€passed€since€theÐ X Ðevent€took€place€and€she€encounters€similar€situations€on€a€routine€basis.€€We€do€not€conclude€from€her€testimony€thatÐ Ð  Ðthere€was€a€written€consent€form€that€was€not€produced€by€the€State.€€Rather,€Deputy€Verner€explained€that€he€had€onlyÐ ˜è Ðbeen€employed€as€a€law€enforcement€officer€for€a€short€period€of€time€and€simply€forgot€to€have€the€Appellant€sign€aÐ ` ° Ðwritten€consent€form.€€He€testified€that€he€did€ask€the€Appellant€for€the€blood€test,€informed€him€that€he€had€the€rightÐ ( x Ðto€refuse,€and€explained€that€he€would€lose€his€license€for€one€year€if€he€did€refuse.€€Ms.€Hydeððs€testimony€substantiallyÐ ð @ Ðcorroborated€Deputy€Vernerððs€testimony€in€that€she€was€confident€that€the€consent€was€voluntarily€given€and€that€theÐ ¸   ÐAppellant€never€refused.€€She€was€only€unsure€as€to€whether€a€written€form€was€signed€by€the€Appellant.€€Despite€theÐ € Ð  ÐAppellantððs€allegations€that€the€State€has€purposely€withheld€a€written€consent€form€signed€by€him,€we€do€not€find€theÐ H ˜  Ðevidence€establishes€that€a€written€consent€form€exists€and€likewise€do€not€find€the€testimony€at€trial€to€beÐ `  Ðð ðirreconcilable.ðð3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2ÿ#$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«Åò»»Ô d(|3Á$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ð»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼л»»ÔÑ8€Ý*XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î›~ÐÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼лîî›~ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€7,€2002€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XÝ*X»¼ÐÔÌò òÔ#†¼лXXÝ*#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JAMES€STACEY€CARROLLòòóóÔ‡XÝ*X»¼ÐÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Carroll€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01CR„1634€€€€€€C.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01464„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X7 XXXÝ*ÔÌThe€Appellant,€James€Stacey€Carroll,€was€convicted€by€a€Carroll€County€jury€of€€the€followingÐ ¢ò Ðoffenses:€(1)€violation€of€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offenders€Act;€(2)€driving€under€the€influenceÐ ŽÞ Ðof€an€intoxicant,€sixth€offense;€and€(3)€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€The€trial€court€sentencedÐ zÊ ÐCarroll,€as€a€multiple€offender,€to€four€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€the€habitualÐ f¶ Ðoffender€conviction€and€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€for€the€DUI€conviction.€€€On€appeal,Ð R¢ ÐCarroll€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÐ >Ž Ðsufficient€to€support€Carrollððs€convictions€for€driving€while€a€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender€andÐ *z Ðfor€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant;€(2)€whether€the€statutory€provisions€of€TennesseeÐ f ÐCode€Annotated€ðððð€55„10„613,€„615,€„616€of€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offenders€Act€areÐ R Ðunòòóóconstitutional;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€the€results€of€Carrollððs€blood€alcoholÐ î> Ðtest€into€evidence;€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Deputy€Verner€to€testify€aboutÐ Ú* ÐCarrollððs€verbal€consent€to€a€blood€alcohol€test;€and€(5)€whether€the€trial€courtððs€scheduling€orderÐ Æ Ðviolated€Carrollððs€procedural€and€substantive€due€process€rights.€€After€review,€we€find€no€error€andÐ ² Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð žî ÐÔ#†XÝ*X X X7ˆ#ÔÔ#†¼лXXÝ*‹#ÔÔ‡XÝ*X»¼ÐÔÌÓ|ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ j"º! ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼лàXÝ*F #ÔÔ‡XÝ*X.¼ÐÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð J$š# ÐGlennóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð :%Š $ ÐÌBenjamin€S.€Dempsey,€Huntington,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€James€Stacey€Carroll.Ð 'j"& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€John€H.Ð ú(J$( ÐBledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€G.€Robert€Radford,€District€Attorney€General;€and€EleanorÐ ê):%) ÐCahill,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ú**&* ÐÔ#†¼лXXÝ* #ÔÔ‡XÝ*X»¼ÐÔÌÌÓÑ ÓÐ ª-ú(-ý Ðà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼лXXÝ*œ#ÔÔ‡XÝ*X»¼ÐÔÐ ° ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ à ÐòòóóÔ#†¼лXXÝ*(#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÝ*X»¼ÐÔÌÔ‡ X7 XXXÝ*Ôà  àOn€August€21,€2000,€during€the€late€afternoon€hours,€Justin€Pugh€was€proceeding€alongÐ pÀ ÐHighway€77A€in€Carroll€County€when€he€noticed€a€truck€traveling€in€front€of€him€ð ðweaving€back€andÐ \ ¬ Ðforth€across€the€road€.€.€.€from€one€side€of€the€road€all€the€way€almost€off€the€edge€back€to€the€other.ðð€Ð H ˜ ÐPugh€testified€that€this€erratic€driving€continued€for€almost€two€miles€before€he€observed€the€truckÐ 4 „ Ðleave€the€right€side€of€the€road,€come€back€across€the€pavement,€and€hit€the€embankment€on€the€leftÐ  p Ðside€of€the€highway.€€Pugh€immediately€stopped€his€vehicle€and€approached€the€wrecked€truck.€Ð  \  ÐInside,€he€found€the€Appellant€who€had€some€cuts€on€his€head€and€complained€of€chest€pain.€€PughÐ ø H  Ðsaw€no€other€passengers€in€or€around€the€vehicle€and€testified€that€the€Appellant€remained€lucid€andÐ ä4  Ðcoherent€throughout€the€event.€€About€five€minutes€later,€as€Pugh€and€the€Appellant€waited€forÐ Ð  Ðemergency€assistance,€volunteer€firefighters,€Adam€Martin€and€Ricky€Simco,€happened€upon€theÐ ¼  Ðscene€and€stopped€to€assist.€€Both€Martin€and€Simco€testified€that€the€Appellant€was€coherent€andÐ ¨ø  Ðappeared€to€only€suffer€from€minor€injuries.€€Ð ”ä  ÐÌà  àBill€Miller,€a€paramedic€with€Huntingdon€Emergency€Medical€Service,€also€arrived€at€theÐ l¼ Ðscene€shortly€thereafter.€€Upon€arriving,€Miller€noticed€that€the€Appellantððs€judgment€was€slightlyÐ X¨ Ðimpaired€and€testified€that€he€felt€alcohol€might€have€been€involved€since€he€kicked€an€ð ðalcoholicÐ D” Ðcan€or€bottleðð€out€of€the€way€as€he€was€proceeding€to€the€wrecked€vehicle.€€Miller€testified€that,Ð 0€ Ðalthough€the€Appellant€was€not€as€quick€to€respond€to€questioning€as€he€should€be,€he€didÐ l Ðcomprehend€what€was€taking€place€and€never€appeared€unconscious.€Ð X ÐÌà  àDeputy€Michael€Ray€Verner€of€the€Carroll€County€Sheriffððs€Department€was€also€dispatchedÐ à0 Ðto€the€scene.€€Verner€noticed€an€odor€of€alcohol€on€the€Appellantððs€breath€and€testified€that€theÐ Ì ÐAppellantððs€speech€was€slurred.€€Verner€observed€beer€cans€in€the€back€of€the€truck€and€in€theÐ ¸ Ðsurrounding€ditch.€€Verner€followed€the€ambulance€to€Methodist€Hospital€in€McKenzie,€where€heÐ ¤ô Ðobtained€a€verbal€consent€from€the€Appellant€to€obtain€a€blood€alcohol€sample.€€Brenda€Hyde,€aÐ à Ðmedical€technician€at€Methodist€Hospital,€also€testified€that€she€overheard€the€Appellant€voluntarilyÐ |Ì Ðconsent€to€the€blood€alcohol€test.€€The€Appellantððs€blood€sample€was€later€tested€and€revealed€aÐ h ¸ Ðblood€alcohol€concentration€of€.15%.Ð T!¤ ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Kathy€Carroll,€the€Appellantððs€wife,€testified€that€she€was€the€driver€of€the€vehicleÐ ,#|! Ðon€that€particular€day€when€it€wrecked.€€According€to€Ms.€Carroll,€she€lost€control€of€the€vehicleÐ $h" Ðwhen€she€dropped€a€cigarette,€causing€her€to€leave€the€roadway.€€She€related€that€Willie€and€ShirleyÐ %T # ÐRobinson€happened€upon€the€scene,€and€she€rode€with€them€to€her€motherððs€house€to€get€helpÐ ð%@!$ Ðbecause€the€Appellant€was€so€badly€injured.€€When€Carroll€arrived€at€her€motherððs€house,€she€didÐ Ü&,"% Ðnot€awaken€her€mother€but€instead€took€the€car€out€of€the€driveway.€€Carroll€drove€the€car€to€a€gasÐ È'#& Ðstation,€where€she€filled€the€tank€with€gasoline€before€returning€to€the€scene.€€When€she€finallyÐ ´($' Ðreturned€to€the€accident€scene,€Carroll€testified€that€no€one€was€present€and€that€the€wrecked€truckÐ  )ð$( Ðwas€gone.€€After€searching€various€hospitals,€she€found€her€husband€hospitalized€in€McKenzie.Ð Œ*Ü%) ÐÐ x+È&* Ðò òÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ ° ÐÌI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ ˆØ ÐÌó óÓ  ÓÔ#†XÝ*X X X7ß#ÔÔ‡X7 XXXÝ*Ôà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ `° Ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ L œ Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ $ t Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.òòóóóó€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ  ` Ðcourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€trier€of€€fact.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€646€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,Ð è 8  Ð868€S.W.2d€713,€718„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€defendant€must€establish€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€no€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÐ À  Ðelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e)Ô#†XÝ*X XX7e #ÔÔ‡X7 XXXÝ*Ô;€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443Ð ¬ü  ÐU.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ð ˜è  Ðdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.€Ct.€743€(1995).€€The€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert€denied,óó€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.€Ct.€1368€(1993).Ô#†XÝ*X XX7W%#ÔÔ‡ X7 XXXÝ*ÔÐ \¬ ÐÌÓ  Óò òA.€€€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offenderó óÐ 4„ ÐÌÓÑ'Óà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„10„616(a)€provides€that€it€is€ð ðunlawful€for€any€person€toÐ  \ Ðoperate€any€motor€vehicle€in€this€state€while€the€judgment€or€order€prohibiting€the€operation€remainsÐ øH Ðin€effect.ðð€€In€this€case,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€was€insufficient€toÐ ä4 Ðsupport€his€conviction€for€driving€while€an€habitual€motor€offender.€€We€disagree.€€The€AppellantððsÐ Ð  Ðsufficiency€argument€centers€upon€his€assertion€that€the€proof€fails€to€establish€his€operation€of€aÐ ¼  Ðvehicle€on€this€date€was€a€knowing€and€intentional€violation€of€the€courtððs€order.€€The€AppellantÐ ¨ø Ðasserts€that€the€May€13,€1996€order€prohibited€his€operation€of€a€vehicle€for€only€a€three„year€period.€Ð ”ä ÐThus,€it€is€the€Appellantððs€contention€that€the€date€of€this€offense,€August€21,€2000,€was€beyond€theÐ €Ð Ðthree„year€period;€therefore,€ð ðthere€was€no€proof€that€[he]€was€aware€that€the€criminal€proscriptionsÐ l¼ Ðof€the€statute€applied€beyond€the€specified€three„year€period€.€.€.€€.ððÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àOn€May€13,€1996,€the€Appellant€was€declared€an€habitual€offender€by€the€Carroll€CountyÐ 0"€  ÐCircuit€Court.€€In€its€order,€the€court€revoked€the€Appellantððs€driving€privileges€and€directed€that,Ð #l! Ðð ðthe€privilege€of€the€[Appellant]€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€is€revoked€untilÐ $X" Ðfurther€orders€of€this€Court€.€.€.€before€the€driving€privileges€of€the€[Appellant]€may€be€reinstated€heÐ ô$D # Ðmust€petition€this€court€after€three€(3)€years€from€the€date€of€entry€of€this€order,€and€this€court€mustÐ à%0!$ Ðenter€an€order€reinstating€his/her€driving€privileges.ðð€€As€noted€above,€the€trial€court€specificallyÐ Ì&"% Ðprovided€in€its€order€declaring€the€Appellant€an€habitual€offender€that€his€license€to€operate€motorÐ ¸'#& Ðvehicles€in€this€state€was€revoked€ð ðuntil€further€orders€of€this€courtðð€and€only€òòafteróó€the€three„year€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðperiod€had€expired.€€We€conclude€that€the€language€contained€in€the€courtððs€order€pronounces,€withÐ )à$( Ðunmistakable€clarity,€€that€the€Appellant€was€not€entitled€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€while€the€orderÐ |*Ì%) Ðprohibiting€such€operation€remained€in€effect.€€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð h+¸&* Їò òÓ  ÓB.€€Driving€Under€the€InfluenceÐ ° ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€also€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ ˆØ Ðconviction€for€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€ð ðnoÐ tÄ Ðlaw€enforcement€officer€observed€[the€Appellant]€consuming€any€type€of€alcoholic€beverages€.€.€.€orÐ `° Ðoperating€the€motor€vehicle.ðð€€Our€law€provides€that€it€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€drive€or€to€beÐ L œ Ðin€physical€control€of€any€automobile€or€other€motor€vehicle€driven€on€any€of€the€public€roads€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðhighways€of€the€state€while€the€alcohol€concentration€in€such€personððs€blood€or€breath€is€tenÐ $ t Ðhundredths€of€one€percent€(.10%)€or€more.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(2).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Pugh€testified€that€he€observed€the€Appellantððs€vehicle€swerve€all€overÐ è 8  Ðthe€road€for€approximately€two€miles.€€After€the€Appellant€crashed€his€truck,€Pugh€immediatelyÐ Ô$  Ðoffered€assistance€and€recalled€that€no€other€persons€were€in€the€truck€or€at€the€scene.€€VolunteerÐ À  Ðfirefighters,€emergency€personnel,€and€police€also€testified€that€the€Appellant€appeared€to€be€the€onlyÐ ¬ü  Ðperson€involved€in€the€incident.€€Beer€cans€or€bottles€were€found€at€the€scene€and€the€AppellantððsÐ ˜è  Ðblood€alcohol€concentration€at€the€time€of€the€wreck€was€.15%.€€The€jury€obviously€rejected,€as€isÐ „Ô  Ðtheir€prerogative,€the€Appellantððs€assertion€that€his€wife€was€driving€the€truck€at€the€time€it€wrecked.€Ð pÀ ÐFactual€disputes€within€the€evidence€are€questions€for€jury€resolution€and€will€not€be€disturbed€byÐ \¬ Ðthis€court.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€State,€is€more€than€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€find€the€Appellant€guilty€of€driving€while€underÐ 4„ Ðthe€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€This€issue€is€also€without€merit.€€Ð  p ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Constitutionality€of€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offender€Statuteó óÐ øH ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€asserts€that€certain€sections€of€the€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender€statutesòòóóÐ Ð  Ðare€unconstitutional.€€Specifically,€he€challenges€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðððð€55„10„613,€„615,€„Ð ¼  Ð616,€arguing€that€the€construction€and€application€of€these€code€sections€should€be€found€ð ðvoid€forÐ ¨ø Ðvagueness,€over€broad€and/or€ò òó ócreates€a€cruel€and€impermissible€criminal€penalty,€lasting€indefinitelyÐ ”ä Ðwithout€fair€notice.ðð€€In€€other€words,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€statutory€language€is€vague€andÐ €Ð Ðfails€to€give€clear€warning€that€an€habitual€offender€will€remain€in€such€status€until€he€or€sheÐ l¼ Ðpetitions€the€court€for€reinstatement€of€his€or€her€driving€privileges€after€the€three„year€mandatoryÐ X ¨ Ðsuspension€period.€The€Appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€declaring€him€a€habitualÐ D!” Ðmotor€vehicle€offender€is€unconstitutional€because€ð ðit€exceeds€the€jurisdiction€and€scope€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðstatute.ðð€€We€disagree.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€his€first€issue,€the€Appellant€contends€that€certain€provision€of€€the€Motor€Vehicle€HabitualÐ ô$D # ÐOffender€Actòòóó€are€unconstitutionally€void€due€to€vagueness.€€Specifically,€he€challenges€TennesseeÐ à%0!$ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€55„10„615(a)€and€(b)€which€provide:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓ€ (× 83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£¯AÝÔ2× Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝIn€no€event€shall€a€license€to€operate€motor€vehicles€in€this€state€be€issued€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€habitual€offender€for€a€period€of€three€(3)€years€from€the€entry€date€of€theÐ )à$( Ðorder€of€the€court€finding€such€person€to€be€an€habitual€offender.݃3£¯AèAÝŒÐ|*Ì%)` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÐ h+¸&* ÐÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£­CÝÔ2× Ô(Ú  ÚbÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝAt€the€expiration€of€three€(3)€years€from€the€date€of€any€final€order€of€a€court,Ð ° Ðentered€under€the€provisions€of€this€part,€finding€a€person€to€be€an€habitualÐ œì Ðoffender€and€directing€such€person€not€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€in€this€state,Ð ˆØ Ðsuch€person€may€petition€the€court€where€found€to€be€an€habitual€offender€orÐ tÄ Ðany€court€of€record€having€criminal€jurisdiction€in€the€county€in€which€suchÐ `° Ðperson€then€resides,€for€restoration€of€the€privilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicleÐ L œ Ðin€this€state.€€Upon€such€petition,€and€for€good€cause€shown,€such€court€may,Ð 8 ˆ Ðin€its€discretion,€restore€to€such€person€the€privilege€to€operate€a€motorÐ $ t Ðvehicle€in€this€state€upon€such€terms€and€conditions€as€the€court€mayÐ  ` Ðprescribe,€subject€to€other€provisions€of€law€relating€to€the€issuance€ofÐ ü L  Ðoperators'€or€chauffeurs'€licenses.€€Ýƒ3£­CæCÝŒÐè 8 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐInitially,€we€note€that€when€reviewing€a€statute€for€a€possible€constitutional€infirmity,€we€are€requiredÐ À  Ðto€indulge€every€presumption€and€resolve€every€doubt€in€favor€of€the€constitutionality€of€the€statute.Ð ¬ü  ÐòòPetition€of€Bursonóó,€909€S.W.2d€768,€775€(Tenn.€1995).€€To€survive€a€challenge€for€vagueness,€aÐ ˜è  Ðstatute€must€give€a€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€know€what€isÐ „Ô  Ðprohibited,€so€that€he€may€act€accordingly.€òòState€v.€Lakatosóó,€900€S.W.2d€699,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð pÀ Ð1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€òòGrayned€v.€City€of€Rockfordóó,€408€U.S.€104,€108,Ð \¬ Ð92€S.€Ct.€2294,€2298€(1972)).€A€statute€is€void€for€vagueness€if€it€so€vague,€indefinite,€and€uncertainÐ H˜ Ðthat€persons€must€speculate€as€to€its€meaning.€€òòState€v.€Whaleyóó,€982€S.W.2d€346,€348€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1997).€€Nonetheless,€the€vagueness€doctrine€does€not€invalidate€every€statute€which€a€reviewingÐ  p Ðcourt€believes€could€have€been€drafted€with€better€precision.€€òòState€v.€Lyonsóó,€802€S.W.2d€590,€592Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€1990).€€In€other€words,€this€court€must€determine€legislative€intent€ð ðfrom€the€natural€andÐ øH Ðordinary€meaning€of€the€statutory€language€within€the€context€of€the€entire€statute€without€any€forcedÐ ä4 Ðor€subtle€construction€that€would€extend€or€limit€the€statuteððs€meaning.ðð€€òòState€v.€Flemmingóó,€19Ð Ð  ÐS.W.3d€195,€197€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant,€who€was€driving€more€than€four€years€after€having€been€declared€a€motorÐ ”ä Ðvehicle€habitual€offender,€contends€that€these€guidelines€in€the€Act€are€so€vague€that€he€was€notÐ €Ð Ðgiven€ð ðclear€warning€of€action€for€which€[he]€might€be€[held]€accountable.ðð€€We€disagree.€Ð l¼ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„10„616€provides€that€ð ðit€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€person€to€operateÐ X ¨ Ðany€motor€vehicle€in€this€state€while€the€judgment€or€order€of€the€court€prohibiting€the€operationÐ D!” Ðremains€in€effect.ðð€€It€is€a€basic€principle€of€due€process€that€an€enactment€will€be€declared€void€forÐ 0"€  Ðvagueness€if€its€prohibitions€are€not€clearly€defined.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€statutory€languageÐ #l! Ðis€clear€and€unambiguous.€€A€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€is€not€forced€to€guess€or€speculate€aboutÐ $X" Ðits€meaning.€€Rather,€it€is€very€clear€that€these€statutes,€taken€together,€prohibit€anyone€who€has€beenÐ ô$D # Ðdeclared€a€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€at€any€time€until€he€or€sheÐ à%0!$ Ðproperly€applies€for€and€is€restored€driving€privileges€by€the€court.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€in€òòStateÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Orróó,€694€S.W.2d€297,€298€(Tenn.€1985),€our€supreme€court€found€the€Tennessee€Motor€VehicleÐ ¸'#& ÐHabitual€Offenders€Act€constitutional.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hinsleyóó,€627€S.W.2d€351,€354€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àSecondly,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offenders€Act€isÐ ° Ðâ âunconstitutional€because€it€constitutes€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€Specifically,€he€contends€thatÐ œì Ðthe€Act€makes€his€habitual€status€indefinite.€€Thus,€he€maintains€that€the€statute€is€open„ended€andÐ ˆØ Ðsubject€to€discriminatory€and€arbitrary€enforcement.€€Again,€we€disagree.€€The€argument€that€the€ActÐ tÄ Ðconstitutes€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€has€previously€been€rejected€by€our€supreme€court€and€weÐ `° Ðsee€no€need€to€revisit€that€issue€here.€€òòState€v.€Orróó,€694€S.W.2d€297,€298€(Tenn.€1985);€òòsee€also€StateÐ L œ Ðv.€Jonesóó,€592€S.W.2d€906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979);òò€State€v.€Ermon€C.€Coffeyóó,€1985€Tenn.€Crim.Ð 8 ˆ ÐApp.€LEXIS€2635€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Apr.€3,€1985).€€This€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ð $ t Ðò òÓ  ÓÌIII.€€ADMISSION€OF€BLOOD€ALCOHOL€CONCENTRATIONÐ ü L  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€admission€of€his€bloodÐ Ô$  Ðalcohol€test€results€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€argues€that€he€did€not€voluntarilyÐ À  Ðconsent€to€the€blood€alcohol€test€and€that€the€test€was€administered€when€he€was€ð ðincapable€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðknowingly€consenting,€based€upon€his€injuries.ððÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€administration€of€a€breath€test€for€the€detection€of€a€person's€blood€alcohol€level€is€aÐ pÀ Ðseizure€of€the€person€and€a€search€for€evidence€within€the€purview€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€theÐ \¬ ÐUnited€States€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Humphreysóó,€70€S.W.3d€752,€760€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001)Ð H˜ Ð(citing€òòState€v.€Michael€A.€Janoskyóó,€No.€M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð 4„ ÐSept.€29,€2000))òòóó.€€The€analysis€of€any€warrantless€search€must€begin€with€the€proposition€that€suchÐ  p Ðsearches€are€òòper€se€óóunreasonable€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ  \ ÐArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€subject€only€to€a€few€well-delineated€exceptions.€Ð øH ÐòòóóOne€such€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€includes€exigent€circumstances.€€Based€upon€the€factÐ ä4 Ðthat€evidence€of€blood€alcohol€content€begins€to€diminish€shortly€after€drinking€stops,€a€compulsoryÐ Ð  Ðbreath€or€blood€test,€taken€with€or€without€the€consent€of€the€donor,€falls€within€the€exigentÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€exigent€circumstances€established€by€the€nature€of€the€evidence€in€casesÐ €Ð Ðinvolving€intoxicated€motorists,€the€statutorily€created€implied€consent€of€the€motorist€permits€theÐ l¼ Ðwarrantless€search€of€the€motorist's€breath€or€blood.€€òòóóUnder€the€express€provisions€of€TennesseeÐ X ¨ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€55-10-406,€"[a]ny€person€who€drives€any€motor€vehicle€in€the€state€is€deemed€toÐ D!” Ðhave€given€consent"€to€a€test€for€blood€alcohol€or€drug€content,€provided€that€the€law€enforcementÐ 0"€  Ðofficer€has€"reasonable€grounds€to€believe€such€person€was€driving€under€the€influence€of€anÐ #l! Ðintoxicant€or€drug."€òòóó€Thus,€anyone€who€exercises€the€privilege€of€operating€a€motor€vehicle€in€thisÐ $X" Ðstate€has€consented€in€advance€to€submit€to€an€alcohol€test.€€Indeed,€by€virtue€of€the€provisions€ofÐ ô$D # ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55-10-406(a)(1),€our€legislature€has€declared€that€consent€of€allÐ à%0!$ Ðmotorists€is€implied.€€Therefore,€if€probable€cause€exists€to€believe€that:€(1)€the€suspect€motorist€hasÐ Ì&"% Ðconsumed€intoxicating€liquor;€and€(2)€evidence€of€the€motorist's€intoxication€will€be€found€if€theÐ ¸'#& Ðblood€is€tested,€.€.€.€it€is€unnecessary€for€law€enforcement€officers€to€obtain€the€voluntary€consent€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€individual€motorist€before€administering€a€breath€test€for€alcohol€concentration€level.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAdditionally,€a€motorist's€right€to€refuse€to€submit€to€a€breath€test€under€Tennessee's€impliedÐ ° Ðâ âconsent€law€is€not€a€constitutional€right.€€òòóóRather,€the€State€of€Tennessee,€through€its€enactment€ofÐ œì ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55-10-406(a)(2)€and€(a)(3),€has€adopted€a€policy€position€prohibitingÐ ˆØ Ðlaw€enforcement€officers€from€administering€a€breath€or€blood€alcohol€test€against€the€motorist's€will.€Ð tÄ ÐòòóóInstead,€in€an€effort€to€avoid€potentially€violent€confrontations€between€private€citizens€and€lawÐ `° Ðenforcement€officers,€the€State€has€elected€to€permit€the€motorist€to€refuse€the€test.€€òòóóThe€right€toÐ L œ Ðrefuse€is€not€absolute;€rather,€the€right€to€refuse€will€result€in€suspension€of€the€motorist's€driver'sÐ 8 ˆ Ðoperator's€license,€assuming€appropriate€procedural€protections€are€provided.€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð $ t Ððð€55-10-406(b);€òò€Humphreysóó,€70€S.W.3d€at€761;€òò€Michael€A.€Janoskyóó,€No.€M1999„02574„CCA„R3„Ð  ` ÐCD.€€Indeed,€ðð€55-10-406(a)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€provides:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àAny€law€enforcement€officer€who€requests€that€the€driver€of€a€motor€vehicle€submitÐ Ô$  Ðto€a€test€pursuant€to€this€section€for€the€purpose€of€determining€the€alcoholic€.€.€.Ð À  Ðcontent€of€the€driver's€blood€shall,€prior€to€conducting€such€test,€advise€the€driver€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðrefusal€to€submit€to€such€test€will€result€in€the€suspension€of€the€driver's€operator'sÐ ˜è  Ðlicense€by€the€court.€€The€court€having€jurisdiction€of€the€offense€for€which€suchÐ „Ô  Ðdriver€was€placed€under€arrest€shall€not€have€the€authority€to€suspend€the€license€ofÐ pÀ Ða€driver€who€refused€to€submit€to€the€test€if€such€driver€was€not€advised€of€theÐ \¬ Ðconsequences€of€such€a€refusal.€€ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant,€by€choosing€to€engage€in€the€regulated€activity€of€driving€a€motorÐ  p Ðvehicle,€subjected€himself€to€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55-10-406.€€TheÐ  \ ÐAppellantððs€driving€behavior,€his€slow€responses€to€questioning,€the€odor€of€alcohol€on€his€breath,Ð øH Ðand€the€empty€beer€cans€found€in€and€around€his€vehicle€satisfactorily€formed€the€factual€bases€forÐ ä4 Ðthe€officer's€inference€that€the€blood€test€was€likely€to€reveal€evidence€of€the€offense.€€The€AppellantÐ Ð  Ðpresented€no€evidence€of€his€express€refusal€to€submit€to€the€blood€test.€€To€the€contrary,€DeputyÐ ¼  ÐVerner€testified€that€he€did€receive€the€Appellantððs€verbal€consent€to€administer€the€blood€alcoholÐ ¨ø Ðtest.€€Deputy€Verner€also€informed€the€Appellant€that€he€had€the€right€to€refuse€the€test€but€wouldÐ ”ä Ðlose€his€driverððs€license€for€one€year€if€he€did,€in€fact,€refuse€testing.€€While€Deputy€Verner€did€notÐ €Ð Ðobtain€a€written€consent€from€the€Appellant,€oral€consent€was€given€by€the€Appellant€in€the€presenceÐ l¼ Ðof€lab€technician,€Brenda€Hyde,€who€corroborated€Deputy€Vernerððs€testimony€that€the€consent€wasÐ X ¨ Ðvoluntarily€given.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€which€establishes€that€the€Appellant€was€unableÐ #l! Ðto€refuse€the€test.€€There€was€ample€witness€testimony€that€the€Appellant€was€conscious€and€capableÐ $X" Ðof€understanding€the€events€surrounding€him€after€the€accident.€€Our€law€is€clear€that€the€only€timeÐ ô$D # Ð"the€test€shall€not€be€given"€is€when€the€motorist€"refuses€to€submit"€to€the€test.€€There€is€simply€noÐ à%0!$ Ðproof€that€the€Appellant€refused€to€submit€to€the€testing.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€allowingÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€blood€alcohol€test€results€into€evidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÐ  )à$( Ðò òÓ  ÓIV.€€DISCOVERY€VIOLATIONó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€maintains€that€the€State€violated€Rule€16(a)(1)(A),€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ˆØ ÐCriminal€Procedure,€by€failing€to€provide€in€its€discovery€response€information€about€the€AppellantððsÐ tÄ Ðalleged€verbal€consent€to€blood€alcohol€testing.€€The€Appellant€insists€that€such€admission€wasÐ `° Ðprejudicial€to€him€in€his€preparation€for€trial€because€he€was€unaware€that€a€verbal€consent€allegedlyÐ L œ Ðexisted€and€was€thus€unable€to€interview€other€potential€witnesses€about€emergency€roomÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommunications€or€ask€other€potential€witnesses€about€his€physical€condition€at€the€time€consent€wasÐ $ t Ðallegedly€given.Ð  ` Ѐ€€à  àÐ ü L  Ðà  àRule€16(a)(1)(A),€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€provides€in€relevant€partÐ è 8  Ðas€follows:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àUpon€request€of€a€defendant€the€state€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€and€copyÐ ¬ü  Ðor€photograph:€€òòany€relevant€written€or€recorded€statementsóó€made€by€the€defendant,Ð ˜è  Ðor€copies€thereof,€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€of€the€state,€the€existenceÐ „Ô  Ðof€which€is€known,€or€by€the€exercise€of€due€diligence€may€become€known,€to€theÐ pÀ Ðdistrict€attorney€general;€the€substance€of€any€oral€statement€which€the€state€intendsÐ \¬ Ðto€offer€in€evidence€at€the€trial€made€by€the€defendant€whether€before€or€after€arrestÐ H˜ Ðin€response€to€òòinterrogationsóó€by€any€person€then€known€to€the€defendant€to€be€a€law„Ð 4„ Ðenforcement€officer€.€.€.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A)€(emphasis€added).€€In€his€brief,€the€Appellant€cites€only€to€the€first€partÐ øH Ðof€Rule€16(a)(1)(A),€which€refers€to€the€production€of€€ð ðany€relevant€written€or€recorded€statements.ðð€Ð ä4 ÐAfter€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€however,€we€have€found€no€evidence€that€the€alleged€oralÐ Ð  Ðconsent€given€to€Deputy€Verner€by€the€Appellant€was€ever€reduced€to€writing€or€recorded€in€anyÐ ¼  Ðmanner.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Likewise,€we€find€that€the€Appellant€was€not€in€a€custodial€environment€or€beingÐ ¨ø Ðinterrogated€at€the€time€Deputy€Verner€asked€him€to€consent€to€the€blood€test.€€Thus,€pursuant€toÐ ”ä ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A),€€the€State€had€no€obligation€to€furnish€information€concerning€the€oralÐ €Ð Ðstatement€made€to€Deputy€Verner€in€discovery,€as€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€Appellant€was€subjectÐ l¼ Ðto€questioning€at€the€time€the€consent€was€given.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€Appellant€neverÐ ° Ðobjected€to€the€introduction€of€this€testimony€at€trial€as€being€a€discovery€violation.€€Because€we€findÐ œì Ðno€evidence€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€the€State€has€violated€Rule€16(a)(1)(A)€in€either€respect,Ð ˆØ Ðwe€find€this€issue€to€also€be€without€merit.Ð tÄ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€SCHEDULING€ORDERÐ L œ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àLastly,€the€Appellant€maintains€that€he€was€denied€due€process€because€the€trial€courtððsÐ $ t Ðscheduling€order€did€not€set€aside€a€sufficient€amount€of€time€for€the€Appellant€to€adequately€prepareÐ  ` Ðand€participate€in€his€defense.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€he€was€substantially€prejudicedÐ ü L  Ðwhen€the€trial€court€denied€all€of€his€motions€due€to€late€filing.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAn€indictment€in€this€case€was€returned€on€January€2,€2001.€€On€January€8,€2001,€theÐ À  ÐAppellant€was€arraigned€without€the€benefit€of€counsel.€€At€that€time,€the€Appellant€informed€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€that€he€was€not€indigent€and€planned€to€retain€private€counsel.€€Ultimately,€the€AppellantÐ ˜è  Ðretained€counsel€and,€thereafter,€counsel€made€his€first€court€appearance€on€February€8,€2001.€€AtÐ „Ô  Ðthat€time,€the€trial€court€set€the€Appellantððs€trial€date€for€February€22,€2001.€€Upon€request€by€defenseÐ pÀ Ðcounsel,€a€continuance€was€granted€by€the€trial€court€for€an€ð ðelective€surgeryðð€the€Appellant€wasÐ \¬ Ðscheduled€to€undergo€and€trial€was€reset€for€February€27,€2001.€€Trial€counsel€filed€motions€onÐ H˜ ÐFebruary€20òòthóó€and€21òòstóó.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€Appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€ð ðsummarily€denied€all€motions€withoutÐ  \ Ðhearing,ðð€the€record€indicates€otherwise.€€While€the€trial€court€did€rule€that€the€motions€wereÐ øH Ðuntimely€filed,€the€court€nonetheless€addressed€all€motions€prior€to€trial€and€ultimately€denied€theÐ ä4 Ðrelief€sought.€€€Thus,€the€Appellant€suffered€no€prejudice,€as€each€of€his€motions€were€heard€andÐ Ð  Ðconsidered€by€the€trial€court.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€his€brief,€the€Appellant€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€ð ðroutinely€extends€the€ten€(10)Ð ”ä Ðday€motions€period€of€the€scheduling€order€when€counsel€is€retained€after€arraignment€dateðð€butÐ €Ð Ðfailed€to€do€so€in€this€case.€€€Again,€the€trial€court€addressed€this€concern€prior€to€trial,€stating€that:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  à[T]here€are€references€[in€your€motions]€that€the€Court€usually€gives€ten€days€afterÐ D!” Ðthe€securing€of€counsel€and€things€like€that,€and€I€do€not€know€where€you€got€that.€Ð 0"€  ÐThatððs€simply€not€correct.€€Sometimes€I€will€on€„€itððs€basically€a€case„by„case€basis.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€trial€court€specifically€rejected€the€Appellantððs€assertion€that€it€had€a€set€scheduling€order€and€Ð ô$D # Ðfirmly€stated€that€such€orders€were€determined€on€a€ð ðcase„by„caseðð€basis.€€We€agree€with€the€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€that€the€Appellant€was€not€denied€due€process€or€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€schedulingÐ Ì&"% Ðorder.€€We€find€the€Appellant€had€ample€opportunity€to€file€motions€in€compliance€with€theÐ ¸'#& Ðscheduling€order€and€conclude€that€the€trial€court€was€more€than€accommodating€when€it€addressedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€motions€after€they€were€untimely€filed.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  )à$( Ðò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ ° ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€find€all€issues€raised€by€the€Appellant€to€be€without€merit€andÐ ˆØ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Carroll€County.€Ð tÄ ÐÔ#†XÝ*X X X7œ'#ÔÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  `  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE