ÿWPC:M 4Y½ 0[w y$ªTùŒH×k&™‡‰RÃM6è{йܬvh=-wu‡=–œ‚ûf Ջݪ:oSµú=8¸ðt>…}h€ep/#ŸûÐ5‘2=îùhÃÔä>ÿ®®qqeŠo›ÆºÒœ‘"£Ùí9ÚYíØÂØÆ$¬GlE{eç'…–†Q$Ý3v=Ê_MG×]‹·¶£Õ¢$IL1gD }ìøZ®DZ7øa„tZeŠô7£æYbi¸‰5n©²b2zŠJ¶ö éôÈפ¤²Fàƒ ¨+³§Sµ6ÂÿÊÃI§¨M@ç’¡7Ò«þ[X c$Ò¯¼sê±Ùðõ'':šq`+Rb˜²"Ç!Çë žk6Û}ÀT >AÕquÆ©[M:fÛe£(pBŠý•Š„Ö<ÜÁ¶IUø`ûeÌ—@á%]w:ÈuÁÐý­˜+Y±Ð‡=äµ\jüM‰wV_Ù‡…8ø#nP¸g~ ¡Ð3e²W·x‚²ÅôõØçš­°“øHÛ|ê'¢‘o/Ëë …SQ5fa1”>‘òÛÀ†í±ÞµióŸKŸbvƒV«÷VÈݼ¬£3ë{H_’Ÿ‚¨e´rʰ{b[éÎýü. „ÁÍA‘_Âø%Êâæ4p#Á  %á Nç 0ˆé U Nq 0ô¿ 0ñ³ z¤ Ò zð Òj^ <wHÆLÆÆØÆž4dNxz‰E‹ m 0î¤ 0ë’ 0è} 0åe 0âJ 0ß, 0Ü  0âç 0ßÉ 0ܨ 0Ù„ 0Ö] 0Ó3 0Ð 0ÍÖ 0Ê£ 0ám 0ÞN! 0Û," 0Ø# 0Õß# 0Ò´$b†% 0ÏŽ% 0Ì]& 0É)' 00ò' 0<"( 0¾^( 0>) 0vZ) 0`Ð) 0`0* 0`* 0`ð* 0`P+ 08°+ 0Òè+ 02º, 0üì, 0:è- 0 Y". 0_{. 0 Ú. 0jä/ 0„N1 B*Ò2 D/ü2 0„+3 D/¯4 0ÎÞ4 06¬5 0â5 0:ê6 0^$7 0<‚7 0N¾7U6 8 0ëB8U >-9U*k9•9 B9øº9 0¤²: D5V; D-‹; 0K¸; 0D< ASG<Æš< 0¤`= 0D> A«H> A«ó>Æž? AMd@UN±@ 1ÿ@ 72ŒAb¾A” D 1u´H 72)I)I 0c[I†¾IöDL˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptB~l-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Yo†)bk18n£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€G(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dF)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓF)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier New(|G2p±$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CM»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþeò»»Ôô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial  d îÝ ƒRp±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Our€discussion€of€the€issues€in€this€opinion€is€in€a€different€order€than€presented€in€the€partiesðð€briefs.(|3ÉS$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CM»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÉS$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CM»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKcZ&Draw Object °°=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5X[ZA<< cÿÿ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)f(1) XÝ ƒRp±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defense€elicited€from€Sergeant€Rudder€that€the€police€were€unable€to€connect€the€defendant€with€a€truckÐ ° Ðmatching€the€description€provided€by€Black.€€The€vehicle€in€the€defendantððs€possession€when€he€was€arrested€was€a€blueÐ tÄ Ðpickup€truck,€and€Lyons€owned€a€station€wagon.€€Oddly,€the€police€did€locate€a€green€and€white€truck,€titled€to€a€personÐ 8ˆ Ðwhose€last€name€was€Chism,€but€the€owner€was€not€the€defendant. ŠÝ ƒRp±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€discussed€its€intended€jury€instructions€with€the€parties.€Ð ° ÐConcerning€possible€lesser„included€offenses,€counsel€for€the€defendant€stated€unequivocally€that€the€defendant€did€not€Ð tÄ Ðwant€the€jury€instructed€on€any€lesser„included€offenses.€€The€defendant€on€appeal€has€not€challenged€the€charge€to€theÐ 8ˆ Ðjury,€and€we€perceive€no€infirmity€therewith€in€light€of€the€defendantððs€affirmative€waiver€of€lesser„included€offenseÐ üL Ðinstructions.€€òòSee€State€v.€Elesa€D.€McDanielsóó,€No.€E2000„02790„CCA„R3„CD,€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔslipÔ_Ô€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð À ÐKnoxville,€Nov.€1,€2001).Ó SÓÔ‡XñXòôþeÔÔ‡SXñXXXñÔÐ „Ô Œ ÐÓ  ÓÓÈÓÌÓ SÓÓ  ÓÓÈÓÔ#†XñXXSXñ½#ÔÔ#†ôþeòXXñž#Ô3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ji)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ò & ' ib014r90ib014r9 .    ìÝ ƒRp±$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€òòSeeóó€Post„Conviction€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„401€to€„413€(Supp.€2001).Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CM»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼CM»»»ÔÑ8€ñXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îXœî»¼CMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼CM»îîXœ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€4,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XñX»¼CMÔÌò òÔ#†¼CM»XXñ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ERIC€BERNARD€Ô_ÔCHISMÔ_ÔÔ‡XñX»¼CMÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„446€€€€€€Robert€A.€Page,€Judge€Sitting€by€InterchangeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01287„CCA„R3„CD€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€November€8,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Madison€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant,€Eric€Bernard€Ô_ÔChismÔ_Ô,€of€first„degree€murder,Ð xÈ  Ðespecially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery€in€connection€withÐ d´ Ðthe€abduction€and€homicide€of€Beatrice€Sue€Ô_ÔWestbrooksÔ_Ô.€€The€defendant€received€an€effectiveÐ P  Ðsentence€of€life€plus€25€years.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argues:€(1)€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€wasÐ <Œ Ðviolated;€(2)€the€trial€court€erroneously€severed€his€case€from€that€of€his€co„defendant;€(3)€theÐ (x Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions;€(4)€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€unfairlyÐ d Ðprejudicial€and€inflammatory€photographs;€(5)€the€trial€court€improperly€ruled€that€his€prior€narcoticsÐ P Ðconviction€could€be€used€for€impeachment€should€he€elect€to€testify;€(6)€a€new€trial€should€have€beenÐ ì< Ðgranted€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€but,€at€any€rate,€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trialÐ Ø( Ðshould€have€been€continued€until€the€results€of€additional€forensic€testing€were€available;€and€(7)€theÐ Ä Ðtrial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutive€sentencing.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€weÐ ° Ðaffirm€the€judgments€and€sentencing€of€the€trial€court.Ð œì ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Circuit€Court€are€Affirmed.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.Ô#†¼CM»àXñ¤#ÔÔ‡XñX.¼CMÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ L œ ÐòòJerry€L.€Smith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌC.€Mark€Ô_ÔDonahoeÔ_Ô,€Jackson,€Tennessee€(on€appeal);€and€Scott€G.€Kirk,€Jackson,€Tennessee€(at€trial),Ð #`" Ðfor€the€Appellant,€Eric€Bernard€Ô_ÔChismÔ_Ô.Ð ü#L# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€John€H.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ô%$!% ÐJames€G.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Shaun€A.€Brown,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ À&"& ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓK ÓÌÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼CM»XXñÕ #ÔÔ‡XñX»¼CMÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼CM»XXñƒ#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XñX»¼CMÔà  àà ` àOn€December€17,€1998,€shortly€before€4:00€p.m.,€the€nude€body€of€Beatrice€SueÐ ˆØ ÐWestbrooks€was€found€in€a€grassy€area€off€of€Algie€Neely€Road€in€Madison€County.€€The€policeÐ tÄ Ðwere€summoned,€and€the€assistant€county€coroner€pronounced€Ms.€Westbrooks€dead€at€the€sceneÔPÔ.€Ð `° ÐThe€victimððs€identity€was€unknown€at€the€time.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€following€day,€Dr.€O.C.€Smith,€the€Shelby€County€Medical€Examiner,€performedÐ $ t Ðan€autopsy€and€determined€that€the€cause€of€death€was€multiple€injuries.€€The€victim€had€sustainedÐ  ` Ðfour€€gunshot€wounds€to€the€head€and€upper€body.€€There€were€crushing„type€injuries€involving€theÐ ü L  Ðchest,€abdomen,€and€extremities€that€were€consistent€with€a€vehicle€having€run€over€the€body;€theÐ è 8  Ðvictimððs€upper€arms,€ribs,€and€pelvic€girdle€were€fractured,€and€the€crushing€force€applied€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðabdominal€area€had€split€the€flesh€causing€the€intestines€to€extrude.€€The€body€also€exhibited€signsÐ À  Ðof€strangulation€and€vaginal€penetration.€€The€injuries,€Dr.€Smith€testified,€were€inflictedÐ ¬ü  Ðcontemporaneously€and€while€the€victim€was€still€alive.€€Dr.€Smith€was€unable€to€provide€an€accurateÐ ˜è  Ðestimate€of€the€time€of€death.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€identify€the€victim,€the€Madison€County€Sheriffððs€Department€solicited€help€fromÐ \¬ Ðthe€public.€€A€tip€suggesting€the€victimððs€name€led€investigators€to€dental€records€from€which€Dr.Ð H˜ ÐSmith€identified€the€victim€as€Ms.€Westbrooks.€€Several€weeks€passed,€but€investigators€made€noÐ 4„ Ðfurther€progress€in€the€case.€€The€defendantððs€involvement€in€the€homicide,€which€was€hotlyÐ  p Ðcontested€at€trial,€was€not€suspected€until€March€28,€2000,€at€which€time€an€eyewitness€to€the€crimesÐ  \ Ðidentified€the€defendant€and€Calvin€Lyons€as€the€men€who€kidnapped€and€murdered€Ms.€Westbrooks.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€trial€showed€the€following.€Ð Ð  ÐMadison€County€Sheriffððs€Department€Lieutenant€Donna€Turner,€the€commander€of€the€criminalÐ ¼  Ðinvestigation€division,€and€Sergeant€Tom€Rudder,€the€lead€investigator€on€the€case,€processed€theÐ ¨ø Ðhomicide€scene€for€evidence,€and€they€testified€at€trial€about€what€they€observed€and€found€and€howÐ ”ä Ðthey€determined€the€womanððs€identity.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àSergeant€Rudder€testified€that€the€crime€remained€unsolved€until€March€28,€2000,Ð X ¨ Ðwhen€Sergeant€Rudder€was€contacted€at€his€home€by€Sergeant€Mark€Reeves€with€the€Jackson€PoliceÐ D!” ÐDepartment.€€The€police€department€had€someone€in€custody€who€wanted€to€talk€about€theÐ 0"€  ÐWestbrooks€homicide.€€The€person,€who€was€being€held€in€connection€with€a€stolen€truck,€wasÐ #l! ÐMelanie€Black.€€She€gave€Sergeant€Rudder€a€statement€about€the€homicide€and€identified€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant,€whose€street€name€was€ð ðBernard,ðð€and€Calvin€Lyons,€whose€street€name€was€ð ðJune,ðð€asÐ ô$D # Ðthe€perpetrators.€€Sergeant€Rudder€testified€that€Ms.€Black€was€able€to€supply€details€about€the€crimeÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€could€have€been€known€only€to€someone€who€was€present.€€The€next€day,€March€29,€the€policeÐ Ì&"% Ðlocated€and€arrested€both€men.€€The€defendant€and€Lyons€were€charged€with€premeditated€and€felonyÐ ¸'#& Ðmurder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€time€Westbrooks€was€murdered,€Melanie€Black€was€admittedly€a€prostituteÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€crack€cocaine€drug€user.€€When€she€testified€at€trial,€she€also€was€a€convicted€felon€serving€aÐ h+¸&* Ðthree„year€sentence€for€theft€of€a€truck.€€Black€knew€the€defendant€and€Lyons€before€WestbrooksððÐ ° Ðdeath.€€She€had€purchased€crack€cocaine€from€the€men.€€Black€testified€that€on€December€17,€1998,Ð œì Ðshe€contacted€ð ðJuneðð€Lyons€to€meet€her€at€Fuel€Mart€near€Wilhiteððs€Truck€Stop€to€buy€some€crackÐ ˆØ Ðcocaine.€€The€defendant€and€Lyons€arrived€in€a€pickup€truck,€and€the€three€left€with€Black€sitting€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€middle€of€the€truck€seat.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àBlack€testified€that€at€some€point€during€the€ride€the€defendant€asked€Lyons€if€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpolice€were€behind€them.€€Black€turned€and€in€the€truck€bed€ð ðsaw€somebodyððs€legs€taped€togetherÐ $ t Ðin€a€blanket.ðð€€She€could€not€tell€who€the€person€was.€€The€defendant€ordered€Lyons€to€blindfoldÐ  ` ÐBlack€and€put€her€in€the€floorboard.€€Black€testified€that€she€did€not€know€how€long€or€to€where€theyÐ ü L  Ðdrove.€€When€they€stopped,€they€removed€her€blindfold.€€Black€described€the€area€as€somewhere€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€county€off€the€road.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€Black€remained€in€the€truck,€the€defendant€and€Lyons€removed€the€womanÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€the€bed€of€the€truck€and€took€her€to€the€front€of€the€vehicle.€€Black€did€not€recognize€the€victim.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€woman€was€unclothed,€and€the€men€began€hitting€and€kicking€her.€€After€a€time,€the€men€tookÐ „Ô  ÐBlack€out€of€the€truck.€€They€forced€the€victim€to€perform€oral€sex€on€Black.€€Black€testified€that€theÐ pÀ Ðvictim€was€upset€and€pleading€with€the€men.€€Black€said€that€she€kept€telling€the€victim€that€she€wasÐ \¬ Ðsorry.€€One€of€the€men€hit€Black€in€the€nose,€and€Lyons€told€her€to€get€into€the€truck.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àBlack€testified€that€once€inside€the€truck,€she€saw€the€defendant€grab€the€victim€byÐ  p Ðthe€back€of€the€hair€and€pull€her€to€her€knees.€€The€defendant€drew€a€gun€from€behind€his€back.€Ð  \ ÐBlack€described€what€followed:€ð ðAnd€he€shot€her€somewhere€in€ð!ð€towards€her€head.€€I€donððt€knowÐ øH Ðexactly€where.€€And€I€put€my€head€down,€and€the€gun€went€off€two€more€times.ðð€€Black€testified€thatÐ ä4 Ðshe€did€not€see€the€other€shots€because€she€had€her€head€in€her€hands,€but€she€certainly€heard€them.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àBlack€testified€that,€after€the€shots€were€fired,ÔPRÔÔPÔ€the€men€took€turns€raping€her€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðfront€seat€of€the€truck.€€First,€the€defendant€raped€her€while€Lyons€held€a€gun€to€her€head.€€BlackÐ ”ä Ðadmitted€that€she€did€not€fight,€but€she€testified€that€she€did€not€consent€to€the€sex.€€Afterwards,€theÐ €Ð Ðmen€again€blindfolded€Black€and€put€her€in€the€truck€floorboard.€€They€drove€awhile,€and€Lyons€toldÐ l¼ Ðher€to€get€up€in€the€seat.€€Lyons€undid€the€blindfold,€and€the€defendant€stopped€the€truck€and€wentÐ X ¨ Ðinto€a€store.€€When€the€defendant€returned,€the€men€drove€Black€to€her€apartment€complex€and€letÐ D!” Ðher€out€by€the€soft€drink€machine.€€Black€testified€that€before€driving€off,€the€defendant€told€her€thatÐ 0"€  Ðif€she€ð ðever€said€anything€about€this,€what€happened€to€[her]€would€be€worse.ðð€€The€defendant€alsoÐ #l! Ðthreatened€her€that€she€better€pay€him€that€night€the€money€that€she€owed€him€for€drugs.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àBlack€testified€that€she€ð ðwent€to€workðð€and€earned€the€money.€€Later€that€night,€sheÐ à%0!$ Ðcontacted€Lyons€and€told€him€that€she€had€the€defendantððs€money.€€The€defendant€collected€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðmoney€and€sold€Black€more€crack€cocaine.€€Black€explained€that€she€did€not€report€anything€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpolice€because€she€was€scared.€€After€that€night,€Black€admitted€that€she€ð ðworked€forðð€the€defendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€Lyons€a€few€times.€€The€men€would€take€her€places€to€serve€as€a€prostitute,€collect€the€money,Ð )à$( Ðand€give€her€crack€cocaine.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àBlack€eventually€left€town.€€She€testified€that€she€became€afraid€ð ðsomething€wasÐ ° Ðfixing€to€happenðð€to€her.€€She€and€a€male€friend€left€the€state€in€a€stolen€vehicle.€€They€were€arrestedÐ œì Ðin€the€stolen€vehicle€in€Ohio,€and€Black€was€transported€to€Tennessee.€€After€her€arrest,€Black€told€Ð ˆØ Ðthe€police€about€the€homicide€and€about€her€own€brutal€treatment.€€When€Black€learned€the€victimððsÐ tÄ Ðidentity,€Black€realized€that€she€had€encountered€the€victim€a€ð ðcouple€of€times€in€passing,ðð€includingÐ `° Ðonce€at€a€crack€house€on€Gordon€Street.€€Black€accompanied€Sergeant€Rudder€to€various€locationsÐ L œ Ðto€try€and€identify€where€the€events€occurred,€and€she€estimated€the€time€of€the€events€to€have€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðbetween€1:00€and€2:00€in€the€afternoon,€with€the€men€leaving€her€at€the€apartment€shortly€after€3:00Ð $ t Ðp.m.€€Based€upon€Blackððs€account€of€events,€the€defendant€and€Lyons€were€also€separately€chargedÐ  ` Ðwith€the€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Black€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€Black€insisted€that€she€had€no€agreement€or€ð ðdealðð€in€connection€with€herÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony.€€Predictably,€the€defense€ÔPd*ÔÔPÔvigorously€attacked€her€credibility.€€Regarding€the€stolen€vehicleÐ À  Ðconviction,€the€defense€elicited€that€Black€originally€pleaded€guilty€with€an€agreement€for€a€three„Ð ¬ü  Ðyear,€community€corrections€sentence.€€Black€testified€that€as€part€of€the€agreement€she€was€also€toldÐ ˜è  Ðthat€after€successfully€completing€community€corrections,€the€felony€conviction€would€be€expungedÐ „Ô  Ðfrom€her€record.€€Within€a€couple€of€weeks€of€her€community€corrections€placement,€however,€BlackÐ pÀ Ðwas€arrested€on€drug€charges.€€According€to€Black,€when€she€appeared€in€court€on€the€communityÐ \¬ Ðcorrections€revocation€warrant,€she€entered€a€ð ðnew€pleaðð€to€a€three„year€incarcerative€sentence,Ð H˜ Ðwhich€she€currently€was€serving.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€cross„examination,€Black€stated€that€when€she€called€Lyons€from€Fuel€Mart,€sheÐ  \ Ðasked€only€for€$60€worth€of€cocaine,€although€she€had€earned€several€hundred€dollars€fromÐ øH Ðprostitution€the€previous€evening.€€Black€claimed€that€she€had€been€smoking€crack€cocaine€allÐ ä4 Ðmorning€before€going€to€Fuel€Mart€to€eat,€talk€with€some€truck€drivers,€and€use€the€outsideÐ Ð  Ðtelephone.€€When€the€defendant€and€Lyons€arrived,€Black€described€their€vehicle€as€an€older€modelÐ ¼  Ðgreen€and€white€pickup€truck.׃h×Ý ƒ\#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defense€also€covered€several€inconsistencies€between€Blackððs€trial€testimony€andÐ €Ð Ðother€statements€she€had€given.€€For€example,€in€her€preliminary€hearing€testimony,€Black€said€thatÐ l¼ Ðwhen€she€ð ðturned€around€to€look,€[she]€saw€a€naked€woman€in€the€back€of€the€truck.ðð€€She€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðmention€a€body€wrapped€in€a€blanket€with€legs€taped€together.€€Also,€in€her€previous€statements,Ð D!” ÐBlack€maintained€that€she€never€got€out€of€the€truck,€and€she€never€mentioned€the€men€forcing€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictim€to€perform€oral€sex€on€her.€€At€the€preliminary€hearing,€Black€admitted€that€after€theÐ #l! ÐWestbrooks€slaying,€she€had€consensual€sex€with€the€defendant€on€more€than€one€occasion.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition€to€Blackððs€eyewitness€testimony,€the€state€offered€the€testimony€ofÐ à%0!$ ÐChristopher€Williams,€who€had€pending€charges€for€aggravated€burglary€and€was€incarcerated€in€theÐ Ì&"% ÐMadison€County€jail.€€Williamsðð€prior€criminal€history€included€convictions€for€recklessÐ ° Ðendangerment,€aggravated€assault,€failure€to€appear,€and€attempted€second„degree€murder.€€WilliamsÐ œì Ðtestified€that€he€first€encountered€the€defendant€in€March€2000,€when€he€and€the€defendant€wereÐ ˆØ Ðassigned€to€the€same€cell€block€in€the€jail.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àWilliams€and€the€defendant€had€many€conversations.€€Williams€testified€that€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€admitted€that€he€was€in€jail€for€killing€a€girl,€and€the€defendant€bragged€that€ð ðthe€detectivesÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€everybody€wouldnððt€be€able€to€prove€it€because€she€wasnððt€nothing€but€a€crack€head€and€that€theÐ $ t Ðone€witness€that€the€state€had€was€telling€a€lie€to€cover€her€own€ass.ðð€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àWilliams€testified€that€the€defendant€talked€about€some€of€the€details€of€the€crimes.€Ð è 8  ÐWilliams€said€that€the€defendant€told€him€about€driving€into€a€field€by€a€tree.€€Lyons€held€Black€atÐ Ô$  Ðgunpoint,€and€the€defendant€told€Black,€ð ð[Y]ou€see€what€happens€when€you€donððt€pay,€when€you€runÐ À  Ðoff€and€donððt€do€what€youððre€supposed€to€do.€€Do€you€think€we€playing€at€this€or€do€you€think€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðis€some€kind€of€joke?ðð€€The€defendant€told€Williams€that€at€that€point€Lyons€interrupted,€told€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€to€do€what€he€was€supposed€to€do,€and€said,€ð ðWe€ainððt€got€time€to€be€out€here€messingÐ „Ô  Ðaround.ðð€€Williams€testified€that€the€defendant€said€he€then€shot€the€victim.€€The€defendant€alsoÐ pÀ Ðrelated€that€Lyons€next€shot€the€victim€and€that€the€two€men€beat€and€kicked€the€victim€in€the€crotch.€Ð \¬ ÐAfterwards,€the€men€drove€Black€to€her€apartment.€€According€to€Williams,€the€defendant€neverÐ H˜ Ðexplained€how€he€met€the€victim,€but€the€defendant€said€that€he€met€Black€at€a€strip€place€and€thatÐ 4„ ÐBlack€ð ðstarted€turning€tricksðð€for€the€defendant.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWilliams€explained€that€his€motivation€for€testifying€was€twofold.€€First,€he€wasÐ øH Ðtrying€to€ð ðlighten€the€loadðð€regarding€his€own€criminal€charge.€€Second,€Williams€testified€that€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€callous€remarks€about€the€victim€being€a€ð ðcrack€head€whoreðð€bothered€him€becauseÐ Ð  ÐWilliamsðð€sister€took€drugs€and€easily€could€have€met€a€similar€fate.€€On€cross„examination,Ð ¼  ÐWilliams€admitted€that€Sergeant€Rudder€assured€him€that€if€he€testified,€the€state€would€recommendÐ ¨ø Ðan€incarcerative€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€29€days€on€his€pending€burglary€charge.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€stateððs€case,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€if€the€defendant€testified,Ð l¼ Ðhis€prior€drug€conviction€could€be€used€to€impeach€his€credibility.€€The€defendant€declined€to€testify,Ð X ¨ Ðand€he€did€not€offer€any€proof€in€defense.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€offenses€specific€to€Westbrooks:€Ð #l! Ðpremeditated,€first„degree€murder,€first„degree€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€an€especially€aggravatedÐ $X" Ðkidnapping,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.׃i×Ý ƒ\#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€OnÐ ô$D # Ðthe€remaining€counts€involving€Black,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€not€guilty.€€The€trial€courtÐ ° Ðimposed€an€effective€sentence€of€life€plus€25€years.€€The€defendant€has€timely€appealed€hisÐ œì Ðconvictions€and€sentencing.Ð ˆØ ÐÔP6ÔÔPvÔÓÓÌÔPˆPÔÓœPÓÔPÔò òÓ  ÓI.€€Speedy€Trial€Claimó ó׃W3×Ý ƒ\#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `° ÐÓäPÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€his€convictions€are€infirm€because€his€right€to€a€speedyÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€was€violated.€€From€the€record,€we€discern€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€in€March€1999€inÐ $ t Ðconnection€with€the€homicide€of€Ms.€Westbrooks.€€Following€a€preliminary€hearing,€an€indictmentÐ  ` Ðwas€returned€on€August€2,€1999,€No.€99„526,€charging€premeditated€and€felony€murder,€two€countsÐ ü L  Ðof€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€aggravated€rape.€€On€September€14,€1999,€the€defendant€filed€aÐ è 8  Ðmotion€demanding€a€speedy€trial.Ð Ô$  ÐÓ‚QÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€record€reflects€that€on€January€11,€2000,€the€co„defendant,€Calvin€Lyons,€filedÐ ¬ü  Ða€motion€requesting€that€the€January€24,€2000€trial€date€be€continued€to€allow€adequate€time€for€trialÐ ˜è  Ðpreparation.€€A€consent€order€was€entered€on€January€13,€2000,€continuing€the€case€until€FebruaryÐ „Ô  Ð15,€2000€for€selection€of€a€new€trial€date.€€The€consent€order€was€approved€for€entry€in€writing€byÐ pÀ Ðall€the€parties,€including€the€defendant.€€Ð \¬ ÐÓ)TÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€May€2000,€the€defendant€filed€several€motions,€including€a€motion€to€strike€theÐ 4„ Ðoffense€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€which€was€listed€on€the€cover€of€the€indictment€but€notÐ  p Ðcharged€as€a€separate€count.€€That€motion€also€sought€to€strike€one€of€the€two€aggravated€sexualÐ  \ Ðbattery€charges€as€duplicative.€€The€record€does€not€contain€a€ruling€on€the€motion,€but€on€June€5,Ð øH Ð2000,€a€superseding€indictment€was€returned,€No.€00„446,€charging€premeditated€and€felony€murder,Ð ä4 Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€That€same€date,Ð Ð  Ðthe€defendant€moved€to€consolidate€indictment€No.€99„526€with€indictment€No.€99„527€(the€MelanieÐ ¼  ÐBlack€charges)€and€to€dismiss€both€indictments€on€the€ground€that€he€had€been€denied€a€speedy€trial.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓoVÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àOn€June€29,€2000,€the€defendant€and€Lyons€moved€to€have€their€cases€transferred€byÐ €Ð Ðinterchange€to€another€division.€€The€motion€recited€that€despite€the€trial€judgeððs€ð ðdiligent€effortsððÐ l¼ Ðto€secure€a€trial€date€with€a€substitute€judge,€no€trial€date€had€been€set.€€Evidently,€the€motion€wasÐ X ¨ Ðgranted,€and€on€August€15,€2000,€a€substitute€judge,€sitting€by€interchange,€entered€an€order€denyingÐ D!” Ðthe€motion€to€dismiss€based€on€denial€of€a€speedy€trial.€€In€short€order,€the€new€trial€judge€alsoÐ 0"€  Ðscheduled€all€motions€for€hearing€on€September€5,€entered€an€order€of€òònolleóó€òòprosequióó€dismissingÐ #l! Ðindictment€No.€99„526€and€permitting€the€state€to€proceed€on€superseding€indictment€No.€00„446,Ð $X" Ðtransferred€all€earlier€pleadings€to€indictment€No.€00„446,€consolidated€indictment€No.€00„446€with€Ð ô$D # Ðindictment€No.€99„527€(the€Melanie€Black€charges),€and€scheduled€a€trial€for€September€26,€2000.Ð à%0!$ ÐÓMZÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àAgainst€this€background,€the€defendant€argues€in€rather€conclusory€fashion€that€hisÐ œì Ðspeedy€trial€rights€were€violated€for€which€his€convictions€should€be€dismissed.€€We€disagree.Ð ˆØ ÐÓ»^ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àBy€statute€and€by€federal€and€state€constitutional€guarantees,€an€accused€has€the€rightÐ `° Ðto€a€speedy€trial.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€9;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ L œ Ð40„14„101€(1997).€€ð ðThe€right€to€a€speedy€trial€attaches€at€the€time€of€arrest€or€indictment,€whicheverÐ 8 ˆ Ðcomes€first,€and€continues€until€the€date€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.€1997).€€Ð  ` ÐÓË_ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àFour€factors€are€considered€and€weighed€in€determining€if€the€right€to€a€speedy€trialÐ è 8  Ðhas€been€compromised.€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€four„part€balancing€test€isÐ Ô$  Ðreviewed€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€TheÐ À  Ðfactors€areÔPÑPÔ€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay,€(2)€the€reason€for€the€delay,€(3)€the€assertion€of€the€right€toÐ ¬ü  Ðspeedy€trial,€and€(4)€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant€occasioned€by€the€delay.€€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407Ð ˜è  ÐU.S.€514,€530,€92€S.€Ct.€2182,€2192€(1972);€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„85€(Tenn.€1973).€Ð „Ô  ÐOf€these€factors,€the€most€important€is€prejudice,€and€the€critical€inquiry€concerning€prejudice€ð ðisÐ pÀ Ðthe€impairment€of€the€ability€to€prepare€a€defense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.Ð \¬ ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€€To€activate€the€four„part€inquiry,€the€interval€between€accusation€and€trial€mustÐ H˜ Ðbe€ð ðpresumptively€prejudicial.ðð€€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€651„52,€112€S.€Ct.€2686„Ð 4„ Ð2690€(1992).€€A€delay€approaching€one€year€usually€activates€the€inquiry.€€òòSee€Vickersóó,€985€S.W.2dÐ  p Ðat€5.Ð  \ ÐÓ#bÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àRegarding€the€length€of€delay€factor,€the€defendantððs€trial€in€this€case€commenced€onÐ ä4 ÐSeptember€26,€2000.€€He€was€arrested€at€the€end€of€March€1999;€therefore,€the€delay€betweenÐ Ð  Ðaccusation€and€trial€was€approximately€eighteen€months.€€In€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€673€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.Ð ¼  ÐCrim.€App.€1984),€a€two„year€delay€was€held€insufficient,€without€more,€to€presume€prejudice,€andÐ ¨ø Ðmore€recently€in€òòVickersóó,€a€delay€of€three€years€and€nine€months€was€held€not€to€require€dismissalÐ ”ä Ðfor€lack€of€a€speedy€trial.€€òòVickersóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€7.€€Ð €Ð ÐÓÒgÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àRegarding€the€reason€for€delay€factor,€the€defendant€claims,€without€any€citation€toÐ X ¨ Ðthe€record,€that€ð ðthe€State€was€just€not€ready€to€go€forwardðð€on€May€24,€2000€and€that€the€trial€courtÐ D!” Ðimproperly€continued€the€trial€until€September€26.€€It€appears€to€us€that€there€were€multiple€reasonsÐ 0"€  Ðfor€delay€in€this€case.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àNotwithstanding€the€defendantððs€September€14,€1999€demand€for€a€speedy€trial,€whenÐ ô$D # Ðco„defendant€Lyons€sought€a€continuance€in€January€2000,€the€defendant€acquiesced€in€the€delay,Ð à%0!$ Ðwhich€resulted€in€the€trial€being€continued€until€May€24,€2000.€€As€for€the€May€to€September€periodÐ Ì&"% Ðof€delay,€our€review€is€hampered€because€the€defense€has€not€provided€a€transcript€of€the€May€24,Ð ¸'#& Ð2000€proceeding€wherein€the€trial€was€rescheduled€to€begin€September€26.€€The€pleadings€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecord€suggest€that€the€original€trial€judge€was€unavailable€to€preside,€due€to€illness€in€his€family,Ð )à$( Ðand€that€as€of€May€24€arrangements€had€not€been€finalized€to€secure€a€substitute€trial€judge.€€AnÐ |*Ì%) Ðadditional€reason€appears€in€the€stateððs€written€response€to€the€defendantððs€new€trial€motion.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðstate€explains€that€because€of€a€defect€in€the€original€indictment,€additional€time€was€required€toÐ ° Ðobtain€a€superseding€indictment.€€This€explanation€tracks€the€pleadings€on€appeal€that€show€on€JuneÐ œì Ð5,€2000,€a€superseding€indictment€was€returned.Ð ˆØ ÐÓ§jÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€most€frequently€encountered€reasons€for€delay€are€(1)€intentional€delay€by€theÐ `° Ðstate€òòóóto€gain€a€tactical€advantage€or€harass€the€defendant,€(2)€negligence,€(3)€delay€necessary€toÐ L œ Ðeffectively€prosecute€the€case,€and€(4)€delay€caused€by€or€acquiesced€in€by€the€defendant.€€òòSee€StateÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Woodóó,€924€S.W.2d€342,€346„47€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€first€and€second€reasons€weigh€against€the€stateÐ $ t Ðwith€intentional€delay€carrying€the€greater€weight.€€The€third€reason€is€essentially€neutral,€weighingÐ  ` Ðneither€in€favor€of€nor€against€either€party.€€The€fourth€reason€weighs€against€the€accused.€€In€thisÐ ü L  Ðcase,€we€are€persuaded€that€the€third€and€fourth€reasons€for€the€delay€are€evident;€therefore,€thisÐ è 8  Ðfactor€does€not€support€a€determination€that€the€defendant€was€deprived€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€the€assertion€of€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€the€defendant€first€invoked€theÐ ¬ü  Ðright€in€September€1999,€approximately€six€months€after€his€arrest.€€Less€than€four€months€afterÐ ˜è  Ðdemanding€a€speedy€trial,€however,€the€defendant€acquiesced€in€a€continuance€requested€by€his€co„Ð „Ô  Ðdefendant.€€Another€demand€for€speedy€trial€was€not€forthcoming€until€June€2000.€€This€factor€favorsÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendant,€but€it€is€entitled€to€slight€weight.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€final€consideration,€the€prejudice€factor,€does€not€avail€the€defendant.€€Typically,Ð 4„ Ðan€accused€will€argue€prejudice€by€citing€factors€such€as€the€death€of€a€key€principal€witness€priorÐ  p Ðto€trial€or€the€clouded€memory€of€witnesses€because€of€the€elapsed€time.€€In€this€case,€the€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðonly€arguments€are€that€had€his€case€been€tried€earlier,€his€jail€mate,€Christopher€Williams,€wouldÐ øH Ðnot€have€testified€and€that€he€and€Lyons€would€have€been€jointly€tried.€€This€argument,€in€ourÐ ä4 Ðopinion,€is€inadequate€to€make€an€affirmative€showing€that€the€delay€impaired€the€defendantððs€abilityÐ Ð  Ðto€prepare€a€defense.€€In€addition,€we€note€that€the€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€of€the€offensesÐ ¼  Ðinvolving€Black.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€balance,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€deprived€of€his€rightÐ €Ð Ðto€speedy€trial,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motions€to€dismiss€the€prosecution€on€thatÐ l¼ Ðbasis.Ð X ¨ ÐÓgqÓòòÌò òÓ  ÓóóII.€€Severanceó ó€ò òof€Defendantsó óÐ 0"€  ÐÓ8|ÓÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€take€up€the€defendantððs€complaint€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€grantedÐ  $\" Ða€severance€of€defendants.€Ð ø$H # ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€for€severance€of€defendants€is€a€matter€that€restsÐ Ð& "% Ðwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€court€will€not€disturb€the€trial€court's€rulingÐ ¼' #& Ðabsent€a€clear€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨(ø#' Ð1988).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€14€addresses€severance€of€defendants€and€providesÐ ”)ä$( Ðin€pertinent€part€that€the€trial€court€Ð €*Ð%) ÐÓE}ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÐ l+¼&* ÐÓ”ÓÓ °ÓÓ °Óon€motion€of€the€State€or€on€motion€of€the€defendant€other€than€underÐ ° Ðsubdivision€(c)(1),€shall€grant€a€severance€of€defendants€if:Ð œì ÐÌà ¸ à(i)€before€trial,€it€is€deemed€necessary€to€protect€a€defendant'sÐ tÄ Ðright€to€a€speedy€trial€or€it€is€deemed€appropriate€to€promote€a€fairÐ `° Ðdetermination€of€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€one€or€more€defendants;€orÐ L œ ÐÌà ¸ à(ii)€during€trial,€with€consent€of€the€defendant€to€be€severed,Ð $ t Ðit€is€deemed€necessary€to€achieve€a€fair€determination€of€the€guilt€orÐ  ` Ðinnocence€of€one€or€more€defendants.€€Ð ü L  ÐÓˆÓÓ °ßÓÓ °ÑÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(c)(2).Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àMost€severance„of„defendants€issues€come€before€this€court€in€the€form€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðcomplaint€by€a€defendant€that€reversible€error€resulted€from€being€jointly€tried€with€a€co„defendant.€Ð ˜è  ÐIn€this€case,€however,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€was€unduly€prejudiced€because€the€trial€courtÐ „Ô  Ðòògrantedóó€a€severance€of€defendants.€€Ð pÀ ÐÓ ƒÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€was€confronted€with€a€classic€òòBrutonóó€problem.€€òòSee€BrutonÐ H˜ Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€88€S.€Ct.€1620€(1968)€(admission€of€co„defendantððs€confession€thatÐ 4„ Ðimplicated€defendant€in€joint€trial€constituted€prejudicial€error).òò€€óóThe€record€reflects€that€on€theÐ  p Ðmorning€of€trial,€the€state€filed€a€motion€to€sever€defendants€because€it€intended€at€trial€to€introduceÐ  \ Ðstatements€that€the€defendant€allegedly€made€while€in€pretrial€custody€to€another€inmate€whichÐ øH Ðinculpated€both€the€defendant€and€Calvin€Lyons.€€In€response€to€the€severance€motion,€Lyons€arguedÐ ä4 Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€either€exclude€the€inmateððs€testimony€or€redact€the€portion€of€the€statementÐ Ð  Ðthat€mentions€Lyonsðð€involvement€in€the€offenses.€€The€state€countered,€and€the€trial€court€agreed,Ð ¼  Ðthat€the€prosecution€could€not€fairly€present€its€case€if€all€references€to€Lyons€were€deleted.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðreferences€to€Lyons,€the€state€explained,€supplied€invaluable€evidence€that€corroborated€theÐ ”ä Ðtestimony€of€the€eyewitness,€Melanie€Black.€€The€only€objection€to€severance€voiced€by€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€was€that€the€stateððs€motion€was€untimely.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€insists€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€severance€because€itÐ D!” Ðforced€his€attorney€ð ðto€go€forward€without€being€properly€prepared€for€trial€on€his€own€due€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðjoint€defense€preparation.ðð€€Our€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€after€the€trial€court€granted€theÐ #l! Ðseverance,€Lyonsðð€counsel€interrupted€to€request€a€few€additional€minutes€before€the€jury€wasÐ $X" Ðbrought€in€to€ð ðprepðð€the€defendantððs€attorney€about€areas€of€witness€examination€that€the€defendantððsÐ ô$D # Ðattorney€had€not€been€involved€in€developing.€€The€defendantððs€attorney€added€a€request€for€the€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourtððs€ð ðpatience€on€that€because€weððre€at€somewhat€of€a€disadvantage€until€we€can€sit€down€and€goÐ Ì&"% Ðover€some€notes€and€get€some€documents€straightened€out€and€stuff.ðð€€The€trial€court€stated€that€itÐ ¸'#& Ðwould€ð ðwork€withðð€defense€counsel,€and€the€trial€court€suggested€taking€a€long€lunch€break€so€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðattorneys€could€confer.€€The€defendant€never€objected€to€the€trial€courtððs€proposal,€and€he€requestedÐ )à$( Ðneither€additional€time€nor€a€continuance.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àPreparing€for€trial€can€be€a€time„intensive€undertaking.€€When€the€workload€has€beenÐ ° Ðdivided€between€or€among€counsel€for€co„defendants,€we€appreciate€that€an€eleventh„hour€severanceÐ œì Ðof€defendants€could€pose€a€considerable€hardship€for€the€defendant€whose€case€proceeds€asÐ ˆØ Ðscheduled.€€In€our€opinion,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€exhibited€an€appropriate€sensitivity€to€thatÐ tÄ Ðpotential€prejudice,€and€the€defendant€has€neither€alleged€nor€demonstrated€any€specific€hardshipÐ `° Ðfrom€which€we€could€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€courtððs€decision€to€sever€the€defendantððs€and€Lyonsðð€cases.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓÒ„Óò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ  ` ÐÓä’ÓÓ€ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€insists€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions.€€HeÐ è 8  Ðclaims€that€his€acquittal€on€the€charges€involving€Black€is€inconsistent€with€the€guilty€verdicts€forÐ Ô$  Ðthe€offenses€related€to€Westbrooks.€€He€also€argues€that€the€stateððs€evidence€is€ð ðsuspectðð€asÐ À  Ðillustrated€by€the€juryððs€rejection€of€Blackððs€testimony€about€her€own€treatment€at€the€hands€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant.€€The€thrust€of€the€defendantððs€sufficiency„of„the„evidence€argument€is€that€the€evidenceÐ ˜è  Ðdid€not€establish€that€he€was€a€perpetrator€of€the€crimes.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àFirst,€consistency€in€verdicts€for€multiple„count€indictments€is€not€required.€òò€See,€e.g.,Ð \¬ ÐWiggins€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2d€92,€93„94€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Gennoeóó,€851€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1992).€€Consequently,€the€juryððs€not€guilty€verdicts€on€the€offenses€concerning€BlackÐ 4„ Ðprovide€no€basis€to€attack€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€on€the€counts€namingÐ  p ÐWestbrooks€as€the€victim.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àSecond,€the€alleged€ð ðsuspectðð€nature€of€the€stateððs€evidence€is€not€an€appropriateÐ ä4 Ðsubject€for€our€evidence€sufficiency€review.€€A€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accreditsÐ Ð  Ðthe€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€theÐ ¼  Ðstate.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842,€843Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€Ð ”ä Ðall€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumptionÐ l¼ Ðof€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€1973);€òòAnglin€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€defendant€hasÐ D!” Ðthe€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð 0"€  ÐMost€significantly,€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€anÐ #l! Ðappellate€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ $X" Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€act€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÐ ô$D # Ðreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13;€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2782Ð à%0!$ Ð(1979).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àApplying€these€principles,€it€is€obvious€that€the€state€introduced€evidence€that,€whenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaccepted€and€accredited€by€the€jury,€established€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offenses€of€first„Ð )à$( Ðdegree€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThe€defendantððs€argument€about€the€stateððs€ð ðsuspectðð€evidence€is€nothing€more€than€an€assault€on€Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€credibility€of€Melanie€Black.€€We€cannot,€under€the€circumstances,€usurp€the€juryððs€responsibilityÐ ° Ðand€power€to€accept€some,€all,€or€none€of€a€witnessððs€account€of€events.€€The€trial,€not€the€appeal,Ð œì Ðis€the€threshing€arena€for€winnowing€out€the€chaff€from€the€sometimes€jumbled€mass€of€evidence.€Ð ˆØ ÐBecause€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€verdicts,€we€reject€the€defendantððs€argument.Ð tÄ ÐÝ‚AÿÝòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÌÓ9“Óò òÓ  ÓóóÔÿÔIV.€€Admissibility€of€Photographsòòó óÐ L œ ÐÓ+£ÓÔPÔò òÌÓ  Óóóà  àà ` àó óThe€defendant€claims€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€trial€court€permittedÐ $ t Ðthe€state€to€introduce€unfairly€prejudicial€and€inflammatory€photographs.€€Specifically,€the€defendantÐ  ` Ðobjects€to€eighteen€photographs€introduced€as€collective€Exhibit€2;€these€photographs€were€taken€atÐ ü L  Ðthe€crime€scene,€and€most€of€them€depict,€from€various€angles€and€lighting€conditions,€the€victimððsÐ è 8  Ðbody.€€The€defendant€also€objects€to€four€photographs€introduced€as€collective€Exhibit€3,€which€Ð Ô$  Ðshow€the€boot€and€tire€impressions€on€the€ground€at€the€scene.€€These€photographs€do€not€show€theÐ À  Ðvictimððs€body.€€The€last€set€of€objected„to€photographs€are€seventeen€autopsy€photographs€introducedÐ ¬ü  Ðas€collective€Exhibit€6.€€The€defendant€argues€in€conclusory€fashion€that€the€photographs€wereÐ ˜è  Ðunnecessary,€cumulative€of€other€evidence€presented,€and€inflammatory.€€He€offers€no€individualizedÐ „Ô  Ðargument€pertaining€to€specific€photographs.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€apply€a€familiar€standard€of€review.€€In€determining€whether€a€photograph€shouldÐ H˜ Ðbe€admitted,€the€trial€court€must€determine,€first,€whether€the€photograph€is€relevant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.òòÐ 4„ Ðóó401;€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Photographs€are€not€necessarily€renderedÐ  p Ðinadmissible€because€they€are€cumulative€of€other€evidence€or€because€descriptive€words€could€beÐ  \ Ðused.€€òòSee€Collins€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€179,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Photographs€must€beÐ øH Ðrelevant€to€prove€some€part€of€the€prosecution's€case€and€must€not€be€admitted€solely€to€inflame€theÐ ä4 Ðjury€and€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951;€òòsee€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€403Ð Ð  Ð(relevant€evidence€may€be€admitted€if€its€probative€value€is€not€"substantially€outweighed€by€theÐ ¼  Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice").€€On€appeal,€the€trial€court's€decision€to€admit€a€photographic€exhibit€isÐ ¨ø Ðreviewable€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€with€respect€to€the€photographs.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€see€no€basis€to€question€the€admissibility€of€the€boot€and€tire€impressionÐ D!” Ðphotographs.€€Second,€as€for€the€autopsy€and€crime„scene€photographs,€the€record€reflects€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðtrial€court€was€appropriately€sensitive€to€their€shock€value;€indeed,€the€trial€court€excluded€some€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€photographs€that€the€state€sought€to€introduce€and€encouraged€the€state€to€eliminate€as€manyÐ $X" Ðpictures€as€possible.òòÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àóóAdmittedly,€the€photographs€in€this€case€are€gruesome.€€The€victim,€however,€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðsubjected€to€a€mind„numbing€array€of€violent€assaults.€€She€was€stripped€naked,€viciously€kicked€andÐ ¸'#& Ðbeaten,€shot€multiple€times,€strangled,€and€crushed€by€a€force€ð!ð€probably€a€vehicle€ð!ð€powerfulÐ ¤(ô#' Ðenough€to€fracture€her€face,€both€arms,€and€four€ribs€and€to€split€the€skin€along€the€abdomen€causingÐ )à$( Ðher€intestines€to€extrude.€€The€victim€had€not€been€dead€long€when€the€photographs€at€the€scene€wereÐ |*Ì%) Ðtaken,€and€the€body€had€not€started€to€decompose.€€Photographs€of€a€corpse€are€ð ðadmissible€inÐ h+¸&* Ðmurder€prosecutions€if€they€are€relevant€to€the€issues€on€trial,€notwithstanding€their€gruesome€andÐ ° Ðhorrifying€character.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€950„51.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€state€had€the€burden€with€respect€to€the€first€count€of€the€indictmentÐ tÄ Ðto€show€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€committed€premeditated,€first„degree€murder.€Ð `° ÐThe€existence€of€premeditation€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€determine€and€may€be€inferredÐ L œ Ðfrom€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Rosaóó,€996€S.W.2d€833,€837€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 8 ˆ ÐApp.€1999).€€The€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€the€particular€cruelty€of€theÐ $ t Ðkilling,€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim,€evidence€of€a€procurement€ofÐ  ` Ða€weapon,€€preparations€before€the€killing€for€concealment€of€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediatelyÐ ü L  Ðafter€the€killing€may€support€the€existence€of€premeditation.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€The€trial€court,€in€our€opinion,€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€determining€that€theseÐ Ô$  Ðphotographs€were€probative€of€premeditation€and€that€their€probative€value€was€not€substantiallyÐ À  Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€particularly€regards€the€autopsy€photographs,€our€review€of€the€record€also€shows€Ð „Ô  Ðthat€during€a€jury„out€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€those€pictures,€the€defendant€waived€objectionÐ pÀ Ðto€all€except€one€photograph€of€the€victimððs€genital€area.€€That€photograph€was€relevant€because€theÐ \¬ Ðfourth€count€of€the€indictment€charged€aggravated€rape,€and€the€state€had€the€burden€ofÐ H˜ Ðdemonstrating€that€sexual€penetration€had€occurred.€€The€photograph,€in€conjunction€with€Dr.Ð 4„ ÐSmithððs€testimony€and€the€testimony€of€Melanie€Black,€supported€the€stateððs€theory€that€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€kicked€the€victim€with€sufficient€force€in€the€groin€area€to€penetrate€and€injure€the€victimððsÐ  \ Ðgenitals.Ð øH ÐÌÔP–£ÔÔPÔà  àà ` àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€the€photographs€Ð Ð  Ðin€this€case.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓª£Óò òÓ  ÓV.€€Defendantððs€Prior€Convictionsó óÐ ”ä ÐÓ¼ÓÓÓÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€ruled€that€his€priorÐ l¼ Ðnarcotics€conviction€could€be€used€for€impeachment€should€he€testify.€€Following€this€ruling,€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant€did€not€take€the€stand.Ð D!” ÐÌÓ×¼ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àSubject€to€certain€conditions€for€admissibility,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609Ð #l! Ðauthorizes€the€use€of€proof€of€a€witness's€prior€convictions€in€order€to€attack€a€witness's€credibility.€Ð $X" ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a).€€The€prior€conviction€must€be€for€a€felony€or€a€crime€involving€dishonestyÐ ô$D # Ðor€false€statement.€€òòIdóó.€609(a)(2).€€To€be€eligible€as€an€impeaching€conviction,€a€prior€felonyÐ à%0!$ Ðconviction€need€not€involve€dishonesty.€€òòId.óóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€criminal€defendant,€the€state€must€giveÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnotice€prior€to€trial€of€its€intent€to€utilize€the€conviction€for€impeachment€purposes,€òòidóó.€609(a)(3),€andÐ )à$( Ðupon€request,€the€court€must€determine€the€admissibility€of€an€eligible€conviction€by€decidingÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhether€"the€conviction's€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€theÐ h+¸&* Ðsubstantive€issues,"€òòid.óó€€In€making€this€determination,€"two€criteria€are€especially€relevant."€€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€674€(Tenn.€1999).€€First,€the€court€must€"analyze€the€relevance€theÐ œì Ðimpeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility"€and€"explain€[the€relevance]€on€the€record,"Ð ˆØ Ðòòidóó.,€and€second,€it€must,€"assess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlyingÐ tÄ Ðthe€impeaching€conviction,"€òòidóó.€(quoting€Neil€Cohen€et€al.,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€609.9,€atÐ `° Ð376€(3d€ed.1995)).Ð L œ ÐÓ"¾ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àOn€appellate€review,€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€admissibility€of€prior€convictions€forÐ $ t Ðimpeachment€purposes€are€subject€to€reversal€only€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòMixonóó,€983€S.W.2dÐ  ` Ðat€674.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ÷ÄÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€prior€conviction€at€issue€in€this€case€was€for€possession€of€cocaine€with€intentÐ Ô$  Ðto€resell.€€The€offense€date€was€April€13,€1990,€and€the€defendant€was€sentenced€on€February€25,Ð À  Ð1992€to€a€term€of€eight€years€in€confinement.€€This€conviction€fell€well€within€the€ten„year€timeÐ ¬ü  Ðperiod€beyond€which€impeachment€use€of€prior€convictions€becomes€less€favored.€€Prior€felony€drugÐ ˜è  Ðconvictions€can€qualify€as€being€relevant€and€probative€of€an€accusedððs€credibility.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð „Ô  ÐDooleyóó,€29€S.W.3d€542,€554€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).òòóóÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€the€similarity€between€the€crimes€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€theÐ H˜ Ðimpeaching€conviction,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€took€into€account€the€defense€argument€that€drugÐ 4„ Ðdealing€was€entwined€with€the€offenses€on€trial,€but€it€concluded€that€the€offenses€on€trial€wereÐ  p Ðcrimes€of€violence€not€similar€to€the€drug€involvement€underlying€the€prior€conviction.€€As€forÐ  \ Ðrelevance€to€the€issue€of€credibility,€the€trial€court€observed€that€drug€convictions€reflect€on€moralÐ øH Ðcharacter€and€are€not€without€probative€value€as€to€credibility.€€On€balance,€the€trial€court€wasÐ ä4 Ðconvinced€that€the€conviction's€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighed€any€unfair€prejudicialÐ Ð  Ðeffect€on€the€substantive€issues€in€this€case.€€We€conclude€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion.Ð ¼  Ðà  à¹Ó  Óò òÔP·»ÔVI.€€Newly€Discovered€Evidenceó óÐ ”ä ÐÓÈÌÓÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€jury€found€him€guilty€of€the€Westbrooks€offenses,€the€defendant€petitionedÐ l¼ Ðthe€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€€One€of€the€grounds€for€seeking€relief€was€newly€discovered€evidence.€Ð X ¨ ÐSpecifically,€the€defendant€claimed€that€after€his€trial,€he€encountered€a€jail€inmate,€Eric€Logan,€whoÐ D!” Ðwas€a€cousin€of€stateððs€witness€Christopher€Williams.€€The€defendant€submitted€an€affidavit€byÐ 0"€  ÐLogan€to€the€effect€that€Logan€and€Williams€had€a€conversation€in€July€2000€wherein€WilliamsÐ #l! Ðrelated€that€he€had€discovered€a€way€to€get€out€of€jail€by€testifying€against€the€defendant.€€TheÐ $X" Ðdefendant€also€submitted€an€affidavit€by€Larry€Willis€who€stated€that€Melanie€Black€had€confidedÐ ô$D # Ðin€him€that€she€was€directly€involved€in€Westbrooksðð€murder€and€that€in€exchange€for€ð ðmoney€andÐ à%0!$ Ðdopeðð€she€had€lured€Westbrooks€to€a€ð ðpre„disclosedðð€location.€€Willisðð€affidavit€did€not€name€theÐ Ì&"% Ðother€responsible€parties.€€Last,€in€an€amendment€to€his€new€trial€motion,€the€defendant€asserted€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðwhen€the€motion€is€heard€he€will€present€testimony€from€Elizabeth€Estes€who€will€say€that€MelanieÐ ¤(ô#' ÐBlack€solicited€her€to€corroborate€Blackððs€testimony€and€ð ðgo€along€with€this€story.ððÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€new€trial€motion.€€The€defense€presentedÐ ° Ðâ âno€live€testimony.€€Instead,€the€defendant€relied€on€the€affidavits€of€Logan€and€Willis,€and€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€represented€to€the€court€that€Estes€was€eluding€process€and€that€more€time€would€beÐ ˆØ Ðneeded€to€locate€her.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Ô‡eXñXXXñÔ€The€defendant€complains€thatÐ tÄ Ðhis€motion€was€heard€prematurely€and€that€it€was€erroneously€denied.Ð `° ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€seeking€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€there€must€be€a€showingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€defendant€and€defense€counsel€exercised€reasonable€diligence€in€attempting€to€discover€theÐ $ t Ðevidence€and€that€they€did€not€know€of€the€alleged€newly€discovered€evidence€prior€to€trial.€€òòSeeÐ  ` ÐState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737€(Tenn.€1994).€€Moreover,€the€materiality€of€the€new€evidenceÐ ü L  Ðmust€be€demonstrated,€and€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether€the€result€of€the€trial€would€likelyÐ è 8  Ðhave€been€changed€if€the€evidence€had€been€produced€and€accepted€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,Ð Ô$  Ð656€S.W.2d€355,€358„59€(Tenn.€1983).€€On€appellate€review,€we€will€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ À  Ðon€a€motion€for€new€trial€based€upon€newly€discovered€evidence€only€if€the€lower€court€abused€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€395€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Meadeóó,€942€S.W.2d€561,Ð ˜è  Ð565€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÓlÕÓÌÔ#†XñXXeXñµÔ#ÔÔ‡eXñXXXñÔÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€not€met€the€burdenÐ \¬ Ðrequired€to€receive€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€€The€trial€court€stated€thatÐ H˜ Ðthe€impeaching€evidence€reflected€in€the€affidavits€submitted€by€the€defendant€would€not€haveÐ 4„ Ðchanged€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€We€agree.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Logan€and€Willis€affidavits€are€not€relevant€to€the€substantive€merits€of€theÐ øH Ðoffenses.€€Neither€affidavit€exonerates€the€defendant.€€The€materiality€of€the€affidavits€relates,€if€atÐ ä4 Ðall,€to€the€credibility€of€Black€and€Williams€as€prosecution€witnesses.€€Willis,€for€instance,€in€hisÐ Ð  Ðaffidavit€does€not€name€the€men€who€allegedly€enlisted€Blackððs€help.€€Blackððs€alleged€involvementÐ ¼  Ðdoes€not€exclude€the€defendantððs€participation€in€the€offenses.€€The€defendant€claims€that€BlackððsÐ ¨ø Ðparticipation€makes€her€an€accessory€to€the€crimes,€thereby€requiring€the€state€to€corroborate€herÐ ”ä Ðtestimony.€€Even€so,€there€is€evidence€in€this€record€that€suffices€for€that€purpose.€€WilliamsððÐ €Ð Ðtestimony€corroborated€Blackððs€account€of€the€events.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àLoganððs€affidavit€suggests€that€Williams€had€a€motive€to€testify€falsely€against€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€to€gain€early€release€from€custody.€€Williams,€however,€admitted€at€trial€that€one€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðreasons€he€agreed€to€testify€was€to€ð ðlighten€the€loadðð€regarding€his€own€criminal€charge.€€In€our€view,Ð #l! ÐLoganððs€affidavit€was€merely€cumulative€of€testimony€already€elicited€at€trial€that€brought€intoÐ $X" Ðquestion€Williamsðð€credibility.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€not€at€all€convinced€of€the€likelihood€of€a€different€result€had€this€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðbeen€produced€and€accepted€by€the€jury.€€We€further€note€that€to€justify€the€granting€of€a€new€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðon€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€impeachment€evidence,€ð ðit€must€be€shown€that€the€testimony€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwitness€sought€to€be€impeached€was€so€important€to€the€issue€and€the€impeaching€evidence€was€soÐ )à$( Ðstrong€and€convincing€that€a€different€result€at€trial€òòmust€necessarily€followóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€543,€550€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(emphasis€added).€€The€evidence€that€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðsubmitted€in€this€case€was€not€of€such€a€character€and,€therefore,€was€not€a€sufficient€basis€for€theÐ ° Ðgrant€of€a€new€trial.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€connection€with€his€pursuit€of€a€new€trial,€the€defendant€is€aggrieved€that€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðcourt€would€not€continue€the€hearing€on€his€motion€pending€the€results€of€a€forensic€comparison€ofÐ `° Ðhair€samples€collected€from€the€victimððs€body€with€blood€samples€obtained€from€the€victim,€Black,Ð L œ ÐLyons,€and€the€defendant.€€Evidently,€during€the€autopsy€of€the€victimððs€body,€hair€samples€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðretrieved€but€not€submitted€for€testing.€€After€the€defendant€was€convicted,€the€state€filed€a€motionÐ $ t Ðto€continue€Lyonsðð€trial€to€allow€time€for€the€evidence€to€be€tested.€€A€copy€of€the€stateððs€continuanceÐ  ` Ðmotion€was€filed€as€an€exhibit€by€the€defendant€at€the€hearing€on€his€new€trial€motion.€€The€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt€declined€to€continue€the€new€trial€hearing€inasmuch€as€the€hearing€had€been€delayed€twiceÐ è 8  Ðbefore€at€the€defendantððs€request.€€The€trial€court€also€observed€that€the€defense€had€other€avenuesÐ Ô$  Ðto€raise€the€results€of€new€scientific€evidence€should€they€prove€helpful€to€the€defendant.׃o×Ý ƒ\#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€brief€to€this€court,€the€defendant€makes€various€factual€assertions€about€theÐ ˜è  Ðresults€of€the€tests€and€how€the€results€affected€the€co„defendantððs€prosecution.€€We€decline€to€acceptÐ „Ô  Ðor€consider€these€unsupported€assertions€because€counselððs€appellate€recitations€of€fact€andÐ pÀ Ðarguments€are€not€evidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€450€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð \¬ Ð1988).€€The€result€is€that,€on€appeal,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ H˜ Ðdenying€a€continuance€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.Ð 4„ ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†XñXXeXñ/Ú#ÔÔ‡eXñXXXñÔÌÓNÚÓò òÓ  ÓVII.€€Consecutive€SentencingÐ  \ ÐÓ¡íÓÓÓÓÌà  àà ` àó óThe€defendantððs€final€complaint€is€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€excessive€andÐ ä4 Ðunfairly€punitive€in€his€case.€€The€trial€court€found€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€warranted€on€theÐ Ð  Ðgrounds€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€and€that€he€was€on€probation€at€the€time€heÐ ¼  Ðcommitted€the€instant€offenses.€€The€trial€court€imposed€25„year€sentences€for€the€especiallyÐ ¨ø Ðaggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€rape€convictions€and€a€twelve„year€sentence€for€theÐ ”ä Ðaggravated€sexual€battery€conviction;€these€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€to€eachÐ €Ð Ðother€but€consecutively€to€the€life€sentence€for€first„degree€murder.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÐ D!” Ðis€incumbent€on€this€court€to€review€the€record€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ 0"€  Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€This€presumption€isÐ #l! Ðð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ $X" Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # Ð1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€theÐ à%0!$ Ðevent€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðsentence€if€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€€If€appellate€review,€however,€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âconsidered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourt€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àWhen€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€multiple€offenses,€the€trial€court€must€determineÐ tÄ Ðif€the€sentences€shall€be€served€consecutively€or€concurrently.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€(1997).€Ð `° ÐConsecutive€sentencing€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€upon€a€determination€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€offender€meets€at€least€one€of€the€following€criteria:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ€ f(¦Ù83jÓÓ °ÓÓ °Ó(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowinglyÐ  ` Ðdevoted€such€defendantððs€life€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€ofÐ ü L  Ðlivelihood;Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ °ÆøÓÓ °¸øÓÔ#†XñXXeXñní#ÔÔ‡SXñXXXñÔÓ °ÓÓ °Ó(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÐ À  Ðextensive;Ð ¬ü  ÐÌ(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€soÐ „Ô  Ðdeclared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€.€.€.€;Ð pÀ ÐÌ(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicatesÐ H˜ Ðlittle€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committingÐ 4„ Ða€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high;Ð  p ÐÌ(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÐ øH Ðinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€.€.€.€;Ð ä4 ÐÌ(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÐ ¼  Ðprobation;€orÐ ¨ø ÐÌ(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ °úÓÓ ° úÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1)„(7)€(1997).€€In€addition€to€these€criteria,€consecutive€sentencingÐ X ¨ Ðis€subject€to€the€general€sentencing€principles€providing€that€the€length€of€a€sentence€should€beÐ D!” Ðð ðjustly€deserved€in€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseðð€and€ð ðno€greater€than€that€deserved€forÐ 0"€  Ðthe€offense€committed.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ðððð€40„35„102(1),€„103(2)€(1997);€òòsee€State€v.€Imfeldóó,€70€S.W.3d€698,Ð #l! Ð708€(Tenn.€2002).€€Moreover,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937„38€(Tenn.€1995),€theÐ $X" Ðsupreme€court€articulated€two€additional€requirements€for€consecutive€sentencing€under€theÐ ô$D # Ðdangerous€offender€category;€the€trial€court€must€find€consecutive€sentences€are€reasonably€relatedÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminalÐ Ì&"% Ðconduct.€€òòSee€Imfeldóó,€70€S.W.3d€at€708€(need€for€the€additional€òòWilkersonóó€findings€arises€in€partÐ ¸'#& Ðbecause€ð ðdangerous€offenderðð€category€ð ðis€the€most€subjective€and€hardest€to€applyðð).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóNo€evidence€was€presented€at€the€defendantððs€sentencing€hearing,€and€neither€the€stateÐ |*Ì%) Ðnor€the€defendant€registered€any€objections€to€the€presentence€investigation€report.€€At€the€hearing,Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€defendant€conceded€that€he€committed€the€instant€offenses€while€on€probation€for€a€previousÐ ° Ðfelony€offense.€€As€for€the€defendantððs€status€as€a€ð ðdangerous€offender,ðð€the€trial€court€madeÐ œì Ðparticularized€findings.€€The€trial€court€catalogued€the€brutal€injuries€to€the€victim,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðdemonstrated€that€the€defendant€had€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committingÐ tÄ Ða€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€The€trial€court€stated,€ð ðThese€are€some€of€the€mostÐ `° Ðatrocious,€cruel€offenses€Iððve€seen€since€Iððve€been€sitting€in€this€position,ðð€from€which€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðconcluded€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€necessary€to€protect€the€public€and€reasonably€related€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€severity€of€the€offenses.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€our€opinion,€the€record€and€the€defendantððs€concession€of€his€probationary€status€Ð ü L  Ðat€the€time€of€the€Westbrooks€offenses€provide€ample€support€for€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÐ è 8  Ðsentencing,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€rulings.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€and€for€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€we€affirm€the€judgments€andÐ ¬ü  Ðsentencing€of€the€trial€court.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†XñXXSXñêù#ÔÓîíÓÔ‡SXñXXXñÔÌÔ#†XñXXSXñ@ #ÔòòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóóòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóŽóòŽòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóŽóòŽòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóŽóòŽòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóŽóòŽòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóŽóòŽòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽòÝ‚AÿÿÿÝóŽóòŽòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝòŽòòŽò