ÿWPC O\ä7}ã`8,ö÷ÜÕå;P´bߦý‹7Ž·¶à`óVF¼ƒÈLÔ™NwÕ­U͸÷²ù(†ßïÃá*æ]fÇ ¶Ø8§¡Ôk,Ù ñísüÔk[‹ø·J¦âH¢ì‹e!Á2h ª7Ëa|ï2Úî CÕ ˜ævN87˶RŠ¿Â,ºýqˆOˆN¼Я^¾q¤ktiô¿c‡IuNÄØ ò‰màêýëAª7WõÿžáÕb­ðF/©ûÜw¬b„/x^€Ç¼¶ª­ü@EyG·ÏÍIá>fŸ6›ûÙ(¾S]ñ²ÒþýìŠèy™I“µC€pZÜÃ"Ã;ÒT—5ÈÇfm@ø åm³èФ‘]S• 6W_y™‡¨;6ÁòEGÿÒI™(çiž Ü×hóî²èí±¸!©ãyß G]M)3=@Š{ý`J>K!—Êí‘å“©w)×Ω³`´ÐͶÈOjqct f(4E¸ï:îѪˆXrБXŸÏ®#†ö"¬…Âl&2R+Aˆæ¡›ò¨åÒ[­–üG½ ÿ"¦LG¬ˆdÙFÕÅÑd­{ÍÑëEÁœo¦8̘Ü™µ5"t—c%)Ùο£­oQ&b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[ »ctŠ+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular‰Q‡+ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2O®$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ì»»d XXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôlpò»»Ô d(|3IR$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ì»»d XXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IR$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ì»»d XXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼ o»» »ÔÑ8€jXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡ îî» ¼ oÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† ¼ o»î î #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€11,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡ XLcX» ¼ oÔÌò òÔ#† ¼ o»X XLc!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€RONALD€COXÔ‡ XLcX» ¼ oÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„02650€and€„02770€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02238„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€29,€2001Ð ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Ronald€Cox,€was€found€guilty€of€robbery€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Shelby€CountyÐ ŒÜ  ÐCriminal€Court.€€In€this€appeal,€he€raises€three€issues:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÐ xÈ  Ðsupport€his€conviction;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€request€to€instruct€the€jury€onÐ d´ Ðthe€lesser„included€offense€of€theft;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€answers€to€questionsÐ P  Ðsubmitted€to€the€trial€court€during€jury€deliberations.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€the€firstÐ <Œ Ðand€third€issues.€€However,€under€the€recent€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€decision€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBowlesÔ_Ôóó,Ð (x Ð52€S.W.3d€69€(Tenn.€2001),€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€failing€toÐ d Ðinclude€the€lesser„included€offense€of€theft€in€the€charge€to€the€jury.€€Therefore,€we€reverseÐ P ÐDefendantððs€conviction€and€remand€€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð ì< ÐÓšÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;Ð Ä ÐJudgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed€and€Remanded€for€New€Trial.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼ o»à XLc‡#ÔÔ‡ XLcX. ¼ oÔThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,óó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ô#† ¼ o»X XLcÀ #ÔÔ‡ XLcX» ¼ oÔÐ tÄ ÐÌCharles€E.€Ô_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ronald€Cox.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€John€H.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Amy€Ô_ÔWeirichÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÔ#† ¼ o»X XLcà #ÔÔ‡ XLcX» ¼ oÔÌÓ‘ Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#† ¼ o»X XLc #ÔÔ‡ XLcX» ¼ oÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#† ¼ o»X XLcx #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XLcX» ¼ oÔò òà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundó óˆÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àRobert€Ô_ÔLandshofÔ_Ô,€the€victim€in€this€case,€is€the€owner€of€Real€Furniture€Gallery,€a€retail€store,Ð „)Ô$) Ðlocated€on€Summer€Avenue€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€At€approximately€6:00€p.m.€on€September€3,Ð p*À%* Ð1998,€Ô_ÔLandshofÔ_Ô€was€working€at€the€store€by€himself€when€he€observed€Defendant€and€another€manÐ \+¬&+ Ðenter€the€store€and€begin€to€look€around€in€a€ð ðsuspiciousðð€manner.€€Ô_ÔLandshofÔ_Ô€asked€the€men€whetherÐ H,˜', Ðthey€needed€help,€and€they€replied€that€they€ð ðjust€wanted€to€look€around.ðð€€After€a€while,€DefendantÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôand€his€accomplice€(who€was€never€identified€at€trial)€went€outside€the€store€to€a€covered€patio€areaÐ ° Ðwhere€certain€items,€including€nine„by„six€foot€oriental€rugs,€were€displayed€for€sale.Ð œì ÐÌà  àAs€Landshof€watched,€the€two€men€each€began€to€roll€up€separate€rugs€(worth€five€hundredÐ tÄ Ðdollars€each),€which€they€had€taken€from€the€display€rack.€€He€went€outside€to€confront€DefendantÐ `° Ðand€his€accomplice.€€Landshof€carried€a€small€piece€of€furniture€in€his€hand€and€asked€the€men€ð ðwhatÐ L œ Ðthey€thought€they€were€doing.ðð€€A€hostile€verbal€exchange€followed,€during€which€Defendant€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€other€man€said€ð ðF„„„€youðð€to€Landshof.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àLandshof€instructed€the€men€to€drop€the€rugs.€€He€grabbed€the€end€of€the€rug€being€handledÐ ü L  Ðby€Defendant€(meanwhile,€dropping€the€piece€of€furniture€in€his€hand),€but€was€unsuccessful€in€hisÐ è 8  Ðstruggle€to€gain€control€of€the€rug€and€threw€it€onto€the€ground.€€Defendant€then€pushed€Landshof,Ð Ô$  Ðattempting€to€knock€him€down.€€Undeterred,€Landshof€moved€to€the€opposite€side€of€the€display€rackÐ À  Ðwhere€Defendantððs€accomplice€was€still€trying€to€roll€up€the€other€rug.€€The€accomplice€struckÐ ¬ü  ÐLandshof€on€the€side€of€his€head€and€Defendant€approached€him€again,€trying€to€knock€him€out€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€way.€€Landshof€became€stuck€between€the€two€men,€struggling€for€control€of€a€rug,€and€being€Ð „Ô  Ðð ðknocked€back€and€forth.ðð€€At€this€point,€Landshof€dropped€the€rug€and€ran€back€into€the€store,Ð pÀ Ðyelling€ð ðIððm€going€to€call€the€police.ðð€€Landshof€suffered€a€swollen€ear€as€a€result€of€the€altercation,Ð \¬ Ðwhich€took€place€just€outside€the€front€door€of€his€business.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€entire€front€portion€of€the€store€is€a€plate€glass€window,€and€Landshof€was€able€toÐ  p Ðobserve€Defendant€and€his€accomplice€while€he€reached€to€use€the€telephone.€€The€men€initiallyÐ  \ Ðstarted€to€leave€when€Landshof€dropped€the€rug,€but€then€turned€around€to€retrieve€both€rugs€just€asÐ øH ÐLandshof€dialed€ð ð911.ðð€€Landshof€dropped€the€telephone€before€anyone€answered,€and€he€pursuedÐ ä4 Ðthe€men.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€men€took€the€rugs€to€a€Chevrolet€Blazer€(driven€by€a€woman€who€was€also€notÐ ¨ø Ðidentified),€and€got€into€the€car€with€them.€€As€the€Blazer€crossed€the€parking€area,€both€of€the€backÐ ”ä Ðdoors€to€the€vehicle€were€still€open€and€both€ends€of€the€rugs€were€sticking€out.€€By€the€time€theÐ €Ð ÐBlazer€pulled€onto€Summer€Avenue,€the€perpetrators€had€folded€the€rugs€to€fit€inside€the€Blazer.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àLandshof€got€into€his€vehicle€and€began€chasing€the€Blazer.€€Part€of€the€chase€occurred€onÐ D!” ÐI„240.€€During€the€chase,€first€one€rug,€then€the€other,€was€thrown€out€of€the€Blazer.€€Eventually,€theÐ 0"€  ÐBlazer€left€the€interstate€and€drove€into€a€residential€area,€where€it€stopped.€€Landshof€stopped€hisÐ #l! Ðvehicle€about€fifty€feet€behind€the€Blazer.€€One€of€the€men€jumped€out€and€began€approachingÐ $X" ÐLandshof,€who€quickly€threw€a€can€of€green€paint€toward€him.€€Paint€was€splattered€on€the€road€andÐ ô$D # Ðthe€Blazer.€€The€man€returned€to€the€Blazer,€and€the€chase€continued€until€Landshof€pulled€up€besideÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€vehicle€containing€Defendant.€€Suddenly,€the€Blazer€veered€into€Landshofððs€vehicle,€which€toreÐ Ì&"% Ðoff€the€right€front€fender€and€blew€the€right€front€tire,€temporarily€disabling€it.€€The€Blazer€got€away.€Ð ¸'#& ÐLandshof€changed€the€flat€tire€and€returned€to€his€store.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àDuring€the€chase,€Landshof€was€able€to€view€Defendant€sitting€in€the€back€seat€of€the€Blazer,Ð |*Ì%) Ðon€the€driverððs€side,€and€he€obtained€the€Blazerððs€registration€tag€number.€€Defendant€had€rented€theÐ h+¸&* ÐBlazer€from€Alamo€Car€Rental.€€Landshof€identified€Defendant€at€trial.€€He€also€identified€DefendantÐ ° Ðfrom€a€photographic€lineup€shown€to€him€by€the€police€on€the€day€after€the€crime.Ð œì ÐÌò òà@‚‚&ìàAnalysisˆÐ tÄ ÐÌI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ L œ ÐÌà  àDefendantððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€based€upon€his€assertions€that€theÐ $ t ÐState€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€taking€of€the€rugs€was€done€by€violenceÐ  ` Ðpreceding€the€act€or€contemporaneous€thereto.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„401€defines€robbery€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowingÐ Ô$  Ðtheft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€TheÐ À  Ðindictment€in€this€case€alleged€that€Defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully,€knowingly,€and€by€violence,€obtainÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€the€person€of€ROBERT€LANDSHOF,€oriental€rugs€.€.€.€.ððÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Owensóó,€20€S.W.3d€634€(Tenn.€2000),€our€supreme€court€held€that€ð ðthe€use€ofÐ pÀ Ðviolence€or€fear€òòmust€precedeóó€or€be€contemporaneous€with€the€taking€of€property€from€the€personÐ \¬ Ðto€constitute€the€offense€of€robbery€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€641€(emphasis€added).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDefendant€cites€òòOwensóó€as€authority€that€the€proof€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€Ð  p ÐIn€òòOwensóó,€the€defendant€entered€a€retail€store,€took€an€article€of€clothing,€and€left€the€store€withoutÐ  \ Ðpaying€for€it.€€A€supervisor€and€a€security€guard€began€to€chase€the€defendant.€€When€the€defendantÐ øH Ðwas€about€to€be€caught€by€the€supervisor,€the€defendant€dropped€the€clothing€onto€the€ground,€pulledÐ ä4 Ðout€a€box€cutter,€and€walked€away.€€The€supreme€court€reversed€the€conviction€for€robbery€andÐ Ð  Ðmodified€the€judgment€to€show€a€conviction€for€theft,€because€the€violence€used€by€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðdid€not€precede,€nor€was€it€contemporaneous€with,€the€taking€of€the€clothing.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThis€situation€is€not€analogous€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€where€the€violence€clearly€did€not€occurÐ €Ð Ðòòafteróó€the€taking€of€the€property.€€Landshof€was€struck,€pushed,€and€ð ðknocked€back€and€forthðð€byÐ l¼ ÐDefendant€and€his€accomplice€prior€to€and€contemporaneously€with€the€taking€of€the€rugs.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€argues€that€the€actions€of€Defendant€and€his€accomplice€did€not€constituteÐ 0"€  Ðð ðviolence.ðð€€In€òòState€v.€Fitzóó,€19€S.W.3d€213€(Tenn.€2000),€our€supreme€court€defined€ð ðviolenceðð€(asÐ #l! Ðthat€term€is€used€in€the€statute€defining€robbery)€as€ð ðphysical€force€unlawfully€exercised€so€as€toÐ $X" Ðdamage,€injure€or€abuse.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€217.€€Clearly,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€prove€beyond€aÐ ô$D # Ðreasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€ð ðviolence.ðð€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌò òII.€€Lesser„Included€Offenseó óÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€declining€to€charge€theftÐ )à$( Ðas€a€lesser„included€offense€of€robbery.€€Based€upon€the€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Bowlesóó,€52€S.W.3dÐ |*Ì%) Ð69€(Tenn.€2001),€we€agree.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAfter€noting€that€theft€is€unquestionably€a€lesser„included€offense€of€robbery,€the€supremeÐ ° Ðcourt€in€òòBowlesóó€stated€that€the€issue€to€be€resolved€related€toÐ œì ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òthe€second€inquiry€of€the€[òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999)]€analysis,Ð tÄ Ðwhether€the€evidence,€viewed€liberally€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€a€finding€of€theÐ `° Ðlesser„included€offense,€is€such€that€reasonable€minds€could€find€the€lesser„includedÐ L œ Ðoffense,€and€whether€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðlesser„included€offense.Ð $ t ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòBowlesóó,€52€S.W.3d€at€79„80€(citing€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€held€in€òòBowlesóó€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðconviction€of€robbery.€€The€Court€reasoned€that,€since€theft€must€be€proven€in€order€to€sustain€aÐ À  Ðconviction€for€robbery,€the€State€necessarily€proved€theft.€€After€concluding€that€the€defendant€needÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€ð ðdemonstrate€a€rational€basis€for€acquittal€on€the€robbery€charge€before€theft€could€be€submittedÐ ˜è  Ðto€the€jury€as€a€lesser„included€offense,ðð€òòid.óó€at€80,€the€court€held€that€a€defendant€in€such€cases€mustÐ „Ô  Ðòòmerelyóó€ð ðdemonstrate€that€evidence€òòalso€existsóó€which€òòrationalóó€minds€could€accept€as€to€the€offenseÐ pÀ Ðof€theft.ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€òòBowlesóó,€the€following€proof€supported€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€robbery€of€ThomasÐ 4„ ÐDobbs€(the€victim€in€that€case):Ð  p ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Ò(1)€after€entering€Dobbsðð€home,€the€defendant€went€into€Dobbsðð€bedroom€and€slungÐ øH ÐDobbsðð€wife€(who€had€just€entered€the€room)€onto€the€floor€of€an€adjoining€bedroom;Ð ä4 ÐÌ(2)€the€defendant€then€attempted€to€rape€Dobbsðð€wife;Ð ¼  ÐÌ(3)€Dobbs€suffered€from€severe€emphysema€and€was€unable€to€walk€withoutÐ ”ä Ðassistance„„he€was€in€his€bed€when€the€defendant€entered€his€bedroom;Ð €Ð ÐÌ(4)€the€defendant€swept€his€arm€across€the€top€of€a€chest€of€drawers€and€knocked€offÐ X ¨ Ða€clock,€some€pictures,€and€the€top€of€Dobbsðð€breathing€machine;Ð D!” ÐÌ(6)€the€defendant€then€picked€up€a€pair€of€pants€which€were€lying€on€Dobbsðð€bed,Ð #l! Ðtook€out€a€billfold,€and€left€through€the€back€door.Ð $X" ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòSee€id.óó€at€72.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWe€have€thoroughly€set€forth€the€facts€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€Based€upon€the€ruling€inÐ ¸'#& ÐòòBowlesóó,€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€charging€the€lesser„included€offense€of€theft.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐEvidence€does€exist€in€this€case€which€rational€minds€could€accept€as€to€the€offense€of€theft.€€Also,Ð )à$( Ðas€in€òòBowlesóó,€the€jury€in€the€instant€case€did€not€have€the€opportunity€to€consider€an€ð ðintermediateððÐ |*Ì%) Ðlesser„included€offense.€€Only€robbery€was€charged€to€the€jury.€€The€error€was€therefore€reversibleÐ h+¸&* Ðerror,€requiring€us€to€reverse€the€conviction€for€robbery€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€We€alsoÐ ° Ðobserve€that,€under€òòBowlesóó,€all€appropriate€lesser„included€grades€of€theft€(not€to€be€confused€withÐ œì Ðthe€now€disregarded€ð ðlesser€gradeðð€offenses€discussed€in€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1996))€should€be€charged€by€the€trial€court€at€the€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105Ð tÄ Ð(1997).€€Ð `° ÐÌò òIII.€€Supplemental€Instructions€to€the€Juryó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àDefendant€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€also€erred€in€its€answer€to€questions€posed€byÐ  ` Ðthe€jury€after€deliberations€had€begun.€€However,€Defendant€made€no€objection€at€the€time€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt€answered€the€juryððs€questions.€€Moreover,€this€precise€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€motion€forÐ è 8  Ðnew€trial,€although€Defendant€included€in€the€motion€factual€allegations€that€the€jury€had€questionsÐ Ô$  Ðduring€deliberations€and€that€the€trial€court€answered€the€questions.Ð À  ÐÌà  àFailure€to€object€results€in€waiver€of€the€issue€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòseeóó€òòStateÐ ˜è  Ðv.€Thompsonóó,€36€S.W.3d€102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€Likewise,€failure€to€specifically€include€theÐ „Ô  Ðissue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€results€in€waiver.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€410€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òà@  %ìàConclusionó óˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àDefendant€waived€any€issue€regarding€the€trial€courtððs€response€to€the€juryððs€questions€duringÐ  \ Ðdeliberations.€€The€evidence€was€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction€for€robbery.€€However,Ð øH Ðthe€evidence,€by€necessity,€was€therefore€also€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€of€theft.€Ð ä4 ÐEvidence€exists€which€rational€minds€could€accept€as€to€the€offense€of€theft.€€The€jury€was€given€aÐ Ð  Ðcharge€only€as€to€robbery,€without€the€option€to€consider€any€lesser„included€offenses.€€Therefore,Ð ¼  Ðthe€trial€court€committed€reversible€error.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed,Ð ¨ø Ðand€this€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð ”ä ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE