ÿWPCÜA Pf£`C™ÛáóZˆï¥n\AЦM½‰Ò[ÀBæ$TÈGZ8·ÚU…ÙßuJ øhr\1ICHNÛŠp]jþh=¾a^ësÉoh»‚N²*§;ðµÞÅÕ´_L=~ޝêÚ,õÉàê:†”äë¹Ršš–æ<#k,Ó2E€þÚàÞ„¥ö×I¨v‹iWí.ºà-ðen¥²ÕšA3õ(O£Ù2y7 —%O裖‚°Ô†ª3S°Ý`1•Lx'¬DNˆ–ŸQôX±ºjÄë%êÀ >³ŽÉËp4êµ ý¬§N¶~ËáÏ 0Okg×? r½á‡«5ËK g®HfÝ«û®[וּ£!vµ_ø(©Ò9¬_ãx ÓØ¡¿†¢17¬=ù™aE?Ӗ΄›O \îüî[ó›‰Th[!jfEöó§ÿ% ¢-žIµEÍŠÝbÌ8lg›oóè]ÑÌr(§ÓÃy–¡lÅDc c³ÿ>PyKSR$3®%ñºüŸ 0ÂË 0Î 0°[! 0ª " 0¤µ" 0žY#b÷# 0˜ÿ# 0’—$ 0Š)% 0²³% 0¾e& 0¾#' 0>á' 0ø( 0â) 0âù) 0âÛ* 0â½+ 0âŸ, 0º- 0Ò;. 02 / 0ü?/ 0:;0 0Yu0 0_Î0 0 -1 0‚72 0¹3 B*¿5 D/é5 06 D/8 0ÎM8 069 0Q9 0:Y: 0^“: 0<ñ: 1e-;U6’; 0ëÈ;U>³<U*ñ< 1u= B= 72­= 0¤ß= D5ƒ> D-¸> 0Kå>å> AS0?ƃ? 0¤I@ 0Dí@ A«1A»¢’Y1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.ê:i¢×+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˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 BaumgartnerPostonAslingera]bouttouchingsMoyersGrissomTennisonMcNabbEngumavoidantpedophiliaBinetteMintonHackermanTalleyGrapel etalT.C.A.arguendopretermitted OdomTroxellHuddlestonFarettaNorthingtonHerrodShropshire BultBlackstockMackeyLeming"characterologicPettus t]hepresentencee]vidence a]nyArnettImfeldGosnellAFFIANTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó- ù-(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€G(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d dF)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓF)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Sô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô !"#$%& ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier New(|G2÷$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾ò»»Ôô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) dUi)(|3?b$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?b$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€FÅXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÈ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ »îîÈ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àJune€15,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XFÅX»¼ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ »XXFÅ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TIMOTHY€WADE€DAVISòòóóÔ‡XFÅX»¼ Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€69067€€€€€€Richard€Baumgartner,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02162„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€25,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Timothy€Wade€Davis,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€four€counts€of€rape€of€a€child€andÐ xÈ  Ðone€count€of€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor.€€Sentences€of€twenty„two€years€wereÐ d´ Ðimposed€for€each€child€rape€conviction€and€ten€years€for€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor.€Ð P  ÐThree€of€the€child€rape€convictions€and€the€especially€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor€wereÐ <Œ Ðordered€to€run€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€seventy„six€years€at€100%.€€The€defendantÐ (x Ðappeals€his€convictions€and€sentencing€and€alleges€that€theûÿÿÿdû€trial€court€üÿÿÿdüerred€in€the€following€respects:Ð d Ð(1)€in€failing€to€suppress€the€search€warrant€and€the€defendantððs€statements;€(2)€by€denying€theÐ P Ðdefendant€the€right€to€represent€himself;€(3)€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€insanity;€(4)€in€findingÐ ì< Ðthe€defendant€competent€to€stand€trial;€and€(5)€in€regard€to€sentencing.€€After€review€of€the€issuesÐ Ø( Ðpresented€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€conclude€that€no€reversible€error€was€present€and€affirm€theÐ Ä Ðconvictions€and€sentencing.Ð ° ÐÓ§ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ »àXFÅ#ÔÔ‡XFÅX.¼ ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,Ð `° Ðjoined.òò€Joseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,€óófiled€a€separate€concurring€opinion.Ô#†¼ »XXFÅS #ÔÔ‡XFÅX»¼ ÔÐ L œ ÐÌBruce€Poston,€Knoxville,€Tennessee;€Mark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender;€and€JohnÐ $"t! ÐHalstead,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€for€the€appellant,€Timothy€Wade€Davis.Ð #`" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Aslinger,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð è$8 $ ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Leland€Price,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð Ô%$!% Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð À&"& ÐÓ$ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ »XXFÅš #ÔÔ‡XFÅX»¼ ÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ »XXFÅ8#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XFÅX»¼ ÔÓ XÓThe€defendant,€Timothy€Wade€Davis,€was€indicted€in€an€eight„count€indictment.€€Counts€oneÐ p*À%* Ðthrough€six€were€for€rape€of€a€child,€a€Class€A€felony;€count€seven€charged€especially€aggravatedÐ \+¬&+ Ðsexual€exploitation€of€a€minor,€a€Class€B€felony;€and€count€eight€charged€exhibition€of€harmfulÐ H,˜', Ðmaterials€to€minors,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismissÐ 4-„(-ýÿ ÐÔ_Ôin€two€counts€of€rape€of€a€child€and€ordered€the€defendantððs€acquittal€on€count€eight,€exhibition€ofÐ ° Ðharmful€materials€to€minors.€€A€jury€returned€guilty€verdicts€on€all€remaining€charges.Ð œì ÐÐ ˆØ ÐThe€defendant€was€sentenced€to€twenty„two€years€on€each€of€the€four€child€rape€convictionsÐ tÄ Ðand€ten€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor.€€Three€of€the€child€rapeÐ `° Ðconvictions€were€ordered€to€run€consecutively,€as€was€the€especially€aggravated€sexual€exploitationÐ L œ Ðof€a€minor,€for€a€total€effective€sentence€of€seventy„six€years€at€100%.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÐ $ t ÐThe€defendant€appeals€his€convictions€and€sentencing€and€presents€five€issues€for€review:Ð  ` ÐÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à1)à044Ð 4Ð àThe€validity€of€the€search€warrant€issued€for€the€defendantððs€residence€and€theÐ ü L  Ðfailure€to€suppress€the€defendantððs€statements€as€fruits€of€an€invalid€search;Ðè 8 4Ð 4Ð  Ð2)à0 4 àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€request€to€representÐ Ô$  Ðhimself;€ÐÀ 4Ð 4Ð  Ð3)à0 4 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€definition€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðinsanity;€Ð˜è 4Ð 4Ð  Ð4)à0 4 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€standÐ „Ô  Ðtrial;€and€ÐpÀ4Ð 4Ð  Ð5)à0 4 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant.Ð\¬4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ X2ÓÓ X$ÓÓ XÓÓ( °œX”,È’Xò(ÓÐ H˜ Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓFactsó óÐ 4„ ÐÓÓÓ XùÓÐ  p ÐThis€case€concerns€sexual€abuse€of€a€very€young€female€victim€by€a€trusted€adult€friend€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€victimððs€parents.€€The€victimððs€mother€testified€that€the€defendant€had€been€a€friend€of€theirÐ øH Ðfamily€for€over€twenty€years.€€She€said€the€defendant€was€a€regular€visitor€in€their€home€on€weekendsÐ ä4 Ðand€once€had€gone€on€vacation€with€the€family.€€Her€daughter,€the€victim€herein,€was€bornÐ Ð  ÐSeptember€28,€1990.€€The€defendant€had€built€a€swing€for€the€victim€and€would€engage€in€playingÐ ¼  Ðball€and€other€playful€activities€with€the€victim.€€After€the€victim€entered€the€first€grade,€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€began€taking€the€victim€to€Fountain€City€Park€with€the€permission€of€the€victimððs€parents.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€visits€to€the€park€occurred€on€numerous€unspecified€dates€between€May€of€1997€and€June€ofÐ €Ð Ð1999.Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐThe€defendant€had€lived€with€his€parents€until€mid„1998,€when€he€acquired€his€own€homeÐ D!” Ðin€Halls.€€The€victimððs€mother€learned€in€May€of€1999€that€the€defendant€had€been€taking€the€victimÐ 0"€  Ðto€his€home.€€These€visits€had€not€been€with€the€permission€of€the€victimððs€parents.€€During€the€lastÐ #l! Ðweek€in€June€of€1999,€the€victim€made€statements€to€her€mother€of€possible€sexual€abuse€by€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant.€€The€mother€reported€the€allegations€to€the€Knoxville€Police,€and€she€was€referred€to€aÐ ô$D # Ðcounselor€at€Childhelp€USA.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% ÐOn€cross„examination,€the€victimððs€mother€stated€that€the€defendant€did€chores€for€her€family,Ð ¸'#& Ðsuch€as€cutting€the€lawn.€€She€admitted€that€she€and€her€husband€contacted€a€civil€lawyer€beforeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmeeting€with€DCS€or€the€police.€€She€stated€that€she€and€the€victim€provided€information€to€theÐ )à$( Ðpolice€that€was€used€to€obtain€a€search€warrant€for€the€defendantððs€home.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐThe€victim€was€twelve€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€€She€testified€she€was€six€or€seven€whenÐ ° Ðthe€defendant€began€touching€her€private€parts.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€exposed€his€penis€toÐ œì Ðher€while€at€the€defendantððs€residence.€€She€said€the€defendant€attempted€to€penetrate€her€ð ðfrontÐ ˆØ Ðprivateðð€with€his€penis€and€did€so€to€the€length€of€her€fingernail.€€The€defendant€desisted€when€sheÐ tÄ Ðtold€him€it€hurt.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€also€attempted€penile€penetration€of€her€ð ðbackÐ `° Ðprivate,ðð€as€well€as€placing€his€penis€in€her€mouth.€€These€occurrences€happened€ð ð[a]bout€everyÐ L œ Ðweekendðð€according€to€the€victim.€€The€victim€recounted€one€incident€at€her€house€when€she€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€were€alone.€€The€defendant€had€her€pull€down€her€pants€and€press€her€rear€to€the€window,Ð $ t Ðexposing€her€to€drive„by€traffic.€€The€defendant€had€his€pants€down€then€but€the€victim€could€notÐ  ` Ðrecall€whether€he€touched€her€on€this€occasion.€€She€described€another€occasion€when€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðhad€her€get€into€a€filled€bathtub€while€he€rubbed€his€penis€until€he€ejaculated€in€the€sink.€€She€couldÐ è 8  Ðnot€recall€whether€any€touchings€occurred€on€that€date.€€The€defendant€also€showed€the€victimÐ Ô$  Ðmagazines€with€ð ðnaked€people.ðð€€She€said€the€defendant€kept€the€magazines€in€a€big€box€under€hisÐ À  Ðtool€bench.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€showed€her€movies€of€people€having€sex.€€The€victimÐ ¬ü  Ðrelated€that€the€defendant€had€a€Polaroid€camera€that€they€used€to€photograph€each€other€naked€andÐ ˜è  Ðsometimes€touching€each€other,€with€his€penis€in€her€mouth€and€on€her€ð ðfront€private.ðð€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€kept€these€pictures€in€a€shoe€box€in€a€night€stand€by€his€bed.Ð pÀ ÐÐ \¬ ÐOn€cross„examination,€the€victim€said€she€believed€that€pictures€were€taken€at€the€defendantððsÐ H˜ Ðhouse€ð ðanytime€something€was€done.ðð€€She€recalled€being€able€to€tell€the€investigators€the€exactÐ 4„ Ðnumber€of€pictures€kept€in€the€shoe€box.€€She€did€not€recall€the€number€of€occasions€pictures€wereÐ  p Ðtaken.€€She€denied€that€the€defendant€ever€hit€her.Ð  \ ÐÐ øH ÐDetective€Perry€Moyers€with€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€he€wasÐ ä4 Ðassigned€to€assist€with€the€search€of€the€defendantððs€home€on€July€14,€1999.€€He€participated€in€theÐ Ð  Ðsearch€and€was€responsible€for€finding€a€box€of€ð ðpornographic€magazines.ðð€€The€defendant€had€beenÐ ¼  Ðtaken€into€custody€prior€to€the€search€and€was€handcuffed€in€a€squad€car€parked€outside€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendantððs€home.€€Moyers€was€asked€to€question€the€defendant€while€the€search€continued.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€indicated€he€would€make€a€statement€and€was€transported€to€the€sheriffððs€department.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€was€presented€a€written€òòMirandaóó€waiver€of€rights€form€and€signed€it€at€12:13€a.m.€on€JulyÐ l¼ Ð15,€1999.€€The€defendant€objected€to€tape€recording€his€statement,€and€it€was€not€recorded.€€Moyersðð€Ð X ¨ Ðpartner,€Lieutenant€Grissom,€made€notes€from€the€defendantððs€statements.€€The€defendant€claimedÐ D!” Ðhis€ð ðinvolvementðð€with€the€victim€had€been€occurring€for€two€months.€€He€admitted€to€takingÐ 0"€  Ðpictures€and€showing€the€victim€a€pornographic€movie.€€The€defendant€denied€kissing€the€victimððsÐ #l! Ðvagina€but€admitted€placing€his€penis€against€it.€€The€defendant€admitted€attempting€penetration€withÐ $X" Ðhis€penis€and€admitted€the€penis€in€the€victimððs€mouth€in€one€of€the€pictures€was€his.Ð ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ ÐOn€cross„examination,€Detective€Moyers€said€that€the€defendant€denied€any€vaginalÐ Ì&"% Ðpenetration€of€the€victim.€€The€defendant€did€not€deny€that€the€victim€performed€oral€sex€or€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðpictures€were€taken.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÐ )à$( ÐDetective€Larry€G.€Moore€with€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department€was€the€leadÐ |*Ì%) Ðinvestigator€in€this€case.€€He€testified€that€he€had€participated€in€an€interview€with€the€victim€and€herÐ h+¸&* Ðparents€on€July€13,€1999.€€As€a€result€of€the€information€received,€Detective€Moore,€with€theÐ ° Ðassistance€of€Carleton€Bryant,€a€legal€advisor€for€the€sheriffððs€department,€drafted€a€search€warrantÐ œì Ðfor€the€defendantððs€home.€€Detective€Moore€and€other€officers€executed€the€search€warrant€duringÐ ˆØ Ðthe€evening€of€July€14th.€€Photographs€were€found€in€a€night€stand€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom.€€AlsoÐ tÄ Ðfound€were€magazines€of€ð ðPenthouse€and€Playboy€typeðð€and€a€video€labeled€ð ðBest€of€Bloopers.ððÐ `° ÐÐ L œ ÐOn€January€15,€Detective€Moore€and€Mr.€Bryant€visited€the€defendant€who€was€confined€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€jail.€€Four€of€the€confiscated€photographs€were€shown€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€identifiedÐ $ t Ðthe€child€in€the€photos€as€the€victim€and€stated€that€he€took€the€pictures.€Ð  ` ÐÐ ü L  ÐCarleton€Bryant€testified€that€he€assisted€Detective€Moore€in€drafting€the€search€warrant€andÐ è 8  Ðafterwards€accompanied€the€officers€to€conduct€the€search.€€After€the€defendant€was€in€custody,Ð Ô$  ÐBryant€and€Detective€Moore€visited€the€defendant€at€the€jail€to€ask€about€one€of€the€photographs.€Ð À  ÐBryant€said€that€the€victim€was€identifiable€but€the€male€adult€was€not.€€Bryant€asked€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðif€the€person€displaying€his€penis€in€the€photograph€was€the€defendant,€and€the€defendant€affirmedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€it€was.Ð „Ô  ÐÐ pÀ ÐAt€the€conclusion€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€State€announced€that€due€to€a€lack€of€specificityÐ \¬ Ðby€the€victim,€counts€two€and€three,€both€child€rape€charges,€were€to€be€dismissed.€€The€State€reliedÐ H˜ Ðon€the€photographs€to€show€that€the€pictures€were€taken€on€different€occasions€and€would€supportÐ 4„ Ðthe€remaining€four€counts€of€child€rape.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defense€motion€pursuant€to€RuleÐ  p Ð29€to€dismiss€count€eight€of€the€indictment,€exhibition€of€harmful€materials€to€minors.Ð  \ ÐÐ øH ÐDr.€Clifton€R.€Tennison,€a€psychiatrist€and€chief€administrator€at€Helen€Ross€McNabb€Center,Ð ä4 Ðwas€the€first€witness€called€by€the€defense.€€He€had€done€two€evaluations€of€the€defendant€pursuantÐ Ð  Ðto€court€orders€for€competency€evaluations.€€The€first€evaluation€was€on€January€4,€2001.€€It€wasÐ ¼  Ðbrief€and€was€terminated€due€to€the€defendantððs€refusal€to€participate.€€Dr.€Tennison€thenÐ ¨ø Ðrecommended€hospitalization€in€order€to€observe€the€defendant€in€an€in„patient€setting.€Ð ”ä ÐÐ €Ð ÐThe€second€evaluation€was€done€July€18,€2002.€€In€preparation,€Dr.€Tennison€reviewed€theÐ l¼ Ðreports€of€Dr.€Eric€Engum,€a€psychologist€who€had€evaluated€the€defendant€twice.€€Dr.€Tennison€alsoÐ X ¨ Ðreviewed€the€records€of€Lakeshore€Mental€Health€Institute€where€the€defendant€had€beenÐ D!” Ðhospitalized.€€A€general€psychological€evaluation€by€Dr.€Diana€McCoy€was€also€considered.€€Of€theÐ 0"€  ÐIQ€tests€made€or€estimated€as€to€the€defendant,€the€range€varied€between€77€and€88.€€Dr.€TennisonÐ #l! Ðconcluded€that€the€defendant€had€borderline€intellectual€functioning€between€71€and€84€IQ.Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # ÐDuring€the€second€evaluation,€Dr.€Tennison€interviewed€the€defendant€for€an€hour,€then€spentÐ à%0!$ Ðanother€hour€with€the€defendantððs€counsel€present€to€determine€if€the€defendant€had€the€capacity€toÐ Ì&"% Ðparticipate€meaningfully€with€his€attorneys.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€take€responsibilityÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€his€actions€which€lead€to€the€criminal€charges.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÐ )à$( ÐHe€said€Dr.€McCoyððs€report€reflected€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€depression€and€metÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€criteria€of€schizoid€personality€disorder.€€He€defined€schizoid€personality€as€being€marked€byÐ h+¸&* Ðisolation,€suspicion,€and€withdrawal.€€The€disorder€is€characterized€by€blaming€things€that€happenÐ ° Ðon€other€people€and€by€a€failure€to€acknowledge€responsibility.€€Lakeshore€staff€diagnosis€was€forÐ œì Ðavoidant€personality€disorder€and€pedophilia.€€He€characterized€avoidant€personality€as€similar€toÐ ˆØ Ðschizoid€personality€but€that€avoidant€types€desire€to€have€friends€and€contact€with€others,€whereasÐ tÄ Ðthe€schizoid€personality€does€not.€€Dr.€Engum€had€diagnosed€the€defendant€as€having€social€anxietyÐ `° Ðdisorder,€borderline€intellectual€functioning,€mixed€personality€disorder€with€schizoid€and€avoidantÐ L œ Ðfeatures,€and€depression.€€Dr.€Engum€ruled€out€pedophilia€as€a€diagnosis.€€In€his€own€evaluation,€Dr.Ð 8 ˆ ÐTennison€diagnosed€personality€disorder€with€schizoid€and€avoidant€features,€social€anxiety€disorder,Ð $ t Ðand€chronic€long„term€tendency€toward€depression.€€He€found€it€doubtful€the€defendant€met€theÐ  ` Ðcriteria€for€pedophilia.€€Further,€he€opined€that€the€defendant€suffered€a€mild€impairment€in€hisÐ ü L  Ðcapacity€to€testify€relevantly.€€Dr.€Tennison€attributed€this€to€the€defendantððs€belief€that€his€versionÐ è 8  Ðof€events€would€be€futile€and€useless.€€Dr.€Tennison€believed€the€defendant€could€testify€relevantlyÐ Ô$  Ðbut€chose€instead€to€blame€others.Ð À  ÐÐ ¬ü  ÐOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Tennison€stated€that€his€ultimate€conclusion€was€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€He€noted€that€was€the€conclusion€of€Dr.€Engum€as€well€inÐ „Ô  Ðhis€first€evaluation.€€Dr.€Tennison€found€no€presence€of€psychosis,€disabling€anxiety€or€depression,€Ð pÀ Ðor€formal€thought€disorder.Ð \¬ ÐÐ H˜ ÐThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€forty„six€years€old.€€He€had€known€the€victimððs€parentsÐ 4„ Ðfor€over€twenty€years.€€He€stated€that€he€spent€a€lot€of€time€at€their€home,€worked€on€their€cars,Ð  p Ðpainted€their€house€inside€twice€and€outside€once,€and€performed€a€lot€of€yard€work.€€He€testified€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€victimððs€parents€allowed€the€victim€to€watch€sexually€explicit€movies€on€the€Playboy€channel.€Ð øH ÐThe€defendant€stated€he€refused€to€sign€the€summarized€statement€he€made€to€the€sheriffððs€detectivesÐ ä4 Ðbecause€he€could€not€read€it.Ð Ð  ÐÐ ¼  ÐDuring€cross„examination,€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€knew€the€victimððs€age.€€He€statedÐ ¨ø Ðthat€he€had€lost€all€of€his€possessions€due€to€a€civil€suit€brought€by€the€victimððs€parents.€€He€admittedÐ ”ä Ðthat€pictures€of€the€victim€and€himself€were€taken€at€his€home.Ð €Ð ÐÐ l¼ Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓAnalysisÐ X ¨ ÐÌòòó óSearch€WarrantóóÐ 0"€  ÐÓ’NÓÓ X„NÓÐ #l! ÐThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€its€failure€to€suppress€the€evidence€seizedÐ $X" Ðpursuant€to€the€search€warrant.€€The€first€basis€of€the€defendantððs€argument€is€that€there€was€non„Ð ô$D # Ðcompliance€with€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€41(c).€€The€pertinent€portion€of€the€rule€is:Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€magistrate€shall€prepare€an€original€and€two€exact€copies€of€the€search€warrant,Ð Ì&"% Ðone€of€which€shall€be€kept€by€the€magistrate€as€a€part€of€his€or€her€official€records,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€one€of€which€shall€be€left€with€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðis€served.€€The€magistrate€shall€endorse€upon€the€search€warrant€the€hour,€date,€andÐ )à$( Ðname€of€the€officer€to€whom€the€warrant€was€delivered€for€execution;€and€the€exactÐ |*Ì%) Ðcopy€of€the€search€warrant€and€the€endorsement€thereon€shall€be€admissible€evidence.€Ð h+¸&* ÐFailure€of€the€magistrate€to€make€said€original€and€two€copies€of€the€search€warrantÐ ° Ðor€failure€to€endorse€thereon€the€date€and€time€of€issuance€and€the€name€of€the€officerÐ œì Ðto€whom€issued,€or€the€failure€of€the€serving€officer€where€possible€to€leave€a€copyÐ ˆØ Ðwith€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€being€served,€shall€makeÐ tÄ Ðany€search€conducted€under€said€search€warrant€an€illegal€search€and€any€seizureÐ `° Ðthereunder€an€illegal€seizure.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ X¢PÓÓ X”PÓÓ X†PÓð ð[W]hen€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€at€a€suppression€hearing€are€based€on€evidence€thatÐ $ t Ðdoes€not€involve€issues€of€credibility,€a€reviewing€court€must€examine€the€record€de€novo€withoutÐ  ` Ða€presumption€of€correctness.ðð€€òòState€v.€Binetteóó,€33€S.W.3d€215,€217€(Tenn.€2000).€€Whether€Rule€Ð ü L  Ð41(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€requires€suppression€of€the€evidence€in€this€caseÐ è 8  Ðis€a€question€of€law€which€we€review€de€novo€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€courtððs€findings.Ð À  ÐÐ ¬ü  ÐIndisputably,€there€are€differences€in€the€original€affidavit€to€the€search€warrant€and€the€copyÐ ˜è  Ðretained€by€the€executing€officer€and€the€copy€left€at€the€defendantððs€residence.€€The€differences€areÐ „Ô  Ðthat€on€the€original€affidavit€the€issuing€magistrateððs€name€is€omitted€from€the€blank€space€left€forÐ pÀ Ðthat€purpose.€€The€magistrateððs€name€is€written€in€at€this€space€on€the€copy€left€at€the€defendantððsÐ \¬ Ðhome.€€A€handwritten€insert€of€ð ðinappropriate€sexualðð€and€separately,€the€word€ð ðofðð€was€initialedÐ H˜ Ðon€the€defendantððs€copy,€but€not€on€the€original€copy.€€Page€three€of€the€affidavit€had€initials€by€theÐ 4„ Ðword€ð ðbragðð€on€the€defendantððs€and€officersðð€copy,€but€were€not€on€the€original€affidavit.€€The€searchÐ  p Ðwarrant€itself€contained€the€following€language€in€prominent€type:Ð  \ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓAFFIANTððS€AFFIDAVIT€IS€HEREBY€EXPRESSLY€INCORPORATED€BYÐ øH ÐREFERENCE€AND€MADE€A€PART€HEREOF.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ X\ÓÓ X\ÓÓ X!\ÓThe€State€urges€us€to€consider€the€affidavit€as€a€separate€document€exempt€from€the€technicalÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€of€Rule€41(c),€despite€the€language€of€incorporation.€€It€is€well€settled€that€an€affidavitÐ ¨ø Ðupon€which€a€search€warrant€is€issued€does€not€become€a€part€of€the€search€warrant€even€if€it€appearsÐ ”ä Ðon€the€same€form.€€òòMinton€v.€Stateóó,€186€Tenn.€541,€212€S.W.2d€373,€374€(1948);€òòState€v.€Priceóó,€46Ð €Ð ÐS.W.3d€785,€809€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€836€S.W.2d€137,€141€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1992).€€But€to€ignore€clear€and€unequivocal€language€of€incorporation€by€reference€would€renderÐ X ¨ Ðplain€language€meaningless.€€òòOððBrien€v.€Stateóó,€158€Tenn.€400,€14€S.W.2d€51€(1929),€held€that€whenÐ D!” Ðan€affidavit€is€incorporated€by€the€warrant€with€proper€reference,€then€it€is€a€part€of€the€searchÐ 0"€  Ðwarrant.Ð #l! ÐÐ $X" ÐAffidavits,€when€properly€incorporated€by€reference,€have€been€utilized€to€satisfyÐ ô$D # Ðinsufficiencies€of€description€in€the€search€warrant.€€òòHackerman€v.€Stateóó,€189€Tenn.€130,€135,€223Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€194,€196€(1949);€òòóó€òòOððBrienóó,€158€Tenn.€at€403,€14€S.W.2d€51;€òòseeóó€òòSmithóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€141Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& ÐWe€conclude€that€incorporation€of€an€affidavit€by€the€search€warrant€embodies€the€affidavitÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€a€part€of€the€search€warrant€and€is€thus€subject€to€the€requirements€of€Rule€41(c).€€Next,€weÐ )à$( Ðconsider€whether€the€anomalies€described€in€the€incorporated€affidavit€are€fatal€under€the€mandatoryÐ |*Ì%) Ðrequirements€of€Rule€41(c).€€Ð h+¸&* ЇRule€41(c)€derives€from€a€predecessor€statute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„518Ð ° Ð(repealed€1979).€€Our€appellate€courts€have€scrupulously€adhered€to€the€mandatory€language€of€bothÐ œì Ðthe€prior€statute€and€the€current€Rule€41(c)€and€have€suppressed€evidence€when€a€violation€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðprovisions€was€shown.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Coffeeóó,€54€S.W.3d€231€(Tenn.€2001);€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€208Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€620,€348€S.W.2d€295€(1961);€òòTalley€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€275,€345€S.W.2d€867€(1961);€òòStateÐ `° Ðv.€Steeleóó,€894€S.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Grapel€Simpson,€et€al.óó,€€No.€02C01„Ð L œ Ð9508„CC„00240,€1996€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€612€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Sept.€30,€1996).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÐ $ t ÐThe€rationale€for€this€zealous€protection€has€been€set€forth€in€our€appellate€opinions.€€TheÐ  ` Ðprocedural€safeguards€are€intended€ð ðto€secure€the€citizen€against€carelessness€and€abuse€in€theÐ ü L  Ðissuance€and€execution€of€search€warrants.ðð€€òòTalleyóó,€208€Tenn.€at€278,€345€S.W.2d€at€869.€€Ð è 8  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€provision€at€issue,€that€a€magistrate€prepare€and€retain€a€copy€of€the€searchÐ Ô$  Ðwarrant,€endeavors€to€prevent€improper€searches€and€facilitate€judicial€review€ofÐ À  Ðwhether€a€search€was€executed€within€the€scope€of€the€warrant.€€The€rule€achieves€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðgoals€in€that€a€written€record€of€the€specifics€of€the€search€stifles€the€ever„presentÐ ˜è  Ðtemptation€for€an€officer€to€conduct€a€search€and€justify€it€later.€€Additionally,€theÐ „Ô  Ðcopy€of€the€warrant€enables€review€of€the€original€boundaries€of€a€search;€without€anÐ pÀ Ðexact€copy€of€the€warrant,€review€is€compromised€because€the€critical€facts€andÐ \¬ Ðdetails€of€the€warrant€cannot€be€precisely€determined.€€It€is€for€these€reasons€that€itÐ H˜ Ðis€important€to€retain€an€exact€copy€of€the€warrant€identifying€the€property€or€personÐ 4„ Ðto€be€searched,€and€it€is€for€these€same€reasons€that€this€requirement€has€been€strictlyÐ  p Ðenforced€by€our€courts€for€many€years.Ð  \ ÐÓ XÎhÓÓ XÀhÓÓ XÜhÓòòÓ XÓCoffeeóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€233„34.Ð øH ÐÌà  àð ðThe€purpose€of€having€the€magistrate€retain€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant€is€to€insure€theÐ Ð  Ðpurity€of€the€search€process.ðð€€òòState€v.€Gambrelóó,€783€S.W.2d€191,€192€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ X|mÓIt€is€apparent€that€these€safeguards€exist€to€guard€against€the€possibility€of€after„the„factÐ ”ä Ðmanipulation€of€the€search€documents.€€When€the€discrepancies€in€the€copies€in€this€case€are€viewedÐ €Ð Ðin€that€light,€they€are€insignificant.€€The€variances€neither€expand€the€scope€of€the€search,€cast€doubtÐ l¼ Ðon€the€supporting€probable€cause€or€in€any€way€affect€the€ð ðpurity€of€the€search.ðð€€We€continue€toÐ X ¨ Ðadhere€to€the€mandatory€requirements€of€Rule€41(c)€and€do€not€intend€to€erode€the€safeguardsÐ D!” Ðprotected€by€its€provision.€€However,€suppression€of€the€evidence€due€to€the€insignificant€variancesÐ 0"€  Ðunder€these€facts€would,€in€our€opinion,€be€hyper„technical€and€counter„productive.Ð #l! ÐÐ $X" ÐThe€defendantððs€next€issue€is€that€the€search€warrant€violated€the€provisions€of€TennesseeÐ ô$D # ÐCode€Annotated€section€39„17„1007.€€The€search€warrant€was€issued,€in€part,€for€violations€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐTennessee€Protection€for€Children€Against€Sexual€Exploitation€Act€of€1990€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÐ Ì&"% Ð39„17„1001€„€39„17„1007).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„1007€provides€as€follows:Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓNo€process€except€as€otherwise€provided€shall€be€issued€for€the€violation€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ððððð€39„17„1003€„€39„17„1005€unless€it€is€issued€upon€the€application€of€the€districtÐ )à$( Ðattorney€general€of€the€district.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÓ XôsÓÓ XæsÓÐ h+¸&* ÐIt€is€undisputed€that€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€had€no€involvement€in€seeking€orÐ ° Ðobtaining€issuance€of€the€search€warrant.€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€failing€renders€the€searchÐ œì Ðwarrant€invalid€for€all€purposes€and€susceptible€to€suppression€of€the€items€seized€pursuant€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðsearch€warrant.Ð tÄ ÐÐ `° ÐThe€State€responds€that€the€ð ðprocessðð€refers€to€the€immediate€preceding€section,€TennesseeÐ L œ ÐCode€Annotated€section€39„17„1006,€dealing€with€injunctions€and€indictments€for€violators€and€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€search€warrants.€€The€State€further€argues€that€in€the€context€of€the€subject€statutes,€a€searchÐ $ t Ðwarrant€is€not€contemplated€as€ð ðprocess.ðð€€Both€the€defendant€and€the€State€purport€to€rely€onÐ  ` Ðstatutory€construction€to€reach€their€divergent€conclusions.Ð ü L  ÐÐ è 8  ÐThe€trial€court€held€that€a€search€warrant€was€within€the€meaning€of€ð ðprocessðð€under€theÐ Ô$  Ðsubject€act€but€noted€that€the€search€warrant€was€justified€under€violations€of€child€rape€andÐ À  Ðaggravated€sexual€battery€and€not€dependant€solely€on€the€sexual€exploitation€of€minors.€€The€trialûÿÿdûÐ ¬ü  Ðüÿÿdücourt€also€held€the€search€warrant€was€legally€granted€under€the€ð ðexcept€as€otherwise€providedððÐ ˜è  Ðlanguage€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„3007.Ð „Ô  ÐÐ pÀ ÐIn€pertinent€part,€the€search€warrant€reads€as€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓThat€affiant€has€reason€to€believe€and€does€believe€that€TIMOTHY€WADE€DAVIS,Ð H˜ ÐALIAS,€(suspect)€is€(State€the€illegal€activity€and€the€evidence€or€contraband€sought)Ð 4„ ÐIN€POSSESSION€OF€CERTAIN€EVIDENCE€OF€A€CRIME,€TO„WIT:Ð  p ÐVIOLATIONS€OF€T.C.A.€39„13„504€(RAPE€OF€A€CHILD)€AND€39„13„504Ð  \ Ð(AGGRAVATED€SEXUAL€BATTERY)€AND€THE€TENNESSEE€PROTECTIONÐ øH ÐOF€CHILDREN€AGAINST€SEXUAL€EXPLOITATION€ACT€OF€1990,€AND€THEÐ ä4 ÐEVIDENCE€TO€BE€SEARCHED€FOR€AS€IS€FOLLOWS:€ONE€POLAROIDÐ Ð  ÐCAMERA,€PHOTOGRAPHS€OF€[THE€VICTIM/AFFIANT],€PHOTOGRAPHS€OFÐ ¼  ÐTIMOTHY€WADE€DAVIS,€MOVIES€OR€VIDEOTAPES€OF€NAKED€MEN€ANDÐ ¨ø ÐNAKED€WOMEN,€AND€MAGAZINES€CONTAINING€PICTURES€OF€NUDEÐ ”ä ÐMEN€AND€NUDE€WOMEN€.€.€.Ð €Ð ÐÓ XÑ{ÓÓ XÃ{ÓÓ Xµ{ÓÐ l¼ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„1007€is€broad€enough€to€include€a€search€warrantÐ X ¨ Ðand€that€involvement€of€the€district€attorney€general€was€required€under€the€Sexual€Exploitation€ofÐ D!” ÐMinors€Act,€but€we€are€unconvinced€that€this€flaw€is€fatal€to€the€search€warrantððs€validity.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðsearch€warrant€is€independently€justified€by€the€alleged€violations€of€rape€of€a€child€and€aggravatedÐ #l! Ðsexual€battery.€€The€inclusion€of€the€alleged€violation€€of€the€sexual€exploitation€of€minors€does€notÐ $X" Ðact€to€nullify€these€valid€assertions.€€Nor€does€it€serve€to€grant€immunity€to€the€defendant€forÐ ô$D # Ðprosecution€under€the€sexual€exploitation€act.€€The€search€warrant€was€independently€justified€byÐ à%0!$ Ðvalid€allegations,€free€of€any€taint€from€statutory€prohibitions€or€constitutional€violations.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðsubsequent€search,€even€if€sexual€exploitation€of€minors€was€not€invoked,€would€inevitably€haveÐ ¸'#& Ðresulted€in€discovery€of€the€photographs€which€supported€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€sexualÐ ¤(ô#' Ðexploitation€of€a€minor.€€òòSeeóó€òòNix€v.€Williamsóó,€467€U.S.€431,€433,€104€S.€Ct.€2501,€2509,€81€L.€Ed.Ð )à$( Ð2d€377€(1984);€òòState€v.€Harmonóó,€775€S.W.2d€583,€586„87€(Tenn.€1989).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓDefendantððs€StatementsóóÐ ° ÐÓ:…ÓÓ X,…ÓÐ œì ÐThe€defendantððs€next€contention€is€that€his€statements,€taken€during€and€after€the€conduct€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€search,€were€fruits€of€the€poisonous€tree€and,€therefore,€deserving€of€suppression.€€For€purposesÐ tÄ Ðof€further€review,€we€will€consider€the€defendantððs€arguments.€€Ð `° ÐÐ L œ ÐIf,€upon€further€review,€the€search€warrant€is€deemed€invalid,€then€we€would€conclude€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€statements€given€by€the€defendant€were€indeed€induced€by€an€invalid€search.Ð $ t ÐÐ  ` ÐDetective€Moore€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€at€the€initiation€of€the€execution€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€search€warrant,€the€officers€ð ðtold€him€basically€what€we€were€looking€for.ðð€€Detective€Moore€alsoÐ è 8  Ðstated€that€the€warrant€was€read€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€was€then€handcuffed,€arrested,€andÐ Ô$  Ðplaced€in€a€police€cruiser€while€the€officers€began€their€search.€€Detective€Moyers€participated€in€theÐ À  Ðinitial€stages€of€the€search€before€being€dispatched€to€ascertain€whether€the€defendant€was€willingÐ ¬ü  Ðto€make€a€statement.€€Moyers€first€gave€the€defendant€òòMirandaóó€warnings€and€asked€the€defendant€ifÐ ˜è  Ðhe€would€speak€about€the€circumstances.€€The€defendant€responded€by€saying,€ð ðYou€already€knowÐ „Ô  Ðwhatððs€going€on.ðð€€Although€Moyers€had€not€seen€the€pictures€seized€in€the€defendantððs€home,€heÐ pÀ Ðwas€aware€of€their€alleged€existence.€€Moyers€had€taken€the€defendant€to€the€sheriffððs€department€andÐ \¬ Ðre„administered€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€Moyers€specifically€asked€the€defendant€if€he€had€takenÐ H˜ Ðpictures€and€if€the€penis€pictured€in€the€victimððs€mouth€was€that€of€the€defendantððs.Ð 4„ ÐÐ  p ÐOn€July€15,€1999,€the€day€after€the€defendantððs€arrest,€the€defendant€was€interviewed€againÐ  \ Ðby€Detective€Larry€Moore€and€Carleton€Bryant.€€On€that€occasion,€the€defendant€was€shown€picturesÐ øH Ðseized€from€his€home€and€was€specifically€questioned€about€them.€€The€defendant€made€confessionsÐ ä4 Ðduring€both€interviews.Ð Ð  ÐÐ ¼  ÐThe€trial€court€ruled€that€should€the€search€warrant€be€invalid,€the€first€interview€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðbased€on€the€evidence€seized€from€the€search€and€would,€therefore,€be€admissible,€but€expressedÐ ”ä Ðreservations€as€to€the€second€interview.€€Having€held€the€search€valid,€the€trial€court€did€not€ruleÐ €Ð Ðspecifically€on€the€second€interview.Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐÔ‡XFÅXXXFÅÔUnless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€aÐ D!” Ðsuppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€IfÐ 0"€  Ðthe€issue€involves€an€application€of€law€to€undisputed€facts,€the€appellate€courts€conduct€a€de€novoÐ #l! Ðreview€as€to€the€question€of€law.€€òòState€v.€Troxellóó,€òòóó78€S.W.3d€òòóó866,€870€(Tenn.€2002).Ô#†XFÅXXXFň#ÔÐ $X" ÐÐ ô$D # ÐThe€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€analysis€is€the€test€for€determining€admissibility€of€aÐ à%0!$ Ðconfession€elicited€by€use€of€an€illegal€search.€€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€591„92,€95€S.€Ct.Ð Ì&"% Ð2254,€45€L.€Ed.€2d€416€(1975);€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€674€(Tenn.€1996).€€Under€thisÐ ¸'#& Ðanalysis,€the€focus€is€on€whether€the€evidence€was€obtained€by€exploitation€of€the€FourthÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAmendment€illegality.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€674.€€The€burden€of€proving€admissibility€of€theÐ )à$( Ðchallenged€evidence€is€on€the€prosecution€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard.€€òòId.óó€at€675.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThe€ultimate€finding€should€be€reached€by€consideration€of€four€factors:€€Ð h+¸&* Ð1.€€The€presence€or€absence€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€Ð ° Ð2.€€The€temporal€proximity€of€the€search€and€the€confession;Ð œì Ð3.€€The€presence€of€intervening€circumstances;€andÐ ˆØ Ð4.€€The€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€misconduct.€Ð tÄ ÐÓ XÓòòState€v.€Fordóó,€30€S.W.3d€378,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(citing€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€675).Ð `° ÐÌÓ X)—ÓUnder€the€instant€facts€we€note€that€the€defendant€received€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€precedingÐ 8 ˆ Ðeach€interview€and€confession.€€However,€the€warnings€do€not€break€the€causal€chain€between€anÐ $ t Ðillegal€search€and€a€subsequent€confession.€€òòFordóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€382.Ð  ` ÐÐ ü L  ÐThe€first€statement€taken€from€the€defendant€was€begun€during€the€ongoing€search€but€afterÐ è 8  Ðsome€incriminating€items€were€found.€€The€defendant€was€read€the€search€warrant€at€the€onset€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðsearch€and€was€made€aware€of€what€items€the€officers€were€seeking.€€The€defendantððs€initial€responseÐ À  Ðto€Detective€Moyers,€ð ðyou€already€know€whatððs€going€on,ðð€strongly€indicated€the€defendantððsÐ ¬ü  Ðassumption€that€the€incriminating€photographs€had€been€or€soon€would€be€found.€€This€weighs€inÐ ˜è  Ðthe€defendantððs€favor.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÐ pÀ ÐThere€were€no€intervening€circumstances€of€significance€that€would€remove€the€taint€ofÐ \¬ Ðillegally€seized€evidence.€€In€fact,€the€second€interview€on€the€day€after€the€defendantððs€arrest,€he€wasÐ H˜ Ðconfronted€with€and€questioned€about€certain€seized€photographs.€€This€factor€weighs€in€favor€ofÐ 4„ Ðsuppression.Ð  p ÐÐ  \ ÐThe€last€factor,€flagrancy€of€the€misconduct,€weighs€in€favor€of€admissibility.€€From€ourÐ øH Ðreview,€it€appears€that€the€officers€involved€took€every€reasonable€precaution€to€protect€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€constitutional€rights€in€the€course€of€their€investigation.€€Taking€all€factors€intoÐ Ð  Ðconsideration,€we€conclude€that€the€confessions€should€be€suppressed.€€The€defendant€was€clearlyÐ ¼  Ðconvinced€that€the€incriminating€evidence€had€been€or€would€inevitably€be€found€during€the€search.€Ð ¨ø ÐThat€realization€would€have€served€as€significant€encouragement€for€the€defendant€to€speak.€€TheÐ ”ä ÐState,€under€this€scenario,€has€not€shown€the€confessions€to€be€an€act€of€free€will€that€would€purgeÐ €Ð Ðthe€taint€of€an€assumed€invalid€search.Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓSelf€RepresentationóóÐ D!” ÐÓë ÓÓ XÝ ÓÐ 0"€  ÐThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€his€request€to€representÐ #l! Ðhimself€or€alternatively€failed€to€conduct€an€inquiry€concerning€the€request.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÐ $X" Ðdefendantððs€competency€hearing€on€November€15,€2002,€wherein€the€defendant€was€foundÐ ô$D # Ðcompetent€to€stand€trial,€the€defendant€addressed€the€court€in€the€following€exchange:€Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ XœX°œXÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 ` àà  àTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0` Ð ` Ð àIf€Iððm€competent€to€stand€trial,€then€I€donððt€want€him€or€himÐ Ì&"% Ðto€be€my€lawyer.€€I€will€defend€myself,€will€not€allow€any€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthese€„„€because€he€didnððt€do€his€job.€€Heððs€supposed€to€appealÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€warrant€that€this€detectives€had€on€me€and€„„€and€„„€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âfirst€lawyer€that€you€appointed€to€me€„„€said€that€he€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðsupposed€to€have€appealed€what€you€had€on€the€warrant,€butÐ ° Ðhe€didnððt€do€it.€€He€didnððt€do€his€job.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌÓ XW£ÓÓ XI£ÓÓ X;£ÓÓ" °œXXœX£"ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓTHE€COURT:€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð àWell,€that€issue€is€not€before€me€today.€€The€case€is€„„ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àWell€„„ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð à„„set€for€March€31st.€€Thank€you,€gentlemen.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌ[COUNSEL]:€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð àThank€you,€Your€Honor.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àWell,€I€donððt€want€them€for€my€lawyer.€€I€already€told€youÐ Ô$  Ðthat.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌ[BAILIFF]:€à0 ¸ àà0ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà0ä Ð ä Ð àLetððs€go,€[the€defendant].Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àIððm€going.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ Xg¦ÓÓ XY¦ÓÓ XK¦ÓÓ( °œX°–, Xu¦(ÓThe€next€occasion€that€the€defendant€asserted€a€desire€to€represent€himself€was€on€March€31,Ð H˜ Ð2003,€the€day€of€trial.€€After€being€advised€of€the€defendantððs€request€by€the€defendantððs€counsel,€theÐ 4„ Ðtrial€court€attempted€to€discuss€the€perils€of€self„representation.€€The€trial€court€recounted€theÐ  p Ðdefendantððs€past€history€in€regard€to€his€attorneys.€€Due€to€the€defendantððs€stated€desire,€his€originalÐ  \ Ðretained€attorney€was€allowed€to€withdraw€and€the€public€defender€was€appointed€as€the€defendantððsÐ øH Ðcounsel.€€A€month€later,€another€private€attorney€was€appointed€as€co„counsel.€€These€attorneysÐ ä4 Ðrequested€a€continuance€on€December€3,€2001,€due€to€the€defendantððs€failure€to€cooperate€or€meetÐ Ð  Ðwith€them€in€preparation€of€his€defense.€€As€a€result,€the€defendantððs€original€bond€was€revoked€andÐ ¼  Ða€higher€bond€set.€€The€defendant€had€been€in€custody€since€that€time.€€The€trial€court€conducted€aÐ ¨ø Ðlengthy€colloquy€with€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€stated€he€could€not€read€but€should€have€a€legalÐ ”ä Ðaide.€€The€defendant€complained€that€he€was€harassed€by€his€neighbors€prior€to€his€being€placed€inÐ €Ð Ðcustody.€€The€trial€court€attempted€to€explain€that€the€defendant€would€have€to€abide€by€allÐ l¼ Ðevidentiary€and€procedural€rules€in€self„representation.€€The€defendant€responded€that€nobody€hadÐ X ¨ Ðhelped€him€and€that€he€could€not€do€anything€while€in€jail.€€The€colloquy€concluded€in€the€followingÐ D!” Ðmanner:Ð 0"€  ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓTHE€COURT:€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð àMr.€Davis,€again€„„€Mr.€Davis,€again,€sir,€youððre€getting€readyÐ #l! Ðto€go€to€trial.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àYeah.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð àAnd€an€attempt€to€represent€yourself€is€a€grave,€seriousÐ ¸'#& Ðmistake.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ )à$( ÐTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àI€should€have€the€right€to€be€able€to€defend€„„€to€prepare€for€aÐ ° Ðtrial.€€I€donððt€have€the€right€to€defend€for€a€trial€when€IððmÐ œì Ðlocked€up€in€a€jail€for€24€hours€a€day.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌTHE€COURT:€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð àMr.€Davis,€are€you€going€to€represent€yourself,€or€youððreÐ `° Ðgoing€to€allow€these€lawyers€to€represent€you?ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àDo€I€have€a€chance€to€prepare€for€a€trial?Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à0 ä àà0ä Ð ä Ð àNo,€sir.€€Today€„„€today€is€trial€day.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌTHE€DEFENDANT:€à0  àWell,€I€canððt€accept€that.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÓ XÞ°ÓÓ XаÓÓ X°ÓÓ( °œX°–, Xž°(ÓÐ À  ÐThe€defendantððs€counsel€were€asked€by€the€trial€court€for€their€assessment.€€Their€replyÐ ¬ü  Ðindicated€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€and€that€the€defendant€was€notÐ ˜è  Ðcapable€of€defending€himself.€€The€trial€court€concluded€by€stating€that€the€defendantððs€failure€toÐ „Ô  Ðcooperate€with€counsel€was€willful€and€then€made€the€following€finding:Ð pÀ ÐÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓTHE€COURT:€à0 ä àWell,€I€do€not€find€that€this€is€a€voluntary€decision€on€[theÐ \¬ Ðdefendantððs]€part€to€attempt€to€represent€himself.€€So€Iððm€notÐ H˜ Ðgoing€to€grant€that€request.€€I€donððt€think€he€„„€I€donððt€think€heÐ 4„ Ðunderstands,€and€without€an€understanding,€I€donððt€think€he€canÐ  p Ðmake€a€knowing,€voluntary€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel.€Ð \ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓ X¸ÓÓ X ¸ÓÓ Xü·ÓÓ( °œX”,È’XØ·(ÓÐ øH ÐA€criminal€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€represent€himself.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,Ð ä4 Ð422€U.S.€806,€820„21,€95€S.€Ct.€2525,€2533„34,€45€L.€Ed.€2d€562€(1975);€òòState€v.€Northingtonóó,€667Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€57,€60€(Tenn.€1984).€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€629„30€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),Ð ¼  Ðsets€forth€ð ðthree€(3)€essential€prerequisites€which€must€be€present€before€the€right€of€self„Ð ¨ø Ðrepresentation€becomes€absolute.€€First,€the€accused€must€assert€the€right€to€self„representationÐ ”ä Ðtimely.€€Second,€the€accusedððs€request€must€be€clear€and€unequivocal.€€Third,€the€accused€mustÐ €Ð Ðknowingly€and€intelligently€waive€the€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€(citations€omitted).€€TheÐ l¼ Ðaccusedððs€ð ðtechnical€legal€knowledgeðð€is€irrelevant€to€the€inquiry€as€to€whether€an€accused€beÐ X ¨ Ðpermitted€self„representation.€€òòFarettaóó,€422€U.€S.€at€836,€95€S.€Ct.€at€2541,€45€L.€Ed.€2d€at€582.Ð D!” ÐÐ 0"€  ÐIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€not€made€a€knowing,Ð #l! Ðvoluntary€waiver€of€counsel.€€The€colloquy€also€illustrates€that€the€defendantððs€request€was€notÐ $X" Ðunequivocal.€€His€request€on€the€day€of€trial€was€not€timely€and€was€seemingly€conditioned€on€aÐ ô$D # Ðrelease€from€jail,€additional€time€for€trial€preparation€and€appointment€of€a€legal€aide€for€assistance.€Ð à%0!$ ÐIt€is€significant€that€the€trial€court€relied€on€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Tennison€during€the€competencyÐ Ì&"% Ðhearing.€€Dr.€Tennison€had€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€impairment€in€relating€to€his€attorneys€inÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€preparation€was€due€to€the€defendantððs€choice€not€to€cooperate.€€The€defendantððs€history€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðplacing€impediments€in€the€way€of€his€various€attorneys€was€extensive.€€The€trial€courtððs€attemptsÐ )à$( Ðto€discuss€the€nature€of€the€charges,€the€statutory€offenses€included,€the€range€of€allowableÐ |*Ì%) Ðpunishment,€and€possible€defenses€were€met€with€irrelevant€complaints€by€the€defendant€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðharassment€or€self„inflicted€disabilities,€such€as€his€incarceration.€€The€defendant€himself€recognizedÐ ° Ðthat€he€could€not€proceed€effectively€without€the€appointment€of€a€legal€aide€and€other€conditions.€Ð œì ÐA€criminal€defendant€may€implicitly€waive€or€forfeit€the€right€of€counsel€by€utilizing€that€right€in€anÐ ˆØ Ðeffort€to€manipulate,€delay,€or€disrupt€trial€proceedings.€€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€549Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€a€lack€ofÐ `° Ða€knowing€and€voluntary€waiver€and€an€implicit€waiver€by€the€defendantððs€actions€to€delay€or€disruptÐ L œ Ðthe€trial€proceedings.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÐ $ t ÐòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓJury€InstructionóóÐ  ` ÐÓ™ÆÓÓ X‹ÆÓÐ ü L  ÐThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€insanityÐ è 8  Ðdefense€resulted€in€a€violation€of€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial.Ð Ô$  ÐÐ À  ÐInsanity€is€pursuant€to€statute,€an€affirmative€defense,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„Ð ¬ü  Ð11„501:Ð ˜è  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ$°–, X°œX$Óà 4 à(a)€It€is€an€affirmative€defense€to€prosecution€that,€at€the€time€of€the€commissionÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€acts€constituting€the€offense,€the€defendant,€as€a€result€of€a€severe€mentalÐ pÀ Ðdisease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€suchÐ \¬ Ðdefendantððs€acts.€€Mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€otherwise€constitute€a€defense.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€defense€of€insanity€by€clear€andÐ 4„ Ðconvincing€evidence.Ð  p Ðà 4 à(b)€As€used€in€this€section,€ð ðmental€disease€or€defectðð€does€not€include€anyÐ  \ Ðabnormality€manifested€only€by€repeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.Ð øH ÐÓ( °œX°–, XÈÈ(ÓÓ XºÈÓÓ X¬ÈÓÓ XžÈÓÐ ä4 ÐIn€order€for€submission€of€an€affirmative€defense€to€be€submitted€to€a€jury,€the€issue€must€beÐ Ð  Ðð ðfairly€raised€by€the€proof.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„204(d).€€To€determine€if€the€issue€is€fairlyÐ ¼  Ðraised€by€the€proof,€ð ða€court€must,€in€effect,€consider€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant,€including€drawing€all€reasonable€inferences€flowing€from€that€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð ”ä ÐShropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€634,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Bultóó,€989€S.W.2d€730,€732„Ð €Ð Ð733€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐDr.€Clifton€Tennison,€a€psychiatrist,€was€called€on€behalf€of€the€defense.€€His€testimony€wasÐ D!” Ðpreviously€summarized€in€this€opinion.€€Dr.€Tennison€based€his€diagnosis€on€his€two€personalÐ 0"€  Ðevaluations€and€a€review€of€four€other€evaluations€by€mental€health€experts.€€Dr.€Tennison€found€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€defendant€had€borderline€intellectual€functioning€but€was€not€retarded.€€Dr.€Tennison€found€thatÐ $X" Ðthe€defendant€suffered€from€several€personality€disorders€including€both€schizoid€and€avoidantÐ ô$D # Ðpersonality€features.€€Significantly€though,€neither€Tennison€or€any€other€evaluation€found€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðof€a€psychosis€dissociation€or€disabling€anxiety€or€depression€or€formal€thought€disorder.€€InÐ Ì&"% Ðsummary,€there€was€no€proof€presented€of€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect€that€disabled€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant€from€an€ability€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€his€acts.€€The€defense€failedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€carry€the€burden€of€proving€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€The€defense€was€not€fairlyÐ )à$( Ðraised€by€the€evidence,€and€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€submit€the€affirmative€defense€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðjury.Ð h+¸&* ЇòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓCompetencyóóÐ ° ÐÓaÔÓÓ XSÔÓÐ œì ÐThe€defendantððs€next€issue€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€defendantÐ ˆØ Ðcompetent€to€stand€trial.€€Ð tÄ ÐÐ `° ÐThe€trial€of€mental€incompetents€is€barred€by€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÐ L œ ÐConstitution€and€article€I,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòPate€v.€Robinsonóó,€383€U.S.€375,Ð 8 ˆ Ð86€S.€Ct.€836,€15€L.€Ed.€2d€815€(1966);€òòState€v.€Blackstockóó,€19€S.W.3d€200€(Tenn.€2000).€€TheÐ $ t Ðstandard€for€determining€competency€is€whether€the€accused€has€ððthe€capacity€to€understand€theÐ  ` Ðnature€and€object€of€the€proceedings€against€him,€to€consult€with€counsel€and€to€assist€in€preparingÐ ü L  Ðhis€defense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€174€(Tenn.€1991)€(quoting€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€704,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975)).€€The€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establish€hisÐ Ô$  Ðincompetency€to€stand€trial€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Lemingóó,€3€S.W.3d€7,€13„14Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ð ¬ü  ÐÐ ˜è  ÐThe€issue€of€the€defendantððs€competency€to€stand€trial€was€diligently€explored€in€two€separateÐ „Ô  Ðcompetency€hearings.€€In€the€first,€testimony€from€Dr.€Eric€Engum,€a€psychologist,€was€heard.€€Dr.Ð pÀ ÐEngum€stated€that€he€had€originally€found€the€defendant€competent€but€had€on€a€subsequentÐ \¬ Ðevaluation€observed€troubling€features€of€the€defendantððs€distrust€of€his€attorneys,€refusal€to€discussÐ H˜ Ða€plea€bargain,€and€an€inability€to€understand€that€his€actions€constituted€criminal€offenses.€€Dr.Ð 4„ ÐEngum€recommended€further€evaluation,€and€the€trial€court€ordered€another€competency€evaluation.€Ð  p ÐThe€subsequent€competency€evaluation€was€conducted€by€Dr.€Tennison.€€During€the€secondÐ  \ Ðcompetency€hearing,€Dr.€Tennison€testified€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓMy€finding€was€that€he€had€no€incapacity€with€regard€to€10€of€the€15€areasÐ ä4 Ðthat€we€examine€defendants€on.€€Those€include€his€capacity€to€understand€the€arrestÐ Ð  Ðprocess;€the€appreciation€of€the€charges€against€him;€understanding€of€courtÐ ¼  Ðprocedure;€understanding€of€the€legal€process;€appraisal€of€key€figures€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðcourtroom;€capacity€to€disclose€to€his€attorney€the€pertinent€facts€surrounding€theÐ ”ä Ðalleged€offenses;€his€appreciation€of€the€range€in€nature€of€possible€penalties;€hisÐ €Ð Ðappraisal€of€the€likely€outcome;€his€capacity€to€challenge€the€prosecution;€and€hisÐ l¼ Ðcapacity€to€manage€his€behavior€appropriately€in€the€courtroom.Ð X ¨ ÐÐ D!” ÐI€found€a€mild€degree€of€incapacity€with€regard€to€two€areas:€his€capacity€toÐ 0"€  Ðtestify€relevantly€and€whether€or€not€he€has€a€self„defeating€or€self„serving€motivationÐ #l! Ðin€the€legal€sense.€€I€found€a€moderate€degree€of€incapacity€in€three€areas:€the€qualityÐ $X" Ðof€relating€to€his€attorney;€his€capacity€to€realistically€appraise€available€legalÐ ô$D # Ðdefenses;€and€his€capacity€to€assist€in€the€planning€of€legal€strategy.€€The€finalÐ à%0!$ Ðoutcome€of€all€of€this€was€that€I€found€that€he€was€mildly€impaired€with€regard€toÐ Ì&"% Ðthese€„„€with€regard€to€these€incapacities,€but€that€overall€he€met€the€criteria€forÐ ¸'#& Ðfitness€to€stand€trial.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÐ )à$( Ðâ âÓ X ÝÓÓ XþÜÓÐ |*Ì%) ÐDr.€Tennison€stated€that€the€defendantððs€inability€to€relate€to€his€attorneys€appeared€to€be€theÐ ° Ðâ âdefendantððs€choice€based€on€his€characterologic€style,€but€not€from€dementia€or€psychosis.€€BasedÐ œì Ðon€this€testimony,€the€trial€court€properly€ruled€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.Ð ˆØ ÐÐ tÄ ÐòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓSentencingóóÐ `° ÐÓ>åÓÓ X0åÓÐ L œ ÐThe€defendantððs€final€issue€on€appeal€concerns€alleged€errors€in€sentencing.€€The€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaintains€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€apply€two€mitigating€factors:€(1)€that€theÐ $ t Ðdefendantððs€mental€condition€significantly€reduced€his€culpability,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€40„35„113(3),Ð  ` Ðand€(2)€absence€of€a€criminal€record,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€Additionally,€the€defendant€Ð ü L  Ðcontends€that€it€was€improper€to€impose€consecutive€sentences€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ è 8  ÐAnnotated€section€40„35„115(b)(5).Ð Ô$  ÐÐ À  ÐThe€trial€court€found€two€enhancing€factors:€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8),€the€offenseÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ˜è  Ð40„35„114(16),€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€The€defendant€does€not€dispute€theÐ „Ô  Ðapplicability€of€the€enhancement€factors.€€Ð pÀ ÐÐ \¬ ÐThe€trial€court€imposed€sentences€of€twenty„two€years€for€each€of€the€four€rape€of€a€childÐ H˜ Ðconvictions€and€ran€three€consecutively€€with€one€running€concurrently.€€A€sentence€of€ten€years€forÐ 4„ Ðaggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor€was€imposed€to€run€consecutively.€€The€total€effectiveÐ  p Ðsentence€was€seventy„six€years.€Ð  \ ÐÐ øH ÐÔ‡XFÅXXXFÅÔThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€de€novo€with€a€presumptionÐ ä4 Ðof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€anÐ Ð  Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ ¼  Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Pettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€543€(Tenn.€1999).€€If€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€ourÐ ”ä Ðreview€is€de€novo.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).Ð €Ð ÐÐ l¼ ÐThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ X ¨ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d),€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€areÐ D!” Ðrequired,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210(b),€to€consider€the€followingÐ 0"€  Ðfactors€in€sentencing:Ð #l! ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓ(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€[t]heÐ $X" Ðpresentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÐ ô$D # Ðalternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ð à%0!$ Ð[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ Ì&"% Ðfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishesÐ ¸'#& Ðto€make€in€the€defendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÓ XðÓÓ X ðÓÓ XÿïÓÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tennessee€CodeÐ ° Ðâ âAnnotated€section€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€for€most€offenses€shall€beÐ œì Ðthe€minimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Lavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€806€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factorsÐ tÄ Ðdo€exist,€a€trial€court€should€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€for€enhancementÐ `° Ðfactors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð L œ Ððð€40„35„210(e);€òòState€v.€Arnettóó,€49€S.W.3d€250,€257€(Tenn.€2001).€€No€particular€weight€for€eachÐ 8 ˆ Ðfactor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€theÐ $ t Ðtrial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€actÐ  ` Ðand€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Maddenóó,€99€S.W.3d€127,€138€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ü L  ÐApp.€2002)òòóó;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Nevertheless,Ð è 8  Ðshould€there€be€no€mitigating€factors,€but€enhancement€factors€are€present,€a€trial€court€may€set€theÐ Ô$  Ðsentence€above€the€minimum€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d);€òòState€v.€Imfeldóó,Ð À  Ð70€S.W.3d€698,€704€(Tenn.€2002).€Ð ¬ü  ÐÐ ˜è  ÐRape€of€a€child€is€a€Class€A€felony,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522,€for€which€the€presumptiveÐ „Ô  Ðsentence€is€the€midpoint€of€the€range,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€The€sentence€range€for€aÐ pÀ ÐRange€I€offender€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„Ð \¬ Ð522(b),€40„35„112(a)(1).€€The€sentence€range€for€especially€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€aÐ H˜ Ðminor,€a€Class€B€felony,€is€eight€to€twelve€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„1005(c),€40„35„Ð 4„ Ð112(a)(2).€€After€finding€two€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€increasedÐ  p Ðthe€sentences€for€rape€of€a€child€from€the€presumptive€twenty€years€to€twenty„two€years€andÐ  \ Ðincreased€the€presumptive€sentence€of€eight€years€for€aggravated€sexual€exploitation€of€a€minor€fromÐ øH Ðeight€to€ten€years.€€Ð ä4 ÐÐ Ð  Ðò òó óThe€trial€court€agreed€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€variety€of€emotional€problems€butÐ ¼  Ðfound€no€nexus€between€these€disabilities€and€the€criminal€offenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ¨ø Ð113(8)€reads€as€follows:€Ô#†XFÅXXXFÅ ë#ÔÔ‡XFÅXXXFÅÔð ðThe€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€or€physical€condition€thatÐ ”ä Ðsignificantly€reduced€the€defendantððs€culpability€for€the€offense;€however€the€voluntary€use€ofÐ €Ð Ðintoxicants€does€not€fall€within€the€purview€of€this€factor.ðð€€Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐÔ#†XFÅXXXFÅ”þ#ÔÓ€ P !"#$%&(ÿÿ03UÓÓ?+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °œX?ÓÔ‡SXFÅXXXFÅÔThe€record€clearly€establishes€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€list€of€personality€disorders,Ð D!” ÐiÔ#†XFÅXXSXFÅÖ#ÔÔ‡XFÅXXXFÅÔncluding€characteristics€of€avoidant€and€schizoid€personality.€€The€defendant€lived€an€isolated€lifeÐ 0"€  Ðwith€few€close€friends.€€The€proof€evinced€that€the€defendantððs€perspective€was€skewed€by€odditiesÐ #l! Ðof€thought€and€distortions.€€He€was€diagnosed€as€externalizing€his€problems€and€blaming€others€orÐ $X" Ðrationalizing€his€own€offenses.€€He€had€borderline€intellectual€functioning€with€an€IQ€estimatedÐ ô$D # Ðbetween€71€and€84.€€The€defendant€claimed€he€could€not€read€and€was€described€both€as€illiterateÐ à%0!$ Ðand€as€having€a€reading€disorder.Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& ÐDespite€what€most€would€consider€a€bizarre€lifestyle€and€outlook,€the€defendant€managed€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðown€affairs.€€He€held€employment,€owned€and€maintained€a€household,€acquired€vehicles,€andÐ )à$( Ðpresumably€held€a€driverððs€license.€€Despite€the€defendantððs€various€disorders,€we€are€unconvincedÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€they€ð ðsignificantly€reduced€the€defendantððs€culpabilityðð€for€the€egregious€offenses€that€heÐ h+¸&* Ðinflicted€on€a€six€or€seven„year„old€child.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÐ ° Ðthis€mitigating€factor€was€not€applicable.Ð œì ÐÐ ˆØ ÐThe€fact€that€the€defendant€had€no€prior€criminal€history€was€known€by€the€trial€court€throughÐ tÄ Ðthe€pre„sentence€report€despite€not€being€raised€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€defendant€now€assertsÐ `° Ðthat€it€should€have€been€applied€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113(13).€€ThisÐ L œ ÐCourt€has€previously€held€that€this€aspect€is€not€required€to€be€applied€in€mitigation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐWilliamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€261€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€However,€it€is€ð ðappropriately€consideredÐ $ t Ðin€mitigation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Gutierrezóó,€5€S.W.3d€641,€646„47€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€therefore€conclude€thatÐ  ` Ðthis€mitigating€factor€should€have€been€considered€in€sentencing.€€However,€the€trial€court€onlyÐ ü L  Ðenhanced€each€sentence€two€years€as€opposed€to€a€possible€five€years€for€aggravated€sexualÐ è 8  Ðexploitation€of€a€minor.€€The€statutes€prescribe€no€particular€weight€for€an€enhancement€or€mitigatingÐ Ô$  Ðfactor.€€òòState€v.€Gosnellóó,€62€S.W.3d€740,€750€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€In€the€face€of€the€strengthÐ À  Ðof€the€enhancement€factors€after€considering€the€one€mitigating€factor,€we€conclude€in€our€de€novoòòÐ ¬ü  Ðóóreview€that€the€sentences,€as€imposed,€are€appropriate.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÐ „Ô  Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  Óòòó óConsecutive€SentencingóóÐ pÀ ÐÓ£ ÓÓ X• ÓÐ \¬ ÐThe€defendantððs€concluding€issue€is€to€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€ofÐ H˜ Ðconsecutive€sentencing.€€Tennessee€Code€annotated€section€40„35„115€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð 4„ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ °¡,°°ŒXÓ(a)€à0 ` àIf€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€more€than€one€(1)€criminal€offense,€the€courtÐ  p Ðshall€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€or€concurrently€as€provided€by€theÐ  \ Ðcriteria€in€this€section.ÐøH` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌ(b)€à0 ` àThe€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€aÐ Ð  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that:м ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà 4 àà ` à.€.€.Ð ”ä ÐÌà 4 àà ` à(5)€à0 ¸ àThe€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÐ l¼ Ðinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðaggravating€circumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€between€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendantððsÐ 0"€  Ðundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€andÐ #l! Ðthe€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victimÐ $X" Ðor€victims.Ðô$D #¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ" °°ŒX°¡,)"ÓÓ XÓÓ X ÓÓ Xÿ ÓÐ à%0!$ ÐIn€imposing€consecutive€sentences,€the€trial€court€considered€aggravating€circumstances€andÐ Ì&"% Ðmade€the€following€observations:Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓWe€have€an€abuse€of€a€private€trust€position,€a€period€of€time€and€„„€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðextended€period€of€time€under€which€there€have€been€multiple€acts.€€Clearly€thereððsÐ )à$( Ðâ âbeen€residual€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim,€and€it€went€undetected€forÐ |*Ì%) Ðthis€period€of€time€that€„„€these€acts€were€being€committed€and€photographs€wereÐ ° Ðbeing€taken.Ð œì Ðâ âÔ#†XFÅXXXFÅŽ#ÔÓ X±ÓÓ X£ÓÐ ˆØ ЀThe€time€span€of€the€undetected€offenses€is€uncertain.€€The€testimony€of€the€victim€indicatedÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€touching€by€the€defendant€began€when€she€was€between€first€and€second€grades.€€This€wouldÐ `° Ðhave€been€in€1997€and€covered€an€approximate€two„year€period.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€timeÐ L œ Ðperiod€was€approximately€two€months.€€Regardless,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€defendant€tookÐ 8 ˆ Ðadvantage€of€his€close€relationship€with€the€victim€and€her€family€for€his€own€sexual€gratification.€Ð $ t ÐDue€to€his€twenty„year€friendship€with€the€victimððs€family,€he€was€given€extraordinary€trust€whichÐ  ` Ðhe€abused.€€The€pictures€of€the€defendant€and€victim€engaged€in€sexually€explicit€acts,€which€wereÐ ü L  Ðkept€by€his€bedside€and€frequently€shown€to€the€victim,€served€as€a€further€aggravating€circumstance.Ð è 8  ÐÐ Ô$  ÐThe€victim€impact€statement€by€the€mother€of€the€victim€indicated€that€the€family€had€beenÐ À  Ðattending€weekly€counseling€sessions€for€almost€four€years.€€She€stated€the€victim€still€had€troubleÐ ¬ü  Ðconcentrating,€remained€fearful€and€had€been€irregular€in€school€attendance.€€The€victimððs€impactÐ ˜è  Ðstatement€indicated€that€she€felt€alone,€different,€and€has€nightmares.€€She€feared€the€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðwould€hurt€her€again.Ð pÀ ÐÐ \¬ ÐThe€defendant€has€submitted€two€cases€in€support€of€his€contention€for€concurrent€sentences;Ð H˜ ÐòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€and€òòState€v.€James€M.€Powersóó,€No.Ð 4„ ÐE2001„02363„CCA„R3„CD,€2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€889€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,Ð  p ÐOct.€23,€2002).€€We€find€both€cases€readily€distinguishable€from€the€instant€case.€€Both€offenses€wereÐ  \ Ðcharacterized€by€this€Court€as€non„aggravated€conduct.€€The€photographs€in€this€record€of€theÐ øH Ðsexually€explicit€acts€belie€any€such€attempted€characterization€herein.€€We€find€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€3Ð ä4 ÐS.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€1999),€more€apposite€to€our€case€at€hand.€€òòLaneóó€involved€an€appeal€ofÐ Ð  Ðconsecutive€sentences€for€statutory€rape€and€unlawful€exercise€of€official€power.€€The€defendant€inÐ ¼  ÐòòLaneóó€was€a€Department€of€Human€Services€counselor€who€had€sexual€intercourse€for€ð ðover€a€monthððÐ ¨ø Ðwith€a€sixteen„year„old€female€in€state€custody.€€Our€Supreme€Court€found€the€conductÐ ”ä Ðð ðreprehensibleðð;€that€the€record€supported€that€the€victim€suffered€from€ð ðresidual€mental€damage,ððÐ €Ð Ðand€found€those€facts€òòóósufficient€aggravating€circumstances€to€uphold€consecutive€sentences.€€òòLaneóó,Ð l¼ Ð3€S.W.3d€at€459„60.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Woodcockóó,€922€S.W.2d€904,€915€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð X ¨ ÐÐ D!” Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓConclusionÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓ Xó!ÓÓ  Óó óBased€upon€the€foregoing€analysis€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€convictions€andÐ $X" Ðthe€sentences€as€imposed.ò òÐ ô$D # Ðó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÐ È&"% ÐÐ ´'#& ÐÐ  (ð#' ÐÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à___________________________________€Ðx*È%)(#(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE