ÿWPC $]ÐY0 ÑЬ;ߟ§/7ŸiÕÈk‚Ö”è?g =_ú¥ð±H~¿Áú^¯„a¤»PÁýŸPj0ø¼­ \&)—¾?Fiç‹ÒÊM¸efEÌ&XÄ#dŽ>ÎÝ䛦zCò§JÕoÙAŸIK£Â¸F³ïîo‘M ¦èWŸiÀà2ìÚV/AÐuö¢x§<³|‘ÓÅÍì͆ä$ˆl¹O¦ä®L_ü5nÊzÊ2cÎÿâ52VH7µsµU²ì÷ÅÌG.™xø4˜KuúèK1ÁtÅA„ÿSáúqÈ#¬é‚ìõƒzpm´{´ z`‡ÉåTEÿcH91o bu1Л]Du5ÜÁlî¨+"8p²óJÑæ7K'ç6²?’‹¿.Ë–Û 3æ Ñ}œ9¤C…• Tg!æ?#¯!°é68ߟeÊ‹Þ÷¥¡`=eöd£KXÿŸ#\kfvrÀ÷hö¥‰ ä&2².4óÖ{Ÿ?õz¹î’øõ†Qƒ)Ó–UC­XE„Æœ˜.û$PìLÛ/@h± eV¹{i@÷ªð½Ä¨8 :Ìwø°Rw[­Yqº×í‰ëŽç·$7Sk® £çÑ lY̸pþ•𨠏Eb %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*ýxAu ¶ zÉ ÒC Ý^ òwþ4ÆÆÜÆ¢Æh.N=? mAEX#ÁZ¨ 0DÃÃÃb 0ë Búú 0¤ D3» D-î 0K ASfƹ 0¤ 0D# A«g»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular óÝ ƒRBI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Defendant€also€claims€that€he€was€illegally€indicted€for€four€additional€crimes€he€did€not€commit.€€AÐ ° Ðreview€of€the€technical€record€reveals€that€the€Defendant€was€indicted€only€for€DUI€and€public€intoxication;€theÐ tÄ Ðremaining€four€counts€apply€to€Mary€Jean€Ô_ÔMayrandÔ_Ô,€the€Defendantððs€co„defendant. 7Ý ƒRBI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±åò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€technical€record€contains€a€copy€of€the€February€8,€2000€capias,€which€designates€bond€as€$7,500,€andÐ ° Ða€copy€of€the€bail€bond€dated€February€8,€2000,€listing€the€bond€as€$7,500. Ý ƒRBI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±åò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€Defendant€attached€to€his€brief€what€appears€to€be€a€copy€of€the€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€his€applicationÐ ° Ðto€be€found€indigent. ˜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 ÓÝ ƒRBI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±åò»»ÔÝ  ÝWe€also€note€that€the€Defendant€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€on€November€19,€2001.€€The€hearing€on€hisÐ ° Ðapplication€to€be€found€indigent€was€not€held€until€February€8,€2002.€€At€that€hearing,€the€Defendant€complained€to€theÐ tÄ Ðcourt€that€the€court€had€not€informed€him€of€his€rights€of€appeal€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(c).€Ð 8ˆ ÐObviously,€then,€the€Defendant€knew€of€these€rights,€and€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice€resulting€from€any€alleged€failureÐ üL Ðby€the€trial€court€to€inform€him€of€them€at€the€new€trial€hearing.€ôžO-s 3j1,bk2D§Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 žÝ ƒRBI$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€charge€of€DUI€was€based€on€the€Defendantððs€conduct€in€allowing€his€co„defendant,€Mary€Jean€Ô_ÔMayrandÔ_Ô,Ð ° Ðto€drive€his€vehicle€at€a€time€he€knew€her€to€be€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„201.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2BI$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±åò»»Ô d(|3¿w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿w$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼½»»»ÔÑ8€MXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îL½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼½»îîL #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€25,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XMX»¼½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼½»XXM##ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€ROY€L.€DENTONÔ‡XMX»¼½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rhea€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€15467€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Graham,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„03018„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐOctober€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Roy€L.€Denton,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_ÔÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€and€public€intoxication.€€TheÐ xÈ  ÐDefendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€raising€the€following€issues:€€whether€the€trial€court€should€haveÐ d´ Ðdismissed€the€indictment;€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€stayed€the€proceedings;€whether€theÐ P  Ðtrial€court€should€have€suppressed€evidence;€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€admit€certainÐ <Œ Ðevidence€proffered€by€the€Defendant;€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€DefendantððsÐ (x Ðconviction€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô;€whether€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€misconduct€during€trial;€whether€the€trial€courtÐ d Ðshould€have€granted€the€Defendantððs€motions€for€mistrial€and/or€new€trial;€whether€the€DefendantÐ P Ðreceived€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel;€and€whether€the€trial€court€erred€with€respect€to€advisingÐ ì< Ðthe€Defendant€about€his€right€to€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð Ø( ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼½»àXMŒ#ÔÔ‡XMX.¼½ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð ˆØ ÐGlenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌRoy€L.€Denton,€Ô_ÔGraysvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Ô_ÔAslingerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð $"t! ÐJ.€Michael€Taylor,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Will€Dunn,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð #`" Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ ÓÌOPINIONÔ#†¼½»XXMH #ÔòòóóÔ‡XMX»¼½ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼½»XXM #ÔÔ€XMX»¼½ÔòòÔ‡XMXXXMÔóóÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€the€only€record€before€this€Court€is€the€ð ðtechnical€record.ðð€€In€this€directÐ ¬'ü"' Ðappeal€by€the€Defendant,€it€is€the€Defendantððs€duty€to€ð ðhave€prepared€a€transcript€of€such€part€of€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðevidence€or€proceedings€as€is€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€whatÐ „)Ô$) Ðtranspired€with€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€òòSeeÐ p*À%*ý7 ÐÔ_Ôalsoóó€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998).€€ð ðWhere€the€record€is€incomplete€andÐ ° Ðdoes€not€contain€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings€relevant€to€an€issue€presented€for€review,€or€portionsÐ œì Ðof€the€record€upon€which€the€party€relies,€an€appellate€court€is€precluded€from€considering€the€issue.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560„61€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b)€(ð ðIssuesÐ tÄ Ðwhich€are€not€supported€by€.€.€.€appropriate€references€to€the€record€will€be€treated€as€waived€in€thisÐ `° Ðcourt.ðð).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€record€before€us€contains€no€transcript€of€the€evidence.€€Accordingly,€this€Court€is€unableÐ $ t Ðto€address€the€Defendantððs€contentions€regarding€the€trial€courtððs€evidentiary€rulings,€his€allegationÐ  ` Ðregarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€his€allegation€regarding€prosecutorial€misconduct,€and€hisÐ ü L  Ðallegation€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€mistrial.€€Moreover,€in€the€absence€of€an€adequate€record€onÐ è 8  Ðappeal,€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€these€issues€are€presumed€correct.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ð554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€We€will€address€the€Defendantððs€remaining€issues€to€the€extentÐ À  Ðpossible.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@‡ ‡ ìàò òDISMISSAL€OF€THE€INDICTMENTó óˆÐ „Ô  Ðà  àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€dismissed€the€indictment€against€himÐ pÀ Ðbecause€he€was€arrested€twice€and€twice€posted€bail€on€the€same€charges€of€DUI€and€publicÐ \¬ Ðintoxication€of€which€he€now€stands€convicted.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Defendant€was€originally€arrested€for€theÐ H˜ Ðinstant€charges€on€July€10,€1999.€€After€securing€bail€bond,€the€Defendant€appeared€at€hisÐ 4„ Ðpreliminary€hearing,€where€the€charges€were€bound€over€to€the€grand€jury.€€The€Defendant€remainedÐ  p Ðout€on€bail.€€In€February€2000,€the€grand€jury€indicted€the€Defendant€for€the€instant€charges.€€AÐ  \ Ðcapias€was€then€issued€and€the€Defendant€was€re„arrested€on€the€same€charges,€in€spite€of€his€beingÐ øH Ðon€bail.€€The€Defendant€was€re„released€after€posting€bail€a€second€time.׃Ü×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€dismissed€the€charges€against€himÐ ¼  Ðon€the€basis€of€the€second€arrest,€and€also€because€the€capias€issued€for€the€Defendantððs€arrestÐ ¨ø Ðfollowing€the€indictment€erroneously€includes€the€four€counts€levied€against€his€co„defendant,€MaryÐ ”ä ÐJean€Mayrand.€€Following€the€Defendantððs€arrest€on€this€capias,€he€apparently€posted€bail€on€all€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€charges€listed,€including€those€that€did€not,€in€fact,€apply€to€him.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial€the€Defendantððs€attorney€moved€the€trial€court€to€dismiss€the€charges€against€theÐ D!” ÐDefendant€on€the€grounds€that€Ð 0"€  Ðà8  àthe€arrest€of€the€Defendant€on€two€occasions€for€the€same€offenses,€and€theÐ #l! Ðrequirement€for€the€Defendant€to€make€two€surety€bonds€for€the€same€offenses,Ð $X" Ðconstitutes€punishment€for€the€offenses€alleged€in€the€indictments.€€As€such,€theÐ ô$D # Ðadditional€prosecution€of€these€indictments€violates€the€double€jeopardy€clauses€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Federal€and€State€Constitutions.€€Additionally,€the€Defendant€has€been€punishedÐ ° Ðwithout€due€process€of€law,€in€violation€of€the€Federal€and€State€Constitutions.€Ð œì ÐFinally,€the€Defendant€has€been€subjected€to€excessive€bail€and€fines,€due€only€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðfailure€of€the€prosecuting€officer€and€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€submit€the€charges€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€grand€jury€and€through€no€oversight,€omission€or€neglect€on€the€part€of€theÐ `° ÐDefendant.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€trial€court€denied€this€motion,€finding€no€double€jeopardy€violation,€no€due€process€violation,Ð $ t Ðno€excessive€bail,€and€no€showing€of€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€State.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€is€correct€in€his€assertion€that€the€capias€for€his€arrest€following€the€indictmentÐ è 8  Ðshould€not€have€been€issued€because€he€had€been€released€on€bail.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€9(a).€Ð Ô$  ÐHowever,€the€Defendant€is€not€correct€in€his€assertion€that€the€indictment€against€him€should€haveÐ À  Ðbeen€dismissed€because€of€the€erroneous€capias€and€subsequent€second€arrest.€€As€recognized€by€theÐ ¬ü  ÐState€in€its€brief,€the€result€of€an€illegal€arrest€is€the€suppression€of€any€evidence€seized€as€a€resultÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€arrest,€not€dismissal€of€the€indictment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,€432€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€1997).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€further€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€dismissal€of€theÐ H˜ Ðindictment€on€the€grounds€of€double€jeopardy.€€A€second€arrest€made€pursuant€to€a€capias€issuedÐ 4„ Ðerroneously€does€not€implicate€double€jeopardy€concerns.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Maupinóó,€859€S.W.2dÐ  p Ð313,€316€(Tenn.€1993)€(recognizing€that€ð ðdouble€jeopardy€protects€against:€€(1)€a€second€prosecutionÐ  \ Ðfor€the€same€offense€after€conviction;€(2)€a€second€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€anÐ øH Ðacquittal;€and€(3)€multiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.ðð)€€The€Defendant€refers€us€to€noÐ ä4 Ðauthority€for€the€proposition€that€his€second€arrest€and/or€posting€bail€a€second€time€constitutes€aÐ Ð  Ðð ðpunishmentðð€for€either€double€jeopardy€or€due€process€purposes.€€We€are€unaware€of€any€legalÐ ¼  Ðauthority€requiring€dismissal€of€the€charges€simply€because€the€Defendant€may€have€posted€bailÐ ¨ø Ðtwice€based€on€an€erroneous€capias.€€òòóóIn€short,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€dismiss€theÐ ”ä Ðindictment€on€the€basis€of€the€erroneous€capias,€and€this€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.€€€Ð €Ð ÐÔ#†XMXXXMŸ #ÔÌà@II!ìàò òSTAY€OF€PROCEEDINGSó óˆÐ X ¨ Ðà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€stayed€the€prosecution€for€DUI€untilÐ D!” Ðthe€judgment€against€his€co„defendant€became€final.€€The€Defendantððs€charge€of€DUI€arose€from€hisÐ 0"€  Ðallowing€his€co„defendant,€Mary€Jean€Mayrand,€to€drive€his€vehicle€while€knowing€her€to€beÐ #l! Ðintoxicated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„202.€€Apparently,€Ms.€Mayrand€was€convicted€of€DUIÐ $X" Ðand€appealed€her€conviction.€€The€Defendant€requested€the€trial€court€to€stay€the€proceedings€againstÐ ô$D # Ðhim€while€Ms.€Mayrand€pursued€her€appeal.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€grant€the€DefendantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðrequest.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€allegation€of€error€is€without€merit.€€A€criminal€defendant€may€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprosecuted€even€where€the€ð ðperson€for€whose€conduct€the€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€hasÐ )à$( Ðbeen€acquitted,€has€not€been€prosecuted€or€convicted,€has€been€convicted€of€a€different€offense€orÐ |*Ì%) Ðdifferent€type€or€class€of€offense,€or€is€immune€from€prosecution.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„407(2);Ð h+¸&* Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Gennoeóó,€851€S.W.2d€833,€835„36€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Accordingly,€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€stay€the€prosecution€against€the€Defendant.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà@÷÷ ìàò òMOTION€FOR€NEW€TRIALó óˆÐ tÄ Ðà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€a€new€trial€on€the€basisÐ `° Ðthat€the€State€violated€Ms.€Mayrandððs€protection€against€double€jeopardy€when€it€presented€proofÐ L œ Ðat€his€trial€of€her€intoxication,€following€her€conviction€of€DUI.€€Again,€the€DefendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðmisapprehends€the€nature€of€double€jeopardy.€€Ms.€Mayrand€was€not€twice€put€in€jeopardy€by€proofÐ $ t Ðof€her€intoxication€offered€at€the€Defendantððs€trial.€€Moreover,€even€if€she€were,€the€Defendant€wouldÐ  ` Ðnot€be€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€a€violation€of€someone€elseððs€constitutional€rights.€€ThisÐ ü L  Ðissue€is€without€merit.€€The€Defendantððs€contention€that€his€protection€against€double€jeopardy€wasÐ è 8  Ðviolated€when€the€trial€court€admitted€evidence€of€his€public€intoxication€following€his€admissionÐ Ô$  Ðof€same€during€opening€statement€is€likewise€without€merit.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€ineffectiveÐ ˜è  Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€The€Defendant€chose€to€represent€himself€at€trial.€€He€will€not€now€be€heardÐ „Ô  Ðto€complain€about€his€own€effectiveness€(or€lack€thereof).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,Ð pÀ Ð551€(Tenn.€2000)€(recognizing€that,€ð ðwhen€a€defendant€forfeits€or€waives€the€right€to€counsel,€.€.€.Ð \¬ Ðhe€or€she€also€forfeits€or€waives€the€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ H˜ Ðmerit.€Ð 4„ Ðà  àÌà@"ìàò òRIGHTS€OF€APPEALó óˆÐ  \ Ðà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€complains€that,€upon€overruling€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourt€did€not€advise€him€of€his€right€to€appeal,€did€not€make€a€determination€as€to€his€indigency,€andÐ ä4 Ðdid€not€advise€him€of€his€right€to€appointed€counsel€for€the€direct€appeal.€€Again,€we€are€precludedÐ Ð  Ðfrom€considering€this€issue€because€we€do€not€have€a€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€newÐ ¼  Ðtrial.€€Moreover,€we€note€that,€advised€by€the€trial€court€or€not,€the€Defendant€filed€his€notice€ofÐ ¨ø Ðappeal€four€days€after€the€trial€court€filed€its€order€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð ”ä ÐAccordingly,€the€Defendant€suffered€no€prejudice€by€any€alleged€failure€by€the€trial€court€to€notifyÐ €Ð Ðhim€of€his€right€to€appeal.€€We€also€note€that€the€Defendant€instituted€proceedings€for€aÐ l¼ Ðdetermination€of€his€indigency€and€voluntarily€chose€to€abandon€that€effort.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€only€òòafteróó€aÐ X ¨ Ðdetermination€that€a€defendant€is€indigent€that€a€trial€court€is€obliged€to€inform€the€defendant€thatÐ D!” Ðcounsel€will€be€appointed€for€the€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(c).€€The€Defendant€himselfÐ 0"€  Ðrelieved€the€trial€court€of€that€obligation.׃ ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€is,€therefore,€without€merit.Ð #l! ÐÐ $X" Ðà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ $ t ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à