ÿWPC ¥ki@†ªí±hýì­ä-ºv1ùÆi¥ö–ÄŠÓóκüø žÒµ#.aó*¨wAVÚg5¤û'ä¾ËÀücr*÷b3nXrdyð`¦ÁwVG¸âpÚÀß /yÉ$ÎÅz/ä„ÅÁñ:5u5dφ/£2ª·Å™Þä‹1l$ú´ê«¦­´°¤¦zLi¦ í@wm„˜%g­”ƒô²×„ºô¶Ð.8L¤„8o¶´[`?r€ÝÞ {‰¨¦Vx‡°²ç™~;Íc¿ø^ d$®V¶5ôÒ1ª®„H` \®†“ u|7ŠW)uU!5b \¹¥P§ ±AŽüq"–øá› Ò/kçDþÑÝÎI sÁ›3Vwi5'K2HwQI¹¿—«ìÃûmÚQθ „Ç {Æ8áLPƒ —eðÎlà7²~¹ÈÃB4’.9– QÑçÐ .µ^At`†Î ìÛÒéÜßÚkEx|›V®ß.Ÿ] Ú×Ü»§åqóOf¸´ ´Õ^¶ÅJùzE‘¢Ï¥°hØ×}-š÷аA)‡CJÛ“éwªê íDîÓ¯¶fØU‡EYS¼øÙI1â) ùì3ËÀÁq­ÅfiÔõñânµ¿/´ëéb %\U@b 0ˆ¢U&N*UNx^ ÆwÒ zÖÒP 4" 6 E mG Æ^ Æ$ Æê ư #Áv N79 1‡AEÈ 72Ê 1uü 72q 0c££££££££££££££££££££b 0ë Bùù 0¤ D3º D-í 0K ASeƸ 0¤~ 0D" A«f»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular™­}+  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÖJ~'¤7§¨£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 (нCEKQW]cioAutoList11)1)1)1)1)1)1)1)1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2($¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©ò»»Ô d(|3ÿb$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿb$¢¢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€H9XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îî  #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€17,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XH9X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXH9!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€STEVEN€LLOYD€GIVENSÔ‡XH9X»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„C„2110€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00021„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€29,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔThe€Defendant,€Steven€Lloyd€Givens,€was€convicted€of€attempted€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÐ xÈ  Ðin€the€Criminal€Court€of€Davidson€County.€€Ô#†XH9XXXH9Ç#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔAfter€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€aÐ d´ Ðsentence€of€twelve€years€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€be€served€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€thisÐ P  Ðappeal€as€of€right,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€(1)€denying€the€DefendantððsÐ <Œ Ðmotion€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized€during€the€Defendantððs€arrest,€(2)€denying€the€DefendantððsÐ (x Ðmotion€to€suppress€the€results€of€a€show„up€identification€of€the€Defendant€byÔ#†XH9XXXH9¨#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô€the€victim,€(3)€denyingÐ d Ðthe€Defendantððs€motion€to€amend€the€indictment,€and€(4)€Ô#†XH9XXXH9ò#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔÔ#†¼»XXH9#ÔÔ‡XH9X»¼Ôin€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€theÐ P Ðmaximum€sentence.Ô#†XH9XXXH9œ#ÔÔ#†¼»XXH9Þ#ÔÔ‡XH9X»¼Ô€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ì< ÐÓ»ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXH9‹ #ÔÔ‡XH9X.¼ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòJamesÐ œì ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌDawn€Ô_ÔDeanerÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Steven€Lloyd€Givens.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dan€Hamm,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð $"t! Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓi ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXH9˜ #ÔòòóóÔ‡XH9X»¼ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼»XXH9Å #ÔÔ€XH9X»¼ÔòòÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔóóÌÓÓà  àOn€the€morning€of€July€17,€1999,€Renee€Romans,€the€victim,€was€walking€her€dogs€in€theÐ ¬'ü"' ÐWest€End€area€of€Nashville.€€As€she€approached€an€intersection,€she€crossed€in€front€of€a€car€drivenÐ ˜(è#( Ðby€a€man€who€the€victim€later€identified€as€the€Defendant.€€As€she€stopped€to€play€with€a€stray€dog,Ð „)Ô$) Ðthe€driver€of€the€car€turned€the€vehicle€around€and€approached€the€victim.€€The€driver€appearedÐ p*À%* Ðbehind€the€victim,€grabbing€her€left€shoulder€and€telling€her€to€get€into€his€car.€€The€victim€clearlyÐ \+¬&+ Ðsaw€a€knife€in€her€attackerððs€left€hand.€€The€victim€began€to€struggle€with€the€attacker€who€twistedÐ H,˜', Ðthe€victimððs€arm€behind€her.€€Both€the€attacker€and€the€victim€fell€to€the€ground,€and€the€victim€brokeÐ 4-„(-ý Ðfree€and€ran€to€the€nearest€house.€€The€victim€was€able€to€remember€the€license€plate€number€of€theÐ ° Ðcar€driven€by€her€attacker.Ð œì ÐÌà  àAnother€woman€driving€by€stopped€and€assisted€the€victim€in€calling€the€police€from€theÐ tÄ Ðwomanððs€cell€phone€and€relaying€the€license€plate€number.€€Officer€David€Miller€of€the€Metro€PoliceÐ `° ÐDepartment€arrived€on€the€scene€and€the€victim€gave€him€a€description€of€her€attacker.€€The€victimÐ L œ Ðdescribed€her€attacker€as€a€stocky€man€in€his€mid„20ððs€with€a€shaved€head,€a€goatee,€and€wearingÐ 8 ˆ Ðfaded€blue€shorts.€€The€victim€stated€that€her€attacker€was€driving€a€gold€sedan.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAfter€receiving€a€dispatch€concerning€the€attempted€kidnapping€and€the€license€plate€numberÐ ü L  Ðof€the€attacker,€Officer€Robert€Morris€proceeded€to€the€home€of€Deborah€Gary€who€owned€a€goldÐ è 8  ÐBuick€with€a€license€plate€number€matching€the€one€given€by€the€victim.€€Because€the€vehicle€wasÐ Ô$  Ðnot€at€the€residence,€Officer€Morris€asked€Ms.€Gary€if€the€car€had€been€stolen.€€Ms.€Gary€replied€thatÐ À  Ðher€son€probably€had€the€car.€€Officer€Morris€told€Ms.€Gary€that€her€son€needed€to€call€the€SheriffððsÐ ¬ü  ÐDepartment€as€soon€as€he€returned,€and€then€the€officer€retreated€to€a€position€from€which€he€couldÐ ˜è  Ðobserve€the€Gary€residence.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àApproximately€fifteen€minutes€later,€the€Defendant€arrived€home€driving€the€gold€Buick€andÐ \¬ Ðcarrying€a€small€black€bag.€€The€Defendant€matched€the€description€given€by€the€victim.€€OfficerÐ H˜ ÐMorris€initially€decided€to€wait€for€other€officers€to€arrive,€but€then€decided€to€approach€the€houseÐ 4„ Ðalone.€€Ms.€Gary€answered€the€door,€and€Officer€Morris€asked€if€the€Defendant€was€home.€€Ms.€GaryÐ  p Ðreplied,€ð ðYes,€heððs€in€the€bedroom.€€Come€in.ðð€€Officer€Morris€found€the€Defendant€sitting€on€hisÐ  \ Ðbed€and€asked€him€if€he€was€Steven.€€The€Defendant€replied€affirmatively€and€was€placed€underÐ øH Ðarrest.€€Incidentally€to€the€arrest,€Officer€Morris€searched€the€small€black€bag€the€Defendant€carriedÐ ä4 Ðinto€the€house€earlier,€which€was€lying€next€to€the€bed.€€The€black€bag€contained€a€small€pocketÐ Ð  Ðknife.€€Officer€Morris€also€retrieved€a€pair€of€shorts€from€the€floor€of€the€bedroom.€€Ms.€Gary€alsoÐ ¼  Ðconsented€to€a€search€of€her€car€where€officers€found€an€open€condom€and€a€liquor€bottle.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAfter€taking€the€Defendant€into€custody,€Officer€Morris€drove€the€Defendant€to€West€EndÐ €Ð ÐMiddle€School,€a€few€blocks€away€from€the€scene€of€the€attack,€where€he€was€identified€by€theÐ l¼ Ðvictim.€€The€Defendant€stood€in€a€group€outside€Officer€Morrisðð€patrol€car€with€a€shirt€covering€hisÐ X ¨ Ðhandcuffs€as€the€victim€drove€by€in€Officer€Millerððs€patrol€car.€€The€victim€positively€identified€theÐ D!” ÐDefendant€as€her€attacker.€€Approximately€one€hour€passed€from€the€time€of€the€attack€until€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictimððs€identification€of€the€Defendant€at€West€End€Middle€School.Ð #l! ÐÌò òÓ  ÓDEFENDANTððS€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSÐ ô$D # Ðó óÓ>Óà  àThe€Defendant€first€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðfound€within€his€home.€€The€Defendant€specifically€contends€that€the€police€officerððs€warrantlessÐ Ì&"% Ðentry€into€his€home,€his€subsequent€arrest,€and€the€seizure€of€certain€items€in€his€bedroom€violatedÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€right€to€be€free€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€guaranteed€by€the€Fourth€AmendmentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€1,€section€7,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€because€noÐ )à$( Ðvalid€consent€was€given€and€no€exigent€circumstances€existed€to€warrant€the€entry€and€search.€€WeÐ |*Ì%) Ðmust€respectfully€disagree.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States€provides€that:€Ð ° Ðà8  à[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effectsÐ œì Ðagainst€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€shall€not€be€violated.€No€warrant€shallÐ ˆØ Ðissue€but€upon€probable€cause€supported€by€oath€or€affirmation€and€particularlyÐ tÄ Ðdescribing€the€place€to€the€searched€and€the€person€or€things€to€be€seized.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌArticle€1,€section€7€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€also€guarantees€that€the€people€shall€be€freeÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€The€State€may€not€invade€this€personal€constitutional€rightÐ $ t Ðof€the€individual€citizen€except€under€exigent€circumstances.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àA€warrantless€search€and€seizure,€therefore,€is€presumed€unreasonable€unless€it€falls€into€oneÐ è 8  Ðof€the€narrowly€defined€exceptions,€or€exigent€circumstances,€to€the€warrant€requirement.€òòSeeÐ Ô$  ÐCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€454-55€(1971);€òòÔ_ÔFuquaÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔArmourÔ_Ôóó,€543€S.W.2d€64,€66Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€1976);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTransouÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€958„959€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€mereÐ ¬ü  Ðexistence€of€these€circumstances€does€not€necessarily€validate€a€warrantless€search.€€There€must€beÐ ˜è  Ða€showing€by€those€asserting€the€exception€that€the€exigencies€of€the€situation€rendered€the€searchÐ „Ô  Ðimperative.€€The€burden€is€on€those€seeking€the€exception€to€show€the€need.€It€is,€of€course,€wellÐ pÀ Ðsettled€that€one€of€the€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement€is€a€search€conducted€pursuant€toÐ \¬ Ðconsent.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔSchnecklothÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔBustamonteÔ_Ôóó,€412€U.S.€218,€219€(1973);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€889€S.W.2dÐ H˜ Ð219,€221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1993).€€The€sufficiency€and€validity€of€consent€depends€largely€upon€theÐ 4„ Ðfacts€and€circumstances€presented€by€each€particular€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòJacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€221.Ô#†XH9XXXH9\#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔÐ  p ÐÌà  àFindings€of€fact€made€by€a€trial€court€during€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppressÐ øH Ðmust€be€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€an€appellate€court€must€not€set€aside€the€trial€courtððsÐ ä4 Ðfindings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòJacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€222.€Ð Ð  ÐQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€ofÐ ¼  Ðconflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.Ð ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWe€also€note€that€when€an€arrest€occurs€in€a€home€the€police€are€generally€required€to€obtainÐ l¼ Ða€warrant.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔPaytonÔ_Ô€v.€New€Yorkóó,€445€U.S.€573,€576€(1980);€òòState€v.€Wilsonóó,€990€S.W.2d€726,Ð X ¨ Ð730€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€However,€when€voluntary€and€knowing€consent€is€given€to€enter€theÐ D!” Ðhome,€the€warrant€is€not€required.€€òòSeeóó€òòU.S.€v.€Ô_ÔMatlockÔ_Ôóó,€415€U.S.€164,€169„170€(1974);€òòWilsonóó,€990Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€at€730€(holding€that€consent€to€enter€given€by€the€defendantððs€wife€was€valid€for€warrantlessÐ #l! Ðin„home€arrest).òòóóÐ $X" ÐÔ#†XH9XXXH9ù+#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔÌÔ#†XH9XXXH9 2#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ôà  àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Officer€Morrisðð€entryÐ à%0!$ Ðinto€his€home€was€lawful.€€The€trial€court€expressly€found€that€the€warrantless€entry€was€properÐ Ì&"% Ðbased€upon€the€consent€given€Officer€Morris€by€Ms.€Gary,€as€well€as,€upon€exigent€circumstances.€Ð ¸'#& ÐIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€Ms.€Gary,€knowing€Officer€Morris€was€looking€for€her€son,€voluntarilyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinvited€him€into€her€home€and€directed€him€to€her€son.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€Ms.€GaryððsÐ )à$( Ðconsent€was€not€knowing€and€voluntary€because€she€did€not€know€Officer€Morris€was€going€to€arrestÐ |*Ì%) Ðher€son.€€Officer€Morris€had€previously€informed€Ms.€Gary€that€her€son€needed€to€call€the€SheriffððsÐ h+¸&* ÐDepartment€as€soon€as€he€arrived€home.€€When€Officer€Morris€returned€to€the€home,€Ms.€Gary€hadÐ ° Ðbeen€admonishing€her€son€for€taking€her€car€without€her€permission,€and€Ms.€Gary€was€clearly€awareÐ œì Ðthat€there€was€a€problem€with€her€car€that€concerned€the€police.€€To€require€Officer€Morris€to€informÐ ˆØ ÐMs.€Gary€that€he€was€there€to€arrest€her€son€could€have€placed€Officer€Morris€in€danger,€as€well€asÐ tÄ Ðgiven€the€Defendant€an€opportunity€to€flee.€€Officer€Morris€did€not€use€fraud€or€trickery€to€obtainÐ `° Ðentry€to€the€house,€but,€rather,€informed€Ms.€Gary€that€he€needed€to€talk€to€her€son.€€Accordingly,Ð L œ Ðwe€find€that€Ms.€Gary€consented€to€Officer€Morrisðð€entry€into€her€home.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€Officer€Morrisðð€entry€was€justified€based€upon€exigentÐ  ` Ðcircumstances.€€€€A€warrant€is€unnecessary€when€exigent€circumstances€exist€that€necessitate€anÐ ü L  Ðimmediate€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€603€S.W.2d€741,€742€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(finding€thatÐ è 8  Ðexigent€circumstances€existed€when€police€were€informed€of€an€impending€drug€deal€and€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€proceeded€to€the€stated€location€while€under€surveillance).Ô#†XH9XXXH9L2#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô€€The€trial€court€determined€thatÐ À  Ðð ðthe€situation€required€immediate€action€by€Officer€Morris€to€detain€the€suspect€and€to€ensure€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsafety€of€the€responding€officers€and€the€general€publicðð€due€to€the€violent€nature€of€the€offense€theÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€was€suspected€of€perpetrating.€€Exigent€circumstances€are€limited€to€three€situations:€(1)Ð „Ô  Ðwhen€officers€are€in€ð ðhot€pursuitðð€of€a€fleeing€suspect;€(2)€when€the€suspect€presents€an€immediateÐ pÀ Ðthreat€to€the€arresting€officers€or€the€public;€or€(3)€when€immediate€police€action€is€necessary€toÐ \¬ Ðprevent€the€destruction€of€vital€evidence€or€thwart€the€escape€of€known€criminals.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐRodney€Fordóó,€No.€01C01„9708„CR„00365,€1999€WL€5437,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.Ð 4„ Ð7,€1999),€òòcitingóó€òòJones€v.€Lewisóó,€874€F.2d€1125,€1130€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1989).Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€relied€on€the€random€and€violent€nature€of€the€attempted€kidnapping€andÐ øH ÐOfficer€Morrisðð€observations€concerning€the€Defendantððs€resemblance€to€the€victimððs€description€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€perpetrator€in€finding€the€existence€of€exigent€circumstances.€€While€the€factors€relied€upon€byÐ Ð  Ðthe€trial€court€suggest€that€Officer€Morris€had€probable€cause€to€arrest€the€Defendant,€such€probableÐ ¼  Ðcause€will€not€excuse€a€warrantless€entry€into€the€Defendantððs€home€absent€exigent€circumstances.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔPaytonÔ_Ôóó,€445€U.S.€at€576.€€Officer€Morris€was€not€in€hot€pursuit€of€the€Defendant,€nor€was€anyÐ ”ä Ðevidence€presented€to€suggest€the€Defendant€was€an€immediate€danger€to€the€public€or€likely€toÐ €Ð Ðdestroy€evidence.€€€Without€such€factors€being€present,€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€OfficerÐ l¼ ÐMorrisðð€entry€into€the€Defendantððs€home€was€justified€by€exigent€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð X ¨ ÐÔ_ÔMcMahanÔ_Ôóó,€650€S.W.2d€383,€387€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€However,€the€error€is€harmless€in€lightÐ D!” Ðof€our€previous€determination€that€Officer€Morris€entered€the€home€pursuant€to€the€DefendantððsÐ 0"€  Ðmotherððs€valid€consent.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€alternatively€that€even€if€Officer€Morrisðð€entry€into€the€home€wasÐ ô$D # Ðpermissible,€the€search€of€the€Defendantððs€room€and€the€seizure€of€a€pocket€knife€and€a€pair€of€shortsÐ à%0!$ Ðwas€unreasonable.Ô#†XH9XXXH9);#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô€€During€a€search€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest,€an€officer€may€search€the€suspectððsÐ Ì&"% Ðperson€and€the€area€within€his€immediate€control.€€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔChimelÔ_Ô€v.€Californiaóó,€395€U.S.€752,€762„763Ð ¸'#& Ð(1969);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCrutcherÔ_Ôóó,€989€S.W.2d€295,€300„301€(Tenn.€1999)(holding€that€a€search€was€invalidÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbecause€the€defendant€was€not€under€arrest€at€the€time€of€the€search);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTransouÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2dÐ )à$( Ð949,€958„959€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(finding€that€marijuana€seized€incident€to€a€valid€arrest€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðclearly€admissible).€€Officer€Morris€testified€that€when€he€entered€the€Defendantððs€bedroom,€theÐ h+¸&* ÐDefendant€was€sitting€on€his€bed€with€a€black€bag€and€a€pair€of€shorts€on€the€floor€next€to€him.€€TheÐ ° Ðblack€bag€was€the€same€bag€Officer€Morris€had€seen€the€Defendant€carry€into€the€house€earlier.€Ð œì ÐOfficer€Morris€was€also€aware€that€the€Defendant€was€suspected€of€an€offense€involving€a€knife.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€court€found€and€the€evidence€supports€the€finding€that€the€seizure€of€the€shorts€and€the€knife€thatÐ tÄ Ðwas€found€in€the€black€bag€were€lawful€seizures€as€a€result€of€a€search€incident€to€an€arrest.€€WeÐ `° Ðagree.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€find€that€Officer€Morris€was€given€consent€to€enter€the€Defendantððs€homeÐ $ t Ðand€the€seizure€of€the€knife€and€shorts€was€the€result€of€a€lawful€search€incident€to€an€arrest.€€WeÐ  ` Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  Ðò òÌÓ  ÓSHOW„UP€IDENTIFICATIONÐ Ô$  Ðó óÓhMÓà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€victimððs€show„up€identification€ofÐ À  Ðhim€an€hour€after€the€offense€occurred.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€identification€was€undulyÐ ¬ü  Ðsuggestive€and€that€there€is€a€substantial€likelihood€that€the€victim€misidentified€the€Defendant.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àShow„up€identifications€are€inherently€suggestive€and€unfair€to€the€accused,€and€have€beenÐ pÀ Ðrepeatedly€condemned€as€a€means€of€establishing€the€identification€of€a€suspect.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.Ð \¬ ÐThomasóó,€780€S.W.2d€379,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€However,€show„up€identifications€areÐ H˜ Ðpermissible€if€(a)€there€are€imperative€circumstances€which€necessitate€a€show„up,€or€(b)€the€show„upÐ 4„ Ðoccurs€as€an€on-the-scene€investigatory€procedure€shortly€after€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Ð  p Ðòòid.óó€€The€danger€of€irreparable€misidentification€must€be€avoided.€€òòSeeóó€òòNeil€v.€Ô_ÔBiggersÔ_Ôóó,€409€U.S.€188,Ð  \ Ð198€(1972).€€The€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€ð ðthe€factors€to€be€considered€in€evaluating€theÐ øH Ðlikelihood€of€misidentification€include€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€timeÐ ä4 Ðof€the€crime,€the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention,€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€theÐ Ð  Ðcriminal,€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€the€confrontation,€and€the€length€ofÐ ¼  Ðtime€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.ððÔ#†XH9XXXH9"F#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô€€òòId.óó€at€199„200.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòNeil€v.€Ô_ÔBiggersÔ_Ôóó,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€show„upÐ €Ð Ðidentification€was€non„suggestive€and€reliable.€€The€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding.Ô#†XH9XXXH9lT#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô€€TheÐ l¼ Ðvictim€had€ample€opportunity€to€view€the€Defendant€in€the€daylight€during€the€attack.€€The€degreeÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€victimððs€attention€and€awareness€is€clearly€evidenced€by€the€accuracy€of€her€initial€descriptionÐ D!” Ðto€police€and€her€ability€to€observe€and€remember€the€license€plate€number€of€the€car€the€DefendantÐ 0"€  Ðwas€driving.€€Furthermore,€the€victim€unequivocally€identified€the€Defendant€at€the€show„up.€€TheÐ #l! Ðshow„up€identification€itself€occurred€less€than€an€hour€after€the€attack€and€was€the€result€of€anÐ $X" Ðorganized€and€efficient€investigation€by€patrol€officers.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ ô$D # Ðdecision€to€deny€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€of€identification€due€to€the€show„Ð à%0!$ Ðup€identification.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌò òÓ  ÓKIDNAPPING€STATUTESó óÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÓ¸YÓà  àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€Tennesseeððs€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravatedÐ )à$( Ðkidnapping€statutes,€read€together,€are€unconstitutionally€vague.ò ò€€ó óThe€Defendant€asserts€that€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðlegislative€intent€of€the€two€statutes€may€not€be€clear€to€a€jury,€and€that€lack€of€clarity€within€theÐ l+¼&* Ðstatutes€violates€the€Defendantððs€right€to€due€process€guaranteed€in€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€toÐ ° Ðthe€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€1,€section€8,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€mustÐ œì Ðrespectfully€disagree.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€guiding€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€to€seek€out€and€give€effect€to€the€legislativeÐ `° Ðpurpose€of€the€entire€statute.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€854€S.W.2d€904,€907„908€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð L œ Ð1993).€€Statutory€meaning€is€derived€in€light€of€the€general€purposes€of€the€act€as€a€whole.€€òòId.óó€at€907;Ð 8 ˆ Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòTennessee€Manufactured€Housing€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô€v.€Metropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€of€Nashvilleóó,€798€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ð254,€257€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„104€dictates€that€theÐ  ` Ðð ðprovisions€[of€the€criminal€code]€shall€be€construed€according€to€the€fair€import€of€their€terms,Ð ü L  Ðincluding€reference€to€judicial€decisions€and€common€law€interpretations,€to€promote€justice,€andÐ è 8  Ðeffect€the€objectives€of€the€criminal€code.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„104.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliamsóó,€854Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€at€908.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔKentrailÔ_Ô€Sterling€v.€Stateóó,€No.€W1999„00608„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€1117518€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Sept.€24,€2001),€this€Court€rejected€a€defendantððs€challenge€to€these€sameÐ „Ô  Ðkidnapping€statutes€as€unconstitutionally€vague,€stating€that€ð ðthe€legislative€intent€is€clear:€theÐ pÀ Ðlegislature€intended€to€treat€and€punish€crimes€under€this€statute€more€harshly€than€under€statutesÐ \¬ Ðsetting€forth€lesser€crimes€of€the€same€nature€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*6.€€We€agree€that€the€legislative€intent€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€two€kidnapping€statutes€is€clear€and€meets€constitutional€guidelines.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€Defendantððs€challenge€to€the€constitutionality€of€the€statutes€is€withoutÐ  \ Ðmerit.Ð øH ÐÌò òÓ  ÓSENTENCINGÐ Ð  Ðó óÓjdÓà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€TheÐ ¼  ÐDefendant€was€sentenced€to€twelve€years€as€a€Range€I€offender,€the€maximum€allowed€by€law.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€apply€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€andÐ ”ä Ðthat€a€proper€application€of€these€factors€would€entitle€the€Defendant€to€a€less€severe€sentence.€€WeÐ €Ð Ðrespectfully€disagree.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÐ D!” Ðhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinationsÐ 0"€  Ðmade€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€isÐ #l! Ðð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÐ $X" Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # Ð1991).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWhen€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,Ð ¸'#& Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report;€(c)€the€principles€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€theÐ )à$( Ðcriminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÐ |*Ì%) Ðmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€sentencing;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÐ h+¸&* Ðrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210Ô#†XH9XXXH9æU#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô;€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€875Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€298,€302€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð œì ÐApp.€1988).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€that€theÐ `° Ðcourt€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€theÐ L œ Ðfactors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÐ 8 ˆ Ðadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€haveÐ $ t Ðpreferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€926„27€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð  ` Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ü L  ÐÔ#†XH9XXXH9]l#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€and€the€Defendant€concedes,€that€twoÐ Ô$  Ðstatutory€enhancement€factors€are€applicable€to€the€Defendant:€€(1)€the€Defendant€has€a€previousÐ À  Ðhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÐ ¬ü  Ðappropriate€range,€and€(2)€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€Defendant€was€on€bail€from€a€felonyÐ ˜è  Ðcharge,€and€the€Defendant€was€ultimately€convicted€of€the€prior€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð „Ô  Ð35„114(1),€(13).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€also€stated€that€two€other€enhancement€factors€should€apply,€but€he€wasÐ H˜ Ðunsure€of€the€law€governing€that€decision.€€The€Defendant€characterizes€this€statement€by€the€trialÐ 4„ Ðcourt€as€evidence€of€an€impermissible€sentence€because€it€is€unclear€which€factors€were€used€by€theÐ  p Ðtrial€court€to€determine€the€Defendantððs€sentence.€€The€prosecution€requested€that€the€trial€courtÐ  \ Ðconsider€as€enhancement€factors€the€Defendantððs€lack€of€hesitation€in€committing€the€crime€whenÐ øH Ðthe€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€and€€the€crimeððs€potential€for€great€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.€€òòSeeóóÐ ä4 ÐTenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€(16).€€The€Defendant€argued€during€the€sentencing€hearing€thatÐ Ð  Ðthis€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Kernóó,€909€S.W.2d€5,€7„8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€precludedÐ ¼  Ðconsideration€of€those€enhancement€factors€in€an€attempted€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€case.€òòóóÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€òòKernóó,€this€Court€held€that€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€were€elements€of€the€offenseÐ €Ð Ðof€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€because€the€applicability€of€the€factors€was€based€solely€on€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendantððs€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Attempted€kidnapping€is€an€attempt€to€falsely€imprisonÐ X ¨ Ðanother€ð ð[Ô_Ôu]nderÔ_Ô€circumstances€exposing€the€other€person€to€substantial€risk€of€bodily€injury.ðð€€€òòSeeóóÐ D!” ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„303(a)(1).€€Attempted€kidnapping€becomes€attempted€especiallyÐ 0"€  Ðaggravated€kidnapping€when€it€is€attempted€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð #l! Ð305(a).€€Because€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€require€a€high€risk€to€human€life€and€potentialÐ $X" Ðfor€bodily€injury,€respectively,€and€the€kidnapping€statute€requires€circumstances€ð ðexposing€the€otherÐ ô$D # Ðperson€to€substantial€risk€of€bodily€injury,ðð€we€find€that€the€enhancement€factors€are€inapplicable€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€present€case.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„303(a)(1).Ô#†XH9XXXH9p#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9Ô€€The€Defendant€properly€relied€on€òòKernóó€toÐ Ì&"% Ðpreclude€the€use€of€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€during€the€sentencing€hearing.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€trial€court€clearly€stated€that€the€Defendantððs€sentence€was€based€on€the€weightÐ )à$( Ðgiven€to€the€first€two€enhancement€factors.€€The€trial€court€properly€found€that€the€DefendantððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðextensive€criminal€history€and€the€fact€that€the€offense€was€committed€while€the€Defendant€was€onÐ h+¸&* Ðbail€from€a€felony€charge€outweighed€any€mitigating€factors€and€supported€imposition€of€theÐ ° Ðmaximum€sentence.Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` à€The€Defendant€requested€the€application€of€six€mitigating€factors:ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ (н83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£°ÝÔ2нÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýsubstantial€grounds€existed€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€defendantððsÐ L œ Ðcriminal€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense;݃3£°éÝŒÐ8 ˆ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£%ÝÔ2нÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€crime€was€committed€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikelyÐ $ t Ðthat€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€the€criminal€conduct;€Ýƒ3£%^݌Р`` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£®‚ÝÔ2нÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€Defendant€suffered€from€a€substance€abuse€problem€and€has€made€effortsÐ ü L  Ðto€remedy€that€problem€while€incarcerated;݃3£®‚ç‚ÝŒÐè 8 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£„ÝÔ2нÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€Defendant€has€made€efforts€to€improve€himself€as€a€human€being€whileÐ Ô$  Ðincarcerated€by€completing€violence€workshops,€becoming€baptized,€andÐ À  Ðobtaining€his€Ô_ÔG.E.D.Ô_Ô݃3£„M„݌Ьü ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£Ü…ÝÔ2нÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€Defendant€has€been€consistently€employed€while€incarcerated;€and݃3£Ü…†ÝŒÐ˜è ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ý†ÝÔ2нÔÚ  Ú6Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthe€Defendant€is€remorseful.݃3£ý†6‡ÝŒÐ„Ô ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(3),(11),(13).Ð \¬ Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€the€Defendantððs€substance€abuse€problem€to€be€the€only€applicableÐ H˜ Ðmitigating€factor,€but€stated€that€ð ðthe€substance€abuse,€unusual€circumstances,€none€of€them,€as€farÐ 4„ Ðas€this€Court€is€concerned,€even€measures€[sic]€up€in€any€way€to€the€enhancement€factors.ðð€€It€isÐ  p Ðapparent€from€the€record€that€if€the€trial€judge€found€the€Defendant€to€be€at€all€remorseful,€he€gaveÐ  \ Ðlittle€if€any€weight€to€this€factor.€€The€trial€court€put€great€emphasis€on€the€violent€nature€of€the€crimeÐ øH Ðand€the€fact€that€the€Defendant€was€on€bail€from€another€felony€when€he€committed€this€offense.€Ð ä4 ÐWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€that€€neither€the€Defendantððs€substance€abuse€problemsÐ Ð  Ðnor€his€efforts€to€improve€himself€while€incarcerated€warrant€mitigation€in€light€of€the€applicableÐ ¼  Ðenhancement€factors.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTherefore,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€of€the€relevant€sentencingÐ €Ð Ðfactors€and€properly€sentenced€the€Defendant.€€The€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ  Óò òÌÌCONCLUSIONó óÐ #l! ÐÓUÓà  àAccordingly,€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ $X" ÐAFFIRMED.Ô#†XH9XXXH9à{#ÔÔ‡XH9XXXH9ÔÐ ô$D # ÐÔ#†XH9XXXH9;Ž#ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE