ÿWPC ÄYuœ óöÄTÈEE­ëš2r´=ªÖYJ…—„€üÄVÈJI“#—l_ô‡÷˜/ÞfïD}K“8Ù¥ŠÂœÆKÇcs¯íjg2·IJj¯ ùpBÒO{s™Íå\'·j÷:C<Š„sY Qí—è «-*ýK«p[”þtÒÎYäÂ<ÏÝtàhz¶XT¿ ÀXR˜Yâ‹8öÏ.ü›Óke‹ÑQ •\vOðæïÂγ$Ø5E°ã4æ(bã:(æ‘:Ñ%yôs‡:¸de¾þœ{p\… æW#¢¢ ÿúµBùÕÛ»í8½b¯±ÍkÑzoA†I¿˜Œ ‚Ý [›io \Qùïôû½˜3Äï²û¨i:̼{ ö%¡?fœÝZxˆ]4ÏãL‡yàhÜE©Ì·Š‹$}sš(G³:ï!§¢Ù_}G¶mþЦP©X'´®÷ '.@ÄŒÿ÷Úæ²wõ©‡° z[~1g¡Ý+;²d©?Ÿ D!•WùÜßÊèl"VMO!X¨ Î!¾..CéBŠ0[P´{þ—à±{…Ùú÷qtüii§ )'¢}Ÿ¥“•Lú¹:e'ý“ià]Á”þS/Ü«ÕÿpвåUÆùëÖ¯H"WM²æ‹óô+Ôb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ99NÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c»Ôˆu/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¦ƒ‡.ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK4NASÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2A$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø<ò»»Ô d(|37-$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37-$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Øé»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Øé»»»ÔÑ8€˜'XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î*®î»¼ØéÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Øé»îî*® #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€13,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡X˜'X»¼ØéÔÌò òÔ#†¼Øé»XX˜' #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€REGINALD€D.€HUGHESòòóóÔ‡X˜'X»¼ØéÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„502„180€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00543„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€21,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X¯XXX˜'ÔThe€Appellant,€Reginald€D.€Hughes,€was€convicted€by€a€Williamson€County€jury€of€felony€evadingÐ V¦  Ðarrest€and€misdemeanor€possession€of€cocaine.€€As€a€result€of€these€convictions,€Hughes€wasÐ ? Ðsentenced€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender€to€an€effective€sentence€of€five€years€in€the€DepartmentÐ (x Ðof€Correction.€€The€single€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÐ a Ðsupport€the€verdicts.€€After€review€of€the€record,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€and€affirm€theÐ úJ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð ã3 ÐÔ#†X˜'XX X¯Í#ÔÔ#†¼Øé»XX˜'š#ÔÔ‡X˜'X»¼ØéÔÓÁÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ µ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Øé»àX˜'¯#ÔÔ‡X˜'X.¼ØéÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòJerryÐ ˆØ ÐL.€Smithóó,€J.,€joined.Ð qÁ ÐÌFannie€J.€Harris,€Smith,€Hirsch,€Ô_ÔBlackshearÔ_Ô€&€Harris,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,Ð C“ ÐReginald€D.€Hughes.Ð ,| ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Elizabeth€T.Ð þN ÐRyan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€€€Ronald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Mary€KatharineÐ ç 7  ÐWhite,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ð! ! ÐÔ#†¼Øé»XX˜'h#ÔÔ‡X˜'X»¼ØéÔÌÓ9ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Øé»XX˜'ƒ #ÔÔ‡X˜'X»¼ØéÔÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ^&®!& ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Øé»XX˜'ö #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X˜'X»¼ØéÔÌÔ‡ X¯XXX˜'Ôà  àOn€the€afternoon€of€April€11,€2002,€four€officers€with€the€Franklin€Police€Department€wereÐ 1(#( Ðon€bicycle€patrol€on€Natchez€Street.€€After€hearing€ð ða€loud€bass€sound,ðð€which€they€believed€to€beÐ )j$) Ðin€violation€of€a€Franklin€noise€ordinance,€the€four€officers€moved€forward€to€the€edge€of€the€streetÐ *S%* Ðto€investigate.€€They€observed€a€white€Ô_ÔSUVÔ_Ô,€the€only€vehicle€on€the€street,€approaching€them.€€TheÐ ì*<&+ Ðofficers,€all€in€uniform,€raised€their€hands€and€yelled,€ð ðStop!€Police!,ðð€in€an€attempt€to€stop€theÐ Õ+%', Ðmoving€vehicle.€€The€three€officers,€who€testified€at€trial,€stated€that,€as€the€Ô_ÔSUVÔ_Ô€was€parallel€withÐ ¾,(- Ðthem,€the€Appellant€looked€over€at€them€with€a€shocked€or€surprised€look€on€his€face.€€TheÐ §-÷(.ýÿ ÐÔ_ÔAppellant€then€increased€his€speed€and€continued€down€the€street.€€The€four€officers€pursued€theÐ ° Ðvehicle,€with€at€least€two€of€the€bicycle€sirens€activated,€still€ordering€the€Appellant€to€stop.€€TheÐ ™é ÐAppellant€continued€on€his€course,€ran€one€stop€sign,€and€turned€onto€Strahl€Street,€at€which€timeÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€officers€lost€sight€of€the€vehicle.Ð k» ÐÌà  àPatrol€Officer€Legieza,€responding€to€the€bicycle€officersðð€call€for€assistance,€spotted€theÐ =  ÐSUV€and€turned€his€patrol€car€onto€Strahl€Street.€€As€he€turned€onto€the€street,€he€noticed€that€theÐ & v ÐAppellant€had€parked€his€SUV€on€the€wrong€side€of€the€street.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€theÐ  _ ÐAppellant,€who€was€approximately€two€feet€from€his€SUV,€running€in€between€two€houses.€€TheÐ ø H ÐAppellant€had€left€the€engine€running€and€the€driverððs€side€door€open.€€As€Officer€Legieza€exitedÐ á 1  Ðhis€patrol€car,€the€Appellant€immediately€began€walking€back€towards€him€with€his€arms€raised.€€TheÐ Ê   Ðfour€bicycle€officers€arrived€and€witnessed€the€Appellant€walking€from€the€area€between€the€housesÐ ³  Ðwith€his€arms€€raised.€€The€Appellant€was€placed€in€custody.Ð œì  ЀÌà  àOfficer€Taylor€began€a€search€of€the€area€and€discovered€a€plastic€bag€of€what€was€laterÐ n¾  Ðdetermined€to€be€3.4€grams€of€cocaine€on€the€ground€in€the€area€that€the€Appellant€had€been€seenÐ W§  Ðwalking€away€from.€€The€bag€was€not€covered€with€any€debris€despite€being€found€in€a€pile€ofÐ @ Ðleaves.€Ð )y ÐÌ€à  àOn€May€13,€2002,€a€Williamson€County€grand€jury€returned€a€two„count€indictment€chargingÐ ûK Ðthe€Appellant€with€one€count€of€felony€evading€arrest€and€one€count€of€misdemeanor€possession€ofÐ ä4 Ðcocaine.€€After€a€jury€trial,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€as€charged.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€heldÐ Í Ðon€November€26,€2002,€and€the€Appellant€was€sentenced,€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender,€to€fiveÐ ¶ Ðyears€for€€felony€evading€arrest,€which€was€ordered€to€run€concurrent€with€an€eleven„month€andÐ Ÿï Ðtwenty„nine„day€sentence€for€misdemeanor€possession€of€cocaine.€€The€Appellantððs€motion€for€newÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€was€denied,€with€this€appeal€following.Ð qÁ ÐÌà@ƒƒ&ìàò òAnalysisˆÐ C“ ÐÌà  àó óThe€sole€issue€raised€by€the€Appellant€on€appeal€is€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supportingÐ g Ðhis€convictions€for€felony€evading€arrest€and€misdemeanor€possession€of€cocaine.€€In€consideringÐ  P Ðthis€issue,€we€apply€the€rule€that,€where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevantÐ é 9 Ðquestion€for€the€reviewing€court€is€€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ Ò!"  Ðto€the€[State],€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ »" ! Ða€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ¤#ô" ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ $Ý# Ðevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÐ v%Æ $ Ð54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€All€questions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÐ _&¯!% Ðbe€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754Ð H'˜"& ÐS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€This€court€will€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidenceÐ 1(#' Ðpresented.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð )j$( Ѐ€Ð *S%) Ðà  àð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÐ ì*<&* Ðwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ðð€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,Ð Õ+%'+ Ð493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€A€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€withÐ ° Ðwhich€a€defendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convictedÐ ™é Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð ‚Ò ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€These€rules€are€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€directÐ k» Ðevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,Ð T¤ Ð779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð =  Ѐ€Ð & v Ðà  àAlthough€a€conviction€may€be€based€entirely€upon€circumstantial€evidence,€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,Ð  _ Ð505€S.W.2d€237,€241€(Tenn.€1974),€in€such€cases,€the€facts€must€be€ð ðso€clearly€interwoven€andÐ ø H Ðconnected€that€the€finger€of€guilt€is€pointed€unerringly€at€the€Defendant€and€the€Defendant€alone.ðð€Ð á 1  ÐòòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991)€(òòóócitation€omitted).€€However,€as€in€the€case€ofÐ Ê   Ðdirect€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€and€ð ð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ ³  Ðfrom€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€andÐ œì  Ðinconsistent€with€innocence,€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2dÐ …Õ  Ð451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)€(citations€omitted).€Ð n¾  ÐÌò òA.€€Felony€Evading€ArrestÐ @ ÐÌó óà  àThe€Appellant€was€convicted€of€evading€arrest,€a€class€E€felony,€pursuant€to€€Tennessee€CodeÐ d ÐAnnotated€ðð€39„16„603(b),€which€defines€this€offense€as€follows:Ð ýM ÐÌà8  àIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person,€while€operating€a€motor€vehicle€on€any€street,€road,Ð Ï Ðalley€or€highway€in€this€state,€to€intentionally€flee€or€attempt€to€elude€any€lawÐ ¸ Ðenforcement€officer,€after€having€received€any€signal€from€such€officer€to€bring€theÐ ¡ñ Ðvehicle€to€a€stop.ЊÚÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„603(b)€(1)(1997).€€Thus,€to€sustain€the€conviction,€the€evidence€presentedÐ \¬ Ðat€trial€must€have€shown,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€Appellant:€(1)€was€operating€a€motorÐ E• Ðvehicle;€(2)€on€a€street€in€this€state;€(3)€received€a€signal€from€a€law€enforcement€officer€to€bring€hisÐ .~ Ðvehicle€to€a€stop;€and€(4)€intentionally€fled€or€attempted€to€elude€the€officer.Ð g Ѐ€Ð  P Ðà  àThe€Appellant€does€not€argue€that€the€State€failed€to€establish€each€of€the€elements€of€felonyÐ é 9 Ðevading€arrest,€and€we€agree€that€each€element€was€sufficiently€established€by€the€proof€presented.€Ð Ò!"  ÐRather,€he€relies€on€section€(b)(2)€of€the€statute,€which€provides€that€ð ð[i]t€is€a€defense€to€prosecutionÐ »" ! Ðunder€this€subsection€that€the€attempted€arrest€was€unlawful.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„603(b)(2).€Ð ¤#ô" ÐAs€such,€he€argues€that€ð ðthe€State€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€officers€wereÐ $Ý# Ðattempting€to€lawfully€arrest€the€[Appellant]€when€he€failed€to€stop€his€vehicle.ðð€€His€argument€onÐ v%Æ $ Ðappeal€rests€on€the€ground€that€the€officers€had€no€warrant€for€an€arrest€and€that€a€violation€of€theÐ _&¯!% Ðnoise€ordinance€did€not€authorize€an€arrest.€€The€Appellantððs€argument€is€misplaced.€€Section€(b)(2)Ð H'˜"& Ðdoes€provide€a€statutory€defense€to€a€charge€of€felony€evading€arrest.€€However,€for€a€defendant€toÐ 1(#' Ðrely€upon€this€section€as€a€defense,€it€must€be€fairly€raised€by€the€proof€at€trial€and€submitted€to€theÐ )j$( Ðjury€for€its€determination.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„203(a)„(d)€(2003).€€The€record€before€usÐ *S%) Ðdemonstrates€that€the€Appellant€did€not€rely€upon€this€statutory€defense€at€trial€and€presented€noÐ ì*<&* Ðproof€to€support€its€existence.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€was€not€instructed€upon€this€defense.€€BecauseÐ Õ+%'+ Ðthis€defense€was€not€presented€for€determination€in€the€lower€court,€it€may€not€be€raised€for€the€firstÐ ° Ðtime€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Moreover,€an€appellant€may€not€change€theories€from€theÐ ™é Ðtrial€court€to€the€appellate€record.€€òòState€v.€Alderóó,€71€S.W.3d€299,€303€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).Ð ‚Ò Ðà  àÌò òB.€€Possession€of€CocaineÐ T¤ ÐÌà  àó óThe€Appellant€also€alleges€that€his€conviction€for€simple€possession€of€cocaine,€a€class€AÐ ( x Ðmisdemeanor,€was€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€ò òó óSpecifically,€the€Appellant€argues€that,€under€aÐ  a Ðtheory€of€constructive€possession,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€HeÐ ú J Ðasserts€that€the€State€relied€only€upon€evidence€that€he€came€from€the€area€where€the€drugs€wereÐ ã 3  Ðfound€and€his€mere€presence€in€that€location€is€insufficient€proof.€€He€argues€that€the€State€failed€toÐ Ì   Ðprove€that€he€exercised€the€requisite€ð ðdominion€and€controlðð€over€the€drugs.€€€We€disagree.€Ð µ  ÐÌà  àTo€convict€in€this€case,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€the€Appellant€knowinglyÐ ‡×  Ðpossessed€a€controlled€substance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418(a)€(1997).€€There€is€no€dispute€asÐ pÀ  Ðto€the€nature€of€the€substance€found€in€the€bag,€as€both€the€State€and€the€Appellant€stipulated€thatÐ Y©  Ðthe€bag€contained€3.4€grams€of€cocaine,€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance.€Ð B’ Ѐ€Ð +{ Ðà  àA€conviction€for€the€possession€of€drugs€may€be€based€upon€either€actual€or€constructiveÐ d Ðpossession.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€discussing€theÐ ýM Ðnature€of€constructive€possession,€this€courtò òó ó€has€stated€that,€before€a€person€can€be€found€toÐ æ6 Ðconstructively€possess€drugs,€it€must€appear€that€the€person€has€ð ðthe€power€and€intention€at€a€givenÐ Ï Ðtime€to€exercise€dominion€and€control€over€.€.€.€[the€drugs]€either€directly€or€through€others.ðð€€òòStateÐ ¸ Ðv.€Transouóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€956€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citation€omitted).€€Mere€presence€in€theÐ ¡ñ Ðarea€where€the€drugs€are€discovered€is€not,€standing€alone,€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€forÐ ŠÚ Ðpossession.€€òòIdóó.€Ð sà ÐÌà  àThe€element€of€knowledge€of€the€presence€of€a€controlled€substance,€for€purposes€ofÐ E• Ðunlawful€possession,€is€oftentimes€not€susceptible€to€direct€proof.€€However,€knowledge€may€beÐ .~ Ðcircumstantially€proven€by€evidence€of€acts,€statements,€or€conduct.€€òòIdóó.€€After€examination€of€theÐ g Ðentire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€circumstantial€proof€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€find€thatÐ  P Ðthe€Appellant€constructively€possessed€cocaine.€€Ð é 9 ÐÌà  àHere€the€proof€established€that€the€Appellant€attempted€to€elude€police€as€they€attempted€toÐ »" ! Ðstop€his€vehicle.€€€He€was€then€seen€running€from€his€vehicle€to€the€area€where€the€bag€of€cocaineÐ ¤#ô" Ðwas€found.€€After€running€between€the€two€houses,€he€immediately€turned€and€approached€theÐ $Ý# Ðofficer€with€his€arms€raised.€€The€drugs€were€found€in€an€area€where€officers€testified€that€they€sawÐ v%Æ $ Ðno€other€people.€€The€officers€stated€that€two€individuals,€the€owner€of€the€house,€and€his€guest,€wereÐ _&¯!% Ðin€their€cars€in€the€driveway€at€the€time.€€However,€the€officers€did€not€see€either€of€these€individualsÐ H'˜"& Ðin€the€immediate€vicinity€where€the€drugs€were€found.€€Finally,€the€drugs€were€found€in€a€plastic€bagÐ 1(#' Ðthat€was€located€on€top€of€debris.€€We€find€this€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.Ð )j$( ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ ì*<&* ÐÐ Ö+&'+ Ðà  àó óFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€legally€sufficient€to€supportÐ ° Ðthe€Appellantððs€convictions€for€felony€evading€arrest€and€misdemeanor€possession€of€cocaine.€Ð ™é ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.€Ð ‚Ò ÐÔ#†X˜'XX X¯­ #ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð á 1  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE