ÿWPC¨ :¯ú }ÁÝPPwZ=6*¤óðT«ì°#ƒäâò® ¨þǺs·J/û@Ñ6&vâ_°%PªÃÝ4'¶5j w2ÖÿñuÎ^9B¤MsMä©,Â&ŒÖ‚ b¾i÷‰ì¬o•<6/©<‘¶Aí§MZ3x¨ó_´ÕB­IÐ4­çAÕZ°æ7:³+£S˜âîù Â[†öÄÍ­Kæ´„|/¦çO?ÂÏØÓ…Ã’¦Vé I‡žO¶.dzT°ï•k«F2‡;ÍìÞ¤¯Ó¤÷8ª6 ÅV™¸vð¾©ÐªÙN3G?¤u7zÚ±·œî.y¥@ŽT²¤Æ©Ñ»y.‘Ø—¸÷úJaFæ9†Cê£ .ãÓV£d¬¥Cß&¥5£¹‘@0hµgÆO‰¬¬+Ù2UðþÞŸsûmS”'Ýågî¢}£†…„¸!M&ñÕV¢‡¡Cù´VãÕz;!(¨ÐÕèЀ í4Ôò*ãGýVÁÁý­ÂíšÔõÀLyS ÃÜy7 oM³($/˜/SFÞ¦š`ïo³‚êºÊWzë\x’P͈t0CŸ ÏEƤ¡_¦•ÃòÙ2&`ó„‚Ñtôþþé%jÂ=Ä ðb3':M”×b#Á\ % 0D# 0ˆg UNï 1u= 1² z? Ò¹ ¹ U@‹ wË _Ï Æ.ÆôƺÆ€U:FN€€ 1‡‚E  72  1= 72Ê 0cüü 72_ 1‘ 72 0wP 1Ç 72TN†kˆ óUNýýK^ S4_s‚ m„„b›››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››› 0룣££ BŽŽ 0¤« D5O D-„ 0K±± ASüÆO 0¤ 0D¹ A«ý˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(ÆÙCEMU]emu}AutoList3(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman  UÝ ƒRŠ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€was€indicted€as€ð ðRandolph€Scott€Allison€alias€Randolph€Scott€Jennings€alias€Red.ðð€€In€a€pretrialÐ ° Ðmotion,€the€defendant€sought€amendment€of€the€indictment€to€reflect€his€alleged€ð ðtrue€name,ðð€Randolph€Scott€Jennings.€Ð tÄ ÐAlthough€the€record€is€not€a€model€of€clarity€on€the€issue,€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion.€€Thus,€weÐ 8ˆ Ðrefer€to€the€defendant€by€the€surname€Jennings.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.i)(¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(1)0ÖÝCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(A)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(öéCEMU]emu}AutoList5(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) (A) aÝ ƒRŠ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€there€was€some€variation€in€the€various€descriptions€of€€the€perpetratorððs€and€the€defendantððs€shirt,Ð ° Ðaccounts€were€consistent€that€the€perpetrator€and€defendant€was€a€tall,€large,€black€male. Ý ƒRŠ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€has€not€alleged€that€the€state€was€purposefully€concealing€the€clothing€or€otherwise€proceedingÐ ° Ðin€bad€faith.€€Ð tÄ Ðà  àWe€decline€to€surmise€that€a€premature€disposition€of€the€clothes€may€have€been€occasioned€by€the€defendantððsÐ 8ˆ Ðflight€through€the€chicken€processing€plant.Ô‡%ôöåòòôöåÔ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ™†-s 3j1,\Pê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2Š^$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôöåò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢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€QXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îEü]}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼]}»îîEü #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€20,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XQX»¼]}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]}»XXQ #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RANDOLPH€SCOTT€JENNINGSòòóóÔ‡XQX»¼]}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€229104€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02118„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€6,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XQXXXQÔRandolph€Scott€Jennings€appeals€from€his€Hamilton€County€conviction€of€aggravated€robbery.€€HeÐ xÈ  Ðwas€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€his€peers€and€sentenced€by€the€trial€court€to€a€seventeen„year,€RangeÐ d´ ÐII€term€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€he€alleges€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€(1)Ð P  Ðdenial€of€his€motion€to€suppress€evidence€of€a€ð ðÔ_ÔshowupÔ_Ôðð€identification€and€admission€of€theÐ <Œ Ðsubsequent€in„court€identification€of€him€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime,€(2)€denial€of€motions€toÐ (x Ðcompel€production€of€clothing€the€defendant€wore€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€or€alternatively,€to€dismissÐ d Ðthe€charged€based€upon€the€stateððs€inability€to€produce€the€clothing,€and€(3)€application€ofÐ P Ðenhancement€factors,€imposition€of€a€Range€II€sentence,€and€order€of€consecutive€sentencing.€Ð ì< ÐBecause€we€are€unpersuaded€of€error,€we€affirm.Ô#†XQXX XQ×#ÔÔ#†¼]}»XXQŸ#ÔÔ‡XQX»¼]}ÔÐ Ø( ÐÓËÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]}»àXQI #ÔÔ‡XQX.¼]}ÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ_ÔArdenaÔ_Ô€Garth,€District€Public€Defender,€and€Donna€Robinson€Miller,€Assistant€District€PublicÐ L œ ÐDefender,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Randolph€Scott€Jennings.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð #`" ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Rodney€C.€Strong€and€Ô_ÔParkeÔ_Ô€Masterson,Ð ü#L# ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓì ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]}»XXQ #ÔÔ‡XQX»¼]}ÔÐ À&"& ÐòòóóÔ#†¼]}»XXQ9#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XQX»¼]}ÔÌà  àà ` àÔ‡ XQXXXQÔAt€approximately€noon€on€April€9,€1999,€Leah€Daniel€was€getting€out€of€her€carÐ ˜(è#( Ðoutside€her€place€of€employment€in€downtown€Chattanooga€when€she€was€approached€by€a€man€whoÐ „)Ô$) Ðpointed€a€gun€at€her€and€demanded€her€purse.€€The€man€repeatedly€demanded€that€she€surrender€anyÐ p*À%* Ðmoney€inside€her€purse.€€She€was€only€able€to€produce€three€dollars,€which€the€man€took€along€withÐ \+¬&+ ÐMs.€Danielððs€engraved€watch.€€The€man€fled€on€foot.€€Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ýà ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àMs.€Daniel€summoned€the€police,€who€quickly€responded€to€the€area.€€OfficersÐ ° Ðspotted€the€defendant,€Randolph€Scott€Jennings,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€running€and€gave€chase.€€After€chasing€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€through€a€chicken€processing€facility,€the€authorities€apprehended€the€defendant.€€A€watchÐ ˆØ Ðbearing€the€same€inscription€as€the€one€taken€from€the€victim€was€found€on€the€defendantððs€personÐ tÄ Ðat€the€time€of€his€apprehension.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€transported€back€to€the€scene€of€the€crime€within€twenty€minutesÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€robbery.€€The€victim€was€shown€the€watch€that€had€been€recovered€from€the€defendant,€andÐ $ t Ðthe€victim€identified€it€as€hers.€€The€victim€was€offered€the€opportunity€to€view€the€defendant€toÐ  ` Ðdetermine€whether€he€was€the€individual€who€had€robbed€her.€€While€the€defendant€was€seated€inÐ ü L  Ðthe€rear€of€a€police€car,€the€victim€viewed€him€and€positively€identified€him€as€the€perpetrator.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðvictim€then€told€the€detective€in€charge€about€the€three€dollars€taken€in€the€robbery,€whereupon€theÐ Ô$  Ðdetective€searched€the€defendant€and€found€three€one„dollar€bills€on€his€person.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€the€defendant€did€not€present€evidence.€€However,€he€attempted€to€discreditÐ ˜è  Ðthe€stateððs€identification€evidence€by€highlighting€the€varying€accounts€of€the€attire€of€the€person€whoÐ „Ô  Ðrobbed€the€victim€and€those€given€by€police€officers€about€the€defendant.€€For€example,€the€victimÐ pÀ Ðtestified€that€the€perpetrator€was€wearing€a€light€blue€shirt.€€A€patrolman€with€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÐ \¬ ÐDepartment€testified€that€the€broadcast€over€the€police€radio€was€of€a€suspect€wearing€a€blue€shirt,Ð H˜ Ðblue€jeans,€and€possibly€a€ball€cap.€€This€officer€testified€that€he€chased€the€defendant,€who€wasÐ 4„ Ðwearing€a€faded€red€sweatshirt€turned€inside€out€but€not€a€blue€shirt€or€a€ball€cap.€€€€Another€officerÐ  p Ðwho€chased€the€defendant€testified€that€he€was€wearing€non„specific€dark€clothing€and€may€haveÐ  \ Ðbeen€wearing€a€hat.€€The€detective€assigned€to€the€case€testified€that€although€he€could€not€actuallyÐ øH Ðrecall€what€the€defendant€was€wearing,€he€had€written€in€his€notes€that€the€defendant€was€attired€inÐ ä4 Ða€gray€shirt€and€blue€pants.€€He€acknowledged€that€the€description€that€had€been€broadcast€on€theÐ Ð  Ðradio€shortly€after€the€crime€was€that€of€an€individual€wearing€a€blue€shirt€and€blue€pants.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€stipulated€that€the€clothing€the€defendant€wore€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€hadÐ ”ä Ðnot€been€located.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€rejected€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€the€identification€proof€and€wasÐ X ¨ Ðpersuaded€by€the€stateððs€proof€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€of€aggravated€robbery.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€summarily€found€the€existence€of€severalÐ #l! Ðenhancement€factors,€rejected€all€mitigating€factors,€classified€the€defendant€as€a€Range€II€offender,Ð $X" Ðand€imposed€an€incarcerative€sentence€of€seventeen€years€to€be€served€consecutively€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€sentence€in€another€case.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àThis€appeal€followed.Ð ° ÐÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIˆÐ ˆØ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€evidence€of€the€victimððs€on„the„Ð `° Ðscene€identification€of€him€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€The€lower€court€denied€the€motion,€andÐ L œ Ðthe€evidence€was€admitted€along€with€the€victimððs€in„court€identification€of€the€defendant.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€claims€on€appeal€that€the€ð ðshowupðð€was€so€suggestive€as€to€violate€his€due€process€rightsÐ $ t Ðand€that€the€subsequent€in„court€identification€was€tainted€by€the€earlier€showup€identification.Ð  ` ÐÌÔ#†XQXX XQÚ#ÔÔ‡X¯ XXXQÔà  àà ` àÔ#†XQX XX¯Ñ"#ÔÔ€ XQXXXQÔAn€identification€procedure€that€is€so€impermissibly€suggestive€ð ðas€to€give€rise€to€aÐ è 8  Ðvery€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationðð€violates€due€process.€€òòSimmons€v.€UnitedÐ Ô$  ÐStatesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.€Ct.€967,€971€(1968).€€Although€it€may€be€suggestive,€anÐ À  Ðidentification€may€satisfy€due€process€as€reliable€and€admissible€if€the€totality€of€the€circumstancesÐ ¬ü  Ðso€warrants.€€òòSee€State€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Five€factors€areÐ ˜è  Ðto€be€considered€when€evaluating€the€propriety€of€the€identification€process.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409Ð „Ô  ÐU.S.€188,€199,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€382€(1972);€òòBennett€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.€1975).€€TheyÐ pÀ Ðare:€(1)€the€opportunity€the€witness€had€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€(2)€the€witnessððÐ \¬ Ðdegree€of€attention;€(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€the€criminal;€(4)€the€levelÐ H˜ Ðof€certainty€of€the€witness€at€the€confrontation;€and€(5)€the€time€between€the€crime€and€theÐ 4„ Ðconfrontation.€€òòNeilóó,€409€U.S.€at€199;€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€at€694.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àA€showup€is€a€form€of€identification€of€a€defendant€that€is,€by€its€nature,€inherentlyÐ øH Ðsuggestive.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€780€S.W.2d€379,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€The€use€of€showupsÐ ä4 Ðto€establish€the€identification€of€a€person€suspected€of€committing€a€criminal€offense€has€beenÐ Ð  Ðrepeatedly€condemned€absent€special€circumstances.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€87Ð ¼  ÐS.€Ct.€1967€(1967);€òòWadley€v.€Stateóó,€634€S.W.2d€658€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòState€v.€Bealóó,€614Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€77€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€€A€showup€may€be€warranted€if€imperative€circumstancesÐ ”ä Ðnecessitate€this€mode€of€identification.€€òòStovall,óó€388€U.S.€293,€87€S.€Ct.€1967;€òòForbes€v.€Stateóó,€559Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€596€S.W.2d€841€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€A€showupÐ l¼ Ðmay€likewise€be€warranted€if€it€occurs€as€an€on„the„scene€investigatory€procedure€shortly€after€theÐ X ¨ Ðcommission€of€the€crime.€€òòThomasóó,€780€S.W.2d€at€381;€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97€(Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCrim.€App.€1979);€òòBracken€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€261€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972)Ô‡X¯ XX XQÔ;òò€Ô#† XQX XX¯‹-#ÔRussell€v.€Stateóó,€489Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€535€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972)òòóó.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€noting€that€the€defendant,€while€setting€forth€in€his€brief€theÐ ô$D # Ðfacts€of€his€case€and€the€pertinent€law,€has€failed€to€explain€how€that€law€applies€to€the€facts€of€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðcase.€€In€this€respect,€the€defendantððs€brief€falls€short€under€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€and€theÐ Ì&"% Ðrules€of€this€court.òòóó€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)€(standards€for€argument€portion€of€appellantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðbrief);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(a)€(briefs€must€substantially€conform€to€the€requirements€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐRules€of€Appellate€Procedure).€€A€defendant€who€fails€to€brief€issues€fully€as€required€by€the€rulesÐ )à$( Ðof€appellate€practice€risks€waiver€of€the€inadequately€treated€issues.€€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThe€defendant€in€this€case€has€come€precipitously€close€to€misstepping€into€the€crevice€of€waiver.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àThus€unaided€by€the€defendantððs€brief€in€determining€the€merits€of€the€issue€beforeÐ ° Ðus,€we€have€examined€the€facts€of€this€case€in€light€of€the€relevant€law.€€Upon€doing€so,€we€hold€thatÐ œì Ðthe€showup€conducted€in€this€case€was€not€so€inherently€suggestive€that€the€admission€of€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðof€it€violated€the€defendantððs€due€process€rights.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€five€òòNeil/Brownóó€factors€discussed€above€weigh€favorably€for€the€state.€€TheÐ L œ Ðevidence€demonstrates€that€the€victim€estimated€the€time€during€which€she€was€confronted€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€to€be€about€five€minutes€during€daylight€hours.€€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€at€694€(theÐ $ t Ðopportunity€the€witness€had€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime).€€There€is€no€indication€theÐ  ` Ðvictimððs€attention€was€distracted.€€òòId.€óó(the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention).€€Although€it€is€not€possibleÐ ü L  Ðto€verify€the€accuracy€of€the€victimððs€description€of€the€perpetratorððs€shirt,€other€aspects€of€herÐ è 8  Ðphysical€description€of€the€defendant€and€his€clothing€are€corroborated€by€the€evidence.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€(theÐ Ô$  Ðaccuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€the€criminal).€€The€victim€was€positive€in€herÐ À  Ðidentification€of€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator.€€òòId.€óó(the€level€of€certainty€of€the€witness€at€theÐ ¬ü  Ðconfrontation).€€Only€about€twenty€minutes€elapsed€between€the€crime€and€the€showup€identificationÐ ˜è  Ðprocedure.€€òòId.óó€(the€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation)òòóó.€€€Upon€consideration€of€theseÐ „Ô  Ðfactors€and€the€totality€of€the€factual€circumstances€of€the€case,€we€are€persuaded€that€a€showup€wasÐ pÀ Ðwarranted€and€was€not€so€inherently€suggestive€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€his€due€process€rights.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€concluded€that€the€showup€identification€procedure€was€not€violative€of€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendantððs€due€process€rights,€we€likewise€conclude€that€evidence€of€the€identification€made€wasÐ  p Ðproperly€admitted.€€Moreover,€finding€no€fault€with€the€showup€procedure,€we€decline€to€find€taintedÐ  \ Ðthe€subsequent€in„court€identification€of€the€defendant€by€the€victim.€€Thus,€the€defendant€is€notÐ øH Ðentitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIˆÐ ¼  Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motions€to€compelÐ ”ä Ðproduction€of€the€clothing€he€wore€at€the€time€of€the€arrest,€or€alternatively,€to€dismiss€the€charges.€Ð €Ð ÐBy€all€accounts€(and€by€stipulation€of€the€parties€entered€into€evidence€at€trial),€the€defendantððsÐ l¼ Ðclothing€could€not€be€located.€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€the€state€made€unsuccessful€effortsÐ X ¨ Ðprior€to€trial€to€locate€the€clothing.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Because€the€clothing€was€lost€and€efforts€had€been€made€toÐ D!” Ðlocate€it,€we€are€at€a€loss€to€understand€and€the€defendant€has€not€explained€how€an€order€to€compelÐ 0"€  Ðproduction€would€have€been€of€any€positive€effect.€€Thus,€we€will€consider€only€the€issue€whetherÐ #l! Ðthe€charges€should€have€been€dismissed€in€the€absence€of€the€clothing.à  àÐ $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àIn€determining€whether€a€trial€may€be€conducted€in€the€absence€of€certain€evidence,Ð ° Ðthe€question,€really,€is€whether€the€defendantððs€trial€was€fundamentally€unfair€in€the€absence€of€theÐ œì Ðevidence€in€question.€€òòSee€State€v.€Fergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912,€914€(Tenn.€1999).€€TennesseeððsÐ ˆØ Ðconstitutional€due€process€protections€in€this€regard€are€more€extensive€than€those€of€the€federalÐ tÄ ÐConstitution.€€òòIdóó.€at€916„17.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€first€step€in€the€Tennessee€analysis€is€to€determine€whether€the€state€has€a€dutyÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€preserve€the€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€917.€€Before€the€duty€will€arise,€the€evidence€must€be€of€suchÐ $ t Ðcharacter€that€it€ð ðmight€be€expected€to€play€a€significant€role€in€the€suspectððs€defense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ToÐ  ` Ðdetermine€whether€the€evidence€meets€this€standard,€the€court€must€determine€that€the€evidenceððsÐ ü L  Ðexculpatory€value€was€apparent€before€the€evidence€was€lost,€and€the€evidence€must€be€of€such€aÐ è 8  Ðcharacter€that€the€defendant€cannot€reasonably€be€expected€to€obtain€equivalent€evidence€throughÐ Ô$  Ðother€means.€€òòId.óó€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àIf€the€examining€court€determines€that€the€state€had€a€duty€to€preserve€the€evidence,Ð ˜è  Ðthen€it€must€go€on€to€consider€three€factors€in€determining€the€consequence€that€must€follow€theÐ „Ô  Ðstateððs€breach.€€òòId.óó€€First,€the€court€must€scrutinize€the€degree€of€negligence€involved.€€òòId.óó€€Second,Ð pÀ Ðthe€court€must€analyze€the€significance€of€the€evidence,€in€light€of€its€probative€value€and€theÐ \¬ Ðreliability€of€any€similar€evidence€that€exists.€€òòId.€€óóThird,€the€court€must€view€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ H˜ Ðtrial€evidence€to€support€the€conviction.€€òòId.óó€€Remedies€may€include€dismissal€of€the€charges€or€aÐ 4„ Ðspecial€jury€instruction,€but€the€remedy€ultimately€must€be€determined€based€upon€the€facts€andÐ  p Ðcircumstances€of€the€individual€case.€€òòId.óó€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€with€the€task€of€determining€whether€the€state€had€a€duty€to€preserve€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€clothing.€€The€evidence€reflects€that€two€police€officers€observed€the€defendant€wearingÐ Ð  Ða€shirt€which€differed€in€color€from€that€specified€by€the€victim€immediately€after€the€crime.€€ThereÐ ¼  Ðis€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€made€inculpatory€statements,€so€it€would€be€logical€for€state€actorsÐ ¨ø Ðto€assume€that€identification€would€be€a€key€issue€at€trial.€€Thus,€the€potential€exculpatory€value€ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€evidence€should€have€been€apparent.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Furthermore,€the€evidence€is€of€such€a€nature€thatÐ €Ð Ðcomparable€evidence€is€not€available€through€other€means.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Thus,€we€believe€the€state€hadÐ l¼ Ða€duty€to€preserve€the€evidence.€€òòSee€idóó.€€Further€inquiry€is€therefore€warranted.€€òòId.óóÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€does€not€allege€that€the€state€was€guilty€of€greater€than€simpleÐ 0"€  Ðnegligence€in€the€loss€of€the€evidence,€and€we€will€not€presume€more,€absent€proof.€€òòSee€id.óó€€The€lossÐ #l! Ðof€the€evidence€is€significant€in€the€sense€that€if€exculpatory,€it€would€be€directly€probative€of€theÐ $X" Ðdefendantððs€identity€issue,€and€further,€substitute€evidence€is€not€available.€€òòSee€id.óó€€However,€theÐ ô$D # Ðsufficiency€of€the€other€evidence€employed€by€the€state€is€overwhelming.€€òòSee€id.óó€€The€defendant€fledÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€scene,€attempted€to€evade€law€enforcement€officers€who€chased€him,€and€discarded€a€gun€duringÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€process€of€his€flight.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kendricks,óó€947€S.W.2d€875,€886€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)Ð ¸'#& Ð(flight€instruction€allowing€inference€of€guilt€was€proper€where€evidence€demonstrated€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€fled€crime€scene€and€discarded€weapon€out€car€window).€€When€apprehended€mereÐ )à$( Ðminutes€after€the€crime,€the€defendant€was€found€in€possession€of€the€victimððs€stolen€property.€€òòSeeÐ |*Ì%) ÐRaynor€v.€Stateóó,€1€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€556,€560,€447€S.W.2d€391,€393€(1969)€(inference€may€be€drawnÐ h+¸&* Ðfrom€robbery€defendantððs€recent,€unexplained€possession€of€stolen€property€that€defendant€was€theÐ ° Ðindividual€who€stole€the€property).€€The€victim€was€positive€about€her€identification€of€the€defendant,Ð œì Ðand€there€was€evidence€that€her€description€of€the€perpetratorððs€physical€characteristics€and€clothingÐ ˆØ Ðother€than€his€shirt€was€consistent€with€the€defendantððs€appearance€and€other€clothing.€€Even€if€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€had€been€able€to€show€that€the€shirt€he€wore€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€did€not€match€theÐ `° Ðvictimððs€description€of€it,€we€have€serious€reservations€in€holding€that€this€evidence€would€likelyÐ L œ Ðhave€affected€the€verdict€in€the€defendantððs€favor.€€Ô‡X¯ XX XQÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#† XQX XX¯+V#ÔUpon€balancing€these€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€due€process€rightsÐ  Z Ðwere€not€violated€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€denying€dismissal€of€the€case€based€upon€the€stateððsÐ ö F  Ðinability€to€produce€the€defendantððs€clothing.€€Thus,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ð â 2  ÐÌà@ww)ìàò òIIIˆÐ º  ÐòòÌà  àà ` àòòóóóóó óThe€defendantððs€final€issue€concerns€the€seventeen„year,€Range€II€sentence€heÐ ŽÞ  Ðreceived€for€his€crime.€€He€claims€that€the€lower€court€improperly€applied€three€enhancement€factorsÐ zÊ  Ðand€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€II€offender€without€offering€proof€of€his€prior€convictions.€€HeÐ f¶ Ðlikewise€challenges€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.Ð R¢ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÐ *z Ðis€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ f Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(1997).€Ð R ÐThis€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ î> Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð Ú* ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Likewise,€tò òó óhe€trial€court€has€an€affirmative€duty€to€state€on€theÐ Æ Ðrecord,€either€orally€or€in€writing,€which€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€it€found€and€its€findingsÐ ² Ðof€fact.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-209(c),€-€210(f)€(Supp.€2000);€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2dÐ žî Ð271,€274€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€10€S.W.3d€270,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€In€this€case,Ð ŠÚ Ðthe€trial€court€failed€to€memorialize€his€consideration€of€the€relevant€factors€or€to€make€findings€ofÐ vÆ Ðfact€on€the€record.€€Accordingly,€we€afford€no€presumptive€correctness€to€its€sentencingÐ b² Ðdetermination€and€review€its€sentencing€determination€òòde€novoóó.Ð N ž ÐÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€must€determine€the€defendantððs€proper€range€classification.€€The€defendantÐ &"v  Ðmaintains€that€the€state€offered€no€proof€of€his€prior€convictions,€and€therefore€he€was€improperlyÐ #b! Ðsentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€Inexplicably,€he€maintains€that€the€record€is€devoid€of€so€muchÐ þ#N" Ðas€a€presentence€report€indicating€prior€convictions,€even€though€the€original€presentence€report€isÐ ê$: # Ðattached€as€an€exhibit€to€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€and€has€been€authenticated€by€theÐ Ö%&!$ Ðtrial€judge.€€This€court€has€held€that€information€in€a€presentence€report€is€reliable€hearsay€which€mayÐ Â&"% Ðbe€admitted€if€the€opposing€party€is€offered€the€opportunity€to€rebut€the€same.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€956Ð ®'þ"& ÐS.W.2d€8,€17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòsee€State€v.€Richardsonóó,€875€S.W.2d€671,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð š(ê#' ÐApp.€1993).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€made€no€objection€at€the€sentencing€hearing€to€the€evidenceÐ †)Ö$( Ðâ âof€his€prior€convictions€as€contained€in€the€presentence€report.€€Moreover,€two€of€the€defendantððsÐ r*Â%) Ðprior€convictions€listed€in€the€presentence€report,€robbery€and€aggravated€robbery,€qualify€him€forÐ ° ÐRange€II€sentencing.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(1)€(1997).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant's€crime€in€the€present€case€is€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€39-13-402(b)Ð tÄ Ð(1997).€€As€a€Range€II€offender,€the€defendant€is€eligible€to€receive€a€sentence€of€twelve€to€twentyÐ `° Ðyears€for€a€Class€B€crime.€€òòIdóó.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(2)€(1997).€€He€received€a€sentence€of€seventeen€years,Ð L œ Ðslightly€above€the€midpoint€of€this€range.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€whether€the€lower€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€a€too„lengthy€term,Ð  ` Ðwe€must€begin€with€the€presumption€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€minimum€term.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„Ð ü L  Ð35„210(c)€(Supp.€2001).€€If,€however,€there€are€enhancement€factors,€we€may€increase€the€sentenceÐ è 8  Ðbeyond€the€minimum€as€warranted€by€those€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Should€there€also€beÐ Ô$  Ðmitigating€factors,€we€may€then€reduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€those€factors.€€òòIdóó.€at€(e).Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€alleged€at€the€hearing€that€the€following€enhancement€factors€from€CodeÐ ˜è  Ðsection€40„35„114€applied€to€the€defendant:Ð „Ô  ÐÌÓ€ (¶Ù83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÔjÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ \¬ Ðbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;݃3£Ôj kÝŒÐH˜` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà ` à.€.€.€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÓ€ (ÆÙ88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£9mÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú8Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÐ  p Ðconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;݃3£9mrm݌Р\` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£°nÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú9Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€otherÐ øH Ðdeadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense;݃3£°nénÝŒÐä4` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£ "ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£pÝÔ2ÆÙÔ(Ú  Ú10Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÐ Ð  Ðhuman€life€was€high;݃3£pWp݌м ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà ` à.€.€.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÓ€ (ÖÝ08 ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£ "ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£MrÝÔ2ÖÝÔ(Ú  Ú13Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€felony€was€committed€while€on€any€of€the€following€forms€of€releaseÐ ”ä Ðstatus€if€such€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction:݃3£Mr†r݌ЀÐ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝØ! !ØÓ€ (öé80 ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ctÝÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚAÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝBail,€if€the€defendant€is€ultimately€convicted€of€such€priorÐ l¼ Ðfelony;݃3£ct°tÝŒÐX ¨¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£­uÝÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚBÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝParole;݃3£­uúuÝŒÐD!”¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£¦vÝÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚCÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝProbation;݃3£¦vóvÝŒÐ0"€ ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£¢wÝÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚDÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝWork€release;€or݃3£¢wïwÝŒÐ#l!¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£¤xÝÔ2öéÔ(Ú  ÚEÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝAny€other€type€of€release€into€the€community€under€the€directÐ $X" Ðor€indirect€supervision€of€the€department€of€correction€or€localÐ ô$D # Ðgovernmental€authority[.]݃3£¤xñxÝŒÐà%0!$¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòIdóó.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(9),€(10),€(13)€(Supp.€2001).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€via€the€presentence€report€readily€supports€a€finding€of€additional€criminalÐ )à$( Ðconvictions€and€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€defendantððs€Range€IIÐ |*Ì%) Ðclassification.€€In€addition€to€his€Range€II€qualifying€convictions€of€robbery€and€aggravated€robbery,Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€defendant€has€a€cocaine€drug€conviction.€€He€also€has€a€history€of€illicit€drug€use.€€Thus,Ð ° Ðenhancement€factor€(1)€applies,€and€the€defendant€does€not€contest€the€application€of€this€factor.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€likewise€does€not€contest€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(8)Ð tÄ Ðrelative€to€his€previous€unwillingness€to€comply€with€a€sentence€involving€community€release.€€TheÐ `° Ðrecord€indicates€that€he€committed€an€offense€in€1995€during€the€term€of€a€three„year€sentence€forÐ L œ Ða€previous€crime€of€which€he€was€convicted€in€1994.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€concession€is€in€order.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€factor€(9)€regarding€employment€of€a€firearm€should€notÐ  ` Ðbe€applied€to€him€because€this€is€an€element€of€the€conviction€offense.€€We€agree.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ ü L  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114€(Supp.€2001)€(statutory€enhancement€factors€may€be€applied€if€they€are€notÐ è 8  Ðessential€elements€of€the€offense).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€likewise€takes€issue€with€the€application€of€factor€(10)€pertaining€toÐ ¬ü  Ðlack€of€hesitation€to€commit€an€offense€when€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.€€On€appeal,€the€state€hasÐ ˜è  Ðdeclined€the€opportunity€to€advocate€the€application€of€this€factor.€€Although€the€defendant€employedÐ „Ô  Ða€firearm€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,€its€employment€was€an€element€of€the€offense.€€WeÐ pÀ Ðbelieve€the€high€risk€to€human€life€inherent€in€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€has€already€been€taken€intoÐ \¬ Ðaccount€by€the€deadly€weapon€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Nixóó,€922€S.W.2d€894,€903Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€argues€against€the€application€of€factor€(13),€relative€to€his€commissionÐ  \ Ðof€the€offense€while€on€parole€from€a€felony€conviction.€€Again,€the€defendant€bases€his€argumentÐ øH Ðon€the€purported€lack€of€proof€of€any€prior€convictions.€€This€argument€is€untenable€based€upon€theÐ ä4 Ðpresentence€report€containing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€instant€offense€while€onÐ Ð  Ðparole€from€a€felony€conviction,€a€fact€to€which€the€defendant€registered€no€objection€at€theÐ ¼  Ðsentencing€hearing.€€In€light€of€this€evidence,€we€believe€that€factor€(13)€relative€to€commission€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€offense€while€on€parole€òòóóis€appropriate.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€has€not,€on€appeal,€commended€any€mitigating€factors€to€us€forÐ l¼ Ðconsideration.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€he€argued€that€the€court€should€consider€his€favorableÐ X ¨ Ðbackground€as€evidenced€by€his€tenth„grade€education,€his€family€support,€and€his€employment€atÐ D!” Ðthe€time€of€the€offense.€€Given€the€defendantððs€criminal€history,€we€fail€to€see€any€mitigating€qualityÐ 0"€  Ðin€any€meager€efforts€the€defendant€has€made€to€be€a€productive€member€of€society.€€Moreover,Ð #l! Ðgiven€his€criminal€background,€he€is€fortunate€to€the€extent€that€he€receives€any€family€support.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àTaking€all€of€these€factors€into€consideration€along€with€the€relevant€principles€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðsentencing,€we€must€conclude€that€the€lower€court€did€not€err€in€reaching€a€seventeen„year€sentenceÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€the€defendantððs€crime.€€The€three€applicable€enhancement€factors€all€weigh€heavily€and€are€inÐ ¸'#& Ðstark€contrast€to€the€lack€of€mitigating€evidence.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€must€reject€the€defendantððs€claim€that€he€was€improperly€consecutivelyÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentenced.€€Once€again,€he€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€offer€any€proof€of€his€prior€convictions.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðrecord€reflects€otherwise.€€The€defendant€was€on€parole€for€a€felony€at€the€time€he€committed€theÐ ° Ðfelony€in€this€case,€and€consecutive€sentencing€is€mandatory.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(3)(A).Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€reasons€outlined€above,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€reliefÐ tÄ Ðon€any€of€his€appellate€issues.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð `° ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ü L  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE