ÿWPCŒ "œÀ•«}¶KSYKÕOΉCùÄú\ú7PŽ=A¡Ø=ê€z¸cÕ[öÏq`€×,$,Ë@m‰3JÐùÛ¬øÞp£Ÿ3ðÙ=žØ꜊ ŸGo&â¦Ï`‚*v®p)®©ÙÑÓ–‹ff[ˆêU™5Õ¿H&¬›éˆ%TÔu*:Ù@:Íq70ø€4ÍGÕÓ ÔÀzíS įð€÷Rlöφ$tÚ䥌<åÍ4†V ^3m(t覞¤^Í ØbÊ%i½Ïg­ÂƒiœH•ÂáXa–Wz²… £ù ¤ý·Š._ ¢Êîe¡Kë•y %ÜR·ëЉƙ²þ¶\úŽÕÃB iÞçÊÁ“77”}hà 6x /ˆŒö}Y«°YêÙs3³qÍ¡|W? QPt8PwÅÉŽn‰¿SàWÛ«X†ˆdñ›K0ú-(öPñ"š E[ÃZö7Xm³â"PÕÕú¦ ßlï:£ÓˆÓ~;r»ìa¶rÿvp¥áˆ…ˆ…‰¹œF_ %·X'SÂö{szCiÎœâ[h‚ÁT<Òiò„ºÛÏ ªí-âÒ2»È´YÒ‡çÆ“KôÁ÷%J\¥¶sæš3È,$ø0™ôgnçþ¾N Ï_$…GÐ Ãöòvóº0*# LUNW %¥ 0(«LÓU:dYw@½4ýU:  0lZ 0DÆU:  D U:N Bˆ RÊ U: 1mV 0cÃU .&™TU:íÝ'U:Ý>U: 0DU 0D™ BÝ AQúÆK 0DLU¡*© D/ÓU: B< D3Y˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ZÒ°ÒÔ€XÂfXXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àTestifying€for€the€defense€were€Ed€Woodall,€Missy€McKinney,€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€sister,€Scott€Liner,€the€defendantððs€cousin,€Gwen€Reagan,€theÏdefendantððs€girl€friend,€and€Jennifer€Long,€her€sister. ƒ„…D†‡ˆ‰UŠU‹eŒÓ€:M+%ê 3|x—, øð AZ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÔ€XÂfXXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àA€certified€copy€of€the€defendantððs€driving€record€showing€theÐ ° Ðlicense€revocation€was€admitted€into€evidence., øð AZ"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT HÒ°ÒÔ€XÂfXXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àRule€16€requires€that€the€state,€upon€request€of€the€defendant,Ð ° Ðdisclose€€Ìà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àthe€substance€of€any€oral€statement€which€the€stateÏintends€to€offer€in€evidence€at€the€trial€made€by€theÏdefendant€whether€before€or€after€arrest€in€responseÏto€interrogations€by€any€person€then€known€to€theÏdefendant€to€be€a€law„enforcement€officer.€.€.€.€Ô‡ XÂfXXXÂfÔÐP  ¸ x¸ x ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ô#†XÂfXX XÂfý#ÔÔ‡ XÂfXXXÂfÔ€Ô#†XÂfXX XÂfo#Ô16(a)(1)(A).€€Ð @  ÐÌIn€addition,€the€rule€provides€that:Ìà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àIf€at€any€time€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings€itÏis€brought€to€the€attention€of€the€court€that€a€party€hasÏfailed€to€comply€with€this€rule,€the€court€may€orderÏsuch€party€to€permit€the€discovery€or€inspection,€grantÏa€continuance,€or€prohibit€the€party€from€introducingÏevidence€not€disclosed,€or€it€may€enter€such€otherÏorder€as€it€deems€just€under€the€circumstances.€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÔ‡ XÂfXXXÂfÔTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ô#†XÂfXX XÂf©#ÔÔ‡ XÂfXXXÂfÔ€Ô#†XÂfXX XÂfü#Ô16(d)(2)., øð AZ"Arial Regular#5e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3¿$´´Ô25eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à%ä2¼A`ArialTT Ò°ÒÔ€XÂfXXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àWe€note€that€the€trial€court€offered€the€defendant€the€opportunity€toÐ ° Ðadmit€himself€into€an€in„patient€alcohol€treatment€program.€€Each€day€theÏdefendant€spends€in€the€program€will€be€counted€against€the€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days€he€must€serve.€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÓÒ°ÒÔ€XÂfXXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€fine€levied€by€the€jury€and€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasÐ ° Ð$1,510.€€The€DUI€statute€establishes€a€maximum€fine€of€$1,500€for€a€firstÏoffense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(Supp.€1997),€but€ð ðan€additional€fineÏof€ten€dollars€($10.00)ðð€is€imposed€in€DUI€cases€for€the€benefit€of€the€TraumaticÏBrain€Injury€Fund.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„55„304€(1996).€€We€commend€theÐ pÀ Ðtrial€court€for€assuring€that€any€such€ð ðadditional€fineðð€was€set€by€the€jury€beforeÏbeing€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÓÒ°ÒÔ€XÂfXXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€fine€levied€by€the€jury€and€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasÐ ° Ð$1,510.€€The€DUI€statute€establishes€a€maximum€fine€of€$1,500€for€a€firstÏoffense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(Supp.€1997),€but€ð ðan€additional€fineÏof€ten€dollars€($10.00)ðð€is€imposed€in€DUI€cases€for€the€benefit€of€the€TraumaticÏBrain€Injury€Fund.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„55„304€(1996).€€We€commend€theÐ pÀ Ðtrial€court€for€assuring€that€any€such€ð ðadditional€fineðð€was€set€by€the€jury€beforeÏbeing€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d!"&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'X~ÃXXXÔÔ€'¯FX'X~ÃÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€'X~ÃX'¯FÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€14,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôàÛôX'X~ÃÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó(('÷ÿ dxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÒ°Òò òÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XR9XXXÔÑ7€Œ’XdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑñŒñœßr€ %)<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrß›ñŒñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌ€à@::'àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ à Ðó óÌò òà@HH%àMAY,€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌÌÌò òÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àó ó)à  àNo.€03C01„9709„CR„00392Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ P  Ðà ` àAppelleeà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ ð@  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àGreene€CountyÐ à0  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÐ À Ðò òTONY€MURPHY€MCKINNEY,à À àó ó)Ð ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(DUI,€Driving€on€revoked€license)Ð  ð Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ à Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð P  ÐÌMICHAEL€A.€WALCHERà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 0€ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ  p Ð1609€College€Park€Dr.,€Box€11ÌMorristown,€TN€37813„1618à À àà  àCLINTON€J.€MORGANà x àÐ P Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCounsel€for€the€Stateà x àÐ ð@ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àÐ À! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€BERKELEY€BELLÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCECIL€E.€MILLS,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à109€S.€Main€St.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGreeneville,€TN€37743ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌñ‹ñœñ‹ñò òAFFIRMEDó óñ‹ñ›œò òó ó›ñ‹ñÐ À0,/ ÐÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÐ  P7 26 Ðà@qq*àò òOPINIONÓÓÓlX°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXlÓó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÔ‡X~ÃXX XR9ÔÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Tony€Murphy€McKinney,€appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€3,Ð pÀ ÐÔ#† XR9XXX~Ä#ÔTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€Ô‡X~ÃXX XR9Ô€from€his€judgment€of€conviction€in€theÐ < Œ ÐCriminal€Court€of€Greene€County€for€driving€under€the€influence,€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor,€and€for€driving€with€a€revoked€license,€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€€HeÏwas€ordered€to€serve€one€hundred€percent€of€an€eleven€month€and€twenty„€nine€dayÏsentence€for€DUI€and€seventy„five€percent€of€a€six€month€sentence€for€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€claims€that:ÌÔ#† XR9XXX~Ã[#ÔÓÓà ¸ à€1.à8  àThe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€forÐ l Ðdriving€under€the€influence.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà ¸ à2.à0  àThe€admission€of€defendantððs€statements€to€the€police€whichÐ ì< Ðwere€not€disclosed€in€discovery€was€prejudicial.Ð (#(# ÐÌà ¸ à3.à8  àThe€defendantððs€sentence€is€excessive.м Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓAfter€reviewing€the€record€before€us€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñcourt.ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ññ‹ñÌÌà ¸ àAt€approximately€8:00€p.m.€on€November€3,€1996,€the€Greene€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department€received€two€calls€concerning€the€defendant.€€The€first€callÏinvolved€a€domestic€dispute.€€In€the€second€call,€James€Reagan€reported€that€theÏdefendant€was€driving€his€pick„up€truck€while€he€was€intoxicated.€€Two€officersÏresponded€in€separate€cars.€€When€they€arrived€at€the€defendantððs€house,€someoneÏin€the€house€told€them€that€the€defendant€had€left€in€his€truck.€€Furniture€and€otherÏitems€were€sitting€on€the€front€porch.€€Reagan,€who€lived€next€door€and€who€is€theÏfather€of€the€defendantððs€girl€friend,€spoke€to€the€officers€in€the€yard.€He€told€themÏthat€the€defendant€had€been€drinking€all€day€and€had€been€driving€the€truck€aroundÏthe€yard€spinning€the€wheels€and€tearing€up€the€grass.€€After€getting€into€a€disputeÏwith€Reaganððs€daughter,€Gwen,€the€defendant€took€off€in€the€truck.€Ìâ âÐ Ü6,26 Ðà ¸ àAs€the€officers€drove€off€in€opposite€directions€to€begin€their€search,Ïâ âthey€observed€a€green€and€white€pick„up€truck€matching€the€description€given€byÏJames€Reagan€passing€another€vehicle€in€a€no„passing€zone€at€the€top€of€a€hill.€ÏThe€speeding€truck€was€nearly€out€of€control€as€it€slid€into€the€defendantððs€drivewayÏand€drove€around€to€the€rear€of€the€house.€€Neither€of€the€officers€were€able€to€seeÏthe€driver€of€the€truck.€€Reagan€also€observed€the€truck€as€it€turned€in€the€driveway.€ÏFrom€his€vantage€point,€he€saw€the€defendant€leave€the€truck€and€stagger€towardÏthe€back€steps.€€He€watched€as€someone€in€the€house€came€out€and€helped€theÏdefendant€into€the€house.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€officers€immediately€turned€their€vehicles€around€and€drove€backÏto€the€defendantððs€residence.€€One€officer€went€to€the€rear€of€the€house€and€foundÏthat€the€hood€of€the€truck€was€very€warm.€€The€other€officer€approached€the€openÏfront€door,€and€when€he€was€invited€inside,€he€entered€and€found€the€defendantÏsitting€on€the€couch€with€a€beer€in€his€hand.€€When€asked€where€he€had€been,€theÏdefendant€replied,€ð ðIððve€been€sitting€here€on€this€couch.ðð€€At€trial€the€officer€testifiedÏthat€when€he€asked€the€defendant€who€had€been€driving€the€truck,€the€defendantÏsaid,€ð ðNobody,€I€donððt€reckon.ðð€€According€to€the€officer,€the€defendantððs€eyes€wereÏred,€and€he€became€loud€and€belligerent.€€The€odor€of€alcoholic€beverage€was€veryÏstrong,€and€when€the€officer€got€the€defendant€to€his€feet,€he€staggered€and€neededÏhelp€to€get€to€the€patrol€car.€€Just€before€he€placed€the€defendant€in€the€car,Ïsomeone€on€the€porch€asked€the€defendant€to€leave€the€keys€to€the€truck.€€TheÏdefendant€took€the€keys€out€of€his€front€pocket€and€gave€them€to€that€person.€€AfterÏtransporting€the€defendant€to€the€detention€center,€the€officer€advised€the€defendantÏof€his€rights€under€the€implied€consent€law.€€The€defendant€refused€to€submit€to€aÏbreathalyser€test.€€When€the€officer€checked€the€defendantððs€driving€record,€heÏlearned€that€the€defendantððs€license€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€had€been€revoked.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рp5À04 Їà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€said€that€he€spent€theÏday€hauling€junk€with€his€cousin,€Scott€Liner.€€Liner€drove€the€truck.€€When€theyÏreturned€home€at€about€4:30€p.m.,€the€defendant€admitted€he€became€ð ðtipsy.ðð€ÏWhen€they€were€unloading€a€truck€hood,€it€slipped€and€hit€him€on€the€head.€ÏAccording€to€the€defendant,€the€blow€rendered€him€unconscious,€and€when€theÏpolice€came€the€first€time,€he€was€lying€on€his€bed.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€drive€theÏtruck€that€day.€€He€had,€however€lent€the€truck€to€Ed€Woodall€who€needed€to€haulÏsome€wood.€€According€to€the€defendant,€Woodall€returned€the€truck€at€about€7:00Ïp.m.€that€evening.€€ÌÌà ¸ àFive€witnesses€corroborated€the€defendantððs€version€of€the€events.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ ÐAccording€to€these€witnesses,€the€defendant€received€a€hard€knock€on€the€headÏwhile€he€and€Scott€Liner€were€unloading€some€junk.€€When€the€officers€first€cameÏto€the€house,€the€defendant€was€lying€on€his€bed€with€a€cloth€on€his€head.€€GwenÏReagan€said€that€when€she€dropped€a€can€of€beer€onto€a€glass€coffee€table,€theÏtable€broke,€and€she€put€it€out€on€the€front€porch.€€Ed€Woodall€and€Missy€McKinneyÏtestified€that€they€had€borrowed€the€truck€that€evening.€€Woodall€said€he€saw€aÏdeputyððs€car€on€the€road€as€he€returned€to€the€defendantððs€house.€€€He€admitted€heÏwas€speeding€because€he€was€late€for€work.€€He€estimated€that€he€was€driving€atÏabout€55€miles€per€hour.€€Woodall€said€that€the€steering€on€the€truck€was€defectiveÏand€that€when€he€turned€into€the€driveway,€the€truck€skidded€sideways.€€He€thenÏgave€the€keys€to€Gwen€Reagan,€and€Missy€McKinney€took€him€to€work€in€his€car.€ÏGwen€Reagan€denied€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€any€altercation€that€day.€€SheÏsaid€she€made€no€telephone€calls€to€the€police.€€The€other€witnesses€also€deniedÏmaking€the€call.€€Ìâ âÐ 3à.2 Ðà ¸ àOn€the€above€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€drivingÏâ âunder€the€influence€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€€The€defendant€now€contendsÏthat€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions.€€€€ÌÌÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔà ¸ àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€anÐ 0 € Ðappellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€€is,€whether€after€considering€the€evidence€inÏthe€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÏthe€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.Ð Ð  ÐVirginiaóó,€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfn(#Ô443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789Ô‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€13(e).€€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfU*#ÔSinceÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂf +#Ôa€jury€convictionÐ à Ðremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€initially€cloakedÏand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÏdemonstrating€on€appeal€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v,€Tuggleóó,€639Ð 0€ ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determining€that€sufficiency,€this€court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð ð@ Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€€Ð $à" ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€two€offenses:€€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€and€driving€while€his€license€was€revoked.€€UnderÏTennessee€law,€the€state€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€(1)€theÏdefendant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€€(2)€while€under€the€influence,Ïthe€defendant€drove€or€was€in€physical€control€of€a€motor€driven€vehicle,€and€(3)€thatÏthe€defendantððs€action€took€place€€ð ðon€any€of€the€public€roads€and€highways€of€theÏstate,€or€on€any€streets€or€alleys,€or€while€on€the€premises€of€any€shopping€center,Ïtrailer€park€or€any€apartment€house€complex,€or€any€other€premises€which€isÏgenerally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large.€.€.€.€ð ð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„‚10„401Ï(Supp.1997).€€€To€convict€a€defendant€of€driving€with€a€revoked€license,€the€stateÐ 09€48 Ðmust€prove€that€the€person€drove€a€motor€vehicle€on€a€public€highway€at€a€time€hisÏprivilege€to€drive€was€revoked.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€(Supp.Ð à Ð1997).€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€instance,€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€was€drunk€when€theÏofficer€arrived€at€his€residence€and€that€his€driverððs€license€had€been€revoked.€€TheÏdefendant€does€not€contest€the€fact€that€his€truck€was€driven€down€a€public€roadwayÏshortly€before€the€officers€arrived€to€arrest€him.€€Therefore,€the€sole€factual€issue€isÏwhether€the€defendant€was€the€driver€of€the€truck.€€Although€the€police€officers€wereÏunable€to€identify€him€as€the€driver,€James€Reagan€testified€positively€that€he€sawÏthe€defendant€drive€the€truck€out€onto€the€roadway.€€He€saw€him€park€the€truck€onÏhis€return€and€watched€as€he€attempted€to€stagger€into€the€house.€€€€The€defenseÏargues€that€Reaganððs€testimony€is€incredible€and€is€outweighed€by€the€testimony€ofÏthe€five€defense€witnesses.€€€Ô‡XÂfXX XÂfÔHowever,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÐ ` Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð833,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfY5#Ô€In€this€instance,€the€jury€chose€to€believe€ReaganððsÐ °"  Ðtestimony€and€to€disbelieve€that€of€the€defense€witnesses.€€This€court€does€notÏreweigh€the€evidence€or€determine€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€€òòCabbageóó,€571Ð p&À!$ ÐS.W.2d€at€835.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€addition,€the€record€contains€other€evidence€from€which€the€juryÏcould€infer€that€the€defendant€was€the€driver€of€the€truck.€€When€the€deputies€firstÏarrived€at€the€defendantððs€residence,€they€were€told€that€the€defendant€had€left€inÏthe€truck.€€Then€as€the€deputies€drove€away,€they€observed€a€truck€like€theÏdefendantððs€barrel€down€the€hill€and€make€an€out€of€control€turn€into€the€defendantððsÏdriveway.€They€found€the€defendantððs€truck€parked€behind€the€house.€€Its€hood€wasÏvery€warm,€and€when€the€obviously€intoxicated€defendant€was€arrested€a€fewÏmoments€later,€he€had€the€keys€in€his€pocket.€€The€evidence€is€more€than€sufficientÐ 09€48 Ðto€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€€the€intoxicated€defendant€drove€his€truckÏon€a€public€roadway€while€his€license€was€revoked.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€contends€the€state€failed€toÏdisclose€an€oral€statement€he€made€to€the€officers€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€and€thenÏentered€the€statement€into€evidence€at€trial.€€The€state€argues€that€the€defendantÏwaived€the€issue€by€failing€to€make€a€timely€objection€and€because€the€trial€courtÏnever€ruled€on€the€issue.€€In€any€case,€the€state€contends,€the€remark€was€relativelyÏinnocuous€and€not€at€all€prejudicial.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€find€thatÏthe€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€despite€the€stateððs€failure€to€disclose€his€oralÏstatement.ÌÌà ¸ àDuring€his€testimony,€Deputy€Frank€Waddell€stated€that€when€heÏasked€the€defendant€who€was€driving€the€truck,€the€defendant€responded,€ð ðNobody,ÏI€donððt€reckon.ðð€€This€statement€was€at€odds€with€the€defendantððs€later€testimony€thatÏEd€Woodall€had€borrowed€his€truck€to€fetch€firewood.€€Defense€counsel€did€notÏimmediately€object.€€However,€once€the€prosecutor€completed€his€directÏexamination,€counsel€requested€a€bench€conference€and€raised€the€objection€to€theÏtrial€court.€€The€prosecutor€agreed€that€at€the€preliminary€hearing€the€officer€hadÏtestified€to€only€one€statement€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€thenÏstated:€ððYouððre€talking€about€discovery,€right?€€It€needs€to€be€provided€in€discovery.€ÏIf€it€isnððt,€hasnððt€been,€then€it€should€be€excluded.ðð€€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€this€point,€the€bench€conference€was€concluded.€€During€cross„¼examination,€defense€counsel€read€the€following€portion€of€the€officerððs€preliminaryÏhearing€testimony:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àI€went€in€and€Mr.€McKinney€was€sitting€on€the€couch.€€IÏasked€him€where€he€had€been.€€Nowhere,€Iððve€beenÏsitting€right€here€all€night.€€He€had€a€beer€in€his€hand.€ÏI€said,€well,€youððre€under€arrest€for€DUI,€and€I€arrestedÏhim.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÐ  :p59 ÐÓÓWaddell€agreed€that€his€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing€did€not€include€anyÏstatement€by€the€defendant€other€than€ð ðIððve€been€sitting€here€all€night.ðð€€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€cannot€say€that€the€defendant€failed€to€make€a€timely€objection€toÏthe€undisclosed€statement.€€Although€defense€counsel€did€not€make€aÏcontemporaneous€objection,€he€brought€the€matter€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€courtÏwithin€a€very€brief€period€of€time.€€We€also€find€that€the€trial€court€ruled€on€theÏmatter.€€The€prosecutor€acknowledged€that€the€defense€was€aware€of€only€oneÏstatement,€and€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€if€the€statement€had€not€beenÏdisclosed,€it€should€be€excluded.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A),€„(d)(2).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð à ÐDefense€counsel€did€not€ask€for€any€relief€at€that€time,€and€the€trial€court€took€noÏfurther€action.€€The€defendant€raised€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€andÏargued€the€matter€at€the€hearing.€€After€listening€to€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏtrial€court€stated€that€his€instructions€to€the€jury€were€curative€and,€as€a€result,€theÏdefendant€was€not€prejudiced.€€The€record€does€not€include€the€jury€instructions€orÏany€discussions€between€the€trial€court€and€the€attorneys€concerning€thoseÏinstructions.€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€preparing€an€adequate€record€inÏorder€to€allow€for€meaningful€appellate€review.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,Ð $à" Ð560€(Tenn.€1993);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24.€€In€the€absence€of€an€adequate€record,€theÐ p&À!$ Ðappellate€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€were€supported€by€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€thisÐ à Ðinstance,€the€trial€judge€found€that€a€curative€instruction€to€the€jury€rendered€theÏadmission€of€the€undisclosed€statement€harmless.€€Without€the€jury€instruction,€weÏare€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€erroneous.€€Moreover,Ïduring€cross„examination,€defense€counsel€used€the€preliminary€hearing€testimonyÏto€impeach€the€officerððs€credibility.€€Any€prejudice€from€the€stateððs€non„disclosure€ofÏthe€defendantððs€second€statement€was€minimal€and€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt€are€excessive.€€We€respectfully€disagree.ÌÌÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔà ¸ àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€serviceÐ ` Ðof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÐ ð@ Ðpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð p&À!$ Ð1991).€€Therefore,€if€the€trial€court€follows€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,Ïmakes€findings€of€fact€which€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€considers€andÏproperly€applies€the€factors€and€principles€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act,€an€appellate€court€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€it€wouldÏprefer€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó.€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ð/ +. Ð1991).€€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€showing€€the€impropriety€of€his€sentence.€ÏÔ#† XÂfXXXÂf4L#ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ€40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commððn€Comments.Ð 3à.2 ÐÌà ¸ àA€misdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumptionÏof€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creaseyóó,€885€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfÔP#ÔS.W.2dÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ€829,€832€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfáQ#Ô(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 09€48 Ð19Ô‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ94).€€€The€court€must€determine€the€€percentage€of€the€sentence€which€theÐ ° Ðmisdemeanant€must€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€certain€release€programs,Ïand€generally,€sentencing€for€misdemeanors€ranges€between€zero€and€seventy„fiveÏpercent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#† XÂfXXXÂfUR#ÔÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ€40„35„302(d)€(1997).€€However€in€DUI€convictions,€theÐ P   Ðconfinement€may€extend€to€the€maximum€of€one€hundred€percent.€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,Ð 0 € Ð902€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂf²S#ÔS.W.2dÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ€391,€394€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂf³T#Ô(Tenn.€1995).€€€€The€service€percentage€is€to€be€based€on€theÐ `  Ðsentencing€principles€and€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€òòState€v.€Gilboyóó,Ð ð@  Ð857€S.W.2d€884,€888„889€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€€Thus,€if€warranted€by€theÏevidence,€the€trial€court€may€properly€sentence€a€first€time€DUI€offender€to€theÏmaximum€sentence€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€at€one€hundred€percent.€€ÌÌà ¸ àÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€required€the€defendant€to€serveÐ P  Ð100€percent€of€the€eleven€month€and€twenty„nine€day€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€In€addition€to€theÐ 0€ Ðmandatory€license€revocation,€the€court€imposed€the€fine€levied€by€the€jury.ñ‹ññ?ñœñ?ññ‹ññ?ññ‹ñ׃P×ñ‹ññ‹ñ׃P×ñ‹ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ?ññ‹ññ?ñ›ñ?ññ‹ñ€€ForÐ ` Ðdriving€on€a€revoked€license,€the€trial€judge€imposed€the€maximum€sentence€of€sixÏmonths€and€a€$500€fine.€€òòSeeóó€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂf¸V#ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„411(e)(2)€(1997)€and€ðð€50Ô‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ„Ð Ð  Ð50„603€(Supp.€1997).€€The€sentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€trial€courtÏheld€a€sentencing€hearing€and€considered€the€presentence€report,€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€hearing,€and€the€appropriate€sentencing€principles.€€Therefore,€weÏreview€the€defendantððs€sentences€with€the€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððsÏdeterminations€are€correct.ÌÐ ,`'* Ðà ¸ àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€receivedÏat€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,Ï„103€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð ð@  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€three€enhancement€factors€were€applicableÏto€enhance€the€defendantððs€sentences:€(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior;€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfÎY#ÔÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ(8)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€historyÐ pÀ Ðof€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÏcommunity;€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfÎ^#ÔÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔand€(16)€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÐ 0€ Ðpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114(1),Ï„114(8),€„114(16).€€The€evidence€in€the€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€use€ofÏthese€factors.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€criminal€behaviorÏis€extensive.€€Although€he€was€charged€with€a€first€offense€in€this€case,€his€recordÏindicates€that€he€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€in€1989€and€1992.€ÏThe€record€also€shows€convictions€for€theft€and€arson,€vandalism,€public€indecency,Ïand€resisting€arrest€in€addition€to€two€previous€convictions€for€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense.€€The€defendant€failed€to€appear€in€court€numerous€times,€and€his€probationÏwas€revoked€at€least€once.€€The€defendantððs€extensive€criminal€record€and€hisÏrefusal€to€abide€by€the€conditions€of€release€into€the€community€are€more€thanÏsufficient€to€justify€the€enhancement€of€his€sentence€based€on€factors€(1)€and€(8).€ÏÌâ âÐ P7 26 Ðà ¸ àA€preponderance€of€the€evidence€also€supports€the€use€of€factor€(16).€Ïâ âThe€defendant€chose€to€drive€a€vehicle€with€defective€steering€while€he€wasÏintoxicated.€€The€deputy€testified€that€the€truck€was€traveling€far€in€excess€of€theÏspeed€limit€when€it€passed€another€vehicle€at€the€top€of€a€blind€hill€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂf®_#ÔÔ‡XÂfXX XÂfÔin€a€no„passingÐ P   Ðzone.€€€As€the€defendant€turned€into€the€driveway,€he€nearly€lost€control€of€the€truck.€ÏSuch€behavior€on€a€public€highway€during€the€evening€hours€constitutesÏcircumstances€under€which€there€is€great€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€lacked€the€potential€forÏrehabilitation,€that€maximum€sentences€were€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offenses€and€to€provide€an€effective€deterrent,€and€that€theÏmaximum€sentence€was€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€comply€with€theÏsentencing€principles.€€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂfce#ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ô‡XÂfXX XÂfÔ40„35„103€(1997).€€The€recordÐ 0€ Ðsupports€these€conclusions.€€A€trial€court€is€required€to€take€into€consideration€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances€in€making€its€sentencing€determination.€€€òòState€v.Ð ð@ ÐAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Therefore,€the€judge€was€required€toÐ Ð  Ðgive€some€weight€to€the€defendantððs€two€prior€DUI€convictions€as€well€as€his€otherÏconvictions.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€find€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€in€the€bestÏinterests€of€both€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð 0*€%( Ð103(1)(A),€(B),€(C).€€A€lengthy€period€of€incarceration€in€this€instance€is€requiredÏboth€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€defendantððs€criminal€behavior€andÏto€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant.€€AlthoughÏmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€been€tried€repeatedly,€theÏdefendant€has€demonstrated€no€inclination€to€rehabilitate€himself.€€Ô#† XÂfXXXÂf.h#ÔHe€has€continuedÐ 3à.2 Ðto€abuse€alcohol€and€to€disregard€the€law.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€imposingÏâ âmaximum€sentences€for€both€convictions€and€in€ordering€the€defendant€to€serve€oneÐ P7 26 Ðhundred€percent€of€his€DUI€sentence€and€seventy„five€percent€of€his€conviction€forÏdriving€on€a€revoked€license.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àñ‹ñœñ‹ññƒñWe€must€address€one€additional€matter€although€it€has€been€raisedÏby€neither€party.€€In€accordance€with€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€fineÏof€$1,510€in€the€DUI€conviction.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„403Ïprovides€that€ð ð[a]ny€person€violating€the€provisions€of€ðððð€œ55„10„401›€„€55„10„404Ïshall,€upon€conviction€thereof,€for€the€first€offense€be€fined€not€less€than€threeÏhundred€fifty€dollars€($350)€nor€more€than€one€thousand€five€hundred€dollarsÏ($1,500).ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(Supp.€1997).€€In€this€case,€the€fineÏas€imposed€by€the€trial€court€exceeds€the€statutory€maximum€by€ten€dollars.›Ìñƒññ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ññƒñÌ›à  àñƒññ„ñGenerally,›€a€sentence€imposed€in€direct€contravention€of€expressÏstatutory€authority€is€illegal€and€may€be€set€aside€at€any€time.€€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€566Ð 0 € ÐS.W.2d€871,€873€(Tenn.€1978);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€52,€54€(Tenn.Ð `  ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€A€verdict€fixing€a€punishment€higher€or€lower€than€that€authorizedÏby€statute€is€a€nullity.€€òòState€v.€Hamlinóó,€655€S.W.2d€200,€201„202€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ð  Ð1983)€(citations€to€authority€omitted);€òòRoger€Dale€Lewis€and€William€Waters,€III€v.Ð ° ÐStateóó,€No.€86„88„111,€slip€op.€at€2„3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€12,€1987).€€A€fineÐ à Ðimposed€after€conviction€is€part€of€a€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€805Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€762,€765€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€John€Miller,€Jr.óó,€No.€œ03C01„9608„CR„00300,›Ð P  Ðslip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€14,€1997).€€Therefore,€an€illegal€fineÏis€a€nullity,€and€this€defendantððs€sentence€effectively€includes€no€fine€at€all.€ÏòòSeeóóòòGeorge€Cheairs€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9304„CC„00700,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð@ ÐApp.€Jackson,€Oct.€26,€1994)€(as€the€imposition€of€an€illegal€sentence€is€a€nullity,Ïthe€defendant€received€no€sentence€at€œall).›€€Because€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€55„10„403€requires€that€a€defendant€convicted€of€a€first€DUI€be€fined€aÏminimum€of€$350,€we€vacate€the€part€of€the€judgment€which€imposes€the€fine€andÏremand€this€case€to€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Burrisóó,€950€S.W.2d€42,€43€(Tenn.Ð P( #& ÐCrim.€App.€1996)€(vacation€of€illegal€sentence€requires€a€new€sentencing€hearing);Ð 0*€%( ÐòòGeorge€Cheairsóó,€slip€op.€at€5€(illegal€sentence€leaves€original€prosecution€in€theÐ ,`'* Ðsentencing€stage).€€Article€VI,€Section€14€of€the€Tennessee€constitution€providesÏthat€only€a€jury€may€assess€a€fine€greater€than€$50.€€Therefore,€the€trial€judge€mustÏimpanel€a€new€jury€for€the€sole€purpose€of€fixing€the€fine€in€accordance€with€theÏapplicable€statute.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Martinóó,€940€S.W.2d€567,€570€(Tenn.€1996)€(courtÐ 3à.2 Ðmay€fix€a€fine€in€excess€of€$50€only€if€the€defendant€waived€the€right€to€a€jury€trialÏor€if€the€fine€is€statutorily€specified€and€allows€no€judicial€discretion€in€its€imposition);ÏòòState€v.€John€William€Kuhlmanóó,€No.€01C01„9702„CC„00059€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.Ð 09€48 ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€13,€1998)€(appellate€court€may€not€reduce€fine€to€correctÏerror).ÌÌà ¸ àWe€are€aware€of€the€incongruity€of€œñ8ñiñ8ñmpaneling›€a€new€jury€to€correctÏa€$10€error,€but€this€result€is€mandated€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€the€DUIÏstatutes,€and€by€prior€case€law.€€Therefore,€ñ„ññ…ñwñ…ññ†ñWñ†ñe€affirm€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€the€sentences€as€imposedÏby€the€trial€courtñ‡ñ.ñ‡ññ‰ñÌñ‰ññˆñ€except€for€the€fine€in€the€DUI€conviction.€€The€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€so€that€a€jury€may€fix€the€fine€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€law.ñˆñÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à__________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌñŠñÌñŠñÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judgeñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÌÌ