ÿWPCŽ  …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ n­Þ ‹ w@“ 01Ó 0D 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0  1u° 0d% B‰U6¦U.ÜU* B)4 D3]DC AMÓ 0@ c`oÃf2v~˜vÓ AOéÆ8 0Dþ D/B Bq ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅåÒ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€çKXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|xC«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@ /01D234567Ó€A(á(3P5$¤¤Ý ƒåÒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€kÇXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌDecember€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔÑ7À«òXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€state€also€contends€that€this€court€may€not€fully€analyze€this€issue€because€theÏarrest€warrant€sworn€to€by€the€defendant€is€not€part€of€the€record€before€us.€€However,€a€copy€of€theÏwarrant€was€entered€into€evidence€as€an€exhibit€during€the€trial€and€is€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(Ô›Ñ7€  ‹ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÓ#` °†X-Ð X#Ӝـ€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9407„CR„00252Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àœHonorable€Thomas€H.€Shriver,›€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌANTHONY€NOE,€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)à àœ(Vandalism€over€$500.00€and€making€a€Ïà àà àà àà à)à à€€false€report)›Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌœLionel€R.€Barrett,€Jr.›à àà àà àœCharles›€W.€BursonÌœWashington€Square€Two›à àà àà àœAttorney›€General€of€TennesseeÌœ222€Second€Avenue,€North›à àà àà àœand›ÌœNashville,€TN€37201›€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àœCharlotte€H.€Rappuhn›Ìœ(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)›à àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœKarl€Dean›à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌœDistrict€Public€Defender›Ìœ€€€€€and›à àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€III€ÌœPaul€Newman›à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà àÌœDavid€Bakerà àà à›à àà àà àà àandÌœAssistant€Public€Defenders›à àà àœMary€HausmanÌStahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àBill€Reed›ÌœNashville,€TN€37201›à àà àà àAssistant€District€œAttorneys›€General€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìœ(AT€TRIAL)›à àà àà àà àà à102€Metro€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌÌÌÌÌœOPINION›€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌÌœVANDALISM€CONVICTION€AFFIRMED;€FALSE€REPORT€CONVICTION€REVERSED›Ì€€€€€€ÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÓÓòòò òà àà àà àà àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óà àœÌ›Ìà àThe€defendant,€Anthony€Noe,€was€convicted€in€a€jury€trial€in€DavidsonÏCounty€Criminal€Court€of€vandalism€that€resulted€œin€over€$500.00€worth€of›€œdamages,›€œa›ÏœClass›€E€felony,€and€of€making€a€false€report,€a€œClass›€A€misdemeanor.€€He€wasÏsentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€one€year€for€vandalism€œto€be€servedÏconcurrently€with€a€sentence€of€eleven›€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€falseÏreport€conviction.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€œsentences›€œbe€suspended€and€served›Ïœin›€a€community€corrections€program.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€his€convictions€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€aÏcontinuance€after€his€counsel€was€appointed€on€the€day€of€œtrial.€€›ÌÌà àThis€case€involves€a€dispute€between€the€defendant€and€his€neighbors,ÏRuth€and€John€Finley,€over€a€fence€that€extends€from€the€Finleysðð€property€into€anÏundeveloped€alley€that€is€owned€by€the€Nashville€Metropolitan€Government€(Metro)Ïand€that€abuts€the€defendantððs€property.€€The€proof€at€trial€established€that€theÏdefendant€cut€a€portion€of€the€fence€after€he€made€several€inquiries€to€various€MetroÏofficials€and€learned€that€Metro€refused€to€get€involved€in€the€fence€dispute€because€itÏwas€not€interested€in€developing€the€alley.€€After€the€defendant€was€arrested€forÏdamaging€the€fence,€he€signed€an€arrest€œwarrant›€charging€Mr.€Finley€with€vandalism€ofÏthe€alley.€€The€defendant€does€not€deny€cutting€the€fence€or€reporting€that€Mr.€FinleyÏvandalized€the€alley.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€John€Finley€testified€that€there€has€been€a€fence€in€the€sameÏplace€behind€his€house€since€at€least€1949.€€He€explained€that€he€replaced€part€of€theÏfence€in€1986.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€called€him€on€December€30,€1991,€andÏwarned€him€that€he€would€cut€the€fence€the€next€morning.€€œMr.›€Finley€said€that€the€nextÏmorning€he€saw€the€defendant€cut€eight€to€ten€feet€of€the€fence.€€Mr.€Finley€laced€theÏfence€back€œtogether.›€€However,€the€following€day,€he€noticed€that€œthe›€fence€had€beenÏcut€again,€near€the€anchor€œpost.€€Mr.›€Finley€said€that€his€fence€was€ruined€and€that€theÏfence€was€worth€between€œone€$1,000.00€and€$1,100.›œ00.›ÌÌà àMr.€Finley€testified€that€he€was€arrested€on€May€8,€1992,€and€identifiedÏthe€arrest€warrant.€€The€affidavit€in€support€of€the€warrant€is€signed€by€the€defendantÏand€states€that€œthe›€defendant€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€John€Finley€had€ð ðdirt,Ïrock€and€sand€dumped€in€public€alley€#1839€and€then€fenced€in€said€pollution€andÏthus€caused€great€and€œconsiderabe›€(sic)€œinconvience›€(sic)€to€myself€and€others€thatÏneed€access€to€the€rear€of€their€œproperty.ðð€€The€affidavit€states€that€the€defendant€basedÏthese€allegations€on€statements€that€Mr.€Finley€made€to€him,€the€police€and€to€theÏMetro€Codes€division.€€Mr.›€Finley€denied€œdumping€dirt,€rock€and€sand€in€the€alley.›€€HeÏfurther€explained€that€the€presence€of€an€eight€to€ten€foot€rock€bluff€would€make€itÏimpossible€to€drive€a€vehicle€through€the€undeveloped€alley,€even€in€the€absence€ofÏthe€fence.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Finley€admitted€that€he€had€a€load€of€dirtÏdumped€in€the€alley€and€leveled€off€so€that€he€could€get€back€there€to€mow.€€Mr.€FinleyÏexplained€that€the€dirt€that€was€dumped€was€topsoil€and€did€not€contain€gravel€orÏrocks.€€€He€explained€that€he€used€the€dirt€to€cover€some€rocks€and€a€manhole€and€thatÏhe€also€placed€a€pipe€over€the€manhole€so€that€it€could€be€easily€located.€€Mr.€FinleyÏsaid€that€he€told€the€defendant€what€he€had€œdone.€€Although›€Mr.€Finley€denied€tellingÏthe€Metro€Codes€division€about€dumping€the€topsoil,€he€explained€that€there€wasÏanother€time€that€the€Metro€Codes€division€stopped€him€from€having€rock€and€dirtÏdumped€in€the€alley€area.€€He€explained€that€in€1984,€while€the€state€was€building€aÍnearby€interstate€highway,€a€state€superintendent€offered€to€fill€in€the€alley€with€rockÏand€dirt.€€Mr.€Finley€said€that€his€neighbors€at€the€time€approved€of€this€action€but€thatÏMetro€Codes€division€contacted€him€and€told€him€that€it€could€not€be€done.Ìà àJames€Butler,€an€outside€salesman€with€Sears€Roebuck€and€CompanyÏ(Sears),€testified€for€the€defense€as€an€expert€in€the€field€of€repairing€or€replacingÏdamaged€fences.€€He€explained€that€Sears€does€not€carry€the€type€of€welded€wireÏfence€that€the€defendant€cut.€€However,€he€said€that€he€could€sell€better,€moreÏexpensive,€galvanized€chain„link€fencing€to€replace€the€damaged€portion€of€the€fence.€ÏHe€explained€that€the€fence€could€be€œrestretched›€so€that€only€the€portion€that€was€cutÏneeded€to€be€replaced.€€He€testified€that€the€cost€for€replacing€the€damaged€portion€ofÏthe€fence€with€a€œchain„link›€fence€would€œbe€$265.00.›€€œAccording›€to€Mr.€Butler,€replacingÏœone€hundred›€feet€of€fence€at€the€back€of€the€property€would€œcost€$537.›œ00.›€ÌÌà àDuring€the€stateððs€rebuttal,€Mr.€Finley€testified€that€he€thought€that€theÏwhole€fence€needed€to€be€replaced.€€He€explained€that€once€the€fence€was€cut€nearÏthe€post,€it€could€not€be€œrestretched›€to€the€same€tension€as€it€was€before€it€was€cut.€€HeÏalso€said€that€he€did€not€know€œhow€a›€œchain„link€fence€would€work€with€the€presentÏfence,€but€he€believed€that€it€would›€not€look€right€unless€the€fence€surrounding€theÏdamaged€portion€was€also€œreplaced€with€chain„link€fencing.›€€œMr.›€Finley€said€that€itÏwould€take€one€hundred€and€sixty„five€feet€of€fencing€to€replace€the€entire€fence.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏvandalism€conviction.€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€did€not€have€the€requisite€intentÏto€commit€vandalism€because€ownership€of€the€fence€was€disputed.€€He€asserts€thatÏhe€was€acting€œin›€a€œnoncriminal›€œfashion›€when€he€cut€the€fence€because€he€was€onlyÏtrying€to€remove€property€that€was€violative€of€his€rights€œin€that›€œit›€œblocked›€the€alley.€€HeÏalso€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€value€of€the€damaged€property€was€inÏexcess€of€œ$500.›œ00.›€€ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àVandalism€occurs€when€a€person€"knowingly€causes€damage€to€or€theÏdestruction€of€any€real€or€personal€property€of€another€or€of€the€state,€the€UnitedÍStates,€any€county,€city,€or€town€knowing€that€he€does€not€have€the€owner's€effectiveÏconsent."€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„408(a).€€The€definition€of€damage€ð ðincludes,€but€is€not€limitedÏto€[d]estroying,€polluting€or€contaminating€property;€or€[t]ampering€with€property€andÏcausing€pecuniary€loss€or€substantial€inconvenience€to€the€owner€or€a€third€personðð.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„14„408(b).ÌÌà àð ðActs€of€vandalism€are€to€be€valued€according€to€the€provisions€of€ðð€œ39„11„106(35)›€and€punished€as€theft€under€ðð€39„14„105.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„14„408(c)(1991).›€ÏThe€definition€of€value€under€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„11„106(35)(1991)›€includes€the€fair€marketÏvalue€of€the€property€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€or€ð ð[i]f€the€fair€market€value€of€theÏproperty€cannot€be€ascertained,€the€cost€of€replacing€the€property€within€a€reasonableÏtime€after€the€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àWhen€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€òòseeóó€òòCabbageóó,€œ571ÏS.W.2d€at€835,€the›€proof€at€trial€showed€that€the€defendant€intentionally€damaged€Mr.ÏFinleyððs€fence.€€On€December€30,€1991,€the€defendant€called€Mr.€Finley€andÏthreatened€to€cut€the€fence€the€next€morning.€€The€next€day€the€defendant€cut€eight€toÏten€feet€of€the€fence.€€According€to€Mr.€Finley,€the€defendant€ruined€the€entire€fence€byÏcutting€it€near€the€anchor€post.€€Mr.€Finley€said€that€the€fence€was€worth€betweenÏœ$1,000.00›€and€œ$1,100.00.›€€Mr.€Butler€testified€that€it€would€cost€œ$537.00›€to€replace€oneÏhundred€feet€of€the€fence.€€Although€Mr.€Butler€also€testified€that€the€fence€could€beÍœrestretched›€with€only€a€small€portion€of€it€being€replaced,€the€jury€obviously€rejectedÏthis€testimony.€€It€is€not€our€function€to€reweigh€the€evidence€on€appeal.€œ€Based›€on€theÏproof€presented€at€trial,€the€jury€was€justified€in€concluding€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€œvandalism€of€property›€in€an€amount€over€œ$500.00.›ÌÌà@ àò òIIÌó óà àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€withÏrespect€to€his€conviction€for€making€a€false€report.€€First,€he€asserts€that€the€report€wasÏnot€false€because€Mr.€Finley€admitted€dumping€dirt€in€the€disputed€area.€€Second,€heÏargues€that€the€state€failed€to€show€that€he€knew€the€information€he€reported€was€false.€ÏThe€state€counters€that€sufficient€evidence€supports€the€defendantððs€false€reportÏconviction.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€state€had€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€defendantÏreported€an€incident€or€offense€to€an€officer€while€knowing€that€the€offense€or€incidentÏdid€not€occur.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„16„502(a)(1)(A).›€€Even€viewing€the€proof€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€state,€we€are€unable€to€say€that€the€state€met€œits›€œburden.›ÌÌà àThe€false€report€charge€in€this€case€involves€an€affidavit€œsigned€by›€œthe›Ïœdefendant€that›€states€that€œhe›€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€Mr.€Finley€dumpedÏdirt,€rock,€and€sand€in€the€alley€and€then€fenced€ð ðsaid€pollutionðð€œin,›€causingÏconsiderableÑ€0ÑÇinconvenience€to€the€defendant€and€others.€€In€the€affidavit,€the€defendant€stated€thatÏhe€based€these€allegations€on€statements€that€Mr.€Finley€made€to€him,€the€police€andÏto€the€Metro€Codes€division.€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€proof€at€trial€did€not€show€œthat›€Mr.€Finley€vandalized€theÏalley,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€state€proved€that€the€defendant€reported€an€œincident€orÏoffense›€œwhile›€òòknowingóó€that€it€did€not€occur.€€At€trial,€Mr.€Finley€denied€dumping€rockÏand€sand€in€the€alley.€€However,€he€admitted€that€he€had€a€load€of€dirt€dumped€withinÏthe€fenced€area€of€the€alley€over€some€rocks€and€the€manhole€cover€that€were€œthere.›€ÏMr.€€Finley€also€testified€that€he€told€the€defendant€about€what€he€had€done.€€AlthoughÏMr.€Finley€denied€telling€the€Metro€Codes€division€about€dumping€the€dirt,€he€did€admitÏthat€the€division€stopped€him€from€having€rock€and€dirt€dumped€in€the€alley€at€oneÏother€time.€€Based€on€these€undisputed€facts,€we€are€unable€to€say€that€the€defendantÏreported€the€dumping€in€the€alley€while€knowing€that€it€did€not€occur.€ÌòòÌà àóóThe€state€argues€that€the€information€contained€in€the€warrant€is€falseÏbecause€it€œimplies›€that€the€fencing€and€obstructing€of€the€defendantððs€access€to€hisÏproperty€occurred€shortly€before€the€warrant€was€sworn,€when,€the€proof€at€trialÏestablished€that€Mr.€Finleyððs€fence,€in€one€version€or€another,€was€already€on€theÏproperty€when€the€defendant€purchased€his€property.€€However,€the€affidavit€in€supportÏof€the€warrant€does€not€state€when€the€alleged€dumping€occur.€€The€false€report€statuteÍsays€nothing€about€holding€a€person€criminally€responsible€solely€because€a€reportÏcan€be€construed€to€œimply›€an€incorrect€time€that€the€œincident€or€offense›€occurred.€€Ì€€€Ìà àThe€state€also€argues€that€there€was€no€support€for€the€defendantððsÏallegation€that€Mr.€Finley€dumped€pollution€into€the€alley.€€The€state€asserts€that€theÏtestimony€at€trial€indicated€that€Mr.€Finley€merely€placed€enough€dirt€over€the€manholeÏcover€œto›€mow€over€it.€€Although€we€agree€with€the€state€that€the€proof€at€trial€did€notÏshow€that€Mr.€Finley€polluted€the€alley,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„408(2),€the€proof€at€trial€didÏdemonstrate€that€there€were€rocks€in€the€alley€and€that€Mr.€Finley€dumped€œdirt›€into€theÏfenced€area.€€œMr.€Finley€also€admitted€that€the€Metro€Codes€division€stopped€him€fromÏhaving€dirt€and€rocks€dumped€in€the€alley.€€When›€taken€in€context,€the€reference€toÏpollution€in€the€affidavit€refers€to€the€dirt,€rock,€and€sand,€that€the€defendant€alleged€Mr.ÏFinley€dumped€in€the€alley.€€We€recognize€that€the€proof€at€trial€did€not€establish€thatÏMr.€Finley€dumped€rocks€and€sand€into€the€alley.€€However,€in€our€view,€the€state€failedÏto€meet€œits€burden›€of€proving€œbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that›€the€defendant€œknew€atÏthe€time€he€made€the€report€that›€the€incident€alleged€in€the€warrant€œhad€not€occured.›ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€him€aÏcontinuance€after€counsel€was€appointed€on€the€day€his€trial€was€to€begin.€€TheÏdefendant€concedes€that€his€trial€attorney€ð ðtried€the€case€well,€based€upon€the€limitedÍtime€he€had€to€prepare,ðð€but€he€argues€that€the€fact€that€the€attorney€only€had€one€dayÏto€attempt€to€prepare€for€his€case€is€a€òòperóó€òòseóó€violation€of€his€right€to€counsel.€€WeÏdisagree€with€the€defendantððs€contention.€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€appointed€the€Davidson€CountyÏPublic€Defenderððs€office€to€represent€the€defendant€at€his€arraignment.€€On€NovemberÏ18,€1992,€the€trial€court€relieved€the€Public€Defenderððs€office,€ruling€that€the€defendantÏwas€not€indigent€and€should€be€able€to€secure€his€own€counsel.€€According€to€the€trialÏcourt,€it€informed€the€defendant€that€he€needed€to€hire€his€own€attorney€on€at€least€sixÏoccasions€before€the€defendantððs€trial€date,€January€25,€1993.€€On€the€day€that€the€trialÏwas€to€begin,€the€defendant€arrived€without€an€attorney€and€again€argued€that€he€wasÏindigent.€€The€trial€court€reappointed€the€attorney€who€œrepresented€the€defendant€at›€hisÏarraignment€but€ordered€the€defendant€to€pay€œ$2,000.00›€in€attorney€œfees.€›€The€attorneyÏinformed€the€court€that€he€had€received€all€the€discovery€material€provided€by€theÏstate,€and€the€court€continued€the€trial€until€the€next€day€to€give€the€attorney€more€timeÏto€prepare.€€Although€the€attorney€initially€requested€that€he€have€more€than€one€day€toÏprepare,€he€later€told€the€trial€court€that€he€would€prefer€to€begin€the€trial€the€followingÏmorning€instead€œof›€the€following€afternoon.Ì€Ìà àThe€granting€of€a€continuance€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòMoorehead€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€271,€409€S.W.2d€357,€358€(1966).€€A€reversalÍmay€only€occur€if€the€denial€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€and€the€defendant€wasÏimproperly€prejudiced€in€that€a€different€result€might€reasonably€have€been€reached€ifÏthe€continuance€had€been€granted.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€257€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990);€òòBaxter€v.€Stateóó,€503€S.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€ÏThus,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€defendant€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€œThe›Ïdefendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€or€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€actions.ÌÌà àà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€the€defendant's€conviction€forÏvandalism€in€an€amount€greater€than€œ$500.00›€is€affirmed,€and€his€conviction€forÏmaking€a€false€report€is€reversed.€œÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJerry€Scott,€Special€Judge€€€Ì›