’WPC  䜤I±®ńš®†Šā§ņ(õ\j\œy³žV6IqQŹ‚O¦ń_‘=‘„Š× Z–Ö‚”Æœœ śĀ­ŲÅ(‰åjĖĖQ ō šAø=mŸF `·Ž6&xÄ„V5 ¬^1Np£ŗæ–° OĢ"?2ÓLcŃ`žWh³¶<(æwp`ćŠeJ wŠ÷·’]Ŗ!²»JŅŲ#|ī$Ļ—2XcLŅĀņļäGKbŸęõ p6¼Ż¤F£×ؤIÅå™|Ś3B~ō“­Ņ8pĮV?Ö9ķ“Dvļāā3·JŸou 1;} š™@éÆw}Ä }„„e Ŗ-”LŌŲ‘ˆėV(a ņˆ˜“ā£`™tĆb®EŸ-Ė&“n5św*ŸĘiŗįčr!+`e–ĄŚY‰œmg‹żC(•ŠÄŠ2Ą(ÓÓ3Œ4®Īׄ¦ č’aj„‚DK(gÖ÷*ŪQT«ĀNĪŗ¹Ć_±¬—¬nę!`Y“Šö/€2kɂ™ÆŽā"bŽö×u¼²GÅOšļӜ4Ņ(čjĶ}U#2aš  €Ż”Gé0%®I³½¬ū>q±)ˆż2­pēāīaŸlŠŅ īødĒSbFE¾4+W»dÜ õŸrܕvÖ7’ §Œ#Ÿ¶Üˆ‹Ub %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkŅå· m¹ #ĮŠ UN‘ Ęß Ę„ Ęk Ę1U>÷N5"77EYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYb[[[[[[[[ 0:cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc 0ė Bˆˆ 0¤„ D3I D-| 0K©© ASōĘG 0¤  0D± A«õ»Ԙ„-s (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)ź:i¢Ų+003|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.wpt’U‹’ĄĄĄ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ČČČČČČČČ0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ō\  `‹&Times New Roman TiptonWaverlyRadfordTrinaKnowles Odom t]het]hatRakas Oody CrimpossessoryTransou DixwarrantlessHenningRippyStonerrehgMatlock S.W.SatterwhiteMiddlebrooks TBIKuykendallYoungbloodTrombettaRickyKrantzTugglereweighBurlisonCazesMarableAshbyWinfieldB]asedArnettG.E.D.McGinley BunnT]here- ł-4’’2Emphasisņņóó(|G2Øå$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ µ»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ō£Żņ»»Ō d(|3L$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ µ»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3L$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ µ»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ µ»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼ µ»»»ŌŃ8€_YXXdģ»»d8Ńą@ttģąŌ‡ī4 µŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@õõ%ģąAT€JACKSONŌ#†¼ µ»īī4 #ԈŠ Ö& ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąSeptember€10,€2002€SessionŠ üL ŠŌ‡X_YX»¼ µŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼ µ»XX_Y#ŌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóó€v.€JODY€LANE€ORRņņóóŌ‡X_YX»¼ µŌó óŠ śJ ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Carroll€CountyŠ ś J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€01cr„1636€€€€€€C.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeŠ ę 6 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` Aߊ Ŗś  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€W2001„02075„CCA„R3„CD€€Ō_Ō„Ō_Ō€Filed€November€27,€Ō_Ō2002Ō_ŌŠ „õ  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aߊ }Ķ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓŌ‡ X_YXXX_YŌThe€Appellant,€Jody€Lane€Orr,€was€convicted€by€a€Carroll€County€jury€of€aggravated€burglary,Š xČ  Šaggravated€rape,€and€class€E€felony€theft.€€He€received€an€effective€twenty„five„year€sentence.€€€OnŠ d“ Šappeal,€Orr€raises€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisŠ P  Šmotion€to€suppress;€(2)€whether€the€State€lost€and/or€mishandled€a€blood€sample€drawn€by€lawŠ <Œ Šenforcement€after€his€arrest;€(3)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdicts;€and€(4)Š (x Šwhether€his€sentence€was€proper.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€areŠ d Šaffirmed.Š P ŠĢŌ#†X_YXX X_Yć#ŌŌ#†¼ µ»XX_Y‹#ŌŌ‡X_YX»¼ µŌÓ×ÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óŠ Ä ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼ µ»ąX_Y0#ŌŌ‡X_YX.¼ µŌDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņJoe€G.€Riley,€J.,óó€joined.€€ņņJosephŠ œģ ŠM.€Tiptonóó,€J.,€filed€a€concurring€opinion.Š ˆŲ ŠĢCharles€N.€Griffith,€Waverly,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Jody€Lane€Orr.Š `° ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€P.€RobinŠ 8!ˆ  ŠDixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€G.€Robert€Radford,€District€Attorney€General;€and€EleanorŠ $"t! ŠCahill,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š #`" ŠŌ#†¼ µ»XX_Yź#ŌŌ‡X_YX»¼ µŌĢÓ»ÓĢą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼ µ»XX_Yž #ŌŌ‡X_YX»¼ µŌŠ Ō%$!% ŠĢņ ņFactual€Backgroundó óŠ ¬'ü"' ŠņņóóŌ#†¼ µ»XX_Y #ŌÓ  ÓŌ€X_YX»¼ µŌĢŌ‡ X_YXXX_YŌą  ąOn€September€24,€2000,€the€victim,€Trina€Knowles,€returned€home€from€a€friendššs€birthdayŠ „)Ō$) Šparty€at€approximately€12:30€a.m.€€Upon€returning€home,€she€had€a€message€on€her€answeringŠ p*Ą%* Šmachine€from€Richard€Forrest,€the€co„defendant€in€this€case.€€She€did€not€return€his€call;€instead,€sheŠ \+¬&+ Šš šput€a€movie€in€and€laid€down€on€the€couch€and€went€to€sleep.šš€€Later,€the€victim€was€awakened€byŠ H,˜', Šthe€co„defendant€š šbanging€on€the€doors€and€on€the€windows,€calling€[her]€name;šš€she€did€not€answerŠ 4-„(-ż ŠŌ_Ōthe€door€and€fell€back€asleep.€€Later,€she€was€awakened€by€the€Appellant€and€co„defendant;€š šone€wasŠ ° Šholding€[her]€down€.€.€.€and€the€other€one€was€duct„taping€[her]€ankles€and€wrists€and€around€[her]Š œģ Šmouth€and€[her]€head.šš€€Both€men€wore€bandannas€covering€their€faces;€however,€the€victimŠ ˆŲ Šrecognized€the€co„defendant€and€said,€š šRichard,šš€before€duct„tape€was€placed€over€her€mouth€andŠ tÄ Ša€bandanna€over€her€face.€€After€ransacking€the€trailer,€the€two€men€š šripped€[the€victimššs]€pantiesŠ `° Šoff,€pulled€[her]€legs€up€in€the€air€and€penetrated€[her]€vaginally.šš€€Then,€the€victim€was€flipped€overŠ L œ Šon€the€couch,€and€š šthey€anally€raped€[her].šš€€After€the€victim€was€raped,€she€was€told€not€to€tellŠ 8 ˆ Šanybody€of€the€incident€or€she€would€be€killed.€€A€telephone€cord€and€breathing€tube€were€alsoŠ $ t Šwrapped€around€her€ankles,€and€a€New€Yearššs€Eve€hat€was€placed€on€her€head.€€After€freeing€herself,Š  ` Šshe€drove€to€a€friendššs€house€and,€from€there,€the€police€were€called.€€Upon€examination€at€theŠ ü L  Šhospital,€the€victim€complained€of€bleeding€from€the€rectum€and€red€marks,€š šwhich€later€turned€intoŠ č 8  Šscabs,€around€[her]€ankles€and€.€.€.€wrists€and€.€.€.€mouth.šš€€€ą p ą€Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąAfter€the€victim€told€police€she€recognized€one€of€her€assailants,€the€co„defendant€wasŠ ¬ü  Šdeveloped€as€a€suspect€in€the€rape.€€The€Appellant€and€co„defendant€were€found€at€Peggy€LaneŠ ˜č  ŠTrailer€Court€in€the€co„defendantššs€residence.€€A€search€of€the€trailer€was€conducted€and€severalŠ „Ō  Šitems€belonging€to€the€victim€were€discovered;€jewelry,€two€VCRs,€medicine€bottles,€and€a€piggyŠ pĄ Šbank.€€Also€discovered€were€items€which€incriminated€the€Appellant€and€his€co„defendant€in€theŠ \¬ Šalleged€crimes;€bandannas,€gloves,€and€part€of€a€breathing€tube.€€Thereafter,€both€men€were€takenŠ H˜ Što€the€police€department€and€signed€written€confessions,€detailing€the€crimes€committed€against€theŠ 4„ Švictim.€€A€Carroll€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€Appellant€and€co„defendant€for€aggravatedŠ  p Šburglary,€three€counts€of€aggravated€rape,€and€theft€between€$500€and€$1,000.€€The€co„defendantŠ  \ Špled€guilty,€received€a€seventeen„year€sentence,€and€testified€against€the€Appellant€at€trial.€€After€aŠ ųH Štrial€by€jury,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€aggravated€burglary,€aggravated€rape,€andŠ ä4 Šclass€E€felony€theft.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€he€received€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€andŠ Š  Šwas€ordered€to€pay€a€$61,000€fine.€€His€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied,€and€this€timely€appealŠ ¼  Šfollowed.Š Øų ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņANALYSISó óŠ €Š ŠĢņ ņI.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óŠ X Ø ŠÓ  Óą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąą Č ąĢÓ  Óą  ąThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppress.€Š 0"€  ŠSpecifically,€he€contends€that:€(1)€evidence€found€inside€his€š šliving€quartersšš€should€have€beenŠ #l! Šsuppressed€because€the€person€who€granted€the€waiver€to€search€was€without€authority€to€do€so,€andŠ $X" Š(2)€the€waiver€of€his€right€to€remain€silent€was€not€voluntarily€and€knowledgeably€given€because€heŠ ō$D # Šwas€sleep„deprived€and€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants€or€other€substances€and,€therefore,€anyŠ ą%0!$ Šstatements€made€to€law€enforcement€officers€were€inadmissible.€Š Ģ&"% ŠĢą  ąŌ#†X_YXX X_YČ #ŌIn€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theŠ ¤(ō#' Šsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€prevailing€party.€€ņņState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3dŠ )ą$( Š420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€ņņState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€ņņóóIn€considering€theŠ |*Ģ%) Ševidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€the€fact-finding€of€theŠ h+ø&* Šsuppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,€and€resolvingŠ ° Šconflicts€in€the€evidence.€€ņņId.;€see€alsoóó€ņņState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001).€€Indeed,Š œģ Šthese€findings€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€ņņDaniel,€óó12€S.W.3d€atŠ ˆŲ Š423.€€ņņóóIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantššs€motion€to€suppress,€finding€that:Š tÄ ŠĢą8  ą.€.€.€Iššm€satisfied€that€the€defendant,€while€he€might€have€been€sleepy€or€under€theŠ L œ Šinfluence€of€possibly€alcohol€or€controlled€substances,€that€he€understood€his€rights,Š 8 ˆ Šthat€he€waived€those€rights€freely€and€voluntarily,€and€he€understood€those€rightsŠ $ t Šwhen€he€in€fact€waived€them.€.€.€.€Š `Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąConcerning€the€search€of€the€house,€first€of€all,€I€find€that€essentially,€he€has€noŠ č 8  Šstanding.€€He€might€have€been€a€temporary€resident€there,€but€certainly€the€officer€gotŠ Ō$  Ša€consent€from€the€person€that€owned€this€property.€€There€was€someone€there€to€letŠ Ą  Šthem€in€that€had€access,€and€there€is€no€indication€that€this€search€was€anything€otherŠ ¬ü  Šthan€valid€and€with€the€consent€of€the€property€owner.€.€.€.€€Š˜č Š Š  ŠĢŌ‡ X_YXXX_YŌÓīÓņ ņÓ  ÓA.€Search€ó óŠ pĄ ŠÓu&Óą  ąĢÓ  Óņ ņ1.ą0  ąStanding.ó óą0ø (#(#ąFirst,€the€State€maintains€that€the€Appellant€does€not€have€standing€to€contestŠH˜ø (#ø (# Šthe€search€of€the€residence.€€The€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€thatŠ 8ˆ Š"[t]he€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€.€.€.€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€shall€not€beŠ $t Šviolated."€U.S.€ņņConstóó.€amend.€IV.€€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€similarlyŠ ` Šprovides€"[t]hat€the€people€shall€be€secure€.€.€.€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures."€€ņņTennóó.Š üL ŠCņņonstóó.€art.€I,€šš€7.€€In€the€context€of€these€constitutional€provisions,€the€so-called€"standing"Š č8 Šrequirement€is€simply€the€rigorous€application€of€the€principle€that€the€rights€thereby€secured€areŠ Ō$ Špersonal.€€ņņRakas€v.€Illinoisóó,€439€U.S.€128,€139,€99€S.€Ct.€421,€428€(1978).€€One€who€challenges€theŠ Ą Šreasonableness€of€a€search€or€seizure€has€the€initial€burden€of€establishing€a€legitimate€expectationŠ ¬ü Šof€privacy€in€the€place€or€thing€to€be€searched.€ņņState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.Š ˜č ŠApp.),€ņņperm.€to€appeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€1991).€€ņņóóOne€who€does€not€have€such€an€expectation€of€privacyŠ „Ō Šlacks€"standing"€to€challenge€the€search.€€ņņSee€State€v.€Pattersonóó,€966€S.W.2d€435,€441€n.5€(Tenn.Š pĄ ŠCrim.€App.€1997).€€Standing€is€ultimately€a€question€of€law,€subject€on€appeal€to€ņņde€novoóó€review,Š \ ¬ Šagainst€the€backdrop€of€a€trial€court's€factual€determinations.€€ņņState€v.€James€A.€Jacksonóó,€No.€M1998„Š H!˜ Š00035„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€5,€2000)€(citations€omitted).€€There€areŠ 4"„  Šseven€factors€to€be€considered€when€determining€if€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€exists:€(1)Š  #p! Šownership€of€the€property;€(2)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€thing€seized;Š  $\" Š(3)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€place€searched;€(4)€whether€the€defendantŠ ų$H # Šhas€a€right€to€exclude€others€from€that€place;€(5)€whether€he€has€exhibited€a€subjective€expectationŠ ä%4!$ Šthat€the€place€would€remain€free€from€intrusion€by€the€State;€(6)€whether€the€defendant€took€normalŠ Š& "% Šprecautions€to€maintain€his€privacy;€and€(7)€whether€he€was€legitimately€on€the€premises.€€ņņOodyóó,€823Š ¼' #& ŠS.W.2d€at€560.€Š Ø(ų#' ŠŠ Š€ą  ą€The€fact€that€a€person€is€an€overnight€guest€in€a€residence€or€an€apartment,€standing€alone,Š €*Š%) Šis€sufficient€to€clothe€the€guest€with€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€premises€sufficient€toŠ l+¼&* Šchallenge€the€search€and€any€resulting€seizure.€€ņņState€v.€Transouóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€958€(Tenn.€Crim.Š ° ŠApp.€1996)€(citing€ņņMinnesota€v.€Olsonóó,€495€U.S.€91,€96„97,€110€S.€Ct.€1684,€1688€(1990)).€Š œģ ŠHowever,€a€"casual€visitor"€or€a€"transient€party€guest"€does€not€have€a€reasonable€expectation€in€theŠ ˆŲ Šhost's€residence€or€apartment.€€ņņId.€óó€(citing€ņņUnited€States€v.€David€Dixóó,€No.€94„4065€(6ņņthóó€Cir.,€June€9,Š tÄ Š1995);€ņņUnited€States€v.€Maddoxóó,€944€F.2d€1223,€1234€(6ņņthóó€Cir.€1991),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.€992,€112Š `° ŠS.€Ct.€600€(1991)).€Š L œ ŠĢą  ąIn€this€case,€the€evidence€established€that€the€Appellant€had€been€staying€at€the€residence€forŠ $ t Šapproximately€two€to€three€weeks€at€the€time€the€search€of€the€premises€was€conducted.€€TheŠ  ` ŠAppellant€stated€he€š šwas€staying€at€Mr.€Forrestššs€trailer€for€a€time,€ššcause€[he]€was€in€betweenŠ ü L  Šhouses.šš€€The€Appellant€did€not€pay€rent€but,€rather,€the€arrangement€was€that€he€would€š šbuy€theŠ č 8  Šfood€and€stuff€and€cook.šš€€The€Appellant€was€present€in€the€residence€when€the€search€wasŠ Ō$  Šperformed.€€Based€upon€the€foregoing€principles,€we€conclude,€contrary€to€the€ruling€of€the€trialŠ Ą  Šcourt,€that€the€Appellant€did€have€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€residence€and,€therefore,Š ¬ü  Šhad€standing€to€challenge€the€validity€of€the€search.€€Accordingly,€we€proceed€to€address€the€meritsŠ ˜č  Šof€the€Appellantššs€argument€concerning€the€search€of€the€premises.€€ņņóóŠ „Ō  ŠĢņ ņ2.ą  ąConsent.€ó óą ø ąUnder€both€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andŠ \¬ ŠArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€a€warrantless€search€of€a€person's€home€isŠ Lœ Špresumed€unreasonable.€€ņņState€v.€Bartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,€229„230€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€ņņCoolidgeŠ 8ˆ Šv.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€454„55,€91€S.€Ct.€2022,€2032€(1971));€ņņsee€also€State€v.€JamesŠ $t ŠDarrell€Hornóó,€No.€03C01„9810„CR„00363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€26,€2000).€Š ` ŠHowever,€there€are€many€well„recognized€exceptions€to€this€rule,€including€a€search€conductedŠ üL Špursuant€to€consent.€€ņņBartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€230.€€The€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€theŠ č8 Šsearch€was€conducted€pursuant€to€this€exception.€€ņņId.óó€€If€the€State€fails€to€satisfy€its€burden,€theŠ Ō$ Šexclusionary€rule€may€operate€to€bar€the€admissibility€of€any€evidence€obtained€directly€orŠ Ą Šderivatively€from€the€unconstitutional€search.€ņņWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€485,€83€S.Š ¬ü ŠCt.€407,€416€(1963);€ņņState€v.€Clarkóó,€844€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1992).€€Our€review€is€ņņde€novo,€óóasŠ ˜č Šmixed€questions€of€law€and€fact€are€involved.€€ņņState€v.€William€Donald€Ellisóó,€No.€M1999„783„CCA„Š „Ō ŠR3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€13,€2000)€(citing€ņņState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461Š pĄ Š(Tenn.€1999)).€€Review€is€not€limited€to€the€record€of€the€suppression€hearing;€rather,€it€extends€toŠ \ ¬ Šthe€entire€record€of€proceedings,€including,€in€this€case,€the€Appellantššs€trial.€€ņņId.óó€€(citing€ņņState€v.Š H!˜ ŠHenningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998)).€Š 4"„  ŠĢą  ąIn€this€situation,€Officer€David€Bunn€obtained€verbal€consent€to€search€the€residence€fromŠ  $\" Šthe€property€owner,€Barbara€Forrest,€the€co„defendantššs€mother.€€When€Officer€Bunn€arrived€at€theŠ ų$H # Šresidence,€Tim€Forrest€was€present€at€the€residence€and€executed€a€written€waiver€to€search€theŠ ä%4!$ Štrailer.€€Tim€Forrest€is€the€brother€of€the€co„defendant€Richard€Forrest.€€During€the€search€of€theŠ Š& "% Štrailer,€items€belonging€to€the€victim€were€discovered.€€At€trial,€all€of€these€items€were€admitted€intoŠ ¼' #& Ševidence,€the€trial€court€finding€that€consent€of€the€property€owner€was€sufficient€to€search€theŠ Ø(ų#' Šresidence.€Š ”)ä$( Šā āŠ €*Š%) Šą  ąWe,€first,€conclude€that€the€property€owner€did€not€have€authority€to€permit€a€search€of€theŠ ° Šā āresidence.€€She€did€not€live€at€the€trailer;€therefore,€she€did€not€possess€authority€over€its€premises.€Š œģ Šš šTo€justify€a€warrantless€search€of€premises€owned€or€occupied€ņņóóby€a€citizen€as€a€residence,€he€mustŠ ˆŲ Šgive€his€consent,€or€such€consent€must€be€given€by€someone€authorized€by€him,€or€having€a€commonŠ tÄ Špossessory€interest€or€right.€.€.€.šš€€ņņRippyóó€ņņv.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€636,€640€(Tenn.€1977)€(apartmentŠ `° Šmanagerššs€sister€cannot€consent€for€a€tenant)ņņóó;€ņņsee€generally€Stoner€v.€Californiaóó,€376€U.S.€483,€84Š L œ ŠS.€Ct.€889,€ņņrehššg€deniedóó,€377€U.S.€940,€84€S.€Ct.€1330€(1964)€(hotel€clerk€cannot€consent€for€guests);Š 8 ˆ ŠņņChapman€v.€United€Statesóó,€365€U.S.€610,€81€S.€Ct.€776€(1961)€(landlord€cannot€consent€for€a€tenant).€Š $ t ŠThe€modern€test€concerning€consent€searches,€as€enunciated€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€Š  ` ŠĢą8  ąis€that€the€consent€of€one€who€possesses€common€authority€over€premises€or€effectsŠ č 8  Šis€valid€as€against€the€absent,€non„consenting€person€with€whom€that€authority€isŠ Ō$  Šshared.€The€court€defined€common€authority€as€the€"mutual€use€of€the€property€byŠ Ą  Špersons€generally€having€joint€access€or€control€for€most€purposes,€so€that€it€isŠ ¬ü  Šreasonable€to€recognize€that€any€of€the€co„inhabitants€has€the€right€to€permit€theŠ ˜č  Šinspection€in€his€own€right€and€that€the€others€have€assumed€the€risk€that€one€of€theirŠ „Ō  Šnumber€might€permit€the€common€area€to€be€searched."ŠpĄŠ Š  ŠĢņņBartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€230„31€(quoting€ņņUnited€States€v.€Matlockóó,€415€U.S.€164,€171€n.7,€94€S.€Ct.€Š H˜ Š988,€993€n.7€(1974)).€€Ownership€of€the€property€alone€is€not€enough;€mutual€use€by€one€having€jointŠ 4„ Šaccess€or€control€of€the€premises€is€required.€€€ņņId.óó;€sņņee€Rippyóó,€550€S.W.€2d€at€640;ņņ€McGee€v.€Stateóó,Š  p Š451€S.W.2d€709,€712€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969),€ņņperm.€to€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970)€(citationŠ  \ Šomitted).€€Barbara€Forrest€did€not€use€or€occupy€the€trailer€and,€therefore,€could€not€validly€consentŠ ųH Što€a€search€of€the€premises.€Š ä4 ŠĢą  ąNext,€we€must€determine€whether€the€waiver€by€Tim€Forrest€constituted€valid€consentŠ ¼  Što€search€the€trailer.€€When€Officer€Bunn€arrived€at€the€trailer,€Tim€Forrest,€who€had€slept€in€theŠ Øų Štrailer€that€evening,€gave€written€permission€to€search€the€residence.€€Thus,€the€issue€is€whether€TimŠ ”ä ŠForrest€had€š šcommon€authorityšš€over€the€trailer.€€In€the€Appellantššs€brief,€he€asserts€that€Tim€ForrestŠ €Š Šdid€not€reside€in€the€trailer;€in€contrast,€the€State€contends€that€the€co„defendant€testified€at€trial€thatŠ l¼ Šhe€lived€at€the€residence€with€both€Tim€Forrest€and€the€Appellant.€€The€following€colloquy€is€theŠ X Ø Šonly€testimony€of€the€co„defendant€Richard€Forrest€which€references€the€residents€of€the€trailer:Š D!” ŠĢą8  ąQ.€€Mr.€Forrest,€where€were€you€living€on€September€the€24ņņthóó€2000?Š#l!Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąA.€€Peggy€Lane€Trailer€Court.€Šō$D #Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąQ.€€Who€was€residing€with€you?ŠĢ&"%Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąA.€€My€brother€was€starting€to€move€in,€and€Jody€Orr€had€been€living€with€me€forŠ ¤(ō#' Šabout€two€months€š!š€I€mean,€two€weeks.А)ą$(Š Š  Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) ŠThe€co„defendant€Richard€Forrest€has€two€brothers,€Tim€and€Greg,€both€of€whom€were€present€whenŠ ° Šā āOfficer€Bunn€arrived€to€conduct€a€search€of€the€premises.€€The€co„defendant€provided€no€explanationŠ œģ Šas€to€the€meaning€of€the€phrase€š šstarting€to€move€in,šš€ņņi.e.óó,€it€is€unclear€whether€Tim€Forrest€hadŠ ˆŲ Š"mutual€use€of€the€property€by€generally€having€joint€access€or€control€for€most€purposes.€.€.€.šš€Š tÄ ŠņņBartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€230„31€(quoting€ņņMatlockóó,€415€U.S.€at€171€n.7).€€Tim€Forrest€did€not€testifyŠ `° Šat€trial.€€Furthermore,€there€is€no€other€evidence€or€testimony€which€supports€the€Stateššs€assertionŠ L œ Šthat€Tim€Forrest€resided€in€the€trailer.€€Because€the€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€theŠ 8 ˆ Šsearch€was€conducted€pursuant€to€this€exception,€we€conclude€that€the€State€has€not€sufficientlyŠ $ t Šshown€that€Tim€Forrest€had€š šcommon€authorityšš€over€the€trailer.€€Accordingly,€the€search€of€theŠ  ` Špremises€was€unconstitutional,€and€the€evidence€seized€during€the€search€was€inadmissible.€Š ü L  Š€€€€Š č 8  Šņ ņ3.€ą  ąHarmless€error.ó óą  ąWe€must€now€determine€whether€the€convictions€must€be€reversedŠ Ō$  Šunder€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Once€constitutional€error€is€found,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€StateŠ Ä  Što€prove€the€error€is€harmless€and€the€reviewing€court€must€be€persuaded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtŠ °  Šthat€the€error€did€not€affect€the€trial€outcome€in€order€to€deem€the€error€harmless.€€ņņChapman€v.Š œģ  ŠCaliforniaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,€87€S.€Ct.€824,€828€(1967).€€The€inquiry€is€š šwhether€the€State€has€provedŠ ˆŲ  Š'beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€complained€of€did€not€contribute€to€the€verdict€obtained.'"€Š tÄ ŠņņSatterwhite€v.€Texasóó,€486€U.S.€249,€258„59,€108€S.€Ct.€1792,€1798€(1988)€(quoting€ņņChapmanóó,€386Š `° ŠU.S.€at€24).€€In€this€case,€the€co„defendant€testified€against€the€Appellant€at€trial,€and€the€AppellantŠ Lœ Šconfessed€to€his€crimes.€€Given€the€strength€of€the€State's€case,€we€hold€that€no€prejudice€to€theŠ 8ˆ ŠAppellant€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€evidence€being€admitted.€€Any€error€was€harmless€beyond€aŠ $t Šreasonable€doubt.€€ņņSee€Rippyóó,€550€S.W.2d€at€641.€€Accordingly,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutŠ ` Šmerit.Š üL ŠĢņ ņÓ  ÓB.€Confessionó óŠ Ō$ ŠĢÓ ]Óą  ąThe€Appellant€argues€that€his€confession€was€not€given€knowingly€and€voluntarily€becauseŠ ¬ü Šhe€was€š šsleepy€and€slowšš€due€to€his€use€of€drugs€and€alcohol.€€He€contends€that€his€š šstatement€wasŠ ˜č Šmade€by€paraphrasing€the€statement€of€Richard€Forrest€and€out€of€the€need€to€get€some€sleep.šš€Š „Ō ŠInherent€in€the€admissibility€of€the€written€statement€is€that€the€statement€was€voluntarily€given€byŠ pĄ Ša€defendant€knowledgeable€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€accompanied€by€a€valid€and€knowingŠ \ ¬ Šwaiver€of€those€rights.€€Ż‚6’’’ŻņņŻ  ŻSee€Ż‚6’’’æ_€TheŻóóŻ  ŻŻ‚6’’’ŻņņŻ  ŻMiranda€v.€ArizonaŻ‚6’’’`€TheŻóóŻ  Ż,€384€U.S.€436,€467,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€1624,€(1966);Š H!˜ ŠŻ‚6’’’ŻņņŻ  ŻState€v.€MiddlebrooksŻ‚6’’’¤`€TheŻóóŻ  Ż,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.€1992),€Ż‚6’’’ŻņņŻ  Żcert.€dismissedóóŻ‚6’!a€ņņŻŻ  Ż,€510€U.S.€124,€114€S.€Ct.Š 4"„  Š651€(1993).€€Ż‚6’’’ŻņņŻ  ŻŻ‚6’’’°arn€fŻóóŻ  ŻIn€determining€the€admissibility€of€a€confession,€the€particular€circumstances€of€eachŠ  #p! Šcase€must€be€examined€as€a€whole.ņņ€€State€v.€Smith,€óó933€S.W.2d€450,€455€(Tenn.€1996).€€AŠ  $\" Šdefendant's€subjective€perception€alone€is€not€sufficient€to€justify€a€conclusion€of€involuntariness€inŠ ų$H # Šthe€constitutional€sense.€€ņņŻ‚6’’’ŻņˆņŻ  ŻIdóˆóŻ‚6’’’kct€whŻóóŻ  Ż.€(citations€omitted).€€The€primary€consideration€in€determining€theŠ ä%4!$ Šadmissibility€of€the€evidence€is€whether€the€confession€is€an€act€of€free€will.€€ņņState€v.€Chandleróó,€547Š Š& "% ŠS.W.2d€918,€920€(Tenn.€1977).€€A€confession€is€not€voluntary€when€"the€behavior€of€the€state's€lawŠ ¼' #& Šenforcement€officials€was€such€as€to€overbear"€the€will€of€an€accused€and€"bring€about€confessionsŠ Ø(ų#' Šnot€freely€self„determined."€€ņņState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1980)€(quoting€ņņRogers€v.Š ”)ä$( ŠRichmondóó,€365€U.S.€534,€544,€81€S.€Ct.€735,€741€(1961)).€€With€regard€to€the€claim€that€a€confessionŠ €*Š%) Šis€involuntary,€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€a€motion€toŠ l+¼&* Šsuppress€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€an€appellate€court€will€not€set€aside€the€trialŠ ° Šcourt's€judgment€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€ofŠ œģ Šthe€trial€court.€€ņņState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€22€(Tenn.€1996)€(citation€omitted).Š ˆŲ Š€Ģą  ąIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€testified€that€he€did€not€understand€his€rights€because€heŠ `° Šhad€ingested€numerous€drugs€and€a€large€amount€of€alcohol€prior€to€his€arrest.€€After€a€suppressionŠ L œ Šhearing,€the€trial€court€found€the€statement€constitutional€and€ruled€that€it€was€admissible.€€We€agree.€Š 8 ˆ ŠThe€record€indicates€that€the€Appellant€was€advised€fully€and€completely€of€his€Miranda€rights€andŠ $ t Šat€no€time€did€the€Appellant€indicate€that€he€did€not€understand€his€rights.€€Officer€Bunn€testified€thatŠ  ` Šthe€Appellantššs€š šspeech€was€goodšš€throughout€the€interrogation,€and€he€understood€his€rights€evenŠ ü L  Šthough€he€appeared€sleepy.€€A€sample€of€the€Appellantššs€blood€drawn€within€five€to€six€hours€afterŠ č 8  Šhis€arrest€and€statements€revealed€no€alcohol€or€drugs€in€the€Appellantššs€system.€€Furthermore,€theŠ Ō$  ŠAppellant€testified€that€he€confessed€because€he€believed€the€blood€tests€would€exonerate€him€of€theŠ Ą  Šcharges.€€The€trial€court€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€Officer€Bunn€in€finding€a€valid€andŠ ¬ü  Šknowing€waiver€of€rights€and€finding€a€voluntary€statement€made€from€the€free€will€of€the€Appellant.€Š ˜č  ŠWe€find€no€reason€to€disregard€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€voluntariness€of€theŠ „Ō  ŠAppellant's€statement.€€As€such,€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€the€Appellant's€statement€intoŠ pĄ Ševidence.Š \¬ ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņII.€€Blood€Sample€€ó óŠ 4„ ŠĢÓ­nÓą  ąRobert€Marshall,€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(TBI)€forensic€scientist€in€Jackson,Š  \ Štestified€that€he€received€a€five„milliliter€blood€sample€taken€from€the€Appellant€after€his€arrest.€€HeŠ ųH Štested€a€one„milliliter€portion€for€the€presence€of€alcohol.€€The€portion€tested€negative,€and€theŠ ä4 Šremaining€blood,€four„milliliters,€was€transferred€to€the€TBI€lab€in€Nashville€for€drug€testing.€EdwardŠ Š  ŠLewis€Kuykendall,€a€TBI€forensic€scientist€in€Nashville,€testified€that€he€received€a€two„milliliterŠ ¼  Šsample,€rather€than€a€four„milliliter€sample.€€Kuykendall€performed€a€š šbasic€drug€screen,šš€for€whichŠ Øų Šthe€blood€tested€negative.€€The€sample€was€not€tested€for€the€presence€of€barbiturates€and€marijuanaŠ ”ä Šbecause€it€had€been€completely€consumed€by€prior€testing.€€At€trial,€Kuykendall,€in€order€to€explainŠ €Š Šthe€discrepancy€in€the€amount€sent€by€Marshall€and€received€by€Kuykendall,€testified€to€theŠ l¼ Šfollowing:Š X Ø Š€Ģą8  ąQ.€€€Now,€the€sample€that€came€in,€could€it€have€leaked€out,€or€could€it€have€dried€upŠ 0"€  Šand€stuck€to€the€sides€or€anything€like€that?Š#l!Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąA.€€I€didnššt€see€any€sample€that€had€been€in€a€leaking€fashion.€€Now,€it€was€a€bloodŠ ō$D # Štube,€so,€obviously,€it€was€being€contained€in€there.€€But€when€youššre€talking€aboutŠ ą%0!$ Šglancing€at€a€tube€š!š€Iššve€dealt€with€Mr.€Marshall€for€a€long€time,€and€heššs€dealt€withŠ Ģ&"% Šmy€notations,€also,€and€when€we€make€those€notations€and€we€look€at€those€tubes,Š ø'#& Šitššs€a€one€gray€five„milliliter€tube.€€That€means€it€can€contain€up€to€five„milliliters.€Š ¤(ō#' ŠIt€doesnššt€mean€necessarily€that€it€does.€€Now,€heššll€take€and€he€does€his€portion.€€AtŠ )ą$( Šthat€point€in€time,€there€is€some€amount€left.€€That€is€an€estimate€of€how€much€thatŠ |*Ģ%) Šis€there,€but€that€doesnššt€necessarily€mean€that€by€the€time€I€get€to€it€and€I€actuallyŠ h+ø&* Šdraw€it€out,€when€I€physically€measure€how€much€it€is,€that€youššre€going€to€haveŠ ° Šexactly€what€he€thinks€he€sent€me€or€exactly€what€I€look€at.€€Itššs€an€estimate.€€Itššs€anŠ œģ Šeyeball.€€But€when€I€draw€it€out€with€a€physical€measuring€instrument,€then€I€knowŠ ˆŲ Šexactly€how€much€is€there.€€In€that€case,€I€had€two„milliliters€to€work€with.€€€ŠtÄŠ Š  ŠĢThe€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€materially€harmed€by€the€loss€or€unexplained€absence€of€a€portionŠ L œ Šof€his€blood€sample€because€testing€for€barbiturates€and€marijuana€would€have€shown€that€he€wasŠ 8 ˆ Šunder€the€influence€of€drugs€at€the€time€he€gave€his€statement€to€Officer€Bunn,€thereby,€renderingŠ $ t Šhis€statement€involuntary.€Š  ` ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņState€v.€Fergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€addressed€š šwhatŠ č 8  Šconsequences€flow€from€the€State's€loss€or€destruction€of€evidence€alleged€to€have€been€exculpatory."€Š Ō$  ŠņņFergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€at€915.€€Specifically,€our€supreme€court€rejected€the€bad€faith€analysis€requiredŠ Ą  Šunder€the€United€States€Constitution,€set€forth€in€ņņArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó,€488€U.S.€51,€109€S.€Ct.€333Š ¬ü  Š(1988),€and€held€that€a€broader€inquiry€is€required€under€Article€1,€Section€8€of€the€TennesseeŠ ˜č  ŠConstitution.€€ņņFergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€at€914.€€The€critical€inquiry€is€whether€a€trial€conducted€withoutŠ „Ō  Šthe€lost€or€destroyed€evidence€would€be€fundamentally€fair.€€ņņId.€ó󀀩 pĄ ŠĢą  ąIn€resolving€the€question€of€fundamental€fairness,€a€court€must€first€determine€whether€theŠ H˜ ŠState€had€a€duty€to€preserve€the€lost€or€destroyed€evidence.€€ņņId.óó€at€917;€ņņsee€also€State€v.€Coulteróó,€67Š 4„ ŠS.W.3d€3,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€ņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001).€€"Generally€speaking,€theŠ  p ŠState€has€a€duty€to€preserve€all€evidence€subject€to€discovery€and€inspection€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Š  \ ŠP.€16,€or€other€applicable€law."€€ņņFergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€at€917.€€Š ųH ŠĢą8  ąWhatever€duty€the€Constitution€imposes€on€the€States€to€preserve€evidence,€that€dutyŠ Š  Šmust€be€limited€to€evidence€that€might€be€expected€to€play€a€significant€role€in€theŠ ¼  Šsuspect's€defense.€To€meet€this€standard€of€constitutional€materiality,€evidence€mustŠ Øų Šboth€possess€an€exculpatory€value€that€was€apparent€before€the€evidence€wasŠ ”ä Šdestroyed,€and€be€of€such€a€nature€that€the€defendant€would€be€unable€to€obtainŠ €Š Šcomparable€evidence€by€other€reasonably€available€means.Šl¼Š Š  ŠĢņņId.€óó€(quoting€ņņCalifornia€v.€Trombettaóó,€467€U.S.€479,€488„489,€104€S.€Ct.€2528,€2534€(1984)).€€OnlyŠ D!” Šif€the€proof€demonstrates€the€existence€of€a€duty€to€preserve€and€further€shows€that€the€State€hasŠ 0"€  Šfailed€in€that€duty€must€a€court€turn€to€a€balancing€analysis€involving€consideration€of€the€followingŠ #l! Šfactors:€Š $X" ŠĢą8  ą1.€The€degree€of€negligence€involved;€Šą%0!$Š Š  ŠŠ Šą8  ą2.€The€significance€of€the€destroyed€evidence,€considered€in€light€of€the€probativeŠ ø'#& Švalue€and€reliability€of€secondary€or€substitute€evidence€that€remains€available;€and€Š¤(ō#'Š Š  ŠŠ Šą8  ą3.€The€sufficiency€of€the€other€evidence€used€at€trial€to€support€the€conviction.Š|*Ģ%)Š Š  ŠŠ h+ø&* ŠņņIdóó.€(footnote€omitted);€ņņsee€also€State€v.€Ricky€Hill€Krantzóó,€No.€M1999„02437„CCA„RM„CD€(Tenn.Š ° ŠCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Jan.€25,€2000),ņņ€perm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2000).€Š œģ ŠĢą  ąApplying€the€above€analysis€to€the€instant€case,€we€find€that€there€is€no€proof€in€the€recordŠ tÄ Šthat€the€State€lost,€destroyed,€or€mishandled€the€Appellantššs€blood€sample.€€Kuykendall€explainedŠ `° Šthe€discrepancy€in€the€sample€amounts;€thus,€the€evidence€was€not€š šlost€or€destroyedšš€by€the€StateŠ L œ Šbut,€rather,€was€used€for€testing€in€its€entirety€.€€Furthermore,€even€if€the€State€had€a€duty€to€preserveŠ 8 ˆ Šthe€blood€sample€and€failed€to€do€so,€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€how€testing€for€barbituratesŠ $ t Šand€marijuana€would€have€significantly€affected€the€voluntariness€of€his€confession.€€Officer€BunnŠ  ` Štestified€that,€at€the€time€the€statement€was€given,€the€Appellant€understood€his€rights€and€onlyŠ ü L  Šappeared€sleepy.€€At€the€time€of€the€motion€to€suppress€hearing,€none€of€the€blood€test€results€wereŠ č 8  Šavailable€to€the€trial€judge.€€The€trial€judge,€finding€the€confession€to€be€voluntary,€assumed€that€theŠ Ō$  ŠAppellant€had€ingested€some€sort€of€intoxicant.€€Based€upon€Officer€Bunnššs€testimony€the€evidenceŠ Ą  Šdoes€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€Therefore,€the€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Š ¬ü  ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óŠ „Ō  ŠĢÓ{ŒÓą  ąThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€hisŠ \¬ Šconvictions€for€aggravated€burglary,€aggravated€rape,€and€class€E€felony€theft.€€A€jury€convictionŠ H˜ Šremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€oneŠ 4„ Šof€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidenceŠ  p Šis€insufficient.€€ņņState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determining€the€sufficiencyŠ  \ Šof€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€ņņState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Š ųH ŠS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€this€court€to€revisit€questions€ofŠ ä4 Šwitness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€ņņState€v.Š Š  ŠHolderóó,€15€S.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€1999);€€ņņState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.Š ¼  ŠApp.€1993).€€Instead,€the€Appellant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€soŠ Øų Šdeficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenseŠ ”ä Šbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ņņóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);ņņ€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Š €Š ŠCt.€2781,€2789€(1979);€ņņState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994)ņņóó.€€Moreover,€the€State€isŠ l¼ Šentitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€beŠ X Ø Šdrawn€therefrom.ņņ€€State€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€These€rules€are€applicable€toŠ D!” Šfindings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€bothŠ 0"€  Šdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€ņņState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š #l! Š1990).€€As€in€the€case€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€and€š štheŠ $X" Šinferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistentŠ ō$D # Šwith€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence,€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.šš€€ņņMarable€v.€Stateóó,Š ą%0!$ Š313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)€(citation€omitted).Š Ģ&"% ЀРŠą  ąTennessee€Code€Annotated€šš€39-13-502(a)(2)€(1997)€defines€aggravated€rape€as€theŠ ¤(ō#' Š"unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€.€.€.€accompanied€by€.€.€.€bodily€injury€toŠ )ą$( Šthe€victim."€€A€person€is€guilty€of€aggravated€burglary€if€that€person,€without€the€effective€consentŠ |*Ģ%) Šof€the€property€owner,€enters€a€habitation€with€intent€to€commit€a€theft.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€39„14„Š h+ø&* Š402(a)(3),€„403(a)€(1997).€€In€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€theft,€the€State€must€prove€that€aŠ ° Šperson,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€knowingly€obtained€or€exercised€control€overŠ œģ Šthe€property€without€the€owner's€effective€consent.€€ņņóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€39„14„103€(1997).€€Theft€ofŠ ˆŲ Šproperty€is€a€Class€E€felony€if€the€value€of€the€property€obtained€is€more€than€$500€but€less€thanŠ tÄ Š$1,000.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€39„14„105(2)€(1997).Š `° Š€€Š L œ Šą  ąThe€proof€at€trial,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€established€that€the€Appellant€andŠ 8 ˆ Šco„defendant€forced€their€way€into€the€victimššs€home€with€the€intent€to€commit€rape€and€theftŠ $ t Štherein.€€Both€men€proceeded€to€sexually€penetrate€the€victim€both€vaginally€and€anally,€causingŠ  ` Šbodily€injury€to€the€victim.€€After€raping€the€victim,€the€men€left€the€residence€with€items€belongingŠ ü L  Što€the€victim.€€The€testimony€of€the€co„defendant€and€the€Appellantššs€confession€are€sufficient€toŠ č 8  Šsupport€the€jury's€verdict.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Š Ō$  ŠĢņ ņÓ  ÓIV.€€Sentencingó óŠ ¬ü  ŠĢÓ˜Óą  ąThe€Appellant€argues€that€his€twenty„five„year€sentence€as€imposed€by€the€trial€court€wasŠ „Ō  Šexcessive.€€The€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€concurrent€sentences€of€two€years€for€class€E€felonyŠ pĄ Štheft,€six€years€for€aggravated€burglary,€and€twenty„five€years€for€aggravated€rape.€€He€contends€thatŠ \¬ Šthe€trial€court€improperly€applied€or€weighed€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€apply€appropriateŠ H˜ Šmitigating€factors.Š 4„ Š€€Š  p Šą  ąWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€thisŠ  \ Šcourt€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€ņņde€novoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theŠ ųH Šdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€ņņóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„401(d)€(1997);€ņņStateŠ ä4 Šv.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeŠ Š  Šshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsŠ ¼  Šand€circumstances."€€ņņAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€When€conducting€a€ņņde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,Š Øų Šņņóóthis€court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)Š ”ä Šthe€pre„sentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;Š €Š Š(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€orŠ l¼ Šenhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€the€Appellant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€theŠ X Ø Špotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€40„35„102,€„103,Š D!” Š„210€(1997);€ņņAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€ņņóóFurthermore,€we€emphasize€that€facts€relevant€to€sentencingŠ 0"€  Šmust€be€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€not€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ņņStateŠ #l! Šv.€Winfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€ņņState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.Š $X" Š1997)).€ņņóóŠ ō$D # ŠĢą  ąIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposedŠ Ģ&"% Ša€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€andŠ ø'#& Šprinciples€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supportedŠ ¤(ō#' Šby€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€differentŠ )ą$( Šā āresult.€€ņņState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€where€the€trialŠ |*Ģ%) Šcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€provisions€of€sentencing,€appellate€review€isÓӀņņde€novoóó€withoutŠ ° Ša€presumption€of€correctness.€ņņóóŠ œģ Šā āĢą  ąIn€determining€the€Appellantššs€sentence,€the€trial€court€applied€the€following€enhancementŠ tÄ Šfactors:€(1)€The€Appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inŠ `° Šaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€(2)€The€Appellant€was€a€leader€in€theŠ L œ Šcommission€of€an€offense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors;€(5)€The€Appellant€treated€orŠ 8 ˆ Šallowed€the€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€commission€of€the€offense;€(7)€TheŠ $ t Šoffense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€Appellantššs€desire€for€pleasure€orŠ  ` Šexcitement;€and€(8)€The€Appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theŠ ü L  Šconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40-35-114(1),Š č 8  Š(2),€(5),€(7),€(8)€(Supp.€2001).Š Ō$  Š€Ģą  ąŌ#†X_YXX X_YC&#ŌŌ‡X_YXXX_YŌThe€Appellant€first€contends€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€was€misapplied€because€the€trialŠ ¬ü  Šcourt€considered€two€charges,€assault€and€vandalism,€for€which€the€Appellant€was€š šplaced€on€pre„Š ˜č  Štrial€diversion€and€apparently€later€dismissed.šš€€However,€in€addition€to€the€two€charges€referencedŠ „Ō  Šby€the€Appellant,€the€record€reflects€that€the€Appellant€has€Ō#†X_YXXX_Y6®#ŌŌ‡X_YXXX_YŌconvictions€for€Ō#†X_YXXX_Y°#ŌŌ‡ X_YXXX_YŌpublic€intoxication€andŠ pĄ Šmisdemeanor€failure€to€appear.€These€convictions€are€sufficient€to€support€the€application€ofŠ \¬ Šenhancement€factor€(1)€to€all€of€the€Appellantššs€convictions.€Š H˜ ŠĢą  ąThe€Appellant€argues€that€enhancement€factor€(2)€should€not€have€been€applied€because€hisŠ  p Šco„defendant,€not€he,€was€the€leader€in€the€offense.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that:Š  \ ŠĢą8  ą.€.€.€Richard€Forrest€admitted€his€role€in€picking€out€the€victim,€had€sole€knowledgeŠ ä4 Šof€her€residence€location,€had€trafficked€in€drugs€with€her,€provided€the€tools€to€breakŠ Š  Šin€and€was€older€than€the€Appellant€herein.€.€.€.м Š Š  Šą  ąĢą8  ąThe€State€elicited€direct€testimony€by€Richard€Forrest,€that€he€picked€the€victim,Š ”ä Šplanned€the€robbery,€procured€the€tools,€tape,€work€gloves€and€bandannas,€andŠ €Š Šremoved€the€loot.€€Direct€testimony€by€Trina€Knowles€was€that€she€recognizedŠ l¼ ŠRichard€Forrest€and€that€he€was€the€first€one€to€have€sex€with€her,€and€it€could€beŠ X Ø Šconcluded€that€he€was€the€only€one€based€upon€her€testimony€about€being€flippedŠ D!” Šover€and€subjected€to€anal€intercourse€almost€simultaneously.Š0"€ Š Š  ŠĢThe€trial€court€rejected€the€Appellantššs€argument€that€Richard€Forrest€was€the€leader€in€theŠ $X" Šcommission€of€the€offense,€finding€that:€€Š ō$D # ŠĢą8  ą.€.€.€[B]ased€upon€the€proof€in€this€case,€[the€Appellant]€was€in€fact€a€leader€in€theŠ Ģ&"% Šcommission€of€the€offenses€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors.€€I€base€that€uponŠ ø'#& Šthe€proof€that€was€presented€during€the€trial€of€this€case.€€Also€having€had€theŠ ¤(ō#' Šopportunity€to€observe€the€other€co„defendant,€both€during€his€plea€of€guilty€andŠ )ą$( Šsentencing,€as€well€as€listening€to€his€testimony€during€the€trial€of€this€case.€€€Š|*Ģ%)Š Š  ŠŠ h+ø&* Їą8  ąAnd€it€is€without€question€in€the€courtššs€mind€that€this€defendant,€given€his€attitude,Š ° Šgiven€the€proof€that€was€developed,€that€he€was€in€fact€a€leader€of€a€commission,€theŠ œģ Šleader€in€the€commission€of€this€offense.€€€€€€€ŠˆŲŠ Š  ŠĢą  ąThis€court€has€held€that€š šenhancement€for€being€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseŠ `° Šdoes€not€require€that€the€Appellant€be€the€sole€leader€but€only€that€he€be€ššašš€leaderšš€in€theŠ L œ Šcommission€of€the€offense.€€Ż‚6’’’ŻņņŻ  ŻState€v.€HicksŻ‚6’’’/»ņņDŻóóŻ  Ż,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citationŠ 8 ˆ Šomitted).€€The€co„defendant€testified€that€the€Appellant€taped€the€victimššs€legs€together€and€firstŠ $ t Šš šstarted€having€sexšš€with€the€victim.€€The€victim€testified€that,€after€the€rape,€the€Appellant€and€co„Š  ` Šdefendant€threatened€to€kill€her,€wrapped€a€breathing€tube€and€telephone€cord€around€her€ankles,€andŠ ü L  Šplaced€a€New€Yearššs€Eve€hat€on€her€head.€€Based€upon€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€find€theŠ č 8  ŠAppellant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€these€offenses.€€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€was€in€theŠ Ō$  Šbest€position€to€adjudge€the€demeanor€and€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court'sŠ Ą  Šapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(2)€to€all€of€the€Appellantššs€convictions€was€proper.Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(5),€the€Appellant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€toŠ „Ō  Šbe€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€commission€of€the€offense,€to€the€aggravated€rapeŠ pĄ Šconviction€and€placed€great€weight€on€this€factor,€concluding€that:€€š šI€donššt€think€Iššve€ever€had€theŠ \¬ Šmisfortune€to€hear€a€case€in€which€the€victim,€even€including€some€homicides,€was€treated€in€theŠ H˜ Šmanner€this€victim€was.€€The€conduct€of€the€defendants€was€vile.€€It€š!š€words€to€truly€describe€howŠ 4„ Šheinous€this€crime€is,€escape€the€court.šš€€To€support€this€aggravating€factor,€the€State€must€proveŠ  p Šš šexceptional€cruelty,šš€demonstrating€š ša€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€thatŠ  \ Šincident€to"€the€crime.€€ņņPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€98.€€In€other€words,€such€evidence€must€denote€theŠ ųH Šinfliction€of€pain€or€suffering€for€its€own€sake€or€from€the€gratification€derived€therefrom€and€notŠ ä4 Šmerely€pain€or€suffering€inflicted€as€the€means€of€accomplishing€the€crime€charged.€€ņņState€v.€Arnettóó,Š Š  Š49€S.W.3d€250,€258€(Tenn.€2001)€(quoting€€ņņState€v.€Kelly€Haynesóó,€No.€W1999„01485„CCA„R3„CDŠ ¼  Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Mar.€14,€2000)).€Our€courts€have€upheld€the€application€of€this€factorŠ Øų Šbased€on€proof€of€extensive€physical€abuse€or€torture,€as€well€as€proof€of€psychological€abuse€orŠ ”ä Štorture.€€ņņId.€€óó(citations€omitted).€€We€acknowledge€the€inherently€cruel€nature€of€the€rape€and€do€notŠ €Š Šwish€to€minimize€the€anguish€of€the€victim.€However,€we€are€bound€by€precedent€and,€therefore,€areŠ l¼ Šunable€to€conclude€that€the€record€supports€application€of€the€"exceptional€cruelty"€enhancementŠ X Ø Šfactor€to€the€Appellantššs€aggravated€rape€conviction.€Š D!” ŠĢą  ąRegarding€enhancement€factor€(7),€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€toŠ #l! Šgratify€the€Appellantššs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,€we,€also,€find€the€trial€courtššs€applicationŠ $X" Šof€this€factor€to€the€Appellantššs€aggravated€rape€conviction€improper.€€Enhancement€factor€(7)€callsŠ ō$D # Šinto€question€an€appellant's€motive€for€committing€a€crime.€€ņņState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€491Š ą%0!$ Š(Tenn.€1996);€ņņsee€also€Arnettóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€261„62.€€"Human€motivation€is€a€tangled€web,€alwaysŠ Ģ&"% Šcomplex€and€multifaceted."€€ņņKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€491.€€Proving€an€appellant's€motive€willŠ ø'#& Šalways€be€a€difficult€task.€€ņņId.óó€€"But€the€legislature€.€.€.€has€placed€that€obligation€on€the€State€whenŠ ¤(ō#' Šthe€state€seeks€an€enhanced€sentence."€€ņņIdóó.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€this€factorŠ )ą$( Šā ābecause€the€State€has€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€showing€that€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratifyŠ |*Ģ%) Šthe€Appellant's€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement€above€and€beyond€that€inherent€in€the€act€of€rapeŠ ° Šitself.€Š œģ Šā āŠ Šą  ąThe€Appellant€does€not€contest€the€trial€courtššs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(8),€ņņi.e.óó,Š tÄ Šthe€Appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentenceŠ `° Šinvolving€release€into€the€community.€€The€trial€court€applied€this€factor€because€the€pre„sentenceŠ L œ Šreport€reflected€that€the€Appellant€š šhas€a€pending€felony€escape€chargešš€and€a€probation€violation.€Š 8 ˆ ŠHowever,€the€record€fails€to€reflect€a€€probation€violation,€and€an€escape€charge€is€not€a€sentenceŠ $ t Šinvolving€release€into€the€community.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that,€upon€ņņde€novo€óóreviewņņ,óó€enhancementŠ  ` Šfactor€(8)€was€misapplied€to€all€of€the€Appellantššs€convictions.€Ō#†X_YXX X_Yi°#ŌŌ‡ X_YXXX_YŌŠ ü L  ŠĢą  ąWith€respect€to€mitigating€proof,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notŠ Ō$  Šapplying€mitigating€factor€(6):€The€Appellant,€because€of€youth€or€old€age,€lacked€substantialŠ Ą  Šjudgment€in€committing€the€offense.€€ņņóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„113(6)€(1997).€€Specifically,€theŠ ¬ü  ŠAppellant€contends€that€he€š šis€of€a€young€age€where€mistakes€and€errors€in€judgment€can€occuršš€and,Š ˜č  Šas€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€he€š šis€considered€amenable€to€rehabilitation.šš€€€The€trial€courtŠ „Ō  Šdeclined€to€apply€mitigator€(6),€finding€that:Š pĄ ŠĢą8  ą.€.€.€[T]hereššs€nothing€to€indicate€that€because€of€his€youth€he€lacked€the€judgment,€Š H˜ Šas€the€statute€said,€to€realize€essentially€the€nature€of€his€conduct.€.€.€.€€Certainly,€heŠ 4„ Šshowed€no€judgment€in€committing€the€offense,€but€it€was€not€because€of€his€youth.€Š  p ŠIt€essentially€just€had€to€do€with€the€commission€of€the€crime.Š \Š Š  ŠĢIn€determining€whether€the€sentence€should€have€been€mitigated€because€the€Appellant€lackedŠ ä4 Šsubstantial€judgment€because€of€his€youth,€"courts€should€consider€the€concept€of€youth€in€context,Š Š  Šņņi.eóó.,€the€defendant's€age,€education,€maturity,€experience,€mental€capacity€or€development,€and€anyŠ ¼  Šother€pertinent€circumstance€tending€€to€demonstrate€the€defendant's€ability€or€inability€to€appreciateŠ Øų Šthe€nature€of€his€conduct."€€ņņState€v.€Carteróó,€908€S.W.2d€410,€413,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(quotingŠ ”ä ŠņņState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.€1993)).€€At€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense,€theŠ €Š ŠAppellant€was€twenty€years€old€and€in€good€mental€and€physical€health.€Although€he€had€droppedŠ l¼ Šout€of€school€in€the€eleventh€grade,€he€had€obtained€his€G.E.D.€€The€Appellant€worked€as€a€deckŠ X Ø Šhand€for€various€barge€and€towing€companies.€€His€familiarity€with€the€criminal€justice€system,€hisŠ D!” Šseveral€opportunities€at€rehabilitation,€and€his€active€role€in€these€crimes€indicate€a€full€appreciationŠ 0"€  Šfor€the€seriousness€of€his€acts.€ņņ€Id.óó€€From€these€facts,€we€think€the€trial€court€acted€within€itsŠ #l! Šprerogative€in€determining€that€the€Appellant€was€sufficiently€mature€to€understand€the€nature€of€hisŠ $X" Šconduct.€Š ō$D # Šą  ąĢą  ąWhen€there€are€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€there€is€no€presumptiveŠ Ģ&"% Šsentence€and€the€court€may€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ššŠ ø'#& Š40-35-210(d).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€soŠ ¤(ō#' Šlong€as€the€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€itsŠ )ą$( Šfindings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€ņņState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.Š |*Ģ%) ŠApp.€1996).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancingŠ h+ø&* Šrelative€degrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€involved.€€ņņBoggsóó,Š ° Š932€S.W.2d€at€476;ņņ€see€alsoóó€ņņState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€€€OfŠ œģ Šparticular€weight€in€this€case€are€the€Appellant's€prior€convictions€and€his€role€as€a€leader€in€theŠ ˆŲ Šcommission€of€the€offense.€€We€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtššs€decision€toŠ tÄ Šenhance€the€Appellant's€sentence.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€a€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€isŠ `° Šappropriate.Š L œ Š€Ģą  ąAdditionally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€penalized€for€exercising€his€constitutionalŠ $ t Šright€to€plead€not€guilty€and€proceed€to€trial€because€the€trial€court€was€overcome€by€passion,Š  ` Šprejudice,€or€caprice€during€the€sentencing€of€the€Appellant.€€However,€because€we€find€that€the€trialŠ ü L  Šcourt€properly€applied€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(2),€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€trial€court€actedŠ č 8  Šimproperly.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.€€€€Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąBased€upon€the€foregoing€principles,€the€judgments€of€conviction€and€resulting€sentences€ofŠ ¬ü  Šthe€Carroll€County€Circuit€Court€are€affirmed.Ō#†X_YXX X_YƒĻ#ŌŠ ˜č  ŠĢĢĢĢĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š ųH Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE