ÿWPCö ~ÄHðnƒ±nݱÐᜱ*öÉòæoÝ=ßýý'huðþ@­ZÉÞí~ÔlýX ”)D#ÚÜõ•›v‰¡ƒ5l=8y—gá2ÝýŸÊ±2WV]Ö$Úù\‡)¼õ6Ùé:”Í¡È@†½;ËC!(Àv¯I×3¯ÿº´£%Z$s>I‹gŤÓ|²r4q€%€Ók­Ù±¨ÿO¡|=„üÁj sFóE{YÖØ‹\Ši¬«£èŒ@™pµã¥`ð¸š@ÎùÈe.«oƒŸrÿö+÷¿Ä=Ü<©¢p6•Z˜JØ=öhê!©…¢¶ã}É!¿´eתZ]¥w€74ÂâO‚·VÌü?°ÛAWPÄé§x®"|òYÀŸ`ñ,‡Ä)/¶­±åÈ,^¬^Bù,rþ̲ ™íÊÒ’ ¬*Q Я’•hùëÃÎÀÃLÓ\h•+Àn3æ§r“;^iŠ™­u¿¢ê±ÛÛÕ=Eb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N; 1‡= 0cÄE'ò)ð   1u 72Š/¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼bëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëë 0ëóóóó BÞÞ 0¤û D3Ÿ D-Ò 0Kÿÿ ASJÆ 0¤c 0D A«K˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»K ”-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,FilÜɺ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à èÝ ƒR…$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðConsentðð€is€not€effective€when€obtained€through€coercion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(9)(A). æÝ ƒR…$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€January€1,€2002,€an€amended€version€of€this€statute€became€effective€for€cases€tried€after€that€date. Ý ƒR…$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€judge€specifically€stated€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€was€not€finding€that€the€defendant€had€aÐ ° Ðhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€to€community.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€Rather€the€trial€judge€seemed€to€find€that€past€efforts€at€rehabilitating€the€defendant€had€failed,Ð 8ˆ Ðthus€warranting€an€enhanced€sentence.€€While€such€a€consideration€is€applicable€in€determining€if€an€Ô_ÔincarcerativeÔ_ÔÐ üL Ðsentence€is€appropriate,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(c);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991),€suchÐ À Ða€consideration€is€not€listed€in€the€statutory€enhancement€factors€which€are€the€only€factors€allowable€for€considerationÐ „Ô Ðin€enhancing€the€length€of€a€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€985€S.W.2d€9€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997).€€It€was€error€to€useÐ H ˜ Ðthis€consideration€to€enhance€the€length€of€defendantððs€sentence.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) %Ý ƒR…$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSince€we€have€concluded€resolution€of€this€issue€turns€on€one€clearly€applicable€enhancement€factor,€we€needÐ ° Ðnot€address€the€issue€of€whether€this€offense€constitutes€one€indictable€offense€of€robbery€thereby€making€the€ð ðmultipleÐ tÄ Ðvictimðð€Ô_ÔenhancerÔ_Ô€applicable;€€See,€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€44€S.W.3d€507„08€(Tenn.€2001);€or€two€indictable€offenses,€one€forÐ 8ˆ Ðeach€victim,€thereby€making€use€of€the€ð ðmultiple€victimðð€Ô_ÔenhancerÔ_Ô€inappropriate.€€See,€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔImfeldÔ_Ôóó,€70€S.W.3d€698Ð üL Ð(Tenn.€2002).- ù-(|G2…$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»Ô d(|3‡„$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡„$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼K»»»ÔÑ8€ 1XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îY,KÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼K»îîY, #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJanuary€16,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X 1X»¼KÔÌò òÔ#†¼K»XX 1#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóJOEL€CHRISTIAN€PARKERÔ‡X 1X»¼KÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Putnam€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„0299€€€€€€Leon€Burns,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00773„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X 1XXX 1Ôà  àOn€February€2,€2000,€the€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€offense€of€aggravatedÐ xÈ  Ðrobbery.€€He€received€a€sentence€of€nine€years€in€the€state€penitentiary.€€In€this€appeal€he€raises€eightÐ d´ Ð(8)€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict;€(2)€whetherÐ P  Ðthe€defendant€was€tried€by€a€fair€and€impartial€jury;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÐ <Œ Ðerror€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€offenses€of€assault€or€aggravated€assault;€(4)€whether€thereÐ (x Ðwas€prosecutorial€misconduct;€(5)€whether€the€defendant€was€subjected€to€a€constitutionally€flawedÐ d Ðshow„up€shortly€after€the€robbery;€(6)€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€as€to€whatÐ P Ðthey€must€do€if€they€have€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€possessed€the€requisite€mental€stateÐ ì< Ðfor€the€offense;€(7)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€dismissed€the€case€because€the€state€destroyedÐ Ø( Ðevidence€fundamental€to€the€defense;€(8)€whether€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€excessive.Ð Ä ÐÌà  àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€each€of€these€claims,€and€we€find€that€none€merit€reversal€of€thisÐ œì Ðcase.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€therefore€affirmed.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†X 1XX X 1Æ#ÔÔ‡ X 1XXX 1ÔÔ#† ¼K»X X 1“#ÔÔ‡ X 1X» ¼KÔÌÔ#†X 1XX X 1™ #ÔÔ#†¼K»XX 1Û #ÔÔ‡X 1X»¼KÔÓºÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ `° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJerry€L.€Smith,€Ô#†¼K»àX 1A #ÔÔ‡X 1X.¼KÔJ.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌJohn€B.€Ô_ÔNisbettÔ_Ô,€III,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔCookevilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€JoelÐ ü#L# ÐChristian€Parker.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Christine€M.€Ô_ÔLappsÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð À&"& ÐWilliam€Edward€Gibson,€District€Attorney€General;€Benjamin€W.€Ô_ÔFannÔ_Ô€and€David€Alan€Patterson,Ð ¬'ü"' ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÓÝ ÓÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼K»XX 1 #ÔÔ‡X 1X»¼KÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼K»XX 1×#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X 1X»¼KÔòòÔ‡ X 1XXX 1Ôà@ÈÈ!ìàFactual€BackgroundóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àOn€November€12,€1998,€the€defendant€drove€a€blue€Volvo€station€wagon€to€the€front€of€theÐ `° ÐQuick€Cash€Pawn€Shop€in€Cookeville,€Tennessee.€€He€talked€with€shop€employee,€Chris€Farris,Ð L œ Ðabout€trading€guns.€€He€also€looked€at€some€guns€the€shop€had€in€its€inventory.€€Farris€explained€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€defendant€that€the€pawn€shop€did€not€deal€in€guns€to€any€great€extent€and€that€an€individual€hadÐ $ t Ðto€be€twenty„one€years€old€to€trade€firearms.€€The€defendant€left€the€shop.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThat€same€afternoon€the€defendant€returned€to€the€pawn€shop.€€On€this€occasion€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðwearing€a€camouflaged€hat€and€jacket€and€a€bandana€over€his€face.€€Mr.€Farris€and€another€employee,Ð Ô$  ÐMatt€Betcher,€were€in€the€shop€at€the€time.€€The€defendant€put€a€gun€to€Betcherððs€head€and€demandedÐ À  Ðto€see€the€shopððs€pistols.€€Farris€began€taking€some€pistols€out€of€the€cabinets€when€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðdemanded€to€see€more€expensive€guns.€€He€placed€the€gun€to€Farrisðð€head€and€asked€Betcher€if€heÐ ˜è  Ðwanted€to€see€his€friend€die.€€The€defendant€fled€the€store€with€three€guns€and€some€ammunition.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àUpon€leaving€the€store€the€defendant€got€in€his€car€parked€near€the€back€of€the€pawn€shop.€Ð \¬ ÐHe€drove€to€the€home€of€a€friend€named€Josh€Robertson.€€The€defendant€told€Robertson€about€theÐ H˜ Ðrobbery€and€gave€Robertson€the€stolen€weapons.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àApproximately€one€hour€after€the€robbery,€police€officer€Mark€Loftis€arrested€the€defendantÐ  \ Ðand€recovered€the€gun€used€in€the€robbery.€€Loftis€took€the€defendant€back€to€the€pawn€shop€whereÐ øH ÐFarris€positively€identified€him€as€the€robber.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@˜˜ìàòòSufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€questions€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€two€points.€€First,€he€claims€theÐ ”ä ÐState€failed€to€prove€that€he€took€the€guns€from€the€pawn€shop€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.€Ð €Ð ÐSecond,€he€claims€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€he€acted€intentionally€or€knowingly.Ð l¼ ÐÌò òó óà  àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€is€obliged€to€reviewÐ D!” Ðthat€claim€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€A€verdict€of€guilty,€rendered€by€a€jury€andÐ 0"€  Ðð ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theðð€State's€witnesses€and€resolves€allÐ #l! Ðconflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State.€€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Ð $X" ÐòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€although€the€accused€is€originally€cloakedÐ ô$D # Ðwith€a€presumption€of€innocence,€the€jury€verdict€of€guilty€removes€this€presumption€ð ðand€replacesÐ à%0!$ Ðit€with€one€of€guilt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðburden€of€proof€rests€with€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð ¸'#& ÐòòIdóó.€The€relevant€question€the€reviewing€court€must€answer€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhave€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð )à$( ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€In€making€this€decision,€we€are€to€accord€the€State€ð ðtheÐ |*Ì%) Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€mayÐ h+¸&* Ðbe€drawn€therefrom.ðð€òòSeeóó€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€As€such,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€re„Ð ° Ðweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence€in€evaluating€the€convicting€proof.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€1990).€€Moreover,€we€may€not€substitute€our€own€ð ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€ofÐ tÄ Ðfact€from€circumstantial€evidence."€€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€779.€€Of€course,€a€criminal€offenseÐ `° Ðmay€be€established€exclusively€by€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,Ð L œ Ð899-900€(Tenn.€1987);€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€However,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrier€of€fact€must€be€able€to€ð ðdetermine€from€the€proof€that€all€other€reasonable€theories€except€thatÐ $ t Ðof€guilt€are€excluded.ðð€€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€900.Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà  àAggravated€robbery€is€the€ð ðintentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€ofÐ è 8  Ðanother€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fearðð€through€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ô$  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„401,€402.€€Thus,€the€State€was€required€to€prove,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€that€the€defendantÐ À  Ðcommitted€a€ð ðtheft.ððÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àð ðTheftðð€is€committed€ð ðif,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€person€knowinglyÐ „Ô  Ðobtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðð€39„14„103.€€The€term€ð ðownerðð€as€used€in€Title€39€of€the€code€is€broader€than€its€commonlyÐ \¬ Ðunderstood€meaning.€€ð ðOwnerðð€is€defined€as€ð ða€person,€other€than€the€defendant,€who€has€possessionÐ H˜ Ðof€or€any€interest€other€than€a€mortgage,€deed€of€trust€or€security€interest€in€property,€even€thoughÐ 4„ Ðthat€possession€or€interest€is€unlawful€and€without€whose€consent€the€defendant€has€no€authority€toÐ  p Ðexert€control€over€the€property.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(26).€€Mssrs.€Farris€and€Betcher,Ð  \ Ðthe€pawn€shop€employees,€were€clearly€ð ðownersðð€within€the€meaning€of€sections€39„11„106(26)€andÐ øH Ð39„14„103.€€They€were€in€lawful€possession€of€the€guns€that€the€defendant€removed€from€the€shopÐ ä4 Ðat€gunpoint,€and€only€with€their€effective€consent€could€the€defendant€take€the€guns€from€the€shop.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РР ÐIt€was€not€necessary€for€the€state€to€prove€who€had€actual€title€to€the€weapons.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€he€acted€ð ðintentionally€or€knowinglyððÐ ”ä Ðwhen€he€removed€the€guns€from€the€pawn€shop€at€gunpoint.€€He€bases€this€claim€on€an€assertion€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€so€intoxicated€that€he€could€not€form€these€mental€states.€€Intoxication,€either€voluntary€orÐ l¼ Ðinvoluntary,€may€be€relevant€on€the€question€of€whether€the€defendant€could€form€the€necessaryÐ X ¨ Ðmental€elements€for€the€commission€of€a€crime.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„503(a).€€However,€theÐ D!” Ðdetermination€of€whether€a€defendantððs€intoxication€negated€a€required€mental€element€is€one€for€theÐ 0"€  Ðjury.€€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€788,€796€(Tenn.€2000).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAlthough€a€part€empty€bottle€of€whiskey€was€found€in€the€defendantððs€car,€and€JoshÐ ô$D # ÐRobertson€testified€that€the€defendant€was€drinking,€both€Farris€and€Betcher€testified€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€did€not€appear€intoxicated€during€the€robbery.€€Officer€Loftis,€who€arrested€the€defendant,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€Officer€Gragg,€who€later€questioned€him,€both€stated€the€defendant€did€not€appear€intoxicated.€Ð ¸'#& ÐAnother€officer€testified€that€he€thought€the€defendant€had€been€drinking€but€that€he€did€not€appearÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdrunk.€€From€all€of€this€there€is€ample€proof€from€which€the€jury€could€conclude€beyond€a€reasonableÐ )à$( Ðdoubt€that€intoxication€had€not€vitiated€the€defendantððs€ability€to€act€intentionally€or€knowingly€andÐ ° Ðthat€he€had€in€fact€done€so.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð œì ÐÌà@ãã!ìàòòChallenge€to€JurorsˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àóóThe€defendant€complains€that€two€(2)€jurors€who€sat€on€his€case€were€biased€and€should€haveÐ L œ Ðbeen€excused€for€cause€during€jury€selection.€€The€defendant€complains€that€he€was€forced€to€use€upÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€peremptory€challenges€on€other€potential€jurors€and€therefore€the€two€(2)€jurors€in€question€hereÐ $ t Ðwere€allowed€to€sit€on€the€case.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThere€is€however€a€flaw€in€the€defense€argument€on€this€point€that€counsel€for€the€defenseÐ è 8  Ðfailed€to€note€in€his€brief.€€At€trial€defense€counsel€never€requested€removal€for€cause€of€the€two€(2)Ð Ô$  Ðjurors€in€question.€€The€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€on€this€ground€alone.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð À  Ð36(a).€€Moreover,€a€criminal€defendant€must€not€only€exhaust€his€peremptory€challenges,€but€he€mustÐ ¬ü  Ðalso€challenge€or€offer€to€challenge€an€additional€prospective€juror€in€order€to€complain€on€appealÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€trial€judgeððs€decision€in€refusing€to€excuse€a€juror€for€cause€resulted€in€a€biased€jury.€€òòStateÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Doelmanóó,€620€S.W.2d€96,€100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@z z ìàòòLack€of€Jury€Instructions€on€Lesser„Included€OffensesóóˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€withÐ  p Ðrespect€to€the€crimes€of€assault€and€aggravated€assault.€€The€State€concedes€that€assault€byÐ  \ Ðintentionally€or€knowingly€causing€another€reasonably€to€fear€imminent€bodily€injury€and€aggravatedÐ øH Ðassault€are€lesser„included€offenses€of€aggravated€robbery€under€part€(a)€of€the€test€announced€inÐ ä4 ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€agree€with€the€parties€on€this€point.€€See€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐJames€Eric€Alderóó,€No.€M1999„02544„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€843€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¼  ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€27,€2000);€òòState€v.€Jason€Carteróó,€No.€M1998„00789„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCrim.€App.€Apr.€27,€2000)òòóó.€€However,€the€State€contends€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€declining€toÐ ”ä Ðinstruct€the€jury€on€these€offenses€because€there€is€no€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€have€foundÐ €Ð Ðthe€existence€of€the€lesser€offenses€as€opposed€to€the€offense€of€aggravated€robbery.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„18„110(a)€(1997)€provides:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€the€duty€of€all€judges€charging€juries€in€cases€of€criminalÐ #l! Ðprosecutions€for€any€felony€wherein€two€(2)€or€more€grades€or€classesÐ $X" Ðof€offense€may€be€included€in€the€indictment,€to€charge€the€jury€as€toÐ ô$D # Ðall€of€the€law€of€each€offense€included€in€the€indictment,€without€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðrequest€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Elyóó,€48€S.W.3d€710,€726€(Tenn.€2001),€our€state€supreme€court€definitively€heldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€this€statutory€admonition€to€trial€judges€enjoyed€constitutional€stature€under€Article€1,€SectionÐ )à$( Ð6€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,€guaranteeing€the€right€to€trial€by€jury.€€The€court€also€noted€thatÐ ° Ðsection€40„18„110(a)€(1997)€has€been€interpreted€to€mean€that€the€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€aÐ œì Ðlesser„included€offense€does€not€arise€unless€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€forÐ ˆØ Ðthe€lesser€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€718€(citing€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€464€(quoting€òòState€v.€Langfordóó,Ð tÄ Ð994€S.W.2d€126,€128€(Tenn.€1999))).€€However,€the€question€of€whether€this€evidentiary€triggerÐ `° Ðrequired€proof€of€the€lesser€offense€as€opposed€to€the€greater€continued€to€vex€the€trial€andÐ L œ Ðintermediate€appellate€courts.€€In€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€69€S.W.3d€181€(Tenn.€2002),€and€most€recently€inÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòState€v.€Linnell€Richmondóó,€No.€E2000„01545„SC„R11„CD,€2002€Tenn.€LEXIS€473€(Tenn.€Nov.€1,Ð $ t Ð2002)€(Southwest€Reporter€cite€not€yet€available),€the€Court€definitively€answered€this€question€asÐ  ` Ðwell.€€If€evidence€is€sufficient€to€warrant€a€jury€instruction€on€the€greater€offense,€it€is€also€sufficientÐ ü L  Ðto€warrant€an€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offenses€under€part€(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test.€€òòId.óó;€òòAllenóó,Ð è 8  Ð69€S.W.3d€at€181.Ô#†X 1XX X 1c#ÔÔ‡ X 1XXX 1ÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àTurning€to€the€instant€case,€the€evidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€warrant€an€instruction€onÐ ¬ü  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€It€is€therefore€òòaóó€òòfortiorióó€sufficient€to€warrant€an€instruction€on€the€òòBurnsóó€part€(a)Ð ˜è  Ðlesser„included€offenses€of€assault€by€means€of€intentionally€putting€a€person€in€fear€of€imminentÐ „Ô  Ðbodily€injury€and€aggravated€assault.€€It€was€therefore€error€for€the€trial€court€to€fail€to€instruct€theÐ pÀ Ðjury€with€respect€to€those€offenses.Ð \¬ ÐÌà@ˆˆ#ìàòòHarmless€ErroróóˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€determination€that€the€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offenses€notedÐ  \ Ðabove€was€error€is€not€the€end€of€our€inquiry.€€Since€the€advent€of€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð101,€105€(Tenn.€1998),€it€has€been€clearly€established€that€a€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€instruct€onÐ ä4 Ða€lesser„included€offense€is€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€With€the€arrival€of€the€opinion€in€òòElyóó,Ð Ð  Ðòòóó49€S.W.3d€at€726,€we€know€that€the€harmless€error€analysis€is€constitutional€in€nature€and€thatÐ ¼  Ðtherefore€when€there€is€an€error€in€the€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€a€lesser„included€offense,€theÐ ¨ø ÐState€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€was€harmless.€òòId.óó€at€727.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€precise€mechanics€of€this€constitutional€harmless€error€analysis€have€proven€almost€asÐ l¼ Ðproblematic€for€the€intermediate€appellate€courts€as€the€substantiative€issue€analysis€in€this€area.€€InÐ X ¨ ÐòòWilliamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€at€105,€the€supreme€court€held€that€a€conviction€by€a€jury€of€the€greatestÐ D!” Ðoffense€charged€to€the€exclusion€of€lesser„included€offenses€upon€which€the€panel€was€instructedÐ 0"€  Ðbelies€any€argument€that€the€failure€to€instruct€on€even€less€serious€offenses€is€reversible€error.€Ð #l! ÐHowever,€in€òòAllenóó,€69€S.W.3d€at€190„91,€the€supreme€court€clarified€that€òòWilliamsóó€did€not€presentÐ $X" Ðthe€only€scenario€in€which€the€failure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser„included€offense€will€be€harmless€beyondÐ ô$D # Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€In€its€most€recent€refinement€of€the€appropriate€harmless€error€analysis€in€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðarea,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€thatÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€when€a€reviewing€court€determines€whether€a€lesser„includedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoffense€ought€to€be€charged,€the€evidence€clearly€controls.€€If€there€isÐ )à$( Ðevidence€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€a€lesser„includedÐ |*Ì%) Ðoffense,€we€hold€that€a€trial€court€must€charge€that€offense.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðdeterminative€test€being€whether€there€is€evidence€sufficient€such€thatÐ ° Ða€jury€òòcouldóó€convict€on€that€lesser„included€offense.€€If€a€jury€couldÐ œì Ðconvict,€no€matter€how€improbable,€it€is€error€not€to€charge€the€lesser„Ð ˆØ Ðincluded€offense.€€However,€in€deciding€whether€it€was€harmlessÐ tÄ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€not€to€charge€a€lesser„included€offense,€theÐ `° Ðreviewing€court€must€determine€whether€a€reasonable€jury€òòwouldóóÐ L œ Ðhave€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€lesser„included€offense€insteadÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€charged€offense.€€In€other€words,€the€reviewing€court€mustÐ $ t Ðdetermine€whether€it€appears€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€trialÐ  ` Ðcourtððs€failure€to€instruct€on€the€lesser„included€offense€did€not€affectÐ ü L  Ðthe€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòóóÐè 8 ` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Linnell€Richmondóó,€No.€E2000„01545„SC„R11„CD,€2002€Tenn.€LEXIS€473,€at€*37€„€*38Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€Nov.€1,€2002)€(citing€òòAllenóó€69€S.W.3d€at€191).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àTurning€again€to€the€facts€of€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€it€appears€that,€although€a€jury€òòcouldóó€haveÐ „Ô  Ðconvicted€the€defendant€of€assault€or€aggravated€assault,€now€we€must€ask€whether€a€reasonable€juryÐ pÀ Ðòòwouldóó€have€convicted€him€of€either€of€those€offenses.€€The€difference€between€the€relevant€formsÐ \¬ Ðof€assault€and€aggravated€assault€in€this€case€and€aggravated€robbery€is€the€theft€of€the€pawn€shopððsÐ H˜ Ðproperty.€€There€is€no€doubt€from€the€evidence€in€this€case€that€the€crime€committed€was€the€theftÐ 4„ Ðof€the€pawn€shopððs€property€through€fear€produced€by€use€of€a€gun.€€This€is€the€essence€of€aggravatedÐ  p Ðrobbery.€€Moreover,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€the€lesser€offense€of€simple€robbery€and€theft,€but€theyÐ  \ Ðdeclined€to€convict€on€those€charges€opting€instead€for€the€indicted€offense€of€aggravated€robbery.€Ð øH ÐUnder€these€circumstances€we€are€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€no€reasonable€juryÐ ä4 Ðòòwouldóó€have€convicted€the€defendant€of€assault€or€aggravated€assault€upon€an€instruction€as€to€thoseÐ Ð  Ðoffenses.€€The€error€is€therefore€harmless€and€affords€the€defendant€no€relief.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@üüìàòòProsecutorððs€Closing€ArgumentóóˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€this€issue€the€defendant€claims€that€the€following€statement€of€the€prosecutor€duringÐ l¼ Ðclosing€argument€to€the€jury€was€an€impermissible€comment€on€the€defendantððs€election€not€toÐ X ¨ Ðtestify:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòAssistant€District€Attorneyóó€.€.€.€Heððs€been€identified€too€many€waysÐ #l! Ðfor€you€to€think€that€either€somebody€else€did€it€or€he€did€not€do€it.€Ð $X" ÐAnd€so€the€defense€then,€when€the€proof€is€this€strong,€when€the€proofÐ ô$D # Ðis€this€great,€when€the€proof€is,€and€you€wonder€after€youððve€sat€hereÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€a€full€day€how€is€it€that€we€can€be€here€for€a€full€day;€surely€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€has€some€defense.и'#&` x` x ÐÌThis€remark€prompted€an€objection€by€defense€counsel,€which€was€immediately€sustained€by€the€trialÐ )à$( Ðjudge.€€No€further€comments€of€this€nature€were€made.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThis€type€of€comment€by€a€prosecutor€always€risks€running€afoul€of€òòGriffin€v.€Californiaóó,€380Ð ° ÐU.S.€609,€615€(1965),€which€holds€that€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÐ œì Ðforbids€any€comment€at€closing€argument€on€a€criminal€defendantððs€election€not€to€testify.€€However,Ð ˆØ Ðwe€find€that€his€comment€was€more€in€the€nature€of€a€comment€that€the€Stateððs€proof€wasÐ tÄ Ðuncontroverted€and€overwhelming.€€Moreover,€there€was€no€direct€reference€to€the€defendantððsÐ `° Ðfailure€to€testify€nor€any€other€alleged€prosecutorial€improprieties.€€Under€these€circumstances€thisÐ L œ ÐCourt€has€held€that€a€defendantððs€Fifth€Amendment€rights€were€not€violated.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð983€S.W.2d€703,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð $ t ÐÌòòà@á á ìàVictimððs€Testimony€Concerning€Identification€of€the€Defendant€ˆÐ ü L  Ðà@$ $ ìàShortly€After€the€Commission€of€the€Crimeóóˆà  àà x àÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€pawn€shop€employee€ChrisÐ À  ÐFarris€to€testify€that€approximately€two€(2)€hours€after€the€robbery€Farris€identified€the€defendant€asÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€robber.€€At€the€time€of€this€identification€the€police€had€returned€to€the€pawn€shop€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€in€the€backseat€of€the€patrol€car.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€this€identificationÐ „Ô  Ðprocedure€was€too€suggestive.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€held€that€on„the„scene€investigatory€show„ups€such€as€the€type€involved€inÐ H˜ Ðthe€instant€case€are€permissible€within€a€reasonable€time€after€the€commission€of€an€offense.€€òòSeeóóÐ 4„ ÐòòState€v.€Mooreóó,€596€S.W.2d€841,€844€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(citing€òòBates€v.€United€Statesóó,€405Ð  p ÐF.2d€1104,€1106€(D.C.€Cir.€1968).€€Even€if€this€show„up€procedure€was€unduly€suggestive,€a€òòperóó€òòseóóÐ  \ Ðrule€of€exclusion€of€evidence€concerning€a€line„up€or€show„up€is€not€warranted€if€the€identificationÐ øH Ðcan€otherwise€be€shown€to€be€reliable.€€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€400€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ä4 Ð1994).€€Citing€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199€(1972);€this€Court€held€that€reliability€of€anÐ Ð  Ðidentification€may€be€determined€by€analyzing€five€(5)€factors:Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àà0 ` àÝ‚3£·jÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;݃3£·jüjÝŒÐ”ä¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£íkÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€witnessðð€degree€of€attention€at€the€time€of€the€crime;݃3£ík:l݌Ѐи (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£mÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description;݃3£mhmÝŒÐl¼¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£>nÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€at€the€confrontation;݃3£>n‹nÝŒÐX ¨¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£hoÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýthe€time€elapsed€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.݃3£hoµoÝŒÐD!”¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# ÐòòPhilpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€400.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€this€case€approximately€two€(2)€hours€after€the€robbery€Farris€identified€the€defendant€asÐ ô$D # Ðthe€man€who€robbed€him€at€gunpoint.€€Farris€had€seen€the€defendant€from€only€a€few€feet€awayÐ à%0!$ Ðduring€the€defendantððs€initial€visit€to€the€pawn€shop€and€during€the€robbery.€€Farris€was€absolutelyÐ Ì&"% Ðcertain€of€the€defendantððs€identity€as€the€robber.€€Under€these€circumstances€we€find€evidence€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐFarrisððs€out„of„court€identification€of€the€defendant€was€properly€admitted.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ââìàòòDestruction€or€Loss€of€EvidenceóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€defense€at€trial€was€essentially€that€he€was€too€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðrobbery€to€form€the€necessary€culpable€mental€state€for€robbery,€i.e.€ð ðintentional€or€knowing.ðð€€AnÐ tÄ Ðopen€bottle€of€Early€Times€whiskey,€missing€about€two€thirds€of€its€contents,€was€found€in€theÐ `° Ðdefendantððs€car€when€he€was€arrested.€€By€the€time€of€trial€the€partially€empty€bottle€of€whiskey€hadÐ L œ Ðeither€been€lost€or€destroyed€while€in€police€custody.€€The€defendant€maintained€this€partially€fullÐ 8 ˆ Ðbottle€of€whiskey€was€essential€to€his€defense.€€He€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€case€against€him€onÐ $ t Ðthe€grounds€that€the€failure€of€police€to€preserve€this€evidence€deprived€him€of€a€fair€trial€in€violationÐ  ` Ðof€our€federal€and€state€constitutions.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912,€916€(Tenn.€1999),€our€state€supreme€courtÐ Ô$  Ðadopted€a€test€for€courts€to€use€in€determining€whether€the€loss€or€destruction€of€evidence€deprivedÐ À  Ða€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€The€initial€analytical€step€in€this€test€for€determining€whether€the€policeÐ ¬ü  Ðhad€any€duty€to€preserve€evidence€was€described€as€follows:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhatever€duty€the€Constitution€imposes€on€the€States€to€preserveÐ pÀ Ðevidence,€that€duty€must€be€limited€to€evidence€that€might€beÐ \¬ Ðexpected€to€play€a€significant€role€in€the€suspectððs€defense.€€To€meetÐ H˜ Ðthis€standard€of€constitutional€materiality,€evidence€must€both€possessÐ 4„ Ðan€exculpatory€value€that€was€apparent€before€the€evidence€wasÐ  p Ðdestroyed,€and€be€of€such€a€nature€that€the€defendant€would€be€unableÐ  \ Ðto€obtain€comparable€evidence€by€other€reasonably€available€means.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€917.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAlthough,€the€defendant€did€file€a€ð ðMotion€to€Preserve€Evidenceðð€some€months€prior€to€trial,Ð ¨ø Ðthere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€as€to€whether€the€whiskey€and€bottle€were€lost€or€destroyed€beforeÐ ”ä Ðor€after€this€motion.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€bottle€of€whiskey€wasÐ €Ð Ðapparently€exculpatory.€€Indeed,€the€defendant€does€not€tell€us€how€authorities€were€supposed€toÐ l¼ Ðknow€of€his€intoxication€defense€before€trial.€€Moreover,€the€State€stipulated€that€about€two„thirdsÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€bottleððs€contents€were€missing,€and€the€trial€judge€offered€the€defendant€the€option€ofÐ D!” Ðdemonstrating€with€another€bottle€and€water€how€much€alcohol€was€in€the€bottle.€€Under€theseÐ 0"€  Ðcircumstances€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€motion€to€dismiss€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantððs€case€for€the€loss€of€evidence.Ð $X" ÐÌà@SS"ìàòòJury€InstructionsóóˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€requested€that€the€following€instruction€be€given€to€the€jury€as€part€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinstructions€on€capacity€to€form€a€culpable€mental€state:€€ð ðà8 @Þ àà8 @Þ àIf€you€are€not€satisfied€beyond€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€possessed€the€culpable€mental€state€of€intentional€or€knowing,Ð )à$( Ðthen€you€must€find€him€not€guilty.ððÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIt€appears€that€this€instruction€was€given€when€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€on€how€theÐ ° Ðpanel€was€to€consider€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€intoxication.€€Immediately€before€this€instructionÐ œì Ðthe€trial€judge€informed€the€jury€of€the€meaning€of€acting€intentionally€and€knowingly€underÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee€law.€€The€defendantððs€argument€on€appeal€appears€to€be€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€toÐ tÄ Ðinsert€the€requested€instruction€at€the€point€in€the€charge€where€the€defendant€wanted€constitutesÐ `° Ðreversible€error.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIt€appears€that€the€trial€court€did€not€refuse€to€give€the€defendantððs€special€instruction,€butÐ $ t Ðrather€that€the€court€declined€to€repeat€it€at€another€point€in€the€instructions.€€However,€since€we€haveÐ  ` Ðnot€been€directed€to€any€applicable€authority€with€respect€to€this€discreet€point,€we€will€analyze€thisÐ ü L  Ðissue€as€if€the€special€request€had€been€denied.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Cozartóó,€54€S.W.3d€242€(Tenn.€2001),€our€state€supreme€court€directed€that€a€courtÐ À  Ðreviewing€the€denial€of€a€request€for€a€special€jury€instruction€should€view€the€denial€in€the€contextÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€entire€jury€charge.€€òòId.óó€At€245.€€The€denial€of€a€special€or€additional€instruction€is€error€onlyÐ ˜è  Ðif€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions€do€not€fully€and€fairly€state€the€applicable€law.€€òòId.óóÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case€the€jury€was€fully€apprised€that€in€order€to€convict€the€defendant€they€mustÐ \¬ Ðunanimously€agree€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€acted€intentionally€or€knowingly.€Ð H˜ ÐThey€were€informed€that€if€for€any€reason€they€were€unable€to€reach€this€conclusion€they€must€acquit.€Ð 4„ ÐIt€is€indeed€difficult€to€fathom€what€the€defendantððs€special€request€would€have€added€to€the€juryððsÐ  p Ðunderstanding€of€their€duty€and€the€applicable€law.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌà@11%ìàòòSentencingˆÐ ä4 ÐóóÌà  àThe€defendant€claims€that€his€sentence€of€nine€years€incarceration€is€excessive.€€He€reachesÐ ¼  Ðthis€conclusion€based€on€his€belief€that€the€trial€court€should€have€either€found€him€to€be€anÐ ¨ø Ðespecially€mitigated€offender,€or€sentenced€him€to€the€minimum€eight€(8)€year€sentence€as€a€standardÐ ”ä ÐRange€I€offender.€€ð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€deÐ €Ð Ðnovo€review€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€a€presumption€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð X ¨ Ððð€40-35-401(d).€€ð ðHowever,€the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððsÐ D!” Ðaction€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÐ 0"€  Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð #l! Ð169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€must€consider€the€defendantððs€potential€forÐ $X" Ðrehabilitation,€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing€evidence,€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€sentencingÐ ô$D # Ðprinciples,€the€sentencing€alternative€arguments,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðenhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€and€the€defendantððs€statements.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),Ð Ì&"% Ð-210(b);€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€We€are€to€also€recognize€that€the€defendant€bears€the€burdenÐ ¸'#& Ðof€demonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.òòóóÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„109€provides:Ð )à$( Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€The€court€may€find€the€defendant€is€an€especially€mitigatedÐ |*Ì%) Ðoffender,€if:Ðh+¸&*` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(1)€The€defendant€has€no€prior€felony€convictions;€andÐ ° Ðà  àà ` à(2)€The€court€finds€mitigating,€but€no€enhancement€factors.Ð œì Ðà  àà0 ` à(b)€If€the€court€finds€the€defendant€an€especially€mitigated€offender,€the€court€shallÐ ˆØ Ðreduce€the€defendantððs€statutory€Range€I€minimum€sentence€by€ten€percent€(10%),Ð tÄ Ðor€reduce€the€release€eligibility€date€to€twenty€percent€(20%)€of€the€sentence,€or€bothÐ `° Ðreductions.€€If€the€court€employs€both€reductions,€the€calculation€for€release€eligibilityÐ L œ Ðshall€be€made€by€first€reducing€the€sentence€and€then€reducing€the€release€eligibilityÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€twenty€percent€(20%).Ð$ t` (#` (# Ðà  àà0 ` à(c)€If€the€defendant€is€found€to€be€an€especially€mitigated€offender,€the€judgment€ofÐ  ` Ðconviction€shall€so€reflect.Ðü L ` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à(d)€The€finding€that€a€defendant€is€or€is€not€an€especially€mitigated€offender€isÐ è 8  Ðappealable€by€either€party.ÐÔ$ ` (#` (# ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIt€appears€that€even€if€a€defendant€is€eligible€for€especially€mitigated€offender€status,€theÐ „Ô  Ðdecision€to€sentence€him€in€such€a€manner€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„109€(Sentencing€Commission€Comments);€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€752Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€finding€of€even€one€enhancement€factor€disqualifies€a€defendant€fromÐ H˜ Ðconsideration€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender.€€òòBradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€752.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€judge€found€that€three€enhancement€factors€and€one€mitigatingÐ  \ Ðfactor€applied€to€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€First,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€defendant€has€a€recordÐ øH Ðof€adjudications€as€a€juvenile€delinquent€for€actions€that€would€be€felonies€if€committed€by€an€adult.€Ð ä4 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(20).€€Next,€the€judge€found€that€prior€punishments,€presumably€asÐ Ð  Ða€juvenile,€had€not€corrected€the€defendantððs€propensity€for€criminal€behavior.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Finally,€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðjudge€found€that€there€was€more€than€one€victim€involved€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3)׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€As€a€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendantððs€mentalÐ ”ä Ðâ âcondition€significantly€excused€his€culpability€for€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€Ð €Ð ÐAfter€balancing€all€of€these€considerations€the€trial€judge€concluded€that€a€nine€(9)€year€sentence€ofÐ ° Ðincarceration,€one€year€above€the€minimum€sentence€for€the€offense€and€offender,€was€appropriate.Ð œì Ðâ âà  àÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€adjudicated€a€delinquent€for€two€drugÐ tÄ Ðoffenses€that€would€constitute€felonies€if€committed€by€an€adult.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„Ð `° Ð417(c)(2),€(g)(2).€€Thus,€this€enhancement€factor€was€properly€applied€by€the€trial€court,€and€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€is€therefore€not€eligible€for€especially€mitigated€offender€status.€€Moreover,€consideringÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€and€the€mitigating€factor€found€in€this€case,€we€are€of€theÐ $ t Ðopinion€that€a€sentence€of€nine€(9)€years,€one€year€above€the€relevant€minimum€sentence€in€this€case,Ð  ` Ðis€reasonable.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌà@$$%ìàòòConclusionóóˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ#†X 1XX X 1F#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE