ÿWPC­ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0xH 0DÀ  U: 0JF 0T 0^ä 0hB 0rª 0| 0†˜ 0 1u® 0d# B‡U>¤U *âB) DC5 D3x AM« ø 0@RD!–v~·vÓ5 AOÆW 0D D/a B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- Z[{\]E^_{`EabcÓ€³†;$3|xl(((2¬5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd 'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJuly€2,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„402(a)(4);€39„14„103;€55„8„132;€39„16„603;€39„16„602;€55„50„504;€à0 à55„10„616;€55„10„401.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ݛԀ'ÔÔ€'ôÔIn€making€this€assertion,€we€note€the€broad€legislative€definition€of€ð ðenterðð€as€includingÏð ð[i]ntrusion€of€à0 àany€part€of€the€bodyðð€and€ð ð[i]ntrusion€of€any€object€in€physical€contact€with€the€body€or€anyÏobject€controlled€by€remote€control,€electronic€or€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(b)(1)„(2).œÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€üµXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9706„CC„00221Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWARREN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€D.€HASTONó óÌò òLAWRENCE€RALPH,€JR.,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Burglary€of€Automobile,€Theft,Ìà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àDUI,€etc.)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WARREN€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌAUBREY€L.€HARPERà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ114€North€College€Streetà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€588ÌMcMinnville,€TN€37111„0588à àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€LOCKEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àProfessional€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMcMinnville,€TN€37110ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PARTÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€'°Ôò òòòÑ7€&8XXdðXXdð7ÑOPINIONóóó óÔ€'ŠÔÌÌÌà àÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Lawrence€ð ðGomerðð€Ralph,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€rightÏpursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€wasÏconvicted€on€a€Warren€County€jury€verdict€of€burglary€of€an€automobile,€theftÏover€$1,000,€failure€to€yield€to€emergency€lights,€evading€arrest,€resisting€arrest,Ïviolation€of€his€habitual€traffic€offender€status,€and€seventh„offense€DUI.× ƒ. ××  ×€€HeÏwas€sentenced€as€a€œmultiple›€Range€II€offender€to€four€years€for€burglary€of€anÏautomobile,€seven€years€for€theft€over€$1,000,€and€four€years€for€the€habitualÏtraffic€offender€violation.€€For€the€misdemeanor€offenses,€he€was€sentenced€toÏthirty€days€in€the€county€jail€for€failure€to€yield€to€emergency€lights,€nine€months€atÏ75%€for€evading€arrest,€four€months€at€75%€for€resisting€arrest,€and€threeÏhundred€days€for€DUI.€€The€sentences€for€theft€over€$1,000,€failure€to€yield,€andÏresisting€arrest€were€ordered€to€be€served€œconcurrent›€to€each€other€butÏœconsecutive›€to€the€other€sentences,€all€of€which€were€ordered€to€run€œconsecutive›Ïto€each€other€for€an€effective€sentence€of€sixteen€years€and€eight€months.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€appeals€his€convictions€and€sentences€and€argues€(1)Ïthat€he€was€brought€before€the€prospective€jurors€prior€to€jury€selection€whileÍwearing€shackles€and€that€this€prejudiced€him;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏordering€consecutive€sentences;€and€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€classifying€himÏas€a€Range€II€offender.€€We€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€Defendant€was€a€resident€of€McMinnville,ÏTennessee.€€His€father,€Curly€Ferrell,€ran€a€pool€hall€on€Main€Street€inÏMcMinnville.€€The€victim€in€this€case,€A.P.€Ikeard,€began€to€visit€the€pool€hall€aÏfew€days€before€the€offense€occurred€on€November€2,€1994.€€The€victim€testifiedÏthat€he€had€been€retired€since€1984€and€that€he€was€learning€to€play€pool.€€€OnÏthe€morning€of€November€2,€the€victim€went€to€the€pool€hall€at€approximatelyÏ7:00€a.m.€€The€victim€had€seen€the€Defendant€at€the€pool€hall€and€knew€that€heÏwas€Ferrellððs€son.€€That€morning,€the€Defendant€asked€the€victim€to€give€him€aÏride€to€a€relativeððs€house€to€cut€timber.€€The€victim€owned€a€1984€Ford€LTD€thatÏhe€stated€was€in€good€condition€and€worth€$2,500.€€The€victim€did€not€recall€everÏtaking€the€Defendant€anywhere€prior€to€the€time€in€question.€€Fred€Thomas€rodeÏwith€them€that€morning.ÌÌà àThe€victim€took€the€Defendant€to€the€relativeððs€house€and€stayed€duringÏthe€day.€€Several€other€persons€were€present€to€cut€the€timber,€but€the€victim€didÏnot€participate.€€The€victim€smelled€alcohol€on€the€Defendant€but€did€not€see€himÍdrinking.€€The€victim,€the€Defendant,€and€Thomas€returned€to€the€pool€hall€atÏaround€11:00€or€11:30€a.m.€€Later€that€day,€Stanton€Minton,€the€victimððsÏneighbor,€came€to€the€pool€hall€and€asked€the€victim€to€ride€with€him€to€look€atÏsome€dogwood€trees.€€The€victim€left€his€car€behind€the€pool€hall€and€he€hid€hisÏkeys€under€the€driverððs€seat.€€Minton€suggested€that€he€remove€the€distributorÏwire€to€prevent€anyone€from€taking€the€vehicle.€€The€victim€took€the€wire€and€putÏit€in€his€pocket.€€They€left€at€approximately€4:00€p.m.€and€returned€atÏapproximately€11:00€p.m.€€They€had€driven€around€the€area€and€to€the€town€ofÏViola.€€The€victim€denied€that€he€had€been€drinking€that€night.€€Ìà àThe€victim€and€Minton€returned€to€the€victimððs€home€because€they€agreedÏto€retrieve€his€car€the€next€morning.€€Someone€told€him€that€his€car€had€beenÏstolen,€and€he€filed€a€complaint€at€the€Warren€County€Jail.€€The€victim€went€toÏsee€his€car€at€Woodleeððs€Garage€the€next€day€and€noticed€several€beer€cansÏin€the€vehicle.€€The€car€had€sustained€damage€estimated€at€$1,500.€€The€victimÏnever€gave€the€Defendant€permission€to€use€his€car.ÌÌà àOn€the€evening€of€November€2,€1994,€at€approximately€9:30€p.m.,€OfficerÏChuck€Taylor€of€the€McMinnville€Police€Department€observed€a€blue€1984€FordÏLTD€at€the€intersection€of€Locust€Street€and€Spring€Street.€€When€the€officerÏnoticed€that€the€car€ran€a€stop€sign€and€made€a€wide,€sweeping€turn€ontoÏSpring€Street,€he€began€to€follow€the€vehicle.€€The€car€was€on€the€wrong€side€ofÍthe€road€momentarily,€but€the€occupant€continued€to€drive€and€stopped€at€twoÏtraffic€lights.€The€officer€observed€one€person€in€the€car.€€The€vehicle€pulled€overÏat€the€pool€hall.€€The€officer€activated€his€emergency€lights€and€the€car€spedÏaway.€€The€officer€pursued€the€vehicle€at€speeds€exceeding€ninety€miles€perÏhour.€€The€car€was€again€driven€on€the€wrong€side€of€the€road€and€withoutÏlights.€€When€the€car€reached€the€intersection€of€highways€127€and€8,€the€driverÏbraked€hard€in€an€attempt€to€make€a€turn.€€The€driver€lost€control€and€the€carÏslammed€into€a€guardrail.€€When€the€car€stopped,€the€officer€pulled€alongsideÏand€recognized€the€driver€as€the€Defendant.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€jumped€out€of€the€car€and€ran€along€the€guardrail,€jumpedÏthe€guardrail,€and€ran€into€the€bushes.€€Officer€Todd€Bess€ran€after€theÏDefendant€and€shouted€for€him€to€stop.€€The€Defendant€eventually€fell€downÏand€Officer€Bess€caught€him.€€The€Defendant€struggled€when€Bess€tried€toÏhandcuff€him.€€An€off„duty€officer,€Tony€Taylor,€who€was€riding€with€Bess,Ïadministered€pepper€gas€spray€to€subdue€the€Defendant.€€He€was€handcuffedÏand€brought€back€to€the€patrol€cars.€€The€Defendant€smelled€of€alcohol,Ïappeared€unsteady€on€his€feet,€and€would€not€perform€any€field€sobriety€tests.€ÏOfficers€found€six€empty€beer€cans€in€the€car.€€The€Defendant€refused€to€takeÏan€intoximeter€test€at€the€Warren€County€Jail.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€burglary€of€an€automobile,€theft€overÏ$1,000,€failure€to€yield€to€emergency€lights,€evading€arrest,€resisting€arrest,Ïviolation€of€his€habitual€traffic€offender€status,€DUI,€and€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense.€€The€charge€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€was€dismissed€and€theÏDefendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€remaining€offenses.€€He€nowÏappeals€his€convictions€and€sentences.ÌÌà@ àI.€€VIOLATION€OF€RIGHT€TO€A€FAIR€TRIALÌà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€he€was€brought€in€front€ofÏthe€jury€venire€prior€to€€jury€selection€wearing€shackles,€preventing€him€fromÏreceiving€a€fair€trial.€€The€record€of€the€proceedings€indicates€nothing€regardingÏthe€Defendant€wearing€shackles.€€No€objections€by€the€Defendant€are€foundÏand€the€record€contains€no€other€evidence€at€all€relating€to€the€DefendantððsÏclaim.€€The€trial€transcript€reveals€no€evidence€of€shackling,€nor€do€we€haveÏbefore€us€the€Defendantððs€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€Failure€to€make€aÏcontemporaneous€objection€waives€consideration€by€this€court€of€the€issue€onÏappeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).€€Without€a€recordÏbelow€which€contains€evidence€that€an€issue€exists,€we€have€nothing€to€reviewÏon€appeal.€€Therefore,€this€issue€has€been€waived.ÌÌà@ àII.€€IMPROPER€SENTENCINGÌà àNext,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€asÏa€multiple€offender€and€ordering€that€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€ÏThe€State€correctly€points€out€that€the€only€pieces€of€evidence€in€the€recordÏregarding€sentencing€are€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€the€notices€submittedÏby€the€State.€€The€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€is€not€in€the€record€beforeÏus.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€duty€of€œan›€appellant€to€prepare€an€adequate€record€to€allow€aÏmeaningful€review€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€557,€560„61€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.1983).€ÏGiven€the€absence€of€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€from€the€record,Ïwe€must€presume€the€trial€courtððs€findings€with€respect€to€the€transcript€areÏcorrect.€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€875€S.W.2d€671,€674€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Because€weÏcannot€adequately€review€the€sentencing€procedure,€this€issue€has€beenÏwaived.ÌÌà@ àIII.€PLAIN€ERRORÌà àThis€Court€is€authorized,€in€its€discretion,€to€consider€issues€not€properlyÏpresented€for€review€ð ð(1)€to€prevent€needless€litigation,€(2)€to€prevent€injury€to€theÏinterests€of€the€public,€and€(3)€to€prevent€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€Defendant€cannot€prevail€on€the€two€issues€he€broughtÏbefore€this€Court,€it€has€become€evident€that€plain€error€exists€in€the€record.€ÏPlain€error€may€be€addressed€by€an€appellate€court€even€when€not€raised€in€aÏmotion€for€new€trial.€€òòState€v.€Ogleóó,€666€S.W.2d€58€(Tenn.€1984).€€TheÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide,€in€pertinent€part,€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àAn€error€which€has€affected€the€substantial€rights€of€an€accusedÏmay€be€noticed€at€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motionÏfor€a€new€trial€or€assigned€as€error€on€appeal,€in€the€discretion€ofÏthe€appellate€court€where€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice.€€ÓÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).ÌÌà àA€substantial€right€is€one€of€fundamental€proportions€which€isÏconstitutional€in€nature.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€639€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€An€error€may€be€recognized€as€ð ðplainðð€if€it€seriously€affectsÏthe€fairness€of€a€judicial€proceeding.€€œòòIdóó.€€We›€believe€it€is€necessary€to€addressÏan€error€in€this€case€in€order€to€do€substantial€justice.€€Because€we€believeÏprosecution€of€the€Defendant€for€burglary€and€theft€of€the€same€automobileÍoffends€notions€of€due€process€òòinóó€òòthisóó€òòparticularóó€òòcaseóó,€we€are€compelled€toÏreverse€the€Defendantððs€conviction€for€burglary.€€Ìà àÌà àIn€1991€our€supreme€court€held€that€due€process€precludes€conviction€forÏœkidnapping›€where€the€detention€of€the€victim€occurs€as€merely€incidental€to€theÏcommission€of€another€felony€such€as€robbery€or€rape.€€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€299,€300€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€support€of€its€holding,€the€òòAnthonyóó€courtÏnoted€that€ð ðevery€robbery,€by€definition,€involves€some€detention€against€the€willÏof€the€victim.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€306.€€The€court€announced€that€the€appropriate€test€toÏdetermine€when€multiple€convictions€offend€due€process€in€a€œkidnapping›€andÏrobbery€case€is€ð ðwhether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€essentiallyÏincidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€to€supportÏa€separate€conviction€for€œkidnapping,›€or€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€andÏof€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€such€a€conviction.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532,€534Ï(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€457€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏBinionóó,€947€S.W.2d€867,€872„73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€€€Ìà àÌà àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€the€court€indicated€that€a€due€process€review€necessarilyÏincludes€an€analysis€of€the€criminal€statutes€involved€and€legislative€intent.€€ð ðInÏexamining€these€general€guidelines,€it€must€be€remembered€that€individual€casesÍare€sometimes€dependent€upon€the€wording€of€the€particular€statutes€beingÏconstrued,€and€upon€the€clarity€of€.€.€.€legislative€intent.ðð€€œòòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€atÏ306.€€It›€would€be€difficult,€although€not€impossible,€to€steal€a€car€without€in€someÏmanner€entering€at€least€some€portion€of€the€œcar.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€›In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€weÏdo€not€believe€that€the€legislature€intended€that€stealing€this€car€would€constituteÏòòtwoóó€œcrimesð"ðburglary›€òòandóó€theft.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€applied€the€òòAnthonyóó€analysis€to€a€case€involving€burglaryÏof€an€automobile€and€attempted€theft.€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€403,€406„07€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€òòRobertsóó€we€noted€that€not€every€attempted€theftÏof€a€vehicle€includes,€by€definition,€a€burglary€of€that€vehicle;€and€thereforeÏòòAnthonyóóis€ð ðnot€strictly€applicableðð€to€a€defendant€so€charged.€€œòòId.óó€at€406.€ÏHowever,›€we€concluded€in€òòRobertsóó€that€ð ðthe€due€process€concerns€underlyingÏthe€holding€of€òòAnthonyóó€mandate[d]€a€similar€result.ðð€€œòòId.ó󛀀òòRobertsóó€is€controllingÏupon€this€case,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€here€the€Court€considersÏconvictions€of€burglary€and€theft,€rather€than€attempted€theft.€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòRobertsóó,€we€stated,ÌÓÓà8 àIf,€for€example,€the€State€has€alleged€and€shown€that€theÏdefendant€entered€each€vehicle€with€the€intent€to€commit€someÏfelony,€theft,€or€assault€other€than€to€steal€the€vehicle,€such€as€toÏsteal€the€radio€or€other€articles€from€within,€and€then€attempted€toÏsteal€the€vehicle,€then€those€alleged€facts€would€likely€require€aÏdifferent€result€from€the€one€we€reach€here.€€However,€here€the€actsÏof€entry€into€the€vehicles€as€alleged€and€proven€by€the€State€areÏmerely€an€essential€and€incidental€step€in€the€attempted€theft€of€theÏvehicles€themselves.€€The€act€of€breaking€into€the€vehicles€is€notÏsignificant€enough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independentÏprosecution€where€the€defendant€is€also€convicted€of€attemptedÏtheft.€.€.€.€[U]nder€the€facts€.€.€.€convictions€for€both€burglary€andÏattempted€theft€violate€the€principles€of€òòAnthonyóó.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€407.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€Defendantððs€entry€into€the€victimððs€vehicle€wasÏnecessary€to€achieve€the€theft€of€the€car.€€There€is€no€evidence€of€a€separateÏintent€to€steal€any€items€from€inside€the€vehicle,€nor€is€there€evidence€that€someÏother€felony€was€intended€or€that€items€were€in€fact€taken€from€the€vehicle.€ÏUnder€these€facts,€the€burglary€of€the€automobile,€without€more,€was€essentiallyÏincidental€to€the€theft€and€ð ðpart€and€parcel€of€that€offense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€at€307.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendantððs€right€to€dueÏprocess€of€law€as€expressed€in€òòAnthonyóó€and€applied€in€òòRobertsóó€requireÏreversal€of€his€conviction€for€burglary.€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€conviction€for€burglary€is€reversed€and€vacated.€€In€allÏother€respects€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€the€purpose€of€entering€a€judgment€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE