ÿWPCg4 IKðÛkœ5¡–Ëz ê2b ÎETRMU`£{ÿNÛã–‚Þ!·Éàƒ‰uÝ ÉþOjE±Qö3Ñä,£ÀBY¥XÇ~m3+n¯ÏËT¿ý{Å/Šxh¾Yù\œÇmD~§é¬©8»…(´K+îg›Æ¥ˆ#˜ß`î-!å‚žôÝW÷û¾ø~ÄAeÇj"õPmêA`ãm“êóÕ²·u—§(w4D‰$ÖÜBÕA ún» î^,n•»B4EªûO¹ð=´ˆŸe£+Ù8áúTwÆ2|Dg_¦­¶/S‰™.¢áñi,Hcuÿ®µVècüÍ{–}#¨&§+’Í×q“OÕ¹©«ÌF®] äYt„| k` ­h¿Ôµ"õù×dëü ’þ–G;X~Ò&›Âp} t4úé]nmA¬_Ü'l4$ÃèÁǹÈþV|{•HA¬³Dqþ¯«LJPöûdášIj7+k:%ã³iàí‹F¦f۲П;Ž‡«üôÝõùÛoÁ—¼ð¼g%¦+…]…Ž þpuCè{~%”×nO{>vö(·ÃàI_x]‰€¸Ó ÁÊ€½CeK{tƒåo+|=ÚXƳl² —RuÃdÎb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ 0 wû 1r zÿ Òy zK ÒÅ ^ — w£ Ƨ ÆmÆ3Æù4¿NÓÕäEæ mè 1‡ÿ 72† 1u¸ 72- 72_ 0+c‘ 0Šô 0 ~¯ 0 DÍÍ1¶B 1‡øø 72è±±4™bÍ"gÕ"E<$<$¢+?#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#.#. 0 ëb/b/b/b/ BM0M0 0¤j0 D51 D-C1 0Kp1p1 AS»1Æ2 0¤Ô2 0Dx3 A«¼3˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ˜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 ˜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`¥K)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5q\;'è«Ÿ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ0ÚÒCEKS[agmsAutoList11.(1)(1)1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(1)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à ¥Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€be€precise,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€on€ð ðall€three€definitionsÐ ° Ðof€sexual€penetration.ðð€€However,€the€definition€of€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetrationðð€given€by€the€trial€court€contained€fiveÐ xÈ Ðcategories€of€unlawful€sexual€penetration:€(1)€sexual€intercourse,€(2)€cunnilingus,€(3)€fellatio,€(4)€anal€intercourse,€andÐ @ Ð(5)€any€other€intrusion.€€The€court€further€instructed€on€the€definitions€of€ð ðcunnilingusðð€and€ð ðfellatio.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 'Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€for€new€trial€alleges€several€specific€errors€in€the€jury€instructions,€none€of€which€reaches€thisÐ ° Ðpoint.€€The€only€issue€stated€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€which€might€arguably€apply€is€ð ðThat€the€Court€erred€in€givingÐ xÈ Ðthe€jury€certain€other€instructions.ðð€€However,€this€issue€was€not€expounded€upon€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€newÐ @ Ðtrial,€and€it€is€too€vague€to€have€offered€the€trial€court€an€opportunity€to€rule€upon€it€in€any€meaningful€fashion.€€MotionÐ X Ðfor€new€trial€issues€raising€instructional€error€must€òòspecificallyóó€state€the€alleged€error.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e). ¬Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€example,€in€this€case,€an€alternative€explanation€for€the€events€constituting€the€stateððs€evidence€ofÐ ° Ðaggravated€rape€would€be€presented€if€there€was€conflicting€evidence€about€whether€the€victim€suffered€bodily€injury.€Ð xÈ ÐIn€that€case,€the€juryððs€determination€of€whether€there€was€bodily€injury€would€be€pertinent€to€€the€question€of€whetherÐ @ Ðthe€crime€committed€was€aggravated€rape,€which€requires€bodily€injury,€or€the€lesser„included€offense€of€rape,€whichÐ X Ðdoes€not.0ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.'A. ÞÝ ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOne€might€argue€that€a€corollary€issue€was€whether€the€victimððs€bodily€injury€was€sustained€in€the€course€ofÐ ° Ða€sex€crime€or€in€a€disagreement€following€a€consensual€encounter.€€However,€on€the€facts€of€this€case,€that€issue€isÐ xÈ Ðnecessarily€resolved€by€the€determination€of€whether€the€encounter€was€consensual. *Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€not€a€determinative€factor,€technically,€the€1976€encounter,€if€it€occurred,€may€have€been€statutoryÐ ° Ðrape.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3706€(repealed€1979).ò òó ó€€Although€at€odds€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€victimÐ xÈ Ðwas€incapable€of€consenting€at€the€time€of€her€minority,€that€the€alleged€encounter€was€statutory€rape€does€not€meanÐ @ Ðthat€the€victim€was€incapable€of€consenting.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ealeyóó,€959€S.W.2d€605,€611€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€Ð X Ð(ð ðstatutory€rape€contemplates€circumstances€in€which€the€sexual€relations€are€admittedly€consensualðð).€€- ù- ]Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€example,€due€to€an€inadequate€or€misleading€notice,€a€defendant€might€not€have€witnesses€present€at€theÐ ° Ðsentencing€hearing€who€could€controvert€the€stateððs€claim€of€applicable€prior€convictions.€€ ;Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€addition€to€the€caption€and€content€of€the€notice,€there€are€at€least€three€additional€factors€supporting€ourÐ ° Ðconclusion.€€First,€the€notice€was€filed€pretrial€as€required€for€notices€of€this€nature.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð xÈ Ð202(a)€(1997);€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€12.3(a).€€In€contrast,€the€trial€court€may€require€filing€of€statements€of€enhancementÐ @ Ðand€mitigating€factors€after€a€finding€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(b)€(1997).€€Thus,€the€timing€of€theÐ X Ðnotice€tends€to€indicate€that€it€was€a€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€range€classification.€€Second,€the€state€later€filedÐ Ð  Ða€separate€ð ðNotice€of€Enhancement€Factorsðð€with€entirely€different€content.€€If€the€defendant€misconstrued€the€firstÐ ˜è Ðnotice€as€one€in€which€the€state€was€seeking€the€application€of€enhancement€factors,€rather€than€enhanced€rangeÐ ` ° Ðsentencing,€the€filing€of€the€second€notice€should€have€cured€any€confusion.€€Third,€the€matter€of€whether€the€defendantÐ ( x Ðqualified€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€subject€to€imprisonment€for€life€without€parole€was€thoroughly€litigated€in€the€trialÐ ð @ Ðcourt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120€(1997)€(repeat€violent€offender€sentencing).€€In€light€of€the€stateððs€variousÐ ¸   Ðfilings€in€this€case,€it€strains€credulity€for€the€defendant€to€argue€that€he€reasonably€believed€that€the€state€sought€repeatÐ € Ð  Ðviolent€offender€sentencing,€but€barring€that,€did€not€intend€to€seek€enhanced€range€classification€if€he€was€convicted. ˜Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€first€instruction,€given€prior€to€the€defendantððs€testimony,€was€as€follows.€€ð ðà8 @: àAll€right,€members€of€the€jury,Ð ° Ðthe€Court€has€required€the€State€to€elect€the€particular€type€of€sexual€penetration€on€which€they€rely€on€the€charge€againstÐ xÈ Ðthe€Defendant€in€this€case.€€The€State€has€elected€to€rely€on€sexual€penetration€by€fellatio.ðð€€The€second€instruction,Ð @ Ðgiven€during€the€final€charge,€was€in€accord€with€Tennessee€Pattern€Instruction€„€Criminal€43.02. 5Ý ƒRúû$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€simple€assault,€and€no€appellate€issue€isÐ ° Ðraised€regarding€the€propriety€of€this€instruction.(|G2úû$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»Ô d(|3($££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3($¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼·Ô»»»ÔÑ8€º3XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îðg·ÔÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼·Ô»îîðg #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÌò òÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3#ÔState€of€Tennesseeòòóó€v.€David€Wayne€Ô_ÔSalleyÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S40,026€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌ€Ìà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„00203„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐOctober€11,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDavid€Wayne€Ô_ÔSalleyÔ_Ô€appeals€from€his€conviction€of€aggravated€rape.€€He€raises€issues€related€toÐ ¶ Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€jury€instructions€on€lesser„included€offenses,€admission€of€evidenceÐ ¦ö Ðobtained€pursuant€to€search€warrants,€impeachment€of€the€defendant€with€prior€violent€felonyÐ –æ Ðconvictions,€exclusion€of€evidence€of€consensual€sexual€relations€with€the€then„minor€victim€21Ð †Ö Ðyears€before€the€crime,€deficient€notice€that€the€state€was€seeking€Range€III€classification€forÐ vÆ Ðsentencing,€and€an€excessive€sentence.€€Because€there€is€no€error€requiring€reversal,€we€affirm.Ð f¶ ÐÓßÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ F– ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼·Ô»àXº3©#ÔÔ‡Xº3X.¼·ÔÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ &v ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð f ÐÌJohn€B.€Nisbet,€III,€Ô_ÔCookevilleÔ_Ô€(on€appeal),€Stephen€M.€Wallace,€District€Public€Defender,€andÐ öF ÐLeslie€S.€Hale,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€David€Wayne€Ô_ÔSalleyÔ_Ô.Ð æ6 ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€H.Ð Æ  ÐGreeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€Barry€P.€Ô_ÔStaubusÔ_Ô€and€Gregory€A.€Newman,€AssistantÐ ¶!  ÐDistrict€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¦"ö! ÐÓ/ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3^#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÐ †$Ö# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3m #ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€defendant,€David€Wayne€Ô_ÔSalleyÔ_Ô,€stands€convicted€of€aggravated€rape€followingÐ f&¶!% Ðhis€trial€before€a€jury€of€his€peers€in€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court.Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3Ë #ÔÔ€Xº3X»¼·ÔÔ€€He€is€presently€servingÐ V'¦"& Ða€Range€III€sentence€of€60€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€his€crime.€€In€this€direct€appeal,Ð F(–#' Ðhe€raises€the€following€challenges€to€his€conviction€and€sentence.Ð 6)†$( ÐÌÓ€ (ÚÒ03ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3££ÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€evidence€sufficiently€supports€the€conviction.݃3££ÜÝŒÐ+f&*` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ºÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€all€methods€of€sexualÐ ,V'+ Ðâ âpenetration€following€the€stateððs€election€to€proceed€on€the€theory€of€fellatio.݃3£ºóÝŒÐ#ö,F(,` Ð ` Ð ýd #ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£jÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€jury€charge€wherein€it€listed€attemptedÐ ° Ðâ âsexual€battery€two€times€in€its€list€of€aggravated€rape€and€its€lesser„includedÐ  ð Ðoffenses.݃3£j£ÝŒÐà` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€to€consider€aggravatedÐ €Ð Ðsexual€battery,€attempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexual€battery,€andÐ pÀ Ðattempted€sexual€battery€as€lesser„included€offenses.݃3£XÝŒÐ` °` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ïÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€aggravatedÐ P   Ðassault,€felony€reckless€endangerment,€and€misdemeanor€recklessÐ @  Ðendangerment€as€lesser„included€offenses.݃3£ï(ÝŒÐ0 €` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£©ÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú6Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€declined€to€suppress€evidence€seizedÐ  p  Ðpursuant€to€search€warrants.݃3£©âÝŒÐ` ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£üÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú7Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€state€to€impeach€the€defendantÐ P  Ðwith€his€prior€convictions€of€armed€robbery.݃3£ü5ÝŒÐð@ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£eÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú8Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€evidence€of€an€alleged€consensualÐ à0  Ðsexual€encounter€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant€21€years€earlier,€whenÐ Ð  Ðthe€victim€was€a€minor.݃3£ežÝŒÐÀ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÝÔ2ÚÒÔÚ  Ú9Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€a€maximum,€Range€III€sentence€ofÐ ° Ð60€years.݃3£S݌Рð` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌWe€have€reviewed€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€and€we€haveÐ €Ð Ðconsidered€the€oral€arguments€of€the€parties.€€Because€we€discern€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€trial€established€the€following.€Ð P  ÐOn€February€5,€1997,€the€victim€and€her€live„in€boyfriend€went€to€the€defendantððs€home.€€During€theÐ @ Ðevening,€the€victimððs€brother,€another€individual€and€the€defendant€were€present€in€the€home€withÐ 0€ Ðthe€victim€and€her€boyfriend.€€Beer€and€marijuana€were€consumed.€€The€victim€and€her€boyfriendÐ  p Ðhad€a€fight,€and€the€boyfriend€left.€€The€other€guests€departed,€and€eventually,€the€victim€and€theÐ ` Ðdefendant€were€alone€together.€€They€continued€beer€and€marijuana€consumption€for€a€time.€€Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àThen,€the€defendant€told€the€victim€that€he€wanted€to€show€her€something€in€aÐ à0 Ðbedroom.€€The€victim€walked€into€the€bedroom,€and€the€defendant€followed.€€The€victim€felt€a€sharpÐ Ð  Ðblow€to€her€shoulder.€€She€turned€and€saw€the€defendant€holding€a€machete.€€The€two€struggled,€andÐ À! Ðthe€defendant€forced€the€victim€into€another€bedroom.€€Apparently€superstitious,€the€victim€pleadedÐ °"  Ðwith€the€defendant€to€take€her€into€another€room,€as€she€had€been€told€that€there€was€an€ð ðevil€spiritððÐ  #ð! Ðin€the€room.€€The€defendant€took€the€victim€back€to€the€first€bedroom,€where€he€sexually€penetratedÐ $à" Ðher€vaginally.€€However,€the€defendant€was€unable€to€obtain€an€erection€and€ordered€the€victim€toÐ €%Ð # Ðfellate€him.€€Still€unable€to€obtain€an€erection,€the€defendant€performed€cunnilingus€on€the€victim.€Ð p&À!$ ÐThroughout€these€events,€the€defendant€was€holding€the€machete,€and€the€victim€had€her€hands€onÐ `'°"% Ðit€in€an€attempt€to€keep€the€defendant€from€harming€her€with€it.Ð P( #& ÐÌà  àà ` àEventually,€one€of€the€victimððs€brothers€and€his€girlfriend€knocked€on€the€door€of€theÐ 0*€%( Ðdefendantððs€residence,€and€the€victim€convinced€the€defendant€to€go€to€the€door.€€When€the€defendantÐ  +p&) Ðopened€the€door,€the€victim€escaped€after€scuffling€with€the€defendant€outside.€€Ð ,`'* Їà  àà ` àThe€victim€received€significant€cuts€to€her€hands€requiring€sutures€as€well€as€bruisesÐ ° Ðon€various€parts€of€her€body€as€a€result€of€the€incident.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€controvert€the€stateððs€proof,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€had€engaged€in€sexualÐ €Ð Ðrelations€with€the€victim,€but€the€encounter€had€been€consensual.€€He€claimed€that€he€promised€toÐ pÀ Ðgive€the€victim€drugs€in€exchange€for€having€sex€with€him,€although€he€had€no€drugs€to€give€her€toÐ ` ° Ðuphold€his€end€of€the€bargain.€€€€The€defendant€testified€that€after€he€had€sex€with€the€victim,€heÐ P   Ðcaught€her€going€through€his€pants€pockets.€€He€claimed€that€he€retrieved€the€machete€and€threatenedÐ @  Ðto€cut€off€the€victimððs€hand€if€he€ever€caught€her€trying€to€steal€from€him€again.€€According€to€hisÐ 0 € Ðversion€of€events,€the€victim€panicked€and€grabbed€the€blade,€cutting€her€hands.€€The€victimÐ  p  Ðthreatened€to€tell€her€brothers€that€the€defendant€raped€her,€so€the€defendant€made€efforts€to€get€herÐ `  Ðout€of€the€house.€He€acknowledged€that€he€had€hit€the€victim€with€the€flat€side€of€the€machete€bladeÐ P  Ðto€get€her€to€leave.€€He€tried€to€take€the€victim€outside€and€put€her€in€the€garage€so€that€he€wouldÐ ð@  Ðhave€time€to€leave€the€area,€but€she€got€away€from€him.€€Finally,€the€defendant€testified€about€twoÐ à0  Ðprior€occasions€in€1993€or€1994€and€1996€on€which€he€and€the€victim€had€engaged€in€consensualÐ Ð  Ðsexual€relations.€€Ð À ÐÌà  àà ` àUpon€consideration€of€this€evidence,€the€jury€accredited€the€stateððs€evidence€andÐ  ð Ðreturned€a€guilty€verdict€on€the€charged€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€courtÐ à Ðsentenced€the€defendant,€a€Range€III€offender,€to€a€maximum,€60„year€term.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIˆÐ `° Ðó óÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€consider€Salleyððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð @ ÐWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court's€standard€of€reviewÐ 0€ Ðis€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ  p Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÐ ` Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791-92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67Ð P Ð(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÐ ð@ Ðevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð à0 ÐDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ °"  Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð  #ð! ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ $à" Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð €%Ð # ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ p&À!$ Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);Ð `'°"% ÐòòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€must€affordÐ P( #& Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€wellÐ @)$' Ðas€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571Ð 0*€%( ÐS.W.2d€at€835.€€€Ð  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Ðà  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape,€which€in€pertinent€part€is€theÐ ° Ðð ðunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€.€.€.€accompanied€by€.€.€.€[t]he€defendantÐ  ð Ðcaus[ing]€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(2)€(1997).€€TheÐ à Ðdefendant€contends€that€the€stateððs€case€is€fatally€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction€because€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€conflicting€nature€of€the€testimony€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant.€€In€other€words,€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€would€have€us€reweigh€the€evidence€and€substitute€our€own€conclusion€for€that€of€the€juryÐ ` ° Ðwho€heard€and€saw€the€witnesses.€€As€explained€above,€our€review€is€limited€to€the€inquiry€whetherÐ P   Ða€rational€jury€could€reach€the€verdict€based€upon€the€evidence€of€record.€€In€the€present€case,€theÐ @  Ðjury€accepted€the€victimððs€version€of€events€in€which€she€described€facts€supporting€a€verdict€ofÐ 0 € Ðaggravated€rape€and€rejected€the€defendantððs€claim€of€consensual€sex€followed€by€a€physicalÐ  p  Ðaltercation€when€the€victim€attempted€to€steal€from€the€defendant.€€Such€was€within€the€juryððsÐ `  Ðprovince€as€trier€of€fact.€€Upon€review,€we€hold€that€a€rational€jury€could€find€the€defendant€guiltyÐ P  Ðof€aggravated€rape€on€the€evidence€of€record.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€claim€of€insufficientÐ ð@  Ðevidence€must€fail.Ð à0  ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIˆÐ À Ðó óÌà  àà ` àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€on€allÐ  ð Ðthe€methods€of€sexual€penetration׃ ×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€following€the€stateððs€election€to€proceed€on€the€theory€of€fellatio.€Ð à ÐAccording€to€the€defendant,€the€instruction€confused€the€jury€and€created€a€question€about€theÐ €Ð Ðunanimity€of€the€verdict€in€that€the€verdict€does€not€reflect€whether€all€jurors€agreed€on€one€modeÐ pÀ Ðby€which€the€defendant€committed€the€crime.Ð `° ЀÌà  àà ` àIn€pertinent€part,€the€record€reflects€that€the€court€gave€the€following€instruction€onÐ @ Ðthe€crime€of€aggravated€rape.Ð 0€ ÐÌà8  àAny€person€who€commits€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€is€guilty€of€a€crime.€€Ð`Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€state€must€have€provenÐ ð@ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€following€essential€elements:Ðà0Ð Ð  ÐÝ"‚é; "ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÝ‚é;°BÝà0  àÔ2ÚÒÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthat€the€defendant€had€òòunlawful€sexual€penetrationóó€of€the€alleged€victim€orÐ Ð  Ðthe€alleged€victim€had€òòunlawful€sexual€penetrationóó€of€the€defendant;€and݃é;°BëBÝŒÐÀ!` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚é; "ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚é;PDÝà0  àÔ2ÚÒÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthat€the€defendant€caused€bodily€injury€to€the€alleged€victim;€and݃é;PD}D݌а" ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚é; "ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚é;pEÝà0  àÔ2ÚÒÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  Ýthat€the€defendant€acted€either€intentionally,€knowingly€or€recklessly.݃é;pEE݌Р#ð!` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àÌÒ°Òà8  àòòð ðUnlawful€sexual€penetrationðð€óó€means€òòsexual€intercourse,€cunnilingus,€fellatio,€analÐ €%Ð # Ðintercourse€or€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€part€of€a€personððs€body€orÐ p&À!$ Ðof€any€object€into€the€genital€or€anal€openings€of€the€alleged€victimððs,€the€defendantððsÐ `'°"% Ðor€any€other€personððs€body,€accomplished€without€the€consent€of€the€victimóó;€emissionÐ ° Ðof€semen€is€not€required.РðÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àòòð ðCunnilingusóóððòòmeans€a€sex€act€accomplished€by€placing€the€mouth€or€tongue€on€orÐ €Ð Ðin€the€vagina€of€another.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àð ðFellatioðð€means€a€sex€act€accomplished€with€the€male€sex€organ€and€the€mouth€ofÐ P   Ðanother.óóÐ@ Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added.)€€Before€this€portion€of€the€charge€was€read,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€twiceÐ  p  Ðthat€to€support€a€finding€of€guilt€on€aggravated€rape€or€a€lesser„included€offense,€the€state€must€proveÐ `  Ðsexual€penetration€by€fellatio.€€This€election€instruction€was€given€during€the€defendantððs€case„in„Ð P  Ðchief€and€again€during€the€final€charge€to€the€jury.׃2×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àà ` àA€criminal€accused€is€entitled€to€a€complete€and€correct€charge€of€the€law,€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990),€including€the€law€governing€the€issues€raised€by€theÐ À Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€892€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€his€brief,€the€defendantÐ ° Ðhas€failed€to€cite€any€authority€which€supports€the€proposition€that€the€charge€given€was€erroneous.€Ð  ð ÐHe€asserts€only€generally€that€the€trial€court€has€a€duty€to€give€a€correct€charge€of€the€law.€€We€seeÐ à Ðno€error.€€The€trial€court€gave€a€correct€exposition€of€the€law.€€The€court€gave€a€full€definition€of€theÐ €Ð Ðterm€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetrationðð€and€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€find€the€defendant€guilty€onlyÐ pÀ Ðif€it€found€evidence€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€unlawful€sexual€penetration€by€fellatio.€Ð `° ÐThe€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€it€has€been€given.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2dÐ P  Ð101,€106€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€reject€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€charge€was€confusing.€€To€be€sure,€weÐ  p Ðbelieve€that€an€incomplete€definition€of€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetrationðð€would€have€been€more€likelyÐ ` Ðto€confuse€the€jury€than€the€complete€definition€that€was€given.Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€the€question€of€unanimity,€the€defendantððs€cursory€argument,€which€is€devoid€ofÐ à0 Ðcitation€supporting€his€claim,€is€insufficient,€and€we€treat€it€as€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð Ð  Ð27(a)(7),€(h);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àNevertheless,€if€the€issue€were€properly€before€us,€we€would€reject€it.€€We€disagreeÐ  #ð! Ðwith€the€defendant€that€the€multiple€definitions€of€the€modes€of€committing€ð ðunlawful€sexualÐ $à" Ðpenetrationðð€created€a€unanimity€problem.€€As€discussed€above,€the€challenged€aspect€of€the€chargeÐ €%Ð # Ðwas€a€clear,€concise€and€correct€statement€of€the€law,€and€the€jury€was€instructed€to€find€guilt€onlyÐ p&À!$ Ðif€the€state€proved€unlawful€sexual€penetration€òòby€fellatioóó€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Ð `'°"% Їà  àà ` àAn€enhanced€unanimity€instruction€is€generally€required€when€the€state€presentsÐ ° Ðevidence€from€which€different€facts€could€be€used€to€support€a€conviction,€as€where€the€statuteÐ  ð Ðprovides€multiple€modes€of€committing€an€offense€and€more€than€one€mode€is€demonstrated€by€theÐ à Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€446€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€("Where€there€isÐ €Ð Ðtechnically€one€offense,€but€evidence€of€multiple€acts€which€would€constitute€the€offense,€aÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€is€still€entitled€to€the€protection€of€unanimity€.€.€.€.");€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€583Ð ` ° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(enhanced€unanimity€instruction€required€whether€multiple€acts€committedÐ P   Ðby€defendant,€each€of€which€would€amount€to€commission€of€the€charged€offense).€€In€this€case,Ð @  Ðthough,€there€was€no€real€potential€for€a€non„unanimous€verdict.€€Both€the€victim€and€the€defendantÐ 0 € Ðtestified€that€the€sexual€acts€involved€were€vaginal€intercourse,€fellatio€and€cunnilingus.€€The€victimÐ  p  Ðtestified€that€the€acts€were€not€consensual;€the€defendant€testified€that€they€were.€€In€other€words,€thatÐ `  Ðthe€defendant€and€the€victim€engaged€in€sexual€penetration€involving€fellatio€was€not€a€contestedÐ P  Ðissue.€€Rather,€the€issue€for€the€jury€was€whether€this€act€was€consensual.€€In€this€situation€where€theÐ ð@  Ðact€of€fellatio€was€conceded€by€the€defense€and€elected€by€the€state,€there€was€no€viable€potential€forÐ à0  Ðsome€or€all€of€the€jurors€to€find€guilt€based€upon€the€other€acts€of€sexual€penetration€in€evidence,€asÐ Ð  Ðopposed€to€the€single€incident€of€fellatio.€€As€such,€no€enhanced€unanimity€instruction€was€required.€Ð À ÐòòAccordóó€òòState€v.€James€Clayton€Young,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00208,€slip€op.€at€10„11€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€22,€1998)€(Witt,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting€on€other€grounds);€òòBrownóó,Ð  ð Ð823€S.W.2d€at€584€(ð ðIn€a€case€where€the€evidence€shows€that€the€defense€is,€simply,€a€denial€that€anyÐ à Ðoffense€occurred€and€that€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state's€position€is€of€a€similar€quality€as€to€eachÐ €Ð Ðoffense€proven€and€is€derived€from€the€same€witness(es),€then€it€is€extremely€difficult€to€imagine€thatÐ pÀ Ða€potential€exists€of€the€jury€splitting€its€findings.€€Such€a€clear€cut€case€would€not€seem€to€call€forÐ `° Ðan€augmented€unanimity€instruction,€since€the€accrediting€of€the€witnesses€as€to€one€offense€wouldÐ P  Ðnecessarily€accredit€them€as€to€the€others.ðð).€€Thus,€we€perceive€no€error€in€the€manner€in€which€theÐ @ Ðjury€was€instructed.€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€even€if€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction€were€required,€the€failure€to€giveÐ ` Ðit€in€this€case€would€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€based€upon€the€contested€issue€beingÐ P Ðconsent,€as€opposed€to€the€type€of€sexual€penetration€that€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851Ð ð@ ÐS.W.2d€134,€138€(Tenn.€1993)€(harmless€beyond€reasonable€doubt€standard).Ð à0 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà@ww)ìàò òIIIˆÐ À! Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€complains€of€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€listing€of€aggravated€rapeÐ  #ð! Ðand€the€lesser„included€offenses€because€attempted€sexual€battery€was€included€twice€in€this€litany.€Ð $à" ÐNear€the€beginning€of€the€charge,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€Count€One€embraced€theÐ €%Ð # Ðoffenses€of€ð ðAggravated€rape[,€a]ttempt€to€commit€aggravated€rape[,€r]rape[,€a]ttempt€to€commitÐ p&À!$ Ðrape[,€òòaóó]òòttempt€to€commit€sexual€batteryóó[,€a]ttempt€to€commit€aggravated€sexual€battery[,€s]exualÐ `'°"% Ðbattery[,€òòaóó]òòttempt€to€commit€sexual€batteryóó[,€a]ssault€causing€bodily€injury.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€TheÐ P( #& Ðtrial€court€then€defined€the€crimes€in€the€following€order:€€aggravated€rape,€attempted€aggravatedÐ @)$' Ðrape,€rape,€attempted€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€attempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexualÐ 0*€%( Ðbattery,€attempted€sexual€battery,€and€assault€causing€bodily€injury.€€In€the€portion€of€the€charge€inÐ  +p&) Ðwhich€the€offenses€were€defined,€the€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€the€offenses€in€sequential€order.€Ð ,`'* ÐThat€is,€the€jury€was€to€consider€the€next„lesser€offense€only€if€it€reached€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€onÐ ° Ðthe€greater€offense€then€under€consideration.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€is€therefore€waived.׃#×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóóÐ €Ð ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)€(ð ðno€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€.€.€.€juryÐ pÀ Ðinstructions€granted€or€refused€.€.€.€unless€the€same€was€òòspecificallyóó€stated€in€a€motion€for€new€trialðð)Ð ` ° Ð(emphasis€added).€€Further,€the€defendant€cites€no€authority€in€support€of€his€claim€that€the€trialÐ P   Ðcourtððs€misstatement€of€the€offenses€in€the€initial€listing€is€reversible€error.€€This€is€a€second€basisÐ @  Ðfor€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7),€(h);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€if€the€issue€were€properly€before€us,€we€would€find€it€without€merit.€€WeÐ `  Ðacknowledge€that€the€trial€court€appears€to€have€misspoken€in€giving€its€initial€listing€of€the€offenses.€Ð P  ÐHowever,€the€subsequent,€in„depth€instructions€combined€with€the€instruction€to€consider€theÐ ð@  Ðoffenses€sequentially€cured€any€risk€of€confusion.€€Even€if€we€were€to€consider€this€error,€we€fail€toÐ à0  Ðsee€how€it€prejudiced€the€defendant.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€charged€offense€ofÐ Ð  Ðaggravated€rape€and€therefore€never€proceeded€through€the€sequence€of€the€lesser„included€offenses.€Ð À ÐòòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101€(Tenn.€1998)€(failure€to€instruct€on€lesser€offense€of€voluntaryÐ ° Ðmanslaughter€was€harmless€where€jury€found€defendant€guilty€of€charged€offense€of€first€degreeÐ  ð Ðmurder,€thereby€declining€to€find€defendant€guilty€of€intermediate€lesser€offense€of€second€degreeÐ à Ðmurder).Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà@}})ìàò òIVó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€to€considerÐ @ Ðaggravated€sexual€battery,€attempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexual€battery€and€attempted€sexualÐ 0€ Ðbattery€as€lesser„included€offenses€of€the€charged€offense€of€aggravated€rape€accompanied€by€bodilyÐ  p Ðinjury.Ð ` ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€outset,€we€are€compelled€to€observe€that€the€defendant€has€not€explained€andÐ ð@ Ðwe€do€not€comprehend€how€the€defendant€could€have€been€harmed€by€any€instructional€error€of€thisÐ à0 Ðnature.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€charged€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€We€do€not€see€howÐ Ð  Ðinstruction€on€non„applicable€lesser„included€offenses€could€have€prejudiced€him.€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àNotwithstanding,€this€is€an€evolving€area€of€the€law,€and€we€will€endeavor€to€addressÐ  #ð! Ðbriefly€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€issue.€€Our€supreme€court€has€recently€adopted€the€followingÐ $à" Ðframework€for€defining€lesser„included€offenses.Ð €%Ð # ÐÐ p&À!$ Ðà8  àAn€offense€is€a€lesser-included€offense€if:€€Ð°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(a)€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ  ð Ðoffense€charged;€or€€ÐàÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ pÀ Ðstatutory€element€or€elements€establishing€€€Ð` °Ð Ð  Ðà  àà8 ` à(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;Ð P   Ðand/or€€Ð@ ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€propertyÐ 0 € Ðor€public€interest;€or€€Ð p ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(c)€it€consists€of€€ÐP Ð Ð  Ðà  àà8 ` à(1)€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged€or€of€an€offense€that€otherwiseÐ ð@  Ðmeets€the€definition€of€lesser-included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€or€€Ðà0 ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(2)€an€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€thatÐ Ð  Ðotherwise€meets€the€definition€of€lesser-included€offense€in€part€(a)Ð À Ðor€(b);€or€€Ð°` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(3)€solicitation€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€thatÐ  ð Ðotherwise€meets€the€definition€of€lesser-included€offense€in€part€(a)Ð à Ðor€(b).€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€466„67€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€has€questioned€whether€òòBurnsóó€should€apply€retroactively.€€We€hold€thatÐ @ ÐòòBurnsóó€applies€to€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Billy€Joe€Stokesóó,€ð"ð€S.W.3d€ð"ð,€No.€M1997„00083„SC„R11„Ð 0€ ÐCD€(Tenn.€July€5,€2000)€(òòBurnsóó€applied€to€determine€lesser„included€offense€in€case€which€was€inÐ  p Ðappellate€pipeline€prior€to€release€of€supreme€courtððs€òòBurnsóó€opinion);òòóó€òòState€v.€Billy€Joe€Stokesóó,€No.Ð ` Ð01C01„9710„CC„00442€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€19,€1999)€(intermediate€court€decisionÐ P Ðpredates€supreme€courtððs€òòBurnsóó€decision);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jumbo€Kurióó,€No.€M1999„00638„CCA„Ð ð@ ÐR3„CD,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€25,€2000)€(òòBurnsóó€has€been€applied€too€manyÐ à0 Ðtimes€for€its€retroactive€effect€to€cases€on€direct€appeal€to€be€seriously€questioned).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àTurning,€then,€to€the€merits€of€the€issue,€we€hold€that€òòBurnsóó€mandates€that€aggravatedÐ °"  Ðsexual€battery€and€sexual€battery€are€lesser„included€offenses€of€aggravated€rape€accompanied€byÐ  #ð! Ðbodily€injuryòòóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gary€J.€Greeróó,€No.€01C01„9808„CR„00337,€slip€op.€at€11„13€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $à" ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Mar.€17,€2000)€(aggravated€sexual€battery€by€force€or€coercion€is€lesser„includedÐ €%Ð # Ðoffense€of€aggravated€rape€by€force€or€coercion€under€òòBurnsóó€(b)(1));€òòcfóó.€òòState€v.€Douglas€BryanÐ p&À!$ ÐBoruffóó,€No.€E1999„00274„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€17,€2000)Ð `'°"% Ð(aggravated€sexual€battery€is€lesser„included€offense€of€rape€of€a€child€under€òòBurnsóó€(b)€and€possiblyÐ P( #& ÐòòBurnsóó€(a));€òòidóó.€(concurring€opinion€of€Woodall,€J.)€(aggravated€sexual€battery€is€a€lesser„includedÐ @)$' Ðoffense€of€rape€of€a€child€under€òòBurnsóó€(b)€but€not€(a));€òòidóó.€(concurring€opinion€of€Witt,€J.)Ð 0*€%( Ð(aggravated€sexual€battery€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€rape€of€a€child€under€òòBurnsóó€(a)€and€(b));òòóóÐ  +p&) ÐòòState€v.€Robbie€Jamesóó,€No.€M2000„00304„CCA„RM„CD,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð ,`'* ÐMar.€20,€2000)€(aggravated€sexual€battery€committed€on€child€less€than€thirteen€years€old€is€lesser„Ð ° Ðincluded€offense€of€rape€of€a€child€under€òòBurnsóó€(b);€òòidòòóóóó.ò òó óòòóó€(concurring€opinion€of€Witt,€J.)€(aggravatedÐ  ð Ðsexual€battery€and€sexual€battery€are€lesser„included€offenses€of€rape€of€a€child€under€òòBurnsóó€(a))òòóó.€Ð à ÐòòBut€seeóó€òòTimothy€R.€Bowles€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CR„00547,€slip€op.€at€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð €Ð ÐNashville,€Apr.€20,€1999)€(pre„òòBurnsóó€ruling€that€sexual€battery€is€not€a€lesser„included€offense€ofÐ pÀ Ðaggravated€rape),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.€22,€2000).Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€attempted€sexual€battery€are€lesser„includedÐ @  Ðoffenses,€the€attempts€of€those€crimes€are€likewise€lesser„included€offenses€under€òòBurnsóó€(c)(2).€€€òòSeeóóÐ 0 € ÐòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€467.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€òòòòóóóóinquiry€does€not€end€with€a€determination€that€these€offenses€are,€in€fact,€lesser„Ð P  Ðincluded€offenses€of€the€charged€offense.€€Next,€we€must€determine€whether€the€evidence€of€recordÐ ð@  Ðjustified€the€submission€of€these€lesser„included€offenses€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€467.€Ð à0  ÐIn€this€regard,€the€supreme€court€has€recently€said,€ð ðThe€mere€existence€of€a€lesser€offense€to€aÐ Ð  Ðcharged€offense€is€not€sufficient€alone€to€warrant€a€charge€on€that€offense.€€Whether€or€not€aÐ À Ðparticular€lesser„included€offense€should€be€charged€to€the€jury€depends€on€whether€proof€in€theÐ ° Ðrecord€would€support€the€lesser€charge.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€468.€€In€determining€whether€the€offense€should€beÐ  ð Ðcharged,€the€trial€court€must€engage€in€a€two„part€inquiry.€€First,€it€ð ðmust€determine€whether€anyÐ à Ðevidence€exists€that€reasonable€minds€could€accept€as€to€the€lesser„included€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€469.€Ð €Ð ÐSuch€determination€is€made€by€examining€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€existenceÐ pÀ Ðof€the€lesser„included€offense.€€òòIdóó.€€Then,€ð ðthe€trial€court€must€determine€if€the€evidence,€viewed€inÐ `° Ðthis€light,€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser„included€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€the€proof€of€the€lesser„included€offense€is€solely€a€portion€of€the€evidenceÐ 0€ Ðsupporting€the€existence€of€the€greater€offense,€as€opposed€to€the€evidence€of€the€lesser€being€anÐ  p Ðalternative€explanation€for€what€occurred,€we€have€held€that€the€trial€court€is€not€obliged€to€give€theÐ ` Ðlesser„included€offense€instruction.€€In€this€situation,€there€is€no€evidence€of€the€lesser€offense€òòotherÐ P Ðthanóó€the€very€same€evidence€which€supports€the€greater€offense,€that€is,€ð ðthat€reasonable€minds€couldÐ ð@ Ðaccept€as€to€the€lesser„included€offense.ðð׃&×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Terry€T.€Lewisóó,€No.€M1999„00876„CCA„Ð à0 ÐMR3„CD,€slip€op.€at€20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€17,€2000);€òòsee€generallyóó€òòBurnsóó,€6Ð Ð  ÐS.W.3d€at€469.Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€charged€in€this€case,€aggravated€rape€is€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victimÐ  #ð! Ðâ âby€the€defendant€.€.€.€accompanied€by€.€.€.€[t]he€defendant€caus[ing]€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€.€.€.Ð $à" Ð.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(2)€(1997).€€The€only€issue€was€consent.׃+×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€With€consentÐ ° Ðâ âbeing€the€only€issue,€examination€of€the€facts€reveals€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€reasonableÐ  ð Ðminds€could€accept€as€to€the€existence€of€the€lesser„included€offenses€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,Ð à Ðattempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexual€battery€and€attempted€sexual€battery,€as€opposed€to€theÐ €Ð Ðgreater€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€Having€so€determined,€we€are€not€required€to€consider€theÐ pÀ Ðsecond€part€of€the€òòBurnsòòóóóó€inquiry,€whether€ð ðthe€evidence,€viewed€in€this€light,€is€legally€sufficient€toÐ ` ° Ðsupport€a€conviction€for€the€lesser„included€offense.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€€Thus,€we€concludeÐ P   Ðthat€the€trial€court€was€not€required€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offenses€of€aggravatedÐ @  Ðsexual€battery,€attempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexual€battery,€and€attempted€sexual€battery.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àNonetheless,€as€we€discussed€above,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€defendant€was€harmedÐ `  Ðby€the€unnecessary€inclusion€of€these€offenses€in€the€lesser„included€offense€litany.€€Accordingly,Ð P  Ðhe€is€entitled€to€no€relief€from€his€conviction€on€this€basis.Ð ð@  ÐÌà@¤¤*ìàò òVˆÐ Ð  Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€on€aggravatedÐ ° Ðassault,€felony€reckless€endangerment€and€misdemeanor€reckless€endangerment€as€lesser„includedÐ  ð Ðoffenses€of€aggravated€rape.Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€by€noting€that€aggravated€assault€may€be€a€Class€C€or€D€felony,€felonyÐ pÀ Ðreckless€endangerment€is€a€Class€E€felony,€and€misdemeanor€reckless€endangerment€is€a€Class€AÐ `° Ðmisdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(d)€(Supp.€1999)€(aggravated€assault);€ðð€39„13„Ð P  Ð103(b)€(1997)€(reckless€endangerment).€€In€this€case,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€ClassÐ @ ÐA€felony€of€aggravated€rape,€even€though€they€were€also€instructed€on€the€lesser„included€Class€BÐ 0€ Ðfelonies€of€attempted€aggravated€rape,€rape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery,€which€are€intermediate„Ð  p Ðclass€offenses€between€aggravated€rape€and€the€offenses€the€defendant€claims€should€have€beenÐ ` Ðinstructed.€€Because€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€charged€offense€and€eschewed€theÐ P Ðintermediate€lesser„included€offenses,€the€defendant€cannot€have€been€harmed€even€if€he€is€correctÐ ð@ Ðthat€these€additional€offenses€should€have€been€charged.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101Ð à0 Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€òòóóÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€with€the€previous€issue,€however,€we€will€address€the€merits€of€the€issuesÐ °"  Ðpresented.€Ð  #ð! Ðò òÌÌÌÌÐ P( #& ÐÓ€ '(ª½80 Óà@&&ìàA.€€Aggravated€assaultˆÐ ° Ðó óÌà  àà ` àAs€relevant€to€this€case,€aggravated€assault€is€an€intentional,€knowing€or€recklessÐ à Ðassault€in€which€the€defendant€causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„Ð €Ð Ð13„102(a)€(Supp.€1999).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAggravated€assault€is€not€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€rape€under€òòBurnsóóÐ P   Ð(a).€€òòóóThe€defendant€was€charged€with€aggravated€rape€inflicting€bodily€injury;€aggravated€assaultÐ @  Ðas€relevant€here€requires€òòseriousóó€bodily€injury.€€Thus,€the€elements€of€aggravated€assault€are€notÐ 0 € Ðincluded€within€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape,€thereby€precluding€application€of€òòBurnsóó€(a).Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àAggravated€assault€will€be€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€rape€under€òòBurnsóóÐ P  Ð(b)€if€its€additional€element€establishes€ð ða€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€ofÐ ð@  Ðculpabilityðð€or€a€ð ðless€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€or€public€interestÐ à0  Ð.€.€.€€.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466„67.€€The€elements€of€aggravated€assault€satisfy€neither€requirement.€Ð Ð  ÐThe€additional€element€of€aggravated€assault€does€not€indicate€a€lesser€degree€of€culpability.€Ð À ÐFurther,€aggravated€assault€involves€òòseriousóó€bodily€injury,€a€more€serious€harm€than€the€chargedÐ ° Ðoffense€of€aggravated€rape,€which€only€requires€bodily€injury.€€òòCompareóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„Ð  ð Ð106(a)(2)€(1997)€(bodily€injury€definition)€òòwithóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(34)€(1997)€(seriousÐ à Ðbodily€injury€definition).€Ð €Ð ÐòòÌà  àà ` àóóLikewise,€òòBurnsóó€(c)€is€clearly€inapplicable,€as€the€issue€at€hand€does€not€involveÐ `° Ðfacilitation,€attempt€or€solicitation.Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` àAggravated€assault€is€not€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€rape€in€this€case,Ð 0€ Ðand€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€this€offense€as€lesser„included€withinÐ  p Ðthe€charged€offense.׃3×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ` ÐÌà@XXìàò òB.€€Reckless€EndangermentˆÐ ð@ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àReckless€endangerment€occurs€where€the€defendant€ð ðrecklessly€engages€in€conductÐ Ð  Ðwhich€places€or€may€place€[the€victim]€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.Ð À! ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(a)€(1997).€€If€the€offense€is€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon,€it€is€felonyÐ °"  Ðreckless€endangerment;€if€no€weapon€is€involved,€it€is€misdemeanor€reckless€endangerment.€€€Tenn.Ð  #ð! ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(b)€(1997).Ð $à" ÐÌà  àà ` àReckless€endangerment€requires€that€the€victim€be€in€imminent€danger€of€death€orÐ p&À!$ Ðserious€bodily€injury,€and€aggravated€rape€as€charged€in€the€indictment€does€not€include€this€element.€Ð `'°"% ÐòòBurnsóó€(a)€does€not€apply.€€Likewise,€felony€reckless€endangerment€requires€a€weapon,€andÐ P( #& Ðaggravated€rape€as€charged€in€the€indictment€does€not.€€For€this€additional€reason,€òòBurnsóó€(a)€does€notÐ ° Ðapply€to€make€felony€reckless€endangerment€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€rape.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€applying€the€test€of€òòBurnsóó€(b),€we€must€consider€whether€reckless€endangermentÐ €Ð Ðembodies€ð ða€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpabilityðð€or€a€ð ðless€serious€harm€orÐ pÀ Ðrisk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€or€public€interestðð€than€that€embodied€in€the€crime€ofÐ ` ° Ðaggravated€rape€accompanied€by€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466„67.€€In€that€regard,Ð P   Ðreckless€endangerment€does€not€involve€relatively€less€culpability€than€does€aggravated€rape.€Ð @  ÐFurther,€upon€consideration€of€the€act€of€recklessly€engaging€in€conduct€which€actually€or€potentiallyÐ 0 € Ðplaces€another€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€as€compared€to€the€infliction€ofÐ  p  Ðactual€bodily€injury,€it€is€not€clear€that€the€legislature€intended€to€proscribe€a€less€serious€harm€or€riskÐ `  Ðof€harm€in€the€former€than€that€which€it€proscribed€by€the€latter.€€Thus,€under€òòBurnsóó€(b),€recklessÐ P  Ðendangerment€does€not€qualify€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€rape€accompanied€byÐ ð@  Ðbodily€injury.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àNeither€felony€nor€misdemeanor€reckless€endangerment€are€lesser„included€offensesÐ À Ðunder€òòBurnsóó€(c),€which€is€reserved€for€attempts,€solicitations€and€facilitation.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€appellate€relief€on€this€issue.Ð à Ðà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà@}})ìàò òVIˆÐ pÀ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€evidence€seized€pursuantÐ P  Ðto€search€warrants.€€When€this€issue€was€litigated€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€alleged€that€theÐ @ Ðsearch€and€resultant€seizures€were€illegal€for€the€following€reasons:Ð 0€ ÐÌÓ€ (¶Ù88'ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£&¹ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝCopies€of€the€warrants€were€not€given€to€the€defendant€or€left€at€his€residenceÐ ` Ðby€the€searching€officer€as€required€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€ProcedureÐ P Ð41(d);݃3£&¹_¹ÝŒÐð@` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÏºÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€ð ðofficers€returnðð€was€not€executed€on€the€warrant€and€the€items€seizedÐ à0 Ðwere€not€taken€before€the€issuing€judge;݃3£Ïº»ÝŒÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£:¼ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝSome€of€the€items€seized€were€irrelevant€to€the€crime;݃3£:¼s¼ÝŒÐÀ!` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£N½ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝNo€scientific€analysis€was€performed€on€some€items€seized,€and݃3£N½‡½ÝŒÐ°" ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£j¾ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€second€search€warrant€was€based€upon€insufficient€probable€cause.݃3£j¾£¾ÝŒÐ #ð!` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐOn€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€for€the€first€time€that€the€fruits€of€the€searches€should€beÐ €%Ð # Ðsuppressed€because€the€magistrate€failed€to€cause€a€copy€of€the€return€and€inventory€to€be€deliveredÐ p&À!$ Ðto€the€defendant.Ð `'°"% ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€by€restating€the€well„settled€principle€that€a€party€may€not€advance€oneÐ @)$' Ðtheory€for€the€inadmissibility€of€evidence€in€the€trial€court€and€another€on€appeal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStateÐ 0*€%( Ðv.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€715€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€To€do€so,€as€the€defendant€has€done€here,Ð  +p&) Ðresults€in€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòIdóó.Ð ,`'* Їà  àà ` àMoreover,€Rule€41(d)€provides€that€the€magistrate€issuing€a€search€warrant€ð ðshall,Ð ° Ðòòupon€requestóó,€cause€to€be€delivered€a€copy€of€the€return€and€the€inventory€to€the€person€from€whomÐ  ð Ðor€from€whose€premises€the€property€was€taken€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(d)€(emphasis€added).€Ð à ÐIn€the€present€case,€however,€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€the€defendant€made€such€requestÐ €Ð Ðof€the€issuing€magistrate.€€Even€if€this€issue€were€properly€before€us,€we€would€find€it€without€merit.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@VV)ìàò òVIIˆÐ P   Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€next€issue€we€consider€is€whether€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€state€toÐ 0 € Ðimpeach€the€defendant€with€his€prior€convictions€of€armed€robbery.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àSubject€to€certain€conditions€for€admissibility,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609Ð P  Ðauthorizes€the€use€of€proof€of€a€witness's€prior€convictions€in€order€to€attack€a€witness's€credibility.€Ð ð@  ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a).€€The€prior€conviction€must€be€for€a€felony€or€a€crime€involving€dishonestyÐ à0  Ðor€false€statement.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2).€€To€be€eligible€as€an€impeaching€conviction,€a€priorÐ Ð  Ðfelony€conviction€need€not€involve€dishonesty.€€However,€when€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€theÐ À Ðcriminal€defendant,€the€state€must€give€notice€prior€to€trial€of€its€intent€to€utilize€the€conviction€forÐ ° Ðimpeachment€purposes,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3),€and€upon€request,€the€court€must€determine€theÐ  ð Ðadmissibility€of€an€eligible€conviction€by€deciding€whether€"the€conviction's€probative€value€onÐ à Ðcredibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues."€€òòIdóó.€€In€making€thisÐ €Ð Ðdetermination,€"two€criteria€are€especially€relevant."€€òòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€674€(Tenn.Ð pÀ Ð1999).€€First,€the€court€must€"analyze€the€relevance€the€impeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€ofÐ `° Ðcredibility"€and€"explain€[the€relevance]€on€the€record,"€òòidóó.,€and€second,€it€must,€"assess€theÐ P  Ðsimilarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeaching€conviction."€€òòIdóó.Ð @ Ð(quoting€Cohen,€Sheppeard€&€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€609.9€at€376€(3d€ed.€1995)).€€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àà ` àIf€the€conviction€is€remote,€that€is,€if€more€than€ten€years€have€elapsed€from€the€dateÐ ` Ðof€release€from€confinement€or€from€the€date€of€conviction€if€no€confinement€was€involved,€the€priorÐ P Ðconviction€is€generally€not€admissible€to€impeach€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).€€A€remoteÐ ð@ Ðconviction€may€be€admissible,€though,€where€the€adverse€party€gives€advance€notice€of€intent€to€useÐ à0 Ðthe€conviction,€and€the€court€determines€that€in€the€interests€of€justice€the€conviction's€probativeÐ Ð  Ðvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€€òòIdóó.€€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appellate€review,€the€trial€court's€rulings€on€the€admissibility€of€prior€convictionsÐ  #ð! Ðfor€impeachment€purposes€are€subject€to€reversal€only€for€abuse€of€discretion.€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòMixonóó,€983Ð $à" ÐS.W.2d€at€674.€€Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€record€is€not€a€model€of€clarity.€€It€appears€that€the€defendantÐ `'°"% Ðhad€two€armed€robbery€convictions€imposed€on€two€separate€dates€in€1977€and€a€third€imposed€inÐ P( #& Ð1978.€€He€served€a€25„year€sentence€concurrently€to€a€fifteen„year€sentence€for€two€of€theÐ @)$' Ðconvictions,€and€he€served€a€fifteen„year€sentence€consecutively€to€the€first€fifteen„year€sentence.€Ð 0*€%( ЀThe€record€does€not€reflect€exact€sentence€expiration€dates€or€release€from€confinement€dates€thatÐ  +p&) Ðcorrespond€with€each€of€the€three€prior€convictions.€€We€glean€from€the€record€that€one€of€theÐ ,`'* Ðsentences€expired€on€October€8,€1985.€€The€defendant€was€released€from€confinement€in€1991,Ð ° Ðviolated€parole,€and€was€ultimately€released€in€1992.€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€at€least€one€of€the€convictions€involves€a€sentence€that€expired€more€than€tenÐ €Ð Ðyears€ago,€we€must€analyze€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€convictions€on€credibilityÐ pÀ Ðòòsubstantiallyóóoutweighs€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€on€the€substantive€issues.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð ` ° Ð609(b);€òòState€v.€Dee€W.€Thompsonóó,€No.€M1998„00073„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€13„14€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð P   ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Mar.€17,€2000)€(in€case€of€consecutive€sentences€that€are€not€simultaneouslyÐ @  Ðimposed,€ð ðrelease€from€confinement€dateðð€for€convictions€other€than€final€one€in€consecutiveÐ 0 € Ðsentencing€structure€is€the€sentence€expiration€date,€not€the€final€date€of€release€at€end€ofÐ  p  Ðincarceration€for€all€sentences).Ð `  ÐÌà  àà ` àArmed€robbery€is€a€violent€offense€in€that€it€involves€the€use€of€a€weapon€toÐ ð@  Ðaccomplish€theft€from€the€person.€ò òó óòòóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3901€(1975)€(repealed€1989).€€"FeloniesÐ à0  Ðof€a€violent€nature€reflect€on€the€moral€character€of€a€witness[,€and]€.€.€.€this€evidence€is€not€usuallyÐ Ð  Ðwithout€probative€value."€€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(quotingÐ À ÐòòState€v.€Daniel€Strongóó,€No.€88-82-III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€12,€1989),€òòperm.€app.Ð ° Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989)).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€482,€485-86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.)€(violentÐ  ð Ðor€assaultive€crimes€may€result€from€causes€which€have€"little€or€no€direct€bearing€on€honesty€orÐ à Ðveracity")òòóó.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€stateððs€evidence€in€this€case€depicted€a€violent€aggravated€rape.€€The€defendantÐ `° Ðwielded€a€machete,€and€the€victim€received€significant€injuries€as€a€result.€€Thus,€there€is€a€palpableÐ P  Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice€due€to€the€violent€nature€of€the€present€offense€and€the€defendantððs€priorÐ @ Ðconvictions.€€On€the€other€hand,€however,€the€crime€of€robbery€is€one€involving€dishonesty,€whichÐ 0€ Ðhas€a€direct€and€substantial€bearing€on€the€issue€of€credibility.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Caruthersóó,€676Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€935,€941€(Tenn.€1984)€(robbery€is€a€crime€which€has€ð ðbeen€found€to€involve€dishonesty€orÐ ` Ðfalse€statementðð).€€When€the€dishonest€nature€of€the€crime€of€robbery€is€coupled€with€the€bearing€onÐ P Ðcredibility€inherent€in€felonies€of€a€violent€nature,€these€factors€substantially€outweigh€the€dangerÐ ð@ Ðof€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant€due€to€any€similarity€of€armed€robbery€and€aggravated€rape.€€òòIdóó.Ð à0 Ð(approving€impeachment€with€convictions€"over€ten€years€old"€of€robbery€and€transporting€stolenÐ Ð  Ðvehicle€in€interstate€commerce,€crimes€that€have€"been€found€to€involve€dishonesty€or€falseÐ À! Ðstatement").€€As€such,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ruling€that€the€defendant€couldÐ °"  Ðbe€impeached€with€prior€armed€robbery€conviction(s)€for€which€he€had€been€released€for€more€thanÐ  #ð! Ðten€years.€€Moreover,€because€the€balancing€test€for€convictions€less€than€ten€years€old€is€lessÐ $à" Ðstringent€than€the€one€for€older€convictions,€our€conclusion€with€respect€to€the€older€conviction(s)Ð €%Ð # Ðis€determinative€for€the€conviction(s)€with€a€release€date€within€the€ten€years€prior€to€commencementÐ p&À!$ Ðof€the€instant€prosecution,€as€well.€€Ð `'°"% ÐÌÌÌÌÐ ,`'* Ðà@//(ìàò òVIIIˆÐ ° Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€raises€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€evidence€of€an€allegedÐ à Ðconsensual€sexual€encounter€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant€21€years€earlier,€when€the€victimÐ €Ð Ðwas€a€minor.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àGenerally,€evidence€of€a€sex€crime€victimððs€sexual€behavior€is€inadmissible€in€aÐ P   Ðprosecution€of€the€victimððs€alleged€sexual€perpetrator.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412.€€However,Ð @  Ðcertain€exceptions€apply.€€Among€them€is€the€exception€for€prior€sexual€behavior€between€the€victimÐ 0 € Ðand€the€accused,€if€offered€to€support€a€defense€of€consent.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(3).€€For€suchÐ  p  Ðevidence€to€be€admissible,€the€defendant€must€first€file€and€serve€a€written€motion€to€offer€suchÐ `  Ðevidence€no€later€than€ten€days€before€trial€is€scheduled€to€begin.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(d)(1).€€SuchÐ P  Ðmotion€must€contain€a€written€offer€of€proof€of€the€specific€evidence€and€the€defendant's€purpose€inÐ ð@  Ðintroducing€it.€òòIdóó.€The€court€must€then€hold€a€closed€hearing€to€determine€if€it€will€allow€admissionÐ à0  Ðof€the€evidence€by€balancing€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€with€its€unfair€prejudice€to€theÐ Ð  Ðvictim.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(d)(2),€(4).€€On€appellate€review,€we€will€disturb€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€onÐ À Ðthe€admissibility€of€evidence€only€if€the€lower€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Grayóó,Ð ° Ð960€S.W.2d€598,€606€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).òòóóÐ  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€filed€two€notices€under€Rule€412(d)€seekingÐ €Ð Ðintroduction€of€evidence€of€(1)€the€victimððs€sexual€behavior€with€her€live„in€boyfriend€earlier€on€theÐ pÀ Ðday€of€the€rape,€and€(2)€three€instances€of€consensual€sexual€behavior€between€the€victim€and€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€in€1976,€1993€and€1996.€€At€the€hearing,€the€victim€acknowledged€having€had€sexualÐ P  Ðrelations€with€her€boyfriend€several€hours€before€the€rape.€€Contrary€to€the€defendantððs€testimonyÐ @ Ðat€that€hearing,€however,€she€denied€that€she€had€ever€had€consensual€sex€with€the€defendant.€€TheÐ 0€ Ðtrial€court€ruled€that€all€of€the€evidence€except€the€alleged€1976€consensual€encounter€would€beÐ  p Ðadmissible.€€In€excluding€evidence€of€the€alleged€1976€encounter,€the€court€recited€twoÐ ` Ðconsiderations€it€found€determinative.€€€First,€the€court€ruled€that€the€remoteness€of€this€eventÐ P Ðrendered€it€irrelevant.€€Second,€the€court€found€that€the€victim€was€incapable€of€consent€under€theÐ ð@ Ðlaw€at€the€time€of€this€alleged€encounter€in€that€she€was€sixteen,€while€the€defendant€was€26.€€òòóóInÐ à0 Ðother€words,€this€provides€a€second€basis€for€irrelevance.€€By€finding€the€evidence€lacking€inÐ Ð  Ðrelevance,€the€court€implicitly€found€that€the€unfair€prejudice€to€the€victim€which€would€result€fromÐ À! Ðthe€admission€of€this€evidence€outweighed€its€probative€value.Ð °"  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€ruling.€€The€alleged€1976€event€was€21€yearsÐ $à" Ðprior€to€the€incident€on€trial,€whereas€the€alleged€1993€and€1996€encounters€preceded€the€rape€byÐ €%Ð # Ðonly€four€years€and€two€months,€respectively.€€On€balance,€we€see€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€PrejudiceÐ p&À!$ Ðto€the€victim€in€admitting€evidence€of€her€alleged€sexual€behavior€21€years€earlier€when€she€wasÐ `'°"% Ðâ âsixteen€years€old€would€be€great,€and€the€probative€value€on€the€issue€of€consent€of€an€allegedÐ P( #& Ðencounter€21€years€before€the€rape€is€marginal,€at€best.׃-×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€is€particularly€the€case€where€the€courtÐ ° Ðâ âallowed€admission€of€two€more€contemporaneous€alleged€encounters.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€are€unpersuaded€by€the€defendantððs€argument€that€thisÐ €Ð Ðevidence€should€have€been€admitted€to€show€that€the€victim€had€known€the€defendant€for€a€longÐ pÀ Ðperiod€of€time.€€The€victim€admitted€in€her€trial€testimony€that€she€had€known€the€defendant€sinceÐ ` ° Ðshe€was€about€fourteen.€€In€any€event,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€victimððs€long„standing€acquaintanceÐ P   Ðwith€the€defendant€is€probative€of€the€issue€of€consent.€€Further,€we€have€rejected€the€defendantððsÐ @  Ðclaim€that€if€the€victim€denied€the€alleged€1976€encounter,€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€impeachÐ 0 € Ðher€victimððs€credibility€on€the€theory€that€if€she€would€lie€about€the€1976€event,€she€would€likewiseÐ  p  Ðbe€capable€of€fabricating€the€rape€claim.€€As€discussed€above,€any€probative€value€of€the€evidenceÐ `  Ðfor€that€purpose€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€victim.Ð P  ÐÌà@}})ìàò òIXˆÐ à0  Ðó óÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€address€the€defendantððs€sentencing€issues.€€He€alleges€that€the€trial€courtÐ À Ðimproperly€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€III€offender€because€the€state€had€not€given€proper€notice€ofÐ ° Ðintent€to€seek€enhanced€range€punishment.€€Further,€he€complains€that€the€maximum,€60„yearÐ  ð Ðsentence€is€too€great€where€there€was€a€mitigating€factor€present.Ð à ÐÌà@JJ%ìàò òA.€€NoticeˆÐ pÀ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€cannot€be€classified€above€Range€I€because€theÐ P  Ðstate€failed€to€give€adequate€notice€that€it€was€seeking€enhanced€punishment.€€The€notice€filed€by€theÐ @ Ðstate€is€captioned€ð ðNotice€of€Intent€to€Seek€Enhanced€Punishment€and€To€Inquire€About€PriorÐ 0€ ÐConvictions€If€Defendant€Elects€to€Testify.ðð€€The€body€of€the€notice€lists€four€dates€of€priorÐ  p Ðconvictions€encompassing€a€total€of€six€convictions€and€gives€the€length€of€sentence€and€theÐ ` Ðconsecutive€or€concurrent€imposition€of€those€sentences€in€relation€to€each€other.€€The€pleadingÐ P Ðð ðgives€notice€to€the€defendant€of€its€intention€to€[impeach€the€defendant€with€his€prior€convictionsÐ ð@ Ðif€he€testifies]€and€to€file€as€aggravating€factors€for€enhancement€in€sentencing€should€there€be€aÐ à0 Ðverdict€of€guilty€in€the€present€charges.ðð€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€content€of€the€notice€insofar€as€it€details€the€prior€convictions€complies€with€theÐ °"  Ðrelevant€rule€and€statute€requiring€the€filing€a€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€range€classification.€Ð  #ð! ÐòòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€(1997);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(a).€€The€question,Ð $à" Ðthen,€is€whether€the€content€of€the€notice€is€misleading.€€We€hold€that€it€is€not.€€Although€the€noticeÐ €%Ð # Ðis€not€a€model€of€clarity,€the€caption€combined€with€the€content€of€the€notice€reasonably€should€haveÐ p&À!$ Ðput€the€defendant€on€notice€that€the€state€was€seeking€enhanced€range€classification.׃0×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€theÐ ° Ðnotice€was€sufficiently€clear€to€shift€the€burden€to€the€defendant€to€inquire€about€any€ambiguities€heÐ  ð Ðperceived.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€788€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€1990).€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€has€notÐ à Ðdemonstrated€any€prejudice€which€befell€him€as€a€result€of€the€allegedly€defective€notice.׃/ð ×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ €Ð Ðv.€Debroóó,€787€S.W.2d€932,€934€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà@GG ìàò òB.€Length€of€SentenceˆÐ P   Ðó óÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€afford€him€some€relief€fromÐ 0 € Ða€maximum,€sixty€year€sentence€due€to€the€presence€of€one€mitigating€factor€for€prior€militaryÐ  p  Ðservice.Ð `  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÐ ð@  Ðis€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ à0  Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ThisÐ Ð  Ðpresumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ À Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€theÐ  ð Ðappellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trialÐ à Ðcourt,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€€If€appellate€review€reflects€the€trial€courtÐ €Ð Ðproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ pÀ Ðrecord,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€theÐ 0€ Ðsentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€andÐ  p Ðthe€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trialÐ ` Ðand€the€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÐ P Ðas€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)Ð ð@ Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€anyÐ ° Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€theÐ  ð Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(a),€(b)€(1997);€Tenn.€CodeÐ à ÐAnn.€ðð40„35„103(5)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€does€not€claim€that€the€trial€court€misappliedÐ ` ° Ðenhancement€or€mitigating€factors;€his€only€complaint€is€with€the€weight€afforded€the€mitigatingÐ P   Ðfactor€found€by€the€court.€€Moreover,€the€record€reflects€that€the€court€considered€the€relevant€mattersÐ @  Ðand€made€appropriate€findings.€€As€such,€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€afforded€the€presumptionÐ 0 € Ðof€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1997).Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhere€our€review€is€òòde€novo€óóaccompanied€by€the€presumption€of€correctness,€ourÐ P  Ðfunction€is€not€to€reweigh€the€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€789.€Ð ð@  ÐFurther,€where,€as€here,€the€trial€court€has€afforded€great€weight€to€the€enhancement€factors,€this€mayÐ à0  Ðð ðbe€sufficient,€not€only€to€elevate€the€sentence€to€the€maximum€ceiling,€but€also€to€firmly€embed€theÐ Ð  Ðsentence€in€the€ceilingðð€despite€the€presence€of€mitigating€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Samuel€D.€Bradenóó,Ð À ÐNo.€01C01„9610„CC„00457,€slip€op.€at€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€18,€1998);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ° ÐòòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€928€(Tenn.€1998)€(appendix).€€Thus,€in€the€present€case,€the€trialÐ  ð Ðcourt€was€not€required€to€reduce€the€sentence€below€the€maximum€simply€because€there€was€aÐ à Ðmitigating€factor.€€The€sentence€imposed€was€not€improper.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€these€reasons,€we€reject€the€defendantððs€claims€of€entitlement€to€relief.€€TheÐ `° Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð P  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE