ÿWPCœ EÝ‚ç×Qîï]ÜÞTûîR÷ܬ_oßÂÚHõ»Eȵ ³—߃—,¦SÓà YC|¹%MS$'ÀcÓ&(,QGõo(Q,­±jŸ,ö²^Xx…ÀpZ m®Ê `;"”™ YT= p.ކpòäüðÚ6û\ðˆ½™Ø†Àsaƒ…óË¿@ù©{Ù¼à㵓ÈóS<<…M˜ïkjvù=§j íÐ݇™®†B‡ÛàyZÝ7'#ýžþá{pÆR/Ç) …ݼ%.9¯ᥠuM¢¹ Œ†{¶Ï¾Ë’)zºÀm¾­®c½†È–~8Øüq¬þý ƒ\¸°´fÖÉa¶ÉCu4K µ üè½úêRŽåøC.È3ºòú¤áŸ¬—c/nÃch¢ÿfªª û`Çû:Ÿ¶ò9¬µfºJZhy>)rùâÒ• {Êy²{ÀvòÒ*2‹õ0 ñ¡ò$/ÖÛî4 ~æµÔQw½ð`Uè`ë4´Y¹åòè"Þ'ßÿ° ¤)ʪ?²˜¨`ŠFá²nx4KA7÷%݌̈́BeW¢i cS?ë‰W¦[˜ŧÊËrB¬?^ šÚù=§èœMˆ I‡¹•.øàb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U@±Nñïó 0DâE&+(ðSSU NCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCb‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 0ë™™™™ B„„ 0¤¡ D3E D-x 0K¥¥ ASðÆC 0¤  0D­ A«ñ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»Ê{2)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularûr')bk1àÊœ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  åÝ ƒR6´$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XèÞX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô òXXèÞÔThis€witness's€name€appears€in€the€record€as€both€"Greene"€and€Green."€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó !Ý ƒR6´$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XèÞX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô òXXèÞÔThere€was€a€discrepancy€between€the€arrest€warrant€which€alleged€that€the€defendant€had€pushed€the€VCRÐ ° Ð"under€the€lawn€and€garden€gate"€and€Greene's€trial€testimony.€€After€acknowledging€that€it€would€be€impossible€to€forceÐ tÄ Ðthe€VCR€under€the€gate,€Greene€said€that€the€defendant€pushed€the€VCR€between€the€gate€and€the€fence.€€Ð 8ˆ Ð æÝ ƒR6´$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XèÞX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô òXXèÞÔIn€òòCookóó,€the€state€filed€a€petition€to€rehear,€abandoning€"its€goal€[of]€seeking€Range€II€punishment"€rather€thanÐ ° ÐRange€I,€as€originally€directed€by€the€trial€court.€€Our€supreme€court€then€set€aside€its€remand€for€a€new€trial€andÐ tÄ Ðreinstated€a€Range€I€sentence.€€816€S.W.2d€at€322.€€(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G26´$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X0ôX»»Ô d(|3N $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ut»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼µ"»»»ÔÑ8€;´XXdê»»d 8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ÝÝ"ìàMAY€2000€SESSIONˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XèÞX»¼µ"ÔÌò òÔ#†¼µ"»XXèÞ£#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€LARRY€E.€SCALESó óÐ Ò" ÐÓéÓÌÔ€XèÞX»¼µ"Ôà@S S ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Warren€CountyˆÐ ø H Ðà@¥ ¥ ìàNo.€F„7555€Charles€D.€Ô_ÔHastonÔ_Ô,€Judge€ˆÐ ä 4 ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<» ` A߈Ð ¼  ÐÌà@  ìàNo.€M1998„00142„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€15,€2000€ˆÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€Larry€E.€Scales,€appeals€his€conviction€of€theft€over€$500€and€his€six„year€sentenceÐ ŠÚ  Ðas€a€career€offender.€€Because€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€on€the€possible€range€ofÐ vÆ  Ðpunishment,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€defendant€is€granted€a€new€trial.€€€€Ð b² ÐÌò òà@ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversed.€ó óˆÐ :Š ÐòòÌGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.,€óójoined.€Ð b ÐòòJoe€G.€Riley,€J.,€óófiled€a€dissenting€opinion.€€Ð þN ÐÌMatt€Q.€Bastian,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Larry€E.€Scales.€€Ð Ö& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Lucian€D.€Ô_ÔGeiseÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€andÐ ®þ ÐThomas€J.€Miner,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð šê ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ r ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€Larry€E.€Scales,€was€convicted€of€theft€of€merchandise€over€$500,€a€Class€EÐ J š Ðfelony.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€III€sentence€of€six€years.€€In€addition€to€his€challenge€to€theÐ 6!†  Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€appellate€review:Ð ""r! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€evidenceÐ ú#J# Ðfound€in€the€defendant's€automobile;€Ðæ$6 $¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€into€evidence€Ð ¾&"& Ðphotographs€of€the€property€allegedly€taken€from€the€victimÐ ª'ú"' Ðand€of€the€victim's€premises€when€the€victim,€after€a€defenseÐ –(æ#( Ðmotion€for€discovery,€either€lost,€destroyed,€or€disposed€ofÐ ‚)Ò$) Ðphysical€evidence;Ðn*¾%*¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€defendant'sÐ F,–', Ðmotion€to€compel€production€of€evidence;€Ð#2-‚(-¸ x¸ xý' #ЇÔ_Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€testimony€regardingÐ ° Ðinformation€contained€in€a€computerized€inventory€of€theÐ œì Ðvictim's€store;€ÐˆØ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€a€specially€requestedÐ `° Ðjury€charge€regarding€lost€or€destroyed€physical€evidence;€ÐL œ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€on€possibleÐ $ t Ðrange€of€punishment;€and€Ð `¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(7)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€trial€court€properly€applied€mitigating€andÐ è 8  Ðenhancement€factors€in€the€imposition€of€sentence.ÐÔ$ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àBecause€there€was€error€in€the€jury€instructions,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðis€granted€a€new€trial.€€ò òó óà  àà h àÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€October€17,€1997,€McMinnville€K„Mart€employee€Connie€Templeton€observed€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€in€an€area€of€the€store€where€shoplifting€was€common.€€At€approximately€6:15€P.M.,Ð \¬ ÐGordon€Greene,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€K„Mart€area€loss€control€manager,€observed€the€defendant€pushing€a€cart€whichÐ H˜ Ðcontained€garbage€bags€and€three€video€cassette€recorders€("VCRs")€covered€by€several€large€airÐ 4„ Ðconditioner€filters.€€He€saw€the€defendant€proceed€into€the€store's€lawn€and€garden€department,€aÐ  p Ðfenced„in€annex€to€the€main€building.€€The€area€was€described€as€"dark"€and€practically€"closed€forÐ  \ Ðbusiness"€at€that€time€of€the€year.€€There€were€no€K„Mart€employees€assigned€to€the€department.€€TheÐ øH Ðarea€was€unlocked€only€because€the€doors€served€as€an€emergency€exit.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àGreene,€who€had€become€suspicious,€directed€Ms.€Templeton€to€call€for€help€and€then€walkedÐ ¼  Ðto€the€doorway€of€the€lawn€and€garden€department,€where€he€saw€the€defendant€attempt€to€slide€oneÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€VCRs€through€an€open€area€between€the€fence€and€an€adjacent€cinder€block€wall.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€thatÐ ”ä Ðpoint,€Greene€identified€himself,€placed€the€VCR€back€into€the€shopping€cart,€and€escorted€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€back€into€the€main€store€area.€€When€the€defendant€was€escorted€into€the€security€office,Ð l¼ Ðhe€claimed€that€his€name€was€"Larry€Johnson."€€He€had€no€identification€papers€in€his€possession.€Ð X ¨ ÐWhen€Greene€called€the€police,€the€defendant€tried€to€escape.€€Greene€and€several€customers€stoppedÐ D!” Ðthe€defendant€and€placed€him€in€handcuffs.€€Warren€County€Sheriff's€Department€Deputy€Tim€Page,Ð 0"€  Ðwho€was€dispatched€to€the€scene,€arrested€the€defendant.€€Once€the€defendant€was€escorted€to€theÐ #l! Ðpatrol€car,€Greene€found€a€set€of€car€keys€in€the€defendant's€pocket.€€He€found€a€white€Cadillac€withÐ $X" ÐDavidson€County€license€plates€that€the€keys€fit.€€After€receiving€the€defendant's€permission€to€searchÐ ô$D # Ðthe€car,€Greene€found€two€wind€suits€and€one€jogging€suit€wrapped€in€a€garbage€bag€in€the€trunk.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThere€were€K„Mart€price€tags€on€each€item,€but€no€receipts€or€K„Mart€store€bags.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIncluded€in€either€the€shopping€cart€or€the€trunk€of€the€defendant's€car€were€threeÐ ˆØ ÐWestinghouse€VCRs€valued€at€$169.99€each,€a€boy's€jogging€suit€valued€at€$11.99,€two€boys'€windÐ tÄ Ðsuits,€each€valued€at€$16.99,€a€box€of€Hefty€trash€bags€valued€at€$2.79,€and€two€air€conditioner€filtersÐ `° Ðvalued€at€99€cents€and€59€cents,€respectively.€€The€aggregate€value€of€the€items€was€$560.31.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€did€not€testify.€€Kelsey€Carline€Winchester,€who€resides€in€McMinnville,Ð $ t Ðtestified€that€she€knew€the€defendant,€who€lived€in€a€different€county,€and€had€some€of€his€propertyÐ  ` Ðstored€at€her€residence.€€When€the€defendant€asked€that€she€mail€the€items,€she€wrote€back€explainingÐ ü L  Ðthat€she€could€not€afford€the€postage.€€Her€testimony€was€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€that€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€had€a€legitimate€reason€to€be€in€McMinnville.€€Earl€Pendergraph,€a€private€investigatorÐ Ô$  Ðfor€the€defense,€testified€that€K„Mart€had€a€number€of€security€cameras€in€the€store.€€He€providedÐ À  Ðseveral€photographs€of€the€cameras€from€which€it€might€be€inferred€that€had€the€theft€occurred,€K„Ð ¬ü  ÐMart€would€have€had€a€video€tape€of€the€incident.€€No€video€tape€was€produced€either€in€discoveryÐ ˜è  Ðor€at€the€trial.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€has€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€Several€well„Ð \¬ Ðestablished€principles€apply.€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€questionÐ  p Ðis€whether,€after€a€review€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÐ  \ Ðfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòStateÐ øH Ðv.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€1983).€€This€court€may€neither€reweigh€nor€reevaluate€theÐ ä4 Ðevidence.€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.Ð Ð  ÐStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€286€S.W.2d€856€(1956).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„103,€„105(2),€and€„146€provide€that€a€defendant€is€guilty€of€theftÐ ”ä Ðof€merchandise€over€$500€when€the€state€proves€that€the€defendant,€with€intent€to€deprive€a€merchantÐ €Ð Ðof€merchandise€with€a€value€over€$500€but€less€than€$1,000,€knowingly€concealed€the€merchandiseÐ l¼ Ðor€removed,€took€possession€of,€or€caused€the€removal€of€the€merchandise.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€state€proved€that€the€defendant€concealed€three€VCRs€and€a€box€of€garbage€bagsÐ 0"€  Ðunder€two€large€air€conditioner€filters€and€then€proceeded€into€an€unlit,€unoccupied€area€of€a€fenced„Ð #l! Ðin€lawn€and€garden€department€outside€of€the€main€building.€€The€area€loss€control€manager€observedÐ $X" Ðthe€defendant€push€one€of€the€VCRs€between€the€chain„link€fence€and€an€adjacent€cinder€€block€wallÐ ô$D # Ðin€the€direction€of€the€open€parking€lot.€€When€confronted,€the€defendant€gave€a€false€identification.€Ð à%0!$ ÐWhen€the€loss€control€manager€called€the€police,€the€defendant€attempted€to€flee.€€A€search€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant's€vehicle€yielded€three€additional€items,€all€of€which€bore€K„Mart€price€tags€and€for€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðthere€was€no€receipt€or€K„Mart€shopping€bag.€€The€total€value€of€the€items€taken€was€$560.31.€€InÐ ¤(ô#' Ðour€view,€the€jury€acted€within€its€prerogative€in€determining€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€theÐ )à$( Ðtheft.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ÍÍ*ìàIˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€the€evidence€found€inÐ ˆØ Ðhis€automobile.€€He€submits€that€proof€that€he€consented€to€the€search€"does€not€seem€credible."€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOur€scope€of€review€is€limited.€€The€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€in€a€suppressionÐ L œ Ðhearing€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Crutcheróó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð989€S.W.2d€295,€299€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€After€hearingÐ $ t Ðthe€testimony€of€Gordon€Greene,€who€was€the€K„Mart€area€loss€control€manager,€and€Deputy€TimÐ  ` ÐPage,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€search€was€consensual.€€The€trial€court€accredited€theÐ ü L  Ðtestimony€of€Greene€who,€upon€finding€car€keys€in€the€defendant's€pocket€said,€"I€thought€you€toldÐ è 8  Ðme€you€didn't€drive.€.€.€.€€Do€you€mind€if€I€look€in€your€car[?]"€€The€defendant€responded,€"No,€goÐ Ô$  Ðahead."€€In€our€view,€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€conclusion€that€the€defendant€consentedÐ À  Ðto€the€search€of€this€vehicle.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€alleges€that€Greene€was€acting€on€behalf€of€the€state€at€the€time€he€madeÐ „Ô  Ðthe€request.€€In€òòState€v.€Burroughsóó,€our€supreme€court,€citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Waltheróó,€652€F.€2d€789Ð pÀ Ð(9òòthóó€Cir.€1981),€recognized€two€factors€in€determining€when€private€conduct€is€chargeable€to€the€stateÐ \¬ Ðin€relation€to€the€protection€against€unreasonable€state„conducted€searches€and€seizures.€€The€factorsÐ H˜ Ðin€determining€whether€an€individual€is€a€state€agent€are€as€follows:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàwhether€the€government€has€knowledge€of€and€acquiesces€inÐ  \ Ðthe€search;€and€ÐøH¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€intent€of€the€party€performing€the€search.€ÐÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌ926€S.W.2d€243,€246€(Tenn.€1996).€€Describing€the€factors€as€the€"legitimate€independentÐ ¨ø Ðmotivation"€test,€our€supreme€court€in€òòBurroughsóó€determined€that€a€private€individual€who€hadÐ ”ä Ðconducted€a€warrantless€search€of€a€dormitory€room€was€not€a€state€agent.€€Several€federal€cases€citedÐ €Ð Ðwith€approval€in€òòBurroughsóó€held€that€€so€long€as€the€private€party€acts€for€a€reason€independent€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€purpose€of€the€state,€there€is€no€state€agency€and,€in€consequence,€no€protection€againstÐ X ¨ Ðunreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€Here,€the€trial€court€held€that€Greene€was€not€a€state€actor.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€our€assessment,€the€loss€control€manager€was€independently€motivated€to€guard€againstÐ #l! Ðshoplifting€and€to€retrieve€any€articles€stolen€from€his€employer.€€Because€Greene,€as€a€part€of€hisÐ $X" Ðduties€of€employment,€was€independently€motivated€to€retake€possession€of€any€items€stolen€by€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant,€he€did€not,€in€our€view,€qualify€as€an€agent€for€the€state.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà@®®)ìàIIˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€to€present€€evidenceÐ )à$( Ðwhich€should€have€been€subject€to€discovery.€€In€particular,€the€defendant€objects€to€the€introductionÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€photographs€of€the€stolen€property€when€some€of€the€stolen€merchandise,€had€it€been€available,Ð h+¸&* Ðmight€have€been€inherently€exculpatory;€he€also€argues€that€the€state€should€not€have€been€allowedÐ ° Ðto€present€a€loss€control€information€report€as€proof€of€value€of€the€merchandise€because€theÐ œì Ðevidence€was€not€produced€in€advance€of€trial€in€response€to€a€discovery€request;€and,€lastly,€heÐ ˆØ Ðmaintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€a€photograph€of€the€loss€control€manager€indicatingÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€VCR€could€be€passed€between€the€lawn€center€fence€and€the€adjacent€wall.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àRule€16€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDocuments€and€Tangible€Objects.€€Upon€request€of€the€defendant,€theÐ  ` ÐState€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€and€copy€or€photographÐ ü L  Ðbooks,€papers,€documents,€photographs,€tangible€objects,€buildingsÐ è 8  Ðor€places,€or€copies€or€portions€thereof,€which€are€within€theÐ Ô$  Ðpossession,€custody€or€control€of€the€State,€and€which€are€material€toÐ À  Ðthe€preparation€of€the€defendant's€defense€or€are€intended€for€use€byÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€State€as€evidence€in€chief€at€the€trial,€or€were€obtained€from€orÐ ˜è  Ðbelong€to€the€defendant.€€Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€requested€all€material€defined€as€discoverable€in€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð 4„ Ð16(a)(1)(C).€€€The€state€responded€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.à8¸ ` x` xàò òDOCUMENTS€AND€TANGIBLE€OBJECTS:€€ó óÐøH¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàList€of€items€taken€and€their€valueð!ðAttached.Ðè8¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàPhotographs€of€items€that€were€taken,€clothing€itemsÐ Ô$ Ðon€above€list,€air€filtersÐÀ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€16(a)(1)(D)€provides€as€follows:€€Ð ˜è ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àReports€of€Examinations€and€Tests.€€Upon€request€of€a€defendant€theÐ pÀ ÐState€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€and€copy€or€photographÐ \ ¬ Ðany€results€or€reports€of€physical€or€mental€examinations,€and€ofÐ H!˜ Ðscientific€tests€or€experiments,€or€copies€thereof,€which€are€within€theÐ 4"„  Ðpossession,€custody€or€control€of€the€State,€.€.€.€.Ð #p!` x` x ÐÌà  àAgain,€the€defendant€requested€the€material€defined€in€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(D).€€InÐ ø$H # Ðresponse,€the€state€reported€the€following:Ð ä%4!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à5.à0¸ ` x` xàò òREPORTS€OF€EXAMINATIONS€AND€TESTS:€ó óм' #&¸ x¸ x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àNone€known.€€à À àÐ ¬(ü#' ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€"K„Mart€lost€or€destroyed€all€physical€evidence."€€The€defendantÐ „*Ô%) Ðsubmits€that€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€present€potential€exculpatory€evidence€by€his€inabilityÐ p+À&* Ðto€inspect€the€packaging€of€the€VCR€that€Gordon€Greene€claimed€to€have€caught€him€passingÐ ° Ðbetween€the€fence€and€the€cinder€block€wall.€€His€rationale€is€that€if€the€box€had€been€made€availableÐ œì Ðand€did€not€bear€marks,€scrapes,€or€scratches,€the€evidence€would€have€been€exculpatory.€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àAssuming€that€the€state€failed€to€meet€its€discovery€obligations,€the€question€is€what€remedyÐ `° Ðto€afford€the€defendant.€€Certainly,€the€VCR€boxes€should€have€been€made€available€for€inspectionÐ L œ Ðby€the€defendant.€€According€to€Gordon€Greene,€however,€K„Mart€placed€the€VCRs€back€on€the€salesÐ 8 ˆ Ðfloor€prior€to€trial.€€Photographs€alone,€even€though€of€the€actual€items€taken,€did€not€qualify€asÐ $ t Ðadequate€compliance€with€the€discovery€rule.€€Any€sanctions€are€to€be€determined€on€a€case„by„caseÐ  ` Ðbasis,€depending€upon€the€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Cadleóó,€634€S.W.2d€623,€625€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ü L  Ð1982).€€In€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(citations€omitted),€thisÐ è 8  Ðcourt€ruled€that€evidence€offered€in€violation€of€a€discovery€rule€"should€not€be€excluded€exceptÐ Ô$  Ðwhen€it€is€shown€that€a€party€is€actually€prejudiced€by€the€failure€to€comply€with€the€discovery€orderÐ À  Ðand€that€the€prejudice€cannot€be€otherwise€eradicated.€€The€exclusionary€rule€should€not€be€invokedÐ ¬ü  Ðmerely€to€punish€either€the€State€or€the€defendant€for€the€deliberate€conduct€of€counsel€in€failing€toÐ ˜è  Ðcomply€with€a€discovery€order."€€A€continuance€is€often€an€appropriate€remedy.€€òòState€v.€Cottrellóó,Ð „Ô  Ð868€S.W.2d€673,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Because€the€VCR€boxes€had€presumably€been€sold,€Ð pÀ Ða€continuance€would€have€been€of€little€benefit€in€this€case.€€€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€exclusion€of€the€photographs€of€the€items€taken€would€be,€under€theseÐ 4„ Ðcircumstances,€too€heavy€a€penalty€to€the€state.€€The€fault,€if€any,€was€not€of€the€state€but€of€theÐ  p Ðvictim.€€Moreover,€the€lack€of€marks€or€scratches€on€the€boxes€may€not€have€been€so€favorable€toÐ  \ Ðthe€defense.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€pushing€the€VCR€between€the€fence€and€the€wall€wouldÐ øH Ðhave€necessarily€resulted€in€a€scratch€or€tear€of€the€container.€€The€jury€would€have€been€at€libertyÐ ä4 Ðto€make€any€one€of€several€inferences,€some€of€which€might€not€have€been€favorable€to€the€defense.€Ð Ð  ÐMore€importantly,€the€defense€was€free€to€thoroughly€cross„examine€Greene,€the€loss€controlÐ ¼  Ðmanager,€as€to€the€condition€and€whereabouts€of€the€missing€container.€€For€these€reasons,€weÐ ¨ø Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€admitting€the€photographs.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€state€offered€a€copy€of€a€K„Mart€Loss€Control€InformationÐ l¼ ÐReport€that€had€been€prepared€by€Greene€and€that€listed€the€items€that€were€taken€by€the€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðand€their€values.€€When€asked€whether€the€defense€objected€to€the€admission€of€the€item,€the€answerÐ D!” Ðgiven€was,€"Not€on€the€admissibility€of€it,€Judge."€€At€the€time€the€proof€was€entered,€there€was€noÐ 0"€  Ðobjection;€therefore,€any€issue€about€the€admissibility€of€the€Loss€Control€Information€Report€hasÐ #l! Ðbeen€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€€Even€if€there€had€been€an€objection,€however,€the€errorÐ $X" Ðwould€not€have€warranted€a€reversal.€€The€Loss€Control€Information€Report,€as€we€interpret€theÐ ô$D # Ðrecord,€contained€no€more€information€than€was€already€available€to€the€defendant€through€his€ownÐ à%0!$ Ðinvestigation.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€allowing€the€state€to€admitÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€photograph€of€Greene€placing€a€VCR€between€the€garden€center€gate€and€wall€as€a€means€ofÐ )à$( Ðestablishing€that€it€was€physically€possible€to€do€so.€€The€state€did€not€provide€notice€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðphotograph€until€five€days€prior€to€the€trial.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€record€establishes€that€the€photograph€had€not€been€made€until€sometime€after€the€dateÐ ° Ðof€the€pretrial€suppression€hearing.€€Had€the€photograph€been€taken€earlier,€the€state€would€have€hadÐ œì Ðthe€obligation€to€provide€it€to€the€defendant€as€soon€as€reasonably€practicable.€€In€our€view,€five€days'Ð ˆØ Ðnotice€was€enough€under€these€circumstances.€€Certainly,€the€defendant€has€not€shown€any€prejudice.€Ð tÄ ÐHe€did€not€ask€for€a€continuance€of€the€trial€to€further€assess€the€authenticity€or€the€content€of€theÐ `° Ðphotograph.€€Ð L œ Ðà  àà ` àÌà@)ìàIIIˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€his€motion€to€compelÐ ü L  Ðthe€production€of€any€photographs,€video€tapes,€or€audio€tapes€made€by€the€store€security€equipmentÐ è 8  Ðon€the€date€of€the€crime.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€had€a€video€tape€from€the€security€cameraÐ Ô$  Ðbeen€available,€it€would€have€established€his€innocence.€€The€defendant€claims€that€there€were€aÐ À  Ðnumber€of€security€cameras€throughout€the€store€and€that€Greene's€explanation,€that€K„Mart€had€onlyÐ ¬ü  Ðone€operable€video€camera€(which€did€not€view€the€area€of€the€theft€on€the€night€in€question)€and€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€others€(inoperable)€were€mounted€for€deterrence€purposes€only,€was€"outlandish."€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€accredited€the€following€testimony:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0¸ ` x` xàIs€Mr.€Scales€or€any€events€related€to€Mr.€Scales'€arrestÐ 4„ Ðdepicted€on€any€security€tapes€in€K„Mart's€possession€at€thisÐ  p Ðtime?€€Ð \¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à0¸ ` x` xàNo,€sir.€€Ðä4¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0¸ ` x` xàOr€were€there€ever€such€tapes?€€Ð¼ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àNo,€sir.Ð”ä¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌThe€trial€court€observed,€"The€video€doesn't€exist€.€.€.€so,€how€I€am€going€to€require€they€give€themÐ l¼ Ð(sic)€to€you?"€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€has€been€unable€to€substantiate€his€charge€that€there€were€video€tapes€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðcrime€scene€area€on€the€night€at€issue.€€Because€the€trial€court€accredited€the€state's€assertion€thatÐ #l! Ðthere€were€no€such€tapes,€there€was€no€error€in€the€failure€to€compel€their€production.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà@……)ìàIVˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€allowed€inadmissible€hearsay€evidence€whenÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€loss€control€manager€testified€that€he€established€that€K„Mart€was€missing€three€items€identicalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€those€found€in€the€defendant's€trunk€by€comparing€the€number€of€such€items€reported€by€K„Mart'sÐ )à$( Ðcomputerized€inventory€system€with€the€number€of€such€items€on€the€sales€floor.€€The€defendant€alsoÐ |*Ì%) Ðargues€that€the€testimony€regarding€the€computerized€inventory€system€amounted€to€scientificÐ h+¸&* Ðtestimony€and€that€Greene€was€not€properly€qualified€as€an€expert.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àGenerally,€hearsay€evidence€is€inadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€Hearsay€is€"a€statement,Ð ˆØ Ðother€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€toÐ tÄ Ðprove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€Greene's€testimony€regarding€the€K„Mart€computerized€inventory€system€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðnot€hearsay.€€According€to€Greene,€he€entered€identifying€numbers€for€the€two€types€of€items€foundÐ $ t Ðin€the€defendant's€car€into€the€K„Mart€inventory€computer.€€In€return,€the€computer€supplied€him€withÐ  ` Ðthe€numbers€of€those€two€types€of€items€that€should€have€been€present€on€the€sales€floor.€€He€thenÐ ü L  Ðcounted€the€numbers€of€those€items€on€the€sales€floor€and€determined€that€two€of€one€type€(boys'Ð è 8  Ðwind€suits)€and€one€of€the€other€type€(boys'€jogging€suits),€exactly€what€was€found€in€the€defendant'sÐ Ô$  Ðtrunk,€were€missing.€€At€no€point€did€Greene€offer€any€testimony€regarding€any€specific€informationÐ À  Ðgleaned€by€him€from€the€K„Mart€inventory€system.€€As€such,€his€testimony€related€only€to€his€ownÐ ¬ü  Ðinvestigative€efforts€and€did€not€implicate€the€hearsay€rule.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àLikewise,€we€find€no€merit€in€the€defendant's€argument€that€Greene's€testimony€regarding€K„Ð pÀ ÐMart's€computerized€inventory€system€constituted€inappropriate€expert€testimony.€€Greene€was€notÐ \¬ Ðoffered€as€an€expert€and€did€not,€in€our€opinion,€need€to€be€so€qualified€in€order€to€offer€testimonyÐ H˜ Ðregarding€his€use€of€K„Mart's€computerized€inventory€system.€€The€inventory€system€described€byÐ 4„ ÐGreene€does€nothing€more€than€track€and€report€the€number€of€any€given€item€that€the€store€shouldÐ  p Ðhave€on€hand.€€Such€a€system€does€not€require€"scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge"Ð  \ Ðto€understand.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Nor€did€Greene€attempt€to€offer€any€"scientific,€technical,Ð øH Ðor€other€specialized€knowledge"€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.€€Accordingly,€Greene€didÐ ä4 Ðnot€need€to€be€qualified€as€an€expert€in€order€to€testify€to€his€use€of€the€K„Mart€computerizedÐ Ð  Ðinventory€system.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€specifically€authorized€the€defense€to€develop€anyÐ ¼  Ðfallibilities€within€the€system€on€cross„examination.à  àÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€there€was€no€error.€€Moreover,€had€the€admission€of€the€evidence€been€error,€theÐ €Ð Ðerror€would€have€been€harmless.€€The€defendant€had€in€the€trunk€of€his€vehicle€three€items€bearingÐ l¼ ÐK„Mart€tags.€€There€were€no€receipts;€there€was€no€K„Mart€bag.€€Unexplained€possession€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðproperty€strongly€implies€a€theft.€€In€the€context€of€all€of€the€evidence€offered€at€trial,€it€is€our€viewÐ D!” Ðthat€any€error€would€have€been€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€Rule€36(b).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asked€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€missing€witness€rule.€€TheÐ $X" Ðrequest€was€based€upon€the€evidence€"lost€or€destroyed€by€K„Mart."€€The€defendant€argued€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðloss€or€destruction€of€the€evidence€should€create€an€inference€that,€if€presented€at€trial,€the€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðwould€be€damaging€to€the€interest€of€the€party€in€exclusive€control€thereof.€€Because€the€VCR€boxÐ Ì&"% Ðor€boxes,€or€perhaps€the€security€video€tapes,€were€missing€evidence,€the€defendant€suggests€that€heÐ ¸'#& Ðis€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€trial€court€refused€an€instruction.Ð ¤(ô#' Ѐ€Ð )à$( Ðà  àThe€missing€witness€rule€applies€when€the€evidence€shows€as€follows:€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàthat€the€witness€had€knowledge€of€material€facts;€Ð°¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à0¸ ` x` xàthat€a€relationship€exists€between€the€witness€and€the€partyÐ ˆØ Ðthat€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€the€party;€andÐtĸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)à0¸ ` x` xàthat€the€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€theÐ L œ Ðcourt€for€trial.Ð8 ˆ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€properly€rejected€the€request€by€the€defendant.€€It€is€not€error€toÐ è 8  Ðrefuse€to€give€an€inaccurate€special€request.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€523€(Tenn.€1997).€€ThisÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€knows€of€no€basis€to€expand€the€missing€witness€rule€to€encompass€possible€missing€evidence.€Ð À  ÐIt€would€be€speculative€to€assume€that€any€of€these€items€were€material.€€While€the€VCR€boxes€orÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€video€tapes,€if€they€existed,€may€have€been€"naturally"€favorable€to€the€state,€the€preponderanceÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€evidence€established€that€the€items€were€not€available€to€court€process.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@¤¤*ìàVˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€to€the€jury€as€to€theÐ 4„ Ðrange€of€punishment.€€The€defendant€requested€a€charge€of€range€of€punishment€but€objected€to€anyÐ  p Ðreference€to€the€fact€that€he€qualified€as€a€Range€II,€repeat€offender.€€The€pertinent€part€of€the€chargeÐ  \ Ðto€the€jury€was€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€you€find€this€defendant€guilty€of€theft€of€merchandise,€and€youÐ Ð  Ðassess€the€value€at€less€than€five€hundred€dollars€($500.00),€theÐ ¼  Ðmaximum€sentence€I€can€give€him€is€not€in€excess€of€eleven€(11)Ð ¨ø Ðmonths€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€because€it€is€a€misdemeanor.€€TheÐ ”ä Ðminimum€number€of€years,€in€the€event€you€find€this€defendant€guiltyÐ €Ð Ðof€theft€of€merchandise€in€excess€of€five€hundred€dollars€($500.00),Ð l¼ Ðthe€range€of€punishment€is€not€less€than€two€(2)€nor€more€than€six€(6)Ð X ¨ Ðyears.€€òòThis€person€would€be€sentenced€to€serve€thirty„five€percentÐ D!” Ð(35%)€of€any€sentence€imposed€by€the€court€as€a€Range€II€offender€asÐ 0"€  Ðprescribed€by€the€Department€of€Correctionsóó.€€Whether€the€defendantÐ #l! Ðis€actually€released€from€incarceration€on€the€date€when€he€firstÐ $X" Ðbecomes€eligible€for€release€is€a€discretionary€decision€made€by€theÐ ô$D # ÐBoard€of€Parole€and€is€based€on€many€factors.€€The€Board€of€ParoleÐ à%0!$ Ðhas€the€authority€to€require€a€defendant€to€serve€the€entire€sentenceÐ Ì&"% Ðimposed€by€The€Court.€€€€Ð¸'#&` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€After€the€charge,€the€defendant€contended€that€the€reference€to€Range€II€wasÐ )à$( Ð"basically€the€same€as€telling€[the€jury]€he€has€a€prior€record."Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Їà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„201(b),€as€it€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€trial,Ð ° Ðprovided€that€upon€written€motion€by€either€party,€the€"court€shall€charge€the€possible€penalties€forÐ œì Ðthe€offense€charged,"€including€such€factors€as€the€"minimum€number€of€years€a€person€sentencedÐ ˆØ Ð.€.€.€must€serve€before€reaching€[his]€earliest€release€eligibility€date."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„Ð tÄ Ð201(b)(1),€(b)(2)(A)(i).€€The€state€submits€that€reference€to€the€defendant's€status€as€a€Range€IIÐ `° Ðoffender€did€not€indicate€to€the€jury€that€the€defendant€had€a€prior€record.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€973€S.W.2d€586€(Tenn.€1998),€the€provision€allowing€jury€instructionsÐ $ t Ðwhich€included€an€explanation€of€early€release€and€parole€eligibility€was€found€not€to€be€in€violationÐ  ` Ðof€either€the€separation€of€power€or€the€due€process€clauses€of€our€state€constitution.€Ð ü L  ÐIn€that€case,€the€supreme€court€approved€a€jury€instruction€that€the€sentence€for€an€aggravatedÐ è 8  Ðburglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€could€range€from€as€little€as€three€years€(the€minimum€for€Range€I)€to€asÐ Ô$  Ðmuch€as€fifteen€years€(the€maximum€for€Range€III).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112.€€That€is€theÐ À  Ðproper€instruction€under€circumstances€such€as€these.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€trial€court€here€should€have€charged€the€minimum€sentence€as€one€year,€not€two.€Ð „Ô  ÐSecondly,€there€should€have€been€no€reference€to€a€specific€range,€Range€II€in€this€instance,€thatÐ pÀ Ðwould€imply€a€prior€record€and€the€possibility€of€an€enhanced€punishment.€€Each€instruction€wasÐ \¬ Ðerroneous.€€A€Range€I€sentence€for€a€Class€E€felony€is€no€less€than€one€year€(although€a€lesser€jailÐ H˜ Ðsentence€is€permissible)€and€no€more€than€two.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5).€€A€multipleÐ 4„ Ðoffender€who€qualifies€by€having€between€two€and€four€prior€felony€convictions€within€theÐ  p Ðconviction€class,€a€higher€class,€or€the€next€two€lower€classes€of€the€offense€at€issue€is€a€Range€IIÐ  \ Ðoffender€with€a€possible€sentence€on€a€Class€E€felony€of€between€two€and€four€years€and€a€releaseÐ øH Ðeligibility€of€35%.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„106(a)(1),€„112(b)(5),€„501(d).€€A€persistent€ClassÐ ä4 ÐE€felony€offender,€a€classification€falling€between€the€multiple€and€career€offender€classification,€isÐ Ð  Ða€Range€III€offender€with€a€possible€sentence€of€between€four€and€six€years€and€a€45%€releaseÐ ¼  Ðeligibility.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107.€€òòóóA€career€Class€E€felony€offender,€who€may€qualify€anyÐ ¨ø Ðof€several€ways,€including€by€having€six€prior€felony€convictions€when€the€offense€at€issue€is€a€ClassÐ ”ä ÐE€felony,€is€a€Range€III€offender,€with€a€sentence€of€six€years€and€a€release€eligibility€of€60%.€€Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„108,€„112,€„501(f).€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€charge,€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€expressed€concern€that€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court€provided€a€Range€II€instruction€with€a€35%€release€eligibility€date€when€the€state€hadÐ 0"€  Ðgiven€notice€that€"[the€defendant]€could€be€a€[Range€III]€career€offender,"€even€though€the€defendantÐ #l! Ðhad€"not€acknowledge[d]€that€he€was€.€.€.€the€named€defendant€in€all€of€these€[prior]€charges."€€AÐ $X" Ðcareer€offender,€of€course,€is€entitled€to€no€less€than€a€60%€release€eligibility.€€Another€possibleÐ ô$D # Ðconcern€was€whether€any€of€the€defendant's€prior€offenses€had€been€committed€"within€twenty„fourÐ à%0!$ Ð(24)€hours€of€each€other,"€which€might€have€had€an€effect€on€the€ultimate€classification.€€BecauseÐ Ì&"% Ðsome€of€the€convictions€were€out„of„county€and€had€not€been€received€at€the€time€of€trial,€the€stateÐ ¸'#& Ðcould€not€ascertain€the€appropriate€range.€€The€defendant,€who€did€not€contest€the€jury€charge€of€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpossible€two„€to€six„year€sentence,€contended€that€his€request€for€instructions€pertained€only€to€"howÐ )à$( Ðmany€years€[he]€face[d]€if€.€.€.€convicted."€€While€these€conversations€took€place€after€the€instructionsÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€before€the€return€of€the€verdict,€the€trial€court€took€no€remedial€action.€€Later,€at€the€sentencingÐ h+¸&* Ðhearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€qualified€as€a€career€offender€and€imposed€theÐ ° Ðmaximum€possible€sentence€with€the€60%€release€eligibility.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.€1991),€our€supreme€court€considered€whether€theÐ tÄ Ðtrial€court€committed€prejudicial€error€by€charging€possible€punishment€for€a€Range€I€offender€whenÐ `° Ðthe€defendant€was€actually€a€Range€II€offender.€€Unlike€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€in€òòCookóó€chargedÐ L œ Ða€range€of€sentence€which€had€an€incorrect€maximum,€far€less€than€that€required€by€statute.€€UponÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcluding€that€a€criminal€defendant€has€a€€statutory€right€to€an€accurate€instruction€on€the€possibleÐ $ t Ðrange€of€possible€punishments,€the€court€concluded€that€the€error€resulted€in€"prejudice€to€the€judicialÐ  ` Ðprocess"€and€merited€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€327.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€reasoned€that€anyÐ ü L  Ðrights€or€benefits€conferred€by€the€statute€"would€be€lost€if€the€defendant€were€to€be€sentenced€toÐ è 8  Ðpunishments€greater€than€what€the€jury€finding€guilt€was€instructed€would€be€imposed."€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ Ô$  ÐòòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àBecause€the€same€rationale€would€apply€here,€the€ruling€in€òòCookóó€controls.€€The€trial€courtÐ ˜è  Ðinstructed€the€jury€that€the€sentence€could€be€served€at€Range€II,€35%€or,€assuming€the€maximumÐ „Ô  Ðpossible€term,€within€25.2€months.€€A€career€offender,€however,€€requires€a€six„year€sentence;€theÐ pÀ Ðearliest€release€is€43.2€months.€€There€is€no€discernible€distinction€between€an€erroneous€instructionÐ \¬ Ðfor€a€lesser€term€of€years€and€an€erroneous€instruction€for€a€lesser€eligibility€date.€€Because,€in€theÐ H˜ Ðwords€of€our€supreme€court,€the€error€relates€to€the€"judicial€process,"€a€reversal€and€a€new€trial€isÐ 4„ Ðwarranted.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  p ÐÌà@……)ìàVIˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€make€proper€findingsÐ Ð  Ðand€failed€to€properly€apply€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€as€prescribed€by€statute.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€specifically€complains€about€the€trial€court's€reliance€upon€references€in€the€presentenceÐ ¨ø Ðreport€to€prior€convictions€unaccompanied€by€certified€copies€of€the€judgments.€€Because€there€wasÐ ”ä Ðno€objection€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€relies€upon€the€plain€error€doctrine.€€In€supportÐ €Ð Ðof€his€contention,€the€defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€in€which€this€court€stated,€in€pertinent€part,€asÐ l¼ Ðfollows:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€incumbent€upon€the€state€to€provide€evidence€of€sufficient€qualityÐ 0"€  Ðto€allow€the€trial€court€to€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€separateÐ #l! Ðconvictions,€as€limited€by€the€enhanced€sentencing€statute,€exist.€Ð $X" ÐOrdinarily,€this€should€mean€that€the€state€should€show€sufficientÐ ô$D # Ðcircumstances€surrounding€offenses€resulting€in€multiple€convictionsÐ à%0!$ Ðin€the€same€proceeding€so€as€to€justify€each€conviction€being€treatedÐ Ì&"% Ðseparately.и'#&` x` x Ї901€S.W.2d€393,€397€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(quoting€òòState€v.€Dale€E.€Phillipsóó,€No.€01C01„9303„Ð ° ÐCC„00106,€slip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Dec.€30,€1993)).€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àComputer€printouts€from€the€NCIC€are€not€admissible€as€a€substitute€for€certified€copies€ofÐ tÄ Ðcourt€convictions€or€for€any€other€purpose.€€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€607€(Tenn.€1984).€€TheÐ `° Ðsentencing€act,€however,€permits€the€introduction€of€"reliable€hearsay."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð L œ Ð209(b).€€To€qualify€as€reliable,€the€evidence€must€be€presented€in€such€a€manner€as€to€give€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðopposing€party€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€rebut€it.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€921€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCrim.€App.€1987).€€€Ô‡XèÞXXXèÞÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€theÐ è 8  Ðduty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÐ Ô$  Ðthe€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€uponÐ À  Ðthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ ¬ü  Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð ˜è  ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€"If€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factors€or€otherwiseÐ „Ô  Ðfails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls."€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencingÐ  p Ðhearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counselÐ  \ Ðrelative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigatingÐ øH Ðor€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€record€in€this€case€demonstratesÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€trial€court€made€adequate€findings€of€fact.€Ð ¨ø ÐÔ#†XèÞXXXèÞß§#ÔÌà  àAlthough€classified€as€a€Range€II€offender€for€purposes€of€the€jury€instructions,€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðwas€sentenced€as€a€Range€III,€career€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„108(c).€€When€aÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€is€sentenced€for€a€Class€D€or€E€felony,€he€qualifies€as€a€career€offender€if€his€prior€recordÐ X ¨ Ðincludes€at€least€six€prior€felony€convictions€in€any€classification.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð D!” Ð108(a)(3).€€The€defendant's€objection€to€being€so€classified€is€based€upon€inadequacies€within€theÐ 0"€  Ðsupporting€documents;€however,€original€or€certified€copies€of€court€records€of€prior€felonyÐ #l! Ðconvictions€bearing€the€same€name€as€the€defendant€are€"prima€facie€evidence€that€the€defendantÐ $X" Ðnamed€therein€is€the€same€as€the€defendant€before€the€court,€and€[are]€prima€facie€evidence€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðfacts€set€out€therein."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a).€€That€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€lackÐ à%0!$ Ðof€certification€of€the€judgments€is€a€waiver.€€The€failure€at€trial€to€take€action€reasonably€necessaryÐ Ì&"% Ðto€prevent€or€nullify€the€error€precludes€appellate€relief.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Had€there€beenÐ ¸'#& Ðserious€concerns€about€the€accuracy€of€the€prior€convictions€or€the€identity€of€the€defendant,€the€stateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcould€have€been€granted€time€to€verify€the€documentation€or€gain€other€assurances€of€authenticity.€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àWhile€Sharon€Scott,€who€prepared€the€presentence€report,€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÐ h+¸&* Ðmore€than€20€prior€convictions,€including€felonies€and€misdemeanors,€the€state€was€required€to€proveÐ ° Ðonly€six€in€order€to€establish€the€defendant€as€a€career€offender.€€Certified€copies€of€judgments€andÐ œì Ðcourt€minutes€establish€the€following€prior€felony€convictions:Ð ˆØ ÐÌòòò òDateà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àOffenseà0h¸ (#¸ (#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà  àCourt€Number€ó óóóÐ`°È(#È(# ÐÌ5„8„75à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àConcealing€Stolen€Property€under€$100€à0ȸ (#¸ (#àà0 È(#È(#àDavidson€Criminal€Ð8 ˆ (# (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àB„4146€Ð $ t ÐÌ2„15„77à0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àAttempt€to€Commit€a€Felony€and€Assaultà0ȸ (#¸ (#àà0 È(#È(#àDavidson€Criminal€Ðü L  (# (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àwith€Intent€to€Commit€Second€Degree€Murderà0  àB„9284€and€B„9283Ðè 8  (# (# ÐÌ6„20„79€à0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àFraudulent€Use€of€an€Automobile€à0p¸ (#¸ (#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#àDavidson€CriminalÐÀ  (# (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àC„3928€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌ7„26„88à0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àPossession€of€Burglary€Tools€à0p¸ (#¸ (#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#àDavidson€Criminal€Ð„Ô  (# (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  à88„W„636€Ð pÀ ÐÌ10„22„93à0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àTheft€of€Property€à0À¸ (#¸ (#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#àMontgomery€Circuit€ÐH˜ (# (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  à32560Ð 4„ ÐÌ4„3„95à  àà ` àà ¸ àTheft€over€$1,000€and€Escapeà0 p àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#àWarren€Circuit€F„6791Ð \ (# (# ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€certified€copies€of€the€court€minutes€and€judgments€and€the€testimony€offeredÐ ä4 Ðby€Ms.€Scott,€the€trial€court€had€a€basis€upon€which€to€determine€that€the€defendant€had€at€least€sixÐ Ð  Ðprior€felony€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Anthony€D.€Hinesóó,€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00189€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¼  ÐApp.,€at€Nashville,€May€25,€1995).€€In€our€view,€the€defendant€was€properly€classified€a€Range€III,Ð ¨ø Ðcareer€offender€and€is€not€be€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€is€reversed,€however,€due€to€the€inaccurate€range€of€punishment.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€is€granted€a€new€trial.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€Ð ô$D # Ð