ÿWPC†e =F™§†˜W3 k©œ Œ>ìÿÇ=Ðñ'gu3Sk  »õ¤§£˜4¡ïD-nô²Hì7‘Ïg[ºÑçÜ}Š?šŽŽ†/ùꟻp\<äf¿ªÿazÆ'f6S"Ëë(à&iL(~~;r€oºHÂs©ÆÑuŸ*\Ðg¦×} L_øíôÔZ)²èÍúê«·¬hqû>¢Úõ Œ9„ÎÝcá²€œ>õ8Ñ”•_â:äE_:F¥Í‚?g5DáÆ6ÍË™“*÷ùW’G ¾©ð¤ e¢ƒ‘U´f†ï”['ÛÎ=ýœÀøŒ'vÚõ~^)˜hЧKJ¤ãŠjYÓø‡¥kŒßÞ³úeÎfS•Ué¹]ÙüZgÿûhà5·É]ñ©ƒ¢niï“Áû[m„ CB,k§È1=m¤Õ ªeùÊûl®KÂ|™s‘ÿØH“|Óþ+3}ùü*¨åß+ÄfoUšÇ0Véª#ÉL %N 0ˆU N¥U@ó 0U3 zˆÒ zÔÒNN  0ã"ÆÆËÆ‘ÆW 0ÅNâ zäÒ^N0 0¿2 0¹ñ zªÒ$ 0³öE©N« 0­­ 0§Z zÒ{NM 0¡O 0Åð zµÒ/ N! 0Ñ! 0³Ô! 0­‡" z4#Ò®#N€$b‚$ 0§Š$ 0¡1% zÒ%ÒL&N' 0› ' 0•»' zP(ÒÊ(Nœ) 0ž) 0Â+* zí*Òg+N9, 0Î;, 0° - z¹-Ò3.N/ 0ª/ 0¤±/ zU0ÒÏ0N¡1 0ž£1 0˜A2 zÙ2ÒS3N%4 0’'4 0й4 zC5Ò½5^ 6 0ë›6w†74Š7ž7 B­7Ê7 0¤Ì7 D5p8 D-¥8 0KÒ8 m9 AS49Ƈ9 0¤M: 0Dñ: A«5;Nà; 0²â; 0¾”< zR=ÒÌ=Nž> 0¾ > 0>^? zœ?Ò@Nè@ 0øê@ 0ââA zÄBÒ>CND 0âD 0âôD zÖEÒPFN"G 0â$G 0âH zèHÒbIN4J 0º6J 0ÒðJ zÂKÒNÒ¸NNŠO 0:ŒO 0YÆO zPÒ™PNkQ 0_mQ 0 ÌQ zÖRÒPS 0‚"T 0¤U B*ªW D/ÔW 0X D/ Z 0Î8Z 06[ 0<[ 0:D\ 0^~\ 0<Ü\ 1e] 0N}]U6Ë]U>^U*?^UNi^6·^Kía 0D8d8d8d8d 1u|d 72ñd 0c#e˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à ˜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*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó˜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*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó˜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*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó!˜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*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&˜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*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó,˜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- ù-*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó2˜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*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó7˜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(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<˜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(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  ÓA˜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(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ ÓF˜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(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h ÓK˜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()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  ÓP˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt¶“’/Ï (|G2ÒŒ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëmò»»Ôóbï.Y2A103|x d(|3‡—$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡—$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Óf˜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<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóók˜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(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Óp˜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(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Óu˜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(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Óz˜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.wpt2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó˜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,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ„˜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.wpt4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô‰˜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<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó óŽ˜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<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€’(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡Ÿ%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d d‘)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€”(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡Ÿ%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó‘)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡žô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô$()*/045 ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular curtilageSHORTTBeckner P.J.TiptonMaryvilleMarecicbaggiesMurrell TBIhemostatswarrantlessRangely OdomGoforth CrimRoodeT]hereCiraoloPrierhelicopter[smeritlessthat thatJennetteO]pen S.W. T]heGoswickByrgeLiakas i]tm]anufacturerelabelingAshbySheltonExcedrinD]eterrence a]nd W]eRangleyDepewCrumley AÝ ƒRÒŒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€also€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€the€TBI€report€identified€the€plantÐ ° Ðsubstance€as€ð ðmarihuanaðð€spelled€with€an€ð ðhðð€rather€than€a€ð ðj.ðð€€This€argument€is€meritless€insofar€as€both€spellings€areÐ tÄ Ðacceptable€references€to€the€cannabis€plant.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„402;€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€967€(6òòthóó€ed.Ð 8ˆ Ð1990).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)§i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼_ý»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼_ý»»¼_ýÔà@ttìàÔ‡îǼ_ýÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼_ý»îîǼ+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€22,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼_ýÔÌò òÔ#†¼_ý»XX2#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóCHARLES€RAY€SHORTTÔ‡XX»¼_ýÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hawkins€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8024€€€€€€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02184„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€18,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Charles€Ray€Shortt,€was€convicted€of€manufacturing€marijuana,€a€Class€D€felony,€andÐ xÈ  Ðpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„Ð d´ Ð417(a)(1),€(g)(2),€39„17„425.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€concurrent€terms€of€twoÐ P  Ðyears€and€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€respectively.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendantÐ <Œ Ðasserts€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€evidence€of€the€drugs€andÐ (x Ðparaphernalia;€(2)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€manufacturingÐ d Ðmarijuana;€and€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€an€alternative€sentence.€€The€judgments€ofÐ P Ðthe€trial€court€are€affirmed.Ð ì< ÐÓÖÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼_ý»àX¬#ÔÔ‡XX.¼_ýÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòNormaÐ œì ÐMcGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌRobert€W.€White,€Maryville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Charles€Ray€Shortt.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Brent€C.€Cherry,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ 8!ˆ  ÐJack€Marecic,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÓ¿ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_ý»XXî#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_ýÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼_ý»XXP #ÔÔ‡XX»¼_ýÔÓ  Óà  àOn€September€18,€2001,€while€piloting€a€helicopter€over€the€Poor€Valley€community€ofÐ Ô%$!% ÐHawkins€County,€sheriffððs€department€Lieutenant€Bob€Crumley€Ô#†¼_ý»XX® #ÔÔ€XX»¼_ýÔobserved€what€he€believed€to€beÐ À&"& Ðseveral€marijuana€plants€growing€on€property€owned€by€the€defendant.€€After€obtaining€a€searchÐ ¬'ü"' Ðwarrant€based€upon€this€surveillance,€officers€seized€seventeen€marijuana€plants€and€scales,€plasticÐ ˜(è#( Ðbaggies,€and€other€paraphernalia.€€The€defendant€was€indicted€for€manufacture€of€marijuana€andÐ „)Ô$) Ðpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia.Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Lieutenant€Crumley€testified€that€as€part€of€his€duties,€he€routinely€flew€a€helicopterÐ H,˜', Ðto€assist€with€manhunts,€marijuana€eradication,€and€crime€scene€photography.€€He€recalled€that€whenÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôhe€first€observed€the€marijuana€plants€on€the€defendantððs€property,€he€and€Deputy€Gary€Murrell,€whoÐ ° Ðwas€with€him,€had€just€taken€some€photographs€in€Stanley€Valley€and€were€flying€over€the€lowerÐ œì Ðportion€of€Poor€Valley€in€search€of€some€stolen€property.€€Because€of€the€September€11€attacks€onÐ ˆØ Ðthe€World€Trade€Center,€which€had€taken€place€one€week€earlier,€a€flight€plan€was€required€and€theirÐ tÄ Ðair€time€had€been€restricted.€€The€lieutenant€recalled€that€he€had€to€maintain€an€altitude€of€at€leastÐ `° Ð3,000€feet€above€sea€level,€or€approximately€1,700€feet€above€the€ground,€in€order€to€remain€inÐ L œ Ðcontact€with€the€Tri„Cities€airport.€€He€explained€that€because€he€was€not€on€a€marijuana€eradicationÐ 8 ˆ Ðmission,€a€ground€crew€was€not€at€his€disposal€and€so€he€had€to€arrange€for€Detective€Brad€DepewÐ $ t Ðto€meet€him€near€the€defendantððs€property.€€When€the€detective€arrived,€Lieutenant€Crumley€providedÐ  ` Ðdirections€to€the€marijuana€plants.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDetective€Depew,€who€arrived€at€the€defendantððs€property€approximately€twenty€minutesÐ Ô$  Ðafter€receiving€Lieutenant€Crumleyððs€radio€call,€walked€to€a€double„wide€mobile€home,€identifiedÐ À  Ðhimself,€and€knocked€on€the€door€several€times€but€received€no€answer.€€According€to€DetectiveÐ ¬ü  ÐDepew,€Lieutenant€Crumley€then€radioed€that€he€had€to€leave€the€area€due€to€his€limited€flight€timeÐ ˜è  Ðand€provided€directions€to€the€marijuana€plants,€which€were€located€in€a€field€across€a€low,€three„Ð „Ô  Ðstrand€electric€fence.€€Several€game€chickens€and€coops€were€located€nearby.€€The€detective€foundÐ pÀ Ðthe€plants,€which€ranged€from€two„and„one„half€to€eight€feet€in€height.€€Some€were€inside€the€electricÐ \¬ Ðfence€and€some€just€outside€near€the€edge€of€the€field,€approximately€100€to€120€feet€from€theÐ H˜ Ðdouble„wide€trailer.€€By€the€time€Detective€Depew€returned€to€the€double„wide€trailer,€CaptainÐ 4„ ÐRonnie€Lawson€had€arrived€at€the€scene€to€assist.€€Each€knocked€on€the€door€several€times€andÐ  p Ðidentified€themselves€but€received€no€answer.€€Detective€Depew,€who€had€seen€the€blinds€coveringÐ  \ Ðone€of€the€trailerððs€windows€move,€testified€that€when€he€turned€the€doorknob€and€allowed€the€door,Ð øH Ðwhich€was€not€locked,€to€swing€open,€he€encountered€the€defendantððs€wife,€Paula€Shortt.€€AfterÐ ä4 Ðexplaining€that€he€had€found€marijuana€on€the€property,€he€requested€permission€to€conduct€a€search.€Ð Ð  ÐShe€declined.€€The€detective€then€placed€Ms.€Shortt€under€arrest€and€Captain€Lawson€left€to€acquireÐ ¼  Ða€search€warrant.€€Upon€Captain€Lawsonððs€return€with€the€warrant,€Detective€Depew€removedÐ ¨ø Ðseventeen€marijuana€plants€from€the€defendantððs€property.€€After€drying€and€packaging€the€plants,Ð ”ä Ðhe€shipped€them€to€the€TBI€Crime€Laboratory,€which€found€the€weight€of€the€marijuana€to€be€658.5Ð €Ð Ðgrams.€€Detective€Depew€acknowledged€that€he€drew€his€weapon€when€he€saw€Ms.€Shortt€standingÐ l¼ Ðbehind€a€wall.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àDeputy€Murrell,€who€testified€that€the€helicopter€was€at€an€altitude€of€roughly€2,000€feetÐ 0"€  Ðabove€ground€when€Lieutenant€Crumley€first€observed€the€marijuana€plants,€returned€by€car€to€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantððs€property€to€assist€with€execution€of€the€search€warrant.€€He€confirmed€that€the€officersÐ $X" Ðat€the€scene€discovered€an€outbuilding€with€tool€boxes€containing€drying€marijuana,€scales,Ð ô$D # Ðhemostats,€plastic€baggies,€rolling€papers,€hand„rolled€marijuana€cigarettes€that€had€been€burned,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðplant€fertilizer.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àKenneth€Myers,€a€private€investigator,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense€that€he€had€arrangedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€a€helicopter€flight€over€the€defendantððs€property€and€had€taken€aerial€photographs€from€anÐ )à$( Ðaltitude€of€3000€feet.€€He€introduced€the€photographs€as€well€as€a€videotape€made€during€his€flight.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àNancy€Gibson,€a€neighbor€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€she€had€known€the€defendant€forÐ ° Ðeighteen€years€but€had€never€known€him€to€grow€marijuana.€€Earl€Rangley,€Jr.,€another€neighbor,Ð œì Ðtestified€that€he€was€also€unaware€that€the€defendant€had€marijuana€on€his€property.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@ÍÍ*ìàIˆÐ `° Ðà  àInitially,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppressÐ L œ Ðevidence€of€the€drugs€and€paraphernalia€seized€by€the€deputies.€€He€argues€that€the€officersððÐ 8 ˆ Ðobservation€from€the€helicopter€and€Detective€Depewððs€initial€entry€qualified€as€warrantless€searchesÐ $ t Ðconducted€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÐ  ` Ðand€Article€I,€section€7,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion,Ð Ô$  ÐLieutenant€Crumley€explained€that€he€was€returning€from€a€ð ðphoto€flightðð€in€the€upper€end€of€StanleyÐ À  ÐValley€when€he€saw€the€marijuana€plants€on€what€he€later€learned€was€the€defendantððs€property.€€HeÐ ¬ü  Ðestimated€that€he€was€flying€at€an€altitude€of€approximately€3,000€feet€when€he€first€observed€theÐ ˜è  Ðplants,€specifically€recalling€that€airspace€had€been€restricted€as€a€result€of€the€September€11€WorldÐ „Ô  ÐTrade€Center€attack€and€that€he€was€required€to€stay€in€contact€with€the€Tri„City€control€tower.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðlieutenant€testified€that€he€did€not€land€the€helicopter€on€the€defendantððs€property€and€contended€thatÐ \¬ Ðhe€flew€no€lower€than€300€feet€while€he€was€by€radio€directing€officers€on€the€ground€to€the€locationÐ H˜ Ðof€the€marijuana€plants.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àDeputy€Murrell,€who€was€not€a€trained€pilot,€estimated€that€the€altitude€of€the€helicopterÐ  \ Ðwhile€flying€over€Poor€Valley€was€1,800€to€2,000€feet.€€He€also€contended€that€after€having€seen€theÐ øH Ðmarijuana€plants,€the€helicopter€got€no€lower€than€200€to€300€feet€off€the€ground.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àDetective€Depew€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€had€identified€himself€as€aÐ ¼  Ðdeputy€sheriff€and€knocked€on€the€front€door€of€the€double„wide€mobile€home€for€two€to€threeÐ ¨ø Ðminutes,€receiving€no€answer.€€He€described€how€Lieutenant€Crumley,€who€was€in€the€air€above€theÐ ”ä Ðproperty,€directed€him€to€the€marijuana,€leading€him€into€a€field,€across€a€footbridge,€and€to€a€ð ðveryÐ €Ð Ðshort,€three„strand€electric€fence.ðð€€He€found€five€marijuana€plants€outside€the€fence€and€twelveÐ l¼ Ðinside.€€Detective€Depew€estimated€that€the€helicopter€was€at€an€altitude€of€200€to€250€feet€at€theÐ X ¨ Ðtime.€€According€to€the€detective,€it€was€only€after€he€knocked,€identified€himself,€and€waitedÐ D!” Ðwithout€answer€that€he€opened€the€door€and€found€the€defendantððs€wife€inside.€€Detective€DepewÐ 0"€  Ðstated€that€he€then€secured€the€residence€and€placed€Ms.€Shortt€in€custody.€€He€contended€that€thereÐ #l! Ðwas€no€damage€to€or€disruption€of€the€defendantððs€property€as€a€result€of€the€helicopterððs€flight.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àPaula€Shortt€€testified€that€she€heard€a€loud€helicopter€fly€over€at€approximately€1:30€p.m.Ð à%0!$ Ðon€the€afternoon€of€September€18.€€She€stated€that€she€had€locked€the€front€door€and€taken€a€fifteen„Ð Ì&"% Ðto€twenty„minute€shower€before€she€heard€her€dogs€barking€and€a€helicopter€that€sounded€ð ða€lotÐ ¸'#& Ðlouder.ðð€€Ms.€Shortt€contended€that€when€she€looked€out€the€window,€she€saw€police€cars€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdriveway€and€a€helicopter€just€above€a€poplar€tree,€which€she€estimated€to€be€sixty€to€sixty„five€feetÐ )à$( Ðâ âin€height.€€She€claimed€that€she€then€dressed€and€was€placing€a€telephone€call€to€her€husband€whenÐ |*Ì%) ÐDetective€Depew€came€in€the€front€door€with€his€gun€drawn.€€Ms.€Shortt€acknowledged€that€she€hadÐ ° Ðnot€seen€anything€on€the€property€blown€over€by€the€wind€generated€by€the€helicopter.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àNancy€Gibson,€who€lived€approximately€two€to€three€hundred€feet€from€the€residence€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant,€testified€for€the€defense€that€the€helicopter€ð ðsounded€like€it€was€going€to€take€the€roof€offÐ `° Ðthe€house.ðð€€She€claimed€that€the€reverberations€jarred€the€pictures€and€other€items€she€had€hangingÐ L œ Ðon€her€walls.€€Ms.€Gibson€contended€that€the€helicopter,€at€a€height€of€fifty€to€sixty€feet,€ð ðwas€eitherÐ 8 ˆ Ðcrashing€or€trying€to€land,€it€was€so€low.ððÐ $ t ÐÌà  àDefense€witness€Earl€Rangley,€Jr.,€testified€that€his€residence€is€located€approximately€two„Ð ü L  Ðtenths€of€a€mile€from€that€of€the€defendant.€€He€remembered€that€the€helicopter€ð ðcome€down€theÐ è 8  Ðvalley€and€circled€aroundðð€and€then€ð ðstarted€going€around€over€our€houses.ðð€€Rangely€estimated€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€helicopter€was€flying€no€more€than€fifty€to€sixty€feet€above€the€ground.€€Kathleen€Collins,€whoÐ À  Ðlived€on€the€same€road€as€the€defendant,€testified€that€the€helicopter€flew€over€her€residence,Ð ¬ü  Ðfrightening€her€chickens,€and€traveled€in€the€vicinity€of€Rangleyððs€residence.€€Using€a€balloon€as€aÐ ˜è  Ðmeasurement€aid,€Ms.€Collins€and€some€of€her€neighbors€estimated€the€helicopterððs€altitude€at€fifty„Ð „Ô  Ðfour€feet€above€the€ground.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€holding€asÐ H˜ Ðfollows:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà ` àNow,€I€find€that€the€credible€evidence€in€this€case€is€.€.€.€[that]€LieutenantÐ  \ ÐCrumley€was€flying€a€helicopter€over€a€thousand€feet€from€the€ground,€not€lookingÐ øH Ðfor€the€defendantððs€property€or€to€determine€if€the€defendant€was€growing€marijuana,Ð ä4 Ðbut€in€flying€another€mission€.€.€.€in€air€space€in€which€there€is€no€right€of€privacy€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€person[,]€where€they€have€a€right€to€be€and€can€observe€whatever€is€to€beÐ ¼  Ðobserved€on€the€ground.€€Ð¨øÐ Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ ”ä Ðà8  àUnder€the€plain€view€doctrine,€the€helicopter€pilot,€if€he€could€have€done€so€safely,Ð €Ð Ðcould€have€landed€on€the€ground€and€seized€the€marijuana€because€he€was€where€heÐ l¼ Ðhad€a€right€to€be,€there€was€no€right€of€privacy,€he€could€see€contraband,€he€had€aÐ X ¨ Ðright€to€seize€it,€and€that€excuses€the€warrant€requirement.€€He,€apparently,€couldnððtÐ D!” Ðsafely€land€on€the€ground.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ #l! Ðà8  àAnd€there€were€exigent€circumstances€there,€without€any€question€because€had€he€leftÐ $X" Ðthe€scene,€had€he€just€marked€it€.€.€.€and€gone€off,€once€he€had€lowered€himself€andÐ ô$D # Ðmade€it€obvious€ð!ð€and,€apparently,€it€was€obvious€to€people€around€there€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðhelicopters€look€for€marijuana€in€that€area;€at€least€thatððs€what€the€evidence€was€ð!ð€itððsÐ Ì&"% Ðvery€likely€that€marijuana€would€not€have€been€there€when€somebody€came€back,€ifÐ ¸'#& Ðheððd€left€it€and€let€it€get€out€of€his€sight€and€gone€off€somewhere€else.€€So€he€keptÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthere,€which€he€had€a€right€to€do.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€standard€of€review€applicable€to€suppression€issues€is€well€established.€When€the€trialÐ ° Ðâ âcourt€makes€a€finding€of€facts€at€the€conclusion€of€a€suppression€hearing,€the€facts€are€accorded€theÐ œì Ðweight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€trial€courtððsÐ ˆØ Ðfindings€are€binding€upon€this€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€Ð tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544;€òòState€v.Ð `° ÐGoforthóó,€678€S.W.2d€477,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Questions€of€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÐ L œ Ðweight€and€value€of€€the€evidence€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€The€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ $ t Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÐ  ` Ðlegitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€351€(1967),Ô‡žXXXXÔ€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€heldÐ Ô$  Ðthat€because€the€fourth€amendment€protects€people€rather€than€places,€areas€exposed€to€the€publicÐ À  Ðare€not€subject€to€constitutional€protections.€€ð ðAccordingly,€when€evaluating€whether€a€particularÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant's€Fourth€Amendment€rights€have€been€violated,€we€look€to€two€inquiries:€€(1)€whether€theÐ ˜è  Ðindividual,€by€his€conduct,€has€ð ðexhibited€an€actual€(subjective)€expectation€of€privacy,ðð€and€(2)Ð „Ô  Ðwhether€the€individualððs€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€is€ð ðone€that€society€is€prepared€toÐ pÀ Ðrecognize€as€ððreasonable.ðððð€òòState€v.€Rossóó,€49€S.W.3d€833,€840€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€and€footnoteÐ \¬ Ðomitted).€€In€òòState€v.€Roodeóó,€643€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1982),€officers€seized€marijuana€plants€foundÐ H˜ Ðon€the€defendantððs€property€after€initial€observation€during€a€helicopter€overflight.€€The€defendant,Ð 4„ Ðwho€was€convicted€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell,€argued€that€the€helicopterÐ  p Ðsurveillance€violated€his€constitutionally€protected€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€€On€appeal,Ð  \ Ðthe€conviction€was€affirmed€by€both€this€court€and€our€supreme€court,€which€held€that€because€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€had€no€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy,€the€helicopter€overflight€did€not€result€in€aÐ ä4 Ðconstitutional€violation:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[T]here€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€appellant€had€a€reasonableÐ ¨ø Ðexpectation€of€immunity€from€overflight.€€While€appellantððs€farm€is€located€in€aÐ ”ä Ðremote€section€of€Cannon€County,€it€lies€near€a€federally€designated€flight€path.€€Lt.Ð €Ð ÐDover€was€attempting€to€follow€this€flight€path€in€returning€to€his€home€base€inÐ l¼ ÐNashville,€when€he€saw€the€fields€of€marijuana€under€cultivation.€€Lt.€Dover€was€inÐ X ¨ Ða€place€where€he€had€a€right€to€be€when€he€observed€criminal€activity,€clearlyÐ D!” Ðrecognizable€as€such,€on€the€property€of€appellant.€€This€being€so,€his€aerialÐ 0"€  Ðobservation€did€not€constitute€a€ð ðsearchðð€as€contemplated€by€the€Fourth€AmendmentÐ #l! Ðof€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÐ $X" ÐConstitution.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óóat€651€(citation€omitted).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÔ#†XXXžX¶E#Ôà  àIn€òòCalifornia€v.€Ciraoloóó,€476€U.S.€207€(1986),€police€received€an€anonymous€telephone€tipÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€the€defendant€was€growing€marijuana€in€his€backyard,€which€was€surrounded€by€a€six„foot€outerÐ )à$( Ðfence€and€a€ten„foot€inner€fence.€€Officers€secured€a€private€plane€and,€flying€at€an€altitude€of€1000Ð |*Ì%) Ðfeet,€identified€marijuana€plants€on€the€property.€€Later,€the€officers€obtained€a€search€warrant€andÐ h+¸&* Ðseized€a€total€of€seventy„three€plants.€€The€trial€court€initially€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€toÐ ° Ðsuppress,€but€the€California€court€of€appeals€reversed,€finding€that€the€warrantless€aerial€observationÐ œì Ðviolated€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€When€the€California€supreme€court€denied€review,€the€UnitedÐ ˆØ ÐStates€Supreme€Court€granted€certiorari€and€reversed,€concluding€that€the€defendant€had€noÐ tÄ Ðreasonable€expectation€of€privacy:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` àThat€the€area€is€within€the€curtilage€does€not€itself€bar€all€police€observation.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€Fourth€Amendment€protection€of€the€home€has€never€been€extended€to€requireÐ $ t Ðlaw€enforcement€officers€to€shield€their€eyes€when€passing€by€a€home€on€publicÐ  ` Ðthoroughfares.€€Nor€does€the€mere€fact€that€an€individual€has€taken€measures€toÐ ü L  Ðrestrict€some€views€of€his€activities€preclude€an€officerððs€observations€from€a€publicÐ è 8  Ðvantage€point€where€he€has€a€right€to€be€and€which€renders€the€activities€clearlyÐ Ô$  Ðvisible.€€ð ðWhat€a€person€knowingly€exposes€to€the€public,€even€in€his€own€home€orÐ À  Ðoffice,€is€not€a€subject€of€Fourth€Amendment€protection.ððЬü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€observations€by€[the€officers]€in€this€case€took€place€within€publicÐ „Ô  Ðnavigable€airspace€.€.€.€in€a€physically€nonintrusive€manner;€from€this€point€they€wereÐ pÀ Ðable€to€observe€plants€readily€discernible€to€the€naked€eye€as€marijuana.€That€theÐ \¬ Ðobservation€from€aircraft€was€directed€at€identifying€the€plants€and€the€officers€wereÐ H˜ Ðtrained€to€recognize€marijuana€is€irrelevant.€€Such€observation€is€precisely€what€aÐ 4„ Ðjudicial€officer€needs€to€provide€a€basis€for€a€warrant.€€Any€member€of€the€publicÐ  p Ðflying€in€this€airspace€who€glanced€down€could€have€seen€everything€that€theseÐ  \ Ðofficers€observed.€€On€this€record,€we€readily€conclude€that€[the€defendantððs]Ð øH Ðexpectation€that€his€garden€was€protected€from€such€observation€is€unreasonable€andÐ ä4 Ðis€not€an€expectation€that€society€is€prepared€to€honor.ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ ¼  Ðà8  àIn€an€age€where€private€and€commercial€flight€in€the€public€airways€is€routine,€it€isÐ ¨ø Ðunreasonable€for€respondent€to€expect€that€his€marijuana€plants€were€constitutionallyÐ ”ä Ðprotected€from€being€observed€with€the€naked€eye€from€an€altitude€of€1,000€feet.€€TheÐ €Ð ÐFourth€Amendment€simply€does€not€require€the€police€traveling€in€the€public€airwaysÐ l¼ Ðat€this€altitude€to€obtain€a€warrant€in€order€to€observe€what€is€visible€to€the€naked€eye.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌ476€U.S.€at€216„17,€218€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóóòòState€v.€Prieróó,€725€S.W.2d€667,€671€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  Ð1987)€(adopting€the€holding€in€òòCiraoloóó€and€stating€that€no€greater€protection€is€afforded€by€theÐ #l! ÐTennessee€Constitution).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€William€D.€Ware€and€Virginia€Wareóó,€No.€01C01„9803„CC„00129€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à%0!$ ÐApp.,€at€Nashville,€June€11,€1999),€the€defendants,€who€were€convicted€of€manufacturing€marijuanaÐ Ì&"% Ðand€LSD,€asserted€on€appeal€that€helicopter€surveillance€of€their€property€from€an€altitude€of€300€feetÐ ¸'#& Ðhad€resulted€in€a€violation€of€their€constitutional€rights.€€Testimony€showed€that€officers€had€initiallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðobserved€marijuana€plants€on€the€defendantsðð€property€while€flying€over€by€helicopter€at€an€altitudeÐ )à$( Ðâ âof€900€feet.€€For€confirmation,€they€had€then€flown€over€at€an€altitude€of€300€feet.€€The€trial€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðdenied€the€motion€to€suppress€and,€on€appeal,€this€court€held€that€the€officersðð€observation€of€theÐ ° Ðmarijuana€plants€from€the€helicopter€did€not€constitute€an€unreasonable€search:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€under€òòCiraoloóó€.€.€.,€[the€defendants]€had€no€reasonableÐ tÄ Ðexpectation€that€the€marijuana€on€their€property€was€protected€from€observation€byÐ `° Ðthe€police€from€a€helicopter€flying€at€an€altitude€of€300€feet.€€First,€the€police€wereÐ L œ Ðoperating€the€helicopter€at€a€permissible€altitude.€€Second,€there€is€nothing€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecord€to€suggest€that€helicopter€overflights€at€300€feet€are€sufficiently€rare€in€ruralÐ $ t ÐWayne€County€so€as€to€support€[the€defendantsðð]€theory€that€they€reasonably€believedÐ  ` Ðthat€their€property€would€not€be€observed€by€helicopter.€€In€fact,€Ms.€Ware€testifiedÐ ü L  Ðat€the€suppression€hearing€that€before€the€helicopter€observation€at€issue€here,€she€hadÐ è 8  Ðalready€received€notice€from€Champion€Paper€Company€that€helicopters€would€beÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€area€to€spray€during€August€and€September.€€Further,€Ms.€Ware€testified€thatÐ À  Ðpart€of€the€reason€the€marijuana€was€covered€with€cheesecloth€was€because€inÐ ¬ü  Ðaddition€to€the€Champion€helicopters,€there€might€be€ð ðmarijuana€helicopter[s]ðð€in€theÐ ˜è  Ðarea.€€Third,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€police€helicopter€interferedÐ „Ô  Ðwith€[the€defendantsðð]€use€of€their€property.€€Finally,€there€is€no€evidence€in€theÐ pÀ Ðrecord€that€the€helicopter€surveillance€at€an€altitude€of€300€feet€caused€any€undueÐ \¬ Ðnoise,€or€any€wind,€dust,€or€threat€of€injury.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€concludeÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€helicopter€surveillance€at€300€feet€did€not€violate€[the€defendantsðð]€rightsÐ 4„ Ðunder€the€Fourth€Amendment€or€under€Article€I,€Section€7.€€This€issue€is€meritless.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌòòWareóó,€slip€op.€at€7„8€(footnotes€omitted).Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€by€denying€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€ofÐ Ð  ÐLieutenant€Crumley€and€Deputy€Murrell€that€the€helicopter€was€at€an€altitude€of€at€least€1,700€feetÐ ¼  Ðabove€the€ground€when€the€lieutenant€first€saw€the€plants.€€Lieutenant€Crumley€recalled€that€1,700Ð ¨ø Ðfeet€was€the€minimum€altitude€he€was€required€to€maintain€in€light€of€the€restrictions€on€air€trafficÐ ”ä Ðin€the€immediate€aftermath€of€the€September€11€terrorist€attack.€€Thus,€the€officers€were€operatingÐ €Ð Ðthe€helicopter€within€public€navigable€airspace€at€a€permissible€altitude.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€theÐ l¼ Ðrecord€that€helicopter€surveillance€from€this€altitude€would€have€interfered€with€the€defendantððs€useÐ X ¨ Ðof€his€property.€€Nor€is€there€any€evidence€that€such€helicopter€flights€were€rare€in€the€vicinity€of€theÐ D!” Ðdefendantððs€property.€€Although€neighbors€testified€that€the€helicopter€was€loud,€the€noise€wasÐ 0"€  Ðnaturally€louder€when€the€officers€flew€lower€to€the€ground€in€order€to€direct€Detective€Depew€to€theÐ #l! Ðmarijuana€plants.€€There€was€testimony€from€Earl€Rangely€that€military€helicopters€commonly€flewÐ $X" Ðover€that€area€of€the€valley.€€In€our€view,€Lieutenant€Crumleyððs€observation€of€the€marijuana€plantsÐ ô$D # Ðfrom€the€helicopter€he€was€piloting€over€Poor€Valley€did€not€amount€to€an€unconstitutional€searchÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€defendantððs€property.€€Thus,€the€defendant€had€no€reasonable€expectation€that€the€marijuanaÐ Ì&"% Ðplants€on€his€property€were€protected€from€observation€by€police€flying€in€a€helicopter€at€an€altitudeÐ ¸'#& Ðof€1,700€feet.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€Detective€Depewððs€initial€entry€onto€the€curtilage€of€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðresidence€was€a€warrantless€search€in€violation€of€constitutional€guidelines.€€The€state€argues€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€marijuana€plants€found€on€the€defendantððs€property€were€situated€beyond€the€curtilage€of€theÐ ° Ðresidence€and€were€subject€to€a€warrantless€seizure€under€the€ð ðopen€fieldsðð€doctrine.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Jennetteóó,€706€S.W.2d€614€(Tenn.€1986),€our€high€court€affirmed€the€doctrine€thatÐ tÄ Ðofficers€do€not€need€a€warrant€to€enter€and€search€ð ðopen€fields:ððÐ `° ÐÌà8  àð ð[O]pen€fields€do€not€provide€the€setting€for€those€intimate€activities€that€the€[Fourth]Ð 8 ˆ ÐAmendment€is€intended€to€shelter€from€government€interference€or€surveillance.€Ð $ t ÐThere€is€no€societal€interest€in€protecting€the€privacy€of€those€activities,€such€as€theÐ  ` Ðcultivation€of€crops,€that€occur€in€open€fields.€€Moreover,€as€a€practical€matter€theseÐ ü L  Ðlands€usually€are€accessible€to€the€public€and€the€police€in€ways€that€a€home,€anÐ è 8  Ðoffice€or€commercial€structure€would€not€be.€€It€is€not€generally€true€that€fences€or€noÐ Ô$  Ðtrespassing€signs€effectively€bar€the€public€from€viewing€open€fields€in€rural€areas.Ð À  Ð.€.€.€€€For€these€reasons,€the€asserted€expectation€of€privacy€in€open€fields€is€not€anÐ ¬ü  Ðexpectation€that€ððsociety€recognizes€as€reasonable.ððððИè Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óóat€619€(quoting€òòOliver€v.€United€Statesóó,€466€U.S.€170,€179€(1984)).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOne€year€later,€in€òòState€v.€Prieróó,€our€high€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€motion€toÐ H˜ Ðsuppress€evidence€of€marijuana€plants€seized€in€a€warrantless€entry€at€the€direction€of€an€officer€inÐ 4„ Ða€helicopter€who€had€observed€the€plants€during€an€overflight.€€725€S.W.2d€at€668.€€There€were€threeÐ  p Ðseparate€patches€of€plants€at€various€points€on€the€defendantððs€property.€€The€first€patch€was€locatedÐ  \ Ðin€a€pasture€near€a€barn€and€some€dog€pens,€approximately€fifty€feet€from€the€defendantððs€residence;Ð øH Ðthe€second€was€six€to€seven€paces€from€the€residence€on€the€other€side€of€a€fence;€and€the€third€wasÐ ä4 Ðin€a€garden€twenty„five€yards€from€the€left€rear€corner€of€the€residence.€€In€determining€that€the€plantsÐ Ð  Ðwere€within€the€curtilage€of€the€residence€and,€therefore,€not€subject€to€the€ð ðopen€fieldsðð€doctrine,Ð ¼  Ðour€supreme€court€discussed€curtilage€as€follows:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€òòWelch€v.€Stateóó,€154€Tenn.€60,€64,€289€S.W.€510,€511€(1926),€the€curtilageÐ €Ð Ðwas€defined€as€ð ðthe€space€of€ground€adjoining€the€dwelling€house,€used€in€connectionÐ l¼ Ðtherewith€in€the€conduct€of€family€affairs€and€for€carrying€on€domestic€purposes.ððÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ D!” Ðà8  àð ð[T]he€common€law€distinguished€ððopen€fieldsðð€from€the€ððcurtilage,ðð€the€landÐ 0"€  Ðimmediately€surrounding€and€associated€with€the€home.€.€.€.€€At€common€law,€theÐ #l! Ðcurtilage€is€the€area€to€which€extends€the€intimate€activity€associated€with€the€sanctityÐ $X" Ðof€a€manððs€home€and€the€privacies€of€life,€.€.€.€and€therefore€has€been€considered€partÐ ô$D # Ðof€home€itself€for€Fourth€Amendment€purposes.€.€.€.ððÐà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌòòId.óó€at€670€(quoting€òòOliveróó,€466€U.S.€at€180).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€marijuana€plants€seized€from€the€defendantððs€property€did€not€fall€within€theÐ )à$( Ðcurtilage€of€the€defendantððs€residence€and€were,€therefore,€subject€to€seizure€under€the€ð ðopen€fieldsððÐ |*Ì%) Ðdoctrine.€€The€record€establishes€that€Detective€Depew€found€the€marijuana€plants€to€be€in€fiveÐ h+¸&* Ðseparate€groupings,€the€closest€of€which€appeared€to€be€over€120€feet€from€the€defendantððs€residence.€Ð ° ÐTestimony€established€that€the€area€was€separated€from€the€residence€by€a€ditch€that€required€aÐ œì Ðfootbridge€to€cross.€€The€location€was€grown€over€with€weeds€and€brush.€€Photographs€submitted€byÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defense€demonstrate€that€the€location€was€shielded€from€view€of€the€residence€by€trees.€€GivenÐ tÄ Ðthose€circumstances,€it€is€our€conclusion€that€the€marijuana€plants€were€not€found€in€an€areaÐ `° Ðassociated€with€the€ð ðsanctity€of€a€manððs€home€and€the€privacies€of€life.ððÐ L œ ÐÌà  àMoreover,€entry€onto€the€property€would€have€been€justified€even€if€the€plants€had€beenÐ $ t Ðlocated€within€the€curtilage€of€the€residence.€€While€a€warrantless€search€is€generally€presumed€toÐ  ` Ðbe€unreasonable,€there€are€several€well€recognized€exceptions.€€òòState€v.€Bartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,Ð ü L  Ð229„30€(Tenn.€1996).€€One€such€exception€is€a€warrantless€search€conducted€pursuant€to€probableÐ è 8  Ðcause€and€exigent€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€949€S.W.2d€704,€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€burden,€however,€is€on€the€state€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€aÐ À  Ðwarrantless€search€falls€within€such€an€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòCoolidge€v.€NewÐ ¬ü  ÐHampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€454„55€(1971).€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€probable€cause€and€exigent€circumstances€were€present€to€justify€the€warrantlessÐ pÀ Ðentry€of€the€defendantððs€property€and€residence.€€The€officers€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€thereÐ \¬ Ðwas€marijuana€on€the€defendantððs€property.€€Lieutenant€Crumley€testified€that€after€he€initiallyÐ H˜ Ðobserved€the€plants,€he€returned€at€a€lower€altitude€to€confirm€his€observations.€€He€was€trained€toÐ 4„ Ðlocate€marijuana€from€the€air€and€had€extensive€experience€doing€so.€€Likewise,€the€record€reflectsÐ  p Ðthat€Detective€Depewððs€initial€entry€onto€the€property€was€the€result€of€exigent€circumstances.€€DueÐ  \ Ðto€the€strict€flight€restrictions€at€the€time,€Lieutenant€Crumleyððs€time€in€the€air€was€limited.€€He€hadÐ øH Ðbeen€required€to€file€a€flight€plan€with€the€Tri„Cities€airport€and€was€further€required€to€report€byÐ ä4 Ðtelephone€immediately€upon€landing€the€helicopter.€€When€he€observed€the€marijuana€and€contactedÐ Ð  ÐDetective€Depew,€he€was€able€to€obtain€a€time€extension€of€approximately€thirty€minutes.€€There€wasÐ ¼  Ðno€time€for€a€warrant€to€be€secured€before€Lieutenant€Crumley€had€to€leave€the€area.€€Moreover,Ð ¨ø ÐDetective€Depew€had€reason€to€believe€that€the€residence€was€occupied.€€Upon€his€arrival,€he€hadÐ ”ä Ðobserved€a€truck€in€the€driveway€and€had€also€seen€the€blinds€move€as€though€someone€were€lookingÐ €Ð Ðthrough€them€while€he€was€knocking€on€the€door.€€The€defendantððs€wife€was,€in€fact,€on€theÐ l¼ Ðtelephone€in€an€attempt€to€locate€the€defendant€because€the€officers€were€there.€€òòSeeóóòòJennetteóó,€706Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€at€617€(citing€helicopterððs€depleted€fuel€and€the€potential€for€destruction€of€marijuana€plantsÐ D!” Ðobserved€by€officers€as€exigent€circumstances).€€The€officers€were,€therefore,€justified€in€enteringÐ 0"€  Ðand€securing€the€property€before€seeking€a€warrant.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€newly€discovered€evidence,€the€aerial€photographsÐ ô$D # Ðintroduced€by€his€private€investigator€at€trial,€warrants€a€reversal€of€the€trial€courtððs€determinationÐ à%0!$ Ðon€the€motion€to€suppress.€€He€contends€that€the€photos€demonstrate€that€Lieutenant€Crumley€wouldÐ Ì&"% Ðhave€been€unable€to€observe€the€marijuana€plants€from€an€altitude€of€1,700€feet€above€ground.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àNewly€discovered€evidence€is€evidence€that€the€defendant€could€not€have€previously€foundÐ )à$( Ðusing€reasonable€diligence€and,€to€warrant€relief,€must€have€some€effect€other€than€to€impeach€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestimony€of€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Singletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€1993);òòóó€òòState€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€554€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€359€(Tenn.€1983);Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€777€S.W.2d€355,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Because€the€photos€could€have€beenÐ œì Ðobtained€by€the€defendant€with€reasonable€diligence€prior€to€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,Ð ˆØ Ðthey€do€not€qualify€as€newly€discovered€evidence.€€Additionally,€they€would€have€been€offered€onlyÐ tÄ Ðto€impeach€the€testimony€of€Lieutenant€Crumley.€€This€issue€is€not€a€basis€for€reversal.Ð `° Ѐòòóó€òòóó€Ð L œ Ðà@®®)ìàIIˆÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction€forÐ $ t Ðmanufacturing€marijuana.€€He€contends€that€because€each€marijuana€plant€was€not€testedÐ  ` Ðindividually,€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€he€possessed€the€requisite€number€of€plants€and€argues€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€facts€support€a€conviction€for€simple€possession,€at€best.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÐ À  Ðall€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÐ ˜è  Ðreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€€òòByrge€v.Ð „Ô  ÐStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÐ pÀ Ðchallenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ \¬ Ðto€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÐ H˜ Ðreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€Ð 4„ ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ  p Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.Ð  \ Ð298,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÐ øH Ðand€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€a€guilty€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1992).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àUnder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„417(a)€(Supp.€2000),€ð ð[i]t€is€an€offense€forÐ ”ä Ða€defendant€to€knowingly€.€.€.€[m]anufacture€a€controlled€substance€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€term€ð ðmanufactureððÐ €Ð Ðis€defined€by€the€Code€as€follows:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà ` àð ðManufactureðð€means€the€production,€preparation,€propagation,Ð D!” Ðcompounding,€conversion€or€processing€of€a€controlled€substance,€either€directly€orÐ 0"€  Ðindirectly€by€extraction€from€substances€of€natural€origin,€or€independently€by€meansÐ #l! Ðof€chemical€synthesis,€and€includes€any€packaging€or€repackaging€of€the€substanceÐ $X" Ðor€labeling€or€relabeling€of€its€container€.€.€.€.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„402€(14).€€Here,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€manufacturing€seventeenÐ Ì&"% Ðmarijuana€plants,€or€ð ða€Schedule€IV€controlled€substance€classified€as€marijuana€consisting€of€tenÐ ¸'#& Ð(10)€marijuana€plants€nor€more€than€nineteen€(19)€marijuana€plants,€regardless€of€weight.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(g)(2)€(Supp.€2000).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€because€the€leafy€material€was€pulled€from€the€stalks€andÐ ° Ðâ âcombined€in€one€box€with€other€seized€material€believed€to€be€marijuana,€ð ð[i]t€is€impossible€to€tellÐ œì Ðfrom€the€record€if€even€one€of€the€plants€was€marijuana.ðð€€He€contends€that€in€order€to€satisfy€itsÐ ˆØ Ðburden€of€proof,€the€state€would€have€had€to€test€leaves€from€each€plant€individually.€€In€denying€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€motion€for€acquittal€at€the€close€of€the€stateððs€proof,€the€trial€court€stated€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àThe€number€of€plants€in€this€particular€statute€makes€it€difficult,€I€think,€for€the€stateÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€show€in€a€case€directly€that€each€plant,€or€each€stem,€was€individually€tested€forÐ $ t Ðmarijuana.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBut€in€this€case,€given€the€stateððs€evidence€in€its€best€light,€.€.€.€the€officers€sayÐ è 8  Ðthat€they€recognized,€from€their€experience,€these€as€marijuana€plants.€€They€wereÐ Ô$  Ðpulling€them€as€such;€they€counted€them€and€.€.€.€there€were€17€of€them.€€TheÐ À  Ðsubstance€was€tested;€it€was€tested€rather€generically€instead€of€individually,€but€itÐ ¬ü  Ðtested€positively€for€marijuana.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€reasonable€jury€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€ofÐ pÀ Ðmanufacturing€between€ten€and€nineteen€marijuana€plants.€€The€investigating€officers€testified€thatÐ \¬ Ðthey€were€trained€and€experienced€in€the€identification€of€marijuana€plants€and€that€they€believed€theÐ H˜ Ðplants€on€the€defendantððs€property€to€be€marijuana.€€The€stalks€of€seventeen€plants€were€introducedÐ 4„ Ðas€evidence€at€trial.€€The€leaves€stripped€from€the€plants€and€submitted€to€the€TBI€tested€positive€forÐ  p Ðmarijuana.׃¢×Ý ƒ£#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€all€the€leafy€material€was€combined€for€testing,€there€is€no€indication€that€thereÐ  \ Ðwas€any€variation€among€the€seventeen€plants,€photographs€of€which€appeared€in€the€record.€€ThisÐ øH Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@)ìàIIIˆÐ ¼  Ðà  àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€an€alternative€sentence.€Ð ¨ø ÐHe€argues€that€his€criminal€history€consists€only€of€non„violent€misdemeanors€and€that€twenty„fiveÐ ”ä Ðyears€had€passed€since€his€last€conviction.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€denial€of€alternative€sentencingÐ €Ð Ðwas€proper.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€theÐ D!” Ðduty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÐ 0"€  Ðthe€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€uponÐ #l! Ðthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ $X" Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð ô$D # ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1994).€€ð ðIf€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factors€orÐ à%0!$ Ðotherwise€fails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÐ ° Ðprovide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ œì ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àEspecially€mitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€of€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felonies€are,€ofÐ `° Ðcourse,€presumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€ð ðfor€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÐ L œ Ðevidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6).€€With€certain€statutory€exceptions,€noneÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€which€apply€here,€probation€must€be€automatically€considered€by€the€trial€court€if€the€sentenceÐ $ t Ðimposed€is€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)€(Supp.€2000).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAmong€the€factors€applicable€to€probation€consideration€are€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,Ð è 8  Ðthe€defendantððs€criminal€record,€social€history€and€present€condition,€and€the€deterrent€effect€uponÐ Ô$  Ðand€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€5€(Tenn.€2000);Ð À  ÐòòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€286€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€offensesÐ ¬ü  Ðmay€often€be€so€egregious€as€to€preclude€the€grant€of€probation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€614€S.W.2d€403,Ð ˜è  Ð404€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€A€lack€of€candor€may€also€militate€against€a€grant€of€probation.€€òòStateÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€purpose€of€the€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985€was€to€provide€an€alternative€meansÐ H˜ Ðof€punishment€for€ð ðselected,€nonviolent€felony€offenders€in€front-end€community€based€alternativesÐ 4„ Ðto€incarceration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-36-103.€€The€Community€Corrections€sentence€providesÐ  p Ða€desired€degree€of€flexibility€that€may€be€both€beneficial€to€the€defendant€yet€serve€legitimateÐ  \ Ðsocietal€aims.€€òòState€v.€Griffithóó,€787€S.W.2d€340,€342€(Tenn.€1990).€€Even€in€cases€where€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€meets€the€minimum€requirements€of€the€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985,€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€is€not€necessarily€entitled€to€be€sentenced€under€the€Act€as€a€matter€of€law€or€right.€€òòStateÐ Ð  Ðv.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€following€offenders€are€eligible€forÐ ¼  ÐCommunity€Corrections:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€Persons€who,€without€this€option,€would€be€incarcerated€in€a€correctionalÐ €Ð Ðinstitution;Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€property-related,€or€drug/alcohol-relatedÐ X ¨ Ðfelony€offenses€or€other€felony€offenses€not€involving€crimes€against€the€person€asÐ D!” Ðprovided€in€title€39,€chapter€13,€parts€1-5;Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à(3)€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€nonviolent€felony€offenses;Ð #l! Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€Persons€who€are€convicted€of€felony€offenses€in€which€the€use€orÐ $X" Ðpossession€of€a€weapon€was€not€involved;Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(5)€Persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€present€or€past€pattern€of€behaviorÐ à%0!$ Ðindicating€violence;ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(6)€Persons€who€do€not€demonstrate€a€pattern€of€committing€violent€offenses;€Ð ¸'#& ÐandФ(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àPersons€who€are€sentenced€to€incarceration€or€on€escape€at€the€time€ofÐ )à$( Ðconsideration€will€not€be€eligible.€€Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-36-106(a).Ð ° ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€forty„eight„year„old€defendant€testified€that€he€had€beenÐ ˆØ Ðmarried€for€twenty„eight€years€and€that€his€wife€and€two€adult€daughters€lived€at€his€residence.€€HeÐ tÄ Ðcontended€that€he€had€injured€his€back€while€working€on€a€car€in€1990€and€that€he€began€smokingÐ `° Ðmarijuana€when€doctors€were€unable€to€recommend€an€effective€treatment€for€the€pain.€€AccordingÐ L œ Ðto€the€defendant,€he€was€out€of€work€for€five€years€following€his€injury.€€At€the€time€of€sentencing,Ð 8 ˆ Ðhe€was€employed€at€M.C.€South.€€He€testified€that€in€June€of€2001€when€he€discovered€that€ExcedrinÐ $ t ÐMigraine€pills€helped€with€his€back€pain,€he€had€stopped€smoking€marijuana.€€The€defendant€alsoÐ  ` Ðclaimed€that€he€grew€marijuana€only€for€his€personal€use€and€denied€that€he€had€ever€sold€orÐ ü L  Ðdelivered€it€to€anyone.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€ordering€a€sentence€of€confinement,€the€trial€court€ruled€as€follows:Ð À  ÐÌà8  à[D]eterrence€is€a€consideration€in€this€case.€€The€state€hasnððt€put€on€proof€.€.€.,€but€IÐ ˜è  Ðcan€take€judicial€notice€that€drug€cases€are€increasingly€present€on€the€docket€in€thisÐ „Ô  Ðcounty€and€this€court,€that€theyððre€a€significant€part€of€the€docket,€and€they€includeÐ pÀ Ðmarijuana€cases.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAnd€Iððm€going€to€allude€to€òòState€v.€Hooperóó€.€.€.€[a]nd€.€.€.€under€the€guidelinesÐ 4„ Ðof€that€case,€a€consideration€if€whether€the€defendantððs€crime€was€the€result€ofÐ  p Ðintentional,€knowing,€or€reckless€conduct€or€was€otherwise€motivated€by€desire€toÐ  \ Ðprofit€or€gain€from€the€criminal€behavior.€€Certainly€it€meets€that€category;€notÐ øH Ðnecessarily€the€latter€part€but,€certainly,€the€first.€€Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAnd€number€five€is€whether€the€defendant€has€previously€engaged€in€criminalÐ ¼  Ðconduct€of€the€same€type€as€the€offense€in€question,€irrespective€of€whether€suchÐ ¨ø Ðconduct€resulted€in€previous€arrest€or€convictions.€€And€I€do€find€that.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo€I€find€that€three€of€the€five€[òòHooperóó]€factors€are€present€and€that€deterrenceÐ l¼ Ðis€a€consideration€for€denial€of€alternative€sentencing€or€probation,€along€with€theÐ X ¨ Ðprior€record,€the€history€of€drug€abuse,€and€the€circumstances€of€this€offense.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ‡ XXXXÔà  àIn€òòState€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€10€(Tenn.€2000)Ô#†XXX X£Í#ÔÔ‡ XXXXÔ,€our€supreme€court€ruled€as€follows:€Ð #l! ÐÌà8  à[W]e€will€presume€that€a€trial€court's€decision€to€incarcerate€a€defendant€based€on€aÐ ô$D # Ðneed€for€deterrence€is€correct€so€long€as€any€reasonable€person€looking€at€the€entireÐ à%0!$ Ðrecord€could€conclude€that€(1)€a€need€to€deter€similar€crimes€is€present€in€theÐ Ì&"% Ðparticular€community,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€whole,€and€(2)€incarcerationÐ ¸'#& Ðof€the€defendant€may€rationally€serve€as€a€deterrent€to€others€similarly€situated€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlikely€to€commit€similar€crimes.Ô#†XXX X'Î#ÔÔ‡ XXXXÔÐ)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐOur€high€court€also€suggested€several€guiding€factors€for€determining€whether€a€need€for€deterrenceÐ ° Ðâ âis€present€and€whether€incarceration€is€ð ðparticularly€suitedðð€to€achieve€that€goal:Ð œì ÐÌà8  à(1)€Whether€other€incidents€of€the€charged€offense€are€increasingly€present€in€theÐ tÄ Ðcommunity,€jurisdiction,€or€in€the€state€as€a€whole;€Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€whether€the€defendant's€crime€was€the€result€of€intentional,€knowing,€or€recklessÐ L œ Ðconduct€or€was€otherwise€motivated€by€a€desire€to€profit€or€gain€from€the€criminalÐ 8 ˆ Ðbehavior;€Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€whether€the€defendant's€crime€and€conviction€have€received€substantial€publicityÐ  ` Ðbeyond€that€normally€expected€in€the€typical€case;€Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€whether€the€defendant€was€a€member€of€a€criminal€enterprise,€or€substantiallyÐ è 8  Ðencouraged€or€assisted€others€in€achieving€the€criminal€objective;€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(5)€whether€the€defendant€has€previously€engaged€in€criminal€conduct€of€the€sameÐ À  Ðtype€as€the€offense€in€question,€irrespective€of€whether€such€conduct€resulted€inÐ ¬ü  Ðprevious€arrests€or€convictions.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€10-12.€Ô#†XXX XÝÐ#ÔÔ‡ XXXXÔ€Our€supreme€court€cautioned€that€ð ðbecause€the€ððscienceðð€of€deterrence€is€imprecise€atÐ pÀ Ðbest,€the€trial€courts€should€be€given€considerable€latitude€in€determining€whether€a€need€forÐ \¬ Ðdeterrence€exists€and€whether€incarceration€appropriately€addresses€that€need.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€10.€€Our€highÐ H˜ Ðcourt€observed€that€Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  à[d]eterrence€is€a€complex€psychological€process,€and€the€focus€on€deterrence€throughÐ  \ Ðchanges€in€the€penalty€structure€or€sentencing€behavior€represents€but€one€part€of€theÐ øH Ðcalculus.€€Section€40-35-103(1)(B)€recognizes€this€reality€as€the€language€of€theÐ ä4 Ðstatute€requires€only€that€confinement€be€ð ðparticularly€suitedðð€to€provide€a€deterrentÐ Ð  Ðeffect,€and€it€does€not€require€proof€that€incarceration€ð ðwillðð€or€ð ðshouldðð€deter€othersÐ ¼  Ðfrom€committing€similar€crimes.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€9.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€ordering€a€sentence€of€confinement.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€record€reflects€that€although€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€was€growing€the€marijuana€plants€forÐ D!” Ðhis€own€use,€he€also€insisted€he€had€stopped€using€marijuana€some€two€months€prior€to€the€seizureÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€plants.€€Moreover,€the€presence€of€the€scales€and€plastic€baggies,€which€would€have€been€usedÐ #l! Ðfor€weighing€and€packaging€marijuana,€belie€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€he€never€sold€orÐ $X" Ðdistributed€the€drug.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€appeared€to€have€been€using€marijuana€for€aÐ ô$D # Ðlengthy€period€of€time.€€He€reported€that€he€had€been€using€the€drug€extensively€until€that€summerÐ à%0!$ Ðand€has€had€two€prior€convictions€for€possession€of€marijuana,€the€first€of€which€resulted€in€aÐ Ì&"% Ðsentence€of€probation.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€denying€alternativeÐ ¸'#& Ðsentencing.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÔ#†XXX XáÖ#ÔÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE