ÿWPCT I# U> %W 0í]UBJ4Œ n­¯U:\– 0Lžw@ê 01* 0D[ 0JŸ 0Té 0^= 0h› 0r 0|u 0†ñ 0w 1u 0@| D3¼ Bï 0d  AQpÆÁ 0D‡ 0DË D/ B>U6[U.‘U*¿B)éDC AMUƒ¢}%f¢¯v~·vÓ5 0L˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiäzz!3|xÁ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à ­®¯°±D²³´EµÓ€Á(á(3¬!$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€+­XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd* 4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òJuly€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€0ôÔÔ€2ÔÑ7À+­XXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Michelle€Starnes,€the€defendantððs€wife,€was€indicted€for€the€same€offenses.€€At€aÏseparate€trial,€she€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€two€counts€of€simple€possession€and€was€sentenced€toÏconcurrent€terms€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€and€fined€two€thousand€five€hundred€dollars€forÏeach€count.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€0ôÔÑ7Àû¾XXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ô€2ÔIn€addition€to€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€sever€on€AugustÏ17,€1994.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 àÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€11Xd#ÑÑ#€11Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÔ€2ÔÑ7€ ì XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ќـ*ÙßR€564A1-j|7ýÿ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9580„CC„00231Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHenry€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌJAMES€WESLY€STARNES,€€€€à à)à à(Possession€with€the€intent€to€deliverÌà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€or€sell€marijuana€and€cocaine)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌMichael€L.€Ainleyà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ123€North€Poplarà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌParis,€Tennessee€38242à àà àà àà àandÌ(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€ÌGuy€T.€Wilkinsà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌP.O.€Box€663ÌCamden,€TN€38320à àà àà àRobert€RadfordÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àVicki€L.€SnyderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àTodd€RoseÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€defendant,€James€Wesly€Starnes,€appeals€as€of€right€from€hisÏconvictions€by€a€jury€in€the€Henry€County€Circuit€Court€for€possession€of€cocaine€withÏthe€intent€to€deliver€or€sell,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€for€possession€of€marijuana€with€theÏintent€to€deliver€or€sell,€a€Class€E€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€aÏRange€II,€multiple€offender€to€concurrent€terms€of€fifteen€and€four€years,€respectively,€inÏthe€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€also€imposed€fines€ofÏtwenty„five€thousand€dollars€and€€five€thousand€dollars,€respectively.€€On€appeal,€theÏdefendant€contends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€his€motion€to€suppress;ÏandÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€hold€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€defendantððs€convictions€andÏthat€€the€trial€court€did€not€err.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgments€of€conviction.ÌÌà àOfficer€David€Powell€of€the€Henry€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testifiedÏthat€on€September€19,€1993,€he€received€information€from€his€superior€officerÏregarding€a€Crime€Stopper€tip.€€He€explained€that€Crime€Stoppers€is€a€program€whereÏpeople€call€the€sheriffððs€department€to€report€information€regarding€crimes€that€haveÏbeen€committed€and€the€information€is€passed€along€to€the€officers.€€He€stated€that€heÏwas€told€that€the€defendant€and€Michelle€Starnes× ƒ7 ××  ×€were€traveling€in€a€blue€hatchbackÏwith€the€tag€number€ð ðYRS€127,"€that€the€car€was€in€violation€of€registration€laws,€andÏthat€they€were€transporting€drugs.€€Officer€Powell€said€that€as€he€was€near€Highway€79Ïat€approximately€10:30€p.m.,€he€saw€a€car€matching€the€description€given€to€the€CrimeÏStoppers€program.€€He€testified€that€he€called€in€the€tag€number€for€verification,€andÏwhen€the€dispatcher€confirmed€that€the€car€was€the€one€suspected€of€carrying€drugs,Ïhe€turned€on€his€blue€lights€to€stop€the€car.€€Officer€Powell€stated€that€as€he€started€toÍget€out€of€his€vehicle,€Mrs.€Starnes€got€out€of€the€driverððs€side€and€walked€to€the€rear€ofÏthe€car.€€He€testified€that€he€asked€her€about€the€registration€of€the€vehicle€and€she€toldÏhim€that€the€registration€belonged€to€a€Camaro€and€that€she€and€the€defendant€were€inÏthe€process€of€buying€the€car€from€A1€Auto€Sales.€€According€to€Officer€Powell,€he€thenÏexplained€the€registration€law€and€informed€her€that€he€had€received€a€tip€that€drugsÏwere€in€the€car.€€He€said€that€he€told€her€that€while€he€was€investigating€the€registrationÏviolation,€he€was€going€to€call€for€a€drug€unit.€€He€testified€that€although€Mrs.€StarnesÏclaimed€that€the€car€belonged€to€both€her€and€the€defendant,€neither€provided€proof€ofÏownership.€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Powell€stated€that€during€this€time€another€officer€arrived.€€OfficerÏPowell€recalled€asking€Mrs.€Starnes€whether€there€were€any€drugs€in€the€car.€€HeÏtestified€that€when€she€replied€that€prescription€drugs€were€in€the€car,€he€explained€toÏher€that€the€prescription€drugs€could€be€detected€by€the€dog.€€He€stated€that€she€toldÏhim€that€she€was€not€sure€where€the€drugs€were€because€they€were€in€the€process€ofÏmoving€and€several€boxes€were€inside€the€car.€€Officer€Powell€remembered€that€theÏprescription€drugs€were€removed€from€the€car€but€he€did€not€see€who€removed€them.€ÏHe€said€that€while€waiting€for€the€drug€unit€to€arrive,€he€asked€the€defendant€and€Mrs.ÏStarnes€for€permission€to€search€the€car.€€Officer€Powell€testified€that€both€theÏdefendant€and€Mrs.€Starnes€agreed,€but€he€told€them€that€he€would€wait€for€the€arrivalÏof€the€drug€unit.€€He€also€said€that€he€called€for€a€wrecker€at€this€time.€€Officer€PowellÍstated€that€the€defendant€repeatedly€requested€to€leave€or€to€have€someone€to€pickÏthem€up€before€the€unit€got€there€but€he€refused€to€let€them€leave.€€According€to€OfficerÏPowell,€the€defendant€acted€very€nervous€and€hyper€and€was€very€talkative.ÌÌà àOfficer€Powell€testified€that€when€the€drug€unit€arrived,€the€dog€indicatedÏthat€drugs€were€in€the€rear€of€the€car.€€He€stated€that€a€manual€search€of€the€carÏrevealed€marijuana€contained€in€a€makeup€case€behind€the€driverððs€seat€in€theÏfloorboard.€€He€said€that€he€also€found€a€spoon,€a€knife,€a€glass€straw€and€a€mirror€inÏthe€makeup€case€and€that€the€straw€and€the€mirror€appeared€to€have€cocaine€residueÏon€them.€€He€recalled€that€the€dog€was€taken€around€the€vehicle€again€and€that€theÏdog€signaled€that€drugs€were€in€the€same€area.€€He€stated€that€Officer€Crosser€openedÏthe€flap€covering€the€gas€cap,€and€Mrs.€Starnes€began€crying€heavily.€€He€said€that€theÏofficers€discovered€an€ð ðeight€ballðð€of€cocaine€inside.€€He€testified€that€when€heÏinformed€the€defendant€that€he€was€under€arrest,€the€defendant€pointed€to€Mrs.ÏStarnes€and€stated€that€the€drugs€were€hers.€€Officer€Powell€also€testified€that€he€foundÏone€thousand€six€hundred€dollars€on€the€defendant€when€he€was€searched€at€the€jail.€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Powell€testified€that€he€did€not€know€whoÏplaced€the€call€to€Crime€Stoppers€regarding€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Starnes.€€He€saidÏthat€he€did€not€know€whether€rewards€were€paid€for€tips€to€Crime€Stoppers.€€OfficerÏPowell€also€stated€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€was€employed€at€a€bar€owned€byÍhis€uncle€and€that€the€money€he€had€with€him€came€from€the€bar.€€He€conceded€that€noÏtests€were€conducted€on€the€drug€paraphernalia€found€in€the€makeup€case.€€He€alsoÏadmitted€that€he€did€not€test€the€defendant€or€Mrs.€Starnes€for€drug€content€in€theirÏbodies.€€Officer€Powell€denied€that€Mrs.€Starnes€told€him€that€the€tag€came€fromÏanother€car€œand€said›€that€the€car€actually€belonged€to€Eastside€Enterprises.€€ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€Officer€Powell€noted€that€September€19€was€onÏa€Sunday€and€that€the€bar€where€the€defendant€worked€would€not€have€been€open.€ÏHe€also€stated€that€giving€drug€tests€œis›€not€routine€when€charging€a€person€with€drugÏpossession.€€Officer€Powell€also€testified€that€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Starnes€did€notÏtell€him€that€they€had€an€interest€in€a€bar€in€Stewart€County€and€that€he€did€not€knowÏwhether€bars€were€open€on€Sundays€in€that€county.€€ÌÌà àJimmy€Luffman,€a€park€ranger€with€the€Tennessee€State€Parks€at€ParisÏLanding,€testified€that€he€responded€to€a€call€to€assist€Officer€Powell.€€He€said€thatÏwhen€he€arrived,€Officer€Powell€was€questioning€Mrs.€Starnes€about€the€carððsÏregistration€and€the€defendant€was€inside€the€car.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€got€outÏof€the€car€to€talk€to€Officer€Powell.€€Luffman€testified€that€the€drug€unit€arrived€and€that€aÏsearch€of€the€car€was€conducted.€€He€said€that€he€saw€Officer€Powell€carrying€a€smallÏpackage€as€he€walked€away€from€the€car€and€that€he€observed€the€officersðð€discoveryÏof€something€behind€the€gas€flap.€€He€recalled€that€Mrs.€Starnes€was€crying€and€wasÍvery€tense,€upset,€and€nervous.€€Luffman€also€testified€that€the€defendant€was€nervousÏand€restless.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOfficer€James€Crosser€of€the€drug€task€force€for€the€Henry€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department€testified€that€he€responded€to€a€call€on€September€19,€1993.€€HeÏstated€that€when€he€arrived€approximately€fifteen€to€twenty€minutes€after€receiving€theÏcall,€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Starnes€were€standing€outside€the€car.€€Officer€CrosserÏsaid€that€he€took€the€dog€around€the€car€and€that€the€dog€alerted€that€drugs€wereÏpossibly€near€the€left€rear€bumper.€€He€testified€that€he€then€informed€Officer€Powell,Ïthe€defendant€and€Mrs.€Starnes€that€the€dog€signaled€that€the€car€contained€drugs€andÏthat€he€was€going€to€check€inside.€€According€to€Officer€Crosser,€the€defendant€andÏCrosser€agreed€to€the€search.€€He€stated€that€he€then€allowed€the€dog€to€enter€the€carÏand€the€dog€indicated€that€drugs€were€inside€the€glove€box€and€near€the€backseatÏfloorboard€on€the€driverððs€side.€€He€said€that€the€dog€also€signaled€that€drugs€wereÏnear€the€gas€tank.ÌÌà àOfficer€Crosser€testified€that€he€and€Officer€Powell€then€searched€the€carÏand€discovered€a€makeup€box€in€the€floorboard€behind€the€driverððs€seat€that€containedÏmarijuana.€€He€stated€that€he€found€prescription€drugs€in€a€vial€inside€the€glove€box.€ÏHe€also€stated€that€Mrs.€Starnes€burst€into€tears€as€he€opened€the€flap€on€the€gas€capÏand€found€a€bag€of€cocaine€inside.€€Officer€Crosser€expressed€the€opinion€that€theÍcocaine€was€a€very€sizeable€amount€and€that€the€amount€was€greater€than€thatÏnormally€found€on€persons€using€the€drug€for€personal€use.€€He€testified€that€as€he€wasÏarresting€the€defendant,€the€defendant€appeared€excited€and€nervous€and€he€pointedÏto€his€wife€and€said,€ð ðItððs€hers.ðð€€Officer€Crosser€stated€that€the€defendant€had€oneÏthousand€six€hundred€dollars€in€cash€with€him€when€he€was€booked.€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Crosser€conceded€that€he€was€not€awareÏof€the€Crime€Stoppers€tip€on€September€19,€1993.€€He€said€that€occasionally€rewardsÏare€paid€for€information€given€to€the€Crime€Stoppers€program.€€He€also€estimated€thatÏthe€cocaine€was€worth€a€lot€of€money.€€Officer€Crosser€said€that€he€did€not€recallÏwhether€the€defendant€tried€to€explain€where€the€money€came€from€but€that€some€ofÏthe€money€was€later€given€back€to€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àLisa€Mays,€a€forensic€chemist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€testified€that€she€analyzed€substances€found€by€Officers€Powell€andÏCrosser.€€She€said€that€the€plant€material€was€marijuana€weighing€25.6€grams€and€thatÏthe€vial€contained€benzocaine,€which€is€a€local€anesthetic€often€used€as€a€cuttingÏagent€for€cocaine.€€Agent€Mays€also€said€that€her€analysis€revealed€that€anotherÏpackage€contained€10.1€grams€of€cocaine.€€On€cross„examination,€she€admitted€thatÏshe€did€not€conduct€any€tests€to€determine€the€amount€of€foreign€material€in€theÏsubstances.€€Agent€Mays€testified€that€the€cocaine€was€pure€enough€that€such€testingÍwas€not€necessary€because€the€tests€that€she€used€required€a€relatively€pureÏsubstance€for€analysis.€€She€estimated€that€the€cocaine€was€eighty€percent€pure.€€Ñ€8ÑÇà@ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌó óà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions.€€Essentially,€he€asserts€that€there€is€not€enough€proof€to€establish€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€he€had€knowledge€or€possession€of€the€drugs.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€proof€shows€that€the€drugs€were€Mrs.€Starnes€and€not€his.€€We€hold€that€theÏevidence€establishes€the€defendantððs€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).ÌÌà àA€conviction€for€cocaine€or€marijuana€possession€may€be€based€uponÏeither€actual€or€constructive€possession.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€129€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€Constructive€possession€of€a€drug€requires€proof€that€the€personÏhas€the€power€and€intention€at€a€given€time€to€exercise€dominion€and€control€over€theÍdrugs€either€directly€or€through€others.€€òòIdóó.€€Mere€association€with€a€person€whoÏpossesses€drugs€or€presence€in€a€place€where€drugs€are€found€are€insufficient€toÏestablish€constructive€possession.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWhen€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€proof€in€this€caseÏestablishes€more€than€the€defendantððs€association€with€Mrs.€Starnes€or€his€presenceÏin€a€car€where€drugs€were€found.€€The€evidence€shows€that€the€car€in€which€theÏdefendant€was€riding€was€in€violation€of€registration€laws.€€Mrs.€Starnes€admitted€thatÏthe€registration€belonged€to€a€Camaro€but€claimed€that€she€and€the€defendant€were€inÏthe€process€of€buying€the€car€from€A1€Auto€Sales.€€While€waiting€for€the€drug€unit€toÏarrive,€the€defendant€repeatedly€asked€Officer€Powell€that€they€be€allowed€to€leave€orÏhave€someone€pick€them€up.€€The€officers€described€the€defendantððs€conduct€as€veryÏnervous,€restless,€hyper€and€talkative.€€As€Officer€Crosser€arrested€the€defendant,€theÏdefendant€pointed€to€Mrs.€Starnes€and€said,€ð ðItððs€hers.ðð€€The€defendant€also€had€oneÏthousand€six€hundred€dollars€in€his€possession.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àA€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€concluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€the€defendant€possessed€the€marijuana€and€cocaine€found€in€the€car.€€Therefore,Ïwe€hold€that€sufficient€evidence€was€presented€to€support€his€convictions.ò òÌÌà@ àII.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€overruled€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€the€drugs€seized€during€the€search€of€his€car€based€upon€theÏuntimeliness€of€the€motion.€€The€defendant€concedes€that€the€motion€was€filed€outside€Ïthe€time€allowed€by€the€trial€œcourt,€and›€he€acknowledges€the€need€for€schedulingÏorders€to€assist€in€an€orderly€judicial€process.€€He€argues,€though,€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€overruling€his€motion€to€suppress€because€pursuant€to€Rule€12,€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.,€he€filed€his€motion€twenty„six€days€before€trial€allowing€enough€time€for€theÏmotion€to€be€heard€without€undue€burden€on€any€of€the€parties.€€The€state€respondsÏthat€the€defendantððs€failure€to€file€his€motion€within€the€time€set€by€the€trial€courtÏconstituted€waiver€and€that€the€defendant€failed€to€show€cause€for€granting€relief€fromÏthe€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(c)€and€(f).€€We€agree.ÌÌà àPursuant€to€Rule€12(b)(3),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€motions€to€suppressÏevidence€must€be€raised€ð ðprior€to€trial.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davidsonóó,€606€S.W.2d€293,€295„96€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€òòFeagins€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€108,€109„10€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1979).€€The€term€ð ðprior€to€trialðð€means€sometime€earlier€than€the€day€of€theÌtrial.€€òòState€v.€Hamiltonóó,€628€S.W.2d€742,€744€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Also,€ð ðthe€courtÏmay,€at€the€time€of€the€arraignment€or€as€soon€thereafter€as€practicable,€set€a€time€forÏthe€making€of€pretrial€motions€or€requests€and,€if€required,€a€later€date€of€hearing.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(c).€€The€failure€to€present€a€motion€to€suppress€by€the€time€set€byÏthe€trial€court€constitutes€waiver,€but€the€trial€court€may€grant€relief€from€the€waiver€forÍð ðcause€shown.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(f).€€Under€this€rule,€defense€counsel€travels€atÏperil€with€an€untimely€motion€unless€the€record€adequately€reflects€cause€for€the€lateÏfiling,€because€he€or€she€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRandolphóó,€692€S.W.2d€37,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€On€the€other€hand,€theÏconsideration€of€an€untimely€motion€should€be€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àAt€the€arraignment€on€March€14,€1994,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏsetting€March€24€as€the€date€for€filing€pretrial€motions€and€April€27€as€the€date€forÏhearing€the€motions.€€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€an€extension€of€time€withinÏwhich€to€file€additional€pretrial€motions€on€March€24,€asserting€that€defense€counselÏhad€been€retained€on€March€22€as€grounds€for€the€extension.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏten€additional€days.€€The€defendant€did€not€file€the€motion€to€suppress€until€August€17,Ï1994,€twenty„six€days€before€the€defendantððs€trial€began€on€September€12.ÌÌà àOn€August€18,€1994,€a€hearing€was€conducted€regarding€the€motions× ƒ9 ××  ×Ïfiled€by€the€defendant.€€At€the€beginning€of€the€hearing,€defense€counsel€informed€theÏcourt€that€he€was€not€prepared€for€the€motion€to€suppress€and€requested€that€the€trialÏcourt€continue€the€hearing€until€August€30.€€When€the€trial€court€inquired€about€theÍdelay,€defense€counsel€stated€that€there€had€been€problems€with€obtaining€discoveryÏfrom€the€district€attorney.€€He€asserted€that€although€the€request€for€discovery€was€filedÏon€March€24,€he€did€not€receive€anything€until€a€week€ago.€€Defense€counselÏexplained€that€he€understood€that€the€prosecution€had€an€open€file€policy,€but€when€heÏwent€to€copy€the€file,€it€was€not€available.€€He€said€that€the€file€was€never€sent€to€himÏnor€did€he€go€back€to€get€the€file.€€Defense€counsel€also€told€the€trial€court€that€theÏproblems€with€discovery€were€complicated€because€the€preliminary€hearing€tape€hadÏbeen€lost.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Starnes€had€been€represented€byÏother€counsel€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€that€the€other€counsel€claimed€that€theÏtape€of€the€preliminary€hearing€had€been€given€to€the€court€reporter.€€Defense€counselÏinformed€the€court€that€he€and€the€other€counsel€had€been€asking€for€the€tape€sinceÏApril.ÌÌà àDefense€counsel€asserted€that€evidence€of€the€drugs€seized€from€theÏdefendantððs€car€must€be€suppressed€because€the€stop€and€search€of€the€defendantððsÏcar€were€not€proper.€€He€argued€that€the€Crime€Stoppers€tip€did€not€satisfy€probableÏcause€requirements€relative€to€the€informantððs€reliability.€€Defense€counsel€claimedÏthat€the€information€in€support€of€his€motion€to€suppress€was€contained€in€theÏdiscovery€that€he€had€received€the€week€before.€€ÌÌà àIn€response,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€who€prosecuted€theÏcase€stated€that€she€learned€of€the€missing€preliminary€hearing€tape€within€the€last€fewÏweeks€when€questioned€about€it€by€the€defendantððs€attorney€who€represented€him€atÏthe€preliminary€hearing.€€She€said€that€defense€counsel€had€not€asked€her€about€theÏtape.€€She€also€said€that€she€received€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€dayÏbefore€the€hearing.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€tip€relied€upon€by€Officer€Powell€for€stopping€the€car,€theÏprosecutor€stated€that€someone€telephoned€Crime€Stoppers€with€a€description€of€a€carÏregistered€to€Mrs.€Starnes,€stating€that€the€registration€of€the€car€was€not€proper€andÏœthat›€the€car€contained€a€large€amount€of€drugs.€€She€said€that€Officer€Powell€saw€a€carÏmatching€the€description,€and€after€he€noted€that€the€registration€had€expired,€heÏstopped€the€car.€€According€to€the€prosecutor,€Officer€Powell€requested€the€assistanceÏof€the€drug€task€force.€€She€said€that€the€dog€signaled€that€drugs€were€in€the€car,€andÏthat€a€search€of€the€car€revealed€10.1€grams€of€cocaine€and€25.6€grams€of€marijuana.€ÏThe€prosecutor€also€stated€that€the€file€had€been€available€to€the€defendant€since€theÏarraignment€on€March€14,€1994.€€She€said€that€her€records€reflected€that€the€file€wasÏcopied€by€someone€in€defense€counselððs€office€on€August€5,€1994.€€She€also€informedÏthe€court€that€she€did€not€have€an€answer€to€the€motion€or€law€in€support€but€arguedÏthat€the€motion€to€suppress€was€not€timely€filed.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€to€suppress€because€it€was€untimely,Ïstating:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àIt€is€not€something€that€arises€from€a€situation€that€is€hoistedÏupon€these€defendants€by€the€State€or€any€of€its€agents,€butÏis€something€of€their€own€making.€€They€had€the€full€benefitÏof€a€preliminary€hearing€and€retained€counsel.€€What€may€orÏmay€not€have€happened€as€a€result€of€that€is€a€problem€thatÏthey€themselves€have€created€and€are€going€to€have€toÏresolve.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€the€information€within€his€control€andÏcould€have€filed€an€appropriate€motion€in€a€timely€fashion.€€The€court€also€stated€thatÏthe€statements€made€by€counsel€were€insufficient€to€make€a€determination€of€whetherÏthe€initial€stops€satisfied€the€prevailing€tests.ÌÌà àUnder€these€circumstances,€the€defendantððs€failure€to€file€the€motion€toÏsuppress€at€the€time€set€by€the€trial€court€constituted€waiver€of€the€right€to€complainÏabout€introduction€of€evidence€of€the€drugs€seized€from€his€car.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï12(c).€€Obviously,€defense€counselððs€claimed€lack€of€the€preliminary€hearing€transcriptÏand€lack€of€access€to€the€prosecutorððs€file€would€not€have€prevented€him€fromÏinvestigating€the€case,€including€interviewing€the€defendant,€his€former€attorney,€andÏthe€relevant€witnesses€about€either€the€substance€of€the€preliminary€hearing€or€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€defendantððs€arrest.€€Likewise,€the€defendant€couldÏhave€requested€that€the€deadline€for€filing€pretrial€motions€be€extended.€€ÌÌà àWe€are€mindful€that€sanctions€for€violation€of€a€local€or€state€courtÏprocedural€rule€should€not€work€an€undue€hardship€upon€the€litigants.€€In€this€respect,Ïtrial€courts€should€look€to€the€actual€or€potential€prejudice€flowing€from€the€violation€inÏconsidering€the€course€of€action€to€take.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,Ï185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(failure€to€provide€discovery€under€Rule€16€does€notÏallow€for€exclusion€of€the€evidence€unless€the€lack€of€disclosure€prejudiced€theÏopponent€and€the€prejudice€cannot€be€eradicated€except€by€exclusion).€€PrimaryÏpurposes€of€the€Rule€12(b)(3)€requirement€of€filing€prior€to€trial€relate€to€avoidingÏinterruption€and€inefficiency€in€jury€trials€and€to€providing€the€state€an€opportunity€toÏappeal€an€adverse€ruling€while€keeping€its€œchance›€of€a€successful€prosecution€if€theÏruling€is€overturned.€€òòSeeóó€òòFeaginsóó,òò€óó596€S.W.2d€at€110.€€€In€this€sense,€the€record€doesÏnot€œindicate›€how€the€state€or€the€business€of€the€trial€court€would€be€prejudiced€byÏallowing€the€suppression€motion€in€this€case€with€a€œhearing€to€be€held›€a€few€weeksÏbefore€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€trial€court€is€in€the€best€position€to€determine€whenÏenforcement€of€its€rules€is€best€suited€to€preserve€the€integrity€of€the€justice€system.€ÏThe€same€is€true€for€its€docket€calendar.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court€found€no€justÏcause€for€the€untimely€filing€and€no€just€cause€to€grant€relief€from€the€waiver.€€WeÏbelieve€that€the€record€contains€material€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretionary€action€in€denying€the€defendant€relief€from€the€waiver.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€SENTENCINGÌà àó óNext,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant.€€Significantly,€the€defendant€does€not€argue€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÏapplied€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors.€€Rather,€he€essentially€asserts€that€theÏevidence€does€not€warrant€a€three„year€enhancement€on€the€possession€of€cocaineÏconviction€or€a€two„year€enhancement€on€the€possession€of€marijuana€conviction.€€HeÏargues€that€ð ð[m]inimum€confinement€would€serve€the€same€purpose€or€at€most€a€oneÏyear€enhancementðð€is€appropriate.€€However,€the€trial€court€is€granted€the€discretion€toÏdetermine€the€weight€to€be€given€to€applicable€factors,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments,€and€its€decision€will€be€upheld€absent€an€abuseÏof€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€237€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€denied€that€the€marijuana€andÏcocaine€found€in€the€car€was€his.€€He€asserted€that€a€person€with€the€last€name€ð ðHartððÏwas€working€for€his€father€and€that€Hart€had€driven€the€car€to€Nashville€to€pick€up€aÏload€of€cocaine.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€know€that€the€drugs€were€in€the€car.€€TheÏdefendant€also€stated€that€the€drugs€could€have€been€Mrs.€Starnesðð.€€He€asserted€thatÏhe€had€earlier€obtained€cocaine€free€from€his€father€and€he€and€Mrs.€Starnes€had€usedÏthe€drugs€in€another€state.€€The€defendant€stated€that€his€father€would€tell€him€that€if€heÍhad€to€use€the€drugs,€he€wanted€him€to€rent€a€room€and€use€the€drugs€there€so€that€heÏdid€not€bother€anyone.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€been€addicted€to€drugs€for€a€long€œtime.€€€›ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€conceded€having€several€prior€convictions€butÏasserted€that€they€were€all€related€to€his€drug€addiction.€€The€defendant€admittedÏhaving€convictions€while€living€in€Texas€for€theft€by€check,€possession€of€a€prohibitedÏweapon,€possession€of€methaqualone,€possession€of€marijuana,€theft€of€services,Ïpossession€of€cocaine,€attempted€capital€murder€of€a€police€officer,€possession€ofÏmethamphetamine,€and€unlawful€delivery€of€methamphetamine.€€He€also€admitted€thatÏhis€probation€for€the€unlawful€delivery€of€methamphetamine€had€been€revokedÏbecause€of€his€commission€of€the€offense€of€attempted€capital€murder€of€a€policeÏofficer.€€Regarding€his€attempts€to€overcome€his€addiction,€the€defendant€stated€that€hisÏfather€placed€him€in€a€drug€rehabilitation€program€when€he€was€living€with€his€parentsÏmore€than€fifteen€years€ago.€€He€said€that€his€life€had€changed€because€he€had€beenÏmarried€for€the€last€two€years,€he€and€Mrs.€Starnes€had€stopped€using€drugs,€and€theyÏhad€a€newborn€child.€€The€defendant€also€testified€that€he€had€been€involved€in€theÏprinting€business€off€and€on€for€the€past€fifteen€years€and€that€he€had€been€employedÏfor€the€last€year€by€the€same€business.ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendant,€a€high€schoolÏgraduate,€had€been€employed€as€a€press€operator€for€two€printing€companies€sinceÍ1988€and€that€he€had€been€employed€by€another€printing€company€during€1994€forÏapproximately€six€months.€€The€defendant€also€worked€for€approximately€six€months€inÏ1993€as€the€manager€of€a€bar.€€The€report€also€shows€that€the€defendant€admittedÏbeing€addicted€to€drugs€including€cocaine,€PCP,€and€methamphetamine€since€1977.€ÏHe€described€his€drug€use€as€being€ð ðheavyðð€for€long€periods€of€time.€€According€to€theÏdefendant,€he€has€voluntarily€sought€treatment€four€times€since€1990.€€His€prior€recordÏinvolves€convictions€in€Texas€dating€back€to€1978€for€theft€by€check,€possession€of€aÏprohibited€weapon,€possession€of€methaqualone,€possession€of€marijuana,€theft€ofÏservices,€second€degree€possession€of€cocaine,€attempted€capital€murder€of€a€peaceÏofficer,€possession€of€methamphetamine,€and€unlawful€delivery€of€methamphetamine.€ÏThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendantððs€probation€for€his€conviction€ofÏpossession€of€methamphetamine€was€revoked€because€he€committed€the€offense€ofÏattempted€capital€murder€of€a€peace€officer.€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€theÏdefendant€to€be€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€and€sentenced€him€to€fifteen€years€for€theÏpossession€of€cocaine€conviction,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€to€four€years€for€theÏpossession€of€marijuana€conviction,€a€Class€E€felony,€to€be€served€concurrently.€€As€aÏRange€II,€multiple€offender,€the€sentencing€range€for€the€Class€B€felony€was€twelve€toÏtwenty€years€and€two€to€four€years€for€the€Class€E€felony.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(2)€and€(5).€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€found€the€defendantððs€testimony€to€beÍincredible.€€In€sentencing€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€enhancementÏfactors€(1)€and€(8),€a€prior€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inÏaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range€and€a€previous€historyÏof€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÏcommunity.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€and€(8).€€The€court€stated€that€it€hadÏconsidered€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€concluded€that€a€lesser€sentenceÏwould€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€would€not€be€in€the€best€interestÏof€the€defendant,€the€public€or€justice.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).ÌÌà à€The€record€fully€supports€the€trial€court€assessing€great€weight€to€theÏexisting€enhancement€factors.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€sentencing€the€defendant€to€the€terms€it€did.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€