ÿWPCŒ  š£"Øôg}ç³ëq®„ øëÀ¡M©ž¯ÚØ*æëeø‰µÁÌÐø=½Ý¤`Ø ‘"CÌ0ýÜŒûhžv(w°X”™ìÏߣD<Ê*a’¥LUwZX¾Û}ãç´ߥù `ã›Øúó0$>~³§¢Fï¢e¸œÈ“Æ!<"gÔð²C·'ÐyS¦ÄZå°Õ­.¿<­ðŸÝSAe‹Þ5µ+·¼…AÅ Àç‚îM¨/m¬G×ð‘î[¦˜ríØŸ=Ü*\ÚÉ•ƒ÷PȲÍE±w_!2¯m5%PH^àž¤Bòò—Áù¡òH7æéMnõ¼|öP51§D¾ý8óœð`«ƒ ¤+pJâù¶)ñ2—ìH‚ÞkÄ‚ý/ Ìù+z¯¿.ùB“&aëÕ)ãRÊ·¥µCìþä& æl&Bjh37w]š$%ïc˜½H¸{E‚ lÑa(“ñÛp¬S»MÁ?Qß<û6Êrvo‚Ÿrã‰Ì£’þÖ@%=*ËŒ–Íé³ÿá=,ó‚9CöÔBΣ¡›Øèk£¥èKG?Œn8.$·SHa;”<Ý Ò23"S ¼c1…sTå¸Ãw† ÀÏiyÍÖŽ4ê÷ÝNeêús¼€©þؙӆêcãê6W#ÁÂUNƒ %Ñ 0:×^  w 4! 5 D mF b] U@e UN¥ ó U@û N; ; ; ; ; ; E= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 00? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bo ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,ÔÁ€Q+â yG*XÐ¥3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular (ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman 0ÿÿ.Normal dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÑ€ ÑÑ8€÷xXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  Ñó óÔ‡î°EîXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÔ#†X÷xXîî°E—#ÔÔ‡î°EîXX÷xÔà@@ìì*ìàÐ ° ÐAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†X÷xXîî°E*#ÔÔ‡¼²4»XX÷xÔÐ Ö& ÐAssigned€on€Briefs€July€25,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ#†X÷xX»¼²4Ÿ#ÔÔ‡î°EîXX÷xÔÌò òÔ#†X÷xXîî°E+#ÔÔ‡¼²4»XX÷xÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€DANIEL€RAY€STYLESÔ#†X÷xX»¼²4q#ÔÔ‡î°EîXX÷xÔó óÐ 4 „ ÐÔ#†X÷xXîî°Eà#ÔÌò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€CountyÐ 4 „ Ðà@@V V ìàNos.€7598,7599,€and€7616€€€€€€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÐ  p ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ã` AßÐ ä4  ÐÌà@@e e ìàNo.€E2001„00905„CCA„R3„CDÐ ß/  ÐOctober€17,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ Ë  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÓÂÓÌÔ€ X÷xXXX÷xÔThe€defendant,€Daniel€Ray€Styles,€was€convicted€of€felony€escape,€aggravated€assault,€aggravatedÐ ² Ðrobbery,€theft€over€$1,000,€and€aggravated€criminal€trespassing.€€The€trial€court€imposed€an€effective€Ð žî Ðsentence€of€fourteen€years.€€On€appeal,€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trialÐ ŠÚ Ðcourt€erred€by€failing€to€dismiss€his€case€on€the€ground€that€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€violated;Ð vÆ Ð(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€amend€the€indictments;€(3)€whether€theÐ b² Ðindictment€charging€felony€escape€was€facially€void€because€it€was€unsigned;€and€(4)€whether€theÐ Nž Ðtrial€court€erred€by€failing€to€require€the€State€to€make€an€election€between€aggravated€assault€andÐ :Š Ðaggravated€robbery.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€regardingÐ &v ÐDefendantððs€convictions€and€sentences€for€aggravated€robbery,€felony€escape,€and€aggravatedÐ b Ðcriminal€trespassing.€€However,€we€reverse€and€dismiss€Defendantððs€convictions€for€aggravatedÐ þN Ðassault€and€theft€as€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€constitutional€prohibitions€against€double€jeopardy.Ð ê: ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed,€in€Part;Ð Â ÐReversed€and€Dismissed,€in€Part.ó óÐ ®þ ÐÓ³ ÓÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,óóÐ † Ö Ðand€òòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ôóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð r!  ÐÌSusanna€L.€Thomas,€Newport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Daniel€Ray€Styles.Ð J#š" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€AlÐ "%r $ ÐC.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€James€B.€Dunn,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ &^!% ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ú&J"& ÐÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONÐ Ò("$( ÐÌÓ~Óó óà  àOn€September€27,€1997,€Defendant€was€incarcerated€at€the€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€County€Jail€and€workingÐ ª*ú%* Ðon€Ô_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô€Highway€performing€ð ðlitter€pick„upðð€with€other€inmates€from€the€jail.€€At€some€point,Ð –+æ&+ ÐDefendant€escaped€from€the€litter€crew€and€subsequently€arrived€at€the€home€of€Antonio€andÐ ‚,Ò', ÐChristina€Ô_ÔMezaÔ_Ô.€€The€Ô_ÔMezaÔ_Ôððs€daughter,€Ô_ÔBrandiÔ_Ô€France,€previously€had€a€two„year€relationship€withÐ n-¾(-Ž ÐÔ_ÔDefendant€which€produced€a€child,€and€Defendant€was€permitted€to€visit€occasionally.€€The€SheriffððsÐ ° ÐDepartment€would€typically€drop€Defendant€off€at€the€Mezaððs€home€and€return€for€him€later.€€In€thisÐ œì Ðparticular€instance,€however,€Defendantððs€visit€was€obviously€unscheduled.€€After€he€pounded€onÐ ˆØ Ðthe€door€and€was€denied€entrance,€Defendant€broke€into€the€residence€through€a€bedroom€window.€Ð tÄ ÐWalking€into€the€living€room,€he€discovered€the€presence€of€a€twenty„year„old€male,€MatthewÐ `° ÐMeans,€and€immediately€began€to€interrogate€him€regarding€his€reason€for€being€there€and€hisÐ L œ Ðrelationship€with€Brandi€France.€€Means€informed€Defendant€that€this€information€was€ð ðnone€of€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðbusiness.ðð€€Defendant€asked€Means€whether€he€was€ð ðsleeping€with€his€girl,ðð€and€Means€replied€thatÐ $ t ÐBrandi€was€not€ð ðhis€girl.ððÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThereafter,€Defendant€and€Brandi€went€into€a€bedroom€to€talk€privately.€€When€they€emergedÐ è 8  Ðapproximately€ten€minutes€later,€Defendant€demanded€the€keys€to€Meansðð€truck.€€Means€refused.€Ð Ô$  ÐDefendant€told€Means€to€give€him€the€keys€or€he€would€kill€him,€and€Means€refused€again.€€At€thisÐ À  Ðpoint,€Meansðð€attention€was€distracted€by€something.€€When€he€turned€to€look€at€it,€Defendant€hitÐ ¬ü  Ðhim€on€the€back€of€the€head€with€a€fire€poker,€knocking€him€unconscious.€€Defendant€then€pickedÐ ˜è  ÐMeansðð€keys€up€off€the€floor€and€departed€with€his€truck.€€Sometime€later,€Defendant€drove€into€aÐ „Ô  Ðditch€and€was€arrested.€€Meanwhile,€Means€was€taken€to€Cocke€County€Memorial€Hospital€whereÐ pÀ Ðhe€was€treated€for€a€head€wound€and€severe€concussion,€receiving€five€staples€in€the€back€of€hisÐ \¬ Ðhead.€Ð H˜ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óÐ  p ÐÌÓ Óò òà@——ìàI.€€Right€to€a€Speedy€Trialó óˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àDefendant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€dismiss€his€case€on€theÐ Ð  Ðground€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€Defendant€argues€that€the€failureÐ ¼  Ðto€try€his€case€in€a€timely€manner€prejudiced€his€defense.€€We€disagree.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81€(Tenn.€1973),€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€four€(4)€partÐ €Ð Ðtest€promulgated€in€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€92€S.€Ct.€2182,€33€L.€Ed.€2d€101€(1972),€as€theÐ l¼ Ðproper€method€for€determining€whether€a€defendant€has€been€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€aÐ X ¨ Ðspeedy€trial.€€These€four€(4)€factors€include:€€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay;€€(2)€the€reasons€for€the€delay;€Ð D!” Ð(3)€the€accusedððs€assertion€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial;€€and€(4)€whether€the€accused€was€prejudicedÐ 0"€  Ðby€the€delay.€€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84.€€No€single€factor€is€determinative€in€all€cases,€but€the€mostÐ #l! Ðcrucial€inquiry€is€whether€the€delay€prejudiced€Defendant.€€òòTillery€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€509€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCrim.€App.€1978).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€observe€that€Defendant€was€indicted€on€November€17,€1998,€and€his€trial€began€onÐ Ì&"% ÐApril€25,€2000.€€Thus,€the€length€of€delay€from€the€date€of€Defendantððs€indictments€to€his€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðequaled€almost€seventeen€months€which€is€sufficient€to€trigger€an€analysis€under€òòBishopóó€and€òòBarkeróó.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòSeeóó€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€652,€112€S.Ct.€2686,€2691,€n.1,€120€L.Ed.2d€520€(1992)Ð )à$( Ð(a€delay€of€one€year€or€longer€ð ðmarks€the€point€at€which€courts€deem€the€delay€unreasonable€enoughÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€trigger€the€òòBarkeróó€inquiryðð).€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àSecondly,€concerning€the€reason€for€the€delay,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€found€nothing€inÐ ° Ðthe€record€to€indicate€what€caused€the€delay€in€Defendantððs€trial.€€Defendant€contends€that€his€trialÐ œì Ðwas€delayed€because€of€a€civil€matter€filed€by€Matthew€Means€against€the€Cocke€County€SheriffððsÐ ˆØ ÐDepartment.€€However,€this€claim€is€also€not€clearly€supported€by€the€record.€€Since€fault€for€theÐ tÄ Ðdelay€in€trying€this€matter€cannot€be€conclusively€attributed€to€either€Defendant€or€the€State,€weÐ `° Ðconclude€that€this€factor€does€not€favor€either€party.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àRegarding€whether€Defendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€the€trial€court€found€thatÐ $ t ÐDefendant€òòinitiallyóó€asserted€this€right€in€a€court€without€any€jurisdiction€over€his€case€at€the€time€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€right€was€asserted.€€The€record€reflects€that€Defendant€first€filed€his€motion€in€Circuit€Court,Ð ü L  Ðwhile€his€case€was€pending€in€General€Sessions€Court.€€Since€the€Circuit€Court€did€not€haveÐ è 8  Ðjurisdiction€over€Defendantððs€case€at€that€time,€any€motion€filed€in€that€court€would€be€premature.€Ð Ô$  ÐConsequently,€Defendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€not€asserted€in€the€proper€court,€i.e.,€CircuitÐ À  ÐCourt,€until€the€day€of€trial€when€Defendant€made€an€oral€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictments€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðground€that€the€State€failed€to€provide€him€with€such€right.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€containÐ ˜è  Ðthe€motion€for€speedy€trial€filed€while€the€case€was€pending€in€the€General€Sessions€Court.€€For€theÐ „Ô  Ðabove€reasons,€this€factor€fails€to€support€Defendantððs€argument.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€last€factor,€which€considers€whether€a€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay,€similarlyÐ H˜ Ðfails€to€support€Defendantððs€contention.€€Defendant€asserts€that€because€the€State€delayed€in€takingÐ 4„ Ðhis€case€to€trial,€two€defense€witnesses€died€and€this€prejudiced€his€defense.€€Specifically,€DefendantÐ  p Ðargues€that€the€deceased€witnesses,€Officer€R.€D.€Moore€and€Tim€Doolittle,€would€have€providedÐ  \ Ðpivotal€testimony€concerning€his€whereabouts€on€the€day€he€escaped€from€the€litter€crew.€€However,Ð øH Ðthe€record€provides€no€proof€of€what€facts€these€witnesses€would€have€testified€to.€€Furthermore,€theÐ ä4 Ðtrial€court€determined€that€Officer€Moore€died€prior€to€the€return€of€indictments€against€DefendantÐ Ð  Ðand€that,€since€Doolittle€died€ð ðsometime€in€1998,ðð€his€death€may€also€have€preceded€the€indictmentsÐ ¼  Ð(which€were€not€returned€until€November€17,€1998).€€In€sum,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€findingÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Defendant€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudice€resulting€from€the€delay.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€find€that€Defendant€was€not€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€Ð l¼ ÐThus,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð X ¨ Ðò òÌà@ééìàII.€€Amendment€of€Indictmentó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€State€to€amend€the€date€of€theÐ $X" Ðoffenses€charged€in€indictment€nos.€7616€and€7598,€alleging€aggravated€robbery€and€felony€escape,Ð ô$D # Ðrespectively,€without€giving€him€proper€notice.€€Defendant€further€contends€that€the€requestedÐ à%0!$ Ðamendment€was€untimely€and€also€precluded€by€Rule€7(b)€of€Tennesseeððs€Rules€of€CriminalÐ Ì&"% ÐProcedure,€which€allows€amendments€over€a€defendantððs€objection€òòonly€ifóó€no€additional€or€differentÐ ¸'#& Ðoffense€is€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€are€affected.€€The€State€responds€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdecision€to€allow€the€amendment€was€proper€under€Rule€7(b)€and€applicable€case€law.€€We€agree.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€record€reflects€that€on€April€24,€2000,€the€day€prior€to€Defendantððs€trial,€the€State€filedÐ ° Ðâ âa€motion€to€amend€the€indictments€alleging€aggravated€robbery€and€felony€escape€to€read€that€theÐ œì Ðoffenses€occurred€on€September€17,€1997,€rather€than€in€July€1998.€€The€indictments€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðremaining€counts,€charging€aggravated€burglary,€aggravated€assault,€and€theft,€showed€the€correctÐ tÄ Ðdate€as€September€17,€1997.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€on€the€date€it€was€filed.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€grant€or€deny€a€motion€to€amend€an€indictment,€and€thisÐ 8 ˆ ÐCourt€will€alter€such€a€ruling€only€where€that€discretion€has€been€abused.€€òòState€v.€Kirklandóó,€696Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€544,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€€€Rule€7(b)€of€Tennesseeððs€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÐ  ` Ðstates€the€following:Ð ü L  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒAn€indictment,€presentment€or€information€may€be€amended€in€all€cases€with€theÐ Ô$  Ðconsent€of€Defendant.€€òòIf€no€additional€or€different€offense€is€thereby€charged€andÐ À  Ðno€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€are€thereby€prejudiced,€the€court€may€permitÐ ¬ü  Ðan€amendment€without€the€defendantððs€consent€before€jeopardy€attachesóó.Ð ˜è  ÐÒ°»5ÒÒ°­5ÒÌ(Emphasis€added).€€Pursuant€to€this€rule,€the€trial€court€had€the€discretion€to€allow€the€State€to€amendÐ pÀ Ðthe€date,€since€the€date€was€immaterial€and€the€amendment€neither€changed€nor€added€an€offense.€Ð \¬ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kennedyóó,€10€S.W.3d€280,€284€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(a€defendant€is€not€charged€withÐ H˜ Ða€new€crime€when€the€date€in€the€indictment€is€merely€corrected€in€order€for€the€original€charge€toÐ 4„ Ðstand);€òòState€v.€Badgettóó,€693€S.W.2d€917,€919€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(amending€the€date€in€anÐ  p Ðindictment€does€not€charge€a€defendant€with€a€new€or€an€additional€crime).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€amendment€interfered€with€his€right€to€a€grand€juryÐ ä4 Ðindictment€under€Article€I,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€because€the€grand€jury€neverÐ Ð  Ðconsidered€whether€the€proof€was€sufficient€to€indict€him€for€the€acts€allegedly€occurring€on€theÐ ¼  Ðamended€offense€date.€€However,€because€an€amendment€to€correct€an€immaterial€date€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðindictment€does€not€allege€a€new€crime,€Article€I,€section€14€concerns€are€not€implicated.€€òòKennedyóó,Ð ”ä Ð10€S.W.3d€at€284.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌò òà@««ìàIII.€€Unsigned€Indictmentó óˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àNext,€Defendant€alleges€that€the€absence€of€any€signature€on€the€indictment€charging€felonyÐ 0"€  Ðescape€renders€it€facially€void.€€The€indictment€was€signed€by€the€foreman€of€the€grand€jury,€but€wasÐ #l! Ðnot€signed€by€the€District€Attorney€General.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àÔ‡X÷xXX X÷xÔInitially,€we€observe€that€Defendantððs€entire€argument€concerning€this€issue€consists€of€twoÐ à%0!$ Ðstatements:€(1)€the€absence€of€a€signature€rendered€the€indictment€invalid,€and€(2)€the€trial€court€erredÐ Ì&"% Ðby€failing€to€dismiss€it.€€Since€this€issue€is€not€adequately€briefed€and€Defendant€declined€to€cite€òòanyóóÐ ¸'#& Ðlegal€authority€Ô#† X÷xXXX÷x„>#ÔÔ‡X÷xXX X÷xÔto€support€his€contention,€this€òòóóissue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10;€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a).€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÔ#† X÷xXXX÷xK@#ÔÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€addition€to€Defendantððs€failure€to€adequately€support€the€issue,€Rule€12(b)(2)€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€further€provides€that€objections€of€this€nature€should€beÐ œì Ðraised€prior€to€trial:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒDefenses€and€objections€òòbased€on€defects€in€the€indictmentóó,€presentment€orÐ `° Ðinformation€(other€than€that€it€fails€to€show€jurisdiction€in€the€court€or€to€charge€anÐ L œ Ðoffense€which€objections€shall€be€noticed€by€the€court€during€the€pendency€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðproceedings).Ð $ t ÐÌÒ°sBÒÒ°BÒ(Emphasis€added).€€According€to€the€record,€Defendant€objected€to€the€unsigned€indictment€after€theÐ ü L  Ðjury€had€been€sworn€and€the€trial€had€commenced€€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€based€onÐ è 8  ÐDefendantððs€failure€to€timely€object€to€the€alleged€defect.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(f);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„13„207€(1997).€€We€find€no€error€in€this€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Nixonóó,€977€S.W.2d€119,Ð À  Ð121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(included€within€the€class€of€indictment€defects€which€must€be€raisedÐ ¬ü  Ðprior€to€trial€are€defects€that€go€to€matters€of€form€rather€than€substance,€e.g.,€failure€of€the€districtÐ ˜è  Ðattorney€general€to€sign€the€indictment).€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@õõìàò òIV.€€Multiple€Convictions€€(Phrased€by€Defendant€as€an€ð ðElection€of€Offenseðð€Issue)ó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ð ðfailing€to€require€the€State€to€electÐ 4„ Ðbetween€aggravated€assault€and€aggravated€robbery.ðð€€He€essentially€argues€that€his€convictions€forÐ  p Ðboth€of€these€offenses€cannot€stand€because€the€elements€of€aggravated€assault€are€included€in€theÐ  \ Ðelements€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€State€responds€that€Defendantððs€failure€to€support€thisÐ øH Ðcontention€with€argument,€citation€to€proper€authorities,€or€appropriate€references€to€the€record,€hasÐ ä4 Ðeffectively€waived€this€issue.€€Notwithstanding€waiver,€the€State€argues€that€the€record€containsÐ Ð  Ðsufficient€proof€to€establish€the€elements€for€both€aggravated€assault€and€aggravated€robbery€asÐ ¼  Ðcharged€by€the€indictment.€€Despite€Defendantððs€failure€to€artfully€present€this€issue,€our€review€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€record€reveals€evidence€of€plain€error€such€that€Defendantððs€convictions€for€aggravated€assault,Ð ”ä Ðand€also€his€conviction€for€theft,€cannot€be€sustained€in€light€of€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€1996).€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhere€an€error€in€the€criminal€proceedings€concerning€a€defendant€are€found€to€affect€theÐ D!” Ðsubstantial€rights€of€that€defendant,€the€error€may€be€noticed€at€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€inÐ 0"€  Ðthe€motion€for€new€trial€or€assigned€as€error€on€appeal,€€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€whereÐ #l! Ðnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€In€determining€whether€an€errorÐ $X" Ðconstitutes€ð ðplain€error,ðð€this€Court€set€forth€the€following€factors€for€consideration€in€òòState€v.Ð ô$D # ÐAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994):Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àÌà  àa)€the€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àb)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àc)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;Ð )à$( Ðà  àd)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àe)€consideration€of€the€error€is€ððnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ððÐ h+¸&* ЇòòId.óó€at€641„42.€€For€the€reasons€following,€our€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€DefendantððsÐ ° Ðconvictions€for€aggravated€assault€and€theft,€in€addition€to€his€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery,Ð œì Ðconstitute€multiple€convictions€for€a€single€criminal€offense€and€thus€violate€constitutionalÐ ˆØ Ðprohibitions€against€double€jeopardy.€€Because€such€violations€satisfy€the€factors€outlined€inÐ tÄ ÐòòAdkissonóó,€we€conclude€that€plain€error€exists€under€the€circumstances€presented€here.Ð `° ÐÌà  àTo€recount,€Defendantððs€indictment€alleges€that€he€intentionally€or€knowingly€caused€bodilyÐ 8 ˆ Ðinjury€to€the€victim€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€which€is€aggravated€assault.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ $ t ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(1),€„102(a)(1)(B)€(1997).€€Defendant€was€also€indicted€for€obtaining€propertyÐ  ` Ðfrom€the€person€of€the€victim€by€use€of€violence€and€a€deadly€weapon,€which€is€defined€asÐ ü L  Ðaggravated€robbery,€and€for€knowingly€exercising€control€over€property€(a€Toyota€vehicle)€withoutÐ è 8  Ðconsent€and€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner,€which€is€defined€as€theft.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„Ð Ô$  Ð13„402(a)(1),€39„14„103€(1997).€€Because€the€elements€of€these€offenses€may€require€proof€of€similarÐ À  Ðfacts,€Defendantððs€dual€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€assault,€as€well€asÐ ¬ü  Ðaggravated€robbery€and€theft,€raise€the€double€jeopardy€concerns€addressed€herein.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€1996),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reaffirmedÐ pÀ Ðthe€protections€of€Article€I,€section€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€against€multiple€punishmentsÐ \¬ Ðfor€the€same€offense€and€provided€a€four„step€analysis€for€use€in€determining€when€this€circumstanceÐ H˜ Ðexists:€(1)€an€analysis€of€the€two€statutes€in€question,€(2)€an€analysis€of€the€evidence€needed€to€proveÐ 4„ Ðthe€two€offenses,€(3)€a€consideration€of€the€number€of€victims€and€discrete€acts,€and€(4)€a€comparisonÐ  p Ðof€the€purposes€behind€the€two€statutes.€€òòId.óó€at€379-81.€€These€steps€are€weighed€as€they€relate€to€eachÐ  \ Ðother,€with€no€one€factor€being€determinative.€€òòId.óó€at€381.Ð øH ÐÌò òòòA.€€€Aggravated€Assaultóóó óÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€initial€inquiry€under€òòDentonóó€involves€analysis€of€the€two€statutory€provisions,€asÐ ¤ô Ðprovided€in€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó:€ð ð[W]here€the€same€act€or€transaction€constitutes€aÐ à Ðviolation€of€two€distinct€statutory€provisions,€the€test€to€be€applied€to€determine€whether€there€areÐ |Ì Ðtwo€offenses€or€only€one€is€whether€each€provision€requires€proof€of€an€additional€fact€which€theÐ h¸ Ðother€does€not.ðð€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€299,€304,€52€S.Ct.€180,€182,€76€L.Ed.2d€306Ð T ¤ Ð(1932).€€Ð @! ÐÌà  àAs€alleged€in€the€indictment€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€to€obtain€a€conviction€for€aggravatedÐ #h! Ðassault,€the€State€had€to€prove€that€(1)€Defendant€intentionally€or€knowingly€committed€an€assaultÐ $T" Ðas€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-101(a)(1),€(causing€bodily€injury);€and€(2)€that€DefendantÐ ð$@ # Ðused€or€displayed€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-102(a)€(1997).€€To€obtain€aÐ Ü%,!$ Ðconviction€for€aggravated€robbery€as€indicted,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€(1)€DefendantÐ È&"% Ðperpetrated€an€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€the€victim€by€violence;Ð ´'#& Ðand€(2)€that€Defendant€accomplished€the€theft€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÐ  (ð#' Ð39-13-401,€„402(a)(1)€(1997).€The€offense€of€aggravated€robbery€requires€proof€that€DefendantÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðâ âcommitted€a€theft€of€property,€whereas€aggravated€assault€does€not.€€On€the€other€hand,€aggravatedÐ x*È%) Ðassault,€as€alleged,€requires€proof€of€bodily€injury€to€the€victim,€whereas€aggravated€robbery€doesÐ ° Ðnot.€€Therefore,€strictly€speaking,€these€offenses€are€not€the€ð ðsameðð€under€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àConversely,€analysis€under€the€second€prong€of€òòDentonóó€indicates€that€dual€convictions€wouldÐ tÄ Ðviolate€constitutional€prohibitions€against€double€jeopardy.€€The€evidence€used€to€prove€each€offenseÐ `° Ðis€virtually€identical.€€For€aggravated€assault,€the€State€proved€that€Defendant€intentionally€orÐ L œ Ðknowingly€assaulted€and€injured€the€victim€with€a€fire€poker.€€The€Stateððs€proof€for€aggravatedÐ 8 ˆ Ðrobbery€was€that€Defendant€intentionally€or€knowingly€used€violence€against€the€victim€with€a€fireÐ $ t Ðpoker,€and€then€took€his€keys€and€truck.€€For€purposes€of€applying€our€robbery€statute,€the€elementÐ  ` Ðof€ð ðviolenceðð€requires€evidence€of€ð ðphysical€force€unlawfully€exercised€as€to€damage,€injure€orÐ ü L  Ðabuse.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fitzóó,€19€S.W.3d€213,€217€(Tenn.€2000).€Thus,€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault€wasÐ è 8  Ðestablished€by€the€same€proof€used€to€satisfy€the€violence€element€of€the€aggravated€robbery€offense.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€third€step€in€the€òòDentonóó€analysis€examines€the€number€of€victims€and€discrete€actsÐ ¬ü  Ðinvolved.€€When€there€exists€only€one€victim,€as€here,€multiple€convictions€are€generally€unjustified.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòSeeóó€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381.€€This€is€especially€true€when€the€evidence€does€not€suggest€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðaggravated€assault€of€the€victim€and€the€robbery€were€two€discrete€acts.€€òòSeeóó€òòEnglish€v.€Stateóó,€411Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€702,€707€(Tenn.€1966)€(in€a€case€where€the€defendants€were€convicted€of€gaming€andÐ \¬ Ðlarceny,€and€the€conduct€which€led€to€the€gaming€charge€was€designed€to€facilitate€the€commissionÐ H˜ Ðof€larceny,€the€gaming€conviction€could€not€stand);€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€524€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1975)Ð 4„ Ð(where€defendant€robbed€victim€at€gunpoint€and,€afterward,€stepped€back€and€shot€the€victim€in€theÐ  p Ðleg,€the€robbery€was€considered€completed€prior€to€infliction€of€the€wound€and€two€separate€andÐ  \ Ðdistinct€offenses€were€committed,€even€though€they€occurred€at€substantially€the€same€time€and€inÐ øH Ðthe€course€of€a€single€criminal€episode);€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€379€n.14€(ð ðWhen€the€legislatureÐ ä4 Ðhas€made€its€intent€clear€that€cumulative€punishment€is€intended,€such€as€in€the€case€of€felony€murderÐ Ð  Ðand€the€underlying€felony,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Blackburnóó,€694€S.W.2d€934€(Tenn.€1985),€our€[doubleÐ ¼  Ðjeopardy]€analysis€under€òòBlackóó€is€pretermitted.ðð).€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€facts€show€thatÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€demanded€the€victimððs€keys€twice,€and€was€refused€both€times,€prior€to€hitting€the€victimÐ ”ä Ðin€the€head€with€a€fire€poker.€€Thus,€it€appears€that€Defendant€assaulted€the€victim€to€further€hisÐ €Ð Ðcommission€of€the€robbery,€that€is,€to€obtain€possession€of€the€keys€to€the€victimððs€vehicle,€and€thatÐ l¼ Ðthese€crimes€were€committed€in€the€course€of€a€single€criminal€episode€by€a€defendant€with€oneÐ X ¨ Ðobjective:€robbery.òòóóÐ D!” ÐÌà  àThe€final€step€in€a€double€jeopardy€analysis€requires€us€to€examine€the€purposes€of€theÐ #l! Ðstatutes€underlying€the€respective€offenses€to€determine€whether€they€further€common€goals.€€WeÐ $X" Ðobserve€that€the€purpose€of€the€aggravated€robbery€statute,€as€applicable€here,€is€to€punish€theftÐ ô$D # Ðaccomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€and€the€purpose€of€aggravated€assault,€as€charged€here,Ð à%0!$ Ðis€to€prohibit€bodily€injury€caused€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Clearly,€one€of€the€purposes€of€eachÐ Ì&"% Ðstatute€is€the€prohibition€of€these€offenses€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€also€enhance€the€punishmentÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€those€found€guilty.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€after€weighing€each€factor€and€considering€their€relation€to€each€other,€we€findÐ |*Ì%) ÐDefendantððs€convictions€for€both€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€assault€violate€the€principlesÐ h+¸&* Ðof€double€jeopardy.€€Although€the€statutes€are€not€the€ð ðsameðð€under€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis,Ð ° Ðessentially€the€same€evidence€supported€both€convictions,€the€offenses€involved€one€victim,€theyÐ œì Ðarose€from€a€single€criminal€act€and€resulted€from€a€single€criminal€intent.€€Moreover,€the€statutesÐ ˆØ Ðhave€similar€purposes€in€that€both€offenses€punish€the€accused€who€commits€a€crime€against€a€personÐ tÄ Ðwhile€armed€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€harm€sought€to€be€punished€in€aggravated€assault€with€aÐ `° Ðdeadly€weapon€is€encompassed€in€aggravated€robbery€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon,€even€thoughÐ L œ Ðaggravated€robbery€also€involves€a€theft€and€aggravated€assault€does€not.€€This€conclusion€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsistent€with€one€of€the€guiding€principles€for€resolving€double€jeopardy€punishment€issues€asÐ $ t Ðquoted€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòDentonóó,€which€states€thatÐ  ` ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒEven€if€it€be€conceded€that€two€convictions€and€two€punishments€may€be€had€in€anyÐ è 8  Ðcase€upon€separate€counts,€the€practice€is€not€approved,€and,€òòcertainly€it€must€beÐ Ô$  Ðclear€that€the€offenses€are€wholly€separate€and€distinct€óó.€.€.€.€The€power€of€electionÐ À  Ðrests€with€the€state,€not€the€criminal,€and€the€state€should€not€split€the€transaction€soÐ ¬ü  Ðas€to€subject€the€accused€to€cumulative€sentences€for€the€same€offense€or€for€differentÐ ˜è  Ðoffenses€involving€the€same€act€as€a€means€of€pyramiding€punishment€for€two€orÐ „Ô  Ðmore€cognate€offenses.€Ð pÀ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€380€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€Because€only€one€conviction€canÐ H˜ Ðbe€sustained,€Defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€assault€is€reversed€and€the€charges€for€thatÐ 4„ Ðoffense€are€dismissed.€€€Ð  p ÐÌò òòòB.€Theftó óóóÐ øH ÐÌà  àNeither€Defendant€nor€the€State€has€addressed€the€issue€whether€Defendantððs€conviction€forÐ Ì Ðtheft€may€be€sustained.€€However,€for€the€reasons€following€we€find€that€double€jeopardy€principlesÐ ¸ Ðrequire€us€to€reverse€and€dismiss€Defendantððs€conviction€for€this€offense.Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àHere,€Defendant€was€convicted€of€theft€of€property€(a€Toyota€truck)€valued€at€more€thanÐ |Ì Ð$1,000€but€less€than€$10,000,€a€Class€D€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„103,€„105(3)€(1997).€Ð h¸ ÐConviction€for€this€offense€required€the€State€to€prove€that€Defendant€knowingly€exercised€controlÐ T ¤ Ðover€property€(in€this€case,€the€victimððs€Toyota€truck)€without€consent€and€with€intent€to€deprive€theÐ @! Ðowner.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1997).€Defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€Ð ,"|  Ðwas€proved€by€evidence€that€Defendant€obtained€property€from€the€person€of€the€victim€(specifically,Ð #h! Ðthe€keys€to€the€victimððs€Toyota€truck)€by€use€of€violence€and€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð $T" Ððð€39„13„402(a)(1).€€Although€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€reveals€that€the€provisions€for€these€offensesÐ ð$@ # Ðare€not€the€ð ðsame,ðð€that€is,€that€the€provision€for€aggravated€robbery€requires€proof€of€use€of€violenceÐ Ü%,!$ Ðand€a€deadly€weapon€which€the€provision€for€theft€does€not,€convictions€for€both€are€prohibited€inÐ È&"% Ðthe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€According€to€the€double€jeopardy€provisions€of€the€constitutions€of€both€theÐ ´'#& ÐUnited€States€and€Tennessee,€a€defendant€may€not€be€convicted€of€two€offenses€if€one€is€a€lesser„Ð  (ð#' Ðincluded€offense€of€another€under€circumstances€such€as€those€presented€here.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Ohioóó,Ð Œ)Ü$( Ð432€U.S.€161,€168,€97€S.Ct.€2221,€2226-27,€53€L.Ed.2d€187€(1977)€(when€one€offense€is€classifiedÐ x*È%) Ðas€a€lesser„included€of€another,€the€lesser€offense€is€the€ð ðsameðð€for€purposes€of€double€jeopardyÐ d+´&* Ðanalysis€where€conviction€for€the€lesser€offense€requires€no€proof€beyond€that€necessary€to€convictÐ ° Ðfor€the€greater€offense).€€Case€law,€as€well€as€the€statutory€elements€for€theft€and€aggravated€robbery,Ð œì Ðreveal€that€theft€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Timothy€R.€Bowlesóó,Ð ˆØ Ð___€S.W.3d€___,€No.€M1997„00092„SC„R11„CD,€2001€WL€856575,€(Tenn.€July€31,€2001)€(it€isÐ tÄ Ðuncontested€that€theft€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€robbery€(citing€òòState€v.€Fitzóó,€19€S.W.3d€213,€216Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€2000)));€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€7€S.W.3d€52,€56€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(where€defendant€wasÐ L œ Ðconvicted€of€aggravated€robbery€and€theft€of€the€same€property,€court€reversed€and€dismissed€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðconviction€for€theft€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€aggravated€robbery).€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àSince€the€same€evidence,€taking€of€the€victimððs€keys€and€truck,€was€used€to€prove€bothÐ ü L  Ðoffenses,€factor€two€of€the€òòDentonóó€analysis€likewise€supports€dismissal€of€the€theft€conviction.€Ð è 8  ÐAlthough€it€may€be€argued€that€the€aggravated€robbery€offense€was€completed€when€Defendant€tookÐ Ô$  Ðthe€victimððs€keys,€and€this€effectively€severed€this€offense€from€the€subsequent€commission€of€theftÐ À  Ðfor€purposes€of€prosecution,€this€result€is€inconsistent€from€our€decision€in€òòState€v.€William€JasonÐ ¬ü  ÐMcMahanóó,€No.€03C01-9707-CR-00262,€1999€WL€177590,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ˜è  ÐKnoxville,€March€31,€1999)€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó.€€In€òòMcMahanóó,€the€defendant€beat€the€€victim€untilÐ „Ô  Ðhe€was€unconscious,€and€then€took€a€set€of€car€keys€and€a€bag€of€marijuana€from€the€victimððs€frontÐ pÀ Ðpocket,€removed€an€envelope€containing€the€victimððs€money€from€the€table,€and€left€in€the€victimððsÐ \¬ Ðcar.€€In€support€of€separate€convictions€for€theft€and€aggravated€robbery€the€State€argued€that,Ð H˜ Ðalthough€the€defendant€beat€the€victim€in€order€to€take€money€and€car€keys€from€him,€the€defendantÐ 4„ Ðdid€not€decide€to€take€the€car€until€after€the€beating€was€concluded.€€This€Court€was€unpersuaded€byÐ  p Ðthe€Stateððs€argument.€€Reversing€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€theft,€we€relied€on€òòState€v.€Loweryóó,Ð  \ Ð667€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1984)€in€which€the€supreme€court€found€that,€in€order€to€be€convicted€for€bothÐ øH Ðrobbery€and€theft,€the€jury€must€find€that€the€defendant€formed€the€intent€to€steal€the€car€òòsubsequentÐ ä4 Ðto€stealing€the€money€and€the€keys.óó€òòMcMahanóó,€1999€WL€177590€at€*9€(citing€òòLoweryóó,€667€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€57).€€The€facts€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€support€a€similar€conclusion€whereas€Defendant€clearlyÐ ¼  Ðindicated€his€intent€to€take€the€car€prior€to€striking€the€victim€with€the€fire€poker.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€further€observe€that€the€circumstances€surrounding€Defendantððs€convictions€for€theft€andÐ €Ð Ðaggravated€robbery€also€fail€to€support€multiple€convictions€in€that€they€involve€neither€multipleÐ l¼ Ðvictims€nor€more€than€one€discrete€act.€€òòSee€id.óó€(evidence€does€not€indicate€two€discrete€acts€whereÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant€completed€robbery€by€taking€keys,€drugs,€and€money€immediately€before€taking€the€car).€Ð D!” ÐLastly,€concerning€factor€four,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€statutory€provisions€concerningÐ 0"€  Ðrobbery€and€larceny€protected€overlapping€interests:€both€protected€property€while€robbery€protectedÐ #l! Ðpeople€as€well.€€òòLoweryóó,€667€S.W.2d€at€54.€€ð ðThe€same€reasoning€also€applies€to€aggravated€robberyÐ $X" Ðand€theft.ðð€€òòMcMahanóó,€1999€WL€177590€at€*9.€€Defendantððs€conviction€for€theft€is€reversed€andÐ ô$D # Ðdismissed.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ ¸'#& ÐÌÓ˜•Óà  àÔ‡ X÷xXX X÷xÔFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€Defendantððs€conviction€and€sentence€for€theft€and€aggravatedÐ )à$( Ðâ âassault€are€reversed€and€dismissed€as€violative€of€state€and€federal€constitutional€protections€againstÐ |*Ì%) Ðdouble€jeopardy.€€Ô#† X÷xXX X÷xã•#ÔÔ‡ X÷xXX X÷xÔWe€affirm€Defendantððs€remaining€convictions€and€the€sentences€imposed€for€thoseÐ ° Ðconvictions.Ô#† X÷xXX X÷x,—#ÔÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð tÄ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ `° Ð