ÿWPC `Ô„ͱ›ˆêg™Tª[èYmk’ÅÙ:TÛ̉öëÑP?o¿FƳ“eÁ{E%^2<á ¤MîÂV¾šŠõ ‡hx 3@½ÙðŠ Ùëp‹^ Ù(N1«Ùµ^ðâ·Û#ã$?5ðÙˆ—½o+eG xàÈVÉ°?fTE€ïªV÷NuçÖûDp㎡Køl_±³Ò]Bº“ÚMçò7¹Ëפ[ÊØFû„#F/òCnIÔÿyRF‡ Ù1^²}˜6®ŒŒ<Ϙÿ̧c‚XB8~êmW#år³$Cl:J’ŸgÓè…ÚDÆç;®DCköyÑÓ6îãͨÙˆŠâ?U•%ÈfÝG8;Kͼ֪Ù05v87šŒyar ±tÕ‚< âõˆÈ|I,×XJSäõ”NßãceúqQÛ¾·fÑ•àý„º_q` è ùf9íÎeÁäNô1qÁ¤ý€FçÔ˜s“‰¹iÕõyƒ¬ böÌßhzˆê³ì21XÞª+¨§—âÍÎ]чŽÁî'ŠÈ™Tn]CµSÅQ”ü=ˆŽÝw˨gŒ‰vÀù8ôbMÙ/8€ý"]¤ÒÖ@ÊÐ"O–M[ëš~™ãœ]ŠÕ»Ý`bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 0DéN- 0c/ 1’Ev!<— 1uÓ 72HHHHzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzb‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚ 0늊ŠŠ Buu 0¤’ D36 D-i 0K–– ASáÆ4 0¤ú 0Dž A«â(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓݲM) ÖJ~'  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) lÝ ƒR®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô^ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô^òòô^Ôð ðConsistent€with€our€policy,€we€will€withhold€the€identity€of€young€children€involved€in€sexual€abuse€cases.ðð€Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€188€n.1.(Tenn.Crim.App.€1989). 2Ý ƒR®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô^ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ô^òòô^ÔBoth€rape€of€a€child€and€attempted€rape€of€a€child€are€classified€as€violent€offenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ° Ð120(b)(1)(F).3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2®$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô^ò»»Ô d(|3Õï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Õï$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'Á»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼'Á»»»ÔÑ8€XXXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î R'ÁÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼'Á»îî R #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡XXX»¼'ÁÔÌò òÔ#†¼'Á»XXX#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€CALVIN€OTIS€TANKSLEYòòóóÔ‡XXX»¼'ÁÔó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„C„1239,€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00683„CCA„R3„CD€„€filed€October€4,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XXXXXXÔà  àThe€appellant,€Calvin€Otis€Tanksley,€was€convicted€by€a€Davidson€County€Jury€of€one€countÐ &v  Ðof€rape€of€a€child€and€one€count€of€attempted€rape€of€a€child.€€Based€on€his€classification€as€a€repeatÐ  \ Ðviolent€offender,€the€appellant€was€sentenced€upon€each€count€to€two€consecutive€sentences€of€lifeÐ òB Ðwithout€parole.€€Upon€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€wasÐ Ø( Ðsufficient€to€support€the€verdicts;€(2)€whether€the€court€erred€in€ruling€the€defendantððs€prior€bad€actsÐ ¾ Ðcould€be€introduced€by€the€State€if€the€defendant€presented€an€alibi€defense;€(3)€whether€the€courtÐ ¤ô Ðerred€in€allowing€the€State€to€introduce€over€four€hundred€pairs€of€womenððs€undergarments€seizedÐ ŠÚ Ðfrom€the€defendant€in€an€investigation€in€another€county;€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÐ pÀ Ðsuppressing€the€photographic€array;€and€(5)€whether€the€appellant€qualified€for€sentencing€as€a€repeatÐ V¦ Ðviolent€offender.€€Finding€no€reversible€error,€the€judgments€are€affirmed.ò òó óÔ#†XXXX XX¸#ÔÔ#†¼'Á»XXX‹#ÔÔ‡XXX»¼'ÁÔÐ <Œ ÐÓ¬ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€affirmed.ó óÐ X ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼'Á»àXX· #ÔÔ‡XXX.¼'ÁÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€woodall,€J.óó€andÐ Ô$ ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð º  ÐÌJames€Robin€McKinney,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant.Ð † Ö  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Todd€R.Ð R"¢" ÐKelley,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Victor€S.€(Torry)€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General,€andÐ 8#ˆ# ÐJohn€Zimmermann,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $n$ ÐÔ#†¼'Á»XXX† #ÔÔ‡XXX»¼'ÁÔÌÓW ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼'Á»XXX' #ÔÔ‡XXX»¼'ÁÔÐ Ð& "' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼'Á»XXXš #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XXX»¼'ÁÔÔ‡ XXXXXXÔà  àThe€appellant,€Calvin€Otis€Tanksley,€was€indicted€for€the€offenses€of€rape€of€a€child€and€theÐ œ(ì#) Ðattempted€rape€of€a€child€by€a€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury.€€€The€State€gave€notice€of€its€intent€toÐ ‚)Ò$* Ðâ âseek€enhanced€punishment€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€under€the€ð ðthree€strikesðð€statute€for€eachÐ h*¸%+ý¾ Ðoffense.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Following€his€convictions€by€a€jury€for€both€offenses,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÐ ° Ðâ âappellant€to€two€consecutive€life€sentences€without€parole,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð –æ Ð120.€€The€appellant€has€timely€appealed€to€this€Court€asserting€the€following€errors:€(1)€the€evidenceÐ |Ì Ðwas€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€the€defendantððs€priorÐ b² Ðbad€acts€could€be€introduced€by€the€State€if€he€provided€alibi€witnesses;€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ H˜ Ðintroducing€several€hundred€pairs€of€womenððs€undergarments€seized€from€the€defendant;€(4)€the€trialÐ . ~ Ðcourt€erred€by€not€suppressing€the€photographic€array;€and€(5)€the€trial€court€failed€to€comply€withÐ  d Ðthe€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120€when€it€sentenced€the€defendant€to€life€withoutÐ ú J Ðparole€as€a€violent€offender.€€Upon€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€ofÐ à 0 ÐDavidson€County.Ð Æ   ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓBackgroundÐ xÈ  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àOn€May€6,€1995,€Tanya€Briggs€gave€her€six„year„old€niece,€B.B.,€some€change€and€askedÐ D”  Ðher€to€go€purchase€a€soft€drink€from€a€machine€located€inside€the€laundry€room€of€her€apartmentÐ *z  Ðcomplex.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€B.B.€entered€the€laundry€room,€she€encountered€the€appellant€who€asked€her€ð ðDo€youÐ ` Ðwant€any€panties?ðð€€The€appellant€then€grabbed€B.B.,€put€his€hand€over€her€mouth,€and€placed€herÐ öF Ðon€the€floor.€€He€pulled€B.B.ððs€shorts€and€panties€down€and€proceeded€to€digitally€penetrate€B.B.ððsÐ Ü, Ðvagina.€€The€appellant€next€attempted€to€make€B.B.€perform€oral€sex€upon€him.€€He€placed€his€penisÐ Â Ðon€B.B.ððs€lips,€but€she€never€opened€her€mouth.€€The€appellant€stood€B.B.€up€and€she€urinated€onÐ ¨ø Ðherself.€€When€he€saw€through€the€laundry€room€windows€that€two€people€were€about€to€enter€theÐ ŽÞ Ðbuilding,€he€placed€B.B.€back€on€the€floor,€told€her€to€pull€her€pants€up,€and€immediately€left€theÐ tÄ Ðlaundry€room.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àKimberly€Gilkeson€and€her€husband,€Jimmy€Gilkeson,€lived€in€the€same€apartment€complexÐ &v Ðand€had€just€parked€directly€in€front€of€the€laundry€room.€€Kimberly€parked€her€car€beside€theÐ  \ Ðappellantððs€car,€which€was€backed€into€the€parking€spot.€€Both€Kimberly€and€Jimmy€immediatelyÐ òB Ðnoticed€a€young€blond„headed€male€child,€buckled€into€a€car€seat,€in€the€appellantððs€car.€€AsÐ Ø( ÐKimberly€was€attempting€to€exit€her€car,€the€appellant€walked€out€of€the€building.€€Due€to€theÐ ¾ Ðposition€of€Kimberlyððs€car€in€relation€to€the€appellantððs€car,€Kimberly€had€to€wait€for€the€appellantÐ ¤ô Ðto€get€into€his€car€before€she€could€exit€her€vehicle.€€€The€rapist€said€ð ðhelloðð€or€ð ðsomething€like€thatððÐ Š Ú Ðto€Kimberly,€got€in€his€car,€and€left.€Kimberly€testified€that€she€made€eye€contact€with€the€appellant€Ð p!À  Ðand€observed€him€for€approximately15€seconds.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àKimberly,€followed€shortly€thereafter€by€her€husband,€proceeded€into€the€laundry€room.€Ð "$r# ÐWhen€she€entered€the€facility,€she€found€B.B.€ð ðhysterically€crying€and€upset.ðð€€B.B.€repeatedly€toldÐ %X $ ÐKimberly€and€her€husband€that€ð ðthat€man€tried€to€kill€me.ðð€€€B.B.ððs€hair€was€ð ðreal€disheveled€on€herÐ î%>!% Ðhead,€kind€of€standing€up€in€parts.ðð€€There€was€also€change€scattered€across€the€floor€of€the€laundryÐ Ô&$"& Ðroom.€€Kimberly€and€her€husband€took€B.B.€back€to€her€auntððs€apartment€and€then€returned€to€theÐ ° Ðlaundry€mat.€€Upon€returning,€Kimberly€noticed€a€puddle€of€urine€in€the€floor€and€wiped€it€up€withÐ –æ Ða€pair€of€panties€she€found€in€the€floor€of€the€laundry€room.€€€€Ð |Ì ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àThe€appellant€asserts€that€the€evidence€produced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€the€guiltyÐ  d Ðverdicts.€€Specifically,€he€alleges€that€ð ðthere€was€no€physical€evidence,€either€fingerprint,€DNA,Ð ú J Ðfibers,€or€any€other€evidence€whatsoeverðð€to€link€him€to€the€crimes.€€€The€appellant€further€contendsÐ à 0 Ðthat€the€evidence€was€deficient€because€B.B.€failed€to€identify€him€at€trial.€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ ’â  Ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ xÈ  Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ^®  ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ D”  Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ *z  ÐCourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€provinceÐ ` Ðof€the€trier€of€€fact.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€646€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.Ð öF ÐBurlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€718„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€defendant€must€establishÐ Ü, Ðthat€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ Â Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ð ¨ø Ð319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ŽÞ Ð513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ tÄ Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ Zª Ðtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert€denied,óó€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.Ð @ Ð1368€(1993).Ð &v ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€both€Kimberly€and€her€husband,€Jimmy,€identified€the€appellant€from€aÐ òB Ðpre„trial€photographic€array,€and€again€at€trial,€as€the€same€person€who€was€exiting€the€laundry€roomÐ Ø( Ðimmediately€after€B.B.€was€sexually€assaulted.€€No€other€person€was€observed€in€the€laundry€roomÐ ¾ Ðor€in€the€immediate€vicinity€of€the€victim.€€The€victimððs€aunt€testified€that€B.B.€returned€to€herÐ ¤ô Ðapartment€ð ðhystericalðð€and€had€urinated€on€herself.€€€Such€testimony€corroborates€both€the€victimððsÐ Š Ú Ðtestimony€and€the€testimony€of€Kimberly€and€Jimmy.€€B.B.€immediately€told€her€aunt€that€ð ðthat€manÐ p!À  Ðhad€tried€to€kill€herðð€and€subsequently€explained€that€he€had€touched€her€private€parts.€€Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€the€description€of€the€rapistððs€car€matched€the€vehicle€driven€by€the€appellant.€Ð "$r# ÐBoth€Kimberly€and€Jimmy€testified€that€a€young€blond„headed€boy€was€in€the€rapistððs€car€when€theyÐ %X $ Ðarrived€at€the€laundry€room.€€At€the€time€of€the€incident,€the€appellant€had€a€child€of€like€descriptionÐ î%>!% Ðand€age.€€Although€the€appellant€had€somewhat€changed€his€appearance€at€the€time€of€trial,€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðphysical€appearance€of€the€appellant€also€matched€the€descriptions€given€by€B.B.€and€the€otherÐ º' #' Ðwitnesses€as€that€of€the€rapist.Ð  (ð#( Ðà  àThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child€and€attempted€rape€of€a€child.€€€In€order€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðconvict€the€appellant€of€rape€of€a€child,€the€jury€must€find€(1)€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victimÐ l*¼%* Ðby€the€defendant,€and€(2)€the€victim€was€less€than€thirteen€years€old.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522.Ð R+¢&+ ÐLikewise,€ð ða€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€of€culpability€required€forÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€offense€...€[a]cts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€...€and€the€conduct€constitutes€aÐ ° Ðsubstantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(3).€€ProofÐ –æ Ðof€sexual€penetration€and€attempted€sexual€penetration€was€established€through€the€testimony€of€theÐ |Ì Ðsix„year„old€€victim.€The€identity€of€the€appellant€as€the€person€who€committed€these€crimes€wasÐ b² Ðestablished€circumstantially€by€the€testimony€of€Kimberly€and€Jimmy€Gilkeson.€€CircumstantialÐ H˜ Ðevidence€alone€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Buttryóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€821€(Tenn.Ð . ~ ÐCrim.€App.€1998).€€If€a€conviction€is€based€purely€on€circumstantial€evidence,€however,€the€facts€andÐ  d Ðcircumstances€must€be€so€overwhelming€as€to€exclude€any€other€explanation€except€for€theÐ ú J Ðdefendantððs€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2dÐ à 0 Ð896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).€€Having€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€wasÐ Æ   Ðsufficient€to€establish€the€elements€of€the€offenses€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€€Alibi€DefenseÐ xÈ  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€the€State€could€introduceÐ D”  Ðevidence€of€the€appellantððs€prior€bad€acts€if€he€introduced€an€alibi€defense.€€In€response,€the€StateÐ *z  Ðcontends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€because€the€appellant€ð ðmade€identity€a€central€issue€byÐ ` Ðasserting€an€alibi€defense.ððÐ öF Ѐ€€Ð Ü, Ðà  àIt€is€well„established,€of€course,€that€in€a€criminal€trial,€evidence€that€the€defendant€hasÐ Â Ðcommitted€some€other€crime€wholly€independent€of€that€for€which€he€is€charged,€even€though€it€isÐ ¨ø Ða€crime€of€the€same€character,€is€usually€not€admissible€because€it€is€irrelevant.€€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605Ð ŽÞ ÐS.W.2d€227,€229„230€(Tenn.€1980);€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€302€(Tenn.€1985).€€TheÐ tÄ Ðholdings€of€both€òòBunchóó€and€òòPartonóó€are€embodied€in€the€Tennessee€€Rules€of€Evidence,€Rule€404(a)Ð Zª Ðand€404(b),€and€were€adopted€by€the€General€Assembly,€effective€January€1,€1990.€Rule€404(b)Ð @ Ðprovides:Ð &v ÐÌà8  àò ò(b)€€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.ó ó€€Evidence€of€other€crimes€wrongs,€or€acts€isÐ òB Ðnot€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€inÐ Ø( Ðconformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€otherÐ ¾ Ðpurposes.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:ФôÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(1)€à8` Ð Ð àThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÐ p!À  Ðpresence;ÐV"¦!` x` x Ðà8  à(2)€à8` Ð Ð àThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÐ <#Œ" Ðconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€stateÐ "$r# Ðon€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÐ %X $ Ðadmitting€the€evidence;€and€Ðî%>!%` x` x Ðà8  à(3)€à8` Ð Ð àThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÐ Ô&$"& Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.к' #'` x` x ÐÌThe€general€rule€excluding€evidence€of€other€crimes€is€based€on€the€recognition€that€such€evidenceÐ †)Ö$) Ðeasily€results€in€a€jury€improperly€convicting€a€defendant€for€his€or€her€bad€character€or€apparentÐ l*¼%* Ðpropensity€or€disposition€to€commit€a€crime€regardless€of€the€strength€of€the€evidence€concerningÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€offense€on€trial.€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1994);€òòSee€alsoóó€òòAnderson€v.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐStateóó,€56€S.W.2d€731€(1933).€€There€are,€however,€exceptions€to€Rule€404(b).€€Although€Rule€404(b)Ð ° Ðdoes€not€explicitly€list€these€exceptions,€case€law€has€held€that€evidence€of€other€crimes€may€beÐ –æ Ðadmissible€to€show€(1)€motive;€(2)€intent;€(3)€guilty€knowledge;€(4)€identity€of€the€defendant;€(5)Ð |Ì Ðabsence€of€mistake;€or€(6)€a€common€scheme€or€plan€for€commission€of€two€or€more€crimes€soÐ b² Ðrelated€to€each€other€that€proof€of€one€tends€to€establish€the€other.€€€òòCollard€€v.€Stateóó,€526€S.W.2dÐ H˜ Ð112,€114€(Tenn.€1975);€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€944€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€appellant€sought€to€introduce€an€alibi€defense€in€response€to€theÐ ú J Ðallegations€made€against€him.€€After€conducting€a€Rule€404(b)€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled:Ð à 0 ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:à0Ð Ð àNow€if€you€are€contesting,€or€if€you€are€advancing€an€alibiÐ ¬ ü  Ðtheory,€then€that€puts€identity€right€square€at€issue.€€AndÐ ’â  Ðidentity€is€one€of€the€exceptions€to€404€that€allows€evidenceÐ xÈ  Ðof€this€nature.Ð^® Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:à0Ð Ð àWhat€Iððm€telling€you€is€this:€That€if€you€advance€your€theoryÐ *z  Ðof€alibi,€in€all€probability,€this€material€is€going€to€beÐ ` Ðadmissible.€€Until€you€open€the€door€it€is€not€admissible.€€ÐöFÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Ó***Ð Â ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àMR.€MCKINNEY:à0Ð Ð àJust€so€Iððm€clear:€Your€Honor€is€going€to€exclude€theÐ ŽÞ Ðevidence€in€their€case€in€chief,€as€far€as€these€specificÐ tÄ Ðinstances€of€conduct,€unless€I€open€the€door,€and€Your€Honor€Ð Zª Ðis€going€to€allow€them€to€offer€it€in€their€rebuttal.Ð@Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àTHE€COURT:à0  àThatððs€correct.€€Thatððs€exactly€what€Iððll€do.ò òÐ \(#(# ÐÌó óWhen€the€trial€court€substantially€complies€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€404(b),€we€review€the€trialÐ Ø( Ðcourtððs€determination€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.Ð ¾ Ð1997).Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that€evidence€of€the€appellantððs€commission€of€ð ðother€crimesðð€isÐ p!À  Ðadmissible€under€the€common€scheme€or€plan€exception.€€In€Tennessee,€there€are€three€types€ofÐ V"¦! Ðcommon€scheme€or€plan€evidence:€(1)€offenses€that€reveal€a€distinctive€design€or€are€so€similar€asÐ <#Œ" Ðto€constitute€ð ðsignatureðð€crimes;€(2)€€offenses€that€are€part€of€a€larger,€continuing€plan€or€conspiracy;Ð "$r# Ðand€(3)€offenses€that€are€all€part€of€the€same€criminal€transaction.€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€944.€Ð %X $ Ðð ðThe€most€common€basis€for€offering€evidence€of€a€distinctive€design€is€to€establish€the€identity€ofÐ î%>!% Ðthe€perpetrator.ðð€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€248€(Tenn.€1999);€òòsee€also€óóòòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922Ð Ô&$"& ÐS.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.€1996).€€If€a€distinctive€design€can€be€shown,€the€evidence€of€offensesÐ º' #' Ðconstituting€a€common€scheme€or€plan€are€relevant,€and€therefore,€admissible.€€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6Ð  (ð#( ÐS.W.3d€at€248.€€€Before€multiple€offenses€may€be€said€to€be€a€distinctive€design,€however,€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðð ðmodus€operandi€employed€must€be€so€unique€and€distinctive€as€to€be€like€a€signature.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòStateÐ l*¼%* Ðv.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€245€(Tenn.€1986).€€Although€the€offenses€do€not€have€to€be€identical€inÐ R+¢&+ Ðevery€respect,€the€methods€used€in€committing€the€offenses€must€have€ð ðsuch€unusual€particularitiesÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthat€reasonable€men€can€conclude€that€it€would€not€likely€be€employed€by€different€persons.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ° Ðð ðOnly€when€the€method€usedòòóó€to€commit€the€crimes€is€so€unique€as€to€be€like€a€signature€can€theÐ –æ Ðinference€of€identity€properly€arise.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€the€present€case,€the€identity€of€the€rapist€would€haveÐ |Ì Ðbecome€the€central€issue€ò òó óhad€the€appellant€relied€upon€a€defense€of€alibi.€The€appellantððs€alibi€wasÐ b² Ðthat€he€met€a€female€friend€in€a€parking€lot€on€May€6,€1995,€from€1:45€p.m.€to€3:30€p.m.€to€work€onÐ H˜ Ðher€computer.€€€At€trial,€the€State€argued€that€two€of€the€appellantððs€past€offenses€were,€in€fact,Ð . ~ Ðð ðsignatureðð€crimes,€and€therefore,€admissible€if€the€appellant€utilized€an€alibi€defense.€€€We€agreeÐ  d Ðthat€two€of€the€appellantððs€past€acts€were€ð ðsignature€crimesðð€and€find€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€wasÐ ú J Ðproper.Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àThe€acts€which€the€trial€court€would€have€introduced€as€signature€crimes,€had€the€appellantÐ ¬ ü  Ðpresented€his€alibi€defense,€consisted€of€two€prior€acts.€€The€appellant€pled€no„contest€on€one€chargeÐ ’â  Ðand€the€other€charge€was€dismissed.€€The€first€incident€occurred€during€late€afternoon€on€May€7,Ð xÈ  Ð1995,€in€an€apartment€complex€known€as€Pheasant€Run€Apartments.€€A€three„year„old€girl€had€beenÐ ^®  Ðplaying€in€front€of€an€apartment€building€when€she€was€approached€by€a€white€male€who€asked€ifÐ D”  Ðshe€wanted€to€go€with€him€to€get€some€hamburgers.€€She€declined€the€offer.€€The€appellant€got€outÐ *z  Ðof€his€car€and€followed€her€into€the€stairwell.€€€The€appellant€took€the€victim€farther€up€the€stairwell,Ð ` Ðremoved€her€panties,€and€asked€if€he€ð ðcould€lick€her€pee€pee.ðð€€When€the€child€said€no,€the€appellantÐ öF Ðdigitally€penetrated€her€with€his€finger€and€asked€her€to€touch€his€genital€area.€€The€child€refused€toÐ Ü, Ðtouch€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€then€put€her€panties€back€on€and€left.€A€five„year„old€friend€ofÐ Â Ðthe€victim€witnessed€the€incident.€€€The€victim€described€the€rapist€as€a€white€male,€approximatelyÐ ¨ø Ðsix€feet€tall,€with€a€long,€dark€ponytail.€€She€also€described€the€rapistððs€car€as€blue€with€a€luggageÐ ŽÞ Ðrack€and€an€antenna.€€The€victim€identified€the€appellant€as€her€rapist€in€a€photo€lineup.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€second€incident€took€place€during€the€afternoon€of€May€27,€1995,€in€an€apartmentÐ @ Ðcomplex€known€as€Wessington€House€Apartments.€€Several€children€were€playing€in€the€breezewayÐ &v Ðof€an€apartment€building€when€they€were€approached€by€a€white€male€who€told€them€that€there€wereÐ  \ Ðclowns,€candy,€toys,€and€balloons€in€the€laundry€room.€€The€five„year„old€victim€and€her€three„year„Ð òB Ðold€sister€ran€to€one€of€the€two€laundry€rooms€at€the€apartment€complex.€€The€appellant€followedÐ Ø( Ðthem€into€the€laundry€room€and€lifted€the€victim€onto€a€counter.€€The€appellant€pulled€her€clothesÐ ¾ Ðover€her€head,€removed€her€panties,€fondled€her€vaginal€area,€and€ð ðlicked€her.ðð€€The€appellant€thenÐ ¤ô Ðtold€the€victim€to€put€her€panties€back€on€and€left€the€room.€€The€victim€described€her€assailant€asÐ Š Ú Ðbeing€older€than€her€mother,€approximately€six€feet€tall,€with€dark€hair€in€a€ponytail.€€The€victimÐ p!À  Ðdescribed€the€perpetratorððs€car€as€blue€and€stated€some€children€were€inside€the€vehicle.€€Both€theÐ V"¦! Ðvictim€and€her€sister€identified€the€appellant€as€the€rapist€in€a€photo€lineup.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àUpon€comparing€and€examining€the€three€crimes€and€the€methods€used€to€commit€thoseÐ %X $ Ðcrimes,€we€are€convinced€that€the€evidence€is€so€unique€as€to€bear€the€stamp€of€the€appellant.€€AllÐ î%>!% Ðthree€instances€took€place€on€the€premises€of€an€apartment€complex,€in€either€the€apartment€stairwellÐ Ô&$"& Ðor€the€apartment€laundry€room.€€All€three€attacks€occurred€during€afternoon€hours.€€All€of€the€threeÐ º' #' Ðvictims€were€females€between€the€ages€of€three€and€six.€€€In€each€case,€the€rapist€left€in€a€blue€car.€Ð  (ð#( ÐAll€victims€were€either€offered€or€promised€something€immediately€before€the€attack.€€All€threeÐ †)Ö$) Ðcases€involved€either€digital€penetration€or€oral€sex€and€the€rapist€never€attempted€sexual€intercourse.€Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âIn€two€of€the€cases,€witnesses€stated€that€a€child€or€young€children€were€present€in€the€rapistððs€carÐ R+¢&+ Ðwhile€the€attack€was€taking€place.€€Moreover,€all€three€attacks€took€place€in€less€than€a€three€weekÐ ° Ðperiod€during€May€of€1995.€€Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àIn€òòWarren€v.€Stateóó,€156€S.W.2d€416,€419€(Tenn.€1941),€our€supreme€court€set€forth€twoÐ b² Ðconditions€which€must€be€met€before€proof€of€prior€bad€acts€can€be€admitted:€(1)€The€proof€mustÐ H˜ Ðshow€ð ðsuch€similarity€in€the€circumstances€of€the€commission€of€the€two€offenses€as€to€affordÐ . ~ Ðevidence€of€the€identity€of€the€offender,ðð€and€(2)€there€must€be€a€genuine€issue€before€the€jury€as€toÐ  d Ðthe€identification€of€the€accused,€such€as€by€denial€or€the€presentment€of€an€alibi€witness.€€ð ðTo€beÐ ú J Ðrelevant€and,€therefore,€admissible,€it€is€not€necessary€that€the€other€crime€be€identical€in€every€detailÐ à 0 Ðto€the€offense€on€trial;€it€is€sufficient€if€evidence€of€the€other€crime€supports€the€inference€that€theÐ Æ   Ðperpetrator€of€it,€shown€to€be€the€defendant,€is€the€same€person€who€committed€the€offense€on€trial.ðð€Ð ¬ ü  ÐòòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€231€(Tenn.€1980).Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€before€us€that€had€the€appellant€introduced€an€alibi€defense,€heÐ ^®  Ðwould€have€directly€placed€his€identity€in€question.€€It€is€also€obvious€that€the€three€crimesÐ D”  Ðcommitted€were€so€similar€in€method€and€nature€as€to€constitute€a€ð ðsignature.ðð€€ð ðThe€defense€of€alibiÐ *z  Ðpresents€an€issue€of€fact€terminable€by€the€jury,€as€the€exclusive€judges€of€the€credibility€of€theÐ ` Ðwitnesses€testifying€in€support€of€that€defense€and€of€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony.ðð€€òòWhiteÐ öF Ðv.€Stateóó,€533€S.W.2d€735,€737€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€òòóó€€The€trial€court€did€not€prevent€theÐ Ü, Ðappellant€from€going€forward€with€his€alibi€defense,€but€merely€ruled€that€if€he€did€so€his€prior€badÐ Â Ðacts€would€be€admissible€€for€purposes€of€identity.€€We€conclude€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€correct.Ð ¨ø ÐAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€ruling€that€the€signature€crimes€could€beÐ ŽÞ Ðadmitted€into€evidence€if€the€appellant€had€placed€his€identity€in€question€by€presenting€an€alibiÐ tÄ Ðdefense.ò òÐ Zª ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Introduction€of€Undergarments€Into€EvidenceÐ &v Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€State€to€introduce€evidence€thatÐ òB Ðthe€defendant€had€over€four€hundred€pairs€of€womenððs€undergarments€in€his€possession.€Ð Ø( ÐSpecifically,€he€contends€that€ð ðthe€undergarments€were€neither€relevant€nor€probative€to€the€findingÐ ¾ Ðof€guilt€or€innocence€[and]€the€introduction€of€the€undergarments€had€a€chilling€effect€upon€the€jury.ððÐ ¤ô ÐIn€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€collection€of€womenððs€undergarments€was€relevant€to€the€caseÐ Š Ú Ðbecause€the€rapist€offered€B.B.€panties€before€attacking€her.€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àRelevant€evidence€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€factÐ <#Œ" Ðthat€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€wouldÐ "$r# Ðbe€without€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Although€relevant€evidence€is€generally€admissibleÐ %X $ Ðpursuant€to€Rule€402,€the€evidence€may€still€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÐ î%>!% Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402€&€403.€€TheÐ Ô&$"& Ðdecision€of€whether€the€evidence€introduced€is€relevant€or€the€decision€of€whether€the€evidence€isÐ º' #' Ðmore€prejudicial€than€probative€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Kennedyóó,€7€S.W.3dÐ  (ð#( Ð58,€68€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999);€òòState€v.€Forbesòòóóóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€449€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);Ð †)Ö$) ÐòòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€720„721€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ò ò€€ó óIn€making€these€decisions,Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âthe€trial€court€must€consider€the€questions€of€fact€that€the€jury€will€have€to€consider€in€determiningÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€accusedððs€guilt€as€well€as€other€evidence€that€has€been€introduced€during€the€course€of€the€trial.ò ò€Ð ° Ðó óòòState€v.€Kennedyóó,€7€S.W.3dò ò€ó óat€68;€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€we€agree€that€the€introduction€of€womenððs€undergarments€was€notÐ b² Ðrelevant€to€the€existence€of€any€issue€that€the€jury€had€to€decide€and,€thus,€was€improperly€admitted.€Ð H˜ ÐWe€conclude,€however,€that€the€appellant€was€not€unfairly€prejudiced€by€their€admission.€€BasedÐ . ~ Ðupon€the€strength€of€the€remaining€proof€establishing€the€appellantððs€guilt,€we€find€the€introductionÐ  d Ðof€these€undergarments€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ò òÐ ú J ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€Photographic€ArrayÐ Æ   ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€photographic€array€shown€to€the€witnesses€was€undulyÐ ’â  Ðsuggestive€and€asserts€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€suppressing€it.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contendsÐ xÈ  Ðthat€he€was€the€only€person€pictured€with€a€pony„tail€and€that€his€picture€was€lighter€in€color€thanÐ ^®  Ðthe€other€four€pictures.ò ò€€ó óAdditionally,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€photographic€array€was€taintedÐ D”  Ðby€the€mere€seconds€the€witnesses€had€to€witness€the€alleged€assailant.Ð *z  ÐÌà  àDespite€the€hazards€of€initial€identification€by€photograph,€this€procedure€has€been€usedÐ öF Ðwidely€and€effectively€in€criminal€law€enforcement,€from€the€standpoint€both€of€apprehendingÐ Ü, Ðoffenders€and€of€sparing€innocent€suspects€the€ignominy€of€arrest€by€allowing€eye„witnesses€toÐ Â Ðexonerate€them€through€the€scrutiny€of€photographs.€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,Ð ¨ø Ð88€S.Ct.€967,€971€(1968).€€In€òòSimmonsóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€refused€to€prohibit€theÐ ŽÞ Ðemployment€of€photographic€identification€and€held€that€ð ðeach€case€must€be€considered€on€its€ownÐ tÄ Ðfacts,€and€that€convictions€based€on€eyewitness€identification€at€trial€following€a€pretrialÐ Zª Ðidentification€by€photograph€will€be€set€aside€on€that€ground€only€if€the€photographic€identificationÐ @ Ðprocedure€was€so€impermissibly€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantial€likelihood€ofÐ &v Ðirreparable€misidentification.ðð€€€ò òó ó€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€at€384,€88€S.Ct.€at€971.€€ð ð€AÐ  \ Ðtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€identification€procedure€was€not€suggestive€is€conclusive€on€appealÐ òB Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€955Ð Ø( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòChapple€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2d€62,€63€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€Ð ¾ Ðà  àIn€òòBolton€v.€Stateóó,€617€S.W.2d€909,€913€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€this€Court€reiterated€theÐ ¤ô Ðfive€factors€to€be€considered€when€evaluating€the€suggestiveness€of€photographic€identification:Ð Š Ú ÐÌà8  àThe€test€of€whether€use€of€impermissibly€suggestive€identification€procedures€willÐ V"¦! Ðrequire€exclusion€of€a€witnessððs€in„court€identification€is€whether€the€in„courtÐ <#Œ" Ðidentification€is€reliable€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€including€theÐ "$r# Ðopportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€offender€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€the€witnessððsÐ %X $ Ðdegree€of€attention,€the€accuracy€of€the€prior€description€of€the€offender,€the€level€ofÐ î%>!% Ðcertainty€of€the€witness€at€the€confrontation,€and€the€length€of€time€between€the€crimeÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€the€confrontation.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,€93€S.Ct.€375,€382€(1972);Ð º' #' ÐòòManson€v.€Brathwaiteóó,€432€U.S.€98,€97€S.€Ct.€2243€(1977);€òòRippy€v.€Stateóó,€550Ð  (ð#( ÐS.W.2d€636,€639„640€(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€955„956€(Tenn.Ð †)Ö$) ÐCrim.€App.€1993).ò òÐl*¼%*Ð Ð  Ðâ âó óà0  àò òÐR+¢&+(#(# Ðó óIn€the€present€case,€the€photographic€array€consisted€of€five€photographs€of€men€of€like€age.€€All€fiveÐ ° Ðâ âmen€had€characteristics€similar€to€what€the€witnesses€had€previously€described.€€All€men€had€shortÐ –æ Ðhair€on€top€and€long€hair€in€the€back€which€was€shoulder€length€or€longer.€€Although€the€appellantÐ |Ì Ðargues€he€was€the€only€person€with€a€ponytail€in€the€photograph,€it€is€not€clear€from€the€photographÐ b² Ðthat€the€appellantððs€hair€was€in€a€ponytail.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€correctly€points€out€that€hisÐ H˜ Ðphotograph€is€the€lightest€of€the€photographs€on€display,€however,€the€color€of€all€the€photographsÐ . ~ Ðvaried.€€The€appellant€also€argues€that€his€was€the€only€mugshot.€€All€identifying€material,€exceptÐ  d Ðthe€actual€photos€themselves,€was€blocked€by€a€flap€covering€the€photographic€array.€€Moreover,€allÐ ú J Ðpictures€did,€in€fact,€appear€to€be€mugshot„styleò ò€ó ópictures.€€The€detective€never€suggested€who€theÐ à 0 Ðappellant€might€be€to€the€witnesses€when€they€viewed€the€photographs.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€theÐ Æ   Ðphotographic€display€was€not€unconstitutionally€suggestive.ò òÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àó óThe€appellant€further€asserts€that€the€photographic€array€was€ð ðtaintedðð€because€the€identifyingÐ xÈ  Ðwitnesses€only€saw€him€for€seconds.€€We€disagree.€€The€general€rule€is€that€an€in„court€identificationÐ ^®  Ðis€inadmissible€if€it€was€tainted€by€an€unconstitutional€pretrial€identification.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872Ð D”  ÐS.W.2d€at€956;€òòHolt€v.€Stateóó,€591€S.W.2d€785,€789„790€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Three€witnessesÐ *z  Ðidentified€the€appellant€from€the€line„up.€€One€witness€was€the€victim.€€One€witness€testified€that€sheÐ ` Ðmade€eye€contact€with€the€appellant,€saw€him€for€approximately€fifteen€seconds,€and€exchangedÐ öF Ðgreetings€with€him.€€All€three€witnesses€identified€the€appellant€from€the€line„up€within€seconds€ofÐ Ü, Ðbeing€given€the€photographic€array.€€Two€of€the€witnesses€testified€at€trial€that€the€appellant€was€theÐ Â Ðperson€leaving€the€laundry€room€on€the€day€in€question.€€€ð ðA€trial€courtððs€findings€upon€question€ofÐ ¨ø Ðfact€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€is€found€to€preponderateÐ ŽÞ Ðagainst€the€lower€courtððs€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€956.€€ò òó óConsequently,€we€do€notÐ tÄ Ðfind€that€the€photographic€array€was€tainted€or€unconstitutionally€suggestive.€€Ð Zª ÐÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òV.€€SentencingÐ ¾ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€asserts€that€the€State€failed€to€comply€with€the€provisions€of€the€ð ðthree€strikesððÐ Š Ú Ðstatute€outlined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120€òòet€seq.óó€€Specifically,€he€alleges€that€the€State:€€(1)Ð p!À  Ðfailed€to€file€timely€notice€of€his€status€as€a€repeat€violent€offender;€and€(2)€failed€to€try€him€withinÐ V"¦! Ð180€days€of€arraignment.€€The€appellant€also€summarily€asserts€that€he€did€not€have€the€prerequisiteÐ <#Œ" Ðconvictions€required€for€classification€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð "$r# Ððð€440„35„120.€€Moreover,€he€argues€that€the€two€consecutive€life€without€parole€sentences€areÐ %X $ Ðð ðredundant€and€excessive.ððÐ î%>!% ÐÌò òÓ  ÓA.€€Classification€as€a€Repeat€Violent€OffenderÐ º' #' Ðó óÓ  Óà  àFirst,€we€address€the€appellantððs€issue€that€he€ð ðdid€not€have€the€prerequisite€convictionsÐ  (ð#( Ðclassified€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120"€and€therefore€was€erroneously€found€to€be€a€repeatÐ †)Ö$) Ðviolent€offender.€€As€relevant€to€this€case,€the€ð ðthree„strikesðð€provision,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð l*¼%* Ð120(a),€defines€a€repeat€violent€offender€as€one€who:Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÒe°Òà8 ½ à(1)€à8 ½Ð ½Ð àIs€convicted€in€this€state€on€or€after€July€1,€1994,€of€any€offenseÐ ° Ðclassified€in€subdivision€(b)(1)€as€a€violent€offense;€andЖæ x x ÐÓ€ (¶Ù83ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ½ àÝ‚3£Ê™ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ½Ð ½Ð àÝ  ÝHas€at€least€two€(2)€prior€convictions€for€offenses€classified€in€subdivisionÐ |Ì Ð(b)(1)€or€(b)(2)€as€a€violent€offense.݃3£Ê™šÝŒÐb² Ð  Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8 ½ àÐ ½Ð ½Ð  ÐThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child€and€attempted€rape€of€a€child,€which€constitute€violentÐ . ~ Ðoffenses€under€Section€1€above.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120(b)(1)(F).€€The€appellant€wasÐ  d Ðpreviously€convicted€in€November€1975,€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court,€of€two€counts€ofÐ ú J Ðrobbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€was€again€convicted€in€January€1981,€in€the€Ô_ÔHumphreysÔ_Ô€CountyÐ à 0 ÐCircuit€Court,€for€armed€robbery.€€His€convictions€for€armed€robbery€in€1975€and€robbery€by€use€ofÐ Æ   Ða€deadly€weapon€in€1981€resulted€in€two€separate€periods€of€incarceration€and€are€enumerated€inÐ ¬ ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€as€Class€B€felonies€against€a€person.€€Accordingly,€we€find€theÐ ’â  Ðappellant€was€properly€classified€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€under€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð xÈ  Ððð€40„35„120(a)(1)€&€(2).€ò òó óÐ ^®  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓB.€€45„Day€Ruleó óÐ *z  ÐÓ`ŸÓà ½ àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€he€should€not€have€been€sentenced€as€a€repeat€violentÐ ` Ðoffender€because€the€State€failed€to€give€notice€of€the€appellantððs€status€as€a€repeat€offender€withinÐ öF Ðforty„five€days€of€his€arraignment.€€In€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€appellant€was€properlyÐ Ü, Ðsentenced€and€cites€to€òòState€v.€Dee€W.€Thompsonóó,€No.€01C01„9812„00490€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ Â ÐNashville,€Mar.17,€2000),€in€support€of€its€argument.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120(i)(2)(1997)Ð ¨ø Ðprovides:Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà8 ½ àThe€district€attorney€general€shall€file€a€statement€with€the€court€and€the€defenseÐ Zª Ðcounsel€within€forty„five€(45)€days€of€the€arraignment€pursuant€to€Rule€10€of€theÐ @ ÐRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€that€the€defendant€is€a€repeat€violent€offender...If€suchÐ &v Ðnotice€is€not€filed€within€forty„five€(45)€days€of€such€arraignment,€the€defendant€shallÐ  \ Ðbe€granted€a€continuance€so€that€such€defendant€will€have€forty„five€(45)€days€betweenÐ òB Ðreceipt€of€notice€and€trial.ÐØ(½Ð ½Ð  Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àUnder€the€Repeat€Violent€Offender€Statute,€or€ð ðthree„strikesðð€statute,€offenders€convicted€ofÐ ¤ô Ðspecified€violent€offenses€who€have€a€record€of€certain€proven€predicate€convictions€qualify€for€anÐ Š Ú Ðautomatic€sentence€of€life€without€parole,€rather€than€the€variable€sentencing€under€the€usual€statutoryÐ p!À  Ðscheme€of€offender€ranges€and€offense€classes.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Dee€W.€Thompsonóó,€No.€01C01„9812„Ð V"¦! Ð00490;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120€(1997).€€The€State€is€required€to€file€with€the€court€and€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdefense€counsel€a€statement€that€indicates€the€defendant€is€a€repeat€violent€offender€within€forty„fiveÐ "$r# Ðdays€of€the€arraignment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120(i)(2)(1997).€€If€the€notice€is€not€timely€filed,Ð %X $ Ðthe€defendant€shall€be€granted€a€continuance€so€that€he€has€forty„five€days€between€the€date€of€noticeÐ î%>!% Ðand€the€date€of€trial.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€State€fails€to€comply€with€the€notice€requirements,€the€defendant€isÐ Ô&$"& Ðnot€entitled€to€release€from€custody€or€dismissal€of€the€charges.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„120(i)(3).Ð º' #' ÐÌà ½ àIn€the€present€case,€the€appellant€was€originally€arraigned€on€November€29,€1995.€€The€StateÐ †)Ö$) Ðgave€notice€of€the€appellantððs€status€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€on€February€14,€1996.€€Consequently,Ð l*¼%* Ðthe€State€failed€to€file€notice€within€forty„five€days€from€the€date€of€arraignment.€€The€StateÐ R+¢&+ Ðacknowledges€this€untimeliness€in€its€brief.€€The€remedy,€however,€is€not€dismissal€of€the€charges€orÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€release€of€the€appellant€from€custody,€but€rather€the€assurance€that€the€appellant€will€receive€forty„Ð ° Ðfive€days€between€notice€and€trial.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120€(i)(2)€&€(i)(3)€(1997).€€TheÐ –æ Ðappellant€received€notice€on€February€14,€1996,€and€his€trial€was€held€on€December€7,€1997.€€Thus,Ð |Ì Ðthe€defendant€received€ample€time€to€prepare€after€notice€was€given.€Furthermore,€the€appellant€hasÐ b² Ðalleged€no€prejudice€from€the€untimely€delay.€€ð ðA€common€thread€in€each€of€these€cases€is€the€focusÐ H˜ Ðon€whether€the€defendant€has€been€prejudiced€by€the€stateððs€defective€or€delayed€notice.ðð€€òòState€v.€DeeÐ . ~ ÐW.€Thompsonóó,€No.€01C01„9812„00490.€€The€defense€itself€admitted€that€they€were€ð ðnot€claiming,Ð  d Ðunder€these€facts,€any€ultimate€prejudice.ðð€€Consequently,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÐ ú J ÐÌÓ  ÓC.€180„Day€RuleÐ Æ   Ðó óÓ  Óà ½ àThe€appellant€next€alleges€that€the€State€did€not€comply€with€the€requirements€set€forth€inÐ ¬ ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120€(I)(1)€because€he€was€not€brought€to€trial€within€one€hundred€eighty€Ð ’â  Ðdays€of€arraignment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„120(i)(1)(1997)€provides:Ð xÈ  ÐÌà8 ½ àA€charge€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€shall€be€tried€within€one€hundred€eighty€(180)Ð D”  Ðdays€of€the€arraignment€on€the€indictment€pursuant€to€Rule€10€of€the€Rules€ofÐ *z  ÐCriminal€Procedure€unless€delay€is€caused€by:€(A)€The€defendant;€(B)€An€examinationÐ ` Ðfor€competency;€(C)€A€competency€hearing;€(D)€An€adjudication€of€incompetency€forÐ öF Ðtrial;€(E)€A€continuance€allowed€after€a€courtððs€determination€of€the€defendantððsÐ Ü, Ðphysical€incapacity€for€a€trial;€or€(F)€an€interlocutory€appeal.€€A€continuance€may€beÐ Â Ðgranted€to€any€party,€including€the€court,€for€good€cause€shown.Шø½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌThe€appellant€was€arraigned€on€November€29,€1995,€and€tried€on€December€7,€1997.€€Thus,€more€thanÐ tÄ Ðone€hundred€eighty€days€elapsed€between€arraignment€and€trial.€€Once€again,€however,€the€appellantÐ Zª Ðalleges€no€prejudice€from€this€delay.€€In€òòState€v.€Dee€W.€Thompsonóó,€€No.€01C01„9812„00490,€thisÐ @ ÐCourt€concluded€that€the€one€hundred€eighty€day€rule€was€not€intended€to€ð ðbenefit€a€defendant,ðð€butÐ &v Ðmerely€was€a€mechanism€whereby€society€could€be€assured€of€ð ðswift€and€certain€punishment.ðð€òòSeeòòóóÐ  \ ÐóóòòState€v.€Wilcoxsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€1989).€€Without€a€showing€of€prejudice,€the€appellant€isÐ òB Ðentitled€to€no€relief.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ð Ø( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓD.€€Consecutive€Sentencesó óÐ ¤ô ÐÓ  Óà ½ àFinally,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€two€consecutive€sentences€he€received€were€ð ðredundantÐ Š Ú Ðand€excessive.ðð€€The€appellant,€however,€failed€to€cite€any€authority€to€support€this€position.€Ð p!À  ÐConsequently,€this€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(4)€„€(a)(7).€The€sentencing€decision€of€theÐ V"¦! Ðtrial€court€is€affirmed.Ð <#Œ" Ðò òÓ  ÓÌÌCONCLUSIONÐ î%>!% ÐÌÓ  Óà ½ àó óThe€trial€court€erred€by€introducing€evidence€that€the€appellant€had€over€four€hundred€pairsÐ º' #' Ðof€womenððs€undergarments€in€his€possession.€€However,€we€find€this€error€to€be€harmless.€€All€otherÐ  (ð#( Ðissues€are€without€merit€or€are€waived.€The€judgments€of€conviction€and€sentences€imposed€by€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐDavidson€County€Criminal€Court€are€affirmed.Ð l*¼%* ÐÔ#†XXXX XX##ÔÌÐ 8,ˆ', ЇÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð |Ì Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE