ÿWPC ܺUV>œó†ju¼íLÏ’¨¢ßìAŸËò†æYªÂWQ‰ž|ãw»ät—Á!Åž j&´ø=ÊHžšI£!Ê@$ã)‹òJ¯Û_ùËçqØd°„êkº[!!õ¸Q‹V`‚SP¤ªèJþÿIй¨ÙM ²B@¶C«îžŸ¦àÝ–€$ðG€0(81±Z9W\ûÈãÉÉoðñ–‚œGÉðï`W“+GU^šOËÞáË|s”BüCÙ%A…O°§‡/Þy†b¼V”s&ʉ$lÉj¶¶kîR”h&ç"#;h©ül7¼Ø.šé’JS´ O±¼v7ïÿw7k@‹ŠÝ2VHüL÷ÀÿˆS­Bw$Ž‹wòŽ›¦ÁÒÜêU·âõ™4ÿ»È·Çaš°" ¥,íßÒ’ŠÎ¶‹C+ì2¢¨TXF˜Äp y0{*Až ç…pBíf»ñ]a\ý<ZMzNAù¦S# ©q¨´7qÌE;Óº-)øBÈ+Œƒ|˜ߥO·Ë/õ}ßm÷»ü»½Ë·œçâÙVÌÿƒ;"\Á¥ýO»ª{5îbPHñ¬Š[b%`Óæ:¥½-ÿ{‡GáÚE{Ïø7‰µb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz N‘ Æ“ ÆY Æ Æå «N³U@µõE                        b                                     0ë B 0¤ D5Á D-ö 0K## ASnÆÁ 0¤‡ 0D+ A«o˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»o‰ -s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,ÄSQ)ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  Ñ F Ñ- ù-(|G2Œ°$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþeò»»Ô d(|3Ç‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼P½»»»ÔÑ8€ qXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îIlP½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼P½»îîIl #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€14,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X qX»¼P½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼P½»XX q#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€WADE€P.€TUCKERòòóóÔ‡X qX»¼P½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Franklin€CountyÐ ú J ÐÓ  Óà@ò ò ìàNo.€13166€€€€€€J.€Curtis€Smith,€JudgeˆÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@G G ìàNo.€M2001„02298„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€July€17,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€Wade€P.€Tucker,€appeals€from€his€Franklin€County€Circuit€Court€convictions€ofÐ xÈ  Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€burglary.€€These€convictions€resulted€from€a€benchÐ d´ Ðtrial€in€which€the€facts€were€stipulated€by€the€defendant€and€the€state.€€On€appeal,€the€defendantÐ P  Ðchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€We€conclude€that€sufficient€evidence€supportsÐ <Œ Ðthe€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€€robbery;€however,€we€hold€that€the€conviction€of€aggravatedÐ (x Ðburglary€is€infirm€because€the€defendant,€as€an€owner€of€the€property,€effectively€consented€to€hisÐ d Ðentry€into€the€house€where€the€crime€took€place.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€and€vacate€the€convictionÐ P Ðof€aggravated€burglary€but€affirm€the€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.Ð ì< ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€and€Vacated€in€Part;€Ð Ä ÐAffirmed€in€Part.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ\ÓÌòòÔ#†¼P½»àX qˆ#ÔÔ‡X qX.¼P½ÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòJoe€G.€Riley,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌRobert€S.€Peters,€Winchester,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Wade€P.€Tucker.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Helena€Walton€Ô_ÔYarbroughÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral;€J.€Michael€Taylor,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steve€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ Ô%$!% Ðó óÔ#†¼P½»XX q- #ÔÔ‡X qX»¼P½ÔÌòòóóÔ#†¼P½»XX q‚ #ÔÔ€X qX»¼P½Ôà  àà0 ` àBased€upon€the€defendantððs€actions€on€January€23,€2000,€the€Franklin€County€Grand€Ð¬'ü"'` (#` (# ÐJury€indicted€him€for€the€attempted€first„degree€murder€of€his€estranged€wife,€Debbie€Tucker,€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€of€Ms.€Tucker,€and€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€of€theÐ „)Ô$) Ðdefendantððs€and€Ms.€Tuckerððs€home€in€which€Ms.€Tucker€was€residing€at€the€time.€€The€defendantÐ p*À%* Ðpleaded€guilty€to€attempted€first„degree€premeditated€murder€and€received€a€Range€I€sentence€of€24Ð \+¬&+ Ðyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€subject€to€a€30€percent€release€eligibility€date.€€The€defendantÐ H,˜', Ðwaived€his€right€to€trial€by€jury€on€the€remaining€counts,€and€he€and€the€state€submitted€a€stipulationÐ 4-„(-ýè ÐÔ_Ôof€facts€to€the€court€for€a€bench€trial€on€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravatedÐ ° Ðburglary.€€Following€the€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€convicted€the€defendant€of€especially€aggravatedÐ œì Ðrobbery€and€aggravated€burglary.€€On€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentencedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€to€a€Range€I€term€of€five€years,€subject€to€a€30€percent€release€eligibility€date.€€On€theÐ tÄ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€a€term€of€24€Ð `° Ðyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€and€based€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„Ð L œ Ð501(i)ððs€designation€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€as€a€violent€offense,€the€court€sentenced€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€to€serve€100€percent€of€the€prescribed€sentence.€€All€sentences€were€imposed€to€runÐ $ t Ðconcurrently.€On€appeal,€he€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€both€the€especiallyÐ  ` Ðaggravated€robbery€and€the€aggravated€burglary€convictions.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€stipulation€of€facts€revealed€that€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€husband€andÐ Ô$  Ðwife.€€On€November€19,€1999,€the€victim€filed€a€divorce€complaint€in€which€she€alleged€that€theÐ À  Ðdefendant€had€been€guilty€of€ð ðinappropriate€marital€conduct€and€adultery.ðð€€In€the€complaint,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðvictim€sought€custody€of€the€partiesðð€two€minor€children€and€asked€that€she€be€awarded,€òòinter€aliaóó,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€partiesðð€jointly„owned€house€located€on€Rock€Creek€Road€in€Franklin€County.€€As€of€January€23,Ð „Ô  Ð2000,€the€divorce€was€still€pending,€no€property€rights€had€been€adjudicated,€and€the€defendant€wasÐ pÀ Ðnot€subject€to€any€order€restraining€him€from€going€about€the€victim€or€the€partiesðð€house.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€resided€at€the€Dripping€Springs€Subdivision€home€of€his€father,€Gerald€Tucker,€and€theÐ H˜ Ðvictim€resided€at€the€Rock€Creek€Road€house.€€Between€November€19,€1999€and€January€23,€2000,Ð 4„ Ðthe€defendant€had€been€to€the€Rock€Creek€Road€house€on€multiple€occasions€to€pick€up€and€drop€offÐ  p Ðthe€partiesðð€children.€€On€the€evening€of€January€22,€2000,€the€partiesðð€children€were€staying€atÐ  \ ÐGerald€Tuckerððs€home.€€Thus,€on€the€night€of€January€22€and€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€JanuaryÐ øH Ð23,€2000,€the€victim€was€the€only€person€staying€at€the€Rock€Creek€Road€house.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€approximately€2:30€a.m.€on€January€23,€2000,€the€victim€awoke€to€gunfire€andÐ ¼  Ðrealized€that€she€had€been€shot.€€She€got€up€from€her€bed€and€was€shot€again.€€She€saw€ð ða€maleÐ ¨ø Ðlooking€figure€near€her€bedroom€door€holding€a€long„barreled€gun.ðð€€The€victim€fled€to€a€closet,€andÐ ”ä Ðthe€assailant,€who€was€wearing€a€ski€mask,€came€into€the€closet€and€shot€her€again.€€After€theÐ €Ð Ðassailant€left€the€closet,€the€victim€crawled€toward€her€bed€to€get€the€cordless€telephone€for€theÐ l¼ Ðpurpose€of€calling€911.€€Due€to€injuries€to€her€hands€and€arms,€she€was€unable€to€handle€the€phoneÐ X ¨ Ðand€pushed€it€along€the€floor€back€to€the€closet.€€She€heard€sounds€of€the€assailant€moving€about€inÐ D!” Ðthe€house.€€The€victim€was€able€to€dial€911€with€her€tongue€and€ultimately€reached€the€FranklinÐ 0"€  ÐCounty€Sheriffððs€Department€dispatcher.€€While€the€victim€was€on€the€telephone,€she€saw€the€ski„Ð #l! Ðmasked€intruder€come€back€to€the€closet€through€the€glow€of€the€bathroom€light.€€Despite€theÐ $X" Ðpresence€of€the€ski€mask,€the€victim€was€able€to€recognize€the€intruder€as€the€defendant.€€SheÐ ô$D # Ðscreamed,€and€the€defendant€shot€her€again.€€The€victim€ð ðplayed€dead€at€that€time.ðð€€She€heard€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€in€the€bedroom€opening€drawers€in€her€jewelry€chest.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àFranklin€County€officers€arrived€at€the€Rock€Creek€Road€house€pursuant€to€the€911Ð ¤(ô#' Ðcall€and€found€the€victim€in€the€closet.€€She€was€transported€to€a€hospital€in€Winchester€and€wasÐ )à$( Ðultimately€air„lifted€to€a€medical€center€in€Chattanooga.€€The€victim€suffered€ð ðmultiple€gunshotÐ |*Ì%) Ðwounds€to€her€chest€and€neck€area,€and€to€her€€arms€and€hands.ðð€€The€stipulation€of€facts€reveals€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€victim€ð ðwas€severely€injured,€with€said€injuries€being€life€threatening€[,€resulting€in€her€being]Ð ° Ðdisfigured.ðð€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àBoth€the€defendantððs€and€the€victimððs€lives€were€insured€by€a€Horace€Mann€InsuranceÐ tÄ ÐCompany€life€insurance€policy€which€provided€ð ðthat,€if€one€of€them€died,€the€survivor€would€receiveÐ `° Ð$300,000.ðð€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€officers€obtained€a€sample€of€the€victimððs€blood,€and€they€recovered€shotgunÐ $ t Ðpellets€from€the€victimððs€bed,€the€bedroom€floor,€the€closet,€the€victimððs€night€shirt,€and€the€hospitalÐ  ` Ðtrauma€room€where€she€was€treated.€€The€officers€also€recovered€shotgun€wadding€from€the€bedroomÐ ü L  Ðarea€and€from€the€victimððs€person.€€The€officers€found€the€victimððs€jewelry€chest€open€and€drawersÐ è 8  Ðpulled€out€of€furniture€throughout€the€house.€€An€outside€door€was€standing€open€with€a€window€inÐ Ô$  Ðthe€door€broken.€€The€officers€obtained€samples€of€glass€from€the€door.€€They€also€found€a€live,Ð À  Ðtwelve„gauge€shotgun€shell€in€the€house.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àOfficers€who€were€dispatched€to€Gerald€Tuckerððs€house€arrived€at€3:08€a.m.€andÐ „Ô  Ðfound€the€defendantððs€truck€parked€outside€the€house€with€the€ð ðhood€of€the€truck€.€.€.€hot€to€theÐ pÀ Ðtouch.ðð€€When€the€defendantððs€father€led€the€officers€to€the€defendantððs€room,€ð ðhe€actually€crawledÐ \¬ Ðout€of€the€bed€and€crawled€on€the€floor€before€standing€up€with€the€assistance€of€his€father.ðð€€HeÐ H˜ Ðappeared€to€the€officers€to€be€ð ðvery€shaken.ððÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€the€consent€of€Gerald€Tucker,€the€officers€searched€his€house€and€found€aÐ  \ Ðtwelve„gauge€shotgun€that,€despite€having€been€recently€cleaned€with€oil,€contained€human€bloodÐ øH Ðand€tissue€inside€the€barrel.€€The€DNA€of€the€blood€and€tissue€inside€the€shotgun€barrel€wasÐ ä4 Ðconsistent€with€€the€victimððs€DNA.€€The€officers€found€particles€of€glass€inside€the€defendantððs€truckÐ Ð  Ðwhich€proved€to€be€ð ðlike€and€consistent€with€respect€to€refractive€indexðð€to€the€glass€broken€fromÐ ¼  Ðthe€door€window€at€the€Rock€Creek€Road€house.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€a€statement€given€to€the€officers,€the€defendant€denied€that€he€had€gone€to€theÐ €Ð Ðvictimððs€house€and€that€he€had€shot€her.€€He€admitted€to€an€intimate€relationship€with€a€womanÐ l¼ Ðnamed€Sabrina€Hodge.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€February€18,€2000,€a€neighbor€of€Gerald€Tucker€found€a€dark€plastic€bag€in€aÐ 0"€  Ðwooded€area€near€the€road€that€leads€to€the€defendantððs€fatherððs€house.€€Inside€the€bag,€he€found€aÐ #l! Ðwallet€that€contained€the€victimððs€identification€papers.€€Being€aware€of€the€assault€against€theÐ $X" Ðvictim,€the€neighbor€called€the€TBI.€€The€TBI€agent€who€took€custody€of€the€bag€found€inside,€inÐ ô$D # Ðaddition€to€the€wallet,€numerous€pieces€of€jewelry,€coins,€a€ski€mask,€gloves,€coveralls,€and€boots.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€plastic€bag€also€contained€another€plastic€bag€which€contained€ð ðnumerous€love€letters€and€cardsððÐ Ì&"% Ðwhich€had€been€sent€to€the€defendant€from€Ms.€Hodge.€€The€second€bag€also€contained€ð ðnumerousÐ ¸'#& Ðphotos€of€Sabrina€Hodge€in€revealing€underwear€clothing.ððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€victim€identified€the€wallet€as€hers€and€the€jewelry€and€coins€as€her€property€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðhad€been€stored€in€her€jewelry€chest€prior€to€the€attack.€€The€photographs€bore€the€defendantððsÐ h+¸&* Ðfingerprints.€€The€victim€identified€the€ski€mask€as€being€similar€to€the€one€the€defendant€woreÐ ° Ðduring€the€attack.€€The€ski€mask€and€gloves€bore€particles€of€glass€which€ð ðwere€like€and€consistentÐ œì Ðwith€respect€to€refractive€indexðð€to€the€glass€broken€from€the€door.€€Furthermore,€via€DNA€analysis,Ð ˆØ Ðblood€found€on€the€ski€mask€matched€the€victimððs€blood.€€The€coveralls€from€the€bag€contained€fiveÐ tÄ Ðspent€twelve„gauge€shotgun„shell€casings.€€Laboratory€analysis€revealed€that€all€five€shells€had€beenÐ `° Ðfired€from€the€twelve„gauge€shotgun€found€at€Gerald€Tuckerððs€house.€€Analysis€of€the€empty€shotgunÐ L œ Ðcasings€found€in€the€coveralls€and€the€live€twelve„gauge€rounds€found€in€the€victimððs€house€and€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€defendantððs€truck€revealed€that€all€of€the€ammunition€was€ð ðlikely€manufactured€at€the€same€timeÐ $ t Ðas€each€other€and€were€likely€packaged€together€by€the€manufacturer.ðð€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€upon€comparisons€made€between€the€pellet€pattern€of€the€twelve„gauge€shotgun€Ð è 8  Ðfound€in€Gerald€Tuckerððs€house€and€the€pellet€pattern€found€in€the€victimððs€nightshirt,€TBI€Ð Ô$  Ðlaboratory€personnel€opined€that€she€was€shot€on€at€least€one€occasion€from€a€distance€of€less€thanÐ À  Ðten€feet.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àBased€upon€these€stipulated€facts,€the€trial€court€convicted€the€defendant€of€especiallyÐ „Ô  Ðaggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€burglary.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌÔ‡X qXXX qÔÑ€LÑà  àà ` àOn€appeal€from€a€conviction,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€evidence€and€ð ðall€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð 4„ ÐHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992);òò€State€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835„36€(Tenn.€1978)òòóó.€Ð  p ÐMoreover,€a€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€aÐ  \ Ðpresumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.€2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973);€òòAnglinòòóó€v.€Stateóó,Ð øH Ð553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977),€which€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming.Ð ä4 ÐòòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àMost€significantly,€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevantÐ ¨ø Ðquestion€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ ”ä Ðto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÐ €Ð Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn€R.€App.€P.€13Ô#†X qXXX qä8#ÔÔ‡X qXXX qÔ;€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð l¼ Ð2782€(1979);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€1983).€€This€rule€applies€to€findingsÐ X ¨ Ðbased€on€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€842€(Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCrim.€App.€1988).€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÓ  ÓI.€€Especially€Aggravated€Robbery.Ð $X" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àFirst€we€review€the€challenge€to€the€evidence€supporting€the€conviction€of€especiallyÐ à%0!$ Ðaggravated€robbery.€€A€person€commits€especially€aggravated€robbery€who€commits€a€robbery€withÐ Ì&"% Ða€deadly€weapon€and€when€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403(a)Ð ¸'#& Ð(1997).€€Robbery€ð ðis€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðviolence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1997).€€ð ðA€person€commits€theft€ofÐ )à$( Ðproperty€if,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercisesÐ |*Ì%) Ðcontrol€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ðð€39„14„103€(1997).€€Ô#†X qXXX q>#ÔÐ h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€determined€thatÐ ° ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[w]hether€the€defendant€meant€to€only€use€the€robbery€of€his€wifeððsÐ ˆØ Ðbelongings€to€divert€or€confuse€law€enforcement€agents€.€.€.€does€notÐ tÄ Ðdiminish€the€fact€that€(1)€he€planned€his€course€of€conduct€inÐ `° Ðadvance;€(2)€he€knowingly€took€property€from€his€wifeððs€possessionÐ L œ Ðwithout€her€consent;€(3)€he€accomplished€this€action€by€the€use€of€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeadly€weapon;€(4)€he€caused€his€victim€to€suffer€serious€bodilyÐ $ t Ðinjury€as€a€result€of€his€action;€and€(5)€he€substantially€interfered€withÐ  ` Ðhis€wifeððs€ability€to€possess€and€enjoy€her€property.Ð ü L  ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒWe€glean€from€the€defendantððs€brief€that€he€maintains€that€he€did€not€intend€to€take€the€victimððsÐ Ô$  Ðproperty€when€he€shot€her€and,€in€any€event,€his€purpose€was€to€kill€his€wife,€not€to€deprive€her€ofÐ À  Ðher€property.€€Tòòóóhe€state€conversely€argues€that€the€ð ðfacts€are€undisputed€that€defendant€obtainedÐ ¬ü  Ðitems€that€he€knew€belonged€to€Mrs.€Tucker€[and]€was€able€to€[do€so]€because€he€used€a€deadlyÐ ˜è  Ðweapon€and€caused€Mrs.€Tucker€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àBefore€analyzing€the€claim€that€the€intent€to€steal€the€victimððs€property€had€not€beenÐ \¬ Ðformed€at€the€time€of€the€assaults,€we€briefly€dispose€of€the€claim€that€the€defendant€did€not€òòintendóóÐ H˜ Ðòòtoóó€òòdeprive€the€victim€of€her€propertyóó.€€The€trial€court€essentially€held€that€it€was€immaterial€whetherÐ 4„ Ðthe€defendant€had€a€purpose€of€depriving€the€victim€of€her€property.€€We€agree.€€By€inserting€as€anÐ  p Ðelement€of€theft€that€the€offender€must€obtain€the€property€ð ðwith€the€intent€to€deprive€the€ownerðð€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€property,€the€legislature€obviously€did€not€intend€that€the€offenderððs€òòpurposeóó€must€be€the€ownerððsÐ øH Ðloss€or€deprivation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1997).€€If€that€were€the€meaning€of€theÐ ä4 Ðelement€of€intent€to€deprive,€almost€no€asportation€of€property€€would€be€proscribed€by€Code€sectionÐ Ð  Ð39„14„103.€€We€judicially€know€that€a€thiefððs€primary€purpose€is€to€profit€or€otherwise€benefit€fromÐ ¼  Ðhis€ill„gotten€gains;€yet,€we€understand€that€such€a€purpose€equates€to€an€intent€to€deprive€the€ownerÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€stolen€property€for€purposes€of€Code€section€39„14„103.€€Thus,€regardless€of€the€ultimateÐ ”ä Ðmotive€or€purpose,€the€offense€is€established€when€the€evidence€shows€that€the€defendant€intendedÐ €Ð Ðto€deprive€the€owner€of€property€when€the€defendant€knowingly€obtained€or€exercised€control€overÐ l¼ Ðthe€property.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1997).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àNow,€we€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€evidence€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€Ð 0"€  Ðis€insufficient€because€the€defendant€may€not€have€formed€the€intent€to€steal€at€the€time€he€assaultedÐ #l! Ðthe€victim.€€We€organize€our€analysis€into€two€steps:€(a)€whether€an€intent€to€steal€that€exists€priorÐ $X" Ðto€or€is€contemporaneous€to€the€assault€is€necessary€or€material€to€the€crime€of€especially€aggravatedÐ ô$D # Ðrobbery;€and€€(b)€whether€the€fact„finder€could€reasonably€infer€that€a€prior€or€contemporaneousÐ à%0!$ Ðintent€to€steal€existed.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€(a)Ð ¤(ô#' ЀÌà  àà ` àIn€this€part,€we€address€whether€it€is€material€to€a€charge€of€especially€aggravatedÐ |*Ì%) Ðrobbery€that€the€defendant€may€not€have€intended€to€steal€the€victimððs€property€at€the€time€he€shotÐ h+¸&* Ðher.€€As€is€pertinent€to€the€present€case,€the€robbery€statute€requires€that€the€defendant€intentionallyÐ ° Ðor€knowingly€steal€property€from€another€ð ðòòbyóó€violence.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1997)Ð œì Ð(emphasis€added).€€When€the€robbery€is€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€the€victim€suffersÐ ˆØ Ðserious€bodily€injury,€the€offense€becomes€especially€aggravated.€€òòId.€óóðð€39„13„403(a)€(1997).€€TheÐ tÄ Ðstatutes€contain€no€express€requirement€that€the€purpose€to€steal€must€coincide€with€the€violence€orÐ `° Ðserious€bodily€injury€or€that€the€assault€be€for€the€purpose€of€theft.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Shawnda€Jamesóó,€No.€01C01„9803„CC„00093€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€11,€1999),€€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000),€in€which€the€defendant€wasÐ  ` Ðconvicted€of€first„degree,€premeditated€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€of€the€victim,Ð ü L  Ðdespite€her€contention€that,€because€the€post„killing€theft€was€an€afterthought,€she€was€guilty€of€mereÐ è 8  Ðtheft€and€not€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€This€court€concluded€that€defendant€James€was€able€toÐ Ô$  Ðsteal€the€victimððs€property€because€she€previously€had€shot€and€killed€the€victim.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€13.€Ð À  ÐEssentially,€the€òòShawnda€Jamesóó€panel€held€that,€based€upon€the€taking€of€the€victimððs€property€€inÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€wake€of€the€murder,€it€was€immaterial€whether€the€defendant€intended€to€commit€theft€when€sheÐ ˜è  Ðshot€the€victim.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòShawnda€Jamesóó,€this€court€followed€what€has€been€characterized€as€the€Ð \¬ Ðð ðtraditional€ruleðð€that€the€state€need€not€prove€that€the€defendant€assaulted€the€victim€for€the€purposeÐ H˜ Ðof€theft,€when€the€proscriptive€statute€does€not€recite€that€the€ð ðforce€must€be€used€for€the€purpose€ofÐ 4„ Ðcommitting€the€theft.ðð€€òòSeeóó€2€Wayne€R.€Lafave€&€Austin€W.€Scott,€Substantive€Criminal€Law€ðð€8.11Ð  p Ðat€454€(1986).€€Rather,€€the€nexus€between€the€theft€and€the€antecedent€assault€is€supplied€when€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€merely€exploits€the€victimððs€disabled€condition€by€stealing€the€victimððs€property.€€òòIdóó.;Ð øH Ðòòaccord€State€v.€McKinneyóó,€265€Kan.€104,€1131,€961€P.2d€1,€7„8€(1998)€(ð ðUnder€factual€cir„Ð ä4 Ðcumstances€where€a€defendant€shoots€his€victim€and€later€decides€to€take€and€remove€the€victimððsÐ Ð  Ðpersonal€belongings€and€where€the€act€of€force€and€the€taking€of€the€property€are€so€connected€as€toÐ ¼  Ðform€a€continuous€chain€of€events€so€that€the€prior€force€makes€it€possible€for€the€defendant€to€takeÐ ¨ø Ðproperty€from€the€victimððs€body€without€resistance,€that€is€sufficient€for€a€conviction€of€the€crimeÐ ”ä Ðof€robbery.ðð);€òòState€v.€Masonóó,€403€So.2d€701€(La.€1981)€(holding€that€acts€of€violence€need€not€haveÐ €Ð Ðbeen€for€the€purpose€of€taking€the€property);€òòStebbing€v.€Stateóó,€299€Md.€331,€353„54,€473€A.2d€903,Ð l¼ Ð914„15€(1984)€(holding€that€the€taking€of€property€still€constituted€a€robbery€even€though€the€originalÐ X ¨ Ðattack€may€not€have€been€committed€for€the€purpose€of€taking€the€victimððs€property);€òòChappell€v.Ð D!” ÐStateóó,€114€Nev.€1403,€1408,€72€P.2d€838,€841€(1998)€(ð ð[I]n€robbery€cases€it€is€irrelevant€when€theÐ 0"€  Ðintent€to€steal€the€property€was€formed.ðð).€€According€to€this€view,€whether€the€defendant€had€formedÐ #l! Ðan€intent€to€steal€from€the€victim€at€the€time€of€the€assault€may€be€immaterial€to€whether€heÐ $X" Ðcommitted€robbery.€€òò€óóÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€though€the€Tennessee€robbery€statute€appears€to€accommodate€this€traditional€Ð Ì&"% Ðrule€and€to€be€similar€to€the€statutes€in€other€jurisdictions€where€the€traditional€rule€has€been€applied,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€even€though€this€court€followed€the€traditional€rule€in€òòShawnda€Jamesóó,€we€must,€at€this€juncture,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðdetermine€the€effect€of€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.Ð )à$( Ð1999),€which€arguably€could€be€construed€as€holding€that,€to€support€robbery€as€a€predicate€offenseÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€felony€murder,€the€intent€to€steal€must€pre„exist€or€be€concurrent€with€the€assault.Ð h+¸&* ÐÑLÑâ âÑF°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÌà  àà ` àIn€òòBuggsóó,€a€felony„murder€case,€the€defendant€stabbed€his€girlfriend€to€death€after€heÐ 2ì Ðð ðsnappedðð€during€an€argument.€òòId.óó€at€104.€€Afterward,€he€stole€the€victimððs€cash€and€used€it€toÐ Ø Ðpurchase€cocaine.€€òòId.óó€€Despite€Buggsððs€characterization€of€€the€decision€to€steal€the€money€as€anÐ  Ä Ðð ðafterthought,ðð€òòid.óó€at€103,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€BuggsÐ ö° Ðof€felony€murder€ð!ð€murder€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€€The€court€acknowledged€that,Ð â œ Ðin€a€felony„murder€case,€when€the€killing€precedes€the€commission€of€the€predicate€felony,€ð ðthereÐ Î ˆ Ðis€aòòóó€split€of€authority€[among]€the€various€jurisdictions€as€to€òòwhetheróó€òòintent€to€commit€the€felonyóó€mustÐ º t Ðexist€concurrent[ly]€with€the€commission€of€the€homicide,€or€whether€intent€formed€after€a€killingÐ ¦ ` Ðis€nonetheless€sufficient€to€bring€a€case€within€the€felony„murder€rule.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€106€(emphasis€added).€Ð ’ L  ÐThe€òòBuggsóó€court€ultimately€concluded€that€ð ðfor€the€felony„murder€doctrine€to€be€invoked,€the€actorÐ ~8  Ðmust€intend€to€commit€the€underlying€felony€at€the€time€the€killing€occurs.ðð€òòId.óó€at€107.òò€€óóDespite€thisÐ j$  Ðconclusion,€tòòóóheòòóó€court€held€that€the€ð ðjury€may€reasonably€infer€from€a€defendantððs€actions€immediatelyÐ V  Ðafter€a€killing€that€the€defendant€had€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony€prior€to,€or€concurrent€with,€theÐ Bü  Ðkilling.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€108.òò€€€óóIn€reviewing€the€facts€in€òòBuggsóó,€the€high€court€concluded€that€the€jury€couldÐ .è  Ðreasonably€have€inferred€that€Buggs€formed€an€intent€to€kill€the€victim€prior€to€or€concurrently€withÐ Ô  Ðthe€murderous€act.€Ð À ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,òò€inóó€òòa€felony„murder€case€óóin€which€the€predicate€felony€is€robbery,€òòBuggsóóÐ Þ˜ Ðrequires€that€the€intent€to€steal€be€formed€prior€to€or€concurrently€with€the€assault€upon€the€victim.€Ð Ê„ ÐMoreover,€òòBuggsóó€seems€applicable€in€the€present€robbery€case€because,€when€the€robbery€victimÐ ¶p Ðdies,€as€she€did€in€òòBuggsóó,€a€resulting€felony„murder€charge€is€baseless€unless€a€robbery€did€occur.€Ð ¢\ ÐIf€òòBuggsððsóó€ð ðprior€to€or€concurrently€withðð€rule€applies€as€means€of€defining€the€òòrobberyóó€as€aÐ ŽH Ðpredicate€to€felony€murder,€it€contradicts€the€traditional€rule€that,€in€applying€a€robbery€statute€suchÐ z4 Ðas€Tennesseeððs,€the€force€or€violence€used€against€the€victim€need€not€be€for€the€purpose€of€theft.Ð f  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€do€not€believe€that€òòBuggsóó€changes€the€traditional€rule€when€the€charged€offenseÐ >ø Ðis€especially€aggravated€robbery,€as€opposed€to€felony€murder.€€In€our€view,€òòBuggsóó€sets€boundariesÐ *ä Ðfor€defining€an€assault€as€murder,€not€an€assault€as€an€element€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€InÐ Ð ÐòòBuggsóó,€the€high€court€carved€out€a€special€rule€for€felony„murder€cases,€ð ð[g]iven€the€fact€that€theÐ  ¼ Ðfelony„murder€rule€is€a€legal€fiction€in€which€the€intent€and€the€malice€to€commit€the€underlyingÐ î ¨ Ðfelony€is€ððtransferredðð€to€elevate€an€unintentional€killing€to€first„degree€murder.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€107.€€BasedÐ Ú!” Ðupon€the€legal„fiction€nature€of€felony„murder€theory,€the€court€was€ð ðreluctantðð€to€reject€aÐ Æ"€  Ðrequirement€that€the€intent€to€commit€the€underlying€felony€must€exist€prior€to€or€concurrently€withÐ ²#l! Ðthe€lethal€assault.€òò€Id.€€óóIndeed,€the€predicate€felony€in€òòBuggsóó€was€mere€robbery;€an€injury€to€theÐ ž$X" Ðvictim€was€not€a€required€element€of€this€predicate€offense,€and€there€was€no€need€to€analyze€theÐ Š%D # Ðculpability€for€the€injury€as€a€means€of€finding€the€elements€of€the€predicate€offense.€€The€court€wasÐ v&0!$ Ðexamining€the€culpability€for€the€homicide.€€As€such,€òòBuggsððs€óóð ðprior€to€or€concurrently€withðð€ruleÐ b'"% Ðhas€no€application€in€an€especially€aggravated€robbery€prosecution.Ð N(#& ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€the€rationale€in€òòBuggsóó€being€limited€to€prosecutions€for€felony€murder,€we€holdÐ &*à$( Ðâ âthat€òòShawnda€Jamesóó€controls.€The€result€is€that€the€intent€to€steal€need€not€exist€prior€to€orÐ +Ì%) Ðconcurrently€with€the€shooting€in€a€case€in€which€the€defendant€is€charged€with€especially€aggravatedÐ F Ðrobbery.Ð 2ì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€(b)Ð  Ä Ѐ€€Ð ö° Ðà  àà ` àDespite€our€conclusion€that€the€intent€to€steal€need€not€have€existed€prior€to€orÐ â œ Ðcontemporaneously€with€the€assault€in€order€to€support€a€conviction€of€especially€aggravatedÐ Î ˆ Ðrobbery,€we€consider€the€issue€of€whether€such€an€intent€on€the€defendantððs€part€was€reasonablyÐ º t Ðinferred€from€the€evidence.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€inference€that€the€defendant€intendedÐ ¦ ` Ðto€steal€the€victimððs€property€when€he€entered€the€dwelling€is€reasonably€supported€by€the€stipulatedÐ ’ L  Ðfacts€and€that,€on€appellate€review,€we€are€not€free€to€infer€otherwise.Ð ~8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€aspect€of€òòBuggsóó€that€òòisóó€applicable€to€the€present€case€is€the€holding€that,€whenÐ V  Ðthe€assault€precedes€the€act€of€theft,€a€jury€may€reasonably€infer€from€a€defendantððs€actionsÐ Bü  Ðimmediately€after€an€assault€that€the€defendant€intended€to€commit€the€theft€prior€to,€or€concurrentlyÐ .è  Ðwith,€the€assault.€€òòSee€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€108.€€We€must€ascertain,€however,€whether€the€rule€isÐ Ô  Ðapplicable€when€the€inference€was€drawn€not€by€a€jury€but€by€a€trial€court€and€when€the€basis€for€theÐ À Ðinference€is€a€statement€of€stipulated€facts.€Ð ò¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€a€case€in€which€all€of€the€adjudicative€facts€are€stipulated€by€the€parties€and€thereÐ Ê„ Ðare€neither€bases€for€factual€contradiction€nor€issues€of€credibility,€it€may€be€that€the€appellate€courtÐ ¶p Ðis€in€the€same€position€as€the€trial€court€to€review€the€facts€as€presented.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Binetteóó,Ð ¢\ Ð33€S.W.3d€215,€217€(Tenn.€2000)€(ð ð[W]hen€a€courtððs€findings€of€fact€at€a€suppression€hearing€areÐ ŽH Ðbased€solely€on€evidence€that€does€not€involve€issues€of€credibility,€such€as€the€videotape€evidenceÐ z4 Ð[of€the€DUI€encounter]€in€this€case,€the€rationale€underlying€a€more€deferential€standard€of€reviewÐ f  Ðis€not€implicated.ðð).€€The€stipulated€facts€presented€in€this€case,€however,€are€not,€by€the€very€natureÐ R  Ðof€the€stipulation,€at€issue;€rather,€the€conflicting€òòinferencesóó€which€may€be€drawn€from€these€factsÐ >ø Ðframe€the€issue.€€Ð *ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€argued€forcefully€that€the€trial€court€should€infer€from€the€facts,Ð  ¼ Ðincluding€the€abandonment€of€the€plastic€bag€containing€the€victimððs€property,€that€he€entered€theÐ î ¨ ÐRock€Creek€Road€house€on€the€morning€of€January€23,€2000€for€the€purpose€of€killing€his€wife€andÐ Ú!” Ðthat€he€later€took€the€jewelry€only€for€the€purpose€of€misleading€the€police€into€believing€that€anÐ Æ"€  Ðintruder€entered€the€house€to€commit€a€robbery.€Ð ²#l! ÐÌà  àà ` àUnfortunately€for€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€inferred€that€the€defendant€went€to€theÐ Š%D # Ðhouse€with€a€preconceived€plan€to€kill€the€victim€and€to€steal€the€jewelry€if€only€as€a€means€ofÐ v&0!$ Ðconfounding€the€police.€We€cannot€say€that€this€inculpating€inference€lacked€a€basis€in€fact.€€TheÐ b'"% Ðdefendant€spent€some€time€in€the€house€while€the€victim€painstakingly€retrieved€the€cordlessÐ N(#& Ðtelephone€and€called€911.€After€his€rummaging€through€the€house,€he€returned€to€find€the€victim€onÐ :)ô#' Ðthe€telephone€and€fired€the€shotgun€at€her€again€from€close€range.€She€feigned€being€dead,€and€heÐ &*à$( Ðimmediately€opened€the€jewelry€chest.€Ð +Ì%) ÐÐ þ+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€was€free€to€draw€inferences€from€the€stipulated€facts,Ð F ÐòòState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€559,€560€(Tenn.€1990),€and€that€its€inferences€were€reasonable€andÐ 2ì Ðsupported€by€the€facts.€€òòSee€generally€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€108.€€Moreover,€on€appeal,€our€reviewÐ Ø Ðof€the€convicting€evidence€is€the€same€whether€the€conviction€was€wrought€by€the€hands€of€a€juryÐ  Ä Ðor€a€trial€judge.€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e)€(ð ðFindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€theÐ ö° Ðtrial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÐ â œ Ðof€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð);€òòcf.óó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€(In€civil€cases,€€appellateÐ Î ˆ Ðreview€standard€of€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€is€€òòde€novoóó€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÐ º t Ðcorrectness;€however,€the€standard€of€review€of€a€jury€verdict€is€that€the€verdict€will€stand€if€materialÐ ¦ ` Ðevidence€supports€it.).€€Even€in€a€case€of€stipulated€facts,€we€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÐ ’ L  Ðfavorable€to€the€state,€including€ð ðall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€[fromÐ ~8  Ðthe€evidence].ðð€€òòSee€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835„36;€òòPruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€at€560„61€(appellate€courtÐ j$  Ðmay€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€for€the€inferences€drawn€by€a€trier€of€fact,€even€though€the€factsÐ V  Ðwere€stipulated€by€the€parties).€Ð Bü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€we€are€constrained€to€accept€the€trial€courtððs€inference€because€the€trial€courtÐ Ô  Ðwas€the€fact„finder,€and€the€inference€it€drew€was€reasonable€and€the€one€most€favorable€to€the€state.€Ð À ÐAs€a€result,€even€if€an€intent€to€steal€that€pre„exists€or€is€contemporaneous€with€the€assault€wasÐ ò¬ Ðnecessary€to€a€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€we€find€that€the€evidence€sufficientlyÐ Þ˜ Ðsupports€the€conviction.Ð Ê„ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àII.€€Aggravated€Burglary.Ð ¢\ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóNow,€we€address€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€his€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€Ð z4 ÐOne€commits€burglary€who,€ð ðwithout€the€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner€.€.€.€[e]nters€aÐ f  Ðbuilding€and€commits€or€attempts€to€commit€a€felony,€theft€or€assault.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„Ð R  Ð402(a)(3)€(1997).€€Burglary€becomes€aggravated€burglary€when€the€building€is€a€habitation.€€òòId.óóðð€39„Ð >ø Ð14„403(a)€(1997).€€A€ð ðhabitationðð€is€defined€as€ð ðany€structure,€including€buildings,€modular€units,Ð *ä Ðmotor€homes,€trailers,€and€tents,€which€is€designed€or€adapted€for€the€overnight€accommodation€ofÐ Ð Ðpersons.ðð€€òòId.€óóðð€39„14„401(1)(A)€(Supp.€2001).€€For€purposes€of€the€burglary€statutes,€an€ð ðownerððÐ  ¼ Ðrefers€to€ð ða€person€in€lawful€possession€of€property,€whether€the€possession€is€actual€orÐ î ¨ Ðconstructive.ðð€€òòIdóó.€ðð€39„14„401(3).€€The€definition€of€€ð ðownerðð€does€not€ð ðinclude€a€person,€who€isÐ Ú!” Ðrestrained€from€the€property€or€habitation€by€a€valid€court€order€or€order€of€protection€other€thanÐ Æ"€  Ðanexòò€óóparteorder€of€protection,€obtained€by€the€person€maintaining€residence€on€the€property.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð ²#l! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€that€we€must€resolve€is€whether€the€defendant,€as€a€joint€proprietor€of€theÐ Š%D # Ðhouse€on€Rock€Creek€Road€who€had€not€been€restrained€or€enjoined€from€the€premises,€may€beÐ v&0!$ Ðconvicted€of€burglarizing€that€house.€€We€hold€that€because€he,€as€an€owner,€effectively€consentedÐ b'"% Ðto€his€own€entry,€he€committed€no€burglary.Ð N(#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€parties€owned€the€Rock€Creek€Road€house€jointly.€€Unless€some€restriction€orÐ &*à$( Ðvariation€in€the€form€of€ownership€between€husband€and€wife€was€imposed€by€the€deed€or€instrumentÐ +Ì%) Ðthat€conveyed€title,€which€restriction€or€variation€does€not€appear€in€the€appellate€record,€the€parties,Ð þ+¸&* Ðas€husband€and€wife,€presumptively€held€title€to€the€house€as€tenants€by€the€entirety.€€òòSee€Weaver€v.Ð F ÐHamrickóó,€907€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€1995);€òò€Preston€v.€Smith,óó€41€Tenn.€App.€222,€ð"ð,€293€S.W.2dÐ 2ì Ð51,€59€(1955).€€A€tenancy€by€the€entirety€is€characterized€by€a€ð ðunity€of€interest,€[a]€unity€of€title,€[a]Ð Ø Ðunity€of€time,€and€[a]€unity€of€possession;€or,€in€other€words,€joint€tenants€have€one€and€the€sameÐ  Ä Ðinterest€.€.€.€held€by€one€and€the€same€undivided€possession.ðð€€òòId.€€óóThe€tenants€by€the€entirety,€ð ðtheÐ ö° Ðhusband€and€wife€as€a€unit[,]€have€the€right€to€the€current€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€property.ðð€Ð â œ ÐòòWeaveróó,€907€S.W.2d€at€388;€òòsee€Robinson€v.€Trousdale€Countyóó,€516€S.W.2d€626,€632€(Tenn.€1974).€Ð Î ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€the€defendantððs€and€the€victimððs€property€rights€in€the€house€had€not€yet€beenÐ ¦ ` Ðadjudicated€by€the€divorce€court€on€January€23,€2000,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant,€as€a€tenantÐ ’ L  Ðby€the€entirety,€had€an€equal€right€with€the€victim€to€possess€or€use€the€house.€€In€this€circumstance,€Ð ~8  Ðhis€entry€must€be€viewed€as€consensual€òòfor€purposes€of€the€burglary€statuteóó,€which€makes€the€lackÐ j$  Ðof€€ð ðeffective€consent€of€the€property€òòowneróóðð€the€linchpin€for€proscribing€an€entry.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ V  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„14„402(a)€(1997)€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Langfordóó,€994€S.W.2d€126,€128Ð Bü  Ð(Tenn.€1999)€(defendant€who€was€former€boyfriend€of€burglary€victim€not€in€ð ðlawful€possessionððÐ .è  Ðof€victimððs€premises;€even€though€defendant€formerly€stayed€with€the€victim€he€had€no€proprietaryÐ Ô  Ðinterest€in€premises).Ð À ÐÌà  àà ` àFurthermore,€because€the€defendant€was€not€under€any€restraining€or€protective€orderÐ Þ˜ Ðcommanding€him€to€stay€away€from€the€house,€he€was€not€excluded€as€an€owner€for€purposes€of€theÐ Ê„ Ðburglary€statute.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€ðð€39„14„401(3)€(Supp.€2001).€€In€creating€an€exclusion€from€the€definitionÐ ¶p Ðof€an€owner,€the€legislature€circumscribed€a€class€that€is€defined€by€being€subject€to€a€valid€courtÐ ¢\ Ðrestraining€or€protective€order,€not€a€class€that€includes€persons€who€are€merely€estranged€spouses.Ð ŽH ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€the€conviction€of€aggravated€burglary€must€be€reversed,€and€that€charge€mustÐ f  Ðbe€dismissed.€€The€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€is€affirmed.€Ð R  ÐÌÌÌ€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð î ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE