WPCd R-tJ*t-954'ўULHfO+tїuTݡh"Ȱgޥ e<ڻ*ݸ V 4*/KDb=aȐ|3ȍF-ȍeO#(d[[H 4Fe_FvQ: y=_,:c'Z 2ѰpjV4Jpxq`GJ[ /Z05[4u/n>ȃcDſR ϫlbjmG L0ǧ_.PT\oԅ)q~h,\Z! aʏ z0\ ND 0F UIN 0U zq  z 7N  0  0 z-ENN 0 0 z EN 0 0 0C zdN6 08 0 zN 0 0 0p z  Ni! 0k! 0"b" z"5#N$ 0 $ 0$ z9%%N& 0& 0' z'P(N") 0$) 0) z*+N+ 0+ 0, z>--N. 0. 0*/ z/<0N1 01 01 z,22Nx3 0z3 0,4 04 z5O6N!7 B#7 0@7 07 D58 D-8 0K9 0>O9 AS99 0: 0DJ; A; z9<<N= 0= 0> za??N@ 0@ 0A zsBBNC 0C 0D zEENF 0F 0G z_HHNI 02I 0I zJUKN'L 0:)L 0YcL zL6MNN 0_ N 0 iN zsOO^ PwP4PPP mP Q 0DRU1>IR#R 0PU 0V B*X D/Y 01Y D/7[ 0f[ 064\ 0j\ 0:r] 0^] 0< ^ 1eF^U6^U*^ 1u _ 72_ 0c_ `U@'` g` y``5c(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*+ (_2623  ..C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp 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*/+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp 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*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  $C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp 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*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  - -0C:\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*,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   5C:\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(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  :C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp 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(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  DC:\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(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h IC:\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()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   NC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  (|G2x$ !.8ѭdd8         0  `TC:\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 d<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5(|3#$ !.8ѭdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  86Definition^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3#$ !.8ѭdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKcC:\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(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  hC:\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(]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  mC:\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(]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  rC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5wC:\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,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS|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.wpt42Emphasis64Hyperlink    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<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS 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䭖1 J1\P:i+003|x U Rx$      1  `  _ԀItisthepolicyofthiscourtnottorevealthenamesofchildvictimsorwitnessesinsexuallyrelatedcrimes.(#$  0  \  `&Times New RomanHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0<:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d)1dxd<:zTop of For7(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  )2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  "&'(,-23 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  SDU_10(9 Z(Times New Roman SDU_19SDU_11  Rx$      3  `  _ԀAsweearliernoted,theappellantdidnotcomplainregardingthetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancement  factor(16).Ourreviewoftherecordrevealsthattheappellanttestifiedattrialthatthevictimwashisson,andthevictim q livedwithhimatthetimeoftheoffense.Therefore,weconcludethatevengiventhedictatesof_Blakely_,thetrialcourt 2 didnoterrinfindingenhancementfactor(16)applicabletotheappellant. Rx$      2  `  _ԀWewilladdresstheseissuesinadifferentorderthanthatinwhichtheywereraised. !.8ѭdd8     _   ѭ8+XXdd8@hh ѭINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#ѭ #Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust11,2004 F X+Xѭ #ѭXX+ #STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JOHN_WHATLEY_X+Xѭ  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty  9 @@No.13006Stella_Hargrove_,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301773CCAR3CDFiledDecember22,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     Theappellant,John_Whatley_,wasconvictedbyajuryintheMauryCountyCircuitCourtof V  aggravatedsexualbattery.ThetrialcourtsentencedtheappellanttotwelveyearsintheTennessee ? DepartmentofCorrection.Onappeal,theappellantchallengesthetrialcourtsactionsasthirteenth (x juror,thespecificityoftheindictment,#ѭXX+#X+XѭԀthetrialcourtsinstructionsregardinglesserincluded a offenses,thetrialcourtsevidentiaryrulings,sentencing,andthedenialofhismotionfornewtrial. J Uponourreviewoftherecordandthepartiesbriefs,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt; 3 however,inlightof_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,__U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004)#ѭXX+#X+Xѭ,wemodifythe  appellantssentencetoelevenyears.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmedas  Modified.  q   #ѭX+#X+X.ѭNormaMcGeeOgle,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Wellesand D RobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined. -} MichaelA._Colavecchio_,Nashville,Tennessee(onappeal),#ѭXX+' #X+XѭԀandL.SamuelPatterson,Columbia, O Tennessee(attrial),fortheappellant,John_Whatley_.  8  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ElizabethT.Ryan,SeniorCounsel;Mark_Fulks_, " " AssistantAttorneyGeneral;MikeBottoms,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJoey_Penrod_Ԁand ## ChristineThompson,AssistantDistrictAttorneysGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. $$  @@OO& OPINION #ѭXX+ #X+Xѭ ^&!&  I.FactualBackground  1(#( #ѭXX+=#  X+Xѭ  OnMarch22,2002,theappellantwasindictedforrapeofachild.Theproofadducedat *T%* trial,takeninthelightmostfavorabletotheState,revealedthatattheendofFebruaryorthe *=&+ beginningofMarch1996,theappellantlivedinamobilehomeat207LewisStreetinWoodland +&', TrailerParkinColumbia.Severalfamilymembersalsolivedinthemobilehome,includingLisa ,(- Frazier,theappellantsgirlfriendandthevictimsmother,andthethenthreeyearoldvictim,the -(. _childofFrazierandtheappellant. #  1      ׀Whilelivingatthemobilehome,thevictimsharedabedroom  withhisbrother,AF.Thevictim,whowastenyearsoldatthetimeoftrial,testifiedthatheandAF  werenotallowedoutoftheroomtoeatorusethebathroom.Therewasnotoiletinthebedroom;  therefore,thevictimandAFurinatedanddefecatedon [a]nythingthatwecould.Additionally, k thebedroomhadawindow,butthevictimcouldnotseeoutofthewindowbecauseitwascovered T withducttape.Thevictimstatedthathedidnotknowthecolorofthemobilehome becauseI =  neverseentheoutsideuntilImovedout. & v   Duringaweekdaywhenitwaslightoutside,theappellantcametothebedroomthevictim  H andAFshared.Theappellantpickedupthevictimandcarriedhimtothebathroom.Thevictim  1  recalledthatthebathroomhad kindoflikesunflowerwallpaperand somekindoffuronthe    toilet.Onceinthebathroom,theappellantlockedthedoor,pulleddownhispants,andputhis   penisinthevictimsmouth.Thevictimdescribedtheappellantspenisasbeing veryhardandit   hadhair.Aftertheoffense,theappellantorderedthevictimnottotellanyonewhathadhappened.   Thevictimrecalledthattheoffenseoccurred [a]tleastafewmonthsbeforeNovember1996when n  hewasremovedfromtheappellantscustody. W    OnNovember27,1996,GloriaKelly,anemployeeoftheDepartmentofChildrens )y Services,visitedtheappellantsmobilehomeinMauryCounty.Shefoundallresidentsexceptthe b victimandAFinthelivingroomofthehome.Shewasinformedthatthetwoboyswereinthe K bedroom.KellyenteredthebedroomwhereshefoundthevictimandAF.Kellynoticedthatthe 4 roomcontainednobeds,anditwasextremelydarkbecausealuminumfoilcoveredthewindows.  ThevictimandAFwerescantilydressedandappearedmalnourishedandhungry.Bitsoftorndiaper  werescatteredaroundtheroom,andtheroomwas saturatedwithurineandhada strongfeces  smell.Thefourchildrenwereremovedfromtheappellantshome.    Attheconclusionoftheproof,thejuryfoundtheappellantnotguiltyofthechargedoffense Z ofrapeofachild.However,theappellantwasconvictedofthelesserincludedoffenseof C aggravatedsexualbatteryandwassentencedtotwelveyearsintheTennesseeDepartmentof ,| Correction.Onappeal,theappellantraisesthefollowingissues:(1)whetherthetrialcourtfailed e toactasthirteenthjuror;(2)whethertheindictmentfailedtostatewithspecificitywhentheoffense N wasallegedtohaveoccurred;(3)whetherthetrialcourtfailedtoproperlyinstructthejuryonall  7 lesserincludedoffenses;(4)whetherthetrialcourterredin [a]llowingthejurytohearaboutthe !   livingconditionsinthehomeinwhichtheallegationswereallegedtohaveoccurred,asirrelevant " ! tothechargesinthiscase;(5)whetherthetrialcourtincorrectlyappliedenhancementfactorsto #" theappellantssentence;and(6)whetherthetrialcourterredindenyingtheappellantsmotionfor $# newtrialbaseduponaconflictofinterestwithamemberoftheDistrictAttorneyGeneralsoffice.Q #  2      ׀ t% $ @$ II.Analysis  F'"&  0(#' @#A.Indictment    Ashisfirstissue,theappellantchallengestheindictmentcharginghimwiththeoffenseof  rapeofachild.Underboththefederalandstateconstitutions,acriminalaccusedisentitled Xu XXX+tobe k informedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusation#X+X XXu ##againsthim.Xu XXX+SeeU.S.Const.Amend.VI;see T alsoTenn.Const.Art.I,#X+X XXu##Xu XXX+#X+X XXuI$#Xu XXX+9#X+X XXu$#.Thisrequirementismetwhenanindictmentcharginganaccused =   providessufficientinformation(1)toenabletheaccusedtoknowtheaccusationtowhichanswer & v isrequired,(2)tofurnishthecourtadequatebasisfortheentryofaproperjudgment,and(3)to  _ protecttheaccusedfromdoublejeopardy.Statev.Hill,954S.W.2d725,727(Tenn.1997).  H   Intheinstantcase,theindictmentchargedthattheappellant onoraboutthe__dayof    February,1996,inMauryCounty,Tennesseeandbeforethefindingoftheindictment,did   unlawfullyandintentionally,knowinglyorrecklesslysexuallypenetrate[thevictim],apersonless   thanthirteen(13)yearsofage,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated3913522,allofwhich   isagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.Theappellantcontendsthatthe n  8  8`   specificityofthatdateintheindictmentshouldnotrequirethe @ Appellanttoprepareadefensethatthisevenmayhaveinstead )y occurredinJanuary,1996,norinMarch,1996.TheAppellant b preparedtodefendhimselfinthiscasebyprovidinguncontroverted K proofthatheneverlivedinatrailerhomewithabathroomdecorated 4 withsunflowerwallpaperandafurcoveredtoilet....TheState  placedbeforethejuryandthetrialcourtextensiveproofthatthe  trailerhomefromwhichthevictimwasremovedbyD.H.S.workers  inNovember1996wasthetrailerhomeinwhichtheallegedevent  occurred.q` x` x Basedupontheforegoingargument,itappearsthattheappellantstruecomplaintsconcernthe C specificityoftheindictmentandapossiblevariancebetweentheindictmentandtheproof.Wewill ,| addressbothoftheappellantscomplaints. e   Wenotethatan Xu XXX+indictmentmuststatethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryand  7 conciselanguage,withoutprolixityorrepetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommon !   understandingtoknowwhatisintended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenablethe " ! court,onconviction,topronouncetheproperjudgment#X+X XXu-#.Tenn.CodeAnn.4013202(2003). #" However, Xu XXX+[t]hetimeatwhichtheoffensewascommittedneednotbestatedintheindictment,but $# theoffensemaybeallegedtohavebeencommittedonanydaybeforethefindingthereof,or t% $ generallybeforethefindingoftheindictment,unlessthetimeisamaterialingredientinthe ]&!% offense#X+X XXu/#.Tenn.CodeAnn.4013207(2003);seealsoStatev.Byrd,820S.W.2d739,740(Tenn. F'"& 1991).Weconcludethattheindictmentchargingtheappellantissufficientlyspecifictoalertthe /(#' appellantoftheneedtodefendagainstthechargeofrapeofachildandtopreventfurthercharges )h$( whichwouldviolatedoublejeopardy.SeeRogerLeeWilsonv.State,No.E200301378CCAR3 *Q%) PC,2004WL1533830,at*8(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,July8,2004),applicationforperm. *:&* toappealfiled,(Sept.8,2004). +#'+ Ї  Moreover,wenotethatanycomplaintsregardingavariancebetweentheproofandthe  indictmentarelikewisewithoutmerit. AXu XXX+variancebetweenanindictmentorasubsequentbillof  particularsandtheevidencepresentedattrialisnotfatalunlessitisbothmaterialandprejudicial.#X+X XXux4#  Xu XXX+Statev.Shropshire,45S.W.3d64,71(Tenn.Crim.App.2000);seealsoStatev.Moss,662S.W.2d k 590,592(Tenn.1984).Avarianceisnotmaterialwhensubstantialcorrespondenceexistsbetween T theproofandthe#X+X XXu5#indictment.SeeXu XXX+Shropshire,45S.W.3d71#X+X XXu6#.Theappellantsmaincomplaint =  appearstobethattheStatefailedtounequivocallyprovethattheoffenseoccurredinFebruary1996. & v However,asweearlierstated,theindictmentprovidesthattheoffenseoccurred onoraboutthe__  _ dayofFebruary,1996.Theproofrevealedthatthevictimwastakenfromtheappellantshomein  H November1996.Thevictimtestifiedthattheoffenseoccurred [a]tleastafewmonthsbeforehe  1  wasremovedfromtheappellantscustody,substantiallycorrespondingwiththedateallegedinthe    indictment.     Further,intheinstantcase,therewasnoquestionthatthevictimwasundertheageof   thirteenatthetimeoftheoffense.Additionally,thevictimassertedonlyasinglesexualact. n  Moreover,astheappellantcontendsonappeal,theappellantsentiredefensewasthathehadnever W  livedinamobilehomewithabathroomsuchasthatdescribedbythevictim.Thedefensewasnot @ thathehadnotlivedinsuchamobilehomeonlyduringFebruary1996.Notably,itisimmaterial )y whethertheoffenseoccurredinFebruary1996oraslateasNovember1996,whenallofthepossible b dateswerepriortothefilingoftheindictment.SeeStatev.Vickers,985S.W.2d1,9(Tenn.Crim. K App.1997);seealsoStatev.AndrewNealDavis,No.M200202375CCAR3CD,2004WL 4 1562544,at*18(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,July9,2004),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.  2004).Furthermore,thiscourthaslongbeen sensitivetothefactthatyoungchildrenwhoare  victimsofchildabusemaynotbeabletotestifythatabuseoccurredonaspecificdate,orprovide  extensivedetailsinthisregard.Statev.Brown,992S.W.2d389,391(Tenn.1999).Accordingly,  thereisnoindicationthattheappellantsdefensewashamperedbyavarianceintheproofregarding q thetimeframefortheoffense.SeeStatev.MichaelThomason,No.W199902000CCAR3CD, Z 2000WL298695,at*7(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Mar.7,2000);seealsoStatev.PhilipCharles C Saindon,Jr.,No.M200101860CCAR3CD,2003WL354508,at*7(Tenn.Crim.App.at ,| Nashville,Feb.14,2003). e @B.AdmissionofEvidence  7   Next,theappellantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinallowingtheStatetopresent " ! evidenceregardingtheconditionsinwhichthevictimwaslivinginNovember1996.Theappellant #" arguesthatthetestimonywasinadmissibleunderRule404(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence $# because theevidenceshouldhavebeenexcludedasitwasmuchmoreprejudicialthanprobative. t% $   Xu XXX+ ` Tenn.R.Evid.404provides: /(#'  8  8`   (b)OtherCrimes,Wrongs,orActs.Evidenceofothercrimes, *Q%) wrongs,oractsisnotadmissibletoprovethecharacterofapersonin *:&* ordertoshowactionin%  #X+X XXuD#%hEXu XXX+conformitywiththecharactertrait.Itmay, +#'+ however,beadmissibleforotherpurposes.Theconditionswhich  mustbesatisfiedbeforeallowingsuchevidenceare:` x` x  8  8`   (1)Thecourtuponrequestmustholdahearingoutsidethejurys k presence;T` x` x  8  8`   (2)Thecourtmustdeterminethatamaterialissueexistsotherthan & v conductconformingwithacharactertraitandmustuponrequeststate  _ ontherecordthematerialissue,theruling,andthereasonsfor  H admittingtheevidence;and 1 ` x` x  8  8`   (3)Thecourtmustexcludetheevidenceifitsprobativevalueis   outweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice. ` x` x  #X+X XXuE#Xu XXX+SeealsoStatev.Parton,#X+X XXuI#Xu XXX+Ԁ694S.W.2d299,302(Tenn.1985).Atrialcourtsdecisionregardingthe n  admissionofRule404(b)evidencewillbereviewedunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard;however,#X+X XXuPJ#Xu XXX+ W   thedecisionofthetrialcourtshouldbeaffordedno%  #X+X XXubK#%KXu XXX+deferenceunlesstherehasbeensubstantial @ compliancewiththeproceduralrequirementsoftheRule.#X+X XXuL#Xu XXX+Statev.DuBose,953S.W.2d649,652 )y (Tenn.1997).#X+X XXuL#Xu XXX+Ԁ b   Generally, [o]nlyinanexceptionalcasewillanothercrime,wrong,orbadactberelevant 4 toanissueotherthantheaccusedscharacter.Suchexceptionalcasesincludeidentity,intent,  motive,opportunity,orrebuttalofmistakeoraccident.#X+X XXu_M#Xu XXX+Statev.Luellen,#X+X XXuN#Xu XXX+Ԁ867S.W.2d736,740  (Tenn.Crim.App.1992).Inmakingitsdecisionregardingthe%  #X+X XXuTO#%OXu XXX+admissibilityofthe#X+X XXuP#Xu XXX+testimony,the  trialcourtmustfirstdetermineiftheoffered#X+X XXusP#Xu XXX+testimonyisrelevanttoprovesomethingotherthanthe  appellantscharacter.Iftheevidenceisrelevant,then,uponrequest,thecourtwillproceedtoaRule q 404(b)hearing. Z   Thedaybeforetrial,thetrialcourtheldahearingonamotioninliminefiledbythe ,| appellant,askingthatthetrialcourtprohibitevidenceregardingthelivingconditionsofthe e appellantshomewhilethevictimlivedwithhim,suchasthepresenceofhumanwasteinthe N victimsbedroom.Thetrialcourt,actingoutofanabundanceofcaution,instructedtheStatenot  7 torevealtheconditionsofthehomeunlesstheconditionsbecamerelevantduringthecourseoftrial. !   Attrial,theconditionsofthehomewerenotrevealedduringtheStatesinitialdirectexamination " ! ofthevictim.Oncrossexamination,theappellantelicitedtestimonythatthevictimhadlivedin #" morethanonemobilehome,suggestingthatthevictimwasconfusedastothemobilehomewhere $# theoffenseoccurred. t% $   Asaresultoftheappellantscrossexaminationofthevictim,challengingthelocationofthe F'"& sexualabuse,theStaterequestedthetrialcourtspermissiontopresentevidenceregardingthe /(#' conditionsoftheappellantsmobilehomeatthetimethevictimlivedwithhim.Thetrialcourt, )h$( afterconductingajuryouthearingincompliancewithRule404(b),notedthattheappellantraised *Q%) theissuethatthevictimhadlivedinmorethanonemobilehome.Therefore,thetrialcourtfound *:&* thattheprobativevalueoftheinformationoutweighedthepotentialprejudicetheinformationcould +#'+ engender.Thus,thevictimwasallowedtobrieflytestifytotheconditionsoftheappellantsmobile  home.    Additionally,theStaterequestedthetrialcourtspermissiontohaveGloriaKellytestifyas k totheconditionsoftheappellantsmobilehomepriortotheremovalofthechildren.Thetrialcourt T allowedKellystestimonytocorroboratethevictimstestimonybecause thedefensehasopened =  thedoorforthat,withtheircrossexaminationof[thevictim].However,thetrialcourtlimitedthe & v testimonyregardingtheconditionsofthemobilehome,allowingonlytheconditionsofthevictims  _ bedroomtoberevealedtothejury.Testimonydescribingotherpoorconditionsthatexistedinthe  H homewasnotallowed.  1    Aswenotedearlier,theappellantassertsthatthetrialcourterredinallowingthetestimony   describingtheconditionsthevictimenduredwhilelivingwiththeappellant.Specifically,the   appellantcomplainsabouttestimonyfromthevictimandKellyconcerningthepresenceofurineand   feces,torndiaperbits,andadarkenedwindowinthebedroomthevictimsharedwithhisbrother. n  Fromourreviewoftherecord,wequestionwhetherthelivingconditionsqualifyasa crime,wrong, W  orbadact#X+X XXuQ#Xu XXX+suchascontemplatedbyRule404(b).Regardless,upontheappellantsobjection,the @ trialcourtdeterminedduringjuryouthearingsthattheappellantopenedthedoorforsuchtestimony )y byelicitingtestimonyfromthevictimthathehadlivedinmorethanonemobilehome.Thetrial b courtpointedoutthatduringcrossexamination,theappellantimpliedthatthevictimwasconfused K astothespecificmobilehomeinwhichtheeventoccurred.Thetrialcourtfoundthatitwas 4  appropriatetojustletthejuryknowthat[thevictim]wasremovedandtakentoanapprovedstate  fosterhome[thatwouldnotapproveofsuchconditions].Therefore,thetrialcourtconcludedthat  thelivingconditionswerehighlyrelevantandprobativeoftheissueofidentityandlackofmistake.  Weagreewiththetrialcourtthattheappellantsquestioningofthevictimopenedthedoortothe  testimonyofwhichhecomplains.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. q @` ` C.ThirteenthJuror/SufficiencyoftheEvidence C   Theappellantphraseshisnextissueasachallengetothetrialcourtsactionasthirteenth e juror;however,thebulkoftheappellantsargumentrelatestothesufficiencyoftheevidence N supportinghisconviction.#X+X XXu$_#WebeginouranalysisbynotingthatTennesseeRuleofCriminal  7 Procedure33(f)providesthat [t]hetrialcourtmaygrantanewtrialfollowingaverdictofguilty !   ifitdisagreeswiththejuryabouttheweightoftheevidence.Whenatrialcourtmakesa " ! determinationfollowingRule33(f),thecourtisactingasthirteenthjuror.SeeStatev.Gillon,15 #" S.W.3d492,500(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).ThiscourthasobservedthatXu XXX+oncethetrialcourthas $# approvedtheverdictasthe#X+X XXusg#Xu XXX+thirteenthjuror,ourappellatereviewisthenlimitedtodeterminingthe t% $ #X+X XXug#Xu XXX+sufficiencyoftheevidence.#X+X XXuh#SeeXu XXX+Statev.Burlison,868S.W.2d713,719(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).#X+X XXui#Xu XXX+Ԁ ]&!% #X+X XXui#Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourt,specificallyactingasthirteenthjuror,found thattheverdictis F'"& overwhelminglysupportedbytheevidenceinthistwodaytrial.Xu XXX+ԀTherefore,wewilladdressthe /(#' appellantscomplaintasachallengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence.#X+X XXuj#Xu XXX+ )h$(   #X+X XXuuk#Xu XXX+Onappeal,ajuryconvictionremovesthepresumptionoftheappellantsinnocenceand *:&* replacesitwithoneofguilt,sothattheappellantcarriestheburdenofdemonstratingtothiscourt +#'+ whytheevidencewillnotsupportthejurysfindings.SeeStatev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914  (Tenn.1982).Theappellantmustestablishthatno reasonabletrieroffactcouldhavefoundthe  essentialelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeJacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,  319,99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e). k     Accordingly,onappeal,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidence =  andallreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.SeeStatev.Williams,657S.W.2d & v 405,410(Tenn.1983).Inotherwords,questionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnessesandthe  _ weightandvaluetobegiventheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidence,are  H resolvedbythetrieroffact,andnottheappellatecourts.SeeStatev.Pruett,788S.W.2d559,561  1  (Tenn.1990).#X+X XXuk#Xu XXX+      Intheinstantcase,theappellantwasconvictedofaggravatedsexualbattery.#X+X XXufq#ԀXu XXX+ Aggravated   sexualbatteryisunlawfulsexualcontactwithavictimbythedefendantorthedefendantbya   victim#X+X XXur#Xu XXX+whenthe victimislessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913 n  504(a)(4)(2003). Sexualcontactincludestheintentionaltouchingofthevictims[or]the W  defendants...intimateparts,...#X+X XXur#Xu XXX+Ԁifthatintentionaltouchingcanbereasonablyconstruedasbeing @ forthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification.#X+X XXu[t#Xu XXX+ԀTenn.CodeAnn.3913501(6)(2003). )y   Attrial,thevictimtestifiedthatwhenhewasthreeyearsold,theappellantpickedhimup K andcarriedhimtothebathroom.Onceinthebathroom,theappellantlockedthedoor,pulleddown 4 hispants,andinsertedhispenisintothevictimsmouth.Thevictimtestifiedthattheappellants  peniswas hardand hadhaironit.Theappellantalsowarnedthevictimnottotellanyonewhat  happened.Itwaspermissibleforthejuryto usetheircommonknowledgeandexperiencein  makingreasonableinferencesfromevidence.Statev.Meeks,876S.W.2d121,131(Tenn.Crim.  App.1993).Assuch,thejurycouldhavedrawnupontheircommonknowledgetoinferthatthe q appellantforcedfellatioforthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification.SeeStatev.JackWarren Z Emert,Jr.,No.03C019802CC00074,1999WL512029,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville, C July21,1999).Weconcludethatthejurycouldreasonablyhavedeterminedfromtheforegoing ,| evidencethattheappellantcommittedaggravatedsexualbattery. e @ D.LesserIncludedOffenseInstructions  7   Next,theappellantallegesthatthetrialcourterredinnotinstructingthejuryonthelesser " ! includedoffenseofchildabuse.Thestatecontendsthattheappellanthaswaivedthisissue. #" TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4018110(2003)provides: $# 8  8`   (a)Whenrequestedbyapartyinwritingpriortothetrialjudges ]&!% instructionstothejuryinacriminalcase,thetrialjudgeshallinstruct F'"& thejuryastothelawofeachoffensespecificallyidentifiedinthe /(#' requestthatisalesserincludedoffenseoftheoffensechargedinthe )h$( indictmentorpresentment.However,thetrialjudgeshallnotinstruct *Q%) thejuryastoanysuchoffenseunlessthejudgedeterminesthatthe *:&* recordcontainsanyevidencewhichreasonablemindscouldaccept +#'+ astothelesserincludedoffense.Inmakingthisdetermination,the  trialjudgeshallviewtheevidenceliberallyinthelightmost  favorabletotheexistenceofthelesserincludedoffensewithout  makinganyjudgmentonthecredibilityofsuchevidence.Thetrial k judgeshallalsodeterminewhethertheevidence,viewedinthislight, T islegallysufficienttosupportaconvictionforthelesserincluded =  offense.#X+X XXu+u#Xu XXX+& v` x` x 8  8`   (b)Intheabsenceofawrittenrequestfromapartyspecifically  H identifyingtheparticularlesserincludedoffenseoroffensesonwhich  1  ajuryinstructionissought,thetrialjudgemaychargethejuryonany    lesserincludedoffenseoroffenses,butnopartyshallbeentitledto   anysuchcharge.#X+X XXu#Xu XXX+ ` x` x 8  8`   (c)Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflawtothecontrary,when n  thedefendantfailstorequesttheinstructionofalesserincluded W  offenseasrequiredbythissection,suchinstructioniswaived. @ Absentawrittenrequest,thefailureofatrialjudgetoinstructthe )y juryonanylesserincludedoffensemaynotbepresentedasaground b forreliefeitherinamotionforanewtrialoronappeal.#X+X XXu#Xu XXX+K` x` x   Intheinstantcase,theappellantdidnotrequestaninstructiononchildabuse.Infact,the  recordreflectsthattheappellantspecificallyinformedthetrialcourtthathewaschoosingnotto  requestaninstructiononchildabuse.Thus,theStatecontendsthatbaseduponTennesseeCode  Annotatedsection4018110(a)and(b),theappellanthaswaivedhiscomplaintonappeal.    Initially,#X+X XXu#Ԁwenotethatapanelofthiscourthasrecentlyopinedthat thewaiverprovisionof Z TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4018110isanunconstitutionalabrogationofacriminal C defendantsrighttohavethejurychargedonalloffensesincludedwithintheindictedoffenseand ,| supportedbytheproofadducedattrial.Statev.RobertPage,No.W200301342CCAR3CD,slip e op.at1516(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Aug.26,2004),applicationforperm.toappealfiled, N (Oct.25,2004).However,weneednotaddressthatissuebecausetheappellantwasnotentitledto  7 thelesserincludedoffenseinstructionheseeksintheinstantcase.Xu XXX+ !     #X+X XXu#Atrialcourtsdecisionregardingwhethertochargeajuryregardingalesserincluded #" offenseisamixedquestionoflawandfact,whichdecisionthiscourtwillreviewdenovowithno $# presumptionofcorrectness.SeeStatev.Bowles,52S.W.3d69,74(Tenn.2001). Inapplyingthe t% $ lesserincludedoffensedoctrine,threequestionsarise:(1)whetheranoffenseisalesserincluded ]&!% offense;(2)whethertheevidencesupportsalesserincludedoffenseinstruction;and(3)whetheran F'"& instructionalerrorisharmless.Statev.Allen,69S.W.3d181,187(Tenn.2002).Atrialcourtis /(#' notrequiredtochargeanoffensesimplybecauseitisalesserincludedoffenseofthecharged )h$( offense. Whetherornotaparticularlesserincludedoffenseshouldbechargedtothejurydepends *Q%) onwhetherproofintherecordwouldsupportthelessercharge.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,468 *:&* (Tenn.1999).Iftheinstructioniswarrantedbytheevidence,thetrialcourtmustinstructthejury +#'+ onalllesserincludedoffensesregardlessofanytheoryproposedbyeitherthedefenseortheState.  SeeStatev.Richmond,90S.W.3d648,660(Tenn.2002).Indeterminingwhetherthelesser  includedoffenseshouldbecharged, thetrialcourtmustviewtheevidenceliberallyinthelight  mostfavorabletotheexistenceofthelesserincludedoffensewithoutmakinganyjudgmentsonthe k credibilityofsuchevidence.Burns,6S.W.3dat469. T   Thecurrenttestfordeterminingwhetheranoffenseisalesserincludedoffensewasoutlined & v byoursupremecourtinBurns,6S.W.3dat46667.Xu XXX+Ԁ#X+X XXu#ԀInadditiontoanenumeratedtest,theBurns  _ courtnotedthatanoffensemaybeconsideredlesserincludedifsodesignatedbythelegislature.  H Id.at467n.12.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3915401(d)(2003)specificallydesignates  1  childabuseasalesserincludedoffense ofanykindof...sexualoffenseifthevictimisachild.    SeeStatev.Elkins,83S.W.3d706,711(Tenn.2002).Accordingly,childabuseisalesserincluded   offenseofrapeofachild.     However,theproofintheinstantcasedidnotsupportaninstructiononchildabuse. n  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39151401(a)(2003)providesthatchildabuseoccurswhen W   [a]nypersonwhoknowinglyotherthanbyaccidentalmeans,treatsachildundereighteen(18) @ yearsofageinsuchamannerastoinflictinjury.Theoffenseastoachildundereighteenis )y consideredaClassAmisdemeanor;however,ifthevictimisundersixyearsofage,theoffenseis b aClassDfelony.Id.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911106(a)(2)defines bodilyinjury K as acut,abrasion,bruise,burnordisfigurement;physicalpainortemporaryillnessorimpairment 4 ofthefunctionofabodilymember,organ,ormentalfaculty.    Therewasnoproofpresentedattrialthatthevictimsufferedanyinjuryasaresultofthe  appellantsconduct.Accordingly,eveninthelightmostfavorabletotheexistenceofthelesser  includedoffense,theevidencedidnotsupportaninstructiononchildabuse.Thus,thetrialcourt q didnoterrinfailingtochargethejuryonthelesserincludedoffenseofchildabuse. Z @#E.Sentencing ,| Xu XXX+  Appellatereviewofthelength,rangeormannerofserviceofasentenceisdenovo. N SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)(2003).Inconductingitsdenovoreview,thiscourtconsiders  7 thefollowingfactors:(1)theevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandthesentencinghearing;(2) !   thepresentencereport;(3)theprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencingalternatives; " ! (4)thenatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminalconductinvolved;(5)evidenceandinformation #" offeredbythepartiesonenhancementandmitigatingfactors;(6)anystatementbytheappellantin $# hisownbehalf;and(7)thepotentialforrehabilitationortreatment.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035 t% $ 102,103,210(2003);seealsoStatev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,168(Tenn.1991).Theburdenis ]&!% ontheappellanttodemonstratetheimproprietyofhissentence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035401, F'"& SentencingCommissionComments.Moreover,iftherecordrevealsthatthetrialcourtadequately /(#' consideredsentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances,thiscourtwillaccordthe )h$( trialcourtsdeterminationsapresumptionofcorrectness.Id.at(d);Ashby,823S.W.2dat169.#X+X XXu# *Q%)   *:&*   Theappellantwasconvictedofaggravatedsexualbattery,aClassBfelony.Tobegina   sentencingdeterminationregardingaClassBfelony,acourtshouldbeginatthepresumptive  minimum,then enhancethesentencewithintherangeasappropriatefortheenhancementfactors,  andthenreducethesentenceasappropriateforthemitigatingfactors.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035 k 210(e).ThepresumptivesentenceforaClassBfelonyistheminimumsentencewithinthe T appropriaterange.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035210(c).Theappellantwassentencedasastandard =  RangeIoffender.Accordingly,thepresumptivesentencefortheappellantsClassBfelony & v convictionwaseightyears.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035112(a)(1)(3)(1997).  _   Thetrialcourtfoundtheexistenceoftwoenhancementfactors:(5)thevictimwas  1  particularlyvulnerablebecauseofageorphysicalormentaldisability,and(16)theappellantabused    apositionofprivatetrust.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035114(5)and(16)(2003).Onappeal,the   appellantchallengesonlythetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancementfactor(5)regardingthe   victimsvulnerability.     Wenotethattheparticularlyvulnerableenhancementfactormaybeusedinchildsexual W  abusecasesbecausethefactorXu XXX+ relatesmoretothenaturalphysicalandmentallimitationsofthe @ victimthanmerelytothevictimsage.Statev.Adams,864S.W.2d31,35(Tenn.1993).#X+X XXu'#ԀXu XXX+Inother )y words, [t]hefactorcanbeusedinan[childsexualabuse]caseifthecircumstancesshowthatthe b victim,becauseofhisageorphysicalormentalcondition,wasinfactparticularlyvulnerable,i.e., K incapableofresisting,summoninghelp,ortestifyingagainsttheperpetrator.#X+X XXu+#ԀId.Intheinstant 4 case,thetrialcourtfoundthatthethreeyearoldvictimwaskeptinisolationinthemobilehomein  whichhelivedwiththeappellantandwaspreventedfromsummoninghelp.Thefactsadducedat  trialsupportthisfinding.    However,wearecompelledtonotethattheSupremeCourtreleasedBlakelyv.Washington, q __U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004),afterthetrialinthiscase.Thiscourthasrecentlyrecognized Z thatBlakely callsintoquestionthecontinuingvalidityofourcurrentsentencingscheme.State C v.JuliusE.Smith,No.E200301059CCAR3CD,2004WL1606998,at*4(Tenn.Crim.App.at ,| Knoxville,July19,2004);seealsoStatev.MichaelWaynePoe,No.E200300417CCAR3CD, e 2004WL1607002,at*9(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,July19,2004),applicationforperm.to N appealfiled,(Sept.21,2004).  7   InBlakely,theSupremeCourtheldthat " ! 8  8`   the statutorymaximumforApprendi[v.NewJersey,530U.S.466, $# 120S.Ct.2348(2000)]purposesisthemaximumsentenceajudge t% $ mayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejury ]&!% verdictoradmittedbythedefendant.Inotherwords,therelevant F'"&  statutorymaximumisnotthemaximumsentenceajudgemay /(#' imposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhemay )h$( imposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.Whenajudgeinflicts *Q%)  punishmentthatthejurysverdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhas *:&* notfoundallthefacts whichthelawmakesessentialtothe  punishment,andthejudgeexceedshisproperauthority.` x` x  Blakely,__U.S.at__,124S.Ct.at2537.Essentially,Blakelydoesnotdisputetheappropriateness k ofatrialcourtsapplicationofenhancementfactor(2),whichisbasedontheexistenceofa T defendantspriorcriminalhistory;yet,theconstitutionalityoftheapplicationoftheremainderof =  ourstatutoryenhancementfactorswithoutsuchfactsbeingfoundbyajuryoradmittedbyan & v appellantremainstobeseen.Thus,astheexistenceofenhancementfactor(5)wasnotfoundbya  _ jury,norwasitadmittedbytheappellant,theapplicationofthisenhancementfactorisinappropriate  H underBlakely. #  3      ׀  1    Thetrialcourtspecificallyenhancedtheappellantssentencebytwoyearsforeachofthe   twoenhancementfactorsitfoundapplicable,givingtheappellantasentenceoftwelveyears.   Accordingly,havingfoundthattheapplicationofenhancementfactor(5)waserror,weare   compelledtoreducetheappellantssentencebytwoyears. n    However,ouranalysisoftheappellantssentenceisnotyetcomplete.Fromourreviewof @ theappellantspresentencereport,wenoticethattheappellanthasahistoryofnumerous )y misdemeanorconvictions.Baseduponthisdocumentedhistoryofcriminalconvictions,we b concludethatenhancementfactor(2),thattheappellanthasaprevioushistoryofcriminal K convictionsinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishtheappropriaterange,isapplicabletothe 4 appellant.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035114(2).Assuch,weconcludethattheappellantssentence  shouldbeenhancedbyoneyear.Therefore,theappellantstotaleffectivesentenceiselevenyears.  @ppF.ConflictofInterest    Ashisfinalissue,theappellantquestionswhetherthetrialcourterredin denyingthe Z AppellantsMotionforNewTrialbasedonthefacttheprosecutorfortheState...hadpreviously C workedfortheOfficeofthePublicDefender,whorepresentedthegirlfriendoftheAppellantinher ,| case,andwaspresentwhenshewasinterviewedconcerningthecase,whichwasbasedonthesame e factsallegedagainsttheAppellantinthiscase. N   Initially,wenotethattheappellantfiledamotionfornewtrialonMay21,2003,which !   motiondidnotincludetheconflictissue.Ahearingonthemotionwasconducted,and,onJune17, " ! 2003,thetrialcourtenteredawrittenorderdenyingthemotion.Subsequently,onJuly16,2003, #" theappellantsimultaneouslyfiledanamendedmotionfornewtrialandanoticeofappeal.The $# amendedmotionfornewtrialraisedtheissueofaconflict.Withoutrulingonthetimelinessofthe t% $ amendedmotion,thetrialcourtheardargumentsanddeniedthemotion. ]&!%  F'"&   Rule33(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureprovidesthatatrialcourt shall  uponmotionallowamendmentsliberallyuntilthedayofthehearingofthemotionfornewtrial.  Further, thisruledoesnotpreventajudgefromallowing,athisorherdiscretion,anamendment  toamotionfornewtrialatanytimeduringwhichthetrialjudgehasjurisdictionofthecase.State k v.ShawnRafaelBough,__S.W.3d__,No.E200200717SCR11CD,2004WL2481367,at*6 T (Tenn.atKnoxville,Nov.1,2004).Aswenotedearlier,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionfornew =  trialpriortotheappellantfilinghisamendedmotionfornewtrial.Moreover,theappellantfiledhis & v noticeofappealonthesamedaythathefiledhisamendedmotionfornewtrial.Thefilingofthe  _ noticeofappealremovedthetrialcourtsjurisdictionoverthecase,placingjurisdictionwiththis  H court.Id.at**67.Accordingly,thetrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoheartheappellants  1  amendedmotionfornewtrial.Therefore,becausetheappellantdidnotraisetheissueinhisoriginal    motionorinanamendedmotionbeforethetrialcourtlostitsjurisdictionoverthecase,thisissue   hasbeenwaived.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(e).   @NN" III.Conclusion  n    Basedupontheforegoing,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt,butreducethe A appellantssentencetoelevenyears. *z    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     NORMAMcGEEOGLE,JUDGE     `     h