ÿWPCMB u9ìWS­]WSXèþ¾ â»O—ùœ‡n'½¯6äÊTB>Y’"G$ÈîSzn Æ€ÒËB=q^‚LšBã}c¸Cqué-T}»Q¥$„÷ k¨Í׌™.#“…y¶©Þè±û0·ÄrŸ‘^•M%ÛÑÊ„N´%l­BwÑË3ÆÌWÇuha,8o]X\ÿH“~QX5Ùò³¦¤¿Ÿ+PœùÒÑE !qp½½ËPŠ0Ïí_ƒj|Âï¨ 7nѰí_ô›wú ºé^âØÀñnðW«¬Á¥P¿<< 5õ!äÉqq‰Ò^cgËÖÄ(SÙ sÈqõh+¾1hL $ÍvTJ+‡³ìYÄ´²no$”aeðÞ7Ý´­lû/~8bÃYè6:A¡O 3Ø52wàóî¾Ã³lÐÖòŠ‘i Z½*t“Ìà$aUfÍâ¶JÂ?Æ]ßU¸S Ò: J¢PÌ£À¬/VÆÛÓ¤mnùøg~λ Ùù-Nßs,ÔµzIÚž•„ð "Œ±  K3ïãbbi7â6Ú¬îèæ †´I$ò¼³Ðm¾E®#MùPÿQèé—@1!Äß×p„»ÚöŸ3'J£Ãê˜ÌÔ@Û³oä‡j#ÉÌ %• ^ › 0ˆ§ U!N/ w} 4 z• Ò á ð mò U N ÆW ÆÆãÆ©{oNêì 0UEV 0ãX 0Å; 0¿ 0¹¿ 0³x 0­+ 0§Ø 0¡ 0Å  0Ñå 0³¶ 0­i 0§ 0¡½ 0›^ 0•ù 0Ž 0 0ÎÝ 0°« 0D[! 0ªŸ! 0¤I"bí" 0žõ" 0˜“# 0’+$ 0н$ 0²G% 0¾ù% 0¾·& 0>u' 0ø³' 0â«( 0â) 0âo* 0âQ+ 0â3, 0º- 0ÒÏ- 02¡. 0üÓ. 0:Ï/ 0Y 0 0_b0 0 Á0 0‚Ë1 0M3 B*S5 D/}5 0¬5 D/²7 0Îá7 06¯8 0å8 0:í9 0^': 0<…: 1eÁ: 0í&; 0N<U6a<U>—< BÕ<U*ò< 0¤= D5À= D-õ= 0K">"> ASm>ÆÀ> 0¤†? 0D*@ A«n@n@ 0cA|A‘A‘A‘A 1u¦A 72B˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»BŽa1 (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular„‚–0B0111S ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 qÝ ƒRΉ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäíò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIn€an€analogous,€but€unreported€case€of€òòKevin€Wilkins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€W2002„00436„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€WLÐ ° Ð31624971€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€14,€2002),€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€for€a€first„degreeÐ tÄ Ðmurder/especially€aggravated€robbery€case€where€the€offenses€were€separated€in€the€appellate€process,€time€would€notÐ 8ˆ Ðbegin€to€run€for€the€filing€of€post„conviction€relief€until€both€cases€were€disposed€of€in€the€appellate€process. Ñ  Ñ*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó- ù-(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€H(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡W%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d dG)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€J(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡W%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓG)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡T<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Uô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô !"#$%& ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|I2Ή$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J…»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäíò»»Ô€€(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman d%ä2¼A`‹Arial(|3‰\$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J…»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰\$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J…»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)hi)Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼J…»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€@¸ÑÑ€d@¸ÑÑ€e@¸Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îS,J…ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼J…»îîS,?#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€9,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼J…ÔÌÔ#†¼J…»XX &#Ôò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€v.€€SHAWN€RAFAEL€BOUGH€ó óÔ‡X X»¼J…ÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼J…»XX š#ÔÔ‡X X»¼J…ÔÌò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ЀÔ#†¼J…»XX ñ#ÔÔ‡X X»¼J…ÔCriminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€68041A€€€€€€Hon.€Richard€R.€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E„2002„00717„SC„R11„CDÔ#†¼J…»XX „#ÔÔ‡X X»¼J…Ô€„€Filed€Ô_Ô11/01/2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÔ#†¼J…»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼J…ÔÌÓ  ÓÓ=€J…»Ð»dÐd=Óà  àThe€defendant,€Shawn€Rafael€Bough,€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€especiallyÐ xÈ  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€motion€for€new€trial,€which€wasÐ d´ Ðnot€filed€until€the€date€of€the€sentencing€hearing€on€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,Ð P  Ðfifty„two€days€after€judgment€was€entered€on€the€felony€murder€conviction,€was€untimely€as€to€theÐ <Œ Ðfelony€murder€conviction.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€also€held€that€two€amended€motions€forÐ (x Ðnew€trial,€which€were€filed€after€the€hearing€on€the€original€motion€for€new€trial,€but€before€an€orderÐ d Ðwas€entered,€were€untimely.€€On€these€two€issues,€we€reverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€findingÐ P Ðthat€the€original€motion€for€new€trial,€as€well€as€the€two€amended€motions€for€new€trial,€were€timelyÐ ì< Ðfiled€as€to€both€convictions.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€the€evidence€was€sufficientÐ Ø( Ðto€support€both€convictions.€€The€remaining€issues€addressed€by€the€Court€only€related€to€theÐ Ä Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€because€the€Court€had€held€that€the€motion€for€new€trialÐ ° Ðwas€untimely.€€On€those€issues,€the€Court€held€that€(1)€while€the€Stateððs€reference€to€a€ð ðmissingÐ œì Ðwitnessðð€during€closing€argument€was€Ô‡ X XXX Ôimproper,€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÔ#†X XX X  #Ô;Ð ˆØ Ð(2)€the€witnesses€Deanna€Jones,€Edie€Jones€and€Dante€Smith€were€not€accomplices€whose€testimonyÐ tÄ Ðneeded€corroboration,€and€therefore€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€give€a€jury€instruction€onÐ `° Ðaccomplice€testimony;€and€(3)€the€defendant€waived€any€objection€to€the€testimony€of€Isaiah€DixonÐ L œ Ðregarding€the€defendantððs€out„of„court€confession€by€his€failure€to€raise€the€issue€at€trial.€€We€affirmÐ 8!ˆ  Ðthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€on€these€issues.€€However,€because€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ $"t! Ðdid€not€address€these€last€three€issues€with€respect€to€the€felony€murder€conviction€or€any€of€theÐ #`" Ðissues€raised€in€the€amended€motions€for€new€trial€as€to€either€conviction,€we€remand€the€case€to€theÐ ü#L# ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€for€consideration€of€those€issues.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€isÐ À&"& ÐAffirmed€in€Part,€Reversed€in€Part,€and€Remanded€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsó ó€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.J.,Ð ˆ)Ø$) Ðóóandòò€E.€Riley€Andersonóó,€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€JJ.,€and€J.€Sòòteve€Daniel,€S.J.,óó€joined.Ð t*Ä%* ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens€and€John€Halstead,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Shawn€Rafael€Bough.Ð L,œ', ÐÐ 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_ÔPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€and€John€H.Ð ° ÐBledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð œì ÐÓ*ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ tÄ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ=€J…»Ð»d»Ð»d=ÓFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÐ L œ ÐÌÓÓÔ‡ X XXX Ôà  àOn€December€19,€1998,€two€sisters,€Deanna€and€Edie€Jones,€vacated€their€student€housingÐ $ t Ðat€Knoxville€College€for€winter€break.€€They€planned€to€stay€the€night€in€Knoxville€before€catchingÐ  ` Ðtheir€flight€home€to€New€Jersey€the€following€morning.€€They€went€to€the€Expo€Inn€in€KnoxvilleÐ ü L  Ðwhere€Edie€Jones€rented€room€207€for€the€night.€€While€checking€into€the€hotel,€Deanna€Jones€sawÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendant,€Shawn€Bough,€and€co„defendant,€Craig€Shears,€in€the€parking€lot.€€She€invited€themÐ Ô$  Ðto€come€up€to€their€room€later€on€that€evening.€€Deanna€and€Edie€Jones€knew€both€the€defendant€andÐ À  ÐCraig€Shears€because€the€two€men€were€also€students€at€Knoxville€College.€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àMontes€Best€was€working€at€the€desk€when€two€African„American€men€who€claimed€to€beÐ „Ô  Ðlooking€for€a€friend€in€room€207€approached€the€locked€front€doors€late€at€night.€€Deanna€and€EdieÐ pÀ ÐJones€remembered€the€defendant,€co„defendant€and€another€male€student€stopping€by€room€207€forÐ \¬ Ða€few€minutes€before€midnight.€€The€defendant€and€Craig€Shears€stopped€by€again€after€midnight,Ð H˜ Ðasking€to€use€the€telephone.€€The€defendant€used€the€telephone€to€call€several€airlines,€attempting€toÐ 4„ Ðsecure€a€flight€from€Tennessee€through€Chicago€to€California,€his€home€state.€€Deanna€Jones€noticedÐ  p Ða€gun€underneath€the€corner€of€the€bed€where€the€defendant€was€sitting.€€She€told€the€defendant€notÐ  \ Ðto€forget€his€gun;€he€thanked€her€and€put€the€gun€in€his€sock.€€At€that€time,€the€defendant€and€CraigÐ øH ÐShears€left€the€room.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àSometime€after€midnight,€the€defendant€and€Craig€Shears€returned€to€room€207€for€the€thirdÐ ¼  Ðtime,€again€to€use€the€telephone.€€Deanna€Jones€heard€the€defendant€ask€the€person€on€the€other€endÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€phone€about€getting€a€ride.€€The€two€men€left€the€room€after€the€phone€call.€€The€defendantÐ ”ä Ðand€Craig€Shears€came€back€to€room€207€for€a€fourth€and€final€time€to€tell€Deanna€and€Edie€JonesÐ €Ð Ðthat€they€were€leaving.€€At€trial,€Deanna€Jones€testified€that€it€was€ð ðstill€darkðð€when€the€two€men€leftÐ l¼ Ðthe€hotel€room€for€the€last€time.€€However,€the€statement€she€gave€to€the€police€on€the€day€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðincident€indicates€that€the€two€left€the€hotel€room€around€9:00€a.m.€on€December€20,€1998.€€AroundÐ D!” Ð10:00€a.m.,€Deanna€and€Edie€heard€something€downstairs€in€the€lobby€area€that€sounded€like€threeÐ 0"€  Ðor€four€gunshots.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDante€Smith€picked€up€the€defendant€and€Craig€Shears€at€the€Expo€Inn€shortly€after€10:00Ð ô$D # Ða.m.€on€December€20,€1998,€after€being€called€repeatedly€by€the€defendant.€€He€drove€to€the€hotelÐ à%0!$ Ðwhere€he€saw€the€defendant€and€Craig€Shears€running€out€of€the€lobby.€€The€defendant€was€carryingÐ Ì&"% Ða€plastic€tub€which€contained€envelopes.€€Dante€Smith€testified€that:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àHe€[the€defendant]€was€just€talking€a€lot.€€He€kept€on€saying€something€about€heÐ )à$( Ðthinks€he€killed€„„€or€he€thinks€he€shot€somebody€inside.€€He€wasnððt€sure,€but€„„€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðsaid€he€shot€him,€but€he€wasnððt€sure€if€he€killed€him€or€not.Ð h+¸&* ÐÑe@¸Ñâ eâÑ  Ñâ eâÑ  ÑÐ Ð Ð  ÐMr.€Smith€drove€the€two€men€towards€Knoxville€College€where€he€stopped€the€car€and€asked€themÐ œì Ðto€get€out€because€he€ð ðhad€never€done€anything€like€this.ðð€€Mr.€Smith€then€drove€back€to€hisÐ ˆØ Ðapartment.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€and€Craig€Shears€later€showed€up€at€Mr.€Smithððs€apartment€and€startedÐ L œ Ðcounting€money€from€the€plastic€container€they€carried€from€the€hotel.€€The€defendant€asked€Mr.Ð 8 ˆ ÐSmith€if€he€would€ð ðhide€the€gun€for€him.ðð€€Mr.€Smith€refused,€asking€the€defendant€if€he€wasÐ $ t Ðð ðcrazy.ðð€€The€defendant€also€asked€Mr.€Smith€to€give€the€two€a€ride€to€the€bus€stop€or€airport.€€Again,Ð  ` ÐMr.€Smith€refused.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àJust€after€10:00€a.m.€on€December€20,€1998,€officers€of€the€Knoxville€Police€DepartmentÐ Ô$  Ðwere€dispatched€to€the€Expo€Inn€in€response€to€a€9„1„1€call€from€the€hotelððs€clerk€that€there€had€beenÐ À  Ða€robbery€and€shooting.€€According€to€the€victim,€Billy€Oldham,€two€tall,€thin€black€males€from€roomÐ ¬ü  Ð207€demanded€money€and€shot€him.€€According€to€the€Knox€County€Medical€Examiner,€the€victimÐ ˜è  Ðdied€as€a€result€of€complications€from€multiple€gun€shot€wounds.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àInvestigator€A.J.€Loeffler€arrived€at€the€Expo€Inn€around€10:15€a.m.€€Almost€immediately,Ð \¬ Ðhe€got€into€the€ambulance€with€the€victim.€€The€victim€was€ð ðgasping€for€airðð€and€kept€saying€ð ðI€amÐ H˜ Ðlosing€it.€€I€am€going€out.€€I€am€losing€it.ðð€€The€victim€stated€that€he€ð ðwas€working€the€desk,€and€twoÐ 4„ Ðguys€came€in€from€room€207,€asked€me€for€my€money,€and€then€shot€me.ðð€€The€victim€described€theÐ  p Ðperpetrators€as€ð ðtwo€black€males,€tall,€slenderðð€with€ð ða€little€bit€of€facial€hair.ðð€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAfter€interviewing€the€victim,€Officer€Loeffler€went€back€to€the€Expo€Inn.€€He€noted€that€theÐ ä4 Ðtelephone€lines€in€the€lobby€were€cut€as€well€as€those€in€the€adjacent€offices€of€rooms€105€and€106.€Ð Ð  ÐThe€crime€scene€specialist,€Joe€Cox,€found€three€.22€caliber€long€rifle€cartridge€cases€behind€the€frontÐ ¼  Ðdesk€and€two€cartridge€cases€located€elsewhere€in€the€lobby€area.€€The€detail€tape€on€the€cash€registerÐ ¨ø Ðindicated€that€the€ð ðno„saleðð€button€was€pushed€at€10:03€a€.m.€on€December€20,€1998.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€called€Mr.€Smith€in€January€of€1999.€€He€asked€Mr.€Smith€if€he€talked€to€theÐ l¼ Ðpolice€about€the€incident.€€Mr.€Smith€told€the€defendant€he€had€not.€€A€few€months€later,€Mr.€SmithÐ X ¨ Ðtalked€to€several€detectives€regarding€his€knowledge€of€the€incident.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIsaiah€Dixon,€a€long„time€friend€of€the€defendant,€saw€the€defendant€in€California€sometimeÐ #l! Ðafter€the€December€incident.€€The€defendant€told€Mr.€Dixon€that€he€was€on€bail€for€a€homicideÐ $X" Ðcharge€in€Tennessee.€€Mr.€Dixon€stated€that€the€defendant€ð ðtold€me€that€he€was€trying€to€pull€a€heist,Ð ô$D # Ðand€there€was€[sic]€things€that€went€wrong.€.€.€.€[H]e€said€the€man€was€taking€too€long,€so€he€let€himÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€it.ðð€€The€defendant€told€Mr.€Dixon€that€he€got€a€ð ðcouple€thousandðð€in€the€heist,€but€that€ð ðhe€hadÐ Ì&"% Ðwent€[sic]€to€jail€shortly€after€that€for€like€a€warrant€or€something,€and€when€he€had€got€[sic]€backÐ ¸'#& Ðto€school,€all€the€money€wasnððt€there.ðð€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Mr.€Dixon€was€incarcerated€in€aÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCalifornia€prison€as€a€result€of€a€guilty€plea€for€second€degree€burglary.Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€arrested€on€May€9,€1999,€at€his€motherððs€home€in€San€Francisco,Ð h+¸&* ÐÑd@¸Ñâ dâÑ  Ñâ dâÑ  ÑCalifornia.€€Officer€Loeffler€was€present€during€the€arrest€and€recorded€a€conversation€with€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€later€that€day.€€During€the€conversation,€the€defendant€indicated€that€he€stayed€at€a€hotelÐ œì Ðwith€Deanna€and€Edie€the€night€he€vacated€the€dorms€for€Christmas€break€and€ð ðleft€about€9:00€.€.€.Ð ˆØ Ðin€the€morning€.€.€.€about€9:30.ðð€€He€stated€that€ð ðthe€home€boy€gave€me€a€ride€to€Nashville.€€I€tookÐ tÄ Ðmy€plane€from€there.ðð€€He€told€Officer€Loeffler€that€the€guy€who€gave€him€and€Craig€Shears€a€rideÐ `° Ðwas€named€ð ðTedðð€and€that€he€drove€a€van.€€According€to€the€defendant,€ð ðTedðð€was€a€guy€who€ð ðjustÐ L œ Ðcome€[sic]€up€to€the€school,€you€know€.€.€.€he€just€give€[sic]€us€rides€and€stuff€so€I€asked€him€couldÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€give€me€a€ride€.€.€.€the€night€before€.€.€.€he€said€alright,€Iððll€be€there.ðð€€He€stated€that€ð ðTedðð€pickedÐ $ t Ðhim€and€Craig€Shears€up€at€around€9:00€or€9:30€a.m.€on€December€20,€1998,€and€took€them€straightÐ  ` Ðto€Nashville€where€he€dropped€them€off€at€the€airport€after€making€sure€their€flights€were€not€delayed.Ð ü L  ÐÌÔ#†X XX X •#Ôò òÓ  ÓPROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓê7Óà  àOn€May€6,€1999,€the€Knox€County€Grand€Jury€returned€a€multiple„count€indictment€againstÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€defendant€and€Craig€Shears€for€one€count€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder,€one€count€ofÐ ˜è  Ðfelony€murder,€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Following€a€jury€trial€on€June€11Ð „Ô  Ðand€12,€2001,€the€defendant€was€found€not€guilty€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder,€but€guilty€ofÐ pÀ Ðfelony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Immediately€after€the€verdict€was€announced€onÐ \¬ ÐJune€12,€2001,€the€trial€court€imposed€the€mandatory€life€sentence€and€entered€judgment€on€theÐ H˜ Ðfelony€murder€conviction€accordingly.€€At€a€subsequent€sentencing€hearing€on€August€3,€2001,€theÐ 4„ Ðtrial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€twenty„one€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery,€to€runÐ  p Ðconcurrently€with€the€life€sentence.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOn€August€3,€2001,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial€as€to€both€convictions,€alleging:Ð ä4 Ð(1)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€find€him€guilty€of€felony€murder€and/or€especiallyÐ Ð  Ðaggravated€robbery;€(2)€that€the€state€committed€misconduct€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€permittingÐ ¼  Ðthe€state€to€argue€the€missing€witness€rule;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€include€a€juryÐ ¨ø Ðinstruction€regarding€the€missing€witness€argument;€(4)€that€there€was€not€sufficient€corroborationÐ ”ä Ðof€the€testimony€of€Dante€Smith€to€sustain€a€finding€of€guilty;€and€(5)€that€there€was€not€sufficientÐ €Ð Ðcorroboration€of€the€defendantððs€alleged€confession€to€Isaiah€Dixon€to€establish€guilt.€€A€hearing€onÐ l¼ Ðthe€motion€was€held€on€September€27,€2001,€at€which€time€the€court€orally€denied€the€motion.€€AtÐ X ¨ Ðthe€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€defense€counsel€orally€moved€to€withdraw€from€representing€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant,€and€upon€accepting€the€defendantððs€affidavit€of€indigency,€the€trial€court€appointed€theÐ 0"€  ÐDistrict€Public€Defendersðð€office€as€new€counsel.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOn€October€11,€2001,€defendantððs€newly„appointed€counsel€filed€an€amended€motion€for€newÐ ô$D # Ðtrial€which€asked€the€trial€court€to€direct€that€a€transcript€be€prepared€ð ðso€that€the€newly€appointedÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel€.€.€.€[could]€properly€preserve€all€objections€and€errors€for€the€appellate€courts.ðð€€ThisÐ Ì&"% Ðamended€motion€for€new€trial€did€not€raise€any€new€substantive€grounds€for€relief.€€On€October€18,Ð ¸'#& Ð2001,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€amended€motion€for€new€trial€wherein€the€attorneysÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€both€sides€argued€whether€the€amended€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€proper€and€timely.€€As€a€resultÐ )à$( Ðof€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€transcript€of€the€pre„trial,€trial€and€motion€for€new€trialÐ |*Ì%) Ðproceedings€be€prepared.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àA€second€amended€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed€by€the€defendant€on€March€6,€2002,Ð ° Ðalleging€several€new€substantive€grounds€for€relief.€€On€March€13,€2002,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearingÐ œì Ðon€the€motion€wherein€the€attorneys€again€argued€whether€the€amended€motion€for€new€trial€wasÐ ˆØ Ðproper€and€timely.€€The€trial€court€overruled,€on€the€merits,€the€amended€motion€for€new€trial€onÐ tÄ ÐMarch€21,€2002.€€The€defendant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€March€21,€2002.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€determined€that€the€defendantððs€motion€for€newÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€and€his€two€amended€motions€for€new€trial€were€untimely€as€to€the€felony€murder€convictionÐ $ t Ðbecause€they€were€filed€more€than€thirty€days€after€the€entry€of€judgment.€€As€a€result,€all€issuesÐ  ` Ðraised€therein,€with€the€exception€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€were€waived.€€As€for€the€especiallyÐ ü L  Ðaggravated€robbery€conviction,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€the€two€amended€motionsÐ è 8  Ðfor€new€trial€were€not€timely€filed€and€that€the€issues€raised€in€those€pleadings€were€waived.€€On€theÐ Ô$  Ðmerits,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€bothÐ À  Ðconvictions.€€The€Court€also€held€that€with€regard€to€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€allowing€the€State€to€argue€the€missing€witness€rule;€the€trial€court€didÐ ˜è  Ðnot€err€in€failing€to€give€a€jury€instruction€on€accomplice€testimony;€and€the€trial€court€did€not€errÐ „Ô  Ðin€failing€to€give€a€jury€instruction€on€the€out„of„court€confession.€Ð pÀ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ H˜ Ðó óÌÓðKÓòòÓ  ÓI.€Motion€for€New€Trial€as€to€Felony€MurderóóÐ  p ÐÓ0LÓÌà  àWhen€the€guilty€verdicts€were€entered€on€June€12,€2001,€the€trial€judge€entered€a€mandatoryÐ øH Ðlife€sentence€on€the€felony€murder€conviction€and€then€set€a€sentencing€hearing€on€the€especiallyÐ ä4 Ðaggravated€robbery€conviction€for€August€3,€2001.€€The€defendant€filed€his€motion€for€new€trial€asÐ Ð  Ðto€both€convictions€on€August€3,€2001.€€While€this€was€the€same€day€that€he€was€sentenced€for€theÐ ¼  Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€it€was€fifty„two€days€after€sentencing€was€entered€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðfelony€murder€conviction.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€33(b)€provides€that€ð ð[a]€motion€for€a€new€trial€shallÐ l¼ Ðbe€made€in€writing€.€.€.€within€thirty€days€of€the€date€the€order€of€sentence€is€entered.ðð€€This€filingÐ X ¨ Ðdeadline€is€mandatory€and€jurisdictional€and€may€not€be€extended.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€45(b);€òòStateÐ D!” Ðv.€Martinóó,€940€S.W.2d€567,€569€(Tenn.€1997).€€A€trial€judge€does€not€have€jurisdiction€to€hear€andÐ 0"€  Ðdetermine€the€merits€of€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€which€has€not€been€timely€filed.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð #l! Ð3(e).€€If€a€motion€for€new€trial€is€not€timely€filed,€all€issues€are€deemed€waived€except€for€sufficiencyÐ $X" Ðof€evidence€and€sentencing.€€òòId.óó;€òòMartinóó,€940€S.W.2d€at€569.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€motion€for€new€trial€filed€on€August€3,€2001,Ð Ì&"% Ðwas€untimely€as€to€the€felony€murder€conviction€because€it€was€not€filed€within€thirty€days€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðentry€of€judgment,€which€occurred€on€June€12,€2001.€€The€court€relied€on€the€unreported€case€ofÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòState€v.€Benjamin€Brownóó,€No.€W1999„00327„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1664226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð )à$( ÐOct.€24,€2000),€which€held€that€where€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€felony€murder€was€entered€onÐ |*Ì%) ÐApril€30,€1999€and€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€aggravated€child€abuse€was€entered€on€May€26,Ð h+¸&* Ð1999,€the€motion€for€new€trial€filed€on€June€14,€1999€was€untimely€as€to€the€felony€murderÐ ° Ðconviction.Ð œì ÐÌà  àWere€we€to€accept€the€position€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€it€would€mean€that€the€twoÐ tÄ Ðcrimes,€which€occurred€at€the€same€time€and€were€tried€together,€would€suddenly€be€dealt€withÐ `° Ðseparately€for€post„trial€purposes.€€Under€this€scheme,€the€motion€for€new€trial€on€the€felony€murderÐ L œ Ðconviction€would€have€been€required€to€be€filed€by€July€12,€2001,€and€if€no€motion€for€new€trial€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðfiled,€then€a€notice€of€appeal€would€have€been€due€by€July€12,€2001.€€Then,€the€defendant,€sentencedÐ $ t Ðon€August€3,€2001€on€the€robbery€conviction,€would€have€had€until€September€2,€2001€to€file€aÐ  ` Ðmotion€for€new€trial€with€respect€to€that€conviction,€or€if€no€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed,€to€fileÐ ü L  Ðhis€appeal.€€Requiring€a€defendant€to€file€two€separate€motions€for€new€trial€when€only€one€trialÐ è 8  Ðoccurred€serves€no€purpose€other€than€to€create€extra€expense€for€the€parties€and€the€courts,€as€wellÐ Ô$  Ðas€to€waste€the€time€of€the€parties€and€the€courts.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€ð ðare€intended€to€provide€for€the€just€determination€of€everyÐ ˜è  Ðcriminal€proceeding.€€They€shall€be€construed€to€secure€simplicity€in€procedure,€fairness€inÐ „Ô  Ðadministration€and€the€elimination€of€unjustifiable€expense€and€delay€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€2.€Ð pÀ ÐTo€interpret€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€33(b)€as€requiring€two€separate€motions€for€newÐ \¬ Ðtrial€would€be€contrary€to€the€spirit€of€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€as€expressed€in€Rule€2.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€cases€such€as€the€one€under€submission,€where€there€is€a€single€trial€for€felony€murder€andÐ  p Ðthe€underlying€felony,€and€where€the€sentences€are€entered€on€different€days,€we€interpret€Rule€33(b)Ð  \ Ðas€to€require€a€motion€for€new€trial€to€be€filed€within€thirty€days€of€the€day€the€last€sentence€isÐ øH Ðentered.€€This€will€avoid€the€unnecessary€expense€and€time€consumption€that€would€result€fromÐ ä4 Ðrequiring€two€separate€motions€for€new€trial.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,€in€this€case,€we€hold€that€the€motion€forÐ Ð  Ðnew€trial€as€to€both€convictions€must€be€filed€within€thirty€days€of€the€entry€of€sentencing€on€theÐ ¼  Ðunderlying€felony.€€Thus€we€find€that€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€timely€as€to€the€felony€murderÐ ¨ø Ðconviction€as€well€as€to€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.Ð ”ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓII.€€Amended€Motions€for€New€TrialóóÐ l¼ ÐÓ`ÓÌà  àIn€the€case€under€submission,€the€initial€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied€at€a€hearing€onÐ D!” ÐSeptember€27,€2001.€€At€that€time,€defendantððs€counsel€moved€to€withdraw€from€the€case,€and€newÐ 0"€  Ðcounsel€was€appointed.€€The€defendantððs€newly€appointed€counsel€filed€an€amended€motion€for€newÐ #l! Ðtrial€on€October€11,€2001,€requesting€a€new€trial€for€ð ðerrors,€presently€unknown€which€[would]€beÐ $X" Ðenumerated€by€counsel€after€diligent€review€of€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings.ðð€€Subsequently,€onÐ ô$D # ÐMarch€6,€2002,€the€defendant€filed€a€second€amended€motion€for€new€trial€stating€specific€allegationsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€error€at€trial.€€Over€the€objection€of€the€State,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€secondÐ Ì&"% Ðamended€motion€for€new€trial€and€denied€the€motion€on€the€merits.Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à[T]he€attempt€by€the€appellant€to€amend€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€October€11,Ð `° Ð2001€that€failed€to€specifically€state€the€grounds€for€a€new€trial€and€was€filed€after€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€court€ruled€on€the€initial€motion€for€new€trial€was€a€nullity;€the€trial€court€did€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðhave€jurisdiction€to€hear€and€determine€the€merits€of€the€grounds€set€forth€in€theÐ $ t Ðamended€motion.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€amendments€to€a€motion€for€new€trial€shall€beÐ è 8  Ðallowed€ð ðliberally€until€the€day€of€the€hearing€of€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð Ô$  Ð33(b).€€We€have€held,€however,€that€this€rule€does€not€prevent€a€judge€from€allowing,€at€his€or€herÐ À  Ðdiscretion,€an€amendment€to€a€motion€for€new€trial€at€any€time€during€which€the€trial€judge€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðjurisdiction€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€626€S.W.2d€6,€12€(Tenn.€1981);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ˜è  ÐWashingtonóó,€658€S.W.2d€144,€146€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(an€amendment€to€a€motion€for€new€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcomes€too€late€when€it€is€filed€after€the€trial€judge€has€ruled€upon€the€merits€of€the€original€motion).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€òòButleróó,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€that€was€heard€on€November€7,€1979.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€order€denying€the€motion€was€not€entered€until€November€21,€1979.€€A€motion€to€amend€theÐ 4„ Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial€was€filed€on€November€12,€1979,€setting€forth€what€purported€to€be€newlyÐ  p Ðdiscovered€evidence.€€This€Court€held€that€the€motion€was€timely€filed.€€òòButleróó,€626€S.W.2d€at€12.Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àThe€Trial€judge,€however,€did€not€consider€the€merit€of€the€motion,€but€accepted€theÐ ä4 ÐStateððs€argument€that€an€amendment€would€not€be€appropriate€under€Rule€33€of€theÐ Ð  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part€that€theÐ ¼  Ðð ðcourt€shall€upon€motion€allow€amendments€liberally€òòuntil€the€day€of€the€hearingóó€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€motion€for€a€new€trial.ðð€€(emphasis€added)€€We€would€point€out,€however,€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€rule€does€not€prevent€a€judge,€in€his€discretion,€allowing€an€amendment€to€aÐ €Ð Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial€at€any€time€the€trial€judge€has€jurisdiction€of€the€case.€€AsÐ l¼ Ðpointed€out€in€Rule€2€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€ð ðthe€rules€areÐ X ¨ Ðintended€to€provide€for€the€just€determination€of€every€criminal€proceeding.€TheyÐ D!” Ðshall€be€construed€to€secure€simplicity€in€procedure,€fairness€in€administration€andÐ 0"€  Ðthe€elimination€of€unjustifiable€expense€and€delay.ððÐ#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óóÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€only€difference€between€the€facts€of€òòButleróó€and€those€of€the€case€under€submission€is€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðin€this€case,€the€trial€judge€orally€denied€the€motion€for€new€trial€at€the€hearing€on€September€27,Ð ¸'#& Ð2001.€€The€trial€judge€did€not,€however,€reduce€that€oral€ruling€to€writing€at€any€time€prior€to€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfiling€of€either€of€the€two€amended€motions€for€new€trial.€€It€is€a€long„recognized€rule€that€ð ð[a]€CourtÐ )à$( Ðspeaks€only€through€its€written€judgments,€duly€entered€upon€its€minutes.€€Therefore,€no€oralÐ |*Ì%) Ðpronouncement€is€of€any€effect€unless€and€until€made€a€part€of€a€written€judgment€duly€entered.ðð€Ð h+¸&* ÐòòEvans€v.€Perkeyóó,€647€S.W.2d€636,€641€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)€(quoting€òòSparkle€Laundry€&€Cleaners,Ð ° ÐInc.€v.€Keltonóó,€595€S.W.2d€88,€93€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGreen€v.€Mooreóó,€101€S.W.3d€415,Ð œì Ð420€(Tenn.€2003);€òòIn€re€Adoption€of€E.N.R.óó,€42€S.W.3d€26,€31€(Tenn.€2001).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àTherefore,€under€the€reasoning€set€forth€by€this€Court€in€òòButleróó,€the€trial€judge€still€hadÐ `° Ðjurisdiction€over€this€case€at€the€time€the€two€amended€motions€for€new€trial€were€filed.€€As€such,Ð L œ Ðit€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€hear€and€determine€on€the€merits€the€amended€motion€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðnew€trial.€€Ð $ t ÐÌòòÓ  ÓIII.€Sufficiency€of€EvidenceóóÐ ü L  ÐÓvÓÌÔ‡ X XXX Ôà  àThe€standard€for€appellate€review€when€a€criminal€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€evidence€is€ð ðwhether,€considering€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÐ À  Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ¬ü  Ðdoubt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€91€S.W.3d€247,€276€(Tenn.€2002);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€WhenÐ ˜è  Ðreviewing€the€evidence,€ð ðthe€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€toÐ „Ô  Ðall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3dÐ pÀ Ð274,€279€(Tenn.€2000).€€Moreover,€ð ðthis€Court€does€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€NorÐ \¬ Ðmay€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€drawn€from€circumstantial€evidence€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ H˜ Ðtrier€of€fact.ðð€€òòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€277€(citation€omitted).Ô#†X XX X Òv#ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€addressed€the€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€bothÐ  \ Ðas€to€the€felony€murder€and€the€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€found€the€evidence€sufficient€toÐ øH Ðsustain€both€convictions.€€While€the€evidence€was€for€the€most€part€circumstantial,€we€agree€that€itÐ ä4 Ðwas€clearly€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt€of€both€the€murder€and€robbery.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðevidence€established€that€the€victim€was€working€at€the€front€desk€of€the€Expo€Inn€when€two€tall,Ð ¼  Ðthin€black€men€ð ðfrom€room€207ðð€demanded€money€and€then€shot€him,€ultimately€killing€him.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€was€observed€inside€room€207€of€the€Expo€Inn€with€a€gun€on€the€night€prior€to€theÐ ”ä Ðshooting,€and€was€in€and€out€of€that€room€throughout€the€night€and€early€morning.€€The€defendantÐ €Ð Ðand€co„defendant€were€seen€running€from€the€hotel€lobby€close€to€the€time€that€the€victim€was€shot,Ð l¼ Ðcarrying€a€bin€matching€the€description€of€that€used€to€hold€money€in€the€hotel€safe.€€The€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðmade€incriminating€statements€to€two€different€people,€claiming€that€he€shot€someone€inside€theÐ D!” Ðhotel.€€The€register€tape€from€the€hotel€cash€register€showed€the€ð ðno€saleðð€button€was€pushed€rightÐ 0"€  Ðbefore€the€victimððs€call€to€9„1„1.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àClearly,€Ô‡ X XXX Ôwhen€considering€this€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€ð ðanyÐ ô$D # Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime[s]€beyond€a€reasonableÐ à%0!$ Ðdoubt.Ô#†X XX X 3#Ôðð€€òòÔ‡ X XXX ÔReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€276Ô#†X XX X d‚#Ô.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌòòÓ  ÓIV.€€€Stateððs€Reference€to€ð ðMissing€WitnessððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÓÙ‚ÓÔ‡ X XXX ÔóóÌà  àDuring€trial,€the€State€introduced€a€statement€given€by€the€defendant€in€which€he€referencesÐ |*Ì%) Ða€person€named€ð ðTed,ðð€who€allegedly€picked€up€the€defendant€at€the€Expo€Inn€thirty€minutes€beforeÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ@¸ Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñthe€victim€was€shot.€€The€State€argued€during€closing€arguments€that€if€ð ðTedðð€really€existed,€the€juryÐ ° Ðwould€have€surely€heard€from€him€at€trial€because€he€would€have€exonerated€the€defendant.€€TheÐ œì Ðdefendant€contends€that€the€Stateððs€reference€to€a€missing€witness€constitutes€reversible€error.€€TheÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€addressed€this€issue€as€to€the€robbery€conviction,€and€held€the€StateÐ tÄ Ðcommitted€prosecutorial€misconduct€in€making€the€ð ðmissing€witnessðð€argument,€but€that€theÐ `° Ðmisconduct€was€not€prejudicial€and€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àA€party€may€comment€about€an€absent€witness€when€the€evidence€shows€ð ðthat€the€witnessÐ $ t Ðhad€knowledge€of€material€facts,€that€a€relationship€exists€between€the€witness€and€the€party€thatÐ  ` Ðwould€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€the€party€and€that€the€missing€witness€was€available€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€process€of€the€Court€for€the€trial.ðð€€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979).€€The€burdenÐ è 8  Ðis€on€the€proponent€of€the€missing€witness€rule€to€establish€the€òòDelkóó€prerequisites.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð Ô$  ÐThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€250€(Tenn.€1989).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€found€the€State€failed€to€show€that€all€three€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐòòDelkóó€requirements€were€met.€€Specifically,€no€showing€was€made€that€a€relationship€existed€betweenÐ „Ô  Ðthe€witness€and€the€defendant€that€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€the€defendant€or€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€court€for€the€trial.€€Because€the€requirementsÐ \¬ Ðoutlined€in€òòDelkóó€were€not€met,€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€comment€on€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendantððs€failure€to€call€the€witness,€and€the€comments€by€the€State€amounted€to€prosecutorialÐ 4„ Ðmisconduct.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àWe€must€now€determine€whether€the€above€error€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€Ð øH ÐòòJudge€v.€Stateóó€sets€forth€five€factors€to€determine€whether€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closingÐ ä4 Ðargument€prejudiced€the€defendant€or€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€andÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€of€the€case.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement.Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòóó539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)Ô#†X XX X ?ƒ#ÔÔ‡ X XXX Ôòòóó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Francisóó,€669€S.W.2d€85,€91€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1984).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€record€reflects€that€the€only€improper€comments€made€by€the€State€duringÐ ¸'#& Ðclosing€arguments€related€to€the€missing€witness€inference.€€Because€the€commentsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwere€improper,€the€trial€judge€should€have€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€that€partÐ )à$( Ðof€the€Stateððs€argument.€€However,€the€Stateððs€reference€to€the€missing€witness€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€or€[sic]€extensive,€and€the€State€did€not€make€any€other€improper€comments.€€TheÐ h+¸&* Ðprosecutor€did€not€appear€to€be€intentionally€trying€to€unfairly€prejudice€the€appellant.€Ð ° ÐThe€appellant€did€not€request€a€curative€instruction.€€However,€the€trial€judge€didÐ œì Ðexplain€to€the€jury€before€closing€arguments€that€the€State€had€the€burden€of€proofÐ ˆØ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Further,€the€trial€court€fully€and€accurately€instructed€theÐ tÄ Ðjury€on€the€difference€between€evidence€and€argument.€€Thus,€we€cannot€concludeÐ `° Ðthat€the€comment€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€from€the€State€to€the€Defendant€orÐ L œ Ðunfairly€prejudiced€the€appellant.€.€.€.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€although€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcomment€was€improper,€this€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌÔ#†X XX X ‘#ÔWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€reasoning€and€conclusion€that€the€Stateððs€commentÐ ü L  Ðregarding€the€missing€witness€was€harmless€error.Ð è 8  ÐòòÌÓ  ÓV.€€Accomplice€TestimonyÐ À  ÐÓB˜ÓóóÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€challenges€the€testimony€of€Dante€Smith,€Edie€Jones,€and€DeannaÐ ˜è  ÐJones,€arguing€that€they€were€accomplices€whose€testimony€had€to€be€corroborated.€€It€is€well„settledÐ „Ô  Ðin€Tennessee€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€convicted€solely€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€anÐ pÀ Ðaccomplice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€57€S.W.3d€411,€419€(Tenn.€2001);€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€379€S.W.2d€34,Ð \¬ Ð43€(Tenn.€1964).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àThere€must€be€some€fact€testified€to,€entirely€independent€of€the€accompliceððsÐ  p Ðtestimony,€which,€taken€by€itself,€leads€to€the€inference,€not€only€that€a€crime€hasÐ  \ Ðbeen€committed,€but€also€that€the€defendant€is€implicated€in€it;€and€this€independentÐ øH Ðcorroborative€testimony€must€also€include€some€fact€establishing€the€defendantððsÐ ä4 Ðidentity.€€This€corroborative€evidence€may€be€direct€or€entirely€circumstantial,€andÐ Ð  Ðit€need€not€be€adequate,€in€and€of€itself,€to€support€a€conviction;€òòit€is€sufficient€to€meetÐ ¼  Ðthe€requirements€of€the€rule€if€it€fairly€and€legitimately€tends€to€connect€the€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðwith€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged.óóДäÐ Ð  ÐÌòòBaneóó,€57€S.W.3d€at€419€(quoting€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994))€(emphasisÐ l¼ Ðadded).€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAn€accomplice€is€one€who€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€participates€withÐ 0"€  Ðthe€principal€offender€in€the€commission€of€a€crime.€€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€36€S.W.3d€88,€94€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð #l! ÐApp.€2000);€òòConner€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€119,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€To€satisfy€theÐ $X" Ðdefinition€of€an€accomplice,€it€is€not€enough€that€the€witness€merely€possess€guilty€knowledge,€isÐ ô$D # Ðmorally€delinquent,€or€even€participated€in€a€distinct€but€related€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€794Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Rather,€the€test€for€whether€a€witness€is€an€accompliceÐ Ì&"% Ðis€whether€the€witness€could€have€been€convicted€of€the€offense.€€òòId.óóÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àWhile€each€of€these€witnesses€was€close€in€proximity€to€the€defendant€and€co„defendant€andÐ )à$( Ðto€the€perpetration€of€the€offenses,€each€witnessððs€testimony€shows€that€none€of€the€witnesses€wereÐ |*Ì%) Ðactual€accomplices€to€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€co„defendant.€€The€evidence€is€clear€that€noneÐ h+¸&* Ðof€them€ð ðknowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€participate[d]€with€the€principal€offenderÐ ° Ðin€the€commission€of€[the]€offenses.ðð€€òòLewisóó,€36€S.W.3d€at€94.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€the€defendant€never€requested€a€special€jury€instruction€on€accompliceÐ tÄ Ðcorroboration,€as€he€was€required€to€do€when€the€trial€court€did€not€give€one.€€à x àIn€òòState€v.Ð `° ÐAndersonóó,€985€S.W.2d€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€which€involved€a€similar€factual€situation,€theÐ L œ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€because€the€defendant€failed€to€make€a€request€for€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðaccomplice€instruction,€the€defendant€waived€the€issue.Ð $ t ÐÌà8  à[O]ur€supreme€court€has€held€that€an€instruction€on€the€rule€requiring€corroborationÐ ü L  Ðof€an€accompliceððs€testimony€is€not€fundamental.€€Upon€the€trial€courtððs€failure€toÐ è 8  Ðinstruct€the€jury€regarding€accomplice€testimony€and€the€requirement€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcorroboration,€it€becomes€the€obligation€of€the€defendant€to€make€a€special€requestÐ À  Ðfor€the€instruction.€€In€the€absence€of€a€special€request,€the€trial€court€does€not€err€byÐ ¬ü  Ðfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€about€accomplice€testimony€even€if€the€circumstances€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€case€warrant€such€an€instruction.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAndersonóó,€985€S.W.2d€at€17€(citations€omitted).€€Therefore,€because€the€defendant€in€this€case€failedÐ \¬ Ðto€request€a€special€jury€instruction€on€accomplice€testimony,€he€waived€the€issue.Ð H˜ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓVI.€€Out„Of„Court€ConfessionóóÐ  p ÐÓä©ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€giving€a€jury€instruction€onÐ øH Ðcorroboration€of€confessions,€pointing€out€that€a€confession€must€be€corroborated€by€sufficientÐ ä4 Ðindependent€proof€to€support€a€guilty€verdict.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€determinedÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€defendant€waived€any€objection€to€the€testimony€of€Isaiah€Dixon€by€his€failure€to€raise€theÐ ¼  Ðissue€at€trial,€thereby€preventing€the€trial€court€from€having€an€opportunity€to€rule€on€the€matterÐ ¨ø Ðbefore€the€witness€began€his€testimony€before€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòSmithóó,€24Ð ”ä ÐS.W.3d€at€280€(finding€that€a€failure€to€object€to€otherwise€inadmissible€evidence€will€allow€thatÐ €Ð Ðevidence€to€be€considered€as€if€it€were,€in€fact,€fully€admissible€under€the€law€of€evidence).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àEven€if€the€defendantððs€confession€challenge€was€not€waived,€the€defendant€is€not€entitledÐ D!” Ðto€relief€because€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€corroborate€his€confession.€€ð ðIt€is€a€well„establishedÐ 0"€  Ðprinciple€of€law€in€this€state€that€a€conviction€cannot€be€founded€solely€upon€a€defendantððsÐ #l! Ðconfession,€and€our€cases€have€long€required€some€corroborating€evidence€in€order€to€establish€theÐ $X" Ðcorpus€delicti.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€281.€€However,€ð ð[the€corroborating]€evidence€is€sufficient€ifÐ ô$D # Ð.€.€.€it€tends€to€connect€the€defendant€with€the€commission€to€the€offense,€although€the€evidence€isÐ à%0!$ Ðslight,€and€entitled,€when€standing€by€itself,€to€but€little€consideration.ðð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòRicketts€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐStateóó,€241€S.W.2d€604,€606€(Tenn.€1951)).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€found€sufficient€corroboration€of€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendantððs€confession€in€the€defendantððs€presence€at€the€motel€at€the€approximate€time€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðincident€as€well€as€in€the€testimony€of€Edie€Jones,€Deanna€Jones,€and€Dante€Smith.€€This€evidenceÐ h+¸&* Ðis€sufficient€to€corroborate€the€confession€because€it€ð ðtends€to€connect€the€defendant€with€theÐ ° Ðcommission€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€281.€€Even€if€this€evidence€could€be€characterizedÐ œì Ðas€ð ðslight,ðð€that€is€all€that€is€legally€required€for€corroboration€of€a€defendantððs€confession€ofÐ ˆØ Ðculpability.€€òòId.óó€€Ð tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓVII.€€Issues€Pretermitted€by€Procedural€Ruling€of€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsóóÐ L œ ÐÓ³´ÓÌà  àBecause€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€late€as€to€theÐ $ t Ðfelony€murder€conviction,€the€Court€did€not€address€the€issues€of€the€missing€witness€argument,€theÐ  ` Ðaccomplice€testimony,€or€the€out„of„court€confession€with€respect€to€the€felony€murder€conviction.€Ð ü L  ÐAdditionally,€because€the€Court€found€that€the€amended€motions€for€new€trial€were€untimely,€theÐ è 8  ÐCourt€did€not€address€any€of€the€issues€raised€therein€as€to€either€conviction.€€We€reverse€the€CourtÐ Ô$  Ðof€Criminal€Appealsðð€rulings€as€to€the€timeliness€of€the€motions€for€new€trial€and€remand€the€caseÐ À  Ðto€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€to€consider€the€issues€pretermitted€by€its€procedural€rulings.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ „Ô  ÐÓ¸ÓÌà  àIn€summary,€we€find€that€the€motion€for€new€trial€filed€on€August€3,€2001,€was€timely€as€toÐ \¬ Ðthe€felony€murder€conviction€as€well€as€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€We€furtherÐ H˜ Ðfind€that€the€two€amended€motions€for€new€trial€were€timely€filed€because€they€were€filed€while€theÐ 4„ Ðtrial€court€still€retained€jurisdiction€over€the€case.€€On€these€two€issues,€we€reverse€the€Court€ofÐ  p ÐCriminal€Appeals.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€both€convictions,€and€affirm€theÐ ä4 ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€on€that€issue.€€With€respect€to€the€especially€aggravated€robberyÐ Ð  Ðconviction,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that:€(1)€while€the€Stateððs€reference€to€aÐ ¼  Ðð ðmissing€witnessðð€during€closing€argument€was€Ô‡ X XXX Ôimproper,€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€aÐ ¨ø Ðreasonable€doubtÔ#†X XX X a¼#Ô;€(2)€the€witnesses€Deanna€Jones,€Edie€Jones,€and€Dante€Smith€were€notÐ ”ä Ðaccomplices€whose€testimony€needed€corroboration,€and€therefore€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failingÐ €Ð Ðto€give€a€jury€instruction€on€accomplice€testimony;€and€(3)€the€defendant€waived€any€objection€toÐ l¼ Ðthe€testimony€of€Isaiah€Dixon€regarding€the€defendantððs€out„of„court€confession€by€his€failure€to€raiseÐ X ¨ Ðthe€issue€at€trial.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àBecause€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€not€address€these€last€three€issues€with€respectÐ #l! Ðto€the€felony€murder€conviction€or€any€of€the€issues€raised€in€the€amended€motions€for€new€trial€asÐ $X" Ðto€either€conviction,€we€remand€the€case€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€for€consideration€of€thoseÐ ô$D # Ðissues.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¸'#& ÐÔ‡ X XXX ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÔ#†X XX X ÍÀ#ÔÔ#†¼J…»XX ì#Ô