WPC R'OнP5jr!g'Q?z> iSQeCdtбxA.| C/A=#i6r 1o*JDF$f*bw~.ԮWa=TcEb.;kh_͗ԻIWctbQ?5k30'٨)%#KnX-~ P< E+{0Zbl p`eW&Bd^9gv|$'"M!)cQw`0ЩVW{"B\8݉g+ И.eQ8Yqea Iۨ{H$Ȭq0(:.wȗę ɥm[ꦺɝ9t>(T |%n/4OZ g*UyF@:m &2{)퓔DYYb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz U@   ] #UNN7U N99Eb 0 B|| 0 D3= D-p 0K AS; 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0zX-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-d 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|xU(I Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8FdXXd8         0  X9X d(|3g$ !.8FdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3g$ !.8FdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Fdd8     _F FFF FFF@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#FF#Ԉ &   April2,2002Session L X9XF #FXX9#FFSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.CHRISTOPHERM.FLAKE#FF!#X9XF  J  @@*AV) ` dE< ` A  Z @@TTNo.W200001131SCR11CD  U ________________________  A   # X9XXX9## FX X9# X9X F FORPUBLICATION    Ѐ# FX X9# X9X F OPINIONDENYINGPETITIONFORREHEARING 󀄀 FiledOctober24,_2002 _   # FX X9]# X9X F  # FX X9#   X9X FX9XX X9Theappellee,ChristopherM.Flake,byandthroughcounsel,hasfiledapetitiontorehear }  theopinionofthisCourtfiledAugust29,2002.Asgroundsforrehearingthepetitionassertsthat i theOpiniondidnotaddressanotherissueraisedinFlakesbrief,specifically,thatthetrialcourt U erredindenyingFlakesmotiontosuppressbecauseFlakewasnotmentallycapableof A knowinglyandintelligentlyconsentingtoasearchorwaivinghisrightsunderMirandav. -} Arizona,384U.S.436,86S.Ct.1602,16L.Ed.2d694(1966).# X9XXX9## FX X9z#F FX9XF i   WhiletheappelleeiscorrectthattheAugust29,2002,Opiniondidnotexplicitlyaddress A thesuppressionissue,thisassertionisnotgroundsforrehearing.Itiswellsettledthat"atrial - court'sfindingsoffactinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderates  otherwise."Statev._Odom_,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996).#FXX9## FF# X9X FԀ"Questionsofcredibilityofthe  witnesses,theweightandvalueoftheevidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidenceare  mattersentrustedtothetrialjudgeasthetrieroffact."Id.;seealsoStatev.England,19S.W.3d  762,766(Tenn.2000).Assuch,"theprevailingpartyinthetrialcourtisaffordedthe'strongest y legitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawn e fromthatevidence.'"SeeStatev.Carter,16S.W.3d762,765(Tenn.2000)(quotingStatev. Q  Keith,978S.W.2d861,864(Tenn.1998)). =!   Applyingtheseprinciples,weareoftheopinionthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderate #e! againstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthedefendantwasmentallycapableofknowinglyand $Q" intelligentlyconsentingtoasearchandofwaivinghisrightsunderMiranda.Accordingly, $= # Flakesassertionthatthetrialcourterredindenyinghismotiontosuppressiswithoutmerit. %)!$   JusticeAndersonandJusticeBirchcontinuetoadheretotheviewsexpressedintheir '#& initialdissentingopinionbutconcurinthedenialofthispetitionforrehearing. (#' X9XX X9# X9XXX9#  Accordingly,thepetitiontorehearisDENIED.X9XX X9 u*%)    `     h      p      `     h      p #FXX9 #X9XFPERCURIAM#FXX9O## FF*#