### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 4, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . ODESSA POPE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Dyer County No. C04-184 Lee Moore , Judge

No. W2004-02939-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Janu ary 6, 2006

The Dy er County

Gra nd J ury

indicted the defe ndant for attempting to obtain a c ontrolled substance by misrepre sentation fraud, forg ery , dece ption or subterfug e. F ollowing a jury trial on J uly

28, 2004, the def endant wa s found g uiltyas charg ed. The trial court sentenced the defe ndant to four y ear s as a Rang e I I

multipl e off

ender . The de fenda nt filed a n o t i ce of appe al. On appe al, the def endant

arg ue s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

he r c on vic tio n a ndthat th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in allowing the prosec ution to cross-examine her r eg arding her prior convictions contra ry to Rule 609 of the Te nnessee Rules of Evidence . We find that there was suff icient evidenc e and the trial court did not err in allowing the entry of the prior

convictions into evidenc e. We affirm the judgme nt of the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
Noel H. Riley , I I , Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Odessa

Pope.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; B ri a n C. John so n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Phillip Bivens, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Em ily An de rs on a ndSara

h G ile s w e re wo rking a t th e L on g a nd Gi bs on Pha rm a c y in Dy ersbur g on F e b ru ar y

1 2
, 2 0 0 4

. O n th a t d a y , th e d e f e n d a n t, w h o w a s a

“ r e g u la r c u s to me r,” prese nted a presc ription f or 120 tablets of L ortab to Ms. Ande rson. The pr escription was from the pad of D r. Mulay , who pra cticed in Dy ersbur g

. The prescription was made out to a Glenda Hil l of Union City . Ms. Anderson a nd Ms. Giles beca me s u s p i cious beca use an instruc tion for the-2-

presc ription to be “dispense[d] as written” was included as a notation. Usually
, due to t he expense, a phy sician allows for

a g eneric to be substituted for a na rcotic dr ug , such as L ortab.
The pha rm ac i st also found it unusual and ca lled Dr. Mulay ’s offic e. A c opy of the p r e s c r ip ti o n w a s a ls o f

a xe d to D r

. M u lay ’ s o f

f ic e

. A f te r rece iv in g th e p h o n e c a ll a n d th e f a x, Aubre en Mar otti, Dr. Mulay ’s sec reta ry , chec ked Dr . Mulay ’s patient rec ords and found no patient named Gle nda Hill. She also maintained that Dr. Mulay would never presc ribe that many tablets of L ortab at one time. Ms. Marotti also stated that the sig nature on the fax ed pre scription was not that of Dr. Mula y . I n addition, the addre ss on the presc ription w as that of Dr. Mulay ’s Union Cityoffice which had be en close d since Septembe r of 2003.

Ms. Marotti and Dr. Mulay called the Dy ersbur g police. Offic er Russell Bur row we nt to Dr. M u l a y’ s o f

f i c e

. M s

. M ar o t t i s p o k e w i t h O f f i c e r B u rr o w , w h o t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o t h e p h ar m a c y,
w h i c h w a s a c r o s s t h e s tr e e tf r o mD r

. M u l a y’ s o f

f i c e

. T h e d e f

e n d a n th a d a l r e a d y l e f

tt h e p h ar m a c y. Ms. An de rs on a nd Ms. Gi le s g a ve a de sc ri pti on of

the de fe nd a nt t o O ff

ic e r B ur ro w a nda lso tol d h im he r d a te of

birth. Of fi c e r B ur ro w o bta ine d a drive r’ s lic e ns e ph oto g ra ph of the de fe nd a nt andMs. Ander son identified the def endant f rom the picture as the pe rson who had attempted t o fill the L ortab presc ription in question. An arre st warr ant was se rved on the defe ndant on Fe bruary 17, 2004.

The defe ndant maintained that she was in Jackson the day of the incident. She stated at trial that sh e we nt t o s e e a

Dr . Y e a te s in Jac ks on wh o w ro te he r a pr e sc ri pti on fo r vari ou s me dic a tio ns

. She state d th a t sh e ha d th e pr e sc ri pti on s fill e d tha t day a t Walg re e n’ s in J a c ks on

. A d e fe ns e wi tne ss, Br andi Walley , testified that the def endant wa s with her until about 1:00 p.m. on the day in question. She state d tha t her so n an d the de fe nd a nt le ft to g o to J a c ks on abo ut 1:0 0 p.m. B ry a n Wall e y , M s. Walley ’s son, testified that he w as in J ackson w ith t h e d ef en d an t on the date of

the offe nse. On

cross-e x amination, Mr. W alley testified t hat he had bee n incar cer ated a nd been to r ehabilitation for

abu se of bo th m ari

jua na a ndc oc a ine . H e stat ed th at he did no t ha ve a pr ob le m w ith pil ls. As a rebuttal witness, the State c alled Of fice r Ji m Porter of the D y ers b u rg P o l i ce D epartment who testified that the ca ll concerning the forg ed pre scription came in at 1:31 p.m.

Ba sed on the fore g oing the defe ndant was convicted of attempting to obta in posse ssi o n of a contr olled substance by misrepre sentation, fraud, forg ery , dece ption or subterfug e.

AN AL YSI S
On appe al, the def

endant a rg ues two i ssues: (1) the e vidence was insuffic ient to support her conviction; and (2) the t rial court err ed in allowing into evidenc e the defe ndant’s prior c onvictions for obtaining a contr olled substance by misrepre sentation, fraud, forg ery , dece ption or subterfug e.

Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

Al tho ug h th e de fe nd a nt’ s b ri e f h a s a he a din g arg uin g that the re wa s in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to support her c onviction, her brief does not actua lly prese nt an arg ument for this issue. The a rg ument-3-

in h e r b ri e f r e fe rs so le ly to h e r s e c on d is su e regardi ng th e en tr y of he r p ri or c on vic tio ns int o
e vid e nc e . H ow e ve r, Rul e 27 (a )( 7) of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s of Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re pr ov ide s th a t a brie f sh a ll c on ta in “ [an ] a rg ume nt

. . . s e tti ng fo rth th e c on te nti on s o f the app e lla nt w ith re sp e c t to t h e issues prese nted, and the r easons ther efor , including the rea sons why the contentions re quire appellate relief

, with citations to the authorities and appropriate refe renc es t o the re cord . . . r elied on.” Te nnessee Court of C riminal Appea ls Rule 10(b) states that “[i] ssues which a re not supporte d by arg ument, citation to authorities, or appr opriate refe renc es to the re cord w ill be treate d as wa ived in this court.” See a lso St ate v. Sande rs, 842 S .W.2d 257 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (dete rmining tha t iss ue wa s w a ive d wh e re de fe nd a nt c ite d n o auth ority to s up po rt

his c omp la int ). Ev e n th ou g h th is iss ue is t e c hn ic a lly

wa ive d, weha ve de c ide d to a dd re ss the de fe nd a nt’ s a rg ume nt o n it s me ri ts.

When a def

endant challeng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, this Court is oblig ed to re view that claim ac cording to certain well-settled principles. A ver dict of g uilty , rende re d b y a juryand

“ app ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c re dit s th e tes ti mo ny of the ” Sta te ’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll conflicts in the testi mony in favor of t he st ate. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992)

. Thus, althoug h the ac cused is orig inally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocence
, the jury verdic t of g uilty remove s this pre sumption “a nd repla ces it wi t h o n e of g uilt.” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). He nce, on a ppeal, the burden of proof rests with the def

endant to demonstrate the insuffic iency of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ng c ou rt mus t a ns we r i s w he the r any ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the ac cused g uiltyof eve ry element of

the offe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha

rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making this de cision, we are to acc ord the state “ the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence as well as a ll reasona ble and leg itimate infere nces tha t may be dra wn there from.” S ee T ug g le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, this C ourt is prec luded from r eweig hing or

rec onsidering the evidenc e whe n evaluating the c onvicting pr oof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d38 0, 38 3 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 6) ; Stat e v. Ma tth e ws , 805 S.W. 2d 77 6, 77 9 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1990). More over, w e may not substit ute our own “ infere nces for t hose drawn by the trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779. Further, que stions concerning the cre dibilit y of the witnesses and the weig ht and value to be g iven to e vidence
, as well as a ll factua l iss ue s ra ise d by su c h ev ide nc e , ar e re so lve d by the tr ie r of fa c t and no t the app e llate c ou rt s. Sta te v. Pruett, 788 S.W .2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990)

.
The de fenda nt was convic ted of a ttempting to obtain pos s es s i o n o f a controlled substance by misrepre sentatio n , fraud, forg ery , dece ption or subterfug e. Unde r Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 53-11- 4 0 2 (a )(3) , “[i] t is unlawful for any person knowing ly

or intentionally

to: . . . (3) [a] cquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or attempt to obta in, posse ssion of a controlled substanc e by mis re pr e se ntatio n, fr aud , f or g e ry , de c e pti on or su bte rf ug e .” A de fe nd a nt “ kn ow ing ly ” c omm its an off ense w hen she “ acts knowingly with respe ct t o the conduct or to circ umstances surr ounding the conduc t when the pe rson is awa re of the nature of t he conduct or t hat t he cir cumstance s exi st.” Te nn . Co de An n. § 39 -1 1- 30 2( b)

. A d e fe nd a nt “ int e nti on a lly ” c omm its a n o ff e ns e wh e n s he “ a c ts intentionally

wi t h re spect to the nature of the conduct or to a re sult of the conduct whe n it is t he person’ s conscious obj ective or desire to e ng ag e in the conduc t or cause the re sult.” Tenn. Code An n. § 3 9- 11 -3 02 (a ). Cr imi na l a tte mpt is de fi ne d as, a pe rs on “ a c tin g wi th the kin d o f c ulp abil ity-4-

otherwise r equire d for the of fense ,” and e ither, “( 2) [a]cts with i ntent to cause a re s u l t that is an element of

the offe nse, and believes the conduct will cause theresult without further conduct on the pe rs on ’s pa

rt ; or (3 ) [a ]ct s w it h in te nt t o c omp le te a c ou rs e of a c tio n o r c a us e a

re su lt that w ou ld constitute the offe nse, under the circ umstances surrounding the conduct as t he per son believes them to be, and the c onduct constitutes a substantial step towar d the commission of the o ff en s e

. . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 12-101(a )(2) & ( 3).

The e vidence , when view ed in a light most fa vorable to the State, showed that the def endant

was a reg ular customer at the L ong and Gibson Pharmac y

. On the date in question, the defe ndant g ave a presc ripti o n m ad e o u t to Glenda Hill for L ortab to the c lerks at the pha rmac y . The presc ription did not allo w for substit ution with a ge neric , which is unusual for suc h an expensive drug

. The c lerks then f

axed the presc ription to the doctor’s off ice f rom whom the pre scription came

. After the docto r’ s o ff

i ce rec eived the f

ax, that office informed the pharmacy cler ks that the presc ription was on a pre scription slip that li sted an out of date addr ess of the doc tor, and the signature on the pr escr

iption was not the doctor’s. In addition, the person listed as the patient on the presc ription was not a patient of the doctor.

We conclude that based upon this evidenc e a r easona ble jury could have found the de fenda nt g uiltyof all the a

bove ele ments of attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud. There fore
, thi s is su e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Evi de nc e of P r ior Co nvi c ti ons

The de fenda nt arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in allowing the State to cross-e x amine her reg arding her prior convictions for obta ining a controlled subst ance by fraud. The de fenda nt arg ues that this li ne of que stioning wa s in violation of Rul e 609 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Evide nce.

Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 609 states that the cr edibilityof a witness may be attacke d by evidenc e of prior convictions if ce rtain pr er equis ites are met. First, the c onviction must be pu nis ha ble by de a th o r i mpriso nme nt o ve r o ne y e ar o r m us t in vo lve a c ri me of dis ho ne sty

or fa lse statem e n t. T e n n

. R. E v id

. 6 0 9 ( a ) ( 2 )

. Se c o n d ly
, if th e w it n e s s to b e imp e a c h e d is a c r im in al de fe nd a nt, the Sta te mus t gi ve no tic e prior to t ri a l of its int e nt t o u se the c on vic tio n f or imp e a c hme nt. Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a)( 3). F inally , upon reque st, the court must determine that the probative va lue of the prior

conviction on the issue of cre d i b i l i t y outweig hs its prejudicial eff ect on substantive issues. Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a) (3). On a ppeal the trial court ’s rul ing on the admissibili ty of such evidenc e is r eviewe d under an abuse of discre tion standard. State v. Waller, 118 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Tenn. 2003)

. Thus, Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a) (3) g rants special treatment to criminal defe ndants when it come s to i mpe a c hme nt w ith pr ior c on vic tio ns . T he re a so n f or th is is o bv iou s. Th e re is a c on c e rn that if a jury knows of a de fenda nt's previous criminal record, the panel might conclude that the def endant has a pr opensity

to com m i t cr i mes and c onvict on this basis rather tha n on the evidenc e of the char g es before them. This conce rn i s g reatly heig htened when all or some of the prior c onvictions-5-

are for id e n ti c a l c r im e s a s th o s e f o r w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t is o n tria l, a s in th is c a s e

. Wa ll e r, 118 S.W .3d at 373 (Te nn. 2003). Ther efor e, Rule 609(a )(3) serve s as a sc ree ning me chanism whe reby prior c on vic tio ns are a dmi tte d f or im peach ment wh e n th e po te nti a l f or un du e pr e

jud ic e is outweig hed by

the probity

of the c onviction on the question of the def endant’ s cre dibilit y

. Prior to trial, the State filed a Notice of I mpeac hing Convictions and Intent to Seek Enhanc ed P u n i s h m en t

. T h e de fe n d an t m ad e no re s p o n s e t o t h i s n o t i ce

. T h en at tri al
, t h e f o l l o wi n g ex ch an ge
oc c ur re d u po n th e Sta te ’s c ro ss- e xami natio n o f the de fe nd a nt:

Q. Had y ou ever

had L ortab be fore ? A. On occ asion. Q. I n th e pa st? A. Sir? Q. I n th e pa st? A. Ye s, sir . I ’v e ha d d e nta l w ork do ne. I ’ve had te e th p ull e d. I ha d a c y st r e mov e d. I t’ s a medication that’s pr escribed occ asionally . I t’s not something that y ou – Q. Ha ve y ou re g ula

rl y take n p a in m e dic a tio ns ? A. No , s ir . I

c a n’ t say on a re g ula r b a sis

. Q. Have y ou ever

had a pr oblem with pain medication? A. No, sir. Q. Ever ha d a proble m obtaining pa in medication? A. I don’t think that ob t ai n i n g pain medication seems to be a pr oblem in this area. T hey run pretty rampa ntly . I t’s a big problem in this area . That’s why I ’ve g ot my self invol ved with a half way ho us e fa c ili ty . A c tua lly , th a t’ s h ow I me t Mr. Da vis

. He ha d just le ft JACO A an d I wa s try ing to g et him to enter a halfway house t hat I helped to run i n Obion County
, that I am on the Board of – Q. Ma ’am? A. Th e B oa

rd of Di re c tor s. Q. B e c a us e of

jus t c ivi c inv olv e me nt? A. Yes, sir. Q. Ag ain, my

question was have y ou ever had a pr oblem obtaining pain medication? A. No, sir. Q. And y ou’ve ne ver ha d a proble m with pain mediation? A. No, sir. GEN. B I VENS: Your Honor , may we a pproac h? THE COURT: Sure. (Where upon, a benc h confe renc e wa s held . . . .) G E N

. B I V E N S: She’s got tw o p r io r c o n v ic ti o n s f

o r a tt e mp ti n g to o b tain it

b y f r a ud, Your Honor. [Defense attorney ]: His question was, “Ha ve y ou ever had a problem obtaining,” and she said no. GEN. BIVENS: No, sir. I asked her if she ever had a problem with it and she said no, and then I asked he r if she e ver ha d a proble m with obtaining it and she sa id no. [Defense attorney ]: I

don’t think he ca n g o there , J udg e.-6-

GEN. BIVENS: She opened the door on it with her answe r beca use she has prior convic tions for attempting to obtain controlling substances by fraud. THE COURT: [Defense attorney ] – GEN. BIVENS: [Defense attorney ] and I looked at that an d h e a gre es i t ’s o b t ai n i n g a controlled substanc e by

fra ud. TH E CO UR T: Wha t if he r a ns we r h a d b e e n y e s? GEN. BIVENS: On what? That she’d had any drug problems? I asked about any wher e else
, Your Honor

. TH E CO UR T: I t g oe s to he r c re dib ili ty a s a wi tne ss. [Defense attorney ]: Well, what he’s g etting at here
, he’d asked her had she ever had any problem g etting pain medication, and she say s no. GEN. B IVENS: And that’s my second que stion, Your Honor. My first question was did she have a problem and she broug ht up about being on the B oard of this place. THE COURT: I t goe s to her cr edibilityas a w itness. You may proce ed. (Said benc h confe renc e having been c ompleted, the following proce eding s were had . . . .) Q. (B y

Gene ral B ivens) Ms. Pope, y ou’ve ne ver h ad a proble m obtaining pr escriptions for controlled substanc es bef ore? A. You ca n g o to the doctor a nd g et pain medication. Q. Ma ’am, w e re y ou c on vic te d in Ob ion Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt – A. Yes, sir. Q. – on Aug ust 7 , 2000, for obtaining a contr olled substance by fraud? th A. Ye s, sir . I

wa s. Q

. A n d w e r e yo u c o n v i c t e d o n J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 i n D ye r C o u n t y – th A. Yes, sir. Q. – for obtaining a contr olled substance by fraud? A. Yes, sir. Q. And y ou’ve ne ver ha d a proble m with a controlled substanc e? A. S i r, t h at wa s m o re o f agre ed t h i n g. Q

. B u tyo u n e v e r

h a d a p r o b l e mo b t a i n i n g t h e d ru g s l e g a l l y? A. I do n’ t r e a lly

un de rs ta ndthe qu e sti on . Y e s, sir . I a m g uil ty

of do ing thi ng s in my

pa st. Q. Wha t w e re the dr

ug s th a t y ou a tte mpt e d to ob ta in o n th e se tw o p ri or oc c a sio ns ? A. Vicodin. Q. Which is a – same thing a s L ortab? A. Ye s, sir . It is

.

The de fenda nt arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in allowing the State to cross-e x amine her reg arding prior convic tions identical to the char g e in the case sub judice. Although, as noted e arlier
, the potential fo r u n fa i r prejudice is g reater whe n impeachme nt of the ac cused is soug ht to be

acc omplished using prior c onvictions for off enses whic h are identical, s u ch i m peac hment is not barr ed as a

matter of la w. State v. B aker , 956 S.W .2d 8, 15 (Tenn. Crim. Ap. 1997) . I nstead, the tr ia l c ou rt mus t, u po n re qu e st, c on du c t a he ari ng wh e re in the re le va nc e of the prior c on vic tio ns toT he St at e a r gu es t hat t he f ai l ur e of t he defendan t t o re ques t a f ul l he ar i ng wai ves t hi s i s s ue on appeal

. See, 1

T enn. R

. A p p

. P

. 36 (a). C ert ai nl y t he p ract i ce o f request i ng a heari ng and havi ng th e iss u e de t erm i ned af t er caref ul

co nsi d erat i o n i s p ref

erab l e t o a b ri ef b ench co nference. H o wever, t he t ri al co urt d i d rul e o n t he i ss ue, t hus we d ecl i ne t o app l y t he wai ver r ul e.
-7- the def endant’ s cre di b i l i t y i s weighed a g ainst its potential for unfair pr ejudice. T enn. R. Evid. 609(a) (3); Waller, 118 S.W.3d at 371, 373.

Th e ins ta nt c a se pr e se nts a per fe c t st orm un de r R ule 60 9( a )( 3) . T he c ri me of fr a ud ule ntl y attempting to obtain pr escription drugs is a Class D felony and, therefor e. punishable by more than one y ear of imprisonment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-402( b)(1) , Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 11(b)( 4). More over, the crime is def ined by its use of fraudulent and dec eptive means in an attempt to obtain prescription drugs a nd, thus, inhere ntly involves dishonesty

and fa lse statements. Such a prior convic tion has enormous probity with respec t to the defe ndant’s cr edibility

.
On the other

hand the prior convictions u s ed t o impeach the defe ndant’s cr edibilityare identical to the off

ense which is the s ubject of this appeal. Ther e is there fore a heig htened potential for unf air pre judice with re g ard to the jury ’s deliber ation with respec t to the substantative issue of the de fe nd a nt’ s g uil t.

I n the i nsta n t c a s e th e St a te s e n t th e d e f e n d a n t’ s a tt o r n e y

n o ti c e o f it s in te n t t o u s e prior convictions to impeach the defe ndant’s credibility should she t estify

. The de fenda nt never reque sted a full hea ring on the issue and instea d the entire issue was de cided at a brief bench c onfer ence reque sted by

the assistant district attorney rathe r t han given the car eful consideration envisioned by our supre me court. Waller, 118 S.W .3d at 373. At that bench confe renc e the State ar g ued that the 1 defe ndant opene d herse lf up to impeachme nt with the pri o r co n v i ctions by deny ing she had a problem with presc ription pain medication or a ny problem obtaining the m. Clearly , this is not the

c a se sin c e sh e ha d tw ic e be fo re be e n c on vic te d f or fr a ud ule ntl y att emp ti ng to o btain p a in medications. Repeatedly

being foiled by the authorities in an attempt to obtain pain medication by fra u d w o u ld s e e m to in d ic a te a p r o b le m g e tt in g th e d ru g s

. M o r e o v e r , th e St a te ’ s c a s e wa s very str on g a nd , th e re fo re , th e lik eli ho odthat th e jury wo uldha ve to r e ly

on the prior

c on vic tio ns to conclude that the def

endant wa s g uilty i s d i m i n i s hed fr om any unfair pr ejudice that might be prec ipitated in a closer

case

.
Gi ve n the c ir c ums ta nc e s o utl ine d a bo ve a ndou r c ir c ums c ri be d s ta nd ardof re vie w, we ho ld that the trial court did not abus e i t s d i s cre tion in allowing the State to impeac h the def endant’ s
cre dibilit y

with her prior

convictions.-8- CO NC LU SION

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE