*1 presentence report20 completion hearing respect with the aggravat- state, ing by alleged factor additional
sentencing proceedings should be conducted
by superior an ap- court to determine
propriate sentence for Dunn’s conviction of and, further, degree
first assault to recon-
sider the issue whether and what extent by sentences received Dunn for his two
counts and one count of robbery assault
should be consecutively imposed.21 by
The convictions superior entered AFFIRMED,
court and this case RE- .are superior
MANDED court addi- sentencing proceedings
tional consistent
herewith. NIX, Appellant, Alaska, Appellee.
STATE of
No. 5481. Appeals
Court of of Alaska.
Nov. 1982. argues, separate point, express 20. Dunn as a that a tence he received was We excessive. psychiatric report by concerning appropriateness should have been ordered no view of con prior light sentencing case, dispo the youth, sentencing court Dunn’s secutive in this and our record, prior his lack procedural grounds and the seri- sition should based ousness crimes for which he was con- encouraging be construed either discour victed. We need not address this contention aging sentencing considering the court in merits, will, remand, on its since Dunn be sentences, option reimposing consecutive capable requesting psychiatric evaluation part, resentencing. In the whole or Any request before he is resentenced. sentencing event determines sentencing Dunn should be honored again im consecutive sentences should posed, court. however, appro make should priate findings, record, in accordance on the sentencing Our resolution issues requirements Lacquement with the procedural grounds unnecessary makes it (Alaska App. 1982). argument aggregate reach Dunn’s that the sen- *2 Joseph
Michael J. Lindeman and A. Kala- Associates, marides, Settles, & Kalamarides P.C., Anchorage, appellant. for Merriner, Gen., Atty. Charles M. Asst. Condon, Atty. Anchorage, and Wilson L. Gen., Juneau, for appellee. C.J., BRYNER, and COATS
Before SINGLETON, JJ.
OPINION SINGLETON, Judge. was convicted of the unlawful
entry into the of three homes J.B., L.O.M., C.P.) (respectively women them, rape with the intent former AS 11.20.080; resulting rape of two of women, C.P., J.B. former AS 11.15.- third, 120(a)(1); and the assault of the All former AS 11.15.230. together cases were tried and he ac quitted fifty
He received sentences which totalled years’ imprisonment, when into taking consecutively, account those to be served including sentences we approved in Nix v. (Alaska App. 1981). appeals, challenging both denied, length of the sentences convictions 454 U.S. S.Ct.
imposed. (1981). L.Ed.2d 628 Stevens, two charges involving appeal1
His
primary contention
joined together
victims were
erred
the trial court
counts,
purposes of trial. The supreme
motion to sever the various
so that
court noted
*3
that
two or more
be
separately
may
joined
each victim’s case could be
offenses
separate
heard.
also contends
that
the same indictment under Criminal Rule
grand juries should have heard the
8(a)2
(a)
facts
if
they
either
are of the same or
returning
regarding
prior
each victim
an
(b)
similar character or
they are based on
argu
indictment.
In connection with this
Stevens involved the
the same transaction.
ment he claims that
the trial court also
joinder of similar offenses and the court
permitting
jury
erred
to hear evi
joinder
indicated concern that such a
could
regarding
alleged burglary
dence
an
prejudice
jury might
defendant:
be
residence of
and an assault on S.C. for
S.C.
willing
despite
more
convict
defendant
separately
which Nix was
tried and convict
regarding
reasonable doubts
one of the of-
State,
Nix See
(Alaska
ed.
624
P.2d 823
they
beyond
fenses if
were convinced
rea-
that he had
sonable doubt
committed other
Consequently,
sug-
like offenses.
the court
Supreme
The Alaska
Court has addressed
gested
joinder
predicated
that where
contentions
similar
to Nix’s in two cases
State,
we
on the basis
“same or
controlling:
which
find
of
similar character”
Stevens
(Alaska
and Coleman v.
1978)
only,
offenses
the trial court should on mo-
(Alaska 1980),
621 P.2d
cert.
grant
874
tion
a severance.
P.2d at 629.3
582
disposi-
8(a) provides:
1.Nix’s
other claimed errors and our
2.
Rule
Criminal
tions are as follows:
of
Joinder
Offenses. Two or more offenses
may
charged
Nix contends that his indictment should
the indictment or informa-
separate
have been
an
dismissed because
insufficient
in a
for
offense if
tion
count
each
jurors
felonies,
grand
participated. Specif-
charged,
number of
ically,
the offenses
whether
mis-
both,
requires
he notes that AS 12.40.020
demeanors or
are of the same or similar
jurors
grand jury,
between 12
18
act or
character or are based on the same
only
and that
12 heard his case.
or
or
transaction
on two or more acts
trans-
together
constituting
contends one of those 12 should have been
actions connected
or
disqualified
(the
parts
plan.
for bias since he or she
of a common scheme or
grand juror)
knew
of
one
the victims.
The court relied inter alia
Rule 14
juror
on Criminal
any prejudice
ques-
denied
when
provides:
Consequently,
tioned.
an
conclude
insuf-
showing
ficient
of bias has been made.
C.
appears
or
If it
that a defendant
the state is
Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure:
by
prejudiced
joinder
of offenses or defend-
(1982).
any
§
Criminal 2d
at 203-04
by
an
or
ants in
indictment
information or
majority
event the record
that “a
reflects
joinder
together,
may
for trial
the court
grand jurors,
the total number of
after de-
counts,
separate
an election or
trials of
order
ducting
qualified,
legally
the number not
con-
defendants,
provide
grant a severance of
finding
curred in
the indictment.” Alaska
justice requires.
whatever other relief
In rul-
6(f).
R.Crim.P.
Under these circumstances
by
ing on a
for
motion
defendant
severance
we find no error.
may
attorney
the court
order the
state
argues
Nix also
that the trial court should
inspection
to deliver to
court for
cam-
suppressed
have
of his
evidence
head
any
era
statements or confessions made
pubic
allegedly
hairs
result of
obtained
the defendants which the state intends to
illegal
an
search and seizure. The trial court
introduce at the trial.
testimony regarding
heard
this issue and af-
recognize
ambiguous
is
We
that Stevens
evaluating
witnesses,
credibility
ter
contradictory
point, admitting
this
of two
inter-
express
that
pretations.
concluded
implied police
there was neither
nor
adopted
The first we have
and set
gave
coercion and that Nix
an
right
out in the text: A defendant’s
to an auto-
unqualified
express
unequivocal
in-
matic severance of similar character offenses
telligent
depends
finding
The trial
consent
the search.
for trial
that evidence of
supported by
court’s decision
substantial
one or more
the offenses
not be ad-
would
clearly
and is
evidence
therefore not
mistak-
missible at the trial of the other offenses.
If
en. See Gieffels v.
an offense would not come in
evidence of
under
1979).
Alaska Rules
Evidence 403 and 404 at the
of each of the other
missible in
trial
that
not
The court concluded
Stevens
separately
had been
charges
charges
if the
of the two
to a severance
entitled
admissibility,
common
tried.
If there was
sur-
charges because
the circumstances
not
trial court did
err
sufficiently
then the
the two events were
rounding
Conversely,
if
for severance.
the motion
regarding
evidence
each
of the offenses
case
one or more
in the other
evidence of
relevant and admissible
a trial of
admitted in
could not have been
identity
the assailant.
show the common
error.
offenses, then
suffered
it is therefore
In the context
that case
if
error was
mandatory
sever- A reversal
right
clear
this
to an automatic
prejudicial.
ance
a further determination
depends
of each
evidence
admissibility
governing
The rules
under
incident would
be admissible
to show
of other incidences of
evidence
404 in the
Alaska Rules of Evidence
the assailant
identity
common
*4
trial of the others.
in Coleman v.
thoroughly canvassed
denied,
cert.
1980),
wheth-
Consequently, we must determine
653,
1090,
joined, grant deny despite the as- severance based substantial similarities between upon showing prejudice. As the commen- sault on T.C. and the other assaults. tary points out, uncertainty supreme regarding there is standards little Given the prejudice: risk of nevertheless court’s intent urge Stevens would normally automatically grant Similar offenses character involve trial courts to sever- repeated supreme until commission the same offense ances hereafter at least operandi. often modus with same With clarifies its intent. Having carefully the rec et. 6' approximately reviewed She described him as build, light slight weighing ord in of the tall with Coleman Stevens about 145 decisions, pounds. keep eyes we have He told her to concluded that there was closed similarity sufficient between each or would “blow head off” or “blow [her] subjected five incidents introduction evidence re her to away.” vaginal [her] garding each case in the of each of the cunnilingus trial intercourse and and forced her prejudicial perform others was not error. Conse fellatio. T.C. was able to identi- quently, fy we affirm the decision of the trial Sperm Nix’s voice. swabbed from her following vagina during court. The facts establish the the medical examination fol- context in which this issue must be lowing decided. her attack showed that her assailant group type blood “B.” Nix acquit- ted of T.C.
J.B. J.B., woman, young Caucasian was at- L.O.M. apartment tacked her street-level located woman, the west side of at approxi- young Caucasian p.m. January 11, mately 9:15 1979. She attacked in her street-level apartment lo- west, testified that at her Anchorage, ap- her assailant knocked cated on the side of friend, opened door. Expecting apart- four proximately blocks J.B.’s way ment, door and the forced his at approximately assailant in. p.m. 10:40 on Janu- She described him a ary as white male with Her assailant was neither build, tall, *5 approximately slim 5'8" to gloved. 6' masked nor She described him as light wearing beige nylon white, a stocking twenty-two twenty-six over between and old, tall, his face as a He wearing years approximately mask. was also 5'8" to 5'11" gloves dark heavy nylon wearing parka. and a coat. He a blue down The assailant subjected door, it, her vaginal intercourse from to opened came her and when she front and back and forced her to perform way forced his in and beat her about the fellatio. He repeatedly body threatened to “blow with his fists. When he heard one away” up” or “slice if she looked the who sleeping children was the next [her] [her] him, out, at so she kept eyes her shut. he cry panicked When room he and fled. She left he lie made her on her at positively stomach on her identified Nix as her assailant bed with her pillow. head in a lineup The FBI lab trial. Nix and later at was con- samples matched hair taken from Nix to and burglary victed assault on hair found pillow. on J.B.’s Chemical anal- L.O.M.
ysis of seminal panties fluid on J.B.’s indi- cated that her assailant was a man with C.P. “B,” group type
blood type the blood woman, C.P., a was young Caucasian at- approximately percent popula- apartment tacked in her street-level located tion. Nix has blood group type “B.” Anchorage, approxi- on the west side of Nix was convicted mately apart- thirteen blocks from J.B.’s of J.B. ment and twelve blocks from L.O.M.’s 11:30 apartment, approximately p.m. on January police told the She
T.C., woman, thin, a young Caucasian was at- her was weighing assailant tall, tacked in her apartment basement pounds, wearing located between 5'8" and 6' on the east side of beige-brown near the ski mask and cowskin-like Bragaw Roads, intersection of and Debarr gloves. She was not able tell his race. few residence, miles from J.B.’s January rang on He she her bell and when answered at approximately in, around, p.m. way 8:30 forced his her blind- spun She white, her, described her assailant as wearing a her into the propelled folded bedroom stocking mask, dark white her back. gloves cotton and there tied her hands behind stained with paint, jack- brown “get a dark He told her if she screamed she would the front room returned to the bed. She away.” attempted
it” or be “blown
he
Nix,
point
at which
again
him
vaginal
but when she told
accosted
intercourse
chest,
fled
her
her
menstruating,
per-
up,
jumped
she was
forced
struck
gave
then forced her to lie
landlord
form fellatio. He
the room. Sell
S.C.’s
pillow
with a
over her
down.
face
on her bed
to run Nix
down
and were able
chase
kept
escaped.
while he
trailer and
head
him the
They returned
to arrest
police
arrived
him there until
attack, C.P.
come
Shortly before the
had
him.
she worked.
hospital
home from the
where
dirty
white or off-white
quite
She noticed
arrested,
wearing brown
When
se-
Dodge
Plymouth
late sixties model
had a
coat. He
blue
gloves
cotton
dan,
following
was
her.
which she believed
in his
gloves
painter’s
pair of white cotton
C.P.’s com-
police investigated
When the
pair
nylon
had a dark
and he
pocket
plaint,
tire marks
the snow
they found
con-
snipped
off
hose with
ends
panty
apartment
showing an unusual
near her
person.
cealed on his
pattern:
three snow tires and
summer
parked approxi-
was found
vehicle
tire
front.
on
left
mately 150 feet from S.C.’s trailer.
was
that while her assailant
C.P. testified
Dodge
dirty 1967 white
quite
vehicle was a
her,
com-
assaulting
spilled
semen
The vehicle
Polara two-door sedan.
chemically
Her
ana-
forter.
comforter
rear,
one snow tire
two snow tires on
lyzed
for semen stains which indicated
a summer tire
right
front and
from a man with blood
semen came
searched,
left front. When
vehicle
group type “B.”
were found
nylons
cut-off women’s
some
cord,
shoelace-type
and some
the back seat
Nix was convicted of the
T.C.,
also
used to tie
of C.P.
back seat.
found
S.C.
the one
vehicle as
C.P. identified Nix’s
woman,
S.C., young
lived in
Caucasian
she
day
her on the
following
had seen
park
a trailer
in a trailer
on the
located
*6
prose-
separately
Nix was
was attacked.
nine
Anchorage approximately
west side of
entry
apart-
of S.C.’s
cuted for the unlawful
residence,
from
five
blocks
C.P.’s
blocks
He was
assault
her.
ment and his
residence,
from L.O.M.’s
and six blocks
State,
(Alas-
convicted. Nix
February 2,1979,
from J.B.’s residence. On
his convictions
ka
We affirmed
birthday
after
her
at a local
celebrating
entry but vacated
for assault and unlawful
restaurant,
friend,
and a
S.C.
Russell Sell
ground
on
conviction
approximately
returned to her trailer at
insufficiently
bur-
alleged
indictment
found
partially
1:00 a.m. She
her door
glary.
Nix,
open
and defendant
she
whom
by
governed
is
Evidence
other crimes
met,
previously
asleep
had not
in chair in
404(b)
pro-
of Evidence
Alaska Rule
front
her
room. She looked around
vides:
front
it had
ran-
room and discovered
been
Crimes,
Evi-
Wrongs, or Acts.
Other
quite agitated, woke
sacked. She became
crimes, wrongs,
acts
dence of other
or
Nix
who he
and
up demanding
know
of a
prove
a character
not admissible
he
why he
in her front room. When
acted
person in order to
show
proved
called
unresponsive,
police
however,
may,
therewith.
It
conformity
and her
then
her
landlord. She
went into
purposes,
as
for other
be admissible
pulled
bedroom and
her
out
found
drawers
intent,
motive, opportunity,
proof of
personal belongings
and her
scattered about
knowledge,
identity,
preparation, plan,
specifically
the room.
noticed that
She
accident.
absence mistake or
babydoll
someone had taken her
pajamas
its
prior
by
crimes is
suggestively
and
laid
out on her bed.
Evidence of
them
particu-
prejudicial,
It
lying
very
potentially
looked like someone had been
nature
larly
alleged
parka
are sexual.
where the crimes
the blue
that Nix was wearing at
Therefore,
carefully
such evidence must be
by
trailer
similar to the
S.C.’s
one worn
evaluated before it
admitted. Coleman
their attacker. T.C. described
especially
the assailant all instances. balance, gloved. On masked or we be- P.2d at 875. lieve the court should have severed L.O.M.’s evidence, L.O.M. n attacker was briefly To review the Nevertheless, case. early arrested at S.C.’s residence in the Nix, appearance similar in and her attack 2, 1979, morning hours on February wear- geographical occurred the same area ing gloves jacket white cotton and a blue within two weeks of the other incidents and with a stocking pock- cut-off woman’s in his approximately during the same time capable et being used as a Parked mask. night. Finally, since Nix aborted his attack nearby dirty, Dodge was his white vehicle other incidents were relevant arrangement. with its distinctive tire He is apart- in entering show his intent tall, Caucasian, build, 5'11" of medium identity. ment as well as Given the weighs pounds. He thus fits the de- connecting the substantial evidence assaults given victims, scription by each of the J.B., T.C., C.P., it is unlikely automobile description given matches the signifi- evidence the assault L.O.M. by C.P., arrangement and his tire corre- cantly jury’s affected the consideration sponds tire prints police found those other cases. outside apartment. young C.P.’s S.C. is a her attacker almost described Caucasian woman. All of the other inci- language identical that used J.B. and dences involved victims who were also primary C.P. The difference was that her young Caucasian women. S.C. lives on the away attack miles place took a few west side of in the Turnagain *7 Turnagain the the area. Nix others outside J.B., area within five block radius of rape acquitted burglary was and of Only L.O.M. and C.P. T.C. lived outside of T.C., that the was able jury which indicates Turnagain (Nix acquitted area. was of regarding to separately consider the facts the charges involving T.C.) All of the inci- each case. Given the substantial similari- place dents took a sixteen-day peri- within ties between the attack on and the od, p.m. (the between 8:30 and 1:00 a.m. C.P., attacks on J.B. and the trial did record long does not indicate how Nix had not in admitting abuse its discretion returned). been in S.C.’s trailer before she surrounding evidence that attack in con- Nix was caught S.C.’s trailer. All of the junction with the evidence other victims described their assailant as Accordingly, cases. the trial court did not tall, build, between 5'8" 6' and with a slim abuse its discretion in the motion weighing between 135 pounds. and 150 Nix charges. Further, giv- to sever the various description. fits this All of the victims C.P., Nix except tell, connecting en the substantial evidence who not could described incidents, their assailant being white. Nix is with each of the conclude Finally, white. properly J.B. and L.O.M. identified the court could decide that 1100 older sis- raped Nix’s companion establishing mother’s relevance the evidence in of his Thereafter, bulk of spent Nix ter. out- as the common assailant identity Nix’s McLaugh- fluctuating between adolescence Alaska weighs any prejudicial impact. Psychiatric and Alaska lin Youth Center we believe that R.Evid. 403. adjudicated delinquent was Institute. He heard all of the grand jury properly same 8, of for two counts 1971 on November together. eases (1) of a .22 automatic larceny: theft petty Center; and, Sporting from View rifle Mt. APPEAL SENTENCE jacket from Brewster’s (2) theft of a leather sentences were as Nix’s convictions and was released from He Department Store. (fifteen (2) (1) raping years);
follows: J.B. 30, 1973. He remained McLaughlin July with the intent burglarizing J.B.’s residence for detention seven juvenile free from (ten years concurrent with rape her placed in custo- was thereafter months but term); (3) burglarizing fifteen-year place- from further running away dy for (ten (4) assault- years); L.O.M.’s residence in June of 1974 and He released ment. concurrent with the ing (six L.O.M. months pet- 1974 for of reincarcerated November term); (5) raping ten-year burglary C.P. February of 1975 escaped ty theft. He (fifteen (6) burglarizing and years); C.P.’s 1975, in in March of reincarcerated with the (ten years residence concurrent in a having juve- convicted the interim been fifteen-year term). Nix received a counts of of two proceeding nile (Fifteen, ten years. total of forty sentence again in dwelling. escaped not were fifteen). These sentences also was found with 1975 and September of ap- totalling made consecutive sentences and re- gun. He was reincarcerated stolen affirmed in Nix v. years, proximately McLaughlin Youth Center until mained at (Alaska App.1981), so P.2d 26, 1976, when, having age reached May approximately fifty that Nix faces continu- as an adult. eighteen, he was released years imprisonment. ous following he As an adult accumulated 25, May 1976, illegitimate 30, born joyriding (1) record: June 1958; 10, 1976, knew his father. In the never fleeing police; (2) August merchandise; following years (3) September married almost mother concealment (his first and, 8, 1976, dwelling addition, lived with a in a eight times 1978, 28, (4) petty March marrying felony); number of men without them. adult (a pistol); semi-automatic larceny .22 early consequently life was chaotic. sto- 1978, receiving concealing (5) April alternately neglected by He was abused felony). (Nix’s second adult property len paramours. his mother succession most frequent apparently His homes were currently un All of Nix’s offenses frequented. August the bars mother place prior to the took der consideration twelve, age at first new code. of our criminal effective date delinquent running away declared a Thus, sentencing requirements its He remained in state “home.” custo- Sundberg v. 652 P.2d binding. dy, residing McLaughlin alternately (Sundberg 1982) II). App., Never Psychiatric Center and Alaska Youth theless, persuasive as highly the new code is He was Institute until December legislative intent. expression recent the latter trying accused to burn down State, Whittlesey v. *8 stay. his re- during establishment (Alaska 1980). felony offender As a third pass leased on to his a brief mother for code, have been the new Nix would under holidays with Christmas absconded presumptive to term fifteen subject a him and Hawaii with 11.41.410(b), her other children to years rapes, of his each AS her then current The next nine companion. term 12.55.125(c)(3), presumptive a AS Nix, children, mother, months which corresponding years of six for each of 12.55.- paramour 11.46.300(b), and her in Hawaii were AS spent burglaries, AS relatively except 125(d)(2). uneventful Nix tells us his
1101
Judge
remember that
ex
Ripley specifically
When we
Nix’s
found that
three reasons made consecutive sentences
juvenile
tensive
record
burglary
included
(1)
case:
to
necessary in this
vindicate the
felony
convictions and that his first adult
Nix,
offender,
to
dangerous
need
isolate
a
conviction,
burglary
was a
the trial court’s
situated,
to deter him and
similarly
others
aggravating
burglary
decision
his current
norms;
(2)
and to
community
affirm
to
ten years
sentence from six to
would not
Nix,
punish
a member of the
adequately
appear “clearly
v.
mistaken.” See McClain
class of worst offenders under the Wortham
State,
(Alaska 1974).
519
811
P.2d
The
(see
1117,
Wortham,
test
v.
537 P.2d
State
reasonable,
burglary sentences are
at least
(Alaska
and,
1975));
(3)
to adequately
to
they
the extent that
were made to run
respond
psychological profile
to Nix’s
com
concurrently
rape
to the
and assault sen
piled
reports
accumulated over nine
imposed.
State,
tences
v.
See Davis
years during
juvenile
and adult insti
481,
(Alaska
P.2d
App.1981). Nor do
tutions
Nix’s
attempted
rehabilitation.
sentences viewed in
ap
isolation
psychological
evaluation identified
pear
unreasonable.
Id.
487-88.
extremely dangerous.
him as
We believe
problem
The
presented by this case con-
fact-findings
supported by
these
pyramiding
sists in
consecutive sentences to
requirement
record
meet the
con
fifty years
total of
incarceration. At the
secutive
imposed
sentences not be
unless
time Nix
received the
specifically
court
finds that confine
consideration,
sentences under
probation
aggregate
ment- for the full
term was actu
had
ally necessary
public.
been revoked
protect
on two earlier convic-
Lac
State,
quement
(Alaska
Judge
v.
consecutive
sentence for
Lewis’
al sentences were appropriate, and that this
dwelling.
State,
in
In Nix v.
624 case warranted consecutive sentences does
2 (Alaska
826 n.
App.1981), we
not, however, completely resolve the prob
affirmed these consecutive sentences.
In
presented.
lem
We must evaluate the
addition,
facing
a consecutive ten-
aggregate
against
sentence
claim of ex-
year
sentence imposed
Judge Moody for
cessiveness.' We conclude that
the total
the burglary of S.C.’s residence and the
clearly
given
sentence was not
mistaken
her,
assault
which were separately
length
number of Nix’s victims and the
tried. We
However,
vacated this last sentence in Nix
his criminal
record.
the trial
State,
v.
624 P.2d
App.1981);
making
court committed clear error in
see
sentences imposed
also Nix v.
in this case consecutive
case REMANDED evi- except concurrent cross-admissible impose a new sentence assaults was I in agree also assault on L.O.M. years previously approved dence (Alaska prejudice Nix has not demonstrated that Nevertheless, it seems joinder. from BRYNER, concurring and Judge, Chief supreme assume that reasonable to dissenting. in Stevens sim- per se rule adopted from prejudice it feared subtle ply because In Stevens v. be demonstrated that could never joinder 1978), a rule supreme court established a harm- necessary to overcome the extent Relating to based on the ABA Standards I Consequently, believe Severance, 2.2(a). error rule. 1.1(a), less Joinder and §§ by Stevens applying precluded rule are permits This a defendant an automatic this case. I would are test severance at his election where offenses harmless error they Nix’s conviction initially joined solely on the basis that therefore reverse separate rape or I do on his the same similar character. him new trials grant court’s supreme not believe the intention convictions. language
in doubt that it chose to join I in the court’s respects all ambigu- Stevens express that intention decision. rule apply ous. The court elected to allow prospectively and not to Stevens Nevertheless,
benefit from it. it is clear subsequent apply rule was to
cases I such as Nix’s. believe in Stevens is bind-
supreme holding court’s
ing on feel compelled this court and
follow it.