On December 6, 1996, a W illiamson County jury convicted Appellant, Darrell Wentzel, of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. After a sentencing hearing on January 31, 1997, Appellant was sentenced to twelve years for each count of aggravated robbery, twelve years for aggravated kidnapping, and six years for aggravated burglary, with all sentenc es to be served concurrently. On February 18, 1997, Appellant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial, claiming that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction, that the aggravating kidnapping conviction should be dismissed because it was incidental to the robbery, that several of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were erroneous, and that the trial court had misapplied enhancement factors to arrive at maximum sentences on all four convictions. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant challenges both his convictions and his sentence, raising the following issues:
1) whether the trial court comm itted plain error by adm itting the in-court identification of the Appellant by Mary Ethel Veach;
2) whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony of Edward Mitchem;
3) whether Appellant’s convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery constituted dou ble jeopardy;
4) whether the trial court correctly rejected Appellant’s argument that he could not be convicted of aggravated kidnapping because it was only incidental to the robbery;
5) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the Appellant.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.