IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION
FILED
April 13, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9806-CR-00167
Appellee, )
) SHELBY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. CHRIS CRAFT,
JOHN GREER, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Theft of Property over $1000
but less than $10,000)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A C WHARTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
WALKER GWINN CLINTON J. MORGAN
Asst. Public Defender Asst. Attorney General
201 Poplar Ave. Cordell Hull Bldg., 2nd Fl.
Memphis, TN 38103 425 Fifth Ave., North
(On Appeal) Nashville, TN 37243-0493
DIANE THACKERY WILLIAM L. GIBBONS
Asst. Public Defender District Attorney General
201 Poplar Ave., 2nd Fl.
Memphis, TN 38103 JAMES M. LAMMEY
(At Trial) Asst. District Attorney General
201 Poplar Ave., 3rd Fl.
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOHN H. PEAY,
Judge
OPINION
On March 11, 1998, the defendant was found guilty by a jury of theft of
property valued at over one thousand dollars ($1000) but less than ten thousand dollars
($10,000) in violation of T.C.A. § 39-14-103. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court
sentenced the defendant as a career offender to a term of twelve years to be served in
the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals and argues that
the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm his
conviction and sentence.
On March 24, 1996, Memphis police officers were notified by a dispatcher
that a car was being stripped for parts. Officers Boyette and Montgomery of the Memphis
police department responded to the call and drove to the specified location. As the two
officers were in separate patrol cars, they decided to approach the scene from opposite
sides thereby inhibiting the suspect’s ability to flee. Upon arrival at the scene, the officers
noticed two Cadillacs parked closely together. According to the officers, the defendant
was bent over the engine of the Cadillac later determined to belong to the victim, Miriam
Kelly. Officer Montgomery testified that as he approached the scene, he noticed that the
defendant was holding something in his hands, which he dropped when he saw Officer
Boyette’s patrol car approaching. Both officers then saw the defendant walk into a
nearby apartment. The officers followed the defendant inside and arrested him. The
officers testified that the defendant had grease on his hands and had several bolts in his
pocket. In addition, the stolen vehicle had several parts and bolts missing from its
engine, a broken steering column, and a broken window. Several parts had been
removed from the other Cadillac as well and were lying on top of its engine. The police
found no keys in the stolen vehicle and saw no one other than the defendant near the
2
stolen vehicle.
At trial, Ms. Kelly testified that she had not given anyone permission to use
her car. Officer Boyette testified that he ran a check on the license plate of the stolen
vehicle and found it was registered to Ms. Kelly. Officer Montgomery testified that he
recorded the vehicle identification number (“VIN”) of the stolen vehicle on his arrest ticket.
The VIN number from the arrest ticket was read by Officer Montgomery to the jury as
“1G6CD5188H426660.” Officer Montgomery then expressed difficulty reading the last
digit of the VIN number from the copy of the arrest ticket that was provided. After another
copy of the ticket was given to Officer Montgomery, he identified the last digit of the VIN
number as four. The arrest ticket was not introduced into evidence, but the State
introduced into evidence the victim’s certificate of vehicle registration and passed it to the
jury. This certificate listed the VIN number of Ms. Kelly’s car as “1G6CD5188H4266604.”
The defendant now claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a
finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the defendant contends that the
State failed to establish a link “between the car [the defendant] was seen bending over
and apparently tinkering with before his arrest and the car stolen from Miriam Kelly.”
However, Officer Boyette testified that the license plate number of the car the defendant
was “tinkering with” matched the license plate number registered in Ms. Kelly’s name.
In addition, the VIN number documented by Officer Montgomery on his arrest ticket
matched the VIN number on Ms. Kelly’s certificate of vehicle registration. Although, as
the defendant points out, the VIN number on the certificate of vehicle registration was not
read to the jury, the certificate itself was passed to the jury and introduced into evidence
by the State, which allowed the jury to compare the VIN number Officer Montgomery
testified he recorded on his arrest ticket with the VIN number reflected on the certificate
3
of vehicle registration. Given the proof that the license plate number and VIN number of
the car found with the defendant matched the license plate number and VIN number of
the car reported as stolen, the jury had sufficient evidence upon which to base its
conclusion that the defendant was guilty of theft beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914
(Tenn. 1982). The defendant’s conviction and sentence is thus affirmed.
_________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
_________________________________
JAMES C. BEASLEY, SR., Special Judge
4