IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JANUARY SESSION, 1999 March 15, 1999
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk
C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9712-CR-00567
)
Appellee, )
)
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. CHERYL BLACKBURN
MONROE JOE HARGROVE, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (Disorde rly Cond uct, Res isting Arre st,
) Assau lt)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
SAM WALLACE, SR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP
227 Se cond A venue N orth Attorney General and Reporter
Nashville, TN 37201
KAREN M. YACUZZO
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
VICTOR S. JOHNSON
District Attorney General
SHARON BROX
Assistant District Attorney General
Washington Square, Suite 500
222 Se cond A venue N orth
Nashville, TN 37201-1469
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED IN ACCOR DANCE W ITH RULE 20
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
ORDER
The Defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offenses of diso rderly
condu ct, evading arrest, resisting arrest, and th ree co unts o f assa ult. In this
appeal he argues that the evidence introduced against h im is insuffic ient to
support his convictions an d that he received an excessive sentenc e. We
disagre e and a ffirm the jud gmen t of the trial cou rt.
Following an evening of drinking b eer and shooting pool, the D efenda nt,
along with his wife and other parties, arrived a t a W affle H ouse restau rant in
Nash ville at about 4:00 a.m. to have breakfast. Some sort of an altercation took
place at this Waffle House, and the police were summoned. When the police
arrived, the De fenda nt and his party were on their way to a second Waffle House
restaura nt. The police went to the second Waffle House restaurant where they
found the Defendant and his companions. One of the officers testified that the
employees of the second Waffle House restaurant told the police that the
Defe ndan t’s grou p was caus ing trou ble and that they wanted them to leave the
restaura nt.
All of the charges against the Defendant arose from the efforts of four or
more police officers to persuade the Defendant a nd his group to leave and the
subsequent efforts of the police to arrest the Defen dant for d isorderly co nduct.
According to the testimony of the police officers, the Defendant struck them,
yelled at them, threatened them in an aggressive manner, fought them, ran from
them, and eve ntually had to be forcefully thrown to the ground and handcuffed
-2-
in order to effectu ate his arrest. T he tes timon y of the D efend ant an d his
witnesses contra dicted the tes timon y of the p olice o fficers o n alm ost eve ry deta il.
The Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficien t to
support his con victions . He ar gues that the evidence is “pure and simple” that
the incident was pro voked by the p olice officers who are given “special treatment
by the W affle House R estaurants inso far as paying for food and so forth.” W e
believe that the testimony of the police officers establishes the elements of the
offenses of whic h the D efend ant wa s con victed. T he on ly real issue concerns the
credibility of the witnesses. The trier of fact resolved the issues in favor of the
State an d this Co urt may n ot reweig h or reeva luate the e vidence .
The trial judge sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine
days in the county jail for the evading arrest conviction and for eac h of the assa ult
convictions. She s enten ced th e Def enda nt to six months for resisting arrest and
to thirty days for disorderly conduct. Two of the sentences for eleven months and
twenty-nine days were ordered served consecutive to each other, which provided
an effective sentence of approximately two years. In senten cing the D efenda nt,
the trial judge noted the Defendant’s extensive record of crim inal ac tivity, his
attitude, and the circumstances of the offense. The Defendant’s prior record of
convictions includes three convictions for aggravated assault, one conviction for
evading arrest, one conviction for DUI, and one conviction for disorde rly condu ct.
The presentence report lists twenty-two additional charges which were either
dismissed or for which the disposition is unknown. At the time of sentencing, the
Defendant had a “domestic charge” pending against him. At the sentencing
hearing, the Defendant insisted that he was innocent of the crimes for which he
had been convicted and said he was not guilty “in [his] own heart.”
-3-
W e conclude that the evidence presented is sufficient to support the finding
by the trier of fact of guilt beyo nd a rea sonab le doub t. We further conclude that
no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the record.
Based upon a thorough reading of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the
law governing the issues presented for review, the judgment of the trial c ourt is
affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of
Tennessee.
____________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-4-