State v. Hill

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1998 SESSION
October 19, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9708-CC-00344
Appellee, )
) MONTGOMERY COUNTY
V.
S )
) HON. JOHN H. GASAWAY III,
FRANK WAYNE HILL, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (AggravatedRobbery)

FORTHEAPPELLANT: F RT EA P L E :
O H P EL E

GREGORY D. SMITH JOHN KNOX WALKUP
OneP Square, Suite321
ublic Attorney General &Reporter
Clarksville, TN37040
(OnAppeal) DARYL J. BRAND
Asst. Attorney General
STACY A. TURNER 425FifthAve., North
1 5 S u T irdS
0 o th h t. Nashville, TN 37243
Clarksville, TN 37040
(A T l)
t ria JOHN W. CARNEY
District Attorney General

DANIEL BROLLIER
Asst. District Attorney General
204FranklinSt., Suite200
Clarksville, TN 37040

O IN NF E :
P IO IL D

CONVICTION AFFIRMED;
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING

JOHN H. PEAY,
Judge
 OPINION

TheMontgom Countygrandjury indictedthedefendantononecountofaggravatedrobbery. OnS
ery eptember

18, 1996,ajury foundthedefendantguiltyof thechargedoffense. OnOctober18, 1996,thetrial court sentencedthedefendant,

asaRangeIstandardoffender, toatermofeight years, tobeservedinthecomm correctionsprogram. Thecourt ordered
unity

thissentencetobeservedconsecutivelytoafour year sentenceof incarcerationonapriorrobbery conviction.1

O Novem 18, 1996,thetrial court, suasponte, heldasecondsentencinghearinginorder toconsiderthe
n ber

effect ofanother indictm against thedefendant whichthecourt wasm awareof aftertheoriginal sentencinghearing. The
ent ade

tria court am
l ended its original sentence and ordered that the eight year sentence be served in the Tennessee Departm of
ent

Correctionratherthaninacomm correctionsprogram.
unity

Thedefendant appeals, challengingthesufficiencyof theevidenceusedtoconvict himandthelegalityof the

sentencewhch wa impo After areviewoftherecordandtheap icablelaw,wefindnom tothedefend sufficiency
i s sed. pl erit ant’s

challenge;however, weremandthecaseforresentencing.

O theeveningofJuly27, 1995,EricTannerwasrobbedatgunpoint ataconveniencestore. Hew onhis
n as

wayhom fromworkandstoppedtobuy gas. Afterhefinishedpumping thegas, hewalkedtowardtheconveniencestore and
e

wasstoppedbyayoungmale. Them begantotalktothevictimand,as theconversationwenton, hebeganto backintoa
an

darker areabesidethestore. Them thenpulledouta gun,pointedthegundirectlyat thevictim face, andorderedthevictim
an ’s

togivehimall hismoney. Whe thevictimsaidhehadnom
n oney, them reachedintothevictim backpocket andpulledout
an ’s

his wallet. T m thenorderedthevic toem h fro pock A th vic co plied them orderedthevic to
he an tim pty is nt ets. fter e tim m , an tim

turn around an run aw
d ay.

1
Hill was on post-trial diversion in the prior robbery case and this conviction for aggravated
robbery resulted in this diversion being terminated.

2
 Duringthedefendant’strial, thevictimpositively identifiedthedefendantas therobber. Thevictimtestified

that atthetim oftherobberyhehadvaguelyrecognizedtherobber butcouldnotrem ber ane nam Approxim two
e em xact e. ately

monthsafte th ro
r e bbery, th victimre edtosc andbegantolook thro oldye ooksinaneffo tofindout th ro
e turn hool ugh arb rt e bber’s

ide Accordingtothevictim hefoundthedefendant’spictureandtheninform thepoice. Thep icethensho dthevictim
ntity. , ed l ol we

aphotoline-upandheagainidentifiedthedefendantas therobber.

As the victim identification of the defendant was the major proof against himat the trial, the defendant
’s

challengesthesufficiencyof theevidenceusedtoconvict him Thedefendant contendsthat thevictim identificationisunreliable.
. ’s

Insupport of thisthedefendant pointstothefact that therewasasixweektim lapsebetweentherobbery andthedefendant’s
e

arrest. Thedefenda alsocontendsthat thevictimfoundthedefendant’spictureintheyearbook onlyafterthepolicehadgiven
nt

himthe defenda nam According to the de
nt’s e. fendant, the victim’s identificationisalsounreliablebecausethedefendant does

not exa m thedesc
ctly atch riptionof therobber give by th vic inthepolicere
n e tim port.

Thedefenda also contend that the evidenceis insufficient to support his conviction becausethe victim’s
nt s

testim isindirect contraventionwiththetestim of thedefendant’switnesses. Atthetrial, thedefendant’smother, father,
ony ony

sister andgirlfriendplacedthedefendant athomeontheeveningoftherobberyandtestifiedthat hedidnotleavethehom the
e

en evening. Onthisbasis, thedefendant arg s th n re on le jury c ld h e fo d h gu of th a rav d ro ery
tire ue at o as ab ou av un im ilty e gg ate bb

of EricTanner.

Adefendant challengingthesufficiencyof theproof hastheburdenofillustratingtothisCo whytheevidence
urt

is insufficient tosupport theve t retu d b th trie of fa inhisorhe ca . ThisC rt will notdisturbaverdict ofguilt for
rdic rne y e r ct r se ou

lack ofsufficient evidence unlessthefactscontainedintherecordandanyinferenceswhichm bedrawnfromthefactsare
ay

insufficient, asamatterof law,forarational trierof fact tofindthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt. Statev. Tuggle,

639S.W.2d913, 914(Tenn. 1982).

W anaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyof theconvictingevidence, wem reviewtheevidenceinthe
hen ust

3
light m fa rable totheprose tionindeterm gw
ost vo cu inin hether “a ration trier of fact c h foundtheess
ny al ould ave ential e ents
lem

of thecrim beyondareasonabledoubt.” Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. 307,319(1979). W donotreweigh orre-evaluatethe
e e

evidence and are required to a the State the strongest legitim view of the proof contained in the record as well as all
fford ate

reasonable a leg ateinference w m b draw therefrom Statev. Cabbage 571S.W.2d832, 835(Tenn. 1978).
nd itim s hich ay e n . ,

Questionsconcerningthecredibilityof witnesses, theweight andvaluetobe giventothe evidence, aswell

asfactual issues raisedby th evid arereso dby th trier of fact, n this C Cabbage 571S.W.2d832, 835. Aguilty
e ence lve e ot ourt. ,

verdict rendered b the jury and approvedby the trial judge accredits the testim of the witnesses for the State, and a
y ony

presum ofguilt replacesthepresum ofinnocence. State v. Grace, 493S.W.2d474, 476(Tenn. 1973).
ption ption

In affording the State the strongest legitim view of the evidence contained in the record, we find that a
ate

reasonablejury couldhavefoundthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt oftheaggravatedrobberyof EricTanner. The

victimm a positive identification of the defendant on two separate occasions, not including the identification m in the
ade ade

courtroom during the trial. Although the defendant’s fam and girlfriend placed the defendant elsewhere on the night of the
ily

robbery, the credibility of that testim is determined b the trier of fact, not this Co Thejury in the de
ony y urt. fendant’s case

apparently determ that the victim testim was reliable and found the defendant guilty. W find that there is enough
ined ’s ony e

evid onthereco tosu
ence rd pport th guilty verdict b ndareaso
e eyo nable doubt.

A h se ndissu th d nd t arg s th th tria co erredinsuaspontechangingthedefendant’s
s is co e, e efe an ue at e l urt

sentencefromparticipationinacomm correctionsprogramtoasentenceinthe TennesseeDepartm ofCorrectionafter
unity ent

thedefendant hadbegunservinghissentence.

The defendant was originally sentenced on October 18, 1996, to a termof eight years to be served in

comm co ctio O N m 18, 1996, the trial co sua sp
unity rre ns. n ove ber urt, onte, held another sentencin hearing to am the
g end

defendant’ssentence. Atthesecondhearing, thedefendant’ssentencewaschangedtoaneight year sentencetobeservedin

theTenness D
ee epartm of C ctionra th intheco m co ctions p gra . T judge’sre nsid tionof the
ent orre ther an m unity rre ro m he co era

4
defendant’ssentencewasbasedonanindictm ofthedefendant that washandeddow bythegrandjury soonaftertheoriginal
ent n

sentencinghearing. Thejudgereasoned:

As I stated ea er, the factors of his age an his
rli d
apparent remorseandlikelihoodofrehabilitationprompted
thisCourt toorder himtoservethat eight year sentencewith
Com unityCorrectionsdespitethefact it wasacrim ofviol-
m e
ence.
InsubstanceI saidthat if M Hill ever camebackbefore
r.
thisCourt onanythingelsethat I wouldinall likelihoodconsider
hisrehabilitationtobenil, orthepossibilityof hisrehabilitationto
benil. Andthat I wouldnot haveanychoicebut tosendhimto
the De partmen of Co
t rrections.
Thereisnoevidenceheretoday, butthereisanindictm ent
whichwashandeddownbyaGrandJurybasedonprobable
cause. TheG Jury heardtestim sworntestim and
rand ony, ony,
based uponwhatit heardbelievedtherewas a probabilitythat acrim wascom ittedanda
e m
probabilitythat thisDefendant comm that crim
-itted e.
Giventhetotalityof all thefactsandcircum stancesthe
Co believes that its sentencewasjust wrong. ThereforeI amam
urt endingthesentence, and
I amorderingtheeight year sentencetobeservedwiththeDepartm ofCorrection.
ent

Giventhesestatem it isapparent thejudgeresentencedthedefendant basedonthenewindictm 2
ents, ent.

Thisisinspiteofthefact that, asthejudgepointedout, therewasnoevidenceof wrongdoingbythedefendant, onlyanindictment.

Thereareseve apparent erro concerningthesentencingandtheresentencingofthedefendant. It appears
ral rs

tothisCourt that underthestatutory criteriaset outat T.C. A.§40-36-106(a), thedefendant wasnoteligiblefor asentencein

acomm correctionsprogram.3 Inaddition, even if thedefendant hadbeeneligiblefor acomm correctionssentence,
unity unity

it isunclear whether thetrial judgehadtheauthoritytoam the defendant’ssentence.4 Inlight oftheforegoing, weremand
end

2
We note that this indictment was later nol-prossed.

3
As the defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to incarceration
for a p revio us of fens e and there was no find ing on the re cord of an y sp ecia l need s, he is not an elig ible
offender as set out in T.C.A. § 40-36-106(a).

4
We are of the opinion that if the defendant had not yet started serving his sentence, the judge
could amend the sentence within thirty days of the original sentencing as long as the parties were given
proper n otice. See Tinker v . State, 579 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979). If the defendant had
already begun serving his sentence, the trial judge could only have revoked the community corrections
senten ce with a proper re vocation hearing a nd prop er notice. See State v. Worley, No. 03C01-9608-
CR-00322, Sullivan County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed August 29, 1997, at Knoxville). In any case, the
defendant is required to be present at every stage of the trial, including sentencing. Tenn. R. Crim. P.
43(a). Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the defendant was not present at the
rese nten cing hear ing an d the re is n o indic ation in the r eco rd tha t the d efen dan t waiv ed th at righ t. This

5
thiscaseforresentencinginaccordancewiththeprovisionsof theCrim SentencingReformActof 1989.
inal

Insum,weaffirmthedefendant’sconvictionandremandthecasefor resentencing.

______________________________
J H H P A , J dg
ON . EY u e

CNU:
OCR

______________________________
THO AST.W DALL,Judge
M OO

______________________________
L. TER LA
RY FFER Special Judge
TY,

alone w ould dep rive the co urt of the au thority to res entenc e the defe ndant.

6