IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEEFILED
Nov. 19, 1996
AT JACKSON
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1996 Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9510-CR-00316
)
Appellee, )
)
) SHELBY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. CHRIS CRAFT
WILLIE H. JOHNSON, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Burglary)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A. C. W HARTON CHARLES W . BURSON
Public Defender Attorney General
W ALKER GW INN CYRIL V. FRASER
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
201 Poplar Suite 2-01 450 James Robertson Parkway
Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JOHN W . PIEROTTI
District Attorney General
TERRELL HARRIS
Assistant District Attorney General
Third Floor, Criminal Justice Complex
201 Poplar
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. W ELLES, JUDGE
OPINION
This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of
Appellate Procedure. A Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of
burglary. The trial judge found the Defendant to be a career offender and
sentenced him to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal,
he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the
jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. W e disagree and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
W hen an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence,
the standard is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the
weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by
the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact, not this court. State v. Pappas, 754
S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn. 1987).
Nor may this court reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571
S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the State’s witnesses
and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State. State v. Grace, 493 S.W .2d 474,
476 (Tenn. 1973). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate
view of the evidence and all inferences therefrom. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d at 835.
-2-
Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces
it with a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burden in this court of
illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the
trier of fact. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); Grace, 493
S.W .2d at 476.
W e will briefly summarize the evidence presented on behalf of the State.
Early one Sunday morning the police responded to a burglar alarm which had
been activated at a business located on Riverside Drive in downtown Memphis,
Tennessee. The first officer to arrive at the building observed that a window had
been broken out. The officer looked into the building through another window
and saw the Defendant inside. The officer identified himself as a policeman and
the Defendant ran toward the back of the building. The officer radioed for
assistance and other officers responded. They secured the building and one of
the owners of the building arrived and unlocked the door. An officer entered the
building and, with the assistance of a police dog, located the Defendant hiding in
a closet. Although the Defendant struggled with the officer, the officer was again
assisted by the dog and the Defendant was restrained and placed under arrest.
The owner of the business testified that numerous items had been removed from
their usual location in the building and had been stacked up in such a fashion to
indicate that they were going to be removed from the building. Photographs of
these items and photographs of the broken window were introduced as evidence.
Three police officers identified the Defendant as the person they apprehended
in the burglarized building that morning.
-3-
Faced with this rather overwhelming evidence, the Defendant testified that
he was walking along the street that morning when two police officers in a patrol
car pulled up and asked him if he knew anything about a burglary. He said that
he told the policemen that he did not and that they then pulled their guns on him
and forced him, at gunpoint, to climb through the broken window to find his
“partner” and to persuade his “partner” to come out of the building. He said that
shortly after he entered the building the police came through the door, handcuffed
him, and that a policeman then “sics the dog on me and tries to make me said
that I burglarized this building with my partner and all this.” He said that the only
reason he entered the building was because the officers forced him to do so at
gunpoint.
The Defendant argues that “no rational trier of fact could have found the
Defendant’s contentions so unfounded in this record or so unreasonable that it
could have found him guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt.” We
respectfully reject this argument. W e believe that a rational trier of fact could
have credited the testimony of the police officers and discredited the testimony
of the Defendant. This is obviously what the jury did.
W e conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding by the
trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, this appeal has no
merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________
DAVID H. W ELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
-4-
___________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-5-