IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
JULY 1999 SESSION
October 6, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9902-CC-00057
Appellee, * McNAIRY COUNTY
VS. * Honorable Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge
PATRICK FORD, * (Burglary--Theft of Property over $1000)
Appellant. *
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
WILLIAM KEN SEATON PAUL G. SUMMERS
P.O. Box 366 Attorney General & Reporter
Selmer, TN 38375
J. ROSS DYER
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
ELIZABETH T. RICE
District Attorney General
ED NEAL McDANIEL
Assistant District Attorney General
302 Market Street
Somerville, TN 38068
OPINION FILED: _______________
AFFIRMED
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS,
Judge
OPINION
The defendant, Patrick Ford, was convicted of burglary and theft of
property valued between $1000 and $10,000 following a jury trial in the McNairy
County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the Department
of Correction for concurrent sentences of two years on the burglary and four
years on the theft, to be served consecutively to a prior unrelated sentence. The
defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient for a
reasonable trier of fact to have found the elements of the offenses beyond a
reasonable doubt. After review, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
In the light most favorable to the state, see State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d
832, 835 (Tenn. 1978), the record shows that law enforcement officers parked a
surveillance van near the Townhouse Apartments in Selmer, Tennessee, on the
evening of October 7, 1997. The van was equipped with a camera mounted in a
glass dome, a VCR, radios, televisions, headphones, and other surveillance
equipment. Residents of the apartments testified that they observed the
defendant and an accomplice, Leonard Williams, looking at the van the following
morning. Williams apparently spotted the camera on the van. The defendant
went to the apartments, borrowed a baseball bat, and then returned to the van
and knocked off the camera. He then dismantled the camera, apparently taking
out the tape.
The two left but returned a few minutes later with a third person, Fredrick
Robinson. The defendant knocked out the driver’s side window of the van with a
hammer, unlocked the door, and the three men entered the van. A short time
later, witnesses observed them exit the van with some Polaroid pictures and an
-2-
intercom. Later that day, the defendant’s two accomplices were seen leaving the
van with a VCR and some tapes.
At approximately five o’clock that evening, a law enforcement officer
noticed that the window of the van was broken and that the tires had been cut.
Upon further investigation, he found that the VCR, several tapes, the intercom, a
set of headphones, and the camera were missing and that other parts of the van
had been vandalized. The total replacement cost of the missing and damaged
items exceeded $11,500. The replacement costs of the camera, lens, and lens
extender were $900, $850, and $195 respectively. The intercom was valued at
$75.
ANALYSIS
The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support
either of his convictions. When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, this Court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn.
1985); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). The state is entitled to the strongest legitimate
view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.
See Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835 (Tenn. 1978).
The credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the
reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted exclusively to the
trier of fact. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v.
Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). A jury verdict for the state
accredits the testimony of the state’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor
of the state. See State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983).
-3-
Moreover, a guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence enjoyed by
defendants at trial and replaces it with a presumption of guilt. See State v.
Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Thus, an appellant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence carries the burden of illustrating to this Court why the
evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. See State v. Freeman, 943
S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
The defendant has not carried this burden. Regarding his burglary
conviction, the defendant concedes that the testimony was sufficient to establish
the elements of this offense. He argues only that the state’s witness who
testified that she saw the defendant enter the vehicle was not credible. The
challenged evidence was competent to go to the jury, and the credibility of
witnesses is an issue for the trier of fact. This argument is without merit.
As to the defendant’s theft conviction, the Code provides that “[a] person
commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the
person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the
owner’s effective consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. Theft of property is a
Class D felony if the property is valued between $1000 and $10,000. See Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-14-105. The defendant cites Tennessee common law
preceding these code sections for the proposition that theft requires a “taking
and carrying away,” and he emphasizes that the intercom was the only item that
he was seen “taking and carrying away.” As noted above, however, the statutory
offense does not require this element. Rather, it is sufficient that the offender
“knowingly obtain[s] or exercise[s] control over the property.”
In addition to evidence indicating that the defendant broke into and
vandalized the van, the state presented specific proof that the defendant
exercised control over both the camera and intercom. These items were worth,
-4-
collectively, in excess of $1000. The state’s proof that the defendant destroyed
the camera and carried away the intercom sufficiently indicated his intent to
deprive the owner of the property. Finally, the state presented testimony that
neither the defendant nor his accomplices had permission to enter the vehicle or
to exercise control over any of the equipment. Therefore, we find the evidence
sufficient as to each element of theft.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
_____________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge
_______________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., Judge
-5-