### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 7, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JOSEP H ED WAR D C OLE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Gibson Coun ty No. H 7565 Clayburn Pee ples, Jud ge

No. W2005-01895-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 15, 2006

Af te r a be nc h tria l, the De fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f b ur g lary , a Cla ss D fe lon y , an d the ft of pr op e rty under the value of

five hundre d dollars, a Class A misdemeanor. SeeTenn. Code Ann. §§39- 14-402,

- 1 0 3 , - 1 0 5 ( 1 )

. A f

t e r c o n d u c t i n g a s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , t h e D e f e n d a n tw a s s e n t e n c e d a s a R a n g e III , persistent off

ender to serve te n y ear s in the D ep artment of Correc tion for his burg lary conviction. He re c e ive d a

c on c ur re nt s e nte nc e of

e le ve n mo nth s a ndtw e nty -n ine day s inthe c ou nty ja il f or his theft conviction. I n this appea l, the Defenda nt arg ues t hat t he evide nce is insuffic ient as a matter of l aw t o s u p p o rt h i s co n v i ct i o n s an d t h att h e t r i a l co u rt erre d b y o rd er i n g h i mt o s er v e am i d -r an ge
se nte nc e fo r the bu rg lary

c on vic tio n. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tria l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Rache le Scott, Trenton, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, J oseph Edwa

rd Cole.

Paul G . Su mme rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Da vidH. F ind le y , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Gary Br own, District Attorney Gene ral; and Edw ard L . Har dist er , As s i stant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

F AC TS

Th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tria l e sta bli sh e d th at in Ma

rc h of 20 04 , th e vic tim

in this c a se , M s. Dawn Petty , resided in the c ity of Humbol dt. At about 2:30 a.m. on Marc h 24, 2004, Ms. Pettyhear d a noise outside her

house. Suspecting that there was a prowler around he r house, she telephoned the police.-2-

Offic er Robert Ellis, a lieutenant with the Humbo l d t Police Depa rtment, testified that he

rec eived the report of a prowler at t he P etty residenc e at a

pproxi mately

3:19 a.m. He a

rrived at the residenc e withi n two minutes after the ca ll was rec eived. L

t. Ellis was in the backy ard a rea of the residenc e when he heard a noise coming from the g ara g e or outbuilding behind the re sidence . He approa ched the outbuilding and f ound the Defenda nt inside wrappe d up in a piece of ca rpet. Ne ar the doorway

of the outbuilding he found a c hainsaw, some e lectric hedg e shears and a leaf blower. Ms. Petty identified t hese items as being her pr operty . She testified that she ke pt these items in the

ou tbu ild ing in a “ ba c k are a that wa s wa lle d of f fr om the ma in are a , so fo r tho se t o h ave co me forwa rd, someone w ould have ha d to have dug them out f rom the very back of the g ara g e and c arried t h em t o t h e f

ro n t

. ” S h e s t at ed t h atn o o n e h ad h erp er m i s s i o n t o b e i n t h e o u tb u i l d i n g.

Th e De fe nd a nt te sti fi e d tha t he too k med ic a tio n for HIV, a nda t th e tim e he wa s f ou ndin M s. Pe tty ’s ou tbu ild ing , h e had als o be e n ta kin g sle e pin g pil ls. He state d th a t, “ Th e pil ls m ake me drowsy and stuff and I

was just wondering (sic) and I ended up in there , y ou know, wra pped up and g oing to slee p.” He stated that he kne w nothing a bout the items that were found nea r the doorw ay of the outbuilding. H e ex p l ai n ed t h at even though he lived “[j] ust around the c orner ” fr om the victim’s residence, he w as too tired and sle epy to make it back to his re sidence . The De fendant d en i ed t h ath e e n t er ed t h e b u i l d i n g wi t h t h e i n t en tt o s t ea l an y t h i n g.

On cr oss-examination, the Defe ndant stated that he did not rec all how he got into the victim’s bu ild ing

. He c ou ld n ot r e c a ll w he the r h e ma de a ny no ise that mi g ht h a ve c aus e d th e vic tim to c a ll the police. When aske d about his prior convic tions f o r b u rglary

and ag g ravated burg lary , the De fe nd a nt s ta te d th a t he c ou ld n ot r e me mbe r, say ing “ [m]y min d d on ’t

e ve n g o b a c k th a t f

ar.

. . .my mind -- I take mind altering dr

ug s is what I ’m saying. It comes and g oes.”

At the conc lusion of the proof, the trial court found the De fendant g uiltyof burg lary of a b u i l d i n g (n o ta h ab i t at i o n ) an d t h ef t o f p ro p er t y o f a v al u e u n d erfi v e h u n d re d d o l l ar s

. Fo l l o wi n g a subsequent sentenc ing hearing, the trial court de termined the D efe ndant to be a Ra ng e I I I , persistent offe nder. F or t he C lass D felony burg lary conviction, the De fendant’s sentenc ing r ang e wa s betwee n eig ht and twelve y ea rs. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 112(c) (4). Noting the Def endant’ s “sig nificant criminal rec ord,” the trial court f ound that the Def

endant should not be sente nced to the minimum in the rang e, and set his sentence mid-rang e at ten y ear s to be serve d in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. For

the m isdemeanor theft offense, the trial court sentenced him to a conc urre nt term of e le ve n mo nth s a ndtw e nty -n ineday s in the c ou nty jail.

AN AL YSI S The De fendant appea ls from his conviction and sente nce, a rg uing that the evidenc e p r e s e nted is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ing of

g uil t be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t a ndthat hi s se nte nc e is excessive.-3- SUF F ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE Tenne ssee Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 13(e) presc ribes that “[ f]indings of g uilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidenc e is insuff icient to support the finding s by

the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.” A convic ted criminal defenda nt who cha lleng es the suff

iciency of the e vidence on appea l bear s the burden of demonstrating why the evidenc e is insufficient to support the ve rdict, bec ause a verdic t of g uilt destroy s t h e presumption of innoce nce and imposes a pre sumption of guilt. See S tate v. Evans, 108 S .W.3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Te nn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . This Court must reje ct a c onvicted cr i m i n al defe ndant’s cha lleng e to the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence if, afte r considering the evidenc e in a lig ht mos t favora ble to the prosec ution, we determine that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. See J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).

On app e a l, th e S tate is e nti tle d to thestr on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f the e vid e nc e a nda ll

rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be dra wn t here from. See C arr uthers, 35 S .W.3d at 558; Hall, 8 S.W .3d at 599. A g uilty verdic t by the trier of fac t a ccr edits the testimony of the State’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s all c on fl ic ts in the e vid e nc e in f a vo r o f the pr os e c uti on ’s the ory . Se e State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1 9 97). Que stions about the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weig ht and value of

the evidenc e, as w ell as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e are resolved by the trier of fac t, and this Court will not re- weig h or re- evaluate the evidenc e. See E vans, 108 S.W.3d at 236; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 659. Nor w ill thi s Court substi tute it s o wn i n fer ence s drawn f rom circ umstantial evidence for those dr awn by the trier of

fac t. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236 -3 7; Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 557.

As relative to this case, a pe rson commits burg lary when, without the ef

fec tive consent of the property owner , the per son enters a building other

than a ha bitation, whic h is not open to the public, with the intent to commit theft. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14- 402(a) (1). A pe rson commits theft wh e n, wi th the int e nt t o d e privethe ow ne r of pr op e rty , a pe rs on e xer c ise s c on tr ol o ve r the pr op e rty of another person without the owner’s effec tive consent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103. From the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d in thi s c a se , thetrie r o f f a c t c ou ld r e a so na

bly fi nd , b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t, that th e De fe nd a nt e nte re d th e vic tim ’s ou tbu ild ing wi tho ut h e r ef fe c tiv e c on se nt an d move d it e ms of the vic tim ’s pr op e rty

to the fr on t e ntr a nc e of

the bu ild ing in p re pa

ratio n f or re mov ing theite ms. Th e tr ia l judg e , as tr ie r of fa c t, obv iou sly dis c re dit e d the De fe nd a nt’ s explanatio n tha t he h a d s imp ly enter ed the building to go t o sleep. We conc lude that the evide nce is suff icient to support the finding s of the trier

of fa ct of g uilt of burg lary and theft bey ond a re asonable doubt. This issue has

no me ri t.E f fect i ve June 7 , 20 0 5 , t he l egi sl at ure ame nd ed cert ai n pro vi si o ns o f our sen te n c ing l aws. H o wever, t he 1
D ef endan t ’ s cr i mes i n t hi s ca s e, as wel l as hi s s ent enc i ng , pre dat e t he ef fect i ve dat e of t hes e amendment s

. O ur r evi ew i n t h i s c as e i s i n a cc or dan ce w i t h t h e s t at u t es i n e f fec t a t t h e t i me t h e cr i mes w er e commi t t ed.

-4- SENTE NCING 1 Be fore a trial c ourt imposes a sentence upon a convicted criminal defe ndant, i t must consider (a) the evidenc e adduc ed at the trial and the se ntencing hearing; (b) t he presentenc e re port; (c) the principles of se ntencing and ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (d) the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) evidenc e and inf ormation offe red by the parties on the enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code Annotated sections 40-35- 113 and 40-35- 114; and (f) any statement the de fendant wishes to make in t h e d ef en dant’s own behalf about s entenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b); State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (T e nn . 2 00 2) . T o faci litat e app e llate re vie w, thetr ia l c ou rt is r e qu ir e d to pla c e on there c or d it s
rea sons fo r imposing the spec ific sentenc e, including the identification of the mitigating and enhance m en t fa ctors found, thespecific fac ts supporting e ach e nhance ment fac tor found, and the

me tho d b y

wh ic h th e mitig a tin g a nde nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s h a vebe e n e va luated and bal a nc e d in determining the se ntence . See State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001).
Upon a c halleng e to the sentence imposed, this court ha s a duty to conduct a de novo revie w of the sente nce w ith a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are corr ect. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) . Howeve r, this presumption “is conditioned upon the af firmative sh ow ing in there c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll r e le va nt f a c ts and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, that the court imposed a lawf ul sentence afte r having g iven due c onsid er ati on and prope r we ight to the f actor s and principles se t out under the sentenc ing la w, and that the trial court’s findings of fac t are adequately supported by

the re cord, then the pre sumption i s appl i ca b l e, an d we may not modify

the sentenc e eve n if we w ould have pref err ed a dif

fer ent re sult. S ee State v. F letcher , 805 S.W . 2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

. We will uphold t he sente nce imposed by the t rial court if (1) the sentence complies with the purposes and principles of t he 1989 Sentencing Act, and (2) the trial court’s findings are adequate ly supported by the re cord. See State v. Arne tt, 49 S.W .3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001). The burde n of showing that

a sentenc e is imprope r is upon the appea ling party

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 Sentenc ing Commi ssion Com ments; Arnett, 49 S.W.3d at 257.

F or the De fe nd a nt’ s Cl a ss D fe lon y c on vic tio n, thetr ia l c ou rt de te rm ine d the De fe nd a nt t o be a Ra ng e I I I , pers is ten t of

fe nd e r. Se e Te nn . Co deAn n. § 4 0- 35 -1 07 . T he re c or d s up po rt s th is finding , and the De fendant does not arg ue other wise. The D efe ndant does a rg ue that the trial court did not make suffic ient finding s on the record to support enhanc ing the Def endant’ s sentenc e to ten y ear s, which is mid-rang e. The De fendant also arg ues that this Court should m odify the sentenc e to eig ht y ear s, which is the minimum in the rang e. I n addition, the Def endant a rg ues that this Court should order a

sentenc ing a lternative to inca rce ration.W e n ot e t hat t he St at e a r gu es t hat , becau se t he D ef endan t was s ent enc ed as a Rang e I I I offender , “ t he t r i al 2

c o u rt w a s m a n d a te d to se n te n c e the D e fen d a n t t o the m a x im u m o f t w e lve ye a rs .” It ap p e a rs tha t t h e S ta te ha s m istak e n ly d et erm i ned t hat t he D efend ant was sent enced as a “ career offend er” i n whi ch case t he m axi m um s ent ence i n R ange III

wo ul d be m and at o ry

. H o wever, i t i s cl ear f rom t hi s reco rd t hat t he t ri al co urt fo und t he D efend ant t o be a “ p ers i st ent of fen der ” wh i ch me an s t h at t h e D ef en dan t c ou l d r ec ei v e a s en t en ce w i t h i n Ran g e I I I

. Se e T en n

. Code An n

. § 40- 35- 1 0 7 (c).
-5- At the tim e of

se nte nc ing , th e De fe nd a nt w a s th irty -n ine y e ars old a nd sin g le

. I n a dd iti on to having acc umulated the five prior felony convictions nece ssary to establish his status as a pe rsistent offe nder, the Def

endant ha s numerous misdemeanor convictions including theft, assault, criminal impersonation, and DU I . I ndeed, it appe ars that the D efe ndant has more than t welve se parate theft convictions. I n determining that the Defe ndant’s sentence should be enhance d above the statutory minim u m , t h e trial court c ommented on the De fendant’s “sig nificant c riminal rec ord.” The presentenc e report also ref

lects t hat t he Defendant dropped out of hig h school following the tenth g rade

. The re port sites a long history of illeg al drug usag e. I t appea rs the De fendant has no history of steady employ ment. The De fendant’s extensive recor d of crimin al convictions and criminal behavior support and justify

the enhanceme nt of his sentence to the middle of his sentencing rang e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(2) ( 2004).

Ba sed upon our r eview of the record, we cannot c onclude that the trial court e rre d by setting the Def endant’ s sentence at ten y ear s to be serve d in the Depa rtment of Correc tion. This issue ha s
no me ri t. 2
The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE