### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Ja nua ry 11, 200 5 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. STEV EN TOTTY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Gibson Coun ty

No. 7196 Clayburn Pe eples, Judge

No. W2004-01916-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled March 9, 2005

The de fenda nt appea ls his conviction for sexual battery , contesting the suffic iency of the e vidence and asse rting ineffe ctive assistanc e of tr i al co u n sel. Following our re view, we conclude that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support the c onviction. The iss ue of ine ffe ctive assistanc e is waive d for failure to per fe ct t he re cord, c ite to releva nt authority , or re fer ence the re cord. A ccor dingly , we

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

C. TimothyCrocker , Milan, Tenness ee (o n appea l), and M. Scott Smit h, J ackson, Te nnessee (at
t r i a l )
, f o r t h e ap p e l l a n t , S t e v e n T o t t y.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Willis, A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Gar ry G. B rown, District Attorne y Gene ral; and Edw ard L . Har dister, Assistant D i s t ri ct Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Fa cts and Proce dural History

F oll ow ing a

jury tr ia l, the de fe nd a nt, Ste ve n Tot ty , wa s con vic te d of se xua l bat te ry (a Cla ss E felony ). The tr ial court subseque ntly sentenc ed him to two y ear s as a Rang e I offe nder; a

motion for new trial was then filed by the def endant a nd denied by

the trial court. On appea l, the defe ndant contends that: (1) the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support the sexu al b at t ery conviction, and ( 2)

c ou ns e l r e nd e re d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e a t tria l. U po n r e vie wi ng the re c or d, br ie fs , a ndapp lic able la w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.-2-

Viewe d in a light most favor able to t h e S t at e, t he re cord r efle cts that the victim and the defe ndant first met whe n the victi m b ega n wo rking at B acky ard B urg ers in De cembe r 2001. The de fe nd a nt a ndhis e mpl oy e e s a te a t th e re staur a nt a pp ro xima te ly

thr e e to f ou r t ime s w hil e the vic tim worke d there as a c ashier a nd occa sionally delivere d food t o the t ables. The victim testified t hat, on one occasion, t he defenda nt asked him his ag e. When the vi ctim replied that he was seventee n, the defe ndant inquired a s to when he turne d eig hteen a nd further informed the vic tim that he could take a job with the def

endant’ s construction compan y wh en h e reache d the ag e of e ighte en. The defe ndant told him that no ex perie nce was nec essary and that he w ould rec eive on- the-job training in air conditioning and heating r epair

. Shortlythere afte r, the victim stopped w o rk i n g at B acky ard B urg ers a nd beg an wor king a s

a se rv e r a t the Ste ak- n- Sha ke re staur a nt. Th e vic tim state d that the de fe nd a nt a ndhis e mpl oy e e s a te

a t th a t r e staur a nt a s w e ll a ndthat th e de fe nd a nt r e ite rate d th a t th e job of fe r s til l st oo d u po n th e vic tim turning eig hteen.

S h o r t l y a f t e r th e v i c t i m ’ s e i g h t e e n t h b i r t h d a y , h e b e g a n w o rk i n g f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o m p an y. The c ompany ’s work w as desc ribed by the victim as “odd a nd end home i m proveme nt,” and the victim’s job r esponsibiliti es we re de scribed a s being a “g opher,” retrie ving e quipment, and aiding the de fe nd a nt o n jo b s ite s.

On t he afternoon of

Fe bruary 19, 2002, the victim and the def endant we re r

unning e rra nds

a ndsto pp e d b y

the de fe nd a nt’ s h ome , w he re he liv e d w ith his mothe r, to d ro p o ff so me e qu ipm e nt. As the victim was putting a way some of the e quipment in the corne r of an adjacent shed, the defe ndant ca me up behind him, pinned him ag ainst a wor k b en ch, and “forc ed his hand into [the victim’s] pants,” touching the victim’s g enitalia. The victim testified that the pants he wore that day “we ren’ t bag g y ” and that the def en d an t “had to for ce his way in there.” The victim furthe r stated that the incident happe ned quickly beca use he immediate ly “bac ked [t he defe ndant] off ” and aske d the def endant what he was doing . The victim testified that, i n response , the def endant a pologized and aske d the victim if he could pay the vi ctim to perf orm oral sex on him. The victim ref used, and the def endant a pologized.

The victim and the defenda nt then l eft to g o to a job site, at which time the victim’s ea r beg an hurting , causing him to leave work ear ly

. The victim wa s diag nosed with a n ear infec tion a nd was instructed not to go to wor k the next day . He state d that he missed the next two day s of work but
returne d on the third day

to pick up his c heck. At that time, the victim took a digital audio r ecor der with him in order to rec ord any statements t he defenda nt might make reg arding the i ncident. The victim rec orded an extended conver sation with the defendant in which he apolog ized for the e arlier
encounte r and proposed additional sexual contac t with the vi ctim. The victim did not return to work afte r that day

and sig ned a w arr ant for the sexual batte ry ch ar ges t h ereafte r. The de fenda nt was ultimately

convicted a s char g ed.

Th e de fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls t o th is C ou rt , c ha lle ng ing the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to

su pp ort th e c on vic tio n a nda sse rt ing ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l.-3- An a ly sis

I . Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e

The defe ndant initially contends that the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support his conviction fo r s e xua l batte ry ; sp e c if

ic a lly , th e de fe nd a nt a ve rs that th e Sta te fa ile d to pr ov e that he a c te d w ith the re quisite force or coe rcion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505( a). In determining the suff iciency of the e vidence , this Court does not reweig h or re evalu at e t h e evidence. State v. Ca bbag e, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). A jury verdic t a pproved by the trial judge accre d i t s t h e S t ate’ s witnesses and r esolves all conf licts in favor of the State. State v. Big bee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994)

.

On app e a l, the Sta te is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w of the e vid e nc e a nda ll leg itimate or rea sonable infe renc es that may be draw n there from. I d. This Court will not disturb a

ve rd ic t of g uil t due to the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e un le ss the de fe nd a nt d e mon str a te s th a t th e fa c ts contained in the r ecor d and the inferenc es t hat m ay be drawn t here from are insufficient, as a ma tter

o f law, f or a r ational trier of

fac t to find the acc used g uiltybey ond a re asonable doubt. State v. B re we r, 93 2 S.W. 2d 1, 19 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ). Ac c or din g ly , it is the app e llate c ou rt ’s du ty to aff irm the conviction i f t he evidence, viewed under t hese standa rds, was suf

ficient for any rational trier of fac t to have found the essential ele ments of the off ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. T enn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Vi rginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994).

Th e pe rt ine nt s ta tut e state s th a t, (a) Sex ual battery

is unlawful sexual contact w i t h a victim by the def endant or the de fe nd a nt b y

a vic tim a c c omp a nie d b y

a ny of the fo llo wi ng c ir c ums ta nc e s: (1 ) F or c e or

c oe rc ion is u se d to a c c omp lis h th e a c t; (2) The sexual contac t is acc omplished without the consent of the vi ctim and the defe ndant knows or ha s rea son to know at the time of the c ontact that the vic tim

didno t c on se nt; ( 3 ) T h e d e f

e n d a n t k n o w s o r h a s r e a s o n t o k n o w t h a t t h e v i c t i m i s m e n t a l l y defe ctive, mentally incapa citated or

phy sically

helpless; or (4) The sexual contact is acc omplished by fraud. (b) As used in this section, “coe rcion” means the threa t of kidnapping , extorti on, forc e or violenc e to be pe rformed immediately or in the future

. ( c ) S e x u a l b a t t e r y i s a

C l a s s E f e l o n y. (d) When imposi ng sentenc e under the p ro v i s i o n s of title 40, chapte r 35, for a conviction under

this sec tion, the court shall consider a s an enha nceme nt fac tor that th e de fe nd a nt c aus e d the vi c tim to b e me nta lly

inc apa c itate d o r p hy sic a lly helpless by

use of a controlled substanc e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-505 (2004). The defe ndant in this case challeng es the suff iciency of the

e v i d e n c e a s i tp e r t a i n s t o t h e u s e o f f o r c e o r c o e r c i o n n e c e s s ar y t o c o n s t i t u t e s e x u a l b a t t e r y.-4-

I n the pre sent ca se, the jury acc redited the testimonyof the victim, who stated that the defe ndant “pr essed up a g ainst [hi m] and pinned [him] betwee n the bench an d fo rce d [t he defe ndant’s] hand into [ the victim’s] pants.” When questioned as to the amount of force used bythe de fe nd a nt, the vic tim re pli e d that, “ [Th e de fe nd a nt] ha d to fo rc e his way in the re

. I me a n, [the pa nts ]

we re n’ t ba g g y

c lot he s b y a ll m e a ns .” F ina lly , th e vic tim te sti fi e d th a t he ha d d on e nothi ng to indicate c onsent to the defe ndant’s ac tions. W e conc lude that these f acts we re suffi ci en t for a rational trier

of fa ct to find the ele ment of for ce or coer cion bey ond a re asonable doubt. There fore
, we wi ll n ot d istur

b th e jury ’s ve rd ic t.

I I . I neff ective A ssistance of Counsel

Second, and finally
, the defendant contends that he rece ived i neff ective assistance of

counsel beca use t rial counsel appea

red ex tremely nervous, spil led water on more tha n one occ asion, fell out of his chair , and advise d him not to t estify at trial despite his desire to do so.

I nit ia lly , w e no te that app e lla te c ou ns e l, in a sse rt ing ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

tr ia l c ou ns e l, h a s h i m s e l f f

a i l e d t o i n c l u d e t h e t r a n s c r i p to f t h e m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l i n t h i s r e c o r d
, c i t e t o a u t h o r i t y,

or re fer ence the re cord in support of his c ontention. We would remind appellate counsel that fa ilure to do any o f t he above may result in a wa iver of the issue on appea l. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b).

Moreove r, this Court has previously held that ra ising the issue of ineffe ctive assistanc e on direc t appea l is “fraug ht with peril.” State v. Ande rson, 835 S.W.2d 600
, 6 0 7 (T en n

. Crim. App. 19 92 ). I n ra isi ng thi s is su e on app e a l, “ the app e lla nt r un s th e ri sk

of ha vin g the iss ue de nie d d ue to a proc edura l default, or in the al t er n at i ve having a pane l of this Court consider the issue on the

me r it s

. ” I d

. I n th e p r e s e n t c a s e , ap p e ll a te c o u n s e l h a s f a il e d to c o mp le te th e mi n im a l ta s k s of perf ecting the rec ord, citing authority , and re fer encing the re cord, a nd has there by waived the issue at the only

point at which it may

be litigated.

I n his brief, the de fenda nt c ontends that trial counsel “lost cre dibilit y ” with the jury when he appea red ne rvous, spilled water , and fe ll out of his chair. We note that neither manual dexterity

nor

overa ll coordination are prer equisites to a finding of ef fec tive assistance of counse l. Moreover
, althoug h the def

endant a rg ues that cou n s e l a

p p e a r e d nervous, the r ecor d ref lects that his perf

ormanc e pr ov e d o the rw ise

. Th e tr ia l tr a ns c ri pt re ve a ls tha t c ou ns e l th or ou g hly e xami ne d th e de fe ns e wi tne ss and rig orously

cross-e x amined the State’ s sole witness, the victim in this c ase. Furthermore , counsel diligently objected to the a dmission of testim ony and other

evidenc e and wa s gen era lly a zealous advocate.

The de fenda nt further contends that c ounsel was inef fec tive in advising him not to testify at trial despite his desire to do so. On t he contrary , the trial transc ript ref lects that a brief he aring was he ld i n w hic h th e de fe nd a nt a ff ir me d th a t he wa s a wa

re of h is rig ht t o te sti fy

a ndthat it

wa s h is decision not to exercise that rig ht in this matter. The rec ord is simplydevoid of a ny evidenc e-5-

supporting the defe ndant’s ar g ument.

Conclusion

B e c a us e the re is s uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e in the re c or d to su pp ort th e c on vic tio n a ndbe c a us e the issue of inef

fec tive assistance is waived, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

__________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE