### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 26, 200 7

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TYMETRI C LEJ UAN GRAHAM

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 252471 Douglas A. Meye r, Judge

No. E2006-02502-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 4, 2008

T h e d e f e n d a n t , T ym e t r i c L e

j u a n G r a h a m , w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y, a C l a s s B f

e l o n y,
a nd wa s se nte nc e d to tw e lve y e a rs a s a Rang e I , s tand a rd

of fe nd e r. On

a pp eal , he a rgue s th a t hi s ind ic tme nt c ha

rg e d a tte mpt e d a g g ra

va te d r ob be ry

on ly a nd that, th erefo re , th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in submitt ing the char g e of a g g ravated robbe ry to the jury . We ag ree and reve rse the judg ment of the trial court. We re mand for e ntry of a c onviction and sentenc e for attempted ag g ravated robbe ry

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d; Ca se Rem anded

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the co u rt , in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Mik e A. L itt le , Ch a tta

no og a , T e nn e sse e , f

or the a pp e lla nt, Ty me tr ic L e jua n G ra ham.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At tor

ne y Ge nera l and

Re po rt e r; L a c y

Wilb e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam H. Cox , I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and L ila J ay ne Statom and L eslie Anne L ong shore, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

This case rela tes to the robber y of a B uffa lo Wi ld Wi ng s restaur ant in Chattanooga. The defe ndant was c harg ed in connection to the robbe ry . The e vidence prese nted at trial prove d that on September 6, 2004, two ma sked men, one brandishing a g un, stole $822 from the r estaura nt’s safe

. The mana g er o n d u ty

at the time, Ry an Selzer, testified that while he was takingout the trash, he opened the back door

to find two men standing outside the door. He said that he saw their fa ces but that th e me n quic kly c ov e re d the ir fa c e s w ithba nd a na s. He sa id o ne of

the me n p oin te d a

g un a t hi m and dire cted him to the offic e whe re the safe was located. Two other employ ees were in the office and testified that the ma

n car rying the g un order ed that they g ive hi m the m oney from the safe. An employ ee f

illed a burlap sa ck with all the bil l s t h at were in the saf e and g ave the sack to the ma n-2-

car rying the g un. The two men the n left the re staurant. Mr. Selzer later identified the def endant a s the g un man f

ro m a ph oto g ra ph ic lin e -u

p. On e of the e mpl oy e e s a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e ro bb e r w ith the g un had a tattoo on his a rm in the shape of

flames. Evide nce show ed that the de fenda nt had a tattoo on his arm that included flames.

The de fenda

nt’s former

g irlfriend te s t ified that she wor ked at B uffa lo Wi ld Wi ng s around the time of the robbe ry . She said that a few day s befor e the robber y , the def endant a sked her

about the se c ur ity

g ua rd s at th e res tau rant. She a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt d id n ot w or k b ut t ha t,

so me time aft er th e ro bb e ry , h e se e me d to have a larg e a mou

nt o f m on e y

a nd bo ug ht n e w c lot

he s, shoes, and jewelry

. On S eptember 10, 2004, the defendant had $380 in cash on his person a nd was with a companion who ha d $1355 in cash.

The de fenda

nt did not testi fy

or pre sent evidenc e at the tr ial. I n the d ef endant’s opening statement and c l o s i n g ar gu m en t, he did not deny that a robbe ry

occur red, but he did deny

that the evidenc e prove d his identity as an a ssailant.

At issue in this case is w hat offe nse was c harg ed by the indictment and whe ther the tria l court

err ed by submitt ing to the jury a cha rg e that wa s not encompasse d by the indictment. Although the indictment is sty led on its cover pag e as a true bill for the cr ime of “a g g ravated robbe ry ,” T.C.A. § 39 -1 3- 40 2, the lang ua g e of the ind ic tme nt d e sc ri be s th e de fe nd a nt’ s o ff e ns e a s f oll ow s:
Ty me tr ic L e

jua n G ra ham he re tof

or e on Se pte mbe r 6 , 2 00 4, in [ Ha mil ton County ], di d unla

wf ull y a nd int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

a tte mpt to ta ke pr op e rt

y fr om the pe rs on of

Ry a n Se lze r, the pr op e rt

y of B uffa lo Wi ld Wings, by violence or putting the victim i n fea r, and the def endant a ccomplished the offe nse with a deadly wea pon or by di s p l a y o f a n y a rt i c l e u s e d o r f a s h i o n e d t o l e a d t h e v i c t i m to

rea sonably

believe it to be a deadly

wea pon, in violation of Tennessee Code A nnotated 39-13- 402, ag ainst the pea ce a nd dignity of the State.
(empha sis added). A t the beg inning of trial, the cour t informed the de fenda

nt and the jury

that the defe ndant was on tria l for ag g ravated robbe ry . Howeve r, af ter the se cond witness, Mr. Selzer, t e s t i f i e d , t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e o c c u r

r e d o u to f t h e p r e s e n c e o f

t h e j u r y:

THE COURT: He is c harg ed with attempt[ ed] armed

r o b b e r y, n o ta r m e d r o b b e r y. [P ROSECUTOR] : There ’s a mistake in the indictment. .

. . [DE F EN SE CO UN SEL ]: I t loo ks lik e we ’r e on tr ia l fo r atte mpt

. TH E CO UR T: Hm m? [DE F EN SE C OU

NSE L ]: We’ re on

tr ia l f or a tte mpt

. THE COURT: Yea h.-3- [P ROSECUTOR] : There ’s a mistake in the indictment. TH E CO UR T: Do e s h e wi shto s e ttl e a ll h is c a se s?

The de fenda

nt then reje cted a

state pl ea offer involving his pleading g uilty to attempted ag g ravated robber y , a C lass C felony , and the trial resumed. L ater , the t rial court addre ssed t he prose cutor a nd defe nse counse l reg arding jury instructions and informed the m that it would only submit t o the jury the cha rg es of attempted ag g ravated robber y and attempted robber

y

. After the close of

the proof, the

s t a t e o f f e r e d a c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t , d

u r i n g w h i c h i te x p l a i n e d

t o t h e j u r y,

Th e c ri me c ha

rg e d is a n a g g ra

vate d r ob be ry . T he c ri me de sc ri be d [in the indictment] i s an attempted a g g ravated robbe ry

.

. . . .
I t would be unfa ir to put this defen d an t on trial for a n ag g ravated robbe ry i f h i s notice is of an attempt[ ed] ag g ravated

ro bb e ry

. S o th e Sta te wi ll n ot b e a llo we d, c a nn ot b e a llo we d to ch arge him with the ag g ravated robbe ry or to ask y ou to come bac k

w i t h a g u i l t y v e r d i c to n a n a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y.

Howeve r, we can a

nd we int end to s how y ou how our proof not only fits a n ag g ravated robber

y , but also an attempted a g g ravated robber y , and that is a crime that y ou can f ind the defe ndant g uilty

of.

After arguments, the court g ave the jury instructions, w hich included the char g es of at t em pted ag g ravated robbe ry

and attempted robber

y only . After

the instructions, the trial re cesse d for lunch, and the state asked the court to instruct the jury on the cha

rge o f aggra

vated r obbery , arguing that despite the ty

pog raphic al er

ror in the indictment, the de fenda nt was on not ice that he was c harg ed wi t h aggr av at ed ro b b er y

. T h e c o u rt agr ee d t o ch ar ge a ggra v at ed ro b b ery , s t at i n g,

Irea lly believe that, that the i ndictment is controlled by what’s in the . . . body of i t, so I think that obviousl y it has to be an a ttempt, but I ’m g oing to c h a n g e th e c h a r g e , s in c e th e St a te c a n n o t a p p e a l, a nd I ’m g oing to a llow the jury

to consider a g g ravated robbery , even thoug h,

a s I say , I ’m po sit ive that it can’ t, so I ’l l le t th e Court of Ap pe a ls

corr ect it.

But what I will ch ar g e is ag g ravated robbe ry , attempt[ed]

a g g ra va te d r ob be ry , r ob be ry

a nd a tte mpt to c omm it r ob be ry , s o I

wi ll g o ahea d and cha

rg e those.

. . . .-4- Wha t I ’m do ing , I ’m

inv iti ng the Court of

Ap pe a ls t o, to t e ll me I ’m wrong ; otherwise, if the y t el l me I ’m rig ht, then he ca n be convicted of

ag g ravated robbe ry

. When the jury

returne d from lunch, the tr ial court instructe d them that
[t ]he indictment contains the word “attempt,” and the lang uag e in the b o d y o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t c o n t r o l s , b u t I ’ m g o i n g t o a l l o w y ou to consider whether or not the defe ndant was g uilty o f a ggravated robber y or attempt[ ed] ag g ravated robbery or robbe ry

or attempt[ed] robber y

. The jury returne d a ver dict of g uilty of ag g ravated robbe ry

.
I n this appeal, the de fenda nt contends t hat the trial c ourt err ed in allowing the cha rg e of ag g ravated robbe ry

to be consider ed by

the jury and that, theref

o re, his ag g ravated robbe ry conviction is invalid. The state counters t hat t he trial court errone ously allowed the state to amend the ind ic tmen t aft er je op a rd y ha d a tta c he d b ut t

hat th e e rr or

wa s h a rm le ss. Th e state a rgue s, sp e c if ic a lly , th a t th e de fe nd a nt w a s o n n oti c e of a n a g g ra vate d r ob be ry c ha

rg e a nd that th e e rr or

did not a ffe ct the defe ndant’s trial strateg y , as his de fense was ba sed on identity and he ne ver que stioned that a robbe ry

occur red.

Both the U nited Sta t es and Te nnessee constitutions guar antee an ac cused “ the rig ht to be informed of

the natu re an d ca u s e of the a ccusation.” State v. Hill, 954 S.W .2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 19 97 ) ( c iti ng U. S. Co ns t. a me nd

. VI , XI V; Te nn

. Con st. a rt

. I , § 9)

. I n Hi ll, our s up re me c ourt he ld that “an indictment is valid if it provides suff icient information (1) to enable the acc used to know the ac cusation to which a nswer is re quired, (2) to furnish the c o u rt adequa te basis for the entry

of

a pr op e r j ud g me nt, a nd

(3 ) t o p ro te c t the a c c us e d fr om d ou ble je op a rd

y .” I d. Th e ind ic tme nt m us t also state the f

acts c onstitut ing the offe nse “in ordinary and concise lang uag e, without prolix ity or
re pe tit ion , in

su c h a mann e r a s to e nab le a

pe rs on of c omm on un de rs tand ingto k

no w w ha t is intended, and w ith that deg ree of cer tainty , which will enable the cour t, on conviction, to pronounce the prope r judg ment.” T. C

. A. § 4 0 -1 3 -202. A defenda nt cannot be c onvicted of a n offe nse not char g ed in the indictment or other char g ing instrument. See S tate v. Trusty , 919 S.W .2d 305, 314 (Tenn. 1996) , overr

uled on other g rounds by

State v. Bur

ns, 6 S.W .3d 453 (Tenn. 1999)

.
I n th e p r e s e n t c a s e , t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u rt p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u ry

to consider the char g e of a g g ravated robber y , we must de termine whether the indictment char g es that offe nse. We hold that it does not. W hether by m i s t ak e o r n o t , t he off ense de scribed by

the indictment is attempted ag g ravated robbe ry . The state c ites case s which hav e stated tha t an indictment’s “spec ific re fer ence to a statute may be suff i ci en t to provide an a ccuse d notice of the char g ed offe n s e

. ” St a te v

. Sl e d g e , 1 5 S. W. 3 d 9 3 , 9 5 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( c it in g St a te v

. Ca rte r , 9 88 S.W .2d 145, 149 (Tenn. 1999) ; Ruff v. State, 978 S.W .2d 95 (Tenn. 1998)). Howeve r, in holding that the ind ic tme nts a t issu e we re su ff ic ie nt, tho se c a se s re ly on

the statut or

y c itatio n c omb ine d w ith-5-

the lang uag e in the body

of the indictment. I d

. ; s ee also Ruff, 978 S.W.2d at 100 (“[W ]here the constitutional and statutory require ments outlined in H i l l ar e m et, an indictment which cites the pertinent statute a

nd uses its lang uag e will be suff icient to support a convic tion.”) (e mphasis added) ; State v. J oe David Sloan, No. W2000-02861-CCA-R3-CD, Madison County , slip op. at 5-6 (T enn. Crim. App. J an. 4, 2002). F urthermor e, that the indictment cited the ag g ravated robbe ry statute does not make it sufficie ntly

clea r that the c harg e is ag g ravated robber y , instead of attempted a g g ravated robber y , beca use ag g ravated robber

y is the underlying of

fense at issue in the attempt cha rg e. In other words, an indictment f

or attempt normally

cites the statute of

the under ly ing of

fense

.
We note that the record indicates that until the t rial court raised dur ing the trial the issue of the attempt lang uag e in the indictment, both the state a nd the def

endant a ppare ntly operated under the assumption th at the indicted c harg e wa s ag g ravated robbe ry . Howeve r, what the defe ndant actua lly believed he was c harg ed with is irrele vant if the indictment does not provide authority for a convic tion on that charg e. I n J o e David Sloan, this court, upon plain e rror revie w, held that the

c on vic tio n f

oll ow inga jur

y tr ia l of fe lony e va din g a rr e st wa s no t va lid wh e n the ind ic tme nt w a s o nly sufficie nt to charg e misdemea nor eva ding arr est. I n that case , neither the parties to the case nor the trial court a

ppare ntly rea liz ed the insuff

iciency o f t he indictment, and a ll procee ded upon the

a ssumpt ion

tha t th e c ha rg e d o ff e ns e wa s f

e lony e va din g a rr e st. Re g a rd le ss o f t his , a nd re g a rd le ss of the fa ct that t he evidence at trial supported a felony evadingarr est conviction, this court re verse d that conviction bec ause “it is .

. . clea r that a defe ndant cannot be convic ted of a n offe nse not cha

rg ed in the indictment.” J oe David Sloan, slip op. at 5. The same is true in the pr esent c ase; be cause the indictment, by

its langua g e, cha

rg ed attempted a g g ravated robbe ry , the def endant c an n o t be

c on vic te d o f a g g ra

va te d r ob be ry , a

n o ff e ns e no t c on ta ine d w ith in t he ind ic tme nt.

On a pp e a l, the state c ha

ra c te ri zes the a c tio ns of the tr ia l c ourt a s a llo wi ng a n ame ndme nt t o the ind ic tme nt , which , a lth ou g h e rr on e ou s, wa s n ot h a rm fu l to the de fe nd a nt. Re g a rd ingthi s
c on te nti on , w e fi rs t no te that it is n ot c le a r f

ro m th e re c or d that the tr ia l c ourt wa s a llo wi ng the state to a mend the indictment r ather than char g ing the jury on ag g ravated robbe ry

under the assumption that th e or ig ina l in dic tme nt s up po rt e d th a t c ha rg e , a s th e stat e a rgue d it did . Se c on d, a s th e state

conce des, any

amendment to the indictment at that stag e of the p ro ce ed i n gs, after the state a

nd defe ndant had c ompleted their trial pr oof and ma de their c losing a rg uments and just b ef

o re jury deliberations, was improper. Rule 7(b) of the Te nnessee Rules of C ri m inal Procedur e allows a n indictment to be amende d at any time w ith the defe ndant’s consent or, if withou t t h e d ef en dant’s consent, be fore jeopar dy

attache s and only if “no additional or differ ent offe nse is c harg ed and no substantial rig ht of t he defenda nt is prejudice d.” I n this case , amending the indictment afte r jeopa rdy attache d to allow a new char g e viol ated this rule. F inally , we r ejec t the state’s a ssertion that the er ror was ha rmless bec ause it did not aff ect the r esult of t he trial. The state a rg ues that the de fenda

nt was sufficie ntly

notified o f an agg ravated robbe ry char g e and pr epar ed his defe nse to this charg e. Howeve r, as we explained, the indictment did not sufficie ntly char g e ag g ravated robber y , despite the defe ndant’s subjec tive assumptions and belief that it di d. Moreove r, the fa ct that the def endant’ s trial strateg y was not a ffe cted is not signific ant. The defe ndant was prejudice d by the trial cour t’s

err or to allow the jury t o co n s ider the c harg e of a g g ravated robbe ry beca use, as a result, he wa s convicted of

a cr ime for whic h he wa s not charg ed.-6-

B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g a nd the re c or d as a wh ole , we c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in allowing the j ury

to consider the c harg e of a g g ravated robbe ry . Be cause the indictment char g ed the d e f e n d a n t w it

h a tt e mp te d

a g g r a v a te d

r o b b e r y , w e r e v e r s e th e c o n v ic ti o n o f a g g r a v a te d r o b b e r y

. We reduc e the c onvict i o n to attempted ag g ravated robbe ry , a Class C felony , and re mand the ca se for

a new sentenc e for

this conviction.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, PRES I DI NG JUDGE