### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove mb er 12, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. ON TRE LL JA MES

Appeal from t he Circuit Court for M adison County No. 07-456 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2008-00890-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed Jun e 5, 2009

A M a dis on Cou nty jury c on vic te d th e de fe nd a nt, On tr e ll Ja me s, of a gg ra vate d ro bb e ry , a Cla ss B felony, a nd resisting arr est, a Class B misdemeanor. O n ap peal, the de fendant argue s that the evidenc e produced at trial was insufficient to support his aggra vated robbery c onviction because the evidenc e did not establish beyond a r easona ble doubt that he knowingly obtain ed or exe rcised control over

the prope rty of anothe r. Afte r re viewing t he record, w e conc lude that the evide nce w as sufficie nt to sustain the conviction and there fore aff irm the judgment of the trial c ourt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d.

D. K EL LY T HOMAS , J R ., J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I P TO N , P.J., and A LA N E. G LE NN , J., joined.

Ge or ge Mo rt on Go og e , Dis tr ic t Pu bli c De fe nd e r; a ndGr e go ry D. Go ok in, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, fo r the app e lla nt, On tr e ll J a me s.

R o b er t E. Cooper, Jr., A ttorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; Cameron L. Hyde r, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; James G . (Jer

ry) W oodall, District Attorney Ge nera l; and Shaun A. Brown and Bria n Gilliam, Assist ant District Attorneys Ge nera l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

This case resulted f

rom an incide nt at a Madison County convenie nce store. T he store’ s cler k, Attia El Sayed, and two c ustomers prese nt during the incident, S cott Cupples and Donald Ray, testified for the State at t rial. At approximate ly 4:45 the m orning of May 5, 2007, a man wearing a hat a nd bandana

covering his face enter ed the store . The man pointed a rifle at Mr. El Sayed and demande d money. Mr. El Sayed, who testified that he felt afr aid during the incident, told the assailant that the store had little money, but the as s ai l an t re p ea ted his demands. The cler k then place d the ca sh drawe r on the counter. The a ssailant approa ched thecounter but turned to look at Mr. Cupples. Mr. El Sayed, noticing that the a ssailant was “ losing control” of the rifle, grabbed the gun and pushed it aw ay fr om him. Mr. Cuppl es and Mr . Ray then tackled the assailant, a nd the threeT h e d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th is c o n v ic tio n o n a p p e a l. 1

-2- me n g ot i nto a n a lte rc a tio n. Du ri ng the str uggl e, th e as sa ila nt’ s f

a c e be c a me vis ibl e a ft e r h is ba nd a na fe ll f ro m hi s f a c e . A t tria l, the thr e e wi tne sse s ide nti fi e d the de fe nd a nt as the a ssaila nt, wi th Mr. El Sayed testifying that he r ecogniz ed the de fendant as a re gular c ustomer at the store

.

Mr . E l Sa ye d c a lle d 9 11 , a nda sh ort ti me la te r Of

fi c e r Phi lli p St a nf

ill , a patr ol s e rg e a nt w ith the Jac kson Poli ce D epartment, arrive d at the store. U pon entering the store, he saw the def endant struggling with Mr. Ray a nd Mr. Cupples. Offic er Stanfill orde red the defe ndant onto the ground, bu t th e de fe nd a nt r e fu se d, wh ic h le d O ff ic e r S ta nf ill to atte mpt to phy sic a lly re str a in the de fe nd a nt. The de fendant struggled with O ffice r Stanfill, but afte r Offic er Stuart Cepparulo and other Jackson police off icer s arrived, the def

endant wa s arr ested.

Of note, Mr . El Sayed, Mr. Cupples, and Mr. Ray all acknow ledged on c ross-examination that th e de fe nd a nt d id n ot p ull a ny mon e y o ut o f the c a sh re gis te r and didno t pu t a ny mon e y in his pocket. The defe ndant did not testify or prese nt witnesses on h i s b eh al f. The jury found the defe ndant guilty of one count of a ggravated robbery and one c ount of resisting arr est , as cha rged 1 in the indictment. The def endant subseque ntly filed a timely notice of a ppeal.

ANALY SIS

Th e de fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e e vid e nc e pr od uc e d at tria l w a s in su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt his conviction for a ggravat ed ro b b ery. Specifica lly
, the def endant c ontends that bec ause he never touched the mone y that Mr. El Sayed plac ed on the c ounter, he never obtained or exerc ised control over the money. The State c ontends that the ele ments of the off ense we re es t ab l ished beyond a

rea sonable doubt bec ause the defe ndan t o btained construc tive possession of the money whe n the

c le rk pla c e d it on the c ou nte r a s o rd e re d b y th e arm e d d e fe nd a nt.

An appe llate cour

t’s standard of

revie w when the defe ndant questions the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e on appe al is “whe ther, a fter v i ew i n g t h e evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the
prosec ution, any

rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime beyond

a re a so na ble do ub t.” Jac ks on

v. Vi rg ini a

, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (empha sis in orig i n al ). T he

a pp e llate cou rt do es no t r e we ig h th e e vid e nc e ; r a the r, it p re sume s th a t th e jur y ha s r e so lve d a ll conflicts in the testimony and drawn all rea sonable infere nces f rom the evide nce in f

avor of the State. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) ; State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. Qu es t i o ns reg ardingwitness cre dibilit y , conflicts in testimony , and the we ight a nd value to be given to evidenc e were resolved by the jury . See State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . A guilty

verdic t removes the pr esumption of innocenc e and r ep l ac es it with a presumption of guilt, and on appea l the d ef en dant has the bur den of illustrating why the evidenc e is insuff icient to support the jury ’s ver dict. I d.; State v. Tug g le, 639 S .W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). This standard a

pplies to findings of guilt based upon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidence , or a combination of both dir ect and circ umstantial e vidence

. State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W .3d 389, 392- 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)

.-3-

Te nn e sse e ’s c ri min a l c od e pr ov ide s th a t a g g ra vat e d r o b b e r y i s “ [a ]c c o m

p l ish e d w itha

de a dly

we a po n o r b y dis pla y of any art ic le us e d o r fa sh ion e d to le a d the vic timto r e a so na bly be lie ve it t o be a de adly

wea pon; or . . . [w] here the vi ctim suffer s serious bodily injury .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-402(a )(1) -(2) (2003). Robber y is defined a s “the intentional or knowing theft of proper ty from the per son of another

by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r.” I d. § 39-13-401( a) ( 2003). “A
person c ommits theft of pr operty if, with intent to deprive the owne r of pr operty , the per son knowing ly obtains or exercises control over the proper ty without the owner’ s eff ective c onsent.” I d. § 39-14-103. I n this c ase, most of the elements of the offe nse we re c lear ly met, as Mr. El Say ed and the two custom ers testified that the defe ndant demande d money and bra ndished a rif

le at the c lerk, who testified that he wa s place d in fea r by the def endant’ s actions. Th e on ly e le me nt at is su e in this

case is whether the defe ndant k n o wi n gly obtained or e xerc ised control over the money in Mr. El Sayed’s c ash re gister.

Th e Te nn e sse e Patte rn

Jury I ns tr uc tio ns de fi ne “ e xer c ise c on tr ol o ve r p ro pe rt y ” a s:

[T] he rig ht to direct how prope rty , rea l or persona l, shall be used or disposed. Ge ne ra lly on e mus t po sse ss the ri g ht of po sse ssi on in pr op e rt y in or de r t o ex e rc ise control over

it. Such possession may be actua l or constructive, sole or joint. Also,

o n e m ay h av e t h e r i g h tt o c o n tr o l p r o p e rty w i th o u t h av i n g a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t

. In such instance s, if th e d ef en dant takes some a ction with the intent to deprive the

owner of the prope rty , and the de fenda nt did so knowing ly and without the owner’ s eff ective consent, t he jury

would be justified in returninga ver dict of guilty . Any one who is in a position to t ake some action that depr ives the owne r of p ro p er ty is in a
po sit ion to e xer c ise c on tr ol.

T.P.I . - C rim. 11.01. Constructive possession occur s when a person knowing ly

has “‘ the power

and th e inte n ti o n a t a g iv e n ti me to e xe r c is e d o mi n io n an d c o n tr o l o v e r an o b je c t, e it h e r direc tly or throug h others.’” State v. Wil liams, 623 S.W .2d 121, 125 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (quoting United States v. Craig , 522 F.2d 29, 32 ( 6th Cir. 1975)). “ The mer e pre sence of a pe rson in an ar ea where [an object is] discovere d is not, alone, suff icient to support a findingthat the per son possessed” the object. State v. Cooper, 736 S.W.2d 125, 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) ( citations omitt ed).

In this case, while the defe ndant neve r ca me in t o ac t ual possession of the money , the defe ndant’s dema

nds for money

and pointing a gun at the conve nience store cle rk, couple d with the cler k’s placingthe ca sh draw er on the counter a nd the def endant’ s subsequent movement to snatch the ca sh drawe r, depr ived the cle rk of his possessory rig ht to the money . At that point, the de fenda nt acquir ed construc tive possession over the mone y in that he exhibit ed the “powe r and intention . . . to exercise dominion and control ove r” the money . As such, the e vidence s u p p o rt ed the jury ’s finding beyond a re asonable doubt th at the def endant “ exercise[d] control over the prope rty of another without the owner’ s eff

ective c onsent.” We there fore aff irm the defe ndant’s ag g ravat ed robber y conviction.

CONCLUSION-4-

Upon consider ation of the for egoing and the rec ord as a whole, the judgment of the trial court is affirme d.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE