### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 24, 200 6

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DORRIS L EE MARKUM

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Warre n Coun ty No. F -9361 Larry B. Stanley, Judge

No. M2004- 02884-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 17, 2006

Th e app e lla nt, Do rris L e e Ma rk um, wa s in dic te d on tw o c ou nts of a g g ra va te d b ur g lary , tw o c ou nts of ar son and two counts of the ft of prope rty under f ive hundre d dollars. Af

t er a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of all char g es. As a r esult, he wa s sentence d as a Rang e I I multipl e off

ender to an ef fec ti v e s entence of twe nty y ear s. After

the denial of

a motion for new trial, the appe llant
appea ls, arg uing tha t the evidence was insufficient to support his arson c onvictions and that the trial court improper ly

instructed the jury

on arson. F or the following rea sons, we af firm the judg ment of the trial court.

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

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Michelle M. B enjamin, Winchester, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Dorris L ee Ma

rkum

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Sophia S. L ee, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; and Dale Potter, D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On De c e mbe r 21 , 200 2, a t aro un d 8 :30 p. m., Cha rl ott e He lto n c a lle d th e a uth or iti e s in War re n Co un ty to repo rt

a ve hic le on fi re a t he r h ome loc a te d a t 64 9 L os s Cr ou c h Ro a d in Mc Min nv ill e , T e nn e sse e . Ms. He lto n told the a uth or iti e s tha t she sa w a m a n a ndwo ma n try ing to

move a van that was lodged on a re taining w all outside her home. When the two w ere unsucce ssful in removing the van f

rom the wall, the man se t the van on fire . The va n was e ng ulfed in flame s by the time the fire department arrived. The police later de termined that the va n was re g istered to the appellant’ s father . The tag s on the ca r we re issued to B eth I vey , the woman trying to move the van.-2-

Billy J oe Crouch, a vol unteer fire marshal, re sponded to the ca ll at Ms. Helton’s residenc e. Whil e ther e, he hear d a smoke detec tor g o off at a neig hboring residenc e located at 721 L oss Crouch Road. The home be longe d to Caressa N okes, who c ame home f rom churc h to find her house on fire. When Ms. Nokes arrived home, the r esidenc e wa s filled with heavy smoke. After

the smoke cle are d, Ms. Nokes discover ed that the home w as damag ed and had been burg larized. The fr ont window and

scre en we re br oken and the front door w as open. B oth of Ms. Nokes’s c hildren’s rooms we re d a m a g e d i n t h e f

i r e a n d t h e d r a w e r s w e r e p u l l e d o u t o f t h e i r d r e s s e r s

. A t e l e v i s i on se t a nd VC R

me lte d d ur ing the fi re . A dd iti on a lly
, a ma ttr e ss wa s c omp le te ly de str oy e d in on e of the be dr oo ms. I n the kitchen, a ll four ey es on the stove we re r ed and glowing
, and there was a larg e pil e of f laming debris on top of the stove. T he per petra tor had tampe red w ith the presents that we re unde r the Christmas tree. F urther, ma ny items wer e m issing fr om the Nokes’s r esidenc e, including
pres cri ption me dic a tio n, c os tum e je we lr y , k niv e s, a nda c ig are tte lig hte r e ng ra ve d w ith the na me “Care ssa.”

Eliz abeth Jaco, a resident of 491 L oss Crouch Road, hea rd the c ommotion at Ms. Helton’s residenc e and w ent to investigate. When she re turned home about five minutes la ter, she found that someone ha d broken into he r home and started a fire. The ey es on the stove we re a ll turned on and oil f r o m a k e r o s e n e l a m p h a d b e e n p o u r e d o v e r t h e e y e s a n d i n s i d e t h e o v e n

. M s

. Jac o’ s h ome

su ff e re d s mok e da ma g e . T he fr on t w ind ow a nda sto rm wi nd ow we re br ok e n. Ad dit ion a lly , M s. J aco’ s home was bur g larized, and he r purse was stolen.

Offic er Chad Ma

rtin of the Warr en County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment was c alled to Ms. Helton’s residenc e in re sponse to the vehicle fire. When he ar rived, he discovere d a fe male passe ng er f rom the va n, B e t h I v e y , t o b e p a s s e d o u t a n d u n r e s p o n s i v e , l y i n g i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e r o a d

. Af te r M s. I vey reg ained c onsciousness, she re fused tre atment from a n ambulance that was c alled to the sce ne. Ms. I vey was plac ed in the bac k of a patrol car and cited f

or public drunke nness.

Offic er Martin rec eived a call about the fire at Ms. Jaco’s residenc e while investig ating the vehicle f ire. As Ma

rtin and anothe r off

icer g ot rea dy t o i n v es t igate the fire at the Jaco reside nce,

so me on e y e lle d o ut “ the re he g oe s” a nd ind ic a te d tha t the su sp e c t wa s run nin g a c ro ss the str e e t in to

a nea rby wooded are a. Offic ers Seth Webb a nd Cory Knowles saw Offic er Ma rtin beg in pursuit of the suspect a cross a

field and joined in the chase

. Following the suspect’ s tracks, O ffice r Knowle s located a purse a cross t h e street f

rom the Jaco residenc e nea r a tre e. Ms. J aco la ter identified the
purse a s hers. Of

fice r Webb found Ms. Nokes’ s came ra w ithin a few f eet of Ms. J aco’ s purse.

Offi cer M art in recei ved a th ir d cal l regardi ng ano th er fi re ala rm on L os s C rou ch R oad . By th a t ti me , h e h a d lo s t tr a c k o f th e s u s p e c t. A f e w mi n u te s late r , a s O f

f ic e r M ar ti n w a s s it ti n g n e xt to a bar n, he saw the suspect r un acr oss a field. Of

fice r Martin called for

backup a nd followed the suspect on foot. Offic er Martin appr ehende d the appe llant a fe w minutes later whe n the appe llant tripped over

a fe nce. The appellant identified hi mself as “ L ee Ma rkum.” Of

fice r Martin placed the

app e lla nt u nd e r a

rr e st a ndse arc he d h im f

or we apo ns

. Of

fi c e r Ma rt in re c ov e re d se ve ra l pil l bo ttl e s, knives, watc hes, a ring, a

lighter and a c amer a ca se fr om the appellant’ s person. The items were later ide nti fi e d a s b e lon g ing to the No ke s.-3-

I n Marc h of 2003, th e ap p el l ant was indicte d by the Warre n CountyGra nd J ury with two

c ou nts of a g g ra va te d bu rg lary , tw o c ou nts of ars on , tw o c ou nts of

the ft un de r $ 50 0 a ndva nd a lis m. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of two counts of ag g ravated burg lary , two counts of

arson a nd two counts of thef t. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten y ear s for e ach c ount of
ag g ravated burg lary , ten y ear s for e ach c ount of arson a nd eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s for

e a c h cou nt of th eft. T he tr ia l c ou rt or de re d th a t th e te n- y e ar s e nte nc e fo r a g g ra va te d b ur g lary in
count one r

un concur rently to the t en-y ear sentenc e for arson in count t wo. L ikewise, the tria l court order ed the ten- y ear

sentenc e for

ag g ravated burg lary

in count four to run c oncurr entlyto the teny ear sent en ce fo r arson in count five. The trial court or dere d the eleve n month, twenty -nine da y sentenc es for

theft to run concur

rently to the ag g ravated burg lary and ar son sentence s. The trial c ourt order ed the two e ffe ctive ten- y ear sentenc es to run consecutively to eac h other, for a tot al ef fec tive

se nte nc e of

tw e nty y e ars

.

Th e app e lla nt f

ile d a mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l, a rg uin g that th e e vid e nc e was in su ff ic ie nt t o support the convictions, that the police did not examine his clothes to asce rtain “the prese nce of any

acc eler ates [sic] or smoke residue cor robora ting whe ther he was the pe rpetrator,” a nd that the trial
court e rre d in introducing photogr aphs of the phy sical evidence rather than t he actual i tems. The trial

c ou rt de nie d th e mot ion fo r n e w t ri a l, a nd the app e lla nt fi le d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l. O n a

pp e a l, the app e lla nt p re se nts the fo llo wi ng iss ue s: ( 1) wh e th er the e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his

arson c onvictions; and (2) whe ther the tria l court fa iled to properly instruct the jury

on arson.

An a ly sis

First, the a

ppellant complains that the e vidence was i n s u ff i cient to establish t hat he

c omm itt e d a

rs on . Sp e c if

ic a lly , th e app e lla nt co nte nd s tha t “c ir c ums ta nti a l evi de nc e lin kin g him to the ars on wa s insu ff

ic ie nt to exc lud e e ve ry oth e r re a so na ble the ory or hy

po the sis e xce pt tha t of h is
g uil t of the c ri me s. ” Th e Sta te dis a g re e s.

When a def

endant challeng es t he sufficiency of the e vidence , this Court i s oblige d to review that claim ac cording to certain well-settled pr inciples. A ver dict of gu i l t y , rende red by a jury and

“ app ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c redit s th e testimo ny of the ” Sta te ’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll conflicts in the testimony

in favor of t he S tate. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). Thus, althoug h the accused is originally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocenc e, the jury verdic t of g uiltyremove s this presumption “and re place s it with one of g uilt.” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1 9 8 2 ). He nce, on a ppeal, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insuff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ng c ou rt mus t a ns we r i s w he the r a ny ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the ac cused g uiltyof eve ry element of

the offe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha

rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making this decision, we ar e to ac cord the State “the strong est leg itimate vie w of the e vidence as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces tha t may be dra wn there from.” See Tug gl e, 639 S.W .2d at 914. As such, this Court is preclude d from re

weig hing or rec onsidering the evidenc e whe n evalua ting the c onvicting pr oof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d38 0, 38 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sta te v. Ma tth e ws , 8 05 S.W. 2d 77 6, 77 9 ( Te nn . Crim.-4-

App. 1990). Moreover, we may not substit ute our own “ infere nces f or those dra wn by

the trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 8 0 5 S

. W.2d at 779. Questions concerning the

cre dibilit y of the witnesses a nd the weig ht and value to be g iven to evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual iss ue s r a ise d b y

su c h e vid e nc e , a

re re so lve d b y the tr ie r of fa c t a ndno t th e app e lla te c ou rt s. Sta te v. Pruett, 788 S.W

. 2 d 5 5 9
, 5 6 1 (Tenn. 1990) . Further, a conviction may

be base d entirely

on circ umstantial evidence when the fac ts are “so clearly interwove n and conne cted that the f inge r of
g uilt is pointed unerr ingly at the def

endant a nd the def

endant a lone.” State v. Smith, 868 S.W .2d 561, 569 (Tenn. 1993) (quoting State v. Dunca n, 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985)). I f the trier of fac t can determine from the proof that all other reasona ble t heorie s except that of guilt are e x cluded, the e vid e nc e is s uf

fi c ie nt.

Arson is committed by

one who knowing ly damag es any structure by means of a fire without the conse nt of all persons who ha ve a posse ssory , proprieta ry or security interest ther ein. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-301( a)( 1). View ing the evidenc e in a li g ht most favor able to the St ate, the e vidence

was more than suffic ient to support the arson c onvictions. I mmediately prior to the vehic le fire , the

ap p e l l a n tw a s s e e n e x i t i n g h i s v a n b e s i d e M s

. H e l t o n ’ s h o m e

. T h e p a s s e n g e r i n t h e v a n , B e t h Iv e y,

wa s f ou ndpa sse d ou t a nd un re sp on siv e by the a uth or iti e s. I mme diate ly a ft e r tha t, t wo ho us e s w ith in close proximit y

wer e set on fire and burg larized in the same manne r, the fr ont windows were broken out, the houses wer e ra nsacke d, the ey es of the stoves wer e turned on and debris was set on fire on top of th e s t o v es

. T h e appellant was seen le aving the cr ime scene shortly afte r the fir es and w as taken into custody

while in possession of items stolen from the two houses that wer e burg larized. Th e e vid e nc e , a s p re se nte d, po int s th e fi ng e r of g uil t une rring ly a t the app e lla nt. Th e jury wa s a mpl y justified in concluding that the appe llant was g uilty of two counts of a

rson. This issue is without

me ri t.

J ury I nstructions on Arson

Next, the appellant contends tha t t h e t rial court erre d in instructing the jury on arson. Specifica lly , the appe llant arg ues that the trial c ourt should have instructe d the jury on the lesser

included off

ense of “setting fire to pe rsonal prope rty ,” as defi n ed in Tennesse e Code Annota ted section 39-14- 303.

Th is C ou rt has pr e vio us ly de te rm ine d th a t se tti ng fi re to p e rs on a l pr op e rt y or la ndis n ot a lesser- included off

ense of arson. See State v. Gene Shelton Rucker, Jr., No. E2002-02101-CCA-R3- CD, 2004 WL

2827004, at *8-9 (T enn. Crim. App., at Knoxvill e, Dec

. 9, 2004), perm. a pp denied (T e nn . M ar. 21 , 2 00 5) . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE