### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 20, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. N ATH AN JAC K C HILDRESS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lin coln County No. S0600131 Robert C rigler, Judge

No. M2007- 01770-CCA -R3-C D - F i led Jun e 10, 2008

The de fenda

nt, Nathan Jack Childress, w as convicted of theft over $1,000, a Class D felony , afte r taki n g a d

u mp tr u c k f r o m a c o n s tr

u c ti o n s it e d

u r in g h is e s c a

p e f r o m p o li c e c u s to dy . He wa s
se nte nc e d to tw e lve y e ars a s a Rang e I I I , c are e r o ff

e nd e r f or thi s off e ns e . Add iti on a lly , h e ple d g uil ty to a cha rg e of e scape and wa s sentence d to six y ear s for that off ense, w ith the sentence s to run

consec utively

to one another

and to hi s unfulfilled sentenc es for a total ef fec tive sentenc e of e ighte en y ear s in the Tennesse e Department of Corr ection. On a ppeal, he contends that the e vidence was ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ve rd ic t. Af

te r c are fu l r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt f

ro m th e tr ia l c ourt

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

J OHN E V E R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

He rs he ll D . K og e r, Pul a sk i, T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Natha n Jac k Ch ild

re ss.

Ro bert E. Co op er, J r., At to rney Gen e r a l a n d Re po rt er; J . R os s D y er, S eni or C ou ns el; Ch arl es F. Crawf ord, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral; and H olly

n L . Hewgley

and B rooke C. Gr

ubb, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

O nN o v e mb e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e d e f e n d an t , w h o w a s i n c u s t o dy f o r a c h ar g e o f a g g r a v a t e d

r o b b e r y,
esca ped throug h the ce iling of the hol ding cell. Two wit nesses testified that they saw a dump truck

run over a sec urity

fenc e and le ave a

construction site adja cent to their home on the eve ning of the defe n d an t ’s es ca pe. The next m orning , the witnesses saw that a fe nce ha d been tor n down and phon e d th e p o li c e

. T h e o w n e r o f th e d u mp tr u c k te s ti f ie d th a t it h a d b e e n s to le n an d that the defe ndant did not have pe rmission to drive the truck.

Th e po lic e ob ta ine d inf

or ma tio n c on c e rn ingthe de fe nd ant’ s w he re a bo uts in M a

ur y County and stake d out the location. The defe ndant arr ived on the scene and was promptly arr ested. Police-2-

dis c ov e re d a

se t of ke y s on the de fe nd ant, and he a c kn ow le dg e d th a t th e ke y s b e lon g e d to the du mp truck. The police took the key s to the location of the dump truc k, also in Maury County , and used them to start the vehicle

.

An a ly sis

On appe al, the def

endant c ontends that the evide nce in insuff icient t o support his theft conviction. Specific ally , he ar g ues that the evidenc e ag ainst him wa s wholly circ umstantial and that no evidenc e wa s prese nted that he wa s seen dr iving the dump truc k. Howeve r, the fac ts presente d

a t tr ia l are c on tr ary

to the de fe nd ant’ s argume nt. Th e te sti mony a t tr ia l de mon str a te d th a t th e dump tr uc k w a s st ole n f

ro m th e c ounty

in w hic h th e de fe nd ant e sc a pe d and wa s dis c ov e re d in t he c ounty in which he was apprehe nded. When he was arr ested, he was in possession of the ke y s to the stolen dump truck. F u rt h er, the testimony of the Maur

y County Sheriff’ s Detec tive ref

lected that the defe ndant ac knowledg ed that the ke y s belong ed to the stolen dump truck.

When an ac cused c halleng es the suff iciency of the e viden ce , this court must review the

rec ord to determ i ne if the e vidence adduce d during the trial wa s sufficient “ to support the finding by the tr ie r o f f

a c t of g uil t be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ). Th is r ule is applicable to findings of g uilt pre d i ca t ed u pon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidence , or a
c omb inatio n o f d ir e c t and c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e . St a te v. B re we r, 93 2 S.W.2 d 1 , 1 8 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1996).

I n deter mining the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, this court does not rew eig h or ree valuate the

e vid e nc e . St a te v. Ca

bb a g e , 5 71 S.W. 2d

83 2, 83 5 ( Te nn . 1 97 8) . N or may thi s c ourt

su bs tit ute its infere nces f

or those dra

wn by the trier of

fac t from circ umstantial ev i d en ce

. L iakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 8 5 9 (1956). To the contra ry , this court is require d to affor d the State the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f t he e vid e nc e c on ta ine d in

the re c or d, a s w e ll a s a ll r e a so na ble and leg itimate inf

ere nces which may be dra wn from the e vidence . State v. Elkins, 102 S.W .3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003)

.
Th e tr ie r o f f

a c t, n ot thi s c ourt , re so lve s qu e sti on s c on c e rn ing the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s, the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, a s well as all fa ctual issues ra ised by the evidenc e. Id

. In S t a t e v

. G r a c e , t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u rt s t a t e d t h a t “ [ a ] g u i l t y v e r d i c t b y t h e j u r y,
a pp ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c re dit s th e te sti mon y of the wi tne sse s f

or the State and

res ol ves a ll conflicts in favor of the the ory of the State.” 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

.

Be cause a ver dict of g uilt removes the p re s u m p t i o n of innoce nce a nd repla ces it with a pr e su mpt ion

of g uil t, t he a c c us e d h a s th e burd e n in thi s c ourt

of ill us tr a ti ng wh y

the e vid e nc e is insufficient to suppor

t the verdic t r eturne d by

the trier of

fac t. State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) ; Grac e, 493 S.W.2d at 476.

Circumstantial evidenc e a lo n e ma y b e suff icient to support a convic tion. St ate v. Tha rpe, 726 S.W .2d 896, 899-900 (Te nn. 1987); State v

. Gr egory , 862 S.W .2d 574, 577 (Tenn. Crim. App.-3-

1993). Howe ver, in orde r for this to occur , the circumstantial evidenc e mus t be not onl y consistent with the g uilt of the acc used but it mus t also be inconsistent with innocenc e and must exclude eve ry other rea sonable theory or hy pothesis e x cept that of g uilt. Tharpe , 726 S.W .2d at 900. I n addition, “it must e s ta

b li s h s u c h a c e rta in ty o f g u il t o f th e a c c u s e d a s to c o n v in c e th e mi n d bey ond a

reas o n able doubt that [the defe ndant] is t he one w ho committed the crime.” I d. (quoting Pruitt v. State, 460 S.W .2d 385, 390 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970) ).

Whil e foll o wi n g the above g uidelines, this court must remember that the jury

decide s the weig ht to be g iven to c ircumstantial evidenc e and “[t] he infere nces to be draw n from such evide nce, and the e x tent to which the cir cumstance s are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocenc e
are qu e sti on s p ri mari ly fo r the jur y .” Ma ra ble v. State , 3 13 S.W. 2d

45 1, 45 7 ( Te nn . 1 95 8) ; se e a lso Gr e g or y , 86 2 S.W. 2d a t 57 7; State v. Cou ry , 69 7 S.W. 2d 37 3, 37 7 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ); Pr uitt, 460 S.W .2d at 391.

I n T e nn e sse e , w e fo llo w the g e ne ra lly a pp roved rule tha

t pr oo f o f p os se ssi on

of re c e ntl y stolen g oods, if not satisfac torily explained, give s rise to the infer ence that the possessor ha s stolen them. Bush v. St ate, 541 S.W .2d 391, 394 (Tenn. 1976) . The de fenda nt was found in possession of the ke y s to the stolen dump truck. The dump truc k was stolen in L incoln County on the day

he

esca ped fr om custody . Fur

ther, the dump truc k was re cover ed in Maury County and the de fenda

nt

wa s app reh e nd e d in

Ma ur y County . We c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his

c on vic tio n o f t

he ft

.
Conclusion

Ba sed on the for eg oing a nd the re cord a s a whole, w e conc lud e t h at t he evide nce w as sufficie nt to support the guilty verdic t and, ac cording ly , aff irm the judg ment from the tria l court.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE