### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs J

uly 18, 2001 

### STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NORDE LL BUGGS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 99-D-3045 Carol Soloman, Judge

No. M2000-02759-CCA-R3-CD - Filed November 9, 2001

Defendant

contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools. We affirm the judgments from the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed
J OHN E VERETT W ILLI AMS , J., deliver ed th e opinion of the court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and J OSEPH M. T IPTON , J., joined. Larry B. Felts, Nashvi

lle, Tennessee,

for the appellan

t, Nordell Bugg

s. Paul G. Summers, A t torney General and Reporter; Thomas E. Williams II I, Assistant Attorney Gener al; Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III , District Attorney General; and Ky mberly L. A. H

aas , Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee

.

OPINION
On December 13, 19

99, defendant wa

s indicted by

a David son C ounty grand jury on four charges: attempt to commit burglary, possession of burglary too ls, posse ssion of drug paraphe rnalia, and criminal imper sonation. After a

two-day tri

al, the jury

found defendant

guilt y on all charges. At the close of the State’s proof and a t the end of

all proof, counsel for defendant made an oral motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charges of attempt to commit bur g lary and possession of burglary tools. The motions wer e denied. Aft er the verdict, counsel also filed a written motion for judgment of acquittal and request for a new trial. T his motion was also denied.
Defend ant

was sentenced on July 27, 2000, and ordered to serve six yea rs as a care e r off ender for the att emp ted bur glar y con vic tio n, e lev en m ont hs a nd t wen ty-n ine days at s even tyfive perce nt for the possession of burglary tools and drug parapher nalia convictions, and si x months at seventy-f

ive percen t for the criminal impersonation conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. The sentences were stay ed pending defendant’s screening for the Davidson County drug court. O n November 29, 2000, defendant’s judgments were amended and he was placed in Community Corrections, the Residential Drug Court Progra m.2

Defendant

asserts that the State relied on circumstantial evidence alone in sending the case to the jury. O

n appeal, defen

dant contends tha

t there was insuf

ficient evidence to support his convictions of a

ttempted burgla

ry and posse

ssion of burglar

y tools.
Facts
At approximately midnight on October 14, 1999, Ser g eant Patrick Taylor of the Metropolitan Nashville Police D epartment was pa

trolling on Clarks

ville Hig hway in Nashville, David son County. He observed a station wagon parked next to Bert’s Men’s and B oys’ Fashions (hereinafter, “Bert’s”) with its headlights off, its back hatch open, and its passen ger door open. As the sergeant pulled his squad car into the parking lot i n front of Bert’s, he observed an individual run from behind the store and jump into the wagon’s passenger seat. The wagon’s hea dlights cam e on and the car exited the parking lot. The sergeant followed the car and rep ortedthe license plate number. The sergeant activated his emergency lights and siren, a t which time defendant’s vehicle l ed the officer on a t en- to twelv e-mile purs uit through residential sections of the ci ty at speeds

between 30 and 40

miles per hour ove

r the speed limit. Defendant’s vehicle did not stop at any stop signs or stop light s, and the pursuit ended in a wreck.
Defendant

was taken into custody and M irandized. He told t he sergeant th

at he was only urinating next to Bert’s and c laimed that he had

only “hitche

d a ride” with th

e man driving th

e wagon. When asked for his n ame, defendant gave the name of his brother to the police. Upon effecting an arrest of defendant, officers found a car jack and a ham mer between the two front seats of the stat ion wago n in w hich defendant was a passenger. Additionally, the sear ch of def endantyie lded a recently broken screwdriver and a “ crack” pipe in the pocket of a coat claimedby defenda

nt. During an inve

stigation of the s

cene of the atte

mpted burgla

ry, Sergean

t Taylor o bse rved recent damage done to the rear door of Bert’s. The se rgeant testified that the door was rusted where it had

weathered. However, he tes tified that he saw

a place where t

he rust h ad been knock ed off and the met al was made shiny

. In his opinion,

this was caused by

the use of a tool to pry the d oor open. He also noted a small piece of metal that matched the missing partfrom defendant’s screwdriver. Additionally, the sergea nt found no evidence that someone had urinated near Bert’s on that evening. He testified t hat in the same vicinity as Bert’s, there are at least three twenty-four hour businesses with public restrooms.
Bert’s was not open at the time of the incident; defendant was not, nor ev er h ad been, an employee of Bert’s; and he was not authorized to be on the property on the night of the incident. Analysis
Defendant

asserts that the evidence at trial was insuffici ent to support his conviction. Whe n a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecut ion, any ra

tio nal trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a rea sonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 27 81, 61 L. Ed. 2d 5 60 (1979); State v. Duncan , 6983

S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). The appellee is en titled to the strongest legitimate vi ew of t he evidence and to all reasonable

inferences tha

t may be dra

wn therefrom. See State v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
The credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence a

re ma tters entrusted exclusively to the trier of fact. State v. Sheffield , 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Gentry , 881 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tenn . Cri m. App. 1993). A jury verdict for the state a c credits the testimo

ny of the sta

te's witnesses a

nd resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Williams , 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). More over, a guilty verdict removes the presumption of inn ocence enjoyed by de fendants at trial and re places it with a presumption of guilt. State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

. Thus, an appellant cha

llenging the su

fficiency of the evid

ence car ries the burden of

illustrating to this court why the evidence is insufficient to support t he verdict. State v. Freeman , 943 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court neither reweighs nor reevaluates the evidence. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d at 835. Nor may this court substitute

its inferences f

or those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial evide n ce. See Liakas v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856, 8 59 (Tenn. 1956). To t

he contrary

, this court is requ

ired to afford th

e party pre

vailing at trial th e strongest legitimate v iew of the evidence contained in the record, as well as all reasonable and legit imate infere nces which may be drawn from the evidence. See State v. Tuttle , 914 S.W.2d 926, 932 (Tenn. Cr

im. App. 1995) (citing State v. Herrod , 754 S.W.2d 627, 632 (T enn. Crim. App. 1988)).
A. Conviction for Attempted Burglary
D efe ndant

was convicted fo

r attempted burg

lary. I n Tennessee, a p

erson commits burglary who, [w]ithout the effective consent of the property owner:

(1) Enters a building other than a habitation ( or any portion thereof) not open to the public, with intent to commi t a felo ny, theft or assault;

. . . . (b) As used in this se

ction, “enter” m

eans: (2) Intrusion of any part of the body ; or (3) Intrusion

of any object in phy sical con tact with the body or any object controlled by remote control, electronic or otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-402. A person is guilty of criminal attempt who,

acts with intent to complete a co urse o f action or cause a result that would co n stitute the offense, under the circumstances surrounding the conduct as the person believes them to be , and the conduct constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-101(a)(3).4

We believe the ev id ence supports the conviction for attempted burglary. The testimony places defendant at the scene of the crime. Sergeant Tay lor testified that he saw de f endant run from th e premises o f Bert’s and get into a station wagon that was waiting with its passenger door open. Defendant admitted to being on the pr emises for t he purposes of ur inating. Howeve

r, this evidence was refuted by the testimony of the sergeant that there were no signs of urination at the scene.
We also note that defendant ran to the awaiting station wagon as Sergeant Tay lor approached

the premises. The car in which defendant was riding then led the sergean t on a tenmile, high-speed pursuit through Nashville. A defendant's flight, coupled with other fa cts and circumstances , ma y be considered by a jury as evidence of guilt. State v. Zagorski , 701 S.W.2d 808, 813 (Tenn. 198

5); Hall v. State , 584 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979).
There were significa

nt signs of attemp

ted entry a

t Bert’s. Serg

eant Taylo

r te stifi ed that there was damage done to the re ar door of Bert’s where it appeared that someone tried to force an entry. The sergeant stated that the rust on the do or was made shiny in some places indicating that someone used a piece of metal to pry open the door. He also foun d small metal shavin

gs in the bolt itse lf. The serg eant testified that the presence of the shavings gave the appearanc e that someone used a metal object such as a screwdriver to break the lock and force an e ntry.
The sergeant also testified that he found a broken screwdriver in the coat pocket tha t defendant admitted he owned. Upon investigating the scene of the crime, the sergeant discovered

a small pi ece of metal in the door at Bert’s. The s

ergeant testif

ied that this small piece of metal was consistent wi th the small piece of metal missing from the defendant’s screwdriver. Though the record contains no forensic evidence, there is the uncontroverted testimonyof Sergeant Taylor that the broken piece of meta l found at the c rime sce ne fit the b roken s crewdriver fo

und in defendant’ s coat pocket. We f ind that the eviden

ce is sufficient t

o uphold the conviction on the charge of attempted burglary

. B. Conviction for Pos session of Burglary Too ls In Tennessee, a person commits the offense of possession of burglary tools who, possesses any tool, machine or implement with intent to use the same, or allow the same to be used, to commit any burglary

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-701.
Defendant

contends in his brief that just becau se he had a screwdriver a nd other tools, including the car jack and hammer, the State

“theorized” that

defendant mu st h ave used these tools for the purpose of breaking into a bu siness. First, we again note Sergeant Taylor’s test imony regarding the broken screwdriver piece found at the sce ne and the broken scr

ewdrive r found in defendant’s coat pocket. Second, we note the testimony of Sergeant Tay lor that the hammer and tire tool found in the car between defendant and the driver are com monly found in5

cars. However, as the sergeant pointed out, most people carry a tire tool in the trunk with the spare ti re. Additi onally, there was no indication that the driver of the car was a labor er or had a toolbox to indicate that the hammer was used for labor or employmen t purposes. Again, this testimonywas uncontroverted. We find the conviction on this count s upported by the evidence and affirm.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments from the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE