### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 7, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. AN THON Y WILL IAM SON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 00-13070 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2004-01251-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 30, 2004

Th e D e f e n d a n t , A n t h o n y

W i l l i a m s o n , w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a j u r y o f r o b b e r y

. H e w a s s u b se qu e ntl y se nte nc e d a s a

Ra ng e I I I

of fe nd e r t o s e rv e fi ft e e n y e ars in the Dep art men t of Co rr e c tio n. I n th is appea l, the Defenda nt challeng es t he sufficiency of the c onvicting e vidence . Finding the evidenc e le g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the De fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , 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 OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Rob e rt Wils on Jone s, She lby Cou nty Pub lic De fe nd e r a nd W. Ma rk War d, As sis ta nt She lby Cou nty Public Defe nder, f

or the a ppellant, Anthony

Wil liamson.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Willis, A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Willi a m L . G ibb on s, Di stric t A tt o rn e y G e n e r al ; an d

S t e v eJo ne s, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The only witness who t estified at the Defenda nt’s trial was the victim of t he robbery . She te sti fi e d th a t onF e br

ua ry 17, 20 00 , the d a te of

thero bb e ry , s he wa s e mpl oy e d a s a fi na nc ia l a id office r at R em i ng ton Coll eg e, formerly known as Southeast Colleg e, in Memphis. On that date, during her lunch hour, she drove her car to a cre dit union off ice to ca sh her f

eder al income tax refund chec k. She parke d her c ar ne ar the front door of the cr ed i t union and went in to conduc t her bu sin e ss. She c a me ou t of the c re dit un ion wi th ap pr oximate ly tw o hun dr e d doll ars , in a dd iti on to
a sma ll a mou nt o f c a sh sh e a lr e a dy ha d in he r wa lle t. As sh e wa lke d to he r c ar h old ing thec a sh in the sa me ha ndwi th h e r w a lle t, the De fe nd a nt a pp ro a c he d h e r anda sk e d h e r h ow to g e t to a n a dd re ss that he had w ritten on a piec e of pa per. She told t he De fendant that she was not familiar with theIn this a p p e a l t h e D e fen d a n t d o e s n o t c h a llen g e h is se n te n c e

. In h is b rie f, h e no te s tha t t h e trial ju d g e “o n ly 1

co nsi d ered t he p ri o r convi ct i o ns o f t he A p p el l ant and a pri o r paro l e vi o l at i o n whi ch was ad m i t t ed b y t he ap p el l ant i n t he

se n te n c ing he a rin g .”
-2- addre ss he had shown he r, and she go t i n t o h er car. T he De fendant immediately enter ed the p as s en gerd o o r o f h erca r a n d s ai d , “gi v e me y o u r w al l et

. ” S h e s ai d h e s p o k e i n a “ co m m an d i n g” and “se rious” voice , and she kne w not to question him. She said she was “very , very scar ed.” T he Def endant then took he r wa llet, got out of he r ca r and r an. The victim drove the short distanceback to her plac e of e mploy ment wher e her boss called the police . She testified that the De fendant took the two hundre d dollars she had just g otten from the cre dit union, plus perhaps another ten dollar s which she ha d in her wallet, along with c redit car ds and other items. The victim never r ecove red any of the prope rty

taken.

Th e vic tim

wa s su bs e qu e ntl y

sh ow n p ho to s pr e a ds by po lic e of ficers . Fro m th e se ph oto sprea ds the victim identified the Def endant a s the person w ho had taken her w allet. She stated that wh e n s he sa w the De fe nd a nt’ s p ic tur e sh e wa s p os iti ve he wa s th e pe rs on wh o h a d ta ke n h e r w a lle t, that there was no doubt about i t. She also identified t he Defendant in court as the pe rson who took her w allet and c ash, stated that she was one hundred pe rce nt sure that it was him and that there was no doubt in her mind that the Def end an t wa s t h e o ne who r obbed her that day . The De fendant of fe re d n o p ro of

a t hi s tria l.

B a s e d u p o n t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e j u r y f o u n d t h e D e f

e n d a n t g u i l t y o f r o b b e r y, a C l a s s C f e l o n y. Following a sente ncing h earing , the trial court sentence d the Def endant a s a Rang e I I I

persistent offe nder to serve fifteen y ear s in the Department of Correc tion. On appe al, the De fendant arg ues 1 that the evidenc e of his identity as the c ulprit i s i n s u fficie nt to support the verdict of g uilt bey ond
a re a so na ble do ub t.

Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 13(e) presc ribes that “[f]i ndings of g uilt in criminal actions whe ther by the t rial court or jury shall be set aside if the evide nce is insuffic ient to support the finding s by

the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a reasonable doubt.” A convic ted criminal defendant who cha lleng es the suff

iciency of the e vidence on appea l bear s the burden of demonstrating why the evidenc e is insufficient to support the ve rdict, bec ause a verdic t of g uilt destr o y s the pre sumption of innoce nce and imposes a presumption of guilt. See State v. Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000) ; State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 19 8 2 ). This Court must reje ct a c onvicted criminal defendant’s challeng e to the sufficie ncy

o f the e vidence if, afte r considering the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, we determine that any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt. SeeJ ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).

On app e a l, the State is enti tl ed to th e str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f the e vid e nc e a nda ll
rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be draw n there from. See Carruthe rs, 35 S.W .3d at 558; Hall, 8 S.W .3d at 599. A g uiltyverdic t by the trier of fac t acc redits t he testi mony of the State’s-3-

wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s all c on fl ic ts in the e vid e nc e in fa vo r of the pr os e c uti on ’s the ory . See State
v. Bl an d, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . Questions about the cr edibilityof witnesses, the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, as well as all fa ctual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t, and this Court will not re- weig h or re -eva luate the e vidence . See Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d at 236; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 659. Nor w ill thi s Court su b s t i t u t e it s own infer ence s drawn f rom circ umstantial evidence for those dr awn by the trier of

fac t. See Evans, 108 S.W

. 3d at 236-37; Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 557.
Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the pe rson of a nother by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401. Aperson c ommits theft if, with intent to deprive the owne r of the pr operty , the per son knowing ly obtains or ex erc ises control over the property

without the owner’ s eff

ective c onsent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103. I n this case,
we c onclude that the e v i d en ce is suff icient to establish that a robbe ry was pe rpetrated upon the victim. I ndeed, the Def

endant doe s not arg ue other wise. The De fendant does arg ue, howe ver, that the evidenc e of his identity as the person who robbed thevictim is i nsufficie nt to just ify a rational trier of fac t in finding his g uilt of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. We disagr ee.

The identification of a def endant a s the person w ho committed the offe n s e fo r wh i ch a de fe nd a nt i s o n tria l is a qu e sti on of

fa c t f or the de te rm inatio n o f the jury ba se d u po n it s consideration of the evidenc e pre sented. State v. Strickland, 885 S.W .2d 85, 87 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). This Court has consistently held that the testimony

of a vic tim, in and of itself, is sufficient to s u p p o r t a

c o n v ic ti o n

. I d

. ; S tate v

. A n to n io F u ll e r , N o

. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 2 3 7 7

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 4 WL 1562546, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nash v i lle, J uly 13, 2004); State v. Vidal L . Strickland, No. M2002-01 7 14-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22243440, at *11 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 30, 20 03 ); State v. B ri a n L . F aulke ns , N o. 02 C01 -9 80 9- CR- 00 28 3, 19 99 WL 31 47 66 , at *3 (T e n n . Crim. App., J ackson, May

20, 1999); State v. J oseph Mi chae l Shelton, No. 01C01-9505-CC-00144, 1996 WL 129837, at *5 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, Marc h 22, 1996).

Ou r s up re me c ou rt ha s a c kn ow le dg e d that “ a c c ur a c y of e y e wi tne ss t e sti mon y is a ff e c ta ble by the usual universa l fallabilities of human sense perc eption an d m em o ry

. ” State v. Dy le, 899 S.W .2d 607, 612 (Tenn. 1995) . I n Dy le, our hig h court promulg ated a new instruction to be pr ov ide d to jurie s w he n id e nti fi c a tio n o f a de fe nd a nt a s th e pe rp e tr a tor is a ma te ri a l is su e in a

tr ia l. See id. A re view of the rec ord in this case r efle cts that the jury was properly instructed in ac cordance with our supreme court’s opinion in Dy le.

At tr ia l, the vic tim

of the ro bb e ry

te sti fi e d th a t sh e was “ po sit ive ” that th e pe rs on wh os e photo she picked out fr om the photo spr ead, identified as the Def endant, was the person who r obbed her. Further, at trial, she identified the D efe ndant in ope n court, stating that she had no doubt about her ide ntification and that she w as “one hund re d p er ce nt” sure. We c onclude that the e vidence prese nted at trial wa s sufficient to support the f indings by

the jury that the Defenda nt was g uiltyof the robbe ry

of the victim bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Acc ording ly , the judgme nt of the trial court is affirme d.-4- ___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE