T he s eve nt een

- y ear

- ol d co- defendan t , Johns on, was j oi nt l y t r i ed wi t h t he A pp el l ant

. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat 1

h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f fa c ili ta ting fi rs t d e g re e m u rd e r. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 13, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TIMER ELL N ELSON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 02-05451 John P. C olton, Jr., Judge

No. W2003-01474-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 27, 2004

The Appe llant, Timerell Nelson, a ppeals the ve rdict of a S helby County jury finding him guilty of fi rs t de g re e fe lon y

mur de r. On app e a l, N e lso n r a ise s th e sin g le iss ue of w het he r the e vid e nc e is

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio n. Af

te r r e vie w, we fi ndthe e vid e nc e to be mor e tha n s uf fi c ie nt. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d.

D AVI D G. H AYES , J
., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R . and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Robert Wils on J ones, Public Defe nder; Ga rland Er g üden, As s i s t ant P ublic Def ender (on appe al); Gre g Carman and Cliff Abeles, Assistant Public Def ender s (at trial), Memphis, T ennesse e, for the Appellant, Timere ll Nelson.

P aul G. S um mer s, At to rneyGen eral and Re po rt er; Mi chael Mo ore, S ol ici to r General ; Eli z abet h B. Marne y , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Will iam L . Gibbons, Dis t ri ct Att orney Gene ral; and Tom Hoover and Andr e Thomas, Assistant District Attorney s Ge nera l, for the Appe llee, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Marc h 24, 2002, the Appellant a nd his acc omplice, Christopher Johnson, perpe trated a 1 robbery of Nick’ s L aundry

in Shelby

County , during which Ronnie L ee Nichols was murde red. A witness, Trac ee B utler, testified that she was i n the laundroma t folding c lothes, when she obse rved-2-

the Appellant, wea

ring a white t-shirt, wa lk to the office . The Appe llant had a g un in his hand and demande d that the vi ctim “g ive m e my money .” According to Butler, she hear d a pop and sa w the Appellant’s arm jerk. Additionally
, she saw the victim f ire a g un and the Appellant fall to the floor. Two to three additional shots wer e fired, although Butler was unawa re of who fired these shots

. The vic tim c a me ou t of the of

fi c e a ndfe ll o nto the fl oo r. At thi s p oin t, C hr ist op he r Joh ns on , d re sse d in

a ll b lue c lothin g , a

pp ro a c he d a nd e nte re d the of fi c e , ste pp ing ov e r b oth the Ap pe lla nt a ndthe vic tim

. He e merg ed fr om the office car ry ing mone y

and a g u n

. He t h en proce eded to he lp the Appellant fr om the laun dr omat.

J erome Tate te stified that he saw t wo m en exit the laundromat shortly afte r 2 p.m. He testified that one man, dr essed in blue, ha d money in one hand and was holding up the othe r man, wh o w a s w e ari ng a

wh ite t- sh ir t a ndwh o a

pp e are d to ha ve be e n s ho t. T ate tes ti fi ed that the pa ir walked to a

near by intersec tion and the wounded man g ot into a vehicle, w hich was w aiting at the traff ic light. The man dre ssed in blue fled the scene on fo o t

. Tate w as unable to identify either person a t trial.

The Appe llant was driven to a local fire station, w here he reque sted medical a ssistance. He

wa s su bs e qu e ntl y

ho sp ita lize d a s a re su lt of a g un sh ot wo un d. Th e po lic e we re c a lle d to inv e sti g a te the sh oo tin g a ndc oll e c te d b loo dy c lothin g fr om the ve hic le inv olv e d in tr a ns po rt ing the Ap pe lla nt. During the same period, the co-de fenda nt w as appre hended in a vehicle ne ar his home, a nd two g uns

wer e re cover ed fr om the car . One gun, identified as belong ing to the vic tim, contained four spe nt rounds and one live round. The other g un, a Tit an .38 specia l belong ing to the Appellant, c ontained five live rounds a nd one spent round. F orensic e vidence established that the bul let rec overe d from the vic tim ’s bo dy

wa s f ir e d f ro m th e Ti ta n . 38 sp e c ia l.

On April 2, 2002, a Me mphis hom i ci d e d et ective w ent to the hospital in response to the Ap pe lla nt’ s r e qu e st t o spe a k to the po lic e

. Th e Ap pe lla nt g a ve a state me nt, wh ic h impli c a te d b oth himself and Chris t o p h er J ohnson. I n the statement, the A ppellant re lated that he w ent to the laundromat with the intent to commit a robbery in order to obtain money for his her oin addiction. The Appe llant furt h er stated that he appr oache d the victim, display ed his wea pon, and dema nded money . Howeve r, ac cording to the Appellant, the victim shot him first, and he only fired in r eturn.

On J uly 11, 2002, a S helby County g rand jury returne d a two-c ount indictment ag ainst the Appellant and Christopher J ohnson, char g ing the m with premed i t ated f irst deg ree murder a nd alternatively with f

elony murder during the perpe tration of an a g g ravated robbe ry . At trial, Butler identified the Appe llant as the shooter. N either the Appellant nor the co-de fenda nt Johnson testified at trial.

On April 11, 2003, a jury

found the Appe llant guilty of sec ond deg ree murder a nd first deg ree felony murder. T he sec ond deg ree m u rd er co nviction was merg ed, and the Appellant wa s subsequently

sentenc ed to a term of life imprisonment. The Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied, with this appea l following.-3- Ana lys is

On appe al, the Appe l l ant cha lleng es the jury ’s ver dict finding him guilty of first deg ree fe lon y mur de r. Whe n an a

pp e lla nt c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the evi den c e , th is c ou rt mus t deter mine “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the [S tate], any rational trier of fac t could have f

ound the essential e lements of a c rime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” Jack son

v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 307 , 319 , 99 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); se e als o Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); Sta te v. Dunc an , 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985). The S tate is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e and all rea sonable infe renc es that may be dra wn there from. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

.

Th e c re dib ili ty

of wi tne sse s, the we ig ht of the ir te sti mon y , a nd the re c on c ili a tio n o f c on fl ic ts in the evidenc e ar e matter s entrusted e x clusively to the t rier of fac ts. Sta te v . G e ntr y , 881 S.W .2d 1
, 3 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g By rg e v . S tat e , 575 S.W .2d 292, 295 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978) ). A j ury ve rd ic t fo r the Sta te a c c re dit s the te sti mon y of the Sta te ’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts in favor of

the State. State v. W

illiams
, 65 7 S.W. 2d 40 5, 41 0 (T e nn

. 19 83 ). Mo re ov e r, a guilty

ve rd ic t r e mov e s th e pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e e njo y e d b y

a de fe nd a nt at tr ia l a nd re pla c e s it wi th

a p r e s u mp tion of g uilt. State v. Grac e , 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) . Thus, an appe llant challeng ing the suff

i ci en cy o f the e vidence car ries the bur den of illustrating to this court why the evidenc e is insuff

icient to support the ver dict. State v. Free man , 9 43 S.W. 2d25 , 2 9 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1996).

On appe al, the Appe llant specific ally arg ues t hat, due to conflicts in the evidence, the pr oof is in s u f f ic ie n t u n der J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a to justi fy

finding him guilty

of the off

ense be y ond a

rea sonable doubt. J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a addre sses two important aspec ts of a sufficie ncy revie w: (1)
t h e m a n n e r

o f r e v i e w o f t h e c o n v i c t i n g e v i d e n c e a n d ( 2 ) t h e s t a n d ar d o f r e v i e w f o r l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y. T h e s co p e o f o u r ex am i n at i o n o f t h e ev i d en ce i s n o t eq u i v al en t t o t h at o f t h e j u ry

. I n a c h al l en ge to the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence , this court does not retry an appe ll an t

. W e empha siz e that our examination in a sufficienc y revie w is not to revisit inconsistent, contradic ting, implausible, or nonc re dib le pr oof, as the se iss ue s a re re so lve d s ole ly

by the jury . Rathe r, we loo k to the re c or d to deter mine, in the l ight most favor able to the State, whe ther ther e wa s substantive probative e vidence
to support the ver dict. The sec ond inquiry , the question of leg al suffic iency , then follows: whether the re cord c ontains evidenc e fr om which the jury could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a reasonable doubt. Every rea sonable hy pothesis of innocenc e nee d not be dispelled; it is onl y nece ssary

that there exis ts proof which supports the elements of the crime.

As indicted, the Appe llant was convic ted under Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 39-13- 20 2( a )( 2) (2 00 3) , w hic h d e fi ne s f ir st d e g re e fe lon y

mur de r a s th e “ kil lin g of a no the r c omm itt e d in the pe rp e tr a tio n of or a tte mpt to pe rp e tr a te a ny

. . . ro bb e ry .” F ir st, the Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th a t du e to

c on fl ic ts i n h is i de nti fi c a tio n a s th e pers on who sh ot the vic tim , th e pr oo f i s le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt. Ag a in, a ny

c on fl ic ts i n th e e vid e nc e we re re so lve d by the jury ’s ve rd ic t, an d we are wi tho ut a uth or ity to revisit these fa ctual conf licts. Moreove r, the Appellant’s statement to the police that he was the shooter belies this assertion.-4-

Next, the Appellant arg ues that i t wa s not shown that he intended to kill the victim, as the pr oo f e sta bli sh e d “ he did n’ t kn ow ing ly pu ll the tr ig g e r” a nd that he fi re d his g un on ly a ft e r the vic tim had shot him. This arg ument is misplaced. Under the felony murder rule, i t is immaterial whe ther the killing of the victim by the def endant wa s int en t i o n al or accide ntal, as the re quisite intent for felony murder is the de fenda nt’s intent to commit the underly ing felony

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13- 202(b). More over, unde r the fa cts of this ca s e, s el f-de fense was not justified bec ause it wa s the Ap pe lla nt w ho pr ov ok e d th e vic tim ’s us e of fo rc e . Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 11 -6 11 (d )( 20 03 ). I n h is own statement, the A ppellant admitted that he intende d to rob the victim and, during the course of that robbery , the victim was shot and kil led. We conclude the evidence is more than sufficient for

a ratio na l tr ie r of fa c t to ha ve fo un d the Ap pe lla nt g uil ty of fe lon y mur der bey on d a re a so na ble doubt.

CO NC LU SION

I n s um , we con clud e that th e e vid e nc e in this c a se , ta ke n a s a wh ole a ndin the lig ht m os t favor ab le to th e St a te , w a s le g a ll y s u f f ic ie n t to p e r mi t a r a ti o n a l trie r o f f a c t to f in d th e Appe llant g uiltyof first deg ree felony murder be y ond a r easona ble doubt. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of conviction is aff

irmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE