### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON M a r c h 2, 2004 S e s s i on STA TE O F TEN N ESSEE v. AM Y DE NI S E S UT T ON
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Carr oll Coun ty No. 02CR- 1984 Julian P . Guinn, Ju dge

No. W2003-01183-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 12, 2004

The de fenda nt was convicted of thef t of property

valued ove r $1,000. The de fenda nt was sentenc ed as a Rang e I standard offe nder to thre e y ear s in the Tennesse e De partment of Corr ection with one y ear of inca rce ration and th e re m ai n d er to be serve d on community corr ections. On a

ppeal, the defe ndant cha lleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence to support her c onviction and ra ises issues re g ard ing the le ng th andma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of he r se nte nc e . We re ma ndto d e le te the re fe re nc e to the Depa rtment of Corre ction but otherwise a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed; Re m ande d forEnt r y o f Co r r e c te d Judg m e nt
J OE G. R I L EY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H A Y ES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
B e nja min S. D e mps e y , H un tin g do n, Te nn e sse e (o n a pp e a l) ; G uy

T. Wilkins on , D ist

ri c t Pu bli c Defen der; Bil ly

R. R oe , Jr. , A ssi sta nt D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r ( a t tria l) , f or the app e lla nt, Am y Denise Sutton. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; G. Robert Radford, District Atto rn ey Ge n era l; and Eleanor Cahill, Assist ant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
Be cky Keith, a criminal i nvestig ator for the C arr oll County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, testified that on Ma

rc h 2 1, 20 02 , s he inv e sti g a te d a re po rt of a sto le n A TV fo un d a t 74 05 Hi gh way 70 in Cedar G rove, Te nnessee . I nvestig ator Ke i t h s t ated she was ac companied by I nvestig ator Andy Dickson and Trooper Roge r W ood of t he C riminal I nvestig ation Division of t he Tennessee Hig hway Pa tr ol. I nv e sti g a tor

Ke ith a ndthe oth e r i nv e sti g a tor s p ro c e e de d to the a dd re ss, the re sid e nc e of Sc ott Sutton and his fiancé, Wanda Ma ness. I nvestig ator Keith testified the VIN number of the ATV wa s p r o c e s s e d , a n d t h e o w n e r s w e r e d i s c o v e r e d t o b e K e i t h a n d P a m e l a C a n a d y. Scott Sut ton, the defe ndant’s brothe r, testified that he and the de fenda nt had a discussion about a we ek prior to Ma rch 21 a s to his desire to pur chase a four- whee ler for his son’s upcoming-2-

birthday . The de fendant indicated that “ she mig ht know somebody ” who c ould ge t him one for about $500. Ho we v er , h e t es t ified that his sister was not the pe rson who g ave him the AT V on Marc h 21. He sa id he g ot it from Sam Rhodes. How ever , Sutton admitted g iving a sworn sta tement shortly afte r the ATV was discove red at his residence , in which he state d that he obtained the ATV fr om h is s ist e r, the de fe nd a nt. Sut ton a lso te sti fi e d h e dr ov e the AT V f ro m hi s si ste r’ s r e sid e nc e to his ho me . H e state d th e reas on he sa id i n h is p ri or sw orn s ta te me nt that he g ot t he AT V f ro m hi s sis te r w a s “ I

did n’ t kn ow a t the tim e it w a s st ole n. Th e n, wh e n I fo un d o ut i t w a s st ole n, the n I tol d them [t he ATV was not obtained f rom his sister].” Sut ton testified that at the time he picke d up the ATV fr om the defe ndant’s house, Sam Rhodes wa s dating t h e d ef en dant. He stated Rhodes was curr ently incar cer ated f

or theft, but he w as unaw are of that at the time he obtained the AT V.
Wanda Ly nn Maness testified that she was living with Sutt on at th e residence whe re the investigative team located the ATV. Maness stated Sutton obtained the ATV from the def endant’ s house. Pam Canady

testified she and her husband purcha sed the ATV in question eig hteen months prior to i ts theft for approximately $4,500. She stated it was in excellent condition and value d over $1,000. She stated she a nd her husba nd did not give any one permission t o g et the ATV

. Trooper Wood testi fied he took a sworn statement from the de fenda nt. Trooper Wood read into evidence the def

endant’ s statement, in which she c laimed to have noticed the AT V for sa le for $5 00 a t a t rai ler pa

rk in L e xing ton , T e nn e sse e . T he de fe nd a nt t oldthe tr oo pe r that sh e pa id f or it at that time and loade d it into t he bac k of her truck. The defe ndant, in her state ment, identified the ATV a s being located “ betwee n the fourth a nd fifth trailer s” on the lef t at the time of t he sale. She further identified the seller

as a “ white male a

bout nineteen or

twenty with a s h av ed h ead, a

bout five-e ight or

five-nine , aver ag e build,” name d “Micha el Stanford.” Trooper W o o d t es t i fied he located the trailer pa

rk the de fenda nt identified but observe d only three trailers on the left side. Trooper Wood st ated he was una

ble to find a man named Mi chae l Stanford that fit the description provided by

the def endant. He s tated that he wa s unable to find anything to support the de fenda nt’s statement about the loc ation of the a lleg ed seller of the ATV

. I nvestig ator Dic kso n testified he wa s prese nt during Trooper Wood’s init ial interview of Scott Sut ton. I nvestigat o r Dickson testified Sutt on said he obtaine d the ATV f rom his sister, the defe ndant.
Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d s he ob ta ine d th e AT V f ro m he r b oy frie nd , Sa m Rh odes. She sa id she paid him $250 and wa s to pay him another $250. She stated she d i d not know the ATV w as stolen. The defe ndant testified she lied in he r earlier statement beca use she wa s scar ed and try ing to protect he r boy friend. She admitted her sworn statement desc ribing her a lleg ed purc hase of the ATV a t the trailer pa

rk wa s untrue. I. SUFF ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE
Th e de fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s not suf fi c ie nt to sup po rt he r c on vic tio n b e c a us e it is entirely

circ umstantial an d d o es n ot exclude every other re asonable hypothesis save the-3-

defe ndan t ’s guilt. The defe ndant contends that the evidenc e adduc ed at tria l points equally to the g uilt of either Sam Rhodes, Scott Sutt on, or the de fenda nt, since all we re in possession of the stolen ATV.
A. Standard of

Review
Whe n a n a

pp e lla nt c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , th e sta nd ard of review is whether , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favor able to the state, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential el em en t s o f t he crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2789 , 6 1 L . Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Eva ns, 838 S.W .2d 185, 190-91 ( T en n
. 1 9 9 2 ); T enn. R . App. P. 13(e). O n appea l, the state is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable or leg itimate inf ere nces which may

be d ra wn t h er ef

ro m
. S t at e v
. E l k i n s , 1 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 1 (T en n
. 2 0 0 3 ). T h i s co u rt wi l l n o tre we i gh the evidenc e, re evaluate the evide nce, or substitut e its evidentiary infere nces f

or those reac hed by the jury . State v. Carey , 914 S.W .2d 93, 95 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). F urthermor e, in a c riminal trial, g reat weig ht is given to the r esult rea ched by the jury . State v. J ohnson, 910 S.W .2d 897, 899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. Although th e evidence of de fenda nt’s g uilt is circ umstantial in nature, cir cumstantial evidenc e alone may

be suff icient to support a conviction. State v. Tharpe , 726 S.W .2d 896, 899-900 (T e nn . 1 98 7) ; State v. B utt re y , 7 56 S.W. 2d71 8, 72 1 ( Te nn . Crim . App . 198 8) . How e ve r, fo r this to o c c ur , th e c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e mus t be c on sis te nt w ith g uil t of the a c c us e d, inc on sis te nt w ith inn oc e nc e , an d mu st e xclu de e ve ry oth e r r e a so na

ble the ory

or hy po the sis e xce pt that of

g uil t. Tharpe , 726 S.W .2d at 900. This court must reme mber that the jury decide s the weig ht to be g iven to c ir c ums tant ial evid e nc e . “ Th e inf e re nc e s to be dr a wn fr om s uc h e vid e nc e , a ndthe e xten t to wh ic h th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ar e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h g u i l t a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n n o c e n c e ar e q u e s t i o n s .

. . fo r the jury .” Ma

ra ble v. Sta te , 31 3 S.W. 2d 45 1, 45 7 (T e nn
. 19 58 )(ci tat io n omit te d) ; se e als o State v. Gre g ory , 862 S.W .2d 574, 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

. B. Su ffici e nc y A nal ys is “A pe rson commits theft of prope rty if, with intent t o deprive the owner of prope rty , the person knowing ly

obtains or exercises c ontrol over the property without the owner’ s eff ective consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103.
Viewe d in the light most favor able to th e state, a r easona ble juror c ould have f

ound the de fe nd a nt kne w the AT V wa s stol e n whe n she e xer c ise d co ntr ol ove r the AT V a ndc on ve y e d it to her b ro t her. “ [A] jury

may infer a criminal def

endant’ s intent from the surrounding fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. L owery , 667 S.W .2d 52, 57 (Tenn. 1984) . Possession of rece ntly stolen property , if not satisfactorily explained, is a circ umstance from which a jur or may draw an infe renc e t h at t h e p er s o n in possession knew the property had bee n stolen. State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W .2d 926, 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . In the instant case , a rea sonable juror could have reje cted the de fenda nt’s explanation relating to the ATV. F urther, thed ef

en d an t testified she wa s untruthful in her sworn s ta te me n t t o in v e s ti g ato r s
. T h e ju r y c o u ld r e a s o n a b ly in f e r th ed e f e n d an t k n e w th ep r o p e r

ty w as-4-

stolen, an d t h e d ef

en dant intended to depr

ive the owner of possession by selling thevehicle to her brother.
The de fenda

nt arg ues that bec ause Sam Rhodes or Scott Sutton might also be g uilty of theft of the ve hic le , th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot e xclu dea ll re a so na ble hy po the sis save the g uil t of

the de fe nd ant. T h e a r g u m e n t i s m i s p l a c e d

. M u l t i p l e d e f e n d an t s m ay e a c h b e c o n v i c t e d o f th e f t o f th es am ep r o p e r

ty, provided the e lements of the of fenseare proven w ith respe ct t o eac h. Our theft statute enc ompasses “obtain[ing]” or “ exercis[ing] c ontrol over” the proper ty

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103. Thus, one who exercises c ontrol over stolen proper ty can be found g uilty of theft e ven thoug h that person did not ac t u al l y steal the property

from its owner. T he def endant in this casecannot take ref ug e in the po ssi bil ity

tha t anoth er pers on mig ht a

lso beg uil ty

of the ft wi th re sp e c t to the

AT V. Th is i ssu eis wi tho ut m e ri t. II. SE NTENCING
The de fenda

nt raises thefollowing issues concerning her se ntence : (1) whe ther the se ntence was e x cessive; ( 2) whe ther the trial court er red in fa iling to consider

and apply alterna tive sentenc ing cr i t er i a; an d (3 ) wh eth er th e tr i al co u rt u s ed i l l ega l s p l i t co n fi n em en t t o en h an c e t h e d ef en d an t 's se nte nc e be y on d th e permiss ibl e c on fi nemen t time f or a Rang eI sta nd a rd of fe nd e r w ith

a re le a se elig ibilit y date of 30%.
A. Waiver
“When an a ccuse d seeks a ppellate review of an is sue i n this court, it is the duty of the a ccuse d to p repa re a re c or d w hic h c on ve y s a

fa ir , a c c ur ateand

c omp le te a c c ou nt o f w ha t tr ans pire d w ith r e s p e c t t o th e is s u e s w h ic hf o rm t h e b a s is o f

th ea p p e a l. ” St ate

v
. B e n n e tt , 7 9 8 S. W. 2 d

7 8 3 , 789 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). Whe n a n a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th at the sen te nc eis e xce ssi vebu t f ails to include a tr anscr

ipt from the sentenc ing hear ing, the issue of excessive sente nces w ill be considere d wa ive d. Sta tev. Ivy , 8 68 S.W. 2d

72 4, 72 8 ( Te nn . Cr

im. Ap p. 19 93 ); see Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). M o re o v er , i f t h e ap p el l at e re co rd i s i n ad eq u at e, th e re v i ew i n g co u rt mu s t p re s u m e t h at

th e tri al j u d ge ruled c orre ctly . Ivy , 868 S.W .2d at 728.
We conclude thedefe ndant has waived any considera tion of the leng th a

nd manner

of ser vice of her sentenc e by failing to inc lude a tra nscript of the se ntencing hear ing. H owever, this shortcoming does not preve nt our revie w of the de fenda nt’s contention t hat the judg ment on its faceref lects an illega l sentence

. B. Illegal S entence The jud g me n t in d ic ate s th at th e tr ia l c o u r t s e n te n c e d th e d e f

e n d an t to thr e e y e a

r s in the Tenne ssee Department of Correction with one year of i ncarcer ation and the rema inder of her se ntence to b e se rv e d in c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns
. Init

ially , weob se rv etha

t a de fe nd ant c ann ot b ese nte nc e d to both the Depa

rtment of Corre ction and to community corrections. See Sta

tev. Gl e n Ra

y Go od ru m, No. W2001-02979-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 4, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App. J an. 5, 20 04 ); se e als o State v. Robert J

. Wil liams, No. W 2002-02366-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 Te nn. Crim. App.-5-

L E X I S 3 6 6 , at * 8 ( T e n n
. Cr im

. A p p
. A p r
. 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 )

. T h u s , th at p o r ti o no f the judg ment sentenc ing the def endant to the De partment of Corr ection must be cor rec ted.
Ho we ve r, a

de fe nd a nt can be sente nc e d to a pe ri odof inc arc e ratio n in the c ou nty ja il a s a condition of community

corr ections, provided the period of confine ment does not exceed one y ear
. See State v. J immy D. J ohnson, No. 03C 01-9602-CC-00062, 1997 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 1037, at ** 6-7 (T enn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 1997) . Although the defe ndant conc edes she can be order ed to s e rv e tim e in the c ou nty ja il b e fo re g oin g on c ommun ity c or re c tio ns , s he c on te nd s h e r j a il t ime c a nn ot e xce e d h e r r e le a se e lig ibi lit y da te fo r a

thr e e -y e ar s e nte nc e . Her rel ease e lig ibi lit y date is 30% or 10.8 months. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-501(c ).
This issue has bee n the s ource of som e confusion. Our court has consist ently held that the jail time may not e x cee d the rele ase elig ibilit y date for f elony sentenc es of two y ear s or less. See, e.g., J o n a t h a n T h o r n t o n v
. S t a t e , N o
. E 2 0 0 3

- 0 0 3 9 3

- C C A

- R 8

- P C , 2 0 0 3 T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. LE X IS 239, at *7 (Te nn. Crim. App. Mar. 17, 2003); State v. S t ephen Michael Ware , No. E2000-01952- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App

. L E XI S 592, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug . 7, 2001). Ho we ve r, the se de c isi on s w e re ba se d upo n a spe c ia l sta tut ory pr ov isi on re la tin g to t wo -y e ar o r l e ss sentenc es. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501( a)( 3). The case at bar involves a three -y ear

sentenc e.
I t could be ar g ued our court ha s applied this same principle to thre e-y ear sentenc es. See, e.g., S t a t e v
. G e o r g e C

. P e e r y , III , N o
. E 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 6 8 2

- C C A

- R 3

- C D , 2 0 0 3 T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. LE X IS 545, at **16-17 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 13, 2003). Reg ardle ss, this court has specif ically held on at l ea s t t wo occa sions that a three -y ear sentenc e with one y ear

to be serve d in confineme nt in the local jail followed by

two y ear s on communit y co rr ec t i o n s is proper. See State v. J erry Way mon Trav is , N o
. W2 0 0 1

- 0 1 9 1 4

- CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL31322540, at *2 (L EXI S cite unavailable ) (Te nn. Crim. App. Oct. 14, 2002), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. 2003); State v. J ere my Michae l Shelton, No. W2000-00457-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 560, at *21 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jul y 20, 2001).
We acknowle dg e our c ases a re confusing , and the issue of split confinement may need to be vis ite d b y ou r hig he r co ur t. Ne ve rthe le ss, in l ig ht o f the e xplic it h old ing s in Jer ry Waymon Tr a vis a nd Jer e my

Mic ha e l Sh e lto n, we c on c lud e the thr e e -y e ar s e nte nc e wi th o ne y e ar o f c on fi ne me nt i n the county

jail followed by

two y ear s on communitycorr ections is not an illeg al sentenc e.

CO NC LU SION
Ac c or din g ly , w e c on c lud e thi s c a se sh ou ld be re ma nd e d f or c or re c tio n o f the jud g me nt t o de le te the re fe re nc e to the De pa rt me nt of Cor

re c tio n. Othe rw ise , the jud g me nt of the tr ia l c ou rt

is aff irmed.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, JUDGE