# FILED
October 6, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Cle rk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT JACKSON JULY 1999 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9902-CC-00057

Appellee, * McNAIRY COUNTY VS. * Honorable Jon Kerry Black wood, Judge PATRICK FORD, * (Burglary--Theft of Pr operty over $1000) Appellant. *

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : WILLIAM KEN SEATON PAUL G. SUMMERS P.O. Box 366 Attorney General & Reporter Selmer, TN 38375 J. ROSS DYER Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 ELIZABETH T. RICE District Attorney Gener al ED NEAL McDANIEL Assistant District A

ttorney General 302 Market Street Somerville, TN 38068

OPINION FILED: _______________

AFFIRMED

JOHN EVERETT WILLIA MS, Judge-2- 

### OPINI ON The defendant, Patrick Ford, was convicted of burglary and theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,00 0 following a jury trial in the McNairy County Circuit Court.The trial court sentenc ed the defendant to the Department of Correction for concur rent sentences of two years on the burglary and four years on the theft, to be serv ed consecutively to a prior unrelated sentence. The defendant appeals, arguing that the evide nce at trial was insufficient for a reasonable trier of fact t o have found the elements of the off enses beyond a reasonable doubt. After revi ew, we AFFIRM the judgm ent of the trial court.

BACKGROUND In the light most favorabl e to the state, see State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978), the recor d shows that law enforceme nt officers parked a surveillance van near the Townhouse Apartments in Sel mer, Tennessee, on the evening of October 7, 1997. The v an was equipped with a camer a mounted in a glass dome, a VCR, radios, televisions, headphones, and othe r surveillance equipment. Residents of the ap artments testified that they observed the defendant and an accomplice, Leonar d Williams, looking

at the van the following morning. Williams

apparently spotted the camer a on the van. The defendant went to the apartments, borr owed a baseball bat, and then retur ned to the van and knocked off the camera. H e then dismantled the camera, apparently taking out the tape.
The two left but returned a few minutes later with a third person, Fredrick Robinson. The defendant knocked out the driver’s side wi ndow of the van with a hammer, unlocked the door, and the three men entered the van. A short time later, witnesses observ ed them exit the van with s ome Polaroid pictures and an-3- intercom. Later that day, the defendant’s two accompli ces were seen leaving the van with a VCR and some tape s.
At approximately five o’ clock that evening, a law enforcement officer noticed that the window of the v an was broken and that the tir es had been cut. Upon further investigation , he found that the VCR, several tapes, the intercom, a set of headphones, and the camera w ere missing and that other parts of the van had been vandalized. The total r eplacement cost of the mis sing and damaged items exceeded $11,500. The repl acement costs of the camera , lens, and lens extender were $900, $850, and $195 r espectively. The interc om was valued at $75.

ANALYSIS The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support either of his convictions . When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court mus t determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to th e prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have f ound the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable do ubt. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).The state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that m ay be drawn therefrom. See Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d at 835 (Tenn. 1978).
The credibility of wi

tnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reconciliation of confli cts in the evidence are mat ters entrusted exclusive ly to the trier of fact. See 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 ver dict for the state accredits the testimony of the state’s witnesses and resolves all conflic

ts in favor of the state. See State v. Williams , 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983)

.-4- Moreover, a guilty ver

dict removes the presump tion of innocence enjoyed by defendants at trial and replac es it with a presumption of guilt. See State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) . Thus, an appellant challengi ng the sufficiency of the evidence carries the burden of ill ustrating to this Court w hy the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. See State v. Freeman , 943 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
The defendant has not carried this burden. Regarding his bu rglary conviction, the defendant concedes that the testimony was sufficient to establish the elements of this offense. He argues only that the state’ s witness who testified that she saw the def endant enter the vehicle was no t credible. The challenged evidence was com petent to go to the jury, and the credibility of witnesses is an issue fo r the trier of fact. Thi s argument is without m erit.

As to the defendant’s theft convi ction, the Code provides that “[a] person commits theft of propert y if, with intent to depri

ve the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner’s effective consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. Theft o f property is a Class D felony if the pr operty is valued between $1000 an d $10,000. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-105. The defendant cites Tenne ssee common law preceding these code sections for the proposition that theft requires a “taking and carrying away,” and he emphasizes that the intercom was the only item that he was seen “taking and carrying away.” As noted above, however, the statu tory offense does not require this element. Rather, it is sufficient that the offender “knowingly obtain[s] or exercise[s] control over the property.”

In addition to evidence indic ating that the defendant broke into and vandalized the van, the state pr esented specific proof that the defendant exercised control over both the camera and intercom . These items were wor th,-5- collectively, in exces

s of $1000. The state’s proof that the defendant destroyed the camera and carried awa y the intercom suffici ently indicated his intent to deprive the owner of the proper ty. Finally, the state pr esented testimony that neither the defendant nor his ac complices had permiss ion to enter the vehicle or to exercise control over any of the equipment. Therefore, we find the eviden ce sufficient as to each eleme nt of theft.

CONCLUSION The judgment of the trial c ourt is AFFIRMED.

_____________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS , Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

_______________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WIT T, JR., Judge