# FILED
March 17, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPE

ALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 2000 SESSI ON

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * No. W1999-01260-CCA-R3-CD

Appellee, * SHELBY COUNTY VS. * Honorable Joseph B. Dailey , Judge ROBERT E. PUGH, * (Aggravated Robbery)

Appellant. *

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : A. C. WHARTON, JR. PAUL G. SUMMERS District Publ ic Defender Attorney General & Reporter W. MARK WARD J. ROSS DYER and Assistant Attor ney General MICHAEL JOHNSON 425 Fifth Avenue North Assistant Public Defende rs Nashville, TN 38103 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 3810

3 WILLIAM L. GIBBONS

District Att

orney General AMY P. WEIRICH Assistant Dis

trict Attorney 201 Poplar Avenue, S uite 301 Memphis, TN 3810

3-1947

OPINION FILED: _

______________ AFFIRMED-2- JOHN EVERETT WIL LIAMS, Judge 

## OPINI ON

The defendant, Robert E. Pugh, appeals from his Shelby County jury verdict of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Rang e I offender to twelve yea rs in the Department

of Correction. Now on appeal, the defendant assertsas his sole issue thesufficiency of evidence. After careful review, we AFF IRM the judgment from the trial court.

BACKGROUND
On April 26, 1996, Joseph Oliv er, a co-manager

at a Wendy’s resta urant on 1593 Union Avenue

in Memphis, Ten nessee, was robbed at gunpoi nt. He testifi ed that he left the restaurant for the First American Bank on Union Avenue at app roximately 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. to get coins for the

restaurant. Wh en h e left th e bank, he noticed that a ca r was followi ng him. The car followed him to the Wendy’s and pulled behind him . Oliver test ified that the car could have been a Chev rolet Malibu and thought that the v ehicle was

maroon or

a similar color. The vehicle approached him as he left hi s vehicle. An individual leapt from the car w ith a revolver and demanded money. H e threw the money o n the ground and the individual took it.

At trial, Oliver testified that on the day of t he robbery he identified the defendant

from a lineup. Further, he identified the defendant in cour t the day of the trial. He also identified a gun introduced in evidence as being similar, i f not the same, gun used against hi m in the holdup. F inally, Oliv er tes tified that, after the robbery, he entered the restaurant and activated the holdup alarm to which police vehicles respo nded.1 Dwayne Jones was arrest ed on the day of the robber

y in the Chryslar Le baron descri bed above. -3- Mark Rewalt, of

the Memphis Poli ce Department Cr ime SceneUnit, testifi ed that he examined a Chrysler, the car the defendant abandoned after police pursuit,
on April 26, 1996, f

or finge rprint s. He testified that he obtained two latent prints,
one from the drive r’s side door a nd one from the back driver’s si de door, and preserved those prints on the appropriat e card medium. H e identified thos e latent prints for the jury.

Ch am Payn e, an officer of the Memphis Poli ce Department Cr ime Scene Unit, testified that h e located and prese r ved l atent prints fr om the hood of the vehicle, a Chrysler LeBaron. He also obta ined a la tent print from an empty beer bottle found in the floor board of that vehi cle. Again, Offi cer Payne iden tifi ed the cards containing those latent prints in court.
Jerry Sims, a latent fingerprint examiner for the Memphis Polic e Department, identified these four prints as belonging to the defendant.

Lieutenant

Hollis W. Hi ghtower, an inves tigator on the robbery squad the day of the robbery, stated that he interviewed the defend ant and, after advising him of his rights, took a s

tatement from th e defendant in whic h he admitted to com mitting the robbery. The defendant state d that the car used in the robbery was his brown 1981 Chrysler LeB aron. Fu rther, the defenda nt explained, on th e day of the robbery, he located Dwayne Jones on the street

s of Memphis and at

that point, the two agreed to commit a robbery. 1 The defendant stated that he used a

.32 caliber revolver, purchased on the st reet, to rob Oli ver at the Wendy’ s. He testifie d that approximately ten minutes after the robbery he and D

wayne Jones

were pursued-4- in the Chrysler b

y the police. Wh en stopp ed, he leapt from the c ar and escaped. Later that same day, he was arrested and identified as the robber.

ANALYSIS
The defendant’s only pres ented i ssue asserts that insufficient evidence supports the verdict against h im. T he defendant was conv icted of aggravat

ed robbery. The relevant statues , Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401(a) and § 39-13-402(1) read: Robbery . --

(a) Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of property fro m the person of another by vio lence or putting the pe rson in fear. Aggravated Robbery

. -- (a) Aggravated r

obbery is robber

y as defined in § 39 -13-401: (1) Accomplished

with a deadly wea pon or by display of an y artic le used or fashioned t o lead the victi m to reason abl y believe it to be a deadly weapon. . .
Although the defendant suggests that this Court reweigh and reeva luate the evidence, our standard of r eview on sufficiency claimsis well-est ablished. When a defendant

challenges the

sufficiency of evidence o n a jury verdict, our s tandard of
re viewis w hether, after re viewing the evi dence in a light m ost favorable to the prosecution, anyrational trier of fact could havefound the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Questions concer ning the credibi lity of the witnesses, the weight and value to be given the eviden ce as well as al l factual issu es raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact, not this Court. See State v. Tuttle , 914 S.W.2d 926, 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Nor m ay this Cour t rewei gh or re-evaluat e the evidence. See State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). On a ppeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view o f the evid ence and all-5- inferences

theref rom. Id . Because a verdi ct of guilt rem oves the presumpt ion of innocence and replaces it with a presumpti on of guilt, the accus ed has the burden in this Court of illustrating why the evidence is insuffi cient to su pport the verdict returned by the trier of fact. See State v. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Te n n. 1982).

This Court must now determine if sufficient evidence supports this convicti on under the pertinent statutes. At trial, the state entered the defendant’s si g ned statement, i n which he descri bed the robbery, a d escription cons istent with the victim’s description. This inculpatory statement is a confession. See Helto n v. State , 547 S.W.2d 5 64, 567 (Tenn. 1997) (A confession i s a statement by an accused admitting that he engaged in condu ct constituting a crime.).

The corpus

delicti of a crime may not be establi shed by a confessi on alone. See Ashby v. State , 124 Tenn. 684, 139 S.W. 872 (1911). The corpus delicti of a crime requires that

the state prove tw

o elements: (1)

that a certain r

esult has been produced, and (2) that the r esult was

created through criminal agency. See State v. Ervin , 731 S.W.2d 70, 71-72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 198 6). The elements of corpus delicti may be establis hed by circumst antial evidence. Id. at 72. Furthermore, the question of whether the sta te has sufficiently

proven the corpus delicti is a question for the jury. Id. at 71. “Only slight evidence of t he corpus delicti is necessary to corroborate a confession and thus sustain a conviction.” See Ervin , 731 S.W.2d at 72 (emphasis added). See Taylor v. State , 479 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1972).
Having revie wed the record and the evide nce presented to the jury in this case, we disagree with the defendant’s proposition that insufficient evidence exists. Instead, we conclude

that a rational trier of fact considering the

evidence, incl uding,-6- but not limited to,the defendant’s conf ession, c ould have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

committed aggra

vated robbery. Be

sides the confession: (1) The defendant was id entified from a lineup as th e robber; (2) The defendant was id entified at the trial; (3) The revolver r

ecovered from th e defendant was desc ribed as being simili ar to the weapon used in the robbery; a nd (4) The defendant’s fi ngerprints wer e recovered from a vehicle simi lar in description to the robbery vehicle and connected to the robbery. From all this, we find sufficient evidence to support the jur y verdict.

__________________________ ______ JOHN EVERETT WI LLIAMS, Judge
CONCUR:

__________________________ _____ DAVID G. HAYES, J udge

__________________________ _____ ALAN E. GLENN, Judg e