### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs January 9, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TON Y B ELL

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

No. 05-08649 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2006-01515-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 18, 2007

After a benc h trial, the Shelby County Criminal Cou rt convicted the appellant of burg lary of a building, a Class D f

elony , and sente nced him as a car eer offe nder to twelve y ear s in the Depa rtment of C orre ction. On appeal, t he appellant claims the evidence is insufficie nt to support the conviction. Upon re view of the rec ord and the parties br iefs, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O GLE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Tony N. B ray ton and Rober

t Wilson J ones (on a

ppeal) and Tre nt Hall (at trial) , Memphis, Tennesse e, for the a ppellant, Tony

Be ll.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l a n d R e p o r t e r ; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Miche lle Parks, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
At trial, RafigMohammed testified that in October 2003, he wa s leasingthe Tig er- Mart

c on ve nie nc e sto re a t 45 44 Sta g e Roa d in She lby County and that the sto re wa s o pe n f

ro m 6: 00 a .m. to 9 :00 p. m. I

n th e e arl y

mor nin g ho ur s o f O c tob e r 1 9, 20 03 , M oh amme d r e c e ive d a te le ph on e c a ll from the store ’s alar

m monitoring compa

ny and we nt to the store. When he ar rived, police wer e investigating a

brea k-in. The store’s front door had bee n shattere d by

a vehic le, cig are ttes were missing, and items in the store ha d been move d. The store had four surveillance ca m era s that

rec orded onto a

videotape, a

nd Mohammed turned the videotape ove r to police. The tape showe d tw o men loa din g me rc ha

nd ise int o b oxe s, and

Mo hamme d s a id t

he me n d id n ot h ave pe rm iss ion to be in his store.-2-

Memphis Poli ce D epar

tment Office r C la

r e n ce Ma bon testified that he investig ated the T ige rMart burg lary

. On Oc tob e r 27 , 20 03 , he re c e ive d a vid e ota pe fr om the po lic e de pa

rtme nt’ s p ro pe rt

y and evidenc e room. Offic er Mabon had photogr aphs made from the time-lapse video and g ave bla ck and white photocopie s of the photogr ap h s to his supervisor, who re lease d the photocopies to the media on Oc tober 31. At some point, Crime Stoppers rec eived a tip, naming a suspect and g iving an addr ess. In response to the tip, Office r Mabon went to 905 Ey ers Road, spoke with J ohnny Pry or,
and sh ow e d Pr

y or the ph oto c op ie s. Of

fi c e r M a bo n s tate d th a t Pr

y or wa s a ble to c omm

un ic a te wi th him and did not appear

to be under

the influenc e of a lcohol or drug s. After Offic er Ma

bon spoke with Pry or, an a

rre st warr ant was issued f or the a ppellant.

J ohnny Pry or testified that he is the appellant’ s stepfathe r and has known the a ppellant for twenty -three y ear s. He reluctantly acknow ledg ed that police officer s visited his home and that he identified one of

the robbe rs in the photocopies a s the appe llant. He state d that the day befor e the of fi c e rs vis ite d him
, he wa s re le a se d fr om the ho sp ita l a ft e r be ing tr e a te d fo r p ne umo nia . H e sa id he wa s taking twenty -three medications whe n he spoke w ith the office rs.

L evon B ell testified that she is the appe llant’s mother. S he st ated that she and J ohnny Pry or have ne ve r b e e n ma

rr ie d b ut t hat he ha s b e e n h e r f

ianc é fo r t

we nty -t hr e e y e ars

.
Th e a pp e lla nt te sti fi e d that he is n ot o ne of the me n o n th e vid e ota

pe or in t he ph oto g ra

ph s. He state d that he had no a libi for the ea rly morning hours of October 19, 2003, but that he was not

ar r e s t e d u n t i l m o n t h s l a t e r

o nM ar c h2 9 , 2 0 0 4

. H e s t a t e d th a t h e h a s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r b ur g l ar y,
e va din g arr e st, and the ft of pr op e rt y va lue d mor e tha

n fiv e hund

re d d oll ars and

that he ple d guil ty in t ho se case s becau se he was g uil ty . H e sa id h e we nt t o tr ia l in thi s c a se be c a

us e he is i nn oc e nt. On cr oss-examination, the appellant ac knowledg ed having seven aliases. He state d that in October 2003, he lived with his mother at 905 Ey ers Road but w as out of town with a frie nd when the police visited his mot her’ s home. When he re turned home, Johnny Pry or told him that the police ha d been there . The a

ppellant said he smokes but did not have a ca r at the time of the burg lary

.
The trial c ourt found the ap p el l an t g uilty , stating that it had review ed the videota pe. The

c ourt no te d th a t th e a

pp e lla nt h a d n o c re dib ili ty and state d that “ thi s pe rs on in thi s v ide o is a bs olute ly ide nti c a l [to the a

pp e lla nt]. Hi s to oth

patte rn , h is n os e , h is c he e ks , h is e y e s and br ow , h is e ars , if thi s person on this video we re not this defe ndant, he would have to [have] had an identica l brother.”

II. Ana lys is

The a ppellant claims that the evidenc e is insufficient to support the c onviction beca use the conviction “is base d upon the dubious identification of the Appellant as the pe rpetrator.” When an appellant c halleng es the suff iciency of the co nvicting e vidence , the standar d for r eview by an appellate court is “whethe r, af ter view ing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution,

any ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h ave fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.” Jac ks on

v. Vi rgin ia, 44 3 U.S . 307 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 13(e) . The State is entitled to the strong est leg i t imate view of the evidenc e and a ll reasona ble or-3-

leg itimate infere nces which may be drawn there from. State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Que stions concer

ning the cre dibilit y

of witnesse s an d the weig ht and value to be aff orded th e evi den c e , a s w e ll a s a ll f a c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e , a

re re so lve d b y

the tr ie r o f f

a c t. State v. Bla

nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Acc ording ly , in a benc h trial, the trial judg e, as the trier of

fac t, must resolve all questions concer ning the cre dibilit y

of witnesses a

nd the weig ht and value to be g iven the evidenc e, as well as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e. State v. B all, 973 S.W. 2d 28 8, 29 2 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ). Th e tr ia l ju dg e ’s ve rd ic t c arr ie s th e same wei gh t a s a jury verdic t. State v. Hatche tt, 560 S.W .2d 627, 630 (Tenn. 1978)

.

I n th is c a se , th e a

pp e lla nt on ly c on te sts the ide nti fi c a tio n of him a s th e pe rp e tr a tor . A t tr ia l, the State introduce d into evidence color photog raphs take n from the surve illance videota pe, blac k and white photocopie s of the photogr aphs, and the videotape. The e vidence established that Johnny Pr y or vie we d th e ph oto c op ie s and ide nti fi e d the a

pp e lla nt a s o ne of

the burg lars . T he tr ia l c ourt a lso revie wed the e vidence and conc luded that the appellant wa s one of the bur g lars. We note that one of the photocopie s shows an up-c lose and clea r imag e of an Afric an-A merica n man’s fac e. Unlike this court, the t rial court had the bene fit of observingthe appe llant at trial and be ing a ble to compar e him to the man in the phot og raphs a nd on the videotape . Ba sed upon Pry or’s identification of the ap p e ll a n t an d th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e a p p e ll an t c o u ld b e s e e n o n the videotape burg larizing the store , we c onclude that the e vidence is sufficient to support the convic tion.

III. Conclusi on

B a se d u po n th e re c or d a

nd the pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE