### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 14 , 200 9
STA TE OF TENNES SEE v . CHRIST OPHE R R. RICKMAN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMcN airy County

No. 2290 J. WeberMcC raw, Judge

No. W2008-02012-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed November5, 2009

Th e d e f e n d a n t, Ch r is to p h e r R. Ri c k man , w a s c o n v ic te d b y a M c N a iry Co u n ty ju r y o f the ft of pr op e rt y g re a te r tha n $ 10 00 , a Clas s D fel on y, a ndpo sse ssi on of dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia , a

Cla ss A misdemeanor. H e wa s subsequently sentenc ed to co ncurr ent sentenc es of thre e yea rs, to be
su sp e nd e d f

oll ow ing se rv ic e of nin e ty d a ys , a nde le ve n mo nth s a ndtw e nty -n ine da ys . O n a pp e a l, the de fe nd a nt r a ise s tw o is su e s f or ou r r e vie w: (1 ) w he the r the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d w a s suf fi c ie nt t o support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erre d in de nying a sentenc e of full probation. Fol low ing re vie w o f the re c or d, we fi ndno e rr or a nda ff ir m th e c on vic tio ns a nd

re su lti ng se nte nc e s. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circ uit Court Aff irme d

J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich N OR MA M C G EE O GLE and A LA N E. G LE NN , JJ., joined.

Chadwick G. H unt, Savannah, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Christopher R. Rickman.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., At torne y G e ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; D. Mic ha e l D un a va nt, Di stric t A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; a ndBob Gr ay , A s s i s t an t Di stric t A tto rn e y G e ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

Fa c tu al B ac kgr ound
Joey Mane ss and his brother, Mike M an es s , wer e enga ged in the business of building and selling residential prop er t y

. T he two built and furnishe d one such pie ce of property as a “ spec house.” I n the summer of 2006, this house was robbed of sever al appliances and items of furniture , which had be en purc hased f or $5000. The the ft was r eporte d to local police.

In Februa ry 2007, De puty Brad Smith of the McNairy County Sheriff’s De p ar tment was dispatched to a

domest i c d i s pute ca ll at the residenc e of the defe ndant and his girlfrie nd, Tiffa ny Morris. Ms. Morris had c alled the police and r equeste d their pre sence while she re moved her-2-

pe rs on a l pr op e rt y f

ro m th e ho me

. Af

te r the de fe nd a nt ar

ri ve d, he , M s. Mo rris, a ndDe pu ty S mith enter ed the r esidenc e. De puty Smi th, who had entered to “kee p the peace” betwee n the def endant and Ms. Morris, foll owed Ms. Morris as she collected her belongings. While inside the re sidence , Deputy Smith observed seve ral a ppliances a n d i t em s of furniture, which he believed matched the description of items which ha d been reported stolen. Specifically, De puty Smith noticed a Frigidaire dis hw a sh e r, a

Fr igi da ir e re frige rator , a

din ing ro om s e t, a be dr oo m su ite , a nig ht s ta nd , tw o d re sse rs , a cof fee table, and two e nd tables. Howe ver, he made no mention o f h i s s u s p i ci o ns to either the de fe nd a nt o r M s. Mo rris.
Upon returning to the station, Deputy Smit h again e xamined the thef t report de scribing the stolen property. Believing that the items were located in the de fendant’s reside nce, he obtained a
sear ch wa rra nt for the r esidenc e. A f ew days later, De puty Smi th and fe llow office rs exe cuted the
war rant a t the defe ndant’s house, al t h o u g h the def endant wa s not present a t the time. Upon
sear ching the residence , it was verified that the s eria l numbers on the di shwasher and the r efrigera tor matched those reported stolen from the Ma ness brother s

. J o ey Maness c ame to the de fenda nt’s house and ide ntified the furniture. The pr operty wa s removed and returne d to the owner s. Howeve r, be c a us e of

da ma ge s to the pr op e rt y, it h a d d e c re a se d in va lue by six ty- fi ve to s e ve nty -f ive pe rc e nt.
While in the home, Deputy Smit h also observe d, in plain view, six glass pipes, which we re used to smoke methampheta mine. The pipes ha d re s i d u e, which he be lieved to be methamphetamine, a nd burn m arks on the bottoms. In addition, severa l plastic baggies conta ining residue and a set of e lectronic scale s were also discover ed.

Based upon the fore going, a McNa iry County grand jury returne d an indictment c harging the defe ndant wit h : (1) a ggravated burglary; (2) thef t of property betwee n $1000 and $10,000; (3) possession of drug para

pherna lia; a nd (4) theft betwee n $500 and $1000. At the subs eq u en t j u ry trial, the def

endant pr esente d the testimony of Ms. Morris, now his fiancé , and his mother, who e ach te sti fi e d th a t th e ite ms h a d b e e n p ur c ha se d at th e Crump Fle a Ma rk e t in Au gu st 20 06

. Tw o r e c e ipt s dated “ August 1 2 , 2006,” indicating the pur chase of a be droom suite, a re friger ator, a nd a dishwasher , wer e also introduce d. Additionally, Ms. Morris testified t h at the pipes found in the home wer e her s. After the evidenc e wa s prese n t ed , t h e S tate dismissed the burglary and misdemeanor the ft cha

rge s . The jury subseque ntly found the defe ndant guilty of theft betwe en $1000 and $10,000 and possession of drug para pherna lia. Following a sentenc ing hearing, the trial
c o u r t s e n te n c e d th e d e f

e n d a n t to th r e e y e ar s f

o r th e th e f

t c o n v ic ti o n , s u s p e n d e d f o ll o w in g service of ninety days, a nd t o eleve n months and twenty-nine da ys for the dr ug para pherna lia conviction. No mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l w a s f ile d, bu t th e de fe nd a nt f

ile d a tim e ly n oti c e of

app e a l.

Ana lys is

One a ppea l , t h e def

endant ha s raised two issues f or re view. First, he contends tha t the
e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

hi s con vic tio ns . N e xt, he c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in denying a se ntence of full proba tion.

I. Su fficie ncy of the Evidence-3-

First, the defenda nt contends that the State failed to prove beyond a r easona ble doubt that he committed either the the ft o r t he possession of drug pa raphe rnalia. Spec ifically, he c ontends that

“ [a ]l l State wi tne sse s te sti fi e d that the y ha d no dir e c t pr oo f o f any c ri me by [the de fe nd a nt] , w hil e a ll [the de fe nd a nt’ s] wi tne sse s te sti fi e d that the pr op e rt y w a s p ur c ha se d a t th e Crump Fle a Ma rk e t, and that the dr

ug para pherna lia even be longed to . . . Ms. Morris.” The defe ndant re lie s u pon the fac ts that no witness was able to spe cify the d at e o f t h e t h eft, that the home was shar ed by the de fe nd a nt a ndMs. Mo rris, a ndthat no on e dir e c tly wi tne sse d th e de fe nd a nt c omm it the the ft

.
I n consideringthe issue of suff iciency of the e vidence , we a

pply the rule that where the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence is challeng ed, the rele vant questi on for the r eviewingcourt is “whe ther, afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the light most favor able to the [State], anyra tio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the essential e lements of the c rime beyond a rea sonable doubt.” J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct. 27 81 , 27 89 (1 97 9) ; se e als o Te nn . R. App . P. 13 (e ). Mo re ov e r, the State is entitled to the s trong est leg itimate view of the evidence and all rea sonable inferenc es which may be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H

arris , 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). All questions involving the
cre dibilit y

of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, an d al l fa ct ual issues are resolved by the t rier of fac t. State v. Pappas , 75 4 S.W. 2d 62 0, 62 3 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ). Th is court will not rewe igh or

ree valuate the evidenc e pre sented. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. “A guilty

verdic t by

the jury , approve d by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimony of the witnesses for

the S tate and resolves a ll conflicts in favor of the theory

of the State.” State v. Grac e , 49 3 S.W.2 d 474 , 476 (T e nn . 197 3)

. A jur y c on vic tio n re mov e s the pr e sumpt ion of inn oc e nc e wi th which a de fenda

nt is ini tially

cloake d and repla ces it with one of guilt so t hat, on appe al, a c onvicted defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the evidenc e is insufficient. Sta te v. T ug gle , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . These r ules are applicable to finding s of guilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, circumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. Although a

conviction may

be base d entirely

upon circ umstantial evidence , Du c ha c v . S tate , 505 S.W .2d 237, 241 (Tenn. 1974) , in such ca ses, the fa cts must be “s o clea rly interwove n and
connec ted that t he finge r of g uilt is pointed unerr ingly at the De fenda

nt and the De fenda

nt alone.” State v. Black

, 8 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d

1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (T en n

. 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i n g S ta te v . Duncan , 698 S.W .2d 63 (Tenn. 1985)). How ever , as in the ca se of dire ct evidenc e, the weig ht to be g iven circ umstantial evidence and “the infere nces to be draw n from such evide nce, a nd the extent to which the circ umstances a re consistent with g uilt and inconsist ent wit h innocenc e, are questions primarily for the jur y .” Ma ra ble

v . S tate , 203 Tenn. 440, 313 S.W.2d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958) ( citations omitt ed).
As noted, t h e d ef

en d an t was convic ted of thef t of property over $1000 a nd unlawful possession of drug par aphernalia. A pe rson commits theft when he “knowingly obt ains or exe rcises control over

the prope rty without the owner’ s eff ective consent” and with the intent to deprive the
owner of prope rty, which was valued be tween $1000 and $10,000. T.C.A. § 39-14-103. To support a convic tion for unlawf

ul possession of drug par aphernalia, the State is re quired to show that the-4-

defe ndant did unlawfully and know ingly possess drug para pherna lia with the intent to introduce a controlled substanc e into the human body. T.C.A. § 39-17- 425 (2006).
Viewing the e vidence in the light mos t favora ble to the State, we c onclude that the e vidence is s uf ficien t to su pp ort bo th c on vic tio ns . T he de fe nd a nt’ s a rg ume nt i s e sse nti a lly a

c re dib ili ty challeng e, as he is asking this court to accr edit his fiance ’s and his mother’ s testimony that the property was purc hased at the Crump Flea Marke t. Howeve r, their testimony was put before the jury and cle arly re

jected, b as ed upon the ver dicts of guilty. It is the jury who is charge d with making
cre dibilit y determination, not thi s court. Sta te v . Smi th , 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). It is not the function of this c ourt to r ewe igh those determinations on appe al. Id . at 278-79. As noted, the testimony was prese nted to the jury and r ejec ted, a de cision which this court will not revisit.

The e vidence , when view ed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to support the convictions. Both Mike and Joey Maness testified that furniture and appliances were ta ken fr om the i r “ s p e c h o u s e ” w i t h o u t t h e i r e f f e c t i v e c o n s e n t

. A l t h o u g h t h e r e w a s s o m e d i s c r e p a n c y i n th e ir testimony with regard to the va lue of this propert y , ea ch t es t ified that it was gre ater than $1000. These items we re loc ated in the de fenda nt’s home and spe cifical l y i d entified a s the items taken,
so me e ve n by se ri a l nu mbe r. Th e de fe nd a nt’ s mo the r andhis fi a nc é e a c h te sti fi e d th a t th e pr op e rt y came into the defe ndant’s possession in August 2006, shortly a fter the property w as taken f rom the Maness brothe rs. We note that possession of recently st olen property, if not satisfactorily expla ined, is a c ir c ums ta nc e fr om w hic h th e tr ie r o f fact may dr a w a n in fe re nc e a ndfi ndthat th e pe rs on in possession kne w that the property ha d been stolen. Sta te v . H atc he tt , 560 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Tenn. 1987). Thus, although not specific ally establishing that the defendant re moved the prope rty from the house, the e vidence is more than suff icient to establish that the defe ndant exer cised control over the prope rty, which we may infer he knew to be stolen, with the intent to deprive the ow ner. Likewise, the r ecor d establishes the prese nce of illegal drug para pherna lia, including pipes with drug residue , baggies, a nd scale s, in the defe ndant’s residence

. The presenc e of residue on the pip e s su pp orts the inf

e re nc e that th e y h a d b e e n u se d in smo kin g th e me thamph e ta min e . D e sp ite Ms. Morris’ testimony that the pipes we re he rs, which, as not ed, was reje cted by the jury, it is of note that these items w ere found in the def endant’ s home sever al days a fter Ms. Morris moved out. Thus, the defe ndant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

II. Probation

Ne xt, the de fend ant c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in or de ri ng a

se nte nc e of

sp lit confine ment rathe r t h an g ranting full probation. Accor ding to the defe ndant, his “re cord, w hen considere d in conjunction with t h e rema inder of his Pre- Sentence Report, did not support the imposit ion of a mandatory ninety-day jail se ntence

. . . .” Specif ically, he r elies upon the fa cts that he only has one prior fe lony conviction and “se vera l misdemeanor c onvictions,” is working two jobs to support his children, and has a “good working relationship” w ith his Mi ssissippi probation off icer

. When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th, r ang e, or ma nner of service of a se ntence , this court has a duty to conduct a de novo revie w of the sentenc e with a presumption that the deter minations
ma de by the tr ia l c ou

rt are c or re c t. T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 06 ); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166,-5-

169 (Tenn. 1991) . This pr esumption is “conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that t h e t r i a l c o u rtc o n s i d e r e d

t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r i n c i p l e s an d a l l r e l e v an tf

a c t s an d c i r c u m s t an c e s

. ” A s hb y, 823 S.W .2d at 169. Fur

thermore , we emphasize that fac ts r eleva nt to sentencingmust be established by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e and not be y ond a re asonable doubt. Sta te v . W inf ie ld , 23 S.W .3d 279, 283 (Tenn. 2000) . The pa rty challeng ing a s entenc e bears the burden of e stablishing that the
se nte nc e is e rr on e ou s. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) , Se nte nc ingCom m’ n Cm ts.

I n this case , the defe ndant is elig ible for an alternative sentenc e beca use his sentence s were ten y ear s or less and the of fense s for which he was convicted a re not spec ifically

excluded by

statute. T. C.A . § § 4 0- 35 -1 02 (6 ), -3 03 (a )( 20 06 ). Un de r t he 20 05 amen dm ent, a

Rang e Iof

fe nd e r “ sh ou ld be conside red a s a favorable candidate for a lternative se ntencingoptions in the a bsence of evide nce to the contra

ry .” SeeT.C.A. § 40-35-102( 6). Evidenc e to the contr ary may be esta blished by showing that: (1) conf

inement is neede d to pr otect society by restra ining a def endant who ha s a long history of criminal conduct; (2) confine ment is ne eded to a void depre ciatingthe seriousne ss of the of fe ns e , o r c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to p e op le lik e ly to commit s im il ar o f

f e n s e s ; o r ( 3 ) le s s r e s tr ic ti v e me a s u r e s th an c o n f in e me n t h a v e f

r e qu e n tly or rec ently been applied unsucc essfully to the defe ndant. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169 (c iting T.C.A. § 40-3 5 -1 0 3 (1 )( A)-(C)). The trial court may also consider

the mitigatingand enha

ncingfac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sections 40-35-113 and -114. T.C.A. § 40-35-210( b)(5) (2006); S tate v. Boston , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d 4 3 5 , 4 3 8 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 6 )

. I n a d d i t i o n , a t r ia l c ou rtsh ou ld consider a

defe ndant’s potential or la ck of po t en t i al fo r re habilitation when deter mining if a

n a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e wo uld be a pp ro pr iate . T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -1 03 (5 ); Boston , 938 S.W .2d at 438.

Howeve r, the defe ndant is r equire d to establish his “ suitabilit y for full probation.” State v. Mounger , 7 S.W .3d 70, 78 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); T.C.A. § 40-35-303( b) (2006) . A def endant seekingfull probation bears t he burden of showing t hat probation will “subser ve the ends of just ice and the be st interest of both the public and the defe ndant.” State v. Dykes , 803 S.W .2d 250, 2 59 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Ho op e r v . S tate , 201 Tenn. 156, 297 S.W.2d 78, 81 (Tenn. 1956), overruled on othe r ground by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000)). Among the fa ct ors applicable to pr obation considera tion are the circ umstances of the offe nse; the def

endant’ s criminal
re c or d, so c ia l hi sto ry , a

nd pr e se nt c on dit ion ; th e de te rr e nt e ff e c t up on the de fe nd ant; and

the be st interests of the de fenda

nt and the public. State v. Gre ar , 568 S.W .2d 285, 286 (Tenn. 1978)

.
In de ny ing fu ll p ro ba tio n in thi s c a se , th e tr ia l c ou rt ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s:
Th e Cou rt c on sid e rs , a s c ou ns e l po int e d ou t, [ the de fe nd a nt’ s] famil y c on sid e ratio ns , but the C ou r t a ls o p la c e s a f a irly h e a v y e mp h a s is o n h is p r e v io u s a c ti o n s a n d the char acte r of the de fenda nt. He does have sever al criminal convic tions over the yea rs a ndhe ’s sti ll a yo un g ma n. Ac c or din g to the pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt , h e ’s [t we nty -e igh t] year s old. So the Court must consider whether or not it’s rea sonably likely that he will be rehabilitated and consider any risk that during his period of pr obation whether or not h e will commit another c rime. The Court doe s note that he ha s been pla ced
on pr ob a tio n s e ve ra l time s. W hil e he is o n p ro batio n n ow , c ou ns e l ha s a pp ro pria te ly noted t ha t th a t p r o b a ti o n p e r io d d idn o t d e te r mi n e u n ti l a f te r th is o f f e n s e h ad-6-

occur red, but he does have prior circumstance s of being on probation. He does have
a pr ior c on vic tio n f

or un la wf ul dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia wh ic h the jury fo un d h im g uil ty of. He does have a history w ith dr ugs and his criminal history goes ba ck to when he
wa s [ e igh te e n] wh ic h w e re ba sic a lly tr a ff ic of fe ns e s b ut the n if

yo u lo ok a t 19 97 , a lso when he was [e ighteen], he did have a possession of drug cha

rge.
So the Court looks and finds that measure s less restrictive tha n confine ment have f reque ntly been applied u n s u cc es s ful ly to the defe ndant. He w as plac ed on pr ob a tio n d ur ing the se oth e r p e ri od s a ndsti ll h e is com mi tting oth e r c ri me s. Th e re fo re , th e Cou rt

do e s p la c e a

he a vy e mph a sis on his c ri min a l hi sto ry a ndon his pr ob a tio n p e ri od s w hic h h a ve be e n u ns uc c e ssf ul a s f ar a s he con ti nu e s to c omm it
c ri me s.
Foll o wi n g re v i ew , we co n cl u d e t h at t h e r ec o rd s u p p o rt s t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n g that measure s less restric tive than conf

inement have fre quently or re cently bee n applied unsucc essfully to the defe ndant. T h e re co rd indicate s that prior to committing t he instant offe nses, the def endant ha d
re c e ive d p ro ba tio n f

or fo ur se pa rate c on vic tio ns , in a dd iti on to his su bs e qu e nt f e lon y v iol a tio n in Mississ ippi, wh i ch wer e not fa ctore d into the court’s instant determination. Three of these prior convictions occ urre d in 2004. The rec ord further indicates that the defe ndant committed two of the offe nses while on probation. Based upon these fac ts, w e cannot conclude that the trial court e rre d in determining that the defendant failed t o car ry hi s burden to e stablish his entit lement to a sente nce of full proba tion.

CO NC LU SION
Based upon the f

oregoing, the judgments of conviction and resulting sentenc es ar e af firmed.

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE