### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE June 20, 200 6 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DA VID MA RS H

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Rutherford Coun ty

No. F -57019B Don R. Ash, Jud ge

No. M2005- 02879-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Dece m ber 13, 2006

Following a jury

trial, Def

endant, Davi d M ar s h , was c onvicted of two c ounts of forg ery and sentenc ed to serve three y ear s in the Depa rtment of C o rr ec t i o n fo r each off ense, to be serve d concur rently , for a n eff

ective sentenc e of three y ear s. On appe al, Def endant a rg ues that the e vidence was insuffic ient to sustain his convictions for forg ery . After a thoroug h revie w, th e j u dg ments of the trial court are aff

irmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. R. TimothyHog an, Murf ree sboro, Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellant, David Ma

rsh.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y G e n e r a l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th B . M arn e y , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam C. W hitesell, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Jude Santana, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION One morning in April 2005, Carlos Gordon wa s at the Na shville Rescue Missi o n when Def en dant appr oache d him and asked him if he w anted to " make some mone y ." D efe ndant re quested that Mr. Gordon " help him out" by opening up a che cking acc ount in his name. Mr. Gordon a g ree d to open the ac count b ec au s e h e neede d the money . He lef t the mission wit h Def

endant in a c ar driven by Def endant' s sister. Def

endant and his sister took Mr. G ordon to sever al banks be fore Mr. G o r d o n f i n a l l y r e c e i v e d ap p r o v a l t o o p e n a c h e c k i n g a c c o u n ta tC a v a l r y B a n k i n R u t h e r f

o r d C o u n t y.
Def endant’ s sis t er an d mother provided Mr . Gordon with money to use in opening the acc ount. The checks were written i n the amounts of $50.00, $75.00, and $100.00. Defe ndant’s sister “filled ou t ” t h e che cks to Mr. Gordon in the pr esenc e of D efe ndant and his mother. Mr. G ordon-2-

persona lly

signe d the che cks in the pre sence of t hese individuals bef ore g iving them to the ba nk te lle r f or de po sit int o h is n e w a c c ou nt. At trial, Mr. Gordon ide ntified a c heck paid to h is order in the amount of $695.18 with a
n o t at i o n that the che ck wa s a “c ar pay ment.” He cashe d the che ck at a differ ent Cavalry

Bank location than whe re he opened his c hecking acc ount. He identified a second c heck paid to his order in the amount of $650.00 with a notation that the c heck w as for “re nt.” Wit h Def

endant’ s assistance, this check w as also ca shed at a differ ent Cavalry Bank location. After cashing the two che cks, Mr. Gordon g ave the money to D efe ndant. Def endant g ave Mr. Gordon $75.00 in e x chang e for opening the che cking acc ount. Def endant a nd his sist er the n went shopping and boug ht food, a tele vision, a ra dio, and “a

whole bunch of o t her stuff .” Mr. Gor don and De fendant were arr ested whe n they attempted to ca sh a third che ck at y et another Cavalry Ba nk location.
Both the “ rent” chec k and t h e “ca r payment” che ck we re f

rom an a ccount in the na me of Ty ree L avende r. Ty

ree L avende r testified that he never possessed a ch ec k i n g acc ount with the a c c ou nt i nf

orma tio n c on ta ine d o n th e “ re nt” a nd“ c ar p a y ment ” c he c ks . T he a dd re ss w a s n ot h is c ur re nt a dd re ss n or

wa s the te le ph on e nu mbe r. He sa id that it wa s not his sig natur e on the c he c ks

. Mr. L avende r did not know M r. Gordon or Defe ndant, and he had no re ason to write Mr. G ordon a che ck for

rent or f or a c ar pay ment.
C at h y Sulli van testified that on April 14, 2005, Defe ndant and Mr. G ordon came into the Cavalry Ba nk on L owery

Street in S m y rn a wh er e she was working as a te ller. De fenda nt acc ompanied Mr. Gor don to the teller window. Mr. Gordon, an acc ount holder, then ne g otiated a c he c k in th e am ou nt o f $ 69 5. 18 . T he c he c k w a s d ra wn on the a c c ou nt o f T yre e L a ve nd e r. Ms. Sulli van cr edited $200.00 dollars to Mr. Gordon’s chec king acc ount, and she ga ve Mr. Gor don the rema ining a mount in cash afte r verify ing his identity

. Cr y sta l Mo lin a , a te lle r fr om a no the r C a va lry B a nk loc a tio n inSmy

rn a , te sti fi e d th a t on Ap ri l 14, 2005, Mr. Gordon c ame throug h the bank’s drive-thr u window. He w as driving a ca r with three pa sse ng e rs . D e fe nd a nt w a s r idi ng in the pa sse ng e r s e a t. M r. Gor don c a sh e d a c he c k p a id t o h is order in th e a mo u n t o f

$ 6 5 0

. 0 0

. M s
. M o li n a

c r e d it e d ap p r o xim a te ly

tw o h u n d r e d d o ll ar s to M r. Gordon’s a ccount a nd g ave him “f our hundre d some-odd dollars in ca sh.”
J amie Swee ney

testified that h e wa s the vice- president of reta il banking at Cavalry Ba nk. Mr. Sweene y

also handled some loss pre vention and sec urity work for the bank. On A pril 14, 2005, Ms. Sullivan called Mr. Sweene y from her location at the South L owery Street off ice. She notified Mr. Sweene y

that she had c onducted a split deposit transac tion that she felt “unea sy ” about, a nd she wanted him to “take a look at it.” Ms. Sullivan faxed Mr. Sweene y a copy of the che ck for $695.18 paid to the orde r of Mr. G ordon.
Mr. Sweene y

identified the tra nsaction as be ing c onsistent with fr aud patterns the bank ha d observe d in the past. He sent an alert to all Cavalry Bank branc hes along with a pic ture of D efe ndant and Mr. Gor don that was take n from surve illance c amer as in the bank. Mr. Swe eney was c ontacted-3-

by a bank br anch in Murfre esboro and notified that Def endant and Mr. Gordon wer e in t he branch. Mr. Sweene y

dialed into the bra nch’s se curity sy stem and used surveillance came ras to identifythe two men as the per

petrators. The branch trig g ere d the alarms and ca lled the police, a nd the two men wer e ar rested f or passing the forg ed che cks.
Detec tive Jo h n L ie h r

o f th e Sm yr n a

Po li c e D e p ar tm e n t r e s p o n d e d to th e s c e n e a t the Murfre esboro Ba nk location wher e De fendant and Mr. Gor don wer e ar rested. D etec tive L iehr took statements from both men. De fenda nt stated, “[m] e and Ca rlos went to Cavalry

Bank in Smy rna. He a sked me to g o with him. He handed the chec k to the teller. I will help him pay

the money

back to the bank bec ause I

came into the bank with him because he aske d me to g o with him.”
II. Ana lys is
D e f e n d a n ta s s e r t s t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r f o r g e r y. Spe c if ic a lly , h e c on te nd s th a t th e Sta te faile d to pr ov e that De fe nd a nt po sse sse d the c he c ks , w ro te the che cks, or sig ned the c hecks. The State arg ues that the e vidence was suff icient to show that De fe nd a nt ins tig a te d a nd wa s the le a de r of the fo rg e ry sc he me , a nd the re fo re wa s suf fi cie nt to support his conviction.
On app e a l, the Sta te is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w of th e e vid e nc e a nda ll rea sonable infe renc es which mig ht be dra wn there from. S ta te v
. Ca bbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) . The c redibilit y o f t he witnesses, the weig ht to be g iven their testimony , and the rec onciliation of conflicts in the proof ar e matter s entrusted to the jury as the trier

of fa ct. Byrge v

. Sta te , 5 75 S.W. 2d

29 2, 29 5 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 78 ). W hen th e suff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e is c ha lle ng e d, the re le va nt q ue sti on is w he the r, a ft e r r e vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the state, any

rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re a so na ble do ub t. T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ); State v. W illiams , 657 S.W .2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1 9 8 3 ). B e c a us e a ve rd ic t of

g uil t a g a ins t a

de fe nd a nt r e mov e s th e pr e su mp ti on of innoc e nc e a ndraise s a presumption of g uilt, the convicted criminal defendant be ars the burden of showing that the evidenc e was leg ally

insufficient to sustain a g uiltyverdic t. State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992).
I n the prese nt c ase, the rec ord ref lects that Def

endant was convicted of forg ery under a theory of criminal responsibilit y . A person who “for g es a writing with intent to defra ud or harm another” i s gu i l t y o f fo rge ry
. T

. C

. A. § 3 9 -1 4 -1 1 4 (a ). T h e t er m “f o rge ” i n cl u d es al t er i n g, m ak i n g, co m p l et i n g, e xe c u ti n g o r a u th e n ti c a ti n g a n y w r it in g s o it p u rp o r ts to b e th e a c t o f a n o th e r w h o d idn o t a

u th o r iz e that a c t. T .C.A

. § 39- 14 -1 14 (b )( 1) (A )( i) -( ii) ; State v. Knight , 9 69 S.W. 2d93 9, 94 2 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1997). A pe rson is “criminallyresponsible for an off ense c ommitt ed by the conduct of anothe r if [a] cting with in t en t t o p ro m o t e or a ssist t he commission of the off ense, or to benef it in the proce eds or r esults of the off ense, the person solicits, direc ts, aids, or attempts to aid another pe rson to com mit the of

fe ns e .” T. C.A . § 39 -1 1- 40 2( 2) . Crimi na l r e sp on sib ili ty is n ot i tse lf

a se pa rate crime; rather, it is “solely

a theory by which the State may prove the defe ndant' s g uilt of the alleg ed offe nse . . . base d upon the conduc t of another person.” State v. Lemac ks , 9 9 6 S

. W

. 2d 166, 170-4-

(Tenn. 1999)

. Under a theory of criminal responsibilit y , a def endant' s participation in the crime may be infe rre d by

defe ndant' s prese nce and companionship with the perpetrator of a felony befor e and a f te r th e c o mm is s io n o f th e off ense. See Sta te v . B all , 973 S.W .2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 98 ). “ No pa

rt ic ula r a c t ne e d b e sh ow n, a ndthe de fe nd a nt ne e d n ot h a ve play e d a ph y sic a l r ole in the crime in order to be held criminallyresponsible for the crime.” Se e Sta te v . Ca ldw e ll , 80 S.W .3d 3 1 , 3 8 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Ba ll , 9 73 S.W. 2da t 293). I n o rd e r t o b e he ld c ri min a lly responsible for

the acts of another, t he defenda nt need only “‘a ssociate himself with the ve nture, a ct with knowledg e that the of fen s e is to be committed, and shar e in the criminal intent of the principle.’” Cal dwe ll , 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d at 3 8 (c i t i n g State v. Max ey , 898 S.W. 2d 75 6, 75 7 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1994)).
I n this case, the r ecor d reve als that Def endant acted with intent to “assist [in] the commission of the off ense[s]” and “bene fit[ed] in t h e p ro ce ed s or re sults of the offe nse[s] .” T.C.A. § 39-11- 402(2). The p ro o f showed that De fendant approa ched Mr . Gordon at the resc ue mission and so lic ite d h is a ssi stanc e in op e nin g a c he c kin g a c c ou nt i n e xch a ng e fo r m on e y . A ft e r a g re e ing to h e lp Def endant, Mr. G ordon left the mission with Def endant and his sist er and trave led to Cavalry Bank wh er e h e opene d a che cking acc ount in his own name. The a ccount wa s opened w ith money provided to Mr. Gor don by De fe n d an t and De fendant’s sister. On a subse quent day , Def endant a c c omp a nie d M r. Go rd on to thr e e se pa rate Ca va lry ba nk loc a tio ns
. At tw o of the se ba nk loc a tio ns , Mr. Gordon c onducted tra nsactions using forg ed che cks sig ned and draw n on the acc ount of Ty ree L avende r. The c hecks w ere paid to the orde r of Mr. G ordon in the amounts of $695.18 a nd $650.00. Mr . L a ve nd e r t e sti fi e d th a t he ha d n o kno wl e dg e of the c he c ks or the tw o me n wh o ha d c a sh e d th e m. A b a nk te lle r te sti fi e d tha t De fe nd a nt came to the ba nk wi th M r. Go rd on a nda c c omp a nie d h im t o the teller w indow wher e he c ashed the chec k for $695.18. Another teller testified that Def endant wa s in the c ar w ith Mr . G or do n w he n h e c a me thr ou g h th e drive -thr ou g h wi nd ow to c a sh the c he c k in the a mou nt o f $ 65 0. 00 . M r. Go rd on g a ve the mon e y fr om the c a sh e d c he c ks to D e fe nd a nt w ho in turn paid Mr. Gor don $75.00 for his assi s t an ce i n o pening the che cking acc ount and ca shing the c he c ks . D e fe nd a nt then we nt s ho pp ing wi th the mon e y fr om the fo rg e d c he c ks . B a se d o n th is evid e n c e , a

r a ti o n a l t r ie r o f f a c t c o u ldf

in d th a t D e f

e n d a n t w a s g u il ty

o f f o r g e r y u n d e r a th e o r y of criminal re sponsibili ty

beca use he intende d to defra

ud the bank by knowing ly passing forg ed che cks throug h another

individual. Consequently , we c onclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Def endant’ s convictions for f org ery . Def

endant is not entitled to relief in this appeal.
CO NC LU SION
For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE