### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON N ove m be r 2, 200 4 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . ROMELUS CARAWAY

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

No. 03-01611 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2004-00462-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 23, 2004

The De fenda nt, Romelus C ara way , was indicted f or fe lony Escape . A Shelby

CountyJ ury

convicted the Def endant of the indicted offense, and the t rial court sentenc ed the Def endant to six y ear s, after it determined the Def

endant was a c are er of

fende r. On a

ppeal, the D efe ndant contends that the trial court e rr e d w h e n it d e n ie d h im a n e w tria l b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) th e in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t th e D e f e n d a nt was fata lly defe ctive and the trial court a llowed the State to use this defe ctive i n dictment to prove

e sse nti a l e le me nts of

the of fe ns e fo r w hic h h e wa s c ha rg e d; and(2 ) the e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o
su sta in h is c on vic tio n. F ind ing no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud g me nt.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Paul K . Gui ba o (on app e a l) a nd Jose ph S. Ozme nt (at tria l) , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, R o m e l u s C ar a w a y.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil l i am L

. G i b b o n s , D i s t

ri c t A ttorne y Ge ne ra l; a ndSte ve Jone s, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. F acts

I n J anuary

2003, the Def

endant wa s indicted for f elony Escape . The De fendant was convicted of this offense by a Shelby CountyJ ury , and he w as sentenc ed to six y ear s, as a c are er of fe nd e r. Th e fo llo wi ng e vid e nc e wa s p re se nte d at th e De fe nd a nt’ s tria l.
Phy llis S heppar d, the criminal c ourts coordinator and keepe r of r ecor ds for the te n divisions in Shelby County , testified that, on J une 30, 2002, the Def endant was in the custody of the Shelby CountySheriff’ s Depa

rtment for ag g ravated assault cha rg es. She said that ag g ravated assault has-2-

differ ent classe s, but e ach class is a felony . She testified that the De fendant was plac ed in custody

on Ma y 29 , 2 00 2, a ft e r h e wa s a

rr e ste d b y c apia s fo r faili ng to app e ar in c ou rt fo r a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult

c ha rg e s o n in dic tme nt n umb e rs 01 -0 46 36 , 0 1- 04 63 3, a nd01 -0 46 35 . Sh e sa id that th e “s y ste m” keeps tra ck of pe ople ar

rested by issuing a r ecor ds and identification (“R and I ”) numbe r, assig ned by the Sheriff ’s Depa

rtment. She testified that the R and I number is base d upon fing erprints, so that even if a per son is a

rre sted sever al times, or uses a differ ent name, the ca ses will be assig ned by the R and I number of the person.

On cr oss-examination, S heppar d testified that a capia s is a war rant that orde rs the Sheriff ’s De pa rt me nt t o p la c e a

pe rs on in c us tod y

be c a us e that pe rs on ha s b e e n s umm on e d to c ou rt a nddid not appea r, re sulting in a bond for feiture . She s ai d t h at, besides the R a nd I number, a

booking number is a lso a ssigne d to e ach defe ndant and that number ref lects the day

a per son is arre sted. She testified that the initial booking number on the agg ravated assault cha rg e wa s 00156918, which wa s the bo oking nu mbe r fo r ind ic tme nt nu mbe rs 01 -0 46 36 , 01 -0 46 33 , a nd01 -0 46 35 . Sh e sa id that a ll thr e e a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult ind ic tme nts re su lte d in a tr ia l wi th the jury re turnin g a ve rd ic t of

no t g uil ty on J anuary

17, 2003.

On re- direc t e x amination, Sheppard te stified that the Def endant would ha ve re ceive d a new booking numbe r whe n he wa s arr ested for the s econd time on the ag g ravated assault cha rg es. She

sa id that whe n a c apia s is iss ue d, the de fe nd a nt d oe s n ot h a ve a c ho ic e a s to wh e the r o r n ot h e is g oin g to b e arr e ste d a nd pla c e d in c us tod y , re g ard le ss of wh a t th e de fe nd a nt b e lie ve s th e ou tc ome will be at trial. She testifi ed t h at t h e o utcome of a trial has no re lation to the validityof a pe rson being taken i nto custody . She said that the De fendant’s trial on J anuary 17, 2003, resulted in a misdemeanor vandalism conviction.

Be ttie L ee, a reg istered nurse at the Reg ional Medica l Ce nter (“Me d”), testified that she wa s
on du ty in the de te nti on wa

rdon June 30 , 200 2. S he sai d th a t th e de te nti on wa rdho us e s th e ill inmates that are in custod y . She testified that ea ch room ha s a lock a nd the doors ar e kept locke d wh ile the priso ne rs are in the ro om. L e e e xpla ine d th a t on ly la w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs ha ve a c c e ss to the “ bu zzer” th at un lo cks the do or s. She sa id that th e wi nd ow s inthe ro oms are g ua rd e d w ith “wire s all around the w indow.” L ee te stified that, during her shift on June 30, 2002, one of the prisoners who w as a patient in the Med, esca ped. She said that this prisoner was in a single room that had only

one bed. Further, be cause he wa s being treated for tuberc ulosis, he w as in a ne g ative pr e ssu re ro om, wh ic h is a sp e c ia l r oo m f

or pe rs on s w ith a ir

bo rn e inf e c tio ns

.
L ee testified that the i nmate who esca ped wa s Romelus Caraway , and she ide ntified him as the Def endant in court. L ee sa id that an offic er ha s to open the door f or her to enter a room, but she saw the De fe n d an t throug h his door’s viewhole at approxim ately 8:50 p.m. when she be g an dispensing me dication. She s aid t hat when she entered the Def endant’ s room, at appr ox imately 9:50 p.m. to give him his medication, she discovere d that the Defenda nt was gone

. She testified that the windows in the Def

endant’ s room wer e open and the bed wa s p u l l ed ag ainst the window. L ee
e xpla in e d t h a ta l l o f

t h e g l a s s f

r o mt h e w i n d o w s w a s b r o k e n a n d r e m o v e d a n d t h e r e w e r e sh e e ts rolled up that looked “ like a rope hang ing out the w indow . . . near the g round.”-3-

On cr oss-examination, L ee te stified that, on J une 3 0 , 2 0 0 2, the Def endant ha d been in the Med for a fe w day s, but she did not remember exactly how long . She said that she did not see the Def endant leave the room. She testified that the office r at the g uard station could se e her enter and

e xit e a c h r oo m. S he sa id that sh e c ou ld n ot s e e the ja il w arddo or fr om i ns ide the ro om.

On re -direc t exa mination, L ee te stified that, at the time that the De fendant esca ped, the prisoners in the Me d wer e not handc uffe d or shac kled. She said that, since the inc ident, the prisoner s
are restra ined.

Richar d B lair , a d e p u ty s h e r if f, te s ti f ie d th a t h e w a s o n d u ty a t th e M e d o n Ju n e 30, 2002, and assig ned to watc h over the inmates housed ther e. He said that the i nmates at the Me d are in the custody of the Shelby

County Sheriff’ s Offic e and a re not fr ee to lea ve. He testified that the prisoners in the Me d are in a sec ured r oom, and the off icer s g ive nurses or

doctors ac cess to the

room. Bla ir testified t hat, on J une 30, 2002, the Defenda nt esca ped, and he identified the D efe ndant in the courtroom. He said that, afte r t he Defendant had rece ived t reatment, he was to re turn to the jail. The De puty

said that, when he and the nur se we re g oing into the De fendant’s room, and the De pu ty we nt t o “ bu zz to l e t he r i n, ” the nu rs e sa id that th e De fe nd a nt w a s g on e

. Dep ut yB la ir te sti fi e d th a t he we nt d ow n th e ha ll an d saw that th e wi nd ow wa s o pe n a ndthat th e re we re sh e e ts and other materia ls hang ing out the window. He said that, upon discovering that the Def endant wa s g o n e , h e n o t i f

i e d h i s f i e l d c o m m a n d e r

a n d c a l l e d M e d s e c u r i t y.

On cr oss-examination, Deputy Bla ir testified that it is standard proc edure to alway s have two g uards pr esent. He said that, acc ording to pr ocedur e, one g uard does not le ave until the re place ment g uard a rrives, but, on that evening , proce dure w as not followed be cause the other of fice r left a round 9:0 0 p .m. Th e De pu ty te sti fi e d that the of fi c e rs did no t a llo w the inm a te s to ha ve tape , e xtra g ow ns , or extra bed she et s in their rooms and e ach inmate usually had one or

two sheets on their be d. Deputy Bl ai r t es t i fi ed that extra linens and tape wer e kept at the nurse’ s station, to which he had

acc ess. He sa id that it is the offic ers’ and nurse s’ re sponsibili ty to ensure that nothing extra is in the room when the nurse leaves. He testified that he has ne ver he lped a prisoner esc ape. O n re- direc t examination, Deputy

Bla ir testified that the De fendant did not pay him to let him esca

pe.

Christ op he r V a de n, a n o ff ic e r w ith the Me mph is Po lic e De pa rt me nt, te sti fi e d that, o n July 1, 2002, he wa s involved in the Defe ndant’s ar rest for esca pe. He said t h at h e and other office rs
rec eived a

call to a Shelby

Countyaddre ss about a per son that had esc aped f rom jail, and he w ent to that addre ss. He testified that another office r saw the Defenda nt inside and y elled to him, which

cause d the Def

endant to try

to exi t throug h the side door whe re O ffice r Va den wa s located. O ffice r Vade n testified that the Def endant opened the side door, and saw him, a nd then went ba ck into the house. The O ffice r said that the De fendant then proceede d to run out the front door, where a nother office r wa s located. H e said that he an d the other of fice r cha sed the De fendant on foot and, af ter they captur ed him, they

took him to t he Med.

Th e De fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s in the priso n ward a t the Me d on J un e 30 , 2 00 2. He sa id that he broke the window in his room and that De puty Bla ir g ave him the tape. He testified that he-4-

paid B lair to help hi m es ca p e, b ut that Blair told him to make it look like he esc aped thr oug h the win d o w. He s ai d that Bla ir g ave him “sc rubs” a nd walked him to the ele vator a nd, while on the el ev at o r, h e t o o k

o ff h i s go wn an d p u to n t h e s cr u b s an d t h en wa l k ed o u to f t h e b u i l d i n g.

On cr oss examination, the Defenda nt testified t hat he was in custodyand being treated for tuberc ulosis when he lef

t the Med. On re -d irec t examination, t he De fendant testified that he wa s “re lease d” by

Deputy Bla ir. On re -cr oss examination, the Def endant testified that he ran from the police whe n they

wer e trying to a

rre st him, after he “lef

t” the Med.

II. Ana lys is

On app e a l, the De fe nd a nt c on te nd s that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d inthr e e re g ard s. F ir st, he a sse rt s t h at t h e i n d i ct m en t aga i n s t t h e De fe n d an t wa s d ef ec t i v e b ec au s e i t d i d n o ts t at e t h e s p ec i fi c c h ar ge of the unde rly ing f

elony , which is nec essary to pr ove the offe nse of esca pe. Second, he contends that the tr ia l c ou rt

imp ro pe rl y a llo we d the State to u se un re la te d c ri min a l c ha rg e s to pr ov e the e le me nts of esc ape. F inally , the Defenda nt asserts that the e vidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for e scape

.
A. Indi c tm e nt

T h e De fe n d ant alleg es that his indictment was def ective be cause it failed to alleg e the

s p e c i f i c c h ar g e n e c e s s ar y t o e s t ab l i s h l a w f u l c u s t o d y t o p r o v e t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c ap e

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the Def endant asserts t hat, although he was in lawful custody of S helby Countypending ag g ravated assault cha

rg es, the indictment wa s based upon c harg es of a g gra v at ed kidnapping and a g g ravated assault l inke d to a

d if f e r e n t b o o k in g n u mb e r

. A s a r e s u lt , th e D e f

e n d a n t c o n te n d s , h e w a s n o t on
no tic e of the sp e c if

ic c ha rg e s u se d to e sta

bli sh la wf ul cu sto dy

. F urthe r, in a

re la te d is su e , h e a sse rt s that the trial court er re d i n al l o wi ng the State to use criminal charg es that we re not re lated to the indictment to prove the e ssential elements of e scape

.
Th e De fe nd a nt’ s in dic tme nt r e a ds :

THE GRAND J URORS of the State of Tenne ssee, duly selec ted, empane led, sworn

a ndc ha rg e d to inq uir e fo r the bo dy of the co un ty

of She lby , T e nn e sse e , u po n th e ir

oath p re se nt that: ROMEL US CARAW AY

on June 20 , 2 00 3 in She lby Coun ty , Ten nesse e , a ndbe fo re the fi nd ing of thi s indictment, did unlawfully and knowing ly esca pe from the Shelby County J ai l by l e a v i n g t e m p o r ar y c u s t o d y a tt h e R e g i o n a l M e d i c a l C e n t e r l o c a t e d i n S h e l b y C o u n t y, Tenne ssee, ha ving been l aw ful ly held there awa iting trial for the fe lony

char g es of Ag g ravated Kidnapping and Agg ravated Assault, i n violation of T.C.A. 39-16-605, ag ainst the pea ce and dignity of the State of T ennesse e.

The De fenda nt contends that this indictment wa s fa t ally defe ctive bec ause it wa s vag ue in stating-5-

what spec ific fe lony

char g e for which he was being held, which the D efe ndant contends is nec essary to p ro ve the of

fe ns e of fe lon y Es c ape

. Ge ne ra lly , de fe ns e s ba se d up on a de fe c tiv e ind ic tme nt mus t be pr e se nte d p ri or

to t ri a l. T e nn . R. Cr im. P. 1 2( b) (2 ). Rul e 12 (b )( 2) pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s:
(b) Pre trial Motions. – Any defe nse, objec tion, or reque st which is capa ble of determination without t he trial of the g ener al issue m ay be raised befor e trial by motion. Mot ions may

be written or oral at the discretion of the judge

. The following

mus t be raise d p ri or

to t ri a l: (2) De fense s and objec tions based on def ects in the indi ctment, pre sentment or information (other than that it f ails to show jurisdiction in t he court or to char g e an offe n s e which objec tions shall be noticed by the court at any

time during the pendenc y of the proc eeding s).

Ac c or din g ly , th e De fe nd a nt h a s w a ive d th is i ssu e . H ow e ve r, in the int e re st of jus tic e , w e wi ll pr oc e e d to de a l w ith thi s is su e on the me ri ts.

Th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt ha s he ld tha t, fo r c on sti tut ion a l pu rp os e s, “ a n in dic tme nt i s valid if it provides sufficient information: (1) to e nable the a ccuse d to know the ac cusation to which

answe r is require d; (2) to furnish the c ourt ade quate ba sis for the entry of a pr oper judg ment; and (3) to protect the a ccuse d from double jeopa rdy .” State v. Hill, 954 S.W .2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997)

. Further, the indictment must meet the statutory require ments of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40 -1 3- 10 2, wh ic h p ro vid e s:

Th e ind ic tme nt mus t st a te the fa c ts c on sti tut ing the of fe ns e in o rd ina

ry a ndc on c ise lang uag e, without prolix ity or repetition, in such a manner as t o enable a per son of

c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o k n o w w h a ti s i n t e n d e d , a n d w i t h t h a td e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y, which will enable the court, on c onviction, to pronounce the proper judgme nt; and in no case are such words as “for ce and arms” or “contr ary to the form of the statute”

n e c e s s ar y.

I n Hill, our Supreme Court conclude d that, althoug h the sciente r re quirement wa s not stated in the indictment, the indictment was valid, base d upon it: (1) satisf y i n g the three afor ementioned

c o n s ti tu ti o n a l r e q u ir e me n ts ; ( 2 ) c o mp lyin g w ith th e n o ti c e r e q u ir e me n ts o f T e n n e s s e e Code Annotated se ction 40-13-202; and ( 3) pro v i d i n g a basis for logic ally inferring the mental eleme nt of the c rime char g ed. I d. at 726-27. The Hill Court st resse d that indictments should be scrutinized from the va ntag e point of “common sense and rig ht rea son rather than from the na

rrow sta ndpoint of . . . tec hnicality

or hair splitting f

ault finding .” I d. at 728 (quoting United States v. Purvis, 580 F.2d 853, 857 ( 5th Cir.1978)). Since Hill, the Court has o ft en repe ated its intention to relax “common law ple ading require ments and its relucta nce to e lev at e fo rm over substanc e whe n evaluating the sufficie ncy of indictments.” See e.g ., State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W .3d 294, 300 (Tenn. 2000). I n Hammonds, the Court said, “Indeed, H ill and its proge ny leave li t t l e doubt that indictments which ac hieve the ove rriding purpose of notice to t he ac cused w ill be considere d sufficie nt to satisfy

both constituti onal and statut o ry require ments.” I d.; see State v. Sledg e, 15In hi s b ri ef , t he D efend ant s t at ed t hat aggravat ed rob b ery charges were used, ho wever, i t ap p ears t hat t he 1

c h a rg e s w e re a c tua lly fo r a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt.

-6- S.W .3d 93, 94 (Tenn. 2000) ; Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W .2d 929, 931 (Tenn.1998) ; Ruff v. State, 978 S.W .2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1998) . The Te nnessee Supreme Court has he ld that an indictment may

re fe r t o th e statut e that de fi ne s th e of fe ns e a ndthat in dic tme nt i s su ff ic ien t and sa tis fi e s a ll constitutional a nd statutory require ments. See Sledge , 15 S.W .3d at 95; se e also Ruff v. State, 978 S.W .2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1998)

.
I n th e c a se un de r s ub mis sio n, the ind ic tme nt a bo ut w hic h th e De fe nd a nt c omp la ins is attache d to the appellate rec ord. Afte r a thoroug h revie w of the i ndictment in this case, we find that it meets both the constitutional a nd statutory require ments. The De fendant is named as the a ccuse d, the date of

the offe nse is g iven, and the actus reus and mens rea of the offe nse is state d. Further, the indic t m en t af

fo rded the Defe ndant clea r, under standable notice that he wa s being char g ed with a violation of Tenne ssee Code Annotated 39-16-605, which proscribes Escape . The indictment trac ks the esc ape statute and alleg es that the De fendant knowingly esca ped fr om custody . The indictment’s failure to allege t h e co rre ct booking number for the spec ific cha

rg e re quired to establish fe lony Escape does not make it def ective. A t the Def

endant’ s trial for escape , the State “only had to prove that [t he De fenda nt] esca

ped fr om la wful custody while being held for a felony

. I t w as not nec essary for the name of the felony to be allege d, instructed, or pr oven.” State v. Culp, 891 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; see a lso St ate v. James, 81 S.W .3d 751, 760-61 (T en n . 2002). Ac c or din g ly , th e De fe nd a nt w a s p ro vid e d a de qu a te no tic e of the c ha rg e a g a ins t him, e sc ape wh ile be ing he ld o n a fe lon y , a nd the tr ia l c ou rt ha d a n a de qu a te ba sis fo r the e ntry of a pr op e r j ud g me nt. Th e re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Ne xt, th e De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y

a llo wedthe State to u se unrelated criminal char g es to pr ove the essential elements of esca pe. Specifica lly , the De fe n d ant
asserts that the use of c harg es for ag g ravated assault and ag g ravated kidnapping was errone ous since 1 these c harg es we re not pe nding. Sheppard, the keepe r of the officia l c ourt rec ords, testified that the Def endant wa s arr ested on May 29, 2002, afte r fa iling to appe ar f or three indictments of ag g ravated assault. The rec ord appea rs to support this testimony , and it a ppear s that since only one ag g ravated assault cha

rg e and one kidnapping char g e we re dismiss ed prior to the De fendant’s esca pe, ther e wa s at least one ag g ravated assault cha rg e that re mained. In the ca s e u nder submission, the jury was ins truc te d th a t in or de r t o c on vic t th e De fe nd a nt o f e sc ape , th e Sta te mus t pr ov e , b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, that: ( 1) the De fe nd a nt e sc ape d; (2 ) a t th e tim e of the e sc ape the De fe nd a nt “ wa s c ha rg e d w ith ag g ravated assault, a f

elony ”; (3) the esca

pe wa s from a pe nal institut ion; and (4) that the Defe ndant acte d “intentionally , knowing ly or re cklessly .” B ased on Sh ep p ard’s testimony , there wer e ag g ravated assault char g es pending and, there fore , the use of a char g e of ag g ravated assault in the jury ins truc tio n w a s c or

re c t.

Further, the c iting of a ny

specific felony was not a ctually neede d to support a conviction for

esca pe and, the ref

ore, a ny citation o f a s p ec i fi c fe lony was mer ely

g ratuitous. Even if the f elony char g e stated was the incorre ct char g e it doe s not rende r the indictment def ective. “ An indictment-7-

is not ba d or fata l if it

. . . co ntains su rp lus wo rd s. Ho we ve r, in r e je c tin g the su rp lus a g e , th e of fe ns e
mus t be su ff

ic ie ntl y c ha rg e d. ” Cul p, 89 1 S.W. 2d a t 23 6. Af te r the re mov a l of

the sp e c if

ic of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , the ind ic tme nt wo uld sti ll re a d that the De fe nd a nt wa s be ing c ha rg e d with

esca pe while being held on fe lony char g es and this would suffic e in placing the Def endant on notice of the off ense. It is not nec essary for the State to pr ove the type of f elony for whic h the Def

endant was inca rce rate d and in custody ; the State only needs to prove t hat t he Defendant was in custody for

a fe lon y . I d. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

B. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence

When an ac cused challeng es t he suff iciency of the e vidence , this Court’s standard of r eview is whether, a fter c onsidering the evidenc e in the lig ht most favor able to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fac t could have found t he essential elements of the c rime bey ond a re asonabledoubt. Tenn. R. A pp . P. 13 (e ); Jac ks on v. Vi rg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); State v. Carte r, 121 S.W.3d 579, 5 8 8 (T en n

. 2 0 0 3 ); S t at e v

. S m i t h , 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 8 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ). T h i s ru l e a p p l i es t o fi n d i n gs of g uilt based upon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidenc e, or a c ombination of both direct and

c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e . St a te v. Pe nd e rg ra ss , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392-93 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1999).

I n de te rm ini ng the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , thi s Cou rt sh ou ld no t re -w e ig h or re -e va luate the evidenc e. State v. Matthew s , 80 5 S. W .2 d 7 76 , 7 79 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 90 ). No r m a y thi s C o u rt s u b s t i t u t e it s i n fe re n ce s fo r t h o s e dr aw n b y t h e tr i er o f fa ct fr o m t h e ev i d en ce

. S t at e v. Bu ggs , 99 5 S. W.2 d 1 02 , 1 05 (T e nn . 1 99 9) ; Liaka s v . St a te , 286 S.W .2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956) . Questions

conce rning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, the weig ht and value of t h e ev i d en ce , and all fa ctual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t. L iakas
, 286 S.W .2d at 859. This Court must afford the State of Tenne ssee the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence contained in the

rec ord, as well as all rea sonable inferenc es which may be drawn from the evidenc e. State v. Evans
, 838 S. W. 2 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 2 )

. B e c a u s e a v e r d ic t o f g u il t a g a in s t a d e f e n d a n t r e moves the presumption of innoce nce and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted c riminal defe ndant bea rs the burde n of showing that the evidenc e wa s leg ally insufficient to sustain a g uilty verdic t. I d.; see State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000).

Th e Defen dan t c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tria l is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in h is conviction for e scape . Specifica lly , he asse rts that the proof at trial does not match the indictment and the f acts a lleg ed ther ein. He contends that, beca use he w as not in lawful custody for the c harg es
c on sid e re d d uring the arr e st a ndfo r the subs equ ent in dic tme nt, a ndtho se c ha rg e s w e re us e d to establish a nec essary

element of

the offe nse, a g uiltyverdic t was improper

.
Es c ape , a s st a te d b y

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 16 -605 (20 03 ), make s it

“ un la wf ul f or a ny person a rr e ste d f or , c ha rg e d w ith , o r c on vic te d o f an o ff e ns e to e sc ape fr om a penal institution . . . .” Escape is defined as an “unauthorized departure from custody . . . .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-16- 601(3)( 2003). Custody , define d by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-16- 601(2) ( 2003), is define d as being “under arr est by a law e nforc ement off

icer or under restra int by a public ser vant pursuant to an or der of a court . . . .” Penal institut ion “includes a ny instit ution or-8-

fac ilityused to house or de tain a per son: (A) Convicted of a crime . . . or (C) Who is in dire ct or indirect c ustody

afte r a la wful ar

rest.” T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 16-601(4) (2003).

After considering the evidenc e in the lig ht mos t fa v o ra b le to the State, we c onclude that

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e e xists in the re c or d to su pp ort th e De fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n. Th e e vid e nc e a t tria l, vie we d in thi s li g ht, sh ow e d tha t the De fe nd a nt wa s tak e n into c us tod y on Ma y 29 , 2 00 2, on a t le a st three separ ate ag g ravated assault char g es. On J une 28, 2002, one c ount of ag g ravated assault and

a g g ra vate d kidn app ing we re dis mis se d due to la c k o f p ro se c uti on . A c c or din g to S he pp ard , at le a st two ag g rava

ted assault cha

rg es ag ainst the Def

endant rem ai n ed and that would satisfy one of the

nece ssary elements of the offe nse of felony Escape , that the Def endant was bei n g h el d o n felony

c ha rg e s. I t is no t ne c e ssa

ry fo r the Sta te to pr ov e the c ha rg e s the De fe nd a nt i s b e ing he ld o n o r t o even state what the f

elony char g es ar e. The evidenc e is, there fore , su ff i ci en t t o prove that the De fe nd a nt e sc ape d w hil e in c us tod y pe nd ing fe lon y

c ha rg e s. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing a uthorities and reas oning, w e AF FIRM the trial court’s jud g me nt.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE