### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs A pril 1, 200 3 STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. RICHARD C. ROGERS Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 7154 Joseph H. Walker, Judge

No. W2002-01632-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 8, 2003

Defend ant, Richard C

. Rogers, appeals his convictions in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court for burglary of a vehicle, a class E

felony, and thef

t of property in an a

mount over $1,000 and less than $10,000, a class D felo ny. Follo wing a jury trial, De fendant was sente

nced as a caree r offender to six yearsfor hi s burgl ary conviction and twelve yea rs for his theft conviction, to be served co nc ur re nt ly. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends tha t the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions beyond a re asonable doubt . After review of the record, w e affirm the judgmen ts of the tr

ial cour t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed
T H OMAS T. W OODA LL , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., an d D AVID G. H AYES , J., joined.
Clifford K. McGown, Jr., Waverly, Tenne s see (on app eal); Ga ry F. Antri can, Dis trict Publi c Defender; and Julie K. Pillow, Assistant Public Defender, (at trial), for the appellant, Richar d C

. Rogers

. Paul G. Summers , Attorne y General and Repor

ter; P. Robin Dixon, Jr., A ssistant A ttorney Genera l; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney Ge neral; and Tracey

Brewer, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee. OPINION
Ronnie Moore testified that on July 27, 2001, he worked for the Lauderdale County

Highway Department. On that morning, he arrived at work a t 6:00 a.m. and noticed that the gate was open. The gate is usually

locked, but the lock had been cut. Mr. Moore also noticed that the doors into the building had been broke n open and aservice truck was missing. He notified the sheriff ’s department.-2-

Andy Va ug hn , a sh op fo re ma n f or th e La ud er da le Co un ty H ig hw ay Department , testified that on July 27, 2001, he arrived at work a nd discovered that the 1996 Dodge Ram service truck that was assigned to him was missing. Mr. Vaughn t estified that the tr uck was v alued at

approxima

tely $9,000. He also testified that the tools belonging to the highway department are marked as such and identified usin g s erial numbers. Mr. Vaughn reported sever al items stolen, including eleven chainsa ws, a floor buffer, two tool boxes, several hand tool s, several wr enches, an extended arm pruner, and a weed eater. The total estimate d value of

all of the items stolen was several thousand dollars. Mr. Vaughn testified that the truck and some but not all of the tools and o ther pro

perty were recovered.
Jeff Fain, an officer

for the Collierville Police Department, testified that he was employ ed as a criminal investigator for the Ripley Police Department

at the time

of this off

ense. Of ficer Fain testified that on August 4, 2001, he was notified t hat the se rvice tr uck stole n from the

Laud erdale County Highway Department had

be en re co ve re d i n D yer Co un ty. Defendant and his wife had been found sleeping in the truck and we re ar re st ed an d t ak en in to cu st od y in Dye r C ou nt y. Office r Fain and Lieutenant

Sanders t ranspor ted Defe ndant fr om the Dy

er County jail to the L auderda

le County jail. Officer Fain “couldn’t tell” whethe r Defendant appeared to be unde r the influence of an intoxicant. Defendant was not wearing a shirt.
Lieutenant

Steve Sand ers of the Ripley Police De partment testified that Defendant gave a statement on Augu st 7, 2001, after L ieutena nt Sander s advised

Defend ant of his Mir

anda ri ghts. Defendant

admitted his involvementin the burglary and theft. Defendant stated that he had rece ived information from an inmate who worked a s a clea n-up per son for the highw ay departm ent. Defe ndant

stated that he cut the chain link fence surrounding the building using bolt cu tters. H e priedopen the door to the building, entered the building and obtained the keys to the

Dodge truck. He backed the truck into the bay area where th e tools we re store d. He dro ve the tr uck to Na shville where he sold

some of the tools fo

r $500. He

sold seve ral more items on hiswa y to Dye r C ou nt y. After gi ving an oral s tatem ent to Lieuten ant S anders , Defen dant r educed his s tatem ent to writi ng. Lieutenant

Sanders testifi ed that Defendant did not appear to be under the inf luence of alcohol or drugs at the time he gave the statement. Defendant told L ieutenant Sanders that he used the money from the sa

le of the stolen tools to buy drug s. On August 1 3, 2001, L

ieutena nt Sander s drove to

Nashville

to recover the stolen items that had been sold, and then he released them to the L auderda

le County Highway Department. Defendant sold the to ols in Nashville to the owner of Cooper Electric Company , who wrote a che ck t o Defendant

for $500 and then immediately cashed the check for Defe ndant. Lieutenan

t San ders attempte d to reco ver the c heck, bu t he neve r obtaine d it from the Nashvi lle police. Defendant did not testify at trial. Sufficiency of the Evidence-3-

Defendant

contends that the eviden ce at tr ial was in sufficie

nt to suppor

t his convi ctions. When an accused challenges the sufficiency

of the convicting evidence, we must determine w hether “‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essentia l element s of the cr

ime bey ond a rea sonable doubt.’” State v. Keough , 18 S.W.3d 175, 180-81 (Tenn. 2000) ( quoting Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979)). I n evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court will afford the prosecution the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in the rec ord as we

ll as all r easonab le and le git

imate inferenc es which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Williams , 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). Qu estions regarding the cr edibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given the evidence, and any

factual issues raised by

the evidence are resolved by the trie

r of fact, not this Court. State v. P ruett , 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990). Furthermore, a guilty ve

rdict replaces the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt, and the defendant has the burden of demonstrating on a ppeal why the e

vidence does not

support th e jury’s finding s. State v. Tu ggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
A conv iction for burglary of a vehicle requires proof bey ond a reasonable doubt that Defend ant, without the effective consent of the property owner, entered any freight or passenger car, automobile, truck, trailer, boat, air plane or other moto

r vehicl e with inte

nt to commit

a felony, thef

t or assault. Tenn. Cod

e Ann. § 39 -14-402 ( 1997). B urglar y of a vehicl e is a class E felony. Id . A conviction for theft requires proof bey ond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, with intent to deprive the owner of property , knowingly obtaine d or e xercised control over the property without the owner’s effective consent. Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-14-103 (1997).
Defendant

confessed to the police that he entered the prope rty without permission, stole the tools and the key to the se rvice truck, and drove the vehicle awa y with the s tolen tools inside. Defendant

told police that he had sold some of the stolen tools to “a guy ” in Nashville. Lieutenant Sanders recovered the tools, marked “L auderdale County

Highway Depar

tment,” f rom a man

in Nashvi lle. Defendant was found inside the stolen vehicle. The evide nce was sufficient

for an y rational trier of fact to find Defendant g uilty of both offenses bey ond a reasonable doubt. CONCLUSION
After a careful review of

the record, we affirm the judgme nts of the trial court.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL , JUDGE