### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 6, 200 6 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. EA RN EST B AN KS
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 04-03679 Jam es C. Beasley, Jr ., Judge

No. W2005-02484-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 28, 2006

The de fendant, Earne st Banks, w as convic ted by a Shelby Countyjury

of ag g ravated burg lary

and se nte nc e d to nin e y e ars in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n a s a

Ra ng e I I mul tip le of

fe nd e r. On app e a l, he cha lleng es the suff

iciency of the c onvicting evidence

. Following our review of the record a nd the parties’ briefs, w e af

firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which, D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., joined and G A RY R. W ADE , P

. J

. , n o tp ar t i ci p at i n g. Ga rl a ndErg üd e n, (o n a

pp e a l) a ndJenn if

e r Joh ns on a ndHa

rry Sa y le (at tria l) , A ssi stant P ub lic De fe nd e rs , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ea

rn e st B a nk s. Paul G. Sum me rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B e njamin A. B a ll, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Scot B ear up, Assist ant Dis trict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
F AC TS
On Fe bruary 9, 2004, around 9:00 a .m., Lita Carpente r was in he r house a sleep in an upstair s bedroom whe n she hea

rd s o m eo n e v o m i t ing in the bathroom down the hall. Knowing that her se ve nte e n- y e ar- olddaug hte r h a d a lr e a dy le ft fo r s c ho ol, Ms. Carp e nte r c a lle d 9 11 fr om h e r c e ll ph on e to r e po rt that so me on e wa s in he r h ou se . O ff ic e r L e on ardB e auc ha mp andOf fi c e r P aul N e e ly of the Memphis Police De partment re sponded to the call and found the defe ndant in one of the other bedrooms upstairs. The office rs discover ed a bl u e bag in the defe ndant’s possession containing sever al items from Ms. Carpe nter’s house ; namely , a hair dry er, body

s p ra y , and Ms. Carpe nter’s daug hter’s pur se. Additionally , the offic ers found Ms. Ca rpente r’s digital came ra and a pre scription medicine bottle belong ing to Ms. Carpe nter’s daug hter on the de fendant’s person.-2-

After the def endant wa s appre hended, Ms. Carpente r l ooked around her house and noticed that her daug hter’s usually clea n bedroom had been ransa cked, and ther e we re g arba g e bag s in the dining r oom with “other thing s that had bee n packe d.” She also notice d a bowl of soup and an ope n can in the kitche n that had not bee n out the evening befor e. After hearing te stimonyfrom Ms. Carpe nter, Of fice r B eauc hamp, and Office r Neely , the jury convicted the defe ndant of a g g ravated burg lary

. The trial court sentenc ed the def endant to nine y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction as a Rang e I I multipl e off

ender

. AN AL YSI S On appe al, the def

endant ch al l eng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence . The d ef en d an t d o es n o t d i s p u t e th at h e wa s i n s i d e Ms

. C arp en t er ’s h o u s e w i t h s o m e o f h erb el o n gi n gs in h is p os se ssi on . I ns te a d, he arg ue s th a t th e state pr e se nte d in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e that he e nte re d M s. Carp e nte r’ s h ou sewi th the int e nt to ste a l. He a ve rs that he e nte re d a n e mpty ho us e , f ixedhim se lf so up in the kitchen , and g ot s ic k inthe up stair s b a thr oo m. T he the ft s w e re a n a ft e rtho ug ht t o h is discovery that the house wa s still furnished. We beg in our revie w by

reiter ating the well-e stablished rule that once a jury finds a def

endant g uil ty , his o r h e r p re su mpt ionof inn oc e nc e is r e mov e d a ndre pla c e d w itha pr e su mpt ionof

g uil t. State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt ha s th e bu rd e n of de mon str a tin g to this c ou rt wh y the e vid e nc e wi ll n ot s up po rt the jury ’s ve rd ic t. S ta t e v . Car ru the rs , 3 5 S. W.3 d 5 16 , 5 57 -5 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (T e nn . 1 98 2) . T o me e t th is b ur de n, the de fe nd a nt mus t e sta bli sh that no “ ratio na l tr ie r o f f a c t” c ou ld have f ound the essential e lements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; State v. Ev ans , 108 S.W .3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). I n contra st, the jury ’s verdict approve d by the t rial j udg e accr edits the state’s witnesse s and re solves al l co n fl i cts in favor of

the state. Sta te v . H

ar ris , 8 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 , 7 5 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 2 )

. T h e s t a t e is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e and a ll reasona ble infer ence s which may be draw n from that evide nce. Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d at 558. Questions conce rning the cr edibilityof the wi tn ess es, confl ic ts i n tria l te sti mon y , th e we ig ht andva lue to b e g ive n th e e vid e nc e , a nda ll fac tual issues raised b y t h e ev i d en ce are resolved by the trier of

fac t and not this court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not attempt to re-w eig h or re -eva luate the evidenc e. State v. Rice , 184 S.W .3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006)

. L ikewise, we do not replac e the jury ’s infere nces dr awn f

rom the circ u m s t an t i al evidenc e with our own infe renc es. Sta te v . R e id , 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). These r ules are applicable to findings of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of bo t h d i re ct and c ircumstantial evidenc e. Sta te v . P e nd

e rg ra ss , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392-93 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1999).
To sustain the defe ndant’s convic tion for ag g ravated b u rgl ar y in this case, the state was re qu ir e d to pr ov e that the de fe nd a nt e nte re d M s. Carp e nte r’ s h ou se , w ith ou t he r c on se nt, a ndwi th the i ntent to commit theft. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-402, -403. “A pe rson commits theft of-3-

property if, with intent to deprive the owner of prope rty , the per son knowing ly obtains or exercises control over

the prope rty

without the owner’ s eff

ective c onsent.” Id. § 39-14-103. Viewing the evidence in the l ight most favor able to the s tate, we conclude the evidenc e wa s su ffi cie nt t o s us ta in the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n f or a g g ra vate d b ur g lary . T he re c or d c le arl y established that the de fendant entere d Ms. Carpenter ’s house witho u t h er permission and wa s appre hended w ith a number of items belong ing to Ms. C arpe nter a nd her daug hter. The ref ore, our primary inquiry focuse s on the defe ndant’s intent behind that entry . Our supre me court has noted that in a burg lary

case , “intent can rar ely be shown by direc t proof and must, nec essarily , be shown by circ umstantial evidence .” Sta te v . H all , 490 S.W .2d 495, 496 (Tenn. 1973). T h er ef o re, “the i n t en tt o s t ea l m ayb e i n f

erre d fr o mt h e b re ak i n g an d en t er i n g o f ab u i l d i n g wh i ch co n t ai n s t h i n gs of value or fr om the attempt to do so.” Id. ; see also Stat e v. R onald W ayne A shby , No. M1999- 01247-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 995256, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Na shville, J uly 12, 2000), perm. app. denied

(Tenn. Ma

r. 19, 2001). Furthermor e, the “ unsatisfac torily explained possession of rec ently stolen property

may be suff icient in and of itself” to sustain a burg lary conviction. Se e Sta te v. Jone s , 901 S.W .2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. Al tho ug h the re wa s te sti mon y a t tria l th at so me of the ro oms in M s. Carp e nte r’ s h ou se did not contain furniture , there was a m p l e ev idence that the majority of Ms. Carpe nter’s house was indeed f ully furnished. From the circ umstantial evidence , as we ll as the fac t th e d efe ndant was appre hended with items belong ing to Ms. Carpente r, the jury could have rea sonably found that the defe ndant intended to commit theft whe n he ente red Ms. Car penter ’s house. This court will not second- g uess the jury ’s finding . Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
CO NC LU SION Up on re vie w o f the re c or d a ndthe pa rt ie s’ brie fs , we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J .C. McL IN, J UDGE