### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 7, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CA SSA ND RA RO BINS ON

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

No. 03-08406 W. M ark Ward, Judge

No. W2005-01500-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jun e 2, 2006

T h e d e f e n d a n t , C a s s a n d r a R o b i n s o n , w a s c o n v i c t e d o f c o n s p i r a c y t o c o m m i ta g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y, ag g ravated robbe ry , and ag g ravated assault. The trial court imposed Rang e I , concur rent sente nces of four y ear s, nine y ear s, and four y ear s, respe ctively . I n this appeal, the defe ndant asserts tha t the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support her convictions. The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Trial Court Affi rm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P. J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w h ic h J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Gar land Erg üden (on a

ppeal) and Timothy

J . Albers ( at trial), Assist ant P ublic Def ender s, for the appellant, Cassa ndra Robinson.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; B ri a n Cla y John so n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Stepha nie J ohnson, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

At 9:0 0 p .m. on July

10 , 2 00 3, tw o A fric a n- Am e ri c a n me n, on e of wh om w a s arm e d w ith a long -bar rele d handg un, enter ed a Mc Donald' s Restaurant in Memphis and require d the employ ees to open the ca sh reg isters and the sa fe. A fter ta king cash, coins, and gift certifica tes, the two men fled the sc ene. A rlisha Walton, the manag er on duty , described the armed robbe r as ha v i ng a re d complex i o n and the other as having a dar

k complexion. S he re called tha t the man with the re d

c omp le xion jumpe d on top of the c ou nte r an d ord e re d th e e mpl oy e e s to the fl oo r. Ac c or din g to M s. Walton, who had opened th e s af e, t h e ar med robbe r re -ente red the store in an e ffort to take the videotape f

rom th e security

came ra. When she inf

ormed him that she did not have a cce ss to the videotape, he ag ain fled the restaur ant. L ater , Ms. Walton was able to identify the dar k complecte d man from a

photogr aphic line- up, but she had no knowle dg e of w hether the def endant ha d any
p ar t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e r o b b e r y.-2-

J essica K ing, also a McDonald' s employ ee, was working the drive-thr oug h window when a "r ed dude" suddenly appea red, pointed a g un at her, and dema nded that she ope n her r eg ister. Afte r he took the money in he r draw er, he we nt into the manag er' s office befor e running from the store and
enter ing a white t ruck. Acc ording to Ms. King
, the defendant had followed the "r ed dude" into t he park i n g lot, parked he r sepa rate car , and then g ot into the white truck whe re she stay ed for about fi ft e e n mi nu te s b e fo re the ro bb e ry too k p la c e . M s. Ki ng re c a lle d th a t th e wh ite truc k w a s p ark e d in the lane ne x t to the drive-throug h lane, blocking two other ve hicles.

Michae l H ear d, the manag er of the previous shift at the restaur ant, also saw th e d ef endant drive into the parking lot. Hea rd' s g irlfriend a nd children w ere waiting for him in his car in the lot wh e n a truc k h e ide nti fi e d a s a sil ve r Do dg e Ra m e nte re d th e lot , te mpo ra ri ly blo c kin g no t on ly

his

car but that of the def

endant

. As h e s t ar t ed to l eave in his car, He ard notice d two men on the employ ee- side of the counter and then saw them accompa ny Ms. Walton i nto the office . As the two men left the r estaura nt, a man pointed a gun at him and ordered him to ge t away from the door . As Hea rd sea rche d for a

police off icer , he saw the s ilver t ruck at a tra ffic lig ht, flag g ed down a n office r, and in f o r me d th e o f

f ic e r th a t th e tr

u c k h a d b e e n in v o lv e d in a r o b b e r y

. A c c o r d in g to H e ard, the windows of the t ru ck had a re flec tive tint, preventing him from seeing inside. He ne ver sa w the d e f e n d a n tt a l k

t o a n yo n e i n t h e t ru c k

p r i o r t o t h e r o b b e r y.

Sherline Felix
, Hea

rd' s g irlfriend, saw t he defenda nt park two space s from her about three or four minutes before the Dodg e Ram truck a rrived at the restaur ant. She re membere d t hat the de fe nd a nt g ot o ut o f h e r ca r an d en te re d the truc k, wh ic h w a s o c c up ie d b y a ma n in the dr ive r' s se a t. She rec alled see ing mor e than one man nea r the drive r' s side of the truck and saw a total of three men

e nte r the Mc Do na ld' s, on e of wh om w a lke d thr ou g h one do or a ndou t a no the r d oo r o n th e op po sit e side of the r estaura nt. Accor ding to Ms. F elix , the truck " sped off " w hen the r obbers e ntere d the
restaur ant. When she not iced a man "jump the counter," she tried to ca ll the police on her cell phone but got no signa l. She confirme d that one of the robbe rs pointed a g un at her and her boy friend a s he lef t the restaur ant. Ms. Fe lix was al so unable to see inside the truck be cause of the tint on the windows and was unawa

re of whether the driver of the truc k was one of the two men she saw rob the McDona ld's.

Memphis Poli ce D epartment Ser g eant Ma rlin Tabor, w ho interviewe d the def endant the day afte r her arr est, learned that the de fenda nt claimed to have met a m an n am ed "L arry " at the McDona ld's on the night of the robbery

. Acc ording to the office r, the de fenda nt claimed that whe n she enter ed "L arry ' s" truck, two Afric an-A merica n men, who had just left the Mc Donald' s, also g ot inside. Serg eant Ta

bor stated that the de fenda nt told him that the two men admitted robbing the
restaur ant and that they

divided the money

befor e dropping her of

f. I n her state ment to the office r, the def endant c laimed to have know n "L arry " f or only abou t t wo h o u rs p rior to the robbe ry . She described his truc k as a silver or white Dodg e Ram with tinted windows, capa ble o f s ea t i n g four people. She denied any prior knowledge of t he robbery but was aw are that the ca sh, coins, and lig ht pink and light g ree n envelope s had been stolen from the restaur ant. When ta ken by the def endant to "L arry ' s" a

partment, t h e l o ca tion where she cla imed the money from the r obbery

was divided, Se rg e a nt T abo r q ue sti on e d th e ind ivi du a l w ho liv e d th e re bu t lo dg e d n o c ha rg e s.A s t he r es ul t of t he i nv es t i gat i on, i t was det er mi ned t hat "Lar r y " was D ar r on Sava ge. 1

-3- Memphis Poli ce O ffice r B rad N ewsom, wh o as s i sted in the investigation, described the defe ndant as " very

anxious to talk" a

bout her role in the incident. I n a sec ond st atement, the defe ndant admitted to him that she participate d in the robbery with "Ke vin," "J o h n , " and "L arry ." The off icer deter mined that "John" was actua lly Anthony Edwar ds and that "K evin" was a J ustin or J ason B rew er. Acc ording to the office r, whe n the def endant wa s asked whose idea it was to rob the 1
restaur ant, she a nswere d, "I talked on it so I talked to K evin and J ohn about it." She claimed to the of fi c e r tha t a

bla c k . 32 c a lib e r ha nd g un wa s use d in th e ro bb e ry a ndthat th e ir

ve hic le wa s a

wh ite Dodg e truc k with an extended ca b. The de fenda nt prov i d ed d es cr i p tions of "Ke vin," " J ohn," a nd "L arry " a nd identified " Kevin" and " J ohn" in photog raphic line-ups. I n her statement, the def endant

re c a lle d that sh e a nd " L arry " me t " John " a nd " Ke vin " in a Wal -M art pa rking lot at a pp rox ima te ly 8 : 1 5 p

. m

. a n d t h en d ro v e t o M cD o n al d 's
, wh er e s h e go ti n t o "L ar ry 's " t ru ckas "J o h n , " w ea ri n g a bandana over his f

ace , and " Kevin" went into the McDona ld’s. She stated that " J ohn" a nd "K evin"

re tu r n e d to th e tr

u c k a n d
, a f

te r r id in g w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t a n d " L arr y " to th e Wa l- M ar t, le f t in a
separ ate c ar. The defenda nt informed the office r t hat she a nd "L arry " r eturne d to McDonald' s and di s co v er ed t h at her

car was be ing towe d awa y . She rec alled that she w as then droppe d off a t an apartment complex and never r ece ived her share of the robbe ry p ro ce ed s. When asked why she
pa rt ic ipate d in the ro bb e ry , th e de fe nd a nt s ta te d a s f oll ow s:

I was upset bec ause of

my pay . I was supposed to be making $7 an hour, a nd she only paid me $6.75, an hour. I was supposed to be making that much bec ause I ha d [ta ke n] th e ma na g e r t e st,

. . . b ut .

. . the sto re ma na g e r[] d id n ot w a nt t o g ive it
to me. I wa s in a fi na nc ia l bin d b e c a us e I wa s n ot m a kin g e no ug h mo ne y . I ha d to
pay child support for my

three kids, and that was coming out of my chec k. We had talked about it, and she never told me t hat I was not g oing to g et i t. I went to her

and

a sk e d h e r a

bo ut i t, a ndsh e tol d me I

wa sn ' t g oin g to g e t it

. Serg eant Shirley

Woods, t he lea d investigator in this case, tra nsported t h e d ef endant f rom jail to the pol ice station for an interview. During that time, the defe ndant claimed tha t she could not

re me mbe r the na me of

the apa rt me nt c omp le x whe re sh e a ndoth e rs we nt af te r the ro bb e ry

bu t c ou ld show Serg eant Woods where it was locate d. Upon their a rrival a t the apartments, the defe ndant direc ted Serg eant Woods to a unit occupied by a man named Eric I som. I som was taken to the police station f or questioning but was re lease d without being c harg ed with any crime. Mr . I som’s cousin, Dar ron S avag e, who was in Birming ham, Alabama, returned to M emphis for a n interview w hen the defe ndant identified him as " L arry ," the driver of the Dodg e truc k. He wa s also rele ased w ithout being char g ed in the robbe ry . Acc ording to Ser g eant Woods, t he def endant wa s "a nx ious to talk"

abo ut the ro bb e ry a nd a t no poin t r e c e ive d a ny le a din g inf

or ma tio n f

ro m th e po lic e abo ut the de ta ils

. Serg eant Woods was aware that Serg eant Ta bor and a nother off

icer had pre viouslyinterviewe d the defe ndant. She explained that she conduc ted a se parate interview only beca use that particular McDona ld's R es t au rant ha d been r obbed twice in one wee k. The off icer rec alled that whe n she

c on fr on te d th e de fe nd a nt wi th so me e vid e nc e that c on tr a dic te d h e r s ta te me nt, the de fe nd a nt b e c a me-4-

upset and be g an to implicate " J ohn" a nd "K evin" in the robber y

. Ac co rding to the serg eant, the defe ndant explaine d t h at althoug h she wa s working as a ma nag er at the McDona ld's, she was not being paid at that leve l and admitted meeting with "John" an d "K evin" to discuss robbing the

re staur a nt.

On cr oss-examination at trial, Ser g eant Woods ac knowledg ed that none of the information the def endant pr ovided during the i nitial ride from the j ail to the pol ice station proved to be ac curate. She testified that the people s h e identified as " L arry ," " J ohn," a nd "K evin" wer e re ally Dar ron Savag e, Anthony

Edwar ds, and Jus tin Bre wer , respe ctively . She confirme d that the driver , Savag e,

corr oborate d portions of the def endant' s story

and cited as an example her c laim that he was w ith the de fe nd ant in h is t

ru c k a t th e tim e of

the ro bb e ry . A c c or din g to the se rg e a nt, no oth e r w itn e ss described either of the robber s as having worn a bandana or any type of disg uise. She rec alled that the def endant did not desc ribe e ither of the me n as having a " red" complexion.

Da rr on Sa va g e , w ho m th e de fe nd a nt h a d id e nti fi e d a s " L arry ," te sti fi e d a s a de fe ns e wi tne ss at the trial. He claimed t hat he met the defendant on the day of t he robbery
, that he arrang ed to meet he r at the Mc Do na ld' s, a nd that whe n she arrive d, he dr ov e he r a wa y in h is t ru c k. He de sc ri be d h is
truc k a s a wh ite a ndg ray

Do dg e Ra m w ith tin te d w ind ow s a ndhe c la ime d that no on e e lse wa s in his truc k. Sa va g e de nie d a ny inv olv e me nt i n th e ro bb e ry a nd c on te nd e d that the de fe nd a nt w a s w ith him f or at least a couple of hours. He denied discussing the robbery and denied th at t h er e w ere robbery proce eds take n to his cousin's a partment. He also claimed that he did not rec eive any money from a r obbery . Savag e re called tha t he and the defe ndant di d consume alcohol toge ther and that she later pe rfor med oral sex for twe nty dollars. He te stified that they returne d to McDonald' s, saw the police in the lot, and then sa w her car being towed. Ac cording to Savag e, the de fenda nt informed h im th a t h e r c ar w a s b e in g r e p o ssessed an d h e th e n d r o p p e d h e r o f f a t a n ap ar tm e n t c o mp le x. Savag e, who spent seventy -two hours in jail while being investigated for the robbery , believed tha t the de fe nd a nt ha d so me thi ng to do wi th the ro bb e ry be c a us e sh e ha d lie d to the po lic e abo ut his involvement. He state d that there was "some thing spooky about that night." Savag e infe rre d that the Mc Do na ld' s ma y

ha ve a lr e a dy

be e n r ob be d by the tim e he arrive d a t th e re staur a nt o n th e fi rs t

occa sion because there wer e a lot of pe ople outside.

Th e de fe nd a nt c la ime d th a t sh e me t Sa va g e on the da y of the ro bb e ry , se e ing him a t a tr a ff ic light and e x chang ing telephone numbers. She testified that she par ked in the McD onald' s parking lot and that Savag e drove her to his cousin' s house wher e they drank a lcohol for a n hour or two. She stated that they

drove to a

park, w here she p er formed or al sex on him , befor e re turning to the McDona ld's. Acc ording to the defe ndant, they saw that he r ca

r wa s being towed and the n proce eded to an apa rtment complex, where she g ot out of the truck. S h e cl ai m ed a man named B olden then drove he r to her r esidenc e, whe re she was a rre sted. The defenda nt contende d that befor e she g ave t h e t ap e d s t a t e m e n t , s h e t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s t h r e e o r f

o u r t i m e s t h a t s h e w a s n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e r o b b e r y. She testified that " J ohn" a nd "K evin" wer e not real people, and that she "just made . . . up" w hat she tol d th e po lic e

. She c la ime d th a t sh e lie d w he n s he inf or me d th e m th a t f

ou r m e n w e re inv olv e d in the robbe ry

and that differe nt colore d envelope s wer e taken during the robbery

. She explained that sh e wa s sc are d, wa nte d to g o h ome , a ndtho ug ht tha t if sh e jus t mad e up a sto ry , the y wo uldre le a se-5-

her: " [W ]hen I

made up the ta le t o tell them, that' s when they rea lly seem[ed] like they wer e listening when I started just making up stuff, telling them. That' s when they seem[ed] li ke they

rea lly wer e listening to me."

Th e de fe nd a nt f

urthe r t e sti fi e d th a t in he r s ta te me nt t o Se rg e a nt Wo od s, sh e con fe sse d to participa ting in the r obb ery only beca use the ser g eant ha d promised to let her g o home if she admitted her involveme nt. She claimed that Serg ean t W oods had said, " You g ot to make it look
g oo d b e fo re we c a n r e a lly jus t a c tua lly

le t y ou g o home so y ou g ot to s a y y ou wa s in vo lve d .

. . so

we c an let y ou g o." She e x plai n ed t h at S er gea nt Newsom " threw a napkin and nodde d at me and said, like, pick him, y ou know" when she saw " J ohn" in the photog raphic line-u p

. The de fenda nt contende d that Serg eant Woods sugg ested that she a dmit that a black .32 caliber handg un was used i n t h e r o b b er y

an d t h at m o n eywa s t ak en d u ri n g t h e ro b b er y

. S h e ad m i t t ed t o s ay i n g t h at S av age 's truck wa s the one used in the r obbery but insist ed that he was not ac tually involved in the crime. She al s o cl ai m ed t h at s h e l i ed
, at S er gea n tW o o d s ' d i r e c t i o n , wh en s h e d es cr i b ed "J o h n " as we ar i n g a bandana over his fa ce during the robbery

. S h e co ntended that a ny admissions she made as implicating he r in the robbe ry wer e fa lse. She basica lly insisted that because the offic ers we re not listening to her
, she "just made up something to te ll them. I just told them what they wanted to he ar." Th e de fe nd a nt, fo r the mos t pa rt , a ttr ibu te d to Se rg e a nt Woo ds the inf or ma tio n sh e ha d p ro vid e d in he r s ta te me nt.

I n this appeal, the de fenda nt asserts that the e vidence was insuffic ient to support the convictions for c onspiracy to commit agg rav at ed robbery , ag g ravated robbe ry , and ag g ravated

a ssa ult . Sh e c on te nd s th a t be c a us e he r c on vic tio ns are bas ed " pr ima ri ly " up on he r c on fe ssi on to polic e an d b ec ause the rema inder of the evidenc e wa s "quite inc onsistent," the e vidence was ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns

. On appe al, of course , the s tate is entitled to the s trong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all rea sonable infe renc es which mig ht be dra wn there from. State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). The cre dibilit y of the witnesses, the weig ht to be g iven their testimony
, an d the

rec onciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the trier of fac t. By rg e v. Sta te , 5 75 S.W. 2d

29 2, 29 5 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 78 ). W hen th e suf fi c 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 t he essential elements of the c rime bey ond a

rea sonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e ); State v. Wil liam s , 657 S.W .2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983)

. B e c a us e a ve rd ic t of

g uil t agai ns t a de fe nd a nt r e mov e s th e pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e a ndra ise s a presumption of g uilt, the convicted criminal defenda nt be ars the burden of showing that the evidenc e was leg ally

in s u ff i ci en t to sustain a g uiltyverdic t. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992).

The inchoate offe nse of c onspiracy is defined in Te nnessee Code An n o t ated se ction 39 -1 2- 10 3 a s f

oll ow s:-6- (a) The off

ense of conspirac y

is comm i t t ed i f t wo (2) or more pe ople, ea ch having the culpable mental state r eq u ired for the offe nse which is the objec t of the conspirac y

and ea ch ac ting f

or the purpose of promoting or fa cilitating c ommissi on of an offe n s e , a g r e e th a t o n e ( 1 ) o r mo r e o f th e m w il l e n g a g e in c o n d u c t w h ic h constitutes such offe nse.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 12-103(a ) (2003)

.

To o b t ain a c onviction for ag g ravated robbe ry , the state must prove tha t the defe ndant committed a robbe ry

"w ith a deadly

wea pon or by displ ay o f any

article used or f

ashioned to lea d the victim to reasona

bly believe i t t o be a de adly wea pon." T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-402(a )(1) (2003). Robbery

is defined a s "the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the pe rson of another by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r." T en n

. C o d e Ann. § 39-13-401(a ) (2003) . One commits a n aggr av ated a ssault by intentionally

or knowing ly

causing another

rea sonable fe ar of imminent bodil y

injury by the use or displa y o f a d ea d ly wea pon. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102( a)( 1)(B ) (2003)

.

The defenda nt was convicted of ag g ravated robbery and agg ravated assault under a theory of c ri min a l r e sp on sib ili ty . I n Stat e v. Ma xey , 898 S.W. 2d 75 6, 75 7 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ), thi s

c ou rt he ld tha t the statut e a tta c hin g c ri min a l liab ili ty fo r the c on du c t of a no the r r e qu ir e s th e c ulp able mental state of intent. Know ing, r eckle ss, and neg lige nt mental states ar e insuffic ient. I d. For the evidenc e to be suff

icient to sustain a conviction under the criminal re sponsibili ty for the c onduct of another statute, there must be proof that the defenda nt intended, as de fined in Tenne ssee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 11 -3 02 (a ), to pro mote or a ssi st the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e , o r t o b e ne fi t in the pr oc e e ds or

re su lts of the of

fe ns e

. Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 3 9- 11 -4 02 (2 ). I n a dd iti on , th e re mus t be proof that the def

endant solicited, dire cted, a ided, or a ttempted to ai d an o t h er t o commit the offe nse. I d.

I n our view, the defe ndant' s confe ssion establish ed al l o f the eleme nts of the offe nses. A defe ndant, however, cannot be convicted s olely upon the evidence of his inculpatory statement. See Ashby v. State, 139 S.W . 872, 875 (1911). Under our law, the " corpus de licti [ of the c rime] cannot be esta blished by

a conf ession alone." Tay lor v. State, 479 S.W

. 2 d 659, 662 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). A confession may sustain a conviction when "ther e is other evidence to show the commission of the c rime by

someone." State v. Stapleton, 638 S.W .2d 850, 854 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) . The slightest cor

robora ting e vidence of the c onfession is suffici en t , h oweve r. See State v. Er vin, 731 S.W .2d 70, 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986) . Furthermore , while a confe ssion may be corr oborate d by independe nt proof, the c o rroborating evidenc e nee d not connec t the defe ndant with the cr ime. Buc kingha m v. State, 540 S.W .2d 660, 663 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) . Simi larly , the cor robora ting evidenc e necessary to support the corpus delicti need not be sufficient, in and of itself, to support the conviction, but need only provide " the essential f

acts

. . . to justi fy

a jury infere nce of

their truth." Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 (1954).-7-

Her e, the de fenda nt told poli ce tha t she planned the robbe ry with "John" and " Kevin," met them and " L arry " at a nearby Wal-Mart, and drove to the Mc Donald' s. She stated that on the nig ht of the robbery , she was in " L arry ' s" white Dodg e truck when "John" and "K evin" g ot out of the truck, went into the re staurant, and committed the robbery

. She admitted that she was to rec eive some of
t h e ro b b er y proce eds and e x plained that her participa tion in the robbery was motivated by

her displeasure with her hou rl y wa ge. The re is dire ct evidenc e to support the def endant' s confe ssion. Ms. Walton t estified that two men enter ed the restaur ant around 9:00 p.m. and took money from the cash r eg isters and safe. She identified "J ohn" from a photog raphic line-up as the ma n who jumped onto the front counte r and or dere d her to the floor. The man she i dentified was the same ma n that the def endant identified as "John" from a separ ate photogr aphic line-up. Ms. King sa w the def endant
enter into the parking lot just befor e the driver of the white truck did a nd then saw the de fenda nt ge t into the truck. Ac cording to Ms. King
, the m an who pointed a g un at her and took money

from her

re g ist e r r e turne d to the wh ite truc k oc c up ie d by the de fe nd a nt. Ms. F e lix ob se rv e d a wo ma n g e t in to a Dodg e truc k, saw thre e men e nter the M cD o n al d 's
, an d rec alled that one ma n jumped on the
counter

.

I n our view, this cor

robora tion o f t he conf

ession is sufficient to sustain convictions for conspirac y

to commit agg ravated robbe ry , ag g ravated robbery
, and agg rava ted assault. I t is also our view that the e vidence , independe nt of the def endant' s confe ssion, was sufficie nt to support the convictions. Wit h reg ard to the conspiracy char g e, thi s court has previously noted that an " unlawful confe deration may

be esta blished by

circ umstantial evidence and the co n d u ct of the pa rties in the execution of the criminal enterprise ." Ra ndolph v. State, 570 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 78 ); se e Sta te v. Cart e r, 12 1 S.W. 3d 57 9, 58 9- 90 (T e nn . 2 00 3) . T he ve rd ic t r e so lve d th e c on fl ic ts in the te sti mon y

in f a vo r o f the state . Se e Sta te v. Sum me ra ll, 92 6 S.W.2 d 272 , 275 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1995).

Acc ording ly , the judg ments of the trial c ourt areaff irmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DI NG JUDGE