### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON APRIL SESSION 2000 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIE L. DOUGLAS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 96-08235 W. Fred Axley, Judge

No. W1999-00282-CCA-R3-CD - Decided May 16, 2000

The Defendant was convicted of aggravated

robbery in Shelby County Criminal Court and he appeals. He challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence . We affirm in ac cordance with Ru

le 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Bill Anderson, Memp

his, Tennessee, f

or the appellant,

Willie L. Douglas. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Genera l and Reporter, Cli

nton J. Morgan, Assi

stant Attorney Ge

neral, William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, and Jul ie Mosley, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. ORDER A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Willie L. Douglas, of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to twelve years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The proof at trial revealed that on January 23, 1996, Lena Townsend was sitting in her car at the drive-up wind

ow of a Dixie Quee

n restaurant in Me

mphis when a man in

a ski mask put a gun to her head and ordered her out of her vehicle. He

fired the gun, snatched her purse, and took her vehicle, leaving her standing barefoot in the rain. The assailant then sped away. Both Townsend and a

nother witness to th

e crime identifie

d the Defendant a

s the assailant. Townsendst a ted that although the assailant was wearing a mask, she could see that he was of the samecomplexion as the Defendant, and she identified the

height of the assa

ilant as about the s

ame as the Defendant. The other witness to the crime stated that she saw the assailant’s face after he removedhis mask, and she stated that he looked like the Defendant. He al so maint ained that the assailant was of t

he same height as t

he Defendant.-2-

On the day following the crime, off icers in Sl edge, Mississippi received a report of a car driving recklessly throughtown. Upon investigation, they discovered that the car was parked at the Defendant’s home. Officers approached the Defendant to discussthe complaints, and the Defendant and his friends jumped into the vehicle, with the Defendant in the driver’s seat, and led the officers on a high-speed chase, at speeds up to 115 miles per hour. The Defendant and his friends eventually jumped out of the car, and the officers took them into custody. The officers then ran a check on the ca r and discovered t

hat it belonged to To

wnsend and that it h

ad been stolen the

previous day in Memphis. The Defendant denie

s that he committed t

his crime and

argues that the lapse of time between the crime and the tria

l could have affe

cted the witnesse

s’ identification

of him as the assail

ant. However, there is clearly sufficie nt evidence t o support the jury’s finding that he was indeed the perp etrator

of this crime. Not o

nly did two witnesse

s identify him as the

assailant, but the

stole n vehicle was found the following day at his home. In addition, when approached by officers wh o intended to confront him about reckless driving complaints, the Defendant jumped into the stolen car and led officers on a high-speed chase, stopping only when the stolen car’s engine ceased to run. After hearing this proof, the jury found the Defendant guilty of aggrava

ted robbery. Bec

ause the evidence is legally sufficient to support this finding, we will not overturn the jury’s finding on appeal. This issue has no merit. Based upon a thorough reading of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirme

d in accordance w

ith Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. Because it appears to the Co urt that the Appellant is indigent, costs will be paid by the State of Tennessee. David H. Welles, Judge David G. Hayes, Judge Alan E. Glenn, Judge