IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 14, 2007

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT L. YATES

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County

No. F-10328 Larry B. Stanley, Jr., Judge

No. M2006-02278-CCA-R3-CD - Filed June 6, 2008

The defendant, Robert L. Yates, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was

sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of

Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and

in allowing into evidence a photo identification. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from

the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and

JERRY L. SMITH, JJ., joined.

Bud Sharp, McMinnville, Tennessee (on appeal), and Tracy Caten, McMinnville, Tennessee (at

trial), for the appellant, Robert L. Yates.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Cameron L. Hyder, Assistant Attorney

General; Lisa Zavogiannis, District Attorney General; and Thomas J. Miner, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to thirty years in the

Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling

his motion to suppress and in admitting a photo identification into evidence.

The subject of the motion to suppress was an incriminating statement made by the defendant

to police officers in which he acknowledged involvement in the crime. The officer testified that he

did not initiate the conversation with the defendant but did not discourage him from talking. The

defendant told the officers that he bought methamphetamine from the store clerk and that the store

clerk said that $500.00 had been taken. The defendant further told the officers that “there was a

whole lot more than that taken, about $1,500.00 and one ounce of meth.”
-2-

The defendant testified that the officer initiated a conversation with him by asking how the

criminal case was going and asking him about themoney that was taken. The defendant asserted that

the officer lied. He said that he told the officer about the store clerk selling meth so the officers

could “get her.” The defendant testified that he previously pled guilty when he was guilty and said

that he did not commit the underlying crime. He acknowledged that he had four prior felony forgery

and theft convictions. 

The court overruled the defendant’s motion to suppress and held that the officer’s testimony

was credible. The court stated on the record that the officer had always been truthful with the court

in the past and that he appeared to be telling the truth. 

Analysis

The defendant concedes that he made the statement he sought to suppress but contends that

it should have been suppressed because it violated his Miranda rights. His argument rests on

whether the officer initiated their conversation. However, the defendant has not offered any evidence

that the officer did anything to elicit the statement from him. The findings of fact made by the trial

court at the hearing on a motion to suppress are binding upon this court unless the evidence

contained in the record preponderates against them. State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tenn. 2001).

The trial court, as the trier of fact, is able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, determine the

weight and value to be afforded the evidence, and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. State v.

Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). The prevailing party is entitled to the strongest legitimate

view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. State v. Hicks, 55

S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tenn. 2001). The defendant has the burden of establishing that the evidence

contained in the record preponderates against the findings of fact made by the trial court. Braziel

v. State, 529 S.W.2d 501, 506 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975). 

Here, the defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the evidence preponderates

against the findings of fact made by the trial court. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief on this

issue.

Next, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting a photo identification into

evidence. The State asks this court to waive the issue because the defendant failed to object to the

introduction of the evidence prior to trial and during trial. The State refers to Tennessee Rule of

Appellate Procedure 36(a) to support the position that the issue was waived for failure to make a

contemporaneous objection. We agree that the defendant failed to take necessary action to prevent

the potential harmful effect of the error. 
-3-

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment from the trial

court.

___________________________________ 

 JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE