### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 11, 200 6

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . MARTY MITCH ELL CLARK

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. 04-536 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2005-01540-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 5, 2006

The de fenda nt, Marty

Mitchell Cla rk
, was c onvicted by a Madison County

jury of ag g ravated burg lary , a C lass C felony
, attempted agg ravated burglary , a C lass D felony , theft of pr operty under $ 5 0 0
, a n d v a n d a l i s m u n d e r $ 5 0 0
, b o t h C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r s

. H e w a s s e n t e n c e d a s a R a n g e II, multipl e off

ender to ten and eig ht y ear s, respe ctively
, for the felony counts and e leven months and twenty -nine da y s fo r eac h misdemeanor, w ith all sentence s to be serve d concur rently for a total eff ective sentenc e of ten y ear s in the Depa rtment of Correc tion. On appea l, he arg ues the e vidence was insuffic ient to support his convictions. Finding no err or, we aff irm the judg ments of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

A L AN E. G LENN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE a n d J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Geor g e M o r

to nG o o g e , D is tr

ic t P u b li c De fende r, and G reg ory D. Gookin, Assistant Publi c De fende r, for the a ppellant, Marty

Mitchell Clark.

Paul G. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B ri a n Cl a y John so n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ames G. Woodall, District Atto rn ey Gene ral; and Shaun A . Br own, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.T h e d u p le x c o n siste d o f tw o re sid e n c e s, w ith 2 4 3 -B h a v ing a n e n tra n c e o n the fro n t o f t h e ho u se a n d 2 4 3 -A 1

hav i ng an en t r anc e on t he back of t he hous e.

-2-

OP IN ION

F AC TS

The de fenda nt’s convictio n s s t em from his involvement in the burg lary and attempted burg lary of a duple x hous e l o ca t ed at 243 Campbell Street in J ackson, Te nnessee . Mary Ba ker 1 testified that on J une 9, 2004, at a pproxi mately

7:50 a.m., she wa s leaving her r esi d ence at 242 Campbell Street to g o to w ork when she “hea rd g lass brea

king.” Ba

ker looked at t h e r es idence

acr oss the street a nd saw “ somebody moving a

round on the porc h.” She immediately went to her

car and ca lled 9-1-1. B aker

described the per son on the porch as “a black male ” but ac knowledg ed that, beca use she did not “c oncentr ate on [his] fac ial features,” she could n ot identify him. Bake r watche d as the man move d “fr om a window on the rig ht-hand side of the porch to the door and bac k to the window and ba ck and f orth, and [she] could see that he w as try ing to r aise the w indow.” Be cause the window had be en painted shut, the m an co u l d not raise it. She said the man the n sat down on the porch steps for “may be forty -five seconds, a minute” befor e g etting back up and trying to open the window a g ain. When he could not g ain entry i nto the residenc e, the man “ picked up [som e] lit tle bag s and came down off the porch, down the walk, [and] started walking a way .” B aker

sa id the po lic e “ a

rrive d a s [th e ma n] w a s r ig ht i n f ro nt o f the bo ok

sto re that w a s n e xt to the ho us e he wa s try ing to b re ak in .” She a lso sa id that th e man “ ne ve r g ot o ut o f [h e r] s ig ht f ro m th e tim e [she] saw him until the police arrived” a nd detained him.

Of fi c e r R od ne y

An de rs on of

the Jack so n Polic e De pa rt me nt t e sti fi e d th a t on the da y in question, he and his pa

rtner, Ted Maxwell, “re ceive d a ca ll from dispatch that [they ] had a burg lary in prog ress” at 243 Campbell Str ee t

. Up o n arriving at the location, the off icer s “obser ved [the defe ndant] coming off

, like, a pathway

in front of the por ch on 243 Campbell, wa lking towa rds the

. . . b us ine ss rig ht b e sid e it. ” Th e de fe nd a nt w a s c arry ing a duffel bag c on ta ini ng “ a DV D/VC R play er, se vera l pairs of jea ns and a shirt a nd some shoes, some hats and a visor and seve ral other items.” The de fenda nt said that all of the items in the bag belong ed to h i m

. Af t er arresting the defe ndant for bur g lary , Ander son went to the fr ont residenc e of the duplex wher e he “obser ved the g lass broken a

bove the latc h on the rig ht side of the window, a nd then a sc ree n was pried on the left side of the f

ront house.” T he off

icer did not “chec k the bac k” re sidence

.
Of fi c e r T e d M a xwe ll of the Jac ks on Pol ic e De pa rt me nt t e sti fi e d th a t in a dd iti on to the ite ms in the du ff

e l ba g , th e de fe nd a nt a lso ha d “ so me jew elr y

. . . ins ide his pa nts po c ke ts. ” Ma xwe ll

a c kn ow le dg e d th a t th e po lic e fo un d n o to ols or g lov e s o n th e de fe nd a nt.

Ta rs ha Web b te sti fi e d th a t on June 9, 20 04
, sh e liv e d at 24 3- B Ca mpb e ll St re e t. We bb sa id that when she arrived at her house at 11:15 a .m. f or lunch, she “ noticed that the sc ree n on the fa r left on the window wa s a little bent, and [she] not iced that the ma ilbox [at the fron t en t ra n ce] was hang ing kind of

crooke d.” L ater

that afte rnoon, she discovere d that the window on the right “ had,-3-

lik e , a ho le ri g ht the re wh e re he ha d ta pp e d o n th e re a ndtr ie d to br e ak in .” She saidthat th e ho le “wa s big e noug h wher e he was try ing to unlock the latch on the window” a nd that her la ndlord had to replac e the br oken window.

Dorothy Murphy testified that on J une 9, 2004, she lived at 243-A Campbell Street. Murphy said she had le ft her house on J une 8, 2004, and did not return until 2: 30 p.m. on J une 9, 2004. Upon her a rrival home, Mur

phy found her front door locked but noticed several things out of place . She the n r e a lize d th a t he r D VD /V CR p la y e r, a br a c e le t, a

g olda nk le br a c e le t, a g old c ha in w ith a c ro ss
on it, so me c lothe s, a nd “ a blu e a ndre d d uf fe l ba g ” we re mis sin g . A ft e r r e po rt ing the bu rg lary to the police, Murphy was informed that the pol ice had her miss ing items a nd “the y oung man that g ot them.” Murphy

subsequently

went to the police station, w h er e s h e re cover ed her “blue- and-r ed d u ff el bag , four pa ir of blue jeans, a L ane Colleg e t-shirt, [and a] blue-and- g ray Dallas Cowboy je rs e y ,” a s w e ll a s h e r D VD /V CR p la y e r andhe r n e c kla c e a ndc ro ss.

Offic er D oug las Manase ri of the Jackson Police Depa rtment testified that on J une 9, 2004, he re sponded to an a g g ravated burg lary call at Dorothy

Murphy ’s re sidence . Manase ri said he f ound “no dete rminable point of entry

. There wer e several things that pointed to possible points of entry .” He e xpla ine d th a t he fo un d a wi nd ow wi th a “s ma ll h ole su c h a s w hat w ou ld b e wh e re y ou wo uld brea k the g lass and re ach in a nd flip the window latch,” another window that “ha d a scr een pulled out,” and, finally
, “some scratch marks around the door l atch that would indicate someone may have tried to slip the door latch, pop the door open.”

I nvestig ator Paul White of the J ackson Police Depa rtment testified that the items rec overe d from the de fenda nt upon his arre st were identified by Dorothy Murphy as the items stolen from he r residenc e.

AN AL YSI S

Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

The de fenda nt arg ues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Be cause a jury conviction rem o v es the pre sumption of innocence with which a de fenda nt is ini tially cloake d and repla ces it with one of g uilt, on appeal a c onvicted def endant ha s the burden of

demonstrating that the evidenc e is insufficient. See State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W

. 2 d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . Thus, we consider “ whether , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favora b l e t o t h e prosecution, any
ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble doubt.” J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L

. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979);

see a lso Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) ( “F indings of g uilt in criminal actions whether by the t rial court or jury sh a ll b e se t a sid e if the e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt to sup po rt the fi nd ing s by the tr ie r of fa c t of g uil t bey ond a re asonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn

. 1 9 9 2 ); State v. An de rs on , 8 35 S.W. 2d 60 0, 60 4 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 2) . A ll q ue sti on s in vo lvi ng the c re dib ili ty of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven t he evidence, and all factual issues ar e re solved by the trier of fac t. See State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A guilty verdic t-4-

by the jury
, approve d by the trial judge
, acc redits the testimony of the witnesses for the Stat e a nd resolves a ll conflicts in favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Gra ce, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 19 73 ). Ou r s up re me c ou rt state d th e ratio na le fo r this ru le :

This well-settled rule rests on a sound f oundation. The trial judg e and the jury see the witnesses fac e to f

ace , hear their testimony and observe their demea nor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary instrumentality of justice to determine the weig ht and cr edibilityto be g iven to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial for um alone is there human atm o s p h er e and the totalityof the e vidence cannot be repr oduced w ith a written re cord in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 11, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464, 370 S.W .2d 523 (1963))

.
A conviction base d on circ umstantial evidence is permitted in T ennesse e. State v. Tharpe
, 726 S.W .2d 896, 899 (Tenn. 1987) . Whether the c onviction is based upon direc t or circ umstantial evidenc e, the standa

rd for appellate revie w is t h e s am e. State v. J ohnson, 634 S.W .2d 670, 672 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) . On appe al, the State is e ntitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the tria l

e vid e nc e a nda ll r e a so na

ble a ndle g iti ma te inf

e re nc e s w hic h may

be dr a wn fr om the e vid e nc e . St a te v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 558 (Tenn. 2000). The w eig ht give n to circumstantial evide nce is for t h e j ury to determine. Williams v. S tate, 520 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974). Circumstantial evidenc e alone may be suff i ci en t to convict one of

a crime, if such evide nce sufficie ntly

proves a ll the nece ssary

elements. Tha

rpe, 726 S.W.2d at 899-900. I n State v. Reid, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002) , our supre me court restated the holding of State v. Smit h, 868 S.W .2d 561, 569 (Tenn. 1993) , which in turn quoted State v. Dunc an, 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985) , that

“ [a] c on vic tio n may

be bas ed ent ir e ly

on c ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e wh e re the fa c ts a re ‘s o c le arl y interwove n and conne cted that the f inge r of gu i l t i s pointed unerringly at the De fenda nt and the Def endant a lone.’”

The de fenda nt was convic ted of a g g ravated burg lary , att empted ag g ravated burg lary , theft of prope rty

under $500, a nd vandalism under $500. Aperson is g uiltyof ag g ravated burg lary when h e o r s h e e n t e r s a

h ab i t a t i o n w i t h o u tt h e o w n e r ' s c o n s e n ta n d w i t h t h e i n t e n tt o c o m m i ta f e l o n y, theft, or a ssault. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 14-402, -403 ( 2003).

A p e rs on is g uil ty

of a tte mpt e d a g g ra vate d b u r g l ary , w he n “ a c tin g wi th the kin d o f c ulp abil ity oth e rw ise re qu ir e d f

or ” a g g ra vate d b ur g lary , h e or sh e do e s a ny

of the fo llo wi ng :
(1) Intentionally

eng ag es in action or cause s a result that would constitut e an offe nse if th e c ir c u ms tan c e s s u rr o u n d in g th e c o n d u c t w e r e a s th e p e r s o n b e li e v es them to be;-5- (2) Ac ts with int ent to cause a re sult that is an element of the offense , and b el i ev es t h e co n d u ct wi l l ca u s e th e re s u l t wi t h o u t fu rt h er co n d u ct o n t h e p e r s o n 's part; or

(3 ) A c ts with inte nt to co mpl e te a c ou rs e of a c tio n or caus e a re su lt that w ou ld constitute the offe nse, under the circ umstances surrounding the conduc t as the per son believes the m to be, and the c onduct const i t u t es a substantial step towa rd the commission of the offe nse.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 12-101(a ) (2003)

.
Th e ft of pr op e rt y is d e fi ne d a s: “ A p e rs on c omm its the ft of pr op e rt y if
, wi th in tent to de prive the ow ne r o f p ro pe rt y , th e pe rs on kn ow ing ly ob ta ins or

e xer c ise s c on tr ol o ve r the pr op e rt y without the owner' s eff

ective c onsent.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (2003). I f the value of the property is $500 or less, the theft is a Class A misdemea nor. I d. § 39-14-105( 1).

Vanda lism i s defined a s: “Any person who know ingly

cause s damag e to or the destruc tion

o f a n y re al o r p er s o n al p ro p er t y o f an o t h er

. . . k n o wi n g t h at t h e p er s o n d o es n o th av e t h e o wn er 's eff ective c onsent is g uilty of” vandalism. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-408( a) ( 2003). “‘ Damag e’ in clu des , b utis no t l im it ed t o: (A) [ d] est roy in g, po ll ut in g o r con tam in ati ng pro pert y ; o r (B) [t ]ampering with property and ca using pe cuniary

loss or substantial inc onvenienc e to the owner

or a thi rdpe rs on .” I d. § 3 9- 14 -4 08 (b ). I f the va lue of the pr op e rt y is $ 50 0 o r l e ss, va nd a lis m is a Class A misdemeanor . I d. §§ 39-14-408( c)( 1), -105( 1).

The de fenda nt arg ues bec ause M ar y Baker did not see him enter the r esidenc e at 243 Campbell, there a

re “ no witnesses who saw [ him] g o into Ms. Murphy ’s apartment and take her po sse ssi on s, ” a nd“ Of

fi c e r Ma na se ri wa s un able to de te rm ine a de fi nit e po int

of e ntry int o M s. Murphy ’s apartment,” the evidenc e is insuff icient to support his convictions. We disag ree . Mary Ba ker te stified that she obser ved a ma n, later ide ntified as the defe ndant, walking around on the po rc h o f 2 43 -B Ca mpb e ll St re e t sh ortly

a ft e r he ari ng g la ss br e ak. I n a dd iti on , sh e ob se rv e d h im attempting to r aise a

window to g ain entry into the residenc e. Tarsha Webb, the occupant of 243- B, te stified that her scree n was bent and a window had to be re place d. This evidence is more than sufficie nt to convict the defe ndant of attempted ag g ravated burg lary and vanda lism under $500. As for the ag g ravated burg lary and thef t under $500 c onvictions, the eviden ce s h o we d that the defe ndant was f

ound with pr operty just take n from Dorothy Murphy ’s locked apartment at 243-A Campbell Street. This issue is without m erit.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and reasoning
, we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial court.

___ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE