### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 12, 200 6
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER T WEA VER
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 05-01203 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2005-02888-C CA-M R3-CD - F iled Janu ary 4, 2007

F oll ow ing a

jury tr ia l, D e fe nd a nt, Rob e rt Wea ve r wa s c on vic te d of on e c ou nt of ro bb e ry , a

Cla ss C felony . The trial c ourt sentenc ed Defendant as a Rang e I I , multipl e offender , to ten y ear s. Def endant does not appe al the leng th of his sentence . Def endant a rg u es, however, that the e vidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Afte r a thoroug h revie w, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.
Robert Wils on J ones, Dist rict P ublic Def ender ; Trent Hall, Assistant P ublic Def ender ; and Sandra R. DiMag g io, Assistant P ublic Def ender , Memphis, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Robert Weaver

. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi stant A ttorne y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Miche lle Parks, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
I. Bac kgr ound
Ellen Ba ker, a sales mana g er w ith Cricke t Communications, returne d to he r off ice on Elmore Street in Memphis at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Marc h 18, 2004, afte r a lunc h brea k. Ms. Ba

ker te sti fi e d th a t a Dod g e I ntr e pid pu lle d in to the pa rking lot on e sp a c e do wn fr om h e r p arking sp ot. Ms. B ake r g ot o ut of th e c ar andbe g a n w a lki ng tow ard s th e of fi c e bu ild ing c arry ing a

pa c ka g e , a

c e ll phone, a D ay Timer, and he r purse . The occupants of the ca r came up behind Ms. B aker , and one of the th re e m en p lace d something a g ainst her ba ck. Ms. B aker described the item “a s a har d substance” that “fe lt like metal.” One of the men said, “Give it up, lady .” The men beg an g rabbing for he r possess i o n s , an d Ms. Baker sc reamed. Two of the men ra n toward the I ntrepid while the-2-

third man, whom Ms. Ba

ker ide ntified at trial as D efe ndant, continued to strug g le with Ms. Baker over he r purse . M s
. Ba

ker le t go of

the purse, and it flew over Def endant’ s head. D efe ndant re tr ie ve d the pu rs e , “ pic ke d up a c ou ple of thi ng s that ha d fa lle n f ro m th e pu rs e ,” a ndjumpe d in to the I ntr e pid ’s ba c k s e a t.
Ms. B ake r sa id that the inc ide nt wa s “ ve ry sc ary ,” a nd sh e wa s a fr a id sh e wa s g oin g to d ie beca use she thoug ht the men wer e armed. Ms. Ba ker wa s s hown a photog raphic line-up af ter the incident, and she identified Defenda nt as her assailant. Ms. Ba ker said that the only

item that was rec overe d was he r ce ll phone and t wo k ey s whi ch had br oken off from her key chain during the strug g le. She said her

cell phone numbe r wa s 859-0100.
On cr oss-examination, Ms. B aker said that she could not ide ntify the other two men involved in the i ncident. Ms. Ba

ker said that her purse contained cre dit cards a nd chec ks. Three chec ks, eac h in the a mou nt o f $ 1, 50 0, we re c a sh e d at ne arb y c a sin os in M iss iss ipp i a ft e r the inc ide nt.
Brian B ender , an ac c o u n t m an a g e r f o r Cricket Communications, hear d Ms. Baker sc ream and he ra n into the office ’s re ception ar ea. Mr . Be nder te stified that he obser ved Ms. Ba ker strug g ling with a man over her purse. Mr. Bende r identified De fendant at trial as Ms. B aker ’s assailant. Mr. B ake r s a id that th e pu rs e fl e w o ut o f M s. B ake r’ s h a nd . D e fe nd a nt p ic ke d u p th e pu rs e , look e d in Mr. B ender ’s direc tion, and then jumped in the back seat of a Dodg e Intrepid. Mr. B ender said that he identified D efe ndant from a photogr aphic line- up as the pe rson who had ta ken Ms. B aker ’s purse. M r. Be nder sa id that he and Ms. B aker memorized the license plate number of the I ntrepid and re la y e d th a t in fo rm a tio n to the inv e sti g a tin g of fi c e rs
. Carla B rag g testified that she rente d a 1997 Dodg e Intrepid shortly befor e the incide nt for her frie nd , Wa nd a

Carr uth e rs , b e c a us e Ms. Carr

uth e rs wa s no t e mpl oy e d. Se rg e a nt Sc ott Wri g ht, wi th the S he lb y

Co u n ty Sh e r if f ’ s D e p ar tm e n t, te s ti f

ie d th a t th e D o d g e I n tr e p idw a s r e g is te r e d to Ri ver City Ca r R e nta l. M s. Carr

uth e rs ’ a dd re ss w a s obtaine d fr om the re nta l a g re e me nt, a ndthe I ntr e pid was subsequently discovere d parke d outside Ms. Ca rruther s’ residenc e about two hours aft er the inc ide nt.
De te c tiv e Jona s H olg uin , w ith the Me mph is Po lic e De pa rt me nt, int e rv ie we d M s. Carr uth e rs
. Ms. Carruther s was in possession of Ms. Ba ker’ s cell phone w hen she w as picke d up for the interview. Ms. Carruthers state d that she had loaned the Intrepid to Def endant prior to 2:00 p.m. on t h e d a y o f t h e i n c i d e n ta n d d i s c l o s e d t h e n a m e s o f t h e o t h e r m e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e r o b b e r y. Serg eant De x ter Moses, with the Me mphis P olice De partment, testified that the inves ti g ating of fi c e rs c ou ld onl y loc a te De fe nd a nt. De fe nd a nt w a s r e a d h is Miranda rig hts and executed a written waiver . Def

endant’ s statement was r ead to the jury . Def endant acknow ledg ed that he participated in the robbery

in front of the Cric ket Co m m u n i ca tions facility , but he denied that he was a rmed. Def endant sa id that he was a ccompa nied by two men named Johnny

and “T .” The thre e men we re in a g ra y D o d g e I n tr e p id w h ic h th e y h a d b o rr o w e d f r o m M s
. Ca

rru th e r s
. D e f

e n d a n t p r o v id ed the fo llo wi ng de sc ri pti on of

the inc ide nt i n h is s ta te me nt:-3- We rode a round for awhile, a nd we pulled into the par king lot at Cricke t, and J ohnny said, there she g o, and pulled up fa st. “T” jumped out, I g ot out and ran up to the woman. “T ” wa s g rabbing her ba g and purse , and she dr opped the phone. I picked up the phone , then the purse fell. “T” g ot the bag from the woma n and we ran and picke d up the purse a s we ran. We jumped in the car

and took off. We we nt back to Wanda’ s house, and “ T” and Johnnyg ave the purse to Wanda. Wanda w as looking throug h th e purse a nd looking at the cre dit cards a nd the purse. T here was a white c ouple at Wanda’ s and she looked at the driver’ s license a nd said she could pa ss for [Ms. Bake r.]
Def endant sa i d i n h i s statement that he c ommitt ed the r obbery beca use he “ was hig h and wanted some more to stay high.” Def

endant sa id tha t t h e only

thing he rec eived f

rom the stolen ite ms w a s Ms . B ake r’ s c e ll p ho ne , a ndhe so ld the c e ll p ho ne to M s. Carr uth e rs fo r t e n d oll ars
. II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence Def endant a rg ues that the e vidence was insuffic ient to support his conv ic ti o nf o r r o b b e r y , th at a t mo st h e is g uil ty

of the le sse r o ff

e ns e of fa c ili tat ionof

ro bb e ry . D e fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t Ms

. Carr uth e rs or c he str a te d th e ro bb e ry , a ndthat he wa s me re ly fo llo wi ng he r o rd e rs
. When a def

endant challeng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence , we must revie w the evidenc e in a light most fa vorable to the prosec ution in determining whe ther a rational trier

of fa ct could have found all t he esse ntial elements of the c rime bey ond a re asonable doubt. Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S.3 07 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81, 27 89 , 61 L

. Ed . 2 d 5 60 (1 97 9) . O nc e a jury fi nd s a defe ndant g uilty , his or her presumption of innoce nce is re moved and r eplac ed with a pr esumption o f gu i l t

. State v. Black , 8 1 5 S. W. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 1 )

. T h e d e f e n d a n t h a s th e burden of overc oming this presumption, and the State is entitled to the st rongest leg itimate view of the evidenc e along with all rea sonable infe renc es which may be dra wn from that e vidence

. Id .; St ate v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W. 2d 91 3, 91 4 (T e nn . 198 2) . T he jury is p re su me d to ha ve re so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts and dra wn any

rea sonable infe renc es i n favor of the State. Sta te v . She

ffi e ld , 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1 9 8 4 ). Que stions concerning the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the e vid e nc e , a nda ll f

a c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e are re so lve d b y the tr ie r o f f

a c t a ndno t th is court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). These r ules are applicable to findings of g uilt predicate d upon direc t e vidence , circ umstantial e vidence , or a combination of both direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. The off ense of robbery is defined as “the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the person of another b y v i o l en ce or putting the person in fe ar.” T.C.A. § 39-13-401( a). “ A per son c omm its the ft

of pr op e rt y if, w ith int e nt to dep rive the ow ne r o f p ro pe rt y , th e pe rs on kn ow ing ly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner ’s ef fec tive consent.” Id

. § 39-14- 103. Viewing the evidenc e in a lig ht most favor able to the S tate, Ms. B aker testified that Def

endant and two other

men appr oache d her in the pa rking lot and g rabbe d the items she was car ry ing f rom-4-

her posse ssion. One of the me n pressed something a g ainst Ms. Bake r’s ba ck which Ms. B aker be lie ve d to be a

g un . M s. B ake r i de nti fi e d D e fe nd a nt a s th e ind ivi dual who to ok her pur se . M s. Ba ker de scribed the incident as “ very scary ” and thoug ht she was g oing to die. T he jury was pr ov ide d wi th a n ins truc tio n on fa c ili ta tio n a s a le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e of ro bb e ry . B y

its ve rd ic t, the jury obviouslyreje cted De fenda nt’s contention that he wa s not a principa l actor during the commission of the offe nse, as wa s its prerog ative. B ased on our revie w of the recor d, we c onclude that a rational trier of f

act c ould find bey ond a re asonable doubt that Defe ndant was g uiltyof the offe nse of r obbery . Def

endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue. CO NC LU SION
Af te r r e vie w, we a ff

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

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE