# FILED July 23, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE MARCH SESSION, 1997

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9606-CC-00246 ) Appell ee, ) BEDFORD COUNTY ) ) V. ) HON. WILL IA M CHARLES LEE, ) JUDGE STEPHON MA TTHEW FEA RN, ) ) (A GGRAVAT ED BURGLARY Ap pella nt. ) AND THEFT)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JOHN HARWELL DI CKEY JOHN KNOX WALKUP Dist ri ct Publ ic Def ender Attor ney General & Reporter CURTI S H. GANN JANI S L. TURNER Assist ant Publ ic Def ender Assist ant Attor ney General 105 South Mai n 425 Fifth Avenue North P.O. Box 1119 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Fayett evi ll e, TN 37334 Nashvil le, TN 37243 WIL LI AM ED WARD GI BSON Dist ri ct Attor ney General WI LL I A M MI CH A EL Mc COW N Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General ROBERT G. CRI GLER Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General One Public Square, Sui te 300 Shelbyv il le, TN 37160-3953 OPINION FILED ________________________ CO NV ICT ION AN D S EN TE NC ES AF FIR ME D; REMANDED F OR ENTRY OF AMENDED J UDGMENTS THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

Th e D efe nd an t, Ste ph on M. F ea rn, a pp ea ls as of rig ht a cco rdin g to Ru le 3 of t he Tennessee R u les ofAppell ate Proc edure. He was convi cted of aggravat ed bu rgla ry an d m isd em ea no r the ft follo win g a jury tr ial in th e C ircu it Co urt forBedford County. The jury i mposed fine s in t he amount offi ve t housand dollars ($5, 000.00) and one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for his convi ctions, respe ctively. At his sen tencing hearing , Defen dan t was se ntenc ed by t he tr ial judge to ni ne (9) yearsand six (6) months i ncarcerati on as a Range II, Mu ltiple Offender

for the ag gravate d burg laryconvi cti on and eleven (1 1) m onths , twentynine (29 ) daysforthe t heftconvi cti on. These sent ences were ordered t o be served con sec utively to each other and to Def endant’ s pri or sent ences for which he was on parol e at t he ti me of the aggravated burgl ary a nd th eft . Defen dant argues the ev idence wasinsuffi cientto support bot h the aggravated burgl ary and the theftco nvict ions, and th at the trial court erre d by im posing an exc essive sentence.

I. SUFFI CIE NCY OF THE EVI DENCE

W hen an accused chal lenges t he suff ici ency ofthe conv ict ing e vi denc e, the standa rd is whe ther, afte r rev iew ing the evid en ce in the light m os t favo rab le to the prosecuti on, anyrat ional tr ierof f act coul d have f ound the es se ntia l elem ents of t he cri me beyond a reas ona ble d oub t. Ja cks on v. Vir gin ia , 4 43 U. S. 307, 31 9 ( 19 79 ). On ap pe al, th e S tate is enti tl ed to t he strongest l egit imate v iew-3-

ofthe evid en ce an d a ll infere nce s the refrom
. State v. Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d 832, 8 35 (Ten n. 1978) . Because a verdi ct ofguil t r emoves the presumption o f innocence and repl aces i t wi th a p resumpti on of gui lt , t he accused has t he burden i n thi s courtof i ll ustrati ng why t he evi dence isinsuffi cientto support t he verdictreturn ed b y the trie r of fac t. Sta te v. T ug gle , 639 S. W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 198 2); State v. Grace , 493 S.W .2d 4 74, 4 76 (T enn . 197 3).

Question s concerni ng the credibi li ty o f t he wit nesses, the weightand val ue to be giv en the ev idence, as well as all factual issues raised b y the evide nce, are resol ved bythe trier of fact, n ot this c ourt. State v. Pappas , 754 S. W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim . App .), perm . to appeal denied , id . ( Tenn. 1987). Nor may this court rewei gh orreev alua te the evide nce . Cabbage , 571 S .W .2d at 83 5. A jury verdict approved by the tr ial jud ge acc red its th e S tate ’s w itne sse s an d re so lves all con flicts in favo r of the State
. Grace , 493 S. W .2d at476.

Sam Bragg, the v ict im, t esti fi ed thathe is t he owner ofthe property l ocated at 711 East DepotStreetin Shel byvi ll e. While i t i s not hi s pri mary resi dence, he an d h is wif e staythere a coupl e of ni ghts each month. He was at t he premises on June 12, 1995. When he left , ev eryt hing was s ecure. Bragg ha d giv en no one permission to ent er the home prior t o the disco very ofthe aggravated burglary. W hen he ret urned on June 1 6, 1995, Bragg found an aluminum panel for ced outof t he stor m door on the bac k porch, and the wooden fra me door to t he house h ad been force d o pe n. W he n h e ca lled the po lice, he no tice d th at h is answeri ng machine was no t bythe phone. W hil e wait ing f or t he poli ce, he walked throug h his home and noticed other i tems missing. Aft er the poli ce arri ved, theytook hi s stat ement regarding t he missi ng it ems. The poli ce off icer-4-

then wen t next d oor to talk to his ne ighb or, the De fend ant. Bra gg sta ted tha t his house and the Def enda nt’ s were approxi matelythi rty(30) feetapart , wi th no hedge in between. When Bragg accompa nied t he po li ce on a wal k-t hru of De fend ant’s hom e, he thou ght h e sa w a k eros ene hea ter tha t was his.

The foll owing Monday, June 19, the poli ce a sked Bragg t o come to t he police st at i on t o i de nt i f y so me pr ope rty. He identified a V CR by its serial num ber, a Bla ck & De cke r co m m erc ial ro ute r an d sk ill saw, and a propane t orch. He also saw a heater

at a pawn s hop thathe was “ni nety- nine percent ( 99%) sure” was his due t o its w ick r ep lac em en t. In a late r se arc h b y the po lice o f De fen da nt’s home, Bragg saw a W indsor casse tt e recorder, tapes with handwri tten l abels, and spa rk plu g so cke ts wh ich w ere a lso h is. On his ne xt visit to the po lic e sta tion , he ide ntifie d h is fi shing pol es and a tackl e box r ecovere d by t he poli ce. Bragg esti mated the v alue ofthe goods stol en from h is hom e to be aroun d five hundred ($500.00) doll ars.
Bobby Peacock, a poli ce off icer wit h the Shel byvi ll e Poli ce Dep art ment , was worki ng on June 16, 1995, and ans wered t he burgl ary c all at 71 1 Depot Stre et. He test if ied t hat he saw where the st orm door was cav ed in and entry was gained through the bac k do or i nt o Bragg’s home. Officer Peacock took a stat ement from the vi ctim in whi ch he reported the VCR, fi shing rods, tackle bo x, skill saw and route r wer e m issing from his ho m e.
Virg il Ca ste el te stif ied thatDefendantcall ed him and t hen met him after work ask i ng h i m to buya VCR and fishing equ ipm ent. The VCR was to serve as coll ateral so t hat Defend ant cou ld ha ve m one y to go to Al abama. Casteel took-5-

the VCR, but notthe f ishi ng equipment. The fol lowi ng morning, Defendantcall ed Casteel and ask ed him to come by hi s house t o look a t some other it ems. W hen he dropped byhis hou se, Def endant showed hi m a skil l saw, rout er and propane tor ch. As Defendan t state d he needed money to pay hi s electri c bil l, Casteel a gree d to purchase the it ems. Subsequentl y, h e read i n the l ocal paper that Bra gg ’s re sidence w as bu rglarized a nd tha t his VC R an d fishing p oles we re m issing
.
Forthe def ense, Tony Col li ns and PatMa th is, inv esti gators wit h the Sh elb yville Po lice D epa rtme nt, test if ied t hat t heyresponded t o a call on June 16, 1995 at DepotStreet . They t al ked wit h the Defend ant who act ed li ke he was
n ervous , bu t wa s po lite. T he offic ers ob tain ed con se nt to sea rch De fen da nt’s hom e. T he D efen dan t did no t testify.

Defendantcontends thatthere is noevid en ce of h is enteri ng the residence and all the ev idence of his gui ltis c ir cumstanti al, therefor e, t he evi denc e is insuffi cientto supporthis c onvi cti ons ofag grav at ed bu r gl ary an d t he f t
. A c r i me may be e stab lished by circ um stan tial evide nce alon e. State v. Thar pe , 726 S .W .2d 896, 899- 900 (Tenn. 198 7). However, before an accused may be convi cted of a cr imin al offen se b ase d on ly upo n circu m stan ti al ev iden ce, t he facts and circum stan ces “mu st be so s trong and cog ent a s to excl ude everyother reasonabl e hypot hesis save t he guil t ofthe d efen dan t.” State v. C rawford , 225 Tenn. 478, 482, 470 S.W.2d 610, 612 ( 1971). In ot her wor ds, a “ web of g uilt must be woven around the defendan t f rom which he c annot esca pe and from which fact s and circumstances the jury could draw no other reasonable inf erence save the guilt of the defe nda nt beyo nd a re ason able do ubt.” Id . at 48 4, 61 3.-6- In viewin g the evide nce in the lig ht m ost fa vora ble to the S ta te, the evidence was suff ici ent t o supporta convi cti on for aggravat ed burgl ary and theft. Bo th the out side s tor m door and the wooden frame door to th e in sid e o f Bra gg ’s ho me were fo rcibly o pen ed. Upon examinat ion ofhis home, Bragg f ound that s ev eral i t ems we r e mi ss i ng . Th e e vi de nc e e st ab l i sh ed t ha t so me o ft he i t ems missi ng from B ragg’s h om e after the a ggrava ted bu rglary were fou nd in De fen da nt’s home, and t he remaind er ofthe i tems, i ncludi ng the t ools, fi shing equ ipm ent, an d V CR , we re s ee n in the De fen da nt’s po sse ssio n b y M r. C as tee l.

W hen a burgl ary hasbeen committ ed, personal property was t aken duri ng the burgl ary, the pe rsona l pro perty i s found i n the ex clusi ve possess ion ofthe accused shortly after the b urglary, and there is no satisfactory expl anati on of how the accus ed ob tai ned the stolen property, atr ierof f act may i nferthatthe accused committed the burglary and t ook the personal property from the si tus of the burglary. W yatt v. State , 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 1, 11- 14, 467 S. W .2d 811, 814- 15(Tenn. Crim . App .), cert
. denied (Te nn. 1 971 ) (citation s om itted). W hil e Defendantargue s that there was no evi dence present ed by t he Stat e regarding his enteri ng Bragg’s pro perty, the State was not required to present a witness who actual lyobserv ed defendantenter the premises in orderto meet i ts burden ofpres entin g evid enc e su fficient to con vict him
. See State v. Avery , 818 S. W .2d 365, 36 7 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 99 1). T he re w as no sat isfa cto ry an d re as on ab le expl anati on forDefendant ’s pos sessi on of recentl y st olen property ta ken duri ng the course of an aggra vated b urglary. Th ere wa s overw helm ing proo f to supp ort De fend ant’s con victions of ag grav ated burg lary an d the ft. Th is iss ue is wit hout
m erit.-7- II
. SENTENCI NG

Defendantargues t hat t he sentenc e gi ven t o hi m by the t ri al court was excessi ve. Defe nda nt was ordere d to serve nine (9) ye ars and s ix (6) mont hs and to pay five thousa nd do llars ($5,000 .00) in fines for the aggra vated b urglary convi cti on. He was also ordered t o serv e elev en (11) months and twenty- nine (29) days a nd to p ay one thousa nd do llars ($1, 000.00 ) in fines for the theft convi cti on. The sentences were t o be serv ed consecut iv elyto each o therand to othercon victio ns De fen da nt h ad in F ran klin County for whi ch he wa s on pa role at the t ime of the above off enses.

W hen an accused chal lenges t he lengt h, range, or t he mann er of serv ice ofa se nten ce, th is cou rt has a du tyto conducta de novo revi ew of the sentence with a pre sum ption that th e de term ination s m ade by th e tria l cou rt are c orre ct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35 -401(d) . Thi s presumpti on is “c ondit ioned upon t he affirmative showing i n the record t hat t he tr ial courtconsi dered t he sentenc ing pri ncipl es and all relevant facts a nd circu ms tance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d 166, 169 (Te nn. 1 991) . I f ourrevi ew ref lect s thatthe t ri al court f oll owed the statutory sentenci ng procedure, i mposed a lawf ul sent ence aft er havi ng giv en due consi derat ion and proper weightto t he fact ors and pr inci pals s et outunder the sentencing l aw, and that t he tri al court ’s f indings offacta re a de qu ate ly support ed by t he record, then we mayno t m od ify the sen ten ce eve n if w e w ou ld have prefe rred a differe nt res ult. State v. Fl etcher , 805 S. W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1 991 ).-8- In conduc ti ng a de novo review of a senten ce, this cou rt mus t conside r: (a) the e vi dence, i f any , r eceiv ed at t ri al and t he sentenc ing hear ing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the pr inc iples of se nten cing and argu m ents as to sentenci ng alt ernat iv es; ( d) t he nature and characteri sticsof the cr iminal conduct involved; (e) an y statutory enhancement or miti gati ng fact ors; (f ) any s tat ement the defen dan t mad e on h is or her ow n beh alf; and (g) t he potent ial or l ack of potent ial forrehabi li tat ion or tr eatment. Tenn. Code Ann . §§ 40- 35-102, -103, and -210 ; see Sta te v. Sm ith , 735 S.W .2d 8 59, 8 63 (T enn . Crim . App . 198 7). The trial cou rt state d its reaso ns an d findings on the record . First, the trial court found th e Defendant to be a Range I I, Mult ipl e Offender due to hi s prev ious fel onyconvict ions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-106. The evide nce adduced at t he sentenci ng he arin g cle arly e sta blish es De fen da nt’s eligib ility for sentenci ng wit hi n Range II as a Mult ipl e Offender , and Def endant does not cont est t his f indi ng by the tr ial cou rt. T hu s, th e a pp licab le senten cing ran ge for the aggra vated b urglary con viction w as s ix (6) to te n (10 ) yea rs. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 2(b) (3).

The Defen da nt r eceiv ed a sentenc e of ni ne (9) yearsand six (6) months forthe a ggra vate d burgl ary. The tri al court appl ied enhanc ement fact or 1, that the Defendanthad a previou s history of cri minal convict ions in addi tion t o those nece ssary t o e st ab l i sh hi m as a R an ge I I Of f en de r , en ha nc eme n t f actor 8, t hat Defendanthad a pre vious histor y of un willingn ess to co m ply with the condi ti ons ofa sentenc e inv olv ing release i nto t he community, and enhancement fact or 13, thatDefendantcommitted the fel ony whi le he was on parol e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114. The t ri al court foun d one mitigating fac tor, that Defendant’ s conduct ne ithe r ca us ed no r thre ate ne d se riou s bo dily inj ury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 1 13. The weightto be attri buted t o each factoris det ermined based on the-9-

degree of culpabi li ty and tot ality of t he circumstances of each case
. Sta te v. Moss , 727 S.W.2d 229 , 238 ( Tenn. 1986). The tri al court properl y det ermined the ap pli cat ion of the e nha ncem ent factors and o ne m itigating factor. De fen da nt’s cri minal hi story was rat her extensiv e, and t hat f actor was entitled to substant ial we igh t. Inc lud ed in his crim in al hi story were t hree ( 3) f elony convi cti ons in ad diti on t o those nec essaryto est abli sh a Range II sentence. De fen da nt’s unwil li ngness to comply wi th condi ti ons ofa prior sentence inv olv ing release in t he community was also heav il y wei ghed by t he tr ial court . Defen dant was on parol e at t he ti me of the aggravat ed bur glary. He also had been o n probat ion at the time he c om m itted pr ior offe nse s. If the t ri al j udge com plies w ith the purpo ses a nd prin cip les of se nte nc ing an d h is find ing s ar e a de qu ate ly support ed by t he record, t hen the wei ght assi gned to t he exi sti ng enhanci ng and miti gati ng fac tors is ge ne rally left to his discre tion. See Sta te v. M ars ha ll , 870 S.W .2d 53 2, 54 1 ( Ten n. Cr i m. App .), perm . to appeal denied (Tenn. 1993) . The tri al courtalso found thatDefendantli ed duri ng the sent encing hea ri ng, and t hus found that D efen dan t’s pote ntial for re hab ilitation w as, a t bes t, rem ote. Up on vi ewing De fen da nt’s demeanor, t he tr ial courtwas in a bett er posi ti on to assess De fen da nt’s rehabi li tat iv e potent ial . Upon de novo rev iew, we fi nd no error i n the tri al court’ s judgment based upon t he record.

Defendantwas sen tenc ed t o serve el even ( 11) mont hs and twe nt y-ni ne (29) days f or t he theft conv ict ion. W hil e Defendantdoes notchall enge the leng th ofthis sentence, he argues t hat t his se ntence sho uld notbe ser ved con se cu tively to his sen tence for aggra vated b urglary. Co ns ec utive sen ten cin g w as pro pe rly appli ed by t he tr ial courtbased upon Def en da nt’s ext ensiv e record of cr iminal activity. Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -115 (b)(2 ). W hile th e tri al j udge also used-10-

De fen da nt’s crimina l history as an enha ncem ent factor i n the l eng th o f his sentence, there i s no prohibit ion againstusing t he same fact s and ci rcumstances both to enh ance senten ces u nde r applicab le enha ncem ent factors and to require those senten ces to b e serve d con secu tively. State v. Me lvin , 913 S. W .2d 195, 205 (Tenn. Crim . App .), perm . to appeal denied (T en n. 1 99 5). In fac t, this Cou rt has pre viou sly upheld c onsiderati on of pr iorcri minal c onvi cti ons and conductfor both enh anc em ent a nd c ons ecu tive se nten cing purp ose s. Id .; Sta te v. Meeks , 867 S.W .2d 3 61, 3 77 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 3), cert
. denied , 114 S.C t. 120 0 (1994 ). W e als o find that conse cuti ve sent encing i s necessary toprot ect t he pu blic againstfurthercrimina l condu ct by the D efend ant an d that the c onse cutive s entences in t his ca se reasonabl y rel ate t o the severi ty o f t he off enses com m itted. State v. Wilkerson , 905 S.W .2d 9 33, 9 39 (T enn . 199 5).

Th is issu e is w ithou t me rit.

W hile not raised bythe Sta te o n a pp ea l, we no te th at th e ju dg m en ts in this case do n ot speci fi call y setforth t he tr ial court ’s order t hat t he sentenc es be served cons ecutively with each other and consec uti vel y topri or f elonyconvi cti ons of the De fend ant in Fra nklin C oun ty Circ uit Co urt.

We aff ir m the judgment s of con vi cti on, the sent ences i mposed by the t ri al cou rt, and the mannerof servi ce of tho se s ente nce s. Th is cas e is re m and ed to the tr ial courtforentry ofcorr ec ted j udg me nts wh ich reflect con secu tive sen tenc ing o rder ed b y the tria l cou rt.

____________________________________-11- THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge