### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 6, 200 7
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CL IFF ORD BR YA NT JOHNS ON

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 05-714 Roge r A. P age, Judge

No. W2006-01526-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled March 12, 2007

Th e de fe nd a nt, Clif

fo rd B ry a nt John so n, wa s c on vic te d o f o ne c ou nt o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , a c la ss B f elony , and senten ce d to nine y ear s in prison as a Rang e I , standard of fende r. The de fendant
ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic ti o n , c laim in g th a t th e e v id e n c e is in s u f f ic ie n t t o s u pport his co n v ic ti o n

. We conclude that the evidenc e is sufficie nt and af firm the def

endant’ s conviction.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d.

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., joined.

J oseph Howe ll, District Publ ic Def end er ; P aul E. Mey ers, Assistant District Public Defe nder ( on appea l); Ramsdale O’D eNe al, J ackson, Te nnessee (at trial) , for the a ppellant, Clifford B ry ant J ohnson.

Rob er t E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; Jerry

Woodall, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; James W. T h o mpson, Assistant Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

At tr ia l, R e be c c a

S to ry te sti fi e d th a t onJuly

12 , 2 00 5, sh e wa s w or

kin g a s a c a sh ie r at a Coastal g as station and conve nience store on the Ro u t e 4 5 By pass in J ackson, Te nnessee . That
a f t e r n o o n , t w o A f

r i c a n A m e r i c a n m e n , o n e t a l l a n d w e ar i n g a w h i t e s h i r t , a n d t h e o t h e r s h o r t , s t o c k y, and we aring a blac k shirt, enter ed the store and picked up some g um. The man in the blac k shirt then
we nt t o St ory ’s cash reg ist e r t o p ur c ha se the g um. Sto ry te sti fi e d th a t a ft e r s he op e ne d th e c a sh reg ister, the man in the black s hirt told her to keep the reg ister open or the other ma n would shoot her. A ccor ding to Story , when she looked up, the man in the white shirt ha d a g un pointed at Story approximately

six inches from her face

. Story testified t hat t he man in the whit e shi rt told the man in the black shirt to take the money , and shortly there afte r the man in the bla ck shirt jumped on the counter and took the m o n ey fr o m t h e re g ister. The two me n then left the store , g ot into a gr ay-2-

vehicle driven by a third man, and drove of f. Story testified that bef

ore the men drove away , she wa s able to jump over the counter and view the vehicle ’s license plate number , which she w rote down. Sto ry the n c a lle d 9 11 a ndfi le d a po lic e re po rt

. Story testified that two d ay s l at er, Ser g eant Jerald Golden w ith the J ackson Police Depa rtment met with Story

to discuss the incident. Serg eant Golde n showed Story a photog raph
arr ay , from which Story identified the man in the bla ck shirt, the one w ho had take n the money from the sto re the day

of the ro bb e ry . T he ma n id e nti fi e d w a s th e de fe nd a nt.

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Sto ry state d th a t the tw o me n we re in the sto re app ro xima te ly fo ur to fi v e m i n u tes befor e the r obbery occur red. A lso, St ory

stated that ea

rlier that day , she saw a

g ray vehicle, similar to the one later use d as the g etaway car , pull into the store’s parking lot. She stated that a man e ntere d the store, looked around briefly , then exit ed the store . Story said that this man was the one who drove the g etaway car afte r t h e robbery . Story

said that she then sa w three men standing in front of the g ray car conver sing f

or a short time before driving away . On re direc t, Story te sti fi e d th a t sh e didnot bel iev e that th e ma n inthe wh ite sh irt w a s f or c ing the de fe nd a nt t o p ar t i c i p a t e i n t h e r o b b e r y. Serg eant Golde n testified that af ter the r obbery , he ran the vehicle ’s plates a nd discovere d that the vehicle was owne d by Dion Burton of Br ownsville, Tenne ssee. Upon further investigation, Serg eant Golden discovere d that the defe ndant was one of the men w ith whom Burton assoc iated. Ba sed on this information, the police made the defe ndant a suspect and Ser g eant Golde n place d the defe ndant’s photog raph in th e array which Serg eant Golde n showed Story on J uly 14. Serg eant Golden testified that St ory positivelyidentified the de fendant’s photogr aph in the ar ray , stating that he wa s the one who ha d taken the m o n ey from the cash re g ister the day of the robbe ry . On September 7, 2005, Serg eant Golden arr ested the defe ndant. Whil e in custody , the def endant sig ned a Miranda waiver and, re fusing counsel, made a volunt ary statement t o police. The statement, which
was re ad into evidenc e, noted that on the day of the robber

y , the defe ndant and Burton w ere driving throug h West Te n n e s s e e o n I n te r s tate 4 0 w h e n th e y s to p p e d a t a

T

. A

. T ru c k

St o p

. B u r to n th en pumped g as into his vehicle and drove off without paying. L ater in the day , the two men picke d up a thi rd m an , H ar

r y G o f f, a n d w e n t t o “ th e s to r e a t O ldH ic k o r y n e ar th e B y
- Pa s s , ” me a n in g the Coastal station. The def

endant a nd Goff e ntere d the store , p u rc hased be vera g es, then drove off. Acc ording to the defe ndant’s stateme nt, later that day the def endant a nd Burton went bac k to the C o a s t a l s t o r e , w h e r e B u r t o n p u l l e d a g u n o n t h e c a s h i e r

a n d t h e d e f

e n d a n tt o o k

t h e m o n e y. Ac c or din g to the de fe nd a nt, ho we ve r, it wa s Bu rt on , an d not the de fe nd a nt, wh o to ld the c a sh ie r t o g ive the men the money or Burton w ould shoot the cashier . I n his statement, the def endant c laimed that befor e the r obbery

occur red, he had no idea

that Burton intended to rob the store

. The de fendant testified on his own behalf. His acc ount of t he robbery mirrore d his earlier statement to police—B urton was the one who pointed the g un at the ca shier and ve rbally threatened the ca shier, while the de fendant took the money and did not say an y t h i n g t o t he ca shier. The defe ndant also testified that he had no idea that Burton, whom the defendant stated he had know n for a pproxi mately

three to four y ear s befor e the r obbery , intended to rob the store. The defe ndant-3-

testified that the def

endant took the money

out of fea

r that B urton would shoot the cashie r or the defe ndanti f h e r ef

u s ed t o fo l l o w B u rt o n ’s o rd er s

. On cr o s s -e x am i n at i o n , t h e d ef en d an tad m i t t ed t h at he had bee n with Burton e arlier in the day

when B urton took g as fr om the truck stop without pay ing for the g as.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appe llate court’s standard of revie w when the defe ndant questions the suffic iency of the evidence o n ap p ea l is “whether , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond
a re asonable doubt.” J ack s o n v . Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)

. T h e c o u rt d o es n o tre we i gh the evidenc e; rathe r, it pr esumes that the jury has re solved all conflicts in the testimony and dra wn all rea sonable infe renc es fr om the evidenc e in fa vor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) . Questions reg arding witness cr ed i b ility , conflicts in testimony , and the we ight a nd value to be g iven to evidenc e we re re s olved by

the jury . See St a te v

. B lan d , 9 5 8 S. W. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 7 )

. A g u il ty v e rdict
remove s the presumption of innoce nce and repla ces it with a pre sumption of guilt, and on appe al the de fe nd a nt ha s the bu rd e n of ill us tr a tin g wh y the e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the jury ’s ve rd ic t. I d.; State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

A N A LY S IS Ag gr av ate d R ob be ry
The de fendant was convicted of agg ravated robbe ry in violation of section 39-13-402 of the Te n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d

. R o b b e r y i s d e f i n e d a s “ t h e i n t e n t i o n a l o r k n o w i n g t h e f t o f p ro pe rt y from the pe rson of a nother by violence or

putting the pe rson in fe ar

. ” T en n

. C o de Ann. §39- 13- 401(a) (2006). One of the c onditions under which robbery may be considere d ag g ravated robbe ry is where the offe ns e i s “[a]ccomplished with a dea dly wea pon or by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to rea sonably believe it to be a

deadly wea pon.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-402(a )(1) (2006). At tria l, the cashie r and the defe ndant testified that Burton pla ced a g un in the cashie r’s f

a c e a n d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t t o o k

mo n e y f r o m th e c a s h r e g is te r

. T h u s , o n ap p e a l the defe ndant conc edes that an ag g ravated robbe ry did in fact oc cur. H oweve r, the de fendant arg ues that he cannot be held criminallyresponsible for the offe nse. We disag ree

.
Cri mi na l R e sp on sib ili ty

Under Tenne ssee law , “A pe rson is criminally responsible as a party

to an offe nse, if the offe nse is committed by the person’s own conduct, by the conduct of another for w hich the per son is criminally

responsible, or by both.” Tenn. Code Ann. §39- 11-401(a ) (2006) . “Ea ch party to an of fe ns e ma y

be c ha rg e d w ithc omm iss ionof the of fe ns e .” I d. § ( b) . A de fe nd a nt i s c ri min a lly
re sp on sib le fo r an o ff

e ns e c omm itt e d b y

the c on du c t of

a no the r i f the de fe nd a nt ac ts “w ithint e nt t o promote or a ssist t he commission of the off ense or to b en ef i t in the proce eds or r esults of the offe nse,” and there by

“solicits, directs, ai d s, or attempt[s] to aid another person to commit the-4-

offe nse.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11- 402(2) ( 2006).

Our c as e l aw h as held that pre sence and compa nionship with t he per petrators of a f

elony be fo re a nda ft e r the c omm iss ionof the of fe ns e are c ir c ums ta nc e s f

ro m wh ic h o ne ’s pa

rt ic ipatio n in th e c r im e may

b e in f e rr e d

. St ate v

. J ones , 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 880, 890 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) . No particula r ac t need be shown. I d. I t is not ne ce s s ar yfor one to take a phy sical part in the crime;
encour agem en t of the princ ipal is sufficient. I d. (citing State v. McB ee , 644 S.W .2d 425, 428 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) ). I n this case, the e vidence produce d at t ri al s h o ws that the def endant’ s level of involveme nt went bey ond prese nce, c ompanionship, and enc ourag ement. Throug h its verdict, the jury reje cted the de fendant’s claims that he had no know ledg e of the
r o b b e r y b e f

o r e i t s o c c u rr e n c e a n d t h a th e t o o k t h e m o n e y o u t o f f

e ar o v e r h i s a n d t h e c a s h i e r ’ s s a f e t y. I nstead, the jury

acc epted Story ’s testimony that th e d ef

en d ant was an active and voluntary participa nt in the robbery

of the g as station. He and Burton a rrived tog ether , the def

endant or dere d the ca shier to kee p the re g ister open, a nd then the def endant, a fter jumping on the counter , took the money from the r eg ister while B urton held a g un in the cashie r’s fa ce. T h e t wo m en then left toge ther. Vie wed in the lig ht most favorable to the state, t his court c oncludes that a rational trier

of fac t could find bey ond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence pr esente d, that the def endant wa s a n a c tiv e pa

rt ic ipant in the vic tim ’s ro bb e ry a nd the re fo re wa s cr imi na lly re sp on sib le fo r the of

fe ns e

. CONCL USI ON

The e vidence produce d at trial wa s sufficient f or a jury to find bey ond a re asonable doubt that the de fe nd a nt w a s g uil ty

of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . A c c ord in gly , th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE