### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs M

ay 23, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DONNELL BOOKER Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 64070 Mary Beth Leibowitz, Judge

No. E2000-02137-CCA-R3-CD June 26, 2001
The Defendant was convicted by a Knox County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The Defendant

was sentenced a

s a Range II

multiple offender

to nine year

s incarceratio

n in the stat e pen ite nti ary. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict him of ag

gravated assa

ult. Finding no er

ror, we affirm t

he judgment of the

trial c o urt. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and T HOMAS T. W OODALL , J., joined. Russell T. Greene, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Donnell Booker.
Paul G. Summers, Attorne y General and Reporter; Pet

er M. Coughlan, A

ssistant Attorney

General; Randall E. Nichols , District Attorney General; Jennifer H. Welch, Assistant District Attorney General; and Patricia Cristil, Assistant District Attorney General; for the appe llee , State of Tennessee.
OPINION
I. FACTS
Broderick Lee Tory, the victim, testified as the only witness for

the State. Tory testified that he met the Defendant in Brushy Mountain Prison, w here the two of them had been cell mates for about a week or a week and

a half. According to Tory, about a month after he g ot out of prison, he stopped on the side of Martin Luther King Avenue in Knox County, Tennessee, to pick up the son of one of his friends. Sonya Ashford was with Tory in the car . When Tory pul led over, he was approached

by the Defendant, who said, “Man, why you take that from me? You stole something.” Tory testified that he t

old the Defendant

he did not know what he was talking about. Tory testified that the Defendant then asked Tory for some money . Tory testif ied that he told the

Defendant to leave, and the Defendant “pushed the door on [Tory’s] thr oat as [he] w as getting out of the car.” Tory said that he punched the Defendant to get him off the car. The Defendant “swung ” at Tory, and-2-

Tory fell on the ground. Tory testified that while he was on the ground, the Defendant stabbed him in the stomach. At that point, the Defendant ran away. Tory testified that he went home and tried to bandage himself up. Tory’s girlfriend called the police. The p o lice came to Tory’s house and called an ambulance. Tory was taken to the hospital where he stayed for two and a half weeks.
II. ANALY SIS The Defendant argues that there was insuff

icient evidence

presented at tria

l to convict him of aggravated assault. Specifically, the De fendant argues that the State’ s only witne ss was not credible. The Defendant also argues that the State should have called Sony a Ashford to testify.
When an accused cha

llenges the suff

iciency of the evidence, a

n appell ate c ourt’s standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the c rime beyond

a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); State v. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985). This rule applies to findings of guilt ba sed u pon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both di rect and circ umstantial evidence. State v. Dykes , 803 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, th

is Court should not re

-weigh or re-

evaluate the evidence. State v. Ma t thews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (T enn. Crim. App. 1990

). Nor may th

is Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence. State v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn . 1999); Liakas v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956)

. Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by

the evidence ar

e resolved by

the trie r of fact. Liakas , 286 S.W.2d at 859. This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be draw n from the evidence. State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). Because a verdict of guilt against a defendant removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of

showing that the e

vidence was leg

ally insuffi

cient to sustain a g

uilty verdict. Id.
In this case, the Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault in count one o f the indictmen t. A per son is guilty of aggravated assault who intentionally or knowingly commits an assault as defined in Ten

nessee Code Annot

ated § 39-13-101 a

nd causes seriou

s bodily injur

y to another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(A). Although Tory was the only witness for the State, the jury found him to be credible. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Tory was try ing to get out of his car when the Defendant

shut the car door on Tory’s neck. Tory punched the Defendant in order to get out of the car. Tory, trying to avoid traff ic, fell on the ground. The Defendant then stabbed Tory while he

was-3-

lying on the ground, causing serious bodily injury to Tory. The jury chose to acc redit the testimony of Tory, and the jury’s findings of fact cannot

be re-weighed or re-evaluated by our Court. See State v. Suttles , 30 S.W.3d 252, 260 (Tenn. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFI RMED.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE