### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 22, 200 4

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JULI US Q. PERKI NS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2002-A- 569 J. Randall Wyatt, Judge

No. M2003- 01761-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 6, 2005

Def endant, Juli us Q. Perkins, was indicted on one count of fir st deg ree preme ditated murder and one count of fir st deg ree felony murder. F ollowing a

jury trial
, De fendant was found g uiltyof fe lony

mur de r andno t g uil ty

of pr e me dit a te d mur de r. He wa s sen te nc e d to life imp ri so nme nt. On app e a l, Def endant a rg ues that the e vidence was insuf fi ci en t to support his conviction of felony murder b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f

a i l e d t o s h o w t h a tt h e v i c t i mw a s k i l l e d d u r i n g a r o b b e r y o r

a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y, or, alternatively , that Def endant wa s crim i n al l y re s p o nsible for the de ath of the vic tim. After a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f the re c or d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l 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 G. H A Y ES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.

Pa ul J. Wa lw y n, Ma dis on , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Juliu s Q . Pe rkins

.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th T

. Ry a n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torry ) John s on I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; Da n Hamm, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral; and K imberly

Cooper, Assistant Di strict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

Br y an C rea valle and the victim, Ron P almer, sha red a second- floor apa

rtment. The ap ar t m en tb u i l d i n g h ad a s i n gl e e n tryo n t h e f i rs tfl o o r

. A f

l i g h t o f s t ai rs l ed t o a m i d d l e l an d i n g, turned, a nd continued up to the sec ond floor whe re the victim’s apartmen t was located. Mr. Creava lle testified that he hear d a commoti on in the hallway outside his apartment some time after midnight on Dec ember 9, 2001. Mr. Crea valle hea rd Mr. Palmer c all out his mot her’ s name fir st and then Mr. Crea valle’s na me. Mr. Crea valle opene d the front door and saw the victim on the floor

wre stling with a man w ho was late r identified a s J ohnny Woodland. The victim was try ing to take Mr. Woodland’s g un away as the two men strug g led.-2-

Mr. C re av al le re turned to his apartment and re trieved a dumbbell which he thre w at Mr. Woo dland . T he du mbb e ll m iss e d Mr. Woo dland , an d Mr. Cr e a va lle we nt ba c k insi de the apa rt me nt. He returne d to the hallway in a few minutes a nd saw De fenda nt standing at the bottom of the stairs in front of the building ’s entry way . Def endant wa s pointing a g un up the stairs. The victim beg an to r un ba c k to his apa

rt me nt, a nd Mr

. Cr e a va lle he ard Mr

. Woo dland te ll De fe nd a nt t o “ sh oo t hi m, shoot him.”

Th e vic tim

stu mbl e d a s h e ra n u p th e sta ir s, a ndMr . Cr e a va lle wa s p ull ing the vic tim int o the apa rtment when thre e shots wer e fire d. Mr. Crea valle did not know which of the two intruders fired the g unshots. Mr. Crea valle mana g ed to g et Mr. Palmer inside the a partment a nd closed the door. Someone ba ng ed on the f ront door, and then Mr. Crea valle hea rd footsteps g oing dow n the stairs. The victim bled to death shortly there afte r.

Mr. Crea valle said that the vic tim was d re s s ed in box er shorts and a tee -shirt and wa s not

arme d.

Phy llis P almer, the victim’s mother, lived in the apa rtment ac ross the hall fr om her son’s

apa rt me nt. She he ardno ise s in the ha llw a y arou nd 1:30 a .m. a ndop e ne d h e r f ro nt d oo r. Mr s. Palmer saw her son strug g ling with Mr. Woodland. Mrs. Palmer sa id that Mr. Woodland had a g un, and the victim was try ing to keep Mr. Woodland from firing his wea pon. Mrs. Palmer we nt back in h e r a pa rt me nt anda tte mpt e d to c a ll 9 11 . Wh e n M rs . Pa lme r op e ne d he r do or a g a in, the vic tim and Mr. Woodland had r olled down the stairs an d we re s till s trug g ling. Mrs. Palmer saw Mr. Cr e a va lle sta nd ing by

the fr on t do or

of his apa rt me nt. She , to o, he ardthr e e g un sh ots

.
Dr. John Ge rber supervised the victim’s a utopsy

. Dr. Ge rber

said that Mr. Palmer ha d two bullet wounds, one in the leg and the other in the chest. The chest wound w as the injury that cause d the victim’s death.

Cha rl e s Pin ke rt on , a

ne ig hb or , s a id t wo me n e xite d th e apa rtment bu ild ing a ft e r the sh ots

wer e fire d. The shorte r man c arr ied a g un and wa s limpi ng . Mr. Pinkerton could not tell if the second ma n was a

rmed.

Offic er D aniel Or

r assisted in the collec tion of the bullets and s h el l ca sings f ound in the

apa rt me nt b uil din g ’s sta ir we ll. On e nin e mil lim e te r sh e ll c a sin g wa s fo un d a t th e bo tto m of the fi rs t flig ht of stairs in the entry way , and a se cond nine millimeter shell ca sing was found on one of the steps leading up to the middle landing. T hree nine milli m et er b u l l ets wer e found in the sta ir we ll– tw o o n th e fi rs t f lig ht o f s ta ir s and on e on the mid dle la nd ing . T wo .3 57 c a lib e r b ull e ts

wer e also found on the on the middle landing of the stairw ay . A bullet’s s trike m ark was found on the stair ra iling on the lowe r stairs, an d a s t ri ke mar k was found on the victim’s apartment’s door fra me. Fr esh paint chips ar ound the strike mar k in the front door indicate d that the mark w as made

r e c e n t l y.-3-

De te c tiv e Rob e rt

An de rs on wi th the Me tr o Na sh vil le Pol ic e De pa rt me nt w a s r e sp on din g to the call about t he shoot ing w hen a se cond ca ll came ove r the ra dio announcing that Mr. Woodland had ar rived a t Metro Gene ral Hospital see king tr eatment f or a gu nshot wound to the leg . Mr. Cr e a va lle tol d D e te c tiv e An de rs on that he c ou ld i denti fy the ma n w ho str ug g le d w ith the vic tim beca use t he man’s fac e wa s uncover ed. De tective Ande rson included Mr. Woodland’s pictur e in a ph oto g ra ph ic lin e up , a n d

M r

. C re a va lle ide nti fi e d M r. Woo dlanda s th e int ru de r w ho ha d f

ou g ht w ith Mr. Palmer. Mr. Woodland only identified De fenda nt by a nickna me in his statement to the police.

Detec tive Ander son interviewed Def endant f our day s after

the shooting, a nd summarized Def endant’ s statement as follows. De fenda nt initi all ysaid that he wa s driving w ith his friend, Shawn, when a n unknown man fla g g ed down his ca r. The man had be en shot and a sked De fenda nt to take him to the hospital. L at er , De fe ndant admitted to Detec tive Ander son that he drove Mr. Woodland to the victim’s apartment to buy marijuana

. Def endant waited at the bottom of the stairs while Mr. Woodland went up the stairs to mee t the victim. He saw Mr. Woodland pull out his g un. The two men beg an to strug g le over the gun and rolled down the stairs. De fenda nt said he pulled out his gun a lso and pointed it up the s tairs. He tried to fire it sever al t imes, but the gun was ja mmed. De fe nd a nt s a id h e ma na g e d to c le ar the ja m a ndfi re d on c e be fo re he ran. De fe nd a nt s a id that he did not know what the bullet hit, if anything. Def endant could not r emember whether he wa s car

ry ing a nine millimeter or a

.380 caliber

g un, but knew that the g un was a n automatic weapon. De fenda nt said that he took Mr. Woodland to the hospital and then thre w h i s gu n i n t o a dumpster be hind a ba rb e qu e re staur a nt.

The State then introduc ed De fenda nt’s videotaped statement as a n exhibi t and play ed portions of the videotape in c ourt. Acc ording to the videotape, D efe ndant said that neither he nor Mr. Woodland had any

money , so Shawn g ave them money to purcha se t he drugs. Mr. Woodl and called the victim from Def endant’ s car

on his c ell phone and told him they wer e on their way to buy some marijuana . Def

endant sa id that he h ad h i s gu n in his coat pocke t when he w ent into the victim’s a partment building. Def

endant said that he hear d the victim and Mr. Woodland discussing the transa ction, and then he ard the words, “ma n, this ain’t enoug h.” At this point, Mr. W oodland drew his gun.

Def endant testified on his ow n behalf

. He sa id that he boug ht a g un a fe w wee ks befor e the incident for pr otection bec ause his plac e of e mpl o y m en t h ad b een r obbed. De fenda nt said that shortly befor e the incident, he left his house to pic k up some barbe que. He saw his frie nd Shawn and another man on the stree t. Defe ndant said that he did not know the se cond man’ s name but later fo un d o ut t ha t h e w a s M r

. W o o d l a n d

. M r

. W o o d l a n d a s k e d D e f e n d a n t t o t ak e h i m t o b u y so me marijuana , and Shawn indicated t o Def endant that it was “a ll right.” Mr. Woodland told Defenda nt to w ait while he went to g et his g un. Def endant said that it wa s not unusual to see someone c arry ing

a g un for protec tion, a nd denied that he knew that Mr. Woodland was planning to use the g un during the drug purcha se.

Def endant sa id that Mr. Woodland went into the victim’s apart me n t b u il d in g f

ir s t. D efe ndant

wa ite d a sh ort ti me a nd the n we nt int o the bu ild ing so that Mr . Wo od la ndwo uldhu rry up a ndfi nis h-4-

his transac tion. As he approa ched the front door of the building , Def

endant looked in a

window and saw Mr. Woodland pull out his g un. Def endant sa id that he stood in the doorway so the two men

wo uld no t se e him

. Whe n the tw o me n ro lle d do wn the sta ir s, Mr

. Woo dland ’s g un wa s p oin te d in his direc tion. Def

endant said that he attempted to fire his weapon a s a wa rning shot, but it jammed. He fi re d th e g un on e tim e a ft e r h e c le are d th e ja m.

Def endant a dmitted that he panicke d beca use no one pulled a

g un “in a re gu l ar d eal,” but continued to deny

that he knew a robbe ry

was taking place

.

On cr oss-examination, Defendant a dmitted a g ain that he knew “something [was] g oing on” when he saw M r. W o o dland’s g un. Def endant sa id that as the victim and Mr. Woodland wer e conducting the “e x chang e,” he saw the victim put something in Mr. W oodland’s hand, and then Mr. Woodland “prese n t ed ” his gun. D efe ndant said that he did not know what happene d to Mr. Woodland’s gun or

his walkie-talkie.

II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence

Def endant arg ues that there was no evidenc e to support the jury ’s finding that a robbe ry or an attempted r obbery

had occ urre d during the i ncident. Alterna tively
, Def endant contends that even if Mr. Woo dla ndha d r ob be d o r atte mpt e d to ro b M r. Pa lme r, the re wa s n o e vid e nc e to s up po rt a fi nd ing that D e fe nd a nt i nte nd e d to pr omo te or a ssi st i n th e c omm iss io n of th e off e ns e . T he Sta te contends that the e vidence supports a finding that an attempted robbe ry occur red, a nd that Def

endant at least wa s criminally

responsible for

the victim’s death.

When a def

endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence , we must revie w the evidenc e in a lig ht most fa vorable to the prosec ution in determining whether a rational trier of f act could have found all the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. Jacks o n v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U.S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct . 2 78 1, 27 89 , 6 1 L . E d. 2d56 0 ( 19 79 ). On c e a jury fi nd s a defe ndant g uilty , his or her pr esumption of innocenc e is r emoved a nd repla ced w ith a presumption of g uilt. State v. Black , 815 S.W .2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991) . The de fe n d an t h as t h e burde n of

overc oming this presumption, and the State is entitled to the stronge st leg itimate view of the evidenc e along with all rea sonable infe renc es which ma y b e drawn fr om that evidence

. Id .; Sta te

v . Tu gg le , 6 39 S.W. 2d91 3, 91 4 (T e nn

. 19 82 ). Th e jury is pr e 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 in favor of the State. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) . Questions conce rning the cr edibilityof witnesses, the w ei gh t 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. B l a nd
, 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1
, 6 5 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h es e r u l es ar e a p p l i ca b l e t o fi n d i n gs of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidence , circ umsta ntial evidence , or a c ombination of both direct and circ umstantial evidence

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

.

Fe lony first deg ree murder is de fined as “[a] killing of a nother c ommitt ed in the per petration of or a tte mpt to p e rp e tr a te a ny

. . . r ob be ry

. . . . ” Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 39 -1 3- 20 2( a )( 2)

. I n or de r t o support Def

endant’ s conviction for f

elony murder, the State must prove that a f elony was c ommitt ed,-5-

namely an attempted robbery , that Mr. Palmer wa s killed during the commission of the felony , and that Def endant e ither committed the felony murder himself or he was criminally responsible for Mr. Woodland’s actions. See State v . Cureton
, 38 S.W .3d 64, 73 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (Evidence sufficie nt to support Defe ndant’s convic tion under either theory .)

Robbery is “the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the pe rson of a nother by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r.” Id . § 39-13-401( a). “ A p erson commits criminal attempt who , ac tin g wi th the kin d o f c ulp abil ity oth e rw ise re qu ir e d f

or the of fe ns e

. . . a c ts w ith int e nt t o complete a

course of ac tion or cause a re sult that would constitut e the of fense under the circ umstances surr ounding the conduct a s the person be lieves them to be, a nd the conduc t constitutes

a substantial ste p toward the commission of the offe nse.” Id. 39 -1 2- 10 1( a )( 3) . T he int e nt t o c omm it the un de rl y ing fe lon y

ma y be fo rm e d “ c on c ur

re nt w ith the c omm iss ion of the a c t c a us ing the de a th of the victim.” State v. Buggs
, 995 S.W .2d 102, 107 (Tenn. 1999). Such intent may be infe rre d from the def endant’ s actions. Id. at 108.

Def endant f irst arg ues that the State did not prese nt any evidenc e that a robbery or attempted robbery occur red. The evidenc e, however, established that Def endant drove Mr. W oodland to the victim’s apartment building to buy marijuana . Both De fenda nt and Mr. Wo o d la n d a rme d the mselves befor e ar riving at the victim’s apa

rtment. Mr. Woodland and the victim c onverse d for two or three min ute s w hil e De fe nd a nt w a ite d a t th e bo tto m of the sta ir s in fr on t of

the bu ild in g’s on lye xit. Def endant sa id that the victim put som e “stuff ” in Mr. Woodland’s ha n d s , Defendant he ard the words, “ma n this ain’t enoug h,” and the n Mr. Woodland drew his gun. Mr. Creavalle te stified that Def endant pointed his gu n u p t h e stairwell while the vic tim and Mr. Woodland strugg led for possession of Mr. Woodland’s g un. Mr. Woodland told Defenda nt to shoot t he victim, and Def endant attempted to fire his g un. When his gun failed to discharg e, De fenda nt worked to clear the jam, and then f

ired in the dire ction of the victim. The victim’s neig hbor saw two me n exit the building af

ter the shots we re f

ired. De fenda nt drove Mr. Woodland to the hospital, and then disposed of his wea

pon in a dumpster.

There was no e vidence as to which man f ired the f atal s h o t t o M r. P almer’ s chest, and no g uns were found. The e vidence is sufficient, howe ver, to support a jury ’s finding that an attempted robbery occur red, that D efe ndant was a n active pa rticipant in the attempted r obbery , and that Def endant wa s theref

ore “ acc ountable for

all conseque nces f

lowing from t he [ attempted] robbery .” State v. Hinton
, 42 S.W .3d 113, 119 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) . Holding a g un on the victim as the vic tim wr e stl e d w ith Mr . Wo od la nda ndthe n d isc ha rg ing his we apo n a t th e vic tim c on sti tut e s a substantial step toward the c ommissi on of a r obbery

. See State v. W eb s t er , 81 S.W .3d 244, 249 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (“D efe ndant’s conduc t in approac hing the victim and point ing a gun at the victim’s head c onstit uted a substantial step towa rd the c ommissi on of an e specia lly ag g ravated robbery .”) “ When one enter s into a scheme w ith another to commit one of the f elonies enume rate d in the fe lon y

mur de r s ta tut e s, a ndde a th e ns ue s, bo th d e fe nd a nts are res po ns ib le for the de a th

re g ard le ss o f w ho a c tua lly c ommit ted the mur de r andwh e the r the kil lin g wa s sp e c if ic a lly contemplated by the other.” Sta te v . W int e rs , 137 S.W .3d 641, 659 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Hinton , 42 S.W .3d at 119). In such a situation, both defe ndants are “statutorily responsible for all-6-

homicides committed d u ri ng the cour se of the r obbery , whether or not the homicide wa s fore seea ble.” W int e rs , 137 S.W .3d at 659 (e mphasis in origina l.).

Alterna tively , even if

the ju ry conclude d that Def endant wa s not a principal of fende r, the

e vid e nc e wa s su ff

ic ie nt f or a jury to co nc lud e be y on d a re a so n dou bt that D e fe nd a nt w a s c ri min a lly respon s i b l e fo r M r. Woodland’s conduc t. A person is criminallyresponsible for the conduc t of

a no the r i f, “ [a]c tin g wi th i nte nt t o p ro mot e or a ssi st the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e , o r t o b e ne fi t in the proc eeds or

results of the of

fense , the per son solicits, di rec ts, aids, or att em p t s t o ai d another person to commit the offe nse[.] ” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11- 402(2). A pe rson may be convic ted under a criminal re sponsibili ty

theory reg ardle ss of whether or not he or she “dire ctly participa ted in the criminal ac t itself.” State v. Mic kens , 123 S.W .3d 355, 391 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting State v. Phillips , 76 S.W .3d 1, 12 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) ).

On c e a g a in v ie wi ng the e vid e nc e in a lig ht m os t favo rable to the sta te , th e e vid e nc e is sufficie nt to support a jury ’s findin g t h at De fenda nt intended to assist in the commissi on of the robbery

. Reg ardle ss of whether the tra nsaction starte d out as a “ reg ular” drug purcha se as De fenda nt ins ist s, De fe nd a nt a dmi tte d h e wa s a wa re that the situatio n c ha ng e d wh e n Mr . Wo od la nddr e w h is g un . D e fe nd ant didno t le a ve the pr e mis e s e ve n th ou g h h e wa s st a nd ing by the bu ild ing ’s e xit. I nstead, whe n Mr. W oodland called out to “shoot him, shoot him,” Def endant drew his weapon and attempted to f

ire the g un. When his g un failed to disc harg e, De fenda nt did not abandon the we apon, bu t p r o c e e d e d t o c l e ar t h e j a m

. H e t h e n f i r e d t h e g u n i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e v i c t i m a s t he vic tim attempted to e s ca p e t h e st rug g le. Following the shooting, D efe ndant drove Mr. Woodland to the hospital and assisted him into the eme rg ency room. He the n drove to a restaur ant and thre w his g un
away i n a d u m p s ter be hind the building. This Court has pre viouslynoted that “pr esenc e and companionship with the perpe trator of a fel o n y b ef

o re and after the c ommissi on of the c rime ar e circ umstances from which an individual’s pa rticipation may

be infe rre d.” Phillips
, 76 S.W. 3da t 9 (c i t i n g Sta te v . B all , 973 S.W .2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) ).

We rec o gn i z e t h at Def

endant stre nuously

denied a ny

knowledg e of the robbery or Mr. Woodland’s intentions. Alt houg h Def endant of fer ed an e x planation for his conduct befor e and a fter the shooting, it was the jury ’s prer og ative to dr aw what infere nces it chose from the testimony and ultimately discredit Def

endant’ s testimony

. Viewing the evidenc e in a light most favor able to the state, the e vidence is sufficient to support Def endant’ s conviction of first de g ree felony murder ba sed

u p o n a t h e o r y o f c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f the re c or d, 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