### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 4, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LON NIE JON ES

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 06-01622 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2007-01120-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed May 7, 2008

The a ppellan t , L o n n ie J ones, wa s convicted by a jury in the Shelby

County Criminal Court of ag g ravated robbe ry . The trial c ourt sentenc ed the a ppellant as a standard Rang e I offe nder to e leven y ear s in the Tennesse e De partment of Corr ection. On ap p ea l , t he appe llant challeng es the
su ff ic ie nc y of th e e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g his c on vic tio n. Up on re vie w o f t

he re c or d a

nd the pa rt ie s’ briefs, w e af

firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the cour t, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

Ga rl a nd Er g üd e n ( on

a pp e a l) a nd

Tr e nt H a ll ( a t tr ia l) , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the a p p e lla nt, L on nie J ones.
Rob e rt E. Coo per, J r., At to rney

Gen eral andRe po rt er; Benj ami n A. Ball , As si st ant At to rne y Ge ne ra l; Willi a m L

. G ibb on s, Di str ic t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a

nd Chr is We st, As sis tant D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
At trial, the victim, Ivan J ackson, te stified that on Fe bruar y 4, 2005, around “ rush hour,” he drove to the F amily

Dollar store on Park Avenue and parke d his c ar about thirty fee t f rom the front door. Approximately

one minute later , a man we aringa re d skull cap and a red shirt ope ned the
un loc ke d d

ri ve r’ s si de do or

of the c a r, po int e d a .4 0 or .4 5 c a lib e r pis tol a t th e vic tim , a nd tol d h im to “g et out of the f[ —]i n’ car.” The pe rpetrator g ot into the car a nd attempted to “c rank” it; however, the ca r wa s alrea dy

running . The pe rpetrator put the ca r in reve rse, ba cked out of the par king spa ce,S o m e o f t h e w itne sse s in th is c a se sh a re a su rn a m e . T h e re fo re , f o r c la rity, we ha v e c h o se n to utilize the ir 1 f i rst na m es. W e m ea n no d i sresp ec t t o t he se ind i vid ua l s.
-2- and drove onto Park Avenue

. The victim sa id that he saw his brother , J onarkhin Jackson, coming out of the F amily Dollar 1 store. The victim r an to Jonarkhin’s car and spoke w ith him and his brother’s g irlfriend, “ Reese.” A f t e r s p e a k i n g w i t h h i s b r o t h e r , t h e v i c t i m u s e d a p a y t e l e p h o n e t o c a l l 9 1 1 t o r e p o r t t h e r o b b e r y. Police arr ived within five or ten minutes.

Th e vic timsa id t

hat hi s c a r w a s a

19 81 Che vr ol et Capr ic e wh ic h h a d b e lon g e d to his g randf ather . The victim had paid $1800 to have the c ar pa inted; the bottom of the car was pe arl g ree n and the top wa s mint gre en. The victim described the rims on the car as “twenty -inch c ry stal lead r unners” for whic h he paid $1300.

Some time after the offe nse, police a sked the victim to v i ew a photogra phic lineup. Howeve r, the victim was una ble to identify

the per petrator from the lineup. Approxim ately two or tw o a nd a ha lf we e ks a ft e r t

he of fe ns e , th e vic timwa s n oti fi e d th a t hi s c a r wa s a t an im po un d lo t. The victim said that his car had bee n damag ed and strippe d of most of its parts until “[ i] t was like a shell.”

The victim’s brother , J onarkhin Jackson, testified that on F ebrua ry 4, 2005, he we nt to the Family Dollar store

. He said that as he came out of t he st ore, the appellant passed by him, say ing

“ He y .” He re c a lle d th a t th e a pp e lla nt wa s w e a ri nga

re d s ku ll c a

p, a lon g re d T -s hir

t, a nd blu e je a ns

. J onarkhin wa lked into the parkinglot and spoke with the victim who was sitting in his ca r. Afte r returningto the car

wher e his g irlfriend, Jeree se Will iams, was waiting, J onarkhin saw the appe llant g o to the victim’s car

and ra ise the door handle. He did not think a ny thing was wrong beca

use he
a ssume d th e a

pp e lla nt w a s a fr ie nd of the vic tim . Sh or

tly the re a ft e r, the vic tim c a me ru nn ingup to J onarkhin’s c ar. Jonarkhin saw the a ppellant try to “ cra

nk” the victim’s car . The c ar w as alre ady running , and it made a

loud noise. J onarkhin saw the appellant drive awa y in the victim’s car , and he saw a tw o- do or burgun dy

Cut la ss w ithtin te d w ind ow s tr a il b e hin d th e sto le n c a r. Jonark hin
rec alled that af

ter the a ppellant drove awa

y , the vi ctim ran to a ne arby pay telephone a

nd called the police. The y

arr ived five or

ten minutes later.

About two wee ks later, J onarkhin went to the pol ice station to view a photog raphic lineup. He identifie d the appe llant as the per petrator.

Patrice H amer

testified that o n Fe bruar

y 6, 2005, she left he r house with her sister. When she re turned, ther e wa s a two-toned g ree n Chevrolet Capric e in her drivewa y . Hamer did not know who owned the car , but she was told that it belong ed to her boy friend’ s cousin, the appellant. Hamer
sa id t hat dur ing the ne xt tw o we e ks , she sa w B ob by Rus se ll an d a man name d She rm a n tak e pa rt s from the c ar. H a me r s tate d th a t th e a p p e ll a n t to o k a r a d io f

r o m th e c a r

. H a me r r e c a ll e d th a t the appellant ha d another

car in her ba cky ard that he was “ fix ing up.”-3-

Hamer testified that she told the appellant to ge t the Caprice out of her dr iveway . After the
car had bee n in her drive way for two weeks, Ha

mer c alled a pr ivate towing company to ge t the car

. Hamer rec alled that half

an hour a fter the car

was towe d, police conta cted Ha mer a bout the car

. Offic er D onilil Hopkins of the Memphis Police Depa rtment testified that he investig ated a robber y case involving the victim. He said that a car stol en in t he robbe ry was located at Hamer’s house in North Memphis. Off icer Hopkins rec alled that while the vic tim wa s u nable to make a positive identification of the pe rpetrator, J onarkhin Jackson identified the appellant as the perpe trator.

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the jury convicted the appellant of the ag g ravated robber

y of I van Jac ks on . O n a

pp eal , the a

pp e lla nt c ha lle ng e s th e su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g his conviction.

II. Ana lys is On appe al, a jury

conviction re moves t h e p re s u m ption of the appe llant’s innocenc e and repla ces it with one of g uilt, so that the appellant car ries the bur den of de monstrating to this court why the evidenc e will not support the jury ’s finding s. See S t at e v. Tugg le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . The a

ppellant must establish t h at n o re asonable trier of fac t could have f

ound the essential ele ments of t he offense bey ond a re asonable doubt. See J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2789 (1979); Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e).

Acc ording ly , on appea l, the State is entitled to the stronge st leg itimate view of the e vidence and all reasonable infere nces which may be drawn t here from. See State v. Willi ams, 657 S.W .2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983) . I n other wor ds, questions conce rning the cr edibili t y o f wi t n esses and the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, a s well as all fa ctua l issues raised by the evidenc e, ar e resolved by

the trier of

fac t, and not the appe llate cour ts. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W .2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990)

. Ag g ravated robbe ry

is defined a s robber

y acc omplished with a deadly wea pon or by display of any article used or f

ashioned to lea d the victim to reasona bly believe it to be a

deadly wea pon. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402( a)( 1) (2003). Robbery is de fined as “the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty

from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fea r.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401( a) ( 2003). A thef t of proper

ty occur s when someone, with the intent to deprive the owner of property , knowing ly obtains or exercise s control over the prope rty

without the owner’ s eff ective c onsent. Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-14-103 ( 2003).

The a ppellant contends that the evidenc e identify ing him as the perpe trator is not cre dible. We disag ree . The proof

at trial showed that Jonarkhin J ackson saw the a ppellant bef

ore a nd during the offe nse. He said that the appe llant was we aringa re d skull cap and a re d T -s h i rt

. He sa w the appellant a

pproac h the victim’s car

and lift the door ha

ndle. L ater , he sawthe appe llant drive aw ay in the victim’ s car . The victim asser ted that a man w ear ing a

red skull ca

p and a r ed shirt opene d-4-

the ca r door, pointed a pistol at hi m, and ordered him to exit the ca r. The vic tim said he watche d the perpe trator dr ive off in his ca r. Hamer said that two day s later, the victim’s car was pa rked in he r dr ive wa y , a nd sh e wa s told it wa s the a pp e lla nt’ s car. She a lso sa id t

hat th e a pp e lla nt t oo k a ra dio from the c ar a

few d ay s l at er. W e conc lude that the for eg oing pr oof establishes the e lements of ag g ravated robbe ry

and suff iciently identifies the appe llant as the perpetrator of the of fense . See State v. Hay es, 7 S.W.3d 52, 56-57 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); see also State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tenn. 2002)

III. Conclusi on Finding no err or, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE