T h e j u dg men t f or ms i n cor r ec t l y re f l ec t t h at t h e a ppel l an t pl ed g u i l t y t o t h e of fen s es a s c h ar g ed. O n r ema n d, 1

t he t r i al cour t sh oul d ent er cor r ect ed j udgment forms t o properl y r ef l ect t hat t he appel l ant was found gu i l t y af t er a ben ch tria l. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE Marc h 28 , 200 6 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. KEN NET H R AM SEY
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 252194 Douglas A. Meye r, Judge

No. E2005-00854-CC A-R3- CD F iled Septem ber 20, 2006

Af t er a b en ch tri al i n Ha m i l t o n C o u n t y , t h e ap p el l an t , Ke n n et h R am s ey , wa s co n v i ct ed o f s p ee d i n g,
s i m p l e a s s au l ta n d r e s i s t i n g arr e s t

. A s a r e s u l t , t h e tr i a l c o u r ts e n t e n c e d t h e ap p e l l a n t t o t h i r t y d a ys 1 fo r s pe e din g , s ix mon ths fo r r e sis tin g arr e st and e le ve n months a nd tw e nty -n ine day s f or a ssa ult , w ith the sentenc es to run conc urre ntly . The trial c ourt suspended the eff ective e leven month, twenty -nine day sentenc e and pla ced the appellant on unsupervised pr obation. The a ppellant filed a

timely notice of appe al. On appea l, the appellant presents the f ollowing issues: (1) whether the trial court erre d by failing to allow the appe llant to c all a witness to te stify on his be half; (2) whether the trial court
err ed by failing to present a

copy of the indictment to the appe llant; (3) whether the trial court e rre d by de nying a

c on tin ua nc e be c aus e the app e lla nt w a s n ot pr ov ide d doc ume nts a s re qu ir e d by la w i n a ti m el y m an n er ; (4 ) wh et h er t h e tr i al co u rt fa i l ed t o p ro v i d e e q u al ac ce s s t o t h e c o u rt b y d en y i n g a continuance ; and (5) w hether the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support the convictions. Be cause the judgme nt forms do not proper ly ref lect that the appellant was found g uiltyafte r a be nch trial, we

rema nd the matter f

or entry of cor rec ted judg ment forms. I n al l other re spects, we aff irm the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.
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.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N a n d J. C. M C LIN , J J ., joined.

Kenne th Ramsey , Pro Se, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee

.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vidE. Coe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Bill Cox , District Attorney Gene ral; and Lila Statom, Assis tant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appellee , State of Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION

Acc ording to Office r Ty

rone Williams of the Chattanoog a Police De partment, on Oc tober 4 , 2 0 0 4 , h e w as o n p at ro l n ea r t h e 1 0 0 0 b l o cko f N o rt h M o o re R o ad a c r o s s f ro mBr ai n er d Hi gh School when he “noticed [t he appe llant’s] gre en F ord pickup truc k trave ling at a hig h rate of spee d.” After noticing the vehicle, O ffice r Will iam s cl o ck ed the appellant with his radar unit at fifty -one miles-per- hour in a thirty -five mile- per- hour zone. At that point, Offic er W illiams pulled onto the roadw ay , activate d his blue l i gh t s and began to pursue the a ppellant. The a

ppellant “duc ked” of

f onto a side roa d. Another of fice r, Tommy Meeks, was trave ling southbound on North Moore Road and wa s able to pull in behind the appe llant when he turned onto Drummond Street.
When the appellant turne d onto Drummond, “he w as in the rig ht lane” on N orth Moore Road and had to “ cut ac ross the other le ft lane that was on the northbound side and two southbound lanes to g e t to Dr

umm on d, a nd c ut a no the r ve hic le of f i n th e pr oc e ss. ” Of

fi c e r Wi lli a ms d id a

U- turn in order to follow the appe llant onto Drummond. W h en b o t h office rs g ot behind the appe llant, they bo th h a d th e ir

blu e lig hts a c tiv a te d. Th e app e lla nt e ve ntu a lly pu ll ed ov er and ste pp e d o ut o f h is truck. Of fice r Will iams expl ained:

Fr om that point, Ibeg an to state to [the appellant] initi ally why he wa s being stopped, and he r eally

didn’t seem to compre hend that, and he rea lly didn’t think that he was the per son that was being stopped. He didn’t understand that he had been spe eding and he just was re ally , just irrational and just sort of combative with us, because he felt his rig hts had bee n violated in some way

. . . .
B a sic a lly I wa s trying to g e t some inf orma tio n fr om him a t tha t poin t a ft e r s ta tin g to him wh y I ha d s top pe d h im. Af

te r r e c e ivi ng his lic e ns e fr om hi m, I wa s g oin g to proce ed to g et more information, g o ahea d and do a driver’ s license chec k to make sure the status was valid.

An d a lso , a g a in, he ha d th a t pa sse ng e r i n th e ve hic le [ Mi chael An de rs on ], so my attention was g oing to be d rawn towards him also. I left Off icer Meeks with [the appellant] as I

went ar ound t o speak w ith the passeng er and try to obtain more information about the pa sseng er at that time.

Offic er Williams confirmed that the passeng er, Micha el Ander son, was later arr ested on a n
ou tst a nd ing wa

rr a nt f or do me sti c a ssa

ult

.
Of fi c e r Wi lli a ms d e sc ri be d w hat ha pp e ne d n e xt as fo llo ws :

I was standing at the bac k of the pickup truc k actua lly wal k i ng back towa

rds that dir e c t i o n , s o I d i d n ’ t a c t u a l l y s e e t h e e xc h a n g e o r t h e c o n t a c t t h a t w a s ma de wi thT h e a p p e llan t re p re se n te d him se lf a t t ria l. 2

-3- Offic er Me eks, but Off

icer Meeks imm ediately

beg an to attempt to take him [the appellant] into custody

and that’s whe re the strug g le ensued with [ the appe llant] , or the re sisting . . . .

Ba sically at that time Of

fi ce r M eeks told him [t he appe llant] to place his ha nds on the vehicle , that he wa s g oing to be place d under a rrest. At that tim e he [the

app e lla nt] .

. . did n’ t w a nt t o p ut his ha nd s b e hin d h is b a c k, so we a c tua lly ha d to ph y sic a lly

take him to the g ro un d a ndha nd c uf f h im.

Offic er Me eks testified that he drove his patrol car behind the appe llant’s pickup truck and t u rn ed o n h i s b l u e li g hts, but the appellant did not stop until he drove about a mile. Onc e the appellant stopped the truck, the a ppellant s tepped out of his vehic le. Off icer Meeks e x ited his patrol

car at that time and “sta

rted g iving [the appe llant] verba l commands to stay wher e he wa s

. . . .” Howe v er , t h e appellant continued to walk towar d Offic er Me eks and O ffice r Will iams. Offic er Meeks de scribed the appellant a s “very confr ontational” an d “very bellige rent.” Offic er Me eks stated that af

ter Of fice r Will iams spoke with th e ap p el l an t, Office r Will iams walked a round the vehicle to spe ak with t he passe ng er. A t that time, Office r Mee ks “turned to position [hi mself] where I could see both of them [the appellant and the passenge r], which at that point, [t he appellant]

. . . slammed the car door into my hand, bre aking my

fing er.” The a

ppellant commented that he “did not want [Office r Mee ks] l ooking in his vehic le at that time,” just prior to slamming the door on Officer Meeks’ s fing er.

Of fi c e r M e e ks the n o rd e re d th e app e lla nt t o p ut his ha nd s u p o n th e c ar andinf orme d h im that he wa s u nd e r a

rr e st f or a ssa ult . O ff ic e r M e e ks state d tha t the app e lla nt be c a me “ ve ry vio le nt”

a ndthat he a ndOf

fi c e r Wi lli a ms w e re fo rc e d to wr e stl e the app e ll ant t o th e g ro un d inor de r t o handcuf f him. The appe llant ref

used t o let Offic er Meeks “pat him down” and ke pt “pushing ” the office rs.

The a ppellant t ook the s tand i n his own def ense. He c laimed that he wa s traveling north on 2 North Moore Road when his passe ng er state d he “w anted to g o over onto Tunne l Bouleva rd, and at that po int I tho ug ht, we ll, we c a n s e e if we c a n ta ke a sh ortc ut rathe r tha n g oin g a ll the way ov e r t o Sha llo wf or d. ” Th e app e lla nt s tat ed tha t he mov e d o ve r “ int o th e le ft la ne , w e nt o ve r o nto Drummond, .

. . came to a st op sign, stopped, made my left-ha nd turn, and at that point the police

car s came up behind me with their blue lig hts and I stopped.” Acc ording to the appellant, he “sat in h is v e hic le wi th h is ha nd s on the wh e e l” a nd did no t e xit th e ve hic le un til or de re d tw ic e to d o s o by Of fi c e r Wi lli a ms. Th e app e lla nt c la ime d tha t he a sk e d O ff ic e r Wi lli a ms i f h e wa s u nd e r a rr e st and the office r replied, “not at this time,” howeve r the a ppellant was told that he c ould not leave.-4-

Next, the appellant claimed:

Offic er Me eks wa s standing a way from the door

watching me and whateve r wa s happening

. He asked m e that I shut off the vehicle, which was running, and I turned it off without ge tting into t h e v ehicle, turned off the lights, rolled up thewindow, pushed the door loc k down, and a s I was trying to c l o s e t h e d o o r, Offic er Me eks

rea ches ove r, over

me, puts his hand in the door and he g ot hurt appar ently

. At that point Office r Mee ks tackled me without say ing any thing, and I tried to kee p fr om fa lli ng on the g ro un d. An d to ke e p fr om fa lli ng on the g ro un d, I g ra bb e d aho ld of the ba c k o f the pic ku p truc k, a nd it wa s so me tim e a ft e r that that the y a sk e d me to g e t do wn on the g ro un d, so the re fo re , I did

. Th a t’ s whe n the y ha nd c uf fe d me . T old me they wer e cha rg ing me with assault of a police office r.

On cr oss-examination, the appellant claimed t hat he was not speeding and denie d becoming be lli g e re nt o r d iso be y ing the or de rs of the of fi c e rs

.
The appellant told the trial court that he was supposed to ha ve a w itness, Michael Ande rson, in court and that there w as a subpoe na issued for him to ap p ear . The a

ppellant claimed that Mr. Ander son would testify

that he did not see the appellant a ssault the office r.

At the c on c lus ionof

the tr ia l, the tr ia l cou rt fo un d the app e lla nt g uil ty of sp e e din g , a ssa

ult and re sisting ar

rest. The trial judg e commente d:
All rig ht. No w, I

find that y ou wer e spee ding. I believe the office r that y ou wer e doing 51 in a 35-mil e [ per hour ] z one. Also find that y ou did attempt to elude them by turning on sever al side stree ts. I do not buy y our explanation that y ou wer e taking a shortcut, so I

find t h at y o u [ we re] doing that [ eluding the police]. So Ifind y ou g uiltyof spee ding, a lso of resisting arr est and a ssault on the office r.

The trial c ourt then imposed a thirty -day sentenc e for

speeding , a six -month sentence for r esisting

arr e s t , a n d a n e l e v e n

- m o n t h a n d t w e n t y- n i n e d a y s e n t e n c e f o r a s s au l t , a l l t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n t l y. The trial c ourt suspended the sentenc es and pla ced the appellant on unsupe rvised probation.

Th e app e lla nt f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l.

An a ly sis
On appe al, the appe llant arg ues that: (1) the trial court erre d by failing to allow the appe llant to call a witness to testify on his be half; (2) the trial court erre d by failing to present a

copy of the indictment to the appellant; (3) the trial court erre d by denying a continuance bec ause the appellant

wa s n ot p ro vid e d d oc ume nts a s r e qu ir e d b y la w i n a tim e ly ma nn e r; (4 ) the tria l c ou rt faile d to-5-

pr ov ide e qu a l a c c e ss t o th e c ou rt by de nying a c on tin ua nc e ; and (5 ) the e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o support the convictions.
As a pre liminary

matter, we note that the rec ord fails to inc lude a motion for new trial and

a n o rd e r o ve rr

uli ng th e mo tion f

or ne w t ri a l. T he State arg ue s th a t th e app e lla nt h a s w a ive d a ll issues with the exception of sufficiency of t he evidence for failure to include them in a motion for new tria l.

Te nn e sse e Rul e of Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re 3( e ) s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p art that “ in a ll c a se s tried by a ju ry , no issue prese nted for revie w s hall be predicate d upon err or in the admission or exclusion of evidenc e . . . unless the s am e wa s s p ec i fi cally stated in a motion for a

new tria l; otherwise such issues will be treated as waived (e mphasis added) .” The motion for a new trial is not necessa ry when the trial wa s had bef

ore a judge without intervention of a jury , as is the case here . United States v. DeCoster, 487 F .2d 1197 (1973); B axter v

. Rose, 523 S.W .2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) ; State v. Dean By ard, N o. M2000-01410-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1502658 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 27, 2001). Ther efor e, we will address the me rits of the issues by the appe llant on appea l.

F a ilu re to A llo w A pp e lla nt t o Ca ll Wit ne ss

Th e app ell ant f

ir st a rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d b y no t a llo wi ng the app e lla nt t o c a ll a wi tne ss. Spe c if

ic a lly , th e app e lla nt a lle g e s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt re fu se d to a llo w h im t o ca ll a w itn e ss that had bee n duly

subpoenae d to testify

.
Acc ording to the transcript, the trial court g ave the appellant the opportunityto call Michae l Ander son, the witness in question. The following ex chang e occurre d betwee n the appe llant and the tr ia l c ou rt :

THE APPELLANT: I

have, I was supposed to ha ve a w itness h ere. I don’t know wh e the r h e ’s he re or

no t. TH E CO UR T: Who is y ou r w itn e ss? THE APPELLANT: Michae l Anderson. THE COURT: Michae l Anderson he re? Michae l Anderson? TH E A PPEL

LAN T: I iss ue d a su bp oe na

fo r h im. THE COURT: What would he testify to? THE APPELLANT: I believe he’ll testify that Mr. Will iams was on the opposite side of the ve hic le a nddidno t a c tua lly se e that, w hat he c la ims wa s a n a ssa ult

. Appar ently , the witness was not in the c ourtroom. Afte r the e x chang e between the a ppellant and the trial court, t h e t rial court issued its verdict. I n his brief on a ppeal, the a

ppellant ar g ues that the witness was inca

rce rate d, had bee n transporte d to court, had not be en prope rly broug ht into the courtroom a nd that his efforts to alert the trial c ourt as to the witness’s status w ent “unhe eded and

unrec orded.” The a

rg uments of the appe llant are not supported by the re cord. It is the duty

of the appellant to prepare a complete and accur ate recor d on appea l. Tenn. R. App. P . 24(b). The rec ordT h e ca s e at i s s u e h er ei n i s c as e n u mber 252194. 3

-6- does not contain a subpoena for the witness. Further, the r ecor d does not indicate that the appellant attempted to “a lert” the trial court as to the witness’s wher eabouts. Moreove r, the a ppellant did not seek a continuance in order to attempt to locate the witness. Unde r the c ir cu m s t an ce s we find no

reve rsible er

ror with re g ard to this issue.

Fa ilure to Rece ive Copy

of the Indictment and F ailure to Gr ant Continuance

The a ppellant’s next three issues conc ern whether the trial court erre d in failing to give the appellant a

copy of the indictment and w hether the trial court erre d in f

ailing to g rant a

continuance

. Specifica ll y , the appe llant arg ues that the trial c ourt violated the a ppellant’s due pr ocess rights by failing to insure he ha d a copy of the indictment prior to trial a nd that the trial court err ed by failing to gr ant a c ontinuance to a llow the appellant m ore time to pre pare for the c ase be cause he did not ha ve a c op y of the ind ic tme nt.

I t is not entirely

clea r fr om the rec ord what actua lly transpire d in the trial court. Prior to the beg inning of

trial, the following exchang e occ urre d:

PROS ECUTOR: J udg e, he repre sents himself. He has filed a motion and I have r ead the mot ion . H e is s a y ing that he didno t r e c e ive a c op y of the affi dav it . Evi de ntl y Mr . Stro ng a sk e d th a t th is b e c op ie d f or him , b ut e vid e ntl y

the y on ly c op ie d f or him the pr os e c uti on re po rt , a ndso I ’m ha ndde liv e ri ng him

a c op y of the a ff ida vit

. T H E C O U R T : O k a y. PROS ECUTOR: I , I - - he also is a sking f or a c opy of the indictment. I

believe that
wo uldha ve be e n g ive n to him by Yo ur ho no r at th e - - I do n’ t pr ov ide that f

or him

. Th a t’ s u su a lly

pr ov ide d at arr a ig nme nt, the c op y of the ind ic tme nt. T H E C O U R T : H a v e w e g o ta c o p y? PROS ECUTOR: I f not, I g uess - - THE CLERK: There ’s one - - let’s see . Do y ou have a copy of 252693 ?

3 PROS ECUTOR: Do y ou have a copy of y our other indictment sir? TH E D EF EN DA NT : Y e s, ma ’am. PRO SEC UT OR : O kay . T hat’ s tw o c op ie s o f that same ind ic tme nt. T H E D E F E N D A N T : O k a y. PROS ECUTOR: And it was set today , set today for, he say s a pre trial confe renc e. TH E CO UR T: Rig ht. PRO SEC UT OR : I

ha ve bo th o f the of

fi c e rs he re . I

thi nk he ’s a sking fo r mor e tim e since he ’s g ot - - I

mean, I ’m prepa

red, but if he needs more time, I understand. THE DEF ENDAN T: Yes, sir. THE COURT: L et’s hea

r fr om the office rs and se e if y ou need mor e time, se e if we

c a n w o rk i to u t , o k a y ?-7-

After that exchang e, the tria l court hea rd the testimony

of Off icer Wil liams. At the conclusion of the offic er’ s testimony , the appe llant stated the following : “I didn’t have this, these indictments or

a nythi ng to p re pa

re thi s, a ndI

ne e d s ome tim e in w hic h to pr e pa re .” Th e app e lla nt w e nt o n to c ro ssexamine the witness, but ag ain asserted that he wa s not “properly prepa red.”
On appe al, the appe llant claims that he filed a motion in t he trial c ourt reque sting a copy of the indictment, but that motion is not in the rec ord on appea l. A g ain, it is the dutyof the a ppellant to prepa re a complete and acc urate rec ord on appea l. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). Af ter a revie w of the

rec ord, it appea

rs that t he appellant conce ded that he rece ived a copy of an indictment, but the re cord is not clear a s to whether the appellant r ece ived the “c opy ” of the indictment f o r t h e ca s e herein. Moreove r, the a

ppellant re quested a “copy ” of the i ndictment. Ag ain, we cannot ascertain from the

rec ord whe ther the a

ppellant was merely reque sting a copy of an indictment he had a lrea dy rec eived. Be cause the re cord is insuffic ient to review this iss ue, the a ppellant is not entitled to relief.

Further, the r ecor d indicates that the appellant did not ex plicitlyask for a continuanc e prior to t ri a l a nddidno t f

ile a ny mot ion s r e qu e sti ng a

c on tin ua nc e . T he tr ia l c ou rt ha s th e dis c re tio n to g rant or de ny

a co n t i nuance and that dec ision will not be disturbed on appe al abse nt an abuse of discretion. State v. Robinson, 146 S.W .3d 469, 517 (Tenn. 2004) . I n order to establish an abuse of discretion, the c omplaining pa rty must make a c lear s h o wing of pre judice as a

result of the continuance being denied. I d. The appellant has not done so with r espec t to this issue. We cannot there fore g rant re lief on this issue.

Sufficienc y of the Evidenc e Finally , the appe llant challeng es the suff iciency of t he evidence. Specifica lly , he conte nds that “the c ourt abused its discr etion by believing the incong ruous and conflicting statements of the po lic e off ice rs while d isb e lie vin g a ny a nda ll s ta te me nt [s ic ] ma de by the [ap pe lla nt]. ” Th e State
co u n t er s t h att h e e v i d en ce “p ro d u ce d attri al cl ea rl y s u p p o rt s t h e .

. . co n v i ct i o n s fo r s p ee d i n g, assault, and r esisting a

rre st.”

When a defenda nt challeng es t he suff iciency of the e vidence , this Court i s oblige d to review that claim ac cording to certain well-settled principl es

. A ver dict of g uilty , rende red by a jury and

“ app ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c re dit s th e te sti mon y of the ” State ’s wi tne sse s and res ol ves a ll conflicts in the testimony in f avor of the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . Thus, althoug h the acc used is orig inally cloake d with a presumption of i nnocenc e, the jury verdic t of g uiltyremove s this presumption “and re place s it with one of gu i l t

. ” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). He nce, on a ppeal, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insufficienc y of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ng c ou rt mus t a ns we r i s w he the r any ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the ac cused g uiltyof eve ry element of

the offe nse bey ond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha

rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making this decision, we are to acc ord the State “ the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate inf ere nces that may be dra wn there from.” See Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, this C ourt is p re cluded f rom re--8-

weig hing or

rec onsidering the evidenc e whe n evaluating the convicting proof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d38 0, 38 3 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); State v. Matth e ws , 8 05 S.W. 2d77 6, 77 9 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1990). Moreove r, we may not substit ute our own “ infere nces f or those dra wn by

the trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779. Moreove r, questions conc erning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, the weig ht and va l u e o f t h e evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e to be resolved by the trier of

fac t. State v. Pruett, 788 S.W .2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1991)

.
I n th e c a se he re in, the app e lla nt w a s c on vic te d f or sp eedi ng, assau lt a ndre sis tin g arr e st. Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 39 -1 6- 60 2 se ts ou t the e le me nts of re sis tin g arr e st. Th a t st a tut e state s:

I t is an offe nse for a per son to intentionally preve nt or obstruct a ny one known to the person to be a

law enf orce ment office r, or a ny one ac ting in a la w enf orce ment of fi c e r’ s p re se nc e a nda t such off icer ’s dir e c tio n, fr om e ff

e c tin g a sto p, frisk , h a lt,

arr est or sea

rch of any person, including the defe ndant, by using forc e ag ainst the law enfor ceme nt office r or a nother.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602( a). For ce is de fined as “compulsion by the use of phy sical powe r or violence and shall be broadly construed to a ccomplish the purposes of this ti tle.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106( a)( 12). A pe rson commits assault who “intentionally , knowing ly or rec klessly cause s bodily injury to another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-101(a )(1)

.
Viewe d in the light most favor able to the St ate, the e vidence shows that, on October 4, 2004, the appe llant drove fif

ty -one miles-pe r-hour

in a thirty -five mile- p er -h our spee d zone, assaulted a police off icer at a tra ffic stop and resisted a rre st. Accor ding to Of

fice r Will iams, the appe llant was “tra veling at a hig h rate of spee d” and was clocke d with the rada r unit g oing f

ifty -one miles per

hour in a thirty -f

ive mil e -p e r- ho ur

zon e . A s th e of

fi c e r p ull e d inbe hin d th e app e lla nt anda c tiv a te d h is blue lights, the appellant ducked off onto a side street and attempted to elude the tra ffic stop. As the

app e lla nt d uc ke d o nto the sid e str e e t, Of fi c e r Me e ks wa s a

ble to p ull in b e hin d h im a nda c tiv a te his blu e lig hts in p ur su it o f the app e lla nt. Th e app e lla nt fi na lly pu lle d o ve r. Ac c or din g to b othof fi c e rs , the appe llant ex i t ed h is vehicle a nd became very bellige rent. Of

fice r Mee ks testified that the appellant slammed the door of the pickup truck on his hand, brea king his f inge r. When the office r tried to place the appe llant under a rre st, the appellant pushed and resisted. The a ppellant disputed the of fi c e rs ’ v e rs ionof

the inc ide nt. I t is we ll- se ttl e d tha t any qu e sti on s c on c e rn ing the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s a

re re so lve d by the tr ie r o f f a c t. P ru e tt, 78 8 S. W.2 d at 56 1. F ro m th e ve rd ic t, i t is ob vio us that th e tr ia l co urt a c c re dit e d th e te sti mon y of Of fi c e r Wi lli a ms andOf

fi c e r M e e ks

. Con se qu e ntl y , th e e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt to su pp ort the c on vic tio ns . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.-9- Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is a ffirme d. The matter is remande d to the tr ia l c ou rt

fo r e ntry of c or re c te d ju dg me nt f

orms.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE