### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON February2, 201 0 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. SHEILAWHITE C ARLTON
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu itC o u rt fo r G ibso n C o u n ty N o. 17841 W i l l i am A cre e, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 01004- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 18, 2010

T he D ef endant

- A ppel l ant , Shei l a W hi t e C ar l t on, w as i ndi ct ed forone countof bur gl ar y of an aut om obi l e, a C l as s E fel ony; one count of as s aul t , a C l as s A m i s dem eanor ; and one count o f th e ft o f p ro p e rty v a lu e d a t $ 5 0 0 o r les s, a C las s A m isd e m e a n o r. A G ib so n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rtjury su b seq u en tl y ac q u itted C arlt o n o f t h e b u rglary co u n t, fou n d h er g u il ty o f t h e the ft count , and fai l ed t o r eac h a ver di cton t he ass aul tcount , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a m i s tr i al on t hat count
. T h e tr i al cour ts ent ence d C ar l t on, w hos e pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t or y i ncl uded one convi ct i on for vandal i s m , t o el even m ont hs and t w ent y- ni ne days pr obat i on af t ert he s er vi ce o f si x ty d ay s in jail

. O n ap p ea l, C arlt o n arg u es that the ev iden ce w as in su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt h e r c o n v ic tio n . U p o n re v ie w , w e a ffir m th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3 Appeal as of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C i r c ui t C our t A f

f i r m e d
C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J

. C. M C L IN , J J

. , j oi ned.
S h e ila W h ite C a rl to n , D y e r, T e n n e s s e e , P ro S e . R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; D avi d H

. Fi ndl ey, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; G arr y G

. B r ow n, D i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and J er ald M

. C am pbel l , A s s i s t ant D i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON
F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND
T r ia l. H ol l y D unagen, C ar l t on’ s daught er , t es t i f i ed thatC ar l t on had pr evi ous l y been con vict ed o f van d a lis m on Jul y 1 0, 20 07

. T he ev i den ce att he jur y tr i al on t he v and al i sm c h a rg e sh o w e d th a t C a rlto n h a d u se d a h o rse w h ip to w h ip a v e h ic le th a t b e lo n g e d to D unagen’ s s on, J os h. D unagen s ai d t hatal t hough s he thoughts he w as goi ng t o t es t i f y att he-2-

vandal i s m tr i al , s he di d not. A s D u n ag en w as l eavi ng t he cour t hous e af t ert he tr i al on t he vandal i s m char ge, she obs er ved thatherm ot herdi d notappea rt o be angr y aboutt he convi ct i on, and s he s ai d t hatt he bai l i f f i n t he cour tr oom al s o not ed t hat her m ot her di d not appea rt o be angr y. T he s am e day f

ol l ow i ng C ar l t o n ’s vandal i s m convi ct i on, C ar l t on knocked on D unagen’ s dooratherhom e. J us t befor e openi ng t he door, D unagen pi cked up he rei ght eenm ont h- ol d M al t es e dog, C har l i e, t o pr eventhi m f r om run n ing outof

herhom e. D unagen expl ai ned thats he had or i gi nal l y got t en C har l i e f r om C ar l t on, w ho had got t en t he dog forher dog br eedi ng bus i nes s . D unagen s ai d t hatas C har l i e had gotten o lder, i tw as cl eart hathe w o u ld n o t b e a g o o d d o g fo r b re e d in g b e c a u se h e h a d n u m e ro u s u n fa v o ra b le tra its. S h e sa id t hatC ar l t on had gi ven her C har l i e on a s hor t

- t er m bas i s w hen he w as ar ound ei ghtw eeks ol d. H ow ever , s he s ai d t hat af t er C ar l t on det er m i ned t hat C har l i e w oul d not be a g o o d d o g for br eedi ng, sh e t ol d D unagen thatD unagen a nd herdaught er s coul d have the dog on a p e r ma n e n tb a s i s . S h e s a i d t h a tC a r l t o n h a d t o l d Du n a g e n ’ s d a u g h t e r s t o t h i n k a b o u ta n a me t o puton t he dog’ s r egi s tr at i on paper s . D unagen s ai d t hat s he and he rdaught er s bel i eved that C h arli e w as th eir do g for a p p rox im ately a y ea r, an d C arlt o n d id n o t pay m o n ey for C h arli e’s car e orfeedi ng expens es dur i ng t hi s t i m e per i od.
U pon hear i ng a knock, D unagen ope ned her door and saw C ar l t on, w ho gr eet ed her and as ked i f

s he coul d “s ee C har l i e for a m i nut e. ” D unagen a l l ow ed hert o hol d t he dog, and once Char l i e w as i n C ar l t on’ s ar m s , s he i m m edi at el y t ur ned ar ound and bega n t o w al k aw ay. Du n a g e n a s k e d h e rwh a t s h e wa s d o i n g , a n d Ca r l t o n t u r n e d a r o u n d a n d s a i d , “ T h i s i s my GD d o g . Y o u ’re n o t g e tti n g th is G D d o g b a c k . Y o u c a u se d m e to lo se m y C o u rt [c a se ] w ith J o s h . I h a v e b e e n w a itin g fo r t h is d a y .”
A s hor t t i m e l at er , D unagen dr ove t o pi ck up her t w o daught er s f r om C ar l t on’ s hom e. C a rlto n ra n o u t o f th e h o u se a s s h e d ro v e u p a n d b e g a n sc re a m in g a t h e r. D u n a g e n to ld C ar l t on t hats he w as t her e t o pi ck up herdaught er s . C ar l t on dar ed hert o getoutof t he ca r t o getherdaught er s . B eca us e D unagen kne w t hatC ar l t o n had a hi s t or y of vi ol ence , s he r em ai ned i n hercarand honked the hor n, hopi ng t hatherdaught er s w oul d com e outt o her car . H erdaught er s di d notl eave C ar l t on’ s hom e at t hatt i m e, butC ar l t on cam e outof her hom e and be gan s cr eam i ng atD unagen a gai n. C ar l t on r eac hed i ns i de the w i ndow of D unagen’ s carand s cr at ched he rface . H erdaught er s cam e ou t of C ar l t on’ s hous e cr yi ng, an d they left

. D u n ag en stat ed that sh e h ad n ev er b ee n d iagn o sed w ith b ipo lar disord er. B r ooke Fet t er s , D unagen’ s f i f t een- year - ol d daught er , t es t i f i ed thatC ar l t on had gi ven t hem C har l i e bec aus e s he coul d notus e hi m forbr eedi ng. Fet t er s s ai d t hatC ar l t on t ol d her t hats he w oul d putt hei rnam es on t he dog’ s r egi s tr at i on paper s appr oxi m at el y s i x m ont hs befor e the i ns t antof

fens e. D ur i ng t hi s s i x m ont h per i od, C ar l t on di d not pr ovi de any m oney fort he dog’s food or car e and never vi s i t ed t he dog. Fet t er s adm i t t ed thatherfam i l y never-3-

re c e iv e d th e re g istra tio n p a p e rs, b u t sh e sa id th a t h e r fa m ily b e liev e d th a t C h a rlie w a s th e ir dog beca us e of

C ar l t on’ s behavi orand s t at em ent s . She al s o s aid t hatC ar l t on t ol d hert hat s h e h a d to s e ll C h a rl ie to p a y fo r h e r v a n d a lis m c a s e in v o lv in g J o s h

. B e th a n e y L o w e ry , D u n a g e n ’s th irtee n -y e a r-o ld d a u g h ter , tes t i fi ed thatapp roxim a tely a yea rbefor e the i ns t antof fens e C ar l t on had t aken Char l i e bec aus e s he w as angr y butl at er gave hi m back t o t hem

. A tso m e l at ert i m e, L ow er y l ear ned f r om Fet t er s t hatC ar l t on had concl uded t hat C har l i e w as not a good dog for br eedi ng and had gi ven t hem C har l i e t o keep.
C ar l t on, t he D ef

endan t- A ppel l ant , t es t i f i ed thats he ea r ned par tof heri ncom e f

r om br eedi ng dogs

. She s t at ed thats he di d nothave a “good r el at i ons hi p” w i t h D unagen. C ar l t on cl ai m ed thatD unagen ha d been a “r ebel l i ous ” chi l d and di d nothave a j ob. She al s o as s er t ed t hats he had pr ovi ded hous i ng forD unagen a nd had b o u g h t h er car s and f ur ni t ur e, w hi ch D u n a g e n h a d so ld fo r m o n e y . C a rlto n sta ted th a t D u n a g e n w a s “a c o n v in c in g liar” a n d sa id th a t s h e b e lie v e d th a t D u n a g e n s u ffe re d fr o m a b ip o la r d is o rd e r. C ar l t on deni ed thatt her e w as anythi ng w r ong w i t h C har l i e, ot her t han t he factt hathe h a d a “ lit tle h e rn ia.” S h e a d m itt e d to g e tti n g C h a rlie im m e d iate ly a fte r sh e w a s c o n v icte d in t he vanda l i s m tr i al , buts he cl ai m ed that sh e h ad al r eady t ol d hergr anddaught er s t hats he w ou l d n eed C harl i e for a few day s becau se she need ed som e m on ey for her di vo rce. S he als o c la im e d th a t D u n a g e n tu rn e d C h a rl ie o v e r t o h e r “ w illin g ly .”
C ar l t on acknow l edged t el l i ng B r ooke thats he coul d choos e a n o th e rd o g f r om t he l i t t er becau se her si st er B et han ey f el t t hat C harl i e w as hers. S he adm i t t ed that she neve r to ld B etha n ey that C h arli e d id n o t belo n g to h er. C ar l t on s t at ed t hat D unagen dr ove up t o herhous e and be gan bl ow i ng herhor n. She s ai d s he t ol d hergr anddaught er s t o gett hei rt hi ngs t ogethers o that D unagen w oul d not b o ther h er n eigh b o rs . C a rl to n d en ied s cra tchin g D u n ag en o r go ing o u t t o D u n ag en ’s ca r. S h e c lai m ed that h er d au g h ter, h er g ran d d au g h ters, an d the o ffi ce r th at w rote the in it ial rep o rt re g a rd in g th e in c id e n t h a d lie d

. M a m ie C a in , C a rlto n ’s s iste r, tes tified th a t sh e w a s w ith C a rlto n w h e n sh e g o t C h a rlie a t D u n a g e n ’s h o m e . S h e sa id a s sh e w a s s itt in g in C a rlto n ’s c a r, sh e o b se rv e d C a rlto n tell D unagen thats he nee ded C har l i e forbr eedi ng pur pos es , and s he s aw her pi ck up C har l i e and w a lk b a c k to th e c a r. C a in sa id th a t sh e d id n o t h e a r C a rlto n a n d D u n a g e n a rg u e d u rin g th is c o n v e r s a tio n . W h e n th e y re tu rn e d h o m e , C a in sa id th a t sh e h e a rd D u n a g e n d riv e u p to C arlt o n’ s hom e and be gi n honki ng herhor n. She s ai d t hats he hel ped C ar l t on’s g ran d d au g h ters ga ther the irb elo n g in g s b efo re the y left

. C ain a d m itted th at C arlt o n ’s g ra n d d a u g h te rs w e re u n h a p p y th a t C a rl to n h a d ta k e n C h a rl ie

.-4-

C ai n s ai d t hats he w as w i t h C ar l t on w hen s he f i r s tgave Char l i e t o D unagen, and s he h e a rd C a rlto n tell D u n a g e n th a t s h e w a s g o in g to h a v e to g e t C h a rlie b a c k so th a t sh e c o u ld br eed hi m . She al s o s t at ed thatD unagen of t en dra nk and “t hr ew f

i t s ” and t hat C ar l t on and D unagen di d nothave a good r el at i ons hi p. T h e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d C a rlto n to e lev e n m o n th s a n d tw e n ty -n in e d a y s, w ith six ty days of s er vi ce f ol l ow ed by pr obat i on. T he j udgm ent w as ent er ed on M ay 6, 2009. C ar l t on di d notf i l e a m ot i on for a new tr i al ; how ever , s he f i l ed a t i m el y not i ce of

appea l on M ay 14, 2009.
A N A L Y S IS
C a rlton argu es t hat the ev i den ce w as i nsuff i ci ent t o co nv i cther of theftof prope rty val ued at$500 orl es s . I n r es pons e, t he St at e arg u es that t he j ur y chos e t o acc r edi tt he t es t i m ony of

C al t on’ s daught er and gr anddaught er s and t hat t he j udgm ents houl d be af f i r m ed beca u s e “ t h e e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d a t tr i a l was s u f f i c i e n t fo r a r a t i o n a l j u r y t o f i n d beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he def endantcom m i t t ed thef

tw hen s he t ook C har l i e. ”
W hen a de fendant chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence , t he st andar d of r evi ew a p p lied b y th is co u rt is “w h e th e r, a fte r rev iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l tr i e ro f fa c t c o u l d h a v e fo u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f t h e c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ” J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U

. S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t
. 2781, 2789 (1979 ). S i m i l arl y, R u l e 13 (e) of t he T enn essee R ules of A pp el l at e P rocedu re s t at es,
“ F in d in g s o f g u iltin c rim in a l ac tio n s w h e th e r b y th e trial co u rt o r ju ry sh a ll b e se t as id e if t he evi dence i s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng by t he tr i erof

factof gui lt b ey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” G u iltm a y b e fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t in a c a se w h e re th e re is dir ectevidence, ci rcum st anti al evidence, or a com bin a ti on of t he tw o. S t at e v. M at t hew s, 805 S. W

. 2d 776, 779 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1990) ( ci t i ng St at e v. B r ow n, 551 S. W

. 2d 329, 331 (T e n n . 1 9 7 7 ); F a rm e r v . S ta te , 3 4 3 S .W .2 d 8 9 5 , 8 9 7 (T e n n . 1 9 6 1 ))

. T he St at e, on appea l , i s ent i t l ed t o t he s tr onges tl egi t i m at e vi ew of t he evi dence and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s w hi ch m ay be dr aw n f r om t hatevi dence

. St at e v. B land , 958 S. W

. 2d 651, 659 ( T enn. 1997)

. T h e t r i erof factm us teval uat e the cr edi bi l i t y of t he w itn e ss e s, d e ter m in e th e w e ig h t g iv e n to w itn e ss e s’ te stim o n y , an d m u st r e c o n c il e a ll conf l i ct s i n t he evi dence

. St at e v. O dom , 928 S. W

. 2d 18, 23 ( T enn. 1996)

. W hen r evi ew i ng iss u e s re g a rd in g th e su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e , th is c o u rt sh a ll n o t “r e w e ig h o r re e v a lu a te th e e v id e n c e .” S tate v . P h ilp o tt, 8 8 2 S .W .2 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 8 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) (c iti n g S tate v. C abbage , 571 S. W

. 2d 832, 836 ( T enn. 1978) ) , s uper s eded by s t atut e on othergr ounds as s t at ed i n St at e v. B ar one, 852 S. W

. 2d 216, 218 ( T enn. 1993)

. T hi s cour t has of t en st at ed that “[ a] gui l t y ver di ctby t he j ur y, appr oved by the tr i al cour t , acc r edi t s t he t es t i m ony of t he w i t nes s es fort he St at e and r es ol ves al l conf l i ct s i n favorof

t he pr os ecut i on’ s t heor y. ” B l and,-5-

958 S. W

. 2d at659 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. A gui l t y ver di ctal s o “r em oves the p res um pt i on of i nnocenc e and r epl ace s i t w i t h a pre s um pt i on of gui l t , and t he defendant has t he bur den of ill u stra tin g w h y th e e v id e n c e is i n su ffic ien t to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict.” Id . (citin g S tate v . T u g g le, 6 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T en n . 1 9 8 2 )).
C ar l t on w as convi ct ed of t hef tof pr oper t y val ued at $500 orl es s . T he l aw pr ovi des t hat“[ a] per s on com m i t s t hef t of pr oper t y i f , w i th i nt entt o depr i ve the ow nerof pr oper t y, t he p erso n k n o w ing ly o b ta in s o r ex erc ises co n tr o l ov er the p rop erty w ith o u t th e o w n er’s ef fect i ve cons ent
. ” T. C

. A

. § 39- 14- 103. T hef tof pr oper t y i s a C l as s A m i s dem eanor“i f t he v a lu e o f t h e p ro p e rt y o r s e rv ic e s o b t a i n e d i s fi v e h u n d re d d o lla rs ($ 5 0 0 ) o r l e s s [.] ” Id . § 39- 14- 105( 1)

. A n “ow ner ” i s defi n ed as “a pe r s on, ot hert han the def endant , w ho has p o ss e ss io n o f o r a n y in ter e st o th e r th a n a m o rtg a g e , d e e d o f tru st o r se c u rity in ter e st in pr oper t y, even t hough t hat pos s es s i on or i nt er es ti s unl aw f ul and w i t houtw hos e cons entt he d e fe n d a n t h a s n o a u th o ri ty to e x e rt c o n tr o l o v e r t h e p ro p e rt y [.] ” Id . § 3 9 -1 1 -1 0 6 (a )( 2 6 ).
C ar l t on ar gues t hats he di d not g ive the dog t o herdaught eras a gi f tbutl oaned the d o g to her da u g h ter an d g ran d d au g h ters. H o w ev er, w h en this issue w as pre sen ted t o the ju ry at tri a l, the ju ry c h o se to ac cre d itthe testi m o n y o f t h e S tat e’s w it n esse s o v er C arlt o n ’s test im o n y , as w as it s p rero g ati v e. S ee O d o m , 9 2 8 S

. W

. 2 d at 2 3

. W e ag ree w ith the S tat e’s as s er t i on t hat “[ t ] he j ur y coul d i nfer t hat t he defendant ’ s t i m i ng i n get t i ng C har l i e, r i ghtaf t er t he conc l us i on of h er va ndal i s m tr i al , w as pr om pt ed by s pi t e and r evenge r athert han the e x e rc ise o f a n y o w n e rsh ip rig h ts.” A s p re v io u sly sta ted , w e w ill n o t “ re w e ig h o r re e v a lu a te the e v iden ce . ” S ee P h il p o tt , 8 8 2 S

. W

. 2 d at 39 8

. B ec au se th e p roo f w as su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt t he convi ct i on, t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm enti s af f i r m ed.
A l t hough w e r ecogni ze thatt he C ar l t on’ s s ent ence appea r s har s h gi ven the fact s of t hi s cas e, C ar l t on, as a pro se def endant , chos e t o chal l enge the s uf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e r athert han her s ent ence . T he appel l ant has t he bur den of i dent i f yi ng t he i s s ues o n a p p e a l. S e e T e n n . R . A p p . P . 2 7 (a )(4 ), (7 ) (p ro v id in g th a t th e a p p e llan t’s b rie f sh a ll cont ai n “[ a] sta t em entof t he i s s ues pr es ent ed forr evi ew ” and “ [ a] n ar gum ent
. . . s et t i ng for t h t h e c o n t e n t i o n s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t wi t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , a n d t h e r eas ons th e re fo r, in c lu d in g th e re a so n s w h y th e c o n ten tio n s re q u ire a p p e llate re lief” ); s ee a l s o T enn. R . A p p . P . 3 6 (a ) (“ N o th in g in th is ru le s h a ll b e c o n stru e d a s re q u irin g re lief b e g ra n ted to a partyres po nsi ble for an erroror w ho fai l ed to t ake w hatever act i on w as r easo n a b ly avai l abl e t o pr eventornul l i fyt he harm ful eff ectof an e r r or . ”)

. Fur t her m or e, bas ed on the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatC ar l t on’ s s ent ence does notr i s e t o t he l evel of “pl ai n err or . ” See T en n . R

. A p p . P

. 3 6 (b) (“ W hen n ec essa ryt o do s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce, an appe l l at e courtm ay cons i deran err ort hathas aff ect ed the s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of a pa r t yatanyt i m e, even though th e e rr o r w a s n o t r a is e d in th e m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l o r a s s ig n e d a s e rr o r o n a p p e a l.” ) ; T enn. R

. E v id. 10 3 (d) ( “N ot hi ng i n t hi s rul e p rec lud es t aki ng not i ce of pl ai n err or s aff

ect i ng s ubs t ant i al r i ght s al t hough t hey w er e not br ought t o t he at t ent i on of the c o u rt

. ”) ; St at e v.-6-

A dki s s on, 899 S. W

. 2d 626, 641- 42 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1994) ( es t abl i s hi ng t he f i ve fact o rs t hats houl d be cons i der ed by thi s cour tw hen det er m i ni ng w hetheran err ori s “pl ai n err or . ”) A c c o rd in g ly , w e a re w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h e is s u e o f s e n te n c in g in th is c a s e . CO NC L US I ON
U p o n re v iew , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt.

___________________________________ CA M I L L E R. M c M UL L E N, J UDGE