### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 13, 200 9
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . BRANDON D. THOMAS
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Warre n Coun ty No. M- 9973 Larry B. Stanley, Jud ge

No. M2008- 01395-CCA -R3-C D - F iled March 4, 2009

The De fenda

nt, Bra ndon D. Thom as, was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor

evadingarr est. He was sente nced to se rve eleven months and twenty -nine day s in the W arr en C ounty J ail. I n this direct appea l, the Def

endant contends that the trial cour t erre d in refusingto instruct the jury on resisting
arr est as a lesser- included offe nse of misdemeanor evading arr est. We conclude that this contention la c ks me ri t, a

nd we a c c or din g ly

a ff ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

L . Sc ott Gr iss om, Pub lic De fe nd e r, Mc Minnv ill e , Te nn e sse e , fo r the a pp e lla nt, B ra nd on D. Th oma s.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; JohnH. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A ttorney

Ge ne ra l; L isa Z avog iannis, Distri ct Att orney Gene ral; and Thoma s Miner, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound On September

3, 2004, a Warre n C o u n t y grand jury char g ed the De fenda

nt with evading
arr est in violation of Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 39- 16-603(a )(1) , a Class A misdemeanor

. A jury trial was he ld.
The De fenda

nt has prepa

red a s t at em en t of the evide nce. See Tenn. R. App. P 24. The state me nt o f t

he e vid e nc e re c ite s th e fa c ts a s f oll ow s:-2- The fir st witness for the State wa s Warren County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment Deputy J esse Reid. Deputy

Reid testified that while on patrol in a ma rked Warr en County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment vehicle and in uniform on J uly 2, 2004, he wa s doing a busin e s s c h e c k

a t E a s ts id e M ar

k e t at a p p r o xim a te ly

1 1 :3 0 p
. m. T h e s to r e w as c los e d a nd a ve hic le wa s p ark e d b y

the g a s p ump s. De pu ty Re id kn e w the oc c up ants o f t h e ca r to be Kim Duke a nd [t he De fenda

nt] . A war

rants che ck with dispatch
reve aled a

n ac t i v e wa rra

nt on the passeng er, [the Def endant]. Deputy

Reid then
a pp ro a c he d [th e De fe nd ant] a nd a dv ise d h im t

hat th ere was an a tta c hme nt f or him and that he w as under

arr est. [The Defe ndant] ex ited the ca r and the n rea ched ba ck inside the vehicle. Deputy Reid advised him to put his hands on the roof which [the Def endant] did, but then proce eded to push off the car and took off r unning, f leeing into the woods behind t he st ore. Deputy Reid called for assist ance and a se arc h for [t he De fenda

nt] was unsucc essful. Deputy Dennis Dunc an of the Warren County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he we nt t o th e sc e ne and a ssi ste d in the se arc h fo r [the De fe nd ant]. Duri ngthi s s ea rc h , h e wa s involved in a traf fic stop of Jamie I vy , a known a ssociate of [t he D e f e n d an t]

. Detec tive Tony

J enkins of the Mc Minnvill e P olice Department testified that he wa s familiar with [the Defe ndant] and J amie I vy and near the time of

this incident they wer e living in a

n apar tment toge ther.
Th e De fe nd ant .

. . c ho se to t e sti fy on his ow n behal f. [ Th e De fe nd ant] te sti fi e d th a t he wa s a t the sc e ne and did fl e e fr om De pu ty Re id. [Th e De fe nd ant’ s]
rea sons for lea

ving w ere two fold, with the first rea son being that he was afr aid that t h e dr i v e r o f t h e c ar , K i m D u k e , w a s t r yi n g t o s e t h i m u

p o n a dr u g c h ar g e
. S e c o n d l y, [t he De fenda

nt] testified that he fled bec ause he knew the c hild support attachment that he wa s b e ingarres ted on wa s b ogus sin c e he ha d b e e n to c ourt and the c hil d support office to have the matter cor rec ted. Evidenc e wa s admitted that showed that the attac hment was re called on July 4, 2004. The jury found the De fenda

nt gui l ty as cha rg ed. The rea fter, the trial court se ntence d the Def endant to ele ven months and twenty -nine da y s in the county

jail. This appeal f

ollowed.
AN AL YSI S The Def e n d an t c o n te n d s th a t t

h e tr ia l c o u rt e r

r e d in f a il in g to in s tr

u c t t h e ju r y o nr e s is ting
arr est as a le sser-inc luded offe nse of misdemea no r ev ad i n g arr est. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-18- 110 g overns jury char g es as to lesser

included off

enses. In rele vant part, it states that “[a]bsent a written re quest, the fa ilur e of a tria l judge to instruct the jury on any lesser- included offe nse may not be prese nted as a g round for relief either in a motion for n ew t ri al o r o n appea l.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 18-110(c ). The r ec o rd i n t h is case doe s not contain any reque st by

the Def endant, written or ot herw ise, for an instruction on resisting arr est as a le sser include d offe nse of-3-

misdemeanor e vading arr est. We conclude that the Def endant has waived the issue. Waiver a side, our supre me cour

t ha s held that appe llate cour ts are not pr eclude d from re viewing this iss ue under the plain er

ror doc trine. See State v. Pag e, 184 S.W.3d 223, 230 (Tenn. 2006).
Under the B urns test, an off

en s e i s a lesser- included off ense if it mee ts the following
re qu ir e me nts : (a) all of i ts statutory elements are included within the statutory elements of the offe nse cha

rg ed; or (b) it fa ils to m eet the de finition in part (a) only in the respe ct that it contains
a s t at u t o ry

el em en to r e l em en t s es t ab l i s h i n g (1) a differ ent mental state indicating a lesser kind of c ulpability ; and/or (2 ) a le ss se ri ou s har

m or ri sk of ha rm to t he same pe rs on , p ro pe rt

y or pu bli c interest; or (c) it consists of (1 ) f a c ili ta tio n o f t

he of fe ns e c ha rged o r o f a

n o ff e ns e that ot

he rw ise me e ts the def inition of lesser-include d offe nse in part ( a) or (b); or (2 ) a na t t e mp tt o c o m m i tt h e o f f e n s e c h ar g e d

o r ano f f e n s e t h a to t he rw ise meets the de finition of lesser-inc luded offe nse in part ( a) or (b); or (3 ) s oli c itati on to commit the of fe ns e c ha rg e d o r a n o ff e ns e that ot

he rw ise meets the de finition of lesser-inc luded offe nse in part ( a) or (b).

Bur ns, 6 S.W .3d at 466-67. F urthermor e, our supr eme c ourt stated in B urns that a lesse r-include d offe nse instruction is not required unle ss the particula r fa ct s o f t he ca se would support a jury conviction on that cha

rg e. I d. at 469.
On app e a l, “ [t]he qu e sti on wh e the r a

g ive n o ff

e ns e sh ou ld b e su

bmi tte d to the jur

y a s a lesser- included off

ense is a mixed question of law an d fac t.” State v. Rush, 50 S.W .3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Smil ey , 38 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001) ). The sta ndard of revie w on appea l is de novo. Bur

ns, 6 S.W .3d at 461. Upon revie w, we conclude that resisting arr est is not a lesser- included offe n s e of misdemeanor e vading arr est. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39- 1 6 -6 0 3(a) (1) de fines mis de me ano r e va din g arr e st a s f oll ow s:R e sisting a rr e st is a C la ss A m isd e m e a n o r if a d e a d ly we a p o n is use d . T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 6 -6 0 2 (d ). 1

Ad di t i onal l y , we not e t hat t her e i s an ot her way t o com mi t t he C l as s B mi s dem ean or of f ens e. Subs ect i on ( c) 2

m ak es it an o f

f en se to p rev en t service o f p ro ce ss. -4- [I ]t is unlawful for any person to int entionally flee by any means of loc omotion from any one the pe rson knows to be a law enf orce ment office r if the pe rson: (A) K nows the off

icer is attempting to ar

rest the pe rson; or (B ) Ha s been a

rre sted. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 16-603(a )(1)

. Class B misdemeanor r esisting a r r e s t, in v o lv in g o b s tr u c ti o n o f la w e n f orce ment, is provided 1 2 for in Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-16-602( a):

(a) I t is an offe n s e for

a per son to intentionally preve nt or obstruct anyone known to t h e p er s o n to be a law enfor ceme nt office r, or a ny one ac ting in a la

w enfor ceme nt office r’s presenc e and at t he off icer ’s direc tion, from eff

ectinga stop, frisk, h al t , arr est or sea

rch of any person, includingthe def endant, by

using f orce ag ainst the law e nforc ement off icer or anothe r.
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 compar ison of the eleme nts of these two off enses c onvinces us that resisting arr est ca nnot be a le sser-inc luded offe nse of misdemeanor evading arr est. A violation of misdemeanor e vading
arr est is pr oven whe n the State establishes the f ollowing e lements: (1) The defe ndant by any means of locomotion fled fr om a per son he knew to be a law enf orce ment office r; (2) The defe ndant knew the off ic e r w a s att e mp ti n g to ar r e s t h im o r h e h a d b e e n ar r e s te d ; an d ( 3 ) T h e d e f

e n d ant ac ted intentionally . Class B misdemea nor re sisting ar

rest occ urs when: (1 ) T h e defe ndant pre vented or obstructed a

person he knew to be a law enf orce ment office r, or a

ny one ac ting in a la

w enf orce ment office r’s pre sence and at the office r’s direction, from effec ting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or se arc h of any person; (2) The de fenda

nt use d forc e ag ainst the law enfor ceme nt of fice r or a nother; and ( 3)The defe ndant ac ted intentionally

. On a pp e a l, t he De fe nd ant argue s that “ the langua g e ‘f le e by me ans of loc omo tio n’

. . . is so broad that it would encompass the use of forc e as means of loc omotion to flee from a n office r.” The statute proscr ibing misdemea nor eva ding a

rre st require s proof of f leeing , by

any means of loc omo tio n, fr om a

pe rs on kn ow n to be a

law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r a nd kn ow le dg e that th e of

fi c e r i s at t em p t i n g t o arre s tt h e i n d i v i d u al , b u ti tm ak es n o re fe re n c e t o ei t h er p re v en t i n g o r o b s t ru ct i n g a-5-

known law e n f

o r c e me n t o f

f ic e r f r o m e f f e c ti n g a s to p , f

r is k , h a lt , ar

r e s t, o r s e ar c h o r to th e use of forc e ag ainst the offic er or another (elem en t s re q uired for

resisting arr est). The se two off enses re qu ir e pr oo f o f d if

fe re nt s ta tut or

y e le me nts . Re sis tin g arr e st i s n ot a pa rt (a ) l e sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e under the Bur

ns t es t

. T h e essential ele ments of re sisting ar rest, that the de fenda

nt preve nt or obstruct, by

forc e, a know n law enf

orce ment office r fr om effe cting a stop, frisk, halt, ar rest, or se arc h does not constitute a diffe rent menta l state or a le ss serious risk of har m; both crimes require an intentional mental state, and eva ding a rre st require s no forc e at a ll. Theref ore, r esisting a

rre st is not
a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e un de r p art

(b ) of the te st. Re sis tin g arr e st i s n ot a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of misdemeanor

evadingarr est under pa

rt (c) of the Bur

ns test as it is not a fa cilitation, attempt, or solicitation. Cl ass B misdemeanor resisting arr est is not a lesser -included of fense of misdemeanor evadingarr est.
The trial court did not err by declining to instruc t the jury on resisting arr es t

. Be ca u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rtd i d n o te r r , a p l a i ne r r o r an a l ys i s i s u n n e c e s s ar

y.
CO NC LU SION Ba sed upon the fore g oing, we conclude that the trial cour t did not err by

declining to instruct the jury on the offe nse of r esisting a rre st. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE