### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 19, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER T WILLIA MS

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

No. 03-06803 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2004-01686-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 27, 2005

The de fenda nt, Robert Will iams, was convic ted by a Shelby

CountyCriminal Court juryof ag g ravated burg lary , a Class C felony , and sente nced by the trial court as a car eer offe nder to fif

teen y ea rs i n t h e Depa

rtment of Corre ction. The sole issue he raises on a ppeal is whe ther the circ umstantial e vidence prese nted in his case was sufficie nt to support his c onvi ct i o n

. Following

ou r r e vie w, 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

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J OS EPH M. T I PTON , J ., joined.

Rob e rt Wils on Jone s, She lby

Cou nty Pub lic De fe nd e r, a ndTo ny N. B ray ton , A ssi sta nt P ublic De fe nd e r, fo r the app e lla nt, Rob e rt Willi a ms.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Willis, A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; an d Al anda Dwy er, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS

On J une 20, 2003, Shenika Thompson re tu rn ed t o her home in the Chickasaw Plac e Apartments in Memphis t o find the g lass in the back door of he r apa rtment broken out a nd sever al

va lua ble s mi ssi ng , in c lud ing a

pig g y ba nk fu ll of c ha ng e , a Pla y Sta tio n, a nda ra dio . A sh ort ti me lat er , t h e apa

rtment complex’s maintenance supervisor discove red the defe ndant, a tempor ary employ ee a ssigne d to perform gr ounds maintenanc e at the complex, with the victim’s Play Station

a n d a l ar g e a m o u n to f

c h a n g e c o n c e a l e d i n a

p a i r o f p a n t s i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n

. T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y, painters wor

king in a vaca nt apartment the defe ndant had be en assi gn ed t o cl ean the day of the-2-

burg lary found the victim’s ra dio hidden inside a larg e plastic g arba g e ba g i n a closet of the apartment.

At the defendant’s ag g ravated burglary trial, the vi ctim testified t hat s he and he r infant son left her apartment at about 9:00 a.m. on J une 20, 2003, to v i s i t h er s ister and r eturne d to the apart m en t b et we en 3:30 and 4:00 that af ternoon. She said she first noticed that he r ra dio and speake rs wer e missing. Upon f urther inve stiga tion, she discovere d that the glass i n her back door h ad b ee n b ro k en o u t , a P l ay S t at i o n gam e w as m i s s i n g fr o m h erl i v i n g ro o m , a n d h e r s o n ’s p i ggy bank had been taken from the dresser in her bedroom. The victim testified that her furniture, which

was ne w, and he r twenty -seve n-inch Phillips flat scree n television were still in the apartment.

The victim testified she immediately notified the apa

rtment police, who se nt an offic er to he r apartment to take a report. About twenty minutes later, she w ent to the manag ement off ice to re port the burg lary . Shortlythere afte r, a maintenanc e employ ee asked that she return to the office . When she ar rived, she sa w the def

endant, thre e Memphis police of fice rs, a lar g e amount of c hang e on a desk, and he r Play Station game
, which she was able to positively identify by the mark she had plac ed

o n it

. A t th e r e q u e s t of th e ma in te n a n c e e mp lo y e e , s h e r e tu r n e d to th e man a g e me n t o f f ic e th e n e xt day and identified her radio, which wa s inside a larg e g arba g e bag . Approxim ately one we ek later
, her c hild’s father

found the broke n pigg y

bank on the g round on the other side of a g ate be hind her apartment. The vi ct i m ac k n o wl edg ed that the Me mphis poli ce of fice rs did not come to her apartment and that the sec urity office r who re sponded to her c all d i d not take any photogr aphs or proce ss the scene for f

inge rprints.

Me mph is Po lic e Of

fi c e r A rl a nd a

Jac ks on , w ho wa s w or

kin g he r se c on d jo b a s a

se c ur ity office r for the apa rtment complex when the victim called to report t he burgla ry , testified t hat one of the window pane s in the victim’s back door w as broke n out a nd that she assumed it was the e ntry point for the burg lar. She said she took the pertinent infor mation, including the de scription of the
sto le n it e ms, fr om the vict im a t th e apa rt me nt a ndthe n r e turne d to the se c ur ity of fi c e to c omp le te her r eport. L ater

that day , she we nt to the maintenance office in response to a call from one of the maintenanc e wor

ker s

. When she arr

ived, she found tha t the defe ndant was be ing de tained in the office and lea

rned tha t a Play Station and a “whole lot of chang e” had been r ecove red. In response , she ca lled the Memphis Poli ce D epartment, which sent two off icer s to the scene . Offic er Jackson acknow ledg ed she did not take any photogr aphs of the vic tim’s apartment a nd testified that, to her kn ow le dg e , n e ith e r o f the oth e r t wo of fi c e rs we nt t o th e apa

rt me nt.

A p ar t m e n t m a i n t e n a n c e s u p e r v i s o r A n d r e S h e l t o n t e s t i f

i e d t h a to n t h e d a y o f

t h e b u r g l ar y, the def endant, a temporary employ ee, was assigned to c lean a n are a of the g rounds nea r the victim’s apartment as well as a

vaca nt apartment that was being p re p ar ed for pa inting. He said that the defe ndant ca me that day at about noon to the brea k room wher e he a nd Clarenc e, anothe r permanent maintenanc e employ ee, wer e ea t ing lunc h. Howeve r, instead of joining them, the de fenda nt retrie v e d tw o o r

th r e e la r g e , in d u s tria l- s iz e d p la s ti c g ar b a g e b a g s a n d le f

t a g a in

. Sh e lt o n te s ti fied the de fe nd a nt’ s b e ha vior str uc k h im a s u nu su a l be c a us e his re g ula r p ra c tic e wa s to e a t lu nc h w ith the other e mploy ees. In addition, the defe ndant was not be ing pa id to work during the lunch hour.-3-

Shelton testified that the defe ndant, who had chang ed clothes and had a pair of pants rolled up and ly ing on a

desk, appeare d unusually anxious to leave at the end of the day , repe atedly telling him a t 4: 45 p. m. tha t he wa s re a dy to g o an d urg ing him to “c ome on ,” de sp ite the fa c t th a t th e y did

n o t o rd i n arily

leave until 5:00 p.m . Shelton said he asked the defe ndant, “[W] hat’s this? ” as he touched the pa nts a nd the defe ndant replied that it wa s some toy s he had f ound. Not believing the de fe nd a nt, he un wr app e d th e pa nts a ndfo un d a Pla y Sta tio n g a me c on c e a le d ins ide . I n th e pr oc e ss, “a la rg e amount of pe nnies” fe ll to the fl o o r. Shelton testified that Clarence returne d from the manag er’ s office at about that t i m e and told him the victim had just reporte d a burg lary at her

apa rt me nt, a nda Pla y Sta tio n g a me a nd pig g y bank ha d be e n stol e n. He sa id C lare nc e we nt b a c k to inform the mana g er of

their discovery

and the mana g er i n turn sent the police to the ma intenance office

. Shelton testified that the next day some painters w orking in the vaca nt apartment the defe ndant h ad clea ned the pr evious day showed him a ra dio they had found in a

closet of the apartment, which was tied inside the same ty pe of pla stic g arba g e bag as the one s the defe ndant had retrie ved fr om the brea

k room. He sa id he took the ra dio t o the manag er a nd then went to g et the vic tim , who ide nti fi e d the ra dio a s h e rs . A c c or din g to S he lto n, the de fe nd a nt h a d b e e n le ft a lon e to perf orm his assigne d work on the da y of the burg lary

.

The de fenda nt electe d not to testify and re sted his case without presenting any proof.

AN AL YSI S

Th e so le issue the de fe nd a nt r a ise s o n a pp e a l is wh e the r the e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o support his conviction. Noting the lack of any phy sical evidence linki ng him to the crime sce ne, the defe ndant ar g ues that the c ircum s t an t i al evidenc e, including his possession of the rec ently stolen ite ms a nda c c e ss t o th e va c a nt a pa rt me nt , was ins uf

fi c ie nt t o e xclu de e ve ry

oth e r r e a so na

ble hypothesis sa ve that of his g uilt of the offe nse. The State r esponds that the def endant’ s expl anation of how he came into possession of the Play Station and chang e wa s not reasona ble in light of the cumulative evide nce pr esente d in the case , from which the jury could h av e re asonably

inferr ed bey ond a re asonable doubt that he broke into the victim’s a partment and stole the items. We ag ree with the State.

When the sufficie ncy of the convicting evidenc e is cha lleng ed, the r eleva nt question of the revie w in g c o u r t is “ w h e th e r , a f te r v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e li g h t mo s t f a v o r ab le to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond

a re asonable doubt.” J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e) (“F indings of g uilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidenc e is insuff icient to support the finding s by the trier of fa ct of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.”); S tate v. Eva ns, 838 S.W .2d 185, 190-92 (Te nn. 1992); State v. Ander son, 835 S.W .2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

.-4-

Cir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e a lon e ma y be su ff ic ie nt to sup po rt

a c on vic tio n in Te nn e sse e . St a te v. Tharpe , 726 S.W .2d 896, 899-900 (Te nn. 1987); S t at e v. J ones, 901 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). I f base d entirely on circ umstantial evidence , howeve r, the e vidence “‘mus t be not only consistent with the g uilt of the acc used but it must also be inconsist ent wit h his innocence and must exclude every

other re asonable theory

or hy pothesis except that of g uilt.’” Thar pe, 726 S.W .2d a t 9 0 0 ( q u o ti n g Pr u it t v

. St a te , 4 6 0 S. W. 2 d 3 8 5
, 3 9 0 ( T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. 1 9 7 0 ) ) . The standard f

or appe llate re view is the same w hether t h e co n v i ction is based on dire ct evidenc e,

c ir c ums ta nti a l evi de nc e , o r a c omb inatio n o f d ir e c t a ndc ir c ums ta nti a l e vid e nc e . St a te v. Ma tth e ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. All questions involvi ng the cr edibilityof wit nesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the evidenc e, and all fac tual issues are resolved by the trier of fac t. See State v. Pappas, 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . “A g uiltyverdic t by the jury , approve d by

t h e t ri al judge
, acc redits t he testi mony of t he witnesses for the State a nd resolves a ll conflicts in favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Gra ce, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

. A j u ry co n v iction removes the presumption of innoce nce w ith which a def endant is initiallycloake d and re place s it with one of g uil t, s o th a t on app e a l, a co nv ic te d de fe nd a nt ha s the bu rd e n of de mon str a tin g that the e vid e nc e is insufficient. See State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

The de fenda nt was convic ted of a g g ravated burg lary
, wh i ch i s define d as burg lary of a habitation. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-14- 403(a) (2003). B urg lary is defined:

(a) A per son commits burgla ry who, without the eff

ective co n s ent of the property owner :

(1) Ente rs a building other than a habitation (or a ny portion thereof

) not open
to the pu bli c , w ith int e nt t o c omm it a fe lon y , th e ft

or a ssa ult ;

(2 ) R e ma ins c on c e a le d, wi th the int e nt t o co mmi t a fe lon y , th e ft

or a ssa ult
, i n a b u i l d i n g;

(3 ) E n te r s a b u il d in g a n d c o mm it s o r a tt e mp ts to c o mm it a f e lo n y , th eft or assault; or

(4 ) E nte rs a ny

fr e ig ht o r p a sse ng e r c ar, a uto mob ile , t ruck , tra ile r, bo a t, airplane or o th e r mo to r v e h ic le w ith in te n t to c o mm it a f e lo n y , th e f

t o r a s s a u lt

or

c omm its or

a tte mpt s to c omm it a

fe lon y , th e ft

or a ssa ult

.

I d. § 39-14-402( a). “ [U] nsatisfac torily explained poss ession of re cently stolen property

may be

su ff ic ie nt i n a nd of its e lf to es ta bli sh a bu rg lary .” State v. Jone s, 90 1 S. W.2 d 3 93 , 3 96 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1995) (c iting State v. Ha milton, 628 S .W.2d 742 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)).-5-

Viewe d in the light mo s t fa v o ra b l e to the State, the e vidence was suff icient to support the defe ndant’s convic tion for ag g ravated burg lary . The proof at trial established that someone broke into the victim’s residence during the daytime hours on J une 20, 2003, and stole the victim’s radio, speake rs, Play Station game , and a pig g y bank conta ining a

larg e amount of c hang e but did not take the victim’s larg e television set or othe r bulky items. A short time after the victi m re ported the bu rg lary , th e apa

rt me nt c omp le x’s m a int e na n c e s u p e rv i s o r

d i s c o v e r e d th e vic tim ’s Pla y Sta tio n g a me and a la rg e amount of c hang e conc eale d in a pair of pants that belong ed to the def endant, who ha d worke d that day

in an area near the victim’s apartment and who appe are d unusually anxious to leave the pre mises at the end of the day . The ne x t day , the victim’s radio wa s discovered h i d d en i n the closet of a vaca nt a

partment the defe ndant had been assig ned to clean the day of the burg lary , and i n s i d e t h e s a m e t yp e o f

p l a s t i c b a g t h e d e f

e n d a n th a d r e t r i e v e d f

r o m t h e b r e a k

r o o m t h e p r e v i o u s d a y. I n a dd iti on , the de fe nd a nt ha d be e n le ft a lon e to wo rk on the da y of the bu rg lary a nd ha d a pp are ntl y
wo rk e d th ro ug h h is u su a l lu nc h h ou r d e sp ite the fa c t th a t he wa s no t pa id to do so

. F ro m a ll the se fac ts, a rational jury could have rea sonably inferr ed bey ond a rea sonable doubt tha t t h e d ef endant bu rg lari zedthe vic tim ’s apa rt me nt. We c on c lud e , th e re fo re , th a t th e evi den ce wa s su ff ic ie nt t o sustain the defe ndant’s convic tion for ag g ravated burg lary

.

CO NC LU SION

We c on c lud e that th e c ir c ums ta nti a l evi de nc e in the c a se , v ie we d in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble
t o t h e S t a t e , w a s s u f

f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r tt h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f

o r a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l ar y. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ AL AN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE