B e fo re trial, the trial c o u rt o rd e re d tha t t h e a p p e llan t b e e v a lua te d to d e te rm ine w h e the r he w a s c o m p e te n t t o 1

st and t ri al

. T he eval uat i o n i s no t i ncl ud ed i n t he reco rd o n a p p eal ; ho wever, the t ri al co urt l at er ent ered an ord er al l o wi ng the a p p e llan t t o re p re se n t him se lf. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 11, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DWAYNE TYRONE SI MMONS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Marshall County

No. 15813 Charles Lee , Judge

No. M2004- 01105-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 10, 2005

A Marsha ll Cou n t y C i rc u i t Court jury convicted the appellant, Dw ay ne Ty rone Simmons, of ag g ravated burg lary

and thef t of property v al u ed l es s than $500. The tria l court sentenc ed the appellant to conc urre nt sentence s of eight y ear s, ten months for the ag g ravated burg lary conviction and nine months, eig hteen da y s for the theft conviction. I n this a ppeal, the appe llant raises va rious issues, including tha t the evidenc e is insufficient to support his a g g ravated burg lary conviction and that he was unable to pr esent photog raphs of the home in question to the jury . Upon re view of the

re c or d a ndthe pa

rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

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 s o f the Ci r c uit Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Dwayne Ty

rone Simmons, Pro se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Pr e sto n Sh ip p, Assis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam Michael McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; and Weakley E. Ba rnar d, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

The a ppellant re prese nted himself at trial. J immy C. Callaha n testified that on Aug ust 19, 1 2003, he wa s at home and saw the appellant at the unoccupie d house next door. The appellant wa s
car ry ing items out of the house and putting the m in his c ar

. Mr. Callahan w alked ove r to the-2-

app e lla nt a ndtol d th e app e lla nt tha t F ra nk Wel ls o wn e d th e ho us e . M r. Ca llaha n th e n r e turne d to his own home and a sked his wife to telephone Rita Holoman, Frank Wells’ sister. Ms. Holoman asked tha t Mr. Callahan re t u rn t o t h e house to see what the a ppellant was doing . Mr. Callahan walked ba ck to the house a nd asked the appellant what he was doing there . The a ppellant told Mr. Callahan that he was thinking about buy ing the prope rty . Mr. Callahan the n had his wife te lephone the police.

Offic er Scott B rade n of the L ewisburg Police Depa rtment testified at trial that on Aug ust 19, 2003, he wa s dispatched to 1781 Nashville Hig hway to investiga te a r eport of a suspicious person and a suspicious ve hicle. He arrived at the location about 7:00 p.m., a nd it wa s still light outside. Offic er B rade n saw the a ppellant ’s s t at i o n wag on in the driveway and saw the appe llant walking from the house. The front door of the house wa s open, and O ffice r B rade n asked the appellant what he wa s doing. The appel lant told the office r that he w as intere sted in buy ing the house and w as “che cking it out.” Office r B rade n asked the appe llant if the appe llant knew the owne r of the house , and t h e appe llant stated that the house be longe d to Fra nk Wells. Officer Br aden the n asked the

app e lla nt i f h e ha d tak e n a nythi ng fr om the ho us e , a ndthe app e lla nt r e pli e d th a t he ha d ta ke n s ome pots, pans, and ca ndleholders. The appellant told the off icer that he knew Mr. Wells a nd that he had tho ug ht it wo uld be a ll ri g ht fo r him to take the ite ms fr om the ho me

. Of fi c e r B ra de n sa w the ite ms in the fr on t pa sse ng e r se a t of the app e lla nt’ s statio n wa g on a nd tol d the app e lla nt t o ta ke the ite ms back into the house . Offic er B rade n also saw a n old cash re g ister in the bac k of the a ppellant’s statio n w a g on . A c c or din g to the app e lla nt, he ha d b ou g ht the c a sh re g ist e r ea rl ie r tha t day in P ula sk i.

Offic er B rade n spoke with dispatch and r equeste d that the owner of the house be conta cted

re g ard ing a

de sc ri pti on of

the ite ms i n th e ho us e . D isp a tc h r e la te d to O ff ic e r B ra de n th a t a n o ld c a sh reg ister had be en in the home. Of fice r B rade n then ar

rested the appe l l an t , and the a ppellant later admitted that he did not know Mr. Wells. After arr esting the appellant, Offic er Br aden inspe cted the fr on t do or of

the ho us e a ndsa w tha t th e do or fr a me ha d b e e n d a ma g e d. He a lso we nt i nto the ho us e
a ndsa w e ndta

ble s a ndc ha ir s in the liv ing ro om a nda be d in th e up stai rs be dr oo m. O n c ro sse xami natio n, Of

fi c e r B ra de n tes tif

ie d tha t he did no t see the app e lla nt t a ke a ny ite ms o ut o f the ho us e and neve r saw the appellant g o into the home. He state d that the house wa s habitable.

F r a n k We ll s te s ti f

ie d th a t h e o w n e d th e p r o p e r ty a t 1 7 8 1 N a s h v il le H ig h w a y a n d tha t the house had be en used a s a rental property since 1995. He acknowledg ed that on Aug ust 19, 2003, the home was for sale or rent. He stated that a couch and chair wer e in the l iving room and that a be d was in the upsta i rs b edroom. He stated that at the time of the burg lary , no one wa s living in the house but that he ha d chec ked on the home in e arly Aug ust a nd all of the doors wer e locke d at that time and the front door fra me was not da mag ed. He said that he did not know the appellant, that he did not give the appellant pe rmission to go into the house, and tha t the items the appellant took fr om the house we re worth less than $500. On cross-e x amination, Mr. Wells testified that the house ha d been va cant f

or a f ew months but that a family had re nted the house until a fe w months before the burg lary

.-3-

Serg eant Ma tt Owens o f t h e L ewisburg Police Depa rtment testified that he w ent to 1781 Na sh vil le Hi g hw a y

on Au g us t 19. Whe n he arrive d, Of fi c e r B ra de n wa s pre se nt an d ta lki ng wi th the appellant. Serg eant Owens saw a cash reg ister in the appellant’ s station w ag on and a de ep fry er, a candleholder , and cooking utensils in the car’s front passeng er seat. Serg eant Owens hea rd Off icer Br aden a sk the appellant what he was doing the re a nd if the appe llant knew the owne r of the home

. Ac co rd i n g t o t h e a p p el l an t , h e h ad b ee n t h i n k i n g ab o u t b u y i n g t h e h o u s e a n d “w as ch ec k i n g t h i n gs
ou t to se e wh a t ne e de d to be re pa ir e d. ” Th e app e lla nt a lso tol d O ff ic e r B ra de n th at F ra nk

Wel ls owned the house and that the a p p el l an t d i d not think Mr. W ells would mind if the appellant took ite ms f ro m th e hous e. I nit ia lly , th e app e lla nt s a id tha t he ha d b ou g ht the c a sh re g ist e r i n Pu la sk i. Howeve r, the a

ppellant later

admitted that he had ta

ken the c ash re g ister from the house

.
J onathan Rasha d Hig htower testified for the a ppellant that he wa s familiar with the house at 1781 Nashville Hig hway

and that no one ha d lived in the house for about t wo y ear s. When asked if the home wa s i n go o d co n dition, he stated, “Not re ally to live in.” On cr oss-examination, Mr. Hig htower a dmitted that he resided in the Marsha ll County jail a nd had been convicted rec ently of ag g r a v a te d r o b b e r y , b u r g la r y , a tt e mp te d b u r g la

r y , a n d f a il u r e to ap p e ar

. T h e ju r y c o n v ic ted the appellant of

ag g ravated burg lary , a Class C felo ny , and thef t of property

valued less than $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenc ed the appellant as a Rang e I I offe nder to c oncurr ent
se nte nc e s o f e ight y e ars , te n mo nth s f or the a g g ra va te d b ur g lary c on vic tio n a ndnin e mon ths , eig hteen da y s for the the ft conviction.

I n his brief, the a

ppellant lists the foll o wi n g t h re e i ssues in his statement of the issues prese nted for r eview: (1) that he should ha ve rec eived a full mental evalua tion be fore trial; (2) that he wa s not allowed to show picture s of the home in question to the j ury ; and (3) that Offic er B rade n ill e g a lly se arc he d h is c ar. I n th e a

pp e lla nt’ s st a te me nt of fa c ts, he app e ars to r a ise ma ny mor e iss ue s, including tha t the evidence is insufficient to support hi s ag g ravated burg lary conviction bec ause the State f a il e d to s h o w th a t th e h o u s e is a “ h ab it a ti o n

. ” H o w e v e r , th e o n ly is s u e in c lu d e d in the appellant’ s motion for new t rial i s the i ssue reg arding his not being allowed to pre sent photog raphs to the jury

. T h e r e f

o r e , w e w il l a d d r e s s th a t is s u e

. We w il l a ls o a d d r e s s th e is s u e r e g ar ding the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence beca

use i t does not need to be raised i n a motion for new trial in order to secure appellate revie w. See State v. Boxley , 76 S.W .3d 381, 389-90 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2001). Ho we ve r, be c a us e the a

pp e lla nt f a ile d to ra ise the re ma ini ng iss ue s in his mot ion fo r ne w tr ia l, the se issues are waived. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e)

.
II. Ana lys is

A. Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e When an appe llant challeng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence , the standar d for revie w is “whe ther , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.” Jac ks on v. Vi rgin ia, 44 3 U.S . 307 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 13 (e ). On app e a l, the Sta te is e nti tle d to th e str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f the e vid e nc e a nda ll-4-

rea sonable or le g itimate infere nces w hich m ay be dra wn there from. State v. Cabba g e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Questions conce rning the cre dibilit y of witnesses and the weig ht and value to be aff orded the evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual issues ra ised by the evidenc e, ar e re solved by the j u ryas t ri ero f f

ac t

. S t at e v

. Bl an d , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h i s co u rt wi l l n o tre we i gh

or re evalua te the evide nce. I d. Be caus e a j u ryconviction re moves the pre sumption of innocence with whi ch a de fendant is ini tially cloake d at trial and r eplac es it on appea l with one of g uilt, a

c on vic te d de fe nd a nt ha s the bu rd e n o f d e mon str a tin g to this c ou rt that th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt. State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
Ag g ravat ed b u rglary

occur s when a

person e nters a ha

bitation without t he conse nt of the property owner “and c ommits or attempts to c ommit a felony , theft or a ssault.” Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 39 -1 4- 40 2( a )( 3) , - 40 3( a ). A “ ha bit a tio n” is “any st ru c tur e , in c lud ing bu ild ing s, mod ule un its , mobile homes, trailers, and tents which is desig ned or adapted f or the ove rnig ht acc ommodation of pe rs on s. ” A s truc tur e do e s n ot h a ve to b e c ur re ntl y oc c up ie d in ord e r to be a ha bit a tio n. Se e Sta te v. L ang ford, 994 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tenn. 1999).

Ta ke n in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the state , we c on c lud e that the e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o support the appe llant’s conviction for a g g ravated burg lary . The a p p ell ant ar g ues that bec ause the house wa s in disarray

and in nee d of structura l repa irs, it cease d to be a habitation. Howeve r, Off icer Br aden te stified that the house wa s habitable. Moreove r, Fr ank Wells testified that the house had

serve d as a r ental home since 1995 and that a family had lived in the house up until a few months befor e the bur gl ar y

. Ac cording to the definition of a ha bitation, the house only

neede d to be desig ned or adapted for t he overnig ht acc ommodation of persons. The structure in question met the applicable statutory

definition of “ha

bitation,” and t h e appellant was prope rly convicted of ag g ravated burg lary

.
B. A dmissibi lityof Photogr aphs
Next, the appellant claims that he was una ble to prese nt photogr aphs of the home to the jury to show that the house in question was not a habitation. We hold that the appellant is not entit led to relief on this issue.

The rec ord ref

lects that on the morning of trial, befor e the State called its fir st witness, the appellant told the trial c ourt that he ne eded his wife to te stify on his be half. The trial court stated that it would issue an instanter subpoena and would attempt to have her serve d immediately . Be fore the State rested its ca se-in-c hief, the f ollowing e x chang e occ urre d:

THE CO U RT : I a m in f

o r me d b y th e c le rk ’ s o f

f ic e th a t the defe ndant’s wife , who we a re attempting to - - wh o s e subpoena has been issued, ha s contac ted the cle rk’s office a nd said that her mother has passe d awa y

y esterday

and she w ould not be here

.W e n ot e t h at t h er e ar e t h r ee i n di ct men t s i n t h e r ec or d, on e f or ag g r av at ed bu r g l ar y a n d t wo f or mi s deme an or 2

t h ef t

. T h er e ar e al s o t h r ee cor r es pon di n g j u dg men t s of con v i ct i on i n t h e r ec or d. Ac cor di n g t o t h e j u dg men t for ms for the the fts, the a p p e llan t wa s c o n v ic te d o f t w o c o u n ts o f m isd e m e a n o r t h e ft a n d the se c o n d c o u n t w a s m e rg e d into the fi rs t. H owe v er , t h e j u r y ’ s v er di ct for ms a n d t h e t r i al t r an s cr i pt i n di ca t e t h at t h e appe l l an t w as c on v i ct ed of on l y on e cou n t of

a g g ra vat ed burgl ary and one co unt of m i sdem eano r t hef t

. N evert hel ess , we canno t dis cern f rom t he reco rd t he d isp o sitio n o f t h e se c o n d the ft ind ic tm e n t.
-5-

So m y qu e sti on fo r M r. S im mo ns is: Do y ou wa nt m e to direc t this subpoena to be serve d and that s h e b e fo rce d to be her e, Mr . Si mmo ns ?

MR. SI MMO NS: I

thi nk no t.

THE COURT: Pardon me?

MR. SI MMONS: I

think not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are y ou reque sting that the instanter subpoena which y ou have r equeste d for y our wife be withdra wn?

MR. SI MMONS: There a re certain items in her possession that I need, a nd those are photogr aphs of the pla ce.

The trial c ourt then off

ere d to let the appellant tele phone his wife. H oweve r, the appe llant was unable to conta ct her

.
The a ppellant contends tha t his wife had important photogr aphs of the house in question and that he wa s u na

ble to p re se nt tho se ph oto g ra ph s to the jury . H ow e ve r, the app e lla nt did no t r e qu e st a continuanc e in order to secur e the prese nce of the wit ness. There fore , we hold that the appe llant has wa ived this issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a)

.
III. Conclusi on

Ba sed upon the foreg oing and t he record as a whole, we affirm the judgments of c onviction fo r a g g ra va te d b ur g lary

a ndthe ft

. 2

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE