### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs J uly 9, 2003
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SA NDERS CALD WELL Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-03034-35 Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

No. W2002-01595-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 4, 2003

T he Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building and vandalism in the Crimina l Court fo r Shelby County , and was sentenced to a total of seven yea

rs of confinement by

the trial court. The soleissue the Appellant raises on appeal is whether suffici ent evidenc e was pr esented at trial to convict him of the charged offenses of bur glary and vandalism. Finding no error, we af firm th e judgments of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed
R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , J., deliver ed the opinion of the

court, in which G ARY R. W ADE , P.J., and J OHN E VERE TT W IL LI AMS , J., joined. Juni S. Gang

uli, Memph

is, Tenne ssee, fo

r the app ellant, Sa

nders Ca ldwell.
Paul G. Summers , Attorne y General and Repor

ter; P. Robin Dixon, Jr., A ssistant A ttorney Genera l; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Betsy

Carnesale and Steven Jones, Assistant District Attorneys Gene

ral, for the appellee, State of Tennessee

.

OPINION
I. FACTUAL

BACKGROUND
In the early a

fternoon on December 10, 2002, an alarm wa s triggered at UWT Logistics on South Fourth A venue in M emphis, Te

nnessee . In r

esponse t o this incident, ADT, the alarm company which serviced UWT, contacted Mr. Charles Clark, a UWT employ ee, a nd told him that the back door of the UWT facility had been breached. I n response, Mr. Clark drove to the ware house t o inspect the back door. He testified

that the fence surrounding the fac ility had been cut and the back door of the U WT building had be en pried off its hin ges. Th

e piece of metal w

hich was used to v anda lize the building had been left next to the door. Upon further inspection, Mr. Clark notice d that some boxes of batteries had been stolen from UWT. He estimated that about eight ten-pound-2-

boxes, or $1200 worth of batteries, had been t aken, a nd that the dama

ge to the factor y do or cost about $600-700

to repai r. Mr. Cla

rk stated that no one

had cons ent to van dalize the building or remove the boxes containing batteries at that time.
Mr. Clark also testified that he noticed two black males with slende r builds a bout seve nty yards away f

rom the facility moving in a ma nner he described as “a fast walk to a run” ne ar railroad tracks behind the UWT facility. He a dmitted, however, on cross examination, that they w ere not carry ing any batterie s or burglary tools at the time he wi tn es se d t he m m ov in g a wa y fr om th e f ac to ry.
At the s ame time t

hat ADT h ad conta

cted Mr. Clark, it a

lso place d a call to

the Memph

is Police Department

r egard ing the b reach o f the war

ehouse’ s back do or. Offi cer Ada m Amendola responded

to th e c al l a nd we nt to th e f ac il it y. He testified that he interviewed Mr. Clark regarding the incident and confirmed the damage to the re ar c argo door and th e stolen b oxes of bat

teries. Officer Amendola also radioed for f urther assistance.
Officer Steven Sloa

n of the Me

mphis Police

Departm ent also r esponde d to the bur

glary call and searched the railroad tracks be hind the UWT facility. He testified that a pproximately 100 y ards from the warehouse, he observed two black males with

slender builds ca rry ing six or s even boxe s, walking away f

rom the warehouse. Officer Sloan testified that two tra ins, movi ng in opp osite directio ns, were traveling between him and the men when he witnessed

them, but that he could see “clear under” the trains. He admitted on cross examination that his hearing wa s obstructed, that he could not tell what the men were wearing, and that the men were not carr yin g any burgla ry tools with them.
After

the trains had passed, Officer Sloan and his partner followed the men. When a railroad officer with a dog approached

the men from the opposite direction, the men dropped the boxes they were carry

ing. Officer Sloan and his partner placed the menunder arrest. One of the men identified himself as Sande rs Caldwe ll, the Appellant. Officer Sloan also confirmed that the three boxes that the Appellant was carry

ing each weighed a

bout ten pounds, and that they containe d batteries.
Fi na ll y, Remell Garner

testified that

he was the other man who was arrested a long with the Appellan t. Garner testifie d that the

Appellan t came to h is house the afternoon that the crime was committed and said that he had several boxes of batteries lying outside. He also admitted that he had pled guilty to burglary

and vandalism resulting from the charg es in this case. He also testified that he never witnessed the Appellant possess or handle any burglary tools, that he had no cuts or scrapes on his hand, that the Appellant statedthe boxes were not stolen, and that he never saw the Appellant running the entire time they were together, even whe

n the police arrived.
Based on this evi dence, a jury in the Criminal Court f or Shelby Co unty con victed the Appellant of burglary

of a building and vandalism of an amount between $500 and $1000.

II. AN ALYS IS-3-

The App ellant alleges t

hat ther e is insuff

icient ev idence in the rec ord to supp ort his convictions for burglary

and vand alism. When

an accu sed chall en ges the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate

court’s standard

of review is whether, after consider ing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have f ound th e essential elementsof the cr

ime bey ond a rea sonable d

oubt. Ten n. R. App. P. 13( e); Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 ( 1979); State v. Duncan , 698 S .W.2d 6 3, 67 (Te nn. 1985) . This rule

applies to findi ngs of guilt based upon direct evidence, circ umstantial evidence, or a

combination of both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Pe nderg rass , 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
In determining the sufficiency of the evidenc e, this Cour t should not

re-wei gh or re -evalua

te the evidence. State v. Matthews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). No r may this Courtsubstitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence. State v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 1 999); Liakas v. State , 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956). Questions concerning the cr ed ib il it y of the wit nesses, t he weig ht and val

ue of the evidenc e, as well as all factual issues ra

ised by the evide nce are reso lved by the trier of f act. Liakas , 286 S.W.2d at 859. This Court must afford the State of Tennessee the stronge st legitimate view of the evidence containedin the record, as well as all reasonable infe rences which may be dr

awn from the evidence. State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). Because a ver dict of guilt against a defendant removes the presumption of innocen c e and raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted cr iminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidenc e was legally insufficient

to sustain a guilty verdict. Id.
In Tennessee, a person

commits burgla

ry who, witho

ut the ef fective consent o f the pro

perty owner, enters a building other than a habitation (or any portion thereof) not open to the public, with intentto commit a

felony , theft or

assault. Tenn. Cod

e Ann. § 39 -14-402( a)(1). A person is guilty of vandalis m when h e knowingly causes damage to, or the destruction of, a ny real or personal propert y of another, knowing that he does not have the ef fective consent of the owner. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-408(a). As the Appellant points out, other than the testimony of Office r Sloan andMr. Garner that they witnessed the Appellant carry ing the boxes of batteries, the Appellant’s convictions were based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the standard of review for sufficie ncy claims fo r guilt basedon circumstantial evidence is identical to guilt based on direct evide nce. Penderg

rass , 13 S.W.3d at 392-3. The weight of circumstantial evidence is for the jury to deter

mine. Williams v. State , 520 S .W.2 d 371, 374 (T enn. C rim. A pp. 19 74) (ci ting Patterso n v. State , 475 S.W.2d 201 (1971)).
In this case, both Mr. Clark and Officer Sloan testified that they saw a man resembling the Appellant moving rapidly a

way fr om the UWT warehouse. Officer Sloan also testified to arresting this man and identified him as the Ap pellant. Both Officer Sloan and the Appellant’s alleg ed accomplice, Remell Ga

rner, who pled g

uilty to burgl ary

and vand alism

in this case, testified that

they saw the Appellant in possession of boxes containing batteries. According to Garne r, the Appellant told Garner that he had batteries in his possession.-4-

From this evidence, the jury

was entitled to infer that the Appellant came into possession of the batterie s by

knowing ly v andalizing

and burglarizing

the UWT fa

cility . This inferenceis further supported by the

fact that Mr. Clark, upon responding to the alarm, witnessed the A ppellant walking within seventy y ards of the UWT property . Finally, Off icer Sloan arrested the

Appellan t, whom he saw carry ing the stolen property , about one hundred yar ds from the spot where the crimes took place.
The Appellant points out in his brief that Officer Sloan’s view of the Appella nt was obstructed by moving

trains. However, Officer Sloan testified that he could see “clea r under” the trains and was adamant that he saw two black males ca rrying box es moving away

from him. Furthermore, after th

e trains h ad passe d, Offic er Sl oan pur sued the Appellant, and arrested and handcuffed

him after he had dropped the boxes, wh ic h were identified as having batteries inside.
The Appellant also points out that no one witnessedhim carrying any burglary tools at any time, and that he did not run at any time, e ven w hen being followed by the police. However, Mr. Clark testified that burglary

tools were left at the scene. The jury was not required to infer that the Appellant’s failure to run indicatedthat the Appellant was innocent of the crimes. The Appellant may have c

hosen not to run for a variety of reasons , includin g a des ire to appear casual in front of the police andMr. Clark, to avoid a charge of resisting a rrest, or possibly bec ause the Appellant was fatigued from carry ing the boxes of batteries out of the building and toward the railroad trac ks. The Ap pellant was arrested after being seen less than 100 yar ds from the UWT complex carrying the stolen batteries away. We c onclude that the evidence presented at trial was suffic ient to sustain the Appellant’s convictions for burglary and vandalism in an amount between $500 and $1,000.
II I. CONCL

USION
We find that the evidence presented at trial was suff icient for the jury

to convict the Appel lant of bur glary and va ndali sm in an amo unt b etween $500 a nd $1, 000. A ccordi ngl y, t h e judgments of the trial court are AFF IRMED.

____________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE