T he r ecor d i s un cl ear i n i t s expl ana t i on of why t he D

. U

. I

. f our t h of f ens e was r educe d t o a D

. U

. I

. t hi r d of f ens e. 1 

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

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs D ec em be r 5, 200 6 STA TE OF TE N N ES SE E v . CHA RLE S E. HA RRISON
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 15903 Lee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2006- 01248-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 25, 2007

The de fenda

nt, Charles E. Ha

rrison, wa ived hi s rig ht to a jury and procee ded with a bench t rial. The trial court f

ound the def

endant guilty

of theft of proper

ty over $1000 ( Class D felony ), DrivingUnder the I nfl ue nc e (D .U .I .) fo ur thof fe ns e (C la ss E fe lony

), dr ivi ngon

a re vo ke d li c e ns e (C la ss A misdemeanor) , and violation o f t h e i m p l i ed consent law (Class A misdemea nor). The trial court sentenc ed the de fenda

nt to an eff

ective se ntence of se ven y ear s and six months. The defe ndant rec eived six y ear s and si x months as a Rang e I I offe nder f or the thef t conviction; eleven months and twenty -nine day s for the D.U.I

. conviction; eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s for the dr iving on a re voked licens e co n v i ct i on; and five da y s for violation of the implied conse nt law. The misdemeanor se ntence s were imposed concur rently with eac h other but conse cutively to the felony c o n v i c t i o n
. A tt h e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , t h e D

. U

. I. f o u rt ho f f e n s e c o n v i c t i o nw a s am e n d e d t o D

. U

. I. third offe nse (Class A misdemea nor). T h e d efe ndant cha lleng es only the suffic iency

of the e vidence 1 to s up po rt

the the ft c on vic tio n, c on te nd ing that th e State fa ile d to pr ov e the de fe nd ant i nte nd e d to deprive the owner

of his proper

ty . We conclude that sufficient e vidence was pre sented to support the theft c onviction bey ond a re asonable doubt. We affirm the judg ments of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
Donna L . Har g rove, D istrict Publi c De fende r, and A ndrewJ . Dea ring , I I I , A s s is ta

nt Publi c De fende r, for the a ppellant, Charles E. H arr ison.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil lia m M

. M c Co w n , D is tr ic t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; an d

M ic h a e l D

. Ra

n d le s , A s s is ta

n t D istric t Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.-2- OP IN ION
This c ase involves the defe ndant taking a 1992 For d F- 250 truck fr om the owner , a for mer e mpl oy e r. On

a pp e a l, w e mus t de te rm ine “ wh e the r, afte r v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the pr osecution, 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 (1979). Ac cording ly , we will not rew eig h the evidenc e, but, instea d, we will pre sume that the trier of fa ct ha s re s olved all conf licts in the testimony

and dra wn all re asonable infere nces f rom the evidenc e in favor of the State. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); S tate v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Te nn. 1978). Questions about witness cre dibilit y are resolved by the trier of

fac t. See State v. Bla

nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Although the def endant wa s c on vic te d in

a be nc h tr ia l, t

he fi nd ing s o f t

he tr ia l ju dg e c arr

y the same we ig ht a s a

jur y verd ic t. State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
The de fenda

nt was convic ted of thef

t over $1000. “A pe rson commits theft of prope rty if, with intent to deprive the owner of proper ty , the person knowing ly obtains or exercises c ontrol over the property without the owner’ s eff ective c onsent.” T.C.A. § 39-14- 103. To “de prive” means to: (A ) With ho ld pr op e rt

y fr om the ow ne r pe rm ane ntl y or fo r s uc h a

pe ri od of tim e as to substantially

dim i n i s h t h e value or enjoy ment of the prope rty

to the owner ; (B ) With ho ld pr op e rt

y or c a us e it t o b e wi thh e ld f

or the purp os e of

re sto ri ngit only upon pay ment of a r ewa

rd or other

compensation; or (C) Dispose of prope rty or use it or transfe r any interest in it under circ umstances t h a tm ak e i t s r e s t o r a t i o nu n l i k e l y. T.C.A. § 39-11-106( a)( 8).
I n the instant case , the amount of the the ft is not at issue. The owne r testified that the va lue of the 1992 F ord F -250 truck w as appr ox imately $5000. He said that he rec ently repla ced the truck’s motor at a cost of $5000. The defenda nt had pre viously

worke d for the owner but wa s not working for him at the time of the offe nse. The defenda nt conce des that he obta ined and e x erc ised control over the proper

ty without permission. The owner saw the defe ndant driving the truck a nd followed him un til the de fe nd a

nt d ro ve the tr uc k into a dit c h. Th e ow ne r w a ite d unti l th e po lic e arr ive d w hil e the def endant r emained in the ve hicle. Next, we revie w the evide nce pr esente d to determine what a trie r of f act c ould infer a

bout the def enda n t ’s i n t ent from the fac ts and circ umstances surr ounding his a ctions. At trial, the de fe nd ant a dmi tte d ta

kin g the ve hic le wi tho ut t he ow ne r’ s k

no wl e dg e or c on se nt at a

pp ro xima te ly 4:00 a.m. Approxim ately three hours later , the def endant wa s co nfronted by the owner , a for

mer employ er. The defe ndant sped a way in an attempt to esca

pe. The owner

followed unti l the de fe nd ant d

ro ve the tr uc k into a dit c h. Of

fi c e rs arr ive d a

nd fo un d th e de fe nd ant i nto xicate d a nd a lso found his belong ings in the t ruck. The magne tic signs, whic h adver tised the owner ’s construc tion company , had been removed from the truck. At trial, the defendant admitt ed that he told the police that a man named Randy

picked him up at the hospital and left the truck with him. The trial c ourt-3-

he ard the te sti mony of a ll wi tne sse s and re vie we d a vid e o ta pe of bo th the de fe nd ant’ s arr e st a nd his su bs e qu e nt a c tio ns a t th e po lic e de pa rtme nt, wh ic h in c lud e d his re fu sa l to take a B re a tha ly

zer te st. Th e tr ia l c ourt

c on c lud e d th a t th e de fe nd ant’ s st or ie s w e re no t be lie va ble , wh ic h, a s th e tr ie r o f f a c t, was its prer og ative.
After viewing the evidence in the l ight most favor able to the pr osecution, we conclude that a ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h ave 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 doubt.
Conclusion
We conclude suf

ficient e vidence was pre sent to establish all elements of the offe nse of thef t ov e r $ 10 00 , a

nd we a ff ir m th e jud g me nts fr om t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE