### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 6, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO Y G ENE RU SSOM

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Henderson Coun ty No. 05095-2 Donald Allen, Ju dge

No. W2006-01415-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 24, 2007

The Appellant, Roy Gene Russom, wa s convicted by a Hende rson County jury of violating the Motor Vehicle Habitual Of

fende r Act and was subsequently sentenc ed, as a R ang e I I offe nder, to four y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. On appe al, Russom raises the sing le iss ue of suf ficienc y of the evidenc e. F ollowing r eview, the judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

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

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Hewitt Chatman, Assistant Public Defe nder, Jackson, Tenne ssee, f or the A p p ellant, Roy

Gene Rus so m.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Jer ry Woo da ll, Di str ic t Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l; an d Bi ll R. Mar tin , A ssi sta

nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the A ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On J une 3, 2005, the Appe llant, wh o , at the time, was ser ving a community

corr ections sentenc e, met with his case office r, Vicki Parrish, at her office in L exington. Parrish met with the Appellant on a w eekly

basis and wa s awa

re that his driver’s lice nse had been revoke d afte r he wa s decla red a habitual motor vehicle offe nder ( “HMVO ”). D espite the fact that his driving pr ivilege s had bee n revoke d, Parrish saw the Appellant driving a vehicle on May 13, 2005. On May 20, 2005, sh e sp ok e wi th t

he Ap pe lla

nt a nd wa rn e d h im o f t

he c on se qu e nc e s.

F oll ow ingthe ir

June 3 me e tin g , the Ap pe lla nt l e ft Parr ish ’s of

fi c e , a nd sh e ob se rv e d h im rd walk appr ox imately

a block a

nd a half down t h e st ree t. Parrish, who had a lso left her of fice
, observe d a 1989 Ford Thunderbird, t he car she had previously seen the Appellant driving on May 13 , parke d in front of a local re staurant. The Appellant g ot into the vehicl e, b acke d out, and th-2-

proce eded to dr ive down the stre et, at which point Parr ish called the police. She was able to observe that no one else was insi de the ve hicle. Parish followe d the vehicle on foot as it proce eded approximately

two blocks do wn M ai n Street bef ore dr iving onto the pa

rkinglot of a conve nience store. Parr ish, who was unable to cross the stre et bec ause of traff ic, wit nessed the Appellant ex it the vehicle a nd enter the store. At this point, Parrish saw J im L awsome, an ag ent with the Tenne ssee Al c oh oli c B e ve ra g e Com mis sio n, and a sk e d fo r his a ssi sta nc e

. B oth L aws ome and Parr ish proce eded to the parking lot where the Appellant’ s car rema ined. The A

ppellant subsequently

exit ed the store a nd returne d to his vehicle. He proce eded to ope n the driver’ s side door and place d a quar t

o f b e e r i n t h e b a c k s e a t , a t w h i c h p o i n t L aw s o m e a p p r o a c h e d an d p l a c e d t h e A p p e l l an ti nc u s t o dy. The ke y s to the car

wer e found in the A

ppellant’s possession. Withi n moments, Officer Ricky McAdams of the L exington Police Depa rtment arr ived and tra

nsported the Appe llant to the police statio n. Mc Ad a ms, wh o did not qu e sti on the Ap pe lla nt, he ard the Ap pe lla

nt s ay that he ha d h a d to dr i v e h i s m o t h e r

t o W a l

- m art

. M c A d a m s o b t a i n e d a c e rt i f i e d c o p y o f t h e A p p e l l an t ’ s dr i v i n g h i s t o r y, which ver ified that the Appe llant’s driver’ s license ha d been revoke d and that he had be en dec lare d a habitual motor ve hicle off ender

.

On October 24, 2005, a Hende rson County g rand jury returne d a one-co u n t i n dictment char g ing the Appellant with driving afte r beingdecla red a habitual motor vehicle offe nder. F oll ow inga

Marc h 1 7, 20 06 tr ia l, the App ell ant wa s c on vic te d a s c ha rg e d. He wa s su

bs e qu e ntl y sentenc ed, as a

Rang e I Ioffe nder, to a

term of four y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. Following the denial of

his moti on for ne w trial, the Appe llant filed the instant timely appea l.

Ana lys is

On appe al, the Appe llant challeng es th e s u f f ic iency of the e vidence supporting his c onviction for dr iving a fter be i n g d ec l ar ed a ha bitual motor vehicle off

ender . I n consideringthe issue of

su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e a

pp ly th e rul e that w he re the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e is

c ha lle ng e d, the re le va

nt q ue sti on fo r t he re vie wi ngc ourt

is “ wh e the r, a ft e r v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in
t h e l i gh t most favorable to the [S tate], anyr a ti o n a l t r ie r o f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e e ssential elements of th e crime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct . 278 1, 27 89 (1 97 9) ; se e als o T e n n

. R. A p p

. P. 1 3 ( e )

. M o r e o v e r , th e St a te is e n ti tled to the str o n ges t leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable infere nces w hich may be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H

arris , 8 39 S.W. 2d

54 , 7 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . A ll q ue sti on s invo lvi ngthe c re dib ili ty of witnesses, 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. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . This court will not

rew eig h or re evaluate the evide nce pr esente d. State v. Cabbage
, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

.

“A g u il ty v e r d ic t b y th e ju r y , a p p r o v e d b y th e tr ia l ju d g e , a c c r e d it s th e te s ti mony of the witnesses for the State and r esolves all conf licts in favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Grac e , 49 3 S. W.2 d 47 4, 47 6 (T e nn

. 19 73 ). A j ur y c on vic tio n r e mov e s th e pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e wi th which a de fenda

nt is initially cloake d and re place s it with one of g uilt, so t hat on appe al, a c onvicted defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the evidenc e i s insufficient. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982)

. These rules are applicable t o finding s of g uilt predicate d upon direc t-3-

evidenc e, circ umstantial e vidence
, or a combination of both. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. As noted, the Ap p el l an t wa s convicted of driving afte r beingdecla red a habitual motor

ve hic le of

fe nd e r. Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 5 5- 10 -6 16 (a ) ( 20 06 ) p rovi des that “ [i]t is unlawful for

any person to oper ate a

ny motor vehicle in this state while the judgme nt or order of the court prohibiting the oper ation rema ins in effe ct.” On a ppeal, the A

ppellant asser

ts that the testimony of Ms. Parrish wa s not credible beca use her testimony was inconsistent w ith por tions of Ag e nt L aws ome ’s te sti mony and be c a us e he r re la tio ns hip wi th the Ap pe lla nt a s his c om mun ity

corr ections off

icer “and he r actions on J une 3, 2005 as t estified to by her, c lear ly

sug g ests that she would use whatever

means ne cessa

ry to find him in som e ty

pe of violation. ” M o re o v er, the Ap pe lla nt c om pl ain s that

ne ith e r A g e nt L aws ome no r O ff ic e r M c Ad a ms a c tua lly

wi tne sse d h im drive the c ar but, ra

ther, ba sed his ar re st on the testimony of Parr ish, which was “ questionable at best.” Essentially , the Appellant’ s entire a rg ument is based upon a c redibility challeng e.

We a c kn ow le dg e that Ms . Pa rr ish ’s te sti mony

c on fl ic te d with that of

Ag e nt L aws ome ’s wi th reg ard to whe re Par

rish was standing when the Appellant exit ed the convenie nce store. Ac cording to P arr ish , s he wa s st and ingbe hin d th e Ap pe llan t’ s veh ic le wi th A g e nt L aws ome . In c on tr a st, L awsome te stified that Parrish was still trying to cross the street when he approa ched the Appellant and that he ha d to wait for her to cross in order for her t o positively identify the Appellant. How ever , this conflicting te stimony was c lear ly

place d befor e the j u ry

. Additionally , it is unclear f rom the

rec ord as to w hat testimony the Appellant is r efe rring to w hen he sug g ests that Parrish’ s ac tions

su g g e st s he “ wo uld

us e wh a te ve r me ans ne c e ssa ry” to f ind him in v iol a tio n. Th e Ap pe lla nt m e re ly

re lie s u po n th is b lank e t a sse rt ion , w hic h w e do no t f ind to b e su pp or te d by the e vid e nc e be fo re us

. Moreove r, our r eview of

the evidenc e is not equivalent to that of t he jury ’s, as a ll questions invol ving the cr edibility

of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, a nd all fac tual issues are resolved by the trier of

fac t, not this Court. See P appas , 754 S.W .2d at 623. The jury viewed the wi t n es s es , h ea rd t h ei r t es t i m o n y , an d o b s er v edt h ei r d em ea n o r o nt h e s t an d

. W h i l e w e a ck n o wl ed ge

cer tain conflicts in the witnesses’ testimony , it was the jury ’s pre rog ative to weig h the cr edibility of the witnesses a

nd t o re s o l v e any

conflicts in their testimony . This court will not rewe igh or

ree valuate the evidenc e pre sented. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835.

We m us t a lso re

je c t th e Ap pe lla

nt’ s c on te nti on

that th e arres t was no t su pp or te d b e c a us e L awsome a

nd McAdams did not wit ness the Appe llant driving the vehicle, e specia lly in view of the fac t that we have determined that Parrish’s credibility as a w itness will not be reeva luated. A law enfor ceme nt office r m ay make a war rantless arre st “[w]hen a felony has in fac t been c ommitt ed, and the offic er ha s rea sonable c ause f or believing the per son arr ested to have committed it.” T.C.A. § 40-7-103( a)( 3) (2006) . I n other wor ds, an office r must have “proba ble cause to be lieve the pe rson to be ar rested ha s committed the crime.” State v. Lawrence
, 154 S.W .3d 71, 75 (Tenn. 2005) (citing Sta te v . Le wis , 3 6 S

. W

. 3 d 88, 98 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) ). Probable c ause to a rre st ex ists if the fac ts and circ umstances within an office r’s knowledg e are “‘suffic ient to warr ant a pr udent [person] in be lieving that the [i ndividual] had committed or was committing an off ense.’ ” State v. Bridges
, 9 6 3 S

. W

. 2 d

4 8 7
, 4 9 1 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Be c k v . O hio , 379 US. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225 (1964);-4-

State v. Me lson
, 638 S.W .2d 342, 350-51 (Tenn. 1982)). Clea rly , in the case befor e us, the off icer s had suff icient proba

ble ca use to ar re s t b as ed upon the infor mation provided by

Parrish, whom L awsome spe cifica lly

testified he be lieved to be a reliable person. She witnesse d the Appel l ant driving the ca

r and, as his community

corr ections off

icer , was a

war e that he ha d been de clar ed a HMVO.

Viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the State, the e vidence is more than sufficie nt to support the conviction. The re cord c lear ly established that the Appe l l an t h ad been decl ar e d a H M V O o n D e c e mb e r 1 0
, 1 9 8 1

. Pa r r is h
, w h o kn e w th e A p p e ll an t h a d b e e n decla red a HMVO a nd had previously witnessed him driving a ny way , saw the A

ppellant g et into his car, whic h was pa rked a short distance f

rom wher e their me etingtook place, a nd drive d o wn the stree t. She sp e c if ic a lly te sti fi e d that sh e wa s a ble to s e e tha

t no on e e lse wa s in

the ve hic le e xce pt t

he Ap pe lla

nt. Acc ording to Parrish, she followe d the vehicle on foot roug hly two blocks, never losing sight of the

car , until it pulled into the convenience store. Both Parrish and L awsome w itnessed the Appe llant exit the store, approa ch the same vehicle, and place a quar t of bee r in the bac k seat. The Appellant was in possession of the car key s, and no one else was in or approa ched the car during the per iod of tim e that the Ap pe lla

nt wa s arr e ste d. Mo re ov e r, Of fi c e r M c Ad a ms l a te r h e ard the Ap pe lla

nt a dmi t that he had be en driving the ca r. This evidenc e is clea

rly sufficie nt to support the conviction.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the Appellant’s judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE