### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 12, 200 5
ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. A LL EN D
. BA LD WIN

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

No. 01-13330 J.C. M cLin, Ju dge

No. W2004-02715-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Septem ber 1, 2005

A Shelby CountyCrimina l Court jury convicted the appellant, Allen D . Ba ldwin, of ag g ravated robbery , a Class B felony , and robbe ry , a Class C felony . The trial c ourt merg ed the r obbery conviction in to th e a g g r a v a te d r o b b e r y c o n v ic ti o n a n d s e n te n c e d th e ap p e ll a n t to te n y e ar s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. On appeal, t he appellant claims that the t rial court err ed by ruling that t h e S t a t e c o u l d i m p e a c h h i m w i t h h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r r o b b e r y a n d t h e f

t i f h e c h o s e t o t e s t i f

y. Up on re vie w o f 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 nt o f 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 of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Ga rl a ndEr g ud e n ( on app e a l) a ndDo nn a Armst ard(at tr ia l) , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Allen D. B aldwin.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt er; S eth P. Ke stn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Stepha nie J ohnson, Assistant D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

Th is c a se re la te s to the app e lla nt’ s r ob bin g Ni c ole Sto ke s o n Ma y 22 , 20 01

. On Ma y 22 , M s. Sto ke s w a lke d to the L itt le Re d M ark e t a t th e corn er of De c a tur a ndMe rriw e the r S tr e e ts i n Me mp hi s. She ha d w a lke d to the sto re in o rd e r t o g e t c ha ng e fo r a on e -h un dr e d- do lla

r b ill

. Howeve r, t h e s t o re cl erk w as busy and would not g ive Ms. Stokes chang e. Ms. Stokes walked outside and boug ht two “nickel ba g s” of marijuana fr om a drug deale r in order to ge t chang e. The drug deale r g ave M s

. Stokes the marijuana a nd ninety dollars. While Ms. S tokes was standing outside the store with the ninety dollars in he r hand, the appellant jumped out f rom behind a bush,-2-

put a small, silver handg un to Ms. Stokes’ head, and demanded t he money and her purse. Ms. S tokes g ave the m to t h e ap p ell ant, and he ran a way . At trial, Ms. Stokes testified that in addition to t he ninety dollars she wa s holding, she ha d another one-hundr ed-dollar

bill in her purse.
Ms. Stokes telephoned the police

. When they arrived at the L ittle Red Market, the of fice rs lear n ed t h at t he appe llant lived in the Dix ie Homes a partment c omplex with his sis ter, Dor othy Gwy nn. The off

icer s went to Ms. Gwy nn’s apa rtment and found the appellant sitting on the couch. They sear ched the appellant and found one hundred seventy -five dollar s, including a one-hundr eddollar bill, in his pocket. The off icer s also found a small, s i l v er h an d gun under a couch c ushion. The off icer s transported the appellant to the pol ice department, where he gave a stateme nt. I n the statement, the a

ppellant admitted to robbing Ms. Stokes. However , he said t h at he did not use a
wea pon during the robbery

. The jury convicted him of ag g ravated robbery and robbery , and the tria l court mer g ed the c onvictions.

II. Ana lys is

Th e app e lla nt c la ims that th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y ru lin g that th e Sta te c ou ld imp e a c h h im w ith his prior convictions for r obbery and thef t if he chose to testify

. He co n t en d s t h at the trial c ourt should have ru le d th a t th e p r io r c o n v ic ti o n s w e r e in a d mi s s ib leb e c a u s e th e y w e r e s im il ar

to the crimes in question. The State a rg ues that the trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the State could impeac h the appe llant with his prior convictions. We ag ree with the State.

The recor d ref

lects t hat before trial, the State notified the appe llant of its intent to i mpeac h him with his 1994 convictions for r obbery and thef t of property

valued more than five hundr ed dollars if he c hose to testify

. The defense objected, arg uing that the proba tive value of the evidenc e was substantially

outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice. T h e trial c ourt ruled that the appellant’ s cre dibilit y

was a “ce ntral issue” in the c ase a nd that the cr imes were admissible as crimes of dis ho ne sty . B a se d u po n th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s ru lin g , the app e lla nt c ho se no t to te sti fy . H ow e ve r, in
a n o ff e r o f p ro of

, h e state d th a t he didno t r ob the vic tim

. Rule 609(a) of the Te nnessee Rules of Evidence provides that a witness may be impeac hed by evidenc e of a

prior convic tion. Howeve r, the prior conviction must be a fe lony conviction or a
conv ic ti o n o f

a n o f f e n s e in v o lv in g d is h o n e s ty o r a f a ls e s tate me n t. T e n n

. R. E v id

. 6 0 9 ( a)( 2). Mo re ov e r, if

the wi tne ss t o b e imp e a c he d is the accus ed in a c ri min a l pr os e c uti on , th e Sta te mus t provide “ rea sonable written notice of the impeac hing c onviction before trial,” a nd, upon reque st, the
c ou rt mus t de te rm ine that the pr ior c on vic tio n’ s “ pr ob a tiv e va lue on c re dib ili ty ou tw e ig hs its un fa ir prejudicia l effe ct on the s ubstantive issues.” Tenn. R. Evid. 609(a)(3) . Our supre me court has noted that tw o c ri te ri a

are “ e sp e c ia lly re le va nt” in ba la nc ing a pr ior c on vic tio n’ s p ro ba tiv e va lue a ndun fa ir pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t. S ta te v. Mixon , 9 83 S .W .2 d 661, 67 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . F ir st, a tr ia l c ou rt

sh ou ld “ana ly ze the rele vance the impeac hing c onviction has to the issue of cr edibility .” I d. Second, the trial court should “‘ assess the simil ar i t y betwee n the cr ime on trial and the c rime under ly ing the impeaching conviction.’” I d. (citation omitted); see a lso St ate v. Ga lmore, 994 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tenn. 1999) ; State v. Fa

rmer, 841 S.W .2d 837, 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). A tria l court’s ruling-3-

under Rule 609 will not be reverse d on appea l absent an abuse of discretion. Mi x on, 983 S.W .2d at 675.

The a

ppellan t cl ai m s t h at the trial c ourt should have r uled that his prior convic tions were inadmissible for impeac hment purposes be cause they wer e si m i l ar to the crimes in question. Howeve r, “[t] he mer e fa ct a pr ior conviction of the a ccuse d is identical or similar i n n at u re to the offe nse for

which the a ccuse d is being tried does not, as a matter of la w, bar

the use of the conviction to impeach the a ccuse d as a w itness.” S tate v. Ba ker, 956 S.W .2d 8, 15 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

. I n the instant case , the trial court determined tha t cre dibilit y was a key issue beca use “the defe ndant was saying he di dn’t [commi t the crimes] and the victim was say ing he di d.” Although the trial court didno t e xplic itl y

state that the c on vic tio ns ’ pr ob a tiv e va lue on c re dib ili ty ou tw e ig he d th e ir un fa ir prejudicia l effe ct, t h e trial court’s ruling contains an implied finding that the appe llant’s prior convictions of ag g ravated robbe ry and thef t were highly

rele vant a s t o h i s credibilit y . We ag ree

. Robbery and theft offe nses are crimes of di shonesty

. See Ga lmore, 994 S.W.2d at 122 (providing that robbery

is a crime of

dishonesty ); Ba

ker, 956 S.W.2d at 15 (providing t h at t h eft is a crime of dishonesty ). Ther efor e, they are highly probative as to cre dibilit y . State v. Tune, 872 S.W.2d 922, 927 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) . Although the prior convic tions are sim ilar t o the crimes in question,
we c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ou rt didno t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

ru lin g that th e pr ior

c on vic tio ns wo uld b e a d m i s s i b l e i f

t h e ap p e l l a n tc h o s e t o t e s t i f y.
III. Conclusi on

Ba sed upon the re cord a nd the parties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGLE, J UDGE