### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 2, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MA RC O HU GHLET T

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

No. 03-02145 W. M ark Ward, Judge

No. W2005-02321-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Novem ber 17, 2006

Def endant, Ma

rco H ug hlett, was indicted unde r alter native theories, char g ing D efe ndant in count one with committing agg ravated robbe ry by violence, and in count two, with committi ng ag g ravated robbery by placing the victim in f

ear . The jury

convicted D efe ndant under both counts. Following
a sentenc ing hearing, the trial court sentenc ed Def endant as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, to eleve n y e ars fo r e a c h c on vic tio n. Th e tr ia l cou rt me rg e d De fe nd a nt’ s con vic tio n of ag g ra vate d r ob be ry in
c ou nt tw o wi th his c on vic tio n of a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry in c ou nt on e

. I n his so le i ss ue o n ap pe a l, Def endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e videnc e. Af ter a thoroug h revie w of the
re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , joined.

Me la nie E. Ta y lor , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt M arc o H ug hle tt.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E. Willis , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; Pamela F leming, A s s i s t ant Dis trict Attorney Gene ral; a n d Ch r is Sc ru g g s , A s s is ta n t D is tric t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, f o r th e ap p e ll e e , th e St a te of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

Sue lle n Ch o te sti fi e d that e arl y on the mornin g of

No ve mbe r 1 5, 20 02 , s he pu lle d h e r v e hic le into a g as station to fill up before leaving o n a trip. Ms. Cho left the key s in the ignition and the eng ine running while she we nt into the ga s station to purc hase a cold drink. Ky ong o Cho, Suellen Cho ’s mothe r, re ma ine d in the c ar. Sue lle n Cho sa id she wa s p a y ing fo r h e r p ur c ha se wh e n s he fi rs t
n o t i c e d h e r

m o t h e r q u i c k l y e x i t i n g t h e v e h i c l e , f o l l o w e d b y t h e v e h i c l e b e i n g d r i v e n a w a y.-2-

Ky ong o Cho testified that she s aw a red vehicle pull into the pum p are a behind her daug hter’s
car

. Ms. Cho saw an Afric an-A merica n man walk from the red vehicle toward her d au gh t er’s
ve hic le . T he ma n o pe ne d th e drive r’ s si de do or of Ms. Cho ’s ve hic le a ndpo int e d a g un a t he r. Ms. Cho started to leave the vehiclewith her purse , but the man told her to lea ve it in the car

. Ms. Cho said that she lef

t her purse in the vehicle be cause she wa s afr aid the man would shoot her

. On cr oss-examination, Ky o n go C h o s aid t hat it was still dark when she and her daug hter pu lle d in to the g a so lin e statio n, bu t th e statio n’ s g ro un ds we re we ll lit. Ms. Cho sa id s he wa s u na ble to identify Def

endant as her assailant from a photogr aphic line-up immediately afte r t he incident, but
s h e r ec o gn i z ed De fe n d an twh en s h e sa w hi m i n t h e co u rt ro o md u ri n g a s u b s eq u en tco u rt p ro ce ed i n g. Ms. Cho stated that the incident was over quic kly . Ms. Cho said the perpe trator wa s wea ring a lig ht g ray sh irt a ndda

rk pa nts

. Sa nd ra Pr itt te sti fi e d th a t sh e pu lle d h e r r e d Ch e vr ole t Su bu rb a n u p to th e gasol ine pu mp behind the Cho vehicle, a Dodge Durang o. Ms. Pritt noticed an A frican-American male approa ching from her rig ht. She loc ked her Suburban and beg an walking toward the station. When she rea ched the passeng er side of

the Dura ng o, Ms. Pritt saw that the ma n she had notice d earlier had pulled out a gun and was point ing it at Ky ong o Cho. Ms. Pritt observe d Ms. Cho ex it the Durang o, and then
sa w the ma n d ri ve the Du ra ng o o ff the g a so lin e statio n’ s p re mis e s. Ms. Pr itt tr ie d to ge t th e lic e ns e plate number

of the Dur ang o, and then c alled 911. She desc ribed the pe rpetrator to the police a s ap p r o xim a te ly f

iv e f e e t, te n in c h e s ta ll , in h is mi d

- tw e n ti e s , li g h t to me d iu m c o mple cted, a nd
wea ring a cr eam- color hoode d jacke t. Ms. Pritt identified Def endant from a photogr aphic lineup on November

26, 2002. Ms. Pritt said at trial she w as n i n et y -nine pe rce nt sure that the man in the photogr aph wa s the perpe trator of the robbery at the time that she viewed the photogr aphic line- up. Ms. Pit t identified Def

endant at trial as the per

petra tor of the of

fense

. On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, Ms. Pr itt sa id that she c a lle d 911 abo ut the inc ide nt b e tw e e n 5 :30 a .m. a nd6:0 0 a .m. on No ve mbe r 1 5, 20 02 . M s. Pr itt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t sh e wa s n e ars ig hte d, bu t sh e sa id she wa s less than ten fe et away from Def endant when she observe d the commission of the offe nse. Ms. Pr itt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he r h us ba ndwa s a po lic e of fi c e r with the Me mph is Po lic e De pa rt me nt, and that she ha d discussed the c ase w ith him “maybe twice .”

Se rg e a nt Te rry L y on s, wi th the Me mph is Pol ic e De pa rt me nt, te sti fi e d tha

t he re c e ive d a

tip throug h Crime Stoppers that a vehic le matching the desc ription of t he C ho vehicle had bee n spotted in the F r a y s e r ar e a o f M e mp h is

. Se r g e a n t Ly o n s a n d a n o th e r o f f ic e r lo c a te d th e v e h ic le on November

26, 2002. Serg ea n t L y o n s p arked his unmarked police car about a block a way . The Dura ng o pulled out of its parking space approximately one hour later. Serg eant Ly ons called f or a patrol ca r and f ollowed the vehic le. The Durang o pulled into a driveway , and a ma n exit ed fr om the passeng er side a nd started to r un. Serg eant Ly ons’ partner c alled out for the man to stop, and he did. The man was then handcuf fed and taken into c ustody . Serg eant Ly ons identified Def endant a s the pa sse ng e r i n th e c ar. Hi s p ho tog ra ph wa s in c lud e d in the ph oto g ra ph ic lin e -u p sho wn to M s. Pr itt

. Serg eant L

y ons said that Ms. Pritt identified t he photogra ph of Defenda nt as t he per petra tor of the offe nse.-3-

On cr oss-examination, S erg eant Ly ons acknow ledg ed that he never saw Def endant drive the Dura ng o. I nvestig ating office rs s ear ched Defe ndant and the Durang o, but did not conduct a sear ch of Defenda nt’s house. The gun used during the i ncident was not found. Serg eant Ly ons said that he knew Ms. Pritt ’s husband who w orked on the same floor as Serg eant L y ons at t he poli ce sta tion. Serg eant Ly ons acknow ledg ed that he show ed Ms. Pritt’s husband a surve illance tape made at the g a so lin e statio n a t th e tim e the of fe ns e wa s com mit te d, prima ri ly to sho w him h ow c los e Ms. Pr itt had come to being a victim herse lf. Serg eant L y ons said that the facial feature s of t he man on the tape we re too indistinct for identification. The tape showe d Ms. Pritt pull in behind the Durang o. An African- Americ an man wa lked towar ds Ms. Pritt ’s Suburban. Ms. Pritt ex ited her ve hicle and passed the ma n as they

both arrive d at the re ar of the Suburban. The man continued on to the Dura ng o and opene d the door. Ky ong o Cho ex ited the Dura ng o, and the man dr ove off

. Serg eant Ly ons said that Def endant told the investi g ating office r af ter he was a

rre sted that he had boug ht the Dura ng o from a ma n named “ Chris” in a par king lot in front of a Krog er’ s Groce ry Store.

Arlandis Horton testified that Def endant came over to his house on November 26, 2002, afte r he arrive d h ome fr om w or k. Def e nd a nt w a s d ri vin g a

Do dg e Du rang o w hic h h e sa id b e lon g e d to h i s co u s i n

. T h e t wo m en l ef tt o b u y s o m et h i n g t o ea t , an d M r. Ho rt o n s ai d t h at h e d ro v e t h e D u ra n go beca use Def endant did not have a driver’ s license. Mr. H orton said that they noticed they

wer e being followed by

a police c ar, a nd Def

endant pulled out a

spray bottle and beg an cle aning the dashboa rd. M r. Ho rton said the cle anser smelled like alcohol. De fenda nt told Mr. Horton to pull i nto a driveway . Def

endant jumped out of the Dura ng o afte r Mr. Horton stopped the vehicle. Mr. Horton said that he ha d seen D efe ndant driving the Dura ng o about three to seven da y s ear lier.

II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
Def endant’ s challeng e to the suff iciency of the evidenc e is direc ted towar d the identifica tion evidenc e pre sented at trial. When a def endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence , we must revie w the evide nce in a light mos t favor able to the prosecution in determining whether a ratio na l tr ie r of fa c t c ou ld ha ve fo un d a ll the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a rea so na ble doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Onc e a jury fi nd s a de fe nd a nt g uilty , h is o r h e r p re su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e is r e mov e d a ndre pla c e d w ith a pre sumption of guilt. State v. Black , 815 S.W .2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991) . The de fenda nt has the burden of overc oming this presumption, and the State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e along with all rea sonable infe renc es which ma y be dra wn from that e vidence

. Id .; Sta te
v . Tu gg le , 63 9 S.W. 2d 91 3, 91 4 (T e nn

. 19 82 ). Th e jury is p re su me d to ha ve re so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts and dra wn any

rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the State. Sta te v . S he

ffi e ld , 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) . Questions conce rning the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the we ight a nd value to be g iven the e vid e nc e , a nda ll f

a c tua l is su e s r a ise d by

the e vid e nc e are re so lve d b y the tr ie r o f f

a c t a ndno t th is court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . These r ules are applicable to findings of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, circumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both direct and circ umstantial evidence

. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

.-4-

As rele vant in the ca se sub judice , the offense of ag g ravated robbery is define d as a r obbery

“ a c c omp lis he d w ith a de a dly we apo n or by dis pla y of a ny art ic le us e d o r f

a sh ion e d to le a d th e vic tim to rea sonably

believe it to be a

deadly wea pon.” T.C.A. § 39-13-402(a) (1). “ Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the pe rson of a nother by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r.” Id . § 39-13-401( a).

The identit y of the pe rpetrator is an essential e lement of a ny crime. See State v . Thompson , 519 S.W .2d 789, 793 (Tenn. 1975)

. T h e re liabilityof an in-c ourt identification depe nds on the totality of the circ umstances, “ including the opportunity of the witness to view the offe nder at the time of the c rime, the witness’s de g ree of attention, the a ccur acy of the prior

description of the offe nder, the level of c erta inty of the witness at the confr ontation, and t h e l en g th of time betwee n the crime, and the c onfrontation.” State v. Be al , 614 S.W .2d 77, 82 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (citing Ne il v . B iggers , 4 09 U. S. 1 88 , 1 99 , 9 3 S. Ct. 37 5, 38 2, 34 L . E d. 2d40 1 ( 19 72 ); Manson v. Br ath wai te , 4 32 U. S. 9 8, 11 4, 97 S. Ct . 2 24 3, 22 53 , 53 L

. Ed . 2 d 1 40 (1 97 7) ; Ri ppy v . S tat e , 550 S.W .2d 636, 639-40 (Tenn. 1977)). The c redible te stimonyof one ide ntification witness is sufficient to s up po rt a c on vic tio n if the wi tne ss vie we d the a c c us e d un de r s uc h c ir c ums ta nc e s a s w ou ld p e rm it a positive identification to be made. State v. Radley , 29 S.W .3d 532, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (c i t i n g State v. Strickland , 885 S.W .2d 85, 87-88 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1993)).
Ky ong o Cho testified that Defe ndant opene d the driver ’s s i d e o f her daug hter’s ve hicle, pointed a g un at her , and made her ge t our of the vehicle, while l eaving her pur se behind. Ms. Cho
sa id tha t th e pe rp e tr a tor dr ov e the Du rang o off the pr e mis e s of the g a so lin e statio n. Ms. Cho c ou ld
no t in iti a lly

ide nti fy De fe nd a nt a s the pe rp e tr a tor wh e n s ho wn a ph oto g ra ph ic lin e -u p im me diate ly afte r the incide nt. Ms. Cho said, however, that she rec og nized Defe ndant as her assailant when she
s aw h i mat a s u b s eq u en tco u rt p ro ce ed i n g.

Ms. Pr itt state d th a t sh e ob se rv e d th e pe rp e tr a tor po int a g un a t K y on g o Ch o a ndmake Ms. Cho ge t out of the Dura ng o befor e driving the vehicle away . Ms. Pritt testified that she was standing less than ten fe et from De fenda nt during the commission of the offe nse. Ms. Pritt ‘s p h y s i cal description of the perpe trator, whic h was g iven at the time of the offe nse, matche d Def endant’ s ph y sic a l de sc ri pti on . M s. Pr itt su bs e qu e ntl y

ide nti fi e d D e fe nd a nt a s th e pe rp e tr a tor fr om a photogr aphic lineup. De fenda nt was appr ehende d while riding as a pa sseng er in S u el l en Cho’s Dura ng o. Mr. Horton testified tha t Defe ndant told him that the Durang o was his vehicle , and that Mr. Horton was driving the Dura ng o when Def endant was appre hended beca use Def endant did not have a driver’ s license. Mr. H orton said that Def endant wa s acting strang ely when the police wer e ob se rv e d f

oll ow ing the m.
Def endant a ppear s to arg ue that Ms. Pritt’s identitytestimonywas not cr edible bec ause of her a ffiliation, throug h her husba nd, with the M emphis Police Depa rtment. By

its verdict, howeve r, the jury obviouslyresolved any

issues of identification in favor of the State’s witnesses who identified De fenda nt as the per p et ra tor of the of fense s. Ba sed on our r eview of the re cord, w e c on c lud e that a

ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld f

indbe y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t D e fe nd a nt w a s g uil ty of the off ense of ag g ravated robbe ry . Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.-5- CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE