### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 8, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER T WA YN E P RY OR
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 15244 Charles Lee , Judge

No. M2003- 03124-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 26, 2005

A B e d f o r d C o u n t y j u r y c o n v i c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , R o b e r t W a yn e P r yo r , o f r o b b e r y, a C l a s s C f e l o n y. Following a sente ncing hearing, the trial court se ntence d him a s a Rang e I , standard of fende r to five y ear s and six months in t he De partment of Corr ection conse cutive to sentenc es in another case for which he w as on probation. I n this appeal, the single issue prese nted for our revie w is whether

the
e vid e nc e wa s su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio n. 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 Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Gre g ory D. Smit h, Clarksville, Tenne ssee (on appea l) and Andre w J ackson D earing, II I ., Assistant Public Defe nder ( at trial), f or the a ppellant, Robert Way ne Pry or.
Paul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ha m, A ssi stant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; W. Mi chae l McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el Randles and A nn Filer , Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
F acts and P roce dural Hi story
Kevin Tay lor, the victim in this case, testi fi ed at t rial that he w as watching television at approximately

12:40 a.m. on the couc h i n h i s trailer on the evening of De cembe r 31, 2002, whe n B e nn y L otty , Joh n “ John B oy ” B ing ha m, andthe de fe nd a nt kno c ke d o n h is d oo r. Af te r a brie f v isi t, Tay lor a sk e d th e thr e e me n to le a ve a ndwe nt t o s le e p. Tay lor state d tha t he wa s a wa

ke ne d s ho rt ly there afte r by

the sound of something “prying at the door.” He testified that, upon opening the door, Bing ham and the de fendant force d their wa y back into the trailer, armed with butcher knives. Tay lor testified t hat he then gra

bbed a knif

e and f led to the nea

rby home of Robert Tay lor (“U ncle B ay ”), his uncle.-2-

Un c le B a y

te sti fi e d tha t he a c c omp a nie d T a y lor ba c k to the tr a ile r andthat T a y lor wa s v isi bly
ne rv ou s, e xcit e d, a ndsc are d. Tay lor te sti fi e d that, up on his re turn, he fo un d his ste re o “ bu ste d” in the y ard , h is g ri ll thr ow n a g a ins t hi s w indow, a ndsa w B ing ha m a ndthe de fe nd a nt c arry ing his television set behind the tra iler and over a fenc e. Uncle B ay also testified that “the stereo w as laying on the sidewa lk betwee n the door a nd the window, and they was putt ing the television over the fenc e int o th e ne xt tr a ile r p ark .” Up on se e ing B ing ha m andthe de fe nd a nt c arry ing the te le vis ion , U nc le Bay y elled, “[h]old it. I

have g ot a g un,” ca

using B ingham and the def endant to drop the television and lea ve. David Stemper lived near Tay lor in the trailer pa rk. Stemper testified that he observe d “two g e ntl e me n p us hin g a

larg e te le vis ionov e r a fe nc e .” He state d th a t “ y ou c ou ld h e ar the m pu sh ing it end over end nea r the re ar of

it to get it over

the hump, near

the bac k of the tra iler.” Patrolman Cody King of t he S helby ville Police Depa rtment testified that, when he arrived, Tay lor still appeare d scar ed and upse t. Patrolman King stated t h at h e s aw “[a] st ere o on the sidewalk, outside of the front door [and] a TV acr oss the fenc e in front of another trailer” and that Tay lor’s window wa s “shatter ed.” Patrolman King testified that, while the ster eo wa s broken, “ [he] didn’t see anything broken on [t he television].” Patrolman King also acknow ledg ed that he did not find any knives during the investig ation.
Pa tr olm a n B ill y Smith of

the She lbyvil le Pol ic e De pa rt me nt a rrive d at th e sc e ne a t r ou g hly the same time a s Patrolman King . Patrolman Smit h also testified t hat “[ t] here was a stereo sy stem lay ing in the f

ront y ard and a T V ac ro s s t he chain link fence .” Af ter Tay lor g ave a

description of Bing ham and the def

endant, Patrolman Smith and other of fice rs sea rche d the surrounding are a. Patrolman Smit h testified that, when B ingham and the d e f e n d an t w e r elocated and arr ested, B ingham stated, “the y

ripped us in a dr

ug deal” and that “the y

deser ved what they

g ot.”
Pa tr olm a n Ro d L e wi s St a c y of the She lbyvil le Pol ic e De pa rt me nt w a s a lso pr e se nt at th e tim e the def endant a nd Bing ham wer e ar rested. Patr olman Stacy tes t i fi ed that B ingham made the statements, “[t] hey

deserved it” and “ [t ]hey

shouldn’t have sc rew ed us on the drug deal.”
The defenda nt testified t hat he and Bing ham were attempting t o trade Tay lor some marijuana and money

for c ocaine the ni g ht of t he offense. Howeve r, t he defenda nt stated t hat, upon entering Tay lor’s trailer , a fig ht e nsued and that he wa s robbed of his marijuana a nd money . The de fendant te sti fi e d th a t, o ut o f ang e r, he thr e w a g ri ll “ thr ou g h th e wi nd ow ” a ndtol d B ing ha m th a t “ [t]he se sons of bitches just robbed me. They took every thing I had, pot and money .” The defe ndant testified that Tay lor th en came out with a knife. The defe ndant stated that, a fter he and B ingham wrestled the knife a way , Tay lor ran dow n the stree t. T he defe ndant stated that he then “we nt in and started br e akin g stu ff .” He state d:

I g ra bb e d th e TV . I

g ot Joh n B oy

to hel p me grab the TV . We thr e w i t outside. I went outside and stomped the ste reo a couple of

times. I kicked the T V a couple of times.-3- . . . . I didn’t want to steal nothing . I wanted to br eak a

lot of stuff.

. . . . B e c au s e t h e y h a d s t o l e m y p o ta n d m y m o n e y. Bing ham corroborated the def endant’ s testimonyat trial, adding that “[w]e slung [the TV] over the fenc e
. . . jumped over the fenc e and sta rted kicking it. J ust kicking the heck out of it, try ing to b r e ak it

. ” B in g h a m a ls o te s ti f

ie d th a t, w h e n T a y lo r a n d U n c le B a y r e tu r n e d to th e tr a il e r , “ [w ]e turned a round and w alked of

f. We [were] still mad. . . . Somebody could have g ot shot over it.”
At the conc lusion of the evidenc e, the jury found t he defenda nt g uilty of robbery

. Following
a sentenc ing hearing, he was sentenc ed to f ive y ear s and six months in t he De partment of Corr ection. The de fendant then filed a timely notice of a

ppeal.
Ana lys is
Th e de fe nd a nt’ s so le iss ue on app e a l is wh e the r the e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in h is conviction for r obbery . He a rg ues t h at the testimony

of the victim in this case is “incr edible and should be discounted” and asks t his Court to bolster t he credibilityof the de fense witnesses in order to overturn his convic tion.
Our standa

rd of r eview w hen the de fendant questions the sufficienc y of the e v i d en ce on appea l is “whether , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favo ra b l e t o the prosec ution, any ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve 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 do u b t. ” Ja c k s o n v
. V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U

. S. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; s e e T e n n
. R. A p p
. P. 1 3 ( e ) ( “ F in d in g s of g uil t in c ri min a l a c tio ns wh e ther by the tr ia l c ou rt or jury sh a ll b e se t a sid e if

the e vid e nc e is insufficient to support the finding by the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.”).
On app e a l, the State is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti ma te v iew of th e e vid e nc e a nda ll
rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be dra wn there fr o m
. See State v. Carr uthers, 35 S.W .3d 516, 558 (Tenn. 2000). A g uiltyverdic t removes the pr esumption of innocenc e so that, on appea l, a conv i ct ed crimi nal def endant who c halleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence bear s the bu rd e n o f d e mon str a tin g wh y the e vid e nc e is ins uf

fi c ie nt to sup po rt the ve rd ic t. Se e State v. Ev a ns , 108 S.W .3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003) ; Carruthe rs, 35 S.W .3d at 557-58; State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . We will not reweig h the evidenc e, but m u s t p re sume that the jury has resolved a ll conflicts in the testimonyand dra wn all re asonable infere nces f rom the evide nce in f

avor of the State. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 5 4 7 (T enn. 1984). Questions about the
cre dibilit y

of witnesses, the w eig ht and value of the evidenc e, as well as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e to be r esolved by the trier of

fac t. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236; St ate v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)

. Robbery is defined a s “the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the pe rson of another by v i o l en ce or putting the person in fe ar.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-401(a ) (2003) . The-4-

victim testified that the defe ndant forc ibly enter ed his home . Three witnesses testified to see ing the defe ndant in the ac t of removing the victim’s televisio n s et, from which the jury could infer

the defe ndant’s intent to deprive the owner
. Viewing the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the State, the evidenc e supports the de fendant’s conviction.
The de fendant’s arg ument on appea l challeng es t he credibility of the witnesse s. I n this case, the testimony

of the victim was diver g ent from the te stimoni es of de fense witnesses re g arding the underlying f

acts. As state d , q u es t i o ns conce rning the cr edibilityof witnesses a nd fac tual dis c re pa nc ie s r a ise d b y the e vid e nc e are re se rv e d f or the tr ie r o f f

a c t. B y the ir ve rd ic t, the jury

c ho se to a c c re dit

the te sti mon y

of the Sta te ’s wi tne sse s. We c on c lud e that th e e vid e nce is su ffi cie nt t o support this finding. Ac cording ly , this iss ue is without merit.
Conclusion The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE