### 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

JAR VIS T AY LORv. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. 02-08615 W. F red Axley, Judge

No. W2005-01966-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 4, 2006

The de fenda nt, J arvis Ta y lor, was convicted of first deg ree felony murder and espe cially ag g ravated robbery . He r ece ived a se ntence of life imprisonm ent for his felony murder c onviction and a

concurr e n t tw e n ty y e ar s e n te n c e f o r h is e s p e c ia ll y a g g r a v a te d r o b b e r y c o n v ic ti o n

. O n ap p e a l, the defe ndant ar g ues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our re view of the pa rties’ brie fs and the a

pplicable law , we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

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

Tony N. Br ay t o n , As s i s t an tP u b l i c D ef en d er(o n ap p ea l ), M em p h i s , T en n es s ee , an d M ichae l J ohnson

a ndMic he lle L y nn , A ssi sta nt P ub lic De fe nd e rs (at tria l) , Mem ph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, J arvis Ta y lor.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Pr e sto n Sh ip p, Assis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Patienc e B ranha m and Tra cey J ones, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS
The proof at trial re flec ts that the victim, Carlos Shi pp, was shot and robbed in the pa rking lot of th e Ca mb r id g e A p ar tm e n ts in M e mp h is o n D e c e mb e r 2 3
, 2 0 0 1

. A t tria l, D o r th y Shipp te sti fi e d th a t he r s on , the vic tim , le ft he r h ome the e ve nin g of

De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 01 to g o b a c k to his apartment. At the time, he was driving a rente d, white, two-door Che vrolet. Shipp stated that the next day , police told her to c ome to the h o s pital because her son was hurt. How ever , when she

arrived at the hospital, her son was alr eady

dead.-2-

J ulie Hig htower te stified that she worke d with the victim. On Dece mber 22, 2001, she w as at her boy friend’ s apartment located in the Cambridg e Apa rtments. Whil e staying at he r boy friend’ s apartment, she awoke t o someone y elling and poundi ng on the door. Her boy friend ope ned the door

a ndtol d h e r t o c a ll 9 11 . Wh ile c a lli ng 91 1, Hi g hto we r we nt t o th e do or a ndno tic e d th a t th e vic tim was shot. He a

ppear ed very

pale and he had a bullet hole in his arm. Hig htower a nd her boy friend helped the victim sit in a chair outside the apartment until the para medics arri v ed

. Hi gh t ower observe d that the vi ctim bled on t he chair. J oshua Ge rman, Juli a Hig htower’ s boy friend, te stified simil arly . German adde d that the victim appea red to be strug g ling to bre athe. Ge rman a lso noted the victim bled on the front door and surr ounding a

rea of his apartment.

De ri c k Pe g ue s te sti fi e d th a t he a lso liv e d at the Ca mbridg e Ap art me nts a nd on the nig ht i n question, he hea

rd g unshots. Af

t er looking out his window, he saw a person r un and jump into a white ca r and drive away

from the a

partments. P eg ues not ed that the per son who g ot into the car w as a “[y ]oung, African Ame rica n, slender build, had on may be dar k pants, a c oat.” Peg ues also noted that th e c ar l e ft

the apa rt me nts “ re a l f

a st. ” Af te r w a tc hin g the c ar l e a ve , P egu e s sa w the vic tim
, beating on a neig hbor’s door and y elling for help. Peg ues noticed that the victim’s shirt was c overe d in blood and he looked frantic. Peg ues st ated that he called 911 but wa s unable to spea k beca use he was “ in shock” a nd “fr eake d.”

Another r esident o f t h e C ambridg e Apa rtments, Warren D antzler, testified that he he ard a couple of shots followed by

scre ams. He immediately called 911. H e then sa w a c ar “ try ing to g et out of the apa

rtment, the complex real f ast.” Acc ording to Dantzler, t he driver was a “y oung black male in a small white c ompact ca r.”

Offic er B illySmallwood of the Memphis Poli ce D epartment testified that he and his pa rtner responde d to a shooting at the Cambridg e Apa rtments. Upon arrival, Officer Smallwood hear d a lot of scr eaming and y elling c oming f rom an upstairs balcony . Offic er Smallwood we nt upstairs and found the victim ly ing on the balcony
, bleeding

. The victim wa s breathing ve ry rapidly and appe are d

scar ed. The victim told Officer Smallwood that he had been s hot and robbe d in the parking lot of the apartment complex. The victim said that he gave his wallet to the robber and threw the re ntal

car key s and the robbe r shot him.

Offic er Small wo o d ex p l ai n ed t h at d u ri n g t h e c o n v er s at i o n , t h e v i cti m beca me unable to spe ak and beg an re sponding to Of fice r Smallwood’s questions with hand g estures. Throug h these ha nd g estures O fficer

Smallwood was able to de termine that the r obber w as a bla ck male be tween e ighte en and twenty

y ear s old, stood between f ive fe et, four inc hes and f ive fe et, seve n inches tall, we ighe d approximately

150 pounds, and wore a white t-shirt, blac k leather jacket
, an d b al l cap. Office r Smallwood stated that his conversation with the victim e nded afte r the par amedics a rrived. O ffice r Smallwood noted t hat when the victim started losing c onsciousness, it beca me clea r to him that the victim had additional serious injuries other tha n a g unshot wound to the arm.

Offic er K ay

Turnmire of

the Memphis Police De p ar t m en t testified that she a rrived at the crime scene to collect evidence . She rec overe d the victim’s key s and ball ca p. She also found blood-3-

on the sta ir s a ndha nd ra il l e a din g up to Ge rm a n’ s apa rt me nt. Of

fi c e r Sha n Tr a c y of

the Me mph is Police Depa

rtment testified t hat he proce ssed and photogr aphed the victim’s vehicle. He identified the ca r as a 2002 white C avalier belong ing to Enterprise Corporation, a r ental ca r compa ny . Offic er Trac y noted that the inside rea rview mirror a nd license pla te wer e missing f rom the Cavalier . Offic er Trac y stated that no fing erprints were r ecove red f rom the Cavalier

.
Offic er Robert Shemwell of the Memph i s P o l i ce Depa rtment testified that he le d the investigation of the victim’s homicide. Offic er Shemwell stated he learned that the white ca r stolen from the v i ct im was found abandoned behind a Captain D’s re staurant. The car had bee n “wiped

c le a n. ” Of

fi c e r S hemwe ll s ta te d th a t so me tim e in M arc h 2 00 2, he re c e ive d a tip fr om C ri me Stoppers, which led him t o look for a juvenile, Antoni o Watkins, at Hill wood Hig h School. After ta lki ng to Watki ns on the ph on e , O ff ic e r S he mw e ll l e arn e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt h a d b ra g g e d to Watkins about kil ling the vic tim. Acc ording to Offic er Shemwe ll, W atkins g ave a formal state ment to p oli c e a ndhe ide nti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt a s th e ma n w ho kil le d th e vi cti m. Base d u po n th is information, the def

endant wa s eventua lly

located, a

rre sted and c harg ed with murder . Offic er Shemwell also stated that he r ece ived information that the de fenda nt drove the vic tim’s car on Christmas Day

and used the vi ctim’s cre dit car d at a convenie nce store ca lled Out Fitter’ s located in Missi ssippi. On cross-examination, Office r Shemwell ac knowledg ed that he did not pursue investigation of the other c harg es to the victim’s cre dit card at other conve nience stores.

A n to n io Wa tkin s te s ti f

ie d th a t h e a n d th e d e f

e nd a n t l iv e d in th e s a me ap ar tm e n t c o mp le x. Acc ording to Watkins , the defendant tol d him that he robbed the victim. During the robbe ry , the victim pushed the defe ndant to the ground and scratched his back. At this time, the defe ndant shot the victim. Whi le the victim was c raw ling a way , the def endant g ot into a car

and lef t. Watkins identified the c ar a s a white Chevy Cavalier. Watkins stated that he ro d e i n the Cavalier with the defe ndant a c ouple of da y s in Dece mber. Watkins noted that the key s to the ca r had a Rent-A-Car tag attache d to them. Watkins also watc hed the de fenda nt remove the rea rview mirr or off

the Cavalier to e nsure no fing erprints c ould be lifted from it. Watkins observed the de fenda nt throw the

rea rview mirr or into the woods.

Watkin s te sti fi e d th a t he sa w a fr e sh
, ble e din g sc ar on the de fe nd a nt’ s b a c k w he re the vic tim had s cr at ch ed . Watkins said the defenda nt borrowe d some blue jea ns from him. L ater , when Watkins saw the defe ndant wea ring the blue jea ns, h e noticed the re w as blood on them. Watkins stated that the de fenda nt drove the Cava lier for about a week o r t wo . Watkins admit ted that he helped the de fenda nt w ipe down the car so no fing erprints c ould be found. He f urther a dmitted that he smoked marijuana eve ry day and rece ived $6000 from C rime Stoppers for his information. He al s o a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e g o t in to a f ig h t w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t a f

e w d a y s b e f

o r e p r om.

Michae l Bond testified tha t he lived in the same a partment c o m p l ex as the de fenda nt. On De c e mbe r 2 5, 20 01 , h e , th e de fe nd a nt an d some oth e r pe op le we nt to ch ur c h in Missi ssi pp i. A t th is time, the defe ndant was driving a white, t wo-door Chevrolet. After churc h, the entire g roup stopped at a se rvice station in Mis sissippi to ge t something to eat. Bond stated that he saw a “dee p cut” on-4-

the def endant’ s lower back. The cut was bleeding
, so some people put peroxide and band- aids on the cut.

Bond testified that he also rode around with the defendant and Watkins in the victim’s car

. Howeve r, af

ter he aring news that the c ar w as conne cted to a r obbery , Bond stopped riding in the car. Whe n a pp ro a c he d b y

po lic e , B on d to ld the m w hat he kn e w a ndide nti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt f ro m a photogr aphic lineup. B ond also stated that on prior oc casions, while ha ng ing out, he had see n the defe ndant with two differ ent g u n s , a

. 3 8 and a 380. O n cross-e x amination, Bond state d that the defe ndant paid ca sh for his food a t the convenie nce store in Missi ssippi and t h ey d i d not stop any wher e else

.
Dr. Te resa

Campbell, a fore nsic patholog ist, testified that the victim died of a g unshot wound to his chest. Acc ording to Dr. Campbell, the bullet passed throug h the victim’s left upper arm a nd enter ed his che st cavity , striking se g ments of his he art and lungs. Dr. Campbell stated that the soot around the g unshot wound indicated that the shooter was within a foot whe n he shot the victim.

Ba sed upon the evidence presented, the jury found the de fenda nt guilty of first deg ree felony murder and espec ially ag g rava ted robbery

. The trial court sentenc ed the defe ndant to a total eff ective

se nte nc e of

lif e imp ri so nme nt.

AN AL YSI S

On app e a l, the de fe nd a nt arg ue s that the e vid e nc e wa s ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio ns

. Upon re view of this issue, we reiter ate the well-e stablished rule that onc e a jury finds a def

endant g u i l t y , h i s o r

h e r p r e s u m p t i o n o f

i n n o c e n c e i s r e m o v e d a n d r e p l a c e d w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f

g u i l t. State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt ha s th e bu rd e n o f d e mon str a tin g to this c ou rt wh y the e vid e nc e wi ll not su pp ort th e jury ’s ve rd ic t. S ta t e v

. C a r r u th e rs , 35 S .W.3d51 6, 55 7- 58 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (T e nn . 1 98 2) . T o me e t th is b ur de n, the de fe nd a nt mus t e sta bli sh that no “ ratio na l trie r o f f a c t” c ou ld have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; State v. Ev ans , 108 S.W .3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). I n contra st, the jury ’s verdic t a pproved by the trial judge acc redits the state’ s witnesses and r esolves all conflicts in fa vor o f the state. Sta te v . H ar ris , 8 39 S.W. 2d54 , 7 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . T he state is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable infere nces which may be draw n from that evide nce. Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d at 558. Questions conce rning the cr edibilityof the wi tne sse s, c on fl ic ts i n tria l te sti mon y , th e we ig ht andva lue to b e g ive n the evi den ce, anda ll fac tua l is s u e s r a is e d b y th e e v id e n c e ar e r e s o lv e d b y th e trie r o f f a c t a n d n o t th is c o u rt. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not attempt to re-we igh or re- eval uate the evidenc e. Sta te v . R e id
, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002) . L ikewise, we do not replac e the jury ’s infere nces dr awn f

rom the circ umstantial evidence with our own infer ence s. Id

. 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.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401( a). To obta in a conviction-5-

fo r f ir st de g re e fe lon y mur de r in this c a se , the state ha d to pro ve the de fe nd a nt kil le d the vic tim in the per petra tion of or attempted perpetration of a robbe ry

. Id . § 39-13-202( a)( 2). To convic t for

e sp e c ia lly a g g ra va te d ro bb e ry , th e state ha d to pr ov e the de fe nd a nt r ob be d th e vic tim wi th a de a dly

wea pon and the victim suffe red se rious bodily injury

. Id . § 39-13-403( a).

V ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in a li g h t m o s t f

a v o r ab leto th e s tate , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v idence was suff icient for a

rational trier

of fa ct to convict the de fenda nt of first degr ee f elony murder a nd espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry . At trial, Watkins testified t hat t he def endant c onfesse d to him that he shot a nd robbed the victim. The defe ndant then drove awa y in the victim’s re n t ed C hevrole t Cavalier. Watkins testified that the defe ndant re moved and disca rded the interior re arvie w mirror to eliminate fing erprint evidence . Watkins also testi fied that he helped th e d ef en d ant wipe the victim’s car

so no fing erpri n t s co u l d b e found. W atkins expl ained that he saw the injuries the defe ndant sustained during the robbe ry of the victim. Other w itn es s ’ t es timony , including that of Offic er Shemwe ll and Michae l Bond, c orrobor ated much of Watkin’s testi m o n y

. As such, the

e vid e nc e pr e se nte d a t tria l w a s su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

thede fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio ns

.
CO NC LU SION
Following our re view of parties’ briefs and the a pplicable law , we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial court.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE