### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Jul y 18, 200 6 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE V. RONALD EUGE NE MULLI NS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt of Bedf ord County No. 15802 F ranklin Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2003- 02928-CCA -R3-C D - F iled October 12, 2006

The a ppellant, Ronald Eug ene Mullins, was c o n v i ct ed b y a jury of theft of

property over one thousand dollars. The tr ial court orde red the appellant to ser ve a thr ee- y ear sentenc e as a

Rang e I standard of

fende r. Afte r the de nial of a motion for ne w trial, the a ppellant filed a

timely notice of
app e a l c ha lle ng ing the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e . A ft e r a

re vie w o f the re c or d, we a ff ir m.
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 A ffirm e d

J.S. D ANI EL , S R

. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.

Andre w J ackson D ear

ing, Shelby ville, Tennesse e, Attorney for the A ppellant, Ronald Eug ene Mu lli ns
. Pau l G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d Re p o r te r ; Pr e s to n Sh ip p , A s s is ta n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; W. Michae l McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el Randl es , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.



### OPIN ION

F AC TS

The a ppellant was indicte d by the Be dford County Gra nd J ury

on May 16, 2005, for thef

t of property over te n thousand dollars. The indictment a lleg ed th at t h e ap p ell ant did “knowing ly

. . . obtain or ex erc ise control over” scrap metal belong ing to Clarenc e Ewing with the intent to deprive Mr. Ewing of the prope rty . The c ase pr ocee ded to trial on Aug ust 1, 2005. At trial, Mr. Ewing testified that he a nd his family owned a pproxi mately

seventy -five a cre s of land on Pickle Road in B edfor d County

. For approximately fourtee n y ear s, Mr. Ewing collecte d
scra p metal and store d the m etal, car parts and farming tools on the property

. Mr. Ewing estimated2

that th e sc ra

p met a l cov e re d ap pr oxima te ly fo ur a c re s of the pr op e rt y a nd wa s lo c a te d a pp ro xima te ly one-ha lf of a mile f

rom Pickle Road. On Sunday , November

14, 2004, Mr. Ewing was on his way to churc h when he saw his own truc k be ing tow e d do wn the ro a d. Th e la st t ime Mr . E wi ng sa w the truc k it wa s p ark e d o n Pi c kle Road wher e it was used to haul scrap metal. Mr. Ewing followed the truc k until the person that was towing it s t o p p ed on the side of the roa d. Ewing approa ched the person, late r identified a s the appellant, and asked where they wer e taking the truck. The appellant informed Mr. Ewing that the truc k w a s b e ing take n to PSC Me ta ls.

At that time, Mr

. Ewing decide d to contact B obby Peacoc k, a police of

fice r. Mr. Ewing and Offic er Pea cock w ent to PSC Metals. When they arri v ed , t h ey

could see the truck sitting on the scale s behind the closed g ates. An employ ee of PSC Metals allowed Mr . Ewing to inspect the truck. I nside the ca

b of the truc k, Mr. Ewing located a piece of pape r showing t hat he pa id the insurance policy on the truck. Mr. Ewing insisted that he did not give a ny one permission t o remove his truck from the pr operty

on Pickle Road.

Af te r l e a vin g PSC Me ta ls, Mr. Ewi ng and a d e pu ty sh e ri ff we nt t o th e pr op e rt y

on Pic kle Roa d, wh e re Mr

. Ew ing dis c ov e re d that th e sc ra p me ta l he ha d a c c umu la te d w a s g on e a ndthat so me fu rn itu re that wa s be ing sto re d in a n old ho us e on the pr op e rt y wa s a lso mis sin g
. Mr . E wi ng a g a in insisted that he did not give a ny one permission t o remove the s cra p metal or the furniture from the property . Mr. Ewing had place d “no trespassing ” signs on the property , and he estimated tha t there was be tween se venty -five a nd ninety tons of scra

p m et al o n t he prope rty , with a value of approximately

six ty thousand dollars. Christopher L ee Ca

rson, an e mploy ee of

PSC Metals, verifie d that the appe llant sold metal to P SC f ro m D e c e mbe r 8 , 2 00 3 unti l his ar re st. At tim e s, the app e lla nt br ou g ht sc ra p met a l to PSC
every day . Mr. Carson e ven re nted a tra iler to the appe llant but later terminate d that ag ree ment afte r the appe llant beg an to damag e the tra iler.

On Sun da y

No ve mbe r 14 , 20 04 , Mr

. Cars on he lpe d th e app e lla nt h a ul a truc k to PSC Me ta ls. Th e app e lla nt tol d Mr. Cars on that he ha d pe rm iss ion to ta ke the truc k. On the wa y to P SC Me ta ls with the truck, Mr. Car son and the a ppellant stopped at a stop sign to g et out and che ck on the truc k they wer e towing . Acc ording to Mr. Carson’s testimony , Mr. Ewing approache d the appe llant at that time. The two men ha d a conve rsation that Mr. Carson was unable to he ar. When the appellant g ot back into the truck, he told Mr. Ca rson that Mr. Ewing acc used the a ppellant of stea ling the tr

uck. The a ppellant “c huckled” and then c laimed, “no, he just wanted to know the price of metal.” Mr. Carson testified that he believed tha t the appellant ha d p er mission t o take the tr uck and tha t he helped the a

ppellant t ake the truck to PSC Metals and left i t on the s cale s as i t was Sunday and the business was close d. The men pla nned to split the money from the sa le of the truc k.

Lusy nda Amela ng , the weig h master at PSC Metals, testified that the appe llant freque nted3

PSC metals for the three y ear s that s h e h ad bee n working there . I n November of 2004, on a
wee kend, Ms. Amelang rec eived a telephone c all from a de tective a sking he r to come to the sc rap y ard. When Ms. Amela ng arrived, the g ate wa s closed and loc ked, but a lar g e truc k was sitting on the sca les. The truc k was not on the sca les on Friday when the busine ss had closed.

On Mo nd a y

mornin g , d e te c tiv e s me t Ms . A me la ng a t PSC Me ta ls to se e wh o w ou ld c la im the mon e y

fr om the truc k. Th e app e lla nt a rrive d soo n a ft e r P SC Me ta ls o pe ne d f or bu sin e ss t o rec eive the mone y
. Detec tive Chris Br own was waiting at PSC Metals on the morning of Nove mber 15, 2004, to s pe a k w ith the pe rs on wh o sh ow e d up to c la im the mon e y fo r t he truc k. Th e app e lla nt a

rrive d to collect the mone y . The a ppellant was taken to the Sheriff ’s offic e whe re he informed the of fice rs that he haule d app roxima te ly 11 0 lo a ds of

sc ra p me ta l f ro m th e pr op e rt y

on Pic kle Roa d to PSC Metals. The appellant claimed t hat a neig hbor of Mr. Ewing, named Mr. Richardson, sa id he wante d his land clea

red in e x chang e for

the scra p metal. The a

rea of Mr

. R ichar dson’s property that contained sc rap me tal was nowhe re c lose to Mr. Ewing ’s prope rty

. Ms. Am e la ng te sti fi e d th a t ov e r a pe ri odof sev eral y ears , th e app e lla nt s oldPSC Me ta ls
ap p r o xim a te ly

1 3 2 , 3 5 5 p o u n d s o f

mi s c e ll a n e o u s s c r ap me ta l, r e f e rr e d to a s “ s h r e d , ” in f

o r ty

- tw o individual tra nsactions. On aver ag e, the appellant broug ht PSC loa ds weig hing 3,151.31 pounds and
rec eived a

pprox i m at el y $102.42 per loa d. Ms. Amelang testified that the appe llant rec eived approximately

$4,302.64.

The a ppellant took the stand in his own defe nse. He testified t hat he collected a nd sold scrap
me ta l as a hob b y
. T h e ap p e l l a n tc l a i m e d t h a th e m e ta m a n n a m e d H e r m a n S i m m s p r i o r to November

of 2004 and tha t as a re sult of a conve rsation that h e h ad wi t h M r. Simm s, he haule d
app ro xima te ly

10 0 to 11 0 lo a ds of

sc ra p me ta l f ro m M r. Ewin g ’s pr op e rt y to P SC Me ta ls i n exchang e for

money . During the four- month period that he re moved the sc rap me tal from Mr. E wi n g’s p ro p er t y , t h e a p p el l an tcl ai m ed t h at h e sa w at l ea s t t h re e ot h er p eo p l e do i n g t h e s am e t h i n g.
The appellant claimed that he saw Mr. Ewing for the first time w hen he appro ac h ed t he
app e lla nt a ndMr . Car so n on the sid e of the ro a d w hil e the y

we re tow ing the truc k to PSC Me ta ls. The a ppellant insisted that he thoug ht he had a rig ht to remove the sc rap f rom t h e p ro p er t y , but admitted that he did not have Mr . Ewing ’s per mission t o do so.

Homer Richa

rdson testified for

the State in rebuttal. Mr

. R i ch ar d s o n testified that he wa s Mr. Ewing ’s neig hbor and tha t he g ave a bl ack man permission to remove some scra p metal from his property , but that he neve r g ave a ny one permission t o remove scra p metal from Mr. Ewing ’s p r o p e r t y.
At the c on c lus ion of

the jury tr ia l, the jury

fo un d th e app e llan t g uil ty of the ft of pr op e rt y valued ove r one thousand dollars but less than ten thousand dollars. The trial court se ntence d the
app e lla nt t o th re e y e ars a s a Ra ng e I sta nd ard of fe nd e r. Th e app e lla nt fi le d a mot ion fo r n e w t ri a l,4

which the tria l court denie d. The a ppellant filed a

timely notice of a

ppeal, c hallengin g the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence

. A N A LY S IS

The appellant challeng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e. Specifica lly , the appe llant arg ues that the evidenc e is insuff icient beca

use he believe d that he had pe rmission to t ake the scra p metal fr om Mr . E wi ng ’s pr op e rt y a ndthat th e Sta te ’s c a se wa s p ri mari ly c ir c ums ta nti a l. T he Sta te contends that the e vidence was more than suffic ient to support the conviction.

When a def

endant c halleng es the suff iciency of t he evidence, this Court is obli g ed to re view that claim ac cording to certain well-settled pr inciples. A ver dict of g uilty , rende red by a ju ry and

“ app ro ve d b y

the tr ia l j ud ge, accred its the te sti mon y of the ” Sta te ’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll conflicts in the testimony

in favor of

the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . Thus, althoug h the ac cused is orig inally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocence , the jury verdic t of guilty remove s this presumption “and r eplac es it with one of g uilt.” State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). He n ce , o n ap peal, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insufficienc y of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ng c ou rt mus t a ns we r i s w he the r a ny ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have found the acc used g uilty of every element of the offe nse bey ond a rea sonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha

rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making this decision, we are to acc ord the State “ the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence as we ll a s all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces tha t may be d r a w n th e r e f

r o m. ” Se e T u g g le , 6 3 9 S. W. 2 d a t 9 1 4

. A s s u c h , th is Co u r t is p r e c lu d e d f r o m reweig hing or

rec onsidering the evidenc e when evalua ting the convicting proof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d38 0, 38 3 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sta te v. Ma tth e ws , 8 05 S.W. 2d77 6, 77 9 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1990). More over, w e may not substit ute our own “ infere nces f or t hose drawn bythe trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779. Further, que stions concer ning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s and the we ight a nd value to be g iven t o evidenc e, as well as all fa ctual iss ue s r a ise d b y

su c h e vid e nc e , a

re re so lve d by the tr ie r o f f a c t a ndno t th e app e lla te c ou rt s. Sta te v. Pruett, 788 S.W .2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990)

. Th e app e lla nt h e re in w a s c on vic te d of the ft of pr op e rt y va lue d at o ve r o ne tho us a nddo lla rs
. “A pe rson commits theft of p ro p er t y i f, with the intent to deprive the ow ner of the prope rty , the person knowing ly

obtains or exercises c ontrol over the pr operty without th e owner’s e ffe ctive consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-103.

L ooking at the evidenc e in a l i gh t most favora ble to the State, the proof at trial showed throug h direc t evidenc e, namely the t estimony of Mr. Ewing , Mr. Carson a nd Ms. Amelang , that the appellant r epeatedly

remove d scra

p metal and a truck from Mr. Ew ing’ s property on Pickle Road and took the i t em s t o P S C M etals t o exchang e for cash. Mr . Ewing testified that he did not g ive p ermiss ion to the appellant to re move the truc k and scr ap metal f rom the prope rty . The a

ppellant ag ree d that he did not have Mr . Ewing ’s per mission t o remove the property . There was a mple proof that the appe llant obtained and e x erc ised control over Mr. Ewing ’s prope rty

without Mr. Ewing ’s5

c o n s e n t

. F u r t h e r , t h e r e w a s p r o o f t h a tt h e ap p e l l a n ti n t e n d e d t o d e p r i v e M r
. E w i n g o f t h e p r o p e r t y.
Th e app e lla nt r e pe a te dly

re mov e d s c ra

p me ta l fr om Mr

. Ew ing ’s pr op e rt y a nd too k it to P SC Me ta ls a nde xch a ng e d it

fo r c a sh . M r. Ew ing ne ve r r e c e ive d an y of the pr oc e e ds fr om the app e lla nt. Further, Mr. Ew ing te stified that the first time he e ver sa w the appe llant was on Sunday , November 14, 2004. Even thoug h the appe llant testified that he ac tually believed that he had permission to take the scra p metal from the pr operty , the jury h ea rd t h is testimonyand wa s fre e to conc lude that the appellant wa s not c redible. As stated above , questions conce rning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s and the we ight a nd value to be g iven to evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual issu es raised by such evidenc e, ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t and not the appellate courts. Pruett, 788 S.W .2d at 561.

We conclude t h at t h er e was sufficient evidenc e to convict the a ppellant of thef

t over one tho us a nddo lla

rs . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.
CONCL USI ON

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

____________________________________ J . S. DANI EL , SENI OR J UDGE6