### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 15, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JEFF ERY LY NN AN DER SON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for DyerCounty No. C04-132 LeeMoore , Trial Jud ge

No. W2004-03080-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 5, 2005

The de fenda nt, J eff

ery Ly nn Ander son was convicted by a jury of one count of burg lary of a motor vehicle. O n appea l, the def endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence . Following
ou r r e vie w, 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

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R . and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Timothy Bo x x (on appeal) a nd Charles S. Kelly , Sr. (at trial), D y ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the appellant, Jeffe ry

Ly nn Ander son.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; C. Phi llip Bivens, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

F AC TS

The following evidenc e was prese nted at trial. Bob Simps on testified that on Oc t o b er 1 6, 2004, he attende d a meeting at the Dy ersbur g CountyCourthouse. After the meeting adjourne d around 10:00 p.m., he r eturne d to his pickup truck par ked on the c ourt square . As he ap p ro ache d his t ru c k , h e n o ti c e d s o me o n e in s id e h is tr u c k

. H e th e n p u t h is h a n d o n to p o f th e tr u c k door and asked the man what he was doing . At that moment, the man “jumped out and took of f.”
Mr. Simpson t estified that he chased the man for a while, but stopped. He the n flag g ed down Offic er Eric Wells of the Dy ersbur g Polic e De p artment, tol d him what just happened, a nd g ave a description of the man. Mr. Simpson described the ma n as a r edhead , we ar i n g a white shirt and black pants. He also told Offic er Wells that the man ran around the north side of the c ourt square ,-2-

a ndhe a de d to wa

rdF ir st C iti zen s B a nk . Af te r Of fi c e r Wel ls le ft , Mr. Simp so n wa lke d ba c k to his truck a nd discovere d that someone ha d attempted to re move his radio. Ac cording to Mr. Simps on, every thing but the antenna wire was loose and the radio appea red “re ady to c ome out.” Mr. Simpson testified that a few minutes later he identified an individual Office r Wells stopped in front of Paul’s One Hour Cleaner s as t he indi vidual who was in his truck. Mr. S impson stated t hat he did not give this indi vidual permission to enter into his truck.

Offic er Wells testified that he was on patrol around the court square when h e w as flag g ed down by Mr. Simpson. Mr. S impson told him that he “c aug ht somebody in his truck.” Mr. Simpson describ ed t h e i ndividual as “a red- heade d g entleman” wea ring a “w hite dress shirt” a nd “blac k pants.” Af

ter be ing told by

Mr. Simpson t hat the man headed towa rd F irst Cit izens Bank, Of fice r Wells drove to that are a looking for the individual matching the description g iven by Mr. Simpson. Sho rt ly the re a ft e r, Of

fi c e r We lls ob se rv e d th e de fe nd a nt, wh o matc he d th e de sc ri pti on , s ta nd ing in fr on t of Paul’ s Cl e a ne rs . Ac c or din g to Of fi c e r Wel ls, the de fe nd a nt “w a s re d- he a de d, ha d o n a wh ite dress shirt and ha d on black pa nts.”

O f f i c e r W e l l s t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e s t o p p e d t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d a s k e d h i mt o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f

. In
re sp on se , th e de fe nd a nt p ro du c e d a sta te I D, ide nti fying him se lf a s J e ff e ry An de rs on . O ff

ic e r We lls stated that he also patted the defe ndant down for weapons and discovere d a pair of vi ce grips in the defe ndant’s bac k left pocke t. Office r Wells also noticed that the def end an t was c arry ing a

ball of string.

Offic er Wells testified that Mr. Simpson was broug ht to where t h e defe ndant was stopped and made a positive identification. The de fenda nt was then plac ed under arr est and e scorted ba ck to the square . As Off

icer Wells an d an o t h er o fficer we re taking inve ntory of the de fenda nt’s po sse ssi on s, Mr . Sw a ff

or d s a w the vic e g ri ps a ndstate d, “ Th os e lo ok lik e min e .” Ac c or din g , to Offic er Wells, Mr. Swaff

ord che cked his truc k, which wa s parke d next t o Mr. Simps on’s truck, a nd dis c ov e re d th a t hi s v ic e g ri ps we re mis sin g fr om h is t ru c k. On cros s-e x ami nati on , O ff ic e r We lls admitted he did not chec k the vi ce grips for Mr. Swa ffor d’s fing erprints and acknow ledg ed that the vice g rips found on the de fenda nt were the same kind of vic e g rips s old in hundreds of store s every wher e.

J oe Swaf ford testified tha t h e was re turning to his vehicle whe n he hea rd “somebody

had been i n [Mr. S impson’s] truck trying to g et his radio.” Mr . Swaffor d decide d to hang around a nd keep Mr . Simps on company . After the police of

fice rs re turned to the square , Mr. Swaff ord noticed Offic er Joy ner car

ry ing some vice g rips. Mr. Swaffor d told the office r that he had some vice g rips in his truck and we nt to see if his vice g rips wer e still in t he truc k. Mr. S waf ford ex plained that af

ter looking in his truck, he noticed that his vice g rips wer e missing.

Offic er Jim J oy ner of

the Dy ersbur g Police Depa rtment testified that he a ssisted Office r Wells i n arr esting the def

endant. Of

fice r Joy ner obse rved tha t the defe ndant had on a white shirt and black pa nts. Of

fi ce r J oy ner a lso verified tha t some rope a nd vice g rips wer e found on the defe ndant’s per son. Offic er Joy ner testified that Mr. Simpson i dentified the de fenda nt as the per son-3-

who broke into his t ruck. O ffice r J oy ner a lso corrobor ated Mr. Swa ffor d’s testimony reg arding the fac t that vice g rips wer e missing f rom Mr. Swaff

ord’s truc k.

The de fenda nt electe d not to testify . Ba sed upon t he evidence, the jury found the de fenda nt g uiltyof one c ount of burg lary of an automobile.

AN AL YSI S
On appe al, the defe ndant ar g ues that evide nce w as insufficie nt to support his conviction for burg lary of an automobile. Our revie w beg ins with the well-established r ule that once a jury

finds a def endant g uilty , his or her pr esumption of innocenc e is remove d and replace d with a pre sumption of g uilt. S tate v. Eva ns, 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore, o n ap p ea l , the convicte d defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating to this Court why the evidenc e will not support the jury ’s verdic t. State v. Carruther s, 35 S.W .3d 516, 557-58 (Te nn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 91 4 ( Te nn . 1 98 2)

. To me e t thi s bu rd e 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” could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a r ea s o n ab l e d oubt. J ackson v. Vi r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; S t a t e v

. E v a n s , 1 0 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 ( T e n n

. 2 00 3) ; T e nn . R. App. P

. 1 3 (e) . I n contra st, the jury ’s ver dict approve d by the trial judg e ac cre dits the St ate’ s witnesses and r esolves all conf licts in favor of the State. State v. Har ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 19 92 ). Th e Sta te is e nti tle d to the str on g e st le g iti ma te vie w of the e vid e nc e a nd all reas on able infere nces w hich m ay b e dra wn from that e vidence . Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 558. Questions
conce rning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, conflicts in trial testimony , the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, and all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t and
n o tt h i s C o u rt

. S t at e v

. Bl an d , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). W e d o n o t at t em p t t o re -w ei gh
or re -eva luate the e vidence

. State v. Reid, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). Likewise, we do not repla ce the jury ’s infere nces draw n from the circ umstantial e vidence with our own infer ence s. I d.

Af te r c on sid e ri ng the evi den ce in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the Sta te , w e c on c lud e that a
ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e de fe nd a nt g uil ty of bu rg lary of a mot or ve hic le . T o s us ta in the de fe nd a nt’s c on vic tio n f or bu rg lary of a mot or ve hic le in this c a se , th e Sta te wa s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e that the de fe nd a nt, wi tho ut the ow ne r’ s c on se nt, e nte re d a mot or ve hic le wi th th e in ten t to commit a theft. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-402( a)( 4). Consummation of the intended thef t is not
nece ssary to complete the c rime of bur g lary . State v. Ralph, 6 S.W .3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 1999). At trial, the evidenc e established that an individual wa s discovere d inside Mr. Simps on’s truck w ithout his pe rm iss ion . A ft e r b ri e fl y c ha sin g the ind ivi du a l, M r. Simp so n f la g g e d d ow n a po lic e of

fi c e r, tol d the office r what occur

red, a nd described the individual as a r edhea d, wea ring a white shirt and bla ck pa nts . U po n r e turnin g to h is t ru c k, Mr . Si mps on dis c ov e re d th a t th e indi vi du al ha d a tte mpt e d to
remove his radio. S h o rt ly there afte r, the police office r stopped the de fenda nt, a re dhead, w earing a white shirt and bla ck pants. Mr. Simpson identified the def endant as the i ndividual he discover ed ins ide his truc k. F ro m this ev ide nc e , the jury c ou ld re a so na bly fi nd that the de fe nd a nt u nla wf ull y e nte re d M r. Simp so n’ s mo tor ve hic le wi th the int e nt t o c omm it thef t. Ac c or din g ly , th is i ssu e is without merit.-4- CO NC LU SION
The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE