### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 12, 200 6
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JOHN AN THON Y G US T

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Marshall County

No. 16818 Robert

Crigler , Judge

No. M2006- 00846-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Dece m ber 29, 2006

Following a jury

trial, the def

endant, John AnthonyGust, was convic ted of for g ery o v er $ 1 0 0 0, a C l a s s D f e l o n y , a n d t h e f

tu p t o $ 5 0 0 , a

C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r
. H e w a s s e n t e n c e d a s a R a n g e I, standard of

fende r to two y ear s for the felony conviction and eleven months, twenty -nine da y s for the misdemeanor c onviction, with the sentence s to be served conc urre ntly . On appe al, he a rg ues that the evidenc e is insufficient to support his conviction s
. Based upon our r eview, w e af firm the jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and D. K ELLY T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

An dr e w Ja c ks on De ari ng , I I I , A ssi sta nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, fo r the app e lla nt, John An tho ny Gu st.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At torne y

Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B e nj am i nA

. B a l l , A s s i s t an t At torne y Ge ne ra l; Cha rl e s F . Cr a wf

or d, Di stric t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; a ndMe lis sa

L . T ho ma s a ndWilli a m B . B ott oms , Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

F AC TS

At tri al , J u l i e J o h n s o n , a c ro s s tra i n eran d t el l erat t h e B an k o f A m er i cai n L ew i s b u rg, testifi ed that on Aug ust 1, 2005, the defe ndant pre sented to her a $2500 che ck dra wn from the
acc ount of Vital Signs & Gra phics and made pay able to the de fenda nt. Be cause the def endant wa s not a B ank of A merica

customer, Johnson obtained tw o id e n ti f ic ati o n s , inc luding his driver ’s license , a nda thu mbp ri nt f

ro m th e de fe nd a nt. Whe n s hec omp are d th e sig natur e of the sig natory , Jimmy

R. Nicholson, on the che ck with his signature on two pre viou s ch ecks, Johnson noti ced that the signatures did not match. She then called the bank’s signature verific ation department and obtained by fax a copy of the customer’ s signature car d. She also called J immy Nicholson to inquire if he ha d-2-

written the c heck and informed her manag er of the situation. Thepolice we re c alled, and she later g a ve the de fe nd a nt’ s dr ive r’ s lic e ns e , the c he c k, the sig natur e c ard , a ndthe tw o c he c k p ri nto uts to her ma nag er a nd a police of fice r.
Jim Ni c ho lso n, the ow ne r o f V ita l Sig ns & Gr aph ic s, te sti fi e d th a t du ri ng July a ndAu g us t 20 05 , h is s on , M ark

Ni c ho lso n, wa s li vin g wi th h im a ndhis wi fe a ndwa s e mpl oy e d a t hi s b us ine ss. He sa id that only

he and his wife had che ck writing privileg es o n t he business ac count at B ank of Americ a. He said that his son, who had a drug problem, disappea red sometime a

round the fir st of J uly 20 0 5 . Nicholson said that he wa s unawa re that any

company chec ks were missing until the Ba nk of Americ a repr esenta tive called to inform him that som eone w as attempting to cash a chec k from his business acc ount. He instructed the bank re prese ntative not to cash the c heck be cause he had not written it

. W h en h e che cked to se e if a ny additional chec ks were missing, Nicholson discovere d that “s i x i n d ividual chec ks out of differ ent che ckbooks and one full chec kbook was g one.” H e said that he reported the stolen chec ks to the Fr anklin Police Depa rtment and wa s later
n o t i f i e d t h a th i s s o n h a d a t t e m p t e d t o c a s h o n e o f t h e c h e c k s a t a

b a n k i n W i l l i a m s o n C o u n t y. Nicholson said that he ha d seen his son write his na me on pre vious occa sions and that the sig nature on the che ck wa s consistent with how his son signed his na me. Nicholson said that he did not know the de fe nd a nt a ndthat th e de fe nd a nt h a d n e ve r w or ke d f or him

. Serg eant Jerry

Br oy les of the L ewisburg Police Depa rtment testified that he wa s dispatched to the B a nk

of Am e ri c a on Au g us t 1, 20 05 , in re sp on se to a c a ll f ro m the ba nk

re g ard ing a

ma n w ith a che ck which w as believe d to be forg ed. Af ter see ing the defe ndant, who fit the de scri ption the ba nk ha d g ive n, ta lki ng to a te lle r, Se rg e a nt B ro y le s sto od abo ut e ig hte e n fe e t a way to o bs e rv e him for a few minutes. The def

endant , who “was g etting r eal ne rvous, fidg ety ,” then de cided to lea ve a ndwa lke d p a st Se rg e a nt B ro y le s “ in a re a l fa st wa lk. ” Se rg e a nt B ro y le s fol low e d the de fe nd a nt t o the do or a nd a sk e d h im i f h e ha d trie d to c a sh a c he c k. Th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d th a t he ha d d on e so and said that he had lef

t the chec k inside the bank. When Ser g eant B roy les asked the defe ndant why he had le ft the che ck behind, the de fenda nt offer ed no explanatio n
. S er geant Broy les ca lled for backup and, afte r Off

icer Rebec ca Mitche ll arrived, the office rs and the de fenda nt went inside the bank mana g er’ s office to discuss the matter. The de fenda nt told the officer s that he wa s a painter and that he “ had wor

ked for the chec k.” Serg eant Br oy les then stepped outside the room and c alled Nicholson to inquire about the chec k. Nicholson informed Serg eant Br oy les that he had not sig ned the che ck.

Offic er Rebe cca

Mitchell of the L ewisburg Police Depa rtment testified that she r esponded to Serg eant Br oy les’s call for backup. She said that the defe ndant, who was wea ring a t-shirt bea

ring the Vit al S igns & Graphics logo, t old her and Serg eant Broy les that he had rec eived the chec k for some painting work he had done f or the c ompany
. S h e t o o k a st atement f rom J ulie J ohnson and
c oll e c te d th e c he c k th e de fe nd a nt p re se nte d to John so n, the de fe nd a nt’ s d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e , th e re qu e st fo r s ig natur e ve ri fi c a tio n su bmi tte d by John so n, a ndthe tw o p re vio us c he c ks writt e n f ro m th e sa me acc ount. She later turne d the items over to De tective Da c B urrow.-3-

Detec tive Dac Bur

row testified tha t he interview ed t h e defe ndant at the police station on Aug ust 1, 2005, afte r advising him of his Miranda rig hts and obtaining his signatur e on a w aiver of ri g hts fo rm . H e sa id tha t t he def e nd a nt w a s w e ari ng a

sh irt be ari ng the log o o f V ita l Sig ns & Gr aph ic s. De te c tiv e B ur

ro w the n r e a d in to e vid e nc e the de fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nt:

I arrive d in L ewi sb ur g , T e nn e sse e , th is m ornin g wi th M ark Ni c ho lso n. We g ot a ro om at the Wal kin g Ho rs e L od g e in L e wi sb ur g , T e nn e sse e . M ark ha nd e d me thi s c he c k in the a mou nt o f $2 50 0 on Vi ta l Sig ns a ndGr aph ic s. Ma rk a sk e d me to c a sh the che ck and he would g ive me $500 to help me out bec use o f m yfinanc ial pr ob le ms a ndto h e lp m e ou t. T he re st of the mon e y Ma rk a ndI we re g oin g to u se for a vacation. We wer e going to head south and go to the Gulf Coast. This is t he only chec k that I

have pa ssed.

I n the past fe w wee ks I

have ta ken Mar k to the Ba nk of Americ a in Fr anklin, Tenne ssee, to ca sh chec ks two times. W e we re also g oing to Geor g ia t o see some of Mark’ s family

there

. Asked if the de fenda nt told him that he assumed the c heck w as “g ood,” De tective B urrow sa id, “He ke pt on sa y ing that Mar

k g a ve him the c he c k. We we nt ove r it as f ar a s Ma rk writi ng it o ut. He sa id Mark g ave him the c heck and t old [hi m] he would help [him] out and g ive [him ] $500 for cashing it for him.”

The de fenda nt electe d not to testify and re sted his casewithout presenting any proof.
AN AL YSI S

The de fenda nt arg ues that the e vidence is insufficient to support his c onvictions, say ing that the proof at trial did not show that he knew the c heck w as for g ed.

I n Tenne ssee, the r esults rea ched by a juryin a criminal trial are a ffor ded g reat weig ht. See Sta te v. John so n, 91 0 S.W.2 d 897 , 899 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). On app e a l f ro m a g uil ty ve rd ic t, the State is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e and a ll reasona ble infer ence s that
ma y be dr a wn fr om the e vid e nc e
. Se e Sta te v. Ca bb a g e , 571 S.W. 2d83 2, 83 5 ( Te nn . 1 97 8) . T his
me a ns that w e do no t r e we ig h th e e vid e nc e , b ut p re su me that th e jury ha s r e so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts i n the testimony

in favor of

the State. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). The
re le va nt q ue sti on fo r an a pp e llate c ou rt

is w he the r, a ft e r v ie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t favor able to the pr osecution, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the
c ri me or c ri me s bey on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Se e Jac ks on v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979).

The de fenda nt was convic ted of forg ery over $1000 and theft of property up to $500. For g ery is d e fi ne d, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s:-4- (a) A person commits an offense who forg es a w riting w ith intent to defraud or harm another. (b ) A s u se d in thi s p art , u nle ss the c on te xt oth e rw ise re qu ir e s: (1) “ For g e” me ans to: (A ) Al ter , make, c omp le te , e xec ute or a uth e nti c a te a ny

writi ng so that it purports to: (i ) B e the a c t of

a no the r w ho didno t auth orize the a c t;

. . . . (C) I ssue, transf

er, r eg ister the tra nsfer

of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forg ed within the meaning of subdivision (b)(1)( A)[.]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14-114(a ), (b) (1)( A)(i) , (C) (2003)

. Theft of property is de fined as: “A person commits thef t of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property , the person knowing ly obtains or exercises c ontrol over the pr operty without the ow ne r' s e ff

e c tiv e c on se nt. ” I d. § 3 9- 14 -1 03 (2 00 3)

. I f the va lue of the pr op e rt y

is $ 50 0 o r l e ss, the theft is a Class A misdemea nor. I d. § 39-14-105( 1).

Th e pr oo f a

t tria l e sta bli sh e d tha t the de fe nd a nt pr e se nte d a che c k, dr a wn fr om the bu sin e ss acc ount of Vi t al S i gn s & Graphics, to a teller at the Ba nk of America a nd became ner vous and
a tte mpt e d to fle e wh e n he sp ott e d a unif orme d poli c e of

fi c e r in the ba nk , le a vin g the c he c k a ndhis drive r’ s lic e ns e be hin d. Jim Ni c ho lso n, the ow ne r o f V ita l Sig ns & Gr aph ic s, te sti fi e d th a t he did
no t w ri te the c he c k an d tha t the sig na tur e on the c he c k w a s c on sis te nt w ith the ma nn e r i n w hic h h is son, Mark Nic holson, signed his na me. I n h is statement to Detec tive Bur row, the de fenda nt acknow ledg ed that Mar

k Nicholson had g iven him the chec k and off ere d him $500 in ex chang e for cashing the che ck. B ased on a ll of this, we conclude that rea sonable jurors could have de termined that the def

endant c ommitt ed the of

fense s of forg ery

over $1000 a nd theft up to $500.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon th e f

o r e g o in g a u th o r it ie s a n d r e a s o n in g , th e ju d g me n ts o f th e tria l c o u r t a

re aff irmed.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE