IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT GAMBLE

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 97-07519,20,21 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge

No. W1999-01016-CCA-R3-CD - Decided June 27, 2000

The Defendant, Robert Gamble, was indicted for two counts of robbery, one count of the

fraudulent use of a debit card, and one count of theft of property over $500. He was subsequently

tried by a jury in Shelby County and found guilty of all charges. The trial court sentenced him as

a career offender to an effective sentence of sixty-six years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant

argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that he was improperly

sentenced. We hold that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant’s

convictions and that the Defendant was properly sentenced. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s

convictions and his sentences. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed.

WELLES, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HAYES, J., and GLENN, J., joined.

A.C. Wharton, Public Defender, Memphis, Tennessee, Garland Erguden, Assistant Public 

Defender, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert Gamble.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Tara B. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General,

William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, James M. Lammey, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee

OPINION

In May 1997, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Robert Gamble, for two

counts of aggravated robbery, one count of the fraudulent use of a debit card, and one count of theft

of property over $500. A Shelby County jury found him guilty of all charges. After a sentencing

hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to six years for the fraudulent

use of a debit card, six years for theft of property, and thirty years for each count of aggravated

robbery. The trial court ordered that the sentences for fraudulent use of a debit card and theft of

property be served concurrently, but consecutive to the sentences for aggravated robbery. In
-2-

addition, the court ordered that the two sentences for aggravated robbery be served consecutively

to each other. The Defendant therefore received an effective sentence of sixty-six years. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant now

appeals. He presents the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented

at trial was sufficient to support his convictions, and (2) whether his sentence is proper. We affirm

the judgment of the trial court.

On January 10, 1997, two masked men entered a Union Planters Bank on Lamar Avenue in

Memphis at approximately noon. Marpu Moulton, who was working as a teller at the “drive-thru”

window of the bank, testified that she heard one of her co-workers say, “oh my God,” and she turned

to see one of the men, who was holding a handgun, jump onto the teller line counter. She testified

that he told everyone to get on the floor, stating, “If you don’t get on the floor, I [will] shoot you.”

Moulton stated that the man then grabbed her by the arm and “threw” her to the other side of the

counter, where she laid on the floor. She reported that the man then rifled through her teller drawer

and took her purse before leaving. Later that day, she discovered that approximately $500 had been

removed from her bank account by way of her Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) card, which was

in her purse at the time it was stolen.

Pamela Townsend, another employee of Union Planters Bank, testified that she was also

working at the bank on the day of the robbery. She recalled that “two gentlemen enter[ed] the bank

with guns, demanding, shouting obscene words that we all get on the floor.” She testified that one

of the men “was holding the desk side officials [on the floor] on one end of the bank” while the other

man “jumped the counter and began getting money from the tellers.” After the men left, they

dropped a bag containing the stolen money outside the bank when a “dye pack” exploded inside the

bag. Townsend explained that a dye pack is a bank security measure and described it as a fake stack

of money with a detector hidden inside that releases red dye when transported through the bank door.

Townsend testified that approximately $6,500 stained with red dye was retrieved from the bag

abandoned by the robbers outside the bank. Townsend also introduced bank records showing

activity on Moulton’s ATM card following the robbery. She testified that Moulton’s ATM card was

used five times the day it was stolen and that the total amount taken from Moulton’s account was

$554. 

Marquita Brownlee testified that she was using the ATM machine at the Union Planters Bank

on January 10, 1997 at the time of the robbery. She recalled that when she put her card in the ATM

machine, she heard a “commotion” behind her. When she turned around, she faced a man standing

behind her holding a gun and a white bag, who said, “bitch, turn back around.” She complied, and

he then left. She testified that the man got into a white Chevrolet Camaro Iroc Z-28 with another

person and drove away. Brownlee stated that although it was snowing on the day of the robbery and

snow covered part of the car’s license plate, she saw part of the tag number. She identified the

license plate as a Tennessee tag containing the numbers 667.

Sergeant David Roleson of the Memphis Police Department testified that he was assigned

to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Safe Streets Task Force on January 10, 1997. He stated
-3-

that the task force was created to investigate bank robberies in Memphis and reported that he was

assigned to investigate the robbery at issue in this case. During his investigation, Sergeant Roleson

discovered three shoe prints on the bank counter. He had a crime scene officer photograph the prints

and then “lift[ed]” the prints from the counter. He reported that the prints were wet because of the

snow outside on the day of the robbery.

Gordon Neighbours, the senior fraud investigator for Union Planters Bank, stated that he was

called to the Union Planters Bank on Lamar Avenue on January 10, 1997. He testified that the

money recovered by the bank from the bag abandoned by the robbers was covered with red dye and

tear gas. Neighbours also testified that he put a “block” on Moulton’s ATM card, which had been

stolen during the robbery, and began to track where the card was being used. He stated that he

reviewed video surveillance tapes from the ATM machines where the card was used after the robbery

and took photographs from the surveillance tape of the man using the card. The photographs were

introduced and viewed by the jury.

Ed Eanes, an employee of First American Bank at the time of the robbery, testified that he

was contacted by Neighbours concerning ATM activity at his bank, one of the locations where

Moulton’s card was used after the robbery. He verified that he provided Neighbours with a video

surveillance tape of a transaction and the tape was introduced into evidence. He also verified that

Neighbours photographed the transaction using the surveillance tape. 

Brian Grissom, a loss prevention officer for First Tennessee Bank, introduced records from

the bank’s ATM machines pertaining to the use of Moulton’s ATM card at a First Tennessee Bank.

Grissom verified that Moulton’s ATM card was used to access her account at two separate First

Tennessee Bank ATM machines on January 10, 1997. During the second transaction, which

occurred at 2:32 p.m., the card was confiscated. Grissom introduced video surveillance tapes and

photographs taken of these transactions.

Sergeant Roleson testified that he used the ATM photographs to target the Defendant as a

suspect for the crime. On cross-examination, he reported that he saw a woman in some of the ATM

photographs, whom he identified as Joy Rickman, one of the Defendant’s roommates. He stated that

he knew of three people living with the Defendant in a duplex at the time of the crime. 

Gladys Marie Dawson, the Defendant’s aunt, identified the Defendant as the person captured

on film by the ATM surveillance cameras. She testified that at the time of the crime, the Defendant

was living with his girlfriend, Jackie Brown, Brown’s mother, Brown's aunt, and “a lot . . . more

people” at their home on Kimball. She stated that he also frequented a duplex on Eastport Cove

where his sister, Tiffany Dawson, lived. She reported that in addition to the Defendant and his sister,

a man named Carl Rickman, his sister, Joy Rickman, and often others as well lived in the duplex.

Sergeant Chad Golden of the Memphis Police Department testified that he was involved in

the Defendant’s arrest. He stated that at the time of his arrest, the Defendant was wearing a Nike

baseball cap with a “white swoosh emblem or logo on it” and a pair of gloves with a red dye stain

on the palm of one glove. Golden reported that police also searched the home where the Defendant
-4-

was reportedly living with his girlfriend at the time of his arrest. From the home, officers recovered

a gold necklace with a “Nike swoosh” medallion, which appeared to be identical to the necklace

worn by the suspect in the surveillance videos obtained from bank ATM machines. 

Golden also reported that on January 1, 1997, he discovered a stolen, white Chevrolet

Camaro Iroc Z-28 parked in an apartment complex parking lot. He stated that the car matched the

description of the vehicle used in the robbery. Golden testified that the car was parked adjacent to

a concrete drainage ditch running behind the apartment complex and reported that there were

footprints in the snow leading from the car to the drainage ditch. Golden stated that the footprints

led in the direction of the duplex on Eastport Cove where the Defendant often stayed, which was

located a couple of blocks west, “down the drainage ditch,” of where the car was parked.

Joseph N. Rinehart of the FBI, assigned to the Memphis Safe Streets Task Force, testified

that he obtained consents to search both of the Defendant’s residences, the Eastport Cove duplex and

the house that the Defendant shared with his girlfriend and her family. Sergeant Mike Kitsmiller of

the Memphis Police Department, also assigned to the Safe Streets Task Force, testified that he

searched the Defendant’s Eastport Cove duplex. He reported that officers recovered from the

apartment a pair of shoes, a jacket with a “Nike swoosh” emblem on the back, and a ski mask.

Kitsmiller testified that the jacket appeared to be the same jacket worn by the suspect in the

surveillance videos from the ATM machines. In addition, Kitsmiller searched the Defendant’s home

on Kimball, from which officers recovered a baseball cap, a flannel shirt, a gold Nike medallion

necklace, and a pistol like the one carried by one of the bank robbers during the robbery.

Photographs that were introduced at trial revealed that one of the robbers wore a flannel shirt during

the crime. 

Special Agent Linda Littlejohn of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Crime Laboratory

testified that she was a forensic scientist specializing in shoe print comparison, fiber comparisons,

and physical comparison. She compared the three shoe prints lifted from the bank counter to the pair

of shoes recovered from the Defendant’s duplex and concluded that the right shoe made one print

“to the exclusion of all others.” Special Agent Littlejohn explained that by this, she meant “that this

shoe and only this shoe could ha[ve] made [the] print based on the individual characteristic[s] . . .

found in the print corresponding to the individual characteristic[s] on . . . [the] right shoe.” She also

testified that the second print was consistent with the left shoe. She explained that the lack of

individual characteristics in the print precluded her from concluding with complete certainty that the

left shoe made the print; however, she maintained that either the left shoe or “another shoe exactly

like it” made the print. Finally, Littlejohn testified that the third print was consistent with the size,

shape, and tread design of the right shoe, but again she stated that based on the lack of individual

characteristics in the print, she could not determinatively say that the shoe made the print.

Special Agent John Canale of the FBI testified that he worked as a member of the Safe

Streets Task Force in Memphis at the time of the robbery. He stated that he interviewed the

Defendant on two occasions, January 16 and 17, 1997. He reported that during the first interview,

the Defendant told officers that he lived at both his girlfriend’s house and the duplex located on

Eastport Cove. During the second interview, the Defendant admitted that he was the person captured
-5-

on film by the surveillance cameras at the ATM machines. He also admitted that he had used

Moulton’s ATM card. However, he claimed to have obtained the card from his mother, whom he

said obtained it from her boyfriend.

James Jones, the head of maintenance for the Cottonwood Apartments in Memphis, testified

that he recovered a “large amount of purses, assorted papers, credit cards, billfolds and [a] handgun,”

which was loaded with three live rounds, from a dumpster at the apartment complex. He reported

the discovery to police, and Officer J.R. Hester of the Memphis Police Department responded to the

call. Hester testified that among the items he found Marpu Moulton’s checkbook, her Social

Security card, her “Discovery” checkbook, and other assorted papers and receipts belonging to

Moulton. Hester also testified concerning the distances between certain locations within his precinct

which were pertinent to the investigation of this case: He stated that the Union Planters Bank where

the robbery occurred was 1.9 miles from the Defendant’s Eastport Cove address and that two of the

ATM’s from which the suspect withdrew money using Moulton’s ATM card were within two and

a half miles of the Defendant’s Eastport Cove address.

Finally, Thomas Bailey, who owned a gun shop at the time of the robbery, testified that on

the evening of December 20, 1996, his shop was broken into, and several guns were stolen. One of

the stolen guns was the loaded pistol found in the dumpster at the Cottonwood Apartments. Another

of his stolen guns was the pistol recovered by police from the Defendant’s Kimball address

following the robbery.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

The Defendant first contends that evidence of his identity as the culprit is insufficient to

support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues that no one present during the robbery

could identify either of the two robbers, that no witness recognized the pistol used during the

robbery, that no evidence or testimony connected the Defendant with the “getaway” car, and that

many items of evidence introduced at trial were recovered by police at residences which the

Defendant shared with numerous other people.

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that “[f]indings of guilt in criminal

actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support

the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). In

addition, because conviction by a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes

a presumption of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence

was insufficient. McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Evans, 838

S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) (citing State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1976), and State

v. Brown, 551 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tenn. 1977)); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982);

Holt v. State, 357 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tenn. 1962).

In its review of the evidence, an appellate court must afford the State “the strongest

legitimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn

therefrom.” Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914 (citing State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.
-6-

1978)). The court may not “re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence” in the record below. Evans, 838

S.W.2d at 191 (citing Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 836). Likewise, should the reviewing court find

particular conflicts in the trial testimony, the court must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict or

trial court judgment. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. Furthermore,“[t]he question of appellant's identity

as the person who committed the offense [is] for the jury's determination, upon consideration of all

the competent proof.” State v. Shelley, 628 S.W.2d 436, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981).

In this case, despite the lack of eyewitness identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator

of the crime, the State presented a great deal of evidence linking the Defendant to the robbery. Not

only was the Defendant captured on film using Moulton’s stolen ATM card, but he admitted to

police that he used the card following the robbery. In addition, police found the “getaway” car,

which was identified by an eyewitness to the crime, in a parking lot near one of the Defendant’s

residences, and police found footprints leading from the car toward the Defendant’s home. From

the Defendant’s two residences, police recovered a pair of gloves, one of which was stained with red

dye like that used in the bank’s “dye packs”; a necklace which appeared to be the same necklace

worn by the suspect who used the stolen ATM card after the robbery; a baseball cap like that worn

by the suspect; a flannel shirt like that worn by one of the masked robbers, who were photographed

by bank surveillance cameras during the robbery; a jacket like that worn by one of the robbers; and

a pair of shoes that matched prints lifted from the bank counter. In addition, two stolen pistols were

found which had been taken from the same gun shop on the same night; police recovered one pistol

from the Defendant’s home and the other pistol from a dumpster where Moulton’s stolen purse and

other stolen items were found. We conclude that this is sufficient evidence from which the jury

could have adduced the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This issue is without merit.

II. SENTENCING

The Defendant next argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences in

this case. He contends that the imposition of consecutive sentences does not reasonably relate to the

severity of the offenses in this case or to the necessity of protecting the public. We disagree.

When an accused challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, this Court

has a duty to conduct a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that the determinations

made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This presumption is

“conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing

principles and all relevant facts and circumstances.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.

1991).

When conducting a de novo review of a sentence, this Court must consider: (a) the evidence,

if any, received at the trial and sentencing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the principles of

sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and characteristics of the

criminal conduct involved; (e) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors; (f) any statement

made by the defendant regarding sentencing; and (g) the potential or lack of potential for

rehabilitation or treatment. State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838, 844 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); Tenn.

Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210.
1

 The trial judge noted that the Defendant had six prior aggravated robbery convictions, one

attempted aggravatedrobbery conviction, one reckless endangerment conviction, and amisdemeanor

conviction for possession of a weapon. The Defendant committed these crimes as a juvenile, but

was sentenced as an adult for each of the offenses. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-108(a), (b)(3).

-7-

If our review reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, that the

court imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the

factors and principles set out under the sentencing law, and that the trial court’s findings of fact are

adequately supported by the record, then we may not modify the sentence even if we would have

preferred a different result. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-115 provides that if a defendant is convicted of more

than one offense, the trial court may impose consecutive sentences if the court finds by a

preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) The defendant is a professional criminal who has knowingly devoted such

defendant’s life to criminal acts as a major source of livelihood;

(2) The defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive;

. . .

(4) The defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no

regard for human life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk

to human life is high;

. . .

(6) The defendant is sentenced for an offense committed while on probation . . . .

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a), (b)(1), (2), (4), (6). Furthermore, “the imposition of consecutive

sentences on an offender found to be a dangerous offender requires, in addition to the application

of general principles of sentencing, the finding that an extended sentence is necessary to protect the

public against further criminal conduct by the defendant and that the consecutive sentences must

reasonably relate to the severity of the offenses committed.” State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933,

939 (Tenn. 1995).

We first note that because the trial judge in this case thoroughly considered all relevant facts,

circumstances, and sentencing principles, our review is de novo with a presumption of correctness.

In sentencing the Defendant, the trial judge noted that the Defendant had previously received “in

excess of six Class E or above felony convictions”1 and therefore determined that the Defendant was

a career offender. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-108(a), (b)(3). The trial judge also determined that

the Defendant had “an extensive history of criminal behavior and criminal convictions, in addition

to those necessary to make him a career offender.” Moreover, the trial court noted that the

Defendant was on parole at the time of the present offenses. The trial court further determined that

the Defendant was a dangerous offender, stating, 
-8-

the [D]efendant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human

life was high. I think, normally, that in an aggravated robbery, that would be . . .

part of the elements of the crime of aggravated robbery. However, in this case, . . .

the bank was full of customers . . . and the individual identified as Mr. Gamble . . .

leaped upon the counter brandishing a gun, leaped over the counter back behind the

tellers’ cages, and people were forced to the ground. . . . There was also testimony

that there were other individuals, customers in the bank, including a lady who had

her children with her during the time all this was occurring. 

. . .

And couple that with the fact that [the Defendant] has numerous prior convictions for

aggravated robbery – he’s on parole for aggravated robbery when he commits this

offense – indicates to me that he has no fear. He has no concept or apprehension

about being caught, about committing a crime where he arms himself with a pistol,

and robs people. Now, on at least seven or eight occasions, he has armed himself

with a pistol to rob people. This Court finds he is a dangerous offender.

Finally, the trial judge determined that 

confinement for an extended period of time is necessary to protect society. This

Court is satisfied that Mr. Gamble cannot live on the streets of free society without

committing violent offenses, as is indicated by his record. It’s obvious that

confinement, once before for aggravated robbery for a short period of time, in this

Court’s mind didn’t work, and society needs to be protected from Mr. Gamble.

And . . . that the aggregate length of the sentences, if consecutive sentencing

is ordered, reasonably relates to the severity of the offenses for which the

[D]efendant stands convicted. This Court feels that . . . the blazon nature of a bank

robbery, the fact that the numerous individuals who were present in the bank whose

lives were put in jeopardy and at risk indicates that Mr. Gamble needs to be

incarcerated for a long period of time. 

We must agree with the findings of the trial court. The Defendant’s presentence report

reveals a lengthy prior record which is especially lengthy considering that the Defendant wastwentyfive years old at the time of sentencing. His record, which dates back to 1986 when the Defendant

was twelve years old, includes five convictions for aggravated robbery as well as five other felony

convictions as an adult, at least three “felony” adjudications as a juvenile, and other convictions and

juvenile adjudications. As the State points out, his record shows “a continuous criminal history.”

Moreover, by his own admission, the Defendant was on parole for armed robbery at the time he

committed his present offenses. We therefore conclude that imposition of consecutive sentences is

more than adequately supported by the record in this case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.