ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð U*3 AM] BªÞÇv~¥vÓ# D3ö 0@) AOiƸ 0D~ D/ Bñ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ -./E0E12[3E4U56Ó€Ô¡¨ |ppppp3|x?2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌMay€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ H Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€$&"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€1997€SESSION›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9605„CC„00187ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òWILLIAMSON€COUNTYó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òv.ó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òHON.€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEó óÌò òTYREE€P.€AUSTIN,à àó óà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Aggravated€Burglary€and€Theft€Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà à€Under€$500)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌÌò òJOHN€œH.€HENDERSONó ó›à àà àà àà àœò òJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó ó›ÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€œ68›ÌFranklin,€Tennessee€37065„0068à àà àò òRUTH€THOMPSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOSEPH€D.€BAUGHó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMARK€L.€PURYEAR,€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€Tennessee€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌÌÑ7€ö(XXdìXXdì7Ñó óÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Tyree€P.€Austin,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€jury€verdictÏconvicting€him€of€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€theft€of€property€underÏ$500,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€As€a€Range€œI›€standard€offender,€he€was€sentencedÏto€œfive€(5)€years›€and€fined€œ$5,000›€for€aggravated€burglary.€€For€theft€of€œproperty›Ïunder€$500,€Austin€received€eleven€œmonths€and€twenty„nine›€œdays€to€runÏconcurrently€with€the€burglary€sentence.›€€Austin€presents€three€issues€for€ourÏreview:€1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€œconvictions;›€2)€whetherÏthe€trial€judge€erred€in€œfailing€to€submit€ð ðevery€wordðð€of€the€charge€to€the€jury€inÏwritten€form;›€and€3)€whether€the€imposed€sentence€is€excessive.€€Finding€no€error,Ïthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSó ó€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àAt€1:00€p.m.€on€October€11,€1994,€Rachel€P.€œCarter€left›€her€œhome›€inÏWilliamson€œCounty€to›€attend€a€funeral.€€œAt›€approximately€3:30€p.m.,€Carter€returnedÏhome€and€noticed€that€the€œrear€door›€had€been€forced€open.€€œCarter€subsequently›Ïdiscovered€that€a€television€set€and€a€microwave€oven€had€been€œtaken€from€herÏhome.›€€Because€the€television€was€fairly€new,€Carter€was€able€to€give€the€officersÏthe€serial€number€for€it.€€€€à àœÌà àDeborah›€Henderson,€a€pawnbroker€and€custodian€of€the€records€for€CashÏœAmerica€Pawn€Shop,›€œsubsequently›€identified€a€pawn€ticket€with€œAustinððs€signatureÏand€detailed›€information€describing€Austin€as€the€individual€who€pawned€œa›Ïœtelevision€with€the€matching€serial€number.›€€The€pawn€ticket€indicated€theÏtransaction€took€place€at€2:52€p.m.€œon€the€date€of€the€burglary.›Ìà àAt€trial,€Austin€admitted€to€pawning€the€television,€but€stated€that€he€did€notÏknow€it€was€stolen.€€He€testified€that€another€individual,€Tommy€Arendale,Ïtelephoned€him€at€9:00€a.m.€on€October€11,€œ1994,›€and€told€him€that€he€hadÏsomething€he€might€œwant.€€›€œAustin€stated›€œa€Steve€Jones€took€him€to€meet€ArendaleÏwhere€Austin›€bought€the€œtelevision›€for€œ$20.€€He›€œalso€testified€he€did›€not€know€theÏwhereabouts€of€either€Arendale€or€œJones.›Ìò òÓ  ÓÌSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àÌà àAustin€argues€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€the€convictions€ofÏaggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property€valued€under€$500.€€Specifically,€AustinÏcontends€that€there€was€no€proof€that€he€(1)€entered€the€Carter€residence,€œor›€(2)Ïexercised€control€over€the€œtelevision›€in€Williamson€County.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€œ39„14„403;€39„14„103.›Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€our€Ïstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elementsÏof€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319Ï(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€isÏentitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferencesÏtherefrom.€€œòòIdóó.›€at€835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burdenÏin€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdictÏreturned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).Ìà àAt€trial,€Ms.€Carter€testified€that€she€did€not€leave€her€home€until€1:00€p.m.€toÏattend€a€funeral.€€At€approximately€3:30€p.m.,€she€returned€home€to€find€the€œrear›Ídoor€had€been€forced€open.€€She€later€discovered€her€television€and€microwaveÏhad€been€taken.€€A€pawn€ticket€from€Cash€America€indicated€that€Carterððs€televisionÏhad€been€pawned€œby€Austin€at›€2:52€p.m.€on€the€same€day€of€the€burglary.€€€€€€€€€Ì€à àAustin€denied€stealing€the€television€or€having€any€knowledge€that€it€wasÏstolen,€but€admits€pawning€it.€€He€testified€that€he€was€responding€to€a€9:00€a.m.Ïphone€call€from€œa€Tommy›€Arendale.€€He€maintained€œthat€on›€the€morning€of€theÏburglary,€Arendale€telephoned€him€about€€ð ðsomething€he€might€want.ðð€€He€did€notÏknow€what€time€he€met€with€Arendale€or€his€present€whereabouts.€€There€was€alsoÏproof€indicating€that€Austin€resided€only€a€few€miles€away€from€the€CarterÏresidence.€€€€à àœAccording€to€Austinððs›€œtestimony›€the€œburglary›€œwould€have€to€haveÏoccurred›€on€the€morning€of€or€prior€to€October€11,€1994.€€œMs.›€œCarter€testified›€œthat›Ïshe€did€not€leave€her€home,€nor€were€the€items€missing€until€at€least€1:00€p.m.€onÏthat€same€day.€€œRegardless,€it€is€undisputed€that›€Austin€pawned€the€television€lessÏthan€two€hours€after€it€had€been€stolen.€€Possession€of€recently€stolen€goods€œmayÏgive›€rise€to€an€inference€that€the€possessor€œhad›€stolen€them.€€òòState€v.€œTuttleóó,›€œ914›ÏS.W.2d€œ926,›€œ932›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1995).›€€It€is€also€sufficient€evidence€to€sustain€aÏburglary€conviction.€€òòIdóó.€€Based€upon€this€and€the€œother›€evidence,€the€jury€œaccredited›Ïthe€testimony€of€the€victim,€Ms.€Carter,€discredited€that€of€Austin,€and€returned€guiltyÏverdicts€on€œboth›€œcharges.›€€œThere›€was€sufficient€evidence€to€œsustain€the›€convictionsÏof€aggravated€burglary€and€theft€of€property€under€$500.€This€issue€is€without€œmerit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓJURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAustin€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€failing€to€submit€ð ðevery€wordðð€of€hisÏcharge€to€the€jury€in€written€form.€He€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€aÏsupplemental€oral€jury€charge€relating€to€venue.Ìà àAfter€all€of€the€testimony€has€been€presented€and€the€argument€of€counselÏconcluded,€it€is€the€trial€judgeððs€duty€to€instruct€the€jury.€€Furthermore,€in€a€felonyÏcase€every€word€of€the€judgeððs€instructions€shall€be€reduced€to€writing€before€beingÏgiven€to€the€jury.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30(c);€òòState€v.€Gormanóó,€628€S.W.2d€739€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€However,€a€failure€to€present€written€instructions€is€subject€to€harmless€errorÏanalysis.€€òòSeeóó€òòGormanóó,€628€S.W.2d€at€740.€€Ìà àThe€record€in€this€case€was€supplied€in€video„cassette€and€technical€recordÏform.€€There€were€over€twenty€(20)€pages€of€jury€instructuctions€that€were€submittedÏto€the€jury.€€The€trial€judge€gave€the€following€oral€comments€in€addition€to€aÏstandard€venue€instruction:ÌÓÓà àà àAnd€if€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€proves€that€Ìà àà àthe€crime€was€committed€in€two€or€more€counties,€thenÌà àà àhe€can€be€prosecuted€in€any€one€of€those€counties,€butÌà àà ànot€more€than€one.ÌÌÌÓÓDefense€counsel€timely€objected€to€the€supplemental€instruction€indicating€that€theÏoral€instruction€was€inconsistent€with€the€defense€theory€of€the€case€and€furtherÏstating€that€he€thought€that€the€instruction€ð ðhad€to€be€in€writing.ðð€€Most€of€the€defenseÏproof€throughout€trial€was€directed€at€showing€that€Austin€did€not€exercise€controlÍover€the€stolen€property€in€Williamson€County.€€The€trial€judge€declined€to€reduceÏthe€instruction€to€writing€noting€that€it€only€applied€to€the€misdemeanor€theft€charge.Ìà àThe€trial€court€was€technically€correct€in€finding€that€this€oral€instruction€onlyÏapplied€to€the€misdemeanor€and€was€not€required€to€be€in€writing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€30€(c).€€However,€the€practice€of€giving€oral€instructions€applicable€toÏmisdemeanor€charges€and€written€instructions€applicable€to€felony€charges,€in€theÏsame€case,€is€discouraged€and€could€be€confusing€to€a€jury.€€In€this€case€the€juryÏobviously€concluded€the€defendant€committed€the€burglary€and€taking€of€theÏproperty€in€Williamson€County.€€Therefore,€the€trial€judgeððs€limited€oral€comments€toÏthe€jury€were€not€prejudicial€to€Austin.€€The€error€was€harmless.€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€€›ÌÌœò òÓ  ÓÌLENGTH›€OF€œSENTENCEó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óà àAustin€next€œargues€that›€his€œsentence€is€excessive.›€€Specifically,€he€œcontends›Ïthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€five€years€for€aggravated€œburglary,›€and€Ïthat€a€œfour€year€sentence›€is€more€appropriate.€€Ìà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumptionÏthat€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„401(d)(1990).›€€The€presumption€of€correctness€which€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððsÍaction€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€hasÏthe€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2dÏ53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ìà àIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€Class€B,€C,€D,€or€E€felony€œconvictions,›€theÏpresumptive€sentence€is€the€minimum€within€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancementÏor€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€œAnn.›€ðð€40„35„210€œ(c)(1990);›€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€926ÏS.W.2d€267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€If€there€are€enhancement€factors€but€noÏmitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum.€Tenn.ÏCode€œAnn.€ð𛀜40„35„210(d)(1990).›€€A€sentence€involving€both€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors€requires€an€assignment€of€relative€weight€for€the€enhancementÏfactors€as€a€means€of€increasing€the€sentence.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„210(e)(1990).›€€The€sentence€may€then€be€reduced€within€the€range€by€any€weightÏassigned€to€the€mitigating€factors.€œòòIdóó.€›€€œÌà àAs€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C€felony,€€Austin€couldÏreceive€a€sentence€between€three€and€six€years.€€Austin€had€a€prior€conviction€forÏfirst€degree€burglary€for€which€his€parole€had€been€revoked.€€There€was€also€proofÏindicating€that€Austin€had€several€misdemeanor€convictions,€including€one€for€theft.€ÏThe€trial€court,€accordingly,€enhanced€Austinððs€sentence€based€on€his€previousÏhistory€of€criminal€convictions€and€criminal€behavior€and€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8)(1990).€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€trial€court€found€two€mitigating€factors:€1)€that€the€defendantÏhad€a€favorable€work€history;€and€2)€that€the€conduct€did€not€cause€or€threatenÏserious€bodily€injury.€€In€light€of€Austinððs€criminal€history,€the€court€had€discretion€toÏgive€these€mitigating€factors€little€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116,Ï126€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€record€supports€the€five„year€sentence€imposedÏby€the€trial€court.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌ