ÿWPC³! …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µ4Ýñb 0ª 0D² ö U:þ 0J8 0T‚ w@Ö 0^ 0ht 0rÜ 0|N 0†Ê 0P 1uà U,U 0d BåU,U>.U*lB)–DC¿ D3 AM5‚ 0@‘mÑ=>[{£Öv~yvÓ÷ AOÊÆ 0Dß 0D#! D/g! B–!˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„px @ d3|x- ù-(Z(2F«$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XEÅXXXÔòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô þÿUeE[U2, 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌApril€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Although€the€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€theft€and€assessed€a€fine€of€$5,000,€theÏappellant€was€not€sentenced€on€the€theft€conviction.Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Owner€Goodrich€Hill€testified€that€the€value€of€the€items€removed€was€approximatelyÏ$6,300.Ì QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€When€Sanders€viewed€the€shoe€print€at€trial,€he€responded€"it€doesn't€look€like€the€shoeÏprint.€€This€is€the€particles."Ì ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€When€questioned€concerning€the€failure€to€preserve€evidence,€Detective€CarlyleÏresponded:ÌÌà8 àà àWe€had€already€got€what€I€thought€was€good€solid€evidence.€€We€got€theÏvictim's€merchandise€back,€and€we€had€gotten€the€bad€guy.€€And€we€had€got€allÏthat€done,€felt€like€we€had€a€good€case,€and€normally€I€would€have€went€back€andÏgot€that€glass,€and€as€we€were€tied€up€in€the€investigation€with€all€this€other€goingÏon,€it€was€forgotten.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›ßL€+,);+'h|` ç `€€Lßà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€àQ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9505„CC„00125€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Lincoln€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌTERRY€DEAN€BAKER,ó óà à)€(Burglary,€Theft,€Escape€„€2€counts)€€€€€€Ìà àà à)Ì€à àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJohn€Harwell€Dickeyà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌÌCurtis€H.€Gannà àClinton€J.€MorganÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌP.O.€Box€1119à àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌFayetteville,€TN€37334à à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌòòAt€Trial:óóà àWilliam€Michael€McCownÌRobert€Marlowà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌP.O.€Box€1119à àWeakley€E.€BarnardÌFayetteville,€TN€37334à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€andÌà àCharles€CrawfordÌRandall€E.€Selfà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌAttorney€at€Lawà à215€East€College€StreetÌ131„A€East€Market€Streetà àFayetteville,€TN€37334ÌFayetteville,€TN€37334ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€œ___________________Ì›ÌÌò òœAFFIRMED€AS€TO€ESCAPES;ó ó›Ìò òREVERSED€AND€DISMISSED€AS€TO€BURGLARY;ÌœREMANDED€FOR€ENTRY€OF€A€JUDGMENT€OF€ACQUITTAL€AS€TOÏTHEFT›Ìó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€¶XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÓ ` ¸ pÓò òÔ  Ôà àà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÌÓÓà àA€jury€found€the€appellant,€Terry€Dean€Baker,€guilty€of€burglary,€theft€ofÏ$1,000€or€more,€and€two€counts€of€escape.€€He€was€sentenced€to€eight€years€forÏburglary€and€four€years€on€each€escape€conviction.× ƒ. ××  ×€€All€sentences€wereÏconsecutive.€€We€affirm€the€escape€convictions,€but€reverse€and€dismiss€the€Ïburglary€conviction€and€remand€the€theft€case€for€entry€of€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòFACTSóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThis€case€involves€the€burglary€of€Hills€Brothers€Grocery€Store.€€OwnerÏPhillip€Hill€testified.€€He€stated€that€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€February€11,Ï1993,€he€observed€someone€entering€and€exiting€the€store€"about€five€or€sixÏtimes."€€He€lived€approximately€150€feet€from€the€store€and€was€unable€to€seeÏthe€perpetrator's€face.€€He€was€further€unable€to€testify€as€to€the€perpetrator'sÏrace€or€whether€the€perpetrator€was€a€"big€person"€or€a€"little€skinny€fellow."ÌÌà àOfficer€Rick€Sanders€testified.€€He€stated€that€on€the€morning€of€theÏincidents€in€question,€he€responded€to€a€robbery€call€at€Hills€Brothers€GroceryÏStore.€€While€en€route,€he€observed€a€light€brown€car€at€an€intersectionÏapproximately€one€quarter€mile€from€the€store.€€He€stated€that€he€was€travellingÏat€"close€to€a€hundred"€when€he€observed€the€car.€€After€arriving€at€the€store,€heÏstated€that€he€observed€the€same€light€brown€car€drive€by.€€He€pursued€andÏstopped€the€car.€€Appellant€was€driving€the€car.€€Sanders€questioned€theÏappellant.€€He€stated€that€the€appellant€denied€having€been€at€the€store€andÏresponded€that€he€"was€just€coming€from€New€Market."€€Sanders€escorted€theÏappellant€to€the€store.€€At€the€store,€the€officer€searched€the€appellant's€vehicleÏand€found€a€toboggan,€gloves,€and€a€small€flashlight.ÌÌà àTestimony€at€trial€indicated€that€a€perpetrator€gained€access€to€the€storeÏby€breaking€a€window.€€The€store's€burglar€alarm€was€unplugged€and€a€rearÏdoor€was€unlocked€from€the€inside.€€Testimony€established€that€cigarettes,Ïcoffee,€money,€and€other€items€had€been€taken€from€the€store.€€Behind€the€store,Íhowever,€large€garbage€bags€were€found€containing€the€store's€missingÏinventory.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€officers€discovered€a€footprint€beneath€the€shattered€window€entryÏpoint.€€They€removed€one€of€the€appellant's€shoes€and€made€a€comparison.€ÏThey€concluded€that€appellant's€shoe€tread€was€identical€to€the€print€foundÏinside€the€store.€€The€shoe€print€was€lifted€and€preserved€on€butcher's€paper.€€AtÏtrial,€however,€Sanders€did€not€recognize€the€print× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€Officer€Crick€indicatedÏthat€the€print€had€been€damaged.€€The€officers€further€testified€that€theyÏobserved€broken€glass€in€the€squad€car,€where€the€appellant€had€been€sitting,Ïand€in€the€appellant's€shoes,€gloves,€and€car.€€The€officers€placed€tape€over€theÏsole€of€appellant's€shoe€to€secure€glass€fragments.€€At€trial,€however,€glassÏfragments€from€the€squad€car,€the€appellant's€car,€and€the€appellant's€articles€ofÏclothing€were€not€produced.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌà àA€TBI€forensic€scientist€with€a€specialty€in€shoe€tracks€testified.€€SheÏdescribed€the€appellant's€shoe€tread€as€unique.€€She€stated€that€in€six€yearsÏshe€did€not€remember€seeing€a€similar€shoe€tread€design.€€She€did€not€testify,Ïhowever,€that€appellant's€shoe€tread€was€similar€to€the€shoe€print€found€insideÏthe€store.ÌÌà àA€TBI€forensic€scientist€with€a€specialty€in€glass€analysis€testified.€€HeÏperformed€a€microscopic€examination€of€the€appellant's€shoes€and€gloves.€€HeÏwas€unable€to€find€any€glass€fragments.€€He€further€testified€that€upon€removingÏthe€officer's€tape€on€appellant's€shoe,€he€discovered€only€sand.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified.€€He€stated€that€he€lived€in€New€Market,€Alabama,Ïand€worked€in€Tennessee.€€He€estimated€that€his€average€commute€from€homeÏto€work€was€one€and€one€half€hours.€€He€stated€that€he€usually€reported€for€workÏaround€5:00€or€5:30€a.m.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€that€on€the€morning€of€the€arrest,€he€was€stoppedÏaround€3:30€a.m.€€He€maintained€that€he€was€driving€to€work€when€stopped.€€HeÏestimated€that€he€had€a€forty€minute€drive€remaining€from€the€location€of€theÏstop€to€work.€€On€cross„examination,€the€appellant€was€asked€why€he€wasÏreporting€to€work€so€early.€€The€appellant€responded€that€he€had€"about€a€twoÏand„a„half€hour€drive€going€toward€Columbia€.€.€.€that€day"€and€his€boss€told€himÏthey€were€leaving€early.€€He€further€stated€that€"[i]f€it€had€been€any€other€day,Í[he]'d€probably€left€and€sat€in€the€restaurant€and€ate€breakfast."€€AppellantÏadmitted€to€having€been€at€the€store€the€day€before€he€was€arrested.ÌÌà àAppellant's€father€and€boss€testified.€€His€father€stated€that€appellant€livedÏwith€him€in€New€Market,€Alabama.€€He€stated€that€the€appellant€did€not€leaveÏNew€Market€until€after€2:30€a.m.€on€the€morning€he€was€arrested.€€Appellant'sÏboss€testified€that€the€appellant€usually€reported€for€work€around€5:00€to€5:30Ïa.m.ÌÌÓ  Óò òœIó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óœ›à àIn€appellant's€first€assignment€of€error,€he€contends€that€the€evidenceÏwas€insufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€escape.€€This€assignment€of€error,Ïhowever,€is€not€supported€by€argument,€citation€to€authorities,€or€reference€toÏthe€record.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.,€Rule€12,€this€issue€is€treated€asÏwaived.€€Those€judgments€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIIó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIntertwined€in€appellant's€first€issue,€he€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€burglary€and€theft.€€He€argues€that€the€stateÏfailed€to€meet€its€burden€in€proving€each€element€of€the€crimes.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àWe€are€mindful€that€jury€verdicts€accredit€state's€witnesses€and€resolveÏall€evidentiary€conflicts€in€the€state's€favor,€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€78Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€and€on€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€both€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€beÏdrawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€AlthoughÏwe€do€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€evidence,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€the€evidence€against€appellant€is€circumstantial.€ÏTherefore,€the€evidence€must€"exclude€all€reasonable€hypotheses€other€thanÏthat€of€guilt."€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€577€S.W.2d€467,€469€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€"AÏweb€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escapeÏand€from€which€the€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€otherÏreasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€613€(Tenn.€1971).ÌÌà àThe€evidence€linking€appellant€to€the€crimes€is€mere€testimony€thatÏappellant's€shoe€tread€appeared€identical€to€a€shoe€print€found€inside€the€store.€ÏThe€appellant€was€not€in€possession€of€stolen€merchandise.€€He€was€neitherÏseen€at€the€store€nor€on€the€store's€property€at€the€time€of€the€theft.€€There€wereÏno€finger€prints€connecting€the€appellant€to€the€crime.€€A€forensic€scientistÏexamined€the€appellant's€shoes€and€gloves€under€a€microscope€and€wasÏunable€to€detect€any€glass€fragments.€€A€TBI€expert€in€shoe€tracks€examinedÏboth€the€print€and€the€appellant's€shoes€and€did€not€testify€that€they€wereÏsimilar.ÌÌà àFrom€this€evidence,€the€jury€could€only€have€speculated€that€theÏappellant's€shoe€left€the€print€inside€the€store€at€the€time€the€robbery€occurred.€ÏCriminal€convictions,€however,€may€not€be€based€solely€upon€conjecture,Ïguess,€speculation,€or€a€mere€possibility.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€129Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€evidence€in€the€case€òòsubóóÏòòjudiceóó€was€"not€so€closely€interwoven€and€connected€that€the€finger€of€guiltÏ[was]€pointed€unerringly€at€the€defendant."€€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€at€613.€ÏAppellant's€conviction€for€burglary€is,€therefore,€reversed€and€vacated.ÌÌà àAs€to€theft,€the€jury€found€appellant€guilty€and€assessed€a€fine€of€$5,000.€ÏHowever,€for€an€undetermined€reason,€the€trial€judge€did€not€sentence€theÏappellant€on€the€theft€conviction.€€Having€found,€though,€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€a€theft€conviction,€we€remand€that€case€to€the€trial€court€forÏthe€entry€of€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òœIIIó óÌ›ÌÓ  Óœ›à àIn€the€appellant's€last€assignment€of€error,€he€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€consolidating€his€charges.€€He€alleges€that€the€escape€charges€shouldÏhave€been€tried€separately€from€the€charges€of€theft€and€burglary.ÌÌÌà àAlthough€a€close€call,€we€believe€that€the€trial€court€should€have€severedÏthe€charges.€€The€property€offenses€were€neither€similar€in€òòmodusóó€òòoperandióó€norÏrelatively€close€in€proximity€to€time€and€location€to€the€escape€offenses.€€òòState€v.ÏPeacockóó,€638€S.W.2d€837,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Therefore,€theÏoffenses€were€not€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€and€should€not€have€beenÏconsolidated.€€òòIdóó.€at€839„40;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€13(a)€&€8(a).ÌÌà àHowever,€appellant€has€suffered€no€prejudice.€€Evidence€of€escape€orÏattempted€escape,€after€being€charged€with€a€criminal€offense,€is€admissible€forÏthe€purpose€of€establishing€guilt,€consciousness€of€guilt,€or€knowledge€of€guilt.€ÏòòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Also,€because€of€ourÏdispositions€on€the€burglary€and€theft€charges,€appellant€has€not€been€affectedÏby€the€consolidation.ÌÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€reverse€the€burglary€conviction€and€dismiss€that€case.€€We€remandÏthe€theft€case€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€€TheÏjudgments€of€conviction€for€the€escapes€are€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ¸ pÓÓÓà àà ààQ àà à______________________________Ìà àà ààQ àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judge