WPC? uL#\}SIWՑ3p_yf7 cۿj~xu6D|8wO\2p)g|tx4Zߴ כfT5oi;c9jTHNWcs4)ޡujbB=+I1 cUP.Zq\N?)Sg)Ack 4%f:'y&4= Lx#ihF}{eT'iEѪV19+3R"ci{D*}2au(ӵלMTmB,)ϥ C,Knab:.G48bP_3rgӕy\$^sMnAn$1C:$QcRZ$SLuOR5pGk tEbuX2T Q>`+*$ZhGg8m-EL;-Cޏ)!.(;\~# F UNQ % 0( U: b 0 U : 0 U: w@ 4 - |< a9iU:U:U: B D3### 0DVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV AO 0D D/ B"HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,|AZ"Arial Regular- -(A 7$XXXX2 XX  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular(*2Z$ !   XXXX &&X X   `   0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular  {  E   E  Ӏ uM%3|x  r  V$ X&XXX &&X X&   `   1    Thenatureofthatitemwasapparentlynotrevealedattrial,thoughofficerstestified `  thattheyfoundnoburglarytoolsonDefendantspersonatthetimeofhisapprehension.  V$ X&XXX &&X X&   `   2    DefendantsfirstnameisspelledLouisandLewisintherecord.   V$X&XXX&&XX&   `   4    Defendantsjudgmentofconvictionforcriminalimpersonationdemonstratesthe `  confusion.HewasconvictedunderthenameLouisColeman(hismothersmarriedname),andthejudgmentlistsBellandIngramasaliases.AjuryoutdiscussionrevealedthatDefendanthadalsobeenconvictedunderthenameofColemaninthepast,inadditiontothenamesIngramandBell.Thepresentenceinvestigationreportdisclosesthat hisfingerprintsshowedhimtobeLewisLeeColeman. /  V$ X&XXX &&X X&   `   3    Althoughthisinformationwasnotpresentedtothejury,itiscontainedinotherparts `  oftherecordonappeal.   V$X&XXX&&XX&   `   4    Defendantsprosecutioninthesecasesdemonstratestheconfusion.Hewasindicted `  asLouisLeeIngram,a.k.a.LewisLeeBell,a.k.a.LouisLeeBell.HewasconvictedunderthenameLouisColeman(hismothersmarriedname),andthejudgmentlistsBellandIngramasaliases.AjuryoutdiscussionrevealedthatDefendanthadalsobeenconvictedunderthenameofColemaninthepast,inadditiontothenamesIngramandBell.Thepresentenceinvestigationreportdisclosesthat hisfingerprintsshowedhimtobeLewisLeeColeman.,  AZ"Arial Regular XAO XXX-  XXAO   Ad FILEDXAO X -  May27,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XAO XXX-  XXAO   Ad FILEDXAO X -  May26,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d 'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !   ` 0XX3\0TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7       r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP,`  r   r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP,`  r   INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEAPRILSESSION,1999  STATEOFTENNESSEE,  )  C.C.A.NO.01C019807CR00279 `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellee,   h   ) `   `     h   ) `     h   )  DAVIDSONCOUNTY `  VS. `     h   )   `   `     h   )  HON.THOMASH.SHRIVER,  `   LEWISL.BELL,a.k.a.  h   )  JUDGE  ` М  LEWISCOLEMAN,a.k.a.  ) `   l   L  ouis   OUIS  LEE  INGRAM, h          ) `   `     h   )  `  ` Appellant.   h   )  (Burglary,CriminalImpersonation)  `    ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHECRIMINALCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY  FORTHEAPPELLANT: h     FORTHEAPPELLEE: 0" ̜JEFFREYA.DeVASHER    JOHNKNOXWALKUP  $ AssistantPublicDefender    AttorneyGeneralandReporter % BRENTT.WHITE h     PATRICIAC.KUSSMANN ' AssistantPublicDefender    AssistantAttorneyGeneral ( 1202StahlmanBuilding h     425FifthAvenueNorth (  Nashville,TN37201 `     h     VICTORS.JOHNSON `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     NICKBAILEY `     h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     WashingtonSquare,Suite500 `     h     222SecondAvenueNorth `     h     Nashville,TN372011649̛OPINIONFILED________________________̜AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE  h:12g   :J3\ 7 dXXd7OPINION 3\:J `     ` TheDefendant,LewisL.Bell,appealsfromhisconvictionsforburglaryandcriminalimpersonation.Onappeal,heargues(1)thattheevidencewasinsufficienttoconvicthimofburglaryorcriminalimpersonation,(2)thatthetrialcourterredbyadmittingthetestimonyofafingerprintspecialist,and(3)thatthetrialcourterredbyinstructingthejurythatitcould weighandconsiderthemeaningofasentenceofimprisonment.BecausewefindnomeritinDefendantsthreeissues,weaffirmhisconvictions.@I.SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE ` TennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure13(e)prescribesthat [f]indingsofguiltincriminalactionswhetherbythetrialcourtorjuryshallbesetasideiftheevidenceisinsufficienttosupportthefindingsbythetrieroffactofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Inaddition,becauseconvictionbyatrieroffactdestroysthepresumptionofinnocenceandimposesapresumptionofguilt,aconvictedcriminaldefendantbearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidencewasinsufficient.McBeev.State,372S.W.2d173,176(Tenn.1963); .+!" seealsoStatev.Evans,838S.W.2d185,191(Tenn.1992)(citingStatev. -#$ Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1976),andStatev.Brown,551S.W.2d329, /%& 331(Tenn.1977));Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982);Holtv. 0'( State,357S.W.2d57,61(Tenn.1962). 2)*  ` Initsreviewoftheevidence,anappellatecourtmustaffordtheState thestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceaswellasallreasonableandlegitimate 8^/0 inferencesthatmaybedrawntherefrom.Tuggle,639S.W.2dat914(citing `  Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978)).Thecourtmaynot re P  weighorreevaluatetheevidenceintherecordbelow.Evans,838S.W.2dat @  191(citingCabbage,571S.W.2dat836).Likewise,shouldthereviewingcourt 0 findparticularconflictsinthetrialtestimony,thecourtmustresolvetheminfavorofthejuryverdictortrialcourtjudgment.Tuggle,639S.W.2dat914.    ` ThefactspresentedattrialrevealthatasilentalarmwastrippedinaNashvillesignmakingbusiness,C&DSafetyCompany,inthemidafternoonofSeptember28,1996.MetropolitanNashvilleDavidsonCountyOfficerKevinCapertonreceivedthedispatchandinvestigatedthepremises.Hetestifiedthatthebusinessisopentothestreetintwoplaces:adoorforfoottrafficandadoorforvehicletraffic.Therestofthebuilding,includingamachineshop,issurroundedbyachainlinkandbarbedwirefenceapproximatelyeightfeethigh. ` OfficerCapertonconcludedfromhisinvestigationthatinordertoenterthebuilding,apersonmustunlockthepadlockeddoorswithakey,cutthepadlocks,orscalethefence.Capertonfurthertestifiedthatfollowingthefirstalarm,hefoundnosignsofentry"thatthebuildingappearedsecure. ` Approximatelytwohourslater,thepolicedispatchernotifiedOfficerCapertonthatthesilentalarmatC&Dhadactivatedagain.Uponhissecondinvestigationofthepremises,Capertonfoundthatoneofthedoorstothemachineshop,adoorwhichwascompletelywithinthechainlink,barbedwirefence,wasopen.Atthattime,Capertonrequestedsomeonefromthesecurityservicetoopenthebuilding.Capertontestifiedthatonceinside,heconcluded 9p02 fromtheappearanceofthemachineshopdeskthatsomeonehad gonethroughmaterialsonthedeskandinthedrawers.Ashepreparedtoleave,theofficernoticedthatthemetalringforthedoorspadlockhadbeencut. ` At8:30p.m.thesameevening,OfficerCapertonreceivedwordofathirdalarmatC&DSafetyCompany.Becausehehadanticipatedathirdalarm,Capertonwaspatrollingnearbyandarrivedatthescenequickly.Theofficerparkedshortofthebuildingandwalkedquietlytothepremises.Heheardthedoortothemachineshopopeningorclosing,sohemovedtoapositionwherehecouldseethatdoor.HethensawDefendantrunningawayfromthedoortowardthefence.AsCapertonobservedDefendantclimbthefence,hebroadcastedtootherofficersadescriptionofDefendantandhisclothing.Defendantdroppedtothegroundandbegantowalkthroughanalley. ` OfficerKelvinLuskapprehendedDefendantinthealleyway.LuskdrewhispistolandorderedDefendanttothegroundasDefendantasked, Whatsgoingon?Man,Ihaventdoneanything.AccordingtoLusk,Defendantwassweatyandoutofbreath,andhecarriedsomethinginhishand.  7 q    1      ׀Whenaskedhisname, P* " Defendantrepliedthatitwas LewisBell. ` GwynGregorytestifiednextfortheState,andshestatedthatshehad accesstotherecordsoftheMetropolitanPoliceDepartment,thatshechecked x2)* thoserecordsuponrequesttodetermineDefendantsidentity,andthatshediscernedDefendantstruenamewasnotLouisBell,butwasLouisIngram.  7      2      כ h    ` Finally,ToddCarson,presumablyanownerofC&DSafetyCompany,testifiedfortheprosecution,describingtheinsideofthebusinessas ransacked,withitems strewnaround.Hetestifiedthatallofthedeskdrawerswereopenandthatthelockanddoorhadbeenbrokenoffofacabinet.Carsonstatedthatheleftthebusinessatapproximatelynoonthedayoftheintrusion,buthedidnotstatewhetheranyemployeeswerestillpresentinthebuildingatthattimeorwhetheranyonecouldhavebeeninthebuildingbetweennoonandthetimeofthecrime.CarsonalsotestifiedthathedidnotknowDefendantandthatDefendantdidnothavepermissiontobeonthepremises.ToCarsonsknowledge,noitemsweretakenfromthebusiness,althoughhetestifiedthathedidnothaveaninventoryofthesmalleritemsandwouldnotknowifanyweremissing.@)A.Burglary )   ` TennesseeCodeAnnotated3914402reads, Apersoncommitsburglarywho,withouttheeffectiveconsentofthepropertyowner...[e]ntersabuildingotherthanahabitation(oranyportionthereof)notopentothepublicwithintenttocommitafelony,theft,orassault....Tenn.CodeAnn.3914 402(a)(1).Defendantchallengesthefindingthatheintendedtocommitatheft, 4** andhealternativelyassertsthattheStatedidnotestablishhisidentityastheperpetrator.  ` Defendantsargumentthathedidnotpossessanintenttocommittheftmustfail.ThisCourtrecentlyreaffirmedthepre1989principlethat ajurymayreasonablyandlegitimatelyinferthatbybreakingandenteringabuildingcontainingvaluableproperty,adefendantintendstocommittheft.Statev. 0  Ingram,986S.W.2d598(Tenn.Crim.App.1998)(citingHallv.State,490 8 S.W.2d495,496(Tenn.1973));seeHall,490S.W.2dat496;Statev.Chrisman, @ 885S.W.2d834,838(Tenn.Crim.App.1994);Statev.Avery,818S.W.2d365, H 36768(Tenn.Crim.App.1991);Statev.Burkley,804S.W.2d458,460(Tenn. P Crim.App.1990);Bennettv.State,530S.W.2d788,791(Tenn.Crim.App. X 1975)(quotingHall,490S.W.2dat496). !`  ` InIngram,thedefendantenteredthevictimshomegaragebybreakinga %p holeinthewall.Id.Theproofshowedthatthegaragecontainedlawntools,a 'x ladder,andacar.Id.Likewise,inthiscase,OfficerCapertonsawDefendant )  immediatelyafterthebuildingssilentalarmactivated,insidetheeightfoothigh,chainlinkandbarbedwirefencesurroundingthebusiness,runningfromthesamedoorthathadbeenvandalizedearlierintheday. ` Theevidencepresentedbythecompanysproprietor,ToddCarson,showedthatthebuildingDefendantenteredcontainedadesk,lockedcabinet,andsmallhandtools.Thedeskhadbeenransackedanddrawerswereopen,andthelockanddoorhadbeenbrokenfromthecabinet.Carsonstatedthatdue  :00 tothelackofinventoryforthesmalltools,hecouldnotdetermineifanyitemsweremissing.WeconcludethatthisevidencewassufficienttocircumstantiallyshowthatDefendantintendedtocommitatheftinsideC&DSafetyCompany. ` DefendantnextarguesthattheStatefailedtoestablishthathecommittedtheburglary.Thisissuealsolacksmerit.OfficerCapertonsawtheperpetratorrunningfromthebuildingandbroadcastedadescriptionofDefendantsbody,clothing,anddirectionofflighttootherofficers.OnceotherofficersapprehendedDefendant,Capertonidentifiedhimastheperpetrator.ThiswassufficienttopermitthejurytoconcludethatDefendantperpetratedtheburglary.@"B.CriminalImpersonation X  ` TennesseeCodeAnnotated3916301reads, Apersoncommitscriminalimpersonationwho,withintenttoinjureordefraudanotherperson...[a]ssumesafalseidentity....Tenn.CodeAnn.3916301(a)(1).Defendantarguesthattheevidenceattrialdidnotestablishthatheintendedtoinjureordefraudanotherperson whengivingpolicethenameLouisBell,nordoesitestablishthatthenameLouisBellwasafalseidentity.Wedisagree. ` TheStatecitesStatev.Brooks,909S.W.2d854(Tenn.Crim.App.1995), /&& insupportofitsargumentthattheStatewasnotrequiredtoprovewhyDefendantgaveofficersafalsename.TheStatecontendsthatinstead,itwassufficienttoshowthatDefendantintentionallygavepoliceafalsename.InBrooks,thisCourt 6,, stated, Toestablishtheoffenseofcriminalimpersonation,thestateisnotrequiredtoshowproofofwhythedefendantsoughttodefraudtheJackson  :00 PoliceDepartment,onlythatheintendedtomisrepresenthistrueidentity.Id. `  at859. `  ` WebelievethatthefactsheardbythejuryinthiscaseareanalogoustoBrookssuchthatwemustadheretoitsresult.Thejuryheardproofthat   DefendantrepresentedhimselftopoliceasLouisBellandthathis truenamewasnotLouisBell.UnderBrooks,thisevidencewassufficienttopermitthejury 0  toconvicthimofcriminalimpersonation.Seeid.at859;Statev.ThomasE. 8 Bradshaw,No.01C019609CR00406,1997WL578963,at*4(Tenn.Crim. @ App.,Nashville,Sept.19,1997);Statev.CharlesLeeWhite,No.02C019501 H CC00025,1995WL555044(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Sept.20,1995). ` However,wenotethattheresultmighthavebeendifferenthadDefendantplacedbeforethejuryevidencethathismothersnamehadatonetimebeenBellandthatDefendanthadbeenpreviouslyconvictedunderthenameBell.  7      3      כHad %p DefendantbeenabletoshowthejurythatgivingofficersthenameBellwouldnothindereffortstoidentifyandprosecutehim,butinsteadleadprosecutorstoformerconvictions,theevidencecouldhaverefutedanyinferenceofanintenttodefraud. ` Furthermore,hadDefendantbeenabletocrossexaminewitnessGwynGregory,hecouldpotentiallyhaveshownthattheState,atthattime,didnotknowDefendants truename,butknewonlythathehadalsobeenconvicted 6,, underthenameLouisIngram.DefendantarguesthatbecausehecouldnotϜcrossexamineGregory,hisrighttoconfrontthewitnesswasviolated.However,DefendantsinabilitytocrossexamineGregorywasselfimposed:Hadhebeenwillingtodisclosehispriorconvictionstothejury,Defendantcouldhaveargued,throughathoroughcrossexaminationofGregoryandthroughhisowntestimony,thatusingthenameBellcouldnotbeconstruedasintendingtodefraudlawenforcement.TheconfusioncreatedbytheDefendantsprioruseofmorethanoneidentitycomplicatedtheDefendantstrialtactics.    7      4      כ 8 @^^ II.TESTIMONYBYGWYNGREGORY ` DefendantchallengesthetrialcourtsdecisiontopermitGwynGregorytotestifythatLewisBellwasnotDefendants truename.DefendantclaimsthatadmittingGregorystestimonyimpairedhisrighttoconfrontthewitnessbecausehadhecrossexaminedGregory,hewouldhavebeenforcedtorevealhispastcriminalconvictions.Furthermore,hearguesthatGregorystestimonywasnotrelevant;andevenifitwasrelevant,itwasmoreprejudicialthanprobative. ` Relevantevidenceisevidence havinganytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldhavebeenwithouttheevidence.Tenn.R.Evid.401.Thedeterminationofwhetherprofferedevidenceisrelevant 2(( islefttothediscretionofthetrialjudge.Statev.Forbes,918S.W.2d431,449 `  (Tenn.Crim.App.1995).TheStaterespondsthatDefendantis attempt[ing]toelevateamatteroftrialtacticstothelevelofaconstitutionalquestion.Weagreewiththatstatementandthenext: [Defendant],throughhisattorney,electednot x tocrossexamineMs.Gregory.(Emphasisadded.) ` ThatDefendanthadbeenconvictedandfingerprintedunderanameotherthanBellatleastsixtimesinthepastisprobativeoftheissueofwhetherBellwasanfalsename,andtheevidencewas,therefore,relevant.Inaddition,becausethetrialcourtrecognizedthatGregorysfulltestimonywouldindeedbeprejudicialtoDefendantbyimplyingthathehadacriminalhistory,thecourtproperlylimitedthesubstanceofhertestimony.WecannotconcludethatthetrialcourtcommittedanabuseofdiscretionbyadmittingGregorysstatements.@22#IV.TRUTHINSENTENCING ` Finally,Defendantchallengesthetrialcourtsinstructiontothejurythatitmay weighandconsiderasentenceofimprisonment.FormerTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035201mandatedsuchaninstruction: Whenachargeastopossiblepenaltieshasbeenrequestedpursuanttosubdivision(b)(1),thejudgeshallalsoincludeintheinstructionsforthejurytoweighandconsiderthemeaningofasentenceofimprisonmentfortheoffensechargedandanylesserincludedoffenses.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035201(b)(2)(A)(i).Defendantmadesucharequestforthetrialcourttoinformthejuryofpossiblepenalties.  8..  ` InStatev.RachelMarieGreen,No.01C019706CR00223,1998WL `   708915(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Oct.12,1998)(forpublication),thisCourtfollowedtheinstructionoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtinStatev.King,973 p  S.W.2d586(Tenn.1998),onthisissue.Asinthiscase,thedefendantinGreen x challengedthetrialcourtsinstructionthatthejuryshould weighandconsiderasentenceofimprisonment.Green,1998WL708915,at*26. (   `  ` WenotedinGreenthattheKingcourtheld,8  8 ! ! 8 ` [F]ormerTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035201(b)(2)...wasnotimpermissiblyvague,didnotmandateamisleadingjuryinstruction,anddidnotrequireajuryinstructiononmattersirrelevanttoaDefendantsguiltorinnocence.ThecourtconcludedthatthejuryinstructiongiveninKingviolatedthedueprocessclauseofneither P theUnitedStatesnortheTennesseeConstitution. ....InKing,althoughthesupremecourtstatedthatitwas X significantthatthejuryhadbeeninstructedthatthesentencinginformationwas foryourinformationonly,thecourtspecificallystatedthatsentencingandparoleinformationhada measureofrelevancetothejurysfunctionindeterminingguiltorinnocence.P ` !` ! Id.at*27(citationsomitted).Moreover,westatedinGreen, %p 8 `  Thechallengedjuryinstructionwasmandatedbythelegislature.Theconstitutionalityofthestatutehasbeenupheldbyoursupremecourt.Thesupremecourtrejectedtheargumentthatsentencingandparoleinformationareentirelyirrelevanttothejurysfunctionofdeterminingguiltorinnocence.WethereforeconcludethatthetrialjudgedidnoterrbygivingthejuryinstructionmandatedbyformerTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035201(b)(2).T ` !` ! Id.WefindnoreasontorevisittheGreendecision,andweconcludethatthis /&& issuelacksmerit. ` BecausewefindnomeritinDefendantsassignmentsoferror,weaffirmtheverdictofthejuryandjudgmentbythetrialcourt.   `   :00  `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________̜JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE___________________________________̜JAMESCURWOOD  WITT,JR.,JUDGE