ÿWPCÓ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  ¸, U.ä 0J 0T\ 0^° 0h 0rv 0|è 0†d 0ê 1uz U,ï 0dU,B)«DCÔ AMéd BMv~jvÓè D3» 0@î AO.Æ} 0DC D/‡ B¶˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡  ¡-¢V£D¤¥D¦§D¨ Ó€´»{s â3|x¶ShelbyBursonPierottiS.W.2d Crim appLiakas S.Ct L.Ed2dTuggle%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJuly€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßL€#$";+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9504„CR„00105Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHonorable€Bernie€Weinman,›€JudgeÌLAVON€JONES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Theft€over€$1,000)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÓÓGerald€Stanley€Greenà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ301€Washington,€Suite€302à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà 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,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947à àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPaul€Thomas€Hoover,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_________________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÓÓò òà@ àOPINIONó óÌÑ7€Ÿ¸XXdæXXdæ7ÑØØÙ  ÙÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant,€Lavon€Jones,€was€convicted€of€theft€of€property€over€$1,000,€aÏClass€D€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I€sentenceÏconsisting€of€confinement€for€two€(2)€years€in€the€Shelby€County€Correctional€Center.€ÏThe€trial€court€suspended€the€entire€sentence€and€placed€the€appellant€on€probationÏfor€two€(2)€years.€€The€appellant€was€also€ordered€to€pay€restitution€in€the€amount€ofÏ$2,500.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€toÏsupport€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€is€guilty€of€theft€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Based€upon€a€thorough€reading€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€theÏlaw€governing€this€issue,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€should€be€affirmed.Ìà àOn€May€26„27,€1994,€Malcolm€œGarrett›€was€working€as€a€shift€supervisor€at€NKC,Ïa€manufacturer€of€conveyer€systems€used€in€automobile€manufacturing.€€The€appellantÏwas€also€employed€by€NKC€but€was€on€vacation€at€this€time.€€Around€midnight,€œGarrett›Ïsaw€the€appellant€enter€the€plant.€€The€appellant€asked€him€where€he€could€find€theÍregular€supervisor.€€He€was€advised€that€the€regular€shift€supervisor€was€on€vacation.€ÏœGarrett›€watched€as€the€appellant€obtained€a€forklift€€and€drove€away.€€AnotherÏemployee€observed€the€appellant€driving€the€forklift.€€œGarrett›€could€tell€by€the€sound€ofÏthe€forklift€that€the€appellant€was€traveling€to€another€part€of€the€factory.€€ShortlyÏthereafter,€œGarrett›€saw€the€appellant€using€the€forklift€to€load€a€welding€device€into€theÏbed€of€a€pickup€truck.€€œGarrett›€asked€the€appellant€what€he€was€doing.€€The€appellantÏreplied,€€ð ðYou€shouldnððt€have€come€outside.€€You€should€have€just€stayed€in€the€plant,Ïyou€know,€then€you€wouldnððt€have€to€see€this.ðð€€œGarrett›€told€the€appellant,€ð ðYou€canððtÏtake€the€welder€like€that.ðð€€œGarrett›€watched€as€the€appellant€drove€away€with€theÏwelder.€€While€the€company€allowed€employees€to€borrow€equipment€from€the€factoryÏwith€permission,€the€appellant€did€not€have€permission€to€borrow€the€welder.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€never€returned€the€welder.Ìà àMr.€Hatcher,€the€personnel€manager€at€œNKC,›€testified€that€the€approximateÏvalue€of€the€welder€was€$2,700.€€The€company€had€rented€the€welder€for€sometime.€ÏThe€company€had€to€pay€the€owner€$2,500€for€the€stolen€welder.€€A€catalog€listing€theÏwelder€was€entered€into€evidence.€€The€welder€was€never€recovered.Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.€€He€denied€stealing€theÏwelding€device.€€He€explained€that€he€had€removed€a€motor€and€transmission€from€aÏtruck€earlier€in€the€day.€€He€placed€the€motor€and€transmission€in€the€bed€of€his€pickupÏtruck.€€As€a€result,€the€welding€machine€could€not€have€fit€in€the€bed€of€the€truck.€€TheÏappellant€admitted€that€he€went€to€the€NKC€plant€on€the€date€in€question€to€visit€aÏfriend€who€had€moved€to€the€night€shift.€€He€also€had€uniforms€that€he€wanted€to€leaveÏat€the€plant.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€of€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€à àThis€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÏevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÍœwith€a›€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ìà àBefore€an€accused€can€be€convicted€of€theft€of€property,€the€State€of€TennesseeÏmust€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€accused€(1)€knowingly€obtains€control€ofÏthe€property,€(2)€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€the€property,€and€(3)€does€soÏwithout€the€consent€of€the€owner€of€the€property.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€evidence€clearly€established€that€the€appellant€put€the€welder€in€the€back€ofÏhis€truck€and€drove€away€without€permission€from€NKC.€€The€appellant€never€returnedÏthe€welder.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€à à€€€GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE