ÿWPCã …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0d U*u B)Ÿ DCÈ AM Xv~]vÓÛ B® D3Ë 0@þ AO>Æ 0DS D/— BƘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ '(D)[*a+D,D-D./Ó€;»{s 3|x;2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€¤XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€ !;+'h|«ÿ` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌœ›Ìà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌÌà@ àAUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌœ›ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à*à àC.C.A.€#02C01„9510„CC„00292ÌÌà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à*à àMADISON€COUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌÌMICHAEL€WAYNE€ROBINSON,€SR.à à*à à(Theft€over€$500.00)ÌÌà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòœFor›€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌScott€Kirkà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌHarde,€Martin€&€Jaynes,€P.A.à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ213€East€Lafayette€Streetà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJackson,€TN€38301à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSarah€M.€BranchÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37342„0485ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€G.€WoodallÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDonald€AllenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAssistant€District›€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38301ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇÌÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Wayne€Robinson,€Sr.,€appeals€as€of€right€from€aÏconviction€of€theft€over€$500.00€in€the€Madison€County€Circuit€Court,€Division€II.€€HeÏwas€sentenced€to€the€maximum€four€years€for€this€Class€E€felony€as€a€Range€IIÏoffender.€€On€appeal,€appellant€raises€two€issues:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€convict€of€theft€of€property€over€$500.00€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€ordering€the€maximum€œsentence.›Ìà àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€committed€no€error€œand€the€judgment›€is€affirmed.Ìà àOn€the€morning€of€May€7,€1993,€Charles€Jones€was€working€as€an€apprenticeÏlineman€for€the€Jackson€Utility€Division€(ð ðJUDðð)€in€Jackson.€€He€observed€three€menÏin€a€white€Ford€pickup€loading€several€large€cast€iron€pipe€fittings€used€by€the€WaterÏDivision€and€stored€in€a€field€off€of€Magnolia€Street.€€He€did€not€recognize€the€men€asÏJUD€employees,€nor€was€the€truck€they€were€driving€marked€as€a€JUD€vehicle.€€Ìà àAfter€the€men€drove€off€and€Jones€finished€his€task,€he€reported€the€incident€toÏthe€store€keeper€of€this€inventory€at€the€storage€yard,€Greg€Johnson.€€Based€uponÏprior€incidents,€Johnson€knew€that€such€materials€often€were€taken€to€a€scrap€metalÏdealer€after€being€stolen.€€He€immediately€called€two€dealers€in€Jackson€andÏreported€the€missing€items€and€a€description€of€the€truck.€€Shortly€thereafter,€JohnsonÍreceived€a€call€from€Hutchersonððs€Metal€saying€that€three€men€were€on€the€premisesÏwith€cast€iron€fittings€matching€the€reported€description.€€Johnson€telephoned€theÏpolice,€œthen€went›€to€the€scrap€yard€and€identified€six€pipe€fittings.€Ìà àThe€three€men,€one€of€which€was€appellant,€were€not€immediately€arrested€atÏthe€scrap€yard.€€After€an€œinvestigation,€however,›€Michael€Shanklin,€John€ShanklinÏand€appellant€were€indicted€for€theft€of€property€over€$1,000.00€from€œJUD.›€€MichaelÏShanklin€later€pled€guilty€to€the€charge€and€testified€for€the€State€at€the€trial€ofÏappellant.Ì€€€€à àAppellant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€convict€himÏof€theft€of€property€over€$500.00.€€Specifically,€appellant€attacks€the€evidence€offeredÏby€the€State€to€prove€the€value€of€the€items€stolen.€€When€an€appellant€challengesÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct€2781,€61€L.E.2d€560€(1979).€€We€doÏnot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Appellantððs€argument,€in€essence,Ïasks€us€to€re„weigh€the€evidence€offered€as€to€the€value€of€the€stolen€pipe€œfittings.€We›Íœmust€decline.›Ìà àValue€of€property€is€defined€as€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€at€the€timeÏand€place€of€the€offense;€or€if€the€fair€market€value€cannot€be€ascertained,€the€cost€ofÏreplacing€the€property.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„106(a)(35)€(Supp.€1995).€€At€trial,ÏGreg€Johnson,€the€store€keeper€of€the€inventory,€testified€that€the€pipe€fittings€wereÏworth€$1,210.75.€€This€reflected€the€cost€that€JUD€paid€for€the€fittings€whenÏpurchased.€€He€further€testified€that€it€would€cost€$2,808.00€to€replace€the€pipe€fittingsÏon€the€market€at€the€time€of€trial.€€On€cross„examination,€Johnson€stated€that€whenÏthe€police€asked€him€to€value€the€fittings€at€the€metal€yard,€he€told€them€they€wereÏworth€about€$100.00€each.€€He€also€stated€this€would€have€been€their€scrap€value.€€Ìà àBased€on€the€evidence,€regardless€of€which€value€the€jury€relied€upon,€theÏconviction€for€theft€over€$500.00€was€justified.€€Certainly€€$1,210.75€and€$2,808.00Ïare€well€over€$500.00.€€Even€if€the€jury€relied€upon€the€scrap€value€($100.00€each),Ïthe€value€would€have€been€$600.00,€which€is€still€over€$500.00.€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÏfact,€not€this€Court.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ThisÏfactual€issue€was€resolved€by€the€jury€and€we€have€no€occasion€to€invade€œits›Ïprovince.€€Any€view€of€the€proof,€and€certainly€the€strongest€view€afforded€the€State,Ïconfirms€the€value€of€the€pipe€fittings€was€over€$500.00.€€We€will€not€disturb€the€juryððsÍverdict.Ìà àSecondly,€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€maximumÏsentence€for€the€crime€committed.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€application€ofÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€affirm€the€four€year€term€imposed.Ìà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeóóÏòònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealingÏparty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€ThisÏpresumption,€however,€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€thatÏthe€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àœIn€addition,›€there€are€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€inÏsentencing.€€The€trial€court€must€consider€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;Ï(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€andÏarguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]he€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€[e]vidence€andÏinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210€(Supp.€1995).Ìà àœThis›€section€œalso€provides›€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€theÏpresumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€mustÍstart€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriateÏfor€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€mayÏset€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(c)„(e)€(Supp.€1995).€Ìà àAs€a€Range€II€offender,€the€sentencing€range€for€a€Class€E€felony€is€not€lessÏthan€two€nor€more€than€four€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„112(b)(5)€(1990).€€AtÏsentencing,€the€trial€judge€found€there€were€no€sufficient€mitigating€factors.€€œFor›Ïenhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€noticed€the€appellant€had€ð ðin€excess€of€fifteenÏprior€convictions€over€a€long,€long€period€of€time,ðð€including€two€prior€felonies.€€InÏaddition,€the€appellant€committed€this€crime€while€on€parole€from€a€robberyÏconviction€and€this€provided€the€second€enhancement€factor€noted€by€the€court.€ÏThese€two€enhancement€factors€are€appropriate€considerations€under€the€statute.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114€(Supp.€1995).€€The€presumptive€minimumÏsentence€was€enhanced€by€the€two€enumerated€factors€and€the€trial€court€consideredÏno€mitigating€factors.€€The€sentence€was€set€above€the€minimum,€but€still€within€theÏrange.€€As€such,€the€maximum€sentence€of€four€years€was€justified€and€appropriate.€€Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌ________________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌ________________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÌ