WPCq& =rSN BNIZF|6Aƚ`Ubosxw[MDWvѢwO#.^ %(W16rC韶XI?`Czq)f`~ d91 ]^t5c*um}]t=%3!8h iO(Qx1eB>15Xn [| Ka!}Igj#/lTKd{=ku>Nν0lRQ}@0_"chȂk/[ۢ`Jd qWxP: P7x\.~ʷU.F %t bz ~ Z _ ]nm 0("U:Jw46U:J 0  0DU:a_U:4U:-U: U:U:"#U:##### B8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$ D3U$U$U$ 0D$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ AO$%% 0D% D/%& BT&<6X9`(CourierX   %$XyXXX `   2    ݀Thisruleallowstheappellanttoprepareandfileastatementofthe `  evidencewhenatranscriptisunavailable.Inthiscase,theappellantfiledastatementoftheevidence,andthestatefileditsownstatementoftheevidence.However,underTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure24,theproperprocedureisfortheappellanttofileastatementoftheevidence,thentheappelleecanobjecttoanyportions,andthetrialjudgedeterminestheproperlyincludableinformation.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(c),(e).Inthiscase,thetrial d judgeapprovedbothofthestatementsofevidence.Becausethestatementsofevidencearesubstantiallysimilarandnoimportantdifferencesareapparent,wewillproceedtoreviewtheappellantsclaimsbytreatingthecombinedstatementsasthestatementoftheevidence. %$XyXXX `   1    ݀Tenn.CodeAnn.3914408(a)(1997). U 3$XXXX `   3     XXXӀThisinformationwascontainedinthedefendantsreplybrief,butnotin `  thestatementofevidence.Factsrecitedinapartysbrief,butnotincludedintherecordonappeal,arenotevidence.SeeBetsyJanePendergrastv.State,No. @  01C019707CC00307,slipop.at4(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.15,1998)(citingStatev.Roberts,755S.W.2d833,836(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)).3|xM<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial RegularLELLELLELLDLLELLL$eLELDLLDLLDLLLDMeMDMMMDMMeMӀuM%,cAZ"Arial Regular(I(2%$  !  XyXXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular U $X9XXX `   3     XXXӀThisinformationwascontainedinthedefendantsreplybrief,butnotin `  thestatementofevidence.Factsrecitedinapartysbrief,butnotincludedintherecordonappeal,arenotevidence.SeeBetsyJanePendergrastv.State,No. ,  01C019707CC00307,slipop.at4(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.15,1998)(citingStatev.Roberts,755S.W.2d833,836(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)).,cAZ"Arial Regular  $X9XXX `   2    ݀Thisruleallowstheappellanttoprepareandfileastatementofthe `  evidencewhenatranscriptisunavailable.Inthiscase,theappellantfiledastatementoftheevidence,andthestatefileditsownstatementoftheevidence.ThiswasnottheproperprocedureunderTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure24.Theproperprocedureisfortheappellanttofileastatementoftheevidence,thentheappelleecanobjecttoanyportions,andthetrialjudgedeterminestheproperlyincludableinformation.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(c),(e). d However,thetrialjudgeapprovedbothofthestatementsofevidencefiledinthiscase.Becausethestatementsofevidencearesubstantiallysimilarandnoimportantdifferencesareapparent,wewillproceedtoreviewtheappellantsclaims.,cAZ"Arial Regular 3$XnXXX `   1    ݀Tenn.CodeAnn.3914408(a)(1997).,cAZ"Arial Regular  3$XnXXX `   2    ݀Thisruleallowstheappellanttoprepareandfileastatementofthe `  evidencewhenatranscriptisunavailable.Inthiscase,theappellantfiledastatementoftheevidence,andthestatefileditsownstatementoftheevidence.ThiswasnottheproperprocedureunderTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure24.Theproperprocedureisfortheappellanttofileastatementoftheevidence,thentheappelleecanobjecttoanyportions,andthetrialjudgedeterminestheproperlyincludableinformation.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(c),(e).  However,thetrialjudgeapprovedbothofthestatementsofevidencefiledinthiscase.Becausethestatementsofevidencearesubstantiallysimilarandnoimportantdifferencesareapparent,wewillproceedtoreviewtheappellantsclaims.,cAZ"Arial Regular  3$XnXXX `   2    ݀Thisruleallowstheappellanttoprepareandfileastatementofthe `  evidencewhenatranscriptisunavailable.Inthiscase,theappellantfiledastatementoftheevidence,andthestatefileditsownstatementoftheevidence.However,underTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure24,theproperprocedureisfortheappellanttofileastatementoftheevidence,thentheappelleecanobjecttoanyportions,andthetrialjudgedeterminestheproperlyincludableinformation.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(c),(e).Inthiscase,thetrial  judgeapprovedbothofthestatementsofevidence.Becausethestatementsofevidencearesubstantiallysimilarandnoimportantdifferencesareapparent,wewillproceedtoreviewtheappellantsclaimsbytreatingthecombinedstatementsasthestatementoftheevidence.,cAZ"Arial Regular XyXXXMXXy   Ad FILEDXyXM  June4,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d""""'dxd(3$  !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  !  MMMMMMMLLMLL`   TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T XBXXX7 B XXdd7  Mr*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  rߛM @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  ̀@@@'ATNASHVILLE 0  @#FEBRUARY1999SESSION    STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) p  p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellee, h     ) p C.C.A.No.01C019801CR00050 P   `     h     ) p  @  vs. `     h     ) p DicksonCounty 0   `     h     ) p       MARKALLENSEYLER, h     ) p Hon.RobertE.Burch,Judge p  `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellant. h     ) p (Vandalism) P  `     h      p  `     h      `     h      p FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:   JOSEPHL.HORNICK h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP   AttorneyatLaw   h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  98ChurchSt.,Suite1 h       p Dickson,TN37055    h      p DARYLJ.BRAND  !`  `     h      p AssociateSolicitorGeneral "P  `     h      p 425FifthAve.N.,2dFloor  #@  `     h      p Nashville,TN372430493  $0   `     h  `     h      p DANMITCHUMALSOBROOKS p&   `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral  `'    `     h      p SUZANNEM.LOCKERT  @)"   `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorney 0* #  `     h      p CourtSquare,P.O.Box580 `     h      p Charlotte,TN370360580 ` OPINIONFILED:________________AFFIRMEDJAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE  p5,/  ;15 @qq* OPINION  `  XyXX XB'X, XX' # XBXXXyb#Thedefendant,MarkAllenSeyler,appealsfromhisconvictionfor   vandalismLLLL #  1      ׀intheDicksonCountyCircuitCourt.Thetrialcourtimposedasentence  ofelevenmonths,29daystobeservedintheDicksonCountyJail.Inthisdirectappeal,thedefendantraisesthreeissues: ` - , XX, X-I.  Whethertherewassufficientevidenceto @    convictthedefendantofMMvandalismL?LLLL.LMMII.  Whetherthetrialcourterredinallowingthe p   statetointroduceevidenceconcerningthe  defendantspriorarrestsforMMmisdemeanorsL?LLLL.LMMIII.  Whetherthetrialcourterredinallowingthe 0   defendanttobeseenbythejuryinMMlegironsL?LLLL.LMM ` Afterareviewoftherecord,thebriefsoftheparties,andtheapplicablelaw,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.0X,F X , X0 ThefactsofthiscasewerepresentedonappealthroughaStatementofEvidencepursuanttoTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure24(c).LLLMLLMLMvMMMLLLLLvL #  2      MMLLThestate %  presentedthefollowingproofattrial.OnMay4,1997,SergeantKenBoneoftheDicksonCountySheriffsDepartmentdrovehispolicecartothegarageareaoftheDicksonCountyJailtohaveitwashedbythetrustees.Thedefendantwasatrusteeatthejail,buthewasnotassignedtowashcars.Afterthecarwaswashed,itwas -#& runningcorrectly.ThecarremainedinthegaragefortwohoursuntilOfficerThrasherdrovethecartothesergeant.Uponreachingthesergeant,OfficerThrashertoldhimthatthecarwasrunningroughly.Thesergeantnoticedbirddroppingsonthecar,therefore,hereturnedthecartothegaragetohaveitcleaned.Ashedrovethecartothegarage,heobservedthecarrunningroughly.HelefttheenginerunningasthecarwasbeingLLcleaned,LLbutbeforethetrusteesfinishedwashingthecar,theenginequitrunningandwouldnotrestart.Alocalrepairshopdiscoveredwaterinthegastank. ThesergeanttestifiedthatheknewthedefendantfromhavingLLarrestedLLhimonLLseveraloccasionsLLinthepast.Defensecounselobjectedtothistestimony,buthisobjectionwasoverruled.SergeantBonetestifiedthathedidnotseethedefendantinthegaragewhenhedrovethecartheretobecleaned,nordidheseethedefendantputwaterinthegastank.     #@  JailerDarickWalltestifiedthatthedefendanthadaccesstothegarageatthetimeoftheincident,eventhoughhewasnotassignedtothegaragearea.AfterthesergeanttoldOfficerWallthatwaterwasplacedinthegastank,OfficerWallinformedallthetrusteesthattheywouldlosetheirprivilegesastrusteesunlesssomeoneadmittedtothevandalism.Atthispoint,JamesBain,oneofthetrusteesassignedtothegaragearea,saidhesawthedefendantputwaterinthegastank.OfficerWallquestionedthedefendant,whoadmittedhisguilt.However,thedefendantrefusedtosignawrittenstatementadmittinghisguilt.Inrefusingtosignthewrittenstatement,OfficerWalltestifiedthatthedefendantsaidhewouldnotadmitdoingsomethingwhichhedidnotdo.WhenOfficerWallaskedthedefendantwhyhewasrecantinghisearlieradmissionofguilt,thedefendant  :04 respondedthathewouldnottellOfficerWallthetruth.       ThelastwitnessforthestatewasJamesBain.Mr.Baintestifiedthathe apparentlysawthedefendantputwaterinthegastank.Hetestifiedthatthedefendantwaspresentinthegaragewhenthesergeantscarwasbeingwashed.Heidentifiedhiswrittenstatement,givenimmediatelyfollowingtheincident,accusingthedefendantofplacingwaterinthegastank.AfterMr.Bainstestimony,thestaterested.Thedefendantofferednoproof.Thejuryfoundthedefendantguiltyofvandalism.   @    I.   S# Beforewereachtheissuespresentedbythedefendant,wemustfirstaddressthestatescontentionthatthedefendanthaswaivedtheseissuesbytheuntimelyfilingsofhismotionfornewtrialandnoticeofappeal.Thestateconcedesthatthiscourtmaywaivetherequirementforatimelyfilingofanoticeofappealintheinterestofjustice.SeeTenn.R.App.P.4(a).However,thestatecontendsLLthat `'  waiveroftherequirementoftimelyfilingisinappropriateLLbecausethedefendanthasnotfiledamotionrequestingLLthatrelief.LLThestatearguesthatifthiscourtwaivesthetimelyfilingrequirement,thenweshouldonlyaddressthedefendantschallengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence. Amotionforanewtrialmustbefiled withinthirtydaysofthedatetheorderofsentenceisentered.Tenn.R.Crim.P.33(b).Thisisamandatoryfilingperiodwhichcannotbeextended.Tenn.R.Crim.P.45(b).Thetrialcourtdoesnotpossessjurisdictionoveranuntimelyfiledmotionfornewtrial.Statev.Martin,940 @8.2 S.W.2d567,569(Tenn.1997)(citationsomitted). Thetrialjudgeserroneous  :04 considerationofrulingonamotionfornewtrialnottimelyfiled...doesnotvalidatethemotion.Id.(citingStatev.Dodson,780S.W.2d778,780(Tenn.Crim.App. @  1989)).Anuntimelyfiledmotionfornewtrial notonlyresultsintheappellantlosingtherighttohaveahearingonthemotion,butitalsodeprivestheappellantoftheopportunitytoargueonappealanyissuesthatwereorshouldhavebeenpresentedinthemotionfornewtrial.Id.(citationsomitted).Waiveroftheseissuesoccurs `  pursuanttoTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure3(e),whichstatesthefollowing: ` MMMiMM[MMMMI]MnMMMMallcasestriedbyajury,noissuepresentedforreviewshallbepredicateduponerrorintheadmissionorexclusionofevidence,juryinstructionsgrantedorrefused,misconductofjurors,partiesorcounsel,orotheractioncommittedoroccurringduringthetrialofthecase,orothergrounduponwhichanewtrialissought,unlessthesamewasspecificallystatedinamotionforanewtrial;otherwisesuchissueswillbetreatedaswaived. ` However,thiscourtmayaddressissueswhichwouldresultinanoutrightdismissaloftheprosecution,suchasthesufficiencyoftheevidence.SeeStatev.Dodson, !` 780MMLLLL1LLS.W.2dLLMM778,780(Tenn.Crim.App.1989);Statev.Williams,675S.W.2d499, #@ 501(Tenn.Crim.App.1984);Statev.Durham,614S.W.2d815,816n.1(Tenn. %  Crim.App.LL1981).Additionally,thiscourtmayreviewtherecordforplainerrorswhennecessarytodosubstantialjustice.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b).LL Inthiscase,thesentencewasenteredonJanuary27,1997andthemotionfornewtrialwasfiledonMay6,1997.DefensecounselclaimshemadeanoralmotionforanewtrialimmediatelyfollowingthesentencinghearingonJanuary27,1997,andthetrialjudgesetahearingdateforMay12,1997.LLLLLL #  3      LLHowever,the 2@), oralmotionwasnotreducedLLtowritingLLuntilMay6,1997.TheoralmotionmustbereducedLLtowritingLLwithinthirtydaysMMfromMtheentryoftheMMMsentencingMorderM.MMTenn.R.Crim.P.33(b).Althoughcounselarguesthatthedefendantsissuesshouldnotbewaivedduetocounselsaction,thiscourthasconsistentlyheldthatcounselsuntimelyfilingofamotionfornewtrialisimputedtothedefendantforthepurposeofwaiver.SeeDodson,780S.W.2dat780;Williams,675S.W.2dat501;Durham, `  614S.W.2dat816n.LL1;Cf.Housev.State,911S.W.2d705,713(Tenn. @  1995)(waiverinapostconvictioncontextwheretheconductofcounselisimputedtotheclient).LLLLArguingthattheuntimelyfilingofthemotionfornewtrialwascounselsfaultdoesnotassistthedefendantscase.ThiscourtlackstheLjurisdictionLLauthorityLtowaivethetimelyfilingofamotionfornewtrial.SeeStatev.DonaldWallaceL,No.   01C0197LLL`LLL11CC00526,slipop.at78(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.30,1998)(LLLCitLLLcitingTenn.R.App.P.4(a))LLL.LLLL;LLL.LLLTherefore,LLtheonlyissuewhichhasnotbeenwaivedisthesufficiencyoftheevidence. Toreachthedefendantssufficiencyissue,wemustwaivethetimerequirementforfilinganoticeofappeal.Thedefendantfiledanuntimelynoticeofappeal.Thetimeperiodforfilinganoticeofappealis within30daysafterthedateofentryofthejudgmentappealedfrom.Tenn.R.App.P.4(a).Thiscourtmaywaivethetimelyfilingofanoticeofappealintheinterestofjustice.Id.Wefindthat -#& thisisanappropriatecasetowaivethetimelyfilingrequirementforthenoticeofappeal.Accordingly,wewilladdressthesufficiencyoftheevidenceissue.̀   II.  4 +. : WXXX Xhenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,an `6-0 appellatecourtsstandardofreviewiswhether,afterconsideringtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundthe  :04 essentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia, `  443U.S.307,324,99S.Ct.2781,279192(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d @  63,67(Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Thisruleappliestofindingsofguiltbasedupondirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofdirectandcircumstantialevidence.Statev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250,253(Tenn.Crim.App.  1990).# XXXX:#XXX X `  # XXXX!>#XXX X Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtshouldnot   reweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779 ` (Tenn.Crim.App.1990).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvalueoftheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835  (Tenn.1978).Normaythiscourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromtheevidence.Liakasv.State,199Tenn.298,305,286S.W.2d !` 856,859(1956);Farmerv.State,574S.W.2d49,51(Tenn.Crim.App.1978).On #@ thecontrary,thiscourtmustaffordtheStateofTennesseethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencecontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheevidence.Cabbage,571S.W.2dat835. @)" # XXXXy># Tobefoundguiltyofvandalism,thestatemustprovethatthedefendant knowinglyLLcause[d]LLdamagetoorthedestructionofanyrealorpersonalpropertyofanotherorofthestate,theUnitedStates,anycounty,city,ortownknowingthat[he]d[id]nothavetheownerseffectiveconsent.Tenn.CodeAnn.3914408(a)(1997).Onedefinitionofdamageis tamperingwithpropertyandcausingpecuniarylossorsubstantialinconveniencetotheownerorathirdperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3914408(b)(1)(B)(1997).  :04  ThedefendantcontendsthattheevidenceisinsufficientbecausetherewasnocorroborationofJamesBainstestimony.Essentiallythedefendantischallengingthecredibilityofthiswitness.ThedefendanthadampleopportunityatLLtrialLLtodiscreditMr.Bainstestimonyandhischaracter.ThejurychosetoaccreditMr.Bainstestimony.Thiscourtdoesnotreweighorreevaluatetheevidence.XXX XMatthews,805S.W.2dat779.Inthelightmostfavorabletothestate, `  Mr.Bainobservedthedefendantputtingwaterinthesergeantsgastank.Additionally,thedefendantadmitted# XXXXF#hisguilttoOfficerWall.Thecarwasusedfor   policebusiness;therefore,itwasownedbythestate,county,cityortown.SergeantBonetestifiedthatthecarhadtoberepaired,whichcausedsubstantialinconveniencetohim.Bythisevidence,thestateprovedeveryelementoftheoffense.Accordingly,theevidencewassufficienttosupportthedefendantsconvictionforvandalism. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.MML̛LMM    h     ________________________________    h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE_______________________________JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE