WPC (# @UNK % 0(bw@4# 0l2 0D 0J, 0T4 0^ 0h 0rN 0| 0< 0 1uR 0dU>+ U*i  v~x v BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - DUVzz!"|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial !#d#    $       !!Tenn.CodeAnn.3913402.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   inion Geneva  inion Geneva  d ! .    `       \RA'\ !\RA'\7zXXdd7      INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATJACKSONSEPTEMBERSESSION,1996  STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.02C019507CR00205     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) SHELBYCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.JOSEPHB.DAILEY ISAACWILLIAMS,   ) JUDGE      )  Appellant.   ) (AggravatedRobbery)   ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHECRIMINALCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY   FORTHEAPPELLANT:   FORTHEAPPELLEE:A.C.WHARTON    CHARLESW.BURSONPublicDefender    AttorneyGeneralandReporterW.MARKWARD    CLINTONJ.MORGANAssistantPublicDefender  CounselfortheState147Jefferson,Suite900   450JamesRobertsonParkwayMemphis,TN38103   Nashville,TN372430493      JOHNW.PIEROTTI      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      DAVIDHENRY      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      ThirdFloor,CriminalJusticeComplex      201Poplar      Memphis,TN38103OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE   !OPINION !  ӛ ThisisanappealpursuanttoRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.TheDefendantwasindictedfortheoffenseofaggravatedrobbery. "   ׀Hewaivedhisrighttoajuryandhiscasewasheardatabenchtrialonhispleaofnotguilty.Afterhearingtheevidence,thetrialjudgefoundtheDefendantguiltyascharged.Onthisappeal,theDefendantarguesthattheevidenceofhisidentityastheculpritisinsufficienttosupportthefindingofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.Wedisagreeandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. IntheearlymorninghoursofMarch24,1992,aconveniencestoreinMemphis,Tennesseewasrobbedatgunpoint.Twomenenteredthestore.Onemanheldagunontheclerkwhiletheothermanjumpedoverandgotbehindthecounter.Aftergettingasmallamountofmoneyfromthecashregister,therobberwhohadjumpedbehindthecountersawhimselfontheTVmonitorwhichwasconnectedtothestoresvideosurveillancecamera.TherobbergrabbedtheTVmonitorandthrewittothefloor.Thetworobbersthenfledfromthestore.Thepolicewerenotifiedandwhentheyarrived,theTVmonitorwasdustedforfingerprints.TwoseparatefingerprintstakenfromtheTVmonitorwereeventuallyidentifiedasbeingtheDefendantsfingerprints.TherobberwhoheldtheshotgunnevermovedwithinviewofthesurveillanceϜcamera,butthecameradidrecordtheimageoftherobberwhojumpedbehindthecounterandthrewtheTVmonitortothefloor.Thestoreclerkwasunabletopositivelyidentifyeitheroftherobbers.TheonlyproofagainsttheDefendantϜotherthanthefingerprintswasthevideorecordedbythesurveillancecamerawhichwasviewedbythetrialjudge.Afterhearingthisevidence,thetrialjudgefoundthattheStatehadprovedtheDefendantsguiltofaggravatedrobberybeyondareasonabledoubt. Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,thestandardiswhether,afterreviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidence,areresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthiscourt.Statev.Pappas,754S.W.2d620,623(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,id.(Tenn.1987).Normaythiscourtreweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).Onappeal,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallinferencestherefrom.Cabbage,571S.W.2dat835.Becauseaverdictofguiltremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceandreplacesitwithapresumptionofguilt,theaccusedhastheburdeninthiscourtofillustratingwhytheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdictreturnedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982);Grace,493S.W.2dat476. TheDefendantspecificallyarguesthattheproofisinsufficienttoidentifyhimasbeingoneoftherobbersofthestore.TheStateclearlyestablishedthattheDefendantsfingerprintswerefoundontheTVmonitorwhichhadbeengrabbedbytherobberandthrowntothefloorofthestore.TheclerktestifiedthatitwouldnothavebeenpossibleforanyonetotouchtheTVmonitorunlesstheycamebehindthecounterastherobberdid.Thetrialjudgefoundthefingerprintevidencetobe awfullycompelling.Weagree. ThetrialjudgealsofoundthatthevideoprovidedsomecorroborationeventhoughthejudgecouldnotpositivelyidentifytheDefendantasthesameindividualappearingonthevideo.Thejudgenotedthatthevideocorroboratedthefactthattherobberpickedupthemonitorandthrewittothefloor.ThejudgealsonotedthattheindividualwhoappearedonthevideoresembledtheDefendant very,verymuch...[heis]verysimilarinsizeandbuildandappearance,thesilhouetteasreflectedinsomeofthosestillphotographs,thefacialfeaturesallofthephysicalcharacteristicsoftheindividualinthevideoandinthestillphotographs...arestrikinglysimilartoMr.IsaacWilliamsincourttoday. Ourreviewofthisrecordleadsustoconcludethattheevidenceissufficienttosupportthefindingsbythetrieroffactofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.          ____________________________________     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGE___________________________________JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE