ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 4œ v~Ð AQN ÆŸ 0De 0D© D/í BvÓ9˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÷øùúûüýHþÓ€  B\J#3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òDecember€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€hXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|Æ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9705„CC„00166à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€MADISON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€WHIT€LAFON,€JUDGEó ó€€Ìò òCHARLES€GWYNNE€BLEDSOE,à à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(RESISTING€ARREST)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òJOSEPH€L.€PATTERSONà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ225€West€Baltimore,€Suite€BÌJackson,€TN€38301à àò òà àà àKENNETH€W.€RUCKER€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJAMES€G.€WOODALL€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJAMES€W.€THOMPSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à225€Martin€Luther€King€DriveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302„2825ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€#°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Charles€Gwynne€Bledsoe,€appeals€as€of€right€from€hisÏconviction€of€resisting€arrest€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Madison€County€CriminalÏCourt.€€In€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏto€sustain€the€conviction.€€He€also€argues€that€the€indictment€failed€to€allege€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense€of€resisting€arrest€and€was€therefore€a€voidÏindictment.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àòòSufficiency€of€the€evidenceÌóóÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€theÏaccused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€isÍinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€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.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,Ï623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€thisÏcourt€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€juryÏverdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolvesÏall€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThree€police€officers€testified€for€the€State.€€Terry€Halford,€an€officer€with€theÏJackson€Police€Department,€was€on€duty€on€July€29,€1994.€€He€received€a€callÏthat€a€black€male€was€cutting€window€screens€off€windows€at€an€apartmentÏinside€the€housing€area€of€Lincoln€Courts.€€While€en€route€to€the€apartment,ÏHalford€saw€a€black€male€in€the€bushes€in€the€apartment€complex.€€BecauseÏhe€had€previous€contact€with€the€Defendant,€he€recognized€the€man€as€theÏDefendant.€€Defendant€was€crouched€down€with€a€knife€in€one€hand€and€twoÏcrushed€beer€cans€in€the€other€hand.€€Halford€approached€the€Defendant,€andÏthe€Defendant€stood€up.€€Because€Defendant€had€the€knife€in€his€hand€andÍHalford€did€not€know€the€Defendantððs€intentions,€Halford€drew€his€weapon€forÏhis€own€safety.€€ÌÌà àHalford€asked€the€Defendant€to€drop€the€knife€several€times,€but€heÏcontinued€to€approach€Halford€while€holding€the€knife.€€The€Defendant€wasÏmumbling€something€undeterminable,€then€began€cussing€and€yelling€for€HalfordÏto€go€ahead€and€shoot€him.€€When€Defendant€got€approximately€eight€(8)€to€tenÏ(10)€feet€away€from€Halford,€he€stopped€walking€and€Halford€called€for€backup.€ÏTwo€other€officers,€Jenkins€and€Pollack,€arrived€within€one€or€two€minutes.€ÏThese€officers€walked€up€behind€the€Defendant,€and€they€also€drew€theirÏweapon€when€they€saw€the€Defendant€œholding›€a€knife.€€Defendant€still€refusedÏto€drop€his€weapon,€so€Officers€Halford€and€Pollack€holstered€their€weaponsÏand€Jenkins€kept€his€weapon€out.€€Pollack€used€a€chemical€weapon€calledÏð ðFreezeðð€€to€help€disarm€the€Defendant.€€Halford€ran€towards€him€and€hit€hisÏhand€with€a€flashlight€to€knock€the€knife€out€of€his€hand.€€Defendant€was€told€heÏwas€under€arrest.€€The€Defendant€became€very€violent,€kicking,€scratching€andÏbiting,€and€the€officers€were€forced€to€wrestle€him€to€the€ground€to€place€him€inÏhandcuffs.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€officers€got€Defendant€into€œthe€patrol€car,›€Halford€droveÏDefendant€towards€the€police€station.€€Defendant€was€kicking€the€screen€andÍside€glass€so€hard€that€the€plexi„glass€screen€was€coming€up€and€hitting€theÏback€of€Halfordððs€seat.€€Because€Halford€was€afraid€that€he€would€kick€theÏwindow€out,€he€stopped€the€car€and€got€into€the€back€seat€with€the€Defendant.€ÏHalford€applied€pressure€to€several€nerve€pressure€points€on€Defendantððs€bodyÏuntil€he€stopped€kicking.€€Halford€admitted€that€Defendant€was€bleeding,€butÏstated€that€he€had€already€begun€bleeding€from€the€earlier€struggle€with€theÏofficers€prior€to€being€arrested.€€He€stated€that€Defendant€could€possibly€haveÏcontinued€to€bleed€from€the€altercation€in€the€car.€€After€Defendant€was€taken€toÏbooking,€he€threatened€the€lives€of€the€officers€and€their€families.ÌÌà àOfficer€Pollack€also€testified€regarding€the€events€of€July€29,€1994.€€HeÏand€Officer€Jenkins€were€dispatched€to€the€Lincoln€Court€housing€project€to€takeÏa€report€from€the€woman€who€called€complaining€that€an€individual€hadÏthreatened€her€and€had€cut€her€window€screen.€€While€talking€with€this€woman,Ïhe€heard€over€the€radio€that€Halford€had€the€suspect€at€gunpoint.€€Pollack€andÏJenkins€immediately€went€to€that€location€and€found€Halford€there€with€theÏsubject€backed€against€a€building.€€When€they€saw€the€knife€in€DefendantððsÏhands,€they€drew€their€weapons.€€Pollack€also€thought€he€saw€some€beerÏcans€in€the€Defendantððs€other€hand.€€When€Defendant€refused€to€drop€the€knife,Ïhe€and€Halford€holstered€their€weapons.€€He€got€out€his€Freeze€and€sprayedÏthe€Defendant€in€the€face€in€order€to€shut€his€eyes.€€After€struggling€with€theÍDefendant€to€handcuff€him,€they€tried€to€get€him€up€and€walk€to€the€car,€butÏDefendant€refused€to€comply€and€the€officers€had€to€pick€him€up€and€literallyÏcarry€him€to€Halfordððs€car.€€On€the€way€back€to€the€station,€he€saw€theÏDefendant€try€to€kick€the€window€out€of€the€patrol€car.€€At€one€point,€Halford€hadÏto€stop€the€car€and€talk€to€the€Defendant€to€settle€him€down.€€After€they€arrivedÏat€the€station,€the€Defendant€made€threats€on€the€officersðð€lives€and€theirÏfamilies.€€Officer€Jenkins€confirmed€the€occurrence€of€these€same€events€in€hisÏtestimony.€€ÌÌà àCharles€Gwynne€Bledsoe€then€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€On€that€day,Ïhe€was€in€Lincoln€Courts€and€had€played€a€prank€on€a€friend€by€taking€one€ofÏthe€screens€off€of€her€window.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€cut€the€screen,€onlyÏpried€it€off€with€his€hands.€€Defendant€had€been€cutting€the€grass€and€wasÏsitting€down,€peeling€and€eating€an€apple€when€he€saw€the€police€approach.€€ÏHe€recalled€seeing€four€officers,€although€he€could€not€identify€the€fourth€officer.ÏImmediately,€one€of€the€officers€put€his€service€revolver€in€Defendantððs€face€andÏsaid€to€ð ðdrop€the€knife.ðð€€Defendant€stated€that€he€did€not€have€a€chance€toÏdrop€the€knife€because€he€was€then€sprayed€with€mace.€€After€being€sprayed,Ïhe€dropped€his€head€and€felt€a€burning€sensation.€€Defendant€was€scared,€andÏonly€became€angry€with€the€officers€when€they€drug€him€down€the€sidewalk€toÏthe€police€car.€€Defendant€admitted€that€he€did€not€try€to€walk.€€After€beingÍplaced€in€Halfordððs€car,€he€told€him€to€ð ð[R]ead€me€my€rights.€€Read€me€my€rights,Ïboy.ðð€€Defendant€thought€that€was€why€the€officer€stopped€the€car€and€hit€himÏin€his€mouth€and€face.€€Defendant€stated€that€these€injuries€caused€him€toÏbleed.ÌÌà àA€person€commits€the€offense€of€resisting€arrest€if€he€ð ðintentionallyÏprevent[s]€or€obstruct[s]€anyone€known€to€the€person€to€be€a€law€enforcementÏofficer€.€.€.€from€effecting€a€stop,€frisk,€halt,€arrest€or€search€of€any€person,Ïincluding€the€defendant,€by€using€force€against€the€law€enforcement€officer€orÏanother.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„602(a).€€From€the€record,€there€is€sufficientÏevidence€that€a€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€Defendant€guilty€ofÏresisting€arrest.€€ÌÌà àEach€law€enforcement€officer€who€testified€confirmed€that€the€DefendantÏrefused€to€drop€his€weapon€when€they€requested€him€to€do€so.€€When€theyÏforced€him€to€drop€his€weapon€after€spraying€him€with€Freeze,€the€officersÏnotified€Defendant€he€was€under€arrest€and€attempted€to€place€him€inÏhandcuffs.€€The€Defendant€would€not€cooperate€with€their€efforts€to€handcuffÏhim,€to€such€extent€that€he€bit,€kicked,€and€scratched€the€officers.€€There€was€aÏcontinuing€struggle,€and€when€the€officers€got€Defendant€handcuffed€he€refusedÏto€walk€to€the€police€car.€€The€Defendant€admitted€during€his€testimony€that€heÍwould€not€comply€with€the€officersðð€orders€to€walk€to€the€car,€using€his€bodyÏweight€to€force€the€officers€to€carry€him€to€the€car€in€order€to€effectuate€the€arrest.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòSufficiency€of€the€indictmentóóÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€Defendant€argues€the€indictment€failed€to€charge€thatÏthe€Defendant€ð ðused€force€against€a€law€enforcement€officer,ðð€an€element€of€theÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„602.€€The€indictment€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àCharles€Gwynne€Bledsoe€on€or€about€July€29,€1994,€in€MadisonÏCounty,€Tennessee,€and€prior€to€the€finding€of€this€indictment,€in€theÏCounty€and€State€aforesaid,€did€intentionally€prevent€or€obstructÏofficers€of€the€Jackson€Police€Department,€known€to€the€saidÏCharles€Gwynne€Bledsoe€to€be€law€enforcement€personnel,€fromÏeffecting€an€arrest€of€the€said€Charles€Gwynne€Bledsoe€byÏstruggling,€kicking,€and€resisting€efforts€to€be€taken€into€custody,€inÏviolation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„16„602€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€indictment€as€written€above€is€fatally€defectiveÏdue€to€its€wording.€€The€fundamental€purpose€of€an€indictment€is€to€conveyÏadequate€notice€of€the€offense€to€the€defendant.€œ€òòSeeóó›€òòState€v.€œMayesóó,›€854ÏS.W.2d€638,€640€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àWhile€the€indictment€does€not€state€the€exact€wording€of€the€statute,€thereÏare€sufficient€allegations€to€necessarily€imply€the€element€of€ð ðusing€force€againstÍthelaw€enforcement€officer.ðð€€In€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictment,€aÏcourt€must€consider€the€following€factors:€(1)€whether€the€indictment€contains€theÏelements€of€the€offense€intended€to€be€charged;€(2)€whether€the€indictmentÏsufficiently€apprises€the€accused€of€the€offense€he€is€called€upon€to€defend;€(3)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€knows€to€what€offense€it€must€apply€the€judgment;€andÏ(4)€whether€the€accused€knows€with€accuracy€to€what€extent€he€may€plead€aÏformer€acquittal€or€conviction€in€a€subsequent€prosecution€for€the€same€offense.€ÏòòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€indictment€under€these€factors,€it€is€clear€the€indictmentÏcontained€the€elements€of€the€offense€such€that€the€Defendant€was€sufficientlyÏapprised€of€the€offense€he€was€called€upon€to€defend.€€While€the€indictment€didÏnot€specifically€state€that€the€Defendant€had€ð ðused€forceðð€against€a€lawÏenforcement€officer,€the€indictment€did€specify€that€the€Defendant€had€€ð ðstruggled,Ïkicked,€and€resisted€effortsðð€by€law€enforcement€personnel€to€arrest€him.€€As€aÏgeneral€rule,€it€is€sufficient€to€state€the€offense€charged€in€the€words€of€theÏstatute€or€words€which€are€equivalent€to€the€words€contained€in€the€statute.€ÏòòTateóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€789.€€That€the€Defendant€struggled,€kicked€and€resisted€theÏefforts€of€the€law€enforcement€personnel€is€equivalent€to€the€Defendantððs€usingÏforce€against€the€law€enforcement€personnel.€€Defendant€was€sufficientlyÍapprised€of€the€nature€of€the€offense€for€which€he€would€have€to€defend€himself.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€State€raises€a€third€issue€in€its€brief€regarding€the€sentencing€of€theÏDefendant€in€that€the€judgment€form€incorrectly€reflects€that€he€was€convicted€ofÏa€Class€B€misdemeanor€when€the€State€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthe€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon,€and€therefore,€this€court€should€imposeÏjudgment€for€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€conviction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„602(d).€It€is€true€that€the€State€proved€that€Defendant€possessed€a€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€However,€during€oral€argument,Ïin€response€to€questioning€by€the€court,€the€State€conceded€that€possession€ofÏa€deadly€weapon€was€not€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€This€issue€raised€by€theÏState€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge