ÿWPCb ®>–t’K¶ãI£<ÔeŒ)+æÇv¿·×SJîm¶ÈJ€‹#ž^¦ŒÜ°;QÒCWâu€e¥ôÝ-·ñßM²7Â#;x%#3il—S½1\¯éhú"®²ÿü1WÝý^E2ã¹”c%‹ÝÏæºŸ­:ÄÀŸF‡ Æ¢SXŠ«a t³êŠ: ìÝ6§’*L¿Ì•—” hÃF/Õ{²FkéÁG²dä=–&%?Q¬,‡á÷½MØÀxFÇsWÖña »‹7YðB^Œa§‚¹_2û?<¦Ü[¨†FB±>Nµ”3tù@±ÎSfß¡ª~˜ÚÈ¢ùL¨Y›Hm^·€&Ðà9,bj¾_ñ¡Êáá o,dòMÇ –ÏçúØQpFIÞÎV?Rëwµh-\z^(°OZ%Ù%™ñ 9{Œ«zÿý»ëŠLaª5L2©PÎ=ðáÿ­m@€Ò„—æâö ¦AV1í¨¾ôDã§.³d ¨M*#—ˆ¹•Ò?ÌÃoÝ€ìúy·Ëè¶‘Iš‰>ñ<ù”Gª8•¥†žsik1½ÉñÚÏN ²N6:WH|ibÅé°Ø?@(kT…­KŒmáà\qX#¹â6?±¤×²up †u¸ÅÔ™fb#Á\ % UN# 0Ÿq UN ^ ^ wj zn Òè 4º Î Ý mß Æö Ƽ Æ‚ ÆHHNEb 0 B 0»9 D3ô D-' 0KTT ASŸÆò 0»¸ 0Ds A«·˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(wÇg$¡¡Ô  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ8€Q©»»d»»d8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular‘F)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptq\;'¸g¤F`‡>3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(“G2Ç$¤¤Ý ƒÇg!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€¿Ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÒ¼ò»»Ô d(“3o$££Ý ƒÇg!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€¿Ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3o$¢¢Ý ƒÇg!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€¿Ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒÇg!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€¿Ä»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼¿Ä»»»ÔÑ8€¢#XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îèG¿ÄÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼¿Ä»îîèG#ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€July€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X¢#X»¼¿ÄÔÌò òÔ#†¼¿Ä»XX¢##ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€HENRY€C.€BONDÔ‡X¢#X»¼¿ÄÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€63811,€65692€€€€€€Ray€L.€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02183„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔOctober€6,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X§xXXX¢#ÔThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€jury€of€two€counts€of€forgery€not€exceeding€$500.Ð ¶ ÐThe€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€career€offender€to€concurrent€terms€of€six€years€on€eachÐ ¢ò Ðconviction.€€OÔ#†X¢#XXX§xÜ#ÔÔ#†¼¿Ä»XX¢#„#ÔÔ‡¼é4»»¼¿ÄÔÔ‡X§xX»¼é4Ôn€appeal,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€support€hisÐ ŽÞ Ðconvictions€for€forgery.€€Finding€no€error,€we€affirm.Ð zÊ ÐÌÔ#†X¢#XXX§x0#ÔÔ#†¼¿Ä»XX¢#O#ÔÓÐÓÔ€X¢#X»¼¿ÄÔò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ R¢ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€óó€andÐ 2‚ ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð "r ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender;€and€David€Gall,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Knoxville,Ð R ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Henry€C.€Bond.Ð òB ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€R.€Stephen€Ô_ÔJobeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ò" ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Zane€Ô_ÔScarlettÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Â ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ²  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆ¹Ó  Óò òOPINIONó óÐ ’"â! ÐÌÓM ÓÔ‡X§xXXX¢#Ôà  àOn€April€9,€1997,€the€Defendant,€Henry€Bond,€cashed€a€$450€check€at€Check€X„Change€inÐ r$Â# ÐKnoxville,€Tennessee.€€The€Defendant€claimed€that€the€check€had€been€made€out€to€him€by€MarkÐ ^%® $ ÐÔ_ÔCagleÔ_Ô.€€The€Defendant€told€the€employee€of€Check€X„Change€that€Ô_ÔCagleÔ_Ô€had€purchased€a€computerÐ J&š!% Ðfrom€him€at€a€flea€market.€€After€verifying€the€identification€of€the€Defendant€by€calling€referencesÐ 6'†"& Ðand€examining€his€photographic€identification,€the€employee€of€Check€X„Change€cashed€the€checkÐ "(r#' Ðfor€the€Defendant.€€At€the€request€of€the€clerk,€the€Defendant€also€filled€out€an€information€card.Ð )^$( ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€returned€three€days€later€with€a€second€check€made€out€to€him€by€the€sameÐ æ*6&* Ðindividual€for€the€identical€amount€of€money.€€The€Defendant€said€the€check€was€payment€forÐ Ò+"'+ Ðjewelry€sold€to€Ô_ÔCagleÔ_Ô€at€the€flea€market.€€The€owner€and€manger€of€Check€X„Change€noticed€thatÐ ¾,(, Ðthe€endorsement€was€similar€to€the€handwriting€on€the€front€of€the€check.€€Suspicious,€the€owner€toldÐ ª-ú(-ý ÐÔ_Ôthe€Defendant€to€wait€while€she€performed€additional€verification.€During€this€period,€the€DefendantÐ ° Ðwaited€in€the€lobby€of€Check€X„Change.€€At€one€point,€the€Defendant€explained€to€the€owner€thatÐ œì ÐCagle€had€accompanied€him€to€Check€X„Change€three€days€earlier€when€he€had€cashed€the€firstÐ ˆØ Ðcheck.€€The€owner€was€able€to€reach€Cagle,€who€told€her€he€did€not€issue€the€check€in€question.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðowner€then€contacted€the€police,€who€came€to€the€scene.€€Cagle€drove€to€Check€X„Change€to€speakÐ `° Ðwith€the€police€and€express€his€desire€to€prosecute.€€The€police€then€arrested€the€Defendant€forÐ L œ Ðforgery.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àUpon€subsequent€investigation,€the€police€discovered€that€Cagleððs€mother€had€sent€him€aÐ  ` Ðpacket€of€checks€about€a€week€and€a€half€before€the€April€12€incident€which€Cagle€never€received.€Ð ü L  ÐAccording€to€Cagle,€he€did€not€issue€either€check€to€the€Defendant;€nor€were€any€of€the€other€checksÐ è 8  Ðin€the€packet€ever€discovered€during€the€investigation.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓSufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ ˜è  Ðó óÌÓLÓà  àThe€Defendant€now€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€Ð pÀ ÐWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€reviewÐ \¬ Ðis€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ H˜ Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÐ 4„ Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.Ð  p ÐApp.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÐ  \ Ðevidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€should€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluateÐ ¼  Ðthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Nor€may€thisÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,Ð ”ä Ð286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956);€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,€105€(Tenn.€1999).€€On€theÐ €Ð Ðcontrary,€this€Court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ l¼ Ðcontained€in€the€record,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð X ¨ ÐòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).Ô#†X¢#XXX§xŒ #ÔÔ‡X§xXXX¢#Ô€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÐ D!” Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidenceÐ 0"€  Ðare€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakasóó,€286€S.W.2d€at€859.òòóó€€òòóó€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€against€aÐ #l! Ðdefendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convictedÐ $X" Ðcriminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustainÐ ô$D # Ða€guilty€verdict.€€òòId.óó€Ô#†X¢#XXX§xt#ÔÔ‡X§xXXX¢#ÔòòóóÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€establish€the€crime€of€forgery,€the€State€must€show€that€the€defendant€forged€aÐ ¸'#& Ðwriting€with€intent€to€defraud€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„114(a).€€In€this€case,€the€DefendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnow€concedes€that€the€checks€presented€were€forged.€€€However,€he€maintains€that€he€did€notÐ )à$( Ðpersonally€forge€the€checks€and€that€he€had€no€knowledge€at€the€time€he€presented€the€checks€to€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðcashed€that€they€had€been€forged.€€This€Court€must€defer€findings€of€intent€to€the€jury€unless€noÐ h+¸&* Ðreasonable€person€could€have€found€as€the€jury€did.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€this€case,€theÐ ° Ðfinding€of€intent€to€defraud€by€the€jury€was€well€within€reason€given€the€surrounding€circumstances.€Ð œì ÐThe€Defendant€presented€two€checks€from€the€same€individual€and€alleged€that€both€checks€wereÐ ˆØ Ðpayment€from€two€separate€exchanges€at€the€flea€market.€€The€checks€were€for€an€identical€amountÐ tÄ Ðand€were€presented€within€three€days€of€each€other.Ô#†X¢#XXX§x#ÔÔ‡X§xXXX¢#Ô€€Both€checks€were€from€a€book€of€checks€thatÐ `° ÐCagle€had€never€received€in€the€mail.€€None€of€the€other€checks€from€that€book€of€checks€ever€turnedÐ L œ Ðup€after€the€Defendant€was€arrested.€€Moreover,€the€handwriting€on€the€checks€was€very€similar€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€endorsements€on€the€checks.€€These€coincidences€are€suspicious€and€certainly€could€be€used€byÐ $ t Ða€reasonable€person€to€infer€intent€to€defraud.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€because€he€did€not€attempt€to€flee,€he€obviously€was€not€awareÐ è 8  Ðthat€he€had€presented€forged€checks.€€However,€there€are€other€reasons€why€the€Defendant€couldÐ Ô$  Ðhave€chosen€to€wait€in€the€lobby€of€Check€X„Change;€for€example,€the€Defendant€could€have€trulyÐ À  Ðbelieved€the€owner€was€verifying€the€information,€or€the€Defendant€could€have€thought€he€did€notÐ ¬ü  Ðhave€the€choice€to€leave,€particularly€after€the€arrival€of€the€investigating€police€officer.€€Regardless,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€Defendant€did€not€meet€his€burden€of€showing€that€no€reasonable€person€could€have€inferredÐ „Ô  Ðintent€to€defraud€from€the€evidence€presented.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€AFFIRM€the€convictions.Ô#†X¢#XXX§xÍ##ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð d Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE