ÿWPC6 …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Õ 0Dõ 0J9 0Tƒ 0^× 0h5 0r 0| 0†‹ 0 1u¡ 0dU*zB)¤ BÍDCê AM-¬z&£¥HFYŸÛ £{! D3%äQ%5' 0@8)Òx)ÖJ+v~ -vÓž. AOq4ÆÀ4 0D†5 D/Ê5 Bù5, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ 2D34D56D7D89D:;Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xD(Ð(3Õ˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€lîXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌNo…vemberÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€produced€motel€receipts€for€the€room€rental.Ì ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóMs.€Hobbs€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€was€unable€to€locate€her.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€case€involved€a€bench€trial.€€The€findings€of€the€trial€judge€who€conducted€theÏproceedings€carry€the€same€weight€as€a€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.2d€161,€162€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1981).Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(1991€Repl.)€provides€for€the€grading€of€theft€offenses.€ÏAccordingly,€a€theft€of€property€or€services,€where€the€value€of€the€property€or€services€obtainedÏexceeds€$500,€is€a€class€E€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(2).Ì ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRestitution€is€an€important€tool€in€the€punishment€of€criminals;€it€not€only€punishes€theÏdefendant,€but€also€compensates€the€victim.€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€€No.€03C01„9309„CR„00307Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€26,€1994).€€However,€restitution€is€only€warranted€when€itÏserves€rehabilitative€or€deterrent€purposes.€€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€C.C.A.€03C01„9401„CR„00027Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€14,€1995)€(citations€omitted).Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€response€to€this€opinion,€the€State€filed€a€petition€to€rehear€arguing€that€restitution€isÏapplicable€to€a€defendant€sentenced€to€the€penitentiary.€€The€State€based€its€argument€on€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„20„116.€€In€its€order€denying€the€petition,€this€Court€determined€that€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„20„116€only€applies€"to€cases€now€denominated€'theft.'"€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€No.Ï03C01„9311„CR„00387€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€4,€1995)€(order€denying€petition€toÏrehear).€€The€court€reasoned€that,€since€òòDavisóó€was€a€case€of€vandalism€and€not€theft,€"the€citedÏsection€of€our€Code€has€no€applicability€to€this€case."€€òòIdóó.€€€Ì ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„116€states€"theòò€juryóó€shall€ascertain€the€value€of€such€property€.Ï.€.€€and€the€court€shall€thereupon,€order€the€restitution€of€the€property."€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,Ï775€S.W.2d€1,€4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989)€(distinguishingÏseparate€roles€of€judge€and€jury€in€cases€deciding€amount€of€restitution).€€In€a€bench€trial,€theÏjudge€acts€as€the€jury,€i.e.,€the€trier€of€fact,€thus€enabling€the€court€to€determine€the€value€of€theÏproperty€as€well€as€ordering€restitution.€€òòCfóó.€€òòTateóó,€615€S.W.2d€at€162.€€€€Ì'ÿÿdxd ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAn€invoice€verified€the€purchase€price€of€$1,250€per€machine€for€a€total€of€twelveÏmachines€in€1990,€making€the€machine€two€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€theft.Ì ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóMs.€Walp€was€employed€as€a€substitute€teacher€with€the€Maury€County€Board€ofÏEducation.€€Due€to€various€court€dates,€she€was€unable€to€work€three€days.€€She€earnedÏapproximately€$40€per€day.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWalp€had€to€drive€from€Santa€Fe,€TN.,€to€Charlotte,€TN.,€a€minimum€of€five€times€to€beÏpresent€for€court€dates.€€The€trip€averages€133€miles.Ì ÌÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTo€arrive€at€$3900€for€lost€wages,€the€victim€multiplied€the€weekly€income€from€theÏmachine,€$65.00,€by€the€number€of€weeks€since€the€theft,€120.ÌPtPtfHHÚ(ÿáÿáùE1À˜ýHHŽxЀxh'dHStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€!" A1-j|` ß `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àJUNE€SESSION,€1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9508„CC„00251Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDICKSON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeÌò òWILLIAM€T.€COWARTó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Theft€Over€$500)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌWilliam€Carter€Conwayà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ236€Court€Square,€Suite€205à àÌFranklin,€TN€€37064à àà àà àRenee€F.€VidelefskyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDan€Mitchum€AlsobrooksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€WilsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPost€Office€Box€580Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharlotte,€TN€€37036ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓ€€à@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€William€Thomas€Cowart,€appeals€the€judgment€of€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Dickson€County€finding€him€guilty€of€theft€over€$500,€a€class€EÏfelony.€€The€appellant€presents€two€issues€on€appeal:€€(1)€whether€the€evidenceÏsufficiently€supports€his€conviction€for€theft€over€$500,€and€(2)€whether€theÏevidence€supports€the€trial€court's€order€of€restitution.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Backgroundó óÌÌà àOn€February€22,€1993,€the€Grand€Jury€of€Dickson€County€indicted€theÏappellant€for€one€count€of€theft€over€$500.€€Subsequently,€the€appellant€waivedÏhis€right€to€a€jury€trial,€and€a€bench€trial€was€held€on€May€18,€1994.€€At€trial,€theÏfollowing€facts€were€developed.ÌÌà àKim€Holland,€the€assistant€manager€of€D€&€C€Parts€Company€in€Dickson,Ïtestified€that,€at€approximately€12:30€p.m.€on€February€13,€1992,€he€observed€aÏman,€wearing€a€ball€cap€and€a€blue€plaid€shirt,€removing€the€Dial„A„SnackÏvending€machine€from€the€store.€€However,€Holland€admitted€that,€because€theÍstore€was€very€busy,€he€only€looked€at€the€man€for€five€to€ten€seconds.€€InÏSeptember€1992,€Holland€identified€the€appellant,€from€a€photo€line€up,€as€theÏperson€who€had€removed€the€machine€from€the€D€&€C€Parts€premises.€€JeffÏCavender,€an€employee€of€D€&€C€Parts,€also€noticed€a€man€removing€the€snackÏmachine€on€February€13.€€Cavender€testified€that€he€had€just€returned€fromÏlunch€when€a€man,€wearing€a€"flannel,€maybe€a€checkered€shirt,"€€approachedÏhim€and€stated€that€"he€was€going€to€take€[the€machine]€outside,€service€it,€andÏbring€it€back€in."€€In€September€1992,€Cavender€identified€the€appellant,€from€aÏphoto€line€up,€as€the€person€who€had€removed€the€machine€from€the€D€&€CÏpremises.ÌÌà àDetective€Mike€Fleaner€of€the€Dickson€Police€Department€investigatedÏthe€theft€of€the€vending€machine€from€D€&€C€Parts.€€Through€his€investigation,€heÏdeveloped€a€description€of€the€perpetrator:€"a€white€male,€about€6'4"€tall,€aroundÏ180€pounds,€brown€hair,€bushy€in€the€back,€glasses€on,€wearing€a€redÏcheckered€shirt,€blue€jeans."€€Additionally,€he€discovered€that€the€perpetratorÏhad€entered€D€&€C€Parts€and€advised€an€employee€that€he€was€going€to€changeÏthe€coin€tumblers€in€the€machine.€€The€perpetrator€then€went€to€a€truck,€returnedÏwith€a€dolly,€and€loaded€the€machine€into€a€U„Haul€trailer€with€a€Florida€licenseÏplate.€€The€truck€pulling€the€trailer€was€a€red€or€maroon€Toyota€pick€up€with€aÏTennessee€license€plate.€€Fleaner€also€stated€that€he€was€able€to€compile€aÏphoto€line€up€from€information€supplied€by€other€law€enforcement€personnel.ÌÌà àVirginia€Walp,€the€owner€of€the€stolen€vending€machine,€testified€that€sheÏfirst€became€aware€of€the€theft€on€February€13,€1992,€when€employees€of€D€&€CÏParts€telephoned€her€inquiring€when€she€would€return€the€vending€machine.€ÏWalp€indicated€that€the€missing€machine€had€been€at€D€&€C€Parts€for€five€years,Ïthat€the€machine€was€in€excellent€condition,€and€that€it€had€a€value€ofÏapproximately€$7500.00.€€She€later€admitted€that€the€purchase€price€wasÏ$2,696.00.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€appellant€asserted€his€innocence€maintaining€that€he€hadÏnever€been€to€the€D€&€C€Parts€Store€before€September€9,€1992.€€At€the€time€ofÏthe€trial,€the€appellant€was€employed€in€advertising€sales.€€However,€heÏadmitted€that€he€had€previously€been€involved€in€the€vending€machine€businessÏfrom€1982€to€1990€or€1991.€€In€his€defense,€he€asserted€that,€at€the€time€of€theÏincident,€he€was€traveling€in€East€Tennessee€between€Rockwood€andÏMorristown.€€To€support€this€alibi,€the€appellant€stated€that,€in€January€1992,€heÏreceived€a€telephone€call€from€Nancy€Hobbs,€a€former€vending€machineÏcustomer.€€Hobbs€stated€that€she€was€interested€in€selling€her€machines.€ÏSubsequently,€the€appellant€and€Hobbs€agreed€on€a€purchase€price€andÏarranged€to€meet€in€Rockwood€on€February€12,€1992.€€ÌÌà àOn€February€11,€1992,€the€appellant€obtained€a€cashier's€check€forÍ$4200€made€to€the€order€of€Nancy€Hobbs.€€On€February€12,€1992,€the€appellantÏtestified€that€he€drove€to€Rockwood€and€checked€into€the€Whitley€Motel.× ƒ# ××  ×€€€TheÏfollowing€day,€February€13,€he€stated€that€he€and€Ms.€Hobbs€discussedÏinspection€of€machines€located€"on€Leavell€Road€in€Knoxville,€Kingston€Pike,Ïand€on€Rutledge€Road€near€Morristown."× ƒ$ ××  ×€€Early€that€morning,€the€appellant€andÏMs.€Hobbs€drove€to€Knoxville,€where€they€purchased€gas€and€got€something€toÏeat.€€They€then€proceeded€to€inspect€the€machines,€the€first€stop€being€a€U„HaulÏbusiness.€€The€appellant€stated€that€the€entire€trip€totaled€150„160€miles€andÏthat€their€inspection€was€not€completed€until€ð ðafter€lunch.ðð€€Before€returning€toÏhis€motel€in€Rockwood,€the€appellant€again€purchased€gasoline€in€Knoxville.€ÏDuring€this€period,€the€appellant€maintains€that€he€was€driving€his€white€ToyotaÏ4„Runner.€€To€prove€these€activities,€the€appellant€introduced€a€copy€of€aÏpurchase€agreement€between€himself€and€Ms.€Hobbs€dated€February€12,€1992,Ïfor€the€vending€machines€and€a€cashier's€check€made€payable€to€Hobbs€whichÏwas€purchased€February€11,€1992.€€He€also€produced€three€gasoline€receiptsÏfrom€two€service€stations€in€Knoxville,€one€dated€February€12€and€two€datedÏFebruary€13.€€€à à€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€admitted€that,€once€in€October€and€again€in€NovemberÍ1992,€he€went€into€D€&€C€Parts.€€He€informed€the€court€that€neither€CavenderÏnor€Holland,€the€two€eyewitnesses,€recognized€him.€€Although€the€appellantÏtestified€that€his€appearance€was€identical€to€that€on€February€13,€1992,€onÏcross„examination,€he€admitted€that,€in€February,€he€had€a€"perm"€and€wore€aÏbeard€and€mustache.€€ÌÌà àIsmus€Patel,€the€owner€of€the€Whitley€Motel,€testified€on€the€appellant'sÏbehalf.€€He€identified€the€receipts€made€out€to€the€appellant€and€stated€that€hisÏwife€had€prepared€them.€€However,€he€could€not€identify€who€filled€out€theÏregistration€card,€although€he€admitted€that€only€he€and€his€wife€fill€out€suchÏcards.€€Moreover,€Patel€testified€that€he€filled€in€the€year,€"92,"€at€a€later€time.€€HeÏcould€not€verify€what€time€the€appellant€checked€in€or€out€or€that€it€was€even€theÏappellant€who€checked€into€his€motel.€€He€further€admitted€that,€if€the€appellantÏcame€back€and€told€him€that€he€needed€a€receipt€for€staying€at€his€motel,€heÏ"would€want€to€help€him€out€and€would€provide€a€receipt€for€him."ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€theft€over€$500.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€the€courtððs€finding€of€guilt€was€based€upon€the€identification€of€theÏappellant€by€the€two€employees€of€D€&€C€Parts,€in€addition€to€their€identificationÏof€the€appellant€from€a€photo€line€up€of€individuals€with€similar€features.€ÏAdditionally,€the€court€concluded€that,€while€the€appellant€providedÏdocumentary€evidence€of€his€whereabouts€on€February€11€and€12,€1992,€onlyÍthe€appellantððs€testimony€supported€his€presence€in€East€Tennessee€onÏFebruary€13,€1992.€€With€respect€to€the€February€13€gas€tickets,€the€courtÏopined,€ð ð[T]here€is€no€way€to€indicate€who€bought€this€gas.€€It€could€beÏanybodyððs€gas€tickets€...€.ðð€ÌÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€had€a€total€ofÏfive€convictions€for€crimes€relating€to€vending€machines.€€The€court€found€theÏappellant€to€be€a€range€2€offender€based€upon€two€prior€felony€convictions.€ÏAdditionally,€the€court€found€that€the€prior€crimes€showed€a€continuing€course€ofÏcriminal€conduct€that€did€not€occur€over€a€brief€period.€€The€appellant€was€alsoÏon€probation€at€the€time€the€instant€offense€was€committed.€€Thus,€the€courtÏdetermined€that€probation€was€inappropriate€and€sentenced€the€appellant€toÏfour€years€incarceration.€€Additionally,€the€court€ordered€restitution€of€$5410.00.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€questions€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏsupporting€his€conviction€for€theft€over€$500.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€assertsÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€evidence€offered€to€support€an€alibi€defenseÏand€that€the€witness€identification€of€the€appellant€by€Cavender€and€Holland€isÍinsufficient€to€establish€the€appellant€as€the€perpetrator,€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àA€defendant€is€initially€cloaked€with€the€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòStateÏv.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€However,€a€conviction€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€removes€this€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€one€ofÏguilt,€so€that€on€appeal€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€theÏevidence€is€insufficient.× ƒ% ××  ×€€òòIdóó.€€In€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€thisÏcourt€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidenceÏviewed€under€these€standards€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€€òòState€v.ÏCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(e).€€This€rule€isÏapplicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÏevidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÍMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€order€to€obtain€a€conviction€for€theft€of€property€over€$500,€the€StateÏmust€show,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€"a€person€.€.€.€,€with€intent€toÏdeprive€the€owner€of€property,€.€.€.€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€overÏthe€property€without€the€owner's€effective€consent."× ƒ& ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1991€Repl.).€€At€trial,€the€State€produced€two€eyewitnesses€who€identifiedÏthe€appellant€as€the€person€observed€removing€the€vending€machine€from€D€&ÏC€Parts€on€February€13,€1992.€€Additionally,€the€proof€established€that€theÏappellant€did€not€have€the€effective€consent€of€the€owner,€Ms.€Walp,€to€removeÏthe€machine€from€D€&€C€Parts.€€Ms.€Walp€also€testified€that€the€value€of€theÏvending€machine€exceeded€$500.€€Thus,€the€evidence€presented€by€the€StateÏsufficiently€establishes€the€offense€of€theft€of€property€over€$500€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€€ÌÌà àNonetheless,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€disregarded€hisÏalibi€defense€and€that€the€identification€of€the€appellant€by€the€two€eyewitnessesÏis€insufficient€to€convict€him€of€the€offense.€€The€proof€in€the€record€indicates€thatÏthe€trial€court,€clearly,€did€not€disregard€alibi€evidence.€€Although€the€trial€judgeÍis€not€required€to€enter€findings€in€a€bench€trial,€the€record€indicates€that€theÏjudge€thoroughly€addressed€the€specific€offers€of€proof€introduced€by€theÏappellant€in€support€of€his€alibi.€€òòCfóó.€€òòState€v.€Hoodóó,€€868€S.W.2d€744,€749€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€Consequently,€the€court€rejected€the€appellant's€theory€ofÏalibi€and€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€two€independent€witnesses€whoÏidentified€the€appellant€as€the€person€who€removed€the€machine€from€the€D€&€CÏParts€Company.€€Moreover,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€photo€line€upÏused€to€identify€the€appellant€was€"fair,"€"not€suggestive,"€and€"consisting€ofÏindividuals€with€similar€features."€€Additionally,€to€ask€this€court€to€find€that€theÏeyewitness€identifications€of€the€appellant€are€insufficient€to€sustain€a€convictionÏamounts€to€asking€the€court€to€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence,€which€thisÏcourt€is€not€entitled€to€do.€€òòSeeóó€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€òòE.g.óó,€€òòState€v.€Blyóó,ÏNo.€03C01„9209„CR„00322€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€19,€1993);€ÏòòState€v.€Randleóó,€No.€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€31,€1985).€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Restitutionó óÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€theÏappellant€to€be€a€range€2€offender€of€a€class€E€felony.€€Accordingly,€the€courtÏsentenced€the€appellant€to€four€years€incarceration€in€the€Department€ofÍCorrection.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€appellant€to€pay€restitution€toÏthe€victim€in€the€amount€of€$5,410.00.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€amountÏof€restitution€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord.€€We€disagree.ÌÌÌà àInitially,€although€not€raised€in€this€appeal,€the€trial€court€has€theÏauthority,€in€cases€involving€theft,€to€order€restitution€in€conjunction€with€aÏsentence€of€confinement€in€the€state€penitentiary.× ƒ' ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„116€(1991€Repl.).€€€òòCfóó.€€òòState€v.€Dyeróó,€C.A.A.€No.€02C01„9201„CC„00011€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Feb.€3,€1993)€(holding€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„116Ïonly€applicable€when€"a€felon€is€convicted€of€stealing€or€feloniously€taking€orÏreceiving€property,€or€defrauding€another€thereof,"€and€not€when€he€is€convictedÏof€aggravated€burglary);€€òòState€v.€Narramoreóó,€C.C.A.€No.€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïat€Knoxville,€May€19,€1989)€(recognizing€that,€although€the€"record€does€notÏcontain€the€requisite€predicate€findings,"€restitution€is€permitted€in€conjunctionÏwith€a€sentence€of€incarceration).€€òòBut€seeóó€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00387€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€14,€1995)€(stating€"[t]he€power€toÍorder€restitution€by€a€criminal€defendant€is€limited€to€defendants€who€are€placedÏon€probation."€(citation€omitted)),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€Mar.€11,Ï1996);× ƒ( ××  ×€€òòState€v.€Bowmanóó,€No.€03C01„9405„CR„00184€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€Sept.€21,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€€Jan.€8,€1996)Ï(holding€that€"there€is€no€authority€to€order€restitution€by€one€being€sentenced€toÏthe€penitentiary.").€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„116€provides,ÌÓÓà8 àò òOrder€of€restitution.ó 󀄄„€(a)€€Whenever€a€felon€is€convicted€ofÏòòstealing€or€feloniously€takingóó€or€receiving€property,€or€defraudingÏanother€thereof,€the€jury€shall€ascertain€the€òòvalue€of€such€propertyóó,Ïif€not€previously€restored€to€the€owner,€and€the€court€shall,Ïthereupon,€òòorder€the€restitutionóó€of€the€property,€and,€in€case€thisÏcannot€be€done,€that€the€party€aggrieved€recover€the€valueÏassessed€against€the€prisoner,€for€which€execution€may€issue€asÏin€other€cases.ÌÌà8 àà à(b)€€If€the€property€has€been€feloniously€destroyed,€the€juryÏshall€ascertain€the€damages€sustained,€upon€which€judgmentÏshall€be€rendered€in€favor€of€the€party€aggrieved€against€theÏdefendant,€and€execution€shall€issue€as€before€provided.ÌÌà8 àà à(c)€€The€provisions€of€this€section€are€cumulative,€and€do€notÏdeprive€the€party€injured€of€any€other€right€he€may€have€for€theÏrecovery€of€his€property€or€its€value.ÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àIf,€in€cases€involving€theft,€the€court€orders€restitution€and€the€defendantÏchallenges€the€amount€of€that€restitution€on€appeal,€this€court€shall€conduct€a€òòdeÏnovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€isÏcorrect.× ƒ) ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Blankenshipóó,€No.€02C01„9507„CC„00195€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€31,€1996)€(citing€€òòState€v.€Stewartóó,€No.€01C01„9007„CC„00161€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Jan.€31,€1990);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990€Repl.)).€€Additionally,€in€reviewing€orders€of€restitution,€this€courtÏhas€held€that€"our€restitution€law€does€not€require€the€sentencing€court€toÏdetermine€a€defendant's€criminal€liability€for€restitution€in€accordance€with€theÏstrict€rules€of€damages€applicable€to€a€civil€case."€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àNonetheless,€damages€in€a€civil€proceeding€for€conversion€areÏcomparable€to€restitution€in€a€criminal€case€for€theft.€€"As€a€general€rule,Ïplaintiff's€damages€in€an€action€for€conversion€are€measured€by€the€sumÏnecessary€to€compensate€him€for€all€actual€losses€or€injuries€sustained€as€aÏnatural€and€proximate€result€of€the€defendant's€wrong."€€òòLance€Productions€v.ÏCommerce€Union€Bankóó,€764€S.W.2d€207,€213€(Tenn.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988)€(citations€omitted).€€"The€ordinary€measure€of€damages€forÍconversion€is€the€value€of€the€property€converted€at€the€time€and€place€ofÏconversion,€with€interest."€€òòIdóó.€(citation€omitted).€€However,€special€damagesÏmay€also€be€recovered€if€specifically€pleaded€and€proved.€€òòIdóó.€€There€can€be€òònoóóÏrecovery€for€losses€which€are€too€remote€or€uncertain,€which€are€notÏsubstantiated€by€the€record,€or€which€the€plaintiff€could€have€avoided€by€theÏexercise€of€ordinary€diligence.€€òòIdóó.€€(citation€omitted).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€89€C.J.S.€òòTroverÏ&€Conversionóó€ðððð€103,€136,€170,€174,180€(1955);€òòMayo€L.€Coiner,€Tennessee€LawÏof€Damages€ðð€1„5,€óóat€10€(1988).ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€victim,€Virginia€Walp,€provided€a€detailed€description€of€theÏvending€machine€located€at€D€&€C€Parts.€€She€testified€that€the€value€of€theÏmachine€is€$7,500.€€On€cross„examination,€Walp€admitted€that€the€machine€wasÏfive€or€six€years€old€and€that€she€paid€$32,362.27€for€twelve€like€machines,Ïincluding€the€one€at€D€&€C€Parts.€€She€testified€that€the€stolen€machine€was€inÏ"A„1€shape"€and€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€machine€was€"only€a€dollar€orÏtwo€less€than€that€of€the€machine€when€purchased€new."€€Additionally,€Ms.€WalpÏfiled€a€victim€impact€statement,€which€was€included€in€the€pre„sentence€report.€ÏHer€statement€revealed€that€the€theft€had€placed€a€financial€burden€on€herÏhousehold€and€that€she€was€requesting€restitution.€€Specifically,€Ms.€WalpÏitemized€her€damages€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àCost€of€Machine× ƒ+ ××  ×à àà à$€€1,250.00Ìà àLost€Wages× ƒ, ××  ×à àà àà à€€€€€€€120.00Ìà àMileage€to€Court× ƒ. ××  ×à àà à€€€€€€€100.00Ìà àProduct/Money€in€Machine€€€€€€€€€€65.00Ìà àLost€Income× ƒ/ ××  ×à àà à€€€€€3,900.00Ìà àBank€Noteà àà àà à€€€€€€€€179.61ÌÌà àTOTALà àà àà à€$€€5,614.61ÌÌÌÓÓMs.€Walp€also€indicated€that€she€had€to€"pull€[an]€existing€machine€to€replaceÏ[the]€machine€[at€D€&€C€Parts.]"à à€€€à àÌÌà àTo€rebut€Ms.€Walp's€proof,€the€appellant€testified€that,€depending€on€theÏlocation,€a€vending€machine€has€a€life€span€of€about€four€to€five€years.€€HeÏadded€that,€given€reasonable€wear€and€tear€on€the€machine,€the€machineÏwould€have€a€value€between€$400€and€$500.€€To€support€his€position,€theÏappellant€introduced€a€copy€of€the€"Trader's€Post,"€a€weekly€magazineÏadvertising€business€equipment€and€other€merchandise.€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€testified€that€a€similar€used€machine€sells€for€around€$375.€€He€addedÍthat,€within€two€weeks,€he€would€purchase€a€new€machine€for€the€victim€andÏpersonally€have€it€delivered€to€her.ÌÌà àIn€setting€the€appropriate€amount€of€restitution€in€this€case,€the€trial€judgeÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 à[G]iven€the€facts€in€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€Court€finds€that€theÏmachine€is€worth€$1,250.00,€plus€$65.00€of€either€money€orÏproduct€that€was€in€the€machine.€€The€victim€has€lost€$139.95€inÏmileage,€and€wages€$120.00,€and€a€potential€income€from€theÏmachine€from€the€time€of€the€theft€until€today's€hearing€of€$3900.00ÏTherefore,€the€restitution€is€set€at€the€rounded€off€sum€ofÏ$5,410.00.ÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€contests€this€decision,€arguing€that€the€State€introduced€no€proofÏof€ownership,€no€proof€of€the€value€of€the€items€in€the€vending€machine,€and€no€ÌÌÌproof€of€profit€making€from€the€machines.€€The€appellant€also€argues€that€Ms.ÏWalp's€testimony€at€trial€was€inconsistent€with€her€victim€impact€statement.€€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that,€as€the€owner€of€the€property,€Ms.€Walp€was€entitledÏto€testify€concerning€its€value.€€òòState€v.€Earlsóó,€No.€03C01„9202„CR„52€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€16,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Dec.€28,Ï1993)€(citing€Tenn.R.Evid.€701(b)).€€Additionally,€the€victim€presentedÏdocumentation€as€to€the€purchase€price€of€the€vending€machine.€€The€court,€inÍits€discretion€as€the€trier€of€fact,€relied€upon€Ms.€Walp's€testimony€to€establishÏownership€of€the€vending€machine€and€relied€upon€her€victim€impact€statementÏas€a€guide€in€determining€the€amount€of€her€loss.€€Specifically,€in€addition€to€theÏvalue€of€the€property,€we€find€the€remaining€damages,€awarded€by€the€trialÏjudge,€to€be€justified,€reasonable,€and€substantiated€by€the€proof.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ÏòòMcKinneyóó,€No.€03C01„9309„CR„00307€(reasonable€out€of€pocket€expensesÏincurred€by€victim€resulting€from€the€prosecution€of€the€offense€recoverable);€ÏòòState€v.€Schroyeróó,€No.€03C01„9112„CR„406€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€JulyÏ9,€1992)€(loss€of€use€of€property€recoverable);€€òòState€v.€Vanderfordóó,€No.€01C01„9101„CC0004€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€22,€1991)€(lost€wagesÏrecoverable).€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€proof€supports€the€court's€impositionÏof€restitution€in€the€present€case.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€Conclusionó óÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€evidence€before€the€trial€court€and€the€applicableÍlaw,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€ofÏtheft€over€$500.€€Additionally,€we€conclude€that€restitution€in€the€amount€ofÏ$5410.00€was€appropriate€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge