WPC P Xs4RmfV{nIÚ?5Đ4lS8;ԮF_7joQʊ:-!ʊ"AD$`mYQ)1ܙXQ(hx҃$L .atڡFi+k; Vb|D~IɡD ħ0t'g oA^ރ&ނ¤!W!^rmTH.-7зNvT9Z!.]f\=ƿ9 6'| woM14wXʪ)#RN8 >ZOK2, ڴ)GR|9.n\`U4+E<,?Q9-Rk_r#Juk^/ Hg{H${Ѡ4ڞZ`q'ǰ>~`p䂱}_ bGmVCc~ak*t+}8 ayb>;<%<^bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m  #  _ %  UNN 0DEEU@b 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K ASh 0 0D% Ai(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Vf+ K+3|x 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.wptU HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   v R$      1  @   _TheindictmentinthiscaseallegeddamageordestructionbypuncturingsixtiresbelongingtoDonR.Mathis  valuedinexcessof$500.00.Onappeal,theAppellantdoesnotcontestthevalueofthepropertydamagedordestroyed.(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2$ !.89}d d 8         0  \! d(|3$ !.89}d d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.89}d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8#d d8     _   8MeXXdd 8__@tt)INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#),#Ԉ &    @  @` September18,2001Session L XtX #XXt8#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RICHARDW._HERRELL_,A.K.A._RICKY_ J _HERRELL_XtX   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Dickson_ԀCounty  ^ @@No.CR3525RobertBurch,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199800767CCAR3CDFiledNovember6,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      _The_ԀAppellant,RichardW._Herrell_,a.k.a._Ricky_Ԁ_Herrell_,wasindictedbya_Dickson_ԀCountyGrand  Juryforvandalismresultinginpersonalpropertydamageof$500to$1,000.Followingabenchtrial, x _Herrell_Ԁwasfoundguiltyoftheindictedchargeandreceivedatwoyearsuspendedsentence.On d appeal,_Herrell_Ԁraisesoneissueforourreview:Whethertheevidencepresentedattrialwassufficient P tosupporthisconviction.Afterreview,wefindnoerrorandaffirmthe_judgment.#XXt<#XtX_ < ~ Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisaffirmed.  d   #Xt#XtX.DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,andJerry < L.Smith,J.,joined. ( TroyL.Brooks,Mt.Juliet,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,RichardW._Herrell_,a.k.a._Ricky_Ԁ_Herrell_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;PatriciaC.  _Kussmann_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;Dan_Mitchum_Ԁ_Alsobrooks_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and t  Suzanne_Lockert_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. `!  #XXt #XtX @@OO& OPINION #XXtj #XtX $$t#  FactualBackground  %L!% #XXt #  XtX__  Nostenographicrecordofthetrialproceedingswaspreparedinthiscase.Anarrative ($( statementoftheevidenceisprovidedasrequiredbyTenn.R.App.P.24(c),whichrecitesthe )$) followingfacts: *%* 8  ThefirstwitnesscalledwasPenny_Herrell_,theestrangedwifeoftheAppellant.She p,', andAppellantwereseparatedandtherehadbeensomedifficultyaboutpossession \-(-C _ofthehouse.Asaresultofthisdifficulty,Appellanthadbeenarrestedsomedays  beforetheincidentforwhichAppellantisontrial.Alsoarrestedatthattimewere  Appellantsmotherandstepfather,AngieandMarvinJones.Mrs.Herrelltestified  thatallthreewerehostiletowardher.Shetestifiedthatshehadcometothehouse t ofhersisterandbrotherinlaw,Mr.andMrs.DonMathisbecauseshehadseenthe ` Appellantontheroadandfearedforhersafety.Mrs.Herrelldidnotthinkthat L  AppellantknewwheretheMathislived.Mrs.Herrelltestifiedthatshewasasleep 8  atthetimeanddidnotseewhatwentonoutsidetheMathisresidenceonthedayin $ t question.Shedidtestifythatshewokeupbecauseofsomedisturbanceandobserved  ` Mr.Mathisgooutside.[When]hereturned,hestatedthatthetireshadbeenslashed.  L  Mrs.Herrelldidnotseewhoslashedthetires.ShetestifiedthatAppellanthadbeen  8  drivingthecouplesDodgevanwhenshesawhimthatmorning.$    8  ThesecondwitnesswasDonR.Mathis,Mrs.Herrellsbrotherinlaw.Hetestified   thatatabout8:45onthemorninginquestion,heheardsomethingoutsideandlooked   outofthewindow.OutsidehesawandrecognizedtheHerrellsDodgevanandsaw   amalefigurewalkbythecars,benddownoccasionallyandthenwalkbacktothe p van.Mr.Mathiswentoutsidetofindalltiresonbothcars(MathisandMrs.Herrell) \ slashed.Hetestifiedthatthecosttoreplacethetiresonbothvehicleswas$817.16. H Mr.Mathistestifiedthatthevanthathesawwasgreyincolorandthatheknewthe 4 Herrellsvanbysight. p   8  ThelaststatewitnesstotestifywasdeputysheriffSgt.BillyFelts.Hetestifiedthat H all8tireshadbeenslashed.4   8  TheAppellantfirstcalledAngieJones,Appellantsmother.Shetestifiedthatshe   wokeupat6a.m.onthedayinquestion.Whensheawoke,Appellantwasatthe  tabledrinkingcoffee.Appellantstayedatherhouseallmorninganddidnotleave.  Thevandidnotmovefromherdriveway.   8  Next,BettyNeblettwascalledtothestand.Ms.NeblettisMrs.Jonessister.She X  testifiedthatshearrivedattheJoneshouseabout7a.m.onthemorninginquestion. D! Whenshearrived,Appellantwasdrinkingcoffee.Later,Appellantgotupandwent 0"  tobed.ShelefttheJoneshouseaboutnoon.#l!   8  ThenextwitnesswasMarvinJones,Appellantsstepfather.Hetestifiedthat $D # Appellantwasdrinkingcoffeeabout6:30a.m.onthedayinquestionandwentback %0!$ tobed.HetestifiedthatbythetimeMs.NeblettarrivedthatAppellanthadalready &"% gonebacktobed.Finally,hetestifiedthatthevandidnotmoveonthemorningin '#& question.(#'     )$( 8  ThelastwitnesswastheAppellant.Hedeniedcommittingthecrime.Hetestified  thatheleftJoneshouseinthevanabout5a.m.onthemorninginquestionand  returnedabout6:30a.m.      ANALYSIS ` SufficiencyoftheEvidence 8       TheAppellantassertsthattheevidenceintroducedattrialisinsufficienttosupporthis  ` convictionforclassEfelonyvandalism.Tenn.CodeAnn.3914408.Specifically,hearguesthat  L   therewasoverwhelmingevidencethat[Appellant]wasnotpresentwhentheactoccurred,because  8  threewitnessestestifiedandsufficientlycorroboratedhisalibi. $    TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure13(e)prescribesthat [f]indingsofguiltincriminal   actionswhetherbythetrialcourtorjuryshallbesetasideiftheevidenceisinsufficienttosupport   thefindingbythetrieroffactbeyondareasonabledoubt.Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Thisruleapplies   tofindingsofguiltbasedupondirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofdirect p andcircumstantialevidence.SeeStatev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250,253(Tenn.Crim.App.1990). \ Inaddition,becauseconvictionbyatrieroffactremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceandimposes H apresumptionofguilt,aconvictedcriminaldefendantbearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidence 4 wasinsufficient.SeeStatev.Evans,838S.W.2d185,191(Tenn.1992).  p   Whenacriminaloffenseisestablishedexclusivelybycircumstantialevidence,thefactsand H circumstances mustbesostrongandcogentastoexcludeeveryotherreasonablehypothesissave 4 theguiltofthedefendant.Statev.Crawford,470S.W.2d610(Tenn.1971);Statev.Jones,901   S.W.2d393,396(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Inotherwords, [a]webofguiltmustbewovenaround   thedefendantfromwhichhecannotescapeandfromwhichfactsandcircumstances[thefactfinder]  coulddrawnootherreasonableinferencesavetheguiltofthedefendantbeyondareasonabledoubt.  Crawford,470S.W.2dat613;seealsoStatev.McAfee,737S.W.2d304,305(Tenn.Crim.App.  1987). l   Initsreviewoftheevidence,anappellatecourtmustaffordtheStatethe strongestlegitimate D! viewoftheevidenceaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawn 0"  therefrom.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982)(citingStatev.Cabbage,571 #l! S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978)).Thecourtmaynot reweighorreevaluatetheevidenceinthe $X" recordbelow.Evans,838S.W.2dat191;seealsoStatev.Mann,959S.W.2d503,518(Tenn. $D # 1997)(quotingMarablev.State,313S.W.2d451,457(Tenn.1958)(weightandinferencesfrom %0!$ circumstantialevidencearejuryquestions)).Likewise,shouldthereviewingcourtfindparticular &"% conflictsinthetrialtestimony,thecourtmustresolvetheminfavorofthejuryverdictorthetrial '#& courtjudgment.Tuggle,639S.W.2dat914. (#'   Inordertosustainaconvictionforvandalisminthiscase,theStatewasrequiredtoprovethat |*%) theAppellant(1) knowinglycause[d]damagetoorthedestructionofpersonalpropertyofanother h+&* ...and(2)thattheAppellantknewthathedidnothavetheownerseffectiveconsent. #  1      ׀Tenn.Code  Ann.3914408(a).    TheproofinthiscaseestablishedthattheAppellantandhiswifeatthetimewereseparated t andinsubstantialdisagreementoverpossessionofthemaritalresidence.Thedisagreementbecame `  hostile,resultinginthearrestoftheAppellant,hismotherandhisstepfather.Thewife,concerned L  forhersafety,soughtrefugeinthehomeofhersisterandbrotherinlaw,thevictim.Onthemorning 8  thevictimstireswereslashed,Mrs.Herrellhadseenherhusband,theAppellant,drivingthe $ t couplesDodgevan.Additionally,thevictimtestifiedthat,onthemorningthathistireswere  ` slashed,he sawandrecognizedtheHerrellsDodgevanandsawamalefigurewalkbacktothe  L  van.Afterthevanleft,hefoundthatallthetiresonhiscarandMrs.Herrellscarhadbeenslashed.  8  Baseduponthesefacts,wefindthecircumstantialevidenceestablishestheAppellantsmotive, $  identity,opportunityandanimustowardthevictimforassistingtheAppellantswifeand,assuch,    exclude[s]everyotherreasonablehypothesissavetheguiltofthe[Appellant].Moreover,we   rejecttheAppellantsargumentthatthetestimonyofferedbyhismother,stepfatherandaunt,   supportinghisalibidefense,clearlyestablisheshisinnocence.Withrespecttothisproof,wewould   observethatthefinderoffactisnotcompelledtobelievetheAppellantsversionoftheevents,even p ifuncontradicted.Obviously,thetrialcourtchosenottocreditthealibitestimony.Itisnotthe \ prerogativeofthiscourttoaccesswitnesscredibility,thatfunctionbeingwithintheexclusive H provinceofthetrieroffact.XtXXXtԀSeegenerallyStatev.Adkins,786S.W.2d642,646(Tenn.1990);State 4 v.Burlison,868S.W.2d713,71819(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).  p   Insum,weconcludethattheevidenceinthiscase,takenasawholeandinthelightmost H favorabletotheState,wassufficienttopermitarationaltrieroffacttofindbeyondareasonable 4 doubtthattheAppellantwasguiltyofvandalism.Thejudgmentofconvictionisaffirmed.   #XtXXXtV7#   `     h     ___________________________________ D!    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE