ÿWPC; ûOH †&¬3Ñ~ÀËÛû2]ÊnÃÜ›%Æ[¬Ñ¹}§³J4%Žs½ÇÐŽð“£û5Õ¸öh—òYûëX´X.¼Œ‹Pw üý~ªžõGÄ?fŽ>âÖûVX Jp½Q Ü”pæÌAíŠå^¯Ó“*× .xGcªÍqÜOç[<à¸CDÿ² ®k[­(ƒPí“ÿ z]‰oªpÅJcЬ~™8‘¬ÙõK-så C¨ü¬ø²çíQëG*mI#QýÊé‰äé¢X×ЦªÝP‡gd¥ÒaµK¤-΋׊Pz•8ë¶­è–fëí½0r#5{&GÖÑù‚u»µ/}±ø$qf‰Ÿ~i•žg&»Ô$`ìÄRmŒLý,±ÁoD«XrÎç;ÏU\”­¢<ü(BX™]J؃ŒÉwÅΪ惹lmý`-LH‘1¬j@º6ÛmÔ §_â õO½ØÔì5R´„`‰VeÚw!t7•0»è2 ƒ.£ÌXíëMí͏³­â+%z{5OCÚMƒG!ÐÆÔ(r}M:Prì—U<´"Û9ç :•¸¤¦ [Rx’èªéȺ5ýLw‡Cˆ£p<¦—è(æÐèa虞i‚غ#ïb#Á\ % U@# 0ˆc UNë ^ 9 wE zI Òà 4• © ¸ mº ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñ÷ó 0DêE........................b000000000000000000000000000000000000 0ë8888 B## 0¤@ D3ä D- 0KDD ASÆâ 0¤¨ 0DL A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularŠ)  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÖJ~'j¡k1íž3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  íÝ ƒRÏ›$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô&4ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€the€State€and€the€defense€waived€final€argument.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€pursuant€to€theÐ ° Ðpattern€charge€and,€at€defense€counselððs€request,€defined€ð ðactual€and€constructive€possessionðð€pursuant€to€the€commentsÐ n¾ Ðsection€of€the€pattern€charge.€€òòSeeóó€T.€P.€I.€ð!ð€CRIM.€14.05€(4òòthóó€ed.€1995).€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2Ï›$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô&4ò»»Ô d(|3r$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼@»»»ÔÑ8€/ XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î`@ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼@»îî` #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X/ X»¼@ÔÌò òÔ#†¼@»XX/ #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€DAVID€LEE€and€TREVA€LEEòòóóÔ‡X/ X»¼@Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Dickson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CR„3667€€€€€€Leonard€W.€Martin,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02471„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€4,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€appeal,€defendants€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€The€defendants€wereÐ &v  Ðconvicted€by€a€Dickson€County€jury€of€criminal€trespass€and€fined€$50.€€Upon€a€review€of€the€record,Ð  \ Ðwe€find€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€convictions.€€Thus,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ òB Ðis€affirmed.€€€Ð Ø( ÐÌò òÔ#†¼@»XX/ Ž#ÔÔ‡X/ X»¼@ÔÓ¯ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ¤ô ÐÌòòÓ  ÓAlan€E.€GlennÔ#†¼@»àX/ s#ÔÔ‡X/ X.¼@Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó,Ð pÀ ÐJJ.,€joined.Ð V¦ ÐÌTheodora€A.€Pappas€(on€appeal)€and€Dale€M.€Quillen€(at€trial),€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ "r Ðappellants,€David€Lee€and€Treva€Lee.€Ð X ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Bledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ô$ ÐDan€Mitchum€AlsobrooksÔ#†¼@»XX/ H#ÔÔ‡X/ X»¼@Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Robert€S.€Wilson,€Assistant€DistrictÐ º  ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð  ð ÐÌÔ#†¼@»XX/ \ #ÔÔ‡X/ X»¼@ÔÌÓ Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼@»XX/ E #ÔÔ‡X/ X»¼@ÔÐ R"¢" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼@»XX/ · #ÔÔ‡X/ X»¼@ÔÓ  Óà  àThe€Stateððs€proof€revealed€that€in€1979,€the€Stokes€family€property€was€purportedly€deededÐ $n$ Ðto€Bobby€Stokes€by€his€parents.€€However,€the€deed€was€not€signed€by€Mrs.€Stokes.€€In€1993,€Mrs.Ð %T % ÐStokes€deeded€her€interest€in€the€property€to€Bobby€Stokes.€€Both€deeds€were€registered.€Ð ê%:!& ÐSubsequently,€Mrs.€Stokes€died€and€left€her€estate€to€Bobby€Stokes€by€will.€€County€tax€recordsÐ Ð& "' Ðshow€Bobby€Stokes€as€the€lawful€owner€of€the€property,€and€he€has€paid€the€taxes€for€a€number€ofÐ ¶'#( Ðyears.€€€€Ð œ(ì#) ÐÌà  àThe€Stokes€siblings€entered€into€civil€litigation€concerning€the€validity€of€the€deeds€and€willÐ h*¸%+ Ðand€ownership€of€the€property.€€The€property€consists€of€approximately€206€acres,€the€family€home,Ð N+ž&, Ða€stripping€room,€two€tobacco€barns,€an€old€farmhouse,€and€two€mobile€homes.€€The€subject€of€thisÐ 4,„'- Ðdispute€is€the€ownership€of€the€old€farmhouse.€€Ð -j(.ý Їà  àBobby€Stokes€testified€that€his€brother,€William€Stokes,€had€lived€in€the€old€farmhouse€forÐ ° Ðseveral€years€but€had€moved€out€of€the€house€approximately€seven€years€prior€to€the€incident.€€HeÐ –æ Ðtestified€that€William€moved€into€a€mobile€home€which€was€approximately€twenty€feet€from€the€oldÐ |Ì Ðfarmhouse.€€William€was€living€in€the€mobile€home€when€the€deed€giving€Bobby€Stokes€possessionÐ b² Ðof€the€property€was€executed.€€About€ten€days€prior€to€the€incident€in€question,€the€mobile€home€wasÐ H˜ Ðpartially€burned.€€Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àOn€April€14,€1997,€Bobby€Stokes€encountered€defendant€Treva€Lee,€who€was€his€sister,€€andÐ ú J Ðone€of€his€other€sisters€exiting€the€woods€on€the€property.€€When€he€asked€the€two€what€they€wereÐ à 0 Ðdoing€on€his€property,€the€two€responded€that€it€was€none€of€his€business.€€The€two€further€stated€thatÐ Æ   Ðthey€refused€to€recognize€him€as€the€owner€of€the€property.€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àOn€April€15,€1997,€Treva€Lee€and€her€husband,€defendant€David€Lee,€and€William€StokesÐ xÈ  Ðwere€on€the€property.€€William€and€David€were€standing€on€the€porch€of€the€mobile€home€whenÐ ^®  ÐBobby€Stokes€arrived.€€He€told€the€Lees€they€were€not€welcome€and€asked€them€to€leave.€€David€LeeÐ D”  Ðand€Bobby€Stokes€entered€into€a€verbal€altercation,€which€resulted€in€Stokes€telling€the€parties€toÐ *z  Ðvacate€the€property€or€he€would€"call€the€law."€€David€Lee€called€Bobby€Stokes€a€ð ðhog€headed€son„Ð ` Ðof„a„bitchðð€and€informed€him€they€were€not€leaving.€€William€Stokes€and€the€defendants€then€wentÐ öF Ðin€the€old€farmhouse€to€wait€for€the€authorities.€€Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àWhen€sheriffððs€deputies€arrived,€they€informed€the€three€that€it€would€be€in€their€best€interestÐ ¨ø Ðto€leave€the€premises.€€The€three€refused€to€leave.€€Thereafter,€the€officers€informed€Bobby€StokesÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€he€might€want€to€consider€obtaining€warrants€against€the€defendants€for€criminal€trespass.€Ð tÄ ÐStokes€did€so,€but€upon€his€return€the€Lees€had€left€the€premises.€€However,€the€next€day€theyÐ Zª Ðreturned€and€were€subsequently€arrested.€€€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àAt€trial€Treva€Lee€testified€that€she€was€aware€the€deeds€gave€Bobby€Stokes€possession€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€property,€and€further€acknowledged€that€she€had€read€her€mother's€will,€purporting€to€leave€herÐ òB Ðestate€to€Bobby.€€However,€she€testified€that€she€did€not€believe€the€deeds€or€will€were€valid,€and€thatÐ Ø( ÐWilliam€Stokes€had€been€in€possession€of€his€mobile€home€and€the€old€farmhouse.€€She€stated€thatÐ ¾ ÐWilliam€lived€in€the€trailer€in€the€winter€and€lived€in€the€old€farmhouse€in€the€summer.€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àWilliam€Stokes€testified€that€he€had€lived€in€the€trailer€for€about€ten€years,€but€ð ðoff€and€on€Ð p!À  Ð.€.€.€I€go€down€there€[at€the€old€farmhouse]€every€once€in€a€while.ðð€€He€further€testified€that€he€wasÐ V"¦! Ðð ðusingðð€both€the€trailer€and€the€old€farmhouse€in€April€1997,€but€actually€lived€in€the€trailer.€€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àA€Dickson€County€jury€found€defendants€guilty€of€criminal€trespass,€and€they€were€fined€$50Ð %X $ Ðeach.€€In€this€appeal,€they€contend€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€their€convictions€forÐ î%>!% Ðcriminal€trespass.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌÓ  Óò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWòòÐ  (ð#( ÐÌóóó óÓ  ÓÔ‡X/ XXX/ Ôà  àIn€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€juryÐ l*¼%* Ðverdict€accredits€the€Ô_ÔState'sÔ_Ô€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€Ô_ÔState.Ô_Ô€€€òòState€v.Ð R+¢&+ ÐBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€Ô_ÔStateÔ_Ô€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ 8,ˆ', Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòId.óó;Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€theÐ –æ Ðpresumption€of€innocence€which€an€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€onÐ |Ì Ðappeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€An€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÐ b² Ðovercoming€this€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óóÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ  d Ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ ú J Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonableÐ à 0 Ðdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ð Æ   ÐEd.€2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€The€weight€and€credibilityÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€the€witnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòStateÐ ’â  Ðv.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð xÈ  ÐApp.€1996).Ð ^®  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓóóSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÐ *z  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendants€argue€the€State€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€sustain€theirÐ öF Ðconvictions€for€criminal€trespass.€€Specifically,€they€assert€William€Stokes€had€property€rights€in€theÐ Ü, Ðold€farmhouse.€€It€is€the€defendantsðð€contention€on€appeal€that€William€was€a€ð ðtenant€at€will,ðð€andÐ Â Ðwas€in€lawful€possession€of€the€farmhouse.€€They€argue€that€William€as€a€tenant€at€will€had€exclusiveÐ ¨ø Ðcontrol€over€€the€€property€and€an€implied€covenant€of€quiet€enjoyment,€which€includes€the€right€toÐ ŽÞ Ðhave€guests.€€In€addition,€they€contend€that€because€of€the€duration€of€the€tenancy€at€will,€theÐ tÄ Ðimplication€is€that€the€tenancy€was€year€to€year;€therefore,€they€argue€six€months€was€required€toÐ Zª Ðterminate€the€arrangement.€€Furthermore,€they€claim€there€is€no€indication€either€party€intended€toÐ @ Ðterminate€the€tenancy.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€the€defendantsðð€arguments,€as€to€the€creation€of€a€tenancy€at€will€in€WilliamÐ òB ÐStokes,€were€not€raised€at€trial.€€òòóóThe€defendantsðð€theory€at€trial€was€that€William€Stokes€was€inÐ Ø( Ðconstructive€possession€of€the€property.€€There€was€no€argument€to€the€court€or€jury€about€a€tenancyÐ ¾ Ðat€will.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Instead,€for€the€first€time,€defendants€on€appeal€make€a€lengthy€argument€relating€to€theÐ ¤ô Ðintricacies€of€the€tenancy€at€will€doctrine.€€A€party€may€not€take€one€position€regarding€an€issue€inÐ Š Ú Ðthe€trial€court€and€advocate€a€different€ground€or€reason€in€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2dÐ p!À  Ð705,€715€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)òòòòóóóó.€€Consequently,€we€decline€to€analyze€the€intricacies€of€theÐ V"¦! Ðtenancy€at€will€doctrine€and€consider€that€argument€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€€€Ð <#Œ" ÐòòóóÌà  àA€person€commits€a€criminal€trespass€who€ð ðknowing€he€does€not€have€the€ownerððs€effectiveÐ %X $ Ðconsent€to€do€so,€enters€or€remains€on€property,€or€a€portion€thereof.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„Ð î%>!% Ðâ â405(a).€€Knowledge€that€the€person€did€not€have€the€ownerððs€effective€consent€may€be€inferred€whereÐ Ô&$"& Ðnotice€against€entering€or€remaining€is€given€by€personal€communication€to€the€person€by€the€owner.Ð ° ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„405(a)(1).€€Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àAt€trial,€the€defendants€claimed€the€Ô_ÔStateÔ_Ô€failed€to€prove€a€violation€of€this€statute€because€Ð b² ÐWilliam€Stokes€was€in€constructive€possession€of€the€property.€€However,€Treva€Lee€testified€thatÐ H˜ Ðshe€was€aware€of€the€two€deeds€which€purported€to€give€Bobby€Stokes€possession€of€the€farm.€€InÐ . ~ Ðaddition,€she€stated€that€she€knew€her€motherððs€will€left€the€entire€estate€to€Bobby€Stokes.€€While€Ð  d Ðthe€evidence€did€reveal€these€documents€were€being€contested€by€the€other€siblings,€there€was€noÐ ú J Ðproof€that€either€the€will€or€the€deeds€had€been€invalidated.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àThe€jury€also€heard€testimony€from€Bobby€Stokes,€who€stated€he€was€the€owner€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðproperty€in€question€and€further€presented€documentary€evidence€of€ownership.€€In€addition,€heÐ ’â  Ðtestified€William€had€not€lived€in€the€old€farmhouse€for€approximately€seven€years.€€Although€theÐ xÈ  Ðtestimony€of€William€Stokes€and€Treva€Lee€was€somewhat€contradictory€to€the€testimony€of€BobbyÐ ^®  ÐStokes,€the€issue€of€credibility€was€for€the€jury€to€determine.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àOwnership€of€the€property€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€consider€in€determining€guilt.€Ð ` ÐFurthermore,€it€is€within€the€juryððs€discretion€to€resolve€any€conflicting€testimony.€òòSee€generallyóó,Ð öF ÐòòState€v.€Cutshawóó,€967€S.W.2d€332,€340€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€We€conclude€a€rational€juror€couldÐ Ü, Ðhave€found€Bobby€Stokes€to€be€the€lawful€owner€of€the€property€and€rejected€the€defendantsððÐ Â Ðarguments;€thus,€we€conclude€the€evidence€was€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantsððÐ ¨ø Ðconvictions€for€criminal€trespass.€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ô#†X/ XXX/ #ÔÔ#†¼@»XX/  #ÔÔ€X/ X»¼@ÔÐ Zª ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________________€Ð òB Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGEÐ Ø( Ð