WPC MRA$|F|)WlSgX=k b`r`Y@IÃh680 h3 \k A*9 $A-5/- T>x:sPۡW'+/P%+O!9ӛp?uLYXV&~["xgx/6<\V%fHX3TxȿU:i/[Az{ R \{2Myv8YN!&SGՠ ThNa[W>| 0< 0<Z D+ A@ bol@ o "   0[  0 0 0(@ AQh3UJ %6"< B-^ B 0#RUNMa(eN^ w4 mU@\  `&Times New Roman'  "Lisa Hazlett"0Lisa Hazlett .   <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -         XU)..      XX  XXB.` hp x (#XBXXWGCz hx p @X@Exxxx (#(#   (#(#XX@ XX@ (2XU$ F!..      XX  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2XU$ F!..      XX  (2XU$ F!..      XX  ($C<< c ) XU"..      XX  B.` hp x (#XB  XXԄ  3  ڄ  гkIA`2WP TypographicSymbolsX     )Hairline d  d#|x(rF$..      cXXccHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularĊE) l;)U (mK Z(Times New Roman F!..      XX  _         0p x (#X0@ QhhӠ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Q%ATJACKSON@ ӠԈ    H.` hp x (#X(#HJuly2000Session > XX@ @ XX STATEOFTENNESSEEv.ALPHEIOUSNEELYXX@   0  AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  " No.9805977JosephB.Dailey,Judge   -  XX k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  XX No.W199901215CCAR3CDDecidedOctober2,2000 _  -  XX  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE+ K K+2 -  XX    Defendantappealsasofrighthisconvictionofonecountofburglaryofabuilding,aClassD  p  felony.Onappealhecontendsthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupporthisconviction,and V thatthetrialjudgeerredinrulingthathiseleven(11)priorburglaryandtheftconvictionswere < admissibleforthepurposesofimpeachment.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. "   T.R.A.P.3Appeal;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed.     CorneliaA.Clark,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles,J. j andAlanE.Glenn,J.,joined. P A.C.Wharton,Jr.,DistrictPublicDefender,GarlandErguden,AssistantPublicDefender,and l LeslieMozingo,AssistantPublicDefender,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Alpheious R Neely. 8 PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&ReporterandKimR.Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,  Nashville,Tennessee,andWilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneralandDanielS.Byer,  AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.      OPINION  L""  X  OnSeptember23,1997,MemphispoliceofficersStevenFriedlanderandJessieMeloms $h$ respondedtoacallattheCentralParkingServicesgarageandofficeonNorthSecondStreetin $N % Memphis.Theylookedthroughanoutsidewindowandobserveddefendantasleepinachair %4!& insidetheoffice.Afterabouttenminutestheofficersobservedthedefendantawakeandeat &"' somepizzasittinginaboxonthedesk.Hethenbeganwrappingcordsaroundtelephonesand '#( placingthephonesinabriefcase.SubsequentlyOfficerFriedlandersawdefendanttaketwo (#) blackobjectsoutofthedeskdrawerandputtheminhispocket.Defendantthenleftoftheoffice |)$* throughaboardedupwindow.Theofficerswerewaitingforhimoutsideandplacedhimunder b*%+ arrest.Atthattimetheyfoundapocketorganizerandpockettaperecorderonhisperson. H+&, Followingasearchoftheareaaroundtheoffice,theofficerslaterfoundacomputermonitorand .,~'- keyboardinastairwell. -d(.  -J)/   BarryLohr,GeneralManagerfortheMemphisofficeofCentralParkingServices,  testifiedthathehadnotgivendefendantpermissiontoentertheofficeortakeanythingfromit.  Hearrivedforworkjustastheofficerswereleaving.Atthattimehenoticedthathispizzalunch | fromthepreviousdaywasnolongerlocatedintherefrigeratorwherehehadleftit,butwasnow b onhisdesk.Healsodescribedaceilingtilethathefoundbrokenoverthetopdoorway.He H identifiedthecomputerequipmentinthestairwellandthepocketorganizerandtaperecorderas . ~ thepropertyofCentralParkingServices.  d  X XDuringajuryouthearingatthecloseofthestateXXXX=XXXXsproof,thetrialjudgedeterminedthat  0 ifdefendanttestified,thestatewouldbepermittedtoimpeachhimwithevidenceabouthis    eleven(11)priorconvictionsforautoburglaryandtheft.Defendantelectednottotestify,but    toldthetrialcourtoutofthepresenceofthejurythathisdecisionwasbasedprimarilyonhis   desiretoavoidimpeachmentwithhispriorrecord.Hefurthertestifiedduringthejuryout z  hearingthathehadlosthisplacetolivebecauseofhisdruguse,andthatheenteredtheoffice `  throughtheboardedwindowtryingtofindaplacetosleeponarainynight.Headmittedthathe F  hadeatenthepizzahefoundinsidetheoffice,butdeniedhavingmovedthecomputerequipment ,|  intothegaragearea.Healsodeniedthatthepocketorganizerandtaperecorderwerefoundin b hispossession. H  X XDefendantwaschargedwiththeknowingentryintoabuildingotherthanahabitation,  notopentothepublic,withouttheeffectiveconsentoftheowner,withtheintenttocommit  theft.Tenn.CodeAnn.XXXX'XXXX3914402.Defendantfirstcontendsthattheevidencewasinsufficient  tosupporthisconvictionforburglary.Whileheconcedestheadequacyofproofofhis x unauthorizedentryintothebuilding,hecontendsthattheproofisnotadequatetofindthathe ^ enteredwiththeintenttocommittheft. D  X X(XXXXWhenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,thestandardis ` whether,afterreviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrational F trieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt. , Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct.2781,61L.Ed.2d560(1979).Questions  concerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventheevidence,as  wellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidence,areresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthiscourt.   Statev.Pappas,754S.W.2d620,623(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).Normaythiscourtreweighor t!  reevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).Averdictof Z"! guiltybythejury,approvedbythetrialjudge,accreditsthetestimonyofthestateswitnesses @#" andresolvesallconflictsinthetestimonyinfavorofthestate.SeeStatev.Cazes,875S.W.2d &$v# 253,259(Tenn.1994).  %\ $  X#XXX(X# XThisissueiswithoutmerit.Twopoliceofficerstestifiedthattheyobservedthe &("& defendant,whileinsidethebuilding,eatpizzaandtaketwoblackobjectsoutofthedeskandput '#' theminhispocket.Theyarrestedhimassoonashecrawledoutthewindow,andfoundapocket (#( organizerandpockettaperecorderinhispossession.Thoseitemswereidentifiedbytheoffice )$) managerasbelongingtohisemployer.Withoutregardtotheissueofthetelephonesorthe p*%* computerequipment,thisproofofactualtheftissufficienttosupportaconvictionforburglary. V+&+  X <,',             XDefendantnextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinrulingthatappellantXXXX=XXXXsprior   convictionsforautoburglaryandtheftwereadmissibleforimpeachmentpurposesifhetestified.  Theseconvictionsincludedseven(7)convictionsforburglaryofamotorvehiclecommittedin ~ 1993,1994,and1997;one(1)felonyconvictionfortheftover$500.00committedin1990;and d four(4)misdemeanorconvictionsfortheftunder$500.00committedin1991and1992. J Followingthecourtsruling,thedefendantdidnottakethestand. 0   X XSubjecttocertainconditionsforadmissibility,TennesseeRuleofEvidence609  L authorizestheuseofproofofawitnessspriorconvictionsinordertoattackawitnesss  2 credibility.Tenn.R._Evid_.609(a).Thepriorconvictionsmustbeforafelonyoracrime    involvingdishonestyorfalsestatement.Tenn.R._Evid_.609(a)(2).       However,whenthewitnesstobeimpeachedisthecriminaldefendant,thestatemustalso z  givenoticepriortotrialofitsintenttoutilizetheconvictionforimpeachmentpurposes.Tenn. `  R._Evid_.609(a)(3).Uponrequest,thecourtmustdeterminetheadmissibilityofaneligible F  convictionbydecidingwhether theconvictionsprobativevalueoncredibilityoutweighsits ,|  unfairprejudicialeffectonthesubstantiveissues.Id.Inmakingthisdetermination,two b criteriaareespeciallyrelevant.Statev._Mixon_,983S.W.2d661,674(Tenn.1999).First,the H courtmust analyzetherelevancetheimpeachingconvictionhastotheissueofcredibilityand .  explain[therelevance]ontherecord,id.,andsecond,itmust, assessasimilaritybetweenthe  crimeontrialandthecrimeunderlyingtheimpeachingconviction.Id.(quotingCohen,  _Sheppeard_,Paine, TennesseeLawofEvidence ,609.9at376(3rded.1995)).Recognizingthat  theunfairlyprejudicialeffectoftheimpeachingconvictiononthesubstantiveissuesgreatly v increasesiftheimpeachingconvictionissubstantiallysimilartotheunderlyingoffensebeing \ tried,atrialcourtshouldcarefullybalanceitsprobativevalueagainstitsunfairlyprejudicial B effect.Onappellatereview,thetrialcourtsrulingsontheadmissibilityofpriorconvictionsfor (x impeachmentpurposesaresubjecttoreversalonlyforabuseofdiscretion.See,e.g.,_Mixon_,983 ^ S.W.2dat674. D  X XTheoffensesofburglaryandtheftarehighlyprobativeofcredibility.SeeStatev.Crank,  721S.W.2d264,26667(Tenn._Crim_.App.1986).Courtsmayadmitimpeachingconvictions  whentheyareparticularlyprobativeofcredibility,eveniftheyareidenticaltothecrimebeing   tried.SeeStatev.Miller,737S.W.2d556,55960(Tenn._Crim_.App.1987)(burglaryconviction r!  admissibleinburglaryprosecution);Pricev.State,589S.W.2d929,93132(Tenn._Crim_.App. X"! 1979)(burglaryandgrandlarcenyconvictionsadmissibleinburglaryprosecution). >#"  X  Contrarytodefendantsassertions,thetrialcourtinthiscasedidcarefullybalancethe  %Z $ necessarycriteria.Thetrialcourtcorrectlyacknowledgedthatthesimilaritybetweentheold %@!% offensesandthenewchargehadtobeconsideredinthebalancingprocess.Thetrialcourtfound &&"& thatthedefendantXXXX=#XXXX4#slengthyandrecenthistoryofcrimesinvolvingdishonestywasparticularly ' #' probativeonthequestionofhiscredibility.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheprobativevalueof (#( theseconvictionsfaroutweighedtheacknowledgedprejudicialvalueoftheirintroduction.We )$)     reviewthecourtsdecisiononthisissueforabuseofdiscretion.Nonehavingbeenshown,this  issueiswithoutmerit.   XThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinallrespects. b  H  . ~   d  hX____________________________________  J CORNELIAA.CLARK,SPECIALJUDGE  0  hXX