ÿWPC% … %Vw@\ 0ÜœU:x 4² Æ Õ 0JÕ 0T 0^s 0hÑ 0r9 0|« 0†' 0­ 1u= 0d² U*B)@DCi AM¬¦ùv~ŸvÓ Bð D3  0@@ AO€ÆÏ 0D• D/Ù BX >D?@DABDCDUE£FDGÓ€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular³†;$3|xP2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJulyÏ1,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  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  ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  Óò òßR€A1-j|`   `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9707„CC„00258Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCOFFEE€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€John€W.€Rollins,€JudgeÌEDWARD€SHANE€RUST,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Arson€of€Personal€Property)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àÌÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òMargaret€C.€Lambó óà àà àò òà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ605€East€Carroll€Streetà àÌPost€Office€Box€260à àà àà àò òJanis€L.€Turneró óÌTullahoma,€TN€€37388à àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€JusticeÏDivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌò òCampbell€Smootó óà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àDistrict€Public€Defenderà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àò òà àà àà àC.€Michael€Layneó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€37355Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Edward€Shane€Rust,€was€indicted€by€a€Coffee€County€GrandÏJury€for€the€offenses€of€arson€of€personal€property€and€reckless€endangerment.€ÏFollowing€a€jury€trial,€the€appellant€was€found€guilty€of€arson€of€personal€property,€aÏclass€E€felony,€and€received€a€two€year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏThe€appellant€was€found€not€guilty€of€reckless€endangerment.€€In€this€appeal€as€ofÏright,€the€appellant€contends:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€The€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€arson€ofÏpersonal€property;€ÌÌà8 àII.€€The€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive;€andÌÌà8 àIII.€€The€trial€court€should€have€granted€an€alternative€sentence.ÌÓÓÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€evidence,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€arsonÏof€personal€property.ÌÌà@ àò òBackgroundó óÌÌà àAt€trial,€Officer€Larry€Miller,€a€corrections€officer€with€the€Coffee€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department,€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àI€arrived€[at€the€jail]€on€the€18th€of€June€[1996]€shortly€before€midnightÏ.€.€.€.€€The€second€shift€corporal€informed€me€that€[the€appellant]Ïrefused€to€go€into€his€assigned€cubicle€.€.€.€for€that€night€to€be€lockedÏdown€because€he€wanted€to€go€to€the€emergency€room€because€heÍwas€complaining€of€back€problems.€€.€.€.€€Approximately€ten€minutesÏafter€midnight,€the€fire€alarm€sounded€and€I€proceeded€to€the€back€.€€.€.Ï.€€I€went€to€the€back€of€the€Jail€and€peered€in€Cell€6.€€I€saw€[theÏappellant]€sitting€on€a€day€room€table€with€a€fire€burningÏ[approximately€four€to€eight€inches€tall]€behind€him€in€what€we€call€theÏcatwalk€area,€which€is€basically€off€limits€to€inmates.€€Itððs€where€all€theÏplumbing€is€for€the€jail€cells.€€I€then€went€down€the€hall,€obtained€theÏfire€extinguisher,€went€in€to€the€catwalk€area€to€extinguish€the€fire,€inÏwhich€case€the€fire€extinguisher€did€not€discharge.€€.€.€.€€I€then€wentÏfurther€down€the€hall,€obtained€the€second€fire€extinguisher,Ïextinguished€the€fire,€and€proceeded€back€to€the€front€of€the€cellÏwhere€[the€appellant]€was.ÌÌÓÓOfficer€Miller€stated€that,€as€he€extinguished€the€fire,€the€appellant€was€ð ðsitting€onÏthe€day€room€table€with€what€appeared€to€be€a€blue€bandana€around€his€face,€justÏsitting€there€while€the€fire€was€burning.ðð€€During€the€commotion,€several€inmatesÏð ðwere€complaining€about€the€smoke.€€They€were€screaming,€coughing€€they€wereÏhollering€if€there€was€something€I€could€do€about€the€smoke€because€it€had€startedÏfiltering€into€the€rear€part€of€the€cell€where€the€inmates€were€housed.€.€.€.ðð€€€AfterÏputting€out€the€fire,€Officer€Miller€asked€the€appellant€why€he€started€the€fire.€€TheÏappellant€replied€that€he€wanted€to€go€to€the€emergency€room€because€of€his€backÏpain.€€Officer€Miller€informed€the€appellant€that€he€would€be€able€to€see€the€nurse€inÏthe€morning.€€The€appellant€started€ranting€and€raving€that€if€he€didnððt€go€to€theÏemergency€room,€ð ðthe€garbage€can€was€next.ðð€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Miller€further€testified€that€ð ðwhere€the€fire€was€set€on€the€counter€.€.€.€itÏcharred€the€paint€.€.€.€it€[needs]€to€be€freshly€painted€and€sprayed.ðð€€Additionally,Ïð ðonce€the€items€cooled€down€from€the€fire,ðð€Officer€Miller€was€able€to€determine€thatÍthe€items€burning€consisted€of€insulated€underwear€belonging€to€the€appellant€andÏtoilet€paper.€€He€confirmed€that€the€toilet€paper€was€dispensed€by€the€CoffeeÏCounty€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Furthermore,€he€explained€that,€although€familyÏmembers€are€permitted€to€bring€inmates€certain€items€of€clothing€other€than€jail„issued€greens€or€oranges,€the€jailer€inspects€the€items€and€determines€whether€theÏinmate€can€have€the€item.€ÌÌà àStacey€Moseley,€an€inmate€at€the€Coffee€County€Jail€at€the€time€of€theÏincident,€testified€that€neither€he€nor€any€other€inmate€was€harmed€in€any€way€byÏthe€fire.€€He€stated€that€at€no€time€was€he€in€fear€of€being€hurt€or€in€fear€of€his€lifeÏbecause€of€smoke€inhalation.€€Moseley€also€informed€the€jury€that€inmates€typicallyÏlit€ð ðcoffee€bongsðð€to€ð ðheat€coffee.ðð€€Moseley€explained€that,€in€order€to€create€aÏð ðcoffee€bong,ðð€€inmates€would€wrap€toilet€paper€around€their€hands€and€light€aÏmatch€in€the€center€of€it€to€heat€their€coffee€water.€€He€further€stated€that€ð ð[n]ineÏtimes€out€of€the€ten,€youððve€got€[a€coffee€bong]€going€every€minute,€every€minute€ofÏevery€day.ðð€€He€conceded€that€no€inmates€were€ever€criminally€charged€withÏlighting€a€ð ðcoffee€bong.ððÌÌà àIn€his€own€defense,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€only€lit€the€toilet€paper€inÏorder€to€attract€attention€so€that€he€would€be€able€to€receive€medical€treatment€forÏhis€back€pain.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€toÏsustain€his€conviction€for€arson€of€personal€property.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,Ïwe€affirm€the€appellantððs€conviction.ÌÌà àWhen€a€challenge€is€made€on€appeal€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€this€court€must€adhere€to€certain€well„established€principles.€€First,€a€juryÏconviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€initiallyÏcloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal€a€convicted€defendantÏhas€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,Ï639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Next,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1993).€€Moreover,€this€court€may€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€Viewing€the€evidence€under€these€criteria,€it€is€the€responsibility€ofÏthis€court€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€proof€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€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).€ÌÌà àBefore€an€accused€can€be€convicted€of€setting€fire€to€personal€property,€theÏState€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€accused€knowingly€damagedÏpersonal€property,€by€fire€or€explosion,€€without€the€consent€of€all€persons€whoÏhave€a€possessory€or€proprietary€interest€therein.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„303Ï(1991).€€The€indictment€in€this€case€charged€that€the€appellant€did€knowinglyÏdamage€personal€property,€to„wit:€ð ðA€JAIL€COUNTER,€CLOTHING€and€TOILETÏTISSUE€in€[the]€Coffee€County€Jail€being€the€property€of€[the]€Coffee€CountyÏSheriff's€Department,€.€.€.€by€means€of€a€fire.€€.€.€.ðð€ÌÌà à€The€appellant€contends€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€the€SheriffððsÏDepartment€held€a€possessory€or€proprietary€interest€in€the€toilet€paper.€ÏSpecifically,€he€argues€that€the€State€failed€to€enter€into€evidence€purchase€ordersÏfor€the€toilet€paper.€€Additionally,€he€maintains€that€ð ðonce€the€toilet€paper€wasÏdispensed€to€the€cell,€it€became€an€item€that€was€not€of€returnable€nature€to€theÏcounty.ðð€€While€we€appreciate€the€novelty€of€the€appellantððs€argument,€we€find€itÏlegally€incorrect.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€the€toilet€paper€was€purchased€by€theÏCoffee€County€Sheriff's€Department€for€use€by€inmates€in€the€jail.€€NotwithstandingÏthe€appellant's€possessory€interest,€the€Sheriff's€Department€retained€a€proprietaryÏinterest€in€the€toilet€paper.€€Moreover,€the€appellant's€possessory€interest€in€theÏpersonal€property€would€only€extend€to€those€lawful€and€intended€hygienicÏpurposes€for€which€the€paper€was€dispensed.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€theÍappellant€knowingly€set€fire€to€the€toilet€paper€without€the€consent€of€the€SheriffððsÏDepartment€and€that€it€was€damaged€or€consumed€as€a€result€of€the€appellantððsÏconduct.€ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€State€need€only€prove€a€proprietary€or€possessory€interestÏin€but€one€item€of€the€damaged€personal€property€as€the€incident€was€but€oneÏcontinuing€offense.€€As€such,€we€need€not€address€the€appellantððs€remainingÏchallenges€involving€the€insulated€shirt€and€the€jail€counter.€€Nonetheless,€weÏagree€with€the€appellant€that€the€insulated€shirt€belonged€solely€to€him€and€that€theÏSheriffððs€Department€had€neither€a€proprietary€€nor€possessory€interest€in€the€shirt.€ÏAdditionally,€although€there€is€no€doubt€that€the€counter€in€the€jail€was€aÏpossession€of€the€Sheriffððs€Department,€we€find,€from€the€proof€in€the€record,€€thatÏthe€counter€was€a€permanent€fixture,€thus,€constituting€real,€and€not,€personalÏproperty.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMemphis€Housing€Authority€v.€Memphis€Steam€Laundry„Cleaner,ÏInc.óó,€463€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€1971).€€A€chattel€becomes€part€of€the€real€property€ifÏthat€chattel€is€so€attached€to€the€freehold€that,€from€the€intention€of€the€parties€andÏthe€uses€to€which€they€are€put,€it€is€presumed€to€be€permanently€annexed,€or€itsÏremoval€from€the€property€would€cause€serious€injury€to€the€freehold.€€òòIdóó.€at€679.€ÏNo€testimony€or€proof€was€introduced€at€trial€indicating€that€the€counter€could€beÏremoved€without€causing€serious€damage€to€the€building.€€On€the€contrary,€theÏphotograph€of€the€metal€counter€indicates€that€it€was€ð ðbuilt€intoðð€the€building.€ÏAccordingly,€the€counter€is€not€properly€characterized€as€personal€property.ÌÌà àIn€sum,€we€find€that€the€burning€of€the€jail€counter€and€clothing€will€notÏsupport€the€appellant's€conviction€for€the€burning€of€personal€property.€€However,Ïas€previously€found,€we€conclude€that€the€conflagration€of€the€several€sheets€ofÏtoilet€paper€is€against€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€and€isÏsufficient€to€restrain€the€appellant€of€his€liberty.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Sentencingó óÌÌà àAfter€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€two€year€Department€ofÏCorrection€sentence.€€The€appellant€complains,€in€this€appeal,€that€the€two€yearÏsentence€is€excessive€and€that€the€court€should€have€granted€an€alternativeÏsentence€other€than€incarceration.€€This€issue€is€moot.ÌÌà àThe€judgments€of€conviction€were€entered€January€17,€1997.€€The€appellantÏwas€released€from€confinement€on€October€8,€1997.€€Because€the€appellant€is€noÏlonger€incarcerated,€his€issues€regarding€sentencing€no€longer€constitute€a€validÏcase€or€controversy€and,€are,€thereby,€rendered€moot.€€òòSeeóó€€òòSpencer€v.€Kemnaóó,ÏNo.€96„7171€(U.S.€Mar.€3,€1998);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€No.€01C01„9609„CR„00414€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Dec.€12,€1997);€òòState€v.€Hickmanóó,€No.Ï01C01„9011„CR„00285€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€June€14,€1991).ÌÌà à€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judgeà àà8 à