ÿWPC¸ >VJç|©ßÍàD^þÞ A½í¹á83`ä°ãil§ÿ)[{P ±Y0Žö0— ­{fà»9³CÝD+…isµÅyæ®XXP:¿X‡${ú™cáÄÒØ×‰S}‡ìĬóV*_G×d½Î™fþ°‹ÛÖli\m±ÉA‰Î¬©‚e䥈 Ñ7ÊIÜ-ðJƒPK=yJôK9]Âtôµò}‡*»¹+5[VÈ:Ø;t#OÍ 5 k ³­ÇjZ%g6IÜìšñz· zÇ·ÿ¶þ’ø/p[#[ÜûÛ_øÕíjû§Úɧ·mŸ'«Ë¼36’hš+ ^Kùž‘ÑKÁ´Çù”u_înÓªÎG‡²}ɘ.ßѤ)¡RWõiº! á1%̺uÛ4(ׄûÎŒu 5GÎÞÙº©â3¿ X(.ã¡Sµ9Ûÿk ‰Dïßè¬Uá÷2 €a žŠ¾„RâËÜK—wÂÔf€£ÚzŽO&vìÕã3™÷|ë‹–µQÿ1Ž((ÙP`s‘[;&A„B­‚¾,>àÏaÅ;ÌØvBI`ßÂä‘CÑ»× ¬‹Y'oAØC6D"Õ}JÊ…’ÈuW‡„kAŠýWYqNwU(b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ Ð Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã ã N©©©E««««««««««««««««««««««««b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 0ëµµµµ B   0¤½ D3a D-” 0KÁÁ AS Æ_ 0¤% 0DÉ A« »-ªŽ+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'bk2Äå¦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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2.å$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥Ýò»»Ô d(|3?u$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?u$¢¢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€\IXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÔ¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼¥»îîÔ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€à0 @ àà0 @ àà0 @ à18,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X\IX»¼¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¥»XX\I<#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TROY€D.€RYANòòóóÔ‡X\IX»¼¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„599„151„B€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02142„CCA„R3Ô_Ô„CDÔ_Ô€Filed€December€14,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€from€a€conviction€of€theft€of€property€over€one€thousand€dollars.€€The€soleÐ xÈ  Ðissue€presented€for€review€is€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€establish€the€value€element€of€theÐ d´ Ðoffense.€€We€conclude€that€the€testimony€by€the€owner€of€the€stolen€property€was€sufficient€for€theÐ P  Ðjury€to€find€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€was€over€one€thousand€dollars.€€The€judgmentÐ <Œ Ðof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð (x ÐÓÿÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¥»àX\I°#ÔÔ‡X\IX.¼¥ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_ÔóóÐ Ø( Ðjoined.€òòóó€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.Ô#†¼¥»XX\IÊ#ÔÔ‡X\IX»¼¥ÔÐ Ä ÐÌE.€Ô_ÔShayneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBrasfieldÔ_Ô,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Troy€D.€Ryan.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð tÄ ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Sharon€E.€Ô_ÔGuffeeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ `° ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓ›ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼¥»XX\I #ÔÔ‡X\IX»¼¥ÔÐ #`" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant,€Troy€D.€Ryan,€was€indicted€by€a€Williamson€County€Grand€Jury€for€aÐ è$8 $ Ðviolation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„103,Ô#†¼¥»XX\I| #ÔÔ‡X\IX»¼¥Ô€theft€of€property€with€a€value€of€oneÐ Ô%$!% Ðthousand€dollars€or€more,€a€Class€D€felony.€€On€February€18,€2000,€€the€defendant€was€found€guiltyÐ À&"& Ðof€the€indicted€offense€and€assessed€a€fine€of€three€thousand€dollars€by€a€jury.€€On€May€19,€2000,€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðtrial€court€sentenced€the€defendant,€as€a€multiple€Range€II€offender,€to€six€(6)€years€imprisonment.€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌÌà  àThe€defendant€filed€a€combined€motion€to€dismiss,€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€andÐ \+¬&+ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€on€June€16,€2000.€€Although€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€an€order€ofÐ H,˜', Ðthe€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€June€16,€2000,€motion,€the€defendant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€onÐ 4-„(-ýt ÐÔ_ÔAugust€28,€2000.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establishÐ ° Ðthe€value€of€the€stolen€property,€a€required€element€of€the€offense.€Ð œì ÐòòóóÔ#†¼¥»XX\IŠ #ÔÔ€X\IX»¼¥ÔÌÓ  Óò òòòFactsóóó óÐ tÄ ÐÓ  Óà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€and€a€co„defendant€were€tried€jointly.€€Viewing€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÐ L œ Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€following€facts€were€established.€The€defendant€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðco„defendant€were€hired€to€paint€the€foyer€of€Wanda€and€Gary€Brockððs€home.€€While€the€two€menÐ $ t Ðwere€working€in€the€Brock€home,€they€kept€their€paint€and€supplies€in€the€basement€of€the€home.€Ð  ` ÐMr.€€Brock€was€away€on€business€when€the€defendant€began€working€in€his€home€but€returned€homeÐ ü L  Ðbefore€the€work€was€completed.€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àÌà  àMr.€Brock€was€an€independent€sales€agent€who€acted€as€a€middleman€between€retail€salesÐ À  Ðestablishments€and€manufacturers€of€power€tools,€equipment,€hardware€and€other€lawn€and€gardenÐ ¬ü  Ðequipment.€€Mr.€Brock€also€owned€a€large€number€of€power€tools€and€equipment,€which€he€kept€inÐ ˜è  Ðthe€basement€of€his€home.€€€Upon€returning€home,€Mr.€Brock€found€the€defendant€and€the€co„Ð „Ô  Ðdefendant€working€in€his€foyer.€€Mr.€Brock€testified€that€the€two€men€left€shortly€after€he€arrivedÐ pÀ Ðhome.€€Sometime€after€they€left,€Mr.€Brock€went€to€the€basement€of€the€home€where€he€discoveredÐ \¬ Ðthat€paint€had€been€spilled€and€a€mess€created€in€the€area€where€the€men€were€keeping€the€supplies.€Ð H˜ ÐAfter€further€inspection,€Mr.€Brock€discovered€that€a€number€of€his€power€tools€were€missing.€€Mr.Ð 4„ Ðand€Mrs.€Brock€contacted€the€police€and€reported€the€items€stolen.€Ð  p Ðà  àÌà  àOver€the€course€of€several€weeks,€the€police€recovered€several€of€the€stolen€tools€from€localÐ øH Ðpawn€shops.€€Mr.€Brock€identified€the€tools€as€they€were€recovered€by€describing€unique€features€andÐ ä4 Ðproviding€serial€numbers.€€The€state€introduced€testimony€from€a€pawn€shop€employee€whichÐ Ð  Ðestablished€the€defendant€had€pawned€several€of€the€stolen€items€along€with€his€co„defendant.Ð ¼  Ðà  àÌà  àAt€trial,€Mr.€Brock€identified€photographs€of€the€recovered€tools.€€Mr.€Brock€prepared€a€listÐ ”ä Ðof€the€stolen€property,€which€indicated€the€value€of€each€tool.€€Mr.€Brock€testified€that€he€establishedÐ €Ð Ðthe€value€of€the€tools€based€on€research€he€had€done€after€the€theft€at€Loweððs,€a€retail€store€that€sellsÐ l¼ Ðtools.€€Mr.€Brock€testified€that€some€of€the€tools€were€not€available€on€the€retail€market€and€that€heÐ X ¨ Ðhad€approximated€the€value€of€such€tools€by€using€comparable€products€on€the€retail€market.€€Mr.Ð D!” ÐBrock€testified€in€detail€about€each€of€the€tools€that€had€been€stolen.€€He€explained€where€and€howÐ 0"€  Ðhe€had€acquired€each€tool,€how€long€he€had€owned€each€tool,€how€many€times€he€had€used€each€tool,Ð #l! Ðand€the€condition€of€each€tool.Ð $X" ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓAnalysisÐ à%0!$ Ðóóó óà0 @ àÌÓ  Ó€à  àWe€begin€by€addressing€the€stateððs€contention€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrateÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€his€notice€of€appeal€was€timely€filed.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€entered€defendant'sÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjudgment€order€setting€forth€his€sentences€on€May€19,€2000.€€The€defendant€filed€a€timely€motionÐ )à$( Ðfor€new€trial€on€June€16,€2000.€€The€defendant€has€provided€no€record€of€the€trial€courtððs€orderÐ |*Ì%) Ðdisposing€of€such€motion,€but€refers€to€a€judgment€entered€on€July€27,€2000,€in€his€notice€of€appeal.€Ð h+¸&* ЀWe€agree€that€the€defendant€bears€the€burden€in€this€case€of€preparing€an€adequate€record€in€orderÐ ° Ðto€allow€meaningful€review€on€appeal,€which€includes€demonstrating€that€this€Court€has€jurisdictionÐ œì Ðto€hear€the€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24€(b);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€646€S.W.2d€158,€(Tenn.€1983).€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€has€failed€to€satisfy€this€requirement.€€We€must,€therefore,€assume€that€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðnotice€of€appeal€was€untimely.Ð `° Ðà  à€Ð L œ Ðà  àA€notice€of€appeal€is€required€to€be€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€within€thirty€daysÐ 8 ˆ Ðafter€the€entry€of€the€judgment€or€order€from€which€relief€is€sought.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a);€òòState€v.Ð $ t ÐHamlinóó,€655€S.W.2d€200€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€The€time€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€is€tolledÐ  ` Ðby€the€timely€filing€of€a€post-trial€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€new€trial,€or€arrest€of€judgment.Ð ü L  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(c).€In€the€event€that€the€time€for€filing€is€not€tolled€and€an€untimely€notice€ofÐ è 8  Ðappeal€results,€this€Court€may€nevertheless€waive€the€timely€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€and€addressÐ Ô$  Ðissues€which€would€result€in€outright€dismissal€of€the€prosecution€against€the€accused.€òòState€v.Ð À  ÐDodsonóó,€780€S.W.2d€778,€780€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€675€S.W.2d€499,€501Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€In€addition,€this€court€may€review€the€record€for€plain€errors€whenÐ ˜è  Ðnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€defendantððs€sole€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€establishÐ \¬ Ðthe€value€of€the€stolen€property.€€This€issue€is€one€which,€if€meritorious,€would€result€in€a€reversalÐ H˜ Ðand€dismissal€of€the€charges.€We€conclude€that€this€is€an€appropriate€case€in€which€to€waive€theÐ 4„ Ðtimely€filing€requirement€for€the€notice€of€appeal.€Accordingly,€we€€will€address€the€sufficiency€ofÐ  p Ðevidence€issue.€Ð  \ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€only€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€to€establishÐ ä4 Ðthe€value€of€the€stolen€property.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficientÐ Ð  Ðto€establish€the€value€of€the€property€to€support€his€conviction€of€theft€of€property€over€one€thousandÐ ¼  Ðdollars.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€argues,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€declare€the€value€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðproperty€to€be€less€than€fifty€dollars.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€must€determineÐ l¼ Ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trierÐ X ¨ Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€a€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð D!” ÐP.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  Ð1985).€The€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonableÐ #l! Ðinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòState€v.€Cabbage,óó€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€€Ð $X" Ðà  àÌà  àThe€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€of€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflictsÐ à%0!$ Ðin€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€trier€of€fact.€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€A€jury€verdictÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€the€state€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstate.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€theÐ )à$( Ðpresumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€defendants€at€trial€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€Thus,€a€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€evidence€carries€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ ° Ðthe€verdict.€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€943€S.W.2d€25,€29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àIn€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€theft€of€property€over€one€thousand€dollars,€the€state€mustÐ tÄ Ðprove€that€the€defendant,€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€the€property,€knowingly€obtainedÐ `° Ðor€exercised€control€over€property€without€the€owner's€effective€consent,€and€the€value€of€theÐ L œ Ðproperty€was€over€one€thousand€dollars€but€less€than€ten€thousand€dollars.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÐ 8 ˆ Ð39-14-103,€-105(3).à ¸ à€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€defendant€is€only€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€toÐ ü L  Ðestablish€the€value€element€of€the€offense.€€Value€of€property€is€defined€as€the€fair€market€value€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€property€at€the€time€and€place€of€the€offense;€or€if€the€fair€market€value€cannot€be€ascertained,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€cost€of€replacing€the€property.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-106(a)(36).€€If€the€value€cannot€beÐ À  Ðascertained€using€either€of€these€methods,€the€property€is€deemed€to€have€a€value€of€less€than€fiftyÐ ¬ü  Ðdollars.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(36)(C).€The€theft€is€then€punished€as€a€class€AÐ ˜è  Ðmisdemeanor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-14-105(1).€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€€Evidence€701(b)€permits€the€owner€of€personal€property€to€testify€aboutÐ \¬ Ðthe€value€of€that€property.€òòState€v.€Hammóó,€611€S.W.2d€826€(Tenn.€1981);€òòReaves€v.€Stateóó,€523Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€218,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€He€or€she€can€testify€about€either€the€fair€market€valueÐ 4„ Ðat€the€time€of€the€offense€or€the€replacement€cost.€€òòState€v.€Logueóó,€No.€W1999-01795-CCA-R3-CD,Ð  p Ð2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€958€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.€15,€2000).Ð  \ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àIn€this€case,€the€owner€of€the€property,€Mr.€Brock,€testified€to€the€value€of€the€property€stolen.€Ð ä4 ÐMr.€Brock€€listed€all€of€the€tools€that€were€stolen€along€with€the€corresponding€value€of€each€tool.€Ð Ð  ÐThis€list€was€admitted€as€an€exhibit€at€trial.€€Mr.€Brock€testified€that€he€was€a€tool€broker€byÐ ¼  Ðprofession.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€know€what€the€fair€market€value€of€the€tools€was€because€heÐ ¨ø Ðis€unfamiliar€with€the€used€tool€market.€€He€also€indicated€that€his€estimated€value€of€each€tool€wasÐ ”ä Ðbased€on€his€research€of€the€retail€cost€of€the€tool€at€the€time€it€was€stolen.€€Because€some€of€the€toolsÐ €Ð Ðwere€acquired€through€his€business€connections€and€were€not€available€on€the€retail€market,€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐBrock€estimated€the€retail€cost€of€those€tools€based€on€comparable€products.€€Additionally,€Mr.Ð X ¨ ÐBrock€testified€to€how€long€he€had€owned€each€tool,€how€many€times€it€had€been€used,€and€theÐ D!” Ðcondition€at€the€time€it€was€stolen.€€Based€upon€Mr.€Brockððs€testimony,€the€total€value€of€the€toolsÐ 0"€  Ðwas€over€one€thousand€eight€hundred€dollars.Ð #l! Ðà  àÌà  àThe€determination€of€fair€market€value€is€a€jury€question€based€on€the€evidence€presented€atÐ ô$D # Ðtrial.€€òòHammóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€828-29.€Given€the€information€presented€concerning€the€current€retailÐ à%0!$ Ðpurchase€price€of€each€tool,€the€condition€of€the€tools,€and€the€length€of€ownership,€the€evidence€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðsufficient€for€the€jury€to€determine€that€the€value€of€the€property€taken€was€more€than€one€thousandÐ ¸'#& Ðdollars.€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE