Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
Assigned on Briefs November 4, 2003 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CALVIN OWENS
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 01-06973, 74, 75, 76 Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

No. W2003-00033-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 17, 2003

The Defendant, Calvin Owens, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of attempted second degree murder, all Class B felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eleven years for each of his four convictions. The trial court ordered three of the sentences to be served consecutively, with the sentence for the remaining conviction to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty-three years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to thirty-three years. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed DAVID H. WELLES, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOE G. RILEY and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ., joined. Harry Sayle, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Calvin Owens. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Betsy Carnesale, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION

On June 9, 2000, Reuben Ramirez went to a store with his friends, Jose Salazar and Manuel Ramirez, to cash their paychecks. They each left the store with several hundred dollars in cash. As they were driving in Mr. Salazar's car to the apartment complex in which they all lived, the hood of the car flew up, breaking the windshield. The men stopped the car, lowered the hood, and examined the damage to the car. They then proceeded to their apartment complex. When they arrived, the Defendant approached them, asking whether he could help. The Defendant told the men that he knew someone from whom the men could buy parts to repair the damaged car. The Defendant told

them that he would get them a phone number they could call to buy parts for the car. As he was talking to the three men, the Defendant placed his hand on the hood of the car. The Defendant accompanied Jose Salazar and Manuel Ramirez into Mr. Salazar's apartment, and Reuben Ramirez went to get his car so they could drive it to the auto parts store. Mr. Salazar went into the bedroom of his apartment to look for a pen and paper. When he emerged from his bedroom into the living room of his apartment, he saw the Defendant pointing a gun at Manuel Ramirez's head. The Defendant told the two men to get on the floor, which they did. The Defendant took Mr. Salazar's wallet, which contained over seven hundred dollars. Manuel Ramirez told Mr. Salazar that the Defendant had taken his wallet as well. As the Defendant attempted to leave the apartment, Reuben Ramirez arrived at the door. The Defendant put a gun to Reuben Ramirez's head, grabbed his hair, and threw him to the floor. The Defendant took Reuben Ramirez's wallet, then forced him into the bedroom where Mr. Salazar and Manuel Ramirez were. The Defendant demanded more money from Reuben Ramirez, so Reuben Ramirez reached into his pants pocket to get the money he had just received when he cashed his check. As Reuben Ramirez put his hand in his pocket, the Defendant shot him in the chest. The bullet passed through Reuben Ramirez's torso and exited his back. After the Defendant shot him, Reuben Ramirez fled out the window, ran to another apartment, and asked for help. A few minutes later, the police arrived. Reuben Ramirez testified that, as a result of the gunshot wound to his chest, he could no longer work outside in the heat. During their testimony, both Reuben Ramirez and Jose Salazar identified the Defendant as the perpetrator. Officer Ricky Davison, a crime scene investigator with the Memphis Police Department, examined the scene of the shooting. He located blood and a spent bullet on the bedroom floor of Mr. Salazar's apartment. Officer Davison also dusted Mr. Salazar's entire car for fingerprints, and he was able to obtain several from the hood of the car. Larry Preston, a fingerprint examiner with the Memphis Police Department, determined that one of the fingerprints lifted from the hood of Mr. Salazar's vehicle belonged to the Defendant. Based on this evidence, the jury found the Defendant guilty of aggravated robbery with respect to Jose Salazar, aggravated robbery with respect to Manuel Ramirez, and, with respect to the attack on Reuben Ramirez, attempted especially aggravated robbery and attempted second degree murder. The Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that "[f]indings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Evidence is sufficient if, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). In addition, because conviction by a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was insufficient. See McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, -2-

105-06 (Tenn. 1999); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). In its review of the evidence, an appellate court must afford the State "the strongest legitimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom." Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914; see also Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 279. The court may not "reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence" in the record below. Evans, 838 S.W.2d at 191; see also Buggs, 995 S.W.2d at 105. Likewise, should the reviewing court find particular conflicts in the trial testimony, the court must resolve them in favor of the jury verdict or trial court judgment. See Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact, not the appellate courts. See State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 795 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). In this case, the Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted second degree murder. Aggravated robbery is robbery accomplished with a deadly weapon. See Tenn. Code Ann.

Download owensc.pdf

Tennessee Law