Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs July 20, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDALL BISHOP
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. F-9276 Larry B. Stanley, Jr., Judge

No. M2004-02641-CCA-R3-CD - Filed November 8, 2005

The defendant, Randall K. Bishop, was indicted for manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class C felony. A jury convicted the defendant of facilitation of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony. The defendant was sentenced to three years as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. After careful review, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the conviction. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER , JJ., joined. Billy K. Tollison, III, McMinnville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Randall Bishop. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; Clement Dale Potter, District Attorney General; and Thomas J. Miner, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION Our standard when reviewing a sufficiency challenge is "whether, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 276 (Tenn. 2002); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). A verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt; thus, the burden shifts to the defendant upon conviction to show why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. See State v. Evans, 108 S.W.3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000). Questions about the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact, and this court does not re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Nor

may this court substitute its inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence for those drawn by the trier of fact. See Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d at 557-58. A person is "criminally responsible for the facilitation of a felony if, knowing that another intends to commit a specific felony, but without the intent required for criminal responsibility under

Download bishoprOPN.pdf

Tennessee Law