Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned On Briefs September 14, 2011 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WESLEY TRENT REAVES
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 14905 Stella Hargrove, Judge

No. M2011-00073-CCA-R3-CD - Filed July 12, 2012

A Wayne County jury convicted Appellant, Wesley Trent Reaves, of theft of property worth more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State's witnesses were mistaken or lied during their testimony at trial and that the trial court erred in imposing an eight-year sentence because it failed to apply a mitigating factor. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trier of fact is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses. We also determine that although the trial court erred in failing to apply the mitigating factor in question, Appellant's criminal history more than supports the imposition of an eight-year sentence. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed. J ERRY L. S MITH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT, J R. and N ORMA M CG EE O GLE, JJ., joined. R.H. Stovall, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Pulaski, Tennessee, for the appellant, Wesley Trent Reaves. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Cameron L. Hyder, Assistant Attorney General; Mike Bottoms, District Attorney General, and Doug Dicus, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION Factual Background On May 3, 2010, William Rogers and his son-in law, Adam Hollis, were riding a fourwheeler around their area to see the flood damage. While riding around, they saw Appellant's truck on land belonging to James Melson, the victim. The truck was empty when they saw it. About an hour later, they saw Appellant's truck driving away from Mr. Melton's property. The truck was loaded with property Mr. Rogers recognized from Mr. Melton's barn including two eighteen wheeler truck fenders. Jack Beckham is also one of the victim's neighbors. He saw Appellant driving near the victim's property. Mr. Beckham saw that Appellant had aluminum fenders for an eighteen wheeler. Mr. Beckham recognized the fenders as having been in the victim's barn. Mr. Rogers called the victim to inform him that he saw Appellant taking the victim's property. The victim called the police and met them at his barn. When the victim arrived, he noticed that he was missing full fenders for an eighteen wheeler, a disc, a grater blade, steel posts for a chain link fence, and some sheet metal. Mr. Rogers estimated the total value of the property taken at around $1,300. At the trial, Appellant agreed that he was on the victim's property on the day in question. Appellant stated that he was hauling scrap for someone else and his truck was full with that scrap. Appellant denied that he had taken anything from the victim. Based on the evidence above a Wayne Court jury convicted Appellant of theft of perperty valued over $1,000 but less than $10,000. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an eight-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. ANALYSIS Sufficiency of the Evidence On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient because "the [S]tate's witnesses were mistaken or lying when they testified they observed him hauling bright polished fenders away from the victim's barn."

-2-

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is obliged to review that claim according to certain well-settled principles. A verdict of guilty, rendered by a jury and "approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the" State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the testimony in favor of the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). Thus, although the accused is originally cloaked with a presumption of innocence, the jury verdict of guilty removes this presumption "and replaces it with one of guilt." State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). Hence, on appeal, the burden of proof rests with the defendant to demonstrate the insufficiency of the convicting evidence. Id. The relevant question the reviewing court must answer is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the accused guilty of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Harris, 839 S .W.2d at 75. In making this decision, we are to accord the State "the strongest legitimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom." See Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, this Court is precluded from re-weighing or reconsidering the evidence when evaluating the convicting proof. State v. Morgan, 929 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Moreover, we may not substitute our own "inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial evidence." Matthews, 805 S.W.2d at 779. Further, questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by such evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact and not the appellate courts. State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990). "The standard of review `is the same whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.'" State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009)). Appellant argues that the witnesses were mistaken or lied at trial. As stated above, it is up to the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses at trial. See Pruett, 788 S.W.2d at 561. There were witnesses presented by both the State and the defense. The jury clearly found the State's witnesses to be more credible. We do not find the evidence insufficient based upon this argument. According to the law in Tennessee, theft occurs when, "[a] person . . . with intent to deprive the owner of property, . . . knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent." T.C.A.

Download reaveswopn.pdf

Tennessee Law