State v. Frederick Jordan ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON              FILED
    JUNE 1997 SESSION             July 3, 1997
    Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    Appellate C ourt Clerk
    STATE OF TENNESSEE,               )
    )     C.C.A. No. 02C01-9608-CR-00281
    Appellee,                   )
    )     SHELBY COUNTY
    VS.                               )
    )     HON. JAMES C. BEASLEY JR.,
    )     JUDGE
    FREDERICK JORDAN,                 )
    )     (Aggravated Robbery)
    Appellant.                  )
    FOR THE APPELLANT:                      FOR THE APPELLEE:
    A. C. WHARTON JR.                       JOHN KNOX WALKUP
    Public Defender                         Attorney General & Reporter
    MOZELLA ROSS (at trial)                 ELLEN H. POLLACK
    Assistant Public Defender               Assistant Attorney General
    201 Poplar Ave., Ste. 201               450 James Robertson Parkway
    Memphis, TN 38103                       Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0493
    WALKER GWINN (on appeal)                WILLIAM L. GIBBONS
    Assistant Public Defender               District Attorney General
    201 Poplar Ave., Ste. 201
    Memphis, TN 38103                       DAVID P. SHAPIRO
    Assistant District Attorney General
    201 Poplar Ave. Ste. 301
    Memphis, Tennessee 38103-1947
    OPINION FILED: __________________
    AFFIRMED
    JOE G. RILEY,
    JUDGE
    OPINION
    The defendant, Frederick Jordan, appeals as of right a jury conviction of three
    counts of aggravated robbery. He received an effective sentence of thirty (30) years.
    The sole issue for review is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the
    conviction. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
    FACTS
    On December 29, 1993, Rodney Johnson was visiting the Raimey family at
    the McKellar Woods Apartments in Shelby County. Around 8:15 p.m. the front door
    was “busted open” by a man masked with a black stocking brandishing a pistol. The
    man told Mr. and Ms. Raimey, their daughter, and Johnson to “get down . . . it’s a
    robbery.”
    Mr. Raimey was standing on the other side of the door when it burst open. As
    the masked man entered, Mr. Raimey noticed another man wearing a heavy,
    athletic-type jacket standing outside the apartment door. The second man’s face
    was covered by his jacket which was zipped-up over his face to his eyes. The
    masked robber, already inside the apartment, urged the second man standing
    outside to follow. He then looked at Ms. Raimey, and asked, “Penny, where’s my
    money? Where’s the shit?” Mr. Raimey told the robber he had the wrong
    apartment, and Penny did not live there. After realizing he had the wrong place, the
    masked gunman proceeded to rob Mr. and Ms. Raimey. He forced them into their
    bedroom at gunpoint and stole over $500 worth of their valuables.
    Meanwhile, Johnson, who was seated close to the front door, tried to escape
    to get help. In doing so, he scuffled with the second robber in the athletic-type
    jacket. During the conflict, the collar of the jacket covering the robber’s face
    unzipped, and Johnson was able to see his adversary’s face. The robber ultimately
    stole property worth over $500 from Johnson. Johnson described the second robber
    as 5'11', with a curly hairstyle. After viewing a photo-spread and later at trial,
    Johnson positively identified the defendant as the person who robbed him. He also
    2
    identified defendant’s jacket as the same jacket worn by the robber.
    After the victims’ possessions had been taken, Mr. Raimey and Johnson were
    struck in the head by the robbers. Mr. Raimey retrieved his pistol when the robbers
    left and went outside and fired one shot in their direction. They fired back and Mr.
    Raimey retreated into the apartment to call the police.
    Hospital records indicated that defendant was admitted to the Methodist South
    Emergency Room at 8:40 p.m., the night of the robbery. He was treated for a
    gunshot wound to the back left shoulder. Following standard procedure, hospital
    personnel contacted the police. The defendant was later arrested at the hospital.
    Jose Jordan, the defendant’s brother, and Harold Evans, the defendant’s
    step-father, testified for the defense. Jordan stated that the defendant had called
    him the night of the robbery and told him that, “[s]omeone tried to rob him, and he
    ran, and they shot him.” Jordan then picked his brother up and took him to the
    hospital. Evans stated that on the day of the robbery he dropped the defendant off
    at Pepper Tree Apartments around 5 p.m.
    I.
    The defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support the aggravated
    robbery convictions. Specifically, defendant contends the evidence is insufficient
    because only one of the two victims identified the defendant from the photo spread.
    In Tennessee, great weight is given to the result reached by the jury in a
    criminal trial. A jury verdict accredits the state’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts
    in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee, 
    885 S.W.2d 797
    , 803 (Tenn. 1994); State v.
    Harris, 
    839 S.W.2d 54
    , 75 (Tenn.1992). On appeal, the state is entitled to the
    strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may
    be drawn therefrom. State v. Evans, 
    838 S.W.2d 185
    , 191 (Tenn. 1992); State v.
    Cabbage, 
    571 S.W.2d 832
     (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, a guilty verdict removes the
    presumption of innocence which the appellant enjoyed at trial and raises a
    presumption of guilt on appeal. State v. Grace, 
    493 S.W.2d 474
     (Tenn. 1973). The
    3
    appellant has the burden of overcoming this presumption of guilt. 
    Id.
    Johnson identified the defendant as the man who robbed him. He made the
    identification two days after the robbery in a photo spread and again at trial.
    Johnson had an opportunity to see the robber’s face during their fight. He stated that
    the struggle lasted approximately five (5) minutes. Identification of a robber is a
    question of fact to be determined by the jury. State v. Strickland, 
    885 S.W.2d 85
    , 87
    (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).
    Furthermore, the defendant’s jacket was also identified as the jacket worn by
    the robber. The jacket had dirt marks on the left sleeve that were consistent with the
    struggle that occured with Johnson outside of the apartment. The defendant was
    admitted to the hospital at 8:40 p.m. for a gunshot wound, twenty minutes after the
    robbery. Based on the above proof, a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a
    reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the robberies. This issue is without
    merit.
    The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    __________________________
    JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
    CONCUR:
    _________________________
    PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
    _________________________
    DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02C01-9608-CR-00281

Filed Date: 12/1/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014