State v. Gregory Whitfield ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JUNE 1998 SESSION FILED
July 9, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9707-CR-00290
Appellee, )
) Shelby County
V. )
) Honorable James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
)
GREGORY WHITFIELD, ) (Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Assault)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
A C Wharton, Jr. John Knox Walkup
Shelby County Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
Tony N. Brayton Georgia Blythe Felner
Assistant Public Defender Counsel for the State
(On Appeal) Criminal Justice Division
Cordell Hull Building, Second Floor
Michael Johnson 425 Fifth Avenue North
Kevin Reed Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Assistant Public Defenders
201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 201 William L. Gibbons
Memphis, TN 38103 District Attorney General
(At Trial)
David B. Shapiro
Chris Marshburn
Assistant District Attorneys General
201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Gregory Whitfield, was convicted by a jury of aggravated
robbery and aggravated assault in the Shelby County Criminal Court. The trial
court overruled his motion for a new trial and he appeals. The sole issue for our
review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
On July 13, 1995, Yuet Lee and her son, Albert, were working at the
family business, the B & G market, in Memphis. A lone man entered the store.
He was not wearing a mask. He pointed a gun at Yuet Lee and demanded
money and cigarettes. Yuet Lee complied with his request. She testified that
she was afraid of the gunman. Lee’s son, Albert, was also in the store. The
man pointed the gun at Albert and told him to lie on the floor. The gunman fled.
Yuet Lee pressed a silent alarm and the police soon arrived.
Lieutenant C. G. Gordon of the Memphis Police Department investigated
the robbery. He showed Yuet Lee and Albert a photographic lineup separately.
They both identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery. At trial, Yuet
Lee identified the appellant as the man who robbed her at gunpoint. She
testified the appellant had been a customer in the store before the robbery. Yuet
Lee also testified that the appellant’s family had been customers in the store for
a long time. At trial, Albert identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the
robbery. Albert testified that the appellant had been a customer in the store
before the robbery.
The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In a sufficiency
of the evidence challenge, the relevant question on appellate review is whether,
after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or
-2-
crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); T.R.A.P. 13(e); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63(Tenn. 1985).
In Tennessee, great weight is given to the result reached by the jury in a
criminal trial. A jury verdict accredits the testimony of the state's witnesses and
resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405(Tenn. 1983). Moreover, a guilty verdict replaces the presumption of innocence
enjoyed at trial with the presumption of guilt on appeal. State v. Grace, 493
S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1973). The appellant has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of guilt. Id. 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. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978).
The appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence issue challenges the
identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses. He concedes
that the eyewitness testimony is sufficient evidence to support the appellant’s
convictions. He argues, however, that the eyewitness testimony is
“untrustworthy.” The appellant points out that the robbery occurred quickly and
that Yuet Lee has great difficulty seeing without her glasses. He also points out
that there is no physical evidence linking the appellant to the crime. He contends
that the Yuet Lee and Albert did not give the police a description of the
perpetrator before identifying the appellant in the photographic lineup. Neither
party asked Yuet Lee whether she was wearing her glasses on the day of the
robbery. Neither party asked Yuet Lee, her son, or Lieutenant Gordon whether
the Lees gave a description of the perpetrator. The appellant’s reliance on
those factors to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence is unconvincing.
-3-
There is sufficient evidence from which the jury could have identified the
appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Yuet
Lee and Albert identified the appellant as the perpetrator in a photographic
lineup. Both testified that the appellant had been in the store before the robbery.
At trial, Yuet Lee and Albert identified the appellant as the perpetrator. See
State v. Johnson, 910 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
_____________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
CONCUR:
-4-
___________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
___________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
-5-