State v. Ruth ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
SEPTEMBER 1998 SESSION
October 16, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9712-CR-00538
)
) Sullilvan County
v. )
) Honorable Phyllis H. Miller, Judge
)
STEVE ANTHONY RUTH, ) (Attempt to obtain a controlled substance
) by fraud)
)
Appellant. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Stephen M. Wallace John Knox Walkup
District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee
and and
Richard Tate Todd R. Kelley
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
P.O. Box 839 425 Fifth Avenue North
Blountville, TN 37617-0839 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
H. Greeley Wells, Jr.
District Attorney General
and
Edward Wilson
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 526
Blountville, TN 37617-526
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The defendant, Steve Anthony Ruth, appeals as of right from his
conviction in the Sullivan County Criminal Court following a jury trial for attempt to
obtain a controlled substance by fraud, a Class D felony. The defendant was
sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to five years in the custody of the
Department of Correction to be served consecutively to prior sentences, and he was
fined two hundred fifty dollars. The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient
to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of conviction pursuant to Rule 20,
Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.
Our standard of review when the sufficiency of the evidence is questioned
on appeal 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 beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 2789 (1979). This means that we do not reweigh the evidence, but presume that
the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable inferences
from the evidence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547
(Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
When viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the proof at trial
established that the defendant obtained a prescription pill bottle for Klonopin, a
schedule IV narcotic, from Martin P. Roche, the defendant’s friend. The prescription
had two refills remaining. The defendant took the bottle to Berry’s Pharmacy in
Kingsport to attempt to have it refilled. When the pharmacist at Berry’s called Cave’s
Pharmacy, where the prescription had been filled originally, the pharmacist learned that
Mr. Roche had reported his prescription stolen. The pharmacist at Berry’s called 9-1-1,
and the police arrived at Berry’s and arrested the defendant. The defendant made a
2
statement to the police in which he said, “I knew trying to fill it was wrong, but I needed,
I needed it to calm my nerves.”
After full consideration of the record, the briefs, and the law governing the
issue presented, we are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the
defendant’s conviction for attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud and that no
precedential value would be derived from the rendering of a full opinion. Therefore, we
conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20,
Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.
________________________________
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________
John H. Peay, Judge
_________________________
David G. Hayes, Judge
3