State v. Daniel Barnes

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
DECEMBER 1997 SESSION
January 27, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9702-CR-00070
Appellee, )
) Davidson County
V. )
) Honorable Thomas H. Shriver, Judge
)
DANIEL S. BARNES, ) (Burglary and Attempted Theft)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Paula Blair John Knox Walkup
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
176 Second Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37201 Sarah M. Branch
Counsel for the State
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Victor S. Johnson III
District Attorney General
Nicholas Bailey
Assistant District Attorney General
Washington Square Building
222 Second Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37201
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Daniel S. Barnes, was convicted in a bench trial in
Davidson County of burglary and attempted theft of property valued under $500.
He was sentenced to four years for burglary and six months for attempted theft
and placed on probation, which was later revoked. The appellant’s sole issue on
appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions for
burglary and attempted theft. We affirm.
On January 20, 1996, Robert Haught, a Metro Nashville police officer,
was dispatched to investigate a burglary at the Shelby Avenue Baptist Church.
When he arrived, he discovered that the window frame and all the glass had
been knocked out of a window at the rear of the church. He called for backup.
An officer with the canine unit arrived, and he and his dog entered the church.
Shortly thereafter, James McIntosh, the appellant’s companion, was arrested.
Officer Robert Brown with the canine division testified that he entered the
church with his dog after McIntosh was removed. Once inside, the officer twice
shouted a warning, and when he did not receive any response, he released the
dog into the building. The dog located the appellant hiding under a desk in an
office. The officer stated that the appellant did not appear to have been asleep.
The appellant, who had been bitten on the leg, was brought out of the church,
arrested, and taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries.
Reverend Carl Martin, the minister at Shelby Avenue Baptist Church,
testified that the church was locked and that the appellant did not have
permission to enter the church. He also testified that a microwave had been
moved from the nursery to the hallway outside the door to the church office;
several children’s comforters had been moved to the door of the church office;
tables in the Sunday School office had been turned over; and the glass tabletop
-2-
of one table had been broken. In addition, a small refrigerator had been moved
from its normal location.
First, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding
his burglary conviction. In his brief, the appellant, who did not offer any proof at
trial, argues that he did not enter to commit a theft, just to sleep and get warm.
He contends that there was no evidence that he was in possession of any items
and that his fingerprints were not found on any of the items. The state, however,
argues that the evidence clearly indicates that the appellant was guilty of
burglary. It notes that the appellant did not have permission to enter the church,
and that when the appellant was apprehended, he was hiding under a desk and
did not appear to be asleep. It also asserts that several items of church
property, including a microwave, a small refrigerator, and comforters had been
moved toward the window that had been broken by the appellant and his
companion.
Second, the appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain
his conviction for attempted theft. He maintains that the entered the church
only to sleep and stay warm and that James McIntosh, his companion, alone
committed the attempted theft. The state, however, argues that both men were
seen breaking into the church together and that when apprehended, the
appellant did not appear to be sleeping under the desk and did not mention to
police officers that he had entered the church to stay warm.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-14-402(a)(1) (Supp. 1996) provides that
“[a] person commits burglary who, without the effective consent of the property
owner . . . [e]nters a building other than a habitation (or any portion thereof) not
open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft or assault.” Tennessee
-3-
Code Annotated § 39-12-101(a)(3) (1991) provides that a person commits
criminal attempt who “[a]cts with [the] intent to complete a course of action or
cause a result that would constitute the offense, under the circumstances
surrounding the conduct as the person believes them to be, and the conduct
constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the offense.” Theft of
property is committed “if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person
knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner’s
effective consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (1991).
On appeal, the verdict in a bench trial is entitled to the same weight as a
jury verdict. State v. Hatchett, 560 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tenn. 1978). Jury verdicts
accredit the state’s witnesses and resolve all evidentiary conflicts in the state’s
favor. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983); State v. Banes, 874
S.W.2d 73, 78 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). On appeal, the state is entitled to both
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).
Moreover, guilty verdicts remove the presumption of innocence, enjoyed by
defendants at trial, and replace it with a presumption of guilt. State v. Grace,
493 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1973). Appellants, therefore, carry the burden of
overcoming a presumption of guilt when appealing jury convictions. Id.When appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court
must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979);
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. 1985).
Based upon the record before us, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the
appellant’s convictions for burglary and attempted theft. The appellant entered
-4-
the church without permission. Several items of church property had been
moved from their normal locations. In addition, tables were overturned and
papers were scattered around the church offices. The appellant, when
apprehended by police officers, did not mention anything about entering the
church to stay warm or to sleep, and in fact, when apprehended, he appeared to
be hiding under an office desk. Thus, the evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain
the appellant’s convictions for burglary and attempted theft. Finding no error in
the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.
______________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge
-5-
______________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
-6-