State v. Daryl Conner

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: May 21, 1997
• Docket: 02C01-9512-CR-00358
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON NOVEMBER SESSION, 1996

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) No. 02C01-9512-CR-00358 Appellee ) ) SHELBY COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. Joseph B. Brown, Jr., Judge DARYL CONNER, )

Appellant ) ) (Robbery) FILED May 21, 1997

For the Appellant: For the Appellee: Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk MELANIE E. TAYLOR CHARLES W. BURSON and Attorney General and Reporter WILLIAM JOHNSON Attorneys at Law MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II 50 Front Street, Suite 1150 Assistant Attorney General Memphis, TN 38103 Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM GIBBONS District Attorney General

DAVID SHAPIRO GLEN BAITY Asst. District Attorneys General Criminal Justice Complex Third Floor, 201 Poplar Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

David G. Hayes Judge OPINION

The appellant, Daryl Conner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of

robbery. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence adduced

at trial is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

On May 9, 1994, Mrs. Lois Boggan, who was eighty-four years old, was at

home cooking dinner. Two men entered her kitchen through a back door and

forced Mrs. Boggan’s wedding band and engagement ring from her hand. The

assailants fled when Mrs. Boggan’s husband came into the room. One week

later, Mrs. Boggan positively identified the appellant in a photographic lineup as

one of the assailants. She again identified the appellant at trial. Additionally, on

the evening of the offense, a neighbor observed two men run from the Boggan’s

house and drive away in a car matching the description of a car owned by the

co-defendant, David Parrish. Parrish testified at trial that he and the appellant

committed the robbery.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs, and the law governing

the issue presented by the appellant, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient

to support the finding by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and

that no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent. Accordingly,

pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________ GARY R. WADE, Judge

_____________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge