IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY SESSION, 1999
FILED STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) March 09, 1999 ) No. 02C01-9803-CR-00061 Appellee ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) SHELBY COUNTY Appellate C ourt Clerk vs. ) ) Hon. James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge DEVON M. CRAWFORD, ) ) (Especially Aggravated Robbery; Appellant ) Aggravated Robbery)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
W. Mark Ward John Knox Walkup Asst. Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter Suite 2-01, 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division A C Wharton 425 Fifth Avenue North District Public Defender 2d Floor, Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William L. Gibbons District Attorney General
James A. Wax Asst. District Attorney General Criminal Justice Complex Suite 301, 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes Judge OPINION
The appellant, Devon M. Crawford, appeals two separate convictions entered
by the Criminal Court of Shelby County for especially aggravated robbery, a Class A
felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. 1 The trial court imposed
consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery
and eleven years for the aggravated robbery. In his appeal as of right, the appellant
raises the identical issue in challenging the separate convictions of whether the
evidence of the appellant’s identity was sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a
reasonable doubt.
After a review of both records, we affirm the judgments of conviction entered
by the trial court.
I. Especially Aggravated Robbery
On December 14, 1996, after returning from his sister’s graduation, Edward
Puckett, the nineteen year old victim, left his house to exercise around 10 p.m. As
Puckett was walking down Brower Avenue in Memphis listening to his headphones,
he turned around and noticed a vehicle behind him on the opposite side of the
street. The area was well-lit with street lights and Christmas lights from the
surrounding houses. Puckett also noticed a black man on the street about thirty-five
feet away gesturing and “saying something.” Puckett removed his headphones to
hear what the man was saying. The man stopped talking, so Puckett turned away
from the man and the vehicle. Immediately after turning around, Puckett was shot in
the back and fell to the ground on his back. Then, the vehicle pulled alongside the
1 We note that these cases arose from two separate indictments, trials, judgments of conviction, and motions for new trial. The appellant did not move to consolidate these cases nor doe s the reco rd co ntain an or der f rom this c ourt c ons olidat ing th ese cas es fo r purp ose s of th is appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 16(b). However, in the interest of expediting the appeals of these matters, the rules are suspended under Rule 2, Tenn. R. App. P. and we elect to address both ca ses on their me rits.
2 victim. A black man exited the vehicle, held a gun to his head, and said, “give me
your wallet.” Unable to quickly retrieve his wallet, the victim told his assailant that
the wallet was in his front pocket. When the assailant proceeded to get the wallet
from the victim’s pocket, he was only inches from the victim’s face. The wallet
contained $15, photographs and a driver’s license. Then, the assailant got back into
the passenger’s side of the vehicle and left the scene. A resident of Brower Avenue
who heard the gunshot called 911 and delivered assistance to the victim. As a
result of the shooting, the victim spent a month in the hospital and is presently
confined to a wheelchair.
At various times over the following weeks, the police had the victim view five
different photographic lineups in an effort to identify the robber. The victim did not
identify anyone from those photographs. However, when he was shown the sixth
array, he confidently identified the appellant as the person who robbed him.
Moreover, the victim made an in-court identification of the appellant.
The appellant testified and denied any involvement in the crime. The jury
retired and returned a verdict of guilty for especially aggravated robbery.
II. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY
On December 26, 1996, Vicki Robertson, the victim in the second case, had
stopped at Walgreens located at Central Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard in
Memphis around 6:30 p.m. As Ms. Robertson was getting into her car, she saw a
black male running towards her. She quickly locked the doors before he
approached her vehicle. The assailant brandished a gun outside her driver’s seat
window and began breaking the glass. He then placed the gun to her head
screaming, “[g]ive me your purse, bitch” and “[d]on’t be a hero, bitch.” When she
3 reached over to get the money from her purse, the assailant leaned into the car and
took the money continuing to hold the gun on her. While fleeing the scene, he
screamed, “[a]ll this shit for $21.” The crime was reported to the police.
A few days later, Ms. Robertson saw the picture of her assailant on the front
page of the Commercial Appeal. Immediately, she called the police department and
identified the appellant, the man in the newspaper, as the person who robbed her.
The following day the police displayed to Ms. Robertson a photographic array from
which she identified the appellant. Again at trial, she identified the appellant as the
person who robbed her.
The defense presented no evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty for
aggravated robbery.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE IDENTIFICATION
For both convictions, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
convicting evidence identifying him as the perpetrator of the robberies. Specifically,
he contends the identifications of the appellant in each case were only made by one
person rendering the identifications “untrustworthy “ and “insufficient.” A jury
conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially
cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal, a convicted defendant
has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. State v. Tuggle,
639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence,
this court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571
S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest
legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which
may be drawn therefrom. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992), cert.
4 denied, 507 U.S. 954, 113 S.Ct. 1368 (1993). Viewing the evidence under these
criteria, it is this court’s responsibility to affirm the conviction if the proof was
sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 743 (1995); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
In State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY SESSION, 1999
FILED STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) March 09, 1999 ) No. 02C01-9803-CR-00061 Appellee ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) SHELBY COUNTY Appellate C ourt Clerk vs. ) ) Hon. James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge DEVON M. CRAWFORD, ) ) (Especially Aggravated Robbery; Appellant ) Aggravated Robbery)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
W. Mark Ward John Knox Walkup Asst. Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter Suite 2-01, 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division A C Wharton 425 Fifth Avenue North District Public Defender 2d Floor, Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William L. Gibbons District Attorney General
James A. Wax Asst. District Attorney General Criminal Justice Complex Suite 301, 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes Judge OPINION
The appellant, Devon M. Crawford, appeals two separate convictions entered
by the Criminal Court of Shelby County for especially aggravated robbery, a Class A
felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. 1 The trial court imposed
consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery
and eleven years for the aggravated robbery. In his appeal as of right, the appellant
raises the identical issue in challenging the separate convictions of whether the
evidence of the appellant’s identity was sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a
reasonable doubt.
After a review of both records, we affirm the judgments of conviction entered
by the trial court.
I. Especially Aggravated Robbery
On December 14, 1996, after returning from his sister’s graduation, Edward
Puckett, the nineteen year old victim, left his house to exercise around 10 p.m. As
Puckett was walking down Brower Avenue in Memphis listening to his headphones,
he turned around and noticed a vehicle behind him on the opposite side of the
street. The area was well-lit with street lights and Christmas lights from the
surrounding houses. Puckett also noticed a black man on the street about thirty-five
feet away gesturing and “saying something.” Puckett removed his headphones to
hear what the man was saying. The man stopped talking, so Puckett turned away
from the man and the vehicle. Immediately after turning around, Puckett was shot in
the back and fell to the ground on his back. Then, the vehicle pulled alongside the
1 We note that these cases arose from two separate indictments, trials, judgments of conviction, and motions for new trial. The appellant did not move to consolidate these cases nor doe s the reco rd co ntain an or der f rom this c ourt c ons olidat ing th ese cas es fo r purp ose s of th is appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 16(b). However, in the interest of expediting the appeals of these matters, the rules are suspended under Rule 2, Tenn. R. App. P. and we elect to address both ca ses on their me rits.
2 victim. A black man exited the vehicle, held a gun to his head, and said, “give me
your wallet.” Unable to quickly retrieve his wallet, the victim told his assailant that
the wallet was in his front pocket. When the assailant proceeded to get the wallet
from the victim’s pocket, he was only inches from the victim’s face. The wallet
contained $15, photographs and a driver’s license. Then, the assailant got back into
the passenger’s side of the vehicle and left the scene. A resident of Brower Avenue
who heard the gunshot called 911 and delivered assistance to the victim. As a
result of the shooting, the victim spent a month in the hospital and is presently
confined to a wheelchair.
At various times over the following weeks, the police had the victim view five
different photographic lineups in an effort to identify the robber. The victim did not
identify anyone from those photographs. However, when he was shown the sixth
array, he confidently identified the appellant as the person who robbed him.
Moreover, the victim made an in-court identification of the appellant.
The appellant testified and denied any involvement in the crime. The jury
retired and returned a verdict of guilty for especially aggravated robbery.
II. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY
On December 26, 1996, Vicki Robertson, the victim in the second case, had
stopped at Walgreens located at Central Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard in
Memphis around 6:30 p.m. As Ms. Robertson was getting into her car, she saw a
black male running towards her. She quickly locked the doors before he
approached her vehicle. The assailant brandished a gun outside her driver’s seat
window and began breaking the glass. He then placed the gun to her head
screaming, “[g]ive me your purse, bitch” and “[d]on’t be a hero, bitch.” When she
3 reached over to get the money from her purse, the assailant leaned into the car and
took the money continuing to hold the gun on her. While fleeing the scene, he
screamed, “[a]ll this shit for $21.” The crime was reported to the police.
A few days later, Ms. Robertson saw the picture of her assailant on the front
page of the Commercial Appeal. Immediately, she called the police department and
identified the appellant, the man in the newspaper, as the person who robbed her.
The following day the police displayed to Ms. Robertson a photographic array from
which she identified the appellant. Again at trial, she identified the appellant as the
person who robbed her.
The defense presented no evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty for
aggravated robbery.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE IDENTIFICATION
For both convictions, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
convicting evidence identifying him as the perpetrator of the robberies. Specifically,
he contends the identifications of the appellant in each case were only made by one
person rendering the identifications “untrustworthy “ and “insufficient.” A jury
conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a defendant is initially
cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal, a convicted defendant
has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. State v. Tuggle,
639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence,
this court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571
S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest
legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which
may be drawn therefrom. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992), cert.
4 denied, 507 U.S. 954, 113 S.Ct. 1368 (1993). Viewing the evidence under these
criteria, it is this court’s responsibility to affirm the conviction if the proof was
sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 743 (1995); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
In State v. Strickland, 885 S.W.2d 85, 87-88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), this
court held that the testimony of a victim identifying the perpetrator is sufficient in and
of itself to support a conviction. See also State v. Shelton, No. 01C01-9505-CC-
00144 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar. 22, 1996), perm. to appeal denied,
concurring in results only, (Tenn. Nov. 12, 1996). Moreover, the credibility of
eyewitness testimony identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the criminal
offense for which he stands trial is a question of fact for the determination of the jury
upon consideration of all competent proof. Strickland, 885 S.W.2d at 87 (citing
State v. Crawford, 635 S.W.2d 704, 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)); see also State v.
Williams, 623 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981).
In the first case, the proof clearly established the opportunity the victim had to
observe his assailant. The appellant was only inches away from Puckett’s face
when his wallet was removed from his pocket. The victim noted, “the details of his
face.” To his credit, Puckett viewed five different photographic lineups consisting of
thirty individuals before identifying the appellant on the sixth array amongst five
other individuals. No misidentification was ever made. Moreover, he was certain of
his in-court identification.
With regard to the second case, the assailant was face to face with Ms.
Robertson when he held a gun to her head giving her a perfect opportunity to view
her assailant. Several days later, she recognized the appellant from the newspaper.
5 The very next day she identified the appellant in the photographic lineup as the
perpetrator of the robbery. She also expressed no reservations regarding her in-
court identification of the appellant. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence is
sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt for both convictions. This issue is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge
_________________________________ JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, Judge