A lesser offense, however, need not be charged if the evidence supports only the greater offense or no offense at all.Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Tutton, 875 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tenn. 1993).
In any event, the law at the time provided that no lesser included offense instruction was required when the evidence supported either the existence of the greater offense or no offense at all. See, e.g.,Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. 1978). In this case, the Petitioner admitted his guilt of the robberies that were the predicate felonies for the two felony murder counts.
"When there is no evidence to support a lesser included offense so that the accused can only be guilty of the greater offense or no offense at all, it is not error to refuse to instruct on the lesser included offenses." Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978); see State v. Tutton, 875 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tenn., 1993). Again, the record does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court.
Our courts were holding at the time, however, that lesser included offenses need not be charged when the evidence supported only the greater offense or no offense at all. See Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Tutton, 875 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tenn. 1993).
Failure of a defendant to cite authority for propositions in his argument on appeal constitutes waiver of the issue. State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1984); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). The brief of the appellant should contain an argument setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record.
At the time of Petitioner's trial, if the evidence supported a conviction of the greater offense or no offense at all, it was not error to refuse to instruct as to the lesser-included offenses. Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978) (quoting O'Neil v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 518, 533, 455 S.W.2d 597, 604 (1970)). There was no evidence at trial that Petitioner was guilty only of the lesser-included offenses of the charged offenses.
Failure of a defendant to cite authority for propositions in his argument on appeal constitutes waiver of the issue. State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1984); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). The brief of the appellant should contain an argument setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction. Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). In May 1998, Mr. Moorman requested the Department of Correction to render a declaratory order under Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 4-5-224 (1998).
This is so because employees are custodians of the property on the business premises for the benefit of the owner/employer and therefore are deemed to be in constructive possession. See People v. Nguyen, 24 Cal.4th 756, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 14 P.3d 221, 224 (2000); People v. Jones, 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 329, 331 (2000); People v. Borghesi, 40 P.3d 15, 21 (Colo.Ct.App. 2001); State v. Faatea, 648 P.2d 197, 198 (Haw. 1982); State v. Cottone, 145 A.2d 509, 513 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1958); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978); Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 433 S.E.2d 508, 510 (Va.Ct.App. 1993); State v. Collins, 329 S.E.2d 839, 844 (W.Va. 1984). It is of no consequence that the employee may lack personal access to the property that is stolen, as where valuables are taken from a safe that the employee cannot open.
State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Crim.App. 1984); Moorman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978). The brief of the appellant should contain an argument setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record.