Opinion
No. M2008-01286-CCA-R3-CD.
Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville May 19, 2009.
Filed June 16, 2009.
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Marshall County; Nos. 07CR154, 07CR155; Robert Crigler, Judge.
Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed.
Melissa L. Thomas, Fayetteville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Brandon Corey Medley.
Michael J. Collins, Assistant Public Defender, for the appellant, Thomas Jackson Tucker.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney General; Charles Crawford, District Attorney General; and Weakley E. Barnard, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Norma McGee Ogle and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.
OPINION
A Marshall County Criminal Court jury found that the defendants, Brandon Corey Medley and Thomas Jackson Tucker, broke into Wesley Carroll's home, assaulted him, and took a handgun from him on March 19, 2007. Mr. Medley was convicted of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, and Mr. Tucker was convicted of facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated burglary. The defendants appeal, challenging the legal sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.
In July 2007, a Marshall County grand jury indicted the defendants for especially aggravated robbery, see T.C.A. § 39-13-403 (2006), and especially aggravated burglary, see id. § 39-14-404. After a joint trial, a petit jury convicted the defendants of lesser-included offenses on February 26, 2008. The trial court sentenced Mr. Medley to nine years' incarceration as a Range I, standard offender for his aggravated robbery conviction to be served concurrently with a five-year Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) sentence for his aggravated burglary conviction. The court sentenced Mr. Tucker to 13 years' incarceration as a Range III, persistent offender for his facilitation of aggravated robbery conviction to be served concurrently with a 10-year "TDOC" sentence for his facilitation of aggravated burglary conviction. The defendants filed timely notices of appeal, and this court consolidated their appeals pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 16. See Tenn. R. App. P. 16.
At trial, the victim, Wesley Carroll, testified that he had lived at 134 Elm Avenue in Lewisburg for approximately 10 years. He described his home as a small, one-room house with a partitioned bedroom and bathroom. The home had a front porch with both a solid front door and a storm door. Mr. Carroll explained that the solid door opened into the residence and that the storm door opened toward the outside. He testified that he knew Mr. Medley from attending high school with Mr. Medley's older brothers and that he had been acquainted with him for six or seven years. Mr. Carroll testified that he had only met Mr. Tucker on two occasions.
Mr. Carroll testified that sometime in January or February of 2007, he was browsing the internet on his home computer at approximately 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. He stated that he was having trouble sleeping and was "looking through profiles" on the internet website, www.MySpace.com ("MySpace"). He stated that Mr. Medley knocked on his door and appeared intoxicated. Mr. Carroll explained that Mr. Medley stepped into his home with Mr. Tucker, whom he had not met until then. Mr. Medley asked if Mr. Carroll wanted to either buy marijuana or trade prescription pills for marijuana. Mr. Carroll responded that he did not want any marijuana, and he testified that he had not used marijuana since November 11, 2006. Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Medley asked to use his computer to access his MySpace account but that Mr. Medley was unable to operate the computer. Mr. Medley then asked Mr. Carroll to log him into his account, and Mr. Carroll complied.
Mr. Carroll explained that MySpace is "a free public forum" on the internet where an individual creates a "profile." The profile allows an individual to "post pictures . . ., write bulletins, try to keep in touch with old friends," and "post comments about [other] people." He explained that a password and electronic mailing address are required to access and maintain a MySpace account.
Mr. Carroll testified that, while he was interacting with Mr. Medley near his computer, he noticed that he had left his wallet lying on a table near where Mr. Tucker was sitting. At one point, Mr. Carroll noticed that his wallet had been taken from the table. He testified that he "kind of hurried over to where [his] wallet was and where Mr. Tucker was sitting." He stated that Mr. Tucker had the wallet and was taking money from it. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Tucker, "[D]o you mind getting your hand out of my wallet?" Mr. Tucker then rushed toward Mr. Carroll, struck him in the jaw, and placed him in a "choke hold."
Mr. Carroll testified that he repeatedly asked Mr. Medley to stop Mr. Tucker. He said that Mr. Medley then walked behind him and that he heard Mr. Medley and Mr. Tucker whispering behind his back. Mr. Carroll testified that he overheard Mr. Tucker say, "I thought you told me to," and that Mr. Medley responded inaudibly. Mr. Carroll testified that Mr. Tucker then said, "[T]his is how we are going to do this. I am going to give you your money back, and don't you swing on me when you get up. I am going to get out of here. I am going to walk away." Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Tucker then released him and threw his money on the floor. Mr. Tucker left while Mr. Medley remained in the home. Mr. Carroll testified that he then stared at Mr. Medley "with hate in [his] eyes" and that Mr. Medley appeared "ill at [him] for the way [he] was looking at him." Mr. Medley then left.
Mr. Carroll testified that, about five minutes after the defendants left his home, he counted the money that Mr. Tucker had thrown on the floor and noticed that he was missing approximately $80 from the $300 in his wallet. After discovering that Mr. Medley had failed to log off his MySpace account, Mr. Carroll decided to "get even" with Mr. Medley. Mr. Carroll "wrote all kinds of vulgar, derogatory statements" alleging that Mr. Medley was a homosexual. Mr. Carroll then changed the password for Mr. Medley's MySpace account so that he could no longer access his MySpace profile.
Mr. Carroll testified that, between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. on March 19, 2007, he was at his home playing a video game and falling asleep when he heard "[a] kick, a boom" at his door. Upon hearing another, louder kick, Mr. Carroll awoke and stood up. Mr. Carroll testified that after hearing a third kick, his door opened and that Mr. Medley came through the door. Mr. Carroll stated that a man wearing a mask accompanied Mr. Medley. Mr. Carroll testified that the second man later removed the mask, and he identified him as Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Medley held a wooden stick, pried from some furniture sitting on Mr. Carroll's front porch. Mr. Medley hit him across his ear and then "continually beat [Mr. Carroll] with the stick." Mr. Carroll then fell onto his coffee table, breaking it. Mr. Carroll testified that he fell on his back and that Mr. Tucker held his feet as Mr. Medley jumped on him and "reared back" to punch him. Mr. Carroll explained that Mr. Medley was "ranting" about what Mr. Carroll did to his MySpace profile. Mr. Carroll testified that, after he "reared back," Mr. Medley apparently decided not to strike him again and let him stand.
At that point, Mr. Carroll ran toward his bedroom to find his portable telephone. He testified that Mr. Tucker then pulled off his mask and said, "Hold on. We don't know what he has got in here. Let's search this place." Mr. Carroll then "just froze" and observed Mr. Tucker remove a .25 caliber handgun from Mr. Carroll's desk. Mr. Carroll testified that the pistol once belonged to his grandfather and was very old. He did not know whether the gun functioned. Mr. Tucker pulled back the slide of the pistol and observed a bullet. Mr. Carroll explained that the bullet was a .22 caliber rimfire bullet, although the pistol was a .25 caliber center-fire weapon. He stated that Mr. Tucker asked, "You trying to kill us?" Mr. Carroll testified that Mr. Tucker pulled out a pocket knife and said, "Let's gut this MFer." Mr. Carroll testified that Mr. Tucker struck him with the gun and "jabb[ed]" the knife in his direction several times, although Mr. Carroll stated that he did not believe Mr. Tucker was attempting to stab him.
Mr. Carroll testified that he then hit the "page" button on the base unit of his cordless telephone to determine the location of the telephone's portable receiver. He heard the receiver beeping in his bathroom, and he fought with Mr. Medley to get to the telephone receiver. Mr. Carroll testified that Mr. Medley attempted to take the receiver from his hands but that Mr. Carroll managed to emulate dialing 9-1-1. He testified that the defendants left upon observing him dialing the telephone and that, after they left, he called 9-1-1 to report the home invasion. He stated that Mr. Tucker took the pistol with him when he left.
Mr. Carroll stated that law enforcement officers arrived at his home within five minutes and that he informed the officers of the identity of his assailants. The police then transported him to the hospital. Mr. Carroll testified that he received three or four stitches on his face, eight or nine stitches on his ear, and that his head was "busted." He testified that he suffered extreme pain for three weeks following the incident and that he had periodic headaches for several months after the altercation. Mr. Carroll displayed scarring from the incident.
On a later date, Mr. Carroll positively identified each defendant from photographic line-ups arranged by law enforcement officers. Mr. Carroll testified that, during the altercation, he was in fear of bodily injury. He also testified that he did not give either defendant consent to enter his home or take his pistol on March 19, 2007. On cross-examination, he testified that he had visited the hospital four or five times since the alteration.
Officer James Johnson of the Lewisburg Police Department testified that he received a call on March 19, 2007, to investigate Mr. Carroll's home. He stated that he arrived at the scene within a minute of receiving the call from his dispatching officer. Upon arriving at approximately 3:00 a.m., he interviewed Mr. Carroll, who informed him that Mr. Tucker and Mr. Medley entered his home "unwelcomed" and assaulted him. Officer Johnson testified that he observed "obvious lacerations" on the victim and that he arranged for him to be transported to Marshall County Medical Center's emergency room.
Officer Johnson testified that the front door of the home had been forced open. He stated that the inside of the home looked as though a struggle had occurred. He said that blood was located throughout the home and that the furniture appeared damaged and misplaced. Officer Johnson reported the incident to the on-call detective, Dac Burrow, and he requested other officers to be on the lookout for the defendants.
Detective Burrow of the Lewisburg Police Department testified that he met with the victim, Mr. Carroll, at the police department and recorded a statement from him. He stated that he visited the scene of the crime at approximately 9:00 a.m. on March 19, 2007, and that he observed the victim's father repairing the front door. He collected from the scene a piece of wood, allegedly used to strike Mr. Carroll, and the victim's bloody tee shirt.
Detective Burrow created a six-photograph line-up for each defendant, and Mr. Carroll positively identified both Mr. Medley and Mr. Tucker as his assailants.
Detective Burrow interviewed Mr. Medley in the afternoon of March 19, 2007. He testified that Mr. Medley signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and that he first denied any knowledge of the burglary at Mr. Carroll's home. Mr. Medley told Detective Burrow that he had been working with his mother at the time of the crime. Detective Burrow then observed scratches on Mr. Medley's face and brought them to Mr. Medley's attention. Detective Burrow testified that Mr. Medley then gave a statement that he transcribed. The statement reflected that, at approximately 3:00 a.m. on March 19, 2007, Mr. Medley went to Mr. Carroll's house to speak with him about his changing Mr. Medley's MySpace account and password. Mr. Medley told Detective Burrow that he knocked on the front door and that Mr. Carroll answered and stepped onto the front porch. Mr. Medley's statement represented that Mr. Tucker stayed in the vehicle at this time. Mr. Medley maintained that he told Mr. Carroll that he knew that he had altered his MySpace account.
We then began to argue and then we shoved each other a couple of times and then [Mr. Carroll] swung at me and we started fighting. As we were fighting I tackled [Mr. Carroll] and we wound up inside his house and I was more trying to hold [Mr. Carroll] down and asking him why he changed my account. At one point I saw [Mr. Carroll] run toward [Mr. Tucker] and [Mr. Tucker] got him in the head lock and they were scuffling around. I never hit [Mr. Carroll] with anything and I didn't see [Mr. Tucker] hit [Mr. Carroll] with anything nor did [Mr. Carroll] hit us with anything as far as I know. At one point [Mr. Carroll] acted like he was rushing to get something and I thought that he was trying to get a pistol. At one point I saw [Mr. Carroll's] ear bleeding and that's when I really tried to hold [Mr. Carroll] down and telling him to calm down and asking him why did he do it. [Mr. Carroll] then got to a phone and was calling someone and that's when I said let's go. [Mr. Tucker] and I then got into my car . . . and I dropped [Mr. Tucker] off at his friend[']s house and I then went home to Murfreesboro.
The statement reflected that Mr. Medley permitted Detective Burrow to transcribe his account of the March 19, 2007 incident. Detective Burrow testified that he spoke with Mr. Tucker on March 26, 2007, and that he arrested him on that day for the pending charges.
Heath Brandon Morgan testified that he had known Mr. Medley for six or seven years and that, although the two were once "kind of good friends," they had "went [their] separate ways." Mr. Morgan testified that he had been "good friends" with Mr. Carroll for approximately two years. Mr. Morgan testified that sometime in January or February of 2007, he was at his home with his friends Timothy Pringle and Josh Green. He stated that Mr. Medley was also present and that he "made a statement that he was going to F Mr. Wesley Carroll up for getting ahold of his MySpace and changing that he was gay or homosexual."
Timothy Pringle also testified that he had known Mr. Medley for "quite some time" and that he and Mr. Carroll were "good friends." Mr. Pringle testified that, while at Mr. Morgan's home sometime in February of 2007 he overheard Mr. Medley speak about Mr. Carroll. Mr. Pringle said, "[Mr. Medley] said that pretty much he would F [Mr. Carroll] up for messing with his MySpace and calling him a homosexual or queer and he was pretty ticked off and he said [Mr. Carroll] got him for a DUI and called the police. . . . He was pretty upset."
Jeremy Richardson testified that he was incarcerated at the Marshall County Jail where he overheard a conversation between Mr. Tucker and other inmates. He testified that somebody asked Mr. Tucker why he was imprisoned and that Mr. Tucker responded that he had robbed Wesley Carroll and had taken his .25 caliber pistol. Mr. Richardson testified that his grandmother was a friend of Mr. Carroll's grandmother, so he informed Mr. Carroll of the conversation after being released on bond.
After the State rested, the defense called Doctor Tom Mitchell, Mr. Carroll's treating emergency room physician at Marshall County Medical Center. Doctor Mitchell testified that Mr. Carroll suffered lacerations to his left eyebrow, left ear, and the back of his head. Doctor Mitchell recalled that Mr. Carroll indicated that he had been struck with a wooden stick. He testified that the victim did not suffer any noticeable injury to his skull or brain.
Doctor Mitchell testified that, upon arrival, Mr. Carroll testified that he was suffering pain ranked as a "10" on a pain scale ranking from "0" as the lowest to "10" as the highest. Doctor Mitchell noted that, after his initial admittance to the hospital, Mr. Carroll ranked his pain as an "8." By the time the victim was discharged, and after his taking hydrocodone and local anesthetic, he reported his pain as "0." Doctor Mitchell testified that, based on these circumstances, Mr. Carroll suffered mild to moderate pain.
Doctor Mitchell testified that Mr. Carroll suffered no substantial risk of death or loss of function due to his injures. He testified that Mr. Carroll possibly suffered some undetectable injuries to the brain that generally cause headaches; however, he noted that such headaches do not last more than two weeks except severe injuries.
Brenda Cozart, Mr. Medley's cousin, testified that she, her husband, and her sister-in-law actively used MySpace and that she observed Mr. Medley's profile after Mr. Carroll altered it. She testified that she posted a comment on Mr. Medley's MySpace page criticizing his display of Disney's "Little Mermaid" in its background. She testified that Mr. Medley's account, under Mr. Carroll's control, then posted a comment calling her a "B****." She also testified that she observed the postings on Mr. Medley's MySpace profile demeaningly portraying him as a homosexual.
Mr. Medley, the defendant, testified that he had known Mr. Carroll for approximately 11 years, had been to his house several times, and had smoked marijuana with him. Regarding the January or February 2007 visit described by Mr. Carroll, Mr. Medley explained that he and Mr. Tucker had been drinking in Chapel Hill and "wanted to get high." He admitted that he "had a little buzz." He testified that he knew that Mr. Carroll had marijuana and that he went to his house to obtain some. He stated that they knocked on Mr. Carroll's front door and that Mr. Carroll let them into his home.
Mr. Medley testified that he spoke with Mr. Carroll about "smoking pot" and that Mr. Carroll showed him and Mr. Tucker some marijuana lying on a table. Mr. Medley testified that he requested Mr. Carroll to log him onto his MySpace account and that Mr. Tucker "roll[ed] a blunt" during this time. Mr. Medley stated that Mr. Tucker dropped the marijuana on the floor and that "[Mr. Carroll] ran in there acting crazy because he thought [Mr. Tucker] was trying to take some of his weed." He explained that Mr. Carroll had "[h]igh grade weed."
He stated that Mr. Tucker then punched Mr. Carroll and placed him in a "head lock." Mr. Medley testified that he broke the two up and that he told Mr. Carroll that he "was sorry for bringing something like that to his house." Mr. Medley stated that he instructed Mr. Tucker to go to his car. He said that Mr. Carroll then asked him to leave and that he complied. He was arrested for driving under the influence later that evening.
Mr. Medley testified that approximately three days later he discovered that his MySpace profile had been altered and contacted the Marshall County Sheriff's Department. He testified that he was not a homosexual and that he took offense to the comments on his profile. He stated that he was very angry over the situation and that, as time passed, he became more angered. Mr. Medley estimated that between 25 and 30 people contacted him regarding the changes to his MySpace profile.
Mr. Medley testified that, on March 19, 2007, he "got a little buzz[ed] [and] wanted to go confront [Mr. Carroll] about [his] MySpace." He testified that he went to Mr. Carroll's home, knocked on the door, and Mr. Carroll came onto his front porch. Mr. Medley stated that Mr. Carroll denied changing his MySpace profile, so Mr. Medley "got loud with him." He testified that Mr. Carroll pushed him and that he pushed back. He stated that Mr. Carroll then retreated into his home, shutting the door on Mr. Medley. Mr. Medley stated that he then kicked in the door, went into his home, and "whipped his ass."
He stated that, upon going into the home, the two men landed on, and broke, the coffee table. During this fighting, Mr. Carroll grabbed Mr. Medley's foot, ripping off his shoe and sock. Mr. Medley stated that he was on top of Mr. Carroll when he realized that Mr. Carroll was bleeding "pretty bad." He testified that he then got off of Mr. Carroll. During that time, Mr. Tucker entered the home. Mr. Medley testified that Mr. Carroll rushed toward Mr. Tucker but that Mr. Tucker restrained him. Mr. Medley stated that, after Mr. Tucker released him, Mr. Carroll ran into his bedroom to grab "something black." He testified that he could not identify the black object and feared it was a handgun, so he wrestled with Mr. Carroll over the object. After realizing the black object was a telephone, he and Mr. Tucker left the home. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Tucker took anything from the home. He further maintained that he never used any wooden weapon or knife to harm or threaten Mr. Carroll.
Mr. Medley testified that, later on March 19, 2007, he turned himself in to the Lewisburg Police Department. He stated that he expected to be arrested for "[a]ssault, trespassing[,] [m]aybe breaking and entering." Mr. Medley said that he was surprised when Detective Burrow informed him that he was charged with especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated burglary. He maintained that this frightened him, which caused him to lie to Detective Burrow about being at work with his mother. Mr. Medley stated that he subsequently told the true story to Detective Burrow because he "knew [he] was going to get in trouble about it anyway." He said, "I committed the crime. I mean, I assaulted [Mr. Carroll]."
Mr. Medley stated that he gave a full account of the incident to Detective Burrow and that Detective Burrow failed to include some of the details in the written confession. He stated that he told Detective Burrow that Mr. Tucker exited the car once he observed Mr. Medley and Mr. Carroll fighting; however, this was not included in the statement.
Regarding the conversation with Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. Green at Mr. Morgan's home, Mr. Medley testified that the three men brought up the subject of his altered MySpace profile. He stated that the men laughed about the matter. Mr. Medley testified that this angered him and that he told them, "I would whip his ass right now if he was right here."
Mr. Medley testified that, in the early-morning hours of March 19, 2007, Mr. Tucker had no knowledge that Mr. Medley was going to break the door of Mr. Carroll's home and that Mr. Tucker did not help with the assault. He said that Mr. Tucker only helped to break up the fight between him and Mr. Carroll. He stated that he never saw Mr. Tucker with either a gun or knife. He maintained that he and Mr. Tucker did not plan to commit any crimes upon going to Mr. Carroll's house. He acknowledged that Mr. Tucker knew that Mr. Medley wanted to "whip [Mr. Carroll's] ass" but that he would not have hurt Mr. Carroll had he talked with him "like a normal person."
Mr. Tucker chose not to testify.
Based on the evidence as summarized above, the jury convicted Mr. Medley of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery and convicted Mr. Tucker of criminal responsibility for facilitation of both aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. The defendants both challenge their convictions due to the legal insufficiency of the convicting evidence.
A convicted criminal defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal bears the burden of demonstrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict because a guilty verdict destroys the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt. See State v. Evans, 108 S.W.3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). This court must reject a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence if, after considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we determine that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).
On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. See Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Hall, 8 S.W.3d at 599. A guilty verdict by the trier of fact accredits the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution's theory. See State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). Issues of the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact, and this court will not re-weigh or re-evaluate the evidence. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659. This court may not substitute its own inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence for those drawn by the trier of fact. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236-37; Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d at 557.
Mr. Medley only challenges his aggravated robbery conviction. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-401 defines robbery as "the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear." T.C.A. § 39-13-401(a) (2006). An act of robbery is elevated to aggravated robbery when the theft is accomplished with "a deadly weapon or by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon" or when "the victim suffers serious bodily injury." Id. § 39-13-402(a). Title 39 of our criminal code defines "serious bodily injury" as bodily injury involving "substantial risk of death," "[p]rotracted unconsciousness," "[e]xtreme physical pain," "[p]rotracted or obvious disfigurement," or "[p]rotracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty." Id. § 39-11-106(a)(34)(A)-(E).
W e note that the Mr. Medley's brief's statement of "Issues Raised on Appeal" states, "The evidence contained in the record is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for the offense of Forgery, seventy counts." Nowhere in his brief does Mr. Medley restate his issue correctly. Although his brief does not follow the mandates of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, we glean from his arguments that he only challenges his conviction of aggravated robbery.
Mr. Medley argues that the convicting evidence was "highly circumstantial." We disagree. The direct eyewitness testimony of Mr. Carroll established that Mr. Tucker took a handgun from his home. Further, Mr. Richardson, who was imprisoned with Mr. Tucker, testified that Mr. Tucker told a group of inmates that he took a pistol from Mr. Carroll. Despite these facts, Mr. Medley argues that he had no knowledge of any property being taken from the victim on March 19, 2007; however, the evidence supports the defendant's guilt on a theory of criminal responsibility. See T.C.A. § 39-11-402(2) (providing that a person is criminally responsible for the crime committed by another if "[a]cting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, the person solicits, directs, aids or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense [.]"). As the State argues in its brief, Mr. Tucker announced to Mr. Medley, "We don't know what [Mr. Carroll] has got in here. Let's search this place." Upon searching, Mr. Tucker located the pistol and then threatened Mr. Carroll with a knife. The evidence also showed that Mr. Medley attacked Mr. Carroll with a piece of wood. We note that the jury, in declining to convict Mr. Medley of especially aggravated burglary and especially aggravated robbery, rejected that State's claim that Mr. Carroll suffered serious bodily injury; therefore, the jury found that a deadly weapon or object fashioned as such was used in the commission of the offenses. Nevertheless, the jury acted within its province in determining that Mr. Medley was criminally responsible for the resulting robbery that occurred during the commission of his admitted aggravated burglary of Mr. Carroll's home.
Mr. Tucker challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for both of his facilitation convictions. A defendant may be convicted of facilitating a felony when, "knowing that another intends to commit a specific felony, but without the intent required for criminal responsibility under § 39-11-402(2), the person knowingly furnishes substantial assistance in the commission of the felony." T.C.A. § 39-11-403(a). Mr. Tucker's brief essentially asks us to credit the defense testimony at trial over that of the victim despite the jury's contrary determination. We have no authority to do so. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659.
First, we must note that the evidence clearly supported Mr. Medley's conviction of aggravated burglary upon which Mr. Tucker's facilitation conviction is predicated. A person commits aggravated burglary when he enters a habitation, without the owner's effective consent, with the intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault. T.C.A. §§ 39-14-402,-403. A "habitation" is "any structure, including buildings, . . . which is designed or adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons." Id. § 39-14-401(1)(A). The jury was presented with abundant evidence that Mr. Medley broke into Mr. Carroll's home to assault him. The jury chose to credit Mr. Carroll's testimony suggesting that Mr. Tucker broke into the home with Mr. Medley and that Mr. Tucker at one point held Mr. Carroll down to aid Mr. Medley in assaulting the victim. Mr. Medley admitted that Mr. Tucker knew that he wished to harm Mr. Carroll. The evidence was sufficient to support Mr. Tucker's conviction of facilitation of aggravated burglary.
Next, we must evaluate whether the evidence supports Mr. Tucker's conviction for facilitation of aggravated robbery. As mentioned above, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Medley of aggravated robbery through criminal responsibility for Mr. Tucker's criminal actions; therefore, the jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Tucker's taking of the pistol and threatening of Mr. Carroll constituted substantial assistance in the aggravated robbery. The jury acted within its province in convicting Mr. Tucker of facilitation of both aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery.
In light of the foregoing analysis, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.