State of Tennessee v. Tommy Lee Houser, Jr.
E2017-00987-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- Defendant Tommy Lee Houser, Jr. was indicted after a teal Ford Ranger (valued $1,600–$1,800) was taken from Manis Motors; gates were damaged and the truck later found at Lonsdale Market with a flat tire.
- Witnesses placed the Defendant at Manis Motors earlier that day expressing interest in buying the truck; later he was seen in the truck and told Wilma Jones it was "his" and he would buy it with disability back pay.
- Police confirmed the VIN matched the missing truck; Defendant was found at the market shortly after the theft and smelled of alcohol; keys were not located.
- At trial a jury convicted Houser of theft of property valued $1,000–$10,000 (Class D felony) and acquitted him of vandalism.
- At sentencing the trial court classified him as a career offender and imposed a mandatory 12-year sentence under the then-applicable Class D felony law.
- Houser appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to prove guilty knowledge/intent and (2) misapplication of sentencing because a statutory amendment (effective Jan 1, 2017) would have reduced the offense to a Class E felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft | State: evidence (possession, statements, VIN match, conduct) permits inference of intent to deprive owner | Houser: lacked awareness truck was stolen; said he intended to buy it and did not try to flee after police called | Guilty verdict upheld — circumstantial and direct evidence sufficient to support conviction |
| Proper felony classification at sentencing | State: sentence must follow law in effect at sentencing (pre-amendment Class D) | Houser: savings statute and upcoming amendment reclassify theft <$2,500 as Class E, entitling him to lower sentence | Trial court correctly applied existing law; amendment not effective at sentencing, so Class D sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for assessing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973) (criminal offenses may be proved solely by circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W.2d 926 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (possession of recently stolen goods permits inference of theft)
- Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (trial judge and jury as primary deciders of witness credibility)
- State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. 2004) (appellate review gives State the strongest legitimate view of the evidence)