Chapman v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | CR–07–1360. |
| Citation | 64 So.3d 1120 |
| Parties | Tyler Richard CHAPMANv.STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alabama Supreme Court 1090279.
Jeffry Cali Armstrong, Daphne, for appellant.Troy King, atty. gen., and Jean-Paul M. Chappell, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.PER CURIAM.
Tyler Richard Chapman was indicted on one count of burglary in the third degree, a violation of § 13A–7–7, Ala.Code 1975, for unlawfully entering or remaining in a building that was the property of Sarah Bodle, and one count of criminal surveillance, a violation of § 13A–11–32, Ala.Code 1975, for secretly observing Sarah Bodle's activities while trespassing in the attic or roof area to her apartment. Following a jury trial, Chapman was convicted of the charged offense of third-degree burglary, and of attempted criminal surveillance, a violation of §§ 13A–4–2 and 13A–11–32. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on the burglary conviction; that sentence was suspended, and he was ordered to serve one year and one day in prison, followed by three years' probation. He was sentenced to 90 days in the Baldwin County Corrections Center for the attempted-criminal-surveillance conviction. Chapman was also ordered to pay assorted fines and court costs.
The evidence presented at trial tended to show the following. Sarah Bodle lived in an apartment in the Robertsdale Village Apartments with her husband, Josh Bodle; they moved into the apartment in March 2004. The apartment they lived in had two stories, and there was an attic space above the apartment. Sarah testified that Chapman had never been invited into their apartment and that he had not been given permission to enter the attic space above their apartment.
Sarah testified that she heard noises frequently during the months she and Josh lived in the apartment, usually on weekday mornings after Josh had left for work and while she was in the shower. The noises sounded to her like someone was in the room with her. Josh testified that Sarah told him almost daily that she had heard noises while she was getting ready in the morning after he had left for work. Sarah stated that on one occasion while she and Josh were in bed, she heard a loud noise and made Josh check the apartment. Josh heard the noise, too, and he testified that he checked the apartment but found no intruders.
Josh and Sarah testified that the air conditioning did not work well on the second floor of their apartment. Sarah contacted the apartment manager about the problem, but the problem was never resolved before the incident underlying Chapman's convictions occurred.
When Josh and Sarah returned to the apartment one evening in August 2004, they noticed a footprint-shaped hole or crack in their ceiling at the top of the stairs to the second floor.1 Sarah testified that she then also observed “popcorn” ceiling material from around the ceiling vents in the bathroom and the master bedroom on the floor beneath the vents. Josh looked in the attic space that evening to determine whether the attic space above their apartment was connected to Chapman's attic space; Josh said the spaces were not connected. The next day, Sarah contacted the apartment manager, Kim Barnett, about the crack in the ceiling. Sarah testified on cross-examination that they did not know whether their apartment lease included the attic space but that she thought they were allowed to store items in the attic.
Barnett testified that she went to the Bodles' apartment and saw the footprint-shaped crack in the ceiling. She testified that the lease agreement did not include the attic space above the Bodles' apartment but that tenants sometimes stored items in the attic space above their apartments. On cross-examination, Barnett testified that the Bodles had “rented that entire apartment” and that tenants were not told that they could not put anything in the attic above their apartments. (R. 110.) On redirect examination, Barnett testified that a tenant could reasonably believe that the attic space above the apartment was the tenant's.
Barnett testified that a firewall in the attic separated the attic area of one apartment from the apartment next door and that because of that firewall, no other tenant would have had access to the attic space above the Bodles' apartment unless the Bodles allowed the tenant into the attic or unless the tenant broke through the firewall.
The maintenance employee for the apartment complex, Basil Chavers, testified that the attic space and the ductwork above the Bodles' apartment was intact and undisturbed when the Bodles moved in. Chavers testified that only the tenants living in the apartment below their attic spaces would have access to the attic space, unless someone broke through the firewall that separates the attic space of the apartments. Chavers testified that, before this incident, the Bodles had complained that the air conditioning did not work properly and that the second floor of the apartment did not cool as well as the first floor. Sarah had also reported to Chavers that some ceiling insulation had fallen on several occasions. Chavers testified that he saw some of the insulation that had fallen in the areas of the bathroom, hall, and master bedroom.
After the Bodles complained about the footprint-shaped crack in their ceiling, he went to the apartment and saw what appeared to be the imprint of “a perfect footprint” in the ceiling. (R. 117.) The Bodles said that they had not been in the attic. Chavers looked in the attic and saw a large hole in the firewall between the Bodles' apartment and the apartment next door; he also saw that the ductwork in the areas above the bathroom and the master bedroom had been loosened. Chavers also saw that the insulation from the firewall to the areas above the bedroom and master bathroom of the Bodles' apartment had been compressed so that it had trails through it. It was apparent to him that the firewall between the two attic spaces had been broken from Chapman's side of the attic, Chavers said. When he looked down through the ductwork and vents he could see most of the Bodles' bathroom and approximately three-quarters of their bedroom.
Chavers said that he and Barnett went next door to Chapman's apartment. It was apparent to him that someone had been walking on Chapman's ceiling also, because the ceiling was cracked in the area around the attic access. Chavers said that he and Barnett then contacted the police.
Anthony Dobson of the Robertsdale Police Department testified that he was called to the Bodles' apartment and that he went into the attic space above their apartment. Investigator Dobson testified that the firewall that separated the apartments, which is made out of drywall, had been cut and knocked down and that it appeared that the damage originated from Chapman's side of the attic. Investigator Dobson also stated that he observed trails in the insulation that went from the firewall to two ceiling vents in the Bodles' apartment. The ductwork could easily be moved, he said, and when he moved it he could see through the vents into the bathroom and bedroom below.
Sergeant Rex Bishop of the Robertsdale Police Department testified that he spoke to Chapman at the police department after the evidence in the attic was discovered. Chapman agreed to give a statement, and the statement was admitted into evidence. Sergeant Bishop read Chapman's statement for the jury:
(R. 144–45.)
Sergeant Bishop testified that he had looked into the attic and that Chapman's statement about the number of times he had been in the Bodles' attic was not consistent with Sergeant Bishop's observation of the pathways in the insulation in the attic. (R. 146, 149.)
Chapman first argues that the evidence failed to show that he entered or remained unlawfully on property belonging to Sarah Bodle. Specifically, he contends that, although he was in the attic space above Sarah's apartment, the indictment stated that only his foot pushed through the attic space above Sarah's apartment and that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the attic space was covered by Sarah's lease agreement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte State (in Re Tyler Richard Chapman v. State ).
...sentence for third-degree burglary but reversed Chapman's conviction and sentence for attempted criminal surveillance. Chapman v. State, 64 So.3d 1120 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). The State petitioned for the writ of certiorari, and we granted the State's petition to review the Court of Criminal Ap......
-
Carden v. Carden
... ... However, the provisions to which the father refers do not state which parent is given primary authority and responsibility in situations under 303153(a)(6), when the parents are unable to agree on those ... ...