State v. Tabb
| Decision Date | 13 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. M2014-00617-CCA-R3-CD,M2014-00617-CCA-R3-CD |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TAPO T. TABB AND DOUGLAS INGRAM |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County
The Defendant-Appellants, Tapo T. Tabb and Douglas Ingram, were convicted by a Williamson County jury of burglary and theft of property valued over $60,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendants to 12 years' confinement for their burglary convictions and 25 years' confinement for their theft of property convictions, to be served consecutively for effective sentences of 37 years' confinement. On appeal, the Defendants argue that the trial court erred by (1) denying their motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants; (2) failing to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser-included offense of burglary; and (3) sentencing the Defendants to 37 years' confinement. In addition, Defendant Ingram argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Benjamin C. Signer, Franklin, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Tapo. T. Tabb, Vanessa P. Bryan, District Public Defender, and Susan V. Logan, Assistant Public Defender, Franklin, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Douglas Ingram.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Assistant Attorney General; Kim Helper, District Attorney General; and Tammy J. Rettig, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONOn August 9, 2010, the Defendant-Appellants were indicted for burglary and theft of property valued over $60,000 in relation to a burglary and theft that occurred at Lindell Jewelers in Brentwood, Tennessee. Prior to trial, the Defendants moved to suppress evidence obtained from the search of their residences and a vehicle driven by the Defendants on the night of the offense. On September 11, 2013, the trial court entered an order granting the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from both residences because the State, while not conceding any illegality in the searches, did not oppose the suppression of evidence from the two residences. On September 20, 2013, the State responded to the order granting the motion to suppress and requested a hearing on the matter. The Defendants filed a revised motion to suppress on November 1, 2013, asserting that evidence obtained from the two residences and the vehicle should be suppressed because the search warrants for each were invalid, and a hearing on the matter was held on November 5, 2013.
Suppression Hearing. Lieutenant John Wood of the Brentwood Police Department testified that on May 18, 2010, he investigated a burglary and theft that occurred at Lindell Jewelers in Brentwood, Tennessee. Upon arriving at the scene, Lt. Wood observed "multiple jewelry cases that were busted" and "lots of glass on the floor." He contacted the owner of the store, Carolyn Linder, who contacted ADT, the alarm company for Lindell Jewelers. An ADT representative arrived on the scene and retrieved surveillance videos from within the store and provided copies to Lt. Wood. Lieutenant Wood reviewed the surveillance videos and testified that one of the suspect's faces was clearly depicted. At that time, however, he had no leads as to the identity of this suspect. Subsequently, Lt. Wood received information that prior to the burglary, a Franklin police officer conducted a field interview of two individuals in the parking lot of Watson Glen Shopping Center in Franklin, Tennessee. Lieutenant Wood retrieved the names of the individuals and pulled their driver's licenses from the Criminal Justice portal. He "immediately recognized" Defendant Tabb as being one of the individuals observed on the surveillance video. Lieutenant Wood was unable to identify Defendant Ingram based solely on the surveillance video; however, he developed Defendant Ingram as a suspect based upon "the correlation between [Defendant] Tabb and [Defendant] Ingram on the field interview and the close proximity and close time frame between the field interview and the burglary."
After discovering the identity of the two suspects, Lt. Wood learned that the men lived in Memphis, Tennessee, and he contacted the Shelby County Sheriff's Office to assist him in his investigation. A Shelby County detective had recently arrested both suspects in relation to a separate burglary and "immediately recognized" Defendant Tabb on the surveillance video from Lindell Jewelers. As part of his investigation, Lt. Wood was also put in contact with Chad Fussell, a Dickson County Police Department detective, who believed that the same two suspects were involved in a burglary in Dickson County several weeks before the burglary at Lindell Jewelers. Detective Fussell traveled with Lt. Wood to Shelby County to obtain search warrants for the suspects' residences. Upon execution of the search warrants, police found no evidence of aburglary at Defendant Tabb's residence but found "multiple items of jewelry and watches" at Defendant Ingram's residence that officers believed were connected to the burglary in Dickson County. Search warrants for both residences were introduced into evidence. Lieutenant Wood and Detective Fussell also obtained a search warrant for a blue Ford Expedition believed to have been driven by the Defendants on the night of the offense. Lieutenant Wood received information that the owner of the vehicle was Defendant Ingram's girlfriend, Tynearia Harrison.1 Police found the vehicle parked at an apartment complex where a relative of Ms. Harrison lived, and upon searching the vehicle, officers recovered multiple items of jewelry, a screwdriver, a black glove, a map of Tennessee, a pair of orange gloves, a pair of blue gloves, and a "crowbar" or "pry bar." Lieutenant Wood agreed that officers did not recover any jewelry from Lindell Jewelers inside of the vehicle.
On cross-examination, Lt. Wood testified that he developed the Defendants as suspects in the burglary "based upon the field interviews . . . and based upon the review of the surveillance cameras within Lindell Jewelers[.]" He recalled that the field interviews occurred approximately 20 to 30 minutes prior to the burglary. The field interview cards provided details about the car driven by the suspects and identifying information about the Defendants, including their names and addresses. Lieutenant Wood testified that Detective Fussell acted as the affiant for the search warrants because Detective Fussell was "certain that these individuals were involved in [the Dickson County] burglary based upon the . . . method that was used, . . . the way they were dressed, and those . . . type[s] of circumstances." Lieutenant Wood obtained search warrants for the Defendants' residences because "in [his] experience . . . , when a burglary or theft happens, there has to be some type of either storage location or area in which . . . items are . . . kept for a while and then sold or gotten rid of somehow." He believed that in this case the "most logical" location for the stolen items to be stored would be at one of the Defendants' residences. Lieutenant Wood recalled that in addition to Detective Fussell, Detective Barry Clark of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, Detective Drew Hardin of the Memphis Police Department, and Special Agent Tory White of the FBI assisted in the execution of the search warrants.
Following the hearing and arguments by counsel, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The court entered an order on November 13, 2013, denying the Defendants' motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the three search warrants.
Trial. Sergeant Jack Morgan of the Franklin Police Department testified that on May 18, 2010, he was working the night shift from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. At approximately 2:47 a.m., he observed a blue Ford Expedition without its headlights on driving slowly through the parking lot of the Watson Glen Shopping Center in Franklin, Tennessee. Sergeant Morgan believed this activity to be suspicious so he initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle and completed field interview cards. He explained that unlike police reports, which report criminal activity, field interview cards are used to "document[] suspicious activity and put[] an individual at a particular place during a particular time." Sergeant Morgan obtained driver's licenses from both the driver and the passenger of the vehicle, later determined to be Defendant Ingram and Defendant Tabb, and ran a records check on both individuals. He recalled that Defendant Ingram was wearing a hoodie and a pair of blue jean shorts, and he had "real distinctive" eyes, which Sergeant Morgan described as "droopy." Defendant Tabb was also wearing a hoodie and had corn rows in his hair. Sergeant Morgan documented the vehicle's make, model, color, license plate number, and VIN number on the field interview card and ran a records check.
On cross-examination, Sergeant Morgan agreed that although there is a clothing description field on the field interview cards, he did not provide a clothing description for the individuals. He explained that he was less concerned with a clothing description because no criminal activity "had actually occurred to [his] knowledge at th[at] point in time" so his main objective was "to provide a name as an investigative lead for anybody should it have occurred or been reported the next day." He agreed that he "could have done a much better job [filling out the field interview cards], but . . . [his] main concern was just documenting the people that [he] made contact with during th[at] time."
Brentwood police officer Brian...
To continue reading
Request your trial