IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1999 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. #M1998-00012-CCA-R3-CD Appellee, * BEDFORD COUNTY VS. * Hon. Charles Lee , Judge TROY SHONDELL SALES, * (Sale of Cocaine) Appellant. *

For Appellant : For Appellee : William C. Roberts, Jr. Paul G. Summers and Robert L. Marlow Attorney General and Repor ter Attorneys 100 South Spring Street Elizabeth T. Ryan #109 Assistant Attorney Gener al Shelbyville, TN 37160 Criminal Justice Div ision 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 Robert G. Crigler Assistant District A

ttorney General Seventeenth Judicial District Bedford County Courthouse Shelbyville, TN 37160

OPINION FILED:__________________________

AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE 

# FILED
December 15, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk1 The defendant was indicted for sale of a controlled substance, deli very of a controlled substance, and criminal conspiracy. The trial judge merged the convicti on of delivery with the convicti on of sale. The conspirac y charge was dismissed. 2 OPINION The defend ant, Tro

y Shond ell Sal es, was

convic ted of the

sale of a Schedule II controlled substance. Tenn. Code Ann . § 39-17-417. The trial court imposed a Range II sentence of nine years, six months. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. 1 We affirm the judgment.
At approximately 7:40 P. M. on January 14, 1998, an i nformant employed by the Shelbyville Police Department arranged by telephone to purchase a small amount of cocaine from the defendant. D rug Interdiction Officer J ames Edward Wilkerson and Detective Tony Collins had searched the i nformant prior to the call and had taken him to the pay telephone he used at Baker's Qui ck Check. Officer Wilkerson and Detective Coll ins watched as the informant pl aced the call. After his conversation, the informant reported to the officers tha t he had been instructed by the defendant to w ait at a pay telephone at a M cDonald's Restaurant located only a short dis tance away. The officers obser ved the informant continuously from the time of their search until 9:10 P.M. w hen the defendant and two others in a maroon Bui ck arrived at McDonald's. The officers observed the defendant get out of the vehicle and w alk across the street w ith the informant to Baker's Quick Check, w here he frisked the legs and p ockets of the informant.
As a signal to the officers th at the sale had been completed, the informant tipped his cap and scra tched his head. At that point, O fficer Wilkerson and Dete ctive Colli ns, who were in an unm arked veh icle, and Patrolme n Joe Brown and Anthony Whitehead blocked the path of the maroon Buick. The defendant was arrested and Officer W hitehead removed over $400.00 from the pocket of Craig3 Clark Green, the driver of the Buick. One of the bills removed from Green was a twenty dollar bil l which had been marked by the officers with a red mag ic marker and given to the informant to purchase the drugs. The serial numb er on the bill matched Officer Wilkerson's records.

Detective Collins continued to observe the infor mant while the other officers made the arrest. The informa nt, who had returned to the McDonald's Restaurant, had rock cocai ne in his possession w hen the detective arriv

ed. Donna Flowers,a forensic chemist with the Tennessee Bureau of Inv

estigatio n's crime laboratory in Nashv

ille, identified the rock- like substance acquired from the informant as 0.2 gram of cocaine.

The defendant contends that because the polic e were unable to say that they saw the informant exchange money for illegal drugs, the evidence is insufficien t. He also argues th at the inform ant could have pl anted the illega l drugs at the public pay telephone i n advance.

On appeal, the state is entitl ed to the strongest legi timate view of the evidence and all inferences which might be draw n therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978). When the sufficiency of the evidence is c hallenged, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could ha ve found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea sonable doubt. State v. Williams , 657 S.W.2d 405 (Tenn. 1983); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e ). The credibility o

f the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted exclusi vely to the jury

as the triers of fact. Byrge v. State , 575 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978).4 A criminal offense may be establi shed exclusively by circumstantial evidence. Marable v. State , 203 Tenn. 440, 313 S.W.2d 441 (1958). The jury has the responsibility of deter mining the sufficiency of cir cumstantial evidence. State v. Tharpe , 726 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1987).

Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17- 417(a)(2) and (3) prov

ide that the defendant may be convict ed when he has knowing ly sold or delivered cocaine. Here, the state est ablished that the defendant was the only one of the three occupants of the maroon Buick who had any contact w ith the informant. According to police, the informant had no illegal drugs in his possession prior to his encounter with the defendant and had r ock cocaine afterwards. No one other than the defendant came into contact with the informant. Whether the circumstances established an illegal drug transaction was a proper question for the ju ry. In our view, the jury

was entitled to accred it the testimony offered by the state and find the defendant guilty of each of the elements of the crime.

Accordingly, the j udgment is affirmed.

__________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge CONCUR:

_____________________________ John H. Peay, Jud ge

_____________________________ Norma McGee Ogle, Judge