### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON May 5, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. ED GAR AL LGOOD
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 04- 06360 C arol W ade B l acket t , Judge

N o. W 2008- 00870- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 10, 2010

D efe ndant , E dgarA l l good, w as ind i ct ed i n countone of the i ndi ct m entforpos s es s i on of m o re tha n 0

. 5 g ram s o f c o ca ine w ith inten t t o sell an d in co u n t tw o fo r po sses sion o f m o re t han 0. 5 gr ams of cocai ne w i t h i nt entt o del i ver . Fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al , D efe ndantw as found notgui l t yof t he cha r g ed offe ns es . T he j ur yfound D efe ndantgui l t yi n countone of the i n d i c t me n to f

t h e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f f a c i l i t a t i o n o f p o s s e s s i o n o f mo r e t h a n 0

. 5 g r a ms of coc ai ne w i t h i nt entt o s el l , a C l as s C fel ony , and i n count tw o o f the l es s eri ncl uded offe ns e of f

aci l i t at i on of at t empt ed pos s es s i on of m or e t han 0. 5 gr ams of coca i ne w i t h i nt ent t o del i ver , a C l as s D fel ony . T he t r i al cour t s ent ence d D efe ndant as a R ange I I I , per s i s t ent offe nder, to concur r ents ent ence s of t w el ve y ear s foreac h convi ct i on, foran ef fec t i ve s ent ence of t w el ve y ear s . O n appea l , D efe ndant chal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof t he convi ct i ng e v i d e n c e a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c i n g d e t e r mi n a t i o n s . Af t e ra t h o r o u g h r e v i e w, we con cl ud e as plai n error t hat D efen dan t ’s du al con vict i on s vi olat e do ub l e j eop ardypri ncipl es. A ccor d i n g l y , we me r g e Def e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o f f a c i l i t a t i o n o f a t t e mpt e d p o s s e s s i o n of c o c a in e w ith in ten t to d e liv e r in to h is c o n v ictio n o f f a c ili tatio n o f

p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith i nt entt o s el l

. W e af

firm the t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm entas t o D efe ndant ’ s convi ct i on of f a c i l i t a t i o n o f

p o s s e s s i o n o f

c o c a i n e w i t h i n t e n t t o s e l l a n d h i s s e n t e n c e o f t w e l v e y e a r s . We re m a n d so lelyf

o r th e c o rre c tio n a n d e n tryo f a n a p p ro p ria te ju d g m e n t co n sis te n t w ith th is opi ni on. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3 Appeal as of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C r i m i nal C our t A f f i r m e d; R e m ande d f

or Ent r y of

C or r e c t e d Judg m e nt
T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J. , deli vered t he o pini on of the cou rt , i n w hich J. C. M C L IN and C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J

. , j oi ned.
W i l l i am C

. G os nel l , M emphi s , T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , E dgarA l l good.-2-

R ober t E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; C l ar ence E

. L ut z, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ene r a l ; and Tra cy e J ones , A s s i s t antD i s t r i ct A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, f

o r t h e a p p e lle e , th e S ta te o f T e n n e s s e e . OP I NI ON
I . Backg r ound O ffi cerE r i c Leppanen t es t i fi ed th at he w as a det ect i ve w i t h t he M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m ent ’ s nar cot i cs uni ti n O ct oberand N o v em b er 2 0 0 3

. A tt hatt i m e, an i ndi vi dual know n as “J ay ” w as underi nves t i gat i on byt he nar cot i cs uni t fo r p o ssibl e drug t r aff i cki ng f ro m h is re s id e n c e a t A p a rtm e n t R , 1 4 4 1 Je f f e rso n A v e n u e . O f

f ice r L e p p a n e n sa id th a t a chai n l i nk fenc e w i t h a hol e i n i tw as l ocat ed att he bac k of t he apa r t m ent
. O ffi cerL eppane n s t at ed tha t o n s epar at e occ as i ons fi ve peopl e cl i m bed thr ough t he hol e i n t he fe nce a nd appr oache d t he r es i dence dur i ng the su rvei l l ance per i od. O ffi cerL eppane n i dent i fi ed D efe ndantatt r i al as t he man know n as “J ay , ” and s t at ed thatD efe ndant ’ s name w as l at er det er m i ned t o be EdgarA l l good.
O ffi cerL eppane n s ai d t hatt he r es i dence w as a duplex , and D efe ndant ’ s uni tw as l ocated i n the r ear of t he b uil ding. O ffi cer Le pp anen , accom pan i ed b yotheroff i cers , exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr anton t he r esi d en ce o n N ovember 7, 2003. O ffi cerL eppane n and anotheroffi cerw entt o t he ba ck o f the uni tw hi l e the otheroffi cer s knocked on the fr ont door

. W hen no one ans w er ed t he door , t he pol i ce offi cer s for ced an entr yi nt o t he r es i dence

. D efe n d a n t was a p p r e h e n d e d i n t h e b a t h r o o m. Vi n c e n t Smi t h was i n t h e l i v i n g r o o m , and J acque l i ne R o g ers w as at t empt i ng t o hi de bes i de the r efr i ger at ori n t he ki t chen. O ffi cer L eppane n s t at ed thatt he off i cer s found s ever al bagg ies of coc ai ne and c r ack c ocai ne on a gl as s t abl e i n t he l i vi ng r oom , t w o s et s of sca l es , an opened box of baki ng s oda, and a box of baggi es i n t he ki t chen, an d sev era l pi pes w hi ch coul d be us ed t o s m oke ei t hercr ack coca i ne orm ar i

j uana. O ff

icer L ep p anen e xpl ai ned thatbaki ng s oda w as one of the i n g r e d i e n t s u s e d i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c o n v e r t i n g p o wde rc o c a i n e i n t o c r a c k c o c a i n e . T he o f f ice rs a lso d isc o v e re d tw o ra z o r b lad e s a n d a sp o o n b yth e sto v e in th e k it c h e n . B ill s t ot al i n g $ 9 0 0 wer e s t a c k e d o n t h e g l a s s t a b l e n e x tt o t h e d ru g s , a n d a n o t h e r$ 6 0 0 was re c o v e re d f

ro m th e th re e in d iv id u a ls in th e re sid e n c e . O f f ice r L e p p a n e n sta ted th a t h is f ield te s tin g o f th e s u b s ta n c e s f

o u n d a t th e re s id e n c e s h o w e d th a t th e p o w d e r c o c a in e w e ig h e d 6 .6 g ra m s a nd t he cr ack cocaine w ei gh ed 1. 1 gram s. O ffi cer L epp anen sai d that a c a b le tele v isio n b ill f

o r “ A p a rtm e n t R e a r, 1 4 4 1 J e f f e rso n A v e n u e ” w a s a d d re ss e d to D e f e n d a n t, and s ever al pr es cr i pt i on bot t l es w er e found i n t he ki t chen w i t h D efe ndant ’ s name on t he cont ai ner s . A ut i l i t ybi l l fort he r es i dence w as addr es s ed t o E r i ca D

. G onzal ez.-3-

O n cr os s - exami nat i on, O ffi cer L eppane n acknow l edged thatnone of the i t ems s ei zed dur i ng t he s ear ch w er e t es t ed forfi ngerpr i nt s . O ffi cerL eppane n s t at ed thatanotherpol i ce of f i c e r s e a r c h e d Def

e n d a n t ’ s p e r s o n a t t h e t i me o f h i s a r r e s t , b u t n o d ru g s wer e found. O f f ice r L e p p a n e n sa id th a t h e d id n o t as c e rta in th e id e n tityo f th e tit le h o ld e r to th e p ro p e rty orw hethert her e w as a l eas e agr eement i n pl ace for t he re ar uni t
. O ffi cerL eppane n s t at ed th a t les s th a n $ 1 0 0 w a s f o u n d o n D e f

e n d a n t. O n r edi r ect exami nat i on, O ffi cerL eppane n s ai d t hatpr i ort o t he exe cut i on of t he s ear ch w arr ant , he det er m i ned thatD efen d ant l i ved att he r es i dence on J eff er s on A venue. O ffi cerL eppane n s t at ed thathe had s een D efe ndantatt hi s r es i dence on m or e than one occa s i on, and had obs er ved a ve hicl e w h ich D efe ndantw as know n t o dr i ve parked att he r es i dence

. O ffi cerD avi d N eym an, w i t h t he B ar l et tPoli ce D epart m ent , t es t i fi ed thathe par t i ci pat ed i n t he s ear ch of the r es i dence atA par t m entR , 1441 J eff erson St r eeton N ovember 7, 2003. O ffi cerN eym an s ai d t hat a per s on peeke d outof t he ki t chen w i ndow as he and t he ot her offi cer s appr oache d t he re s i dence , and som eone i ns i de the apa r t m enty el l ed, “P o li ce .” O ff

icer N ey m an k n o ck ed o p en the f ron t do o r. A fter en try , the p o li ce o ff icers found M s . R oger s i n t he ki t chen, M r . S m it h sit ti n g on a couc h i n t he l i vi ng r oom , and D efe ndantent er i ng t he bathr oom . D efe ndants hutt he bathr oom door , and the fl us h of a t oi l et w a s h e a rd . O f

f ice r N e y m a n sta ted th a t th e re w a s n o th in g f o u n d in th e a p a rtm e n t to in d ica te th a t th e u n it w a s th e re s id e n c e o f e ith e r M r. S m ith o r M s . R o g e rs . L i eut enantJo e M as s ey , w i t h t he B ar t l et tPol i ce D epart m ent , t es t i fi ed thathe acc om pani ed O ffi cerN eym an i nt o t he r es i dence

. O ffi cerM as s eys ai d t hatD efe ndantw as t r y i ng t o s hut t he door t o t he bathr oom . O ffi cerM as s eyfor ced the bathr oom dooropen, and not ed t hat t he t oi l et had been fl us hed. O ffi cerM as s eys ai d t hatt he t oi l etw as di s m ant l ed and s earch ed , b utno drugs orot hercontr aband w er e found. O ffi cerM as s eys t at ed that De f e n d a n tt o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s t h a tt h e c o c a i n e i n t h e a p a r t me n t b e l o n g e d t o h i m. D efe ndants ai d t hatt he coc ai ne w as forhi s per s onal us e, and denied that h e s ol d coca i ne. O n cro ss-ex am ination , O ff icer M asse ysta te d th a t all three p erso n s in the reside n ce w ere arr es t ed. Speci al A gentD ana P arm ent ert es t i fi ed thats he w as a for ens i c s ci ent i s tw i t h t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance i dent i fi cat i on s ect i on of t he T ennes s ee B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on, and a m ember of t he agency ’ s vi ol ent cr i m e re s pons e t eam. Speci al A gentPar m ent ers t at ed that s he r ece i ved a r ock- l i ke subs t ance and a w hi t e pow der ed s ubs t ance fr om t he B ar t l et tPol i ce D epart m entforanal y s i s . H er t es t i ng r evea l ed t hat t he r ock- l i ke s ubs t ance cont ai ned coc ai ne bas e and w ei ghed 1. 1 gr ams. T he w hi t e pow der ed s ubs t ance cont ai ned coc ai ne and w ei ghed 5 .8 g ra m s. S p e c ial A g e n t P a rm e n ter sa id th a t th e d if f e re n c e in w e ig h ts re f

lec ted in th e f

ield-4-

t es t s and her r epor t w as beca us e t he pol i ce depar t m ent us ual l yw ei ghed drugs found att he cr i m e s cene w i t h t he pac kagi ng. I I . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence
D efe ndantar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i ons , and t he tr i al cour terr ed i n notent er i ng a j udgm entof ac qui t t al

. Speci fi cal l y , D efe ndantcont ends t hatt he evi dence does nots uppor t a fi ndi ng t hat he knew t her e w as coca i ne i n t he apa r t m ent b ec au se h e w as n o t i n the l iving roo m w h ere the c o ca ine w as lo ca ted w h en the p o li ce o ff icers ent er ed the r es i dence

. A ddi t i onal l y , D efe ndantcont ends t hatt he evi dence fai l ed t o i dent i fy t he i ndi vi dual w hos e unl aw ful conduct he w as fac i l i t at i ng orthathe i nt ended t o benef i tfr om t he pr ocee ds of t he off

ens e. W hen a def

end ant chal l eng es t he suf fi ci ency of

t he co nv i ct i ng evidence, w e m ust rev iew the e v iden ce in a ligh t m o st fav o rab le t o the p rose cu ti o n in d eterm ining w h ethe r a r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound al l t he es s ent ial elem en ts of t he cr i m e bey ond a rea so n ab le do u b t. Jac k so n v . V ir g inia, 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S

. C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (19 7 9 ). O nce a j ur yfi nds a def endantgui l t y , hi s orh er p resum pt i on of i nnocenc e i s r emoved and r epl ace d on appea l w i t h a pr es um pt i on of gui l t
. St at e v. B l ack, 815 S. W

. 2d 166, 175 ( T enn. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f o v e rc o m in g th is p re su m p tio n , an d th e S tate is ent i t l ed t o t he s t r onges t l egi t i m at e vi ew of t he evi dence al ong w i t h al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s w hi ch maybe dr aw n fr om t hatevi dence

. I d. ; St at e v. T uggl e, 639 S. W

. 2d 913, 914 ( T enn. 1 9 8 2 )

. T h e ju ryis p re su m e d to h a v e re so lv e d a ll co n f licts a n d d ra w n a n yre a so n a b le inf ere n ce s in f

av o r of th e S ta te
. S tat e v . S h ef field, 67 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (T en n . 1 9 8 4 ). Q ues t i ons conce r ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es , t he w ei ghtand val ue t o be gi ven the evi dence , and al l fac tual i s s ues r ai s ed by t he evi dence ar e re s ol ved by t he t r i erof fa ctand not th is c o u rt. S tate v . B lan d , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e se ru les a re a p p lica b le to fi ndi ngs of gui l t pr edi cat ed upon di r ectevi dence , ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , ora combi nat i on of bot h di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

. St at e v. M at t hew s , 805 S. W

. 2d 776, 779 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1990)

. “The s t andar d by w hi ch t he t r i al cour t det er m i nes a mot i on forj udgm ent of ac qui t t al att he end of al l t he pr oof i s , in esse nce, t he s ame st andar d w hi ch appl i es on appea l i n det er m i ni ng t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence aft era convi ct i on; t hati s , w hether“any ra tio n a l trier o f

f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” S tate v . T h o m p so n , 8 8 S .W .3 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 4 -6 1 5 (T e n n . C rim

. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (citin g S tate v . G illo n , 1 5 S .W .3 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 6 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ))

. D efe ndantw as convi ct ed i n countone of t he i ndi ct m ent forfac i l i t at i on of pos s es s i on of m or e than 0. 5 gr ams of coc ai ne w i t h t he i nt ent t o s el l , and i n count t w o forfac i l i t at i on of at t empt ed pos s es s i on of m or e than 0. 5 gr ams of coc ai ne w i t h t he i nt entt o del i ver . I ti s an o f f e n se to k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss o r a ttem p t to p o s s e s s a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in ten t to-5-

m anu fact ure, deli ver, or sel l

. T

. C

. A

. §§ 39 -12-101 , 39 -17-417 (a) (4)

. A person co m m its “cr i m i nal at t empt ” byact i ng “w i t h i nt ent t o compl et e a c our s e of a ct i on orcaus e a r es ul tt hat w oul d cons t i tut e the off ens e, . . . and the conduc tcons t i tut es a s ubs t ant i al s t ep t ow ar d t he comm i s sion o f t he off

ens e. ” T. C

. A

. § 39- 12- 101( a) ( 3)

. A convi ct i on m aybe had upon ei t heractual orcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. C ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i s t he abi l i t yt o r educe an o b ject t o ac tual p o sses sion

. S tat e v . B row n , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 6 , 5 7 9 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ).
A per s on i s cr i m i nal l yr es pons i bl e fort he fa ci l i t at i on of a f el onyi f, know i ng t hat anotheri nt ends t o comm i ta s peci fi c fel o n y b utw i t houtt he i nt entr equi r ed forcr i m i nal re sp o n sib ili tyu n d e r T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 3 9 -1 1 -4 0 2 (2 ), th e p e rso n k n o w in g ly fu rn is h es su b stan ti al assist an ce in the co m m issi o n o f th e f elon y . T

. C

. A

. § 3 9 -11 -40 3 (a). “Ther efor e, t he St at e w as r equi r ed t o pr ove the comm i s s i on of a s peci fi ed fe l onyand the as s i s t ance [D efe ndant ] gave t o t he per s on comm i t t i ng t he s peci fi ed fe l ony . ” St at e v. D y ch, 227 S. W

. 3d 21, 40 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2006) ( ci t i ng St at e v. Par ker , 932 S. W

. 2d 945, 950- 51 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 )). “ [ A ] p e rso n .. . a c ts k n o w in g lyw ith re sp e c t to th e c o n d u c t o r to ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he conductw hen the per s on i s aw ar e of the natur e of the conduc t o r t h a t th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is t.” T .C .A . § 3 9 -1 1 -3 0 2 (b ).
O ffi cerL eppane n t es t i fi ed thathe and otheroffi cer s conduct ed a s ur vei l l ance of t he r e s i d e n c e a t Apa r t me n t R, 1 4 4 1 J e f f e r s o n Ave n u e i n Nov e mbe r 2 0 0 3

. Th e s u b j e c t of t he s ur vei l l ance w as know n t o t he off i cer s as “J ay , ” and t hei r i nves t i gat i on r evea l ed t hathe l i ved att hataddr es s . O ffi cerL eppane n i dent i fi ed D efe ndantatt r i al as t he i ndi vi dual w hom he knew as “J ay . ” O ffi cerL eppanen stat ed t hathe had s een D efe ndanti ns i de the r es i dence dur i ng t he s ur vei l l ance per i od, and a ve hi cl e w hi ch D efe ndantw as know n t o dr i ve w as par ked att he re side n ce . D ur i ng t he s ur vei l l ance per i od, fi ve i ndi vi dual s appr oache d t he r e s i d e n c e t h r o u g h a h o l e i n a c h a i n l i n k f e n c e a t s e p a r a t e t i me s , b u t t h e y d i d n o t e n t er t he hom e. A cabl e t el evi s i on bi l l addr es s ed t o D efe ndantatt he s ear ched pr emi s es and p re s c ri p tio n b o ttle s w ith h is n a m e o n th e c o n ta in e r w e re f o u n d in s id e th e re s id e n c e . W hen the pol ice offi cer s gai ned entr yt o t he apa r t m ent , M r . Sm i t h w as s i t t i ng on a couch i n t he l i vi ng r oom . Sever al baggies o f cocai ne and c r ack c ocai ne w er e on a c offe e t abl e i n t he l i vi ng r oom , and $900 w as s t acke d next t o t he coc ai ne. A n addi t i onal $600 w as r etr i eved f

r om D efe ndant , M r . Sm i t h, and M s . R oger s , al t hough D efe ndanthad l es s t han $100 on h is p erson a tt he t i m e of the s ear ch. Speci al A gentPar m ent ert es t i fi ed thatt he pow dercoca i ne w ei ghed 5. 8 gr ams, and the cr ack c ocai ne w ei ghed 1. 1 gr ams. T w o s et s of s cal es , baki ng s oda us ed fort r ans for m i ng pow dercoca i ne i nt o cra ck coca i ne, and baggi es f o r p a c k a g in g th e c o c a in e w e re f o u n d in th e k itc h e n . A l t hough t he St at e d id noti nt r oduce a l eas e agr eementorot herdocument of ow ner s hi p t o t he p rop ert y , t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng bya r at i onal-6-

t r i erof fa ctt hatD efe ndantw as m or e than a “ m er e pr es enc e” in the apa r t m entand thathe t r eat ed the apa r t m entas hi s r es i dence

. See St at e v. R os s , 49 S. W

. 3d 833, 845 ( T enn. 2001) ( concl udi ng t hat“al t hough a def endant ’ s m er e pr es ence ata pl ace w her e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s ar e found w i l l nots uppor t an i nfer ence of pos s es s i on, a per s on i n pos s es s i on of t he pr emises w her e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s ar e found mayal s o be pr es um ed t o pos s es s t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s t hemsel ves ”)

. A s for D efe ndant ’ s al l egat i on t hat t her e w as no pr oof that h e kn ew the co ca ine w as i n the ap artm en t, the c o ca ine a n d o ther d rug p ara p h ern ali a w ere in p la in v ie w , a n d D e f

e n d a n t to ld th e p o lic e o f f ic e rs th a t th e c o c a in e w a s h is

. W ith re g a rd to a d e ter m in a tio n o f a n in ten t to se ll o r d e liv e r, p ro o f o f in ten t u su a lly cons i s t s of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence and the i nfer ence s t hatcan be r eas onabl y dr aw n fr om t hat evi dence

. See H al l v. St at e, 490 S. W

. 2d 495, 496 ( T enn. 1973) ; St at e v. W as hi ngt on, 658 S. W

. 2d 144, 146 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1983) ( obs er vi ng t hata j ur ym ayder i ve a pe r s on’ s i nt ent fr om bot h d i r e c t a n d c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e )

. I t i s p e r mi s s i b l e f o r t h e j u r y t o “ d r a w an i nfer ence of i nt entt o s el l or del i verw hen the amount of t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and other r el evantfac t s s ur r oundi ng t he arr es tar e cons i der ed t ogether

. ” T. C

. A

. § 39- 17- 419.
“I n t he pas t , w e h av e affi r m ed convi ct i ons w her e the amount of t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w as gr eat ert han . 5 gr ams and ther e exi s t ed phy s i cal ort es t i m o n i a l evi dence , w hi ch al l o w ed the juryt o dr aw a perm i s s i bl e i nfer ence fr om t he fa ct s s ur r oundi ng t he arr es tt hat t he def endanthad i nt entt o s el l or d eli v er . ” St at e v. J ohn Fi t zger al d B el ew , N o. W 2004- 0 1 4 5 6 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 5 W L 8 8 5 1 0 6 , at *5 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . , at Jac k so n , A p r. 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 ), no per m . t o appea l fi l ed ( hol di ng t hat1. 7 gr ams of cr ack coca i ne, no drug par aphernal i a, and 5. 1 gr ams of baki ng s oda, w hi ch t est i m onyr evea l ed w as an age ntus ed i n m anufa ctur e of c ra c k c o c a in e , w a s su f

f icie n t e v id e n c e f

o r a ju ryto f

in d a n in ten t to d e liv e r); se e a lso , S tate v. L ogan, 973 S. W

. 2d 279, 281 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1998) ( fi ndi ng evi dence of a l ar ge amount of ca s h found i n conj unct i on w i t h s ever al s m al l bags of coc ai ne pr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence of i nt entt o s el l ) ; St at e v. B r ow n, 915 S. W

. 2d 3, 8 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1995) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat t he abs ence of drug par aphernal i a, and mannerof pac kagi ng of drugs s uppor t ed an i nfer ence of i nt entt o s el l ) ; St at e v. M at thew s , 805 S. W

. 2d 776, 782 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1990) ( fi ndi ng t es t i m onyof amount and s t r eetval ue of 3 0

. 5 gr ams of coc ai ne w as admi s s i bl e t o i nferan i nt ent i on t o di s t r i but e) ; St at e v. W i l l i am M ar t i n Fr ey , N o. M 2003- 01996- C C A

- R 3C D , 2004 W L 2266799, *8 ( T enn. C ri m . A pp. atN as hvi l l e, O ct
. 6, 2004) , per m . t o appea l deni ed ( T enn. Feb. 28, 2005) ( hol di ng t hatt es t i m onyof 1. 8 gr ams of coc ai ne, a s t ack of cas h, and a b se n c e o f

d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia c o n stitu ted c irc u m sta n c e s fr o m w h ich ju ryc o u ld re a so n a b ly i nferi nt ent t o s el l ) ; St at e v. W i l l i am F. C ar t w r i ght , N o. M 2003- 00483- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2004 W L 1056064, *4 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. atN as hvi l l e, M ay10, 2004) , n o p erm. t o appea l fi l ed ( hol di ng t es t i m onyof l ar ge vol um e and s t r eet val ue of 25. 5 gr ams of coc ai ne, t ypi cal dos ages foraddi ct s , and abs ence of drug par aphernal i a suff i ci ent t o s uppor t i nfer ence and convi ct i on o f in te n t to d e liv e r)

.-7-

M o re re c e n tly , in S tate v . N e lso n , 2 7 5 S .W .3 d 8 5 1 , 8 6 7 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), th is C our t concl uded t hat t he arr es t i ng offi cer ’ s t es t i m ony t hat t he amount of coc ai ne found w as not co n s i s t e n t wi t h p e r s o n a l u s e a n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was s p o t t e d b y t h e o f f i ceri n a l ocat i on know n fori l l egal d rug sales, coupl ed w i t h $114 i n cas h and a c heck f oran uns peci fi ed amountfound on the def endant ’s pe rson , p rese n ted s u ff ici en t ci rcu m stan ce s fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d r eas onabl yi nfert hatt he def endanti nt ended t o s el l t he coc ai ne. I n t he pr es entcas e, t he i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s found drug par aphern al i a i n t he re s id e n c e . N o n e th e le s s , e v id e n c e w a s p re s e n te d th a t 5 .8 g ra m s o f p o w d e r c o c a in e a n d 1 .1 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne w as di s cover ed i n t he l i vi ng r oom w her e M r . Sm i t h w as s i t t i ng. T he coca i ne w as packa ged i n s ever al baggi es , and $900 w as s t acked n ex tt o t he coc ai ne. T he i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s al s o found t w o s et s of s cal es , boxes of baggi es , and an ope ned box of baki ng s oda i n t he ki t chen w hi ch O ffi cerL eppane n t es t i fi ed w as an agentus ed i n t he conver s i on of pow der coca i ne i nt o cr ack coca i ne. O ffi cerL eppane n al s o t es t i fi ed thatdur i ng t he s ur vei l l ance of t he apa r t m ent , he obs er ved fi ve i ndi vi dual s on fi ve s epar at e occ as i ons cl i m b t hr ough a hol e i n t he cha i n l i nk fenc e att he bac k of t he apa r t m ent , appr oach the apart m ent , and then l eave agai n w i t hout ent er i ng t he apa r t m ent
. D efe ndantacknow l edged a tt r i a l t h a tt h e c o c a i n e b e l o n g e d t o h i m. B as ed on ourr evi ew , w e conc l ude thatt he for egoi ng pr ovi des s uffi ci ent ci r cumst ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ym i ghti nfert hatD efe ndantatt he l eas tpr ovi ded su b sta n tial a ss ista n c e b ym a k in g th e a p a rtm e n t a v a ilab le f o r th e p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith t he i nt ent t o s el l and del i ver . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entfor a r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ctt o fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat D ef en d ant w as gui l t yof fac i l i t at i on of pos s es s i on of m or e than 0. 5 gr ams of coc ai ne w ith t he i nt entt o s el l and f a c ili tatio n o f

a ttem p ted p o ss e ss io n o f m o re th a n 0 .5 g r a m s o f c o c a in e w ith th e in ten t to del i ver . D efe ndanti s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thi s i s s ue. I I I . D oubl e Jeopardy P ri nci pl es N o tw ith sta n d in g th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e c o n v ic ti n g e v id e n c e , w e a re c o n stra in e d to cons i deras pl ai n err orw hetherD efe ndant ’ s dual convi ct i ons v iola t e doubl e j eopar dy pr ot ect i ons . See Tenn. R

. A pp. P. 36( b) ( pr ovi di ng t hat“[w ] hen nec es s aryt o do s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce, an appe l l at e courtm aycons i der an err or t hat has aff ect ed t he s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of a par t yatanyt i m e, even tho u g h the err orw as notr ai s ed i n t he mot i on fora new t r i al or assig n ed as e rror o n a p p e a l”). D u al co n v ict ion s resu lt ing in a v iolati o n o f a d ef en d an t’ s pr ot ect i on agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dycons t i tut e “pl ai n err or . ” See St at e v. L ew i s , 958 S. W

. 2d 736, 738 ( T enn. 1997) ; St at e v. E pps , 989 S.W

. 2 d 742, 745 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1998) ( appl y i ng pl ai n err ordoctr i ne t o r evi ew w heth er the def endant ’ s dual convi ct i ons vi ol at ed d o u b le j eo p ard yp ri n ciples).-8-

I n or derforus t o fi nd pl ai n err or , “( a) t he re cor d m us t cl ear l yes t abl i s h w hatoccurr ed i n t he t r i al cour t ; ( b) a cl ear and unequi vocal rul e of l aw m us t have been br eac h ed ; ( c) a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof t he ac cus ed m us t have been adver s el y aff ect ed; ( d) t he ac cus ed di d not w ai ve the i s s ue fort act i cal r ea so n s; a n d (e) cons i der at i on of t he err ori s ‘ nece s s aryt o do s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce. ’ ” St at e v. Sm it h , 24 S. W

. 3d 274, 282 ( T enn. 2000) ( quot i ng St at e v. A d k is s o n , 8 9 9 S .W .2 d 6 2 6 , 6 4 1 -4 2 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ))

. T he r ecor d cl ear l yes t abl i s hes t hatD efe n dantw as convi ct ed of both fac i l i t at i on of pos s es s i on of co ca ine w ith t he i nt entt o s el l and fa ci l i t at i on of at t empt ed pos s es s i on of coca i ne w i t h t he i nt entt o del i ver . Second, m ul t i pl e convi ct i ons for t he s ame of fens e br eac h a c lea r a n d u n e q u iv o c a l r u le o f law . T h ird , a f u n d a m e n tal c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t o f D e f e n d a n t, h is Fifth A m en d m en t r igh t t o b e f ree fro m d o u b le jeo p ard y , is aff ec ted. F o u rt h , the re co rd i s d e v o i d o f

a n ye v i d e n c e t h a tDe f

e n d a n twa i v e d t h e i s s u e f o r t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s . F i f t h , we c o n c lu d e th a t co n sid e ra tio n o f a v io latio n o f

D e f e n d a n t’s d o u b le je o p a rd yp ro tec tio n s is “n ec essa ry to do su b stan ti al justi ce . ” A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l r ev iew this i ssu e a s p lai n erro r. W e n o te in iti a llyth a t D e f e n d a n t ra ise d a d o u b le je o p a rd yc o n c e rn d u rin g h is se n ten c in g h e a rin g , a rg u in g th a t th e sa m e f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e c a se w e re u se d to s uppor tbot h of hi s convi ct i ons . T he tr i al court a ck n ow l edged thati f D efe ndanthad bee n convi ct ed of both fac i l i t at i on of pos s es s i on of coc ai ne w i t h t he i nt entt o s el l and fa ci l i t at i on of pos s es s i on of coc ai ne w i t h t he i n tent to d eli ver , t hen a mer gerof t he tw o convi ct i ons wou l d b e r e q u i r e d

. Howev e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y f o u n d s i g n i f

i c a n t t he fa ct t hat D efen dan t ’s con vict i on i n coun tt w o o f t he indi ct m ent w as for a di fferent grade o f of fense t han the off

ens e s uppor t i ng hi s convi ct i on i n countone, t hat is a C lass D , as oppos ed t o a C l as s C , fel ony , and decl i ned t o m er ge the tw o convi ct i ons . D efe ndantdi d notr ai s e the i s s ue in e ith e r h is m o tio n f

o r n e w trial o r o n a p p e a l.
T he doubl e j eopar dycl aus e of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des t hatno per s on s ha l l “ be s ub

j e c tfo rt he sam e of

fe ns e t o b e t w i c e pu ti n j e op a r dyof l i fe orl i mb. ” U

. S. C ons t
. amend. V

. Si m i l ar l y , underourT ennes s ee Const i tut i on, “no per s on s hal l , fort he s ame offens e, be tw i ce puti n j eopar dyof l i fe o rl i m b. ” Tenn. C ons t
. ar t
. 1, § 10. T hr ee fundam en t al pr i nci pl es under l i e doubl e j eopar dy : “( 1) pr ot ect i on agai ns ta s econd pr os ecut i on aft eran ac qui t t al ; ( 2) pr ot ect i on agai ns ta s econd pr os ecut i on aft erconvi ct i on; and ( 3) pr ot ect i on agai ns tm ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s fort he s ame offens e. ” St at e v. D ent on, 938 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 8 (T en n . 1 9 9 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted)

. T h e c ase su b jud ice inv o lves the th ir d s cena r i o, t hati s , m ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s fort he s ame offens e. I n det er m i ni ng w hether t w o offe ns es ar e t he “s ame” for doubl e j eopar dypurpos es , t he B lo c k b u rg e r te st p ro v id e s th a t:-9-

w her e the s ame actort r ans act i on cons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of t w o di s t i nct s t a tu t o r yp r o v i s i o n s , t h e t e s tt o b e a p p l i e d t o d e t e r mi n e wh e t h e rt h e r e a r e t wo offe ns es oronl yone i s w hether eac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of an addi t i onal f a c t w h ic h th e o th e r d o e s n o t.
B l ockburg er v . U n it ed St at es , 284 U

. S. 299, 304, 52 S. C t
. 180, 182; St at e v. B l ack, 524 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 9 (T en n . 1 9 7 5 ).
I n addi t i on t o t he B l ockbur gert es t , t he tr i al cour tm us tcons i dert he “sa m e evi dence ” t es t , t hati s w hether t he same evi dence i s r equi r ed t o pr ove the off ens es . D ent on, 938 S. W

. 2d at 38 1 (cit ing D u ch ac v . S tat e, 50 5 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 (T en n . 1 9 7 3 )). F inally , the tri al co u rt m us tanal y ze w hether t her e w er e m ul t i pl e vi ct i m s ordi s cr et e ac t s and compar e the purpos es of t he r es pect i ve s t atut es . D ent on, 938 S. W

. 2d at381.
U nderB l ockbur ger , t he off ens es i n ques t i on i nvol ve tw o s epar at e s ubs ect i ons of T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 3 9 -1 7 -4 1 7 (a ). T h e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n C o m m e n ts to T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 3 9 -1 7 -4 1 7 p ro v id e th a t, “[ T ]h e c o m m iss io n w ish e d to m ake i tcl eart hateac h of t hes e ac t s w as a s epar at e off ens e and ther efor e l i s ted t he m anufa ctur e, del i very , s al e orpos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent t o m anufa ctur e, del i ver or s el l eac h as a s e p a r a t e s u b s e c t i o n . ” Ho we v e r , wh i l e b o t h c o n v i c t i o n s a r e v a l i d u n d e rBl o c k b u r g e r , we m us tl ook t o t he “s ame evi dence ” t est art i cul at ed i n D uchac

. See Thornt on v. St at e, 10 S .W .3d 229 , 23 9 ( T enn . 19 99 ) (ci t i ng D enton, 93 8 S. W

. 2d at 37 9). T his t est st at e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A defe ndan t h as bee n i n j eopar dyi f on t he fi r s tchar ge he c oul d have be en c o n v icte d o f

th e o f f e n se c h a rg e d in th e se c o n d p ro c e e d in g . O n e tes t o f id e n tity of off ens es i s w hethert he s ame evi dence i s r equi r ed t o p rov e them. I f t he s ame evi dence i s notr equi r ed, t hen the fa ctt hatbot h ch arg es r el at e t o, and g row o u t o f

, o n e tran sac ti o n , d o es n o t m ak e a sing le of fe n se w h ere tw o are d e f in e d b yth e s ta tu te s . D uchac , 505 S. W

. 2d at239.
I ti s appar entfr om a re vi ew of t he re cor d t hat D efe ndant ’ s dual convi ct i ons ar e bas ed on t he s ame f

act s and ar i s e out of a s i ngl e t r ans act i on, t hati s , t he s ear ch of the r es i dence at 1441 J eff er s on A venue. T he evi dence s ei zed dur i ng t he s ear ch w hi ch w as pr es ent ed t o t he ju ryto su p p o rt D e f

e n d a n t’s c o n v ictio n o f f a c ili tatio n o f p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e w ith in ten t to s el l i s t he s ame evi dence us ed t o s uppor tD efe ndant ’ s convi ct i on of fa ci l i t at i on of at t empt ed pos s es sion o f cocai ne w i t h i nt entt o del i ver . See St at e v. T hor nt on, 10 S. W

. 3d 229, 238 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t i n g S t a t e v . Wi l l i e B

. J a c k s o n , N o . 0 1 C 0 1

- 9 7 0 2

- C R

- 0 0 0 5 4 , 1 9 9 8 WL-10-

199992, at* 1 0 ( Te n n . Cr i m. App

. , a tNas h v i l l e , Apr i l 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 ) , p e r m. t o a p p e a l d e n i ed (T e n n . D e c . 7 , 1 9 9 8 ) (n o tin g th a t “[ c ]le a rly , the law p re c lu d e s c o n v ictio n s f o r b o th th e sa le and del i very of i l l egal drugs )

. T he fa ctt hatt he j ur yconvi ct ed D efe ndantof a di ffe r entgr ade of off ens e i n count t w o of t he i ndi ct m ent t han i n count one does notal t ert he i dent i t yof t he fa c t s a nd evi de nc e s up po r t i ng hi s c on vi c t i on s i n b oth c ou nt s . Se e St a t e v. W i l l i a m F. C a rt w ri g h t, N o . M 2 0 0 3 -0 0 4 8 3 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 0 5 6 0 6 4 , a t * 5 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p ., at N ash v ill e, M ay1 0 , 2 0 0 4 ), n o p erm . to ap p ea l fi led (c o n clud ing that the d ef en d an t’ s convi ct i on of pos s es s i on of coc ai ne w i t h t he i nt entt o del i verand s i m pl e pos s es s i on of c o c a in e v io late d d o u b le je o p a rd y p ro tec tio n s n o tw ith sta n d in g th e f a c t th a t th e sim p le pos s es s i on convi ct i on w as a l es s eri ncl uded off ens e of the cha r ged off

ens e of pos s es s i on of co ca ine w ith inten t t o sell ).
B eca us e thes e convi ct i ons fai l t he D uchac pr ong of t he t es t , w e fi nd as pl ai n err ort hat pr i nci pl es of doubl e j eopar dy bar D efe ndant ’ s dual convi ct i ons . W e acc or di ng lym er ge D efe ndant ’ s conv ict ion of fac i l i t at i on of at t empt ed pos s es s i on of m or e than 0. 5 gr ams of coca i ne w i t h t he i nt entt o del i veri nt o hi s convi ct i on of fa ci l i t at i on of pos s es s i on of m or e than 0 .5 g ra m s o f

c o c a in e w ith th e in te n t to s e ll.
I V . Sent enci ng Is s ues At t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , t h e St a t e r e l i e d o n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r tw hi ch w as i ntr od uced as an ex hibi tw i t ho ut objec tio n aft er D efen dan tno t ed cert ai n inaccuraci es. D efe ndantdi d notoffe ranyevi dence att he s ent enci ng hear i ng. A ccor di ng t o t he pr es ent ence r epor t , D efe ndantw as t hi r t y - one y ear s ol d att he t i m e of the s ent enci ng hear i ng. D efe ndantr epor t ed thathe dr opped out of hi gh s chool i n t he t enth gr ade, i s s i ngl e, and has t hr ee c hi l dr en. D efe ndantl i s t ed onl yone empl oy er for w hom he w or ked fr om February2006 unt i l J anuary2008.
A cc o rdin g to the p rese n tenc e re p o rt, D ef en d an t has a len g thycrim inal h ist o ry comm enci ng w hen he w as fi ft een y ear s ol d. A s a j uveni l e, D efe ndanthas adj udi cat i ons of d e lin q u e n c yf

o r sa le o f

c o c a in e , the f

t o f a v e h icle , p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e w ith th e in ten t to se ll, a n d p o ss e ss io n o f

d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia. In 1 9 9 4 , D e f e n d a n t w a s co n v icte d a s a n a d u lt i n th e S h e lb yC o u n ty C ri m in a l C o u rt f o r th e f t o f p ro p e rt yv a lu e d b e tw e e n $ 5 0 0 a n d $ 1 ,0 0 0 , a C las s E f e lo n y , w h ich h a d b e e n c o m m itt e d w h ile h e w a s s til l a ju v e n ile. In 1 9 9 5 , as a n a d u lt i n t he Shel byC ount yC r i m i nal C our t , D efe ndantent er ed a pl ea of gui l t y t o pos s es s i on of a S c h e d u le II d ru g , w h ic h o f f e n s e w a s c o m m itte d w h ile D e f e n d a n t w a s a ju v e n ile

. D efe ndanthas al s o been c onvi ct ed o f th e f o l l o wi n g o f

f e n s e s : f a c i l i t at i on of pos s es s i on o f l e s s t h a n 0

. 5 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e , a C l a s s D f e l o n y; f e l o n y e v a d i n g a r r e s t , a C l a s s E f e l o n y; t w o convi ct i ons for aggr avat ed as s aul t , a C l as s C fel ony ; and one convi ct i on forpos s es s i on-11-

o f a n u n sp ec ifi ed am o u n t of d ru g s fo r w h ich D ef en d an t w as se n tenc ed to tw o y ea rs. In addi t i on, D efe ndanthas t w o m i s demean orconvi ct i ons forpos s es s i on of drugs , t hr ee m i sdem eano r convict i on s for s i mpl e a s s a ul t , tw o mi s de mea no r cr i m i nal tres pass con vict i on s, and one mi s demeanorconvi ct i on forr eckl es s dr i vi ng. D efe ndantal so h as num er ous con vict i on s for traffi c rel at ed o ffen ses. T he t r i al cour t det er m i ned t hat D efe ndant w as a R ange I I I , per s i s t ent offe nder , for s ent enci ng purpos es . T he t r i al cour t found t hat D efe ndant had a l engthyhi s t or yof cr i m i nal convi cti o n s i n addi t i on t o t hos e nec es s aryt o qual i fyhi m as a per s i s t entoffe nderand a ttribu ted sig n if

ica n t w e ig h t to th is f

a c to r. S e e T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4 (2 ) (2 0 0 3 ). B a se d o n th is enhanc ement fac t or , and the pr ese n ce o f n o m i t i gat i ng fac t or s , t he tr i al cour ts ent ence d D efe ndantt o concurr ents ent ence s of t w el ve y ear s foreac h convi ct i on. O n appea l , D efe ndant ar gues t hat t he l ength of hi s s ent ence s i s exce s s i ve i n vi ew of “his age, pri or cri m i nal his t ory and po t enti al for rehabi l i t at i on or t reatm ent. ” D efen dan tal so cont ends t hathi s enhanc ed s ent ence s vi ol at e cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl es as se t f or t h i n t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tcas e of B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on, 542 U

. S. 296, 124 S. C t
. 2531 (20 0 4 ).
W e n o te i n it ial lythat in ca se o f f u rt h er rev iew , w e w il l con side r D e f e n d an t’ s c h a llen g e t o h i s sent ence f or faci l i t at i on of att em pted possessi on of co cai ne w i t h int ent t o d e liv e r as w e ll a s h is ch a llen g e to h is se n ten c e f o r fa c ili tatio n o f

p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith i nt entt o s el l

. E ffe ct i v e Ju n e 7 , 2005, ourl egi s l atur e, i n r es pons e t o B l akel y , amended s ever al pr ovi s i ons of t he C r i m i nal Sent enci ng R eform A ct
. See e. g. , T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 210, Sent enci ng C om m ’ n C m t s . T he amendm ent s pr ovi ded, among ot hert hi ngs , t hatt heybe appl i ed t o defe ndant s w ho comm i t t ed a c r i m i nal offe nse o n oraft erJ une 7, 2005. See i d. T he am endment s fur t herpr ovi ded thata def endants ent ence d aft erJ une 7, 2005, foroffe ns es comm i t t ed on oraft er J ul y 1, 1982, m ayel ectt o be s ent ence d undert he amended pr ovi s i ons of t he A ctbyexec ut i ng a w ai verof ex pos tfac t o pr ot ect i ons . See i d.
I n t he i ns t antcas e, D efe ndantcomm i t t ed the offens es on N ovember 7, 2003, and w as s ent ence d on M ar ch 20, 20 0 8

. T he r ecor d does notcont ai n a w r i t t en w ai verexec ut ed by D e f e n d a n t. T h u s, th e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n ts to th e 1 9 8 9 S e n ten c in g A c t d o n o t ap p lyto D efe ndant , and D efe ndant ’ s s ent ence i s governed by t he pr ovi s i ons of t he 1989 Sent enci ng A c t.
B efore a t ri al cou rti m po ses a s entence up on a con vict ed cr i m i nal defe nd ant, i tm ust cons i der( a) t he evi dence adduce d att he tr i al and the s ent enci ng hear i ng; ( b) t he pr es ent ence r epor t ; ( c) t he pr i nci pl es of sent enci ng and ar gum ent s as t o s ent enci ng al t ernat i ves ; ( d) t he natur e and c har act er i s t i cs of t he cr i m i nal conducti nvol ved; ( e) evi dence and i nfor m at i on-12-

offe r ed byt he part i es on t he enha ncementand mi t i gat i ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n T ennes s ee Code A n n o tate d se c tio n s 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 3 a n d 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4 ; a n d (f ) a n ysta tem e n t th e d e f

e n d a n t w ish e s to m a k e in th e d e f

e n d a n t’s o w n b e h a lf

a b o u t se n ten c in g . T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (b ) (2 0 0 3 ); S tate v . Im fe ld, 70 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 4 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ). T o fa cil it ate a p p ell ate rev iew , the tri al co u rt i s r equi r ed t o pl ace on t he r ecor d i t s r eas ons for i m pos i ng t he spec i fi c sent ence , i ncl udi ng t he i dent i fi cat i on of t he mi t i gat i ng and enha ncement fac t or s found, t he s peci fi c fa ct s s uppor t i ng eac h enhanc ement fac t orfound, and the met hod by w hi ch t he m i t i gat i ng and enha ncement fact ors hav e been evaluat ed and b al anced i n d et erm i ning t he sentence. S ee S t at e v. S am uels , 4 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 8 9 , 4 9 2 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ).
W hen a de fenda ntchal l enges t he l ength, ran g e, orm annerof s er vi ce of a s ent ence , i ti s t he dutyof t hi s cour tt o conducta de novo r evi ew of t he r ecor d w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hat th e d e ter m in a tio n s m a d e b y th e trial co u rt a re c o rre c t. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d ) (2 0 0 3 ). T h is pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s i s condi t i oned upon the af fi r m at i ve s how i ng i n t he r ecor d t hatt he t ri al cou rtcon si dered t he sentencin g p rin c i ples and al l rel evan tfact s and cir cum st ances. St at e v. Pet tus , 986 S. W

. 2d 540, 543- 44 ( T enn. 1999)

. H ow ever , i f t he r ecor d s how s t hatt he t r i al cour tfai l ed t o cons i der the sen tenci ng pr i nci pl es and al l r el evantfac t s and ci r cumst ance s , t hen r evi ew of t he chal l enged s ent ence i s pur el y de novo w i t h o u t t he p re su m p tio n o f

c o rre c tn e ss . S tate v . A sh b y , 8 2 3 S .W .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ). O n a p p e a l, t he par t y chal l engi ng t he sent ence i m pos ed by t he t r i al cour t has t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t h a tt h e s e n t e n c e i s e r r o n e o u s . T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 4 0 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , S e n t e n c i n g C o m m ’ n C m t s . We w i l l uphol d t he s ent ence i m pos ed by t he tr i al cour t i f ( 1) t he s ent ence com p li es w it h o ur s ent enci ng s t atut es , and (2) t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs ar e adequat el y s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. S ee S tat e v. A rne tt , 4 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 7 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ); see also T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -35 -21 0 (f) (20 0 3 ).
A s a R ange I I I , per s i s t entoffe nder , D efe ndant i s s ubj ectt o a s ent ence of betw een t en and fi ft een y ear s forhi s C l as s C fel onyconvi ct i on, and a sen tence of betw een e i ghtand t w el ve y ear s forhi s C l as s D fel ony convi ct i on. T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 112( c) ( 3) , ( 4) ( 2003)

. U nder t he appl i cabl e l aw , unl es s enhanc ement fac t or s w er e pr es ent , t he pr es um pt i ve s ent ence t o be i m pos ed w as t he m i ni m um i n t he ra nge for a C l as s C or C l as s D fel ony , or t en y ear s fort he C l as s C fel onyconvi ct i on, and ei ghty ear s for the C l as s D fel onyconvi ct i on. I d. § 40- 35- 210( c) ( 2003)

. T he pr e- 2005 s ent enci ng act pr ovi ded t hat , pr ocedur al l y , t he t r i al cour tw as t o i ncr eas e the s ent ence w i t hi n t he r ange a s appr opr i at e bas ed on the ex ist ence of enh ancem ent fact ors an d, t hen , reduce t he sent ence a s approp ri at e for anym i t i gati ng fact ors. Id. at (d), (e).
H ow ever , t he Tennes s ee Supr eme C our thas concl uded thatfors ent ence s i m pos ed pur s uantt o T ennes s ee’ s for m ers en te nci ng act , ot hert han the fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on or fac t s ad m itt ed byt he def endant , t he tr i al cour t ’ s enhanc ement of a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence bas ed on fa ct or s t hathad notb ee n found bya j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubtvi ol at ed a-13-

d e f e n d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to a ju rytrial a s in ter p re ted b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt. S tate v. G omez , 23 9 S. W

. 3d 73 3, 74 1 ( Ten n. 20 07 ) ( c i t i ng Cunni ng ha m v. Cal i for nia , 54 9 U. S. 270, 1 2 7 S. Ct

. 8 5 6 , 8 6 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ) ; s e e a l s o Bl a k e l y , 5 4 2 U. S. a t 3 0 1 ; 1 2 4 S. Ct

. at 2536 (qu o ti n g A p p ren d i v. N ew Jerse y , 5 3 0 U

. S

. 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S

. C t. 2 3 4 8 , 2 3 6 2 -63 (20 0 0 )) ( “ ‘ Ot h e rt h a n t h e f

a c to f a p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n , a n yf a c tt h a ti n c r e a s e s t h e p e n a l t yf o ra c r i me b e y o n d th e sta tu to rym a x im u m m u st b e su b m itt e d to a ju ry , a n d p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ’”).
A s r el evant i n t he cas e sub j udi ce, a per s on w i l l be s ent ence d as a R ange I I I , per s i s t ent offe nder , i f he ors he has “ [a] nycombi nat i on of fi ve ( 5) orm or e pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons w ith in t h e c la s s if

ic a tio n c la s s o r h ig h e r, o r w ith in th e n e x t tw o (2 ) l o w e r f e lo n yc la s s e s .” T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 107( a) ( 1)

. T he tr i al cour tfound as an enha ncementfac t ort hatD efe ndanthas a p rev iou s h ist o ryo f c ri m inal co n v ict ion s o r crim inal b eh av ior in add it ion to tho se n ec essa ry t o es t abl i s h t he appr opr i at e r ange. I d. § 40- 35- 114( 2)

. T he tr i al cour t found t hatD efe ndant had “be en i n and outof t he C r i m i nal J us t i ce Sy s t em” si nce he w as fi ft een y ear s ol d. T he tr i al cour tfound par t i cul ar l ydi s turbi ng t he fa ctt hat des pi t e hi s num er ous convi ct i ons , D efe ndant co n ti n u ed to co m m itcrim inal o ff en ses. T h e tri al co u rtfo u n d n o ap p li ca b le m it igating fa ctors and s ent ence d D efe ndantt o t w el ve y ear s foreac h convi ct i on. W e conc l u d e t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s cons i der at i on of D efe ndant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons b e y o n d th o se n e c e ss a ryto d e ter m in e h is s e n te n c in g ra n g e in d e ter m in in g th e len g th o f h is s ent ences d o es notvi ol at e B l akel yand w as ent i t l ed t o s uffi ci entw ei ghtt o j us t i fy enhanc ement of D efe ndant ’s s en tenc es . D efe ndanti s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thi s i s s ue. H ow ever , i n view o f the for egoi ng anal y s i s , t he mer gerof D efe ndant ’ s convi ct i on of fac i l i t at i on of at t empt ed pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o del i ver i nt o hi s convi ct i on of fa ci l i t at i on of poss e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o s e l l u n d e rd o u b l e j e o p a r d yp r i n c i p l e s r e s u l t s i n t h e i mpo s i t i on of onl yone s ent ence of t w el ve y ear s forhi s C l as s C fel onyconvi ct i on. CO NC L US I ON
A fter a th o ro u g h rev iew , w e a ff irm the tri al co u rt ’s j u d g m en t as t o D ef en d an t’ s c o n v ictio n o f

f a c ili tatio n o f

p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e w ith in ten t to se ll. W e c o n c lu d e , as p lain err or, t hat D efen dan t ’s con vict i on of f aci l i t at i on of att em pted possessi on of co cai ne w ith in ten t to d e liv e r v io late s d o u b le je o p a rd yp rin c ip les , an d D e f e n d a n t’s c o n v ictio n f

o r th is o f f e n se is m e rg e d in to h is c o n v ictio n o f f a c ili tatio n o f

p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in ten t to s el l

. W e r emand sol el y fo r the c or r ect i on and entr yof an a ppr opr i at e j udgm entcons i s t ent w i t h t hi s opi ni on.

___________________________________ T HOMAS T

. WOODAL L , J UDGE