IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST SESSION, 1999 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A . NO. W1999-01 884-CC A-R3-CD ) Appellee, ) ) ) LAUDERDALE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JOSEPH E . WALKER, JIMMY ROBINSON, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Posses sion of Co caine w ith ) Intent to Deliver)
ON APPEA L FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE : C. MI CHAEL ROBBI NS PAUL G. SUM MERS 46 North Third St reet, Sui te 719 Attorney Generaland Reporter Memphis, TN 38103 J. ROSS DYER GARY F. ANTRICAN Assistant Attorney General Distri ct Public

Defender 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 JULI E K. P ILL OW Assistant Public Defender ELIZAB ETH T. RI CE 4705 Mueller Brass Road Distri ct Attorney General Covington, TN 38019 302 Market Street Somervill e, TN 38068

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 20 DAVI D H. WELL ES, J UDGE 

# FILED
December 29, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk-2- 

# OPINION

The Defenda nt was convicte d on a jury verdict of posse ssion with intent to deliver .5 or more grams of cocaine, a Class B felony . In thi s appeal, he ar gues prima rily that the evidence int roduc ed aga inst him is insuffic ient to s uppo rt his conviction . We disagree and affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

Law enforce ment o fficers obta ined a se arch wa rrant f or the D efend ant’s apartm ent. The Defendant was present when they executed the warrant and the officers found .5 grams of crack cocainein theform of thr ee separate pi eces or “rocks.” Over the Defendant ’s object ion, theofficers were allowed to testif y that
on the night prior to the executi on of the warr ant, they

had observed sever al indivi duals, ove r the course of approxi mately an hour and a half, app roach the Defe ndan t’s apartmen t, knock on his d oor, and then leave af ter no one opened the door. The Defendant was not present in his apar

tment during thi s period of time. The D efend ant arg ues th at allow ing this testim ony co nstitute s rever sible error bec ause th e eviden ce is not re levant an d is highly p rejudicial.

The Defen dant also argues th a t the recor d supports no more t han a convicti on of simple poss ession and asks th at this Court modify hi s convict ion accordingly. The Defendant testifi ed that the cocaine which he possessed was fo r his personaluse and denied that he intended to sell or deliver any of the cocaine. The State presented testimony which supported i ts theory of the case. We be lieve the test imony presented at trialdemonstrated classic jury issu e s concerning the cred ibility of the witne sses, the weight an d value to be given the eviden ce, and ot her factual matters. The jury obviously r esolved all of t hese issues in f

avor of t he State.-3- We conclud e that the e vidence presen ted is sufficie nt to support the fi nding by the tri er of fact

of guilt beyond a reasonabledoubt. We further conclude that
no erro r of law requiring a rever sal of t he judgment is appar ent on the record. Based upon a thorough reading of th e record, t he briefs of the pa rties, and the law governi ng the issues pr esented for review, the jud gme nt of the trial cou rt is affi rmed in accordance with Rule 20 of t he Court of Cri minal Appeal s o f Tenn essee
.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

___________________________________ JAMES CU RWOOD WITT, JR. , JUD GE