IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

AUGUST SESSION, 1999

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. W1999-01884-CCA-R3-CD

)

Appellee, )

)

) LAUDERDALE COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. JOSEPH E. WALKER,

JIMMY ROBINSON, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Possession of Cocaine with

) Intent to Deliver)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

C. MICHAEL ROBBINS PAUL G. SUMMERS

46 North Third Street, Suite 719 Attorney General and Reporter

Memphis, TN 38103

J. ROSS DYER

GARY F. ANTRICAN Assistant Attorney General

District Public Defender 425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

JULIE K. PILLOW

Assistant Public Defender ELIZABETH T. RICE

4705 Mueller Brass Road District Attorney General

Covington, TN 38019 302 Market Street

Somerville, TN 38068

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

FILED

December 29, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk
-2-

OPINION

The Defendant was convicted on a jury verdict of possession with intent to

deliver .5 or more grams of cocaine, a Class B felony. In this appeal, he argues

primarily that the evidence introduced against him is insufficient to support his

conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

Law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s

apartment. The Defendant was present when they executed the warrant and the

officers found .5 grams of crack cocaine in the form of three separate pieces or

“rocks.” Over the Defendant’s objection, the officers were allowed to testify that

on the night prior to the execution of the warrant, they had observed several

individuals, over the course of approximately an hour and a half, approach the

Defendant’s apartment, knock on his door, and then leave after no one opened

the door. The Defendant was not present in his apartment during this period of

time. The Defendant argues that allowing this testimony constitutes reversible

error because the evidence is not relevant and is highly prejudicial. 

The Defendant also argues that the record supports no more than a

conviction of simple possession and asks that this Court modify his conviction

accordingly. The Defendant testified that the cocaine which he possessed was

for his personal use and denied that he intended to sell or deliver any of the

cocaine. The State presented testimony which supported its theory of the case.

We believe the testimony presented at trial demonstrated classic jury issues

concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to be given the

evidence, and other factual matters. The jury obviously resolved all of these

issues in favor of the State.
-3-

We conclude that the evidence presented is sufficient to support the finding

by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We further conclude that

no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the record.

Based upon a thorough reading of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the

law governing the issues presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of

Tennessee. 

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

___________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE