# FILED
June 11, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT JACKSON MAY SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TE NNE SSE E, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9709-CC-00359 ) Appellee, ) FAYETTE COUNTY ) V. ) ) HON. JOHN KERRY BLACKWOOD, ) JUDGE WILLIE J.WADE, ) ) (POS SES SION OF SC HED ULE II Appe llant. ) DRUG WITH INTENT TO SELL)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : HAROLD D. ARCHIBALD JOHN KNOX WALKUP Falls Buil ding, Suite 790 Attorney General& Reporter 22 North Front St reet Memphis, TN 38103 ELIZA BETH T. RYAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 ELIZA BETH T. RI CE District Attorn ey Ge neral 302 Market Street Somervill e, TN 38068

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defendant, Will ie Wade, appeals as of right his convi ction of

possession of coca ine with the inte nt to de liver follow ing a ju ry trial i n the Fa yette Co unty Crim inal Court. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I Standa r d Offender

to twelve (12) years

in the Depart ment of Correct ion and fi ned him a total of $20,0 00. In th is app eal, Defendant argues that the evidencewas insu fficient to sustain a gui lty ve rdict bey ond a reasona ble doubt. W e affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On November 29, 1996, Captai n Arthur Willi amson of the Somerv ille Poli ce Department was on routi ne patrol i n Somervill e. Captain Will iamson was lookin g for Defendant to talk

to him about a cer

tain matter

when about 12:00 p. m. he saw Defendant stopped at a stop si gn in his vehicle. Captain Willi amson pulled up behind Defendant’s vehicle and turned on his sire n and blue lig hts. De fenda nt did not stop and instead sped up and pulled away from Cap tain William son. How ever, Defend ant s oon stopped his ca r in an apart ment complex. Captai n Williamson pulled up next to Defendant and they both got out of their

cars. The Captai n asked Defendant “what was the hurry and why he sped away.” Defendanttold hi m that “he just did n’t wa nt to know what the problem was, he didn’t wan t to go to jail.” Capt ain Willia mson then told Defe ndant that he needed to speak wit h him, but Defendant pulled aw ay fr om W illi amson, who had been holdi ng Defendant by t he back of his jacke t, and ran off into the ap artment com plex.
Cap tain Williamson call ed for back-up and then s tar ted running af ter Defen dant. Wh en he fina lly caught u p with Defendant, he pl aced Defendant under-3-

arrest and frisked hi m for weapons. As Williamson was escorting Defendant back to the p atrol ca r, Inves tigator K evin Crawford arrived on the scen e. Crawford then friskedDefe ndan t again before placin g him in the p atrol car and found a plas tic bagg ie containi ng a white powder substance in Defendant’s coat pocket. Craw ford also seized $337.44 f rom Defendant. The de nomina tions of the bil ls were as follows: nine $ 20 bills, one $ 10 bill, twenty -seve n $5 b ills and twelve $1 bills. Before Defendant left t he scene, his mothe r arri ved, and in r esponse to a questi on asked by his mothe r, Defendan t stated, “they got the po wder off of me .”
Kay Sheriff, a forensic s cienti st with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigati on a nalyzed th e subs tance b rought to the lab by In vestigator Crawfo rd. The white powder tested posi tive for coc aine and weigh ed 2.2 gram s. Bas ed on his undercover

work bo th buying and sel ling drugs , Invest igator Crawford test ified that the estimated st reet val ue of the substance Defendant had in hi s possession at the ti me of his arrest

was approximately $300. He also said t hat “the $20 deno mination is the normal cur rency used in the drug tr ade.” Captai n Williamson test ified that he had kno wn De fendan t for most of hi s life and that he had never known Defendant to have a ny gainfu l employ ment.

I. Suffici ency of the Evidence

When an accused challenges the suffici ency of the convi cting evi dence, the standard is whether, af ter revi ewing the evi dence in the l ight most favorable to the prosection, any rational trier o f fact could have fou nd the e ssential e lemen ts of the crime beyond areason able do ubt. Jack son v. V irginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 (19 79). This standa rd is applica ble to finding s of guilt pred icate d upon d irect evidence,-4-

circumstant ial eviden ce or a com binatio n of dire ct and circum stantia l evidence. State v. Matt hews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 7 79 (T enn. C rim. A pp. 19 90). O n app eal, the State is entitle d to the strong est leg itimate view of th e evid en ce and all i nferences the ref rom. State v. Cabb age , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Because a
v erd ictof guil t removes the pr esumption of i nnocence and replaces it wit h a presumption of guil t, the acc used has the burden in thi s court of ill ustrati ng why the evidence is insufficient to suppo rt the verdict re turned b y the trier of fac t. S tate v. Williams , 914 S.W.2d 940, 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citi ng State v. Tug gle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 91 4 (Ten n. 1982 )); State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973).

Questions conce rning the credibility of the witnesses, the weigh t and valu e to be given the evidence, as wellas all factualiss ues r aised by the evide nce, are resolved by the trier of fa ct, not this co urt. State v. Papp as , 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (T enn. Crim. A pp.), perm. to appeal denied , id . (Tenn. 1987). Nor may this cou r t reweig h or reevalu ate the ev idence
. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835. A jury verdic t approved by the trial judg e accre dits the Sta te’s witnesse s and re solves all co nflicts in favor of the State. Grace , 493 S.W.2d at 476.

Defendant argue s that th e evide nce w as in s uffici ent to convi ct him of possession of cocaine with inten t to deliver. Tennessee Code Annotated sect ion 39- 17-417(a)(4)provides that it is an offe nse to “[p]ossess a controlled substan ce with intent to manufac ture, deliver or sel l such controlled substance.” The statute also providesthatwhere the substance is cocai ne in an amount equal t o or greater

than 0.5 grams, the of

fense is a Cl ass B felony. ” Tenn. Code Ann. § 3 9-17-417(c )(1). Defendant was charged with and convicted of t he posse ssi on of m ore than 0.5-5-

grams of co caine with the inten t to deliver. The lab rep ort revealed t hat the actual amount of cocaine found in Defendant’s possession was 2.2 grams.

Tennessee law allows a jury t o infer f rom the amount of a cont rolled substance or substances poss essed by an offender , along wi th other r elevant facts surroundingthe arrest, that the controll ed substance or substances were possessed forthe purpose of

selli ng or otherwi se dispensing the drug. Te nn. Co de Ann . § 39- 17-419. In State v. Larry G. H art , C.C.A. No. 02C01- 9406-CC-00111, Hardin C ounty (Tenn. Crim . App., Jacks on, Ju ne 28 , 1995 ) (no R ule 11 applica tion fi led), t he defendanthad only one gram of cocaine i n his possessi on, but when that fact was viewed in li ght ofall t he circumstances, this Court found that amount to be suff icient to sus tain a guilty verdic t. Furthermore, this Court has held that

the possession of
a beeper and $239.00 in cash, though not criminal of fenses in and of themselves, when coupled with thepossession of 1.1 gram of cocaine, was suff icient evi dence forthe jury to conclud e that a de fendan t was gu ilty of posse ssion of c ocaine with the intent to deliver. See State v. Ron ald Mitc hell , C.C.A. No. 02C01- 9702-CC-00070, Laud erdale County (Tenn. Cri m. App., Jackson, Sept. 15, 1997)(Rule 11 appli cation denied April 27, 1998). In t he instant case, the pr

oof in therecord establ ishes that Defendant had 2.2 grams of cocainein his possession and that he tried t

o flee fr om the police t

wice. That 2. 2 grams of cocaine was estimated by Investigator Craw ford to be wo rth abo ut $30 0 in street v alue. The record also r eveals the uncontradicted testimony

of Invest igator Crawf

ord that t he $20 denomination is the normal currency used in the drug trade. Defendant had nine $20bill s in his poss ession at t he ti me of his arrest . The evidence al so shows the lar ge total a mount of $337.44 in cash t hat D efendanthad on his person when he was arrested. Finally, th ere wa s Captai n W il liams on’s testimony t hat he did not know of Defendant ev er having any

gainful-6-

emplo ymen t. All of the foregoing f acts len d creden ce to t he jury’s ver dict, and we there fore conclude that a rationalbasis exi sted for t he jury’ s conclusion that Defen dant po ssesse d the coc aine with th e intent to d eliver.
Accordingly , the judg ment of the t rial cour t is af firmed.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS , Judge