# FILED March 25, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FEBRUARY, 1998 SESSION STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No . 01C 01-9 705-CC-00181 ) Appellee, ) ) R uth erfo rd C ou nty vs. ) ) Honorable J. S. Daniel , Judge ) ROBERT LEE MALLARD , ) (S im ple Po ss es sio n o f C oc ain e, ) Possession ofDrug Paraphernali a) Ap pe llan t. ) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: JEF F BURTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP Asst. Publ ic Defender Attor ney General & Reporter 20 1 W es t M ain Suite 101, Court Square Bldg. GEORG IA BLYTHE FELNER M urfr ee sb oro , TN 37 13 0 C ou ns el fo r the Sta te Criminal Justi ce Divisi on 450 James R

obertson Par kway Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 WILL IA M C. WHI TESEL L, JR. Distr ict Attor ney General DALE ROB I NSON Assist ant Dist ri ct Att orney General 3rd Flo or, Ju dic ial B uild ing M urfr ee sb oro , TN 37 13 0

OPINION FILED: ____________________ AFFIRMED PURSUAN T TO RULE 20 CURW OOD W ITT JUDGE1 Th e re co rd in dic ate s th at th e d efe nd an t fled so m etim e b etw ee n th e filin g o f the judgment and the hear ing on hi s motion f or new tri al. The record on appeal does not indi cate t hat he ha s b ee n re turn ed to c us tod y. T he ge ne ral r ule in th os e c as es is th at w he n a de fen da nt be co m es a fu gitiv e fro m jus tice w hile his ap pe al is pe nd ing an d is at la rge at th e a pp oin ted tim e fo r the h earin g of th e ap pea l, “his ap pea l sho uld p erem ptorily b e dis m issed on m otion, o n the grou nd that h e ha s the reby wa ived his righ t of ap pea l.” Fr en ch v. S tate , 824 S.W.2d 161, 162 ( Tenn. 19 92 ); Br ad ford v. S tate , 184 Tenn. 694, 202 S.W.2d 647 (1947). Since the st ate has not rai sed thi s issue, we do not address it here.

2 The defendant testi fi ed that he found t he folded dol lar bi ll and didn’t know abou t the co ca ine . H e s aid tha t he refille d u se d lig hte rs a nd so ld th em to e arn m on ey an d th at th e o the r item s w ere pa rt of a ne w filter h e w as de ve lop ing for in du stry . 2 OPINION Ro bert Lee M alla rd, th e d efe nd an t, ap pe als from his co nv ictio ns in th e R uth erfo rd C ou nty Circui t Co urt for s imple poss ess

ion o f a co ntrolled sub stan ce (c oca ine) a nd p oss ess ion o f drug paraphernal ia f or which he

rec eiv ed co nc urr en t se nte nc es of e lev en m on ths an d tw en ty-n ine days. At the ti me of sentencing, he had served approximatel y 11 0 days, an d th e tr ial ju dg e im m ed iate ly placed him on su pe rvis ed pro ba tion. In th is a pp ea l, the defendantcontends t hat

the evi dence in t he rec ord is in su fficie nt to su pp ort h is c on vic tion s b ey on d a rea so na ble do ub t. 1
When rev iew ing the su fficie nc y o f the ev ide nc e w e m us t co ns ide r the evidence in th e ligh t m os t fav ora ble to th e s tate . State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190- 191 (Ten n. 1992), cit ing Jackson v. V irgin ia, 44 3 U .S. 3 07 , 99 S. C t. 17 81 (19 79 ). W e m us t affo rd th e stat e the strongest leg itim ate vie w of th e p roo f as w ell a s a ll rea so na ble an d le gitim ate inf erences which may be

drawn from the ev ide nc e. Evans , 82

8 S .W .2d at 1 91 . Questions concer ningthe credi bil it y of the wit nesses are res olv ed by the trier of fa ct. State v. Cabbage

, 57 1 S .W .2d 83 2, 8 35 (T en n. 1 97 8).
In this ca se , the ev ide nc e d em on stra te s that the de fen da nt h ad in h is p os se ss ion bo th the crack co caine an d th e p ara ph ern alia for s m ok ing it. A M urfr ee sb oro po lice offic er n otic ed the defendantstandi ng on a

stre et c orn er in an are a n ote d fo r dr ug traffic kin g. Th e o ffice r co ntin ue d h is observat ion for

for ty m inu tes an d fin ally decided to make

an invest igat ive st op. Duri ng the course of the stop, the of fi cer di scovereda bag containing several li ghters, a glass t ube, an eye-gl ass temple, a Br illo p ad an d a sm all ro ck of crack cocai ne in a fo

lde d d olla r bill. A t trial, th e ju ry a cc red ited the offic er’s tes tim on y a nd ob vio us ly d id n ot b elie ve the de fen da nt’ s explanat ions. 2 W

e fi nd thatthe evidence pr esentedat tr

ial is leg ally su fficie nt to su pp ort th e d efe nd an t’s c on vic tion s. Jackson v.3

Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789; State v. Cazes , 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

Therefor e, aft er thor oughly readi ng the recor d and the brief s and aft er giv ing car eful consider ati on

to t he law governi ng the

iss ue pre se nte d fo r re vie w , w e a ffirm the jud gm en t of t he tri al co urt p urs ua nt to R ule 20 , Te nn es se e C ou rt of C rim ina l Ap pe als .

__________________________ CUR WO OD W ITT, Judge CONCUR:

______________________________ GAR Y R. W ADE, Judge

______________________________ WILLIAM M

. BARKER , Judge