B e c a u se tw o o f th e w itn e sse s a n d th e d e fe n d a n t sh a re th e sa m e las t n a m e , w e w ill re fe r to th o se in d iv id u a ls 1 by t hei r fi r s t nam e i n or der t o a voi d c onfus i on. N o di s r es pec t i s i nt ende d t o a ny pe r s on de s cr i bed or di s cus s ed her ei n. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A pr il 8, 200 8 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . ADELL WAT KI NS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMadison Cou nty No. 06-500 Roy B. Mor gan, Jr., Judge

No. W2007-00691-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed Jun e 25, 2008

The de fendant, Adell Watkins, wa s indicted for one count of the know ing sale of cocaine and for one count of knowingly and unlawfully delivering cocaine
, a S chedule II c ontrolled substance . She was

co n v ic te d o n b o thc o u n ts

. H e r c o n v ic ti o n s w e r e me r g e d a n d s h e r e c e iv e d a n e ig h t- y e ar s e n te n c e. Th e d e f e n d a n tar g u e s o n ap p e a l t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u s t a i n h e r

c o n v i c tio ns

. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the rec ord, and the applicable law, we a ffirm the de cision of the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circ uit Court Aff irme d

J. C. M C L IN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O GLE , JJ., joined.

Da vidW . Ca mp, Ja c ks on , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ad e ll W a tki ns

.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr
., At torne y G e ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi stant A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; Je rry W oo da ll, Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; an d Rolf Ha z le hu rs t, As sis ta nt Dis tr ic t A tto rn e y G e ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. BACKGROUND

Offic er W es Stilwell testified that he was a member of the Jac kson Poli ce D epartment and had bee n assigned to the Metro N arc otics Unit for four -and- a-ha lf yea rs. He stated that he worked wi th C a thy Ma xw e ll, a

c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nt, du ri ng a n inve sti gatio n in July of 20 05 wh ic h le d to the def endant’ s arr est. Ms. Maxwell participated in the investigation which initi all y targe ted Clifford Watkins, an individual suspec ted of dealing drugs. Offic er Stilwell stated that the police 1

su pp lie d M s. Ma xw e ll w ithfo rty d oll ars to f un d th e pu rc ha se of

dr ug s fr om Clif

fo rd . M s. Ma xw e ll and her vehicle w ere sear ched to make sure she was not in possession of any dr ugs or money bef

oreO fficer S t i l w ell testi fied th at “ fo u r ten s” o r “fo u r d i m es” o f cra ck co ca i n e e q u aled ro u g h l y fo u r $ 1 0 “ro ck s” 2

of c r ack cocai ne.

2 assisting poli ce in the unde rcove r investigation. In addition, Off icer Stil well place d an audi o and video transmitter, a

“wire ,” on Ms. Maxwe ll so that officer s could hear and observe the transa ctions be tw e e n M s. Ma xw e ll a ndC l i f f o r d . O ff ic e r S til we ll t e sti fi e d th a t he pu rp os e fu lly wi thh e ld f ro m Ms

. Ma xw e ll the fa c t th a t the dev ice sh e wa s g ive n a lso pe rf orme d v ide o s ur ve ill a nc e . A c c or din g to Offic er Stilwell, confide ntial inf ormants wer e typically not inf ormed that the transmitt er ha d video capa bility. Thi s was done i n o rd er to insure that if the informant attempted to conce al drugs or money from police office rs, they would be c aught on video.

Of fi c e r S til we ll t e sti fi e d th a t on c e Ms. Ma xw e ll w a s w ir e d, sh e pl aceda ph on e c a ll t o Clif fo rd . Cl if fo rdtol d h e r that he ha d “ fo ur te ns ” of c ra c k c oc a ine a nd tol d h e r t o c ome to h is h ou se at 1 2 9 C ra ig Street. Ms. Maxwell drove toward Cliffor d’s house to complete the sale w hen she 2
sp ott e d h im at a ne arb y ga s statio n. Ms. Ma xw e ll app ro a c he d Clif fo rd in h e r c ar anda sk e d h im i f he had the cocaine. Clifford t old Ms. Maxwe ll that he did not have the cocaine with him. Cl ifford tol d M s. Ma xw e ll t o g o to his ho use and de sc ri be d th e e xa c t lo c a tio n o f the dr ug s. “ It ’s in m y bedroom c loset. It’s in my white and yellow Nike s. Go see Mama [the de fendant].”

Of fi c e r S til we ll t esti fi e d th a t he fo llo we d M s. Ma xw e ll t o th e de fe nd a nt’ s h ou se on Cr a ig Str e e t, a nd the de fe nd a nt ans we re d th e do or . O ff ic e r S til we ll s ta te d th a t on the vid e o, Ms. Ma xw e ll

a ndthe de fe nd a nt c ou ld b e se e n w a lki ng do wn the ha llwa y to Clif fo rd ’s be dr oo m. M s. Ma xw e ll
sto pp e d at th e do or

to the be dr oo m w hil e the de fe nd a nt e ntered the ro om andob ta ine d th e dr ug s. Mo me nts la te r, Ms. Ma xw e ll r e c e ive d th e c ra c k c oc a ine fr om the de fe nd a nt, thank e d th e de fe nd a nt, and exited the house. Afte r mee ting Office r Stilwell at a secur e location, Ms. Maxwell was sea rche d again. Of fice r Stilwell confirmed that she ha d the same amount of cocaine that s h e wa s given by the de fe nd a nt, a ndsh e wa s n o lo ng e r i n p os ses si on of th e fo rt y d oll ars su pp lie d b y o ff ic e rs to purchas e t h e drugs. Of

fice r Stilwell stated that Ms. Maxwell purcha sed “f our tens” f

rom the defe ndant. The coca ine t aken from M s. Maxwe ll was sent to the Tennessee Bureau of I nvestigation for a nalysis. Test results reve aled that the de fendant sold M s

. M ax well a total of .03 gr ams of

cocaine.

On cr oss-exa mination, Office r Stilwell testified that Ms. Maxwell approa ch ed him about working as a c onfidential informa nt. Ms. Maxwell was pa id forty dollars for her se rvice s. He stated that Ms. Ma xwell was not working a s a conf idential informant in exc hange f or fa vorable treatment on any pending dr

ug char ges. Off

icer Stil well was una war e that Ms. Maxwe ll had fre quently and

ro uti ne ly p ur c ha se d d ru gs fr om C lif fo rda ndth e de fe nd a nt i n th e pa st. Of fi c e r S til we ll w a s a lso

unawa re that any conve rsation about money took place during Ms. Maxwell’s transaction with the defe ndant. Howe ver, O ffice r Stilwell que s t i oned Ms. Maxwe ll after the transac tion, and she informed him that she ha d given the forty dollars for the drugs t o the defendant at the s ame tim e the defe ndant place d the drugs in her other ha nd. Offic er Stilwell testified that Ms. Maxwell wa s in the house a ve ry short period of time.3

Ca thy Ma xw e ll t e sti fi e d th a t sh e vo lun te e re d h e r s e rv ic e s to the po lic e de pa rt me nt b e c aus e sh e ha d g ott e n “ c le a ne d u p” a ndwa nte d to do so me thi ng go odfo r the c ommun ity . Sh e a gr e e d to

we ar a wi re a nd pa

rt ic ipate in the un de rc ov e r pu rc ha se of na rc oti c s. Af

te r po lic e e qu ipp e d h e r w ith the wi re , s he c a lle d Cl if

fo rda nda sk e d to bu y a gram of cr a c k co c a ine

. Clif fo rd tol d he r that he did not have a

gram of c ocaine , but he did have f our tens and instructed her to meet him at his house. On her way to Cliffor d’s house, she spotted him at the corner ga s station. He instructed he r to go to h is h ou se a ndge t th e fo ur ba gs of c oc a ine ou t of

a sh oe in h is c los e t.

Ms. Ma xw e ll t e sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt ans we re d th e do or a ndtol d M s. Ma xw e ll t o c ome in the ho us e . T he de fe nd a nt s hu t the do or a nd le d M s. Ma xw e ll d ow n th e ha ll t o Cl if fo rd ’s be dr oo m. M s

. M ax we l l t estified that she stopped at the door to the bedr oom while the def endant we nt in, retrie ved four

plastic bags of c rac k cocaine, and plac ed them in Ms. Maxwe ll’s right ha nd. At the

sa me tim e , M s. Ma xw e ll g a ve the de fe nd a nt the fo rt y d oll ars su pp lie d to he r b y O ff ic e r S til we ll w ith he r le f t h a n d a n d th a n k e d th e d e f e n d a n t. M s

. M a x w e ll w a s f o ll o w e d d o w n th e h a ll w a y b y the defe ndant as she le ft the house.

Ms. Maxwell testified that a fter le aving the def endant’ s house, she met Of fice r Stilwell and other police officers at a s ecure pre -ar range d location. She turned ove r the c rac k cocaine she

rec eived f rom the defendant to Offic er St ilwell. She and her car wer e searche d again to verify that she wa s not w ithholding any money or drugs. She stated that she was not of fer ed any deals by police office rs and wa s given nothing in exchange for he r testimony. She s t at ed t h at she did not see the de fe nd a nt g e t th e c oc a ine ou t of the sh oe , b ut sh e did se e the de fe nd a nt g o in to the c los e t to ge t it

. She also st at ed that she wa s not awar e that the tra nsmitt er pla ced on he r by police ha d video

rec ording ca

pability.

On cr oss-exa mination, Ms. Maxwe ll testified that when she arrived at the de fendant’s door, sh e tol d th e de fe nd a nt that Cli ff or d ha d inst

ru c te d he r to co me to the ho us e a nd “ ge t it

. . . [i] t’ s in the bedr oom in his shoe.” Ms. Maxwell stated that she did not use the word “ cra ck,” but state d that the def endant kne w what Ms. Maxwe ll was refe rring to when she said “ge t ‘it.’” Ms. Maxwe ll stated that sh e ha d be e n c le a n f

or a fe w m on ths prior

to the inv e sti gatio n. Ms. Ma xw e ll a dmi tte d th a t w hil e sh e wa s a d d i c t e d t o c r a c k c o c a i n e , s h e r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f h e r c h i l d r e n t o h e r m o t h e r. Ms. Ma xw e ll a lso a dmi tte d th a t sh e ha d e xp e ri me nte d w ith mari juana a nd ha d lie d abo ut he r dru g u se in the past. She stated that since b ecoming clean, she ha d participated in three separ ate dr ug transac tions for police off icer s and rece ived a total of $120 f or her work. Ms. Maxwe ll had known the def endant f or appr oximately ten or twe lve yea rs and ha d known the def

endant’ s son since he w as a small boy. Ms. Maxwell testified that she went to the defendant’s house on sever al prior oc casions to buy drugs and that the original plan was to conduct a transac tion with C lifford at the defe ndant’s house.

Crystal Watkins testified that she w as at the defe ndant’s house when Ms. Maxw ell arrived. Sho rt ly a ft e r C rys ta l a ndthe de fe nd a nt f ini sh e d h os tin g a

birthd a y p art y f

or Cr ys ta l’ s n ie c e , M s. Maxwe ll barged into the house, stated that “Clifford sent me over here to ge t f our dimes” or “f

our tens,” a nd began w alking down the hall to Cliffor d’s bedroom. Crystal stated that at that time, the birthd a y p arty h a d e nd e d a ndshe an d th e de fe nd a nt w e re c le a nin g u p in the kit c he n. Crys ta l a lso stated that the de fendant never left the kitche n while Ms. Maxwe ll was in the house. C rystal di d not4

see Ms. Maxwell go into her br other’s be droom, but she saw he r lea ve his bedroom a nd leave the house quickly. Acc ording to Crysta l, the defe ndant followed Maxwe ll out of the house to take the trash to the cur

b.

On cr oss-exa mination, Crystal Watkins denied that the de fendant opened the door and

a llo we d M s. Ma xw e ll i n th e ho us e . Sh e a lso state d th a t sh e didno t se e the de fe nd ant hand Ms

. Maxwe ll any drugs or a cce pt any money from he r. Howe ver, Crystal a dmitted that she could not be he ard or seen on the vid e o o r a ud iot ape a ndthat sh e didno t a c kn ow le dg e or sp e ak to Ms. Maxwe l l

. S he also a dmitted that there wa s no evidenc e that she w as eve n in the house on July 2, 2005, the date the crime w as committed.

Clif fo rdW a tki ns te sti fi e d th a t he wante d to te sti fy de sp ite hav i n g r e c e n t l y tu rn e d him se lf int o police custody for the s ame offense for which the defendant was being t ried. After be ing advised of his rights and waiving his Fifth Ame ndment protec tion a gainst self-inc rimination, he offe red the following testimony. C lifford stated that he considered himself to be close to Ms. Maxwe ll and
treated her

“like a sister.” Clifford s tated that he had helped take ca re of Ms. Maxwell’s father a nd had run err ands to pr ovide items f or Ms. Ma xwell’s sister when she was sick with canc er. H e stated that Ms. Ma xw e ll ha d a pr ob le m wi th c oc a ine

. Ac c or din g to C lif fo rd , M s. Ma xw e ll w ou ld c a ll h im fre quently to obta in c rac k cocaine, sometimes up to thr ee or four times a day. Clifford stated that he ha d a llo we d h e r t o pu rc ha se dr ug s on c re dit

se ve ra l ti me s b e c a us e sh e didno t ha ve the mon e y to pay h im.

Clifford testified that Ms. Maxwe ll called, aske d for a gram of cra ck cocaine, and stated that she wa nted to purcha se it on cre dit. He told her he could not provide a gram of c ocaine but, he had

“ a lit tle pie c e ” a t his ho us e

. He te sti fi e d that he we nt do wn to the c orne r g a s st a tio n in or de r t o a vo id ha vin g t o d e a l w i t h M s

. M a x w e l l

. H e a d m i t t e d t h a t h e h a d s o m e c o c a i n e , a l o n g w ith so me

mari juana , ina sh oe in his c los e t in his be dr oo m at hi s mo the r’ s h ou se . W he n h e go t ba c k to his house, Clifford c hecke d the shoe a nd saw that a ll of the coc aine a nd mariju an a had be en take n. Clifford stated that he did not rece ive any money from Ms. Maxwe ll and was not given a ny money by the def

endant. Clifford stated that he e xpecte d to be paid by Maxwel l later that e vening. He testified that he did not tell the def endant that he had the dr

ugs beca use he f ear ed that she w ould kick him out of the h o u s e. Clifford a lso testified that he wa s confr onted by Ms. Maxwe ll at the gas statio n , and he asked he r “[ D]id my mama give it to you?” Acc ording to Clifford, he wa s not ref erring to drugs. Rather, he w as re fer ring t o a b i rt h certificate or identification ca

rd which belonged to Ms. Maxwe ll’s son which she had entrusted to the defendant’s care some time befor e.

On cr oss-exa mination, Cl ifford te stified that he sold cra ck coc aine t o Ms. Maxwell eve ry tim e sh e c a lle d. He state d th a t th e de fe nd a nt d id n ot kno w any th in g a bo ut h is d ru g b us ine ss. Clifford admitted that there was no re fer ence to purcha sing co ca i n e o n cre dit on the audiotape. Clif fo rda lso a dmi tte d th a t th e re wa s n o r e fe re nc e on the aud iot ape to i de nti fic a tio n c ard s o r b irth

certificates. I n addition, Cli ffor d stated that Ms. M axwell made three phone ca lls to hi m that day and that not all of the phone ca lls were r ecor ded. Clifford noted that he agr eed to testify be cause the defe ndant’s ar

rest wa s his fault and he w anted to take responsibility for the crime.5

A f te r th e ju r y f

o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u il ty o f th e in d ic te d o f f e n s e s , th e tw o counts wer e merge d and she w as convic ted of one count of the sa le and de livery of c ocaine , a Schedule II controlled substanc e, a Class C f elony. The de fendant was sentenc ed as a multipl e off

ender to eight year s in confine ment and assessed a fine of $40,000. A fter e ntry of the judgment, the de fendant filed

a tim e ly n oti c e of

app e a l.

II. AN AL YSI S

On appe al, the def

endant a rgues that ther e wa s insufficient evide nce to support he r convictions for the sale a nd delivery of cocaine.

Upon re view, we reiter ate the well-e stablished rule that once a j ury finds a defendant guilty, his or her pr esumption of innocenc e is r emoved a nd repla ced w ith a presumption of guilt. State v. Evans , 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fendant has the bu rd e n o f d e mon str a tin g to the app e llate c ou rt wh y th e e vid e nc e wi ll n ot s up po rt the jury’ s v e rd ic t. Sta te v . Ca rru the rs , 35 S.W .3 d 51 6, 55 7- 58 (Ten n. 20 00 ); Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (T e nn . 1 98 2) . T o me e t th is b ur de n, the de fe nd a nt mus t e sta bli sh that no “ ratio na l trie r o f f a c t” c ou ld have f ound the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea sonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; State v. Ev ans , 1 08 S.W .3 d 2 31 , 2 36 (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; se e als o Te nn . R. A pp . P. 13(e) . In contrast, the j ury’s verdict, approved by the trial judge, a ccr edits the state’s witnesse s and resolves a ll conflicts in favor of the state. Sta te v . H

ar ris
, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). The state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidenc e and a ll reasona ble infer ence s which

m ay b e d raw n from that evide nce. Car ru the rs , 3 5 S. W

. 3 d a t 5 5 8

. Q u e s ti o n s c o n c e r n in g the

cre d i b ility of the witnesses, conflicts in trial testimony, the weight and va lue to be given the

e vid e nc e , a nda ll f

a c tua l is su e s ra ise d by the e vid e nc e are re so lve d by th e tr ie r o f f a c t a ndno t th is

c ou rt

. State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not attemp t t o re -w ei gh or

re- evaluate the evide nce. State v. Rice , 184 S.W.3d 646, 662 (T en n

. 2 0 0 6 ). Likewise , we do not repla ce the jury’s infer ence s draw n from the circ umstantial e vidence with our own infer ence s. Sta te

v . R e id , 91 S.W.3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002)

.

When vie wed in a light mos t favora ble to the state, the e vidence in the rec ord shows that the defe ndant knowingly delivere d and sold four ba gs of cr ack c ocaine to Ms. Maxwell, the conf idential informant on Jul y 2, 2005. Ms. Maxwell appr oache d police with information about the de fenda nt’s son, Clifford, who sold dr ugs. Ms. Ma xwell knew both the defe ndant and Clifford be cause she had regula rly purcha sed coc aine f

rom them in the past. The e vidence indicated that Ms. Maxwe ll was thoroughly sear ched prior to the transa ction and immediat el y afte rwa rd. Ms. Maxwe ll contacted Clif fo rdto a rr a ng e the tr a ns a c tio n. Pol ic e of fi c e rs mon ito re d M s. Ma xw e ll’ s c on ve rs a tio n w ith Clifford at the gas st ation. Offic ers heard Cliffor d tell Ms. Maxwell that the coc aine c ould be found in a sh oe ins ide a c los e t in his be dr oo m at the de fe nd a nt’ s hou se . O ff ic e rs mon ito ri ng Ms. Ma xw e ll

wer e able to observe the defe ndant lead Ms. Ma xwell to Cliffor d’s bedroom a nd retrie ve the c ocaine from the c loset. Ms. Maxwe ll was searc hed after the transac tion and it was de termined that she w as not in possession of any drugs or money, and that the forty dollar s provided by police had bee n used to complete the sa le.6

The re cord a lso ind i ca t es t h at j urors he ard te stimony from defense witnesses aimed at imp e a c hin g Ms. Ma xw e ll’ s cr e dib ili ty. Th e jury wa s inf orme d o f M s. Ma xw e ll’ s p ri or a dd ic tio n to

cra ck coc aine, the f

act t h at s h e h ad relinqui shed control of her c hildren due to the se verity of he r addiction, and the fac t that she had lied about her addiction in the past. Jurors w ere also informed about the payment Ms. Maxwe ll rec eived for her service s as a confide ntial informant and how many tim e s sh e ha d w or

ke d w iththe po lic e . T he jur or s, a s th e tr ie rs of fa c t, w e re able to j ud ge Ms. Maxwe ll’s cre dibilit y as a w itness. See B land , 958 S.W.2d at 659. By its verdict, it is appare nt that the jury found Ms. Maxw ell’s test imony to be cre dible. Additionally, jurors were able to view portio n s o f t h e au dio and video surve illance a nd evaluate the testimony of witnesses a gainst the inf orma tio n g le a ne d f

ro m tho se re c or din gs . Be c a us e we do no t r e pla c e the jury’ s in fe re nc e s w ith
our own, we conclude that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support the jury’s verdic t and sustain the defe ndant’s convic tion. Se e Sta te v . R e id , 91 S.W.3d at 277. Ther efor e, the de fendant’s argume nt is without m erit and she is not entitl ed to re lief.

CO NC LU SION

Based upon the f

oregoing authorities and re asoning, we a ff i rm t he judgments of the tria l

c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J.C. McLIN, JUDG E