IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs July 16, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE RONALD PEREZ

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

No. CC-17-CR-1048 William R. Goodman, III, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2018-01854-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Defendant, George Ronald Perez, was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury 

for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 ounce or more of marijuana, simple 

possession of cocaine, simple possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. 

Defendant entered open guilty pleas to felony possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 

ounce or more of marijuana, simple possession of cocaine, simple possession of 

methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. A bench trial was conducted 

on the charge of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, 

and Defendant was found guilty. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive 

sentences of one year for possession with intent to sell 0.5 ounce or more of marijuana 

and three years for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. 

The trial court sentenced Defendant to 11 months and 29 days for each of his remaining 

convictions and ordered those sentences to run concurrently with his three-year sentence. 

Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his 

conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. 

Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed 

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE 

OGLE and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Gregory Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee (on appeal) and Edward E. DeWerff, Clarksville, 

Tennessee (at trial) for the appellant, George Ronald Perez.

03/05/2020
- 2 -

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Dan Brollier, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Guilty pleas

The State summarized the factual basis for Defendant’s guilty pleas to possession 

with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 ounce or more of marijuana, simple possession of 

cocaine, simple possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia as 

follows:

In these counts on the 21st of May 2017, Clarksville Police Officers 

responded to a report of a fight involving several people at an area near 

the Defendant’s residence in – on Union Hall Road, in Clarksville, 

Montgomery County. 

Sergeant Jeffrey Jackson was one of those officers who responded to 

that. They actually followed some tracks in the grass, I think, in the dew 

of the grass, and – to the area where the Defendant’s apartment was. 

And the Defendant was either coming out of the door or right there at his 

door of his apartment when Sergeant Jackson walked into that entryway 

area. 

He was bleeding at that time. Officer Jackson went to talk to him and 

ask him about it. He could smell the obvious odor of marijuana coming 

from the apartment itself. 

They asked for consent to search. [Officers] were denied consent to 

search the apartment. They did secure the apartment, doing a – a quick 

walk-through to make sure there were no people in the apartment [a]nd 

then got a search warrant. 

A search warrant was executed. They did search the apartment. They 

found numerous items of drug paraphernalia, some bongs that are used 

for – possession, I think, of a pipe, also numerous baggies and several 

bags [ ] containing marijuana. Some were – and we’re going to probably 

talk about some of that in the proof on the rest of this. But a substantial 

amount of drug paraphernalia and marijuana was found in the residence. 
- 3 -

I believe the marijuana tested out. They actually tested 216 grams, and 

there was an additional 177 grams that were not tested. So the total 

weight was under two pounds, but it was a substantial amount, well over 

the felony minimum on this. That would be [the] proof. 

There were also some pills found that were the . . . M.D.M.A. pills and a 

– a small amount of cocaine that was less than half a gram of cocaine 

that was found in a little baggie that was, I think in the dresser drawer of 

the searched area. 

Bench trial

On the same day, immediately following the entry of Defendant’s guilty pleas, a 

bench trial commenced on the charge of possession of a firearm during the commission 

of a dangerous felony. At the start of the bench trial, in its opening statement, the 

prosecutor stated that “the issue in this case is, did [Defendant] possess that handgun with 

the intent to go armed.” The prosecutor announced, “the State . . . will put on pro[of] that 

the Defendant was also in possession of a handgun at the time that these other items were 

found in his apartment and the items to which he’s pled guilty on felony charges in 

particular.” Defense counsel framed the issue as whether or not the State could “establish 

a nexus between” possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver and possession of 

a handgun with the intent to go armed. 

Regarding evidence of felony possession of marijuana with intent to sell or 

deliver, the predicate felony for the firearm possession charge, the prosecutor stated, 

“unless the Court wants me to, I don’t actually intend I think to introduce the marijuana 

or other drugs, since they’ve been stipulated to and admitted at this point.” Defense 

counsel acknowledged that Defendant had pleaded guilty to the underlying felony, and 

the trial court stated, “that’s established.” Notably, defense counsel did not challenge the 

State’s assertion of a stipulation. 

Officer Jeffrey Jackson, of the Clarksville Police Department, testified that on 

May 21, 2017, he responded to a report of a fight involving several people near 

Defendant’s residence. When Officer Jackson arrived at the apartment complex, he 

followed some footprints in the grass to the side of the building. As he entered the 

“breezeway,” he observed Defendant coming out of his apartment. Defendant was 

bleeding, and Officer Jackson smelled an odor of marijuana coming from inside the 

apartment. Officer Jackson entered the apartment to make “sure no one else was in the 

apartment.” 
- 4 -

In one of the bedrooms, he observed a broken window, plastic bags containing 

what looked like marijuana, white powder, a glass pipe, cash, and a bong. There were 

two people in the living room. Officer Jackson detained Defendant and asked him for 

consent to search the apartment, and Defendant refused consent. A search warrant was 

obtained and executed. In the same bedroom where Officer Jackson observed the drugs 

and paraphernalia, he found a gun under the mattress. Officer Jackson testified that he 

found a “large amount of marijuana” in a dresser near the bed. 

Officer Ryan Steinlage, of the Clarksville Police Department, assisted in executing 

the search warrant. He testified that the gun found under a mattress in Defendant’s 

apartment was a handgun loaded with a magazine containing 12 rounds of ammunition. 

He testified that a plastic jar containing eight bags of marijuana was found inside

Defendant’s dresser. Police also found digital scales, packages of unused plastic bags, 

and over $1,300 in cash in various locations in the apartment. Photographs of the items 

found during the search were introduced into evidence by the State. Officer Steinlage 

testified that two other people were present in the apartment, but there did not appear to 

be anyone other than Defendant living in the apartment. 

Defendant testified that on May 21, 2017, he “got jumped by several individuals” 

outside of his apartment. He testified that police arrived and found drugs and 

paraphernalia inside his apartment. Defendant testified that he had been smoking 

marijuana since the age of 11 or 12 and that he sold marijuana only to his friends when 

they came to his apartment to smoke with him. Defendant testified that he had been 

employed full-time at Electrolux for almost five years. He testified that the handgun 

police found under his mattress “was used for nothing more than home protection” and 

that it “never left [his] house.” He testified that when his friends came over to smoke and 

buy marijuana, they did it in his living room. On cross-examination, Defendant 

acknowledged that he kept his gun near where he kept a large amount of marijuana in his 

dresser. Defendant agreed that selling drugs is “a dangerous business” and that it was not 

unusual for drug dealers to carry weapons. He denied that it was the reason he kept a 

loaded gun in his apartment. 

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Defendant guilty of 

possessing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and sentenced 

Defendant to three years to be served at 100 percent. Defendant timely filed the instant

appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. 

Analysis

On appeal, a conviction removes the presumption of the defendant’s innocence 

and replaces it with one of guilt, so that the defendant carries the burden of demonstrating 
- 5 -

to this court why the evidence will not support the findings of the trier of fact. See State 

v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant must establish that no 

reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 

13(e). 

Accordingly, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. See State v. 

Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). Questions concerning the credibility of 

witnesses and the weight and value to be afforded the evidence, as well as all factual 

issues raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 

651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). In a bench trial, the trial judge, as the trier of fact, must resolve 

all questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given 

the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence. State v. Ball, 973 

S.W.2d 288, 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). The trial judge’s verdict carries the same 

weight as a jury verdict. State v. Hatchett, 560 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tenn. 1978); see also 

State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). 

The guilt of a defendant, including any fact required to be proven, may be 

predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct 

and circumstantial evidence. See State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1999). Even though convictions may be established by different forms of 

evidence, the standard of review for the sufficiency of that evidence is the same whether 

the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence. See State v. Dorantes, 

331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011). 

“It is an offense to possess a firearm with the intent to go armed during the 

commission of . . . a dangerous felony.” T.C.A. § 39-17-1324(a). Possession of a 

controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver is one of the applicable listed 

dangerous felonies. T.C.A. § 39-17-1324(i)(1)(L). As pertinent to our review, marijuana 

is a Schedule VI controlled substance. T.C.A. § 39-17-415(a)(1). 

Possession may be constructive as well as actual. State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900, 

903 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Transou, 928 S.W.2d 949, 955-56 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); 

State v. Cooper, 736 S.W.2d 125, 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Constructive 

possession requires that a person knowingly have the power and the intention at a given 

time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others. In 

essence, constructive possession is the ability to reduce an object to actual possession.” 

State v. Copeland, 677 S.W.2d 471, 476 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “Elements of 

possession for purposes of constructive possession are questions of fact for the [finder of 
- 6 -

fact]. . . .” State v. Ronald Killebrew, No. W2003-02008-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL

1196098, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 26, 2004), no perm. app. filed. 

On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence showed that he possessed a large 

quantity of marijuana only “for personal consumption” and not with the intent to sell, 

manufacture, or deliver. This claim is without merit. The guilty pleas to four of the 

charges, including Defendant’s plea of guilty to the felony drug offense, occurred on the 

same date of, and prior to, the bench trial for the firearm offense which is the subject of 

this appeal. As observed above, it is apparent that there was a stipulation by the parties 

that Defendant’s guilty plea to count one of the indictment proved that Defendant 

possessed the marijuana with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell it, which is a 

felony. No further proof was necessary as to this element of the firearm offense –

possession of the firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous 

felony. Even without proof of a felony drug conviction by the guilty plea, the evidence 

presented was still sufficient to prove this element of the offense. 

Police found marijuana that was divided into small quantities, plastic sandwich 

bags, digital scales, and over $1,300 cash inside Defendant’s apartment. “It may be 

inferred from the amount of a controlled substance or substances possessed by an 

offender, along with other relevant facts surrounding the arrest, that the controlled 

substance or substances were possessed with the purpose of selling or otherwise 

dispensing.” T.C.A. § 39-17-419; see State v. George P. Watkins, III, No. W2015-

02095-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 1294890, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2017), no perm. 

app. filed. 

Next, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that he intended 

to go armed during the commission of a felony. Here, it was clear, and Defendant does 

not contest, that the handgun found under his mattress belonged to Defendant and that he 

had the ability to “exercise dominion and control” over it. Additionally, the fact that the 

handgun was loaded and “within the immediate proximity of the contraband established 

the [D]efendant’s intent to go armed and demonstrated a nexus between the firearm and 

the drugs.” State v. Ronnie Paul Trusty, No. W2012-02445-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 

3488150, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 11, 2013), no perm. app. filed (quoting Shaw, 37 

S.W.3d at 903) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Defendant asserts that “[b]asic logic indicates that if [he] was intending to go 

armed, he would have used the gun to defend himself” against his attackers. However, 

Defendant doesn’t cite any cases to support his argument. The State cites several cases in 

which this court found the evidence sufficient to support the defendants’ convictions for 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony with facts 

analogous to the facts in this case. See Trusty, 2013 WL 3488150, at *4; State v. Tasha 
- 7 -

Briggs, No. W2014-01214-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 5813664, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

Oct. 6, 2015, no perm. app. filed (evidence was sufficient where the defendant sold 

marijuana from her apartment and kept a loaded gun under a couch cushion in her living 

room); State v. Anthony Miller, No. 2016-00402-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 244115, at *1 

(Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 20, 2017), no perm. app. filed (evidence was sufficient where the 

police found a shoebox containing two handguns in the defendant’s closet and a large 

quantity of marijuana, a digital scale, and a box of sandwich bags in the headboard of the 

defendant’s bed). 

Although Defendant was not in actual possession of the gun when police 

approached him following whatever fight took place, the record clearly establishes that 

Defendant possessed a loaded handgun in close proximity to a large quantity of 

marijuana. Whether or not Defendant used the gun during his “attack” is unrelated to the 

question of whether Defendant possessed a gun with intent to go armed during the 

commission of possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver marijuana. We

conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction. Defendant is 

not entitled to relief. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 

____________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE