# FILED
November 4, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 1998 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9801-CC-00034 Appellee, ) ) Carroll County v. ) ) Honorable C. Creed McGi nley JAMES DENNIS LOVE, JR., ) ) (Sale of Cocaine) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Billy R. Roe, Jr. John Knox Walkup Assistant District P ublic Defender Attorney General & Repor ter 117 North Forrest Avenu e 425 Fifth Avenue, North Camden, TN 38320 Nashville, TN 37243-0493 OF COUNSEL: Clinton J. Morgan Guy T. Wilkinson Assistant Attorney Gener al District Public Defender 425 Fifth Avenue, North 117 North Forrest Avenu e Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Camden, TN 38320 G. Robert Radford District Attorney General 111 Church Street, P. O. Box 686 Huntingdon, TN 38344-0686 Eleanor Cahill Assistant District A

ttorney General 111 Church Street, P. O. Box 686 Huntingdon, TN 38344-0686

OPINION FILED: ____________________________

___ AFFIRMED L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JU DGE2 

### OPINION
The appellant, James Dennis Lov e, Jr., referredherein as the defendant, appeals as of right from a judgment entered by the Carroll County Circuit Court as a result of a jury finding him guilty of the sale of co caine, a Schedule I I controlled substance. The defendant presents one appellate issue for review, whether the evidence w as sufficient to justify a rational trier

of fact finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After a review of the evidence in this record, both parties’ briefs, and appropriate law, we affirm the trial court’s judg ment.

FACTUAL BA CKGROUND

The Carroll Cou nty grand ju ry r etur ned a two-count indictment c harging the defendant with the sale of cocaine and delivery of cocaine on January 2 , 1997. This indictment

wasbrought by the Twenty -Fourth Judicial Dis

trict DrugTask Force as the result of a surveillance drug buy in McKenzie, Tennessee. Steve Lee, dir ector ofthe task force and eleven-year

veteran of law enforcement, testified that the task f orce began operations in Carroll Cou nty in October, 1996 and continued through January, 1997. Officer Lee testified he utilized the serv ices of Sylves

ter I sland, an informant, for the first ti me on January2, 1997. Island had worked as an undercover informant in appr oximately seventy cases in the Bolivar, Tennessee area. Officer Lee testified he met Island on January 2 at the McKenzie Airport w here the informant was

searched, wired w

ith a transmitter for

audio surveillance, and gi

ven $50 in buy money. O fficer Lee testified that this was a joint drug operation with the Inspecto r G eneral of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) to

combatdrug traffic and violent crimes in the public housi ng in the district. Officer Lee followedthe informant and parked his surveillance car at the McKenzie Depot to monitor the conver sations of the informant.
Although Officer Lee was not able to observe the actual transactions, he was able to hear the buy take place. U pon hearing a signal from the informant, Officer Lee returned3

to the ai r port where the informant gav e Lee a small bag, whic h Lee initialed and sealed. Lee sent the contents and bag to the crime laboratory for anal ysis. Also present at

the drug buy were the informant’s girlfriend, Jeronda Par ker, and two acquainta nc es of the defendant, John and Mike. Apparently, John and Mike were charged wi th some offense and jumped bail. The surveil lance tape was played for the benefit of the jury.

Mr. Sylvester Island testified he had worked as an undercover informant for the State for ten years. Island agreed to work for Steve Lee in the McKenzie area. As to their arrangement, Island “would set up -- meet

individuals that was selling drugs, and I would tell Mr. Lee about them. And he would call me to the airport and wire me up, search the car a nd m yself, and send me back out to make a purchase.” On January 2, 1997, no particular

person was targeted for a drug buy. After leav ing Officer Lee, Island proceede d to his apartment in the project s and ran into some neighbors , Lynn Cunningham and Keith Robinson. After a short conversation with these two pers ons, a brown Escort pul led up. In the car were the defendant, who w as seated in the rear, John, and Mike. The defendant asked Island if he “needed anything.” The i nformant told the defendant, “I needed a fifty. [C]omeback to my

apartment, meet me back at the apartment, and that I would buy a fifty dollar rock off of him.” The defendant came to the apartment w ith John and Mike, where the informant paid thedefendant $50 for three rocks of cocaine. Island testified thi s was the first time he had met the defendant and lear ne d his name , but he had seen the defendant in the neighb orhood with an acquaintan ce, Tracy Spears. After i nitialing and dating the bag, the informant gave the cocaine to Officer Lee.

M s. Jeronda Parker testified she and Sylvester Island were living together in t h e projectsat 6056 Walnut Circle in McKenzie at the time of the buy. Ms. Parker was not acting as an informant for the State. Ms. Parker testified she and Island met Officer Lee at the airport where Isl and was searched, wi red, and given $50 for drug purchases. Parker and Island proceeded to their apartment when they met Lynn Cu nningham a nd Keith Robinson. After these two persons left, the defendant , John, and Mike stopped Parker and Island. The defend ant asked Island “did he need anythi ng,” to which Islan d responded,4

“Yes, let me bac k up to the apartment.” Whereupon, the defendant gave some cocaine to Island for $50. Ms. Parker had seen the defendant one time before, and on the n i ght of the buy the defendant identified himself as Dennis Love.

Ms. Sandra Jean Romanek, examiner for the Tennessee Bureau o f Investigation, testified she received a substance for drug analysis from Steve Lee. After an examination and analy sis, Ms. Romanek determined the substance w as cocaine and weighed 0. 3 grams. Cocaine is a Sc hedule II controlled substanc e.

The defend ant did n ot testify, nor present any defe nse proo

f.

APPELLATE ISSUE

The defendant contends the ide ntification te stimony of Sylvester Island and Jeronda Parker wa s unreliab le since Island was a paid informant and convicted felon, and th ere was no basis to t est the vo ices on th e tape sin ce the de fendan t did not t estify. The State counters that t he defenda nt’s sole argument on appeal, the State’s witnesses w ere not credible, is not an appealabl e issue.

When reviewing a tr

ial court’s judgment, th e appellate court will not disturb a verdict of guilty unl ess t he facts in the record and inferences which may be drawn from it are insufficientas a matter of law for a rati onal trier of fact to find the defendant guilty bey ond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13 (e) ; State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Initially, a defendant is cloaked with the presumption of innocence. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914. However, a juryconviction removes the presumption of innocence and repl aces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient. Id. In determiningthe sufficiency of evidence, th is Court does not reweigh orr eevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). O n appeal, the State is entitled to the stro ngest legitimate view of the evidence and all5

legitima te or reas onable in ference s which may b e drawn therefrom. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). It is the appellate court’s duty to aff irm the co n viction if the evidence viewed under these st andards was sufficient

for any rational trier

of fact to h ave found the essenti al elem ents of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994). This rule is applicable to findings of guilt predicated upon the direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combin ation of both direct and circumstant ial evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
Basically, the

defendant attacks his convic tion on the ground the testimony of the informant, Sylvester Island,and Jeronda Parker was not credi ble. Since the defendant elected no t to present any proof, the jur y was to consider the testimony of the two State witnesses

and the tape of the con vers ations. The question of the identific ation of the defendant was resolved by the jury. The weight and credibility of witnesses’ testimony are matters entrusted exclusi vely to the jury

as the trier of fact. State v. Locust, 914 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1995); State v. Boling, 840 S.W.2d 944, 947 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1992).

In conclusion, there is ample evidence in thi s record to support the conv iction ofthe defendant, and thus the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

_ ________________

______________________ _ L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JU DGE6

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDG E

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E