# FIL ED M arch 26 , 200 8 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE A T JACK SON A UG US T SESSI ON , 199 6 STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) C. C. A . N O. 02C 01- 9509- CC -0 0250 ) Appel lee , ) ) ) DY ER COUNTY V S . ) ) HO N. JOE G. R IL EY SOL OM ON A KI NS , ) JUD GE ) Appel lan t. ) (Sufficiency of Ev idence -Sentenci ng)

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: G. STEPH EN D AVIS CH AR LES W . BU RS ON Di str ict Pu bli c D efender Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter 208 N . M il l Av enue Dy ersburg , TN 380 25- 0742 CLI NTON J. M OR GAN Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243 PHILL IP BIV ENS Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l JAM ES E . LA NI ER Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney 115 E. M ar ket Dy ersburg , TN 380 24
OPIN ION F ILED ______ _________

_________ AFF IR ME D PU RS UA NT TO R ULE 20 JER RY L. SM ITH, JU DG E-2- 

## ORDER
This i s a n appea l a s o f r igh t purs uant to Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 3. O n J anuar y 26, 1995, Appel lan t was conv icted b y a j ur y of fiv e c ounts of sel li ng l ess than .5 g ra ms of cocain e. As a Range II of fend er, App ellant received a sen ten ce of eight y ears an d six months for e ach count
. Al l fiv e of these senten ces w ere concur re nt t o eac h oth er , but cons ecut iv e to two pre viou s conv icti ons he w as ser v ing on p ro bati on. In t his appeal Ap pe l l an t al l eg es t he e v i de nc e i s i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt th e v erdi c ts , an d th athis sent ence is ex ces si v e. Hav ing rev iewed th e record i n thi s matter w e are of the opi nio n that the conv icti ons and sentenc e are f ull y suppor ted bythe la w

and ev ide nce and t hat thi s matter

sh oul d be aff ir med pursuantto Ru le 20, Rul es of the C our t of C ri minal App eals. Appel lan t’ s c omplai nt c oncer nin g the suffici ency of the e v ide nce cent ers a ro und his co ntent ion thatthe undercov e r operati v e, us ed by pol ic e to buy

co cai ne from Appel lan t, is untr ustwort h y. As su ch, Appel lan t as ks thi s C our t t o re- w eig h her tes ti mony . W e mustdec li ne hi s req uest
. I ti s a x i o ma t i ct h a tt h e c re d i b i l i ty o f w i t n e s s e s i s a m a t t e r t h a ti s e ntr ust ed ex cl usi v ely

to the j ur

y as the tr iers o f fact
. A g uil ty v erdict t hat i s a pprov ed by the t ri al jud g e acc re dit s the tes ti mony of t he Stat e’s w it ness es and resol v es all co nflicts in the tes ti mony

i n fav or of prosec uti on th eor

y . T h is C our

t may not re w eig h matt ers o f w itness cred ibility . State v . Cabb age, 57 1 S.W .2d 832 (Ten n. 19 78). Sta te v. Ev ans, 838 S. W .2d 1 85, 1 91 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1992)
. W e w il l not d is tur b the j ur y ’s obv iou s f in d in g t h a tt h e u n d e rc o ve r o p e ra t ive t e s t if ie d t ru t h f u ll y.-3- Appel lan t’ s c omplai nt w it h reg ard to his se ntenc e i s waiv ed du e t o a fai lure to arg ue or ci te an y auth or ity

reflect ing w hy

hi s s entenc e is ex ces si v e. Stat e v . H il l, 875 S.W .2d 2 78, 284 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993)
. Howev er , w e hav e nev erthel ess rev iewed the re c o rd a n d fo u n d t h e t r i a l j u d g e a p p l i e d t h re e e n h a n c e me n tfa c t o rs a n d one miti g ati ng factor
. No compl ain t i s m a d e a s to th e appl ic ati on of the enhanc ement fa ctors
. In ad dit ion there i s n ot c omplai nt t hat a ppl ic abl e mi ti g ati ng factors were not consid ered . Appe llant ha s a previ ous h istoryof criminal convictions, he h ad a history of unw il li ng ness to compl y w it h c ondi ti ons of rel ease int o the co mmunity , and the offenses w hic h are the sub ject of thi s a ppeal w ere c ommitt ed w hil e Appe ll ant was on probati on. W hil e Appe ll ant’ s c onduct di d notthreaten or ca use ser iou s b odi ly

i nju ry to any one, thi s mi ti g ati ng factor ’s i mport ance is dimi nis hed by the nature of the offenses a n d th e se rio u sn e ss of

th e e n h a n ce m e n t fa ct o rs. Th e po ss ib le se n te n ce fo r a Ra n ge II de fend antconvicted o f selling less tha t .5 grams of cocaine is si x

and ten years. Und er the ci rc umstan ces Appel lan t’ s s entenc e i n th e m id d le of thi s rang e i s n ot ex ces si v e.
The conv icti ons and s ente n ce a re aff ir med pursuantto Rul e 20, R ule s o f the Court of Cri min al App eals.

_________ _________

_________

_________ JER RY L. SM ITH, JU DG E
CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

________ GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

________ W ILLIA M M. BAR KER , J UD GE