T h e j u dg men t s h ows t h e de fen dan t ’ s con v i ct i on offen s e a s s al e, ra t h er t h an de l i v er y , of c oca i n e wi t h i n 1000 1
feet of a schoo l

. A t t he d efend ant ’ s m o t i o n for new tr i al he ari ng, the t ri al co urt noted t he d i scr ep ancy and request ed t he S ta te to ha v e the ju d g m e n t f o rm a m e n d e d to sh o w the c o rr e c t ch a rg e

. 

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

AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 29, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JO HN DIL LI HUNT

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty

No. S47,787 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2004-02691-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Augu st 25, 2005

Th e d e f e n d a n t , Jo h n D i l l i h u n t , w a s c o n v i c t e d o f d e l i v e r y o f l e s s t h a n

. 5 g r a m s o f c oc a ine wi thi n 1000 fee t of a school, a Class B felony , for whic h he wa s sentence d as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, to e ig ht y e ars in the De pa rt me nt of Cor

re c tio n to be se rv e d a t 10 0% a ndfi ne d $ 75 00

. On app e a l, 1 althoug h the def

endant r aises four issues, we be lieve they can be condense d into one: whether the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support his conviction. F ollowing our revie w, we af

firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt but remand f or entry of a c orre cted judg ment.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d and Re m ande d forEnt r y o f a C or r e c te d Judg m e nt

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court , i n wh ich J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R . and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Nat H . T ho ma s, Ki ng sp ort, T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, John Di lli hu nt.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Blind Akrawi, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and R o b ert H. Montgomery , J r., Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TST h e p re se n tm e n t o rig ina lly c h a rg e d the d e fen d a n t with sa le a n d d e live ry o f le ss tha n .5 gr a m s o f co c a ine w ithin 2
1000 f ee t of a s ch ool bu t w as a men ded by t h e t r i al cou r t on Apr i l 20, 2004, t o r ef l ec t t h e cor r ec t c h ar g e of de l i v er y of le ss th a n .5 gr a m s o f co c a ine w ithin 1 0 0 0 fee t o f a sc h o o l.

-2- On July 29 , 2 00 3, the Sul liv a n Cou nty Gr a nd Jury c ha rg e d the de fe nd a nt wi th d e liv e ry of le ss than .5 g rams of c ocaine within 1000 fee t of a public school, as a r esult of the def endant’ s delivery 2 of c oc a ine to a n un de rc ov e r dr ug ta sk fo rc e of fi c e r o n Se pte mbe r 3 , 2 00 2, a t th e L e e Ap art me nts in King sport, Tenne ssee. The delivery took place w ithin 1000 feet of the N ew Horizon S chool, a public school.

Th e State ’s fi rs t wi tne ss wa s Jake Whit e , the ma na g e r of the City of Ki ng sp ort G e og ra

ph ic I nformation Sy stem Division, who testified that the Di v ision produces maps f or the City

of King sport. He identifie d a map f rom the Sullivan CountyProperty Assessor’s Office showing the one-thous and-f

oot boundary

around the New H orizon S chool. White testified that the L ee Apartments, where the def endant de livered cocaine to the under cover drug task forc e off

icer , wer e located a pproxi mately

720 fee t from the Ne w Horizon School property

. David Carpe r, Di rec tor of F acility Manag ement with the King sport CitySchools, testified that onSe pte mbe r 3 , 2 00 2, the Ne w H orizon Sc ho ol w a s u til ize d b y the Ki ng sp ort Cit y

Sc ho ols to teac h mid school and hig h school students.

Bristol Tennessee Police D epartment Ag ent Eddie Ne lson testifi ed t h at he wor ked underc over w ith the Second J udicial District Drug Task F orce . Ag ent Nel s o n t es tified that on September 3, 2002, at appr ox imately 7:30 p.m. he went to an a lley located at the back of

a house at 750 Myrt l e S t re et in Kingsport with a confide ntial informant for the purpose of purcha sing c rac k

cocaine. To re cord the transac tion, Nelson had in his vehicle a digital tape recorde r and a transmitter that went out to other re ceive rs that wer e re cording

. Ag ent Nelson testified that he stay ed in his car while the confide ntial inf ormant knocked on the bac k door of the house . When no one answe red, the informant we nt around to the fr ont of the house and the n came back to the c ar w ith Keny etta Moore . The off icer said at this time he did not know what Ms. Moore’ s name was. Ag ent Nelson testified that Ms. Moore g ot into the backseat of his c ar and “told [hi m] wher e [he] could g o to ge t the cocaine” a nd used Ne lson’s cell phone to make

a c a ll that las te d le ss tha n o ne min ute . F oll ow ing Ms. Mo or e ’s dir e c tio ns , N e lso n le ft the My rt le Street house a nd drove a short distance to t h e L ee A partments, whe re he parke d his car outside Apartment No. 8. He sa id he g ave Ms. Moore “a hundr ed dollars, sh e got out of the vehicle and

we nt to Ap art me nt 8 a nd sh e wa s in the re I ’d sa y on e to tw o min ute s a nd sh e c ome ba c k ou t with [t he def endant] and they

both got in t h e b ac k o f my vehicle.” Ag ent Nelson de scribed how he ob ta ine d th e c ra c k c oc a ine a ft e r M s. Mo or e a nd the de fe nd a nt g ot i nto his c ar:
Q. Ok a y . A ll rig ht, no w i f y ou wo uld , te ll u s w hat ha pp e ne d n e xt.-3-

A. I ob se rv e d M s. Mo or e ha nd[the de fe nd a nt] some , what app e are d to be lit tle wh ite ro c ks in a

pla sti c wr ap. I n turn [the de fe nd a nt] at th a t ti me ha d h is hand cuppe d over like that, kind of down so I couldn’t see

. Q. All rig ht. Now, ju s t fo r t h e record, y ou have y our hand up in the air, y our fing ers a re dow n and y our fist is closed.

A. Ye ah, a ndg ot - - andha nd e d, g ot his oth e r h a nd , g a ve me tw o r oc ks , h e sti ll appea red to ha ve some more in his ha nd and g ave those two to me

. I t wasn’t up like this, thi s was down ba sically in the floorboar d.

Q. But for

the re cord I

mean y ou wer e just describing what he did?

A. Yeah.

Q

. D idy o u lo o k

a t w h a t y o u h a d r e c e iv e d f r o m [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] ?

A. I looked at it briefly , it looked like cra ck coc aine.

Asked a bout any conver sation betwee n Ms. Moore and the defe ndant, Ag ent Nelson testified that “[d] uring this passing be tween Ms. Moore a n d [ t h e d efendant], Ms. Moore said ‘F orty ,’ [the defe ndant] said ‘Forty ,’ and the n that’s basica lly whe n h e gav e the two to me.” Ag ent Nelson identified the tape rec ording s of the tra nsaction, which w ere play ed bef ore the jury

and admitted as an exhibit i n the ca se. Asked w hat he thoug ht the word “ Forty ” mea nt, A g ent Nelson testified that he “took it as $40.00 worth of product, c rac k cocaine.”

After rec eiving the cr ack c ocaine , Ag ent Nelson droppe d both the defe ndant and Ms. Moore off at the alley

behind t he house on Myrtle S tree t. Nelson t estified that he left without waiting to see wher e the defe ndant or Ms. Moor e went. The cra ck cocaine was put in a safe at the Second Judicial Drug Task F orce office until logg ed into evidenc e with the Kingston Police Depa rtment on Octobe r 21, 2002.

Tenne ssee Bur eau of I nvestig ation Special Ag ent For ensic Drug Chemist David Holloway tes tified that he a naly zed the two rock substanc es submitted by Ag ent Nelson a nd determined toge ther they

contained a

tot al am o u n t o f .2 gra ms of cocaine. On cr oss-examination, Age nt Holloway acknow ledg ed that .2 g rams of coca ine was a sm all amount when c ompare d to an ounce

.
The de fendant electe d not to testify and pre sented no e vidence

.
After deli b er at i n g, t he jury

found the de fendant guilty of delivery

of less than .5 g rams of

cocaine within 1000 fee t of a school a n d set a $7500 fine . Following the denial of his moti on for

a new trial, the def

endant f iled a timely

appea l to this court.-4- AN AL YSI S

Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

The de fendant contends the evidenc e was insufficient to sustain the jury ’s ver dict. I n support of this contention, the defendant makes two claims: (1) that Age nt Nelson should have a scertained whose phone number Ms. Moore called w hen using the ag ent’s phone; a nd (2) that Ag ent Nelson should have de termined who the lease e wa s for Apa rtment No. 8 at the L ee Apartments. The defe ndant contends the telephone r ecor d and the na me of the le asee of the a par t m en t wo u ld have been ex culpatory

in nature a nd mitigated his involvement. In addition, he ar g ues the e vidence , at

mos t, w a s su ff

ic ie nt o nly

to c on vic t him of crimi na l re sp on sib ili ty fo r f a c ili ta tio n o f a

fe lon y or , in the alternative, simple possession or ca sual exchang e.

When the sufficie ncy

of t he convic ting e vidence is challeng ed on appe al, the re levant qu e sti on of

the re vie wi ng c ou rt

is " wh e the r, a ft e r vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t f a vo ra ble to the prosec ution, any ratio na l trie r o f f a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the crime b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. " J a c k s o n v

. V i r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7
, 3 1 9
, 9 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1
, 2 7 8 9
, 6 1 L. Ed.2d 560, 5 7 3 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) (" Finding s of g uilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury

shall be set aside if the evide nce is insuffic ient to support the finding s by the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.") ; State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 19 0- 92 (Ten n. 19 92); State v. An de rs on , 8 35 S.W. 2d60 0, 60 4 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 92 ). Al l questions involving the cr edibilityof witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, and all fac tual issues are resolved by the trier of

fac t. See S tate v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). " A g uiltyverdic t by the j ury , approve d by the t rial judg e, ac cre dits the testimony of the witnesse s for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the the ory of the State ." State v. Gra ce, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) . A jury conviction re moves the presumption of innoce nce with wh i ch a d efe ndant is initi ally cloake d and re place s it with one of g uilt, so t hat on appe al, a convicted de fendant has the burde n of demonstrating that the e vidence is insuff icient. See State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

To establish the def

endant' s g uilt of the offe nse, t h e S tate had to pr ove that the de fenda nt knowing ly

deli v er ed l es s t h an .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 fee t of a school. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-417( a)( 2), (c) (2) (Supp. 2004); 39-17-432 (2003). " Deliver " or "de livery " is de fined as " the ac tual, cons t ru ct i v e, or attempted transfer from one pe rson to another of a c ontrolled substance, w hether

or not there is an ag ency

relationship." I d. § 39-17-402( 6) (2003)

. Ag e nt N e lso n’ s te sti mon y sh ow s a n a c tua l tr a ns fe r o f c ra c k c oc a ine fr om the de fe nd a nt t o the ag ent. Ther e was uncontrove rted testim ony that the delivery took place within 1000 feet of the New H orizon S chool. The de fendant does not establish how he would have been aided bythe jury ’s knowing to whom the phone number belong ed or to whom Apartment No. 8 was lea sed. Likewise, the de fe nd a nt d oe s n ot e xpla in w hy he didno t su bp oena th e ph on e re c or ds to f indou t th is information. The e vidence in this case cle arly supports the jury ’s ver dict.-5-

Further, the de fendant contends he should have been found g uilty of fac ilitation of a felony instead of de livery

of coc aine. Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-11-403( a) state s that “[a] pe rs on is c ri minall y res po ns ibl e fo r the fa c ili ta tio n o f a fe lon y if, kno wi ng that a no the r i nte nd s to commit a specific felony , but without the i ntent require d for criminal responsibility under § 39- 11- 4 0 2 ( 2 )
, t h e p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y f u r n i s h e s s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e f e l o n y

. ” In support of this contention, the def endant points out that he never rece ived any of t he $100 that Ag ent Nelson g ave to Ms. Moore . Howeve r, the de fendant d o es not cite a ny authorities re quiring the delivery of coc aine to include an exchang e of money . A plain re ading of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 39-17- 417 provides that a defenda nt can be guilty of delivery of cocaine or sale of c ocaine

. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 417(a) (2), ( 3). I f we rea d into the definition of delivery a re quirement that money

must be exchang ed, it could ef fec tively do away with a sepa

rate “delivery ” cha

rg e.

I n t h e a l t er n at i v e, t h e d ef

en d an tco n t en d s h e s h o u l d h av e b ee n co n v i ct ed o f c as u al ex ch an ge instead of de livery . Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 39-17-418 state s that “[i] t is an offe nse for a per son to knowingly

possess or casually

exchang e a c ontrolled substance unless the substance was ob ta ine d d ir e c tly

fr om, or pu rs ua nt t o, a

va lidpr e sc ri pti on or or de r of a pr a c tit ion e r wh ile a c tin g in the c ou rs e of

pr of e ssi on a l pr a c tic e .” Te nn . Co de An n. § 39- 17 -4 18 (a ). I n sup po rt of his arg ume nt, the def endant notes there is no evidenc e that he ever talked to Ms. Moore on the phone , that he eve r po sse sse d th e $1 00 Ag e nt N e lso n g a ve Ms. Mo or e , o r that he liv e d at A partm ent No. 8. He a lso

arg ues th at th e dr

ug ta sk fo rc e wa s ta

rg e tin g Ms. Mo or e a ndno t hi m. We fi ndthe se arg ume nts wi tho ut me ri t. Ca su a l e xch a ng e “ c on te mpl a te s a sp on ta ne ou s p a ssi ng of a sma ll a mou nt o f dru g s, for instanc e, at a

party . Money

may or may not be involved.” State v. Copela nd, 983 S.W .2d 703, 708 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) . Ag ent Ne l s o n went to the My rtle Street house with the purpose of purcha s i ng cra ck coc aine. Ms. Moore took Nelson to Apartment No. 8 w here the def endant wa s located. T he ag ent saw Ms. Moore hand the de fendant what appe are d to be cra ck coc aine a nd the defe ndant, in turn, hande d two rocks of cocaine t o Ag ent Nelson. These f acts simply

do not show a “sponta neous” e x chang e.

CO NC LU SION

B a se d o n o ur

re vie w o f the re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n f or de liv e ry of le ss tha n . 5 g rams o f c oc a ine wi thi n 1 00 0 f e e t of a sc ho ol. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt but rema nd for entry of a corre cted judg ment to refle ct the def

endant’ s conviction offe nse as delivery of less than .5 g rams of cocaine within 1000 fe e t of a sc ho ol.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE