### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SONNY YARBRO Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hardin County

No. 7811 C. Creed McGinley, Judge

No. W1999-00770-CCA-R3-CD - Decided June 30, 2000

The defendant appe

als his conviction by

a Hardin County jury of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The defendant now contends that the evidence was insufficient for a rational trier

of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense. We af firm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appe al as of Right; Judgme

nt of the Criminal C

ourt Affirmed. R ILEY , J. delivered the opinion of the court, in which T IPTON and G LENN , JJ. joined. Guy T. Wilkinson, District Public Defe nder; and Richard W. DeBer ry, Assistan

t District Public Defender, Savannah, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sonny Y arbro. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Ge neral and Report

er; Clinton J. Morga

n, Assistant Attorne

y General ; G. Robert Radford, District Attorney General; and John W. Overton, Assistant District Attorn e y General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION FACTS On July 11, 1998, at around 10:50 p.m. the defendant was pulled over after fai ling to stop at a stop sign. When the officer approached the defendant’s car, the officer smelled a lcohol on the defendant’s breath. After

giving the defendant a sobriety test, the defendant wa s arrested for

driving under the influence. A search of the defendant was conducted, at which time $1,177 in cash and $65 in food stamps were found on the defendant. When the officer began to put the defendant in the bac k of the patrol car, theofficer saw a brown prescription container fall out of the defendant’s pant leg andonto the ground. Another officer also heard the prescription container fall to the ground and pickedit up. Upon looking in the prescription container, the officers saw a substance that was later tested and found to be 2.4 grams of crack cocaine.-2-

The defendant testified at trialthat he earned the money from work. He further testified that th e crack cocaine did not fall from his pant leg and was not his. The defendant, however, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. This case now comes to this court on direct appeal. The defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable

doubtof possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We reject the defendant’s contention.

ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review In determining the

sufficiency

of the evidence

, this Court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). A jury verdict approved by the tria l judge accredits the state's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994). On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all legitimate or reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Id. This Court will

not disturb a verdict of guilt due to the sufficiency of the evidence unless the defendant demonstrates that the facts contained in the record and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom are insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the accus ed gu ilt y beyond a reasonable

doubt. State v. Brewer , 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 199 6). Acco rdi ngly, it is the appellate court

's duty to affirm the conviction if the evidence, viewed under these standards, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of

the offense beyond a reasonable

doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2

d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes , 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994). B. Sufficiency of the Evidence During trial the defendant testified that the crack cocaine found at the site

of his arrest was nothis. However, an

officer testified that he saw the brown prescription container containing crack cocaine fall from the pant leg of the defendant and hit the ground. A second officer, who was also present when the prescr

iption container f

ell out of the pant le

g of th e defendant, t estified that he heard the container

fall, picked it up and discovered crack cocaine in the container. The same officer also testified that he c

onfiscated $1,17

7 in cash and $65 in f

ood st amps fro m the defendant. The money confiscated fr

om the defendant w

as primarily

in denominations of ten, twenty and fifty dollar bills, and a couple of one hundred dollar bills. Testimony wa s presented that c

rack cocaine is

sold in ten, twenty, fifty and

one hundred dollar rocks, and that drug dealers will sometimes accept food stamps as payment for drugs. Finally , testimony was presented that no one else was with the defendant when he was stopped, and no one else was in the immediate area where t he officers arrested the defendant. The jury rejected the

defendant’s testimony, as was their prerogative. After a review of the record, we fi nd that suffici ent evidence was presented for the jury to find the defe ndant guilty of-3-

possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The conviction was proper.

CONCLUSION Base d upon our review of the trial record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

.