# FILED July 11, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE JANUARY SESSION , 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9603-CC-00098 ) Appell ee, ) ) ) WILSON COU NTY VS. ) ) HON. J. O. BOND RANDA LL LUNS FORD, ) JUDGE ) Ap pella nt. ) (Cert if ied Quest ion)

ON APPEALFROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CRI MIN AL COURT OF W IL SON COUNTY
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : B. F. “J ACK” LOWERY JOHN KNOX W ALKUP Low ery Bu ilding, Pub lic Squa re Attor ney General and Reporter Lebanon, TN 37087 LI SA A. NAY LOR PETER J. STRIANSE Assist ant At tor ney General 21st Fl oor, First Ameri can Center 450 James Robertson Par kway Nashvil le, TN 37238 Nashvil le, TN 37243 TOM P. THOMPSON, JR. Dist ri ct Attor ney General DAVID DURHAM Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 111 CherryStreet Lebanon, TN 37087

OPINION FILED ________________________ APPEAL ON CERTI FIED QUESTI ON DISMI SSED; CONVI CTION SET ASIDE; REMANDED DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

Th is is a direct appeal fr om a guil ty p lea pursuant t o Rule 37( b)(2) (i ) ofthe Tennessee Rules of Cri minal Procedure. In hi s plea a greement, the Defendant pled guil ty t o conspi racy to po sse ss wi t h i nt en t t o d el i ve rmor e t ha n 3 00 grams of coc ain e, s tate d b y the jud gm en t to b e a Cla ss B Fe lo ny. In the pl ea agre em ent, ther e were expresslyreserved sever al certi fi ed questi ons of l aw that the part ies agreed were di sposit iv e of t he case. Th e ce rtified qu estio ns o rigina te fro m t he t r i al co urt ’ s d en i al ofa mo t i on t o s up pr es s e vi de nc e o bt ai ne d f r om a search ofa pac kage being tran sported by a parcel serv ice t o the Def endant and evidence obtai ned from a search of hi s plac e of busi ness. Aftera caref ul examinat ion of t he iss ues present ed, we concl ude thatnone of t he cert if ied questi ons are di sposit iv e of t he case and d ismiss the ap pea l. Howe ver, we must set aside t he convicti on and remand the case for f urther proceedings.

A package being shipped via t he well-known mail car rier , Federal Express, broke apartin t ransi t somewhere i n Cali for nia. Th e te ar in the out er box reveal ed
an inner

block , wra pped in pac king mater ial and tape. The package was addressed to a Jo yce M etca lf at 14 960 Leba non Roa d in W ilson Co unty, Tennessee. The details surro und ing seizu re of t he package bylaw enf orcement and a subsequentsearch ofits conten ts are unclear. However, Federal Express offic ials sus pec ted th e pa cka ge c onta ined con traba nd a nd re porte d it to la w enfo rcem ent. Itappears t here has been involv ement byboth fede ral an d sta te officials fro m Ca lifornia a nd T enn ess ee.-3- Th ere is testim ony that a dog “s niff test” may h ave been conduct ed on the package, but where the t est wa s pe rform ed is unknown. The actual appearance of the i nner package is unc lear , butat some poi nt, law enf orcement pi erced t he pla stic and too k a s am ple of a wh ite p ow de r co nta ine d w ithin the pa cka ge . It is also unclear

when thi s occurred and whether th e fie ld te st w as con du cte d in C aliforn ia, Tennessee, or both, alt hough there is ev idence t hat a f iel d testwas conducted in Nashv il le on August29, 1994. The t est r eveal ed thatthe pack age contai ned a ki lo ofcocai ne. The evi dence does notconfi rm whether or notthe field tes t was und ertak en p ursu ant to a wa rran t. Inv esti gators deter mined that the address on the package was a business ca ll ed Perfor mance Cycle Shop. Th ere is no evi dence thatshows thata Joyce Met calfexi sted. Th e D efen dan t, Randall Lunsford, was the owner ofthe business and was li sted on the uti li ties’
acc oun ts forthe property. An NCIC check reveal ed thatthe Def enda nt had
arres ts f or nar coti cs possessi on and traff icki ng in Nashv il le.

After the pa cka ge arriv ed in Tennessee, the Fift eenth Judicial Drug Task Force arra ng ed for a con trolle d d eliv ery to th e Defendant ’s address. Any inv ol vement in t he case by ot her l aw enfor cement agenci es is unkno wn . A n anticipatory sea rch w arra nt wa s ob taine d to search the business premises aft er the cocai ne was deli vered. Law enforce ment obtai ned a Federal Express van and Officer

Scott Roberts was dressed as a Federal Express employee. Offi cer Craig White rode insi de the v an to t he deli verysit e.

As the va n arrive d at th e P erform anc e C ycle b usin ess , it pul led i nto t he parki ng lot. The Defe nda nt was abou t to leave in hi s vehi cle, but when t he van approached, he parked hi s vehi cle. The De fend ant got outof hi s tr uck and-4-

approached t he Federal Express van. Offi cer Robert s inf ormed the Defendant thathe h ad a pac kag e to be deli vered t o 14960 Lebanon Road. The Defendant answered that i t was the ri ght place aft erOffi cer Robert s stat ed itwas addresse d to a cert ain person. The Defendantreminded t he offic er th at if th e p ac ka ge said 14960 Lebanon Road, it was th e righ t place
. Offi cer Robert s tol d the Def endant thathe wou ld check t he p ack age , w hi ch w as i n t he b ackofth e v an. He inst ruct ed the Defendant to go i nto t he busines s to prevent him from seeing Offi cer White.

Offi cerRoberts broughtthe pack age int o the stor e and the Def endant was in the re arofth e bu i l di ng. He set t he package down whi le ot her offi cers ex ecuted the search warrant . The Defendantdid notremove t he package f rom the place whe re it was delivere d and the officers re tai ned the pa ckage. Pursuantto t he search, the offi cers sei zed a quart er-pound of mari juana, elect roni c and manual scales, a wall et, rol odex, two handguns and $20 71.0 0 in ca sh. The officers also perf ormed a consentsearch ofthe Def endant’ s home.

Offi cerW hit e serv ed the Def endant wi th t he warrant , butpicke d it up to fill out the retu rn. O ffice r W hit e d id not l eave t he warrantat t he busines s at t he conclus ion of t he search. He retur ned the war rantto t he Defendantafter defense counsel con tacte d law enfo rcem ent. Alt hou gh the t iming i s not ce rta in, the search was conduct ed on a Monday, and Offi cer White del iv er e d a copy ofthe warrantto t he Defendanta few day s aft er t he search.1 Tenn . Code A nn. § 39-17-41 7(j). 2Tenn . Code A nn. § 39-17-41 7(g)(1). 3 Te nn. C ode Ann . § 39 -12- 103 (a). -5- The De fend ant w as c harg ed w ith on e co unt o f pos ses sion with inte nt to
se ll or del iv er more t han 300 grams ofcocai ne 1 and one countof poss ession with int ent to sel l more t han one-hal f oun ce of m ari juana. 2 He filed a m otion to suppress the ev idence s eized pursuant t o the search warr ant and t he cocai ne seized and sea rche d prio r to the ex ecuti on of t he search warrant ofhis business. The tr ial courtdenied t he Defendant ’s moti on to suppress. He sub sequ en tly reached an agreement in whi ch he pl eaded guilty to conspiracy 3 to poss es s mo re than 300 gram s of co cain e with inten t to sell or d eliver, a Cla ss B felon y, to be sen tenc ed a s a R ang e I offe nde r to eig ht yea rs in th e Departmen t of Correct ion. The State ag reed t o noll e the countforpossessi on of mari juana.

We no w tu rn to the De fen da nt’s cer ti fi ed questi ons. I n thi s appeal, he
ass erts (1) That he has sta nding t o chall enge a search o f t he package conduct ed by law enf orcement whi le it wa s in tr an sit an d th at th e se arc h vio late d h is consti tut ional ri ght s. He also cl aims that t he warrant i ssued for the search of h is business prem ises wa s defec tive beca use (a ) the affidavit did no t clearly s t ate thatthe pack age had yetto be del iv ered; (b) the affi davi t and war rant misrepr esented fac ts sup port ing probable cau se; ( c) pol ice offi cers t ri cked the Defendantinto goi ng insi de his b usiness ; and ( d) t he off icers fai led t o leav e a copyof t he w arrantat the p lace bein g se arch ed. H ow eve r, we a re un able to reach the meri ts ofany certi fi ed questi on because no ne are disp os itive o f this
case.-6- The Defendanthas reser ved hi s cert if ied quest ions pursua nt to R ule 37 (b)( 2)(i) ofth e Ten nes see Ru les of C rimin al Pro ced ure, w hich prov ides that:

An appeal l ies " fro m any orde r or j udgment in a cri minal proceeding whe re the law prov ides for su ch a ppe al, a nd fr om any judgment of co nvic tio n : (2) [u ]po n a ple a o f gu ilty or n olo con ten de re if: (i) defendantenter ed int o a ple a a gre em en t un de r R ule 11 (e) b ut e xplic itly r eserve d with th e co nse nt of th e sta te an d of th e co urt the right to appeal a c ert if ied quest ion oflaw t hat i s disp osit iv e of t he case.
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)( 2)(i ). Our supreme co urt has a lso prescri bed guidel ine s that m us t be ad he red to in ord er to pe rfec t an ap pe al b y R ule 37(b)(2 )( i) and ( iv ). In State v. Preston , 759 S. W .2d 647 ( Tenn. 1988), and again i n State v. Pendergrass , 937 S. W .2d 834 ( Tenn. 1996), the court hel d:

Th is is an ap propriate time for this C ourt to make expl ici t t o the bench and b ar exac tly what the a ppe llate courts w ill hereafter requ ire as prere quis ites to the c ons idera tion o f the m erits o f a questi on of l aw cert if ied pursuantto T enn .R.C rim.P . 37(b )(2)(i) or (iv). Regardl ess of what has appeared in prior petit ions, orders, coll oquy i n open courtor otherwise, the f i na l orde ror j ud gme ntf r om w hi ch t he t i me begins to r un to pursue a T. R.A.P. 3 appeal mustcontai n a stat ement of t he dispos itive cert if ied questi on of l aw reserved by de fend ant fo r app ellate revi ew and the ques ti on of l aw must be stated so as to clea rly iden tify the sco pe and the l imit s of t he legal issue reserved. For exampl e, whe re questi ons of l aw inv olv e the vali dity ofsearches and the adm issibility of state m ents and con fess ions , etc., the r ea sons rel ied upon by defen dan t in the trial court at t he suppress ion hear ing must be ident if ied in the st atement ofthe cert if ied quest ion oflaw and revi ew by the appell ate courts wi ll be li mited t o t ho se passed upon bythe t ri al judge and stat ed in t he cert if ied quest ion, absent a consti tut ional requi rement othe rwise
. W it hout an ex pli citstat eme nt of t he cert if ied questi on, neit herthe def endant, the St ate nor the t ri al j udge can make a meaningful deter minati on of whet her t he iss ue soughtto be rev iewed is dispo sitive of the case
. Most ofthe r eport ed and unreported cases seeking t he l i mi t ed ap pe l l at e r ev i ewpu r su an t t o Te nn . R. Cr i m. P . 37 have been dis missed because t he certi fi ed questi on was not disposi ti ve. Also, the order must st ate t hat t he cert if ied quest ion was exp res sly reserved as part ofa pleaagreement, thatthe Stat e and the tri al judge consented to t he reservati on and thatthe St ate and t he tr ial-7- judge are ofthe opi nion t hat t he questi on is di sposit iv e ofthe ca se . Of course, the burden is o n defendantto see that these prereq uisites are in the final orde r and th at the reco rd bro ugh t to the app ellate c ourts contai ns all of t he proceedi ngs below t hat bear upon whet he r t he cert if ied quest ion of l aw is di sposit iv e and the meri ts ofthe quest ion cert if ied. No issue beyond t he scope ofthe certi fi ed questi on wil l be con side red.
Pende rg rass , 937 S.W.2d at 836-37 (ci ti ng Preston , 759 S. W .2d at650) (em ph as is adde d). The Defendantbears t he burden of“r eservi ng, arti culat ing, and identifying the issu e.” Pendergrass , 937 S. W .2d at838.

In his f irst quest ion, the Def endant cont ends thatlaw enf orcement offic ials conduc ted an il legal, warrantl ess search of a package while i n the course o f being transpo rted by a p rivate ma il carrier. He assert s standi ng to chal lenge t he search and exclu de th e o ne -kil o of coc aine becau se the s earch v iol ated t he Fo urth Amendm ent t o the Uni ted St ates Const it uti on and Art icl e I, secti on 7 of t he Tennessee Co nstitutio n. There is evidence that th e pa cka ge w as a ddre sse d to
a Joy ce Me tca lf, wh ich is pr es um ab ly an ali as for the Def endant. The evidence in the r ecord shows t hat a search may have been cond ucted b y pi er cing t he package and fi eld t esti ng it s ingredient s, y et t here i s no defi nit iv e evi dence of t he size and appearance of the ext eri or or int eri or ofthe box . There was test imony at the suppression heari ng thata fi eld t est was c onducted i n Nashvil le, but also thatitmay have occur red, along wi th a dog s niff t est, in Cal if orni a. None of t he wit nesses were pr esentwhen any sear ch was conduct ed and therefor e could not be cert ain whatactual lytookplace a t Feder al Express orwhen law enf orcement seized the p ack age . There i s no evi dence thata warra nt was o btained , but there is n o clear evi dence thata warra nt was notobtai ned by one ofthe agenci es inv olv ed. The only thi ng we can surmi se is thatthe Def endant has l eftmany-8-

unanswered quest ions about t he event s leadi ng up to t he controll ed deli veryof the packag e. We are un abl e to det ermi ne whet her a n il leg al s earc h wa s conducted witho ut a more detailed descri ption ofthe appearance of t he package and the action s taken by law en forcem ent. Th is can o nly be dev eloped bythe present ati on ofadd itional p roof. T he D efen dan t has failed to meet his burden of provi ding an “ex pli citstat ement of t he certified que stion.” Preston , 759 S.W.2d at 650. We believ e thi s incl udes prov idi ng a record thatcontai ns a c omp lete descri pti on ofthe r elev ant f acts. Therefore, as it is pre se nte d, th e D efe nd an t’s cert if ied quest ion cannotbe answered and thus i s not di sposit iv e of t his ca se.

Nor can we c onc lude that th e D efen dan t’s cha lleng es to the va lidity of t he warrantare dispos it iv e ofthi s case. W e note t hat byinv ali dati ng the war rant , t he
on ly evi dence thatmay be excl uded is that sei zed withi n the business premises. Th is does not incl ude the kil o of coc aine whi ch for ms the basis forthe charge for which the Def endant was c onvi cted. Alt hough the offi cers used the pack age as pa rt of t he controll ed deli very , t hat packag e was already “s eized”when la w enfor cement took pos sessi on from Federal Express. Regardl ess of whet herthe Defendantwas the indi vi dual who had an inte res t in th e p ac ka ge wh ile it w as in the ma il, i t is clear t hat th e co cain e wa s se ized befo re issu anc e of th e wa rran t.

“ A ‘seizu re‘ of p rope rty occ urs w hen there is som e m ean ingfu l interfere nce with
an individual’s po sses sory interes ts in that prop erty.” Un ited States v. Jacobsen , 466 U.S

. 10 9, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1655- 56, 80 L. Ed.2d 85 ( 1984). Sealed packages and letters are prot ected f rom government inspect ion becaus e an indi vi dual ha s a r ea so na ble e xpect ati on thatthe cont ents wi ll remain pr iv ate. W alt erv. United Stat es , 447 U. S. 649, 651-52, 654, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 2398- 99, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980) . The evi dence does no t ref lectthatthe offi cers gav e up-9-

pos ses sion of the pac kag e to the Def endant. Alt hough the co caine is l ist ed on the return ofthe warrant, it s admissibil ityis n ot de pe nd en t up on the wa rran t’s validity.

Therefor e, the onlydrug t hat was sei zed as a re sultofthe war rantwas the fourounc es of mari jua na found i n the busi ness. We note thatthe St ate nol led the cha rge fo r pos ses sion of m arijua na, t h us, t he excl usion of the mari juana evi dence serv es no p urpo se. Be cau se th e co cain e wa s no t seize d pu rsua nt to the warrant , i t woul d not be exc lu ded by finding a cons titutional violation or a defect in t he warrant . As a result , we cannotconcl ude thatthe certi fi ed questi ons regardi ng the warran t are dispo sitive of this case a nd w e believe we must dismiss this ap pe al.

We also beli eve that t he Defendant’s cri me is a Class A fel ony, even though the cou rt documen ts and judgment refl ect a Class B fel ony and sent ence.

As w e ha ve pr eviou sly m enti oned, t he Defendantpleaded gui lty to one count of conspi racy to posses s wit h int ent t o sell more than 300 g rams o f cocai ne. The offense of possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine i s a Class A felony, w ith a poss ible range of pun shm ent be tween 13.5 a nd 60 years forall offen der ra nge s. Te nn. C o de A nn. §§ 40-35 -101; 3 9-17-4 17(j)(5). Ord inarily, “co ns pira cy is an offe ns e o ne (1) c la ssifi ca tion l ower than the most seri ous offe ns e th at is the o bjec t of the con spira cy.” T enn . Co de A nn. § 39-12- 107 (c). Yet , the re is a rest ri cti on for cert ain dr ug off enses cont ained i n §§ 39-17- 41 7(i) and (j), that a co nvict ion based on conspiracy i s the same grade as a convi cti on forthe offense. Specif ical ly , “ a vi olat ion ofsubsect ion (a) wi th respect-10-

to the fol lowi ng amounts ofa controll ed substan ce, or conspi racy to v iol at e subsecti on (a) wit h respectto such amounts i s a Class A f elon y.” Tenn . Code An n. § 39-17- 417(j ). Here, t he Defendantpleaded gui lty to what ev er yon e inv olv ed, incl uding the tr ial judge, t hought was a Class B f elonyand recei ved an eight -year

(8) se nten ce. A con victi on fora Class B f elonyand an ei ght- year sentence were not appl icabl e to nor wit hin t he sentenc ing range for t he offense set forth i n the pl ea agreement and j udgment, and therefore , are cont rary t o la w. The plea agre em ent s hou ld ha ve be en re jecte d by th e trial co urt. W e mu st therefore set asi de the D efendan t’s con viction, a nd re m and to the trial cou rt to rejectthe pl ea agreement and for f urt herproceedi ngs in c ompliance wit h Rules 11(e)( 2) and ( e)(4) of t he Tennessee Rules ofCrimina l Proc edure.

Acc ordingly, we dismi ss the a ppeal ofthe certi fi ed questions, set asi de the De fen da nt’s conviction a nd re mand to t he tr ial courtforfurtherproceedi ngs regardi ng the Def endant’ s plea c onsist ent wi th Rul e 11 (e) of the Rul es of Criminal Procedure.

____________________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY , JUD GE

___________________________________ JER RY L
. SMI TH, JUD GE