### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 7, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JES SI E LEVE NT THARPE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Henry County No. 13598 Julian P . Guinn, Ju dge

No. W2005-00224-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 22, 2005

Th e Ap pe lla nt, Jess ie L e ve nt T ha rp e , w a s c on vic ted by a Henr y Cou nty jury of e va din g arr e st, po sse ssi on of

dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia , a nd Cla ss B fe lon y po sse ssi on of c oc a ine . H e wa s su bs e qu e ntl y sentenc ed to an e ffe ctive eig ht-y ear sentenc e, which was suspended upon c onditions of probation. On appe al, Thar

p e raises the single issue of sufficie ncy

of the e vidence . Specifica lly , Tharpe chal len ges h is c on vic tio ns ba se d u po n in c on sis te nc ie s in the te sti mon y of the State ’s wi tne sse s. After revie w of the evidenc e prese nted, we find the evide nce suf ficient a nd aff

irm the judg ments of conviction.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

W. Jef fe ry F a g a n, As sis ta nt Dis tr ic t Publi c De fe nd e r, Ca mde n, Te nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe llant, Jess ie L event Tha

rpe.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Robert "Gus" Radford, District Attorney Gene ral; and Steven L

. Gar rett, Assi stant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

The Appe llant lived with his first cousin, Yvette Somerville, and her two children at Somerville’s home in Paris, Ten n es s ee. O n September 18, 2003, Somerville, an admitted drug deale r, wa s arr ested for

possession of cra ck coc aine. The undisputed proof at the Appellant’s tria l established that the Appe llant was instrumental in assisting the police in Somerville’s arr est. Thre e day s late r, wh ile inc arc e rate d intheHe nry Cou nty Jail , So me rv ill e sp ok e wi th D e pu ty Ed die F or re stO n t he d at e o f t he i nst ant cri m es, t he A p p el l ant was on p arole f rom an ef

fect i ve si xt een- y ear s ent ence f o r ei ght 1

a g g ra v a te d ro b b e rie s in H e n ry C o u n ty.

-2- and informe d him that her fifteen-y ear old son, J ames Mea dows, had c alled and inf ormed he r that the Ap pe llant w a s se lli ng c ra c k cocai ne fr om the re sid e nc e . F or re st s ub se qu e ntl y

sp ok e wi th Meadow s on the phone, and he confirme d that the Appellant had a la rg e quantity

of cr ack c ocaine in the house. F orre st obtained written permission from Som erville to sea rch the house.

For rest, along with four other police off icer s, proce eded to the residenc e. Upon ar rival, three office rs appr oache d the front, a nd two office rs cove red the rear o f t he house. F orre st, the lead office r, pounded on the front door while another off icer announce d “Sheriff ’s Depa rtment.” He aring someone running in the house, Forre st drew his wea pon and began hitting t he door with his shoulder in an atte mpt

to g a in e ntr a nc e . T he do or fl e w o pe n, a ndtheAp pe llant r a n s tr aight at F or re st,

scre aming loudly . The Appe llant ran into the deputy , knocking the g un from his hand. F orre st was p u s h ed into another

deputy who fe ll to the gr ound. For rest g rabbe d the Appellant’ s shirt, and a strug g le ensued, which ended when the Appellant’s shirt ripped. The Appe llant ran but wa s caug ht by the offic ers at the edg e of the y ard. A nother strug g le then ensue d befor e the Appe llant was take n into custody

. Entering the re sidence , the officers f ound 42.7 g rams of c rac k cocaine locate d in plain view

on the kitchen table. A portion of the coc aine ha d been c ut into sm all piece s with a razor blade and packa g ed for

distri b u t i o n

. T h e office rs also found a set of dig ital scales in a kitche n cabine t and

sever al plastic sandwic h bag s with the corne rs re moved, both items c ommonly used in the packa g ing of coc aine f

or sale. T he Appe llant was the only person inside the home

.

On No ve mbe r 3 , 2 00 3, a He nry Cou nty g rand jury re turne d a thr e e -c ou nt ind ic tme nt a g a ins t the Ap pe lla nt c ha

rg ing him wi th: (1 ) e va din g arr e st; (2 ) C la ss B fe lon y posse ssi on of

c oc a ine in excess of .5 g rams; and (3) possession of drug para pherna lia. After

an Aug ust 2, 2004 jury

trial, the Ap pe lla nt w a s c on vic te d o n a ll thr e e c ou nts a s ind ic te d. Th e Ap pe llant w a s se nte nc e d to e ig ht y e ars , as a Range I offe nder, for t he felony drug conviction and to terms of eleve n months and twenty -nine day s for the two misdemeanor convic tions. The Appellant’s se nt en ce s we re order ed to be se rved

concur rently with one anothe r but consec utively to an ef fec tive six teen- y ear

sentenc e for

ag g ravated robberies. The trial c ourt order ed that the e ffe ctive eig ht-y ear sentenc e be suspe nded following the 1 Appellant’s se rvice of the re mainder o f t h e s ix teen- y ear Depa rtment of Corre ction sentenc e. The Appellant’s motion for ne w trial wa s subsequently denied, with this appea l following.

Ana lys is

On a pp e a l
, t h e A p p e l l a n tr a i s e s t h e s i n g l e i s s u e o f s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e

. H e a s s e rt s “that the incon s i s t en ci es i n the State’s ca se ar e such that there w as not a showing of suffic ient evidenc e to convict the [Appellant] in this case .” Specif ically , the Appellant ch al l en ges inconsistencies be t we en t h e testimony of Yve tte Somerville and James Meadows re g arding the Appellant’s sa le of drug s from the home. Additionally
, the Appellant asserts inc onsistencies in the-3-

te sti mon y of Som e rv ill e wi th r e g ardto w he the r s he tol d o the rs that sh e wa s se e kin g re ve ng e a g a ins t the Appellant and inconsistencies in Mea dows’ testimony with reg ard to whe ther he had “se t up” the Appellant.

Whil e th e rec ord re flec ts various inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesse s, the Appel lan t’ s ar g u me n t o f in c o n s is te n t te s ti mo n y is mi s p la c e d

. T h e r e le v a n t q u e s ti o n upon a sufficie ncy

revie w of a

criminal convic tion, be it at the appellat e o r t ri al level, is whethe r, “a fter vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the pr os e c uti on , a ny ra tio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonabledoubt.” J ac k so n v. Vi rg ini a , 443 U. S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); se e als o Tenn. R. App. P

. 13(e) ; Tenn. R. Crim. P. 29(a). J ac k so n v . V irg ini a addre sses t wo i mportant aspec ts of a suff iciency revie w: (1) the manner of revie w of the c onvicting e vidence and (2) the s tandar d of re view for leg al suffic iency . The scope of our e x amination of the e vidence is not equivalent to that of t h e j u ry ’s

. I n a challeng e to the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence , this court does not retry the def endant. W e empha siz e that our examination in a sufficienc y revie w is not to revisit inconsistent, contradic ting, implausible, or nonc re dib le pr oo f, a s th e se iss ues a re re so lve d s ole ly

by the jury . Rathe r, we loo k to the re c or d to determine whether there was substantive probative evidenc e to support the verdic t

. T h e second inquiry , the questi on of l eg al s ufficie ncy , then foll ows: whether the record contains evidenc e fr om wh ic h th e jury

c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e es se nti a l e le me nts of thec ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. Ev e ry re a so na blehy po the sis of

inn oc e nc e ne e d n ot b e dis pe lle d; i t is on ly ne c e ssa ry that th e ree xists proof whic h supports the eleme nts of the crime. Ag ain, we e mphasize our inquiry is not upon the weig ht of the evide nce or its inconsist ency

but, rather , whether

there is pr oof of the c rime bey ond

a re asonable doubt.

I n view of the controlling principles of J ac k so n v . V irg ini a and Te nn. R. App. P . 13(e) , we find it unnece ssary

to addre ss t h e Ap pellant’s ar g ument that inconsistent testimonyg iven at trial

raise d a re a so na bledo ub t a s to his g uil t. We e xami ne the re c or d fo r e vid e nc e of g uil t mo st f

a vo ra ble to the State. Viewe d in the light most favor able to the State, the evidence is sufficient to support the Appellant’s c onvictions for eva ding arre st, Class B felony possession of coc aine, and possession of drug para pherna lia. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16- 603(a) (1)( A) (2003) , § 39-17-417( a)( 4) (2003)
, § 3 9- 17 -4 25 (a )( 1) (2 00 3) . T he Ap pe llant was fo un d a lon e ins ide there sid e nc e he oc c up ie d w ith 42.7 g rams of c ocaine , which wa s being prepa red for sale. The sea

rch of his residenc e also yielded digital sc ales, a

razor blade
, a scanner, and s ever al pl astic sandwich bag s with the corners torn of f, all items know n to be used in dr ug traff icking

. When the police arrived, in f ull uniform and in patrol

car s, the Appellant attempted to flee , knocking at least one office r to the g round. He was pursue d by four office rs and continued to r esist arre st even a fter he was tac kled and knoc ked to the g round. Ba sed upon these f

acts, we conclude that the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt to permit a rational trie r of fa ct to find the Appe llant guilty of the c rimes bey ond a re asonable doubt.

CO NC LU SION

Ba s ed upon the fore g oing, w e conc lude that the evide nce is suff icient to support the Appellant’s c onvictions for eva ding a rre st, Class B felony possession of cocaine, and possession of drug para pherna lia. Acc ording ly , the judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.-4- ___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE