At the sentencing hearing, the appellant testified that the correct spelling of his name is “Kevin Scott.” 1

However, we will use the spelling utilized in the indictments. 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 4, 2008

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVEN SCOTT

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 06-01965 Chris Craft, Judge

No. W2007-01636-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 20, 2008

The appellant, Keven Scott, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of 1

possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, possession of cocaine, and

possession of marijuana. The trial court merged the cocaine convictions and sentenced the appellant

to a total effective sentence of seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On

appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for

possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. Upon our review of the

record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court is Affirmed.

NORMA MCGEE OGLE,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in whichTHOMAS T.WOODALL and D.

KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

Garland Ergüden (on appeal) and Trent Hall (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Keven

Scott. 

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Lacy Wilber, Assistant Attorney General;

William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Chris West, Assistant District Attorney General,

for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Factual Background

In January 2006, a Shelby County Grant Jury returned a multi-count indictment against the
 On count three, the appellant was charged with the assault of Flementine Jenkins; however, this count 2

was nolle prossed prior to trial.

-2-

appellant, charging him on count one with the possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the

intent to sell, on count two with the possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to

deliver, and on count four with possession of marijuana. At trial, Memphis Police officer Justin 2

Sheriff testified that at 4:00 p.m. on December 3, 2005, he was in his squad car, traveling north

toward American Way. On his left, he saw a woman at a gas station “hysterically yelling” at him

to pull over. Officer Sheriff parked at the gas station and asked the woman what was wrong. She

pointed to the appellant. 

Officer Sheriff said that the appellant made eye contact with him and mouthed the words,

“Oh, f[*]ck.” The appellant “started to motion toward his pants,” and Officer Sheriff, fearing the

appellant was reaching for a weapon, drew his gun and pointed it at the appellant. Officer Sheriff

ordered the appellant to put his hands on the wall of the gas station, and the appellant complied.

Officer Sheriff holstered his gun and approached the appellant. He grabbed the appellant by the back

of his belt in order to control him if he became aggressive. The appellant reached back, and Officer

Sheriff thought the appellant was going to hit him. He placed the appellant on the ground and

radioed for backup. While awaiting backup, Officer Sheriff performed a quick pat-down of the

appellant to check for weapons and placed him in the back of the squad car. 

After backup arrived, Officer Sheriff removed the appellant from the squad car and

conducted a more thorough search. During the search, three small packages fell from the appellant’s

pants. Officer Sheriff later ascertained that the packages contained marijuana and cocaine. Officer

Sheriff testified that he did not find any drug paraphernalia during the search. Officer Sheriff could

not remember the amount of money the appellant had at the time of the search. After the search, the

appellant was arrested. 

Agent Jessica Marquez with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) crime laboratory

testified that she tested the substances seized by Officer Sheriff. Testing revealed that a green

substance submitted for testing by Officer Sheriff was 4.2 grams of marijuana. Testing further

revealed that a white substance submitted for testing by Officer Sheriff was 9.0 grams of cocaine.

Based upon the foregoing proof, the jury found the appellant guilty on count one of simple

possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor; on count two of possession of more than .5 grams

of cocaine with the intent to deliver, a Class B felony; and on count four of simple possession of

marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial courtmerged themisdemeanor cocaine conviction into

the felony cocaine conviction. After the jury returned the verdicts, the State presented the jury with

proof of the appellant’s three prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance. The jury

then found the appellant guilty of three or more prior possessions of a controlled substance, which

enhanced the appellant’s misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana to a Class E felony.

Thereafter, the trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II multiple offender to seventeen
 The appellant does not challenge his conviction for simple possession of marijuana. 

3

-3-

years for the cocaine conviction and three years for the marijuana conviction. On appeal, the

appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction of possession of more

than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. 

3

II. Analysis

The appellant contends that there was no proof that he possessed the controlled substances

for delivery; however, the appellant does not dispute that he possessed the cocaine. On appeal, a jury

conviction removes the presumption of the appellant’s innocence and replaces it with one of guilt,

so that the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating to this court why the evidence will not

support the jury’s findings. See State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). The appellant

must establish that no reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789

(1979); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

Accordingly, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence

and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. See State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d

405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). In other words, questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the

weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are

resolved by the trier of fact, and not the appellate courts. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561

(Tenn. 1990).

In order to sustain the appellant’s conviction, the State was required to prove that the

appellant knowingly possessed more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. Tenn. Code

Ann. §§ 39-17-417(a)(4), 39-17-419 (2003). “The one element present in almost all criminal

offenses which is most often proven by circumstantial evidence is that relating to the culpable mental

state.” State v. Harold Wayne Shaw, No. 01C01-9312-CR-00439, 1996 WL 611158, at *3 (Tenn.

Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 24, 1996). Notably, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-419

(2003) provides, “It may be inferred from the amount of a controlled substance . . . , along with other

relevant facts surrounding the arrest, that the controlled substance orsubstances were possessed with

the purpose of selling or otherwise dispensing.” 

In the instant case, Officer Sheriff testified that the appellant was distressed when he made

eye contact with the officer. When Officer Sheriff searched the appellant, three plastic baggies

containing 9.0 grams of cocaine and 4.5 grams of marijuana fell from the appellant’s pants. Officer

Sheriff testified that the appellant did not possess anydrug paraphernalia, suggesting that the cocaine

was not for the appellant’s personal use. The jury, after seeing the packaging of the substantial

amount of cocaine and considering the lack of drug paraphernalia and the testimony of the State’s

witnesses, found the appellant guilty of possessing over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to

deliver. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support this conviction. See State v. Chearis,
-4-

995 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); Shaw, No. 01C01-9312-CR-00439, 1996 WL

611158, at **3-4. 

III. Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

___________________________________ 

NORMA McGEE OGLE, JUDGE