### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 5, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER T SM ITH
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 05-446 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2006-00998-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Janu ary 23, 2007

The Appellant, Robert Smit h, was convicted by a Madison Countyjury of the misdemeanor off

enses of po sse ssi on of

ma ri juana a ndpo sse ssi on of dr

ug pa ra ph e rn a lia

. As a re su lt of

the se c on vic tio ns , Smit h rec eived two se ntence s of eleven m onths and twenty -nine day s in confine ment. The trial c ourt fu rt h e r o r d e r e d t h a tt h e t w o s e n t e n c e s b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n t l y b u tc o n s e c u t i v e l y

t o t w o p r e v i o us ly imposed suspended misdemeanor sentenc es, which Smit h was curr ently serving on probation. On appea l, Smi th raises two issues for our re view: (1) whether the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the convictions; and (2) whether the t rial court err ed in i mposing c onsecutive se ntencing . After revie w of the re c or d, we a ff

ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS a ndJ.C. M C LIN , J J ., joined.

Gre g ory D. Gookin
, As s i s t an tP u b l i c D ef en d er , J ac k s o n , T en n es s ee , fo r t h e A p p el l an t , Robert Smith.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ames G. ( J erry ) Woodall, Distric t At t o rney Gene ral; and Shaun A . Br own, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
At approxim at el y 1 0:30 a.m. on Marc h 28, 2005, the Appellant c alled the Jackson Police Depa rtment and re ported that he had re nted room 150 at the Old Hickory I nn and that someone was in his room. The Appellant related to the police that whe n he re turned to his room and ope ned the do or , th e lig ht w e nt out

. He state d tha t he “g ot sc are d an d lef t to c a ll the po lic e .” Of

fi c e r Joh n H a sz
re sp on de d to thec a ll andwa s in fo rm e d by the Ap pe llant that the pe rs on in his ro om ha d s tol e n h is watch, c ell phone, and approximately $1400. Offic er Hasz and the Appe llant proce eded to the r oom to investigate. Upon entering, H asz found the Appellant’ s cell phone in a chair hooked up to aT he proof es t abl i s hed t hat M i dy et t was t he A pp el l ant ’ s probat i on off i cer an d h ad cont act ed t he A pp el l ant at 1

t he ja il in o rd er di scus s t he A p p el l ant ’ s new arres t

. A l t ho ugh M i d y et t t est i f i ed as t o hi s b ri ef

co nvers at i o n wi t h t he A p p e llan t at tria l, the trial c o u rt ins tru c te d tha t no re fer e n c e b e m a d e to th e f a c t th a t M id ye tt w a s the A p p e llan t’s p ro b a tio n o ff

ic e r o r to p rio r a rr e sts o f t h e A p p e llan t.

T he r ecor d re f

l ect s t hat t he A pp el l ant was t r i ed i n abs ent i a bas ed upon hi s hi gh l y di s r upt i ve behav i or at t r i al 2
whi ch i ncl ud ed
, “ o ut b urs t i n f ront o f t he jur o rs , ” repe at ed “ scr eam i ng” i n t he co urt roo m , and l o ud and co n te m p tuous

co m m ent s t o t he t ri al judge. T he A p p el l ant was repe at ed l y ad m o ni shed t hat hi s co nd uct wo ul d l ead t o remo val f rom t he

c o u rtro o m ; no n e the le ss, the A p p e llan t p e rs isted in h is d isru p tive b e h a v io r

. A s a re su lt, the A p p e llan t wa s h e ld in
cont emp t of

cour t on f

i ve occas i ons an d was order ed t o s er ve a t ot al of f i f t y d ays in ja i l
, cons ecu t i ve t o t he s ent enc e im p o se d in this c a se

. -2- c ha rg e r andhis watc h o n th e nig ht s ta nd . Ha sz als o obs e rv e d a partia lly smo ke d ma ri juana c ig are tte in an ashtray , as we ll as “a bottle fa shioned into a cra ck pipe.”

The Appellant initially told Ha sz that he was alone in the room. Howeve r, he later a dmitted that his g irlfriend had been with him, but the Appellant was unable to provide Hasz with her na me. Additionally , when que stioned about t he allege dly stolen items, Hasz chang ed the amount of money that was missing f

rom $1400 to $700. He had no explanation a s to w hy the other items he r eporte d stolen wer e fo u n d i n the room. Ha sz i nvestig ated but found no e vidence of anothe r per son in the room, and, a s noted, the off icer found all the items re ported stolen by the Ap p el l an t wi t h the exception of the ca sh.
The Appe llant was subseque ntly arr ested for

simple possession of ma

rijuana and possession

o f d r u g p ar ap h e r n a l i a

. W h i l e i n j a i l
, t h e A p p e l l a n t w a s v i s i t e d b y Ji m M i d y e t t. D ur ing the ir

conver sat i o n as to why

the Appellant wa s arr ested, the A ppellant informed Midy ett that he “w as missing a ba g of we ed and $700.” 1

On Au g us t 1, 20 05
, a Ma dis on Cou nty g rand jury re turne d a tw o- c ou nt i nd ic tme nt a g a ins t the Appellant c harg ing him with: (1) simple possession of marijuana; and (2 ) p o ssession of drug pa ra ph e rn a lia

. F oll ow ing a F e br ua ry 2, 20 06 jury tr ia l, the Ap pe llant wa s con vic te d of b othc ou nts

. 2 A se nte nc ing he ari ng wa s con du c te d on Mar c h 9, 200 6, a ft e r wh ic h the Ap pe llant w a s se nte nc e d to two concur

rent sente nces of el ev en m o n t h s and twenty -nine day s for the of fense s in this case. Ho we ve r, thetria l c ou rt

or de re d th a t th e se nte nc e s be se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to s e nte nc e s r e c e ive d in two prior Madison County misdemeanor c ases. The Appellant subseque ntly filed a motion for ne w trial, which the tria l court denie d. This appea l followed.

Ana lys is

On appea l, the Appellant raises two issues for our revie w. First, he asserts that the evidenc e prese nted is insufficient to support his two misdemeanor convictions. Additionally , he asse rts that the trial court erre d in imposi ng consec utive sentenc ing.

I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence-3-

F ir st, theAp pe lla nt c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e wi th r e g ardto h is two convictions. I n considering the issue of suffic iency of the e vidence , we a

pply the rule that where the su ff ic ien cy of

the e vid e nc e is c ha lle ng e d, the re le va nt q ue sti on fo r the re vie wi ng c ou rt is “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the [S tate], any rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); se e als o Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e)

. Mo re ov e r, theState is en ti tledto the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f the e vid e nc e a nda ll r e a so na ble infere nces which may

be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H ar ris , 83 9 S.W. 2d 54 , 7 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . A ll questions involving the cr edibility of witnesses, the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, and all fac tual issues are resolved by the trier of

fac t. State v. Pappas , 75 4 S.W. 2d 62 0, 62 3 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1987). This court will not rew eig h or reevaluate the evide nce pr esente d. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. “A g uiltyverdic t by

the jury , approve d b y t h e t rial judg e, ac cre dits the testimonyof the witnesses for the State and re solves all conflicts in fa vor of the the ory of the State.” State v. Grac e , 49 3 S. W.2 d 4 74 , 4 76 (T e nn

. 19 73 ). A jury c on vic tio n r e mov e s th e pr e su mpt ionof inn oc e nc e wi th which a defe ndant i s initially cloake d and replace s it with one of g uilt, so that on appea l, a convicte d defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the evidenc e is insu ff i ci ent. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982)

. These rules are applicable t o finding s of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. As noted, the Appe llant was convic ted of misdemeano r poss ession of marijuana and possession of drug para

pherna lia. I n order to c onvict the Appellant of possession of marijuana , the State was re quired to prove that the Appellant knowing ly possessed a controlled substance . T.C.A. § 39-17-418( a) ( 2003). With reg ard to the pos session of drug paraphe rnalia, the State was re quired to e sta bli sh that th e Ap pe lla nt “ po sse ss[e d] w ithint e nt t o u se , d ru g pa ra ph e rnal ia to

. . . inj e c t, inge st, inhale, or other wise introduce into the hum an body a controlled substance.” T.C.A. § 39-17- 425(a) (1) ( 2003). I n this case, ther e is no dispute that the substance found in the Appe llant’s motel

room was marijuana. Nor is it di sputed that the bottle f ound in the Appellant’s motel room, whic h was “ fashioned into a cra ck pipe,” could have been use d to inge st or inhale a c ontrolled substance into the hum an body

as def ined by the drug para

pherna lia statute. Rather, the Appellant’s a rg ument fo c us e s u po n th e qu e sti on of w he the r the State e sta bli sh e d th a t he in f

a c t po sse sse d th e ob

je c ts i n question. I n fac t, the Appellant’s e ntire ar g um en t wi t h reg ard to this issue, other than a brief

re c itatio n o f s uf

fi c ie nc y la w, is a s f

oll ow s:

The e vidence was insufficient to support the j ury ’s verdict of guilt. Office r Hasz did not give [the] Appellant a blood test to determine the prese nce of marijuana in his sy stem. I n addition, [the] Appe llant was neve r see n in possession of either the marijuana cig are tte or the c rac k pipe.

Th e Ap pe lla nt’ s ar g ume nt ap pe ars to b e ba se d u po n th e e rr on e ou s p re mis e that in or de r t o convict of the char g es, it must be established that he e ither used the dr ug s or was in a ctual possession-4-

of the m. T o e s ta

b li s h a c h ar g e f

o r p o s s e s s io n o f a c o n tr o ll e d s u b s tan c e , th e r e is c le arlyno require ment that the drug s be inge sted into the body . Moreove r, a c onviction for the possession of drug s may be based upon either actual or constructive possession. State v. Shaw , 37 S.W .3d 900, 90 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) . In d isc us sin g thenatur e of c on str uc tiv e po ssessi on , th is co urt ha s st a te d th a t, befor e a pe rson ca n be found to c onstructively possess drug s, it must appea r t hat t he person has “the power and intention at a gi v en time to ex erc ise dominion and control over . . . [t he drug s] either d i re ct l y or throug h others.” State v. Transou , 928 S.W .2d 949, 956 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; see also Shaw , 3 7 S. W.3 d at 90 3. I n o the r wor ds , “ c on str uc tiv e po sse ssi on is the ability to reduc e an obje ct to actua l possession.” Sta te v . R os s , 49 S.W .3d 833, 845-46 (Te nn. 2001) (c itations omitted). The element of knowledg e of the prese nce of a contr olled substance, f

or p u rp o s es o f u n l aw fu l p o s s es s i o n , i s o ft en t i m es n o ts u s ce p t i b l e t o d i re ctp ro o f. Ho we v er , k n o wl ed ge may be circumstantially

proven by

evidenc e of a cts, statements, or c onduct. Transou , 928 S.W .2d at 956. Addit i o n al l y , possession of the pre mises in which the contra band is found cr eate s an infere nce that the possessor had posse ssion of the contra band. Ro ss , 4 9 S. W.3 d a t 84 6. No ne the le ss,
mere prese nce in the are a wher e the drug s are discovere d is not, standing alone, suff icient to support a convic tion for possession. Id

.
F oll ow ing r e vie w, we c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

thec on vic tio ns

. Offic er H asz found a partially smoked marijuana

cig are tte and a bottle fashioned int o a cr ack pipe in Room 150 of the Old Hickory I nn. The Appellant ca lled police to this room, which he c laimed possession of, to report that someone had e ntere d his room and stolen ce rtain items

. Thus, an infere nce a

rose that the Appellant, as poss essor of the premises in which the items were f ound, had possession of the illeg al item s t h em s el v es

. Nothing in the r ecor d befor e us re buts that infere nce. Ha sz f ou ndno e vid e nc e of

a no the r p e rs on ’s pr e se nc e in the room

. Mo reov er, th e Ap pe llant t old Midy ett that he wa s “missing a bag of we ed.” T his issue is without merit.

II. Co nse c ut iveSe nt e nc ing

Ne xt, th e Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th a t th e tria l c ou rt e rr e d inimp os in g co ns e c uti ve se nte nc e s. Whil e the c ourt order ed that the two e leven month and twe nty -ni n e d ay sentenc es in this case be

se rv e d c on c ur

re ntl y , th e c ou rt or de re d tha t the se nte nc e s be se rv e d co ns e c uti ve ly to t wo pr e vio us ly imposed misdemeanor se ntence s in Madison County

.
Whe n a n a c c us e d c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th, rang e , or the ma nn e r of se rv ic e of a se nte nc e , th is

c o u r t h a s a d u ty to c o n d u c t a d e novo revie w of the se ntence with a pre sumption t hat the de te rm inatio ns ma de by

thetr ia l c ou rt arec or

re c t. T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ); State v. Ashby
, 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . This presumption is “conditioned upon the af firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and al l re l ev ant facts and circ umstances.” Ashby , 8 23 S.W. 2da t 16 9. F urthe rm or e , w e e mph a size that fact s rel eva nt t o
se nte nc ing mus t be e sta

bli sh e d b y

a prepo nd e ranc e of

thee vid e nc e a ndno t be y on d a re a so na ble doubt. Sta te v . W

inf ie ld
, 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 3 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . P oo le , 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997) ). The party challeng ing a sentenc e bea

rs the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is errone ous. T.C.A.§ 40-35-401(d) , Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments.-5-

A trial court may

impose consec utive sentenc ing upon a determination that one or more of the c ri te ri a

se t f orth i n T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 15 (b ) exis ts. Th is s e c tio n p e rm its the trial court to impose consec utive sentenc es i f t he court finds, among other c riteria, that (1) “[t]he de fe nd a nt i s an of

fe nd e r wh os e re c or d of crimi na l ac tiv ity is exte ns ive [,]” or (2 ) “[t]h e de fe nd a nt i s sentenc ed for

an offe nse committed w hile on probation[.] ” T.C.A. § 40-35-115( b)(2) , (6) ( 2003). The leng th of the s entenc e, when consec utive in nature , must be “justl y deserved in re lation to the seriousness of the offe nse” and “no g reater than that deserved” under the circ umstances. T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 1) (2003) ; § 40-35-103(2) (2003). Additionally , whether sentenc es ar e t o be served

concur rently or consecutively is a matter addre ssed t o the s ound discretion of the t rial court. Sta te v. Hastings , 25 S.W .3d 178, 181 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)

.
I n imposing conse cutive sentenc ing in this case , the trial court found that the Appe llant was an off ender whose re cord of

criminal ac tivitywas e x tensive and that the instan t offe nses wer e committed while the Appellant wa s on probation. On appe al, the Appe llant contends that the trial

c ou rt wa s in e rr or be c aus e the “ Ap pe llant w a s c on vic te d o f t wo no n- vio le nt dru g of fe ns e s; the on ly drug s found wer e conta ined in a partially burned c iga

rette. [ T h e] Ap pellant was a six ty -nine (69) y e ar o ld m a n w ho se on ly re a l c ri min a l hi sto ry

c on sis te d o f t

ra ff ic of fe ns e s. ” F ro m hi s a

rg ume nt, we g lean that the Appellant is not challeng ing the trial court’s finding s with r eg ard to his rec ord or to the fac t that he was on pr obation at the time the instant offe nses wer e committed.
The Appe llant’s arg ument is mispl ace d. Our re view of the rec ord supports the trial c ourt’s finding s with reg ard to both an e x tensive criminal hist ory and the f act that the A ppell an t was on probation whe n the instant offe nses wer e committed. As noted by the trial court, the pre -sentenc e
re po rt , w h i c hw a s n o t

d i s p u t e d b y th eA p p e l l an t, e sta

bli sh e s mu lti ple prior

mis de me a no r c on vic tio ns

. The re cord indicates nine prior convic tions for driving with a suspended or revoke d license, six for various tra ffic of

fense s, and one for misdemeanor theft. Additionally , the re port establishes that the Appellant wa s on misdemeanor pr obation at t he ti me t he ins tant offe nses were commit ted. As noted, the Ap pe lla nt d isp ute s n on e of the se c on vic tio ns a nddo e s n ot de ny that he wa s on pr ob a tio n. Th us , we must reje ct the Appe llant’s arg ument and conc lude that the trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the sentenc es be se rved c onsecutively

.
CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the Appellant’s judg ments of conviction and re sulting sentenc es
are aff irmed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE