### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 19, 200 5 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. AN THON Y JA MES SHEA RER

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Obi on Coun ty No. 4-71 William B. Acre e, Jr., Judge

No. W2004-01774-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jun e 6, 2005

An Ob ion Cou nty

Cir c uit Cou rt jury c on vic te d the de fe nd a nt, An tho ny She are r, of po sse ssi on wi th intent to d el i v er one-ha lf g ram or mor e of c ocaine , a Class B f elony , and the tria l court sentenc ed him to nine y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. The de fenda nt appea ls, cl aiming that the e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt andthat hi s se nte nc e is e xce ssi ve . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.
J oseph P. Atnip, District Public Defe nder ( on appea l), Wil liam Anthony Helm, B artlett, Tenne ssee (at trial) , for the a

ppellant, Anthony

J ames Shea

rer . Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . Bl e ds oe , Ass ist a nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorne y Gene ral; James T. Cannon, Assistant District Atto rney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
Th is c a se re la te s to the de fe nd a nt’ s p os se ssi ng 4. 4 g rams o f c ra c k c oc a ine . A t th e tr ia l, Union CityPolice Offic er Jeff Jackson testified that he, a long w ith Union Ci ty Police Offic ers Shawn Palmer a nd Der

rick Ode ll, served a

sear ch wa

rra nt at the def

e ndant’s apa

rtment on Novembe r 7, 2003. Offic er J ackson said that when Office r Palmer knoc ked on the door and announc ed “Police. Searc h war

rant,” they

hear d a woman say something followed by what they

believed w as someone ru nn ing thr ou g h th e ho us e . H e sa id that a t th a t ti me , O ff ic e r P a lme r u nlo c ke d th e do or wi th a pa ss key . Offic er Jackson said that whe n he ente red the apartment, he saw the defe ndant’s wife r unning into the bedroom. He said that when he g ot to the bedroom, he sa w the def endant’s wi fe stuffing something into a c lothes basket. He said t h at h e t o l d Union CityAssistant Pol ice Chief Per ry Ba rfield, who had ar

rived, a nd that Chief B arf ield sear ched the basket a nd found cr ack c ocaine

. Of fi c e r Ja c ks on sa id that a ft e r e ve ry on e wa s se c ur e d, he re a d th e de fe nd a nt andhis wi fe the ir ri g hts

.-2-

He sa id that the de fe nd a nt c la ime d th a t “ e ve rythi ng -- a ll the dr ug s in the ho us e we re his .” He sa id the def endant late r admitted that the g uns and sca les found in the sea rch w ere also his.
Chief B arf

ield testified that he a nd Union CityPolice L ieutenant Rick Kelly arrived at the scene as Off

icer s Palmer, J ackson, a nd Odell wer e ente ring the apa rtment. Chief B arf

ield said that he searche d the clothes basket and found a plastic bag that contained what he believed to be cra ck c oc a ine . H e sa id that a ft e r the su sp e c ts h a d b e e n g ive n M ir a nd a wa rn ing s, he he ardL ie ute na nt K e lly and the defe ndant t alking about t he drug business slowing down and that the de fenda nt commented “that it had slowed dow n.” See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S . Ct. 1602 (1966). On cross-examination, Chief B arf ield admitted that citizens of a community may discuss the dr ug pr ob le m in g e ne ra l a ndthat th e de fe nd a nt d id no t sa y his dr ug bu sin e ss h a d g on e do wn , o nly that the drug b u s iness in ge nera l had g one down. How ever , Chief B arf ield maintained that the question was dire cted towa rd the de fenda nt and his business.
Of fi c e r Pal me r te sti fi e d tha t he fo un d ap pr oximate ly $7 20 a nd tw o g un s und e r the ma ttr e ss in the same bedroom wher e the drug s wer e found. On cross-examination, he said that the amount of c a sh wa s si g nif

ic a nt b e c a us e to h is kno wl e dg e the de fe nd a nt d id n ot h a ve a job . H e sa id that in addition to the drug s, cash, a nd g uns, they also seiz ed el ec t ro nic sca les, utilit y knives with what appea red to be cocaine re sidue on them, and mate rials used for packa g ing na

rcotics

. He sa id the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation crime la boratory determined that the substance was 4.4 g rams of cra ck coc aine.
L ie ute na nt K e lly

te sti fi e d th a t he ta lke d to the de fe nd a nt a ft e r h e ha d b e e n r e a d h is rig hts

. He sa id tha t d u ri n g t his conversation, the defe ndant said that the drug business had bee n slow for four or five y ear s. On c ro ss-ex amin a tio n, L ie ute na nt K e lly a dmi tte d th a t a lth ou g h h e a sk e d th e qu e sti on in relation to the defendant’s drug business, it was possi ble that the def endant c ould have be lieved they wer e talking about t he drug business in Obion Countyin ge nera l. He also a dmitted that it was possible that a re g ular c itiz en could tell if the drug business was down throug h rea ding ne wspape rs and wor d of mouth.
Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he w a s e mpl oy e d b y Sup e ri or En te rp ri se I nc or

po ratio n a s a welder for two y ear s. He said the g uns which the police found wer e his. He said the ha ndg uns were to p ro te c t hi s h ou se a ft er a ser ies of bre ak- ins , th e muzzl e -l oa de r w a s f or hu nti ng , a ndthe a ssa

ult rifle wa s part of his hobby of g un and knife collecting

. He said he was g iven his Miranda rig hts and talke d w ith L ie u te n a n t K e ll y ab o u t th e d ru g b u s in e s s . T h e d e f e n d a n t s a idh e c o u ldte ll th e drug business was down be cause he had not he ard muc h about it. He said he believed the question was dir e c te d at the dr

ug bu sin e ss in g e ne ra l. He sa id he wa s a dru g us e r not a de a le r. He sa id that hi s sister g ave him the money that the police f

ound to ma

ke a pay ment on her c ar that he was driving a t th e tim e . H e sa id h e ke pt the mon e y un de r the ma ttr e ss b e c a us e he didno t ha ve a ba nk a c c ou nt.-3-

On cr oss examination, t he def endant a dmitted that he knew the dr ug s were in the apartment a ndthat he ha d b e e n a us e r fo r e ig ht mon ths

. He sa id the po lic e didno t f indhis c ra c k p ipe be c a us e it was hidden i n the s ink drain. He admitted that he did not have the pipe any more. He also admitted pay ing $100 f

or the 4.4 g rams of c rac k cocaine. He sa id somebody else got it for him bec ause the y could g et a be tter dea l.
The de fenda nt testified that he g ot a dea l on the drug s beca use somebody

said they neede d to rec oup and bec ause he let them store the sc ales a nd packa g ing materia ls in his truc k. He said he b o u gh t t h e d r u g s t h r o u gh a p er s o n ca l l ed “C

. ” H e a d m i t t ed t h at h e a n d “C ” s t o re d t h e p ac k age materia ls and scale s for someone named Jeff fr om Memphis. He sa id J eff is the person fr om whom “C” boug ht the drug s. He said he has not seen “ C” or Jeff since the n. The de fenda nt’s wife te stified that she had no knowledg e of the drug s or sca les found during the sea rch. She sa id the $720 was for a ca r payment on her sister- in-law’s c ar. She sa id they normally kept money

under the mattress. On cross-e x amination, she admitted that she did not notice any shortag e of mone y

during the eig ht month period that the defe ndant testified he ha d been using cocaine.
I n rebuttal, Of

fice r Palmer testified that the street va lue of 4.4 g rams of cra ck coc aine wa s close to $200 from a deale r. He said $100 throug h a sec ond or third party (runne r) would buy

oneha lf g ram of cr a c k co c a ine

. He sa id that thr ou g h a run ne r, 4. 4 g rams of c ra c k co c a ine wo uldc os t approximately

$800. He sa id that they

did not find any cra ck pipes in the defendant’s a partment but that they did find cutting a nd packa g ing materials and w eig hing de vices.
On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Of fi c e r Pal me r ad mit te d tha t f ro m a de a le r, a n “ 8- ba ll” or

3. 5 g rams of c ra c k c oc a ine wo uldc os t $1 35 -$ 18 0. He sa id that it wa s impo ssi blefo r thede fe nd a nt t o p ur c ha se 4.4 g rams of c rac k cocaine throug h a runne r for $100 beca

use a r unner w ould keep some of the money or take some of the c ocaine for himself.

I. SUFF ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE
Th e defe nd ant co nte nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tria l is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction. He a sserts that althoug h the state prove d he wa s in possession of 4.4 gr ams of coc aine, it f a il e d to p r o v e th a t h e in te n d e d to d e li v e r it

. T h e s tate c o n te n d s th a t th e e v id e n c e is s u f f ic ie n t. We ag ree with the state.
Our standa

rd of r eview w hen the de fendan t q u est ions the sufficienc y of the e vidence on appea l is “whether , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable t o t h e p ro s ecution, any ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble d o u b t

. ” J ac k s o n v . Vi rgi n i a, 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ). W e d o n o tre we i gh the evidenc e; rather, we presume that the jury has re solved all conflicts in the t estimony and dra wn all rea sonable infe renc es from the evidence in favor of t he st ate. See State v. Sheff ield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) ; State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). In Tenne ssee,-4-

questions about witnes s cr edibi lityare resolved by the jury . See State v. B land, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)

. T.C.A. § 39-17-417 pr ovides, ( a ) It i s a n o f

f e n s e f o r a d e f e n d a n tt o kn o w i n g l y:

. . . . (4) Possess a controlled subst ance with intent to manufacture , deliver or sell such c ontrolled substance

. T. C.A . § 39 -1 7- 41 9 p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art ,

I t m aybe infe rre d from the a mount of a controlled substanc e or su bs ta nc e s p os se sse d b y a n off e nd e r, a lon g wi th oth e r re le va nt f a c ts surrounding the ar

rest, that the c ontrolled substance or substan ces we re p o s s es s ed wi t h t h e p u rp o s e o f s el l i n g o r o t h er wi s e d i s p en s i n g. I n a lig ht most favorable to the state, the re cord r efle cts that the def endant wa s in possession of 4.4 g rams of

c o c a in e w ith a

s tr e e t v a lu e o f

$ 8 0 0 a n d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s in p o s s e s s io n of weig hing scale s, cutting materia ls, and pac kag ing materials. We conc lude that g iven the permissive infere nce, a

rational juror

could find bey ond a re asonable doubt t h at t he def endant possesse d the cocaine with the intent to deliver it. The de fenda nt is not entit led to relief on this iss ue. II. EXCESS IVE SE NTENCE
The de fenda nt next contends that his sentenc e is excessive. He arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in fa iling to apply

a mitigating fac tor to his sentenc e. The state c ontends that the trial court’s failure to apply

the mitigating fac tor was not er ror. In the alternative, the sta t e ar gu es t h at t he de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e , o nly on e y e ar ab ov e the pr e su mpt ivemin imu m, i s ju sti fi e d b a se d u po n h is s ix prior mis de me a no r c on vic tio ns . At the se nte nc ing he ari ng , c ou ns e l f or the de fe nd a nt ar g ue d tha t the tr ia l c ou rt sh ou ld a pp ly a s a fa c tor in m iti g a tio n the fa c t that the de fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t did no t c a us e or thr e a te n se ri ou s b od ily injur y . T.C.A. § 40-35-113( 1). Afte r listening to the a rg uments of counse l and considering the prese ntence report, the trial court e nhance d the def endant’ s sentence from eig ht y ear s, the presumptive minimum in t he ra ng e, to nine y ear s based upon its application of enhanc ement fa ctor (2) r eg arding the def

endant’ s prior criminal history of si x misdemeanor convictions for possession of a w eapon w ith the intent to g o arme d (twice ), assault, reckle ss endang erme nt, resisting a rre st, and drivi ng on a su sp e nd e d li c e ns e . Se e T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 11 4( 2) . T he tr ia l c ou rt re fu se d to app ly mitigating fac tor (1) stating , “I have ne ver use d that as a mitig ating fac tor in a drug case .”
Our re view of se ntencing is de novo on the record with a presumption of corre ctness below. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d). After imposit ion of t he sentence, the defe ndant ca rries the burden to show-5-

that the sentenc e is improper. There fore , as l ong as t he trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing scheme , made findings of fac t in the rec ord, and g ave dueconsideration in weighing the fa ctors and principles re levant to sentenc ing unde r the 1989 Sentenc ing A ct, we may not disturb the sentence even if a diffe rent re sult were pr efe rre d. State v. Fletc her, 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
I n order for the pr esumption of corr ectne ss to attach, ther e must be an “ aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing pri n ci p l es an d all rele vant fa cts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. I n this re g ard, for pur poses of meaning ful appe llate re view,

the trial court must pl ace on the re cord its re asons for a rriving at the final sentenc ing de cision, i d en t i fy the mitigating and enhanceme nt fac tors found, st ate the spe cific f acts supporting eac h enhanc ement fac tor found, and articulate how the mitigating a nd enhanc ement fac tors h a v eb e e ne v a luated and ba lance d in determining the sentenc e. State v. J ones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994) (c itation omit ted). When conducting a de novo revie w, we must c onsider (1) the evidenc e, if a ny , rec eived at the trial and se ntencing heari n g, (2) the pr esente nce r eport, (3) the principles of sentenc ing and arg ume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s, (4 ) the natur e a nd c ha ra c te ri sti c s of the c ri min a l c on du c t, (5) a ny mitigating or statutory

enhanc ement fa ctors, (6) any statement that the defe ndant made on his o w n b e h a lf

, a n d ( 7 ) th e p o te n ti a l f

o r r e h ab il it ati o n o r tr e a tm e n t. T

. C. A

. § § 4 0

- 3 5

- 102, -103, -210; see a lso Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168; State v. Moss, 727 S.W .2d 229, 236-37 (Te nn. 1986).
I n Tenne ssee, the r ang e of punishment for a Rang e I defe ndant convicted of a Class B felony is eig ht to twelve y ear s. T.C.A. § 40-35-112(a )(2)

. The appropriate sentenc e for a Class B fe lony is presumptively the m inimum sentenc e unless there are enhanc ement fa ctors pre sent. T.C.A. § 40- 35-210(c ). P roce durally , the t rial court is to incre ase the sentenc e withi n the ra ng e base d upon the exis tence of enhanc ement fac tors and, then, reduc e the sentenc e as appropriate for a n ym i t i g ating fac tors. T.C.A. § 40-35-210( d)-( e). The weig ht to be aff orded an exis ting f

actor is left to the trial court’s discr etion so long a s it complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 S entenc ing A ct and it s f in d in g s ar e a d e q u a te ly

s u p p o r te d b y

th e r e c o r d

. T

. C. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 , Se n te n cing Commi ssion Com ments; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169; Moss, 727 S.W .2d at 237.
I nit ia lly , w e no te that ou r s up re me c ou rt ha s h e ld a

tr ia l c ourt cann ot refu se to a pp ly mitigating fac tor (1 ) b as ed solely upon the fa ct that the off ense involved c rac k cocaine. State v. Ross, 49 S .W. 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 8 (Tenn. 2002) . The c ourt stated that a trial court must consider the defe ndan t ’s co n duct surrounding the commission of the offe nse. I d. We believe that mitigating fac tor (1) ma y

apply in this case bec ause the defe ndant was only in constructive possession when he was a rre sted and ther e is no proof in the r ecor d that he was attempting to sell or deliver the c ocaine at that time. Howeve r, we also note that the recor d ref lects the de fenda nt conducted his drug-6-

bu sin e ss i n th e ho me wh e re his tw o min or c hil dr e n liv e d. I n a ny e ve nt, we a ff or d thi s f a c tor lit tle weig ht and conc lude that th ed e f e n d an t’ s p rior criminal hist ory of six misdemeanor c onvictions more than justifies the trial court’s one y ear enhanc ement of his sente nce. B a se d u po n th e fo re g oin g a ndthe re c or d a s a wh ole , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE