# FILED June 8, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT JACKSON MAY SESSION, 1998
STATE OF TE NNE SSE E, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9709-CC-00373 ) Appellee, ) ) HARDEMAN COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. JON KERRY BLACKWOOD, ANTHONY P. GEANES, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (DEL IV ERY OF SCHEDUL E IIDRUG)
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JOHN C. MAS K, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP P.O. Box 611 Attorney General& Reporter Bolivar,TN 38008 CLINTON J.MORGAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 ELIZA BETH T. RI CE District Attorn ey Ge neral JERRY W. NORWOOD Assistant Distri ct Attorney General 302 M arket Stre et Somervill e, TN 38068

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION
The Defen dant, An thony P . Gean es, app eals as o f right fr om his convi ction in the Ci rcui t Court of Hardeman County. Foll owing a jury trial , Defendant was convictedof delivery o f a Sche dule II con trolled sub stance . He was senten ced to serve fifteen (15) years as a Range II Offender. In this appe al, Defendant challengesthe sufficien cy of the ev idence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.
When an accused chall enges the suff iciency of the convic ting evi dence, the stand ard is whether, after r eviewing t he evidence i n the li ght most favor able to th e prosecution , any rati onal trier of fact could have found the essent ial el ements of the cri me beyon d any re ason able doubt. Jack son v. V irginia , 443 U.S. 30 7, 319 (1979 ). On appeal, the State is ent itled to t he strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all inference s therefro m. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W
. 2d 832, 83 5 (Tenn. 19 78). Because a verdict

of guil t removes thepresumption of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of

guilt,the accused hasthe burden i n this cour t of il lustrat ing why the evidence is insuffic ient to s uppo rt the ve rdict retu rned b y the trie r offact. State v. Tug gle , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (T enn. 1982); State v. Grace , 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 19 73).
Questions concerning the credib ilit y ofthe witnes ses, the w eight and value to be given the evidence, as wel l as allfactua l iss ues raised by th e evidence, are resol ved by the trier of fa ct, not this co urt. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W.2d 620, 62 3 (Tenn. Crim. A pp.), perm . to appeal deni ed , id . (Tenn. 198 7). Nor ma y this court r eweigh or reevalu ate the ev idence
. Cabbage , 571 S. W.2d at 835 . A jury verd ic t-3-

approved by the trial judg e accre dits the Sta te’s witnesse s and re solves all co nflicts in favor of the State. Grace , 493 S.W .2d at 476
. Sylvester

Island worked with the Drug T ask Forc e in 1996 and w as pa id $100.00 each day he served as a confidenti al informant. He knew the Defendant as “Money G.” On A ugust 1 5, 1996 , he saw the Defe ndant at De fenda nt’s bro ther’s homeand told Defendant that heneeded a “sixteen th.” A “s ixteent h” refe rs to a b ig rockof crack c oc aine. T hey dis cuss ed m eeting the ne xt day a t Defe ndan t’s brothe r’s home . On Au gust 16, 1996, Invest igator Bar rett Stevens put a vi deo camera in Island’s c ar and p rovided h im with $ 100.00 to purch ase the cocaine. Jarhonda Parker, t he Defendant’s gi rlfriend, accompanied hi m to purchase the cocaine from the Defen dant.
Island and Parker drove to Defendant’ s brother’ s home and Defenda n t approached their car. Island asked hi m, “You got that sixteent h for me?” Defendant stated t hat he had it, reach ed in h is pock et and gave Is land a n obje ct wrap ped in paperwhile Island gave Defendant $100.00. Island drove to me et Stevens an d gave the objec t wrappe d in pape r to him. N o one e lse hand led the ob ject. Investigato r Barrett Stevens wit h the Boliv ar Police Depar

tment worked with Sylvester

Isl and s ever

al t imesper week . On Augus t 16, 1996 , before Isla nd left to meet with the Defendant, Stevens searched hi m and his car and then put a vide o camera in his car to vi deotape the tr ansaction. After I sland completed the transacti on, he met Steven s at the Nationa l Guard Arm ory. Island gave Stevens a white piece of paper , and when Stevens unf olded it , there appear ed to be a larg e-4-

rockof crack cocai ne. Stevens put the substance i n a sealed envel ope and then deliver ed it to the crime l ab. Kay Sheriff is a fo re nsic scientist for the Tennessee Bureau of I nvestigat ion and works in t he crime lab. She received and tested thi s object anddetermined that the substance was si x-tenths (0.6) of

a gram of a Schedule II cocaine base substa nce.
Jarhonda Parker test ified that she accom panied Island to m eet with Defendan t. Parker knew the Defendant and recogni zed him when he handed the object to Island. A vide otape of the trans action was sh own to the jury.
The Defendant test ified that Isla nd approached him o n Aug ust 16 , 1996 at his brothe r’s home. Defendant gave him so me “s peed ” pills for w hich Is land p aid Defendant $50.00. Defendant stated thatthese pil ls were not cocaine and that he has ne ver sold co caine.
Defendantconte nds th at the e videnc e is insu fficient a s there was re ason able doubt regarding the d ru g tra nsaction and whet her the Defendant actuall y handed the cocaine to Island. It is an offense to kn owingly deliver a controll ed substance. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a)(2). In the light most favorabl e to the State, a rati onal trier of fact coul d have determined that Def endant del ivered the controlled Sched ule II substance of cocain e to Island . This de livery was te stified to by Island a nd Parker, in addition to a videota pe of the d rug trans acti o n. Any questi ons concerning t he credibil ity of

witnessesand th e factu al issue s have previo usly been determined by the trier of fact,and we willnot reevalua te the evide nce. Th is issue is w ithout me rit.-5- Defendan t also cha llenges th e length o f his sente nce, arg uing that th e tr ia l court failedto apply appr opriate mitigating factors. When an accused chall enges the length, range or the manner of service of

a s entence, this court ha s a duty to conduct a de novo review of the sentencewith a presu mption that the determinat ions made by the trial court are correct . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35 -401( d). Th is presumption is “con ditione d upo n the a ffirmativ e sho wing in the record that the t rial court considered t he sentencing principl es and all relevant fa cts and c ircums tances .” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The Defendant fai led to i nclude the transcri pt from the se ntencing hearing for our review, and it is his duty to prepare an adeq uate re cord in order to allow fo r a me aning ful revie w on appeal . Tenn . R. App. P. § 24(b ); State v. Bunch , 646 S.W
. 2d 158 , 160 (T enn. 19 83); State v. Robe rts , 755 S.W .2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1988 ). In absence o f that record which is essential for our revi ew, we m ust presu me th at the tria l court’s ruling is correctand we are precl uded from co nsidering the issue
. State v. Richard son , 875 S.W .2d 671, 674 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1993 ).
We affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.-6- ____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS , Judge