### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 4, 200 5 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . BERNARD MIGUE L WAL LACE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardin County No. 8292 C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2004-02124-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Janu ary 3, 2006

The de fendant, Be rnar d Migue l Wallac e, wa s convicted by a Ha rdin County

jury of the sale of under .5 g rams o f a

Sc he du le I I

c on tr oll e d s ub stanc e , c oc a ine , a Cla ss C fe lon y . He was sen tence d a s a Rang e I I , m u ltiple offende r to nine y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction and fine d $2000. On appea l, he arg ues: (1) the evidenc e was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) his sentence is ill eg al pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct . 2531 (2004). F ollowing our re vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the 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
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined. Curtis F. Hopper , Savannah, T ennesse e, for the appe llant, Be rnar d Migue l Wallace.
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; G. Robert Radfor d, District Attorney Gene ral; and John W . Overton, J r., Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
F AC TS The de fendant’s conviction s tems from a J uly 10, 2003, controlled drug transac tion with a c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nt w ho wa s wo rking un de rc ov e r wi th la w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic ia ls. Se rg e a nt T im Kelley of the Twe nty -F ourth J udicial Drug Task F orce testified that I nvestig ator Te rry Dicus of the Har din County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment contac ted hi m about an informant, W illiam Arnold, who wa s wi lli ng to “ do so me na

rc oti c s b uy s f

or ” the ta sk

fo rc e . K e lle y

me t w ithDi c us a nd Arn olda t hi s office , wher e they

decide d the informant would try to purcha se drug s from the de fendant. Asked how the def

endant wa s selecte d, Kelley said he be lieved the informant and Dicus ma de that dec ision. The off icer said that prior to the drug transac t ion, he “se arc hed Mr. Arnold, searc hed the ve hicle,T he i nfo rm an t wa s given $ 5 0 wit h w hich t o b uy d rug s. 1

K el l ey ex pl ai ned t hat he wai t ed four day s t o get a s ear ch war r ant t o prot ect t he i nf ormant an d becaus e h e h ad 2 ho p ed t he d efen d an t wo uld ha ve “re-up p ed an d ha d a fresh am o un t ” o f d rug s. -2- place d a body

wire on him and g ave h i m s o m e m o n ey that was mar

ked.” The off

icer s and the 1 informant then pr ocee ded to the defenda nt’s residenc e where the office rs watched from their ca r as t h e i n fo rmant ente red. K elley said he wa s able to both monitor and re cord the informant’s conver sation with the defe ndant “[t] hroug h the body wire” the i nformant was wea ring . He e x plained that he re c og nize d the de fe nd a nt’ s vo ic e be c aus e he ha d “ ha d se ve ra l de a lin g s w ith ” the de fe nd a nt. Kelley initiallyhear d the def

endant “ g et on [ the i nformant] a li ttle bit for c oming to the r esidenc e” befor e hea

ring Arnold ask the defendant: “‘Hey , I hate to bother

y ou, but can I

g et a f ifty [? ]” After the buy was c ompleted, Arnold a nd Kelley returne d to Kelley ’s offic e whe re t he informant ga ve Kelley the “c ocaine or the crac k rock he[] boug ht.” Kelley then sea rche d the informant a nd his car once mor e bef

ore the informant wa s allowed to lea ve. F our day s later, Ke lley p rocured a se arc h wa rr ant for the de fe nd a nt’ s h ou se , w he rehe fo un d s ome B ri llo pa ds , r oll ing pa pe rs , a nd$8 00 to $900. None of

the marke d money

used in the transa ctio n wi t h the informant wa s found. Kelley 2 identified the tape rec ording of the tra nsaction and his transcription of i t, both of which we re the n introduced into evide nce. On cr oss-examination, Kelley acknow ledg ed that he ne ith er s aw what occur red inside the defe ndant’s re sidence during the transa ction nor did he e ver a ctually see the defe ndant. Asked if he hear d other voices over the transmission, Ke lley said he he ard othe r voice s once the informant lef t the def e n d a n t’ s r e s id e n c e b u t c o u ldn o t i d e n ti f y th e v o ic e s . T h e o f

f ic e r a c k n o w le d g e d th a t the informant wa s curr ently

in jail and denied that the inf ormant wa s paid fo r t he tra nsaction. Ke lley identified the “ rock” he g ot from the informant as being “[z ]ero point zero three (0.03) gr ams.” He a c k n o w le d g e d th a t t

h e r e w e r e a

n u mb e r o f p la c e s th e in f

o r man t c o u ld h a v e h id d e n a “ r o c k ” th is s iz e but emphasized that “[a]nypressure on it would completely brea k it.” He a lso acknowle dg ed that one cannot smoke cra ck coc aine with a B rillo pad alone and that he did not test the Brill o pad for any cocaine re sidue. Willi a m A rn old , th e inf

orma nt, te sti fi e d th a t hewa s c ur re ntl y c on fi ne d at th e Ha

rd in C ou nty J ail for violating hi s probation. He w as plac ed on probation for ag g ravated burg lary , and he a c k n o w le d g e d h a v in g o th e r p r io r f e lo n y c o n v ic ti o n s . A r n o ld

s a idh e h a d c o n ta c te d I n v e stiga tor Di c us a ndtol d h im “ that in or de r to he lp ou t [his ] m om a nd [his ] s ist e r, [he ] w ou ld do wh a te ve r i t too k to he lp the m out. ” As ke d ab ou t his own dr ug us e , A rn olda c kn ow le dg e d u sin g dr ug s inthe pa st an d re s t ar t i n g wh en h e “ go tb ac k i n v o l v ed wi t h t h i s . ” Ar n o l d s ai d h e ha d m et t h e de fe n d an tt h ro u gh his sist er. A rnold explained that he met with Serg eant Kelley at hi s office on J uly 10, 2003, to set up the dr ug bu y fr om the de fe nd a nt. Pr ior to l eavi ng for the d e fe nd a nt’ s, Ke lle y se arc he d h im t o make sure he had no dr

ug s on him and then put a body wire on him. He said he initially attempted to c a ll the de fe nd a nt’ s c e ll p ho ne bu t c ou ld n ot m ake con tac t so he we nt t o th e de fe nd a nt’ s h ome wher e, he e x plained:-3-

[W]e w e nt o n in sid e , a nd[the de fe nd a nt] - - p re tty muc h, he did n’ t li ke the ide a of me c omi ng by

wi tho ut c a lli ng him a nd c on ta c tin g him fi rs t, andwe we nt b a c k a ndfo rth about that a little bit and g ot that worked out, a nd I said I neede d to ge t fifty

dollars ($50) worth of cra ck fr om him , and he said, “All rig ht,” and madethe dea l, and, pr e tty muc h, that w a s it

. Arnold said he g ave $50 to the de fendant and the def endant g ave him cr ack in r eturn. He said the de fe nd a nt had th e crack in a “ ba g g ie ins ide of

his po c ke t” a nd“ op e ne d th e ba g up a ndtoo k o ut a chunk and g ave it to” hi m. After g etting the cra ck, Arnold drove ba ck to Kelley ’s offic e whe re he g ave it to the off

icer

. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Arno ld a g a in a c kn ow le dg e d h is e xten siv e c ri min a l hi sto ry a ndsa id he wa s on pro batio n at the tim e he c on ta c te d the Dr ug Ta sk F or c e abo ut d oin g a

dr ug bu y . H e a lso acknow ledg ed testing positive f or coc aine use in November 2003 but denied being “stoned” the day he bo ug ht c ra c k fr om the de fe nd a nt. Arno ld d e nie d b uying dr ug s f ro m th e de fe nd a nt b e fo rea ndsa id Dicus wa s the one who sug g ested that he buy from the de fendant. Brian Eaton, a

specia l ag ent fore nsic scientist with the Tenne s s ee Bureau of I nvestig ation Crime L aboratory , testified that he a naly zed the rock substanc e that Arnold purcha sed fr om the defe ndant and his “re sults wer e that it was cocaine , which is a Sche dule I I , and the we ight wa s zero point three (0.3) g rams.”
I nvestig ator Te rry

Dicus of the H ardin County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment t estified that the informant conta cted him and they discussed “se tting up a c ontrolled buy from [the defe ndant].” He e xpla ine d th a t he kn e w A rn oldfr om “ so me pr e vious deal ing s w ithhim .” He sa id A rn old volunteere d to buy

drug s in order to he lp his mother and sister. Dicus said Arnold’s mother, who wa s in ja il at th e tim e , w a s g ive n a be ne fi c ia l w or

k d e ta il a s a res ul t of Arn ol d’ s h e lp. On c ro ssexamination, Dicus testified that he conta cted Ser g eant Ke lley and t h ey set up the drug buy . He acknow ledg ed that he could not observe the actual drug transac tion but said he listened to it over the transmitting devic e. AN AL YSI S I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence As his fi rs t is su e , th e de fe nd a nt ch a lle ng e s the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e in s up po rt of his co n v i ct i o n . He a

rg ues the e vidence was, at best, sufficient to convic t him of casual e x change pursuant to Tenne ssee C o d e An n otated sec tion 39-17-418(a ) bec ause “ there was no pre arr ang ed meeting betwee n [t he def endant] and the c onfidential informa nt for the purpose of anything, much less the purc hase or

the sale of

narc otics.” The State a sserts that this was a straightf orwa rd “a ctive exchang e of money for drug s” done for the defe ndant’s “‘pe cuniary ’ g ain.” We ag ree with the State.-4-

When the sufficie ncy

of the c onvicting e vidence is c halleng ed, the rele vant question of the revie wing court is “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the l i gh t most favora ble to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e) (“F indings of g uilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or

jury shall be set aside if the evidenc e is insuff icient to support the finding s by the trier of fact of guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992) ; State v . An d er s on, 835 S.W .2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) . All questions involvi ng the cre dibilit y

of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven th e ev i d en ce , an d all fac tual issues are resolved by

the trier of

fac t. See State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A g uiltyverdic t by

the jury , approve d by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the t es t i m ony of the witnesse s for the State and re s o l v es al l conflicts in favor of the the ory of the State.” State v. Gra ce, 493 S.W. 2d47 4, 47 6 ( Te nn . 1 97 3) . O ur su pr e me c ou rt

state d th e ratio na le fo r this ru le : This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the jury see the witnesses fa ce to fac e, hea r their testimony

and observe their de meanor on the stand . T hu s th e tr ia l ju dg e a ndjury are th e primary

ins trume nta lit y

of jus tic e to determine the weig ht and cre dibilit y to be g iven to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human atmosphere and the totality of the e vidence cannot be re produce d with a written re cord in this Court. Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 11, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 ( 1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464, 370 S.W .2d 523 (1963)) . A j u ryconviction re moves the pre sumption of innocence with which a defe ndant is initi ally

cloake d and re place s it with one of g uilt, so t hat on appea l, a convicte d defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the evidenc e is insufficient. See State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982)

. To obtain a conviction for sale of less than .5 g rams of a Schedule II

controlled substanc e, c oc a ine , th e State wa s r e qu ir e d to sh ow be y on d a r e a so na ble do ub t th a t th e de fe nd a nt kno wi ng ly so ld le ss tha n . 5 g rams o f c oc a ine

. Te nn . Cod e An n. § 39 -1 7- 41 7( a )( 3) , (c )( 2) (A ) (S up p. 20 05 ). I n h is brie f, the de fe nd a nt c on c e de s th a t he “ re c og nize d the inf orma nt a s Willi a m Arno ld, kn e w him by his na me , a ndultim ately

so ld a sma ll q ua nti ty

(a pp ro xima te ly

.3 g rams) to Wi lli a m A rn oldfo r f if ty dollar s ( $ 5 0

. 0 0 )

. ” H e ar g u e s , h o w e v e r , th a t b e c au s e “ th e r e w a s n o p r e arr a n g e d me e ti n g b etwee n [hi mself] and the confide ntial inform an t , ” because he knew the informant, no mar ked money

or narc otics were rec overe d from his home, and only a small amount of cocaine was passe d betwee n himself and the informant, the evidenc e only supports a ca sual exchang e. We disag ree . Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 39-17-418 provides that “[i] t is an offe nse for a per son to knowingly

possess or ca sually

exchang e a controlled substance unle ss the substance w as obtained dir e c tly fr om, or pu rs ua nt t o, a

va lidpr e sc ri pti onor

or de r o f a pr a c tit ion e r w hil e a c tin g in the c ou rs e of prof essional pra ctice.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-418(a ) (2003)

. This c ourt has explained that “a c asual e x chang e is simplythe transf er of drug s withou t t

h ec h a r a cteristics of barg aining , pecunia ry motive, and desig n ty p i cal of a sale. T hus, a common example of a c asual e x chang e is theA ccor di ng t o t he t r ans cr i pt , t he defendan t ’ s ni ckn ame i s “ N aN a. ” 3 -5- spontaneous passing of a small amount of dr ug s at a party .” State v. Edwar d P. Har ris, No. 01C01- 9810-CR-00392, 2000 WL 19536, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. J an. 13, 2000) (citing State v. Copeland, 983 S.W .2d 703, 708 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) ). F urthermor e, [w] hether a tra nsfer is a ca sual exchang e is to be dete rmined fr om all the fac ts and circ umstances of

the ca se. [St ate v.] Helton, 507 S.W .2d [117,] 120-21 [(Tenn. 1974)]. Fac ts and circ umstances indicating that the tr ansac tion is not a ca sual exchang e include a

lack of evidenc e that the de fendant ga ve the dr ug s to the buy er out of frie ndship or as a fr i en dly g esture, se e State v. Jack Allison, No. 01C01-9402-CC-00061, 1995 WL 60006, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Na shville, Feb. 14, 1995); no evidenc e re flec ting a ny thing other than a p ec u n i ar y

motive for the tr a ns fer of the dr

ug s, se e Ha

rris, 20 00 WL

19 53 6, a t *3 ; no prior

re la tio ns hip betwee n the defendant and the buy er, see id.; and no rea son for the de fendant and the bu y e r t o b e tog e the r, oth e r tha n f or thebu y e r t o p ur c ha se d ru g s, se e State v. Eric L are z, No. 03C01-9810-CR-00379, 1999 WL 997514, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App., Knoxvi lle, Nov. 4, 1999). State v. Do na ld L . H a y ne s, No . E 20 00 -0 06 72 -C CA -R 3- CD , 200 1 WL 41 67 29 , at *4 ( Te nn . Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2001) , perm. to appe al denied ( Tenn. Oc t 1, 2001). Viewe d in the light most favor able to the State, the e vidence showed that the informant went to the de fe nd a nt’ s h ou se wi th the so le int e nti on of pu rc ha sin g c ra c k co c a ine

. He a sk e d for $5 0 w orth of cr ack c ocaine , which the de fendant ga ve him in exchang e for the money . These actions are more than s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n f or sa le of c oc a ine

. Th e reis n oth ing to s ug g e st that this was a “sponta neous” e x chan ge between f riends. The transcript of the drug exchang e, e nte re d in to e vid e nc e a s a n e xhibi t, fu rthe r ill us tr a te s ho w thi s dr ug tr a ns a c tio n c on sti tut e s th e sa le of c oc a ine a ndno t a

me re c aus a l e xch a ng e : Arno ld: Hi Ma n, I

tr ie d to c a ll m a n b ut. [Th e de fe nd a nt]: Th a t’ s w hat I ’m say ing ma n[.] I do n’ t w a nt any

bo dy c omi ng to m y house now day ’s dog , I

don’t like that. Shit m an. Arnold: I tried to ca ll but. (I nterrupte d) [The defe ndant]: That’s what I ’m saying man[.] I don’t want no mother Fucker coming to my

h o u s e a t a ll d o g y o u k n o w w h a t I ’ m s a y in g . I ’ m s e r io u s ab o u t tha t n o w[

. ] I an t[ s i c] p l ay i n g. Arnold: I ’m sorry

about that NANA [.] I

didn’t know better y ou know. 3-6-

A r n o l d : C a n I

h o l l e r a ty o u r e a l q u i c k

a m i n u t e [ ?] [ T h e d e f e n d a n t ] : W h a t ’ s u p m a n [ ?] Arnold: I just want to ge t a Fif

ty from y ou man. Arnold: My

bad man, I

haven’ t messed enoug h to know y ou know. Arnold: I should have c alled y o u first but I don’t want to g et in [y ]our business or anything. [Th e de fe nd a nt]: I

did n’ t me a n to be to[o ] h a rd on y ou ma n b ut the reis a lot of sh it g oing on right now. Arnold: Aw I know y ou don’t ever want no surprise man. What’s the uh [w] hat’s t h e r i g h tn u m b e r [ ?] [The defe ndant]: . . . . m an . . . , that will chang e af ter tomorrow [.] Arnold: Well uh. [The defe ndant]: I t might be that f or one morenight but that’s it thoug h. Arnold: Well, I ’ll never

do that to y ou ag ain. [The defe ndant]: Appreciate that man.
A r n o l d : N o w n o w [ s i c ] I’ mh ap p y. [The defe ndant]: Ig ot a lot of traf fic ou t h er e m an , I

just don’t want no surprises m an . Yo u k n o w w h atI ’m s ay i n g. Arnold: I appre ciate that man. [The defe ndant]: The mother fucke rs came throug h las t n i gh t k n ow what I ’m s a y i n g [ ?]
Arno ld: Ohno sh it. [The defe ndant]: [ Y]eah.
Arno ld: Damn I

did n’ t kn ow that.-7-

[The defe ndant]: [ Y]eah. Arnold: Be car eful man. The trial c ourt cha

rg ed the jury

that it could find the defe ndant g uiltyof ca sual exchang e rathe r than sale of cocaine. The jury

chose to c onvict the def

endant of sale of c ocaine , and the e vidence is more than suffic ient to support its decision. II. Sentencing As his secon d i s s u e, t he def endant a rg ues his sentenc e is illeg al pursuant to B lakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). In a supplementa l brief f iled with this court, he a c kn ow le dg e s th a t un de r S ta te v. Go me z, 1 63 S.W. 3d 63 2 (T e nn . 200 5) , B lake ly do e s n ot a

pp ly to T en n es s ee s en t en ci n g gu i d el i n es . He , h o we v er , u rge s t h i s co u rt t o re co n s i d e r t h e G o m ez ru l i n g. This, we choose not to do. The defe ndant was sentenc ed as a multipl e offe nder based on e vidence produce d at his sentencing he aring that showed he had four prior fe lony

convictions for sa le of cocaine. Acc ording ly , this arg ument is without m erit. CO NC LU SION
B a se d on the fo re g oin g auth oriti e s a nd re a so nin g , we a ff ir m the jud g me nt of

the tria l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE