### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 9, 2000 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PRINC E TERRELL GLASS Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 6713 Joseph H. Walker, Judge

No. W2000-00079-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 25, 2000

The defendant, Prince Terrell Glass, appeals from his conviction of possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine. He alleges the evidence of “ intent to deliver” is insufficient to support his conviction and that he is guilty of no offense greater than simple possession. Upon review of the record, the brie

fs of the parties,

and the applicab

le law, we affir

m. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Ju

dgment of the Circ

uit Court Affirme

d.
J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID G. H AYES and J OHN E VERETT W ILLI AMS , JJ., joined. Gary F. Antrican, District Public Defender, Julie Pillow, Assistant District Public Defender, for the Appellant, Prince

Terrell Glass.
Pa u l G. Summers, Attorne y General & Reporter, L

ucian D. Geise, A

ssistant Attorney

General, Elizabeth T. Rice, D

istrict Attorney

General, Trac

y Brewer , Assistant Distric

t Attorney G

eneral.
OPINION
Prince Terrell Glass

appeals from his conviction of possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Sched u le II controlled substance. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 417(a)(4), (c)(1) (Supp. 1999). For this Class B felony, the

trial court impose

d an eight-y

ear, split c onfinement

sentence. Glass alleges in this appeal that the evidence of his “intent to del iver” i s insufficient to sup

port his conviction . Because we di sagree, we a

ffirm.
O n November 4, 1998, officers from the Ripley Police Department and th e Lauderdale

County Sheri f

f’s Department executed a search warrant at the defendant’s residence

. The warrant was issued following a confidential informant’s earlier purchase of marijuana at the residence. Inside the home, the officers en countered the de

fendant, his brother and his mother. After Investigator

Jeff Tutor of the po

lice department r

ead the warran

t, he asked if any

one wanted to admi

t anything in order to expedite the search. The defendant responded that the

re was something

in his-2-

pants pocket in his bedroom. Two bags of a white substance were recovered from the poc ket of a pair of pants in the defendant’s be droom. The white

substance was la

ter tested and de

termined to be 1.6 grams of cocaine hydrochloride. Cas h in the amoun t of $257 was also recovered from the pants pocket. Plastic sandwich bags with the corners torn away wer e recovered

from a trash can

in the defendant’s bedroom. No drugs were found elsewhere in the house, and no drug par

aphernalia was recovered. Investigator Tutor, w ho is assigned to work drug investigations, testified that drug sales are commonly

made in $20 increm

ents. All but $ 1 7 of the $257 reco vered was in $20 b

ills. Tutor also testi fied that it was common to find p lastic bags with t

he corners torn a

way in investigations of individuals who package drugs for delivery. Dr ugs are dropped into a

bag, which is then twisted and tied off into an individual package for delivery. After the defendant was taken to the jail, he told Investigator Tutor that he was a drug user. Investigator Tutor testified that he believed, but was

not certain, that

the defendant’s

brother used dru

gs. Investigator

John Thompson of the sheriff’s department, who was also present for the execution of the search warrant, testified that the plastic ba

gs that were re

covered are c

onsistent with th e way in which drugs are customarily packaged. Investigator Thompson also testified that if he gave an inform

ant $20 to buy

cocaine hy

drochloride, he

would expect to rec

eive .25 grams.
On this evidence, the ju

ry convicte

d the defendant o

f possession with

intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine. On appeal , the defendant a rgues that the e

vidence of his inte

nt to deliver is insuffi

cient.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evid ence, an appe llate court 's standardof review i s whethe r, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the esse ntial elements of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 279 1-92 (1979); State v. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 1985); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). This rule appli es to findi ngs of guilt based upon dire ct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstant ial evidence

. State v. Dykes , 803 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). On appeal, the defendant

no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence and therefore has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. State v. Tuggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.1982).

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court shoul d not rewei gh or reevaluate

the evidence. State v. Matthews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as we

ll as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trie r of fact. State v. Ca bbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Nor may this court substitute its infer

ences for those

drawn by the trier of fact

from the evidence. Liakas v. State , 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956); Farmer v. State , 574 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). On the contrary, this court must afford the State of Tennessee the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record as well-3-

as all reasonabl

e and legitimate

inferences which may be drawn from the evidenc e. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d at 835.

A person who knowingly possesses with the intent to deliver .5 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine is guilty of a crime. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a)(4), (c)(1) (Supp. 1999). “It may be inferred from the a mount of a controlled substanc e or substances possessed by an offender, alon

g with other relevant facts surrounding the arrest, that the controlled substance or substances were possessed with the purpose of selling or otherwise dispensing.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-419 (1997).

In the present case, the defendant claims that the evidence does not support a finding of his guilt bey

ond a reaso

nable do ubt because he told the officers that he was a drug user and because others livedin the house, one of whom was also

a drug user. On the other hand, the state’s evidence demonstrated that the defendant possessed 1.6 grams of cocaine, much more than the .25 grams typical of an individual drug sale. A confidential inf ormant to law enforceme

nt had recently made a purchase of another illicit substance at the defendant’s residence. Several plastic bags torn in a manner consistent with the packaging of cocaine for resale were discover ed in the defendant’s bedroom. The pants pocket from which the cocaine wasrecovered also contained $257, a

lmost all of which was in $20 bills, the same amount that is typical of the increments in which dr u g transactions take place. The cocaine a nd plastic bags were recover ed from the defe

ndant’s bedroom, andno drugs were found elsew here in the h ouse. No dru g paraphernal ia, which m igh t be use d to ingest cocaine, was recovered from the defendant’s home.A rational jury could determine from this evidence that

the defendant was guilty of possession with intent to deliver. See, e.g. , State v. Willie J. Wade , No. 02C01-9709-CC-00359, slip op. at 4-5 (T en n. Crim. App., Jackson, June 11, 1998) (possession withintent to deliver in ferred from pos session of 2.2 gr ams of cocaine, defendant’s lack of gainful emp

loyment, a

nd $337.44 cash, $1 80 of which was in $ 20 bills); State v. Ronald Mitchell , No. 02C01-9702-CC-00070, slip op. at 5, 11-12 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, S ept. 15, 1997) (evidence of

pos session with intent to deliver sufficient where defendant had on his person 1.1 grams of cocaine, pager, and over $200 cash, even thoug h defendant offered non-drug-related explanation for pager and cash), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 199 8); Sta te v. Robert Lee Moore , No. 02C01-9502-CC-00038, slip op. at 4-5(Ten n. Crim. App., Jackso

n, Oct. 4, 1995) (possession with intentto sell or deliver inferred from defendant’s possession of $239, a beeper and a large, 7.9 gram rock of cocaine base), perm. app. denied(Tenn. 1996). It is beyond our province to second-gues s the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and weig hing of the evidence. As such, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE