### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 17, 200 4

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. TE R R A N C E C EC IL

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Maury County No. 13621 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2004- 00161-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Dece m ber 30, 2004

A M a u r y C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t j u r y c o n v i c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , T e rr a n c e C e c i l
, o f p o s s e s s i n g t w e n t ysix g ra ms o r m or e of c oc a ine wi th int e nt to se ll, a Cla ss B fe lon y , a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d h im

a s a Ra ng e I , s ta nd ardof

fe nd e r t o te n y e ars to be se rv e d in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. On app e a l, th e d ef en d ant contends that the evidenc e is insufficient to support his conviction. We aff irm the 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

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of t he court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Rhonda D. Hooks, Columbia, Tennesse e (on a ppeal)
, Claudia S. Jack, District Public Defe nder, a nd Shi pp R. We e ms, As sis ta nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, (at tria l) , f or the app e lla nt, Te rr a nc e Ce c il.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Bre nt C. Cherry , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; T. Michel B ottoms, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; and B rent A. Cooper
, As s i s tant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

This case rela tes to the defe ndant’s arr est on J uly 9, 2002, with 3.8 g rams of coc aine tucke d behind his scrotum and 24.3 g rams of c ocaine inside a teddy bear on the back seat of the car in which he wa s riding. T he def

endant wa s sitti ng on the front passeng er seat, Kevin I ng old was driving the

car , and Camer on Alexander was sitti ng on the rear seat with the t eddy bear when the three me n wer e stopped by

a police of

fice r.

Cameron Ale x ander

testif i ed that on Jul y

9, 2002, he aske d Mr. I ng old to help him get a n

ou nc e of c oc a ine

. Mr

. Al e xan de r sa id h e wa nte d me re ly to m ake so me e xtra

mon e y a ndwa s n ot i n the re g ula r b us ine ss o f s e lli ng dr

ug s. He sa id Mr . I ng old a g re e d to ge t an oun c e of c oc a ine fo r h im and made a t el ep h o n e call. He testified that a fterw ard, he and Mr. Ing old drove to an a partment-2-

bu ild ing , p ic ke d u p the de fe nd a nt, a nd he a de d for the “ e a st sid e ” of Col umb ia , Te nn e sse e . He sa id that during the drive he handed the defe ndant $1000.00 in c ash to purcha se the ounc e of c ocaine and that the def

endant took the money

. He said they dropped the defe ndant off in f ront of a house and then drove to a diffe rent location and parke d, wai t i n g fo r t h e d efe ndant to call. He testified that approximately

five or te n minutes later the defe ndant called, and they returne d to the house to pick him up. He sa id the defe ndant enter ed the c ar, sat on the front passe ng er se at, and ha nded him the dr ug s. Mr . A le xan de r t e sti fi e d that he pla c e d the dr ug s in sid e a

te dd y be ar tha t he ha d b ro ug ht w ith him fo r this pu rp os e a ndthat th e thr e e me n start e d dri vin g a way . H e sa id w ith in f ive to t e n mi nu te s, po lic e of fi c e rs sig na le d th e m to pu ll o ve r. He sa id the po lice of fi c e rs g ra bb e d th e de fe nd a nt,

sear ched h i m , an d p l aced him in handcuff s. Mr. Alexander sa id he hea rd the de fenda nt tell the of fi c e r, “ Th e wh ite bo y

ha d th e do pe in the ba c ks e a t.” He sa id the of fi c e rs the n r e mov e d M r. I ng old

a nd him se lf fr om the c ar. Mr

. Al e xan de r te sti fi e d that he ma de no de a ls wi th the state re g ard ing his testimony

.

On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, Mr . A le xan de r a dmi tte d tha t the arr e st te rrif ie d h im a ndthat he wo uld do “anything in the wor ld” to a void g oing to ja il, which included ly ing. H e said that he was not ly ing during his testimony
, howeve r. He a dmitted that he spoke with the district attorney and re iterate d that the state did not offe r him a dea l in ex chang e for his testimony

. Serg eant Thoma s Ehret, of the Columbi a Police Department, testified that he was wor king
as super visor of the c rime suppression unit on J uly 9, 2002, and that they

wer e experienc ing he avy d ru g tr a f f ic o n th e e a s t a n d w e s t s id e s o f Co lu mb ia a t th a t ti me

. H e s a id th a t h e w a s driving an unmarke d police ca

r and tha t unmarked ca rs only look for violations of the law a nd do not stop vehicles unle ss an emer g ency arises. Depa

rtmental pol icy require s the offic er in a n unmarke d car
to c a ll f or a mark e d p oli c e c ar if the of fi c e r o bs e rv e s a

vio la tio n o f the la w a nd , u nti l th e mark e d u nit

arrives to ma

ke the stop, the office r in the unmarke d car only continues to obse rve the s u s p ect( s).

Offic er Ehr et testified that the incident involving the defe ndant beg an whe n he obser ved a
g r e y v e h i c l e s t o p p e d o n W e s t9 t h S t r e e ti n f r o n to f t h e h o u s e w h e r e a

m a n k n o w n a s “ N a y

- N a y” liv e d. He sa id “ Nay -N a y ” wa s a dr ug de a le r, a nd the po lic e ha d ma de na rc oti c s r a ids of

the ho us e

on sever al occ asions. He said the defe ndant emer g ed from “Na y -Na y ’s” house and e ntere d the g rey

ve hic le wh ic h dro ve a way , a ndOf fi c e r E hr e t f

oll ow e d it . H e sa id the ve hic le pr oc e e de d to ro ll thr ou g h a sto p s ig n, a t w hic h p oin t he c a lle d f or a mark e d po lic e c ar to sto p the ve hic le fo r the tr a ff ic violation. He testified that the offic ers driving mar ked ca rs wer e busy

so he continued f

ollowing the
g rey vehicle, w hich droppe d the def endant of f at a differ ent hous e and the n stopped at F airview Park. He said the vehicle sat for approximately ten minutes be fore the occupa nts dr ove bac k to the place they left the d ef

en d an t , picked him up, and dr ove aw ay . He sa id no one exited or entere d the ca r wh ile it w a s st op pe d. He sa id a pp ro xima te ly

te n o r f if te e n mi nu te s late r, Of

fi c e r Mo rg a n arrive d in

a mar ked police c ar a nd stopped the g rey vehicle. Offic er Ehret rema ined in his car and obser ved the ar rest. On c ross-examination, he testified that he did not see the def endant with cocaine or

car ry ing a ny thing that a

ppear ed to be c ocaine

.-3-

Of fi c e r V inc e Mo rg a n te sti fi e d th a t on July 9, 20 02 , Of fi c e r Eh re t obse rv e d a

g re y ve hic le committing seve ral tra ffic violations and called for a marke d police car to stop the vehicle. Of

fice r Morg an said he located the vehicle a nd stopped it. The def endant wa s sitti ng on the front pa sseng er

se a t. H e sa id that a s h e app ro a c he d th e c ar h e ob se rv e d th e de fe nd a nt “ g o u nd e r a se a t a ndc ome b ac k u p

. ” Of

fi cer Morg an said he unsnapped the rete ntion device on his we apon and a s he dre w

near er the car , he obser v ed t h e d ef en d ant re ach inside of

his pants. He said he told his partner, Offic er Ma

rtin, what he ha d observe d and instructed him to remove the defe ndant from the ve hicle. He testified that the defendant said, “The re’ s an ounce of dope in the bac kseat; it ain’t mine” whe n he exited the car . Offic er Mor g an said he handcuf fed the defe ndant, s ear ched him for we apons, and place d him in the back of the police ca r. He said he discove red one hundred dollar s in c ash on the defe ndant’s per son which the de fenda nt claimed wa s for sho p p ing. H e said that he advised the d ef en d an t of his Miranda rights a nd that the def endant told him ag ain, “The re’ s an ounce of dope in the backse at; it’s the skinny white dude.”

Offic er Mor g an testified that the three men wer e sepa rate d when they

arrived at the police station and that he a nd another office r conducte d a strip se arc h of the defe ndant. He sa id during the

sear ch a pla stic bag containing white powder fell fr om behind the def endant’ s scro t u m , an d the of fi c e rs fo un d $3 37 .0 0 hid de n in his sh oe s. Of fi c e r Mo rg a n s a id tha t Mr . A le xan de r’ s te sti mon y in

c ou rt w a s c o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h e v e r b a l a n d w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s h e g a v e t h e p o l i c e

. O n c r o s se xami natio n, Of

fi c e r M or g a n s a id the po lic e didno t f ind the $1 00 0. 00 that Mr . A le xan de r a lle g e dly
g ave the defe ndant. He also testified t hat t he defenda nt ga ve him four diff ere nt stories conce rning the inc ide nt: (1 ) H e didno t kn ow that c oc a ine wa s in the c ar, (2 ) h e kn e w a bo ut the c oca ine on ly beca use he overhe ard the two men t alking about i t, (3) he hear d the man in the bac k say he had “ an ounce of dope” when the police light went on, and (4) the two men wer e mere ly g iving him a ride to pick up his cellular tele phone.

Kathy Carman, a chemist working for the Tennesse e B ureau of I nvestig ation, testified that she tested the 3.8 g rams of w hite powder discovere d under the d ef en d an t ’s scrotum and the 24.3
g rams found in the te ddy

bear , and she ide ntified the substance as coc aine.

The de fenda nt testified that on J uly 9, 2002, he called Mr. I ng old be cause he neede d a ride to pick up the telephone he had left at his c ousin “ Moot’s” house the pre vious night. He said that Mr . I ng oldarrive d w ith a

“ wh ite du de ” he didno t kn ow sit tin g on the ba c k se a t of his c ar. He sa id he aske d the two men to “make a block” when they arrived at Moot’s h o use bec ause the neig hborhood wa s dang erous for white people. He said that bec ause his cousin wa s not at home, he called Ing old to pick him up, which he did. He sa id they wer e subse quently

pulled over by

the
po li c e , a t w h ic h p o in t th e w h it e ma n in th e b a c k to ld th e m h e h a d a n o u n c e o f c o c a ine. The defe ndant said the poli ce approa ched the car , g rabbe d him and acc used him of “stuff ing some thing.” The de fenda nt said that he tol d the pol ice that the m an in the back had an ounce of coca ine and that he did this because he ha d nothing to do with the drug s. The defe ndant claimed that he neve r saw the $1 00 0. 00 in c a sh , th e te dd y be ar, or a ny dr

ug s othe r tha n the c oc a ine dis c ov e re d d ur ing the strip

sear ch, which he claimed wa s for pe rsonal use. He said he had used coc aine f or appr ox imately

one and one- half y ear s.-4-

During cross-e x amination, the def endant sa id that he no long er use d drug s and that he ha d purcha sed the drug s found in his pants f rom a man named “ L ittle Tony .” He claimed that he hid the

coca ine behi n d h i s scrotum bef ore Mr . I ng old picked him up to preve nt its di scovery . He de nied ha vin g his ha nd s in his pa nts wh e n th e po li ce of fi c e rs app ro a c he d th e c ar anda dmi tte d th a t hi s cousin Moot is a convicted dr ug deale r.

The defe ndant contends that the evidenc e wa s insufficient to convict him bec ause a person cannot be convicted sole ly on the uncorr oborate d testimonyof an a ccomplice . He a sserts that Mr. Alexander wa s an acc omplice and that the state fa iled to present suff icient cor roborative evidenc e ind e pe nd e nt o f h is t e sti mon y to s ho w tha t th e de fe nd a nt w a s impli c a te d in the of fe ns e . T he state contends that suff

icient cor roborating e vidence exis ts. W e ag ree with the state.

Our standard of revie w reg arding sufficie ncy of the e vidence is “whethe r, af ter view ing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the c rime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2789 (1979). This me ans that we do not r ewe igh the evidenc e but pre sume that the jury has re solved all conflicts in the testimony and dra wn all re asonable i n fe renc es fr om the evidenc e in fa vor of the sta te. S ee State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Questions about witness cr edibilityare resolved by the jury a s is the qu e sti on wh e the r an a c c omp lic e ’s te sti mon y is suf fi c ie ntl y c or ro bo rate d. Se e Sta te v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) ; Stanley v. State, 222 S.W .2d 384, 387 (Tenn. 1949)

.

Mr. Al ex an d er was a n acc omplice to the offe nse cha rg ed. An a ccomplice is one who “know i ng ly , voluntarily , and with common intent unites with the principal off ender in the commission of a crime.” State v. Gre en, 915 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Mr. Alexander a dmitted wanting to pur chase an ounce of coca ine for resa le and that the c ocaine in the teddy bear belong ed to him.

A conviction ca nnot be based solely upon the uncor roborated testimony

of an a ccomplice

. State v. Ba ne, 57 S.W.3d 411, 419 (Te nn. 2001). Other evidenc e must e x ist, entirely independe nt from the a ccomplice ’s testimony , which esta blishes t h e d ef

endant’s identityand lea ds to the infere nce, in a nd of itself, that the de fenda nt is im plicated in the commissi on of the c rime. I d. The

e vid e nc e ma y

be dir e c t or ent ir ely

c ir c ums ta nti a l, a ndit n e e d n ot b e a de qu a te , ta ke n b y its e lf, to

su pp ort a c on vic tio n; “ it is s uf

fi c ie nt t o me e t th e re qu ir e me nts of the ru le if it f a ir ly a ndle g iti ma te ly tends to connec t the defe ndant with the commission of the crime c harg ed.” I d. (citations omitted). M o r e o v e r , t h e c o rr o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e n e e d n o te x t e n d t o e v e r y p ar to f t h e a c c o m p l i c e ’ s t e s t i m o n y.

The e vidence viewed in the light most favora ble to the state re veals throug h Mr. Alexander’ s testimonythat he, the defenda nt, and Mr. I ng old, planned to ac quire a n ounce of coca ine for the purpose of

resa le. M r. I ng old and Mr. Alexander picke d up the def endant a nd g ave him $1000.00 to buy the drug s. The thre e men dr ove to the def endant’ s cousin’s house on the e ast side of Col umb ia , T e nn e sse e . Appr ox im a te ly te n to fi ft e e n mi nu te s late r, Mr . A le xan de r andMr . I ng old picked up the de fenda nt who delivere d the drug s to Mr. Alexande r. M r. Al ex ander place d the-5-

coca ine inside a teddy bear broug ht f or the purpose of conce aling the drug s, and the thre e men dr ove

awa y . The police appre hended the m a short time later.

This testimonywas suff

iciently corr oborate d by the testimony of other witnesse s. Serg eant Ehret said that he observed Mr. I ng old pick up the def endant at Nay -Na y ’s house, whic h had bee n the subject of na

rcotics r aids on sever al occ asions. Serg eant Ehret f ollowed the men a nd watche d as the de fenda nt was droppe d off at the hous e of his cousin Moot, who the def endant a dmitted was a know n an d co nvicted drug deale r. Ten or fiftee n minutes later, Of fice r Morg an stopped the de fe nd a nt a ndthe oth e r t wo me n. Of fi c e r M or g a n te sti fi e d th a t he ob se rv e d th e de fe nd a nt put his hands down his pants and, la ter, a strip searc h of t he def

endant r evea led a plastic ba g containing 3.8
g rams of c ocaine behind his scrotum. A sea rch of the g rey vehicle reve aled a teddy bear containing 24.3 g rams of coca ine, which the defe ndant admitted knowing was prese nt. An ounce o f c o caine equals 28 g rams. The combined we ight of the coca ine in the teddy bear and the plastic ba g in the defe ndant’s pants was 28.1 g rams. We conclude that the t estimony of t he other witnesses, take n by itself, is sufficient to inf

er that the defe ndant was implicated in the commission of the offe nse, and we hold that the e vidence is sufficient to support the def endant’ s conviction.

I n consideration of the fore g oing and t he record as a whole, w e af firm the judg ment of the
tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE