# FILED
Au gust 27, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JUNE SESSION,1996 STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9409-CR-00201 ) Appellee, ) ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. L. T. LAFF ERTY VINCENT D . JONES, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Certi fi edQu esti onof Law)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : HOWARD L. W AGERMAN JOHN KNOX WALK UP HOWARD B. MANIS Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter Suite 1313, 200 Jefferson Memphis, TN 38103 SARAH M. BRANCH Counsel for the State 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0485 W ILLIAM L. GIBBONS Distric t Attorney General KEVIN R. RAR DIN Assistant D istrict A

ttorney 201 Poplar Avenue-3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILE D ________________________ AFFIRMED JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E-2- 

## OPINION
Appell ant Vi ncent Jone s entered a plea of nol o contendere in t he Shelby County Cri minal Court t o a charge of possessi on of coc aine wi th t he intentto sell or deli ver. As a Range I st andard offender convi cted of a Class B fel ony, Appell ant r eceiv ed a sentenc e of ei ght y ears i n the Tennessee Department ofCorrect ion. Pursuantto Rul e 37(b) (2)( i) of t he Tennessee Rules ofCrimina l Proc edure, Appell ant, wit h the agreement of t he Stat e and the t ri al court, reserved f or appel lat e revi ew the quest ion ofthe l egali ty o f t he search whi ch led to Appell ant’ s arr est. Appell ant al so contend s on appeal that his se ntence i s excessi ve.

After a caref ul revi ew of t he record, we affi rm the j udgment of t he tr ial
cou rt.

I. FA CTUA L BA CKGROUND Th e p roo f sh ow s th at, o n O cto be r 15 , 19 93 , Of fice r D en nis Be nja m in and his part ner, both ofthe Memphis Pol ice Department, were pat rol li ng the Getwell Gardens area of Memphis, notori ous for i ts drug acti vity. From across the st reet , Off icer

Benjamin obse rved Appel lantfl agging down c ars and offerin g, in ex cha nge for m one y, a su bsta nce con taine d in p lastic b ags . Offi cer Benj amin observ ed three such t ransact ions ov er a per iod offi ft een minutes and then proceeded to p ull up besi de Appell ant. Appell ant attempted to ru n a nd the n st uffe d a pla stic b ag do wn the fron t of th e w ais tba nd of h is pants. Off icer Benjamin apprehended Appellant and, In order t o check-3-

Appell ant f or weapons, Benjamin ran his h and around Appel lant 's wai stband and fel t a bul ge. According t o Offi cer Benj amin, t he bulge feltli ke a pack of rock crack cocai ne. Off icer Benjamin f eltthe bul ge a li tt le bi t more, pull ed up Appell ant' s shirt, and took the pl asti c bag. Appel lantwas then pl aced under
arre st.
On March 31, 1994, a ShelbyCounty Grand J ury i ndict ed Appell ant f or possessi on of a co ntroll ed substan ce wit h int ent t o sell and deli ver i n vi olat ion of Tennessee Code Annot ated Sect ion 39- 17-417. On June 25, 1994, Ap pella nt filed a pretria l mo tion to s upp ress evide nce seize d du ring h is arre st. Following an evi dentiaryhearing, t he tri al courtdenied the motion. On March 6, 1995, Appell ant ent ered a pl ea of nol o contendere, r eservi ng the suppressi on iss ue as a certi fi ed questi on of l aw pursuantto Rul e 37(b) (2)( i) of the Tennessee Rul es of Cri minal Procedure.

At h is se nte nc ing he arin g, A pp ella nt te stifie d th at h e h ad lea rne d h is les so n a nd wa s a c ha ng ed m an . He po inte d to the fac t tha t he no w h ad a fu ll ti me job wit h Federal Express, was enrol led i n the Uni versi ty o f Memphis, and was responsi ble f or supporti ng his t hree chi ldr en. I n addit ion, Appell ant test if ied t hat he had no pri or cr iminal record. However , i n questi oning Appell ant, the t ri al court l earned t hat Appel lanthad been sel li ng crack forthr ee to f our months i n orderto ear n an ext ra two hundred dol lars per week. At t he
con clus ion o f the se nten cing hea ring, th e trial co urt se nten ced Ap pella nt to eightyears , orderi ng him to s erve four months ofthe sent ence on weekends with th e ba lanc e of th e se nten ce s erve d on prob ation
.-4- II . MOTI ON TO SUPPRESS Ap pe llan t first a lleg es tha t the trial c ou rt err ed in re fus ing to g ran t his motion t o suppress evi dence sei zed duri ng his a rres t. The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the r ight ofthe people to be secure i n their persons, houses, papers, and eff ects, againstunreasonabl e searches and seiz ures. " The United StatesSupreme Court has c onsist entl y hel d thatsearches and seizures "conducted out side t he judi cial process, wit hout pr iorapproval by judge or m agistrate, are per se unrea sona ble und er the F ourth A me ndm ent-- subjec t only to a few s pecifically estab lished an d we ll-delineated e xception s.” Katz v. Unite d Stat es , 389 U.S . 347 , 357 (196 7) (cita tions om itted); see also State v. Bartra m , 925 S. W .2d 227, 230 n.2 (Tenn. 1996). One such except ion was recogni zed in Te rry v. O hio : [W ]here a poli ce offi cer observes unusual conduct whi ch lea ds him rea so na bly to con clu de in ligh t of h is experi ence thatcri minal acti vi ty may be afootand that the persons wit h whom he is deal ing may be ar med and present lydangerous, where i n the course of invest igati ng this behavi or he identi fies hi mself as a policem an an d m akes reaso nab le inquiries, an d wh ere noth ing in th e initial sta ges of the enc oun ter se rves to dispel his re ason able fea r for his own or others ’ safety, he is en titled for th e p rote ctio n o f him se lf an d o the rs in the area to conduct a careful lyli mited search of t he outerclot hing ofsuch pers ons in a n att empt to di scover we ap on s w hi ch mi gh t be us ed t o a ss au l t hi m. 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) . " The purpose ofthi s li mited search is not t o disc over evi dence of c ri me, but t o all ow the offi cer t o pursue hi s inv esti gati on wit hout fear o f violen ce." Ad ams v . Wil l i ams , 407 U. S. 143, 146 (1972) . I f t he protecti ve search goes beyond what is necessary t o determine ifthe suspect is arm ed, it is no long er valid und er Te rryand its fruits w ill be su ppre sse d. Sibron v. New York , 392 U .S. 40, 65 -66 (19 68).-5- In Minnesot a v. Dickerson , 508 U. S. 366 ( 1993), off icers observ ed the defendantleav ing whattheybeli eved t o be a resi dence where dr ug sales regul arl y to ok plac e. Upon seei ng the offi cers, the def endant abr uptl y tu rned,
wa lked in the o ppo site dire ction and beg an b eha ving in an e vasive ma nne r. The offi cers st opped the def endant and c onducted a p at down ofhis out er clot hing. During the f ri sk one ofthe offi cers f elta small lump in the defendant ’s j acket poc ket. The off icer real ized t he lump was nota weapon, but he cont inued t o manipulat e the obj ect i nside t he pocket to det ermine what it was. Believ ing the obj ect to be crack cocaine, t he offi cer seized t he object which i n factwas a small packet of cocai ne. The Courtconcl uded thatthe ident ity ofthe pack et ofcocai ne was not “ immediatel y apparen t” and thatthe conti nued manipul ati on of t he packet in t he defendant ’s poc ket afterthe offi cer recogni zed itwas not a weapo n, ex ceeded the p ermissi ble boundsof a Te rry search. Therefore the Courtheld t hat t he search wasil legal and aff ir med the low er C ou rt’s s up pre ssio n o f the coc ain e. H ow eve r, the Co urt h eld tha t if du ring a law ful Te rry“f ri sk” an offi cer

pats down a s uspect’ s outer clot hing and feels an obje ct wh ose con tour a nd m ass ma kes its iden tity immediatel y apparen t, ther e has been no i nvasi on of the suspect’ s pri vacy beyond thatalready aut hori zed by th e o ffice r’s s ea rch for w ea po ns ; if the ob jec t is contraband, i ts war rant less s eizure would be j usti fi ed by th e sa m e p rac tica l con sid era tion s th at in he re in the p lain view con text. Id . at375-76. In t he case sub judice , Appel lantrai ses no i ssue concer ning t he ini ti al inves tigato ry de tentio n of h im b y the p olice. N eithe r doe s he con tend that a pat d ow n of h im fo r pos sible w eap ons was unla wful. H e do es h ow eve r equ ate thi s case wi th Dickerson and maintai ns thatthe i denti ty o f t he crack cocaine-6-

he wa s ca rryin g in the fron t wa istb an d o f his tr ou se rs w as no t “im m ed iate ly app aren t” and thus its seizu re, on ce th e office r dete rm ined it was n ot a
we ap on , wa s un law ful.

This Courthas equated “i mm ediat elyapparent ” wi th t he idea of probabl e cause. In ot her words , i f i mm ediat elyupon touchi ng the sus pici ous objectthe offi cer has probable cau se to bel iev e the i tem is c ontraband then the item ma y be la wfully s eize d. State v. Br idges , N o. 02C0 1- 941 2- CC002 98, 1 995 W L 76 499 8 (T enn . Crim . App . De c. 28 , 199 5), perm. app. grant ed , (Te nn. J une 3, 19 96); Sta te v. W hite , No. 03 C01-9408-CR-00277, 1997 W L 336977 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 7, 1 995). In Texas v . Brown , 460 U.S. 730 ( 1983), the Supr eme Court st ated t hat an obj ect i s consi dered t o be “i mm ediat elyapparent ” when t he off icer devel ops a reasona ble bel iefas to t he obje ct’s ide ntity. Id. at 7 41 -42 . Th e o ffice r ha s th en est ab lishe d p rob ab le
ca us e a nd the seiz ure of th e ite m is jus tified if the offic er c an rea so na bly conclude thatthe i tem may be contraband or ot her evi dence of a cri me. The Brown Court reject ed the not ion t hat t he off icer be “posses sed of near cert ainty” ofthe obj ect’ s ident ity. The Supreme Court acknowl edged in Brown tha t pro ba ble cau se “req uire s th at th e fa cts ava ilab le to the offic er w ou ld ‘war ranta man of reas onable cau ti on in t he beli ef’ thatcert ain i tems may be contrab and
. . . . ” Id. at 742 ( cit ati ons omitt ed). In Brown , t he off icer , dur ing a rout ine dr iv er l icense checkpoi nt, observ ed among other t hings i n the defendant ’s v ehicl e an opaque, g reen party b all oon knott ed at t he ti p and knew from his exper ience t hat such ball oons were often used to package
na rco tics. Th e C ou rt de term ine d th at th e o ffice r po sse sse d su fficie nt p rob ab le
ca us e to seiz e th e b allo on s, fin din g th at it w as irrele van t tha t the offic er c ou ld1 Com mon experience counsel s us thatordi nari ly peopl e do not carry

plast ic bags in t he frontof t heir

tr ousers. -7- not see t hough the opaque ball oon. The pr esence of the bal loon i tsel f under the circ um sta nc es , “pa rticu larly to the train ed eye of th e o ffice r,” str on gly indica ted th at dru gs w ere like ly to be foun d ins ide. Id. at 743.

Alt hough Brown de alt w ith th e “p lain view ” do ctrin e, th e sa m e a na lysis is
use ful wh en c ons iderin g the “plain feel” d octrin e of Minnesot a v. Dickerson . Applyi ng thi s reasoni ng to t he inst ant case, itappears t hat t he off icer who
se arc he d A pp ella nt o bs erve d h im offe ring a su bs tan ce tak en from a p las tic bag to t he occupant s of cars in ex change for money. Thi s acti vi ty was
occ urring in a no toriou sly high crim e are a kn ow n to th e office r to be rife with drug deal ing. W hen the offi cer approached Appell ant, he ran awayand was observe d stuffi ng the pl asti c bag cont aini ng what appeared to be rocks i n the front of his pant s. 1 The off icer stat ed thatimmediatel y upon t ouching t he it em in Ap pella nt’s w aistb and he re cog nize d it as c onta ining som e so rt of roc ks. The offi cer al so test if ied t hat he had ex peri ence in hundreds ofcases such as this.

W e thi nk thatgiv en thi s off icer ’s ex peri ence and hi s observ ati on of Appell ant’ s acti vi ti es in t his hi gh cri me area couple d wit h his havi ng seen and then f elta plast ic bag o f rocks i n the f rontof Appel lant ’s pants const it uted prob able cau se to believ e tha t the p lastic b ag c onta ined con traba nd. W e there fore a ffirm th e de cision of the trial judg e in d eny ing th e m otion to suppress.-8- II I. SENTEN CIN G Appell ant al so all eges thathis s entence was excessi ve. Specif ical ly , he argues t hat he shoul d have r eceiv ed ful l probati on.

W hen an ap pea l challenge s the leng th, range , or ma nne r of service of a sentence, thi s Court c onducts a de no vo revi ew wit h a presumpti on thatthe dete rm ination of the trial cou rt was corre ct. Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -401 (d). Ho weve r, this presum ption of co rrectnes s is “cond itioned up on the affirmative showing t hat t he tr ial courtin t he record consi dered t he sentenc ing pr inci ples and all relevant facts a nd circu ms tance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). In t he event thatthe record f ails to demonstrate such
cons ideration, review of the sen tence is purely de no vo . Id. If app ellate revi ew ref lect s thatthe t ri al court properl y consi dered al l relev ant f actors and its findi ngs of factare adequately support ed by the record, this Court must affirm the s enten ce, “even if we wou ld have p referred a different resu lt.” Sta te v. Fl etcher , 805 S. W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). In condu cti ng a revi ew, t his Court must co nsider the ev idence, the presentence report , t he sentenci ng pri ncipl es, t he arguments ofcounsel , t he nature and charact er of the offense, miti gati ng and enhancement f actors, anystat ements made by the defe nda nt, an d the pote ntial for re hab ilitation or tre atm ent. State v. Hol land , 860 S.W.2d 53, 60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). The defendantbears t he burden of sh ow ing th e im prop riety of th e se nten ce im pos ed. State v. G regory , 862 S.W .2d 57 4, 578 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 993 ).

W e note i nit ial lythat , because the r ecord demonstrates t hat t he tr ial
cou rt ade qua tely co nsid ered the s ente ncin g prin ciples and all releva nt fac ts-9-

and circumstances, our r evi ew of Appel lant ’s sen tence wi ll be de no vo wit h a presumption of correctness.

The Tennessee Criminal Sentenci ng Reform Act of 1989 recogni zes the li mited capac ity ofstat e pri sons and mandates t hat “ convi cted f elons committi ng the most severe off enses, pos sessi ng cri minal hi stor ies ev inci ng a clear di sregard for the laws and morals of soci ety, and evincing failure of past eff ort s of rehabil it ati on shall be giv en fi rstpri ori ty regardi ng sentenc ing inv olv ing i ncarcerati on.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(5 ). A defendantwho doe s not qu alify as such and w ho is an espe cially mitigated o r standa rd offen der o f a C lass C, D , or E fe lony is “p resu m ed to be a favora ble c and idate for sente ncing o ptions in the abse nce o f evidenc e to the co ntrary.” Id. § 40- 35-102(6 ). A sentenci ng courtmay then onl y deny al ter nati ve sent encing wh en p rese nted with su fficient e viden ce to over com e the pres um ption
. Sta te v. Ashby , 823 S .W .2d 16 6, 169 (Ten n. 199 1). A de nial of alternative sentenci ng in t he face of the st atut ory presumption s hould be bas ed on the follow ing c ons idera tions : whe ther c onfin em ent is n ece ssa ry to pro tect so ciety fro m a defendant wi th a l ong history ofcri minal c onduct, whetherconfi nement is nec essaryto av oid depreciat ing t he seri ousness ofthe offense, whether confinement would provi de an effecti ve deterrent , and whether measures less rest ri cti ve t han confi nement have f ail ed in t he past. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 103 (1).
Because Appell ant was conv ict ed of a Cl ass B fel ony, he is no t ent it led to the statu torily mand ated p resum ption of alterna tive senten cing. Ho weve r, in light of certain facto rs favoring a n alterna tive senten ce, the trial cou rt-10-

orde red a sen tenc e of p eriod ic con finem ent fo llowe d by a perio d of p roba tion. W e m us t no w a dd res s w he the r Ap pe llan t sh ou ld h ave be en gra nte d fu ll probat ion.

Th e d efe nd an t alw ays be ars the bu rde n o f es tab lishin g su itab ility for fu ll probat ion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-303(b ). In order t o just ify fu ll probat ion, the def endant must d emonstrat e thatsuch a sent ence wil l “ subserv e the ends of justice an d the b est interes t of both the public an d the d efend ant.” State v. Dykes , 803 S. W .2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). W hen deter mining suit abil ity fo r f ull probat ion, the sent encing c ourtshould consider the f oll owing fact ors: (1) the nat ure and ci rcumstancesof t he cri minal c onduct i nvol ved; (2) the defendant’ s potenti al or l ack of potenti al for rehabil itat ion, i ncluding t he risk that , dur ing t he peri od of probati on, t he defendantwil l commitanother cri me; (3) whet her a sent ence of f ull probat ion woul d undulydepreci ate t he
se riou sn es s of the offe ns e; a nd (4) w he the r a s en ten ce oth er th an full probat ion woul d provi de an eff ecti ve det errentto ot hers l ikel y tocommit si milar crim es. State v. Bi ngham , 910 S. W .2d 448, 456 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citation s om itted).

At th e concl usion of

the sent encing hea ri ng, t he tr ial courtconcl uded that , i n li ght ofthe nat ure ofthe cr iminal conduct inv olv ed, t he tot al sus pension of Appel lant 's sent ence would u ndermine t he seri ousness ofthe offense. The tri al court poi nted outthatAppell ant “ made a decisi on to ent er i nto t he drug tra ff ic bus iness. " I n addit ion, Appell ant admitted t hat he sol d drugs t hree times a wee k for four m onths in order to s upp ort hims elf. The trial cou rt
co nc lud ed tha t Ap pe llan t wa s a " pro fes sio na l dru g se ller" a nd tha t he sho uld-11-

be a ppro priate ly pun ishe d for h is actio ns. T he tria l cou rt was very len ient w ith Appell ant consi deri ng the nat ure ofthe offense. Given t he pervas iv e probl em of narcoti cs in our soci ety general ly , and t he probl em of crackcocai ne partic ularly, w e ag ree w ith the tria l cou rt that full p roba tion w ould dep recia te the ser iousnessof t his offense.
Appellant cl aims that t he tri al courtfail ed to take i nto account the f act thathe had no pri or cr iminal record, had a f ull -ti me job, and support ed three chil dren. On thi s clai m, Appell ant' s arguments are clear lymispla ced. The t ri al
co urt w as very com pro m ising with Ap pe llan t by a llow ing him to se rve h is jail time on th e we eke nds so a s no t to interfe re with his job or his earn ings
. Therefore, t he sentenc e must be uphel d.

Accordi ngly , t he judgment o f t he tr ial courtis affi rmed.

____________________________________ JER RY L
. SMI TH, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSE PH M. TI PTON, JUD GE

___________________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES