### IN THE CO URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE AT JACKSON Ass ig ne d o n B rie f May 5, 20 09

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . LAMAR JERMAI NE THO MAS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. 07-252 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2008-01373-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 21, 2009

A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the d ef endant, L amar J erma ine Thomas, of possession w ith the intent to sell more than .5 g rams of coca ine, a Class B felony ; posse ssion with the intent to sell morphine, a Class C felony ; possession with the intent to sell dihydrocode inone, a Class D felony ; possession with the intent to s ell more than one -half onc e of marijuana
, a C lass E felony ; and possession of drug para pherna lia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently g iven

an eff ective sentenc e of fourtee n y ear s in the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Correc tion. On appea l, the defe n d an t as s er ts that the evidenc e was insufficient to support the jury ’s verdic ts of guilt. Upon revie w of the r ecor d and the pa rties’ brie fs, we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

J .C. M C L I N , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A L L and C A M I L L E R. M C M U L L E N , J J ., joined.

Gre g ory D. Gookin (on appea l and at trial), Assistant Public De fe n d er , J ackson, Tenne ssee and Charles Curbo (a

t trial), Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, L amar

J erma ine Thomas.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Sophia S. L ee, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; J err y Woodall, District Attorney Gene ral; and Shaun A. Br own and Br ian Gilliam, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP INION

I . Ba ckg round

The defe ndant and his co -d ef en d ant, Michae l Wil liams, wer e indicted on charg es of possession with the intent to sell and deliver .5 g rams or more of coca ine; possession with the intent
to sell and deliver morphine; possession wi t h the intent to sell and deliver dihy drocode inone; possession with the intent to sell and deliver more than one-ha lf ounce of marijuana ; and possession of drug para

pherna lia. The defe ndant was also indicted on the char g e of driving on a revoke ddriver’ s license. Prior to trial, the defe ndant enter ed a guilty plea to the char g e of driving o n a

revoke d driver’ s license.

At the defe ndant’s trial, the following evidenc e was prese nted. Br enda McNe il, a J acksonM ad i s o n C o unty Metro Nar cotics Unit evidenc e technicia n, identified two items as packa g es she retrie ved from the J ackson Police Depa rtment drop box on October 24, 2006. Ms. McNe il testified that she delivere d the items to the drug vault located in the narc otic unit’s office

. he stated that she later delivere d the items to the crime lab in Memphis on J anuar y 11, 2007, retrie ved them from the crime la b on Marc h 5, 2007, and returned the items to the drug vault. Ms. McNeil conf

irmed that the items w ere seale d when she obtained them fr om the drop box and that they rema ined seale d in her possession. She said that the red tape on the items indicated that they wer e opened and rese aled by the crime lab. On cr o s s -ex amination, Ms. McNe il stated, “Of fice r Dy er dropped all of the evidenc e into the drop box .” She stated that none of the bag s of evidenc e in this case wer e sent out to be tested for

fing erpr ints. Accordingto the descr iptions provided on the evidenc e sheet, in one of the evidenc e bag s wer e four separ ate plastic bag s. In a second bag wer e “eight individual things of marijuana ”, in the third bagwer e bag s of a white substance that wer e individually wra pped and found inside a g ree n plastic bottle. Also found inside the g ree n plastic bottle wer e tablets wra pped in plastic. The fourth bag contain ed “a plastic bottle containing four peac h-colore d tablets, five Valiums and nine Hydrocodone s.”

Offic er Te rry

Dy er w ith the J ackson Police Depa rtment testified that at appr ox imately one thirty on the afte rnoon of October 23, 2006, he was trave ling eastbound on East Chester Street and

saw the defe ndant “driving a red GMC pickup

. . . westbound on East Chester[.] ” Of fi ce r Dy er stated that “anothe r black male subject [was] in the truck with [t he defe ndant].” Offic er Dy er

rec og nized the defe ndant and “knew [t he defe ndant’s] driver’ s license [was] revoke d or suspended
at that time a

nd he shouldn’t be dr iving.” He said that he “looked [t he defe ndant] right in the fac e

. . . [t he defe ndant] tried to look awa y

. . . beca use [t he defe ndant] rec og nized him[ .]” After Offic er Dy er saw the defendant turn left onto Vanc e Street, he turned his patrol car around, drove back toward wher e he had seen the defe ndant. He s p o t ted the defe ndant’s truck, parke d in a drivewa y next to a residenc e on Vanc e Street. He saw the defe ndant exiti ngthe truck f rom the driver ’s side door, and his passeng er ex iting the truck from the pa sseng er’ s side door. Off icer Dyer sa id, “they
went into a g ated are a at the back.” Offic er Dy er testified that he “stopped his car just a littl e bit past their house. . . [and] called for Offic er Mike Stanf

ill, [ his] partne r, to come ba ck [him] up.”

When Offic er Stanfill arrived, Offic er Dy er “we nt into the g ated are a by the back door” and “Of fice r Stanfill knocked on the front door and g ot permission for [t he office rs] to come in.” Offic er Stanfill let Offic er Dy er into the house throug h the back door, and Offic er Dy er spoke with Michae l Wil liams and told him that they wer e looking for t h e defe ndant. Offic er Dy er stated that he

rec og nized Mr. Wil liams as the passeng er in the defe ndant’s truck. Offic er Dy er also saw “an older lady in the hous e[,] ” whom he be lieved to be Mr. Wil liams’ g randmother

. The officer s found t he defe ndant hiding in a small laundry room located to the rig ht o f t h e b ac k door and took him into custody

. Offic er Dy er describe d the l aundry room as “a littl e plac e you walk into,

. . . almost like

a closet.” Offic er Dy er stated that they found the defe ndant “bac k up ag ainst the wall.” Incident to

-2-the defe ndant’s arr est, Offic er Dy er sear ched the are a. He said that “in the clothes right beside wher e

[t he defenda

nt] was standing . . . [he] started pulling[the clothes] back . .

. [and] found a red box

.

. . contain[ing] sever al bag s of what was deter mined to be marij uana.” Offic er Dy er said that the defe ndant “could’ ve rea ched down with his hand an d p la c e d [som ething ] rig ht on top of the clothes.” The red box was “on the very top of the pile,” underne ath “may be one or two shirts.” Offic er Dy er stated that he “picke d up the box to move it, [and] underne ath it was a g ree n bottle that looked like

an E x cedr in bottle, and ins ide t hat bot tle was a plastic bag that had several smaller rocks of cra ck

coca ine” Of

fice r Dyer sa id that he “found the cra ck coca ine individually wra pped rocks in plastic inside some more plastic.” Offic er Dy er also found “four Hydrocodone pills inside that bottle.” He also found a se t of dig ital scales, “ rig ht nextto [ the def endant] in that pile of clothes.” Accor ding
to Offic er Dy er, “Micha el Wil liams stated that the m ar i j u ana was his. After the office rs put the defe ndant in a patrol car , Offic er Dy er looked into the truck that the defe ndant had been driving and “could see another pill bottle that contained more pills in it and more plastic wra pped pills.” He also found “some more cra ck coca ine on the driver’ s side door wra pped in plastic like the ones that wer e in the house.”

Offic er Dy er identified his handwr iting on the outside of an evidenc e bag and stated that the digital scale s contained in the bag wer e those he found next to the defe ndant. He testified that it was

common to find scale s with narc otics if the drug s wer e “for resa le.” He also stated that drug s wer e usually sold by weig ht. Offic er Dy er identified another evidenc e bag containing “a re d box with marijuana ” and a third evidenc e bag containing “a g ree n bottle that c ontained the cra ck coca ine[,] ” and “Hydrocodone
, Valium and

. . . [an] unknown peac h -c o l o re d p i ll[ .]” He identified a forth evidenc e bag containing “Hydrocodone tablets.” Offic er Dy er stated that he seale d the bag s, marke d their contents on the outside, and place d the bag s in the vault. Offic er Dy er stated that he rec eived the def endant’ s driving history

from the depar

tment of safe ty which indicated that the de fenda nt’s driver’ s license was revoke d. Acc ording to Offic er Dyer, the narc otics found in the sear ch incident to the defe ndant’s ar

rest we re “ definitely

wra pped with intent to resale .”

On cross-e x amination, Offic er Dy er stated that a “per sonal stash” of drug s would not usually be kept in individual bag s. He ag ree d that Mr. Wil liams c laimed the mar ijuana in the re d box and “he didn’t claim any of the other s tuff.” Acc ording to Offic er Dy er’ s incident repor t, when Mr. Wil l iams was booked, he had “a single Diazepam which is Valium[,] ” in his back pocket that matched the Diazepam found inside the truck. He stated that fing erpr int tests wer e not order ed on any o f t h e evidenc e obtained in the sear ch. Offic er Dy er said that the scale s found next to the defe ndant measure d in grams and that in his experience , “[m] ost of the time the scale s are [found] with the deale rs.” He stated that scale s are not usually found with people buying drug s for persona l

use. Offic er Dyer confirmed that Mr. W illiams told them that he li ved i n t h e re s i dence on Vanc e Street with his g randm other. On redire ct examination, Offic er Dy er further confirme d that Mr. Wil liams was also arr ested. He ag ree d that fing erpr ints are very fra g ile evidenc e. He stated that the surfa ce of an object makes a “ver y big differ ence ” in whether discerna ble prints are left behind. On

rec ross-examination, Offic er Dy er revie wed his repor t a nd testified that acc ording to his repor t, he “l o o k ed inside [t he defe ndant’s] truck and saw a plastic bottle with nine or more Hydroco d o n e tablets in plain view nea

r the stee ringwhee l on a pouch on the da sh.”

-3-Offic er Mike Stanfill with the J ackson Police Depa rtment testified that on October 23, 2006, he was called to a residenc e on Vanc e Street. (124) When he arr ived at the residenc e, Offic er Dy er

was “at the rea

r

. . . of the residenc e.” Offic er Stanfill “[k] n o ck ed o n t h e [ fr o nt] door and made
contac t with a Michae l Wil liams.” He told Mr. Wil liams that he was looking for the defe ndant. Mr. Wil liams invited him inside the residence and Offic er St anfill looked t hroug h the hous e in sear ch of the defe ndant. The defe ndant was found in the laundry room and was arr ested. On crossexamination, Offic er St anfill stated that he tra nsported the de fenda

nt to jail. He did not rec all the defe ndant claiming any of the drug s. He stated the no fing erpr int tests wer e order ed on the evidenc e. Offic er Stanfill a g ree d that fing erprinting evidenc e might have been a way to de termine the owner of the drug s.

J essica Ly nn Marque z, a fore nsic scientist with the Tenne ssee Bur eau of Investig ation (TB I ), testified that on J anuar

y 11, 2007, she examined the contents of evidenc e bag s rec eived in connec tion with this case

. One of the evidence ba g s held “a red box with velvet outer coating ” containing “a clea r plastic bag

. . . [wit h] eig ht clea r plastic bag s that wer e tied with knots[ .]” The contents of the eig ht pla stic bag s weig hed 15.2 g rams; more than one-ha lf of one ounce. Ms. Marquez stated that she performed a m icroscopic examination and a chemica l color chang e tes t on the contents of t he eig ht bag s and determined i t was marijuana. Ms. Marque z st at ed that in another bag
, she found a g ree n plastic pill bottle. She weig hed and tested one substance found in the bottle a nd deter mined that it was 2.7 g rams of a coca ine based substance. Ms. Marque z stated that the bottle also contained another item, which wa s simil ar in a ppear ance to the i tem deter mined to contain cocaine, that she did not test due to TBI lab policy

. The untested item and the bag containing it weig hed 14.5 g rams. Ms. Marque z stated that another bag contained “one tablet that was loose, and

. . . a clea r plastic bag

. . . tied in a knot that co n t ai n ed t h re e t ablets.” She stated that the tablets wer e marke d “Watson 349.” The comp u t er d atabase identified the marking s on the tablets as the manufa cture r’s desig nation for dihy drocode inone tablets. Ms. Marque z also tested the pills with an instrument used
to separ ate components and confirmed that the pi lls were dihy drocode inone. Ms. Marque z stated that another evidenc e bag contained “a plastic pill bottle with tablets in it.” Ms. Marque z said that from that bag , she “only

tested one pa

rticular ty pe of tablet.” B oth the computer database and her instrumental analy sis indicated that the tablets tested wer e morphine. Ms. Marque z stated that afte r she inspected the evidenc e, she place d it back in the bag s, and rese aled the bag s with evidenc e tape. The bag s wer e g iven to “a fore nsic technicia n, and

. . . place [d]

. . . into the vaults o f the laboratory [.] ” Ms. Marque z identified her repor t and confirme d that the conclusions reg arding the evidenc e in her

repor t were the same a s the conc lusions that she testified to at trial.

On cross-e x amination, Ms. Marque z stated that she g ener ally us ed a s ca l p el, to obtain a testing sample and either threw the scalpe ls a way or clea

ned them betwee n samples with “a one to ten dilution of blea ch an d wa t er mix ture.” She did not know the eff iciency rate of the clea

ning solution, but sta t ed
, “it would clea n it fairly well of any contaminant that might be there .” Ms. Marque z testified that in testing for coca ine she used a g as chr omatog raph mass spectrome ter, an in f r a r ed spectrome ter and a combination instrument called a g as chromatogr aph infrar ed instrume nt. She stated that without the machine’ s analy sis of “coc aine” she “would be able to rec og nize it” from

-4-the graph. She used a g as chromatogr aph mass spectrome ter to test the morphine tablets. She stated

that the re sults for morphine would be differ ent than results from another opiate[.] ” Ms. Marque z stated that she deter

mined the weig ht of the substance identified as marijuan a by subtracting the weig ht of the bag s containing the marijuana from the total weig ht of the sample. She ag ree d that the weig ht of marijuana could chang e with highe r humidity

. Howeve r, she did not consider that a fac tor in the weight of the s ample and said, “in t h i s ca s e t h e marijuana was dry

. Otherw ise [she] would have note d that.” She stated that fing erpr int tests of the evidenc e we re not re quested.

On redire ct examination, Ms. Marque z stated that the TBI crime laboratory was acc redited by the Americ an Association of C ri m e L ab o ratory Direc tors. She stated that the acc reditation require d cer

tain standards be maintained in the clea ning of instruments. Ms. Marque z was not awa re of any past problem with cleaning or contamination at the TBI laboratory . She confirme d that the machine that tested for coca ine did not tell her what the substance was, but g ave her a graph to rea d. She stated she “ did two tests on every item.”

The defe ndant chose not to testify . He pr esente d as his only witness Mr. Wil liams, his codefe ndant, who had enter ed a plea ag ree ment with the state befor e the trial. Mr. Wil liams testified that in October of 2006, he was arr ested at his residenc e on Vanc e S tree t. Mr. W illiams took full responsibility for the drug s. He ag ree d that as a result of his arr est, he plead guilty to possession with the intent to sell .5 g rams or more of coca ine. On cross-e x amination, Mr. Wil lia m s s aid that he would not testify reg arding the events of the day of his arr est and stated “I ’m g oing to take the Fifth.”

The jury returne d verdic ts of guilty and the defe ndant was convicted of possession with the intent to sell .5 g rams or more of coca ine; possession with the intent to sell more than one half of one ounce of marijuana ; possession with the i ntent to sell morphine; pos s es s ion with the i ntent to sell dihy drocode inon e; and possession of drug para pherna lia. The defe ndant was sentenc ed to an eff ective term of fourtee n y ear s in the T en n es s ee Depa rtment of Correc tion. The defe ndant has
appea led.

I I . Analy sis Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e

The defe ndant argues that the ev i d en ce was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Specifica lly he argues that “[t] he evidenc e was insufficient for the jury t o co nvict [hi m] of possession with the i ntent to deliver/sell any of t he contro l l ed s ubstance s that wer e dis cover ed by Offic er Dy er.” He further asser ts that e ven if the evidenc e supports constructive possession of the drug s by the defe ndant the lack of “common indicators of intent to rese ll[ ,]” and the amounts of the drug s, did not show “any

thing other than intent of persona l use.” Finally
, the defe ndant asser ts that Mr. Will iams took full responsibilit y for a ll the drug s found.

Upon revie w, we reiter ate the well-e stablished rule that once a jury finds a defe ndant guilty
, his or her presumption of innocenc e is r emoved and repla ced with a presumption of guilt. State v. Evans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt has the

-5-burden of demonstrating to the appellate court why the evidenc e will not support the jury ’s verdic t.

State v. Carruther

s , 3 5 S

. W .3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Tuggle
, 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To meet this burden, the defe ndant must establish that no “rational trier of fac t” could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea sonable doubt. Jack son v. Virginia
, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Evans
, 108 S.W .3d 231, 236 (Tenn. 2003); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e)

. In contra st, the jury ’s verdic t, approve d by the trial judge
, acc redits the state’s witnesses and resolves all co n fl i ct s in favor of the state. State v. Harris
, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). The state is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e and all rea sonable infere nces which may be drawn from that evidenc e. Carruthers
, 35 S.W .3d at 558. Questions conce rning the cre dibilit y of the witnesses, conflicts in trial testimony
, the weig ht and value to be g iven th e ev i d en ce , an d all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e are resolved b y t h e t ri er o f fac t and not this court. State v. Bland
, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). We do not attempt to re- weig h o r re- evaluate the evidenc e. State v. Rice
, 184 S.W .3d 646, 662 (Tenn. 2006). L ikewise, we do not repla ce the jury ’s infere nces drawn from the circ umstantia l ev i d ence with our own infere nces. State v. Reid
, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002)

.

A defe ndant may be convicted o n t h e basis of direc t or circ umstantial evidenc e or a combination of both. State v. W inters
, 137 S.W .3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003); see also State

v. Pende rgrass , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). In fac t, circ umstantial evidenc e alone may be sufficie nt to support a conviction. State v. Tharpe
, 726 S.W .2d 896, 899-900 (Tenn. 1987). Howeve r, the circ umstantial evidenc e “must be so strong and cog ent as to ex cl u d e ever y other rea sonable hy

pothesis save the guilt of the defe ndant, and that beyond a rea sonabl e d o u b t .” State v. Crawf

ord
, 470 S.W .2d 610, 612 (Tenn. 1971). “A web of guilt must be woven around the defe ndant from which he cannot esca pe and from which fac ts and circ umstances the jury could draw

no other rea sonable infere nce save the guilt of the defe ndant beyond a rea sonable doubt.” Id

. at 613.

“‘[P] ossession” may be either actua l or constructive” and may be proven by circ umstantial evidenc e. See St a t e v. S h a w , 37 S.W .3d 900, 903 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Patterson
, 966 S.W .2d 435, 444-45 (Tenn

. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Brown
, 915 S.W .2d 3, 7 (Tenn. Crim. App.1995)) ; State v. Bigsby
, 40 S.W .3d 87, 90 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Constructive possession require s proof that a person had the power and intention at a g iven t ime to exercise domini on and control over the drug s either direc tly or throug h oth ers. Shaw
, 37 S.W .3d at 903 (citing State v. Patterson
, 966 S.W .2d 435, 444 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)). In essenc e, “construc tive possession is the ability to reduc e an object to actua l possession.” State v. Ross , 49 S.W .3d 833, 845-46 (Te nn. 2001) (citations omitted). Howeve r, the mere prese nce in an are a wher e drug s are discovere d, or the

mere association with a person who i s in possession of drugs, is not , alone, suff icient to support a finding of constructive possession. Shaw
, 37 S.W .3d at 903 (citing Patterson
, 966 S.W .2d at 445).

Where the evidenc e shows that illega l drug s wer e found under the dash on the driver’ s side of a defe ndant’s automobile, within his rea ch, an infere nce may be drawn that the drug s wer e in the defe ndant’s constructive possession. See State v. Y arbro
, 618 S.W .2d 521, 525 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (citing Armstrong v. State
, 548 S.W .2d 334, 336-337 (Ten n

. Crim. App. 1976); W hited v. State
, 483 S.W .2d 594, 596 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972)). “Notably
, a d efe ndant’s possession of

-6-contra

band may be inferr ed from a defe ndant’s owner ship or control over a v eh i cle in which the
contra band is secr eted.” State v. Richard W ayne Hampton
, No. W2006-02189-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL169645, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 18, 2008), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Jul. 7, 2008) (c itation omit ted).

The intention to sell or deliver drug s may be inferr ed from the amount of the drug possessed by the acc used along with other rele vant fac ts surrounding the arr est. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-419; see also State v. John Fitzgerald Belew
, W2004-01456-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 885106, *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Apr. 18, 2005) (noting that the jury can infer in t ent to sell or deliver when amount of controlled substance and other rele vant fac ts surrounding ar re s t ar e considere d toge ther). The amount the drug s and the manner in which it was packa g ed m ay also support an infere nce of intent to sell. See State v. Brown
, 915 S.W .2d 3, 8 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

After reviewing the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the state, we conclude that the evidenc e was sufficie nt to establish the defe ndant’s guilt, beyond a rea sonable doubt. The evidenc e showed that Offic er Dyer spotted the defe ndant drivinga truck and knew that his lice nse had been revoke d. Offic er Dy er testified that he saw the defe ndant exit the truck from the driver’ s side door and ente r a r esidenc e on Vance Street. Upon enter ing the house, Off icer s Dyer a

nd Stanfill found the defe ndant hiding in a small laundry room. In a pile of clothes within easy rea ch of the defe ndant, Offic er Dy er found a box containing what was later deter mined to be 15.2 g rams of marijuana and digital scale s. Under the box
, Offic er Dyer found a gree n pill bottle containing what was later deter mined to b e 2

. 7 g rams of a substance containing coca ine, and tables of dihy drocode inone. Offic er Dy er s t ated that the drug s wer e separ ately wra pped in plastic. He testified that, in his experience
, individually wra pped drugs were indicative of an int ent t o sell. He further stated that i t was common to find scale s along with drug s when the drug s wer e for resa le. Offic er Dy er als o retrie ved from the driver’ s side door panel of the truck driven b y the defe ndant, a plastic bag

co n t aining what appea

red to be coca ine rocks, also individually wra pped. Also in the tru ck an d within rea ch of t h e dri v er , Offic er Dy er found a plastic bottle containing individually wra pped morphine tablets and other unidentified pills. In our view, the jury could rea sonably infer from the evidenc e that the defe ndant had dominion and c ontrol over items found ne x t to him in the laundry

room. Fur

ther, the jury could have rea sonably conclude d from the evidenc e that the defe ndant had dominion and control over the items found in the driver’ s side do o r p an el o f t h e truck and the morphine tablets found in the plastic bottle on the dash near the steering wh ee l

. There fore
, the evidenc e was sufficie nt to establish that the defe ndant had constructive possession of the it ems found in the laundry room and in t h e t ru ck

. According ly
, the evidenc e was sufficie nt to show that the defe ndant was in possession of 15.2 g rams of marijuana
, 2.7 g rams o f coca ine, di hydrocode inone tablets, morphine tablets a nd digital sc ales.

The evidenc e is also sufficie nt to establish that the defe ndant had the intent to sell the drug s found i n h i s p o s session. The testim ony of Officer Dy er supports that scale s are commonly found with drug s that are intended for resa le. Fur thermore
, the coca ine, the mari j u an a, an d the dihy drocode inone tablets wer e indi v id u a ll y wr a p p e d a n d the morphine tablets wer e stored in a plastic bag inside a pill bottle with other drug s that wer e individually wra pped. Offic er Dy er testified that,

-7-based on his experience in law enfor ceme nt, the packa g ing of t h e drug s found in the defe ndant’s

possession indicated that they wer e intended for resa le. Also, the amounts of coca ine and marijuana support that those drug s wer e intended for resa le. In the past, we have aff irmed convictions wher e testimony or evidenc e allowed the jury to dr aw a permissible infer ence from the fac ts sur rounding the arr est of a defe ndant that the defe ndant had intent to sell or deliver drug s in his possession. See Reid
, 91 S.W .3d at 277; State v. Jerion Craft, No. W2008-00869-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2634635,
at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Aug

. 27, 2009) (citing State v. Chearis
, 995 S.W .2d 641, 645 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)). Final l y , i t was within the jury ’s providenc e to acc ept or reje ct Mr. Wil liams’ testimony that the drug s belong ed to him. See Bland
, 958 S.W .2d at 659. We conclude that based upon the evidenc e prese nted at trial a reas o n ab l e j u ry could have found the defe ndant
guilty of the off ence s char g ed. The ref

ore, the defe ndant is without relief on this issue.

I I I . Conclusion

Ba sed on the for eg oing, this cour t affir ms the judgme nts of the trial cour t.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE

-8-