State v. Brandon Bills

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: February 10, 2000
• Docket: W1999-01468-CCA-R3-CD
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 2000 SESSION FILED February 10, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) NO. W1999-01468-CCA-R3-CD Appellee, ) ) HARDEMAN COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JON KERRY BLACKWOOD, BRANDON MARIO BILLS, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Delivery of Cocaine)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

G. WILLIAM HYMERS III PAUL G. SUMMERS 213 E. Lafayette Street Attorney General and Reporter P.O. Box 98 Jackson, TN 38301 TARA B. HINKLE Assistant Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

ELIZABETH T. RICE District Attorney General

JAMES W. FREELAND, JR. Assistant District Attorney General 302 Market Street Somerville, TN 38068

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE OPINION

A Hardeman County jury convicted defendant of delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve

four years as a Range I standard offender in the Tennessee Department of

Correction. In this appeal as of right, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the jury based its conviction. Upon our review of the record,

we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

I. FACTS

As part of a long-term undercover drug operation with the Bolivar Police

Department, undercover agent Kenneth Jones (hereinafter “Agent Jones”) disguised

himself as a drug user. In order to avoid detection as a police officer, he wore casual clothing, drove a 1989 Cadillac and carried a beer of which he consumed a

small amount prior to the transaction.

On November 18, 1997, Agent Jones met Investigator Michael Jones

(hereinafter “Investigator Jones”) of the Bolivar Police Department. Investigator Jones provided Agent Jones cash with which to make a drug buy and information

that Margin Street might yield a successful transaction.

At approximately 2:00 p.m., defendant flagged down Agent Jones’ car and

approached the passenger side window. 1 Agent Jones requested $20.00 worth of

cocaine. Defendant walked over to another vehicle and returned approximately thirty seconds later with the drugs which he exchanged for Jones’ $20.00. The

drugs subsequently tested to be 0.1 grams of cocaine.

After purchasing the cocaine, Agent Jones returned to a predetermined meeting place and turned the drugs over to Investigator Jones. A few minutes later,

Investigator Jones went to the location of the transaction in an unmarked car. He

spotted defendant whom he knew by sight and name. The defendant ran away

1 The Cadillac was equipped with a videotaping device. However, the device was positioned to show activity on the driver’s side of the vehicle. Because this transaction occurred on the passenger-side of the car, the videotape did not show defendant. 2 when he saw Investigator Jones. Agent Jones identified defendant as the individual

involved in the transaction by picking his photograph from a book of “mug shots”

provided by Investigator Jones that afternoon.

Investigator Jones and Agent Jones arrested defendant several months later

at the end of the undercover operation. At the time, Agent Jones identified defendant as one of the many individuals who sold him illegal drugs. Both officers

made positive in-court identifications of the defendant as the individual that

delivered cocaine to Agent Jones on November 18, 1997.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him of

delivery of cocaine. Specifically, he claims that Agent Jones’ identification of him is questionable given the transaction’s short time span, the agent’s consumption of

beer prior to the transaction, and the discrepancies between Agent Jones’

description of the suspect in his field notes versus the description in Investigator

Jones’ arrest report.

Where sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question for an

appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State

v. Abrams, 935 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tenn. 1996). The weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony are matters entrusted exclusively to the jury as the triers of

fact. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Brewer, 932

S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

In this instance, the proof at trial established that defendant delivered 0.1

grams of cocaine to undercover agent Kenneth Jones. Agent Jones picked

defendant’s picture from a book of photographs as the person who delivered the cocaine. Investigator Michael Jones spotted defendant at the scene of the

3 transaction just minutes after the sale, and the defendant ran away. Both officers

identified defendant at trial.

The effect of Agent Jones’ consumption of beer on his credibility, given the

transaction’s short time span, was a question for the jury to resolve. See Sheffield,

676 S.W.2d at 547; Brewer, 932 S.W.2d at 19. Likewise, the fact that Agent Jones’ description of defendant (approximately 5'11'’ and about 160 pounds) differed from

the description in Investigator Jones’ arrest report (either 6'3" or 63" and

approximately 140 pounds)2 is not determinative.

Agent Jones testified that the transaction took less than a minute. He

testified that he consumed perhaps “two swallows” of a beer prior to the drug buy. Both Agent Jones and Investigator Jones testified that it is common to carry and

consume alcohol in the course of an undercover operation in order to fit in and

avoid detection as a police officer.

The jury heard testimony regarding the officers’ identification of defendant

as the person involved in this transaction. It heard the discrepancies in

descriptions, as well as the positive in-court identifications. The return of a guilty

verdict resolved all testimonial conflicts in the state’s favor. See State v. Bigbee,

885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994).

Taking this evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the jury could reasonably find that the defendant unlawfully delivered cocaine to Agent Jones.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction. This issue is without

merit.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

2 Apparently, the writing on the arrest report was illegible and the description of defendant’s height could be read one of those two ways. 4 ____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

____________________________ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE