State v. J. Brown ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JUNE 1998 SESSION
September 9, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9710-CR-00484
)
) McMinn County
v. )
) Honorable R. Steven Bebb, Judge
)
JAMES A. BROWN, ) (Three counts of sale of less than one-half
) gram of cocaine)
)
Appellant. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Charles M. Corn John Knox Walkup
District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee
110 ½ Washington Avenue and
Athens, TN 37303 Clinton J. Morgan
Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Jerry N. Estes
District Attorney General
and
Amy Reedy
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 647
Athens, TN 37303
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The defendant, James A. Brown, appeals as of right from his convictions
following a bench trial of three counts of the sale of less than one-half gram of cocaine.
The defendant, a Range II, multiple offender, was sentenced to six years for each
offense, to be served concurrently in the custody of the Department of Correction. On
appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions. We affirm the judgments of conviction.
Heather Morris, an undercover drug agent for the Athens Police
Department, testified that she began preparing for an undercover drug operation in
Athens in July 1996. She testified that as part of her preparation, she was required to
look through a box of photographs containing pictures of the people from whom she
was likely to purchase drugs during the operation. She stated that she was required to
look at these photographs every day throughout the operation. She further stated that
she became familiar with the defendant’s face by looking at his photograph. She
testified that before she bought drugs on each occasion, her partner, Detective Bill
Matthews, would drive through the area to see who was standing outside. She said
that she would then meet Detective Matthews at a nearby park where she would put on
an electronic recording device to record the drug transactions.
Officer Morris testified that on August 9 and 14, and September 27, 1996,
she drove down Kilgore Street in Athens and stopped when she saw the defendant
standing on the street. She stated that she asked the defendant for “a hundred,”
meaning one hundred dollars worth of crack cocaine. She said that she then drove
around the block while the defendant went inside a house to get the drugs. She said
that she then drove up to the defendant, and he handed her the drugs. She testified
that a friend of the defendant’s, Paul Moss, was also present when the transactions
2
took place. She made a positive identification of the defendant in court. The tape
recordings of the three transactions were introduced into evidence at trial.
On cross-examination, Officer Morris admitted that there were other black
males present in the area when she made the drug transactions that were of the same
build as the defendant. She stated that she could not remember what the defendant
was wearing during any of the three transactions. She also admitted that before
beginning her preparation for the undercover operation, she had difficulty distinguishing
among black males.
Detective Bill Matthews testified that he worked with Officer Morris on the
undercover drug operation. He testified that before Officer Morris would attempt to
make a purchase, he would drive through the area to see if there was any potential
drug activity and to see who was “out front,” meaning who was selling cocaine that
night. He stated that the defendant appeared to be selling cocaine on all three
occasions when the drug transactions took place. He said that he had known both the
defendant and the defendant’s friend, Paul Moss, for several years. He testified that he
had no trouble distinguishing between them because the defendant was tall and
muscular, whereas Paul Moss was heavyset. He stated that he monitored the
electronic recording of the transactions. He admitted on cross-examination that
sometimes there would be numerous black males outside when he would drive through
the area.
The defendant testified that once when he was walking on Kilgore Street,
Officer Morris approached him and asked for some “yeh,” a slang term for cocaine. He
stated that he continued walking. The defendant also stated that he saw Officer Morris
on Kilgore Street on August 9, the night of the first drug transaction. He stated that he
did not sell drugs to Officer Morris on that night or any other occasion. He testified that
3
the voice on the tapes of the transactions was not his. He stated that the reason he
was standing outside in the area was because he was addicted to cocaine and was
looking to purchase cocaine for his own personal use.
The trial court found the defendant guilty of three counts of the sale of
less than one-half gram of cocaine. The defendant was sentenced to three six-year
sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant argues that the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions. Specifically, the defendant argues that the
identification of the defendant by Officer Morris was not credible.
Our standard of review when the sufficiency of the evidence is questioned
on appeal 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 beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 2789 (1979). This means that we do not reweigh the evidence, but presume that
the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable inferences
from the evidence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547
(Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Although this
case involved a bench trial, the findings of the trial judge who conducted the
proceedings carry the same weight as a jury verdict. State v. Tate, 615 S.W.2d 161,
162 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, we conclude
that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. Officer Morris
testified that she became familiar with the defendant’s face by studying his photograph
before the drug transactions, and she testified unequivocally that she purchased drugs
from the defendant. Detective Matthews, who had known the defendant for several
years, testified that the defendant appeared to be selling drugs when he surveyed the
4
area before the drug transactions took place. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to
support the defendant’s convictions.
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the
defendant’s judgments of conviction.
______________________________
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
_____________________________
John H. Peay, Judge
_____________________________
David G. Hayes, Judge
5