State v. Victor Coleman ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST SESSION, 1997 FILED
March 5, 1998
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9607-CC-00235
) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellee, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
)
) DYER COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. J. STEVEN STAFFORD
VICTOR COLEMAN, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (Direct Ap peal)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
G. ST EPH EN D AVIS JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
208 N. Mill Avenue
Dyersburg, TN 38025-0742 GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243
PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
JAMES E. LANIER
Assistant District Attorney General
P. O. Box E
Dyersburg, TN 38025
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
OPINION
Appellant Victor Coleman was convicted on November 3 , 1995 by a jury
in the Dye r Coun ty Crimina l Court of s ale of coc aine in an amou nt less than .5
grams. As a Range I standard offen der, Appellant w as sentenc ed to four years
incarceration with the Tennessee Department of Correction and fined $2,000.00.
In this direct appeal, Appellant presents two issues for our con sideration . First,
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction,
contending that the jury should no t have ac credite d the te stimo ny of pa id
undercover agents and a police officer who made the drug purchase from
Appellant. Second, App ellant claim s that the tria l court erred by refusing to
impose alternative sentencing, i.e., community corrections.
After a revie w of the record , we affirm the jud gme nt of the trial court
pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
On May 25, 1995, Johnny Ray, a confide ntial informant with the D yersburg
Police Department, purchased two rocks of cocaine from Appellant for $40.00.
Officer Ernie R oberts sat in his vehicle an d listened to the drug transaction via a
radio transmitter. Another informant, Michael Fowler, heard and saw the drug
transaction from about ten feet aw ay.
Respecting Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the convicting
evidence, we note that a verdict of guilty by the jury, approved by the trial judge,
accred its the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the
testimony in favor of the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn.
1994); State v. Harris , 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). It was the jury's
prerogative to accred it the testimony of the informants and of Officer Roberts,
and it obviously did so.
-2-
Wh ere the trial cou rt, as he re, pro perly considered all relevant sentencing
considerations, this Court reviews sentencing issues de novo with a presumption
of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). Appellant was convicted of
sale of cocaine in an amount less than .5 grams, a Class C felony. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 39-17-417 (c)(2). As a Ran ge I standard offender convicted of a Class C
felony, Appella nt's statuto ry senten cing rang e was th ree to six years. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-3 5-112(a)(3). T he trial court sentenc ed Appe llant to four years
incarceration with the Tennessee Department of Correction.
Although convicted of a Class C felony, Appellant has committed a serious
offense, possesses a criminal history which evinces a "clear disregard for the
laws and morals of society," and has manifested his failure to be rehabilitated.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0-35-10 2(5). Th erefore, A ppellant is n ot entitled to the
presumption in favor of alternative sentencing. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-1 02(6).
Appellant has a record of extensive criminal activity, including convictions for
reckless endangerment, evading arrest, theft of property over $10,000.00, and
receiving stolen property. Additionally, [m]easures less restrictive than
confinement have fr eque ntly [and] recently be en app lied unsu ccessfu lly" to
Appe llant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35 -103( 1)(C). Finally, it appears that Appellant
was on probatio n at the tim e he co mm itted the insta nt offense . We conclude that
the trial court properly refused to place Appellant into a community corrections
program.
According ly, we affirm the trial cour t's judgm ent purs uant to Cou rt of
Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-3-
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-4-