State v. Andre Goss ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
MAY SESSION, 1999 June 3, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9809-CC-00294
)
Appellee, )
) OBION COUNTY
V. )
) HON . WILL IAM B. AC REE , JR.,
) JUDGE
ANDR E DE SHU N GO SS, )
) (POSSESSION OF COCAINE
Appe llant. ) WITH INTEN T TO S ELL)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
C. MICHAEL ROBBINS PAUL G. SUMMERS
46 No rth Third S treet Attorney General & Reporter
Suite 719
Memphis, TN 38103 J. ROSS DYER
(On appe al) Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
JOS EPH D. ATN IP 425 Fifth Avenue North
District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243
121 E ast Ma in
P.O. Box 734 THOM AS A. THO MAS
Dresden, TN 38225 District Attorn ey Ge neral
(At trial a nd of c ouns el on a ppea l)
JAMES T. CANNON
Assistant District Attorney General
414 So uth Fou rth
P.O. Box 218
Union City, TN 38281-0218
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defendant, Andre Deshun Goss, appeals as of right following his
conviction in the Obion County Circuit Court. Defendant was convicted by a jury of
possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, simple possession of marijuana, and
resisting arrest. In this appeal, Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence
regarding his identity to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the
standard is whether, after reviewing 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 reaso nable d oubt. Jack son v. V irginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (19 79).
On appea l, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and
all inferences therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 197 8).
Because a verdic t of guilt remov es the pr esum ption of inn ocenc e and re places it w ith
a presumption of guilt, the accu sed h as the burde n in this court of illustrating why the
evidence is insufficient to sup port the ve rdict returne d by the trier o f fact. State v.
Tuggle, 639 S.W .2d 913 , 914 (T enn. 19 82); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476
(Tenn. 19 73).
Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight an d value to
be given the evidence, as w ell as all factual issues raised by the evidence , are
resolved by the trier of fa ct, not this court. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623
(Tenn. Crim. A pp.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn . 1987). Nor may this court
-2-
reweigh or reevalu ate the ev idence . Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d at 835. A jury verdict
approved by the trial court acc redits the S tate’s witne sses an d resolve s all conflicts
in favor of the State. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.
Karl Jackson of the Union City Police Department was on bike patrol on March
14, 1998. At approximately 6:45 p.m., he and two (2) other police officers, Kevin
Griffin and Lee Dearmitt, were eating dinner at the local Dairy Quee n. They we re
discussing the Defendant, Andre Goss, during their dinner as there were outstanding
warran ts for his arrest. After they finis hed ea ting, Patro lman G riffin pointed o ut a
Chevrolet Suburban which resembled Jackson’s earlier description of the
Defe ndan t’s vehicle. The vehicle was traveling northbound on Miles Avenue in front
of Dairy Qu een. The officers got on their bicycles and followed the vehicle. Jackson
testified that he had arrested the Defendant on a prior occasion. When the
Chevrolet Suburban pulled into a parking lot, Jackson approached the driver’s side
window and believed that the driver was Defendant Andre Goss.
Jackson spoke to the Defendant and to his passenger, Eric Johnson, who was
sitting in the bac k seat. A third person, Darrell Brooks, was also in the vehicle.
Defendant was aske d to exit the vehicle and he complied. Defendant at first denied
being Andre Goss, but then admitted he was in fact Andre Goss when Patrolman
Milligan retrieved a copy of the outstanding warrant for Goss’ arrest which had a
photog raph of G oss attac hed.
Defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, and D earmitt performed the
search. During the search, a loaded handgun was found. Defendant was
handcuffed as a result. Jackson noticed that Defendant’s left hand was “clinched
-3-
real tight,” and he attempted to pry Defendant’s hand open. Defendant refused and
attempted to pull away. A struggle ensued, and a bag of crack cocaine fell from
Defe ndan t’s hand to the ground. After Jackson retrieved the bag, Defendant did not
resist arrest any further. Dearmitt performed a further search of the vehicle, finding
a “rock” of cocaine in the driver’s door pocket and a marijuana cigar butt. Fifteen
hundred dollars ($1,500.00) was seized from the Defendant’s person, but nothing
was tak en from Brooks or John son.
Defendant argues that because State witnesses failed to identify Defendant
in-court and referred to h im by “Andre Goss” or as the “driver,” then the State failed
to prove the specific identity of the Defendant as the driver of the Suburban in which
the drugs and the wea pon we re found . However, Jackson’s testimony is clear that
the individual in the driver’s seat of the vehicle was the Defendant, Andre Goss.
Jackson recalled that he had arrested Andre Goss, the Defendant, on a prior
occasion. Furthermore, the photograph which accompanied an outstanding warrant
for Goss’ arrest resembled the Defe ndant. Finally, the Defendant himself admitted
to being Andre Goss after he was arreste d. This Defendant is the same individual
with who m the p olice strug gled to arrest and who dropped a bag of crack cocaine.
This Defendant is the same person who sat in the driver’s seat of the Suburban,
known to be the vehicle of the Defendant, where a marijuana cigar and a loaded
handg un were found.
As Defendant notes within his brief, the State is required to prove that he was
the person who committed the crime in questio n. Wh ite v. State, 533 S.W.2d 735,
744 (Tenn . Crim. A pp. 197 5). This is a question of fact for the determination of the
jury following conside ration of the proof su bmitted at trial. Id.; State v. Crawfo rd, 635
-4-
S.W.2d 704, 705 (Tenn. Crim. App . 1982). From the tes timony of police o fficer Karl
Jackson wherein he referred to the Defendant by name, the identity of the Defendant
could be reas onably d etermined by the jury. State v. Phillips, 728 S.W.2d 21, 25
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). W hile an in-court identification of the Defendant was not
made by Jackson, a courtroom identification is not a prerequisite to convict a
defendant of a crimin al offense . State v. Dan ny Mo rris, No. 01C01-9506-CC-00206,
slip op. at 2, H umph reys Co unty (Tenn. Crim. App., a t Nash ville, Ma y 9, 199 6) (Ru le
11 application denied). There was certainly sufficient evidence wh ereby a rational
trier of fact could have determined that Defendant, Andre Goss, was the perpetrator
of this offense beyond a reaso nable d oubt ba sed up on the tes timony o f Jackso n.
We affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
___________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
-5-