WPC mzܙGk6%X5؄ɾ1tg~Đ<b"Mk~\ș!YC{dLb#C2=hrmy2kAz}!h# (Xgw+=hb42E6C bjA1z|SB b%t^^&وK y-1wj%b``#!@UNa % 0(U :b w 4# 7 F NN 0P 0D U :Z  m  ^  hm m m #U: B222UOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AQ 0D 0D 0DCC D3HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,6 AZ"Arial Regular- -tpO'dTd3|x(v(2$ !  4XaXXX#XXa   0  (#$  0  ,yAZ"Arial Regular U ɖR'L    $4XXXX7XX   1     Althoughthevehiclewasregisteredto S.Fieldsratherthantothedefendant,  thedefendantpossessedandwasincontrolofthevehicleduringthepresentoffense,andlaw  enforcementofficerstestifiedthattheyknewthedefendantandhadseenhimdrivingthevehicle | inthepast.Thus,whilewerefertothevehicleasthe defendants,werecognizethathemaynot B : havetechnicallyownedthevehicle. ^  $4XXXX7XX   2    ݀7777WenotethatapplyingtheActwouldhavebeenproblematicinanyeventbecauseas#77#  thedefendantwasnotconvicted,asrequiredbytheAct,of aviolationof3917417or  conspiracytoviolatesuchsection.Rather,hewasconvictedoffacilitationofaviolationof3917 | 417.   $4XXXX7XX   3    77ԀWenotethatthelegislaturehasexpresslyfounddeterrencenecessarywithregardto  certaindrugoffensescommittedwithin1000feetofaschool: Theenhancedandmandatory  minimumsentencerequiredbythissectionfordrugoffensesoccurringinaDrugFreeSchool |  Zonearenecessarytoserveasadeterrenttosuchunacceptableconduct.#77#77Tenn.CodeAnn.  3917432(a).XX7Ԁ#7XX#Althoughthislegislativeexpressionwouldarguablysupportaconclusionthat  deterrenceisnecessaryinthepresentcase,givenourresolutionbelowweneednotdevelopthis  analysis.#77}#,fAZ"Arial Regular d K ["  XaXXXM XXa  _  Ad FILEDM   October18,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourt_ClerkdAx _Z[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  'dxd !  _DXaXXX85VXXdd8    TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  _vY"_@0,j: `@En ttXWv__INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  AT KNOXVILLE  JUNE1999SESSION   DXXSTATEOFTENNESSEE,     T *  C.C.A.#03C019805CR00178  TL    Appellee,      T *  GreeneCounty  ,$   VS.   L      T *  HonorableJamesE.Beckner,Judge    KENYETTAFIELDS,0     T *  (FacilitationofaFelony)  &&   Appellant.     T *   FORTHEAPPELLANT:      T   FORTHEAPPELLEE:  ^V  GREGW.EICHELMAN(onappeal) T   PAULG.SUMMERS 0( DistrictPublicDefender     T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  1609CollegeParkDrive,Box11   T       Morristown,TN378131618   T   CLINTONJ.MORGAN     L      T   AssistantAttorneyGeneralFREDICKM.LANCE(attrial)   T   425FifthAvenueNorth   804MarketStreet L      T   Nashville,TN372430493 ! SDJohnsonCity,TN37604    [      c   C.BERKELEYBELL,JR.    [      c   DistrictAttorneyGeneral    [      c   VICTORVAUGHN    [      c   AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral    [      c   109SouthMainStreet    [      c   Greeneville,TN37743OPINIONFILED:_______________ AFFIRMEDINPART,MODIFIED,ANDREMANDED  X5P.3  JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS, Judge  :39 4S   u8 !XXa OPINION    XX   Thedefendant,KenyettaFields,appealshisconvictionandsentencefor | t facilitationofthesaleofcocaineinanamountgreaterthan.5grams.The H @ defendantarguesthat(1)theevidenceattrialwasinsufficienttosupportthe   jury'sverdict,(2)thesentenceimposedbythetrialcourtisexcessive,and(3)the  trialcourterredinfailingtograntanalternativesentence.WeAFFIRMthe   defendantsconvictionandMODIFYthesentenceimposedbythetrialcourt. xp     BACKGROUND    Thedefendantwasarrestedpursuanttoanundercoveroperationinwhich  TBIAgentMikeHannonpurchased1.5gramsofcocainefromapassengerofa  vehicleoperatedbythedefendant.Attheoutsetoftheoffense,thedefendant x andhispassengerwereseatedinthedefendants  #  1      ׀parkedvehicle.Hannonand LD aninformantparkedbehindthemtoattempttopurchasecocaine.The  defendantspassenger,JamesHenryDavis,gotoutofthedefendantsvehicle,   approachedHannon,andaskedwhattheywanted.Hannonrespondedthathe " wanted$250worthofcrackcocaine.Davisthenwentbacktothedefendants |$t  carandgotinthefrontpassengerseat.Hannontestifiedthatheobservedwhat H&@" hethoughtwasanexchangebetweenDavisandthedefendant.Althoughhedid ( !$ notseeanythingchangehands,HannontestifiedthatthedefendantandDavis )"& engagedinconversationandphysicalinteraction.Afewmomentslater,Davis +$( gotoutofthedefendantscar,returnedtoHannon,anddeliveredasubstance x-p&* thatwaslateridentifiedas1.5gramsofcrackcocaine.HannonpaidDavis$260, D/<(, andDavistookthemoneybacktothedefendantscar.Davisandthedefendant 1*.  thenengagedinasecondtransaction,afterwhichDavisreturnedtoHannonwith 2+0 tendollarschange.Thestatepresentedtestimonythatthesaleoccurredwithin  approximately200yardsofaschool.    Bothsubjectsweresubsequentlyarrestedandindictedforthesaleof l d cocaineinanamountgreaterthan.5grams.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3917417. 80 Thedefendantwastriedseparatelybeforeajury.Atthecloseofthestates   proof,thedefensemovedforajudgmentofacquittal.Findingthattheevidence   wassufficienttosupporttheindictment,thetrialcourtoverruledthismotion.   However,thecourtdidfinditappropriatetoalsochargethejuryonthelesser h` offenseoffacilitation.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911403.Thejuryfoundthe 4, defendantnotguiltyontheindictedchargebutfoundhimguiltyoffacilitationand  imposedafineof$50,000.Thetrialcourtthensentencedhimtofouryearsand  sixmonthsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.  Ѐ  ANALYSIS  0 ( % Thedefendantfirstsubmitsthattheevidencepresentedattrialwaslegally " insufficienttosupportthejurysverdict.Whenadefendantchallengesthe #  sufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtmustdeterminewhether,afterviewingthe %" evidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffact l'd $ couldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofacrimebeyondareasonabledoubt. 8)0"& SeeJacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d +#( 63,67(Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Theappelleeisentitledtothe ,%* strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferencesthatmay .', bedrawntherefrom.SeeStatev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978). h0`). Ѐ 42,+0  Thecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightoftheirtestimony,andthe 4,2 reconciliationofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedexclusivelytothe 5.4 trieroffact.SeeStatev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d542,547(Tenn.1984);Statev. 706 Gentry,881S.W.2d1,3(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Ajuryverdictforthestate d9\28 accreditsthetestimonyofthestateswitnessesandresolvesallconflictsinfavor  ofthestate.SeeStatev.Williams,657S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983).  Moreover,aguiltyverdictremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceenjoyedby   defendantsattrialandreplacesitwithapresumptionofguilt.SeeStatev. l d Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Thus,anappellantchallengingthe 80 sufficiencyoftheevidencecarriestheburdenofillustratingtothisCourtwhythe   evidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdict.SeeStatev.Freeman,943   S.W.2d25,29(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).    Section3911403ofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedprovides, Apersonis 4, criminallyresponsibleforthefacilitationofafelonyif,knowingthatanother  intendstocommitaspecificfelony,butwithouttheintentrequiredforcriminal  responsibilityunder3911402(2),thepersonknowinglyfurnishessubstantial  assistanceinthecommissionofthefelony.Althoughmoremightbeinferred,it d\ isclearthatthedefendantprovidedthecarthatheandDavisusedbothas 0 ( transportationtoandfromthedrugsaleandasanofficeofsortfromwhichto ! conductthetransaction.Thisevidence,alongwithHannonsaccountofthe #  interactionbetweenDavisandthedefendantateachstageofthesale,was %" sufficientforareasonabletrieroffacttoinferthatthedefendantknewofDavis `'X $ intent.Theevidencealsosupportsthejurysconclusionthatthedefendant ,)$"& knowinglyfurnishedsubstantialassistancetoDavisinthecommissionofthe *#( sale.Thus,wefindtheevidencesufficienttosupportthejurysverdict. ,%*   SENTENCING  \0T). + Thedefendantnextarguesthathissentenceisexcessiveandthatthe 42,+0 trialcourterredinfailingtoimposeanalternativesentence.Whenanaccused 4,2 challengesthelengthormannerofserviceofasentence,itisthedutyofthis 5.4 Courttoconductadenovoreviewontherecord withapresumptionthatthe 706 determinationsmadebythecourtfromwhichtheappealistakenarecorrect. d9\28 Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).Thispresumption isconditioneduponthe  affirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencing  principlesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d   166,169(Tenn.1991).Theappellantcarriestheburdenofshowingthathis l d sentenceisimproper.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)sentencingcommn 80 cmts;Statev.Jernigan,929S.W.2d391,395(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).      LengthofSentence    / ThedefendantisaRangeIoffender,andfacilitationofthesaleofcocaine ph inanamountgreaterthan.5gramsisaClassCfelony.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. <4 3911403(b);3917417(c)(1).Thus,thedefendantissubjecttoa  sentencingrangeofthreetosixyears.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035112.The  presumptivesentenceforaClassCfelonyistheminimumintherange,absent  enhancementormitigatingfactors.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035210(c). ld  Thetrialcourtfoundapplicableasenhancementfactorsthatthe " defendanthasahistoryofcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothatnecessaryto #  establishtheappropriaterange,seeTenn.CodeAnn.4035114(1),andthat %" theoffenseoccurredwithin200yardsofaschool,seegenerallyTenn.Code h'` $ Ann.3917432(establishingtheareawithin1000feetofschoolpropertyasa 4),"& DrugFreeSchoolZoneandprovidingenhancedpenaltiesforcertainoffenses +#( committedwithinsucharea).Basedonthesefindings,andfindingnomitigating ,%* factors,thecourtimposedasentenceoffourandonehalfyears. .',  Thedefendantchallengesbothenhancementsappliedbythetrialcourtas 02(+0 wellasthetrialcourtsrejectionoftwoproposedmitigatingfactors:that [t]he 3,2 defendant'scriminalconductneithercausednorthreatenedseriousbodilyinjury 5.4 and [t]hedefendantplayedaminorroleinthecommissionoftheoffense. 706 Tenn.CodeAnn.4035113(1),(4). `9X28 Ї Astoenhancementfactor(1),thedefendantspresentencereportreflects  numerousmisdemeanorconvictionsandhisadmissionthatheusescocaine.  Thedefendantdoesnotcontestthenatureorextentofthiscriminalhistory.   However,hearguesthatbecauseallofhispriorconvictionswere l d misdemeanors,factor(1)isinapplicable.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit.The 80 languageoftheenhancementstatutedoesnotlimitasentencingcourttothe   considerationoffelonyconvictionsorevenconvictions.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.   4035114(1).Enhancementfactor(1)maybeappliedsolelyonthebasisof   misdemeanorcriminalhistory.SeeStatev.Millbrooks,819S.W.2d441,446-47 h` (Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Thus,thetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancement 4, factor(1)wasproper.   Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinenhancinghis  sentencebasedonitsfindingthattheoffenseoccurredwithin200yardsofa d\ school.Weagree.TheDrugFreeSchoolZoneAct( theAct)establishesthe 0 ( areawithin1000feetofaschoolpropertyasaDrugFreeSchoolZoneand ! providesforenhancedpunishmentthroughincreasedoffenseclassificationand #  minimumsentencingforcertainoffensescommittedwithinsuchanarea.See %" Tenn.CodeAnn.3917432.Althoughthestatesproofwasuncontestedthat `'X $ thedefendantcommittedhisoffensewithin200yardsofaschool,thestatedid ,)$"& notindictthedefendantundertheAct.Instead,thestatecitedviolationofthe *#( Actinitsnoticetoseekenhancedpunishment.Atthedefendantssentencing ,%* hearing,thetrialcourtcorrectlyconcludedthat,becausethestatehadnot .', properlyindictedthecase,thecourtcouldnotinvoketheActtoincreasethe \0T). defendantsoffenseclassification.  #  2      ׀Nevertheless,thetrialcourtfoundthatthe (2 +0 defendantsviolationoftheActwarranted someconsiderationandreliedupon 3,2 ittoenhancethedefendantssentence.Because [t]hefactorscontainedin 5.4 4035113and114aretheexclusivefactorswhichmaybeconsideredinsetting  thelengthofasentencewithinagivenrange,Statev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250,  258(Tenn.Crim.App.1990),wecannotaffirmthisenhancement.    Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrejectinghis 80 assertionsthatheneithercausednorthreatenedseriousbodilyinjuryandthathe   playedonlyaminorroleinthecommissionoftheoffense.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.   4035113(1),(4).Wefindneitherfactorapplicable.    Thethreatofseriousbodilyinjuryisinherentincocaineuse.Thus,this 4, Courthasheldthatmitigatingfactor(1)shouldnotbeappliedwhenthe  defendantisconvictedofanoffenseinvolvingcocaine.SeeStatev.Vanderford,  980S.W.2d390,407(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);Statev.Keel,882S.W.2d410,  422(Tenn.Crim.App.1994). d\  Factor(4)isalsoinapplicable.Asnotedabove,theevidenceissufficient ! tosupportthejurysverdictthatthedefendantprovided substantialassistancein #  thecommissionofthefelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911403(emphasisadded). %" Thisconclusioncontradictsthedefendantsassertionthatheplayedaminorrole `'X $ inthefacilitation. ,)$"&  Insummary,weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlyapplied ,%* enhancementfactor(1)andproperlyrejectedthemitigatingfactorsproposedby .', thedefendant.Wecannot,however,affirmthetrialcourtsfurtherenhancingthe \0T). defendantssentenceonthebasesofconsiderationsnotincludedamongthe (2 +0 factorsprovidedbyTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035114.Becausethetrial 3,2 courtdidnotindicatetheweightitaccordedeachenhancement,weundertake 5.4 thateffort.Unliketheissueofapplicabilityoftheenhancement,heretheextent 706 andnatureofthedefendantscriminalhistoryarerelevant.Althoughlengthy,the X9P28 defendantscriminalhistoryisrelativelyminor.Weconcludethatthishistory  warrantsaoneyearenhancement.Therefore,wemodifythedefendants  sentencetofouryears.      AlternativeSentencing  @8 lL Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredindenyingan   alternativesentence.BecauseheisconvictedofaClassCfelony,theappellant   ispresumedeligibleforalternativesentencing.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035   102.Nevertheless,thetrialcourtfoundthatconfinementwasnecessarytoavoid xp depreciatingtheseriousnessofthedefendantsoffenseandtoprovidea D< deterrencetootherslikelytocommitsimilaroffenses.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.  4035103(1)(B).Thedefendantattacksthesefindings,arguingthatneitheris  supportedbytherecord.   Theneedfordeterrencecannotbeconclusoryonly,butmustbe @ 8 supportedbyevidenceinrecordindicatingthatthesentenceimposedwould  " haveadeterrenteffectwithinthejurisdiction.SeeAshby,823S.W.2dat170; #  Statev.Bingham,910S.W.2d448,455(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Inthepresent %" case,thetrialcourtnoted,suasponte, Wehaveaterribleproblemofcrack p'h $ cocainehereinGreeneCounty.Thisfinding,however,isnotsupportedbyany <)4"& evidenceintherecord.Evenwithoutsuchevidence,thestatearguesthatdrug +$( offensesare deterrableperse.AlthoughotherpanelsofthisCourthaveheld ,%* preciselythat,see,e.g.,Dykes,803S.W.2dat260,suchholdingscannotbe .', reconciledwithourSupremeCourtsholdinginAshby;which,wenote,wasitself l0d). adrugcase.Therefore,becausetherecordcontainsnosupportingevidence, 820+0 weconcludethatconfinementisnotwarrantedinthiscaseonthebasisofa 4,2 needfordeterrence.  #  3      ׀ 5.4  Nevertheless,weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatconfinementis  necessarytoavoiddepreciatingtheseriousnessofthedefendantsoffense.For  thisfactortowarrantasentenceofconfinement, thecircumstancesofthe   offenseascommittedmustbeespeciallyviolent,horrifying,shocking, l d reprehensible,offensive,orotherwiseofanexcessiveorexaggerateddegree, 80 andthenatureoftheoffensemustoutweighallfactorsfavoringasentenceother   thanconfinement.Bingham,910S.W.2dat455(quotingStatev.Hartley,818   S.W.2d370,374-75(Tenn.Crim.App.1991)).    Thecircumstancesofthedefendantsoffenseare,forthemostpart, 4, unremarkable.However,asnotedabove,theevidenceshowedthatthe  defendantcommittedhisoffensewithin200yardsofaschool.Withitspassage  oftheDrugFreeSchoolZoneAct,theTennesseelegislatureemphatically  expressedtheseriousnessofthiscircumstanceindrugrelatedoffenses.Our d\ reviewofthatActpersuadesusthatthelegislatureconsidereddrugoffenses 0 ( committedwithinaschoolzonetobeespeciallyreprehensibleandoffensive. ! Weagreewiththetrialcourtthatconfinementiswarranted. #     FINE l'd $  b[ Finally,althoughnotraisedbytheparties,wenotethatthedefendants D)<"& fineexceedsthestatutorylimit.Thejuryimposed,andthetrialcourtapproved, +$( afineof$50,000.ThemaximumallowablefineforaClassCfelonyis$10,000. ,%* SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-35-111(b)(3).ArticleVI,Section14ofthe .', TennesseeConstitutionprovidesthateverycitizenhastherighttohaveajuryof t0l). hispeersassessanyfineinexcessoffiftydollars.Accordingly,thisCourtmay @28+0 notreducethedefendant'sfinetocorrectthiserror.SeeStatev.Martin,940  4-2 ЇS.W.2dat567,570-71(Tenn.1997).However,itispermissibletoremandthe  caseforadeterminationontheissueofthefinealone,sothatthedefendant  mayhaveajuryassessafinewithinthestatutorylimits.Seeid.Itisnot   constitutionallyrequiredthat"thesamejuryfixthefinethatfindsthedefendant l d guilty."Id.at570.Therefore,weremandthiscasetothetrialcourtwhereanew 80 juryshallbeempaneledtofixanappropriatefine.      CONCLUSION    ` Fortheforgoingreasons,thedefendantsconvictionisAFFIRMED;his x sentenceisMODIFIEDtofouryearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection, LD andthiscaseisREMANDEDforajurytofixtheamountofthedefendantsfine.  Ѐ D         _____________________________ H @  4 DXJOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,Judge .!& bbCONCUR: %" ____________________________ +$( JOHNH.PEAY,Judge +$) 7XXԀ#XX7/d# ,%* _____________________________ 21**/ DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge 2+0 c