ÿWPCü $# UN %a 0(gw@4Ïãò 0Jú 0TD 0^˜ 0hö 0r^ 0|Ð 0†L 0Ò 1ub 0d×U>;U*yv~£vÓ! bô˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ à EÄ Å DÆ Ç È DÉ Ê DË DÌ eäzz!ó3|xÌ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(ArialPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò- ù-Ý ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€#ÑÑ7€õ\XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9609„CC„00293Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMcNAIRY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JON€KERRY€BLACKWOOD,ó óÌò òJOE€NATHAN€NICHOLS,à à)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(DELIVERY€OF€SCHEDULE€II)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òLLOYD€R.€TATUM€à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óAttorney€at€Law€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ124€East€Main€StreetÌP.O.€Box€293ò òà àà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACK€Ìó óHenderson,€TN€38340à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òELIZABETH€T.€RICE€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òED€NEAL€McDANIELó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à300€Industrial€Park€DriveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€473Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSelmer,€TN€38375€ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€ofÏDelivery€of€Schedule€II€Drugs,€cocaine,€less€than€0.5€grams€in€the€Circuit€CourtÏof€McNairy€County.€€He€was€sentenced€to€three€years€and€six€months€as€aÏRange€I€Standard€Offender.€€The€Defendant€argues€two€issues€in€his€appeal.€ÏThe€first€issue€is€whether€the€Defendantððs€conviction€is€barred€by€the€DoubleÏJeopardy€provisions€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€HisÏsecond€issue€is€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€ÏWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àThe€McNairy€County€Drug€Task€Force€hired€two€confidential€informants,ÏTracey€Hickman€and€Sandra€Gee,€to€purchase€illegal€drugs.€€These€twoÏinformants€set€up€a€drug€buy€with€the€Defendant€in€June€1995.€€After€being€fittedÏwith€a€recorder€and€given€some€money€by€the€officers,€they€met€the€Defendant€Ïin€his€truck€where€they€purchased€a€fifty€dollar€($50.00)€rock€of€crack€cocaineÏfrom€him.€€The€women€gave€the€cocaine€to€the€officers€immediately€after€theyÏpurchased€it.€€The€Defendant€was€arrested€in€September€1995€after€beingÏindicted€in€this€case.€€Upon€being€arrested,€the€authorities€took€the€DefendantððsÍpick€up€truck,€his€concrete€finishing€tools€which€were€in€the€truck,€and€$671.00Ïcash.€€ÌÌà àAt€least€some€of€the€concrete€finishing€tools€in€the€possession€of€theÏDefendant€at€the€time€of€his€arrest€were€rented€from€a€third€party.€€These€toolsÏwere€returned€two€or€three€days€later€to€the€Defendant€so€that€he€could€deliverÏthem€to€the€third€party.€€The€tools€actually€owned€by€the€Defendant€were€Ïreturned€to€him€in€January.€€Therefore,€the€Defendantððs€tools€were€kept€by€lawÏenforcement€authorities€for€approximately€four€months.ÌÌà àA€ð ðCivil€Settlement€Agreement€and€Release€of€Liabilityðð€dated€January€30,Ï1996€provided€that€the€Defendantððs€truck€would€be€forfeited,€and€the€$671.00Ïwould€be€returned€to€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendantððs€attorney€represented€theÏDefendant€in€the€negotiation€of€this€agreement.€€The€agreement€was€enteredÏvoluntarily,€and€there€was€not€a€hearing€held€on€the€forfeiture.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  Óà àWe€first€address€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€Defendant€arguesÏthere€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€his€conviction.€€When€an€accusedÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,Ïafter€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€anyÍrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€byÏthe€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ï476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€atÏ835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€courtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÏthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThe€first€witness€for€the€state€was€the€Regional€Crime€LaboratoryÏSupervisor€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Crime€Laboratory€inÍJackson.€€She€testified€that€the€substance€which€was€purchased€by€the€twoÏinformants€was€0.1€gram€of€a€cocaine€base€schedule€II€substance.€€ÌÌà àThe€confidential€informants,€Tracey€Hickman€and€Sandra€Gee€were€alsoÏwitnesses€at€the€trial.€€They€testified€that€they€purchased€undercover€narcotics.€ÏThey€were€paid€every€day€that€they€went€out€and€tried€to€purchase€narcotics,Ïwhether€they€were€successful€or€not.€€On€June€9,€the€day€of€the€incident,€theÏinformants€met€one€of€the€officers,€Officer€Weaver,€and€were€wired€so€thatÏOfficer€Weaver€could€monitor€the€conversation.€€They€then€went€to€theÏDefendantððs€house,€but€left€because€there€were€people€standing€outside€andÏsomeone€threatened€the€informants€with€a€brick.€€Hickman€and€Gee€then€wentÏto€a€telephone€and€called€the€Defendant.€€They€asked€the€Defendant€if€he€hadÏanything,€and€he€said€that€he€did.€€The€informants€met€the€Defendant,€who€wasÏby€himself,€on€the€road,€and€they€purchased€a€$50.00€rock€of€crack€cocaine.€ÏOnce€the€purchase€had€been€completed€Hickman€and€Gee€met€Officer€WeaverÏand€gave€him€the€crack€cocaine€and€the€recording€device.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€criminal€history€of€the€two€informants€wasÏbrought€out.€€Both€Hickman€and€Gee€testified€that€they€had€used€drugs€in€theÏpast,€but€were€not€using€drugs€during€the€time€period€they€were€working€asÏinformants.€€Ms.€Gee€denied€prostituting€herself€while€acting€as€an€informant.ÌÌà àThe€next€witness€was€Officer€Weaver.€€He€confirmed€that€Ms.€HickmanÏand€Ms.€Gee€worked€with€him€in€an€undercover€drug€operation.€€Officer€WeaverÏtestified€that€their€rent€was€paid€and€they€were€paid€$60.00€per€day€on€daysÏthat€they€worked.€€He€testified€that€the€money€used€to€pay€them€came€from€theÏdrug€fund€which€is€supplied€through€drug€fines€and€drug€seizures.€€He€confirmedÏthe€story€that€the€two€informants€told€concerning€the€drug€purchase.€€After€theÏpurchase,€he€received€the€crack€cocaine€and€took€it€to€the€T.B.I.€lab€in€JacksonÏfor€testing.€€After€the€testing€was€complete,€he€brought€it€back€to€the€evidenceÏroom.ÌÌà àThe€first€witness€for€the€defense€was€a€former€employer€of€the€Defendant.€ÏHe€testified€that€on€the€day€of€the€incident€the€Defendant€was€working€for€him€onÏa€house€remodeling€project.€€The€next€witness€for€the€defense€was€theÏDefendantððs€third€cousin,€Larry€Robinson.€€Robinson€testified€that€he€saw€theÏDefendant€on€June€9.€€The€Defendant€picked€up€the€witness€while€he€wasÏwalking€to€Selmer€to€help€the€Defendant€load€his€concrete€tools€in€his€truck.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€kept€his€tools€in€his€truck.€€The€witness€stated€that€itÏmust€have€been€about€5:00€or€5:30€when€the€Defendant€picked€him€up€andÏtook€the€witness€to€the€shop€behind€the€Defendantððs€house.€The€witnessÏtestified€that€the€first€thing€they€did€in€the€shop€was€drink€some€beer.€€AfterÍdrinking€a€couple€of€cans,€they€unloaded€the€tools€in€the€truck.€€The€witness€alsoÏtestified€that€he€knew€of€the€two€informants,€but€he€did€not€know€themÏpersonally.€€He€stated€that€he€had€seen€Gee€use€drugs€during€the€time€periodÏthat€she€was€an€informant.€€The€witness€also€testified€that€he€had€knowledgeÏthat€Gee€prostituted€herself.ÌÌà àThe€defenseððs€next€witness€was€the€Defendantððs€wife,€Louise€Nichols.€ÏShe€testified€that€they€had€been€married€for€28€years€and€had€children€andÏgrandchildren.€€She€stated€that€the€day€of€the€incident€she€got€off€work€at€3:30Ïp.m.€and€got€home€about€3:40€p.m.€€She€stated€that€there€was€no€telephone€inÏthe€shop,€but€there€was€a€telephone€in€the€house.€€She€said€that€she€did€notÏreceive€any€phone€calls€from€a€woman€looking€for€the€Defendant,€and€theÏDefendant€did€not€answer€the€phone€that€day€or€evening.€€She€stated€thatÏLarry€Robinson€was€with€the€Defendant€in€his€shop€all€night€long.€€She€statedÏthat€she€would€remember€if€a€woman€called€asking€for€her€husband€ð ð[b]ecauseÏif€any€woman€call€my€house,€they€donððt€speak€to€Joe,€anyhow,€because€IÏwonððt€let€him€talk€to€them.ððÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€State€asked€the€Defendantððs€wife€how€sheÏremembered€the€incidents€of€June€9.€€She€stated€that€she€remembered€June€9Ïbecause€the€Defendant€always€tells€her€where€he€is€going€to€work€and€sheÍremembered€he€was€going€to€work€for€his€employer.€€She€admitted€she€couldÏnot€remember€June€8€or€June€10.€€She€stated€she€did€not€remember€whether€orÏnot€the€Defendant€worked€on€June€10.€€The€defense€then€closed€its€proof.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€in€his€brief€that€the€testimony€of€his€witnessesÏwas€unrefuted€and€that€the€informants€were€unreliable€because€of€evidence€ofÏdrug€use€and€prostitution.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€argues,€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€€However,€questions€concerning€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€asÏwell€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,Ïnot€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.Ïòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àThe€jurors€who€decided€this€case€obviously€found€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏto€be€more€credible€than€the€defense€witnesses.€€As€stated€above,€this€courtÏcannot€make€judgments€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€must€rely€onÏthe€determination€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€DefendantððsÏconviction.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€next€issue€we€will€address€is€whether€the€Defendantððs€conviction€isÏbarred€by€the€double€jeopardy€provisions€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions.€€The€Double€Jeopardy€clause€in€both€the€United€States€andÏTennessee€Constitutions€prohibits€multiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.€ÏThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€taking€of€his€tools€for€four€months€constitutesÏpunishment,€so€that€he€cannot€be€punished€for€his€crime€in€a€criminal€court.ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€recently€addressed€the€question€ofÏdouble€jeopardy€in€connection€with€forfeiture€statutes€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Urseryóó,Ï116€S.Ct.€2135€(1996).€€The€Supreme€Court€stated,€ð ðòòinóó€òòremóó€civil€forfeiture€is€aÏremedial€civil€sanction,€distinct€from€potentially€punitive€òòinóó€òòpersonamóó€civil€penaltiesÏsuch€as€fines,€and€does€not€constitute€a€punishment€under€the€DoubleÏJeopardy€Clause.ðð€€òòUrseryóó,€116€S.Ct.€at€2142.€€The€Court€upheld€a€civil€forfeitureÏbased€on€a€federal€statute€which€is€almost€identical€to€the€Tennessee€statute€inÏquestion€here.€€ÌÌà àThis€court€has€held€that€the€òòUrseryóó€reasoning€applies€to€the€statute€inÏquestion.€€In€òòState€v.€Grapel€Simpsonóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CC„00239,€McNairyÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€filed€Aug.€2,€1996),€this€court€addressed€aÏsituation€similar€to€the€one€here€where€forfeiture€proceedings€were€instituted€toÏobtain€the€defendantððs€car€under€the€same€statute€in€effect€in€the€case€òòsubóóÏòòjudiceóó.€ÌIn€òòSimpsonóó,€this€court€held€that€the€forfeiture€of€the€defendantððs€car€wasÏconstitutional€because€there€was€no€distinction€between€the€facts€ofòò€SimpsonóóÏand€that€of€òòUrseryóó.€€òòSimpsonóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CC„00239,€slip.€op.€at€7„8.ÌÌà àSeveral€facts€in€this€case€are€important€in€regard€to€this€issue.€€At€theÏhearing€on€the€Motion€to€Dismiss,€a€carbon€copy€and€a€photocopy€of€a€ð ðNoticeÏof€Property€Seizure€and€Forfeiture€of€Conveyancesðð€were€introduced€as€exhibits.€ÏThe€photocopy€includes€a€notation€ð ðconcrete€tools€in€truckðð€in€a€section€titledÏð ðOther€Property,ðð€while€the€carbon€copy€does€not€have€this€notation.€€This€formÏalso€listed€the€Defendantððs€truck€and€$671.00€in€currency.€€Also€at€the€hearing,Ïthe€Defendant€testified€concerning€the€return€of€his€tools€prior€to€the€entry€of€theÏð ðCivil€Settlement€Agreement€and€Release€of€Liability.ðð€€He€stated,€ð ð[w]ell,€I€gotÏthose€tools€back€through€a€„„„€it€was€supposed€to€have€been€a€court€orderÏdocument€from€Memphis.ðð€€A€ð ðPetition€for€Hearingðð€to€the€Commissioner€of€SafetyÏwas€also€entered€as€an€exhibit€at€the€hearing.€€The€Defendant€testified€theÍPetition€was€a€claim€to€obtain€his€truck,€currency€and€tools.€€The€petition€statesÏthat€it€is€in€regard€to€ð ðOne€1983€Ford€Pick€Up€Truck€VIN€#FTCC10AXDUA66491,ÏTennessee€License€Plate€number€569„DPC€and€òòContentsóó.ðð€(Emphasis€added).€ÏThe€evidence€at€the€hearing€shows€that€the€tools€were€taken€with€the€truck€andÏthe€currency.€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€David€Mooreóó,€02C01„9605„CR„00148,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€filed€Dec.€19,€1996),€this€court€held€that€civil€forfeiture€ofÏproperty€does€not€implicate€double€jeopardy€when€the€offender€enters€into€aÏcompromise€settlement.€€In€òòMooreóó,€$6,267€in€U.S.€Currency€was€seized.€€TheÏdefendant€entered€into€a€settlement€whereby€all€but€$1,000.00€was€returned€toÏhim.€€The€remaining€$1,000.00€was€forfeited.€€This€court€held€that€the€forfeiture€ofÏthe€$1,000.00€did€not€constitute€double€jeopardy.€€If€the€forfeiture€of€the€money€inÏòòMooreóó€is€not€double€jeopardy,€the€seizing€of€the€Defendantððs€concrete€toolsÏwhich€were€not€forfeited€but€returned€could€not€be€double€jeopardy.ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€tools€were€seized€for€forfeiture€along€with€theÏDefendantððs€truck€and€$671.00.€€The€Defendant€treated€them€as€being€seizedÏfor€forfeiture,€but€they€were€eventually€returned€to€him,€according€to€his€testimonyÏby€ð ða€court€order€document€from€Memphis.ðð€€The€tools€were€returned€within€aÍreasonable€amount€of€time.€€There€was€no€punishment,€therefore,€there€was€noÏdouble€jeopardy.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ìà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge