WPC$ U~RhbLQ}\S`)y9~:ͪ$_5$kw6C],G@͇t.M[*k8wes26CDX~{ 0 g\DH|GD(CDD,JڭwUIZG92lYb&$[QCDk琋k[T*WyZ J vRD?qؖy$g}L_ju<{. XS\/C;Tk>3:uGmC~#΢٩]omgMw08Zt[ _+$6a XU8Sj %OdJ*>8dgMNUr1rbsQvz*drڣl'>n0w/ Zp'{ riql!q# F UNQ % 0( 4  UI: x* b E N w@ 1 9 m; vR 0 0DUI: 0D U:PU:nU :U: D3 0D Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb AO 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($uM% @ d3|xu,cAZ"Arial Regular n .$4XhXXXaXXh   1    aaԀThestatehadtwiceneededtoaskGregorytorepeatherresponsetoaquestionof  whetheranyofthejurorshadpersonallyseentheeffectsofcocaineuse.- - ;  #Xd#   tUttDttDttUtDtӀu U l .$4XhXXXaXXh   3    aaԀInPowersv.Ohio,449U.S.400(1991),theCourtdeletedtherequirementthatthe  defendantandtheexcludedpotentialjurorbeofthesamerace.(v(2c$ !  4X.IXXX[XX.I   0  (#$  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  ,  AZ"Arial Regular X.IXXX XX.I   Ad FILEDX.IX   July2,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular,yAZ"Arial Regular JOHNELLHOSKINSMONDELLIWALKUPBEHAN xxxxJohnellHoskins wAtAshby CrimJerniganMillsaps  .$4XhXXXaXXh   2    aaԀ#aa#aaInGeorgiav.McCollum,505U.S.42(1992),theSupremeCourtextendedBatson,  makingthedefendant'speremptorychallengessubjecttoequalprotectionscrutinyaswell.#aa# X.IXXX XX.I   Ad FILEDX.IX   July1,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial RegularUUUU'dxd(3$ !   d-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ_4 H   X.IXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T_ttutr*<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rtuur*<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  ruttINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEMARCH1999SESSION    x  44XXSTATEOFTENNESSEE, 4 * 󀀀C.C.A.#01C019712CC00589 VN '4 X7DX44X'  Appellee,    * D RUTHERFORDCOUNTY (  Л     V.  <     * D HonorableJ.S.Daniel,Judge    DARRICKWATKINS,     * D (SaleofCocaine) L        Appellant.    *  $4c4 X7DX$FORTHEAPPELLANT: c FORTHEAPPELLEE:  GUYR.DOTSON,JR. c JOHNKNOXWALKUP  102SouthMapleStreet c AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  Murfreesboro,TN37130X.IXXX.I c MARVINE.CLEMENTS,JR.   c AssistantAttorneyGeneral#X.IXXX.IP# c 425FifthAvenueNorth Z R  c Nashville,TN37243 c WILLIAMC.WHITESELL,JR. c DistrictAttorneyGeneral c PAULA.HOLCOMBE,III c AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral c X.IXXX.I20NorthPublicSquare,Suite303 ' $  c #X.IXXX.I#X.IXXX.IMurfreesboro,TN37130#X.IXXX.Ix # p(h!%  c OPINIONFILED:___________________ AFFIRMED 5-3  JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,  817 Judget H  7XXdXXd7    H  #Xd#    t z:r39  H  7XXdXXd7   t H  7(XXdd7   t  4 D4c   l9 XX.IOPINION #X.IX  l9 #   X.IXXX.I Thedefendant,DarrickWatkins,appealsfromaRutherfordCountyjury | t verdictconvictinghimofthesaleoflessthan.5gramsofcocaine,aClassCfelony.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a),(c)(2).Thetrialjudgesentenced   thedefendanttoelevenyearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,tobeservedconsecutivelytosentencesontwopriorconvictionsforthesaleofcontrolledsubstances.Onthisappeal,thedefendantargues(1)thattheevidenceattrialwasinsufficienttosupportthejurysfindingofguiltand(2)thatthetrialcourterredindenyinghismotionforanewtrialbasedonthestatesallegedlydiscriminatoryuseofaperemptorychallengeduringjuryselection.Thestatecrossappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourtfailedtoaccordsufficientweighttocertainenhancementfactorsand,therefore,thatthedefendantssentencedoesnotappropriatelyreflecttheseriousnessofhisoffense.WeAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinallrespects.#X.IXXX.Im #X.IXXX.I  BACKGROUND  " #X.IXXX.I#X.IXXX.I Aspartofanundercoverdrugsting,theSmyrnaPoliceDepartmentpaid |$t  aninformant,TerryHarrison,topurchasecocainefromthedefendant.Priortothetransaction,DetectiveRobertJacobsmetwithHarrisonandsearchedhercarandperson.JacobsthenoutfittedHarrisonwithanaudiotransmitterandinstructedhertocontactthedefendantandattempttopurchasecrackcocainefromhim.JacobsfollowedHarrisontohermeetingwiththedefendant,wheresheconductedthepurchaseasplanned.AlthoughJacobswasunabletomaintainvisualsurveillanceofthetransaction,hedidhearandrecordtheaudiotransmissionofthetransaction.Immediatelyfollowingthetransaction,JacobsfollowedHarrisontoaprearrangedmeetingpoint,keepingherinsighttheentire time.HarrisonthendeliveredherpurchasetoJacobs.Thepurchased t6l/4 substancewassubmittedtotheTennesseeBureauofInvestigationand,aftertesting,wasdeterminedtobe.2gramsofcocaine.  Atthedefendantstrial,thestateintroducedtheaudiorecordingofthetransactionbetweenHarrisonandthedefendant.#XhXXXh#XhXXXhHarrisonthenidentifiedthe 80 defendant,testifiedtothetransactionwithhim,andidentifiedhisvoiceontherecording. Thedefensepresentedtwowitnesseswhotestifiedthattheywerefamiliarwiththedefendantsvoiceandthatthevoiceontherecordingwasnothis.Rather,eachofthesewitnessesassertedthattherecordedvoicewasthatoftheotherwitness.   @ SUFFICIENCYOFEVIDENCE  d\ F Thedefendantfirstassertsthattheevidenceattrialwasinsufficienttosupporthisconviction.Whenadefendantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtmustdeterminewhether,afterviewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofacrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeJacksonv. l'd $ Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d63,67(Tenn. 8)0"& 1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).#XhXXXh#XhXXXhԀTheappelleeisentitledtothestrongest +#( legitimateviewoftheevidenceandtoallreasonableinferencesthatmaybedrawntherefrom.SeeStatev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).#XhXXXh#XhXXXhԀ .',  Thecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightoftheirtestimony,andthereconciliationofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedexclusivelytothetrieroffact.SeeStatev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d542,547(Tenn.1984);Statev. 5.4 Gentry,881S.W.2d1,3(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).#XhXXXh #XhXXXhԀ#XhXXXh#XhXXXhAjuryverdictforthestate 706 accreditsthetestimonyofthestateswitnessesandresolvesallconflictsinfavorofthestate.SeeStatev.Williams,657S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983).  Moreover,aguiltyverdictremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceenjoyedbydefendantsattrialandreplacesitwithapresumptionofguilt.SeeStatev. l d Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Thus,anappellantchallengingthe 80 sufficiencyoftheevidencecarriestheburdenofillustratingtothisCourtwhytheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdict.See#XhXXXh#XhXXXhStatev.Freeman,943   S.W.2d25,29(Tenn.Crim.App.1996)#XhXXXh#XhXXXh.#XhXXXh#XhXXXh    Thedefendanthasnotcarriedthisburden.ThedefendantassertsthatthestatefailedtosufficientlyidentifyhimasthepersonwhosoldcocainetoHarrison.Hereliesprimarilyonthe#XhXXXh#XhXXXhtestimonyoftwodefensewitnessesthathis  wasnotthevoiceontherecordingofthetransaction,andheattemptstodiscreditHarrisonstestimonytothecontrary. Theresolutionofconflictingevidenceandthecredibilityofwitnessesisamatterforthetrieroffact;wewillnotrevisitthatissuehere.#XhXXXh #XhXXXhԀ#XhXXXh"#XhXXXhThestatepresented #  competentdirectevidenceastoeveryelementofthedefendantsoffense,andthejurywasentitledtocreditthatevidence.#XhXXXh"#XhXXXhThisissueiswithoutmerit.#XhXXXh##XhXXXh `'X $ #XhXXXh$#XhXXXh #XhXXXhj$#XhXXXh  BATSONCHALLENGE  *#( $ Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtograntanewtrialbasedonthestatesallegedlydiscriminatoryuseofaperemptorychallenge.Duringvoirdireofthejury,thestateaskedapotentialjuror,AnnieMaeGregory,whether,ifthestateproveditscase,shecouldvoteguiltyknowingthatthedefendantcouldgotojailforuptofifteenyears.Gregoryoriginallyreplied, Well,ifhewasgoingandlearningsomesensetoleaveitaloneandgotoworkandmakehonestmoney.Thestatethenaskedaseriesofquestions 706 illustratingthatnoonecouldknowwhetherincarcerationwouldrehabilitatethedefendantandagainaskedGregorywhethershecouldvoteguiltyifthestateproveditscase.Gregoryanswered, Maybe.Onthestatesthirdinquiry,Gregorystatedthatshecouldconvictthedefendantifthestateproveditscase. Withitsfifthperemptorychallenge,thestatestruckGregory.Thedefenseimmediatelyobjected#XhXXXh$#XhXXXh,pointingoutthatthedefendantisAfricanAmericanand   thatGregorywastheonlyAfricanAmericanmemberofthevenire;impliedlyassertingthatthestateschallengewasraciallymotivated.Tothisobjection,thestaterespondedasfollows: 4Ҝ4 * 4GENERALHOLCOMBE:Firstofall,IwanttosayfortherecordIresent[defensecounsels]implication,andthatImevenuphere.Imgoingtopointouttothecourttworeasons[forthechallengetoGregory].Numberone!andtheyrerelated.IwatchedthewaysheansweredmyquestionswhenIfinallycouldhearheranswer. #  1      ׀Her  bestansweroriginallywasthatshemaybecouldvoteguilty.AndInoticedthelookonherfaceasshelookedoverdirectlyat[thedefendant]whileshemadethatanswer.̛̜Andthatbringsupmysecondreason.Shehasachildabouthisage.Infact,shehastwo.One22andone19.AndIbelievethathassomethingtodowithit.Hermotherinstinctasshelooksathimsittingfortrialthere.4 *s**(footnoteadded).Followingthisexplanation,thetrialcourtoverruledthedefensesobjection,specificallyfindingthatthestatesnonracialexplanationwasjustifiedbyresponsesintherecord. Followinghisconviction,thedefendantrenewedhisassertionthatthestateschallengeofGregorywasraciallymotivatedinhismotionforanewtrial.Inresponse,thestatereiteratedthatitschallengewasbasedonGregoryshesitancetostatethatshecouldconvictthedefendant,herbodylanguage,andherhavingchildrennearthedefendantsage.Aftertakingthematterunder 4-3 advisement,thetrialcourtfoundthatthedefensehadestablishedaprimafaciecaseofpurposefuldiscrimination.However,thecourtfurtherfoundthatthestatesraceneutralexplanationandanexaminationofalltherelevantfactssatisfactorilyindicatedanondiscriminatorybasisforthestateschallenge.̀ InBatsonv.Kentucky,476U.S.79(1986)#XhXXXhE)#XhXXXh,theUnitedStatesSupreme   CourtheldthatthestatesuseofaperemptorychallengetointentionallyexcludejurorsofthedefendantsraceviolatesthedefendantsFourteenthAmendment#XhXXXh|2#XhXXXh   righttoequalprotection. #  2      #XhXXXh3#XhXXXhԀUnderBatson,aprimafaciecaseofpurposeful h` discriminationmaybeestablisheduponashowingthatthedefendantwasamemberofa cognizableracialgroup,thatthechallengedjurorisamemberofthedefendantsrace,  #  3      ׀andthatallrelevantcircumstancesraiseaninferencethat  thestatechallengedthepotentialjurorbecauseofhisorherrace.Seeid.at96.  Ifthedefendantestablishesaprimafaciecase,thenthestatemustshowaraceneutralreasonforthechallenge.Seeid.at97.Thestatesexplanation, 0 ( however,neednotrisetotheleveljustifyingachallengeforcause.Indeterminingtheissue,thetrialcourtexaminesthe totalityoftherelevantfacts.Statev.Bell,759S.W.2d651,653(Tenn.1988).Suchfactsmayincludethe %" numberofmembersofthedefendantsracethatwereexcludedbythestate,but `'X $ seeStatev.Brown,915S.W.2d3,8(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(cautioningthat ,)$"& numbersalonearenotconclusive);whetherthestatefailedtoexhaustitsperemptorychallengeswhileleavingmembersofthedefendantsraceonthepanel,seeStatev.Butler,795S.W.2d680,687(Tenn.Crim.App.1990);or .', whetherthechallengedvenirememberexhibitedoracknowledgedsomeraceneutralattitudeorrelationshipthatwouldjustifythestatesfearinghisorher (2 +0 antipathytotheprosecution,seeStatev.Etitlltitson,841S.W.2d824,827(Tenn.  1992);Brown,915S.W.2dat9;Butler,795S.W.2dat687.Nevertheless,the  exerciseof"evenoneperemptorychallengeinapurposefullydiscriminatorymannerwouldviolateequalprotection."Ellison,841S.W.2dt824,ttatt񛀜827t(Tenn.1992)t.tt#XhXXXh[4#XhXXXhԛ l d Ѐ ThisCourtreviewsthefindingsofatrialcourtrelativetoaBatson   challengeunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Thatis,we cannotsubstituteourjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourtordeclareerrorabsentafindingthatthetrialjudgeabusedhisorherdiscretion.Statev.MatthewL.Moates,No. h` 03C01-9610-CR-00383,(Tenn.Crim.App.filedJune24,1997,atKnoxville);Statev.JerryBlaylock,No.02C019602CC00069(Tenn.Crim.App.filedAug.  21,1997,atJackson).#XhXXXh<#XhXXXhԀ   Wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourt'sconclusionthatthetotalityofrelevantfactsdonotindicatepurposefuldiscrimination.Indeed,#XhXXXh?#XhXXXhin 0 ( accordancewiththecitedprecedent,thestateschallengeoftheonlyAfricanAmericanpotentialjurordoesnot,standingalone,establishevenaprimafacieshowingofpurposefuldiscrimination.SeeBatson,476U.S#XhXXXh@#XhXXXhԀat96;Bell,759 %" S.W.2dat653.Rather,theobjectingpartymustalsodemonstratethatthe `'X $ relevantcircumstancesraiseaninferencethatthepotentialjurorwaschallengedbecauseofhisorherrace.SeeBatson,476U.S#XhXXXhA#XhXXXhԀat96#XhXXXh4C#XhXXXh.Therecordreflectsno *#( circumstancesindicativeofaracebasedmotiveforthestateschallenge.We,therefore,respectfullydisagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthatthedefendantestablishedaprimafaciecase.Thisaside,however,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourtsultimateconclusionsthatthestatesraceneutralexplanationofitschallengeissupportedbytherecordandthatthet  5.4 ttotality#XhXXXh|C#XhXXXhԛofrelevantfactsdonotindicatepurposefuldiscrimination.Thisissueis   withoutmerit.#XhXXXhE#XhXXXh   @ #XhXXXhvF#XhXXXh SENTENCINGCROSSAPPEAL l d F #XhXXXhF#XhXXXh #XhXXXhUG#XhXXXhThestatecrossappeals,challengingtheseverityoftheimposed D< sentence.Whenanappellantchallengesthelengthormannerofserviceofasentence,itisthedutyofthisCourttoconductadenovoreviewontherecord withapresumptionthatthedeterminationsmadebythecourtfromwhichtheappealistakenarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d).#XhXXXhG#XhXXXhԀThis tl Мpresumption isconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandϜcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).#XhXXXhlI#XhXXXhThe  appellantcarriestheburdenofshowingthatthesentenceisimproper.See#XhXXXhJ#XhXXXh  Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)#XhXXXheK#XhXXXhsentencingcommn#XhXXXhK#XhXXXhԀ#XhXXXh4L#XhXXXhcmts#XhXXXhwL#XhXXXh;#XhXXXhL#XhXXXhStatev.Jernigan, ph 929S.W.2d391,395(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).#XhXXXhM#XhXXXhԀ#XhXXXhM#XhXXXh < 4 #XhXXXhM#XhXXXh  VN ThetrialcourtsentencedthedefendantasaRangeIIIpersistentoffenderto#XhXXXh7N#XhXXXhelevenyearsconfinement#XhXXXhN#XhXXXh.Thesaleoflessthan.5gramsofcocaineisa %" ClassCfelony,carryingaRangeIIIsentenceoftentofifteenyears.SeeTenn. l'd $ CodeAnn.#XhXXXhJO#XhXXXh3917417(a),(c)(2);#XhXXXhQP#XhXXXhԀ4035112(c).#XhXXXhP#XhXXXhThepresumptivesentencefor 8)0"& aClassCfelonyistheminimumsentenceintherange,absentenhancementormitigatingfactors.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035210(c).Atthedefendants ,%* sentencinghearing,thetrialcourtfoundapplicablethefollowingthreeenhancementfactors: 4Thedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofcriminalconvictionsorcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishtheappropriaterange;Thedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofunwillingnesstocomplywiththeconditionsofasentenceinvolvingreleaseinthecommunity; ~8v17 МttttttThefelonywascommittedwhileon[probation]...fromapriorfelonyconviction.4 cRqRRTenn.CodeAnn.4035114(1),(8),(13).Thedefensepresentednomitigatingfactors,andthetrialcourtfoundnoneapplicable.#XhXXXhP#XhXXXhBasedonthesefindings,the  ~ courtenhancedthedefendantssentencefromthepresumptivesentenceoftenyearstoelevenyears. #XhXXXh$U#XhXXXhThestatedoesnotcontestanyofthetrialcourtsfindingsexceptto   challengetheweightthatthetrialcourtaccordedthestatedenhancements.Arguingthatthesefactorswarrantasentenceofatttleastmidpointintherange,thestatenotesthatoneofthepurposesofthe19t9t8t9tSentencingReformActistorestraindefendantswhohavealengthyhistoryofcriminalconductandassertsthat,inthepresentcase, asentenceneartheminimumintherangeisnotentirelyconsistentwiththatpurpose.#XhXXXh V#XhXXXhԀ#XhXXXhX#XhXXXhԀ ~v  Weinitiallyobservethattherecordreflectsampleconsiderationofallrelevantsentencingprinciples.Therefore,thetrialcourtsfindingsareaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectness.Moreover,theweighttobeaccordedenhancementormitigatingfactors#XhXXXhX#XhXXXhԀislefttothesounddiscretionofthe z&r# trialjudge#XhXXXh=Z#XhXXXhsolongasitcomplieswiththepurposesandprinciplesofsentencing F(>!% #XhXXXhZ#XhXXXhandthecourt's#XhXXXhc[#XhXXXhԀfindingsareadequatelysupportedbytherecord.SeeT.C.A. * #' 40-35-210,sentencingcommncmts;#XhXXXh[#XhXXXhStatev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169 +$) (Tenn.1991);#XhXXXhy\#XhXXXhStatev.Moss,727S.W.2d229,238(Tenn.1986).#XhXXXh]#XhXXXhOurreview -&+ reflectsthatthetrialcourtfollowedthestatutorysentencingprocedure,imposedalawfulsentence,andmadefindingsoffactadequatelysupportedbytherecord.Thus,wemaynotmodifythesentenceevenifwewouldhavepreferredadifferentresult.SeeStatev.Fletcher,805S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App. 4-3 1991).#XhXXXh]#XhXXXhThisissueiswithoutmerit.#XhXXXhF_#XhXXXh 6/5  r8j17 #XhXXXh_#XhXXXh  CONCLUSION   /`#XhXXXh`# Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtis,inallrespects,AFFIRMED.  Ѐ̛  Ӏ_____________________________ 4 4 D @  @ JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,Judgea`CONCUR:XhXXXh____________________________  DAVIDH.WELLES#XhXXXha#XhXXXh,Judge#XhXXXh{b#  ̛̛̜̜_____________________________XhXXXhJOEG.RILEY#XhXXXhc#,Judge " bXhXXXhԀ +#(  #XhXXXhc#