ÿWPC   Di—«×AýÑwûhUCJD ×^Œì×C›;·¦áêªcªÐ ûןƒ¥¹¦´ˆ/à=ÜÏ{ÔËgŸØîîð¥ïP:´Ô)(·l¸î¸É#Qßœl{ï}âš±N#áë-p{§Ñ_VœÔ8Cq³A£ë>Z»ôm5ìÕÛýjNú{YÇÄ;Z“nKÇPœcêµABsÌÿ’¿KTÁ>ü ŸHYm ¤°F‚‹‚•W~c²çšŸa¶;g•oío$¥lAÔ ÆÿD–žƒžn<ã xÕ(_9íý^¶—!µ_Ã6^@ [û%†4.¸YaÜÐ (k¤è[öò*qÈBQ†&½+Z«ö²Ƙ"”}|ü„è¾î‰Dã,s:úŒ²jåwôb‡¤éÇSñʳocÊmÑÎØ_@9Õ2_ÎîÒÉ"í¯ÊÖæÉT/†°ø†/’¨ÁûÎÇ Xd?ÔÖ^DžÑþi%ˬ˜rS{%;øVAVe#`ˆÆëGGƒÅlÍöŠëÀ[®œ^ìGjL 7þBþ‚ÐÙ÷-]9/¼ÐH÷}ör™ýO!% Ðrecord€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€was€sufficient€"to€support€the€findings€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌÌÌby€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€This€rule€isÐ l*¼%* Ðapplicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence€or€aÐ R+¢&+ Ðcombination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,18€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐApp.1996).Ð ° ÐÌ€à  àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ |Ì Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€itsÐ b² Ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199Ð H˜ ÐTenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€court€is€required€to€afford€theÐ . ~ Ðstate€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonableÐ  d Ðand€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,Ð ú J Ð932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995).Ð à 0 ÐÌò òB.€€Analysisó óÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àÔ#†XAÂXXX1ô#ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔUpon€arrest,€officers€seized€4.7€grams€of€rock€cocaine€and€1.2€grams€of€powder€cocaine€fromÐ xÈ  Ðdefendant.€€Nine€small€plastic€bags€were€found€on€defendant.€€The€4.7€grams€of€rock€cocaine€wereÐ ^®  Ðdivided€into€eight€individual€bags,€and€the€1.2€grams€of€powder€cocaine€were€located€in€oneÐ D”  Ðindividual€bag.Ô#†XAÂXXX1ôØ #ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔ€€Additionally,€officers€seized€$345€in€cash€from€defendant.€€This€evidence€isÐ *z  Ðsufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€Ð ` ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„419€states€that,€ð ð[i]t€may€be€inferred€from€the€amount€of€aÐ Ü, Ðcontrolled€substance€or€substances€possessed€by€an€offender,€along€with€other€relevant€factsÐ Â Ðsurrounding€the€arrest,€that€the€controlled€substance€or€substances€were€possessed€with€the€purposeÐ ¨ø Ðof€selling€or€otherwise€dispensing.ðð€€Accordingly,€a€jury€can€infer€from€the€amount€of€controlledÐ ŽÞ Ðsubstances€seized€from€a€defendant,€in€addition€to€all€other€relevant€facts€surrounding€the€arrest,€thatÐ tÄ Ða€defendant€intended€to€sell€or€otherwise€dispense€the€substances.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Chearisóó,€995€S.W.2dÐ Zª Ð641,€645€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)òòóó.€€Given€that€4.7€grams€of€individually€packaged€crack€cocaine,Ð @ Ð1.2€grams€of€powder€cocaine,€and€$345.00€were€seized€from€the€defendant,€the€evidence€is€sufficientÐ &v Ðto€show€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€defendant€possessed€such€substances€with€the€intent€to€sellÐ  \ Ðor€deliver€them.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð òB ÐÌò òà@< < ìàIII.€€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€PRIOR€CONVICTIONSó óˆÐ ¾ Ðà  àÌà  àDefendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€if€defendant€testified,€the€state€couldÐ Š Ú Ðimpeach€his€credibility€by€introducing€his€three€prior€drug€convictions€for€attempted€possession€ofÐ p!À  Ðcocaine€over€0.5€grams€for€resale.€€This€court€has€reached€different€conclusions€as€to€whether€priorÐ V"¦! Ðdrug€convictions€are€suggestive€of€dishonesty.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Brian€Robersonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„Ð <#Œ" Ð9801„CC„00043,€1998€WL€917804,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€21,€1998,€at€Nashville),Ð "$r# Ðòòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€May€13,€1999)€(the€act€of€drug€dealing€is€suggestive€of€dishonesty);€Ð %X $ ÐòòState€v.€Jeffrey€Walkeróó,€No.€01C01„9705„CC„00200,€1999€WL€961387,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð î%>!% Ðfiled€October€22,€1999,€at€Nashville)€(selling€drugs€does€not€involve€ð ðdishonesty€or€falseÐ Ô&$"& Ðstatementðð).€€We€need€not€resolve€these€conflicts€in€this€case.Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àDefendant€moved€the€trial€court€to€disallow€introduction€of€defendantððs€record€of€prior€drugÐ †)Ö$) Ðconvictions.€€The€trial€judge€denied€defendantððs€motion€indicating€that€she€did€not€know€whatÐ l*¼%* Ðdefendantððs€testimony€would€be,€and€further€stated€that€drug€violations€involve€dishonesty.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐAlthough€given€an€opportunity€to€do€so,€defendant€failed€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€as€to€what€hisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðtestimony€would€be;€thus,€we€are€unable€to€determine€the€nature€of€his€proposed€testimony.€Ð ° ÐAccordingly,€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€Ð –æ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Galmoreóó,€994€S.W.2d€120,€125€(Tenn.€1999)€(although€an€offer€of€proof€is€unnecessaryÐ |Ì Ðto€preserve€this€issue,€it€may€be€the€only€way€to€demonstrate€prejudice).Ð b² ÐÌà  àDespite€defendantððs€failure€to€make€an€offer€of€proof,€this€court€will€analyze€defendantððsÐ . ~ Ðallegation€of€error.€€Defendant€contends€that€drug€sales€are€not€proof€of€dishonest€behavior€asÐ  d Ðcontemplated€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609;€accordingly,€their€probative€value€on€defendantððs€credibilityÐ ú J Ðas€a€witness€is€minimal€while€their€prejudicial€effect€is€great.€€Regardless€of€whether€the€prior€drugÐ à 0 Ðconvictions€were€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,€they€were€admissible€to€prove€defendantððsÐ Æ   Ðintent€to€sell€or€deliver€the€drugs.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€states,Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€characterò ò€ó óofÐ xÈ  Ða€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ð ^®  Ðhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfiedÐ D”  Ðbefore€allowing€such€evidence€are:€(1)€[t]he€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearingÐ *z  Ðoutside€the€juryððs€presence;€(2)€[t]he€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€existsÐ ` Ðother€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€onÐ öF Ðthe€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;Ð Ü, Ðand€(3)€[t]he€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€byÐ Â Ðthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ò òÐ ¨ø ÐÒ°»2ÒÒ°­2ÒÌó óEvidence€of€other€crimes€committed€by€the€accused,€òòóóthat€are€similar€to€the€crime€charged,€is€relevantÐ tÄ Ðand€admissible€when€it€shows€the€requisite€criminal€intent€necessary€to€prove€the€crime€charged.€Ð Zª ÐòòState€v.€Alfred€F.€Hamptonóó,€No.€01C01„9301„CR„00041,€1994€WL€17063,€at€*3(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @ Ðfiled€January€20,€1994,€at€Nashville)€(òòcitingóó€òòMays€v.€Stateóó,€238€S.W.€1096,€1103€(Tenn.€1921)).€Ð &v ÐòòÌà  àóóIn€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€this€court€upheld€the€trial€courtððsÐ òB Ðadmittance€of€an€accompliceððs€testimony€concerning€the€defendantððs€prior€drug€sales.€€This€courtÐ Ø( Ðfound€that€the€defendantððs€prior€bad€acts€rebutted€his€defense€that€ð ðhe€was€merely€a€victim€ofÐ ¾ Ðcircumstance€and€not€the€drug€dealer€that€the€state€was€attempting€to€paint€him.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€649.€Ð ¤ô ÐAdditionally,€this€court€concurred€with€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€probative€value€of€theÐ Š Ú Ðtestimony€outweighed€any€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.€€€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àThis€court€also€reached€a€similar€conclusion€in€òòState€v.€Johnny€Wayne€Tilleryóó,€No.€01C01„Ð <#Œ" Ð9506„CC„00182,€1998€WL€148326€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€30,€1998,€at€Nashville),€òòperm.Ð "$r# Ðto€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€December€14,€1998).€€In€òòTilleryóó,€the€defendant€appealed€the€trial€courtððsÐ %X $ Ðdecision€to€admit€testimony€and€audio€tapes€revealing€defendantððs€participation€in€prior€drug€sales.€Ð î%>!% ÐòòIdóó.€at€*7.€€This€court€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€evidence€that€connected€the€defendantÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€prior€drug€sales€had€sufficient€probative€value€to€outweigh€any€unfair€prejudice,€and€the€patternÐ º' #' Ðof€prior€drug€sales€was€probative€of€the€defendantððs€knowledge€and€intent€to€possess€cocaine€forÐ  (ð#( Ðresale.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€defendant€did€not€dispute€that€he€possessed€cocaine;€the€crucial€issue€wasÐ R+¢&+ Ðwhether€he€òòintendedóó€to€sell€or€deliver€the€cocaine.€€Evidence€of€defendantððs€prior€drug€convictionsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðis€clearly€relevant€to€intent,€and€probative€value€would€outweigh€any€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€IfÐ ° Ðthese€prior€convictions€had€been€erroneously€admitted€for€impeachment€purposes€under€Tenn.€R.Ð –æ ÐEvid.€609,€their€admission€would€be€harmless€error€since€they€were€admissible€relative€toÐ |Ì Ðdefendantððs€intent€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€Ð b² ÐÌò òà@œœ#ìàIV.€€SENTENCINGÔ#†XAÂXXX1ô~"#ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔó óˆÐ . ~ Ðò òÌA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ ú J ÐÌà  àFinally,€defendant€contests€the€length€of€his€sentence€based€upon€the€weight€the€trial€courtÐ Æ   Ðassigned€to€the€enhancement€factors.€€This€courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ ü  Ðis€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumptionÐ ’â  Ðis€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€considered€theÐ xÈ  Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ð ^®  Ð(Tenn.€1991).Ð D”  ÐÌà  àNo€particular€weight€for€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€asÐ ` Ðthe€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€courtÐ öF Ðcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€Ð Ü, Ðrecord.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€848Ð Â Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÔ#†XAÂXXX1ô·A#ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔò òB.€€Analysisó óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€defendant€to€be€a€Range€II€offender€and,€after€applying€enhancing€andÐ @ Ðmitigating€factors,€sentenced€him€to€16€years€incarceration.€€As€defined€by€statute,€a€Range€IIÐ &v Ðoffender€found€guilty€of€a€Class€B€felony€is€subject€to€a€sentence€of€ð ðnot€less€than€twelve€nor€moreÐ  \ Ðthan€twenty€years.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(2).€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€three€priorÐ òB ÐClass€C€felonies,€each€felony€resulting€from€criminal€acts€that€occurred€in€separate€twenty„four€hourÐ Ø( Ðperiods.€€Defendant€was€properly€classified€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¾ Ððð40„35„106(a)(1),€(b)(4).€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€first€used€eleven€prior€misdemeanors€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóóTenn.Ð p!À  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(prior€criminal€convictions).€€The€trial€court€could€have€also€used€one€ofÐ V"¦! Ðthe€prior€drug€felony€convictions€as€an€enhancement€factor€because€only€two€of€defendantððs€priorÐ <#Œ" Ðfelony€convictions€were€needed€to€establish€him€as€a€Range€II€offender.Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€enhanced€defendantððs€sentence€since€ð ðthe€defendant€has€a€previousÐ î%>!% Ðhistory€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðcommunity.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€Defendant€previously€violated€conditions€ofÐ º' #' Ðcommunity€corrections€when€he€failed€to€attend€a€drug€program,€and€defendant€later€violatedÐ  (ð#( Ðprobation€when€he€tested€positive€for€drug€use.€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€this€enhancementÐ †)Ö$) Ðfactor.€€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€sentenced€defendant€to€the€mid„range€sentence€of€16€years.€€As€discussedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðpreviously,€the€weight€given€each€factor€is€subject€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2dÐ ° Ðat€238.€€We€find€the€trial€court€properly€followed€the€sentencing€guidelines,€and€the€sentenceÐ –æ Ðimposed€was€well€within€its€discretion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ H˜ Ðó óÌà  àBased€on€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€(1)€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustainÐ  d Ðthe€conviction;€(2)€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€regarding€admission€ofÐ ú J Ðhis€prior€convictions;€and€(3)€the€length€of€the€sentence€was€proper.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€ofÐ à 0 Ðthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________Ð ’â  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ xÈ  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†XAÂXXX1ô9G#ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà@ttìàÔ‡îfËîXX1ôÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ <#Œ" Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†X1ôXîîfËT#ÔÔ‡¼Gø»XX1ôԈР\$¬# Ðà@¸¸ìàSeptember€19,€2000€SessionˆÐ |%Ì $ ÐÔ#†X1ôX»¼Gø¨T#ÔÔ‡¼Gø»XX1ôÔÌò òÔ#†X1ôX»¼GøBU#ÔÔ‡¼Gø»XX1ôÔà@KKìà€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€BERNARD€JEROME€JONESòòóóÔ#†X1ôX»¼GøˆU#Ôó óˆÐ ˜'è"& ÐÌà@· · ìàò òCriminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðà@ŠŠ$ìàNo.€98„C„2015ˆÐ r*Â%) ÐÌÔ_ÔÐ >,Ž'+ ÐÑ#DÑâ âÑ8€1ôXXdæXXdæ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¯` A߈Ð ° ÐÌà@ººìàNo.€M2000„00018„CCA„R3„CDˆÐ ¥õ ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<p` AßÐ qÁ Ðó óÌà@°°&ìàò òJUDGMENTó óˆÐ f¶ ÐÌòòóóÌà  àCame€the€appellant,€BERNARD€JEROME€JONES,€by€counsel,€and€the€state,€by€the€AttorneyÐ  h  ÐGeneral,€and€this€case€was€heard€on€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€of€DavidsonÐ þ N  ÐCounty;€and€upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€there€is€no€reversible€errorÐ ä 4  Ðin€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ –æ  Ðaffirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€Criminal€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€execution€of€theÐ |Ì  Ðjudgment€of€that€court€and€for€collection€of€costs€accrued€below.Ð b²  ÐÌà  àIt€appears€that€appellant€is€indigent.€€Costs€of€appeal€will€be€paid€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð .~ ЀÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPer€Ô_ÔCuriamÔ_ÔÐ à0 ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJoe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÐ ¬ü Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ#†XAÂXXX1ô²S#ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÐ ’â Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JudgeÔ#†XAÂXXX1ôu]#ÔÔ‡X1ôXXXAÂÔÐ xÈ ÐÔ#†XAÂXXX1ôM^#Ô