ÿWPCÑ! ¡ =†ë—¬–³ðÃj¹ü3š†l6ûªšo8—¬@³­<† l$môŠÙ4Âõ(þ þ&«¶€ÒÊ4éo_‘q«T©„SKñ’‚.a¦ W¿Îû*Ö˜s¸ÄÑ,mN}o6ü.šègyÂxѤ0åøÜL %.mS4´? è»ö9Wol5P“~/*ôÍ%LlÇ–š;‹Á<ƒ¡Ó×·BÿOD D´ æ³þô‰­ÝGòˆ¦ ?S3¶3øBp7L_H?ÙÞº(ŽÂ4²±3MDè{º¼ª¥£·Ú&ex_}:¾Ã:q2F^Ø#¯7ë©#óú‚íb­¬ábc-y¶6Ð Žæ¥»©…©6°lÃþtÌ ‘âÒ›Âè™´Þ–>pú駱8U¡ü?”`#‰Ì&”ú¦ÍqŽ•UÓ#'Ö2"fYê9Íë´†–ÜÏȬÑéÒðáñBi¾;>¨çRH(€PiËiá? 6u‹Ia)•×¾*ÆÁ â)[®D5¬åÈ»"¾â!3Óç ûöŸ½&;§³µùJ}+àGÞŸ¶Y´Êiþ…©eçsŽ÷ô²ÁÑ[¿b›&*Ï"‡wi¸º}ô/ܹüÞ¼­ÚÛ*⋜}¥¬4&b %\^ b 0ˆnU%NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U N™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCE¶[Eíb 0NxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ 0ëÎÎÎÎ B¹¹ 0¤Ö D3z D-­ 0KÚÚ AS%Æx 0¤> 0Dâ A«&!» xo2î (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÚZ42n_npfÔ3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ X Ñ ¬Ý ƒR-w$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðøò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÁšòòôðøÔOther€jurisdictions€have€taken€various€approaches€to€the€proper€method€of€identifying€controlled€substancesÐ ° Ðor€drug€precursors€with€distinctive€odors.€€One€such€method€is€a€ð ðplain€smell€test.ðð€€The€basis€for€this€method€ofÐ qÁ Ðidentification€is€that€the€odor€is€very€distinctive€and€can€be€detected€by€trained€and€experienced€law€enforcementÐ 2‚ Ðpersonnel.€€òòSee€Kenner€v.€Stateóó,€703€N.E.2d€1122€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(distinctive€smell€of€marijuana);òò€see€also€FulcherÐ óC Ðv.€Commonwealth,óó,€149€S.W.3d€363€(Ky.€2004)€(distinctive€smell€of€anhydrous€ammonia)òòóó.€€Other€states€requireÐ ´ Ðadditional€objective€indicia€of€proof€of€the€nature€of€the€substance€other€than€a€law€enforcement€officerððs€opinion€thatÐ uÅ Ðthe€substance€is€anhydrous€ammonia.€€òòPollock€v.€Stateóó,€145€S.W.3d€786€(Tx.€Ct.€App.€2004)€(statute€requiring€a€properlyÔ‡ X­ùXò ôÁšÔÐ 6 † ÐÔ#† ôÁšòX X­ù]#Ôadministered€field€test€or€a€laboratory€test);€òòState€v.€Domennigóó,€662€N.E.2d€370€(Iowa€Ct.€App.€2003)€(requiring€a€litmusÐ ÷ G Ðtype€test€on€the€container€in€addition€to€detection€of€smell).€Ô#†ôðøòò ôÁš~#Ô€€ ãÝ ƒR-w$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðøò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€are€first€constrained€to€note€that€the€Appellantððs€brief€fails€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€27,Ð ° ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€€In€his€brief,€the€Appellant€raises€thirty€issues€in€his€statement€of€the€issues.€€The€majority€of€the€issuesÐ qÁ Ðpresented€relate€to€the€arguments€that€(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€respective€convictions€or€(2)€hisÐ 2‚ Ðsentence€for€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€is€excessive.€€The€remaining€issues,€which€include€denial€of€all€pretrialÐ óC Ðand€trial€motions,€are€waived€because€the€record€is€either€incomplete€to€permit€review,€no€reference€to€the€record€is€made,Ð ´ Ðno€statement€of€fact€relevant€to€the€issue€is€made,€or€no€supporting€argument€is€made.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a),€27(a)(1),Ð uÅ Ð(6),€(7).òòòòóóóó€€ Ñ ° Ñ MARISEMcGinleyTiptonCurwood WittRadfordHamblenPappas CrimreweighTuggleDuchac t]heMarable u]set]hereBynumFulcherTxDomennig EvidFarner DUIsAshbyWinfield i]tDicksonApprendiBlakelyLinseyDarnellincarcerativeDemotto(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ- ù-(|G2-w$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ë»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðøò»»Ô d(|3w $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ë»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ë»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ë»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ë»»»ÔÑ8€«XXdé»»d8ÑÑ€/VÑÑ€OaÑà@hhìàÔ‡î"âËÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ë»îî"â.#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àOctober€5,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡X«X»¼ËÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ë»XX«5#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GARY€LEE€MARISEòòóóÔ‡X«X»¼ËÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Carroll€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02CR„1964€€€€€€C.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02434„CCA„R3„CD€€„€Filed€March€14,€Ô_Ô2005Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X­ùXXX«ÔThe€Appellant,€Gary€Lee€Marise,€was€convicted€by€a€Carroll€County€jury€of€possession€of€anhydrousÐ ? Ðammonia€with€the€intent€to€manufacture€a€controlled€substance,€a€class€E€felony,€and€theÐ (x Ðmisdemeanor€offenses€of€possession€of€methamphetamine,€possession€of€marijuana,€and€possessionÐ a Ðof€drug€paraphernalia.€€For€his€conviction€for€the€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia,€Marise€receivedÐ úJ Ða€two„year€sentence,€with€service€of€ninety€days€confinement,€followed€by€supervised€probation.€Ð ã3 ÐOn€appeal,€Marise€raises€two€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÐ Ì Ðthe€convictions€and€(2)€whether€his€sentence€for€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€is€excessive.€Ð µ ÐAfter€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€conviction€and€resulting€felony€sentence.Ð žî ÐÌÔ#†X«XX X­ùÜ#ÔÔ#†¼Ë»XX«¬#ÔÔ‡X«X»¼ËÔÓÐÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ pÀ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ë»àX«è#ÔÔ‡X«X.¼ËÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòJamesÐ C“ ÐCurwood€Witt,€Jr.,€JóóJ.,€joined.Ð ,| ÐÌBenjamin€S.€Dempsey,€Huntingdon,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Gary€Lee€Marise.Ð þN ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Rachel€E.€Willis,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ð! ! ÐRobert€"Gus"€Radford,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Eleanor€Cahill,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ¹" " ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¢#ò# ÐÔ#†¼Ë»XX«Ÿ #ÔÔ‡X«X»¼ËÔÌÓp Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ë»XX«$ #ÔÔ‡X«X»¼ËÔÐ t%Ä % ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ G'—"' ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Ë»XX«– #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X«X»¼ËÔÌà  àÔ‡ X­ùXXX«ÔOn€March€19,€2002,€Deputy€Michael€Darnell€of€the€Carroll€County€Sheriffððs€Department,Ð )j$) Ðwhile€on€routine€patrol,€observed€a€1983€Plymouth€partially€parked€in€the€roadway.€€Two€men,€laterÐ *S%* Ðidentified€as€the€Appellant€and€co„defendant€John€Hamblen,€were€standing€beside€the€open€trunk.€Ð ì*<&+ ÐAs€Darnell€approached€the€vehicle,€the€two€hastily€shut€the€trunk€and€returned€to€the€car.€€TheÐ Õ+%', ÐAppellant€occupied€the€driverððs€seat€and€Hamblen€the€passengerððs€seat.€€Upon€reaching€the€car,Ð ¾,(- ÐDarnell€saw€open€containers€of€beer€in€the€vehicle€and€smelled€alcohol.€€The€Appellant€and€HamblenÐ §-÷(.ý ÐÑ/VÑâ âÑX°Ñâ âÑ  Ñwere€then€placed€in€Darnellððs€patrol€car.€€Darnell€then€found€a€rolled€marijuana€cigarette€and€a€candyÐ ° Ðtin€containing€two€small€packets€of€methamphetamine€on€the€ground€adjacent€to€the€passenger€sideÐ ™é Ðof€the€car.€€Inside€the€car€Darnell€found€marijuana€in€the€pocket€of€a€blue„jean€jacket.€€Neither€theÐ ‚Ò ÐAppellant€nor€the€co„defendant€claimed€ownership€of€the€jacket.Ð k» ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€Darnell€smelled€anhydrous€ammonia,€an€odor€he€was€familiar€with,€comingÐ =  Ðfrom€the€trunk€of€the€vehicle.€€Knowing€that€the€chemical€was€used€in€the€production€ofÐ & v Ðmethamphetamine,€Darnell€asked€the€Appellant€for€permission€to€search€the€car,€which€was€refusedÐ  _ Ðby€the€Appellant.€€After€obtaining€a€search€warrant,€Darnell€discovered€an€aluminum€canister€of€theÐ ø H Ðtype€often€used€to€transport€anhydrous€ammonia€stolen€from€farms.€€Due€to€the€volatile€andÐ á 1  Ðdangerous€nature€of€anhydrous€ammonia,€the€canister€was€not€opened.€€The€deputy€testified€that€heÐ Ê   Ðcould€smell€the€odor€of€anhydrous€ammonia€coming€from€the€canister,€which€he€described€as€beingÐ ³  Ðfull.€€After€his€arrest,€the€Appellant€was€processed€at€the€local€jail.€€During€his€processing,€a€tin„foilÐ œì  Ðslide,€commonly€used€to€ingest€methamphetamine,€was€found€in€his€wallet.€€The€foil€had€a€burnedÐ …Õ  Ðspot€and€a€small€amount€of€residue€on€it.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àOn€September€3,€2002,€a€Carroll€County€grand€jury€returned€a€four„count€indictment€againstÐ @ Ðthe€Appellant€charging€him€with:€(1)€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia,€a€class€E€felony;€(2)Ð )y Ðpossession€of€methamphetamine,€a€class€A€misdemeanor;€(3)€possession€of€marijuana,€a€class€AÐ b Ðmisdemeanor;€and€(4)€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€After€a€jury€trial,Ð ûK Ðthe€Appellant€was€convicted€as€indicted€on€all€counts.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€theÐ ä4 ÐAppellant€was€sentenced€to€two€years€for€the€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€with€intent€toÐ Í Ðmanufacture€a€controlled€substance.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€Appellant€serve€ninety€days€ofÐ ¶ Ðthe€sentence€in€confinement,€followed€by€supervised€probation.€€Additionally,€the€court€sentencedÐ Ÿï Ðthe€Appellant€to€terms€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€suspended€after€the€service€of€thirtyÐ ˆØ Ðdays,€for€the€three€remaining€misdemeanor€convictions.€€All€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€servedÐ qÁ Ðconcurrently.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€denied€the€Appellantððs€motion€for€new€trial€on€SeptemberÐ Zª Ð8,€2003,€with€this€appeal€following.€Ð C“ ÐÌà@ƒƒ&ìàò òAnalysisˆÐ e ÐÌI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ é 9 Ðó óÌà0  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€with€regard€to€each€ofм" !(#(# Ðhis€convictions.ò òó ó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÔ#†X«XX X­ùY #ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«Ô€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€all€the€evidence€presented€against€him€was€entirelyÐ ¥#õ" Ðcircumstantial€in€nature€and€failed€to€ð ðexclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€ofÐ Ž$Þ# Ðthe€[Appellant].ðð€€Ð w%Ç $ Ðà  àIn€considering€this€issue,€we€apply€the€rule€that€where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÐ `&°!% Ðchallenged,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidenceÐ I'™"& ÐÑOaÑâ âѰXÑâ âÑ  Ñin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€[State],€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÐ ° Ðelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ð ™é ÐCt.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ ‚Ò Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ k» Ðtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€All€questions€involving€the€credibilityÐ T¤ Ðof€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€are€resolved€byÐ =  Ðthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€òòóó€òòóóThese€rules€areÐ & v Ðapplicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÐ  _ Ðcombination€of€both.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€As€in€theÐ ø H Ðcase€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€and€ð ð[t]he€inferences€to€beÐ á 1  Ðdrawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€andÐ Ê   Ðinconsistent€with€innocence,€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2dÐ ³  Ð451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)€(citations€omitted).€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àò òó óThe€Appellant€was€convicted€of€possession€of€methamphetamine€and€possession€ofÐ n¾  Ðmarijuana€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„418(a)€(2003),€which€providesÐ W§  Ðin€pertinent€part€that€it€ð ðis€an€offense€for€a€person€to€knowingly€possess€.€.€.€a€controlled€substance.Ð @ Ð.€.€.ðð€€Additionally,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€in€violation€ofÐ )y ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„425(a)(1)€(2003),€which€requires€that€the€paraphernaliaÐ b Ðbe€possessed€for€drug€use€or€drug€activity.€€Lastly,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€possession€ofÐ ûK Ðanhydrous€ammonia€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„433(a)(1)€(2003),Ð ä4 Ðwhich€states€that€it€ð ðis€an€offense€for€a€person€to€possess,€whether€acquired€through€theft€or€otherò òÐ Í Ðó ómeans,€ò ò€ó óanhydrous€ammonia,€.€.€.€with€the€intent€toò ò€ó ó.€.€.€[u]se€such€anhydrous€ammonia€in€theÐ ¶ Ðmanufacture€of€a€controlled€substance.ðð€€€Ð ¢ò ÐÌ€à  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€specifically€challenges€the€element€of€possession€with€regard€toÐ tÄ Ðeach€conviction.€€He€argues€that€the€circumstantial€evidence€presented€was€insufficient€to€establishÐ ]­ Ðhis€constructive€possession€of€the€drugs,€paraphernalia,€and€anhydrous€ammonia.€€The€AppellantÐ F– Ðgenerally€argues€that€the€proof€is€insufficient€to€establish€his€guilt€because€(1)€all€of€the€physicalÐ / Ðevidence€was€found€in€the€immediate€proximity€of€the€co„defendant€Hamblen,€òòi.e.óó,€on€the€passengerÐ h Ðside€of€the€car,€(2)€Hamblen€testified€at€the€Appellantððs€trial€that€the€drugs€and€contraband€were€hisÐ  Q Ðand€not€the€Appellantððs,€and€(3)€Hamblen€pled€guilty€to€possession€of€the€methamphetamine,Ð ê : Ðmarijuana,€and€anhydrous€ammonia,€for€which€the€Appellant€is€charged.€€The€co„defendant€alsoÐ Ó!#  Ðtestified€that€the€blue„jean€jacket€found€in€the€car€was€his€and€that€the€marijuana€found€in€the€jacketÐ ¼" ! Ðbelonged€to€him.€€Hamblen€explained€that€the€car€had€stopped€on€the€road€because€he€needed€to€useÐ ¥#õ" Ðthe€ð ðbathroom.ðð€€He€then€testified€that€while€he€was€outside€the€car,€he€saw€the€ð ðtank€on€the€groundÐ Ž$Þ# Ð.€.€.€and€[he]€popped€the€trunk€open€and€stuck€it€in€there.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€never€smelled€anythingÐ w%Ç $ Ðcoming€from€the€canister.€€In€rebuttal,€the€State€called€Investigator€Dickinson€with€the€CarrollÐ `&°!% ÐCounty€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Dickinson,€who€is€a€narcotics€investigator,€testified€that€he€saw€theÐ I'™"& Ðcanister€after€it€was€removed€by€officers€from€the€trunk€of€the€Appellantððs€car€and€that€it€wasÐ 2(‚#' Ðdifficult€to€place€an€evidence€tag€on€the€canister€because€the€smell€of€anhydrous€ammonia€was€soÐ )k$( Ðstrong.€€€Ð *T%) Ðâ âÐ í*=&* Ðà  àTennessee€courts€have€recognized€that€ð ðpossessionðð€may€be€either€actual€or€constructive.€Ð ° Ðâ âòòState€v.€Shawóó,€37€S.W.3d€900,€903€(Tenn.€2001).€€Constructive€possession€requires€proof€that€aÐ ™é Ðperson€had€ð ðthe€power€and€intention€at€a€given€time€to€exercise€dominion€and€control€over€.€.€.€[theÐ ‚Ò Ðdrugs]€either€directly€or€through€others.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòState€v.€Pattersonóó,€966€S.W.2d€435,€445Ð k» Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€1997)).€€In€essence,€constructive€possession€is€the€ability€to€reduce€an€object€toÐ T¤ Ðactual€possession.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€915€S.W.2d€3,€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€Ô#†X«XX X­ùd#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«ÔMoreover,€possessionÐ =  Ðmay€be€sole€or€jointly€with€others.€€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€677€S.W.2d€471,€476€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð & v Ð1984Ô#†X«XX X­ù5#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«Ô).€€Ô#†X«XX X­ùù5#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«ÔObviously,€proof€that€the€accused€had€ownership€or€control€over€the€property€whereÐ  _ Ðcontraband€is€kept€may€help€resolve€the€question€of€constructive€possession€because€it€gives€rise€toÐ ø H Ðan€inference€of€knowledge€and€possession€of€the€contraband.€€òòBrownóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€7„8;€òòState€v.Ð á 1  ÐChristopher€Demotto€Linseyóó,€No.€M2003„02420„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.Ð Ê   Ð22,€2004).€€Nonetheless,€ownership€and€control€do€not€mandate€conviction.€€òòóóMoreover,€it€is€well„Ð ³  Ðestablished€that€a€personððs€mere€presence€in€an€area€where€drugs€are€discovered€is€not,€standingÐ œì  Ðalone,€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€person€possessed€the€drugs.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,Ð …Õ  Ð129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Ô#†X«XX X­ù?6#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«Ôð ð[Ô_ÔM]ereÔ_Ô€association€with€a€person€who€does€in€fact€control€the€drugsÐ n¾  Ðor€the€property€where€the€drugs€are€discovered€is€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€personÐ W§  Ðpossessed€the€drugs.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€8.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€Appellantððs€conviction€for€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia,€we€find€theÐ b Ðevidence€more€than€sufficient.€€The€aluminum€or€tin„foil€slide€was€found€in€the€Appellantððs€walletÐ ûK Ðduring€the€jail€booking€process,€thus€establishing€actual€possession.€€Additionally,€testimony€wasÐ ä4 Ðoffered€that€tin„foil€slides€are€commonly€used€in€the€ingestion€of€methamphetamine€and€that€a€burntÐ Í Ðresidue€appearing€to€be€methamphetamine€was€on€the€foil,€which€was€consistent€with€drug€use.€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€Appellantððs€convictions€for€possession€of€methamphetamine,€marijuana,Ð ˆØ Ðand€anhydrous€ammonia,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions€based€upon€aÐ qÁ Ðtheory€of€joint€constructive€possession.€€While€the€co„defendant€testified€that€the€drugs€belonged€toÐ Zª Ðhim€and€not€the€Appellant,€the€jury€is€not€obligated€to€accept€the€co„defendantððs€explanation.€Ð C“ ÐBecause€the€jury€is€the€arbiter€of€credibility,€they€may€reject€any€or€all€of€a€witnessðð€testimony.€Ð ,| ÐòòPappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€at€623.€€Clearly,€the€co„defendant€placed€his€credibility€at€issue€by€testifyingÐ e Ðthat€he€found€the€canister€under€some€leaves€at€the€exact€spot€where€the€car€stopped,€that€he€neverÐ þN Ðsmelled€anything€coming€from€the€canister,€and€that€he€pled€guilty€to€possession€of€anhydrousÐ ç 7 Ðammonia€although€he€did€not€know€the€canister€contained€anhydrous€ammonia.€€òòóóTaken€in€the€lightÐ Ð!   Ðmost€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€established€that€two€packets€of€methamphetamine€wereÐ ¹" ! Ðfound€in€a€candy€tin€outside€the€passenger€side€of€the€car,€the€marijuana€was€found€in€the€pocket€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ða€jacket€located€in€the€middle€of€the€front€seat€of€the€car,€and€the€anhydrous€ammonia€was€found€inÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€trunk.€€Also€found€in€the€trunk€was€Coleman€lantern€fluid€and€rubber€gloves,€which€DarnellÐ t%Ä $ Ðtestified€are€items€used€in€the€manufacture€of€methamphetamine.€€He€explained€that€anhydrousÐ ]&­!% Ðammonia€will€burn€a€personððs€skin€and€that€rubber€gloves€are€a€necessary€protection.€€Ô#†X«XX X­ùâ9#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«ÔThe€recordÐ F'–"& Ðcontains€substantial€proof€that€the€Appellant€was€in€physical€control€of€the€vehicle€despite€his€lackÐ /(#' Ðof€ownership.€€This€court€has€held€ð ðthat€a€defendantððs€possession€of€contraband€may€be€inferredÐ )h$( Ðfrom€a€defendantððs€ownership€or€control€over€a€vehicle€in€which€the€contraband€is€secreted.ðð€€òòStateÐ *Q%) Ðv.€James€A.€Jacksonóó,€No.€M1998„00035„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€5,€2000).€Ð ê*:&* ÐAdditionally,€Deputy€Darnell€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€their€arrest,€neither€of€the€two€men€claimedÐ Ó+#'+ Ðthe€blue„jean€jacket€accessible€to€both€men€in€the€car.€€While€the€methamphetamine€was€foundÐ ° Ðoutside€the€car€along€with€a€partially€smoked€marijuana€cigarette,€the€testimony€presented€indicatedÐ ™é Ðthat€the€drugs€had€just€been€placed€outside€because€they€had€ð ðfresh,€damp€rain€on€themðð€but€Ð ‚Ò Ðð ðwerenððt€soaking€wet.ðð€€€The€Appellant€also€had€a€tin„foil€slide€used€to€ingest€methamphetamine€inÐ k» Ðhis€wallet€which€had€the€presence€of€drug€residue.€€Moreover,€Darnell€testified€that€when€he€wasÐ T¤ Ðapproaching€the€scene,€both€the€Appellant€and€the€co„defendant€were€standing€at€the€rear€of€the€carÐ =  Ðlooking€into€the€trunk€where€the€anhydrous€ammonia€was€located.€€We€conclude€this€evidence,Ð & v Ðthough€circumstantial,€is€sufficient€to€ð ðunerringly€pointðð€towards€the€Appellantððs€joint€possessionÐ  _ Ðof€the€contraband.€€The€evidence€presented€established€more€than€ð ðmere€presenceðð€near€the€drugsÐ ø H Ðor€ð ðmere€associationðð€with€the€person€controlling€the€drugs.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àNext,€with€regard€to€the€conviction€for€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€with€the€intent€toÐ ³  Ðmanufacture€a€controlled€substance,€the€Appellant€also€challenges€the€conviction€based€upon€the€factÐ œì  Ðthat€the€State€did€not€establish€that€the€substance€contained€in€the€canister€was€in€fact€anhydrousÐ …Õ  Ðammonia.€€While€Deputy€Darnell€testified€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€distinctive€smell€ofÐ n¾  Ðanhydrous€ammonia€and€that€he€smelled€that€distinctive€odor€coming€from€the€canister€found€in€theÐ W§  Ðtrunk€of€the€car,€no€testing€was€done€on€the€substance€due€to€its€dangerous€nature.€€Moreover,€whileÐ @ ÐDarnell€testified€that€the€canister€was€full€when€he€found€it€in€the€trunk€of€the€vehicle,€whenÐ )y Ðintroduced€at€trial,€the€contents€had€dissipated.Ð b ÐÌà  àFor€purposes€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„433(a)€(2003),€anhydrousÐ ä4 Ðammonia€is€defined€as€follows:Ð Í ÐÌà8  àanhydrous€ammonia€contains€eighty„two€percent€(82%)€nitrogen.€€At€atmosphericÐ Ÿï Ðpressure,€ammonia€is€a€gas€which€exists€as€a€liquid€below€minus€twenty„eightÐ ˆØ Ðdegrees€Fahrenheit€.€.€.€,€and€boils€at€this€temperature.€€In€commerce,€ammonia€isÐ qÁ Ðcompressed€to€a€liquid€and€stored€under€pressure.€€The€gauge€pressure€is€seventy„fiveÐ Zª Ðpounds€.€.€.€per€square€inch€at€fifty€degrees€Fahrenheit€.€.€.€,€and€one€hundred€ninety„Ð C“ Ðseven€pounds€.€.€.€per€square€inch€at€one€hundred€degrees€Fahrenheit.€.€.€.€TheÐ ,| Ðpressures€exerted€by€anhydrous€ammonia€are€dangerous€unless€the€proper€safetyÐ e Ðdevices€are€installed€in€the€equipment€and€care€is€used€in€handling.ÐþNÐ Ð  ÐÌò òà  àó óIn€his€argument,€the€Appellant€offers€no€more€than€the€bare€assertion€that€ð ð[t]here€was€noÐ Ð!   Ðcredible€proof€of€anhydrous€or€the€chemical€content€of€the€can.ðð€€The€State,€relying€upon€òòState€v.Ð ¹" ! ÐAnthony€Bynumóó,€No.€W2001„00111„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€31,€2001),Ð ¢#ò" Ðargues€that€ð ðscientific€proof€of€the€chemical€composition€of€a€controlled€substance€is€not€requiredÐ ‹$Û# Ðfor€positive€identification€and€that€an€officer€experienced€in€narcotics€investigation€and€detectionÐ t%Ä $ Ðmay€provide€sufficient€foundation€for€admission€of€testimony€identifying€a€substance.ðð€€We€wouldÐ ]&­!% Ðagree€that€a€panel€of€this€court€in€òòBynumóó€concluded€that€laboratory€tests€are€not€required€to€establishÐ F'–"& Ðthe€nature€of€the€substance.€€However,€in€full€context,€the€opinion€also€concluded€that€ð ðthe€olfactoryÐ /(#' Ðobservations€of€the€officers€may€not€be€enough,€standing€alone,€to€convictðð€a€defendant€ofÐ )h$( Ðpossession€of€anhydrous€ammonia.€òòóóÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* Ðà  àThe€record€establishes€that€Deputy€Darnell€had€been€a€Carroll€County€Deputy€for€five€years.€Ð ° Ðâ âPrior€to€this€employment,€he€served€as€the€police€chief€of€Hollow€Rock€for€five€years€and€as€aÐ ™é Ðmilitary€policeman€for€twenty„three€years.€€Darnell€testified€that€he€had€completed€training€at€theÐ ‚Ò ÐLaw€Enforcement€Training€Academy,€received€training€through€the€Twenty„fourth€Judicial€DrugÐ k» ÐTask€Force,€completed€yearly€in„service€training,€and€had€experience€in€the€investigation€andÐ T¤ Ðprosecution€of€drug€offenses.€€€Darnell€testified€that€he€was€familiar€with€anhydrous€ammonia,€asÐ =  Ðhe€had€used€it€while€growing€up€on€a€farm€and€then€dealt€with€it€in€law€enforcement.€€Additionally,Ð & v ÐDarnellððs€testimony€reflects€general€knowledge€of€drug€manufacturing€activity,€including€theÐ  _ Ðprimary€precursors€of€methamphetamine,€the€use€of€anhydrous€ammonia€in€the€ð ðcold€cookðð€methodÐ ø H Ðof€manufacturing€methamphetamine,€various€common€drug€paraphernalia€and€their€uses,€andÐ á 1  Ðfamiliarity€with€types€of€canisters€which€are€commonly€used€in€the€drug€trade€to€transport€and€storeÐ Ê   Ðanhydrous€ammonia.€€He€further€explained€that€the€canister€seized€in€this€case€was€a€ð ðCoca„ColaÐ ³  Ðcanister€used€in€the€restaurant€business,€[i]t€holds€about€four€and€three„quarter€pounds€of€Coca„Ð œì  ÐCola.ðð€€Darnell€testified€that€this€type€of€canister€is€preferred€to€a€propane€tank€because€it€isÐ …Õ  Ðaluminum€with€stainless€steel€fittings€which€do€not€deteriorate€like€propane€brass€fittings.€€€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àAfter€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€Darnellððs€special€training€and€experienceÐ @ Ðdemonstrates€a€particularized€knowledge€of€the€manufacturing€of€methamphetamine.€€Accordingly,Ð )y Ðwe€conclude€that€Deputy€Darnell€was€qualified€to€express€his€opinion€with€regard€to€the€presenceÐ b Ðof€anhydrous€ammonia.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€No€objection€was€entered€with€regard€to€this€testimony.€€Moreover,€thisÐ ûK Ðopinion€is€supported€by€Deputy€Dicksonððs€testimony€that€he€smelled€anhydrous€ammonia€beingÐ ä4 Ðemitted€from€the€canister.€€Based€upon€the€Appellantððs€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia,€theÐ Í Ðpresence€of€lantern€fluid€and€rubber€gloves€used€in€the€manufacturing€process,€and€the€presence€ofÐ ¶ Ðthe€finished€product,€methamphetamine,€we€conclude€that€the€proof€is€sufficient€to€support€theÐ Ÿï ÐAppellantððs€conviction€for€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€for€purposes€of€manufacturingÐ ˆØ Ðmethamphetamine.€ò òÐ qÁ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌII.€€SentencingÐ D” ÐÌó óà  àNext,€the€Appellant€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€his€sentence€stemmingÐ h Ðfrom€his€Class€E€felony€conviction.€€ò òó óWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€mannerÐ  Q Ðof€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€sentence€with€aÐ ê : Ðpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð Ó!#  Ð401(d)€(2003);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÐ ¼" ! Ðupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€€the€sentencing€principlesÐ ¥#õ" Ðand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€When€conducting€a€òòde€novoóóÐ ° Ðreview€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÐ ™é Ðsentencing€hearing;€(b)€the€pre„sentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€asÐ ‚Ò Ðto€sentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)Ð k» Ðany€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€the€Appellant€made€on€hisÐ T¤ Ðown€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ =  ÐAnn.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210€(2003);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€Ð & v ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€two„year€sentence,€suspending€allÐ ø H Ðof€the€sentence€with€the€exception€of€ninety€days€which€was€ordered€to€be€served€in€confinement.€Ð á 1  ÐAs€a€Range€I€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony,€the€Appellantððs€sentencing€range€was€one€toÐ Ê   Ðtwo€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5)€(2003).€€The€trial€court€enhanced€the€AppellantððsÐ ³  Ðsentence€by€one€year€based€upon€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(2),€previous€history€ofÐ œì  Ðcriminal€convictions.€€The€sentencing€record€reflects€that€the€forty„three„year„old€Appellant€hasÐ …Õ  Ðseven€prior€misdemeanor€convictions,€including€convictions€€for€DUI,€drug€possession,€and€publicÐ n¾  Ðintoxication.€€The€trial€court€gave€great€weight€to€a€possession€of€cocaine€drug€conviction€whichÐ W§  Ðoccurred€only€a€few€weeks€prior€to€the€present€offense.€€The€weight€to€be€assigned€to€the€appropriateÐ @ Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€falls€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€so€long€as€thatÐ )y Ðcourt€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€areÐ b Ðsupported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€€Here€theÐ ûK Ðrecord€supports€enhancement€from€one€to€two€years.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€total€probation€or€a€non„Ð ¶ Ðincarcerative€sentence.€€As€noted,€the€Appellantððs€sentence€was€suspended€with€the€exception€ofÐ Ÿï Ðninety€days.€€Although€a€defendant€may€be€presumed€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÐ ˆØ Ðsentencing,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€total€probation.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ qÁ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„303(b)€(2003);€òòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€477.€€Tòòóóhe€Appellantððs€prior€history€of€drugÐ Zª Ðconvictions,€although€not€substantial,€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€impose€a€term€ofÐ C“ Ðconfinement€to€affect€ð ðshock„probation.ðð€€We€conclude€that€the€sentence€of€split€confinement€bothÐ ,| Ðserves€the€ends€of€justice€and€fulfills€the€rehabilitative€needs€of€the€Appellant.Ð e ÐÌòòóóà  àAlthough€not€raised€as€an€issue,€we€note€at€this€juncture€the€recent€United€States€SupremeÐ ç 7 ÐCourt€decision€in€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó,€542€U.S.€___,€124€S.€Ct.€2531€(2004),€clarifying€andÐ Ð!   Ðextending€its€decision€in€òòApprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466,€120€S.€Ct.€2348€(2000).€€TheÐ ¹" ! ÐòòBlakely€óócourt€held€that€any€fact€that€increases€a€sentence€beyond€the€ð ðrelevant€statutory€maximum,ððÐ ¢#ò" Ðdefined€as€the€maximum€sentence€that€a€judge€may€impose€without€making€any€additional€findingsÐ ‹$Û# Ðof€fact,€must€be€submitted€and€proved€to€the€jury€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€orÔ#†X«XX X­ù¡D#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«Ôòòóó€admitted€by€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðdefendant.€€òòBlakelyóó,€542€U.S.€at€___,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2536„37.€€Thus,€adherence€to€òòBlakelyóó€requires€thatÐ ]&­!% Ðany€enhancement€factors,€other€than€prior€criminal€history,€can€be€applied€only€if€found€by€a€juryÐ F'–"& Ðor€admitted€by€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.òò€óó€€This€holding€was€reaffirmed€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Bookeróó,€543€U.S.Ð /(#' Ð___,€125€S.€Ct.€738,€769€(2005).€€Ð )h$( ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€trial€counsel,€after€consultation€with€the€Appellant,€conceded€theÐ ê*:&* Ðaccuracy€of€the€pre„sentence€report,€which€included€the€Appellantððs€prior€criminal€convictions.€€OnÐ Ó+#'+ Ðappeal,€the€Appellant€does€not€dispute€the€existence€of€prior€convictions.€€Because€sentencingÐ ° Ðenhancement€based€upon€prior€criminal€history€is€not€implicated€under€òòBlakelyóó,€no€òòBlakely/BookeróóÐ ™é Ðreview€is€necessitated.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌÔ#†X«XX X­ùrv#ÔÔ‡ X­ùXXX«Ôòòóóà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ T¤ ÐÌà  àó óBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€theÐ ( x ÐAppellantððs€convictions€for€felony€possession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€with€the€intent€to€manufactureÐ  a Ða€controlled€substance€and€the€misdemeanor€possessions€of€methamphetamine,€marijuana,€and€drugÐ ú J Ðparaphernalia.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€felonyÐ ã 3  Ðpossession€of€anhydrous€ammonia€is€justified€by€the€sentencing€record.€€Accordingly,€the€judgmentsÐ Ì   Ðof€conviction€and€sentence€are€affirmed.€ò òÐ µ  ÐÌÌà  àó óòòóóÔ#†X«XX X­ù»z#Ôà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð r  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE