ÿWPC² ÚRüJ›¥`=5¾ˆž<ò´Œö~–Zج&¥*¸NTŒªµ÷³¼ÇÐÂ"àM9Õq ¾¨Nc ů¥i¤ik%ĬáØiiîÓÚ¿ÿ›ñ÷H+Å3Š®uŠÈ‚›æ0\¤1×Ä6ˆ¼ÃåiNAD!EñuX¶±ÈötÒopý1q_owmJžþ-æR¼°¹Œ"M CtµÙMd=—QLíjs0Ýì­ÐÛÞ „/¶­çXU|#¸òéœd{@0jÐó:ÝÕ.4Bà ²å3Þ;Ť°j˜‘מ¼ˆ !OÁ6úžRrüìMÞÃðï¹× Ð[>©nŒ=&ÓfŠ9Gp|‚s’dÒwï•eñÉql^L—Jº“K‹ŒµÑM¢Xò2ÅÍVæ±Ä=q Ø‘8¯ù›C¯w]=ÍJ¸oÈh1-0›ÏAàhŸ+û6N×ÇŸ ÛÞˆlÿÆÁ'Ö§“CÈô~òìŒlµëí׺†v˺¿#^èðÚè SMɶ©ÕÜPØqèÿåBe&8ÓÆ:ZIÆÍÓ@ýÕ[ŽrúEÕ—±Ô`rsS‘©¿7Ĉ$E˜Ê©ueÐw’ÛžX$§ßˆhƒÈšeÙÜBá9!]A9}ÀSŒ9* %Lw@R 0Ü’U:n4¨¼¬Ëw 0  0DŸ îã (ÑU:ùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù B3 AQPÆ¡ 0Dg 0D« 0Dïï D/33 Bb D3X _`DabDcdEefDghÓ€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular©eE%p88ttt3|xs ¢Ô‡ô³‹ôXXÔÝ ƒ íÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7À íXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€was€originally€charged€with€felony€possession€of€crack€cocaine€with€theÐ  Ðintent€to€sell,€a€class€B€felony.€(Ð(3í$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ íXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó äÒ°ÒÔ‡ô³‹ôXXÔÝ ƒ íÿÝÑ@°ÑÒÒÑT@R[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7À íXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€sentence€was€ordered€to€run€consecutive€to€three€outstanding€convictions€forÐ  Ðforgery,€failure€to€appear,€and€theft€under€$500,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€four€years. Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X íXXXÔÔ€ %&X X íÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X íX %&ÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€12,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô³‹ôX X íÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ íXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýñhñ›ñhñÓ ÔþÓò òñhñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@EÈ ` ttx$ð Õrß›ñhñà@. . ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ÓÓ(®àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌà@MM#®àSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1998ˆÌó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð d \ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9711„CR„00508Ð PH Ðà ` àAppelleeà  àà h àà À à)Ð <4  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àGREENE€COUNTYÐ (  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHon.€JAMES€E.€BECKNER,€JudgeÐ ø  ÐCARLOS€LAMONT€MARTIN,à À à)Ð ìä  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Possession€of€Crack€Cocaine)Ð ØÐ  Ðà ` àAppellantà  àà h àà À à)Рļ  Ðó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð bZ ÐÌò òD.€Clifton€Barnesó óà  àà h àò òà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÐ .& ÐAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  ÐThird€Judicial€Districtà h àÐ ø Ð1609€College€Park€Drive,€Box€11à À àà  àò òMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIó óÐ æÞ ÐMorristown,€TN€€37813à h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€Generalà Ð àà (# àÐ ÒÊ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌò òGreg€W.€Eichelmanó óà h àà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ „ | ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àà Ð àà (# àÐ p!h Ðà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.ó óÐ "$  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àò òà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àEric€D.€Christiansenó óÐ Ú&Ò# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à109€South€Main€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àœGreeneville,›€TN€€37743ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ .'+ ÐÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÐ t3l,1 ÐJudgeÐ  `4X-2S ÐÓÓà@+®àòòò òOPINIONóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant,€Carlos€Lamont€Martin,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€forÏpossession€of€a€schedule€II€controlled€substance,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рx p ÐFollowing€a€jury€trial,€the€Greene€County€Criminal€Court€sentenced€the€appellant€toÏeleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€with€a€release€eligibility€of€seventy„fiveÏpercent.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€this€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÐ ÜÔ  Ðsupport€his€conviction€and€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive.ÌÌà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€conviction€andÏsentence€entered€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà@ff)®àò òBackgroundó óˆÐ ph ÐÌà ` àAround€2:20€p.m.€on€December€7,€1996,€Greeneville€Police€Officer€TimÏHartman€was€on€patrol€in€an€area€of€Greeneville€known€as€ð ðThe€Wall.ðð€€ð ðThe€Wallðð€isÏa€concrete€block€wall€or€structure€extending€along€Davis€Street€to€Sumner€Street,Ïand€is€an€area€where€people€routinely€congregate.€€On€this€date,€€Officer€HartmanÏobserved€a€group€of€about€eight€to€fifteen€men€gathered€near€ð ðThe€Wall.ðð€€OneÏperson,€whom€Officer€Hartman€knew€to€be€the€appellant,€made€ð ða€quick€suddenÏmovement,ðð€stepped€away€from€the€street,€reached€over€to€place€something€aboveÏð ðThe€Wallðð€into€the€grass,€and€walked€away€from€ð ðThe€Wall.ðð€€No€other€person€wasÏnear€the€object.€€ÌÌÐ  4-2 Ðà ` àOfficer€Hartman€noticed€that€the€object€was€reflecting€sunlight€and€thoughtÏthat€the€object€might€be€something€used€to€contain€drug€paraphernalia.€€HeÏproceeded€to€exit€his€patrol€car€and€walked€directly€to€the€object,€which€heÏrecognized€as€a€wadded€ball€of€aluminum€foil.€€Upon€unfolding€the€aluminum€foil,ÏOfficer€Hartman€discovered€what€appeared€to€be€crack€cocaine€packaged€in€theÏcellophane€wrapper€from€a€pack€of€cigarettes.€€Hartman€placed€the€contraband€inÏhis€pocket,€walked€straight€to€the€appellant,€who€was€standing€near€the€patrol€car,Ïand€placed€him€under€arrest€for€the€possession€of€crack€cocaine.€€A€subsequentÏsearch€of€the€appellant€revealed€no€drug€paraphernalia€or€articles€indicative€of€drugÏtrafficking€on€his€person.ÌÌà ` àAt€trial,€David€Holloway,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€crime€laboratory€in€Knoxville,€confirmed€that€the€contraband€seized€byÏOfficer€Hartman€contained€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€base,€a€schedule€II€drug.€€TheÏappellant,€in€his€own€defense,€denied€having€any€contact€with€or€possession€of€theÏwadded€ball€of€aluminum€foil€containing€crack€cocaine€seized€by€Officer€Hartman.€€ÌÌà ` àBased€upon€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€simpleÏœpossessñgñionñgñ›€of€crack€cocaine.ÌÌÌà@++®àò òI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óˆÐ Ä,¼%* ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€support€aÏconviction€for€simple€possession€of€cocaine.€€In€support€of€this€issue,€he€argues€thatÏð ðit€was€not€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€cocaine€found€on€the€wallÏwas€sufficiently€connected€to€the€appellant€for€this€conviction€to€stand.ðð€€Specifically,Ïhe€avers€that€ð ðthe€officerððs€testimony€that€he€observed€the€actions€of€the€appellant€inÏa€crowd€of€eight€to€twelve€people€from€150€to€200€yards€is€an€impossibility.ððÐ d9\28 Їà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€verdict€based€on€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€this€court€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution€and€determine€whether€ð ðany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ð l d Ð443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ð 80 Ð259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence;€these€are€issues€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð ÐÈ  ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Furthermore,€a€guilty€verdict€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€witnesses€for€the€State€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Thus,€before€anÐ 4, Ðappellate€court€may€disturb€a€juryððs€finding€of€guilt,€the€appellant€must€prove€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€jury€verdict€in€his€case.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð ÌÄ ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà ` àBefore€the€State€may€succeed€in€a€prosecution€for€simple€possession€ofÏcocaine,€the€proof€must€show€that€the€appellant€was€in€possession€of€a€controlledÏsubstance.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418(a)€(1996€Supp.).€€There€is€noÐ È#À  Ðdispute€as€to€the€nature€of€the€contraband€substance.€€The€only€issue€is€whether€theÏappellant€was€in€possession€of€the€controlled€substance.€€€€Possession€of€aÏcontrolled€substance€may€be€actual€or€constructive.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2dÐ ,)$"& Ð125,€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€If€a€person€is€found€to€have€the€power€andÏintention€at€a€given€time€to€exercise€dominion€and€control€over€the€substance,€he€isÏin€constructive€possession€thereof.€€òòIdóó.€at€129€(citations€omitted).€€Although€mereÐ .ˆ', Ðpresence€in€the€area€where€the€drugs€are€discovered€is€not€enough€to€showÏpossession,€€òòState€v.€Transouóó,€928€S.W.2d€949,€956€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€theÐ (2 +0 Ðproof€shows€that€the€appellant€was€more€than€merely€present€in€the€area€where€theÏcocaine€was€found.€Specifically,€Officer€Hartman€òòobservedóó€the€appellant€place€theÐ À5¸.4 Ðobject€containing€the€cocaine€on€the€top€of€the€wall.€€Obviously,€by€returning€a€guiltyÏverdict,€the€jury€rejected€the€appellantððs€denial€of€culpability€and€possession€andÐ X9P28 Ðaccredited€the€officerððs€version€of€the€events.€€It€is€not€within€the€authority€of€thisÏcourt€to€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ð ÔÌ Ð676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€appellant€has€had€his€day€in€court€and€thisÏcourt€will€not€and€cannot€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€finder€of€fact€andÏarbiter€of€credibility.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€proofÐ 80 Ðsufficient€to€establish€that€the€appellant€was€in€possession€of€crack€cocaine.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@'®àò òII.€€Sentencingó óˆÐ h` ÐÌà ` àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€theÏtrial€court€is€excessive€and€contrary€to€the€principles€of€sentencing.€€Specifically,€heÏcontends€œ(1)€that›€the€trial€court€committed€error€œby›€considering€the€original€charge€ofÏpossession€with€intent€to€œsñdññcñEEñcññdññeñellñeññfñaleñfñ,›€although€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€the€lesserÏoffense€of€simple€œpossessionñ^ññZñ;€ñZññ^ñ›€and€œñ]ñ(ñ]ññ_ñ2ñ_ññ`ññ]ñ1ñ]ññ`ññ]ñ)€ñ]ñthat›€the€Stateððs€argument€that€the€sentenceÏmust€be€enhanced€due€to€its€proximity€to€a€school€is€œmisplaced.ñañ€€ñaññbñ›€ñbñThese›€argumentsÏare€inaccurate.€€First,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏoriginal€charge€of€possession€with€intent€to€sell€in€reaching€its€sentencingÏdetermination.€€Moreover,€even€though€the€State€argued€for€enhancement€basedÏupon€the€proximity€to€a€school,€the€trial€court€explicitly€rejected€this€argument.€€Thus,Ïwe€find€no€need€to€address€these€contentions€of€the€appellant.€€Notwithstanding,€theÏappellant€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€weigh€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€properly.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€relevant€sentencingÏprinciples,€thus,€this€court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€coupled€with€a€presumptionÐ 4ø,2 Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„¼35„401(d)€(1990);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€AlthoughÐ œ7”06 Ðotherwise€entitled€to€the€same€considerations€under€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÐ h9`28 Ð1989,€unlike€a€felon,€a€misdemeanant€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€aÏminimum€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,€133€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ÔÌ Ð1995)€(citation€omitted).€€Moreover,€the€trial€judge€is€granted€a€greater€flexibility€ofÏdiscretion€in€arriving€at€the€appropriate€sentence€than€in€felony€cases.€€ÌÌà ` àEven€in€light€of€the€courtððs€discretion€and€the€less€stringent€proceduresÏpermitted€in€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€misdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentencedÏto€a€determinant€sentence,€including€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€which€theÏoffender€must€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€consideration€of€rehabilitativeÏprograms.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„302(b),€(d)€(1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902Ð 4, ÐS.W.2d€391,€394€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€appellant€was€convicted€of€a€class€AÏmisdemeanor.€€€Thus,€his€sentence€may€not€exceed€11€months€and€29€days,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(e)(1)€(1990),€and€he€must€€be€sentenced€to€a€percentage€ofÏnot€greater€than€seventy„five€percent€of€that€sentence.€€òòPalmeróó,€902€S.W.2d€at€393„Ð d\ Ð394.€€In€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€may€considerÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposes€andÏprinciples€related€to€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d);€òòPalmeróó,€902Ð È#À  ÐS.W.2d€at€393„94;€òòState€v.€Gilboyóó,€857€S.W.2d€884,€889€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð ”%Œ" ÐHowever,€the€statutory€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€do€not€have€to€be€theÏonly€factors€considered€by€the€trial€court€in€determining€the€appropriate€sentence.€ÏThe€court€should€examine€the€misdemeanor€offense€in€the€light€and€character€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€as€well€as€under€the€mandated€sentencing€principles.€ÏòòState€v.€Brannonóó,€No.€03C01„9508„CR„00233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Apr.€3,Ð .ˆ', Ð1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€4,€1996)€(citing€òòGilboyóó,€857€S.W.2d€atÐ \0T). Ð889).ÌÌà ` àIn€determining€the€appropriate€sentence,€the€trial€court,€in€the€present€case,Ïfound€three€enhancement€and€no€mitigating€factors€applicable.€€Specifically,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€appellant€(1)€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions,Ð X9P28 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1996€Supp.);€(8)€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€theÏcommunity,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„114(8);€and€that€(13)€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€while€on€probation,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13)(c).€€The€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€factors€(1)€and€(8).€€The€appellant€has€priorÏconvictions€for€forgery,€failure€to€appear,€theft€under€$500,€DUI,€and€juvenileÏadjudications.€€Additionally,€he€was€on€probation€when€the€current€offense€wasÏcommitted,€indicating€his€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€release.€ÏAlthough€factor€(13)€applies€only€to€a€òòfelonyóó€committed€while€on€release€for€anotherÐ h` Ðòòfelonyóó,€consideration€of€the€premise€underlying€this€factor€is€appropriate€inÐ 4, Ðmisdemeanor€sentencing€when€determining€the€appellantððs€release€percentage.€ÏòòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d).€€Ð ÌÄ ÐÌà ` àThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors.€€We€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€not€met€his€burden€ofÏshowing€that€service€of€his€sentence€at€seventy„five€percent€is€improper.€€€ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401.€€Rather,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€such€a€sentence€is€more€than€justified.€€This€issue€is€alsoÏwithout€merit.€ÌÌà ` àIn€consideration€of€the€record€before€us€and€the€applicable€law,€we€find€noÏerror€of€law€requiring€reversal.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€conviction€andÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€Judge