ÿWPCò ”]˜²ø.’¯×§Á©Å³[·<¡Å†¾™çraŽífÊp»TãBÒØ±€âeOäàÛ™ˆßaÊÖº8ˆ©!ÊA—¼BE§C´nØy…£IT@¥êoÔòŸ˜p80T^ —˜"±NÂè;Ñâ%(–žŒµ[³àk¾6‰t—½{Ä"Ô‘› ßÿè+¶®öRa§;Éœ*ãòÝ¿}ŽÂ¯ìPHLN˜JàM·5Î-„ñÔjé ‘¼2…ö}*í‚ã|ÓOo› P®p{ÇuFF‘Fà–´ýK¤eõ8} ñÀå3ÕÁ¾2"(J"Â̓i£vzáWíIbþéíÈ’Î1Âê½ù˜iÉe}Èb§JÞLù«'£BîWtßòªô]ÔTø´îJùŒ0®±Žlù‘,¤ZPkò)LTj¨_ø¥õ„MÎ –#Òu=ÜÌ¥ŒèOo”%c½.ÌÍÅHeùß«ò–ž¬ñcf?L„h³tá –Nî˜(¬bf²Õ¸”º¢ç._êü'Q ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€David€H.Ð º  ÐFindley,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€William€Michael€McCown,€District€Attorney€General,€andÐ  ð ÐWeakley€E.€Barnard,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð † Ö  ÐÔ#†¼5‘»XXY-Q#ÔÔ‡XY-X»¼5‘ÔÌÓ"ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼5‘»XXY-þ #ÔÔ‡XY-X»¼5‘ÔÐ 8#ˆ# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼5‘»XXY-q #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XY-X»¼5‘ÔÌÔ‡ XY-XXXY-Ôà  àThe€appellant,€Ray€Anthony€Ussery,€was€charged€with€two€counts€of€sale€of€cocaine€andÐ ê%:!& Ðthree€counts€of€delivery€of€cocaine,€as€follows:Ð Ð& "' ÐÌà8  àCount€1à0¸ Ð Ð à12/8/98€sale€of€cocaine€base,€a€class€B€felonyМ(ì#)¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àCount€2à0¸ Ð Ð à12/8/98€delivery€of€cocaine€base,€a€class€B€felonyЂ)Ò$*¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àCount€3à0¸ Ð Ð à12/8/98€sale€of€cocaine€base,€a€class€C€felonyÐh*¸%+¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àCount€4à0¸ Ð Ð à12/8/98€delivery€of€cocaine€base,€a€class€C€felonyÐN+ž&,¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àCount€5à0¸ Ð Ð à12/10/98€delivery€of€cocaine,€a€class€C€felonyÐ4,„'-¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÐ -j(.ý  ЀA€Marshall€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€on€all€counts€and€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðsentenced€him€to€nine€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€thisÐ –æ Ðdirect€appeal,€he€argues€(1)€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€a€verdictÐ |Ì Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€and€(2)€that€the€nine€year€sentence€imposed€is€excessive€in€length.€UponÐ b² Ðreview,€we€find€the€appellantððs€arguments€to€be€without€merit€and€affirm€the€decision€of€the€MarshallÐ H˜ ÐCounty€Circuit€Court.Ð . ~ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓBackgroundÐ ú J Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àAgent€Thomas€Biele,€of€the€17òòthóó€Judicial€District€Drug€and€Violent€Crime€Task€Force,€Ð Æ   Ðreceived€information€from€the€landlord€of€a€trailer€park€in€Lewisburg,€Tennessee,€that€possible€drugÐ ¬ ü  Ðdeals€were€taking€place€on€the€premises.€€Thereafter,€a€confidential€informant,€who€had€worked€forÐ ’â  Ðthe€Task€Force€on€prior€occasions,€was€placed€in€the€trailer€park.€€On€December€8,€1998,€theÐ xÈ  Ðconfidential€informant€contacted€Biele€about€a€potential€drug€sale.€€Biele,€accompanied€by€AgentÐ ^®  ÐKris€Lewallen,€went€to€the€trailer€park€shortly€after€10:00€p.m.€and€met€with€the€confidentialÐ D”  Ðinformant.€€Thereafter,€the€confidential€informant€introduced€the€agents€to€the€appellant€whoÐ *z  Ðproduced€ð ðfour€little€pieces€of€aluminum€foilðð€which€contained€crack€cocaine.€€Biele€gave€theÐ ` Ðappellant€$120€for€the€four€packets.€€The€appellant€then€told€Biele€and€Lewallen€that€he€could€getÐ öF Ða€ð ðgood€$40€rockðð€if€they€were€willing€to€wait€20€minutes.€€They€agreed€and€the€appellant€left€theÐ Ü, Ðtrailer.€€In€approximately€20€minutes,€the€appellant€returned€and€sold€the€crack€cocaine€to€LewallenÐ Â Ðfor€$40.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€December€10,€1998,€Biele€and€Lewallen€again€went€to€the€trailer€park.€€This€time,Ð tÄ Ðhowever,€the€appellant€requested€that€Biele€ð ðfrontðð€the€money€prior€to€receiving€the€cocaine.€€BieleÐ Zª Ðgave€the€appellant€$100€and€watched€as€the€appellant€ð ðjoggedðð€over€to€a€nearby€residence.€€TheÐ @ Ðappellant€returned€with€the€cocaine€and€gave€it€to€Biele.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àThe€substances€purchased€by€Biele€and€Lewallen€were€tested€by€Donna€Flowers,€a€forensicÐ òB Ðchemist€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€and€ascertained€to€be€crack€cocaine.€€She€Ð Ø( Ðdetermined€that€the€cocaine€purchased€by€Biele€on€December€8,€1998,€weighed€.57€grams€and€thatÐ ¾ Ðthe€cocaine€purchased€by€Lewallen€weighed€.2€grams.€Additionally,€Flowers€determined€that€theÐ ¤ô Ðcocaine€purchased€by€Biele€on€December€10,€1998,€weighed€.4€grams.Ð Š Ú Ðò òÓ  ÓÌÌI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ <#Œ" ÐÓ  Óó óà  àThe€appellant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€theÐ "$r# Ðjuryððs€verdict€of€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€that€his€convictions€should€be€set€aside.€€TheÐ %X $ Ðappellant€provides€the€following€arguments€in€support€of€his€position:€(1)€that€the€identification€ofÐ î%>!% Ðâ âappellant€was€only€for€a€relatively€short€period€of€time;€(2)€that€the€name€was€spelled€incorrectly€onÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€envelope€containing€the€drugs;€and€(3)€that€the€35€mm€container€used€to€transport€the€cocaineÐ ° Ðfrom€each€transaction€was€ð ðnever€washed€out.ððÐ –æ Ðâ âÌà  àThe€relevant€question€upon€a€sufficiency€review€of€a€criminal€conviction,€be€it€at€theÐ b² Ðappellate€or€trial€level,€is€whether,€ð ðafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ H˜ Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ . ~ Ða€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€òòSee€alsoóóÐ  d ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó€addresses€two€important€aspects€of€a€sufficiencyÐ ú J Ðreview;€(1)€the€manner€of€review€of€the€convicting€evidence€and€(2)€the€standard€of€review€for€legalÐ à 0 Ðsufficiency.€€The€scope€of€our€examination€of€the€evidence€is€not€equivalent€to€that€of€the€juryððs.€€InÐ Æ   Ða€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€retry€the€defendant.€€We€emphasizeÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€our€examination€in€a€sufficiency€review€is€not€to€revisit€the€inconsistent,€contradicting,Ð ’â  Ðimplausible€or€non€credible€proof,€as€those€issues€are€resolved€by€the€jury.€€Rather,€we€look€to€theÐ xÈ  Ðrecord€to€determine€whether€there€was€substantive€probative€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€TheÐ ^®  Ðsecond€inquiry,€the€question€of€legal€sufficiency,€then€follows:€whether€the€record€contains€evidenceÐ D”  Ðfrom€which€the€jury€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð *z  ÐA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÐ ` Ðin€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Corey€Lamont€Radleyóó,€No.€01C01„9803„CR„00113€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð öF Ðat€Nashville,€Jul.€13,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Dec.€27,€1999)(òòfor€publicationóó);€òòSee€alsoÐ Ü, ÐóóòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ Â Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ ¨ø Ðtherefrom.€€òòId.óó€€€€Every€reasonable€hypothesis€of€innocence€need€not€be€dispelled;€it€is€only€necessaryÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€there€exists€proof€which€supports€the€elements€of€the€crime.€€Accordingly,€it€is€the€appellateÐ tÄ Ðcourtððs€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€was€sufficientÐ Zª Ðfor€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÐ @ Ðdoubt.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€The€appellant€firstÐ òB Ðcontends€that€the€ð ðAgentsðð€purported€knowledge€of€Appellant€was€minimalðð.€€The€record,€however,Ð Ø( Ðdoes€not€support€this€contention.€€First,€Biele€purchased€cocaine€from€the€appellant€on€two€separateÐ ¾ Ðoccasions.€€On€both€occasions,€Biele€was€around€the€appellant€for€several€minutes,€in€lightedÐ ¤ô Ðconditions,€thereby€giving€Biele€ample€opportunity€to€become€familiar€with€the€appellant.€€Second,Ð Š Ú ÐBiele€identified€the€appellant€at€trial,€indicating€that€there€was€no€question€in€his€mind€that€theÐ p!À  Ðappellant€was€the€same€person€who€sold€him€the€narcotics€in€December€of€1998.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€since€his€name€was€spelled€incorrectly€on€the€envelopeÐ "$r# Ðcontaining€the€drugs€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€guilty€conviction.€We€reject€thisÐ %X $ Ðargument.€The€name€ð ðRaymond€Usserðð€was€marked€on€the€envelope.€€The€appellantððs€name€is€ð ðRayÐ î%>!% ÐUssery.ðð€€€The€identity€question€is€a€jury„question.€€The€jury€heard€the€testimony€concerning€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðmisspelling€of€the€appellantððs€name€on€the€envelope.€€This€Court€may€not€ð ðre„weigh€or€re„evaluateÐ º' #' Ðthe€evidenceððin€the€record€below.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)(citing€òòStateÐ  (ð#( Ðv.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€Furthermore,€Biele€identified€the€appellant€as€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðperson€who€sold€him€the€crack€cocaine.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€jury€convictionÐ ° Ðâ âbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€Biele€did€not€ð ðwash€outðð€the€35€mm€container€he€carried€theÐ –æ Ðcrack€rocks€in€after€purchases.€€Once€again,€we€reject€his€argument.€€Biele€testified€that€the€containerÐ |Ì Ðwas€empty€each€time€he€put€the€rocks€in€the€container€and€that€the€rocks€were€in€solid€form.€Ð b² ÐAccordingly,€the€evidence€produced€at€trial€supported€the€verdict.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€proof€established€that€the€appellant€knowingly€sold€crack€cocaine€toÐ  d ÐBiele€and€Lewallen€on€two€occasions€and€delivered€cocaine€on€another€occasion.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€CodeÐ ú J ÐAnn.€ðð€39„17„417(2)€&€(3).€€The€evidence€presented€at€trial,€taken€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ à 0 ÐState,€is€such€that€a€reasonable€juror€could€have€found€the€appellant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÐ Æ   Ðdoubt.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Length€of€SentenceÐ xÈ  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€a€nine€year€sentence€was€improperÐ ^®  Ðin€this€case.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€ð ðfailed€to€properly€apply€theÐ D”  Ðmitigating€factor€presented€by€appellant,€namely€that€appellantððs€conduct€neither€caused,€norÐ *z  Ðthreatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€We€disagree€withÐ ` Ðappellantððs€argument€and€find€this€issue€to€also€be€without€merit.Ð öF ÐÌà  àWhen€an€appellate€court€reviews€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentenceÐ Â Ðimposed€by€the€sentencing€court,€it€must€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€the€sentence,€with€aÐ ¨ø Ðpresumption€that€the€determinations€from€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.€€Tenn.Ð ŽÞ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€òòóóIf€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court,€by€following€the€statutoryÐ tÄ Ðsentencing€procedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence,€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€properÐ Zª Ðweight€to€the€factors€and€principles€which€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€Act,€and€that€the€trialÐ @ Ðcourt's€findings€of€fact€upon€which€the€sentence€is€based€are€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€thenÐ &v Ðwe€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,Ð  \ Ð805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(1991).€€òòóóThe€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€the€sentence€imposed€wasÐ òB Ðimproper.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€786.Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€court€considered€two€enhancement€factors,€namely:€(1)€that€theÐ ¤ô Ðappellant€had€a€previous€history€of€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessaryÐ Š Ú Ðto€establish€the€appropriate€range;€and€(2)€that€the€appellant€had€€a€previous€history€of€unwillingnessÐ p!À  Ðto€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð V"¦! Ððð€40„35„114(1)€&€(8).€€The€appellantððs€criminal€history€reflects€eleven€prior€misdemeanorÐ <#Œ" Ðconvictions.€€Such€past€criminal€behavior€adequately€supports€enhancement€factor€(1)€above.€Ð "$r# ÐEnhancement€(8)€is€also€supported€by€the€record.€€In€1993,€the€appellant€violated€a€term€of€hisÐ %X $ Ðprobation.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€applying€the€enhancement€factors.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues,€however,€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€considering€mitigation€factorÐ º' #' Ð(1),€that€the€appellantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€€€We€disagree.€Ð  (ð#( ÐInherent€within€the€trafficking€and€distribution€of€drugs€is€the€potential€for€serious€bodily€injury.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐAlthough€we€recognize€that€not€all€drug€deals€involve€violence,€we€do,€however,€recognize€that€theÐ l*¼%* Ðvery€nature€of€the€act€makes€the€potential€for€serious€bodily€injury€ever€present.€€Accordingly,€weÐ R+¢&+ Ðfind€that€the€sale€of€cocaine€is€not€so€sufficiently€free€from€all€danger€such€that€it€can€be€used€toÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmitigate€a€sellerððs€sentence.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Vanderfordóó,€980€S.W.2d€390,€407€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1997);€òòSeeÐ ° Ðalso€óóòòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€422€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1994).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÐ –æ Ðtrial€court€did€not€err€by€not€applying€mitigation€factor€(1)€to€the€appellantððs€sentences.òòóóÐ |Ì ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ H˜ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€a€guilty€verdict€beyond€a€reasonableÐ  d Ðdoubt.€€Furthermore,€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€not€excessive€as€to€length.€Ð ú J ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Marshall€County€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.Ð à 0 ÐÌÌÌÔ#†XY-XX XY-û #ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð *z  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE