State of Tennessee v. Solomon Akins - Order ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    AUGUST SESSION, 1996
    STATE OF TENNESSEE,           )      C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9509-CC-00250
    )
    Appellee,               )
    )
    FILED
    )      DYER COUNTY                   March 26, 2008
    VS.                           )
    )      HON. JOE G. RILEY           Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    Appellate Court Clerk
    SOLOMON AKINS,                )      JUDGE
    )
    Appellant.              )      (Sufficiency of Evidence-Sentencing)
    FOR THE APPELLANT:                   FOR THE APPELLEE:
    G. STEPHEN DAVIS                     CHARLES W. BURSON
    District Public Defender             Attorney General and Reporter
    208 N. Mill Avenue
    Dyersburg, TN 38025-0742             CLINTON J. MORGAN
    Assistant Attorney General
    450 James Robertson Parkway
    Nashville, TN 37243
    PHILLIP BIVENS
    District Attorney General
    JAMES E. LANIER
    Assistant District Attorney
    115 E. Market
    Dyersburg, TN 38024
    OPINION FILED ________________________
    AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
    JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
    ORDER
    This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 3. On January 26,
    1995, Appellant was convicted by a jury of five counts of selling less than .5 grams of
    cocaine. As a Range II offender, Appellant received a sentence of eight years and six
    months for each count. All five of these sentences were concurrent to each other, but
    consecutive to two previous convictions he was serving on probation. In this appeal
    Appellant alleges the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts, and that his
    sentence is excessive. Having reviewed the record in this matter we are of the opinion
    that the convictions and sentence are fully supported by the law and evidence and that
    this matter should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
    Appeals.
    Appellant’s complaint concerning the sufficiency of the evidence centers around
    his contention that the undercover operative, used by police to buy cocaine from
    Appellant, is untrustworthy.     As such, Appellant asks this Court to re-weigh her
    testimony. We must decline his request.
    It is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses is a matter that is entrusted
    exclusively to the jury as the triers of fact. A guilty verdict that is approved by the trial
    judge accredits the testimony of the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the
    testimony in favor of prosecution theory. This Court may not reweigh matters of
    witness credibility. State v. Cabbage, 
    571 S.W.2d 832
     (Tenn. 1978). State v. Evans,
    
    838 S.W.2d 185
    , 191 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). We will not disturb the jury’s obvious
    finding that the undercover operative testified truthfully.
    -2-
    Appellant’s complaint with regard to his sentence is waived due to a failure to
    argue or cite any authority reflecting why his sentence is excessive. State v. Hill, 
    875 S.W.2d 278
    , 284 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). However, we have nevertheless reviewed
    the record and found the trial judge applied three enhancement factors and one
    mitigating factor. No complaint is made as to the application of the enhancement
    factors. In addition there is not complaint that applicable mitigating factors were not
    considered. Appellant has a previous history of criminal convictions, he had a history
    of unwillingness to comply with conditions of release into the community, and the
    offenses which are the subject of this appeal were committed while Appellant was on
    probation. While Appellant’s conduct did not threaten or cause serious bodily injury to
    anyone, this mitigating factor’s importance is diminished by the nature of the offenses
    and the seriousness of the enhancement factors. The possible sentence for a Range
    II defendant convicted of selling less that .5 grams of cocaine is six and ten years.
    Under the circumstances Appellant’s sentence in the middle of this range is not
    excessive.
    The convictions and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
    Court of Criminal Appeals.
    ____________________________________
    JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
    CONCUR:
    ___________________________________
    GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
    ___________________________________
    WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02C01-9509-CC-00250

Judges: Judge Jerry L. Smith

Filed Date: 3/26/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021