IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
FEBRUARY, 1998 SESSION
March 25, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 01C01-9705-CC-00181
)
Appellee, )
) Rutherford County
vs. )
) Honorable J. S. Daniel, Judge
)
ROBERT LEE MALLARD, ) (Simple Possession of Cocaine,
) Possession of Drug Paraphernalia)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JEFF BURTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Asst. Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
201 W Main
est
Suite 101, Court Square Bldg. GEORG BLYTHE FELNER
IA
Murfreesboro, TN37130 Counsel for the State
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
WILLIAM C. WHITESELL, JR.
District Attorney General
DALE ROBINSON
Assistant District Attorney General
3rd Floor, Judicial Building
Murfreesboro, TN37130
OPINION FILED: ____________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
CURW OOD WITT
JUDGE
OPINION
Robert Lee Mallard, the defendant, appeals from his convictions in the Rutherford County
Circuit Court for simple possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of drug
paraphernalia for which he received concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days.
At the time of sentencing, he had served approximately 110 days, and the trial judge immediately
placed himon supervised probation. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence in the
record is insufficient to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.1
Whenreviewingthesufficiency of theevidence we m consider theevidence in the
ust
light most favorable to the state. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-191 (Tenn. 1992), citing
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. C 1781 (1979). W m afford the state the strongest
t. e ust
legitimate view of the proof as well as all reasonable and legitim inferences which may be drawn
ate
from the evidence. Evans, 828 S.W.2d at 191. Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses
are resolved by the trier of fact. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
In thiscase, theevidence demonstrates that the defendant hadin his possessionboth
the crack cocaine and the paraphernalia for smoking it. A Murfreesboro police officer noticed the
defendant standing on a street corner in an area noted for drug trafficking. The officer continued his
observation for forty minutes and finally decided to make an investigative stop. During the course of
the stop, the officer discovered a bag containing several lighters, a glass tube, an eye-glass temple,
a Brillo pad and a sm rock of crack cocaine in a folded dollar bill. At trial, the jury accredited the
all
officer’s testimony and obviously did not believe the defendant’s explanations.2 We find that the
evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. Jackson v.
1
The record indicates that the defendant fled sometim between the filing of the
e
judgment and the hearing on his motion for new trial. The record on appeal does not indicate that
he has been returned to custody. The general rule in those cases is that when a defendant
becomes a fugitive from justice while his appeal is pending and is at large at the appointed time for
the hearing of the appeal, “his appeal should perem ptorily be dismissed on m otion, on the ground
that he has thereby waived his right of appeal.” French v. State, 824 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Tenn.
1992); Bradford v. State, 184 Tenn. 694, 202 S.W.2d 647 (1947). Since the state has not raised
this issue, we do not address it here.
2
The defendant testified that he found the folded dollar bill and didn’t know about
the cocaine. He said that he refilled used lighters and sold themto earn money and that the other
item were part of a new filter he was developing for industry.
s
2
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789; State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253,
259 (Tenn. 1994); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).
Therefore, after thoroughly reading the record and the briefs and after giving careful
consideration to the law governing the issue presented for review, we affirmthe judgm of the trial
ent
court pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
__________________________
CUR OD W Judge
WO ITT,
CONCUR:
______________________________
GARY R. WADE, Judge
______________________________
WILLIAM M BARKER Judge
. ,
3