Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Freeman

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

March 29, 2018

TIFFANY DAVIS, Petitioner,
v.
VICKI FREEMAN, Warden, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Tiffany Davis, an inmate at the Tennessee Prison for Women, is serving a thirty-year sentence after being found guilty by a jury of the Marshall County (Tennessee) Circuit Court of the following crimes involving cocaine: four counts of sale, six counts of delivery, two counts of conspiracy to sell, and one count of the lesser included offense of facilitation of sale. (Doc. No. 38-2, PageID# 327-44; Doc. No. 38-17, PageID# 1447.) Davis initially filed this habeas corpus action pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) This Court appointed counsel for Davis and ordered the submission of an amended petition (Doc. No. 9), which counsel then filed (Doc. No. 16). Respondent has filed an answer to the petition (Doc. No. 40) along with the state court record (Doc. Nos. 38, 49). Davis has also filed a motion to amend her petition (Doc. No. 55) and a motion for discovery (Doc. No. 48). Respondent filed a response in opposition to Davis's motion for discovery (Doc. No. 52) to which Davis filed a reply (Doc. No. 56). Respondent concedes both that the Davis's petition was timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and that it is Davis's first application for federal habeas relief.[1] (Doc. No. 40, PageID# 1643.)

         Davis has requested that the Court “[h]old an evidentiary hearing on [her] claims” but she has not explained how such a hearing would help her develop those claims. (Doc. No. 16, PageID# 79.) This Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing where “the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). The Court must consider Davis's claims in light of the “deferential standards prescribed by [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)], ” under which a state court's factual findings are presumed correct subject to rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Having reviewed Davis's arguments and the underlying record, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required. Davis is not entitled to relief under AEDPA's standards. Her petition will be denied, as will the motion to amend (Doc. No. 55) and motion for discovery (Doc. No. 48). This case will be dismissed.

         I. Procedural History

         Davis was prosecuted as a result of her connection to eight separate controlled cocaine purchases that were conducted using confidential informants. State v. Davis, No. M2010-01779-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 1372078, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2012) (Davis I); (Doc. No. 38-17, PageID# 1447). On November 18, 2009, the Marshall County Grand Jury indicted Davis, charging her with eight counts of the sale of cocaine, eight counts of delivery of cocaine, and two counts of conspiracy to sell cocaine. (Doc. No. 38-1, PageID# 195-214.) From April 12 to April 14, 2010, Davis was tried before a jury in the Marshall County Circuit Court (hereinafter, the trial court), which found her guilty of one count of sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine (a Class C felony), three counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine (a Class B felony), three counts of delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine (a Class C felony), three counts of delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine (a Class B felony), two counts of conspiracy to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine (a Class C felony), and one count of the lesser included offense of facilitation of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine (a Class C felony). Davis I, 2012 WL 1372078, at *1; (Doc. No. 38-2, PageID# 327-44). The jury found Davis not guilty of the remaining five counts. (Doc. No. 38-2, PageID# 330, 333, 335, 341, 343.) Davis was represented at trial by attorney Terry Hernando. (Doc. No. 1, PageID# 8.)

         On June 2, 2010, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Davis I, 2012 WL 1372078, at *2. The trial court merged alternative theories so that only one conviction remained from each criminal episode. Id. At the sentencing hearing, the State introduced Davis's seven prior Class B felony convictions, which enabled the trial court to find that Davis was a “career offender” and impose a sentence of fifteen years for each Class C felony and thirty years for each Class B felony, all to run concurrently. Id. However, because Davis was serving probation for a prior sixteen-year sentence at the time of the offenses relevant to this action, the trial court ordered that Davis's sentence run consecutive to that sentence. Id.

         On July 8, 2010, Davis filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain her convictions and that the trial court erred by ordering that her thirty-year sentence be consecutive to her prior sixteen-year sentence. (Doc. No. 38-3, PageID# 354.) The trial court denied that motion on July 29, 2010, and appointed Hernando to represent Davis on appeal. (Id. at PageID# 356.)

         Davis filed her notice of appeal on August 19, 2010 (Doc. No. 38-2, PageID# 347), raising the same issues as in her motion for a new trial. (Doc. No. 38-14, PageID# 1339.) Specifically, she argued that the testimony of the confidential informant witnesses who helped conduct the controlled cocaine transactions was often the only evidence linking her to those transactions and that the testimony was so biased-as a result of deals the informants had struck with the police- that a reasonable jury could not have believed it. (Id. at PageID# 1370-83.) Davis also argued that it was improper for the trial court to consider her prior criminal history in finding her to be a “career offender” and in sentencing her consecutively. (Id. at PageID# 1386.) On April 18, 2012, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's decision to credit the testimony of the informant witnesses was not improper and that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Davis's convictions. Davis I, 2012 WL 1372078, at *1. The TCCA also held that it has repeatedly affirmed that a defendant's prior record may be considered both to determine the length of her sentence and to impose consecutive sentencing.[2] Id. at *20. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on August 15, 2012. (Doc. No. 38-19.)

         After losing her direct appeal, Davis made three further attempts to obtain relief from her conviction in state court. On October 29, 2012, Davis filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court (Doc. No. 49-1), which she amended with appointed counsel James Frazier's aid (Doc. No. 49-2). In that petition, Davis argued that she was convicted by a biased jury and that her trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways: (1) counsel failed to strike Casey Davis (someone Davis knew) from the jury; (2) counsel failed to call Gail Davis as a witness; (3) counsel urged Davis's friends and family to encourage her to accept a plea offer and complained that the case was too difficult for him; (4) counsel failed to interview witnesses and failed to adequately prepare for trial; (5) counsel had a conflict of interest in that he had previously represented confidential informant Pamela Goetz in a previous case; and (6) counsel failed to sufficiently cross-examine Goetz regarding her identification of Davis. (Id. at PageID# 1704-05.) In an order issued on May 6, 2013, the trial court found that trial counsel's failure to challenge juror Corey Davis, failure to call Gail Davis as a witness, and refusal to withdraw from representing Davis did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel; it did not reach Davis's other claims. (Doc. No. 49-4, PageID# 1709-10.) Davis did not appeal that decision (Doc. No. 16, PageID# 67).

         On December 31, 2013, Davis, proceeding pro se, initiated a state habeas petition in the trial court in which she claimed that her sentence violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and again argued that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel (although she did not specify on what grounds). Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101; (Doc. No. 38-13, PageID# 1292-95). The trial court rejected those arguments, explaining that the merger of many of Davis's convictions resolved any double jeopardy concerns and that ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be litigated in state habeas corpus proceedings. (Doc. No. 38-20, PageID# 1573-76.) Davis pressed the same arguments on appeal, clarifying that trial counsel had been ineffective by allowing her to be tried on charges for which she was not indicted. (Id. at PageID# 1566.) The TCCA affirmed the trial court, explaining that neither a violation of double jeopardy nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel provides a basis for state habeas relief. Davis v. Jones, No. M2014-00386-CCA-R3-HC, 2014 WL 3749443, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 30, 2014) (Davis II); (Doc. No. 38-22, PageID# 1607-09.)

         Finally, again proceeding pro se, Davis filed a petition in the trial court for a writ of error coram nobis on December 22, 2014, in which she argued that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately explain the charges that had been brought against her and again protested that she had not been indicted on all charges. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-101; (Doc. No. 34-1, PageID# 174-76). In an affidavit attached to her petition, Davis also averred that she was never arraigned. (Doc. No. 49-6, PageID# 1714.) The trial court rejected Davis's petition on several grounds, finding that (1) Davis's petition was based on allegations that were either inaccurate or previously addressed, (2) none of Davis's allegations could constitute the “newly discovered evidence” that forms the basis of a viable coram nobis claim, and (3) her petition appeared to be time-barred. (Id. at PageID# 1716.) Davis did not appeal that decision. (Doc. No. 16, PageID# 68.)

         Davis timely filed this federal action pro se on March 30, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court appointed counsel (Doc. No. 9), who filed an amended petition. (Doc. No. 16.) Respondent has filed an answer to the petition (Doc. No. 40) and the state court record (Doc. Nos. 38, 49). Davis has filed a motion to amend her petition (Doc. No. 55) and a motion for discovery (Doc. No. 48), which relate to her claim that the state withheld impeachment evidence pertaining to the confidential informants who testified against her at trial. Respondent filed a response in opposition to Davis's motion for discovery (Doc. No. 52), to which Davis filed a reply (Doc. No. 56).

         II. Statement of Facts

         The TCCA, which heard and rejected Davis's challenges to her convictions on direct appeal, provided the following description of the evidence presented at Davis's trial:

         I.

Counts 1 and 2 arose out of a controlled drug purchase at the Defendant's residence at the Martin Street Apartments in Marshall County at approximately 8:00-8:30 p.m. on August 6, 2008. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 1) and delivery (Count 2) of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, both Class C felonies.
Christine Guerrero (“CI Guerrero”) testified that she was working for the DTF as a confidential informant for the first time on August 6, 2008. She admitted that she had used drugs on “numerous occasions” and had multiple prior convictions for forgery, fraudulent use of a debit card, and theft. CI Guerrero testified that she was “friends” with the Defendant and was familiar with her prior to the controlled buy. CI Guerrero said that she bought crack cocaine from the Defendant on numerous occasions and, in fact, would buy crack cocaine from the Defendant every day that she could afford to do so.
On August 6, CI Guerrero called the Defendant's cell phone to see if she could buy $60 worth of crack cocaine, and according to CI Guerrero, the Defendant told her to come to the Defendant's apartment. The Defendant requested that CI Guerrero purchase a two-liter bottle of Mountain Dew out of the $60 and deliver it to her. CI Guerrero subsequently contacted DTF agents and informed them that she could purchase crack cocaine from the Defendant.
CI Guerrero then met with DTF Assistant Director Tim Miller and Agent Bart Fagan near a local bowling alley. Assistant Director Miller searched the Defendant to verify that she was not carrying any contraband such as drugs or money. He also outfitted her with an audio recording device and gave her $57.86 and a two-liter bottle of soda. CI Guerrero then drove to the Defendant's home in a DTF-provided vehicle, which had also been searched for contraband. DTF agents followed in a separate unmarked vehicle, maintaining constant surveillance of CI Guerrero. Assistant Director Miller set up a surveillance position from which he could see the Defendant's apartment. He testified that he never lost sight of CI Guerrero and watched through binoculars as she entered the Defendant's apartment. As CI Guerrero entered the apartment, Assistant Director Miller saw the Defendant stick her head out of the door and look around.
CI Guerrero testified that only the Defendant and her two minor daughters were inside the apartment and that she did not see any other adults. She testified that she gave the Defendant $57 and that the Defendant told her to keep the $.86 cents; one of the Defendant's daughters retrieved the bottle of soda from CI Guerrero's vehicle.
CI Guerrero said that the Defendant handed her a yellow napkin containing crack cocaine. CI Guerrero left the Defendant's house, got into her vehicle, and returned to the bowling alley. Assistant Director Miller kept constant surveillance during the return trip. At the bowling alley, CI Guerrero handed Assistant Director Miller the napkin containing the suspected narcotics and the unspent $.86 cents. She also returned the audio recorder. The recording of the transaction was admitted into evidence.
Assistant Director Miller searched CI Guerrero again for contraband. He testified that he maintained control of the substance in the yellow napkin until relinquishing it to DTF Director Tim Lane. Lane served as the agency's evidence custodian and, in that role, escorted suspected narcotics to and from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”) laboratory for testing. A TBI lab technician testified that the substance tested positive for cocaine base and weighed 0.3 grams.
The Defendant testified that she recognized CI Guerrero but did not know her. She said that she recognized CI Guerrero from jail and as a friend of the Defendant's neighbor, but denied having a conversation with her. The Defendant denied that CI Guerrero called her cell phone on August 6, 2008, and denied selling CI Guerrero crack cocaine on that date. The Defendant stated that it was not her voice on the audio recording.
The jury convicted the Defendant for the sale (Count 1) and delivery (Count 2) of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, both Class C felonies.

         II.

Counts 3, 4, and 5 arose out of a controlled drug purchase occurring in the parking lot of a Kroger grocery store in Marshall County between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on October 22, 2008. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 3), delivery (Count 4), and conspiracy to sell (Count 5) 0.5 grams or more of cocaine.
Pamela Goetz (“CI Goetz”) testified that she was working with the DTF as a confidential informant on October 22, 2008. CI Goetz testified that she was a frequent crack cocaine user and that she had worked with the DTF for approximately four years. She said that, on the day of the controlled buy, she did not know the Defendant very well, having only seen her a few times, but that she did recognize the Defendant. She said that she met the Defendant through her friendship with co-defendant Ward.
CI Goetz stated that on October 22 she called the Defendant's cell phone to arrange to purchase crack cocaine later that day. She met with DTF agents at the local industrial park where she called the Defendant's cell phone again. CI Goetz arranged with the person on the other end of this phone call to meet at Kroger to purchase $80 worth of crack cocaine. This phone call was recorded and played for the jury; however, due to a technical error, only CI Goetz's end of the conversation was audible on the recording.
CI Goetz's testimony regarding Counts 3, 4, and 5 spanned two days at trial, and the testimony was sometimes inconsistent. During a recess on the first day of CI Goetz's testimony, she apparently told the prosecutor that she was nervous due to threats made against her minor daughter while the daughter was at school. The prosecutor requested a jury-out hearing during which he informed the trial court of these circumstances. At the State's unopposed request, the trial court adjourned for the evening. The next day, CI Goetz again took the witness stand. She testified that her daughter had been threatened at school by a fellow student that her mother had “better not testify.” CI Goetz relayed that the person making the threat was not a member of the Defendant's family and that she did not believe the Defendant was behind the threat. She then testified a second time regarding the controlled buy on October 22, 2008.
CI Goetz thus essentially testified twice regarding the controlled buy on October 22, 2008. She was cross-examined about the differences in her testimony between the two days and the reasons for these differences. She stated that her testimony differed because on the first day she was “confused, ” “nervous, ” and “worried about [her] child.” She said that once she knew her daughter was safe she was able to testify truthfully.
On the first day of her testimony, CI Goetz said that she was generally not able to recognize the Defendant's voice and confused the Defendant's voice with Ward's. She also initially testified that it was Ward with whom she spoke on the phone call made from the industrial park in which she arranged to meet at Kroger to purchase $80 worth of crack cocaine. However, on the second day of her testimony, she recanted her prior testimony and affirmatively stated that it was the Defendant, not Ward, with whom she spoke on the phone call from the industrial park.
Following the phone call from the industrial park, Agent Chad Webster and CI Goetz drove to Kroger expecting to meet the Defendant. When they arrived, the Defendant was not present. CI Goetz testified that “I called and [the Defendant] said she is on her way. That she is in Kroger's [sic ].” This phone call was recorded and played for the jury; however, only CI Goetz's side of the conversation was audible. On the second day of her testimony, CI Goetz clarified that during this phone call, the Defendant told her that Ward would be meeting her to deliver the crack cocaine and that Ward was inside the store.
CI Goetz testified that she and Agent Webster went inside the store looking for Ward. A short time later, Ward called and said that she was pulling into the parking lot. CI Goetz and Agent Webster left the store. Agent Webster returned to his vehicle, and CI Goetz stood beside Agent Webster's vehicle as Ward arrived in a white Oldsmobile Cutlass. CI Goetz knew the Cutlass to be the Defendant's vehicle. Ward parked next to Agent Webster's vehicle, and CI Goetz approached Ward. Ward handed CI Goetz a plastic bag containing crack cocaine, and CI Goetz handed Ward $80. CI Goetz stated that she and Ward did not have to discuss the price or amount for the drugs because “[s]he knew what I wanted.” CI Goetz then returned to Agent Webster's vehicle and handed him the suspected drugs. Agent Webster testified that the two vehicles were parked near each other and that he could visually identify Ward. CI Goetz and Agent Webster left the parking lot and returned to the industrial park. There, agents again searched her for contraband. DTF agents Billy Ostermann and Shane George followed Ward as she left Kroger and returned to the Defendant's residence at the Martin Street Apartments.
CI Goetz testified that a few minutes after the transaction, the Defendant called her to confirm whether she had made contact with Ward. Agent Webster testified that he was unable to listen to this phone call but that after the call ended, he checked CI Goetz's phone and verified that the calling number was the Defendant's cell phone number. Later, at the industrial park, CI Goetz received another phone call from the Defendant in which the Defendant told CI Goetz that “[s]he was leaving town and wanted to know if I needed any more [crack cocaine].” Agent George overheard both sides of this phone call, but it was not recorded. Audio and video recordings of the transaction in the Kroger parking lot between Ward and CI Goetz were admitted as exhibits.
Agent Webster's testimony corroborated CI Goetz's second day of testimony. He stated that he never heard the Defendant's voice on the phone calls, only CI Goetz's. He confirmed that he did not see the Defendant in the car with Ward. He testified that he gave the suspected narcotics to Director Lane, who delivered them to the TBI lab. A TBI lab technician testified that the substance tested positive for cocaine base and weighed 0.5 grams.
The Defendant testified that she did not know CI Goetz and that she never agreed to sell her crack cocaine. She denied selling CI Goetz crack cocaine on October 22, 2008, and denied sending Ward to sell her crack cocaine. She denied talking to CI Goetz over the telephone on that date. She testified that she shared her cell phone with her boyfriend, Kenneth Jackson, and Ward. She said that Jackson and Ward often borrowed her car and that Ward must have done so on the date in question.
The jury found the Defendant guilty of the sale (Count 3) and conspiracy to sell (Count 5) 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, Class B and C felonies, respectively. She was acquitted of the delivery charge (Count 4).

         III.

Counts 6, 7, and 8 arose out of a controlled drug purchase at a Food Lion grocery store in Marshall County at approximately 7:30 p.m. on October 29, 2008. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 6), delivery (Count 7), and conspiracy to sell (Count 8) 0.5 grams or more of cocaine.
CI Goetz testified that on October 29, 2008, she called the Defendant's cell phone to arrange to purchase $80 worth of crack cocaine. With the deal arranged, she met with DTF agents at the industrial park around 6:30 p.m. and again called the Defendant's cell phone. The Defendant answered and told CI Goetz that she was getting something to eat and instructed CI Goetz to call again in an hour. An audio tape of this telephone call was played for the jury; however, again, the recording only contained CI Goetz's side of the conversation. After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the Defendant a few times, CI Goetz finally reached the Defendant on her cell phone and again requested to buy $80 worth of crack cocaine. The Defendant told CI Goetz to meet her at the Food Lion in twenty minutes. This phone call was also recorded from CI Goetz's end of the conversation, and the recording was played for the jury.
At the industrial park, CI Goetz was searched for contraband, issued $80 in DTF funds, and outfitted with an audio recording device. Agent Webster drove CI Goetz from the industrial park to the Food Lion in his DTF vehicle. He testified that he maintained constant visual observation of CI Goetz throughout the entire drug transaction. Once at the Food Lion, CI Goetz called the Defendant, who said that she “was already there” in a silver car. CI Goetz visually identified the Defendant sitting in the front passenger seat of a silver Buick that was parked behind Agent Webster's vehicle. CI Goetz also saw a man sitting in the vehicle but could not identify him. Ward exited the silver Buick and approached Agent Webster's vehicle. CI Goetz exited Agent Webster's vehicle and met Ward beside Agent Webster's vehicle. According to CI Goetz, Ward was “real paranoid” about a nearby vehicle with a man sitting in it who Ward thought was watching them. As Ward approached, she told CI Goetz to give her a hug, and, during the hug, Ward took the $80 from CI Goetz and gave CI Goetz two loose rock-like substances. Ward told her that “if you drop one of them, you are on your own.” Agent Webster testified that the transaction occurred directly beside his DTF vehicle, and he positively identified Ward but did not see the Defendant in the silver Buick. CI Goetz returned to Agent Webster's vehicle and gave him the suspected narcotics. Agent Webster subsequently searched CI Goetz for contraband. She returned the audio recorder, and the transaction recording was played for the jury.
Agent George, who had been conducting surveillance of the transaction, followed the silver Buick as it left the Food Lion parking lot. According to Agent George, the silver Buick returned to the Martin Street Apartments and parked in front of apartment 200, which he knew to be the Defendant's apartment. Agent George testified that from his vantage point, he “could see the silhouette of what I believed to be a black female standing at the driver's side door of the vehicle, ” and he could also see two other occupants of the vehicle, but he could not positively identify anyone. Agent George ran the tags to the silver Buick and determined that it was registered to a person named Lakeisha Perkins.
Agent Webster delivered the suspected drugs to Director Lane, who delivered them to the TBI laboratory. A TBI lab technician testified that the rock-like substances tested positive for cocaine base and weighed 0.7 grams.
The Defendant testified that she did not speak to CI Goetz by phone on October 29, 2008. She denied agreeing with Ward to sell crack cocaine to CI Goetz on that date. She denied ever agreeing with Ward to sell crack cocaine to anyone. She denied being inside the car at the Food Lion parking lot on that date.
The jury found the Defendant guilty in Count 6 of the lesser included offense of facilitation of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class C felony, and also found her guilty in Count 8 of conspiracy to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class C felony. The jury acquitted her of the delivery charge in Count 7.

         IV.

Counts 9 and 10 arose out of a controlled drug purchase occurring on October 31, 2008, at approximately 3:30-4:30 p.m. in the parking lot of a Krystal restaurant in Marshall County. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 9) and delivery (Count 10) of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine.
CI Goetz testified that earlier in the afternoon of October 31, 2008, she talked to the Defendant on the telephone to see if she could purchase crack cocaine later that day. CI Goetz subsequently met with DTF agents at the industrial park where she called the Defendant again to arrange the specific details of the drug transaction. This time, Ward answered the phone. CI Goetz arranged with Ward to purchase $80 worth of crack cocaine. Ward later called back, and the two women arranged to meet at Krystal. Only the audio from CI Goetz's end of these two phone calls was recorded. The recording was played for the jury. DTF agents searched CI Goetz for contraband and provided her with an audio recording device. Agent Webster drove CI Goetz to Krystal's parking lot. Agents George and Ostermann set up a surveillance position in the parking lot and videotaped the transaction.
The Defendant and Ward arrived in a white Oldsmobile Cutlass registered to the Defendant. They parked directly beside Agent Webster's vehicle. CI Goetz exited Agent Webster's vehicle and walked towards the Defendant's vehicle. According to both CI Goetz and Agent Webster, the Defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat and Ward was sitting in the driver's seat.1 CI Goetz approached the passenger's side of the vehicle first, but the Defendant motioned for CI Goetz to go to the driver's side of the vehicle. CI Goetz did so and stood beside the driver's side door. According to CI Goetz, the Defendant handed Ward crack cocaine wrapped in white paper, which Ward then handed to CI Goetz. In exchange, CI Goetz handed Ward $80, and Ward handed the money to the Defendant. Agent Webster, sitting in his vehicle directly beside the Defendant's vehicle, corroborated the testimony of CI Goetz. The audio and video recordings of the transaction were admitted as exhibits.
Agent Webster testified that CI Goetz then returned to his vehicle and handed him a piece of paper containing a rock-like substance. Agents searched CI Goetz for contraband. Agent Webster turned over the suspected narcotics to Agent George, who delivered them to Director Lane. A TBI lab technician testified that the rocklike substance contained in the white paper tested positive for cocaine base and weighed 0.5 grams.
The Defendant testified that she did not speak with CI Goetz on October 31, 2008. She denied being present at that Krystal on that date. She denied selling crack cocaine to CI Goetz and said that CI Goetz was lying. She denied that she was depicted in the video recording.
The jury found the Defendant not guilty of the sale (Count 9) but guilty of the delivery (Count 10) of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony.

         V.

Counts 11 and 12 arose out of a controlled drug purchase occurring at a BP gas station in Marshall County at approximately 8:00 p.m. on November 4, 2008. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 11) and delivery (Count 12) of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both Class B felonies.
CI Goetz testified that she called the Defendant to confirm that she would be able to buy $140 worth of crack cocaine later that day. CI Goetz then notified DTF agents and met them at the industrial park, where she called the Defendant a second time and arranged the specifics of the transaction. In this conversation, CI Goetz and the Defendant agreed to meet at a local BP gas station. This second phone call was recorded and played for the jury. Both sides of the phone conversation on the recording were audible but distorted.
DTF agents searched CI Goetz for contraband and provided her with an audio recording device. Agent Webster then drove CI Goetz to the BP gas station in his DTF vehicle. A short time later, the Defendant and Ward arrived in the silver Buick registered to Perkins. Ward was driving, and the Defendant was in the front passenger seat. CI Goetz exited the DTF vehicle and entered the rear driver's side door of the Buick. CI Goetz testified that when the Defendant went to hand her a clear plastic bag with drugs in it, Ward “grabbed the bag of dope” out of the Defendant's hand. Ward then told CI Goetz that, “If it wasn't for me, you wouldn't be getting no dope.” Ward then “took a piece of [the] dope out” and “handed [CI Goetz] the package.” CI Goetz handed the Defendant $140 and returned to the DTF vehicle.
After leaving the silver Buick and returning to Agent Webster's vehicle, CI Goetz gave him the plastic bag containing suspected crack cocaine and the recording devices. They returned to the industrial park, where agents again searched CI Goetz for contraband. Agent Webster delivered the suspected narcotics to Director Lane, who delivered them to the TBI laboratory. A TBI lab technician testified that the substance tested positive for cocaine base and weighed 0.8 grams.
Agent George videotaped the transaction from a surveillance position. Both the audio and video recordings were admitted as exhibits. On cross-examination, Agent Webster admitted that he did not actually see the Defendant during the transaction. CI Goetz also admitted that the Defendant was not visible on the video; however, she maintained that the Defendant was in the car.
The Defendant testified that she was not at the BP gas station during the transaction. She denied handing CI Goetz illegal drugs or receiving money from her. She denied speaking to CI Goetz on that date.
The jury found the Defendant guilty of the sale (Count 11) and delivery (Count 12) of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both Class B felonies.

         VI.

Counts 13 and 14 arose out of a controlled drug purchase occurring at a liquor store in Marshall County at approximately 5:00 p.m. on December 2, 2008. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 13) and delivery (Count 14) of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both Class B felonies.
CI Goetz testified that she called the Defendant's cell phone earlier in the day to arrange to purchase crack cocaine. CI Goetz subsequently met with DTF agents at the industrial park. From there, she called the Defendant's cell phone again and arranged to meet the Defendant at the East Side Liquor Store to purchase $180 worth of crack cocaine. An audio recording of this phone call was made and played for the jury. Both sides of the phone conversation were audible, and CI Goetz identified the Defendant's voice on the recording. DTF agents searched CI Goetz for contraband and provided her with an audio recording device.
Agent Webster drove CI Goetz to the liquor store, and as they pulled in, the Defendant arrived in a white Oldsmobile Cutlass. The two cars were parked a few parking spaces away from each other, with the driver's side of Agent Webster's vehicle facing the passenger's side of the Defendant's vehicle. CI Goetz exited Agent Webster's vehicle and entered the back seat of the Defendant's vehicle. CI Goetz testified that a black male, whom she identified as Kenneth Jackson, was in the driver's seat of the Defendant's vehicle and that the Defendant was in the front passenger seat. Ward was not present. According to CI Goetz, the Defendant asked her to go into the store and buy beer, which she did. After CI Goetz returned with beer and re-entered the Defendant's car, the Defendant told CI Goetz that there was a Newport cigarette box in the back seat. CI Goetz testified that when she picked up the box she discovered that it contained “a bag of dope.” CI Goetz testified that she handed the Defendant $180 and left.
CI Goetz returned to Agent Webster's vehicle and handed him the cigarette box and audio recorders. Agent Webster subsequently searched her for contraband. Agent Webster turned over the suspected cocaine to Director Lane, who delivered it to the TBI laboratory. A TBI lab technician testified that the substance tested positive for cocaine base and weighed 1.4 grams.
Agent Webster testified that he visually identified both the Defendant and Jackson as the occupants of the Oldsmobile Cutlass. He testified that he maintained constant visual contact on CI Goetz except when she went into the store to purchase beer for the Defendant. Agent George conducted video surveillance of this transaction, and the video was played for the jury. Additionally, the audio recording of the transaction was played for the jury.
The Defendant denied talking to CI Goetz and denied being present at the liquor store at the time the transaction occurred.
The jury found the Defendant guilty of the sale (Count 13) and delivery (Count 14) of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both Class B felonies.

         VII.

Counts 15 and 16 arose out of a controlled drug purchase occurring at approximately 11:30 a.m. on February 11, 2009, at the Defendant's residence. The Defendant was indicted for the sale (Count 15) and delivery (Count 16) of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine.
Fredia Johnson (“CI Johnson”) testified that, on February 11, 2009, she was working with the DTF as a confidential informant and was being paid for her services. CI Johnson had known the Defendant for “two or three” months, encompassing approximately five meetings. She said that she came to know the Defendant through Ward. CI Johnson admitted that she had a criminal record, including four prior convictions for forgery and a felony drug case pending in Bedford County.
CI Johnson testified that as of February 11, 2009, the Defendant had moved from the Martin Street Apartments and was living at 614 7th Avenue North, in Marshall County. CI Johnson testified that when she first called the Defendant's cell phone Kenneth Jackson answered the phone. CI Johnson spoke with Jackson about purchasing $100 worth of crack cocaine from the Defendant. CI Johnson then met with DTF agents at the industrial park, where she called the Defendant's cell phone in their presence. This latter call was recorded ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.