State of Tennessee v. Cynthia Denise Gray

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2011-02753-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; February 3, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Cynthia Denise Gray was convicted of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, in Bedford County, Tennessee, and sentenced to three years and six months in prison. Her conviction stemmed from her purchase of pseudoephedrine at a pharmacy, which alerted law enforcement due to her suspicious behavior and use of an out-of-county driver's license. Following this, Gray and her companion, Edward Lee, were observed by police. Lee was seen hiding the purchased pseudoephedrine in the glove compartment of their vehicle. Subsequently, they entered a dollar store where Lee attempted to purchase batteries, which are often used in methamphetamine production. However, the batteries he chose were not the lithium type needed for manufacturing meth. The legal team for Gray challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the length of her sentence, and the trial court's decision against an alternative sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient and no errors in sentencing.

Mr. Lee was stopped by Agent George after it was revealed that his driver's license was suspended or revoked. During the traffic stop, Mr. Lee consented to a search of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of pseudoephedrine behind the glove compartment, various receipts for items used in methamphetamine production, a pharmacy card for pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries, and a piece of aluminum foil designed for smoking methamphetamine. Agent George noted that methamphetamine manufacturers often have others purchase ingredients to evade law enforcement, typically shopping at multiple stores to limit purchases of individual ingredients. 

The defendant admitted to Agent George that she purchased the pseudoephedrine tablets under Mr. Lee's direction, knowing they were to be used for methamphetamine production. Although Agent George did not record their conversation due to a lack of recording equipment, he acknowledged that the defendant did not possess methamphetamine-related items at the time of the stop. However, it was noted that she had interacted with lithium batteries in the vehicle, although Agent George did not document this in his case narrative.

Testimony from Agent Travis Childers indicated that he observed the defendant and Mr. Lee at the pharmacy and saw the defendant moving lithium batteries from the center console during the traffic stop. Upon questioning, she initially claimed to be looking for a cigarette lighter. The defendant's daughter, Cynthia Cook, testified that the defendant regularly visited Bedford County to see her and had been staying with her prior to the arrest.

The defendant's visit was motivated by Ms. Cook's brother's school vacation. Ms. Cook testified that the defendant had lived in Shelbyville until approximately a year before her arrest, after which she resided in Cannon County. On the day of the arrest, the defendant wished to visit a friend, Linda, but was unable to do so with Ms. Cook, who instead took her to the hospital for Ms. Cook’s mother-in-law's surgery. Mr. Lee later called and offered to take the defendant to visit Linda. The defendant did not testify during the trial, and the jury subsequently convicted her of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine.

During sentencing, the trial court classified the defendant as a Range I offender and enhanced her sentence due to her prior criminal history, non-compliance with previous sentence conditions, and the fact that she was on bond during the offense. The court found no mitigating factors, although it acknowledged a potential argument regarding the severity of the criminal conduct. Ultimately, the court sentenced her to three years and six months in prison, ordered to run consecutively to her other convictions, and deemed her ineligible for an alternative sentence due to a lack of rehabilitative potential and a prior probation violation.

The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for her conviction, excessive sentencing, and the need for an alternative sentence. The appellate court's review of evidence sufficiency follows Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 13(e), focusing on whether a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without substituting its judgment for that of the jury. The court must view evidence favorably to the prosecution, with the defendant bearing the burden to demonstrate insufficient evidence. The law defines promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-433.

The promotion of methamphetamine manufacture is defined statutorily to include actions such as selling, purchasing, or delivering substances intended for methamphetamine production, with knowledge or reckless disregard of their use. The defendant argues insufficient evidence for her mens rea. However, evidence presented at trial, when viewed favorably to the State, supports the claim that the defendant knowingly purchased pseudoephedrine pills and was aware of their intended use for methamphetamine manufacture. Testimony indicated she observed another individual hiding pills and retrieved lithium batteries, also linked to methamphetamine production. The jury found the testimony credible, establishing that the defendant knew the pills would be used for manufacturing methamphetamine without needing a written confession.

Additionally, the defendant challenges the excessiveness of her sentence, asserting it does not align with the seriousness of the offense and is not the least severe option necessary to fulfill sentencing goals. Under Tennessee law, defendants may appeal sentence lengths or conditions if they are believed to be inconsistent with the Sentencing Act or excessive. The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bise mandates that within-range sentences are presumed reasonable and should only be overturned if there is an abuse of discretion or failure to properly apply statutory principles. This standard applies to all sentencing, including alternative sentences.

In determining the specific sentence and appropriate sentencing alternatives, the trial court must evaluate several factors, including: trial evidence, presentence report, sentencing principles, nature of the criminal conduct, mitigating and enhancement factors presented by the parties, relevant statistical information on sentencing practices in Tennessee, and any statement from the defendant regarding sentencing (T.C.A. 40-35-210(b)). The trial court appropriately weighed these factors, including the guideline that a standard offender convicted of a Class D felony is generally a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing unless evidence suggests otherwise (T.C.A. 40-35-102(6)(A)). The court found the defendant ineligible for alternative sentencing due to her previous noncompliance with release conditions. Although the defendant contended she deserved an alternative sentence because her crime was nonviolent, the legislature classifies the offense as punishable by imprisonment. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the legal range after considering all relevant sentencing principles. The conclusion affirmed the trial court's judgments, supported by sufficient evidence for the conviction.