State v. Lester Parker

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2000-00282-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; October 17, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The defendant, Lester Parker, was convicted of criminal attempt to possess a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to deliver, resulting in a Class D felony conviction and a two-year supervised probation sentence. Parker appealed the conviction on three grounds: insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, improper admission of a positive drug test into evidence, and denial of his motion to remand the case to General Sessions Court for a preliminary hearing.

The court reviewed the evidence, which included testimony from Joy Hubbard, who initially contacted police after suspecting Parker of drug-related activities. On June 20, 1997, Hubbard met Parker at Rock Gardens Park, where she handed him $40 in a police-monitored operation. Subsequently, Parker went to Hubbard's home, where he was observed attempting to smoke what was later identified as cocaine using an aluminum can. Witnesses, including police officers, corroborated the drug-related conversation between Parker and Hubbard.

The court found the appeal issues to lack merit and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The defendant, while serving as an animal control officer, filed a lawsuit against the city and subsequently became involved with Ms. Hubbard, who claimed to possess evidence of corruption in the Alcoa Police Department. They met multiple times, during which Ms. Hubbard expressed a desire to provide evidence to the defendant, who was known for confronting corruption. The defendant suggested that Ms. Hubbard secure funds to document the evidence. Their interactions turned illicit when Ms. Hubbard asked the defendant to "front her" drugs, leading to a meeting in the park where she handed him money and inquired about the drugs. Afterward, the defendant visited Ms. Hubbard again, consumed a drink she provided, which he suspected contained cocaine, and pretended to smoke cocaine to elicit information from her. He was arrested later that night and failed a drug test the next day. 

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility, which is the role of the trier of fact. A guilty verdict confirms the credibility of the State's witnesses and resolves any testimonies in favor of the State's theory. The presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of guilt post-verdict, placing the burden on the defendant to demonstrate the insufficiency of the evidence. The court found the evidence compelling enough to support the jury's verdict, which was bolstered by direct testimony against the defendant, whose attempts to discredit this testimony were deemed incredible by the jury. The court also addressed a second issue regarding the admissibility of the defendant's positive drug test, which was contested as an error by the trial court.

The defendant sought to exclude the results of a drug test taken on June 22, 1997, at Blount County Memorial Lab, arguing it was mandated by his employer, the City of Alcoa, under threat of termination. An evidentiary hearing was held, but the evidence and ruling from that hearing were not included in the record. The State presented the drug test results during its case, which the defendant objected to on the grounds of irrelevance, but the trial court overruled this objection. The defendant raised additional grounds for exclusion, but the record lacked factual support for these claims. The appellate court emphasized the appellant's obligation to provide a complete record (Tenn. R.App. P. 24(b)), noting that an incomplete record prevents the court from making rulings and necessitates a presumption of correctness regarding the trial court's decisions. Consequently, the court examined only the relevance objection.

Referencing **State v. Stoddard**, the appellate court outlined that relevant evidence is defined in Rule 401 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence as evidence that could affect the probability of a consequential fact. While the court acknowledged the leniency of this standard and agreed the drug test results were relevant, it determined their probative value was minimal and did not constitute prejudicial error. The State argued the drug test supported witness testimonies regarding the defendant's drug use at Ms. Hubbard's home, which the court accepted but also recognized as supportive of the defendant's claim of consuming cocaine-laced Kool-aid. Ultimately, the court concluded that the positive drug test was relevant evidence. Additionally, the defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying a motion to remand the case for a preliminary hearing.

The defendant claims he was indigent and that the General Sessions Judge denied his request for an attorney. He acknowledges waiving his preliminary hearing but argues this waiver was made under duress. After being bound over to the grand jury but before indictment, he filed a motion in the Circuit Court to stay the grand jury's presentation and return the case to General Sessions for a preliminary hearing, which was prepared by a pro bono attorney. This motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing. The record lacks a transcript from the General Sessions Court.

The defendant references McKeldin v. State, where the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed that an indigent defendant is entitled to competent counsel at a preliminary hearing, classifying it as a critical stage in prosecution. If it is determined that the defendant was indigent and arbitrarily denied counsel, he would be entitled to relief under McKeldin. Conversely, if he was not indigent or chose not to have an attorney, he would not qualify for relief. The court emphasizes that without a complete record, it cannot speculate on the reasons for the lack of counsel and must assume there was a valid rationale.

Additionally, the defendant's failure to preserve this issue in his motion for a new trial results in waiver under Tenn. R.App. P. 3 (e), which mandates that issues not specifically stated in a motion for a new trial are waived. Consequently, the court concludes that the issues raised lack merit and affirms the trial court's judgment.