Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Carl Cole
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02C01-9612-CC-00480
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; September 17, 1997; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Carl Alexander Cole appeals his conviction and ten-year sentence for selling over 0.5 grams of cocaine, asserting several claims of error by the trial court. He argues that the trial court improperly restricted his ability to present evidence regarding police informant policies and procedures, as well as his request to question the confidential informant about their background. Cole also contends that his sentence was excessive and that he should have been considered for an alternative sentence such as community correction. The factual background reveals that on May 18, 1994, police officers conducted an undercover operation using a confidential informant equipped with a hidden transmitter. The informant purchased five rocks of suspected crack cocaine from Cole for $100. The substance was later confirmed to be cocaine by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Following a jury trial on May 19, 1996, Cole was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison, consecutively to a prior sentence. The court found no merit in Cole's arguments, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding the informant's credibility and the imposed sentence. The trial court allowed testimony only about general police policies regarding confidential informant hiring, excluding specific considerations used for hiring the informant Yarbrough, as Officer Penney had no personal knowledge of those factors. The Appellant claimed this violated his right to cross-examine Officer Penney, but the court correctly followed Tennessee Rule of Evidence 602, which requires personal knowledge for testimony. The Appellant's attempts to question Officer Penney about unrelated cases were deemed irrelevant under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401. Although the trial court initially denied the Appellant's request to make an offer of proof during the trial, it permitted him to do so after the trial concluded, and the record shows he did not pursue this after the evidence was taken. The Appellant also contended that he should have been allowed to question the informant about his background and employment history. However, extensive cross-examination was conducted, revealing the informant's prior drug use and involvement in undercover operations to make a difference in society. The court excluded questions about the informant's residence and employment at the time of the trial as irrelevant and potentially dangerous due to the informant's protection from vengeful drug dealers. Regarding the trial court’s comments on the informant's credibility, while the court interjected during the cross-examination, these comments were deemed harmless and did not affect the trial's outcome. Lastly, the Appellant argued that his sentence was excessive and that alternative sentencing options, like community correction, should have been considered. Both issues raised by the Appellant regarding his sentence lack merit. The court conducts a de novo review of sentencing appeals, presuming the trial court's decision is correct unless the Appellant demonstrates otherwise. This presumption requires that the trial court adequately considered relevant sentencing principles and facts. The Appellant, convicted of a Class B felony, incorrectly claims eligibility for alternative sentencing, which applies only to standard offenders of Class C, D, or E felonies. The trial court imposed a ten-year sentence, within the appropriate range for a Range I offender. Two enhancement factors were identified: the Appellant’s extensive criminal history, which includes various convictions, and his failure to comply with prior release conditions. The Appellant's argument for a mitigating factor based on the lack of serious bodily injury caused by his actions is deemed insufficient, particularly in drug sale cases. Consequently, the court affirms both the conviction and the sentence.