State of Tennessee v. Demarcus Lashawn Blackman
M2016-01098-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Jul 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Demarcus Lashawn Blackman (known to the CI as “Gucci”) was indicted for sale and delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine following a controlled buy on December 23, 2014.
- Confidential informant Jessie Prater (convicted felon) arranged the buy, was searched, given premarked $100 (five $20s) and a recording device, and met Blackman at Summit Apartments; recorded phone calls between Prater and Blackman were played at trial.
- Prater testified he handed the marked money to Blackman and received powder cocaine; agents observed a hand-to-hand exchange and monitored Prater throughout.
- DTF recovered the substance from Prater; TBI analysis confirmed .5+ grams of cocaine.
- Officers later stopped a car driven by Heather Rodriguez with Blackman as front-seat passenger; officers found five $20 bills on Blackman matching the denominations given to Prater and other cash in the car.
- Jury convicted Blackman of sale and delivery; court merged counts, imposed a 12-year Range I sentence (maximum). Blackman appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and excessive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sale/delivery of ≥ .5 g cocaine | State: Recorded calls, CI ID, observed hand‑to‑hand exchange, recovered cocaine >.5 g, matching cash found on defendant support conviction | Blackman: Agents did not see him physically hand drugs to Prater; Prater wasn’t thoroughly searched beforehand; Prater is an untrustworthy convicted thief | Affirmed: Viewed in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find elements proven beyond reasonable doubt |
| Weight/credibility of CI testimony | State: CI monitored, corroborated by recordings, agents, lab results, and post‑transaction cash recovery | Blackman: CI’s criminal history and theft from DTF undermines credibility | Credibility for jury; appellate court will not reweigh — credibility issues do not defeat sufficiency |
| Sentencing length (12 years) | State: Sentence within Range I; trial court properly applied enhancement factors and rejected alternatives based on defendant’s record and revocations | Blackman: No prior felonies; max sentence unjustified; scarce prison resources counsel for less harsh punishment | Affirmed: 12 years within range and presumed reasonable; trial court properly applied enhancement factors 1, 8, 13 and denied alternative sentencing |
| Application of enhancement factors | State: Presentence report and defendant’s allocution support finding of prior convictions, probation violations, and commission while on misdemeanor probation | Blackman: Challenges application but did not meaningfully argue errors on appeal | Affirmed: Record supports factors; defendant failed to show abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2009) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency and burden on defendant)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (any rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency)
- State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate sufficiency review guidance)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for sentencing)