State of Tennessee v. Mickey Verchell Shanklin, W2019-01460-CCA-R3-CD

Confidential informant, fitted with audio/video and given $80, conducted a controlled buy at co-defendants’ residence; received a brown powder later tested as .46 grams containing both heroin and fentanyl.
Video/audio showed informant asking for “Mickey,” Ms. Sells calling and saying informant was there to “get a half,” Defendant arriving, accepting money and handing the substance to the informant.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of sale and delivery of heroin (Class B) and sale and delivery of fentanyl (Class C); jury fixed fines of $50,000 for each heroin count and $25,000 for each fentanyl count.
Trial court merged the like counts, imposed Range III persistent-offender sentences (30 years for heroin, 15 years for fentanyl) to be served concurrently, and affirmed the jury’s total fines of $75,000.
On appeal, Defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence (arguing only a "casual exchange") and (2) excessive fines/trial court’s failure to make required findings about fines.
Appellate court affirmed convictions (evidence sufficient; not a casual exchange) but reversed and remanded the fines for the trial court to make factual findings and apply the statutory sentencing/fine factors.

Issue	State's Argument	Shanklin's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence supports convictions or only a casual exchange	Evidence showed a planned buy: informant directed to location, telephone arrangements, payment to Defendant, and transfer of controlled substance containing heroin and fentanyl — supports sale/delivery	Transaction was a small, informal transfer (casual exchange), not a sale	Convictions affirmed; evidence sufficient for sale/delivery and transaction was not a casual exchange
Fines: whether fines are excessive / whether trial court made required findings	State concedes trial court failed to make findings and asks remand for proper findings	Fines excessive; trial court failed to consider ability to pay and other statutory factors; asks de novo reduction	Fines reversed and remanded for trial court to consider statutory factors (ability to pay, prior history, seriousness, etc.) and make findings

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578 (State entitled to strongest legitimate view of the evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (same standard applies to circumstantial evidence)
State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
Helton v. State, 507 S.W.2d 117 (definition and discussion of casual exchange)
State v. Copeland, 983 S.W.2d 703 (casual exchange contextual factors)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (burden shifts to defendant on appeal to show insufficiency)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (trier of fact resolves credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Taylor, 70 S.W.3d 717 (trial court must consider statutory sentencing factors, including ability to pay, when imposing fines)
State v. Blevins, 968 S.W.2d 888 (trial court may not simply adopt jury-fixed fine without statutory consideration)
State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845 (ability to pay is a factor but not controlling for fines)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (sentencing review is abuse-of-discretion with presumption of reasonableness when court makes findings)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (absence of trial-court findings removes presumption of reasonableness and warrants remand)