State of Tennessee v. Richard W. Shelton
M2017-00240-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Defendant Richard W. Shelton was indicted for sale and delivery of morphine (Schedule II); a Marshall County jury convicted him and the trial court imposed 15 years, with release eligibility after 45% served. Count two (delivery) was merged into count one (sale).
- Controlled buy arranged after Shawna Love and Jesse Marshall were stopped by a drug task force; Love provided prior text messages with Shelton and agreed to assist as an informant.
- During the buy, Shelton told the group he had "five or six" pills and normally charged $15 per pill but offered $10 each; Marshall paid $60 and later received five morphine tablets and $10 change, which were turned over to an agent.
- TBI forensic testing confirmed the tablets contained morphine (marked 30 mg). Shelton did not testify.
- At sentencing the court classified Shelton as a Range III offender based on prior felonies, applied two enhancement factors (prior criminal history and failure to comply with conditions of release), found no mitigating factors, and denied alternative sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove sale/delivery beyond a reasonable doubt | State: evidence (texts, price negotiation, sale, change given, admission of having more) supports conviction | Shelton: evidence insufficient; transaction was a casual exchange | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, rational juror could find sale/delivery beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the transaction was a casual exchange rather than a sale | N/A (supports conviction by highlighting sale elements: price, bargaining, pecuniary motive) | Shelton: characterizes transfer as casual exchange (no intent to sell) | Court rejected casual-exchange theory given bargaining, price, discount, payment, and independent buyer relationship |
| Excessiveness of sentence (15 years, 45% eligibility) | State: sentence within Range III and properly supported by enhancement factors and sentencing principles | Shelton: argues sentence near maximum, court over-weighted record and probation violations, should have considered alternatives and rehab | Affirmed — within statutory range, court properly applied sentencing principles and enhancement factors; no abuse of discretion |
| Eligibility for alternative/community-based sentence | N/A (State opposed alternatives given record) | Shelton: sought alternative sentence with rehabilitation components | Denied — statutory and discretionary grounds: 15-year sentence not probation-eligible; prior violent convictions and revocations made community corrections inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- Bland v. State, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate review deference to jury on credibility and weight of evidence)
- Helton v. State, 507 S.W.2d 117 (Tenn. 1974) (defines "casual exchange" and factors distinguishing sale from casual transfer)
- Bise v. State, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate standard and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)