State of Tennessee v. Timothy Dunn, M2016-00469-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Timothy Dunn was indicted for sale and delivery of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of Bransford Elementary School after a controlled buy on Aug. 21, 2013.
A confidential informant (CI) arranged a one-gram purchase; surveillance audio/video and officer observation recorded the exchange at 15th & Elmwood; recovered substance tested as 0.76 grams of cocaine base.
At trial, the CI and two narcotics detectives (Stewart and Elliott) testified; Detective Stewart identified the Defendant in surveillance stills.
Jury convicted Dunn of sale and delivery within a school zone; the trial court merged convictions and imposed a 17-year Range I sentence (within 15–25 year range).
Dunn appealed raising four issues: denial of a continuance to retain counsel, testimony by Detective Stewart allegedly not named on the indictment, insufficiency of the evidence, and excessiveness of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dunn)	Held
Denial of continuance to retain counsel	Trial should proceed; defendant had long notice and delays by defendant justified denying continuance	Denial prevented him from obtaining counsel and deprived him of a fair trial	No abuse of discretion; defendant waited until morning of trial and gave no showing of prejudice
Detective Stewart testifying though not listed on indictment	State admitted mistake but pointed out CI recording identified Stewart; defense withdrew objection at trial	Stewart’s testimony was a surprise and should be excluded under T.C.A. §40-17-106	Waived: defendant withdrew objection; no plain-error argument presented
Sufficiency of evidence	Video, CI testimony, officer ID, and lab results show exchange of .76 g crack within school zone	Argues evidence insufficient; claims State needed proof of personal profit	Evidence sufficient: rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt
Sentence excessive (17 yrs)	Sentence within statutory range; court considered enhancement and mitigation	Argues minimal history and minor role; 17 yrs two years above minimum is excessive	No abuse of discretion: within-range sentence supported by prior record and bail status enhancement

State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572 (Tenn. 2004) (continuance standard; abuse of discretion review)
State v. Russell, 10 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (continuance prejudice requirement)
State v. Hines, 919 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1995) (continuance abuse of discretion discussed)
State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992) (failure to list witnesses on indictment not automatic bar; prejudice/bad faith required)
State v. Underwood, 669 S.W.2d 700 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court discretion on allowing testimony despite nondisclosure)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of sentencing)
Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (deference to jury on witness credibility)