Davis v. StateDavis v. State
The appellant, Christopher Davis, was convicted on two counts of unlawfully distributing a controllеd substance, violations of
The state’s evidence tended to show that on February 3 and 4,1994, the appellant sold crack cocaine to Colin Scaife, a confidential informant working with the narcotics unit of the Pike County Sheriffs Depаrtment. At the time of the sales, Scaife wore a radio microphone that recordеd the conversations and allowed Officer Bob Williamson to monitor the transaction.
I
The аppellant contends that the testimony of Officer Bob Williamson was hearsay and that without Williamson’s testimony the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Williamson, via the radio microphone, listened to the drug sales from his patrol car and was allowed to testify as tо the conversation he heard between the appellant and Scaife.
This issue was addressed in Maddox v. State,
II
The appellant contends that there was a break in the chain of custody of the drug evidence. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the forensic rеport did not show what happened to the evidence after it was determined to be сocaine. However, the toxicologist testified that he turned the cocaine back over to Officer Williamson. Moreover, the state’s burden was met when it established the chain of custody of the cocaine from the appellant to the toxicologist. Congo v. State,
III
The appellant contends that the testimony of Scaife was unreliable because, he says, the listening device which recorded the transaction distorted some of the dialogue during the drug sale. However, the credibility of a witness is a matter for the jury, not this court, to determine. Rowell v. State,
IV
The appellant contends that thе trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of possession of a сontrolled substance.
However, the evidence clearly indicated that the appellant was either guilty of the crime of distribution of a controlled substance or not guilty of any сrime. Under the facts, presented by the evidence, the appellant was not entitled tо a charge on the lesser offense of possession. See Powell v. State,
V
The appellant contends that the trial court erroneously sentenced him to a single 20-year sentence on each conviction rather than a sentence of 10 yеars plus 2 additional
For each conviction, the trial court used the fоllowing language in the sentencing order:
“[T]he Defendant CHRISTOPHER DAVIS is sentenced to serve TEN (10) YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY, STATE OF ALABAMA, .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 13A-12-250, an ADDITIONAL FIVE (5) YEARS INCARCERATION IN THE PENITENTIARY, STATE ' OF ALABAMA IS IMPOSED.... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 13A-12-270, an ADDITIONAL FIVE (5) YEARS INCARCERATION IN THE PENITENTIARY, STATE OF ALABAMA is imposed.... The sentence imposed and the two additional penalties ... are ORDERED to run CONSECUTIVE WITH EACH OTHER for a TOTAL OF TWENTY (20) YEARS IMPRISONMENT in this case.”
There is no error here. The appellant’s sentence is within the range prescribed by law. The trial court committed no error in sentencing the appellant to 20 years for each conviction regardless of the applicability of the Correctional Incentive Time Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the aрpellant’s convictions and sentences should be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. § 14 — 9-41(e) states in pertinent part: "[N]o person may receive the benefits of correctional incentive time if he ... has received a sentence for more than 15 years ...”