APPEAL
FROM THE GRANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 27CR-17-90]
HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Philip
C Wilson, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
RITA
W. GRUBER, CHIEF JUDGE
Appellant
Royal Martin was convicted by a Grant County Circuit Court
jury of possession of methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and
two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class B
felony. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to 360
months' imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine
and 480 months' imprisonment for each count of possession
of drug paraphernalia, with the sentences to run
consecutively. On appeal, appellant contends that the
evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. We
affirm.
Deputy
Tim Preator testified that he was working for the Grant
County Sheriff's Office on May 7, 2017, when he conducted
a traffic stop of a vehicle in which appellant was a
passenger. During his initial contact with the vehicle,
Deputy Preator smelled a strong odor of suspected marijuana
coming from the vehicle and informed the occupants that
because of the smell there was probable cause to search the
vehicle. The driver advised he did not have a license because
it had been suspended. Deputy Preator testified that he asked
the driver to step out and conducted a search of the driver,
on whom nothing illegal was found. Deputy Preator then went
to the front passenger side where appellant was seated. When
appellant exited the vehicle, he told Deputy Preator he
"probably had a little bit of marijuana on him."
During the search of his person, Deputy Preator found two
baggies in his right front pocket, one contained a large
crystal-like rock and the other three or four green pills.
Deputy Preator found nothing on the third occupant in the
back seat.
The
search of the vehicle revealed another baggie of pills like
those found on appellant, some suspected marijuana, and a
baggie of suspected marijuana in a white pill bottle. Deputy
Preator testified that appellant "advised me that the
narcotics were his and that the people in the vehicle had
nothing to do with it." According to Deputy Preator,
appellant claimed ownership of everything.
Agent
Matt Smith with the Group Six Narcotics Task Force testified
that he met Deputy Preator at the jail after learning of the
drug arrest. Agent Smith took possession of the recovered
items and stored them in the Grant County Sheriff
Department's evidence locker before he took them to the
crime lab. The items were brought to court and introduced
into evidence. His testimony was introduced to establish the
chain of custody. He stated that the envelope of evidence
contained a small baggie of green vegetable material and a
hand-rolled marijuana cigarette, multicolored pills, a piece
of cut straw, the crystal substance believed to be
methamphetamine, and the pill bottle with the pills inside
and what looked to be a little marijuana. On
cross-examination, Agent Smith stated there was only one pill
bottle, dark or black, with a faded-out label that was a
"greenish-blue color."
Christi
Williford, a forensic chemist at the Arkansas State Crime
Laboratory, testified that the crystal substance was
methamphetamine, which weighed 4.3995 grams. In addition, she
added that one of the green pills tested consisted of 0.2128
grams of methamphetamine and caffeine.
Based
on this evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of
possession of methamphetamine under Ark. Code Ann. §
5-64-419 and both charges of possession of drug paraphernalia
under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-443(b). On appeal, appellant
contends that the circuit court erred in denying his
directed-verdict motions because there was insufficient
evidence that he (1) knowingly or purposely possessed
methamphetamine and (2) had direct physical control or
constructive possession of the paraphernalia.
A
motion for a directed verdict at a jury trial is a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Ark. R.
Crim. P. 33.1 (2018). In reviewing a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether
the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or
circumstantial. Foster v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 412,
at 4, 467 S.W.3d 176, 179. Substantial evidence is evidence
forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other
beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id., 467 S.W.3d at
179. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be
considered. Id., 467 S.W.3d at 179.
We
first address the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
possession-of-methamphetamine conviction. It is unlawful for
a person to possess a controlled substance. See Ark.
Code Ann. § 5-64-419(a) (Repl. 2016). Possession of more
than two grams but less than ten grams of a Schedule I or
Schedule II controlled substance that is methamphetamine or
cocaine is a Class C felony. Ark. Code Ann. §
5-64-419(b)(1)(B).
Appellant
argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence
that he knowingly or purposely possessed methamphetamine
either directly or by constructive possession. Appellant
acknowledges that he told Deputy Preator that he
"probably had a little bit of marijuana on him" but
contends he did not mention anything other than possibly
having marijuana. Appellant contends that the State failed to
prove that he knew he had a baggie of methamphetamine in his
pocket or that he had purposely placed the bag in his pocket.
Further, appellant suggests that the State failed to present
substantial evidence that he owned or exercised control over
the vehicle, that he had any knowledge of the presence of
alleged methamphetamine in the vehicle, and that he purposely
possessed the alleged methamphetamine.
The
State responds that it presented substantial proof that the
appellant knowingly and actually possessed methamphetamine
because it was found in his pocket and he admitted it was
his. The State also contends that, despite his arguments that
there was no proof he knew he had a baggie of methamphetamine
in his pocket or that he put it there, the jury did not have
to speculate in order to find that he knew what was in his
pocket, especially in light of his admission that the drugs
belonged to him. Additionally, the State argues that
appellant did not ...