Summary
finding that 5.5 grams of cocaine, which represents 19.64% of the trafficking amount, along with other relevant circumstances, was sufficient for a charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine
Summary of this case from State v. BlaggOpinion
No. COA03-460
Filed 17 August 2004
1. Drugs — possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver — sufficiency of evidence
There was sufficient evidence of defendant's possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver where an officer stopped two men while investigating a report of cocaine sales; the men appeared nervous and defendant put his hand in his pocket; when told to remove his hand from his pocket, defendant fled the scene; he was eventually captured and rocks of crack cocaine were found behind a chair where defendant had put his arm; an officer testified that defendant had admitted possession of the crack, although defendant denied the statement; and the crack was in twenty-two pieces with a total weight of 5.5 grams, individually wrapped, and placed in the corner of a paper bag.
2. Search and Seizure — guest — insufficient privacy interest
The trial court did not err by denying a motion to suppress cocaine seized from a house into which defendant had fled. Although defendant described himself as a frequent guest at the residence, he did not assert a possessory or property interest and there was no evidence that he was legitimately on the premises at the time of the search.
3. Sentencing — habitual felon — certified copies of judgment sheets
There was no plain error during a habitual felon proceeding in the introduction of certified copies of defendant's previous judgment sheets. Defendant's counsel was given the opportunity to inspect the authenticity of the documents but offered no evidence challenging their authenticity or the veracity of the convictions. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rules 901(b)(7), 902; N.C.G.S. § 14-7.4.
Judge ELMORE dissenting.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 November 2002 by Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 February 2004.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas J. Pitman, for the State. Hosford Hosford, P.L.L.C., by Sofie W. Hosford, for defendant-appellant.
Franklin McNeil ("defendant") appeals his convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and attaining habitual felon status. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold that defendant received a trial free of prejudicial error.
The State's evidence presented at trial tends to show the following: On 31 August 2001, Durham County Police Department Officer J.R. Broadwell ("Officer Broadwell") was investigating a complaint that drug sales were occurring in front of a residence located on 1108 Fargo Street. As Officer Broadwell approached the 1100 block of Fargo Street, he noticed defendant and another individual ("Keech") standing in front of 1108 Fargo Street. When they saw Officer Broadwell's police vehicle approaching, defendant and Keech quickly walked away from 1108 Fargo Street. After stopping defendant and Keech to ask them where they lived, Officer Broadwell noticed that the two men were "nervous," and he decided to conduct a pat-down search of Keech. While performing the search of Keech, Officer Broadwell saw defendant put his hand into his right front pocket. When Officer Broadwell ordered defendant to take his hand out of his pocket, defendant "took off running down Fargo Street towards Umstead [Street]."
Officer Broadwell pursued defendant down Fargo Street and inside a residence located at the corner of Fargo Street and Umstead Street. Officer Broadwell continued to pursue defendant inside the residence and into a room in the rear of the residence. Upon reaching the rear room of the residence, defendant jumped and "went over the top of [a] chair with his arm." Officer Broadwell approached defendant and unsuccessfully attempted to pull defendant from behind the chair. Officer Broadwell eventually pulled defendant away from the chair, and he and defendant continued to struggle through "several rooms of the house." Officer Broadwell ultimately pulled defendant to the floor of the kitchen of the residence, at which time he placed defendant in custody.
A short period of time later, several assisting officers arrived at the residence. After securing defendant, Officer Broadwell searched the room where he and defendant had first struggled. Behind the chair that defendant had previously lunged over, Officer Broadwell found twenty-two individually wrapped white rock substances Officer Broadwell believed were pieces of crack cocaine.
Officer Broadwell then escorted defendant to his police vehicle, which was parked where Officer Broadwell had first encountered defendant and Keech. As he searched the area around the vehicle, Officer Broadwell found three small bags containing an off-white powdered substance Officer Broadwell believed was cocaine. According to Officer Broadwell, defendant stated "[t]hat the crack was his but that the bags . . . on the ground were not." Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the off-white rock substances to be crack cocaine and the off-white powdered substance to be baking soda.
On 4 March 2002, defendant was indicted for possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and attaining habitual felon status. Prior to trial, defendant moved the trial court "to suppress the tangible evidence seized by law enforcement officers in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and Constitution of the State of North Carolina." The trial court subsequently denied the motion, and defendant was tried 21 November 2002.
Although we note that the indictment sheet charges defendant with "possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine," defendant was convicted and sentenced for "possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine." In order to remain consistent with both the verdict sheet and the judgment and commitment sheet, we will hereinafter refer to the charge as "possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine."
At trial, defendant denied having made any statement to Officer Broadwell regarding the controlled substances Officer Broadwell seized during defendant's arrest. Defendant testified that he and Keech were walking down Fargo street because Keech wanted to "retrieve something that he had left there." Defendant further testified that he ran after Officer Broadwell asked him to remove his hands from his pockets because "me and my wife had had a little fabrication [sic] and I didn't know if she had taken a warrant out on me or not." Defendant also testified that the residence he ran inside of was where "everybody goes to smoke this stuff that they have and drink."
At the close of all the evidence, the jury found defendant guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and guilty of attaining habitual felon status. The trial court determined that defendant had a prior record level IV, and on 26 November 2002, the trial court sentenced defendant to 133 to 169 months incarceration. Defendant appeals.
As an initial matter, we note that defendant's brief contains arguments supporting only four of his original five assignments of error. Pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2004), the omitted assignment of error is deemed abandoned. Therefore, we limit our present review to those assignments of error properly preserved by defendant for appeal.
The issues on appeal are: (I) whether the trial court erred by denying defendnt's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine; (II) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized during defendant's arrest; and (III) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce into evidence copies of defendant's previous judgments.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine. Defendant asserts that the State failed to offer sufficient evidence to support each element of the charge. We disagree.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, "[t]he trial court's inquiry is limited to a determination of `whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.'" State v. Butler, 356 N.C. 141, 145, 567 S.E.2d 137, 139 (2002) (quoting State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 73, 472 S.E.2d 920, 925 (1996)). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Franklin, 327 N.C. 162, 171, 393 S.E.2d 781, 787 (1990). "[A]ll of the evidence should be considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence." State v. Davis, 130 N.C. App. 675, 679, 505 S.E.2d 138, 141 (1998).
"The offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver has the following three elements: (1) possession of a substance; (2) the substance must be a controlled substance; (3) there must be intent to sell or distribute the controlled substance." State v. Carr, 145 N.C. App. 335, 341, 549 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2001); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1) (2003). However, "`[i]n a prosecution for possession of contraband materials, the prosecution is not required to prove actual physical possession of the materials.'" State v. Matias, 354 N.C. 549, 552, 556 S.E.2d 269, 270 (2001) (quoting State v. Perry, 316 N.C. 87, 96, 340 S.E.2d 450, 456 (1986)). Instead, "[p]ossession of a controlled substance may be either actual or constructive." State v. Hamilton, 145 N.C. App. 152, 155, 549 S.E.2d 233, 235 (2001). As long as the defendant "has the intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over" the controlled substance, he can be found to have constructive possession of the substance. State v. Beaver, 317 N.C. 643, 648, 346 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1986). Incriminating circumstances, such as evidence placing the accused within close proximity to the controlled substance, may support a conclusion that the substance was in the constructive possession of the accused. See State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 12-13, 187 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1972). Thus, where sufficient incriminating circumstances exist, constructive possession of a controlled substance may be inferred even where possession of a premises is nonexclusive. See State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569, 313 S.E.2d 585, 588-89 (1984).
In the instant case, Officer Broadwell testified that his patrol of Fargo Street was based upon a report that drugs were being sold in the area in front of 1108 Fargo Street. Officer Broadwell testified that, upon his arrival in the area, he noticed defendant and Keech standing in front of 1108 Fargo Street. Officer Broadwell further testified that, as his police vehicle approached the 1100 block of Fargo Street, the two men began to walk quickly away from the vehicle and towards Umstead Street. When Officer Broadwell questioned defendant and Kreech, both men acted nervous and each looked at the other before answering. Officer Broadwell testified that defendant was shaking and put his right hand in his pocket while Officer Broadwell was conducting a pat-down search of Keech. Officer Broadwell testified that after he instructed defendant to remove his hands from his pockets, defendant fled the area and ran towards Umstead Street.
Officer Broadwell testified that while he was chasing defendant, defendant was never out of his eyesight. Officer Broadwell further testified that while in the back room of the residence located at the corner of Fargo Street and Umstead Street, he noticed defendant put his right hand behind a chair. Officer Broadwell testified that "immediately" after securing defendant, he returned to the room where the chair was located and found twenty-two rocks that he believed to be crack cocaine. Officer Broadwell further testified that when he and defendant returned to Officer Broadwell's police vehicle, defendant admitted to possessing the crack cocaine the officer had found behind the chair.
We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant possessed the cocaine. As discussed above, upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court need only "decide whether there is substantial evidence of each element of the offense charged." Id. at 566, 313 S.E.2d at 587. Contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence are matters left to the jury. Id. Therefore, although at trial defendant denied making any statement to Officer Broadwell regarding the cocaine, the credibility of Officer Broadwell's testimony was a question left to the jury to decide; neither defendant's denial of the statement nor defendant's alternative explanation for his behavior warranted dismissal of the charge. State v. Locklear, 322 N.C. 349, 357-58, 368 S.E.2d 377, 383 (1988).
A defendant's intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance may be shown by the "ordinary circumstantial evidence such as the amount of the controlled substance possessed and the nature of its packaging and labeling[.]" State v. Casey, 59 N.C. App. 99, 118, 296 S.E.2d 473, 484 (1982). In the instant case, the crack cocaine had a total weight of 5.5 grams, was individually wrapped in twenty-two pieces, and was placed in the corner of a paper bag. Thus, we conclude that the State also presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant intended to sell or deliver the cocaine. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest. Defendant asserts that Officer Broadwell violated his Fourth Amendment rights by following him into the residence located at the corner of Fargo Street and Umstead Street. We disagree.
"The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 602, 565 S.E.2d 22, 32 (2002) (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV and N.C. Const. art. I, §§ 18, 19, 23), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1117, 154 L. Ed. 2d 795 (2003). However, it is well established that protection under the Fourth Amendment only extends to those areas where an individual has a "legitimate expectation of privacy, which has two components: (1) the person must have an actual expectation of privacy, and (2) the person's subjective expectation must be one that society deems to be reasonable." Id. Thus, our courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection only to those persons who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387, 401 (1978), reh'g denied, 439 U.S. 1122, 59 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1979); State v. Jones, 299 N.C. 298, 306, 261 S.E.2d 860, 865 (1980); Casey, 59 N.C. App. at 113, 296 S.E.2d at 482.
In the instant case, we are not convinced that defendant possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence located at the corner of Fargo Street and Umstead Street. Although defendant describes himself as a "frequent guest" of the residence, there is no indication that defendant was legitimately on the premises at the time of the search. In fact, Officer Broadwell testified at trial that he pursued defendant through a door of the residence that defendant "threw" open. Furthermore, defendant does not assert either a property or possessory interest in the premises. Thus, even when considered in the light most favorable to defendant, "[t]he evidence reveals only an earlier presence and accessibility and neither is sufficient to establish the requisite `privacy interest' in the absence of additional information." State v. Ford, 71 N.C. App. 748, 751, 323 S.E.2d 358, 361 (1984) (citing State v. Taylor, 298 N.C. 405, 416, 259 S.E.2d 502, 508-09 (1979)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 313 N.C. 511, 329 S.E.2d 397 (1985). Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of defendant's arrest.
Defendant's final argument is that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to introduce into evidence copies of defendant's previous judgments during the habitual felon proceedings. We note that defendant neither objected to nor challenged the admission of the judgment sheets at trial. However, on appeal defendant asserts that the admission of the judgment sheets without proper authentication was plain error. Under plain error review, defendant has the burden of convincing this Court: "(i) that a different result probably would have been reached but for the error or (ii) that the error was so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial." State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997). We conclude that defendant has not met this burden.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 901(b)(7) (2003) provides that "[e]vidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed . . . is from the public office where items of this nature are kept" is generally sufficient to satisfy the requirements necessary to introduce the document into evidence. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 902 (2003) provides that
Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to . . . [a] copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 902(4) (emphasis added). Similarly, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.4 (2003) provides that
In all cases where a person is charged under the provisions of this Article with being an habitual felon, the record or records of prior convictions of felony offenses shall be admissible in evidence, but only for the purpose of proving that said person has been convicted of former felony offenses. A prior conviction may be proved by stipulation of the parties or by the original or a certified copy of the court record of the prior conviction. The original or certified copy of the court record, bearing the same name as that by which the defendant is charged, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant named therein is the same as the defendant before the court, and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts set out therein.
(emphasis added).
In the instant case, during the habitual felon stage of defendant's trial, the State introduced into evidence three certified copies of judgment sheets from three of defendant's previous felony convictions. Defendant's trial counsel was given an opportunity to inspect the authenticity of the documents prior to their introduction into evidence. Defendant offered no evidence at trial nor on appeal to this Court that challenges the authenticity of the certified judgment sheets or the veracity of the convictions. Instead, defendant contends that the trial court should not have allowed the documents to be introduced until a witness testified to their authenticity and was cross-examined by defendant. However, in light of the statutes detailed above, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's decision in the case was a "fundamental error" that resulted in a "miscarriage of justice" or denied defendant a fair trial. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing the State to introduce into evidence the certified copies of defendant's prior felony conviction judgment sheets.
No error.
Judge BRYANT concurs.
Judge ELMORE dissents.