Alford v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2022-KA-00025-COA |
| Parties | DCORIOUS ALFORD A/K/A DCORIOUS KEON ALFORD A/K/A DECORIUS KEON ALFORD APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2021
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. TOMIKA HARRIS IRVING TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY GEORGE T. HOLMES
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ALEXANDER C. MARTIN
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ.
¶1. Dcorious Alford appeals his convictions of trafficking methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On appeal, Alford argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the verdicts were contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
¶2. After our review, we find no error. We therefore affirm Alford's convictions and sentences.
¶3. Officer Bobby Herron of the Crystal Springs Police Department testified that on June 19, 2020, he received a call from another police officer alerting him that Alford was in town at the Community Quick Stop. Officer Herron explained that Alford had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest. Officer Herron and Officer Russell Wooten then drove toward the Quick Stop in an attempt to execute the arrest warrant.
¶4. Officer Herron testified that as the officers were traveling south in a patrol car, he spotted the Nissan Quest van that Alford was reported to be driving. He and Officer Wooten followed the vehicle, and the vehicle eventually pulled into a parking lot. The officers followed the vehicle into the parking lot. The officers then observed Alford exit the vehicle from the driver's side. Officer Herron clarified that Alford had been driving the vehicle.
¶5. After searching the vehicle, the officers found the following items within arm's reach of the driver's seat: three plastic bags containing marijuana, a plastic bag containing pills that later tested positive for methamphetamine, a white powdery substance on the floorboard under the driver's seat, and a digital scale and razor blade on the center console. Upon searching Alford's person, the officers discovered additional plastic bags and a plastic bag containing $1,490 in cash.
¶6. Alford was indicted for one count of trafficking methamphetamine with intent to distribute (Count I), one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute (Count II), and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (Count III), in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139 (Rev. 2018). Following a jury trial, Alford was convicted of Counts I and III and acquitted of Count II. The Copiah County Circuit Court sentenced Alford as a non-violent habitual offender to serve twenty-five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for his conviction in Count I, with a consecutive sentence of five years ordered for his conviction in Count III. The circuit court also ordered Alford to pay a fine of $10,000 plus court costs relating to Count I.
¶7. The circuit court denied Alford's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. Alford now appeals.
¶8. Alford argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and trafficking methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
¶9. A motion for JNOV challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Murphy, 202 So.3d 1243, 1252 (¶16) (Miss. 2016). We apply a de novo standard when reviewing a circuit court's denial of a motion for JNOV. Id. at 1251 (¶16). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we must examine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Garrett v. State, 344 So.3d 849, 851 (¶12) (Miss. 2022). "We view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, accept all the evidence supporting the verdict as true, and give the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that reasonably may be drawn from the evidence." Id. "We will reverse and render if the facts and inferences favor the defendant with such force that reasonable jurors could not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Smoots v. State, 310 So.3d 1184, 1189 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). "However, we must affirm if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
¶10. "To establish possession of a controlled substance, the State must produce evidence that a defendant (1) was aware of the presence of a substance, (2) was aware of the character of the substance, and (3) was consciously and intentionally in possession of the substance." Williams v. State, 334 So.3d 68, 73 (¶5) (Miss. 2022). "Possession of a controlled substance may be actual or constructive." O'Donnell v. State, 173 So.3d 907, 917 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).
¶11. In the case before us, the bags of marijuana were not found in Alford's physical possession; rather, they were found in the vehicle that he was driving. Additional plastic bags, including one with the cash, were found on his person. Accordingly, "the State was required to prove that [Alford] had constructive possession of the [marijuana]." Reindollar v. State, 296 So.3d 739, 742 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). The State must constructively establish that Alford was consciously and intentionally in possession of the marijuana by submitting evidence showing that Alford "had dominion or control over the [marijuana]." Williams, 334 So.3d at 73 (¶6). "A finding of constructive possession requires a finding that the defendant had some type of control over the drugs under the totality of the circumstances." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "The elements of constructive possession may be prove[d] by circumstantial evidence." Fontenot v. State, 110 So.3d 800, 804 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
¶12. At trial, the jury heard testimony from Officer Herron, Officer Wooten, and Alison Conville, a forensic scientist at the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory.
¶13. Both police officers testified that Alford had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest. After receiving a tip regarding Alford's location, the officers located the van Alford was driving and followed the vehicle into a parking lot. The officers then exited the patrol car and informed Alford that he had an outstanding arrest warrant.
¶14. Officer Wooten then proceeded to speak with Alford while Officer Herron interviewed the two passengers inside of the van: Collins,[1] who was sitting in the front-right passenger seat, and Troy Walker, who was sitting in the back passenger seat.
¶15. Officer Herron testified that while he spoke to Collins and Walker, he could "clearly smell the presence of marijuana coming from the vehicle." He also testified that he could see a digital scale sitting on the center console of the van (between the driver's seat and passenger seat) in plain view. Officer Herron stated that he also observed a small razor blade beside the digital scale.
¶16. Officer Herron testified that he performed pat downs on Collins and Walker. Officer Herron testified that during the pat downs, he felt something in Walker's pocket, which turned out to be $1,000 in cash. Officer Herron asked Walker about the money, and Walker informed him that he earned the money by cutting grass for a living.
¶17. Officer Herron testified that he searched the vehicle and discovered a clear plastic bag containing "a green leafy substance which appeared to be marijuana" inside of a compartment above the vehicle's cigarette lighter. In another compartment near the cigarette lighter, Officer Herron found two additional clear bags containing the same green leafy substance, as well as a bag containing pills. Officer Herron also found a white powdery substance on the floorboard under the driver's seat. Officer Herron testified that when he picked up the substance, it was in "a rock form." Officer Herron testified that all of the contraband found in the van-the bags containing the green leafy substance, the bag containing the pills, and the white powdery substance-was located within arm's reach of the driver's seat. Officer Herron questioned Collins and Walker about the drugs found in the van, and they both informed Officer Herron that they did not know anything about the drugs.
¶18. Conville, the forensic scientist at the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory, testified that she tested the drugs found at the scene. Conville confirmed that the leafy green substance was marijuana.[2]
¶19. Officer Herron admitted that he did not know who owned the Nissan Quest that Alford was driving. Officer Herron explained that the van had a used dealership tag on the license plate. Officer Wooten later testified that he and Officer Herron ran a check on the vehicle to determine who owned it, and at the time they ran the check, the results revealed that the vehicle did not belong to Alford.
¶20. Officer Wooten testified that while Officer Herron was talking with Collins and Walker, he arrested Alford due to the existing warrant. Officer Wooten performed a Terry[3]frisk on Alford and discovered "many little plastic baggies" and a clear plastic bag containing $1,490 in cash on Alford's person.
¶21. Alford argues that the State failed to prove that he owned the vehicle where the drugs were found or that he was in exclusive possession of the vehicle. We recognize that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial