Flake v. State
Decision Date | 31 August 2007 |
Docket Number | CR-05-0471. |
Citation | 980 So.2d 440 |
Parties | Antonio Jermaine FLAKE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas J. Azar, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Marc A. Starrett, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Antonio Jermaine Flake, was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, a violation of § 13A-12-231(1), Ala.Code 1975, and failure to affix tax stamps, a violation of § 40-17A-9, Ala.Code 1975. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on each conviction, the sentences to be served concurrently. The sentence was split, and Flake was ordered to serve three years in prison followed by two years on probation. The court postponed the sentence for one year pending a review in December 2006. Flake was also assessed a mandatory fine of $25,000.
The State's evidence tended to show that on May 11, 2004, officers from the special operations division of the Montgomery Police Department executed a search warrant on 213 West South Boulevard in Montgomery. Corp. R.J. Stillman, a narcotics agent with the Montgomery Police Department, testified that he had conducted two controlled buys with a confidential informant at that residence and that he had reason to believe there was a large quantity of marijuana in the house. The focus of the police investigation was Antwon Hopkins.
A SWAT team accompanied the special operations officers to execute the warrant and entered the house first to secure the premises. Flake and two other males, one identified as Antwon Hopkins, were found in the house. Hopkins was in possession of over $4,000 in cash. Flake was found in what was identified by law enforcement as "Bedroom 2." Numerous police officers testified that when they entered the house the smell of raw marijuana was "overwhelming" or "overpowering."
Police discovered over 20 pounds of marijuana in the house. In "Bedroom 3," police recovered 16 pounds of marijuana that was contained in 16 one-pound plastic bags. Marijuana was found under the bed, in a drawer, and in the closet. In this same bedroom police discovered a set of scales in the middle of the floor.
In the room where Flake was found, described as "Bedroom 2," the officers discovered an open suitcase with "trace" amounts of marijuana inside. They also found a plastic container that contained a bag of marijuana packaged for sale—it was in a plastic bag.
The confidential informant who participated in the controlled buys testified. He identified Flake as an individual who was in the house when he went to buy a quarter pound of marijuana immediately before the search warrant was executed. Flake, he said, was walking from the living room of the house when he was waiting for the drugs he had purchased.
Flake testified in his defense and said that the house belonged to his cousin, Allen Timmons. He said that he went there every week to get his car washed. Flake also said that he did not smell marijuana in the house because, he said, (R. 140.) Flake testified that he had previously been arrested for possessing marijuana and that he smoked marijuana on occasion.
Flake first argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of either trafficking in marijuana or failure to affix tax stamps.
Initially, we observe that Flake never objected to the sufficiency of the evidence related to the charge of failure to affix tax stamps. In order for the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to be preserved, the issue must first be presented to the lower court. See Reed v. State, 717 So.2d 862 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). Because no objection was made, this issue is not properly before this Court. See Payne v. State, 946 So.2d 930 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). However, Flake did preserve his claim that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of trafficking in marijuana. At the end of the State's case and in his motion for a new trial, Flake argued that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of trafficking in excess of 2.2 pounds of marijuana.
There is no question that Flake was not in actual possession of the more than 20 pounds of marijuana seized from the residence; thus, the State had to prove that Flake was in constructive possession of the drugs. See Ex parte J.C., 882 So.2d 274 (Ala.2003).
German v. State, 429 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). The German Court further stated:
""
429 So.2d at 1141-42, quoting United States v. Staten, 189 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 105, 581 F.2d 878, 883 (D.C.Cir.1978).
Ex parte J.C., 882 So.2d at 277-78, quoting Grubbs v. State, 462 So.2d 995, 997-98 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), quoting in turn Temple v. State, 366 So.2d 740, 743 (Ala.Crim. App.1978).
Here, Flake was found in a bedroom where a open suitcase that contained trace amounts of marijuana was found. In the same bedroom police also recovered a plastic bag that contained marijuana. The smell of raw marijuana was overwhelming in the house. Also, Flake was present when the confidential informant had previously been to the house to buy a quarter pound of marijuana.
Mobley v. State, 563 So.2d 29, 32 (Ala. Crim.App.1990). "`[T]he voluntary presence of the accused in an area obviously devoted to preparation of drugs for distribution is a circumstance potently indicative of his involvement in the operation.'" German v. State, 429 So.2d at 1142, quoting United States v. Staten, 189 U.S.App. D.C. at 107 n. 67, 581 F.2d at 885 n. 67.
Flake was arrested in a house that was clearly devoted to the preparation and sell of marijuana. There was sufficient evidence to present to the jury for its determination the question of whether Flake was in constructive possession of over 2.2 pounds of marijuana. The circuit court gave detailed instructions on the concept of "constructive possession," and the jury found Flake guilty of trafficking. We see no reason to disturb the jury's verdict in this case.
Flake also argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bailey v. State
...demonstrate a lack of dominion and control.” Roberts [ v. State ], 349 So.2d [89] at 91 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1977) ].’ ”Flake v. State, 980 So.2d 440, 442–43 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting German v. State, 429 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)). It is unnecessary to show that the accused had th......
-
Culver v. State
...State], 349 So.2d [89] at 91 [(Ala.Crim.App.1977)].' "German v. State, 429 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)." Flake v. State, 980 So.2d 440, 443 (Ala. Crim.App.2007). The trial court defined constructive possession using language very similar to that quoted above. (R. 2518-19.) The cour......
-
J.W.M. v. Cleburne County Dhr
... ... 980 So.2d 434 ... rights, this court is required to conduct a "careful search of the record," Moore v. State Dep't of Pensions & Sec., 470 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Ala.Civ.App.1985), to determine if clear and convincing evidence supports the judgment. Ala.Code ... ...
-
Toombs v. State
...], quoting United States v. Staten, 189 U.S. App. D.C. [100] at 107 n.67, 581 F.2d [878] at 885 n.67 [(1978)]." Flake v. State, 980 So. 2d 440, 443-44 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)." ‘Furthermore, knowledge is usually established by circumstantial evidence.’ Mitchell v. State, 713 So. 2d 981, 984 ......