Garcia v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | A12A2012.,Nos. A12A2011,s. A12A2011 |
| Citation | 319 Ga.App. 751,738 S.E.2d 333 |
| Parties | GARCIA v. The STATE. Calderon v. The State. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Walker L. Chandler, Ifuero Andre Obaseki, for Appellants.
Tracy Graham Lawson, Elizabeth A. Baker, for Appellee.
Following a jury trial, Ramiro Garcia was convicted on one count of trafficking in cocaine, one count of making an improper lane change, and one count of driving without a license. The same jury convicted his co-defendant, Jose Calderon, on one count of trafficking in cocaine, one count of trafficking in methamphetamine, and one count of possession of cocaine. Both defendants appeal their convictions and the denial of their respective motions for new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support their drug-related convictions. In addition, Garcia contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant, and Calderon argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present similar-transaction evidence and denying his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Because the charges arose from the same set of facts and the defendants were jointly tried, we have consolidated their separate appeals for review. And for the reasons set forth infra, we affirm in both cases.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, 1 The evidence shows that on October 2, 2009, an agent with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) received information from a confidential informant that drug-trafficking operations were being conducted out of a Mexican restaurant in the Forest Park area of Clayton County and a nearby residence located at 498 Sirocco Court. Based on this information, the very next day, drug-task-force officers with ICE and the Clayton County Police Department set up surveillance teams to monitor activity at both locations. Around 1:00 p.m., officers observed a white pickup truck approach and park in front of the 498 Sirocco Court residence. Subsequently, the driver and sole occupant of the truck—ultimately identified as Ramiro Garcia—entered the house and exited 15 minutes later, carrying a white plastic grocery bag that appeared to contain a large square object. Garcia then drove away from the house, at which point one of the task-force officers followed him and radioed for a uniformed patrol officer to do the same.
Several minutes later, as Garcia was traveling northbound on Interstate 75, the patrol officer saw him abruptly change lanes without signaling. Consequently, the officer initiated a traffic stop, during which he determined that Garcia did not have a valid driver's license and, thus, arrested him. Following Garcia's arrest, the officer conducted an inventory search of Garcia's truck so that the vehicle could be removed from the Interstate and impounded. And while searching the truck's center console, the officer discovered a white plastic bag, which contained a brick of cocaine weighing over one kilogram.
Based on these circumstances, drug-task-force officers obtained a warrant to search the house at 498 Sirocco Court. But before doing so, they arrested the resident of the home—identified as Jose Calderon—outside of the Mexican restaurant that was also under surveillance, after determining that Calderon had become aware that he was being followed. And just as the officers approached the residence to execute the warrant, they observed an unknown male—later identified as Ariolla Camareno—attempting to break into the house and, thus, arrested him. Thereafter, the officers began their search, during which they discovered large quantities of both cellophane-wrapped cocaine and bagged methamphetamine hidden in the kitchen pantry and in a utility room located in the garage. In addition to the drugs, the officers found digital scales, a laptop computer, and a large amount of cash. The officers also noticed that it appeared that someone lived in the house and, in fact, during the search, the owner of the home arrived to collect a rent check and confirmed that Calderon lived there as his tenant.
Two days after the initial search of the Sirocco Court residence, the drug-task-force officers received another tip from the confidential informant, indicating that the house contained more drugs that the officers had failed to discover. Consequently, the officers obtained a second search warrant, which they executed on October 6, 2009. Specifically, the officers searched an inoperable automobile, which was parked in the house's garage, and found secret compartments in the vehicle containing a large amount of methamphetamine. During this second search of the home, the officers also found a photograph of Calderon, as well as numerous receipts and the title to a vehicle, all of which bore Calderon's name.
Calderon and Garcia were jointly indicted on one count of trafficking in cocaine.2 In the same indictment, Calderon was also charged with one count each of trafficking in methamphetamine,3 possession of cocaine, 4 and possession of marijuana.5 Garcia was also charged with one count each of improper lane change 6 and driving without a license.7 Prior to trial, the State filed a notice of intent to present Calderon's 2004 trafficking-in-methamphetamine conviction as similar-transaction evidence against him. And following a pre-trial hearing, the trial court ruled that this evidence was admissible.
The case then proceeded to trial. After a jury was chosen, Garcia reiterated a request to sever his trial from that of Calderon, which he had apparently first made at calendar call a week or so earlier. After hearing argument on the issue, the trial court denied Garcia's motion on the grounds that it was untimely and lacked merit. Subsequently, the State presented its case, which included testimony from several of the drug-task-force officers concerning their surveillance and searches of Garcia's truck and Calderon's house. In addition, the owner of Calderon's house testified that he leased the residence to Calderon and that Calderon lived there. A GBI forensic chemist also testified that the total amount of cocaine recovered from Garcia's truck and Calderon's home weighed over 10 kilograms and had an average purity of 48 percent. The chemist further testified that the total amount of methamphetamine recovered from the house weighed over 8.5 kilograms. Finally, the State presented the similar-transaction evidence against Calderon, which consisted of testimony that in 2003, he was arrested for trafficking in methamphetamine, while using the alias Jesus Alvarez, and pleaded guilty to that charge in 2004. A comparison of fingerprints showed that Calderon and Alvarez were, indeed, the same person.
At the trial's conclusion, the jury found Garcia and Calderon guilty on all counts. Thereafter, both defendants obtained new counsel and filed separate motions for new trial, which in Calderon's case included a claim of ineffective assistance. The trial court denied defendants' motions, and these appeals follow.
1. Garcia contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of trafficking in cocaine. And similarly, Calderon contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in methamphetamine, and possession of cocaine. We disagree in both cases.
At the outset, we note that when a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.8 Furthermore, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” 9 Consequently, the jury's verdict will be upheld “[a]s long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case.” 10 With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address Garcia and Calderon's specific challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence.
(a) Garcia contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly possessed the cocaine found in his truck, arguing that others had equal access to the vehicle. We find this argument unavailing.
Georgia law recognizes two kinds of possession, “actual possession and constructive possession.” 11 Obviously, a person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is “in actual possession of it.” 12 And a person is in constructive possession of an object when “he knowingly has both the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion over the object.” 13 However, a finding of constructive possession must be based upon some connection between the defendant and the contraband other than spatial proximity, and “[e]vidence of mere presence at the scene of the crime, and nothing more to show participation of a defendant in the illegal act, is insufficient to support a conviction.” 14 Furthermore,
[w]hen determining whether the defendant knowingly had both the power and intention at a given time to exercise control over drugs, the jury may infer the defendant's power from his or her access to the drugs, while they may look to the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the defendant had the requisite intention.15
And as long as there is slight evidence of access, power, and intention to exercise control or dominion over the contraband, “the question of fact regarding constructive possession remains within the domain of the trier of fact.” 16
Here, as noted supra, drug-task-force officers observed Garcia exit the 498 Sirocco Court house carrying a bag that appeared to contain a brick of cocaine before driving away in his truck. And when officers stopped his vehicle a short time later, they found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...704 (2013), overruled on other grounds, Maddox v. State , 322 Ga. App. 811, 815 (2), 746 S.E.2d 280 (2013) ; Garcia v. State , 319 Ga. App. 751, 755 (1) (a), 738 S.E.2d 333 (2013) ; Evans v. State , 318 Ga. App. 706, 711 (2), 734 S.E.2d 527 (2012) ; Sabb v. State , 317 Ga. App. 537, 540, 73......
-
Betancourt v. State
...261 Ga. 640, 642(2)(b), 409 S.E.2d 649 (1991). 18.Wayne v. State, 269 Ga. 36, 39(3), 495 S.E.2d 34 (1998); see Garcia v. State, 319 Ga.App. 751, 758(3), 738 S.E.2d 333 (2013). 19.Williams, 261 Ga. at 642(2)(b), 409 S.E.2d 649;see Crenshaw v. State, 248 Ga.App. 505, 509(3), 546 S.E.2d 890 (2......
- Hart v. State