Haxho v. State, 75659

Decision Date16 March 1988
Docket NumberNo. 75659,75659
PartiesHAXHO v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

James K. Jenkins, for appellant.

Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Albert B. Collier, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

SOGNIER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and he appeals.

1. Appellant contends the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. The evidence disclosed that Paul Markonni, a federal DEA agent, was in the Miami, Florida, airport waiting to board a plane to Atlanta. About ten minutes before departure time he observed Luis Arbelaez and appellant walk rapidly to the boarding gate, give their tickets to the flight attendant and board the plane. Markonni asked the flight attendant to let him look at the tickets, and noted that they were purchased with cash a few minutes earlier, and were one-way tickets to Philadelphia, actions which Markonni perceived as fitting the drug courier profile. Markonni boarded the plane and on deplaning in Atlanta unexpectedly met James Simmons, a member of the Henry County sheriff's department assigned to the airport task force for drug enforcement. Markonni told Simmons he had a couple of "live ones," and a short time later they observed Arbelaez and appellant coming from a bank of telephones. Arbelaez went into the snack bar and Markonni stopped appellant; Markonni identified himself and asked to speak to appellant, who agreed, and thereafter consented to a search of his person. No drugs were found on appellant and he reboarded the plane for continuation of his flight. In the meantime Simmons had approached Arbelaez in a similar manner; when he allegedly gave Simmons a false name, Simmons arrested him and took him to a small room where Arbelaez was searched. A wadded up newspaper with a small bag of cocaine inside was found in Arbelaez's inside coat pocket, and when asked if he had any other cocaine, he gave Simmons a small packet of cocaine from his billfold. After Markonni was notified of these actions he boarded the airplane and arrested appellant.

Both Arbelaez and appellant testified that he had no knowledge of the cocaine in Arbelaez's possession. He testified that he had PURCHASed the cocaine for his own use three or four days before going on his planned trip to New York. Appellant testified that the tickets, purchased in the name of Mike and Joe Colgan, had been reserved by Mike Colgan in Philadelphia for use by Joe Colgan and appellant. When Joe Colgan could not go to Philadelphia and appellant learned that Arbelaez planned on going to New York the following day, appellant asked him if he wanted to go to Philadelphia with appellant, who was going there on business. Arbelaez said okay, which is the only reason the two men were travelling together.

Appellant argues that this evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction, because there is nothing to show that he knew of the cocaine or was a party to the crime. The indictment charged that Arbelaez and appellant violated OCGA § 16-13-31(a)(1) in that they "did knowingly bring into this state and was (sic) knowingly in actual possession of more than 28 grams of a mixture with the purity more than ten percent cocaine."

Since appellant was not in actual possession of the cocaine he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Roura v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 23 Junio 1994
    ...him guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt. Haxho v. State, 186 Ga.App. 393, 394, 367 S.E.2d 282. I am authorized to state that Chief Judge POPE and Judge BLACKBURN join in this 1 In a later, out-of-time pro se motion f......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 6 Febrero 2006
    ...hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt of the defendant[s]." Haxho v. State, 186 Ga.App. 393, 394(1), 367 S.E.2d 282 (1988). See also OCGA § 24-4-6. We will not disturb a jury's finding on whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient......
  • Rose v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 31 Octubre 2002
    ...to discount Rose's testimony that he stopped using drugs after his prior conviction. The two cases cited by Rose are inapposite.8 In Haxho, contraband was found in the defendant's companion's inside coat pocket and billfold. Here, the contraband was in a bag with men's clothing, one foot aw......
  • Walls, Inc. v. Atlantic Realty Co., 75561
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 Marzo 1988
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT