Jarrett v. State

• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, JUDGE
• Citation: 2023 Ark. App. 354
• Docket Number: CR-22-652
• Decision Date: 30 August 2023
• Parties: MARTEZ JARRETT APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

1

2023 Ark.App. 354

MARTEZ JARRETT APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

No. CR-22-652

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I

August 30, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST DIVISION [NO 60CR-21-3649] HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON, JUDGE

Mac J Carder, Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att'y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, JUDGE

Appellant Martez Jarrett, appeals his convictions for simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, possession of fentanyl with the purpose to deliver, possession of heroin with the purpose to deliver, and possession of marijuana with the purpose to deliver.^[1]Jarrett's sentences were run concurrently, resulting in an effective ten-year sentence. Jarrett challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Specifically, Jarrett contends that the State failed to prove that he constructively possessed any of the contraband found in the jointly occupied vehicle that he was driving. We affirm.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and only the evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Walden v. State, 2023 Ark.App. 177, 664 S.W.3d 443. A conviction is affirmed if substantial evidence exists to support it, meaning the evidence is forceful enough to compel a conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture. Allen v. State, 2022 Ark.App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446. Jarrett was tried to the bench, so the judge was the determiner of fact and credibility. Holmes v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 384, 586 S.W.3d 183.

Jarrett's vehicle was stopped for a moving violation. Jarrett was driving, and there was a front-seat passenger. Jarrett had an outstanding warrant for distribution of fentanyl, so the officer had Jarrett exit the vehicle and arrested him. Jarrett had on a "Gucci-like shoulder bag," which the officer advised Jarrett to leave in the vehicle. The officer searched Jarrett's pants pocket and found a substantial amount of cash and a small white rock that the officer believed to be fentanyl. The officer opened the Gucci-like bag and found inside a loaded .40-caliber Glock handgun and 13.85 grams of marijuana in plastic bags. A search of the car revealed a blue bag in the driver's-side door that contained a mix of fentanyl and heroin, also known as "Grey Death." In a backpack behind the driver's seat, officers found individual bags of marijuana. The patrol vehicle's dashboard camera confirmed the sequence of events and the fact that the front-seat passenger did not appear to have touched anything on or around the driver's side of the car.

Jarrett's motions for dismissal were denied, and this appeal followed. The thrust of Jarrett's argument is that the State failed to prove that he was in constructive possession of any of the contraband found in the Gucci-like bag (the loaded gun and over thirteen grams of marijuana), in the blue bag (the mix of fentanyl and heroin), or in the backpack (individual bags of marijuana). Jarrett emphasizes that contraband was found in closed containers, so no contraband was in plain view. We hold that Jarrett has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

The State is not required to prove actual possession but may instead prove that the accused was in constructive possession. Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark.App. 567, 444 S.W.3d 880. For constructive possession, the State must establish that the defendant exercised care, control, and management over the contraband. Id. Constructive possession may be inferred where contraband is found in a place immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his control. Id. Where, as here, the vehicle is jointly occupied by the driver (Jarrett) and a front-seat passenger, additional linking factors must exist to tie the accused to the contraband. Joint occupancy of a vehicle, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish possession or joint possession....