Parker v. State, A98A0239.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A0239.,A98A0239. |
| Citation | 502 S.E.2d 310,232 Ga. App. 609 |
| Parties | PARKER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ann M. Vaughan, Blairsville, for appellant.
Albert F. Taylor, Jr., District Attorney, Mary E. Moore, Darrell E. Wilson, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
A Union County grand jury indicted Rodney Dean Parker for the offenses of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. He was found guilty by a jury on the charges of possession of methamphetamine and obstruction of a law enforcement officer and acquitted on the remaining charges. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentence following the denial of his motion for new trial. Finding no error, we affirm.
Construed to support the conviction, the evidence showed that Agent Robert Kern of the Appalachian Drug Task Force received information from two sources that caused him to begin investigating Parker. In the course of Kern's investigation, an informant, Joey Murphy, planned to purchase approximately 3.5 grams of methamphetamine, known as an "eight-ball," from Parker. Kern provided Murphy with $300 in task force funds to buy the drugs. At the appointed time, however, Parker did not have an "eight-ball" at his residence and barber shop in Union County, and Murphy, Parker, and Parker's girlfriend, Marian Pendley, set out in Parker's van for Stockbridge, where Parker knew someone from whom they could obtain the drugs. Murphy drove the van, Parker was in the front passenger seat, and Pendley was in the back.
At a restaurant in Stockbridge, they turned over the money—the $300 provided by Kern, plus an additional $100 furnished by Parker—to a woman named Paula. They later went to Paula's apartment in a motel, and the drugs were given to them. According to Murphy, Pendley handed over the cash, and the drugs were later given to Parker. This was disputed by Parker, who testified that Murphy alone handed over the money and received the drugs. The three then headed back to Union County, in the same positions in the van as on the drive down. Murphy testified that he observed Parker and Pendley using the drugs both in the motel in Stockbridge and in the back seat of the van on the way home. He testified that the drugs were placed in a pocket on the back of the front passenger seat of the van.
As they turned into Parker's driveway, Kern and other officers, who had been waiting, pulled in behind them. Parker immediately jumped out of the rolling van and fled into the woods. The officers identified themselves and ordered Parker to halt, but he ignored the command. The officers were unable to locate Parker and turned their attention to the two persons remaining in the van and the van itself. Their search of the van and the persons revealed no drugs, but two syringes were found in the pocket on the back of the front passenger seat.
Officers then summoned the Union County 911 Center supervisor, who was female, to further search Pendley's person. She initially found nothing on Pendley's person. But she accompanied Pendley to the bathroom, where Pendley removed a plastic bag containing an off-white chunky material from her vagina and handed it over. Murphy testified he had seen Pendley hide the drugs on her person in the van. This bag was turned over to the officers, and a forensic chemist testified that the substance in the bag tested positive for methamphetamine. About one week later, Parker surrendered and was arrested.
1. Parker contends this evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine because the State failed to prove that the offense was committed in Union County or that venue was proper there. We do not agree. We note initially that it is easy to appreciate Parker's confusion with regard to the proper measure of the State's burden with regard to proving venue. See, e.g., Joiner v. State, 231 Ga.App. 61, 497 S.E.2d 642 (1998); Hall v. State, 226 Ga.App. 298(1), 485 S.E.2d 800 (1997); Brinkworth v. State, 222 Ga.App. 288, 289-291, 474 S.E.2d 9 (1996) (Ruffin, J., dissenting). But in this case, it was not necessary for the State to prove that Parker held the drugs or that they were actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langlois v. Wolford
...speaking to the plaintiff, which gave rise to the reasonable inference that flight was from a sense of guilt. Parker v. State, 232 Ga.App. 609, 611(1), 502 S.E.2d 310 (1998); Agony v. State, 226 Ga. App. 330, 331, 486 S.E.2d 625 (1997). Further, flight also gave rise to the inference that t......
- Cooper v. State
-
Johnson v. State, A06A1631.
...from the direction of the bedroom. 5. Francis v. State, 231 Ga.App. 112, 113(1), 497 S.E.2d 827 (1998). 6. See Parker v. State, 232 Ga.App. 609, 610(1)(a), 502 S.E.2d 310 (1998). 7. Johnson v. State, 245 Ga.App. 583, 584, 538 S.E.2d 481 (2000). 8. See Id., (a connection can be made between ......
-
Marshall v. State
...baggies contained in the record. 5. Francis v. State, 231 Ga.App. 112, 113(1), 497 S.E.2d 827 (1998). 6. See Parker v. State, 232 Ga.App. 609, 610(1)(a), 502 S.E.2d 310 (1998). 7. (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Wright v. State, 279 Ga.App. 299(1), 630 S.E.2d 774 8. See Maldonado v. Sta......