Pyles v. State

• Decision Date: 03 February 2020
• Docket Number: S-19-0061
• Citation: 456 P.3d 926
• Parties: Randall Joe PYLES, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

456 P.3d 926

Randall Joe PYLES, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-19-0061

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

February 3, 2020

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; Mackenzie Morrison, Student Director; Toni Hartzel, Student Intern.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] A jury found Randall Joe Pyles guilty of possession with intent to deliver marijuana. Mr. Pyles claims the State's trial evidence was insufficient to establish he possessed the marijuana. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Mr. Pyles presents a single issue, which we restate as:

Was the trial evidence sufficient to prove Mr. Pyles constructively possessed the marijuana?

FACTS

[¶3] On April 14, 2018, Christopher Johnson was driving on Interstate 90 in Campbell County, Wyoming, en route from Oregon to Terre Haute, Indiana. Mr. Pyles was a passenger in the car. Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Harley Kalb stopped Mr. Johnson for speeding. Trooper Kalb asked for Mr. Johnson's identification and requested that he accompany him to the patrol car to complete the paperwork for the traffic stop.

[¶4] Mr. Johnson said he had rented the car and showed Trooper Kalb the rental agreement on his phone. After examining the agreement, the trooper returned to the rental car to verify the vehicle identification number. Before doing so, he stopped at the passenger-side window to explain to Mr. Pyles what he was doing. While talking to Mr. Pyles through the open window, the trooper smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana. Trooper Kalb called for backup to help search the car. Mr. Pyles had a backpack and coat in the backseat of the car. No contraband was located in the search of those items. The officers then searched the trunk and located two duffle bags containing over 30 pounds of marijuana bud packaged in individual one-pound vacuum-sealed packages.

[¶5] The State charged Mr. Pyles with one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2017). A jury found Mr. Pyles guilty of the charged offense, and the district court sentenced him to a term of incarceration of four to nine years, suspended the sentence, and placed him on supervised probation for nine years. Mr. Pyles appealed.

DISCUSSION

[¶6] When reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury's verdict in a criminal trial, we do not determine whether the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thompson v. State, 2018 WY 3, ¶ 14, 408 P.3d 756, 760 (Wyo. 2018) ; Mraz v. State, 2016 WY 85, ¶ 19, 378 P.3d 280, 286 (Wyo. 2016). Instead, we decide whether the evidence could reasonably support the jury's verdict. Id. We examine " ‘the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. We accept all evidence favorable to the State as true and give the State's evidence every favorable inference which can reasonably and fairly be drawn from it.’ " Thompson, ¶ 14, 408 P.3d at 761 (quoting Worley v. State, 2017 WY 3, ¶ 17, 386 P.3d 765, 771 (Wyo. 2017) ) (other citations omitted). See also, Weston v. State, 2019 WY 113, ¶ 11, 451 P.3d 758, 762 (Wyo. 2019). We do not re-weigh the evidence or re-examine the credibility of the witnesses, and we "disregard any evidence favorable to the appellant that conflicts with the State's evidence." Thompson, ¶ 14, 408 P.3d at 761 (citation omitted).

[¶7] Mr. Pyles was convicted of possession with intent to deliver marijuana under § 35-7-1031(a)(ii) :

(a) Except as authorized by this act, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance. Any person who violates this subsection with respect to:

...

(ii) Any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II or III, is guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years, fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both[.]

Marijuana (spelled "marihuana" in the statute) is a Schedule I controlled substance. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1014(d)(xiii) (LexisNexis 2019).

[¶8] Mr. Pyles claims the State failed to prove he possessed the marijuana. Possession of a controlled substance can be actual or constructive. Regan v. State, 2015 WY 62, ¶ 12, 350 P.3d 702, 705 (Wyo. 2015) ; Sotolongo-Garcia v. State, 2002 WY 185, ¶ 12, 60 P.3d 687, 689-90 (Wyo. 2002) ; Wise v. State, 654 P.2d 116, 118-19 (Wyo. 1982). A person has actual possession of a controlled substance when he has direct physical custody over it. Regan, ¶ 12, 350 P.3d at 705. A person has constructive possession of a controlled substance when he either individually or jointly with another exercises dominion and control over the substance, has knowledge of its presence, and has knowledge the substance is a controlled substance. Taylor v. State, 2011 WY 18, ¶ 11, 246 P.3d 596, 599 (Wyo. 2011) (citing Cureton v. State, 2007 WY 168, ¶ 16, 169 P.3d 549, 552 (Wyo. 2007) ). Constructive possession may be proven " ‘by circumstantial evidence linking together a series of facts allowing a reasonable inference that the defendant had the requisite knowledge and control of the substance.’ " Taylor, ¶ 11, 246 P.3d at 599-600 (quoting Cureton, ¶ 16, 169 P.3d at 552 ). "When determining whether sufficient evidence was presented demonstrating constructive possession, the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances." Taylor, ¶ 11, 246 P.3d at 600 (citing Urrutia v. State, 924 P.2d 965, 967 (Wyo. 1996) ).

[¶9] There are important caveats when considering the concept of constructive possession. First, the mere fact the defendant was present in a vehicle where controlled substances were discovered does not prove he constructively possessed them. Regan, ¶ 23, 350 P.3d at 708 (citing Rodarte v. City of Riverton, 552 P.2d 1245, 1257 (Wyo. 1976) ). Furthermore, evidence showing the defendant knew controlled substances were in his presence does not, by itself, establish he had the power and intent to control them. Id., ¶ 24, 350 P.3d at 708.

[¶10] The district court instructed the jury about the concepts of actual and constructive possession. The State argued at trial, and reiterates on appeal, the evidence shows Mr. Pyles actually and constructively possessed the marijuana found in the trunk of the car. Because there is ample evidence Mr. Pyles had constructive possession of the marijuana, we need not consider the State's argument regarding actual possession.

[¶11] Mr. Pyles argues the State did not prove he constructively possessed the marijuana because the car was driven and rented by Mr. Johnson and there was no evidence he had access to the trunk or the marijuana found therein. Contrary to our standard of review, Mr. Pyles ignores the State's evidence showing he constructively possessed the marijuana.

[¶12] The evidence showed Mr. Pyles knew there was marijuana in the car. Trooper Kalb smelled a very strong odor of raw marijuana when speaking with Mr. Pyles through the car's front passenger-side window. The trooper testified it would have been impossible for a person in the car not to smell the marijuana. Evidence from Mr. Pyles' cell phone was admitted at trial, including numerous photographs of raw marijuana bud taken during the prior week. Mr. Pyles admitted he took those photographs; consequently, he would have been familiar with the smell of raw marijuana.

[¶13] Mr. Pyles does not claim he was unaware that marijuana was classified as a controlled substance. In any event, the trial evidence confirmed he knew marijuana was an illegal controlled substance in some states. The text records from Mr. Pyles' phone were admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit 25.¹ His text messages indicated he knew transporting and selling the marijuana was "risky" and he had to be "very, very careful," but he could make "big money" doing so.

[¶14] The State also presented evidence showing Mr. Pyles had dominion and control over the marijuana. To prove Mr. Pyles had control of the marijuana, the State was required to show he had an " ‘appreciable ability to guide [its] destiny.’ " Regan, ¶ 18, 350 P.3d at 706 (quoting United States v. Al–Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1118 (10th Cir. 2006) ). Because there was another person in the vehicle where the marijuana was found, the State had to show Mr. Pyles was individually connected to the marijuana to prove he constructively possessed it. United States v. Valadez-Gallegos, 162 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir. 1998).

[¶15] When Trooper Kalb stopped Mr. Johnson on April 14, 2018, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pyles were en route from Oregon to Terre Haute, Indiana. Mr. Pyles testified he had moved from Terre Haute to Oregon approximately two months earlier, in February 2018. In the weeks leading up to the traffic stop, Mr. Pyles communicated by text message with various individuals about his participation in a marijuana grow operation in Oregon. He took photographs of marijuana buds and the process of trimming them. He texted that he was "trim[m]ing 30 pounds and making oil." Mr. Pyles admitted when he testified at trial that he had trimmed marijuana in Oregon shortly before his trip to Indiana.

[¶16] Mr. Pyles texted about the need to get the bud trimming finished by April 12, 2018, so he could begin his trip to Terre Haute. Gillette police officer Jesse Lile, who had worked with the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation drug task force, testified marijuana buds have to be trimmed prior to sale and trimming is a tedious and time-consuming process. At various times, Mr. Pyles texted people in Indiana about the large amount of marijuana he had access to and the...