Ragan v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 19 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1429-12-3 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | AMANDA LUCILLE RAGAN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata
Argued at Salem, Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
David Eddy for appellant.
Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II (Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted Amanda Lucille Ragan (appellant) of four counts of manufacturing methamphetamine under Code § 18.2-248.03(A), four counts of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine under Code § 18.2-256, and one count of possessing precursors for methamphetamine manufacturing under Code § 18.2-248(J). Appellant was sentenced to 41 years imprisonment with 17 of those years suspended. On appeal, appellant argues the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a total of four convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and a total of four convictions for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Appellant also challenges those convictions on double jeopardy grounds.1 For the following reasons, we affirm all four of appellant's manufacturing convictions and affirm in part and reverse in part as to the conspiracy convictions.
Applying the established standard of review on appeal, we consider the evidence at trial "'in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must since it was the prevailing party'" in the trial court. Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 391, 728 S.E.2d 499, 504 (2012) (quoting Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 330, 601 S.E.2d 555, 574 (2004)). The pertinent events here involve three persons - appellant; her boyfriend, William Begley, III; and Amanda Wright, with whom Begley previously had a romantic relationship. Wright appeared at appellant's trial as a witness for the Commonwealth. Wright testified that she contacted Begley while she was a fugitive from the Tennessee justice system and that she and Begley began making and selling methamphetamine around the beginning of March 2011. Wright testified that she met appellant about a month later.
Wright testified that she and appellant had begun making methamphetamine together by May 2011, although at times Begley was also involved - such as when the three made methamphetamine in a car while traveling on the Gate City Highway in Washington County or when Wright would assist appellant and Begley in producing methamphetamine at motels where appellant and Begley were staying. Wright testified that she continued to make methamphetamine with appellant on several occasions until the two were arrested during the early morning hours of July 17, 2011.
"One-Pot" Method of Manufacturing Methamphetamine
At trial, Wright described the process by which she, appellant, and Begley made methamphetamine. This process, called the "one-pot" method, is the most common method for making methamphetamine in Virginia. Special Agent Brian Snedecker of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency provided a thorough explanation of the one-pot method for the jury at trial. Snedecker testified that this method is called "one-pot" because the necessary ingredients areprepared in the same bottle - commonly a Gatorade bottle. The "one-pot" method is sometimes also called "shake-and-bake" because the ingredients are "cooked" by vigorously shaking the bottle with its cap attached and agitating the ingredients.2 According to Snedecker, the necessary ingredients are crushed tablets of pseudophedrine, ammonium nitrate, lithium taken from inside a battery, "some kind of camping fuel" (usually "a Coleman fuel"), and some water.
Snedecker testified that shaking the bottle with these ingredients inside causes a chemical reaction that "almost looks like a rolling thunderstorm inside the bottle" because, when "lithium touches the water, it sparks in the bottle." Snedecker testified that this technique creates "a really severe fire hazard" and that the person preparing the methamphetamine must carefully loosen the bottle's cap and "burp" the contents to relieve the enormous pressure created inside the bottle. According to Snedecker, after the bottle is properly shaken and burped, the bottle has "sludge" on the bottom and "liquid" on the top.
Pertinent to this appeal, Snedecker testified, "[I]nside that liquid is actual methamphetamine" that is "[m]olecularly bonded to the Coleman fuel." (Emphasis added). He added, "If the cook was done properly, the methamphetamine molecules will be attached to the Coleman fuel molecules." Snedecker testified that the remainder of the process involves severing the molecular bond between the methamphetamine molecules and the Coleman fuel molecules during the "gassing phase," followed by extracting and then drying the completed methamphetamine crystals - which are then ready for use or distribution. According to Snedecker, the one-pot method of methamphetamine production creates such an extremelyhazardous environment that law enforcement officers must wear specialized suits when they investigate and decontaminate methamphetamine laboratories.
According to Wright's testimony, on the night of July 16, 2011, she met appellant at a motel parking lot and appellant drove her to another motel, the Evergreen Motel, where appellant and Begley were staying. Begley was in the motel room when appellant and Wright arrived, although Begley left about an hour later. In the room at the Evergreen Motel, appellant and Wright began preparing methamphetamine on adjacent beds. Appellant used some pseudophedrine pills that Wright had said that she would bring with her. Wright cooked and "gassed" her bottle of methamphetamine. Appellant cooked the ingredients in her Gatorade bottle but had not yet "gassed" the liquid methamphetamine that was still in the bottle when they learned that Begley, who was driving appellant's car, had been arrested. With a police officer's permission, Begley called and told appellant to retrieve her car from a nearby gas station. However, appellant and Wright did not immediately retrieve appellant's car. Instead, using Wright's car, they drove to a Wal-Mart and purchased aquarium tubing (which is used for "gassing" liquid methamphetamine) shortly after midnight on July 17, 2011.
After briefly returning to the Evergreen Motel room, appellant and Wright drove in the direction of appellant's car - but Wright's car was stopped by the police for having defective equipment and for a moving violation. Deputy Matthew Shelley, who conducted the traffic stop, testified at trial that he noticed several items in Wright's vehicle that were indicative of methamphetamine production - such as "a shopping bag with cold packs [of ammonium nitrate] that had been cut open and tubing," as well as a glass Pyrex dish that "contained a milky clear liquid that had a haze in it with white speckled chunks of stuff floating in it." During a subsequent search of Wright's car, the police recovered Wright's backpack, which had inside ofit two bottles that contained liquid and that appeared to have been used for "one-pot" methamphetamine production. Wright testified that these two bottles belonged to appellant and that she had stolen them from appellant's room in the Evergreen Motel.
During this encounter, the police also recovered a motel room key from appellant. Deputy Dewey Fulton, Jr. testified that appellant said that the key was from the Evergreen Motel, that she, Begley, and Wright all had been staying there, and also that "more stuff" could be found in the motel room. Deputy Fulton testified that the motel room's door was ajar when they arrived, but that he did not enter the room because he could see inside that "it was just so nasty." Instead, Deputy Fulton kept a safe distance and called "the meth cleanup crew" and other members of law enforcement, including Detectives Chris Parks and Kevin Widener.
Detective Parks was among those who put on a special suit, which must be worn while investigating and decontaminating a methamphetamine laboratory, and assisted in the retrieval of relevant evidence, including a bottle with liquid that contained methamphetamine. The liquid in that bottle, the liquid from the Pyrex dish recovered from Wright's vehicle, and the liquid from the bottles recovered from Wright's backpack were all chemically tested. Certificates of analysis admitted at appellant's trial indicated that these liquids all contained detectable amounts of methamphetamine and that these liquids all weighed between 66.2 and 110.2 grams.
During an interview with Detective Widener that took place during the early morning hours of July 17, 2011, appellant made several incriminating statements that are not challenged on appeal. Appellant told Detective Widener that she had purchased Sudafed (i.e., pseudophedrine) for Begley many times, that "over the last months" she and Begley "had made meth every day," and that her role was mainly to crush pseudophedrine pills. Appellant denied making methamphetamine with anyone else, including Wright.
"The manufacture of drugs is strictly controlled" in Virginia. Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214, 218, 247 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1978). Unquestionably, Virginia law classifies methamphetamine as a controlled substance in this Commonwealth. See Code § 54.1-3448(3) (). Thus, the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine has long been prohibited in Virginia. See Spear v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 450, 456, 270 S.E.2d 737, 740 (1980).
In 2008, the General Assembly enacted Code § 18.2-248.03, which states:
To continue reading
Request your trial