State v. Canaday, 20-0188
| Decision Date | 23 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-0188,20-0188 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Jason P. Canaday, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
Petitioner Jason P. Canaday, by counsel Dana F. Eddy, appeals the Circuit Court of Fayette County's February 5, 2020, sentencing and commitment order following his convictions for conspiracy to commit the felony offense of delivery and/or possession with intent to deliver heroin and the subsequently filed recidivist information. Respondent the State of West Virginia, by counsel Scott E. Johnson, filed a response to which petitioner submitted a reply.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The United States Attorney's Office conducted an investigation in which wiretap surveillance was done on Greg Coleman. From that surveillance, some residents of Fayette County, including petitioner, were identified as being involved in purchasing drugs from and/or being involved in a conspiracy to sell with Mr. Coleman. Petitioner was indicted for conspiracy with Mr. Coleman to deliver one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(b). One of the telephone conversations relied upon at petitioner's trial is as follows:
Following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit the felony offense of delivery and/or possession with intent to deliver heroin, as a lesser included offense. The State then filed a recidivist information, under West Virginia Code § 61-11-18, alleging that petitioner had previously been convicted of breaking and entering and unlawful assault. Petitioner admitted to having one prior felony offense, and the circuit court imposed a determinate ten-year sentence for the conspiracy conviction with a five year recidivist enhancement, with the recidivist enhancement to run consecutively to the conspiracy conviction for a total sentence of fifteen years of incarceration. Petitioner appeals from that February 5, 2020, sentencing and commitment order.
Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Varlas, 243 W. Va. 447, 844 S.E.2d 688 (2020). State v. Bleck, 243 W. Va. 293, 297, 843 S.E.2d 775, 779 (2020).
On appeal, petitioner asserts two assignments of error. First, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. He contends that while the burden to prove insufficiencyof evidence is heavy, he meets that burden in this case because the prosecution's main witness, Mr. Coleman, denied the existence of the agreement necessary to establish a conspiracy. In support of this contention, petitioner notes that his trial counsel twice challenged the sufficiency of the State's evidence with motions for judgment of acquittal and argues that the circuit court erred by denying those motions. According to petitioner, the State relied heavily upon recorded telephone conversations to prove a distribution arrangement between petitioner and Mr. Coleman, which recordings were submitted in the course of Mr. Coleman's testimony. Without citing to the record or quoting any specific portion of the telephone conversations, petitioner asserts that Mr. Coleman made clear in his testimony that any inferences drawn from the conversations that petitioner was selling drugs for Mr. Coleman were erroneous.
When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court examines the evidence admitted at trial and accepts all inferences from a vantage most favorable to the prosecution.
The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). This review takes into account all of the evidence, including circumstantial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence . . . is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence." Id. at 668, 461 S.E.2d at 174 (quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-40, 75 S.Ct. 127, 137-38 (1954)). "Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value." Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at 669, 461 S.E.2d at 175 (quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272, 574 N.E.2d 492, 502 (1991)). A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal has a heavy burden; he or she must prove there is no evidence from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Guthrie, 194 W.Va. at 663, 461 S.E.2d at 169, Syl. Pt. 3. Petitioner's argument ignores the undisputed facts presented to the jury that Mr. Coleman routinely contacted petitioner when Mr. Coleman received drugs, petitioner sold drugs he obtained from Mr. Coleman, drug users contacted Mr. Coleman about petitioner cutting the drugs, and Mr. Coleman directed that petitioner stop cutting the drugs before selling them.
In addition, Lister v. Ballard, 237 W. Va. 34, 40, 784 S.E.2d 733, 739 (2016). The jury had the opportunity to observe the witnesses during their testimony and examine all of the evidence presented, both direct and circumstantial, including the recorded conversations cited by the parties. We will not substitute our judgment for the credibility determinations of the jury. Therefore, we find that petitioner has failed to meet his heavy burden to establish that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
To continue reading
Request your trial