State v. Canales

• Decision Date: 03 January 2022
• Docket Number: 82541-1-I
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOHN EDWARD CANALES, Appellant

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
JOHN EDWARD CANALES, Appellant

No. 82541-1-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

January 3, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ANDRUS, A.C.J.

John Canales appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine^[1] and possession of heroin with intent to deliver. He contends the State presented insufficient evidence to establish intent to deliver under the corpus delicti rule or to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. He further argues the State exceeded its discretion by charging him with possession with intent when the more specific statute prohibiting the sale of heroin applied, and he maintains he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to challenge the validity of a search warrant. We affirm his possession with intent to deliver

1

conviction but remand to vacate the methamphetamine possession conviction and to resentence Canales in light of Blake.

FACTS

On October 15, 2019, detectives with the Longview Police Department and the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Drug Task Force served a search warrant at 1226 3rd Avenue in Longview, Washington.

The search warrant was largely based on information law enforcement obtained from a confidential informant who was "working with the Longview Police Street Crimes Unit in exchange for leniency in a pending criminal matter." Longview Detective Matt Hartley provided the affidavit supporting the search warrant request and provided three paragraphs detailing his informant's experience and reliability. Detective Hartley described the informant as someone who had used both methamphetamine and heroin in the past, knew what the drugs looked like, and was knowledgeable about street prices, drug packaging, and quantities dealers typically packaged for sale. He also explained that this informant had made "multiple previous controlled purchases of controlled substances from known drug dealers in Cowlitz County," and that he found the informant to be truthful and accurate.

According to Detective Hartley's affidavit, the informant told police that they had been invited into a detached garage associated with Canales in early October 2019. While there, the informant observed Canales with methamphetamine, packaged in small plastic bags and estimated to weigh more than an ounce. The

2

informant saw Canales use a scale to measure the methamphetamine and then exchange the drugs for cash.

The court issued the requested warrant, authorizing police to search both the garage and Canales himself for evidence of drug transactions.

Prior to executing the warrant, Detective Sarah Brent surveilled the property for several hours. She observed many people coming and going and noted that there were two RVs parked on the property. She also saw Canales moving between the garage and the motorhomes carrying a black backpack and a red and black duffel bag.

When Detective Hartley stopped and searched Canales, he found a small plastic "baggie" containing 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in Canales's pocket. Another officer found $810 in cash in Canales's wallet. When police questioned Canales about the source of the money, he indicated that it was his savings.

Police transported Canales back to the property being searched. When Detective Hartley asked Canales about the motorhomes located on the property, Canales stated that he lived in one of them but had control over both. Canales consented to a search of the motorhomes.

Inside one, police found a red duffel bag, similar to the one Detective Brent saw in Canales' possession, the contents of which included 16 grams of heroin in a plastic bag. Detective Hartley testified that this quantity was consistent with dealing rather than personal use. Police also found a large quantity of marijuana in the motorhome and a few methamphetamine pipes in one of Canales' jackets.

3

In the second motorhome, police found a rubber container in which they found a small quantity of heroin and empty plastic baggies. The baggies were approximately an inch in height by three-quarters of an inch in width and were decorated with peace symbols. According to Detective Hartley, the baggies were the type used by dealers to package methamphetamine and heroin for sale. Police did not find any syringes or paraphernalia commonly used to ingest heroin. Nor did they find any scales or any written records suggesting sales.

While police were searching the motorhomes, Canales asked Detective Brent why he was under arrest. She explained that he was being arrested for possession with intent to deliver. When he "scoffed," Detective Brent commented that he had over an ounce of heroin, suggesting possession with intent, and Canales responded "That wasn't an ounce, that was a half-ounce."

The State charged Canales with one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Canales was convicted as charged and sentenced to 108 months imprisonment and 12 months community custody. Canales appeals.

ANALYSIS

1. Corpus Delicti

Canales first argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to establish corpus delicti of possession with intent to deliver heroin. We reject this argument.

Under the corpus delicti rule, before a trial court may admit a defendant's confession, the State must produce independent evidence other than a

4

defendant's self-incriminating statements, to corroborate that the crime described in the defendant's statement actually occurred.^[2] State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311, 328, 150 P.3d 59 (2006). The independent evidence need not establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 264, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). "The evidence is sufficient if it supports a logical and reasonable inference of the facts the State seeks to prove." Id. The independent evidence, however, must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with a hypothesis of innocence. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d at 329 (quoting State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640, 660, 927 P.2d 210 (1996)).

The corpus delicti rule is a rule of sufficiency as well as a rule of evidence. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 256. We therefore review de novo whether sufficient corroborating evidence exists to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. State v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wn. App. 2d 275, 279, 404 P.3d 629 (2017). We assume the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 264.

Mere possession of drugs alone cannot constitute sufficient corroborating evidence of an intent to deliver. Hotchkiss, 1 Wn. App. 2d at 281. But the corpus

5

delicti rule is satisfied if at least one additional factor, suggestive of intent, is present. Id. (citing State v. Whalen, 131 Wn. App. 58, 63, 126 P.3d 55 (2005)).

Here, the State presented evidence that Canales was in possession of a large quantity of heroin and that it was more than would typically be possessed for personal use. In addition to this, Canales was in possession of $810 in cash and several small baggies consistent with those commonly used to package and distribute drugs. Moreover, the police found no syringes or other paraphernalia indicating that the heroin was for Canales' personal use. This evidence supports a logical and reasonable inference that Canales intended to deliver the heroin he possessed.

Canales argues that this evidence does not satisfy the corpus delicti rule because the State did not demonstrate that the baggies or cash were connected to the drugs and that his possession of these items was more consistent with a theory of innocence than guilt. But the test is not whether there could be an...