State v. Gonzalez, No. 25152.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Kenneth W. Shrum |
| Citation | 108 S.W.3d 209 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edwin GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 25152. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 2003 |
Page 209
v.
Edwin GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Nancy A. McKerrow, Columbia, for appellant.
Page 210
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Sara L. Trower, Office of the Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
KENNETH W. SHRUM, Judge.
Edwin Gonzalez ("Defendant") appeals his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211, RSMo (2000).1 After a jury trial, the trial court sentenced Defendant to five years' imprisonment, following the jury's recommendation. Defendant alleges the conviction and sentence should be overturned because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. We disagree. We affirm.
Because Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we accept as true all the evidence favorable to the State, including all favorable inferences drawn from the evidence, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Skillicorn, 944 S.W.2d 877, 894[33] (Mo.banc 1997). On March 15, 2001, Officer Stacy Parton of the Springfield, Missouri, police department began his shift at 6:00 p.m. by conducting surveillance on a duplex located at 2001 East Battlefield. During this surveillance, Officer Parton witnessed "a large number of persons going in and out of the apartment." At approximately 1:20 a.m., Officer Parton and his partner, Officer Schwenn, stopped a vehicle, loaded with four individuals that left the duplex, for running a stop sign. The driver spoke briefly to Officer Schwenn and pointed to two Ziploc-type baggies of marijuana. After the occupants were arrested, one passenger informed Officer Parton that they had earlier been smoking marijuana at the duplex.
Acting upon this information, at approximately 2:00 a.m., officers Parton, Schwenn, and two other policemen (Holt and Holle) arrived at the duplex to investigate. The officers were greeted at the door and invited into the home by Jeremy Atkinson. Parton stated, "As soon as the door was opened, I noticed a strong odor of marijuana." The officers conducted a protective sweep of the duplex and found several other individuals throughout the residence. Defendant was located in the southwest bedroom along with his girlfriend, Chara York. The police asked for consent to search, but were denied by the lessees, Atkinson and John Brown. Defendant, however, consented to a search of his room, i.e., the southwest bedroom. A warrant was later obtained, and a search of the duplex was conducted.
In the southeast bedroom (Brown's room), the police found 109 grams of marijuana, notes evidencing prior sales of marijuana, cash, and drug paraphernalia. In the southwest bedroom (Defendant's room), the police found "a small plastic bag containing marijuana roaches" in a small "hutch."2 Another bag of marijuana was found under a nightstand next to the bed. In Defendant's closet, the police found 159 grams of marijuana in a bag on the top shelf. Some of the marijuana in Defendant's room was individually wrapped as ounces in Ziploc-type bags similar to those seized from the car stopped for running a stop sign, i.e., cheaper sandwich bags without a "zipper" or "Ziplock lock." Men's and women's clothing was found both in the closet and throughout the room. On the dresser, a summons for Defendant was found, as was a similar one for York, from Illinois dated March 12, 2001. Personal
Page 211
items, such as cologne and makeup, were also on top of the dresser.
In the basement, the police found a scale with marijuana residue on it. Behind the scale, baggies were discovered which were the same type as those found in Defendant's closet. Drug paraphernalia and a "marijuana grow operation" were likewise located in the basement. Part of this operation were several marijuana plants and a box fan that was "almost an exact copy" of a fan found in Defendant's closet.
Defendant was ultimately charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute in violation of section 195.211. After all evidence was adduced, the jury was instructed upon an accomplice liability theory. It found Defendant guilty. This appeal followed.
Because sufficiency of the evidence is the only question here, our review is limited to deciding if there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55[3] (Mo.banc 1989). We are to accept all of the evidence favorable to the State, including favorable inferences drawn from the evidence, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id. at 55[2]. An inference is a logical and reasonable conclusion of fact not presented by direct evidence, but which via logic and reason, the jury may conclude exists from the established facts. State v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 103, 106[8] (Mo. App.1984).
To sustain the conviction, the State was required to prove (1) conscious and intentional possession of the controlled substance, either actual or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bremenkamp, No. 26975.
...actual or constructive; (2) awareness of the presence and nature of the substance; and (3) intent to distribute it. State v. Gonzalez, 108 S.W.3d 209, 211 (Mo.App. S.D.2003). Where there is no actual possession, as the State acknowledges here, the State must not only prove constructive poss......
-
State v. Schurle, WD 83914
...refer to the 2016 edition of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, updated by the 2017 Supplement.2 See , e.g. , State v. Gonzalez , 108 S.W.3d 209, 210 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) ; State v. Fairow , 991 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)3 State v. Taylor , 373 S.W.3d 513, 525 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) ......
-
State v. Taylor, No. ED 96299.
...actual or constructive; (2) awareness of the presence and nature of the substance; and (3) intent to distribute it.” State v. Gonzalez, 108 S.W.3d 209, 211 (Mo.App. S.D.2003). To sustain a conviction for mere possession of a controlled substance, the State need only prove the first two elem......
-
State v. McCleod, No. WD 64945.
...of marijuana but fails to cite to any case law actually supporting that assertion. In its brief, the State relies upon State v. Gonzalez, 108 S.W.3d 209 (Mo.App. S.D. 2003), contending that Gonzalez held that the sheer quantity of marijuana recovered from the defendant's bedroom in that cas......
-
State v. Bremenkamp, No. 26975.
...actual or constructive; (2) awareness of the presence and nature of the substance; and (3) intent to distribute it. State v. Gonzalez, 108 S.W.3d 209, 211 (Mo.App. S.D.2003). Where there is no actual possession, as the State acknowledges here, the State must not only prove constructive poss......
-
State v. Schurle, WD 83914
...refer to the 2016 edition of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, updated by the 2017 Supplement.2 See , e.g. , State v. Gonzalez , 108 S.W.3d 209, 210 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) ; State v. Fairow , 991 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)3 State v. Taylor , 373 S.W.3d 513, 525 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) ......
-
State v. Taylor, No. ED 96299.
...actual or constructive; (2) awareness of the presence and nature of the substance; and (3) intent to distribute it.” State v. Gonzalez, 108 S.W.3d 209, 211 (Mo.App. S.D.2003). To sustain a conviction for mere possession of a controlled substance, the State need only prove the first two elem......
-
State v. McCleod, No. WD 64945.
...of marijuana but fails to cite to any case law actually supporting that assertion. In its brief, the State relies upon State v. Gonzalez, 108 S.W.3d 209 (Mo.App. S.D. 2003), contending that Gonzalez held that the sheer quantity of marijuana recovered from the defendant's bedroom in that cas......