State v. Holden
Decision Date | 27 January 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 45,038-KA.,45 |
Citation | 30 So.3d 1053 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Diverious C. HOLDEN, Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Louisiana Appellate Project, by Edward Kelly Bauman, Lake Charles, for Appellant.
Diverious C. Holden, Richard Christopher Nevils, District Attorney, Steven D. Crews, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.
Before CARAWAY, PEATROSS and DREW, JJ.
Defendant, Diverious Holden, a trustee incarcerated in Winn Parish, was convicted at jury trial of four felony drug charges, all committed during his incarceration. He received a significant prison term for each crime, though all sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that these four concurrent sentences be served consecutively with the sentences he was serving when he breached the trust granted him as a trustee.
This appeal involves his convictions of and sentences for the following crimes:
He appeals his convictions and sentences. We affirm in all respects.
In 2008, Holden was a trustee at the Winn Parish Jail, housed in a cell designated for such apparently reliable inmates. On the morning of May 15, Holden failed to report for his work detail. The infraction resulted in his loss of trustee status and a transfer to lockdown.
Winn Parish Sheriff's Deputy Raymond Whittington, the jail warden, ordered Holden and another inmate out of their cell. Both were ordered to move their belongings into the hall.1 Holden moved two lockers into the hall, one unlocked and the other locked. A search of the unlocked locker revealed only clothing. After cutting the lock from the other locker, Whittington found therein a sock containing marijuana, as well as individual packets of white powder and a nonprescription pill bottle containing approximately 45 pills. In addition, the locker also contained 69 packs of cigarettes and various legal personal items. Holden denied ownership of the drugs but admitted that the other items belonged to him.
Analysis of the suspected contraband from the locker revealed the items to be marijuana, cocaine, and alprazolam (Xanax). Holden was charged with possession with intent to distribute the three drugs, as well as introduction of contraband into a penal institution.
Holden contends the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the convictions of guilt, in that:
Not surprisingly, the state disagrees, arguing that sufficient evidence was presented by which the jury could infer that Holden was a principal to the offenses, and that the jury's determination on witness credibility is not subject to review.
Our law on sufficiency of the evidence is well settled.2 Likewise, our law is well settled relative to assessing the requisite proof for crimes of alleged possession of drugs with intent to distribute.3
The state was easily able to establish the essential elements of the charged offenses.
Deputy Raymond Whittington, the jail warden at the time of the incident, testified that:
Chief Deputy Gregg Davies testified that:
Winn Parish Detective Darrell Winder testified that:
Johnny Lowery, another prisoner at the Winn Parish Jail, testified that:
Detective Winder was recalled as the only defense witness, testifying that:
The evidence presented by the state was sufficient to convict Holden of the charged offenses. The state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Holden knowingly or intentionally possessed the contraband and that he did so with the intent to distribute it. With regard to each of the controlled substances, the state was able to show that the substances were found in the locker used by Holden to hold his possessions. When roused from his cell and told to gather his belongings, Holden independently removed the lockers to the hallway, evidencing his dominion over them. While Holden maintained two lockers, only the locker containing the drugs was locked. Several weeks prior to the discovery of the drugs, Holden had obtained a lock for use on the locker containing the contraband. Holden was seen locking the locker when departing his cell and unlocking it upon his return. It was reasonable for the jury to infer that Holden was aware that the contraband was in that locker.
The quantity and packaging of the contraband was consistent with someone selling drugs, and inconsistent with personal use, and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Colby
...evidence rather than to its admissibility. State v. Booker , 46,256 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/18/11), 70 So.3d 818 ; State v. Holden , 45,038 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/10), 30 So.3d 1053, writ denied , 2010-0491 (La. 9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072 ; State v. Henton , 28,576 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/96), 682 So.......
-
State v. Ellis, 49,078–KA.
...surrounding the defendant's possession which give rise to reasonable inferences of intent to distribute. State v. Holden, 45,038 (La.App.2d Cir.1/27/10), 30 So.3d 1053, writ denied,2010–0491 (La.9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072. The state need not prove the defendant actually possessed the drugs, as......
-
State v. Simon, 51,778–KA
...surrounding the defendant's possession which give rise to reasonable inferences of intent to distribute. State v. Holden , 45,038 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/10), 30 So.3d 1053, writ denied , 2010-0491 (La. 9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072. The state need not prove the defendant actually possessed the dru......
-
State v. Howard
...surrounding the defendant's possession which give rise to reasonable inferences of intent to distribute. State v. Holden, 45,038 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1/27/10), 30 So.3d 1053, writ denied, 10–0491 (La.9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072.The state need not prove the defendant actually possessed the drugs, as......