PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID COCHISE BOARDS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 271835
Calhoun Circuit Court
LC No. 06-000109-FH
DAVID COCHISE BOARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and White and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of possession of less than 25 grams of
cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v), and was sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense,
MCL 769.12, to a prison term of 2 to 15 years. He appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal
is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Following a traffic stop and the arrest of the vehicle’s driver, police officer Joel Case
asked defendant to step from the vehicle so he could search it, and defendant complied. Case
patted him down and did not find anything. Case told defendant that he believed that there was
possibly going to be either crack or crack pipes in the vehicle and asked him if there was.
Defendant did not initially respond. Upon further inquiry, defendant hesitantly replied, “[i]f
there was something in there, that it wasn’t his.”
In the area where defendant had been sitting, on the seat, Case found a crack pipe inside a
garden glove. Adjacent to that was a wadded up piece of tissue paper. Inside the tissue was
tightly wadded lined paper, which held pieces of “chore boy” and .10 grams of cocaine. The
items were on the passenger seat of the vehicle, where a passenger’s left leg would rest. Case
did not recall any other items on the passenger seat. When defendant was asked about the crack
cocaine, he replied that he did not know anything about it. When Case asked defendant how the
cocaine got there and if the driver had placed it underneath him, defendant responded
“something to the effect of, ‘Possibly.’” The driver indicated that the drugs were not hers or
defendant’s, but must have been left by someone else.
Defendant argues that the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient to support
the conviction. “[W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a
conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the
-1-
crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d
748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). Constructive possession exists where the defendant has
control over the contraband and knowledge of its presence. Id. at 520. An inference of
possession is not automatically unreasonable because it is founded exclusively on circumstantial
evidence. See People v Meshell, 265 Mich App 616, 621; 696 NW2d 754 (2005).
In this case, defendant was not merely present at the location where the drugs were
found. Instead, they were found hidden with a crack pipe in a glove that was sitting on
defendant’s seat. Specifically, on a portion of the seat that had just been occupied by the
backside of defendant’s leg. A rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that defendant was
sitting on the glove containing the cocaine and the crack pipe to conceal it, which demonstrated
that he knew that the cocaine was present and that he exercised a considerable amount of control
over it. Wolfe, supra at 520. Therefore, the evidence of constructive possession was adequate to
support defendant’s conviction.
Defendant next contends that he is entitled to a remand to determine whether he received
credit for the time he served in jail awaiting sentence. Defendant committed the offense while
on parole. He claims that if the Parole Board did not require him to serve an additional portion
of his previous sentence for violating parole, then the jail credit must be applied to the sentence
for the instant offense.
A convicted defendant who served time in jail before sentencing is entitled to credit for
time served against the sentence imposed pursuant to MCL 769.11b only if he was held because
he was denied or was unable to furnish bond. Defendant did not serve time in jail because of an
inability or denial of bond. He was held on a parole detainer. “When a parolee is arrested for a
new criminal offense, he is held on a parole detainer until he is convicted of that offense, and he
is not entitled to credit for time served in jail on the sentence for the new offense.” People v
Seiders, 262 Mich App 702, 705; 686 NW2d 821 (2004). Rather, he is entitled to have jail credit
applied exclusively to the sentence from which parole was granted. People v Stead, 270 Mich
App 550, 552; 716 NW2d 324 (2006).
Defendant requests a remand to determine if he received credit on the earlier offense.
However, the remand is unnecessary because regardless whether he received credit against the
other sentence, MCL 769.11b does not provide a basis for granting credit against the present
sentence. Defendant’s reliance on unpublished authority issued before Seiders and Stead is
misplaced. Although defendant cites the dissents to the denials of applications for leave to
appeal in People v Wright, 474 Mich 1138; 716 NW2d 552 (2006), and People v Conway, 474
Mich 1140; 716 NW2d 554 (2006), the concerns expressed by the dissenting justices do not
provide a basis for this Court to disregard Seiders and Stead.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
