Dorothy Boles v. State of Arkansas

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

OLLY NEAL, Judge

DIVISION III

CACR01-294

NOVEMBER 14, 2001

DOROTHY BOLES AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT v. [CR2000-242]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HON. JOHN BERTRAN PLEGGE,

APPELLEE CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

After a bench trial, appellant, Dorothy Boles, was convicted of three counts of delivery of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, and maintaining a drug premises. The court also found that she was a habitual offender with more than one but less than four prior felony convictions. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant does not appeal her conviction on the three counts of delivery of cocaine. On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred by: (1) denying her motion to dismiss the felony charge of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence of her guilt; and (2) denying her motion to dismiss the felony charge of maintaining a drug premises because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence of her guilt. We hold that there was no error and affirm.

The evidence establishes that while working undercover, Detective Kim Francisco, of the North Little Rock Police Department Narcotics Unit, purchased rock cocaine from appellant on three separate occasions. Each purchase took place in Room 35 at the Sportsman's Inn Motel in North Little Rock. During Francisco's purchase on September 15, 1999, the North Little Rock Police Department executed a search warrant on Room 35. The search yielded 0.17 grams of cocaine and two crack pipes. At the time of arrest, appellant stated her address was "2501 East Broadway, Room 35."

On January 24, 2000, the State filed a five-count felony information against appellant charging her with: (1) three counts of delivery of cocaine, (2) possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, and (3) maintaining a drug premises. The State also alleged that appellant was a habitual offender with more than one but less than four felony convictions.

A bench trial was held October 9, 2000, in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. At the close of the State's case, appellant moved for directed verdict. Appellant alleged that 1) the State failed to show that she possessed cocaine; 2) there was no evidence that she took "active steps in the commission of the delivery of a controlled substance"; 3) the pipes were found in a drawer; 4) there was no evidence that she rented Room 35; and 5) that others had access to the room. The court denied her motion. After appellant rested without putting on any evidence, she renewed her motion for directed verdict. The court also denied this motion. The court found appellant guilty on all five counts and sentenced her to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. She now appeals.

On appeal, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict on the charges of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use and maintaining a drug premises. A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Leaks v. State, 345 Ark. 182, 45 S.W.3d 363 (2001). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21, 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001). Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if it is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or another. Hughes v. State, 74 Ark. App. 126, 46 S.W.3d 538 (2001). When the evidence is circumstantial, we must consider whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude all other reasonable hypotheses. See id.

In her first point on appeal, appellant alleges the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the felony charge of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence of her guilt of this offense. To sustain a conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia, the State must show that a defendant exercised control or dominion over it. See Stanton v. State, 344 Ark. 589, 42 S.W.3d 474 (2001). The evidence at trial revealed that the two crack pipes were retrieved from drawers in the hotel room. There was no evidence of appellant having drug paraphernalia on her person; therefore, we must determine if appellant constructively possessed the drug paraphernalia recovered during the search of the hotel room.

Constructive possession may be imputed when the contraband is found in a place that is either accessible to the defendant and subject to her exclusive dominion and control, or subject to the joint dominion and control by the defendant and another. Hughes, supra. In order to prove constructive possession, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant exercised care, control, and management over the contraband, and (2) the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband. Boston v. State, 69 Ark. App. 155, 12 S.W.3d 245 (2000).

At the time of arrest, appellant claimed that Room 35 was her residence. Therefore, the hotel room was subject to her dominion and control. Based on this evidence, the State offered sufficient evidence to support the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia.

Appellant's second point on appeal is that the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the felony charge of maintaining a drug premises because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence of her guilt of this offense. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-402(a)(3) (Repl. 1997) provides that a person commits the offense of maintaining a drug premises if they "[k]nowingly . . . keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, or other structure or place or premise, which is resorted to by persons for the purpose of using or obtaining [drugs]." Detective Francisco testified that an informant arranged for her to make the initial purchase of fifty dollars worth of crack cocaine from "Dot" in Room 35 of the Sportsman's Inn. During her testimony, Detective Francisco identified appellant as Dot. The evidence establishes that appellant was involved in each of the transactions with Detective Francisco. Furthermore, at the time of arrest, appellant stated Room 35 was her residence. Based on the evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of maintaining a drug premises.

Affirmed.

Robbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree.