Larry Handy v. State of Arkansas

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE JOSEPHINE LINKER HART

DIVISION III

LARRY HANDY

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-701

February 20, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 99-3939]

HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Larry Handy, appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine and simultaneous possession of a controlled substance and firearms. Specifically, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, arguing that the State failed to establish that he constructively possessed the contraband. We affirm.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and affirm if that evidence is substantial. Boston v. State, 69 Ark. App. 155, 159, 12 S.W.3d 245, 248 (2000). Here, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding possession of contraband. In reaching a decision on this issue, we are guided by the following:

To convict one of possessing contraband, the State must show that the defendantexercised control or dominion over it. Neither exclusive nor actual, physical possession is necessary to sustain a charge. Rather, constructive possession is sufficient.

. . .

Moreover, constructive possession may be implied when the contraband is in the joint control of the accused and another; however, joint occupancy, alone, is insufficient to establish possession or joint possession. The State must establish that (1) the accused exercised care, control, and management over the contraband, and (2) the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband.

Stanton v. State, 344 Ark. 589, 599, 42 S.W.3d 474, 480-81 (2001) (citations omitted). "[C]ontrol and knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity of the contraband to the accused, the fact that it is in plain view, and the ownership of the property where the contraband is found." Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417, 420, 815 S.W.2d 382, 384 (1991).

Here, the State's evidence established that during the execution of a search warrant at a residence, the police found appellant and four other men in different areas of the residence. Appellant was found alone, lying on top of a bed in the master bedroom with the door closed. Also on top of the bed and between appellant's legs, an officer found an off-white, rock-like substance that was subsequently identified as 0.244 grams of cocaine base. The officer further testified that he could tell something was underneath the mattress because it was raised several inches. Between the mattress and box springs were found two loaded handguns, two boxes of ammunition, a sock containing shotgun shells, and a crack pipe.

Another officer testified that after he handcuffed appellant and moved him to the floor, appellant became belligerent. The officer read appellant his Miranda rights and asked him who was in possession of the residence. Appellant stated that it was his house andacknowledged that he "was in control or responsible for what was going on there."

In assessing appellant's claim that his constructive possession of the contraband was not established by substantial evidence, we note that the residence in which the contraband was found was jointly occupied by appellant and four other persons. Appellant, however, was the only person in close proximity to both the cocaine and the handguns, as he was found alone in the master bedroom with the door closed. Also, the cocaine was in plain view, and even though the handguns were beneath the mattress, appellant was found lying on the mattress, which was raised several inches. Further, appellant admitted that the residence was his and that he controlled it or was responsible for what was going on there. Thus, given that appellant was the only person in close proximity to the contraband, that the presence of the contraband was readily apparent, and that appellant was in possession of the property where the contraband was found, we conclude that there was substantial evidence that appellant constructively possessed both the cocaine and the handguns. Consequently, we affirm appellant's convictions.

Affirmed.

Jennings and Neal, JJ., agree.