Michael Glenn Pickens v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION I

MICHAEL GLENN PICKENS,

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR02-153

DECEMBER 11, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE GRANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR2001-4-1,

HON. SAMUEL B. POPE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant, Michael Glenn Pickens, was found guilty in a jury trial of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and was sentenced to ten years in prison. His only argument on appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the jury's finding that he possessed the marijuana. We affirm.

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Burley v. State, 348 Ark. 422, 73 S.W.3d 600 (2002). Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48, 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Burley v. State, supra.

Circumstantial evidence provides the basis to support a conviction if it is consistent

with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. Sublett v. State, 337 Ark. 374, 989 S.W.2d 910 (1999). Such a determination is for the fact-finder to determine. Sheridan v. State, 313 Ark. 23, 852 S.W.2d 772 (1993). We will disturb the jury's determination only if the evidence leaves the jury to speculation and conjecture in reaching its verdict. Phillips v. State, 344 Ark. 453, 40 S.W.3d 778 (2001). It is unlawful for any person to possess marijuana with intent to deliver. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (Repl. 1997). There is a rebuttable presumption that there is an intent to deliver when a person possesses at least one ounce of marijuana. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (d) (Repl. 1997).

The record reflects that appellant was taken to jail at the Sheridan Detention Center at around 4:00 a.m. on December 20, 2000. As per standard intake procedure, appellant and his clothing were subjected to a search. After appellant showered, his personal belongings were placed in a bag and stored in the property room. He was issued underwear, socks, sandals, and a jumpsuit to wear during his stay.

On January 16, 2001, narcotics agent Charlie Winborn was advised that an inmate at the detention center wished to speak to him. The inmate, Jacob Populus, told Winborn that appellant had been talking about having marijuana concealed in the collar of his coat and in one of his shoes and that appellant was trying to devise a way to get to his clothing in the property room. It was discussed that appellant might feign the need to see a doctor in order to gain access to his clothes. Winborn contacted Jimmy Vaughn, the jail administrator, and the two men located the bag containing appellant's belongings in the property room. Twobags of marijuana were found in the collar of appellant's coat. Loose marijuana was found under the insole in one of appellant's shoes. Appellant's coat had a hood, and it was described as being thick. Winborn said that a small slit had been cut into the collar and that the two bags of marijuana had been stuffed inside. The combined weight of the marijuana found was 100.1 grams, or roughly a quarter of a pound. There was testimony that the property room remained locked at all times and that only five persons had keys to the room. At the time in question, the property room also housed files and cleaning supplies in addition to the inmates' personal belongings. Trustees at the jail had access to the room to obtain cleaning supplies, but it was said that these inmates were always accompanied by an officer when they entered the room.

Chris Stephens, the jailer who was on duty when appellant arrived at the detention center, testified that in searching appellant's coat he had made a mistake by not checking the collar more carefully. He said that he had banged appellant's shoes on the ground in order to find something that might have been lodged inside, but he said that he had not removed the insoles of appellant's shoes. Appellant testified that the marijuana was not his. He said

that marijuana was not in his coat or shoe when he arrived at the detention center.

Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he possessed the marijuana because it was not found during the search when he arrived at the jail; because there are five keys to the room and other persons had access to the room; and because he was not in the vicinity of the property room between the time he arrived at the jail and the time the marijuana was discovered. When the evidence is viewed in the lightmost favorable to the State, it shows that the marijuana was concealed in areas of appellant's clothing that were not thoroughly searched; that access to the property room was limited; and that the marijuana was found in the precise areas pinpointed by appellant in his statements to Mr. Populus. We hold that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Hart, JJ., agree.