Tyrone Johnson v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION DIVISION II  CACR07­260  TYRONE JOHNSON  November 14, 2007  APPELLANT  V. APPEAL  FROM  THE  PULASKI  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CR2005­1899]  STATE OF ARKANSAS  HON. CHRIS PIAZZA,  CIRCUIT JUDGE  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Tyrone Johnson was convicted in a Pulaski County jury trial of felony possession of  drug paraphernalia, and he was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas  Department  of  Correction  and  fined  $10,000.  On  appeal,  Johnson  argues  (1)  that  his  conviction for felony possession of drug paraphernalia is void as a matter of law because the  trier of fact found him not guilty of the underlying felony charge of possession of cocaine  with intent to deliver; and (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to instruct the  jury at sentencing only on misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.   We affirm.  Johnson was charged with three felonies: possession of cocaine with the intent to  deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia  while in the course of and furtherance of a felony drug offense.  At the close of the State’s  case­in­chief, the trial court granted Johnson’s directed verdict on the marijuana charge and  reduced  it  to  misdemeanor  possession.    The  trial  court,  however,  refused  to  reduce  the  paraphernalia  charge  to  a  misdemeanor.    The  jury  was  unable  to  reach  a  verdict  on  the  cocaine and marijuana possession charges, but convicted Johnson of felony possession of  drug paraphernalia.  Johnson first argues that his conviction of felony possession of drug paraphernalia is  void as a matter of law because the trier of fact found him not guilty of the underlying felony  charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.  He asserts that this case presents a  question of first impression, and he urges this court to apply the same reasoning that is used  when felony murder cases are reviewed—that his possession of the paraphernalia must be  found  to  be  in  furtherance  of  the  felony  cocaine  possession  charge.    Further,  Johnson  contends that a conviction of felony possession of drug paraphernalia cannot stand alone, and  therefore, this court should reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor and remand this case for  re­sentencing.  We find this argument unpersuasive.  First, in White v. State, 98 Ark. App. 366, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007), a case handed down five  days before Johnson filed his brief, we specifically rejected an argument that we apply felony­  murder  analysis  to  felony­drug­paraphernalia­possession  cases.    We  stand  by  that  precedent.  Second, we disagree with Johnson’s assertion that his conviction for felony­drug­paraphernalia  possession cannot stand alone, independent of a conviction for felony­drug possession.  It is settled  law that a defendant may not attack the inconsistency of verdicts on separate charges because the  finder of fact is “free to exercise its historical power of lenity if it believes that a conviction on one  count would provide sufficient punishment.”  Bridges v.  State,  327 Ark. 392, 938 S.W.2d 561  (1997) (quoting Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 917 S.W.2d 164 (1996)).  Here the jury’s instruction ­2­  CA07­260  on the paraphernalia charge included the element that Johnson must be found to have possessed  1  cocaine  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  The  fact  that  the  jury  was  deadlocked  on  the  separate  possession of cocaine charge is therefore of no moment.  For  his  second  point,  Johnson  argues  that  because  he  could  not  have  been  convicted  of  felony­drug­paraphernalia  possession,  the  trial  court  erred  in  instructing  the  jury  on  the  felony  sentencing range for his conviction.  But, because we have affirmed his felony conviction, this  argument is moot.  Affirmed.  GLOVER  and MILLER, JJ., agree. 1  The jury was instructed as follows:  Tyrone Johnson is charged with the offense of unlawfully possessing  drug paraphernalia during the commission of possession of a controlled  substance.  As part of this charge, the State contends that Tyrone Johnson  committed possession of a controlled substance cocaine.  To prove this, the  State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyrone Johnson possessed  a controlled substance, cocaine.  The State must prove beyond a reasonable  doubt that Tyrone Johnson knowingly used or possessed with the intent to  use drug paraphernalia to process, prepare, or weigh cocaine in the course  of and in the furtherance of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine.  And drug paraphernalia means all equipment, products, materials of  any kind which are used, intended to use, or designed to use in planting,  propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, processing, preparing, testing,  analyzing, packing, repacking, storing, containing, concealing, injection,  ingestion, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a  controlled substance.  ­3­  CA07­260 

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.