Razor v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CACR08-1048
JOHNNY RAZOR
Opinion Delivered
April 15, 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2002-17]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
Johnny Razor appeals from an order of the Mississippi County Circuit Court revoking his
suspended sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The trial court found that Razor
violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentences due to his failure to live a law-abiding
life by possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver on August 17, 2007, and by delivering
a controlled substance on January 11, 2007. The trial court sentenced Razor to ten years in the
Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in finding that he
possessed the controlled substance on August 17, 2007, and by allowing into evidence a video of the
alleged January 11, 2007 narcotics sale along with a narrative supplied by a police officer, which he
contends violates his right of cross-examination and confrontation. We affirm.
On December 27, 2007, the State filed a petition to revoke Razor’s suspended imposition of
sentence, alleging that he “failed to live a law-abiding life, to be of good behavior and not violate any
federal, state, or municipal laws,” by committing drug offenses on three specific dates. As noted
previously, the trial court found sufficient evidence that Razor had committed drug crimes on August
17, 2007, and January 11, 2007. Because the State must prove only one violation to establish that
Razor violated the conditions of his suspended sentences, see Brock v. State, 70 Ark. App. 107, 14
S.W.3d 908 (2000), we find it necessary only to address Razor’s argument challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that he had failed to live a law abiding life with
regard to the “August 17, 2007 incident.”1 When we review a trial court’s findings that an appellant
violated the terms and conditions of his or her suspended sentence, those findings are upheld unless
they are clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Ramsey v. State, 60 Ark. App. 206, 959
S.W.2d 765 (1998). Evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may be sufficient
to support a revocation. Id.
At trial, Officer Steve Caudle testified that on August 17, 2007, he was involved in the
execution of a search warrant for a residence at 2233 Kenwood in Blytheville. Razor and four other
individuals were inside the residence. In one bedroom, Officer Caudle found cocaine in the pocket
of a fur coat, near where he found Razor’s driver’s license, pill bottles with Razor’s name on them,
and Razor’s parole paperwork. Razor was arrested on account of what the police uncovered in the
search. Razor denied that he had left these personal effects in the bedroom.
Razor argues that the evidence regarding his possession of cocaine with intent to deliver was
insufficient because the house in which the contraband was found was rented to Tiffany Mouton, there
were four other people inside the residence, and, “at best” the cocaine was found in the same bedroom
1
Razor’s argument concerning the video related to the alleged January 11, 2007 delivery
of narcotics. Razor, however, failed to include a copy of the video in his addendum.
Accordingly, we do not address this issue, and in light of our holding in regard to the August 17,
2007 incident, it is not necessary to order rebriefing.
-2-
CACR08-1048
as his driver’s license, pill bottles, and parole paperwork. Razor asserts that finding the narcotics with
his personal effects was insufficient to “link” him to the contraband. We disagree.
Constructive possession may be implied when contraband is found in a home occupied by the
accused and another, if there is an additional factor linking the accused to the contraband. E.g.,
Stanton v. State, 344 Ark. 589, 42 S.W.3d 474 (2001). The additional factors must show that the
accused had control over the contraband and knowledge of its presence. Id. Constructive possession
may be established by circumstantial evidence. Crossley v. State, 304 Ark. 378, 802 S.W.2d 459
(1991).
Although Razor discounts the presence of his personal documents and effects near where
police found the cocaine, we believe this evidence cuts the other way and establishes his culpability.
The presence of personal items has been held by our supreme court to be the required linking factors
for establishing constructive possession. Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003).
While it is true that Razor disputed having his personal effects in the bedroom where the contraband
was located, the trial court was not required to believe him. See id. Accordingly, we hold that the trial
court did not err in finding that Razor was engaging in unlawful activity in violation of the terms and
conditions of his suspended imposition of sentence.
Affirmed.
V AUGHT, C. J. , and BROWN, J. , agree.
-3-
CACR08-1048
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.
