State of Utah v. Powell

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Daniel B. Powell,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000991-CA

F I L E D
November 7, 2002 2002 UT App 370 -----

Second District, Farmington Department
The Honorable Rodney S. Page

Attorneys:
Scott L. Wiggins, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Karen A. Klucznik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Bench, Orme, and Thorne.

BENCH, Judge:

Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he possessed or controlled a firearm. "'[W]e review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict . . . .'" State v. Banks, 720 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Utah 1986) (citation omitted) (alteration in original). The trial court found the following in support of its verdict: (1) the backpack containing the firearm was in Defendant's exclusive control for the majority of the day; (2) Defendant was aware that a gun was usually kept in the backpack in which it was found; (3) the backpack was sitting upright in the passenger seat next to Defendant; and (4) Defendant was adamant that the gun was not loaded. When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, these facts, together with the reasonable inferences the trial court drew from them, are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knew of the gun's presence in the car and had it under his custody or control. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant.

Next, Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred at sentencing by not complying with rule 22(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, the record is clear that defense counsel had the opportunity to address the court. Defense counsel requested that the sentences imposed run concurrently with the federal sentence Defendant was already serving, which is exactly what the trial court ordered. Thus, the trial court complied with the requirements of rule 22(a). See State v. Wanosik, 2001 UT App 241,¶¶28-33, 31 P.3d 615, cert. granted, 42 P.3d 951 (Utah 2002).

Accordingly, we affirm Defendant's conviction and sentence.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge