the only issue i believe raise on appeal is whether or not the jury are could have read it wrong guilty based on the facts presented more specifically i think the issues is whether or not there was sufficient evidence presented that the defendant knowingly  a vehicle the second is that he fled from the scene following a traffic stop the third in the fourth piece of evidence are a shoe box in a field from final machine barcelo address of the same crime and the fifth was a cocaine was found on his person it's ts other other information that is not merely the only person who's in control of his vehicle that that inference should not be drawn in this case the record indicates that he was not an owner of the vehicle the contraband  question was found in the the vetting area of the truck where there was a physical barrier separating him he could not of exercise control over that contraband was the driver and the with contraband was also under the subtle blankets  control and can likely know what is in his vehicle when he has two hundred pounds of burglary tools which are easily visible in contradiction of this case judge the contraband question was not hidden away from view and i believe that when you start to take away to show that your possession more than being the driver of the vehicle does not give rise to that inference then we take a look at some of the issues reason people versus gore where they say that there needs to be a demonstration of special indicates that they specifically right that the defendant had exclusive control of the truck in its contents of the time of the stop so that if he knew there was cocaine in the shoe box he had a knowing exclusive possession of if he knew i think is the key issue here and there's no doubt evidence to demonstrate that the defendant knew about the contents of that shoe box this is it he's not the registered owner in iraq and i believe the record shows that there or evidence put into the state this is just that you know someone else might have been the registered owner that he was in fact the actual owner meaning he paid for the insurance or even the gas for the upkeep of the the only evidence was that he was he was just that the second issue is that definitively from the scene i think the record establishes quite clearly the officer observed defendant prior to the traffic stop realized there was a worn out skin for his arrest all the vehicle over  now i guess with the typically call phone stop by ordering him out of the vehicle perhaps at gunpoint issuing commands as opposed to check triple traffic stop where the officer approaches the vehicle and at some point the defendant gets in his vehicle gets out of his league on flees from the scene but the evidence is also on controverted that one he had cocaine on his person and that to that there was a warrant outstanding for his arrest there's even evidence in the record that suggests there prior to the traffic stop the officer  the fender which one could interpret as like a suspicious exchange between the two that's just of the defendant himself was aware that he had a warrant outstanding for his arrest on an unrelated matter and that when he was pulled over that that was the issue on his mind or the fact that when being ordered out of the vehicle being shouted commands in both spanish and english after apparently not eating any traffic violations that you realized it's the cocaine in my pocket i could get in trouble for that as well but even more specifically again the inference flight can leaders you need evidence of flight can lead to an inference of guilt if there is a demonstration of two things the first of which is that the defendant has knowledge that the crime in question has been committed and the second is that the defendant has knowledge that he is a suspect of that crime i don't believe the evidence shows that he knew again going back to the wrong earlier issues that there was cocaine in the bed of the truck but more specifically there it shows that he had knowledge of a possible ross that's actually not the standards it's whether or not he had knowledge of being a suspect in the crime that he was charged for in this case the classic spelling so you're trying to say that the crime he was running away but i do not know your honor was we were not in trial attorneys for the defendant i do know that out counsel vigorously objected to the putting in evidence of any of the cocaine evidence so i can only assume that you can sit and minimize that he owns a box somebody else can have access to that just as easily as he's driving someone else's truck so i don't believe ownership of the box is necessarily dispositive of the issue of possession the issue the scale the drug putting it into the interior of the box itself none of that was ever checked to suggest at some point the defendant actually touched on fans of the inside of the box or the inside of the box itself i would guess the court to consider when it removes shoes from ones you probably are used as it relates to the shoes and fingerprints that the officer who read the control over this didn't have these materials tested but it wasn't demonstrated the trial of that he didn't have a motive or bias or interest to have these items t clearly heavy fingerprints on the party means which would go a great deal in showing whether or not the defendant knowing who possessed these items and his response to why he didn't do that was it's not illegal to possess as its own or in this the  while this is a cocaine case the officer clearly us to find that these are items of contraband associated with the cocaine trade it seems reasonable and completely logical have those items tested instead he chose not to test those items he chose to test the item which by his own admission doesn't hold fingerprints by the admissions of the state's witnesses does not hold fingerprints very well and i would argue again that that has to go to whether or not a jury could reasonably find that the defendant cocaine in the bed of the truck is in any way shape or form similar by way of purity color packaging or anything like that in the cocaine folded up in the in in that was found in his coin point pocket but even more specifically the records completely contradicts defendant course was convicted of unlawful possession in trouble substance with intent to deliver and that people were required to prove that he had knowledge of the presence of cocaine possession or control over the cocaine intended to deliver the cocaine had a history of being the driver this particular vehicle he's already known otherwise it wouldn't come through on that search of this place since he's not the registered owner it would not be a reasonable thing to normally have show up the fact that he alone had control over the truck in there or over the area where the drugs were found and for his knowledge which is sufficient to sustain sustain a conviction under a theory of constructive possession the defendant stumped purchased at the time the shoes found inside the box only shows the defendant put the armband in the box perhaps at some point in time perhaps not i'm sure there were other items of contraband in there to suggest that there somebody else would put