Title: White v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM E. WHITE,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 111, 2007 
 
Defendant Below-   
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
§ 
ID # 0605022769 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 18, 2007 
   Decided:  August 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 15th day of August 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  
Appellant William White appeals his Superior Court convictions of 
Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Use of a Dwelling 
for Keeping Controlled Substances.  White makes two arguments on appeal.  First, 
he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.  
Second, White argues that his possession conviction should be vacated because it 
is a lesser included offense of maintaining a dwelling for keeping controlled 
substances.  We find no merit to either argument.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 2
(2)  
On May 23, 2006, Wilmington Police executed a search warrant at 
two locations after receiving information that White, a person prohibited from 
possessing a gun, attempted to purchase a firearm from a gun store.  The police 
first searched an apartment located at 709 N. Broom Street.  The left half of the 
bedroom contained female items, while male clothing and items were situated on 
the right side of the bed.  On a shelf to the right of the bed, police found a 9-
millimeter handgun case, parking tickets addressed to White, and a cigar box.  
Inside the cigar box, police discovered a plastic bag containing 15.4 grams of 
marijuana.1  Police also recovered a digital scale, $1,737 in cash, and several 
partially smoked blunts.2  
(3)  
The officers also searched an auto body shop that White operated.  
White was found at that location and arrested.  Inside the shop’s safe, Police found 
a 9-millimeter handgun, a box of 14 hollow tip rounds and a magazine containing 
15 live rounds.3  While under arrest, White told the police that he primarily resided 
with his girlfriend at 709 N. Broom Street.  
(4)  
White was indicted on charges of possession with intent to deliver 
marijuana, use of a dwelling for keeping controlled substances, possession of a 
deadly weapon by a person prohibited, possession of ammunition by a person 
                                          
 
1 The parking tickets were addressed to a different address, 521 N. King Street, Apt. 503. 
2 A “blunt” is a cheap cigar that is regularly hollowed out and filled with marijuana. 
3 White admitted that the 9-millimeter handgun belonged to him.  
 3
prohibited, false or written statement in connection with transfer or purchase of 
firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  During the trial, the judge granted 
White’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the weapons charges.  A Superior 
Court jury convicted White of possession of marijuana as a lesser included offense 
of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, use of a dwelling for keeping 
controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  White was sentenced 
to four years at Level 5, suspended for four months at Level 4 supervision, two 
years at Level 3 supervision, and fined $500.  This appeal followed. 
(5)  
White first contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to 
support his convictions.  Because White did not move for judgment of acquittal 
with respect to these charges, we review his claim for plain error.4  Plain error 
exists when the error is “so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize 
the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”5  Such error must be apparent on the 
face of the record and be “so basic, serious and fundamental in their character that 
they clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right or show manifest injustice.”6 
(6)  
To secure a conviction under Section 4755(a)(5) for maintaining a 
dwelling for the purpose of keeping a controlled substance, the State must show 
that the defendant knowingly kept or maintained a dwelling “which is resorted to 
                                          
 
4 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
5 Id. 
6 Hunter v. State, 788 A.2d 131 (Del. 2001) (TABLE). 
 4
by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose 
of using these substances or which is used for keeping or delivering them in 
violation of this chapter.”7  The “critical benchmark” for determining whether the 
evidence sufficiently supports a conviction for maintaining a dwelling for the 
purpose of keeping a controlled substance is  “the degree of the defendant's control 
or use of the [dwelling] in connection with the possession of drugs.”8  Although 
ownership of the dwelling is not required, “a single incident of using a building to 
facilitate a drug deal is insufficient.”9  The State must “offer evidence of some 
affirmative activity by the defendant to utilize the [dwelling] to facilitate the 
possession, delivery, or use of controlled substances.”10 
(7)   We find that the State produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that White knowingly used the apartment to keep marijuana.  White admitted to 
police that he primarily resided at the Broom Street apartment.  In addition, the 
marijuana was found among various other personal items belonging to White, 
including parking tickets and a case matching the size of his handgun.  This 
evidence demonstrates more than a single incident of using the apartment and is 
therefore sufficient to support his conviction.  
                                          
 
7 16 Del. C. § 4755(a)(5). 
8 Hopkins v. State, 893 A.2d 922, 932 (Del. 2006). 
9 Id. 
10 Priest v. State, 879 A.2d 576, 580 (Del. 2005). 
 5
(8)  
The evidence was also sufficient to support his possession of 
marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions.  To support a possession conviction, 
the State must show that the defendant was in actual or constructive possession of 
the drug and paraphernalia.11 Constructive possession is demonstrated by evidence 
that a defendant knew the location of the drug, had the ability to exercise dominion 
and control over the substance, and intended to guide the destiny of the drug.12  In 
Carter v. State,13 this Court held that the State submitted sufficient evidence of 
constructive possession when the defendant had seven bags of cocaine and one bag 
of marijuana in the pocket of his pants found directly next to his bed.14  The fact 
that the drugs were located in a pair of pants located directly next to the bed, where 
the defendant slept, created a reasonable inference that he constructively possessed 
the drugs.15  Similarly, in this case the marijuana was found at a residence where 
White spent most of his time.  More specifically, the marijuana was found on a 
shelf directly next to his bed which contained other personal items belonging to 
him.  By treating the marijuana as one of his belongings, and keeping it within feet 
of where he slept, it was reasonable for the jury to find that White constructively 
possessed the drug.    
                                          
 
11 16 Del. C. § 4754(b). 
12 White (Jan) v. State, 906 A.2d 82, 86 (Del. 2006). 
13 839 A.2d 665 (Del. 2003) (TABLE). 
14 Id. 
15 Id. 
 6
(9)  
White next contends that his possession of marijuana conviction 
should be vacated because it was an included offense of keeping a dwelling for the 
purpose of using or keeping marijuana.  This argument was also not raised below.  
Therefore, we review for plain error.  
(10)  A defendant may not be convicted of more than one offense if one 
offense is included in the other.16  One offense is included in another offense if “it 
is established by the proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish 
the commission of the offense charged.”17  This Court held in Lilly v. State,18 
however, that “the Delaware statute prescribing included offenses is not limited 
exclusively to the standard ‘statutory elements’ definition.”19  “[A]lthough [an] 
included offense must produce the same result as the inclusive offense, there may 
be some dissimilarity in the elements necessary to prove the offense.20   
(11) In this case, White’s possession conviction was not a lesser included 
offense of maintaining a dwelling because the two offenses are dissimilar.  
Possession of marijuana is an offense involving a person who knowingly or 
intentionally possesses marijuana.21  The elements of maintaining a dwelling for 
                                          
 
16 11 Del. C. § 206(a)(1). 
17 11 Del. C. § 206(b)(1). 
18 Lilly v. State, 649 A.2d 1055 (Del. 1994). 
19 Id. at 1061. 
20 Id. 
21 16 Del. C. § 4754(b). 
 7
the purpose of keeping controlled substances include knowingly keeping a 
dwelling with knowledge that the dwelling is used for keeping controlled 
substances.22  Proof of the elements for possession of marijuana does not prove the 
elements of maintaining a dwelling.  Moreover, the two statutes punish two 
different behaviors.  One punishes the possession the drug, while the other 
punishes the use of a dwelling for possessing the drug.  Possession of marijuana is 
not a lesser included offense of maintaining a dwelling for the purpose of keeping 
a controlled substance. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
22 16 Del. C. § 4755(a)(5).