Title: JASON KELLY PACHECO v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JASON KELLY PACHECO v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2004 WY 160102 P.3d 887Case Number: 03-135Decided: 12/09/2004NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 
 
                                                                                                
    

JASON 
KELLY PACHECO,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant) 

 
 
v.         

            

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff) 

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCarbonCounty

The 
Honorable Kenneth Stebner, Judge, Retired

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Kenneth 
M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Ryan 
R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Daniel M. Fetsco, Assistant 
Attorney General

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., GOLDEN, and VOIGT, JJ, and SULLINS, DJ, and BURKE, 
DJ.

 
 
 
 
            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant, Jason 
Kelly Pacheco (Pacheco), contends that there was not sufficient evidence to 
sustain his conviction for the crime of possession of marijuana with intent to 
deliver.  We will 
affirm.

 
 

 
 
[¶2]      Pacheco raises 
this issue:

 
 
            
The evidence was not sufficient below to convict [Pacheco] of possession 
of a controlled substance, marijuana, with the intent to deliver, as charged in 
the information, because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 
essential elements of that crime.

 
 
In 
response, the State contends the evidence was sufficient.

 
 

 
 
[¶3]      The standard of 
review mandates that we acknowledge only those facts that are most favorable to 
the State's position.  The 
circumstances that gave rise to this criminal prosecution were set in motion on 
May 19, 2002, when a confidential informant (CI) reported to a Division of 
Criminal Investigation (DCI) Agent, Kebin Haller, that Mike McMacken was 
distributing drugs in Rawlins.  
Agent Haller arranged for the CI to make a controlled buy of marijuana 
from McMacken.  The first such 
purchase was made on June 7, 2002.  
A second such controlled buy was arranged for July 24, 2002, because 
McMacken was not so much the target of this investigation as was Pacheco.  On this occasion, McMacken informed the 
CI that he would sell him an ounce of marijuana for between $100.00 and $150.00, 
and that it would take him only a minute or so to obtain the marijuana, because 
he only had to drive a couple of blocks to get it.  Agent Haller gave the CI $140.00 in 
currency.  The serial numbers on 
that currency were recorded by Agent Haller.  Although no purchase was made on that 
occasion, because the unidentified drug supplier was "not at home," DCI agents 
observed McMacken drive to Pacheco's house and then return to his own home.  Later that same day, Agent Haller 
observed that Pacheco's car was at his home, so he contacted the CI to again 
attempt to make the purchase.  On 
this occasion, the CI was given only one $100 bill in recorded buy money.  As Agent Haller listened in on the 
conversation between the CI and McMacken, he could hear that the CI had given 
McMacken the $100 bill.  McMacken 
then drove to Pacheco's house and remained there for approximately 20 minutes 
(the police did not see Pacheco or any part of the transaction that went on 
inside his house, nor did McMacken ever say Pacheco's name).  McMacken delivered a substance to the CI 
that proved to be marijuana.

 
 
[¶4]      It was then 
arranged that the CI would make yet another purchase of marijuana from 
McMacken.  That buy was set up for 
July 29, 2002.  The CI was again 
given $100.00 in buy money, but this time McMacken was already at Pacheco's 
house, and when McMacken returned from Pacheco's house to his own house, the 
purchase was completed.  Thus, that 
$100 bill was not given to Pacheco or anyone else at the Pacheco house.  McMacken never identified his source as 
Pacheco.  That $100 bill was later 
recovered from McMacken's wallet when he was searched.  The substance again proved to be 
marijuana.  It was established that 
Pacheco was not at home during this transaction because he was at a training 
session for his job at the Wyoming State Penitentiary.

 
 
[¶5]      On July 29, 2002, 
Agent Haller obtained a search warrant to search Pacheco's house, and it was 
executed on that same day at 6:20 p.m.  
Pacheco, his wife Khrishannah and their children, as well as a family 
friend, were present at the house when the agents arrived.  Pacheco was removed from the residence, 
arrested, handcuffed, given Miranda warnings, and then interviewed.  Pacheco admitted that he had been 
selling marijuana in the recent past in order to supplement his income as a 
prison guard.  He also admitted that 
there was marijuana in the house for sale and some methamphetamine for personal 
consumption.  When asked, Pacheco 
stated that he could not remember if he sold marijuana to McMacken on June 24, 
2002.  The search uncovered the $100 
bill that Agent Haller gave to the CI on July 24, 2002.  Agent Haller intended that the $100 
dollar bill that could be associated with the July 24, 2002 transaction be kept 
as evidence.  However, a total of 
$455 was found in the residence, and because Krishannah had two small children 
to care for, Haller returned the other $355 to her and, in the process, 
inadvertently gave her the $100 bill used in the July 24, 2002 transaction.  The search also uncovered a box of 
plastic baggies, two weighing scales, a marijuana sifter, and suspected 
marijuana and suspected methamphetamine -- items typically associated with the 
distribution of drugs.

 
 

 
 
[¶6]      In addressing a 
claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether any rational 
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  When considering 
a claim of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review that evidence with the 
assumption that the evidence of the prevailing party is true, disregard the 
evidence favoring the unsuccessful party, and give the prevailing party the 
benefit of every favorable inference that we may reasonably draw from the 
evidence.  We will not reweigh the 
evidence nor will we re-examine the credibility of the witnesses.  Mascarenas v. State, 2003 WY 124, 
¶ 4, 76 P.3d 1258, ¶ 4 (Wyo. 2003).

 
 

 
 
[¶7]      Our discussion 
will be quite brief.  Without 
question, the evidence against Pacheco had some weaknesses, and mistakes were 
made in the investigation of the crime.  
However, the jury was fully and accurately instructed on the law that was 
to be applied to the facts presented by both the State and Pacheco, and it 
resolved the conflicts in the evidence in favor of the State.  Indeed, the attentiveness of the jury to 
the instructions is evidenced by several questions they submitted to the 
district court during the course of their deliberations.  It is evident from the record that the 
jury was meticulous and thorough in performing its fact-finding function.  Pacheco's brief was comprehensive in 
directing our attention to the weaknesses of the State's case, including the 
fact that the critical $100 bill had been lost by Agent Haller, that Pacheco 
could not be placed at his home on July 24, 2002, and that it was certain that 
he was not there on July 29, 2002.  
The instructions given the jury included these:

 
 
INSTRUCTION 
NO. 5

 
 
            
The elements of the crime of Possession with Intent to Deliver a 
Controlled Substance, as charged in this case, are:

            
1.  On or about the 24th day of July, 2002.

            
2.  In Carbon County, Wyoming.

            
3.  The Defendant, Jason 
Kelly Pacheco.

            
4.  Possessed a controlled 
substance, marijuana, with intent to deliver it to another 
person.

.

 
 
INSTRUCTION 
NO. 6

 
 
            
"Deliver" or "delivery" means the actual, constructive, or attempted 
transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not 
there is an agency relationship.

            
.

 
 
INSTRUCTION 
NO. 9

 
 
            
Evidence has been presented that the Defendant has stated he has in the 
past sold marijuana.  You may not 
convict Defendant solely on this evidence.  
You may however, consider this along with other competent evidence to 
arrive at your decision regarding the events occurring on or about July 24, 
2002.

 
 
[¶8]      When we apply the 
applicable standard of review to those facts that are most favorable to the 
viewpoint of the State, we are compelled to conclude that the evidence was 
sufficient.  See, e.g., 
Sotolongo-Garcia v. State, 2002 WY 185, ¶ 12, 60 P.3d 687, ¶ 12 
(Wyo. 2003); and Hughes v. State, 2003 WY 35, ¶¶ 23-26, 65 P.3d 378, 
¶¶ 23-26 (Wyo. 2003).  This is 
especially true in light of Pacheco's admission that he was selling/delivering 
marijuana, coupled with significant and competent circumstantial evidence that 
corroborated his admission that he possessed marijuana with intent to deliver it 
(actual delivery is not an element of the crime).

 
 

 
 
[¶9]      The evidence 
presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.  The judgment and sentence of the 
district court are affirmed.