-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 16, 2014

V No. 317761 Ingham Circuit Court LEON CORNELIUS BLISSETT, LC No. 12-001081-FH Defendant-Appellant.

Before: S AAD , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and M URRAY , JJ.
P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals his jury trial conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver pursuant to MCL 333.7401(2)(d)( iii ). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant’s parole officer and her colleagues visited defendant’s apartment in October 2012 after defendant reported that his GPS tracking device had been stolen or lost. The officers found 13 individually wrapped bags of mariju ana and multiple cell phones in defendant’s apartment, as well as a digital scale that contained marijuana residue. The Lansing Police arrested defendant, and the prosecutor charged hi m with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(d)( iii ). Defendant’s jury trial was held in the Ingha m Circuit Court, and the jury heard testimony from the parole officers, police, and defendant himself. Defendant admitted that the marijuana was his, but denied that he was engaged in the sa le of marijuana to others. He claimed that he merely shared marijuana with some friends, who ha d been at a party he held the evening before his arrest. Among the aforementioned testimony, the prosecu tion called a police officer as an expert witness in the field of drug investigations, who stated that individual users of marijuana (as opposed to dealers) rarely own digital scales . The officer also emphasized that the 13 individually wrapped bags and multiple cell phones pres ent in defendant’s apartment suggested that he was involved in drug dealing. After closing arguments, the jury f ound defendant guilty of violating MCL 333.7401(2)(d)( iii ). Defendant appealed the conviction to our Court, and argues that the-2- prosecution did not offer sufficien t evidence of his guilt, because it did not prove that he had specific intent to deliver, which is re quired for conviction under the statute.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing a sufficiency challenge, “a co urt must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whethe r any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crim e were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Wolfe , 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), ame nded on other grounds by 441 Mich 1201 (1992). The trier of fact determ ines questions of credibility. People v Avant , 235 Mich App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999).
III. ANALYSIS MCL 333.7401(2)(d)( iii ) reads: (1) Except as authorized by this article , a person shall not manufacture, create, deliver, or possess with intent to manuf acture, create, or deliver a controlled substance, a prescription form, or a counterfeit prescription form. . . . .
* * * (2)(d) Marihuana or a mixture containing marihuana is guilty of a felony punishable as follows:
* * * ( iii ) If the amount is less than 5 kilograms or fewer than 20 plants, by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. Under the statute, “[a]ctual delivery is not required to prove intent to deliver.” People v Fetterley , 229 Mich App 511, 517; 583 NW2d 199 (1998). Because “of the difficulty of proving an actor’s state of mind, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient. Intent to deliver can be inferred from the quantity of the controlled subs tance in the defendant's possession and from the way in which the controlled substance is packaged.” Id . at 518 (citations omitted). Here, the prosecution provided ample eviden ce that defendant possessed marijuana “with intent to . . . deliver.” The jury heard te stimony from multiple witnesses that defendant possessed 13 individually wrapped bags of mariju ana, a digital scale that contained marijuana residue, and three cell phones. An expert witness testified that the digital scale and multiple cell phones found in defendant’s possessi on are used in connection with the sale of drugs. And the evidence also showed that defendant initially lied to law enforcement agents and tried to conceal the digital scale in an attempt to avoid its di scovery. Accordingly, defendant’s arguments, which involve inapposite citations to unrel ated statutes, are without merit.-3- Affirmed.

/s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Christopher M. Murray