1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 120,702

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

RYAN CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Saline District Court; JARED B. JOHNSON, judge. Opinion filed May 1, 2020.

Affirmed.

Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant.

Brock R. Abbey, assistant county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., BUSER and BRUNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by Ryan Christopher Mitchell upon his conviction 

for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, two counts of possession of 

drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mitchell contends 

there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Upon our review of the record on appeal, the trial transcript, and the parties' 

appellate briefs, we find no error and, therefore, affirm the convictions.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2018, Salina police officers were dispatched to the Ambassy Motel 

to assist in arresting Mitchell for a parole violation. When the officers encountered 

Mitchell in the motel parking lot, they observed him attempting to open the driver's side 

door of a Chevrolet Equinox with a coat hanger. Mitchell informed the officers that the 

vehicle was his but that he had locked the keys inside. Later, he denied any ownership 

interest in the vehicle.

The officers placed Mitchell under arrest for the parole violation and personally 

searched him incident to the arrest. The officers seized a small zippered bag containing a 

smaller, plastic bag with 93.4 grams of methamphetamine inside Mitchell's coat. 

Additionally, the officers seized from Mitchell's front jeans pocket $2,328 in cash rolled 

up and secured with a tie.

Upon Mitchell's arrest, he asked the officers to contact his girlfriend, Arasely 

Duron, who was in motel room 33. The officers located Duron in the motel room, 

arrested her for a parole violation, and brought her to the parking lot. When Mitchell 

realized the officers were arresting Duron, he told the officers that everything in the 

motel room belonged to him.

The officers executed a search warrant for the motel room and found a so-called 

"stash can" containing various amounts of methamphetamine weighing a total of 9.2 

grams and packaged in three separate plastic baggies; two glass smoking pipes with 

residue; two digital scales with residue; a notepad/owe sheet found inside a brown purse

with the identification card of Arasely Duron; a loaded Taurus 9mm handgun; a box 

containing numerous baggies and marijuana residue; and a bag containing several plastic 

baggies.
3

The officers executed a second search warrant for the Equinox and seized a blue 

backpack located in the rear cargo area. The backpack contained a speaker box which had 

numerous plastic bags and a functioning digital scale with residue; 9mm ammunition; a 

silver spoon with residue; and a First Alert safe. The safe contained 9mm ammunition; 

cut straws with residue; plastic spoons; several plastic bags with residue; a functional 

digital scale with residue; and several plastic bags with residue. Additionally, a marijuana 

joint was found in the center console of the car.

The methamphetamine found on Mitchell and inside the backpack in the Equinox 

weighed about 100.88 grams.

The State charged Mitchell with possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine of 100 grams or more in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5705(a)(l)

and (d)(3)(D) and K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6805(g)(l)(A); possession of drug paraphernalia 

in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5709(b)(l) and (e)(2)(A) (felony); possession of 

drug paraphernalia in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5709(b)(2), a class B nonperson 

misdemeanor; possession of marijuana in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5706(b)(3) 

and (c)(3)(B); no drug tax stamp in violation of K.S.A. 79-5204; and criminal possession 

of a firearm/weapon by a convicted felon in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-

6304(a)(3)(A).

A jury convicted Mitchell of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to 

distribute at least 100 grams with a firearm sentencing enhancement, possession with the 

intent to use drug paraphernalia (plastic baggies, black zippered bag, black drawstring 

bag, scales, and notepad/owe sheet), possession with the intent to use drug paraphernalia

(pipes and straws), and criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mitchell 

was sentenced to a controlling term of 176 months in prison with 36 months postrelease 

supervision.
4

Mitchell filed a timely notice of appeal.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

On appeal, Mitchell does not challenge the State's proof of numerous elements of 

the individual crimes for which he was convicted. Rather, the sole issue Mitchell raises 

on appeal is whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had possession 

of the methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and firearm that were found in the motel 

room and the Equinox. Consistent with his approach on appeal, however, Mitchell 

candidly concedes that because he personally possessed 93.4 grams of methamphetamine 

he may properly be convicted and sentenced for the lesser offense of a severity level 2 

drug felony—possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute but without 

any enhancement of sentence due to possession of a firearm.

Our standard of review provides:

"'When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard 

of review is whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder could have found the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence, 

resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make witness credibility determinations.' [Citation 

omitted.]" State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 668, 414 P.3d 713 (2018).

As just noted, Mitchell only challenges whether there was sufficient evidence to 

prove that he possessed the drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm that were seized from 

the motel room and Equinox. As a result, our analysis will focus on the constructive 

possession element of the crimes.

In keeping with the relevant PIK instruction, the district court informed the jury: 

"'Possession' means having joint or exclusive control over an item with knowledge of and 
5

the intent to have such control or knowingly keeping some item in a place where the 

person has some measure of access and right of control." PIK Crim. 4th 57.020 (2018 

Supp.). Mitchell does not challenge the propriety of this instruction. Instead, Mitchell 

argues that he did not have exclusive control over the motel room or Equinox and the 

State failed to prove that he had some measure of access and right of control over the 

items found in those areas.

While the methamphetamine found in Mitchell's coat pocket was under his 

exclusive control, the drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm found in the motel room or 

Equinox were not shown to be solely in his possession. Rather, at trial the State's theory 

was that Mitchell constructively possessed the incriminating evidence.

Generally, "when a defendant is in nonexclusive possession of the premises upon 

which drugs are found, it cannot be inferred that the defendant knowingly possessed the 

drugs unless there are other incriminating circumstances linking the defendant to the 

drugs." State v. Marion, 29 Kan. App. 2d 287, 290, 27 P.3d 924 (2001). In this regard, 

courts consider various factors, such as: "(1) the defendant's previous sale or use of 

narcotics; (2) the defendant's proximity to the area in which the drugs were found; (3) the 

fact that the drugs were found in plain view; and (4) the defendant's incriminating 

statements or suspicious behavior." State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 567-68, 357 P.3d 251 

(2015) (citing State v. Cruz, 15 Kan. App. 2d 476, 489, 809 P.2d 1233 [1991]). Of note, 

"[t]he list of incriminating factors in Keel is not exclusive. The Keel court stated that 

incriminating factors 'include' the four factors cited, not that the incriminating factors are 

limited to the four in the list." State v. Washington, No. 115,225, 2017 WL 2304451, at 

*3 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion). Lastly, "[i]n order to establish a defendant's 

constructive possession of drugs, more than 'mere presence or access to the drugs' is 

required to sustain a conviction." State v. Beaver, 41 Kan. App. 2d 124, 129, 200 P.3d 

490 (2009).
6

We will apply the four factors cited in Keel in analyzing whether there was 

sufficient evidence to prove that Mitchell constructively possessed the drugs, drug 

paraphernalia, and firearm in the motel room and Equinox.

Items Found in the Motel Room

Mitchell complains there was insufficient evidence to connect him to the illegal 

drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm seized from the motel room. In particular, he notes 

the motel room was registered to his girlfriend, Duron, Mitchell did not have a key to the 

room, and he was not observed inside the room. He contests that any of the illegal items 

were in plain view and he notes there was no proof that he was involved in the previous 

sale or use of narcotics. Mitchell also asserts there was no evidence that he had been 

inside the motel room for a long time.

Upon our independent review of the evidence, in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, we are convinced a rational fact-finder could have found that Mitchell

constructively possessed the methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and firearm seized 

from the motel room. Several factors bolster our conclusion.

First, at the scene, Mitchell spontaneously and voluntarily admitted that everything 

inside the motel room belonged to him. At trial, the State played footage from an officer's 

body cam which memorialized Mitchell's incriminating statement. Although Mitchell 

later recanted his admission against interest, the jury heard evidence of both statements 

made by Mitchell and was able to consider whether the admission or the recantation was 

the truth.

Mitchell counters that his admission is insufficient because his girlfriend, Duron, 

testified at trial that the illegal items belonged to her and that she asked Mitchell to claim 

ownership because "I was already in trouble and I didn't want more [prison] time. I was 
7

being selfish." None of the officers, however, recalled hearing Duron make this 

statement. Moreover, Duron's credibility was challenged as she admitted that she was 

previously convicted of crimes of dishonesty—robbery and passing a worthless check.

Regardless, "jurors may choose to believe parts of a given witness' account of relevant 

events and disbelieve other parts." State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 930, 319 P.3d 

551 (2014).

Under our standard of review, we consider all the evidence relating to Mitchell's 

statements at the scene and Duron's testimony at trial in a light most favorable to the 

State. In accordance with Keel, Mitchell's incriminating statement that he possessed the 

drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm in the motel room tends to prove constructive 

possession. See 302 Kan at 567-68.

Second, there was evidence that Mitchell had stayed in the motel room. Mitchell 

told the officers that he was in a dating relationship with Duron. Duron admitted at trial 

that Mitchell had been inside the motel room shortly before his arrest. Moreover, officers 

found men's shoes and toiletries inside the room. The room contained Mitchell's personal 

items in proximity to the drug paraphernalia. For example, Mitchell had a tote bag of his 

belongings inside the motel room and a functioning digital scale (like the one on the 

nightstand) was found inside the tote bag.

Although Duron later changed her testimony, she initially testified that Mitchell's 

tote bag was the only item in the motel room that belonged to him. See State v. Bockert, 

257 Kan. 488, 494, 893 P.2d 832 (1995) (noting that factors supporting constructive 

possession include "proximity of the defendant's possessions to the drugs"); State v. 

Fortune, 28 Kan. App. 2d 559, 571, 20 P.3d 74 (2001) ("some of the drugs and 

paraphernalia, including the mushrooms, were found in a dresser containing men's 

clothing, which suggests that the drugs belonged to Fortune").
8

The loaded firearm was found on the bed covered up by bedding or clothing. That 

firearm was loaded with ammunition of the same brand and caliber as the ammunition 

discovered in the backpack found in the Equinox. Consonant with Keel's guidance, the 

defendant's proximity to the area in which the drugs were found was shown through 

testimony and his personal effects. See 302 Kan at 567-68. This factor favors a finding of 

constructive possession.

Third, officers observed drug paraphernalia in plain view inside the motel room. 

For example, a digital scale with residue was observed on a nightstand, and numerous 

small plastic jewelry baggies that are commonly used in distributing small quantities of 

drugs were found in plain sight throughout the room. Expert testimony established that 

officers commonly find scales and baggies used together for the purpose of distributing 

drugs. In keeping with Keel, the fact that drug paraphernalia was found in plain view 

supports an inference of constructive possession. See 302 Kan at 567-68.

Fourth, as conceded by Mitchell on appeal, at the time he was in the immediate 

vicinity of the motel room, he personally possessed a significant quantity of 

methamphetamine and a large sum of money. The personal possession of drugs is akin to 

a defendant's use of narcotics, which is one of the Keel factors of proving constructive 

possession. See 302 Kan at 567-68. Of course, the same kind of illegal drug that Mitchell 

personally possessed—methamphetamine—was also packaged in three individual 

baggies that were seized from the motel room in a stash container. Moreover, a large 

amount of cash possessed by an individual who also personally possesses illegal drugs 

may raise an inference of drug dealing. State v. Fitzgerald, 286 Kan 1124, 1131, 192 P.3d 

171 (2008).

In summary there was substantial competent evidence to show that Mitchell 

constructively possessed the drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm seized from the motel 

room. This evidence included Mitchell's incriminating admission to possessing the illegal 
9

items, proof that Mitchell spent time in the motel room with ready access to some of the 

contraband in plain view, and his personal possession of methamphetamine and $2,328 in 

cash a short distance from the motel room. Viewing the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the prosecution, a rational fact-finder could find that the State proved beyond 

a reasonable doubt that Mitchell constructively possessed the illegal items seized from 

the motel room.

The result of this finding is that in addition to the other crimes of conviction, the 

State proved that Mitchell had possession of over 100 grams of methamphetamine. The 

methamphetamine found in Mitchell's jacket weighed 93.4 grams. Three small baggies 

found inside a stash can in the motel room contained the following amounts of 

methamphetamine: (1) 5.52 grams, (2) 1.57 grams, and (3) .49 grams. Together, the 

packages of methamphetamine found on Mitchell and in the motel room weighed 100.88

grams.

Items Found in the Equinox

Mitchell contends the State failed to prove constructive possession over the 

contraband found in the Equinox. In particular, he points out the vehicle was not 

registered to him, and there was no evidence that he drove it. At trial, Duron testified that 

she had borrowed the vehicle from a friend and that Duron drove it, not Mitchell. She 

was unaware of the backpack found in the car or its contents. Lastly, Mitchell notes the 

contraband inside the backpack was not in plain view.

Our review of the trial evidence, in a light most favorable to the prosecution, 

convinces us that a rational fact-finder could have found that Mitchell constructively 

possessed the drug paraphernalia found in the backpack located in the rear cargo area of 

the Equinox. Once again, we analyze this issue mindful of the Keel factors.
10

First, Mitchell claimed possession of the vehicle. When officers encountered him 

in the parking lot, he was attempting to unlock the Equinox with a coat hanger. Mitchell 

advised the officers that the vehicle belonged to him and he had locked the keys inside of 

it. Mitchell later retracted his statement and said that it was not his vehicle, but he 

repeated that he was trying to unlock the Equinox because the keys were inside. On 

appeal, Mitchell argues that his initial statement to the police can be explained because he 

was on parole and worried about being caught in a precarious situation.

There was substantial competent evidence to show that Mitchell did not, in fact, 

own the Equinox. Still, there was also sufficient evidence that he had been in joint 

possession of the vehicle earlier in the day. Duron testified that when she borrowed the 

Equinox from her friend, she drove it to a court hearing in Clay Center and then drove 

back to the motel—Mitchell was a passenger and with her throughout the day. Mitchell's 

claim of ownership, his efforts to open the locked vehicle to obtain the keys, and Duron's 

testimony clearly establish Mitchell's association with the Equinox. This evidence of 

Mitchell's admitted statement of ownership, which he later contradicted, and his

suspicious behavior in trying to enter the Equinox constitutes one of the relevant factors 

noted in Keel. See 302 Kan at 567-68.

Second, the drug paraphernalia found in the Equinox was like the drug 

paraphernalia found in the motel room. Two digital scales with residue found in the 

backpack were similar in appearance to the two digital scales with residue found in the 

motel room. Pipes or straws to ingest illegal drugs were found in both the Equinox and 

the motel room. Small plastic jewelry baggies found inside the backpack were similar to 

those found inside the motel room. In addition to the drug paraphernalia, the backpack in 

the vehicle contained 9mm ammunition of the same brand and caliber as the ammunition 

found loaded in the 9mm firearm seized from the motel room. In summary, there was an 

obvious correlation between the drug paraphernalia and ammunition in the backpack and 

the drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm found in the Equinox. In this way, the State 
11

proved that Mitchell had constructive possession over the vehicle and the backpack found 

inside.

Third, at the time the officers observed Mitchell attempting to enter the Equinox, 

he was in possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine and a large sum of cash. As 

discussed earlier, given these facts, it is reasonable to infer that the drug paraphernalia 

and ammunition found in the car Mitchell was attempting to enter were constructively 

possessed or owned by him.

In summary, there was substantial competent evidence to show that Mitchell 

constructively possessed the drug paraphernalia and ammunition seized from the 

backpack found in the Equinox. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, a rational fact-finder could find that the State proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Mitchell constructively possessed the drug paraphernalia found in the 

backpack.

We hold there was substantial competent evidence to support the convictions 

which Mitchell challenges on appeal. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to 

the State, a rational fact-finder could find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Mitchell committed the crimes for which he was convicted.

Affirmed.