Case Name: David Gerome MITCHELL, a/k/a "Bayrome", Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1999-11-16
Citations: 754 So. 2d 519
Docket Number: No. 98-KA-00199-COA
Parties: David Gerome MITCHELL, a/k/a “Bayrome”, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
Judges: McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., DIAZ, LEE AND MOORE, JJ., CONCUR. BRIDGES, J„ DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PAYNE AND THOMAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 754
Pages: 519–529

Head Matter:
David Gerome MITCHELL, a/k/a “Bayrome”, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
No. 98-KA-00199-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
Nov. 16, 1999.
Scott Watson Weatherly, Jr., Gulfport, Attorney for Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Jean Smith Vaughan, Attorney for Appellee.

Opinion:
IRVING, J.,
for the Court:
¶ 1. David Gerome Mitchell was convicted in the Circuit Court of Harrison County as a habitual offender of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Feeling aggrieved, he appeals and raises the following issues which are taken verbatim from his brief:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING MITCHELL'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AS THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE STATE'S THEORY OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING MITCHELL'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AS THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH' INTENT TO DELIVER
Finding no merit in Mitchell's first issue but finding merit in his second issue, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Facts
¶ 2. Pursuant to a domestic violence call from a Tasha Turner, a friend of Natasha Porter, Deputy Leonard Bentz of the Harrison County Sheriffs Department went to the W.A. Ladner Apartments in Gulfport and spoke with Natasha Porter who informed him that she and her boyfriend, David Mitchell, had been involved in an altercation and that Mitchell was on the other side of the vehicle which was parked on the side of the house. While Porter and Bentz were talking, Sergeant Mark Hoskins, who also responded to the call, arrived at Porter's duplex. Sergeant Hos-kins testified that as he was pulling into the driveway of the duplex, he saw Mitchell duck down beside a parked car. Hos-kins testified that he called Mitchell by name; however, Bentz and Mitchell testified that Hoskins called Mitchell by Mitchell's nickname, Bayrome. In any event, while Hoskins distracted Mitchell, Bentz went around to the other side of the parked car and took Mitchell into custody for domestic violence. Mitchell testified that Hoskins told him to get on the ground and Bentz attacked him, knocking him to the ground. While Mitchell was being handcuffed by Bentz, Hoskins, using Hos-kins's flashlight, started searching the immediate area.
¶ 3. During the search, Hoskins spotted a spare tire a short distance from where Mitchell was arrested, shined his flashlight in the direction of the tire and noticed something that was not a part of the tire. He lifted the tire and found a bag containing 7.1 grams of cocaine formed to resemble one-half of a homemade cookie. Mitchell, at the time of his arrest, had been in the process of changing his tires which had been cut by Porter. As a result of the discovery of the cocaine, Mitchell was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
¶ 4. At trial, the State presented the testimonial evidence of Bentz, Hoskins and Ricardo Dedeaux, along with the cocaine, and certified copies of two felony convictions obtained against Mitchell in 1986: one for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and one for sale of a controlled substance. The previous convictions were admitted into evidence, with the proper cautionary instruction, for the limited purpose of proving the intent to distribute the cocaine in question. Dedeaux's testimony was that Mitchell admitted ownership of the cocaine shortly after Mitchell was taken in to custody.
¶ 5. The defense presented the testimonies of Porter and Mitchell who testified in his own defense. Porter testified that she did not see any crack cocaine lying around Mitchell's car when she slashed his tires. Mitchell testified that after seeing Porter slash his tires, he got mad, pushed her out of the way, popped the trunk of his car, took out his spare tire, kicked the tire and prepared to change the rear passenger tire of his car. As he prepared to change the tire, he noticed the other rear tire was also flat. He further testified that the spare tire which he had kicked came to rest nine or ten feet from where he was kneeling to change the rear tire. Mitchell denied that he possessed the cocaine and also denied telling investigator Dedeaux that the cocaine belonged to Mitchell.
¶ 6. Mitchell was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Mitchell's post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial, was denied. Thereafter, he perfected this appeal.
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
I. Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence on the Element of Possession
Standard of Review
¶ 7. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we' may reverse only where, in consideration of all of the evidence at the close of the trial, we are convinced that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty of the offense with which he is charged. Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987), Harveston v. State, 493 So.2d 365, 370 (Miss.1986). A motion for a new trial implicates the discretion of the trial court and seeks to procure a new trial on the theory that, while there is some evidence in support of the conviction of the accused, the verdict of the jury is against the overwhelming weight of the entire evidence. We, sitting as an appellate court, will not reverse the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial unless there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion. Quinn v. State, 479 So.2d 706, 709-10 (Miss.1985).
118. Having set forth the parameters of our reviewing power, we now turn to the application of those standards to the factual issues involved. As stated, Mitchell challenges both the sufficiency and weight of the evidence as to the element of possession. His contention is that the cocaine was found on the ground under a tire some five to ten feet away, and that since the cocaine was not found on his person, the State was required to prove that he constructively possessed the cocaine, a burden which he contends the State wholly failed to carry. We agree that the State was required to prove constructive possession, but we disagree with Mitchell's assertion that the State failed to meet its burden of proof in this respect.
¶ 9. Before we proceed to a discussion of the law on constructive possession, we review some facts already stated as well as some additional relevant facts. The cocaine was found under the spare tire which Mitchell had taken out of the trunk of his car. As Officer Hoskins drove into the driveway of Porter's duplex, he saw someone duck behind a vehicle in the parking lot of the residence where Deputy Bentz was located. Hoskins immediately confronted this individual who turned out to be Mitchell. At that time, Officer Hoskins did not see any other people in the area. Hoskins testified that Mitchell was right beside the tire when he first saw Mitchell and that Mitchell had to walk around the tire to arrive at the location where he was taken into custody. Bentz testified that when he took Mitchell into custody, Bentz did not see anybody at the immediate
scene although he might have seen some people when he pulled into the Ladner housing project area. He also testified that the spare tire was within a five foot radius or a little more of Mitchell.
¶ 10. In Cunningham v. State, 583 So.2d 960, 962 (Miss.1991), the Mississippi Supreme Court, quoting Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 (Miss.1971), provided the following guidance on what must be proven to warrant a finding that a defendant has constructive possession of contraband not found on his person:
[TJhere must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.
However, when contraband is found on premises which are not owned by a defendant, mere physical proximity to the contraband does not, in itself, show constructive possession. Cunningham, 583 So.2d at 962. The State must show additional incriminating circumstances to justify a finding of constructive possession, and where the premises is not in the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband. Id. at 962, (quoting Fultz v. State, 573 So.2d 689, 690 (Miss.1990)); Powell v. State, 355 So.2d 1378 (Miss. 1978), (citing Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608, 610 (Miss.1974)). In the case sub judice, that link of competent evidence is the testimony of Dedeaux that Mitchell admitted possession of the cocaine. Although Mitchell vigorously denied that he made such an admission, nevertheless, the jury was entitled to believe Dedeaux over Mitchell, and we are without power to interfere with their finding. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that fairminded jurors could have only found Mitchell not guilty or that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Mitchell's motion for a new trial after the jury found him guilty.
II. Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence on the Element of Intent to Distribute
¶ 11. Mitchell also contends that even if the evidence was sufficient to prove that he constructively possessed the cocaine, the evidence offered against him is insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute because the only evidence offered as proof of intent was the amount of the cocaine and two prior drug convictions: one for sale and the other for possession with intent to distribute. Mitchell further argues that the amount of cocaine found in his possession was consistent with personal use and that when the amount in possession is consistent with personal use, there must be other evidence of proof of intent to distribute. He then concludes that no legally sufficient evidence was offered to prove intent because evidence of prior drug sales alone is never legally sufficient to prove intent when the amount of contraband in question is consistent with personal use. On the authority of Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95 (Miss.1995), which we will discuss later, we are compelled to agree with Mitchell on this point.
¶ 12. The amount of cocaine found under the tire was 7.1 grams or .2485 percent of an ounce. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that where the controlled substance is in an amount which a person could reasonably hold for personal use, other evidence must be adduced to support a conviction of possession with intent to distribute or sell. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 427 So.2d 131, 132 (Miss.1983). We also conclude on the authority of Smith that slightly less than one fourth of an ounce of cocaine is consistent with personal use.
¶ 13. In an effort to prove that the amount found on Mitchell was inconsistent with the amount one would possess for personal use, the State offered the testimony of Investigator Dedeaux that in his opinion the amount of cocaine found under the tire was not consistent with personal use because of the shape of the cocaine. Dedeaux further opined that the cocaine in solid form was worth approximately $700 and that a typical user would keep no more than $50 to $100 worth of cocaine on his person. Dedeaux also testified that if the solid cocaine cookie was cut into portions for street sale one could get a lot more for it, possibly double his money. He further testified that "if you break it down into twenties, you can probably get 50 some 20's out of there, you can sell it for $1,500." He then testified that a twenty is about one fourth of a gram but that the crime lab weighs out .5 grams as one rock. Dedeaux did not say whether a twenty and rock are one and the same.
¶ 14. Accepting Dedeaux's testimony— that one fourth of a gram of cocaine constitutes a twenty and that the State crime lab considers a rock to be one half of a gram— as true, Mitchell could have cut the half cocaine cookie into approximately twenty-eight twenties or fourteen rocks, not the fifty plus pieces to which he also testified could be obtained from the half cookie. But when the math is applied to Dedeaux's numbers, it is readily apparently that his testimony is self-contradictory in other aspects as well. First, twenty-eight pieces at $20 per piece would bring only $560 on the streets, not $1,500 as contended by Dedeaux, and if the weight of a rock of cocaine is .5 gram as measured by the State crime lab, and if it is in fact a rock that is sold as a twenty, then Mitchell's half cookie of cocaine would bring him only $280 on the streets. Further, taking De-deaux's other testimony as true that the cocaine would cost $700 in the solid form in which it was found, it defies imagination why a street dealer would purchase the cocaine for $700 and resell it for either $560 or $280. He certainly could not remain in business for long. In any event, the point of the mathematical analysis is to show that the totality of Dedeaux's testimony destroys the hypothesis he posited— that Mitchell possessed the cocaine with intent to distribute because the amount of cocaine was such that it could be cut in smaller pieces and sold for a profit.
¶ 15. In Murray v. State, 642 So.2d 921 (Miss.1994), the Mississippi Supreme Court found that possession of fifteen rocks of cocaine, along with $515 in small denominations, were not sufficient to support a conviction of possession with intent to deliver. In Smith, as discussed below, sixteen pieces of cocaine were found insufficient to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute. Since the actual weight of the fifteen pieces in Murray and the sixteen pieces in Smith is not given, we are unable to compare the weight of the cocaine in those cases to the weight of the cocaine here. However, we see no reason to conclude that what the state crime lab considers to be a rock is different from what is actually sold as a rock on the streets. After all, the crime lab certainly has examined and weighed many pieces of rock cocaine being sold on the streets. In any event, as our mathematical analysis shows, the State certainly did not prove intent with the testimony of Deputy De-deaux. Thus, based on Mississippi Supreme Court precedent in Murray and Smith, we find the amount of cocaine alone possessed by Mitchell was insufficient to support his conviction of possession with intent to distribute.
¶ 16. The other piece of evidence offered to support the conviction was, as stated, the two prior drug sales. Mitchell argues that his two prior convictions occurring in 1986, almost ten years prior to the date of the commission of the crime here and more than eleven years prior to the trial, were inadmissible. The trial court admitted the evidence of the convictions under M.R.E. 404(b) after performing the balancing analysis required by M.R.E. 403. The trial court also gave the required limiting instruction. It is settled in Mississippi jurisprudence that under M.R.E. 404(b) evidence of prior sales is admissible to show or prove intent to distribute. Swington v. State, 742 So.2d 1106, 1112 (Miss.1999); Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 99 (Miss.1995). What is not well settled or clear is whether there is a time limit with respect to how old the prior conviction may be.
¶ 17. We have been unable to find any Mississippi Supreme Court case squarely addressing this point. In Swington, evidence of a six year old prior conviction was held to be admissible. Id. at 100 (¶ 16-17). In light of clear authority that evidence of conviction of a defendant in prior sales is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b) to prove intent to distribute in subsequent sales by the same defendant, we are unwilling at this time to place a time limit on the age of the prior conviction evidence because in our opinion the admissibility of the prior conviction evidence is not outcome determinative in this case. Therefore, we do not disturb the ruling of the trial judge admitting the evidence of the prior sales convictions. However, while we do not hold that the prior convictions were inadmissible to show intent to distribute, we do find that that evidence alone is insufficient to prove that Mitchell intended to distribute the cocaine found in his possession. Authority for this conclusion lies in the teachings of Smith where the court — after holding that evidence of prior sales is admissible to show that present possession is with the intent to distribute — taught the following:
The remaining question in this regard is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute where the only evidence of intent to distribute is evidence of past sales. We think not. We conclude that while past drug activity is admissible on this question, past sales alone is an insufficient evidentiary basis for the conclusion that present possession is with the intent to distribute. To do otherwise would be truly to convict on the basis of a propensity.
Smith, 656 So.2d at 100. (emphasis added).
¶ 18. The question in this case then boils down to this: may a conviction for possession with intent to distribute stand where the only evidence supporting the conviction is (1) evidence of possession of an amount of contraband consistent with personal use and (2) evidence of prior sales of contraband? We are of the opinion that the Smith court unequivocally answers the question in the negative.
¶ 19. In Smith, law enforcement authorities served an arrest warrant on one Charles E. Smith as a result of a large-scale "round-up." After his arrest, he was searched and found to be in possession of a vial containing sixteen pieces of crack cocaine, and as a result of the discovery of the cocaine he was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Smith, 656 So.2d at 97. During Smith's trial, the trial court, over defense objection, allowed the State to put in evidence, through the testimony of a police officer, that in 1989 Smith had sold the officer cocaine on two occasions while the officer was working undercover. Id. at 98. Smith was convicted of possession with intent to distribute. On appeal, the Smith court held the evidence of the prior sales was properly admitted but reversed Smith's conviction for possession with intent to distribute, finding that (a) "Smith's possession of cocaine was unremarkable in either quantity or circumstance," (b) "[t]he amount involved [sixteen pieces] was no more than could be expected for personal use," and (c) the prior-sales evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Id. at 99-100.
¶ 20. In the case at bar, as in Smith, the amount of cocaine was unremarkable in quantity or circumstances. In fact, in our case, the circumstances are even less remarkable because in Smith, the cocaine was found on Smith's person, while in our case, the cocaine was found on the ground. The amount here is also less, fourteen pieces if cut into .5 gram twenties or pieces, while in Smith there were sixteen pieces. In Smith, the prior sales were two years or less previous to the present possession, while here the prior sales convictions are nine years previous to the present possession and more than eleven years prior to the present trial. Here, we do not know the exact date of the commission of the crimes evidenced by the prior sales convictions, but we do know that the crimes had to be committed prior to the convictions. Hence, the sales may have been more than ten years old.
¶ 21. We are compelled to conclude that the evidence offered here to prove intent to distribute is just as deficient as was the evidence in Smith. However, we do find the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for possession of cocaine. Consequently, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing on possession, as that charge is a lesser-included offense of the charge of possession with intent to distribute. Of course, Mitchell may still be sentenced as a habitual offender.
¶ 22. THE JUDGMENT OF HARRISON COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SERVE A TERM OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION ARE AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED AS TO POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER BUT REVERSED AS TO POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AS A HABITUAL AND REMANDED OF HARRISON COUNTY FOR SENTENCING AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF POSSESSION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., DIAZ, LEE AND MOORE, JJ., CONCUR. BRIDGES, J" DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PAYNE AND THOMAS, JJ.