Title: Thomas v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 438, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 9, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWAR
CHARLES THOMAS,1
)
)  No. 438, 2001
Defendant Below,
)
Appellant,
)  Court Below:  Family Court
)  of the State of Delaware in
v.
)  and for New Castle County
)
STATE OF DELAWARE,
)  C.A. No. 0105016911
)
Plaintiff Below,
)
Appellee.
)
Submitted:  February 12, 2002
Decided:  April 9, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 9th day of April 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1)
In July 2001 Charles Thomas appeared in the Family Court on
charges of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic
Schedule II Controlled Substance, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled
Substances and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  A Family Court judge found
Thomas delinquent after trial on all charges except the single count of Maintaining
a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances.  This is Thomas’ direct appeal.
                                                
1 A pseudonym assigned by this Court pursuant to SUPR. CT  R. 7(d).
2
2)
On May 21, 2001, officers of the Wilmington Police Department,
acting on a tip from a “past proven and reliable informant,” arrested Appellant
Thomas as he and Alberto Vargas stepped out of an automobile registered to
Vargas.  The officers observed a clear plastic bag containing approximately 28
grams of crack cocaine resting in plain view on the center console between the two
front seats of Vargas’ car.  Underneath that bag, they found a second plastic bag
containing approximately 14 grams of powder cocaine.  In addition, the officers
found several small bags of cocaine and more than $1,700 in small denominations
of cash on Vargas.  They did not find drugs or cash on Thomas’ person.
3)
Thomas argues in this appeal that the record contains insufficient
evidence to support a finding that he was delinquent of the trafficking, possession,
and conspiracy charges.  He did not so move at trial.  A motion for judgment of
acquittal on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction must
be presented to the Family Court after the evidence on either side is closed.2  We
may review an insufficiency of the evidence claim only if the defendant has first
presented it to the trial court under Rule 29.3  Absent a Rule 29 motion, the claim is
waived unless the trial court committed plain error requiring review in the interest
                                                
2 Fam. Ct. Crim. R. 29
3 Monroe v. State, 652, A.2d 560, 563 (Del. 1995).
3
of justice.4  After careful review, we find that the facts before us do not give rise to
plain error.  
4)
Moreover, we find that the record clearly contains sufficient evidence
to sustain Thomas’ convictions.  Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction
when “any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the State, could find [a] defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”5  The trial
judge found that Thomas had constructive possession of the cocaine in Vargas’ car
when it found him delinquent on the Possession with Intent to Distribute and
Trafficking charges.  We have held that the constructive possession of a drug by a
passenger in a car requires more than simple proximity to or knowledge of the
drugs in the vehicle.6  The State must prove that the passenger-defendant had the
conscious “dominion, control, and authority” over the drugs.7  However, we have
also held that the State may establish a prima facie case of constructive possession
by demonstrating knowledge of and proximity to the drugs if there is also evidence
linking the accused to an ongoing criminal operation of which possession is a part.8
5)
The record contains sufficient evidence for the trial judge to infer that
that Thomas was in constructive possession of the cocaine in question.  Based on
the testimony of both the State’s witnesses and Thomas, a reasonable trier of fact
                                                
4 Id.
5 Robertson v. State, 695 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991).
6 Holden at 321.
4
could conclude that Thomas was not only aware of the drugs immediately beside
him in plain view on the console separating him from the driver Vargas, but that he
was also linked to the ongoing criminal operation of distribution of cocaine.  The
trial judge noted evidence that Thomas accompanied Vargas to retrieve the
cocaine, that Vargas showed Thomas the drugs and placed them on the console,
and that they then traveled to the location where, according to the police informant,
a drug transaction would take place.  Once there, Vargas and Thomas left the car
together.  In addition, Officer Michael Rodriguez of the Wilmington Police
testified that, in his expert opinion, using a juvenile characterized drug transactions
of this nature.  We find these facts to be sufficient evidence for the trial judge to
conclude that Thomas was linked to an ongoing criminal operation.  For similar
reasons, we also find it sufficient to satisfy the delinquency finding on the
conspiracy charge.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
_/s/ Myron T. Steele_____________
Justice
                                                                                                                                                            
7 Holden at 321.
8 McNulty at 1217.