Title: Wheeler v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 169, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 23, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GARRETT D. WHEELER, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 169, 2006     
 
Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
Kent County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
Cr. I.D. No. 0506009181 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 16, 2006 
 
 
Decided: 
August 23, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 23rd day of August 2006, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
Garrett D. Wheeler, the defendant-below, appeals from his conviction 
of maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances.  Wheeler contends that 
the Superior Court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because 
the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt.  We find 
that there was sufficient evidence of record to establish Wheeler’s use of the car to 
facilitate the possession or use of controlled substances.  Therefore, we affirm. 
 
2. 
On June 9, 2005, while Wheeler was a passenger in the front seat of a 
green Ford Escort driven by Shannon Huey, Delaware State Police Corporal David 
 
2
Hake, accompanied by two probation officers, began following the Escort in an 
unmarked car.  Huey failed to activate her turn signal at least 300 feet before 
turning.  Corporal Hake pulled the Escort over, at which point Hake recognized 
Wheeler as a person who was wanted by Probation and Parole.  Wheeler was 
immediately removed from the Escort and placed into custody. 
 
3. 
Corporal Hake saw a bag of marijuana in plain view in or about the 
passenger door handle.  During a search of the car incident to arrest, Corporal 
Hake also found a razor blade in the center console of the car and a white chalky 
substance on the driver and passenger seats.1  A later search of Wheeler’s person at 
the police station revealed a burnt crack pipe. 
 
4. 
At the police station, Wheeler gave a videotaped statement in which he 
admitted that the marijuana found in the car was his and that he was on his way to 
purchase cigarettes and a blunt that evening.  Wheeler also admitted that he had 
smoked crack in the car two or three days before the arrest, had recently fixed the 
car’s rearview mirror, and had used the car for a few days. 
 
5. 
The State charged Wheeler with (1) possession of a deadly weapon 
during the commission of a felony, (2) maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled 
substances, (3) possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, (4) 
conspiracy second degree, (5) possession of a narcotic schedule II controlled 
                                                 
1 Officers suspected that the substance was crack cocaine but did not conduct an analysis. 
 
3
substance (cocaine), (6) possession of drug paraphernalia, and (7) possession of a 
non-narcotic schedule I controlled substance (marijuana).  Wheeler waived his 
right to a jury trial. 
 
6. 
At the bench trial, Wheeler’s testimony differed significantly from his 
videotaped statement.  Wheeler testified that he admitted ownership of the 
marijuana only to protect Huey, who is the mother of his child.  Wheeler also 
testified that Huey was on her way to the store to purchase baby food and that he 
rode along to purchase cigarettes, but not a blunt.  He did not deny having been in 
the car before the day of his arrest, and he admitted to having fixed the car’s 
rearview mirror. 
 
7. 
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Superior Court judge found 
Wheeler guilty of (1) maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances, (2) 
possession of marijuana, and (3) possession of drug paraphernalia.  Wheeler has 
appealed only from his conviction of maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled 
substances.  
 
8. 
We review de novo a trial judge’s denial of a motion for judgment of 
acquittal.  That standard requires this Court “to determine whether any rational 
trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could 
 
4
find [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of the 
crime.”2 
 
9. 
Wheeler claims that the Superior Court erred by denying his motion for 
judgment of acquittal, because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence 
establishing some affirmative activity by Wheeler to use the vehicle to facilitate 
the possession, delivery or use of controlled substances.  To support his claim, 
Wheeler relies on this Court’s decision in Priest v. State,3 where we reversed a 
Superior Court conviction for maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled 
substances.  In Priest, the defendant was a back-seat passenger who took no part in 
the conversation about the drug transaction or in the transaction itself.  We 
concluded that the defendant had not exercised the degree of control or use of the 
vehicle, in connection with the possession of drugs, that was required to support a 
finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.4  Wheeler claims that, even assuming 
arguendo he possessed the marijuana, his conviction for maintaining a vehicle is 
precluded by our ruling in Priest, because Wheeler had no actual control over the 
vehicle, and there was no evidence that he was using the car specifically to 
transport the marijuana. 
                                                 
2 Priest v. State, 879 A.2d 575, 577 (Del. 2005) (citing Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 989 (Del. 
2004)). 
 
3 879 A.2d 575 (Del. 2005). 
 
4 Id. at 580. 
 
 
5
 
10. In Priest this Court recognized that “the critical benchmark for 
determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a maintaining a vehicle prosecution 
has been the degree of the defendant’s control or use of the vehicle in connection 
with the possession of drugs.”5  That said, it is also well established that a 
passenger having no direct control over the vehicle can be convicted of 
maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances.6  As we have explained, 
the language of 16 Del. C. § 4775 “should be read broadly to discourage the use of 
a vehicle for the transportation or use of drugs.”7  Thus, the State is not required to 
prove a defendant’s direct control over the vehicle, but must establish the 
defendant’s affirmative and knowing use of the vehicle to keep or maintain the car 
for illegal drug activity.8   
 
11. Here, there was sufficient evidence to establish Wheeler’s direct 
involvement in maintaining the vehicle for keeping a controlled substance.  During 
his videotaped statement to police, Wheeler admitted that the marijuana found in 
                                                 
5 Id. at 579-80. 
 
6 See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 2005 WL 3031636 (Del. Supr.) (front seat passenger convicted of 
maintaining a vehicle for cocaine located on passenger side floorboard); Fletcher v. State, 2005 
WL 646841 (Del. Supr.) (front seat passenger convicted of maintaining a vehicle where cocaine 
was found in glove box, digital scale was found in side pocket of passenger door and a loaded 
handgun was found in back seat); Watson v. State, 2000 WL 975050 (Del. Supr.) (front seat 
passenger convicted of  maintaining a vehicle where cocaine was found behind driver’s seat). 
 
7 Thomas, 2005 WL 3031636, at *2 (citing Lonegran v. State, 1991 WL 57128, at *5 (Del. 
Supr.)). 
 
8 Priest, 879 A.2d at 580.   
 
 
6
the car was his, and that he was on his way to the store in the car to buy cigarettes 
and a blunt.  That evidence alone suffices to support a conviction of maintaining a 
vehicle for keeping a controlled substance.9  Wheeler also admitted that he had 
smoked crack cocaine in the car in the days before the arrest, that he had been 
using the car generally for a few days, and that he had used the razor found by the 
police to fix a mirror in the car.  That constitutes further evidence of Wheeler’s 
control and maintenance of the vehicle and his knowing use of the car for illegal 
drug activity. 
 
12. The Superior Court judge, as the trier of fact, was “the sole judge of the 
credibility of the witnesses and responsible for resolving conflicts in testimony.”10  
The trial judge was, therefore, free to credit Wheeler’s videotaped statement over 
his contradictory trial testimony, and conclude that Wheeler’s presence in the car at 
the time was more than mere happenstance, and Wheeler was involved directly in 
maintaining the vehicle for keeping a controlled substance.  Accordingly, there was 
sufficient evidence to support the Superior Court’s denial of Wheeler’s motion for 
acquittal.   
                                                 
9 Id.  
 
10 Knight v. State, 690 A.2d 929, 932 (Del. 1996). 
 
 
7
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior 
Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
  
                                                  Justice