Opinion ID: 403620
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Evidence to Convict Rolenc

Text: 27 Rolenc challenges his conviction on two grounds: that the evidence failed to prove his criminal intent, and that his conduct had not crossed the line between preparation, which is too inchoate to be punished, and attempt, which is not. 28 Our review has two fundamental limitations that Rolenc seems to ignore. The first is that we must affirm unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, could not have persuaded any rational trier of fact of Rolenc's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680. Second, as seen in Part II, both the cocaine and the cash were properly admitted into evidence. Thus speculations about whether Rolenc could have been convicted if he had been carrying six pinochle decks, greeting cards, or three watches or if Fleming had been carrying dog food, pornographic films, stolen diamonds, dirty laundry, costume jewelry, a revolver, a hamburger from McDonalds, (or) his false teeth (Br. 56-57) are both counterfactual and superfluous. Fleming was in fact carrying 227 grams of 41% pure cocaine, and Rolenc was in fact carrying $10,000. Thus more than mere proximity to the drug (Br. 57) was made out. There was also evidence, which Judge Shadur credited, that Fleming and Rolenc did not meet by happenstance. 20 Rolenc's criminal intent to possess and, in view of the quantity of cocaine involved, to distribute was sufficiently demonstrated. As to attempt liability, there is every reason to think that, but for the intervention of Bobko, the transaction would have been consummated. It is hard to imagine any more substantial step Rolenc could have taken to obtain drugs than putting himself on Fleming's doorstep with $10,000 in cash in his hand. Accordingly, Rolenc's conviction is affirmed.