Opinion ID: 77161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence Is Sufficient to Support the Conviction.

Text: 16 Hernandez argues that the evidence is too weak and the inferences too tenuous to support his conviction. He argues that the government has only two brief snippets of testimony that connect him with the offenses: the testimony that he said nine and this and bring ours. Hernandez argues that the statement nine and this does not make sense and the government did not explain what the words meant. He also argues that the statement bring ours was not explained by the government. Both statements, Hernandez argues, are subject to innocent explanations. Hernandez's argument fails. 17 When we review the sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government. Bowman, 302 F.3d at 1237. To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal agreement existed; (2) the defendant knew of it; and (3) the defendant, with knowledge, voluntarily joined it. United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir.2001). Participation in a conspiracy can be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances. Id. (citations omitted). Although mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, presence nonetheless is a probative factor which the jury may consider in determining whether a defendant was a knowing and intentional participant in a criminal scheme. Id. 18 To sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, the government must show that a defendant knowingly possessed the controlled substance with the intent to distribute it. United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 908 (11th Cir.1998). The government may prove possession by showing actual or constructive possession. Id. at 909. Constructive possession exists when a defendant has ownership, dominion, or control over an object itself or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the object is concealed. Id. Intent to distribute may be inferred from the amount of [the drug] involved. United States v. Sarmiento, 744 F.2d 755, 761 (11th Cir.1984). 19 An individual who aids and abets the crime of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute is punishable as a principal. 18 U.S.C. § 2. To prove guilt under a theory of aiding and abetting, the Government must prove: (1) the substantive offense was committed by someone; (2) the defendant committed an act which contributed to and furthered the offense; and (3) the defendant intended to aid in its commission. United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308, 1317 (11th Cir.2000). 20 The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Hernandez's conviction on both counts. Rivas testified that Hernandez handed over the money used to purchase the drugs and stated the amount of money was nine and this. Rivas and Rodriguez both testified that Hernandez told Lopez to bring us ours, which a jury could infer referred to the drugs. Rivas also testified that Lopez stated that some of the drugs belonged to Hernandez and Benavides. Besides Hernandez's presence at the transaction, Benavides and Hernandez arrived in Hernandez's vehicle. The amount of drugs also was sufficient to support a finding of Hernandez's intent to distribute the drugs. 21 Hernandez's arguments about this evidence are foreclosed by our standard of review, which requires us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Although Lopez and Benavides testified that Hernandez was not a participant in the conspiracy, the jury was free to disbelieve their testimony. That Hernandez's statements and behavior are subject to innocent explanations is also immaterial. A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc). Hernandez cannot prevail on appeal by repeating his unsuccessful argument to the jury. 22 Our recent opinion in United States v. Diaz-Boyzo, 432 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.2005), is instructive. In that case, Diaz-Boyzo was indicted in relation to a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine. Diaz-Boyzo was present only on the day of the final transaction. Two conflicting stories were presented at trial regarding Diaz-Boyzo's involvement with the conspiracy. Villa-Gamino, a member of the conspiracy, and Diaz-Boyzo testified, on the one hand, that Diaz-Boyzo was not involved in the conspiracy and was merely present at the sale of methamphetamine to the confidential informant and undercover agent because he had asked Villa-Gamino for a ride. Id. at 1332-1333. The government presented testimony, on the other hand, that Diaz-Boyzo arrived with Villa-Gamino to the scene of the drug transaction, rode with Villa-Gamino to pick-up part of the drug delivery, and was present at the final delivery. The government also presented testimony that Diaz-Boyzo was watching Villa-Gamino during the drug transaction, and that Diaz-Boyzo possessed a loaded firearm during the delivery. Id. at 1334-1335. The jury found Diaz-Boyzo guilty. 23 Diaz-Boyzo argued on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, but we affirmed his conviction. We held that, although mere presence was insufficient to support the conviction, the evidence taken together was sufficient. With regard to the testimony that Diaz-Boyzo was not involved in the conspiracy, we noted that the jury was free to disbelieve and disregard [the dealer's] testimony that Diaz-Boyzo was not involved in the drug transaction and did not serve as protection for him. Id. at 1335. 24 As in Diaz-Boyzo, the evidence of Hernandez's involvement in the conspiracy was sufficient to support the conviction. The jury was free to disbelieve Hernandez's mere presence defense and infer from the evidence that Hernandez was a willing participant. If anything, the evidence of Hernandez's statements during the transaction was more substantial evidence of guilt than the evidence against Diaz-Boyzo.