Court Opinion

ID: 9780983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 15:05:35.507707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:49.610373
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 354
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION I
                                        No. CR-22-652

 MARTEZ JARRETT                                 Opinion Delivered August 30, 2023
                                APPELLANT
                                                APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
                                                COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST
 V.                                             DIVISION
                                                [NO. 60CR-21-3649]
 STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                  APPELLEE HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON,
                                           JUDGE

                                                AFFIRMED

                            N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

       Appellant, Martez Jarrett, appeals his convictions for simultaneous possession of

drugs and a firearm, possession of fentanyl with the purpose to deliver, possession of heroin

with the purpose to deliver, and possession of marijuana with the purpose to deliver. 1

Jarrett’s sentences were run concurrently, resulting in an effective ten-year sentence. Jarrett

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Specifically, Jarrett

contends that the State failed to prove that he constructively possessed any of the contraband

found in the jointly occupied vehicle that he was driving. We affirm.

       When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence

in the light most favorable to the State, and only the evidence supporting the verdict will be

       1
       Jarrett was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of
codeine with the purpose to deliver, but he was acquitted of those charges.
considered. Walden v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 177, 664 S.W.3d 443. A conviction is affirmed

if substantial evidence exists to support it, meaning the evidence is forceful enough to compel

a conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture. Allen v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 110, 640 S.W.3d

446. Jarrett was tried to the bench, so the judge was the determiner of fact and credibility.

Holmes v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 384, 586 S.W.3d 183.

       Jarrett’s vehicle was stopped for a moving violation. Jarrett was driving, and there was

a front-seat passenger. Jarrett had an outstanding warrant for distribution of fentanyl, so the

officer had Jarrett exit the vehicle and arrested him. Jarrett had on a “Gucci-like shoulder

bag,” which the officer advised Jarrett to leave in the vehicle. The officer searched Jarrett’s

pants pocket and found a substantial amount of cash and a small white rock that the officer

believed to be fentanyl. The officer opened the Gucci-like bag and found inside a loaded

.40-caliber Glock handgun and 13.85 grams of marijuana in plastic bags. A search of the car

revealed a blue bag in the driver’s-side door that contained a mix of fentanyl and heroin, also

known as “Grey Death.” In a backpack behind the driver’s seat, officers found individual

bags of marijuana. The patrol vehicle’s dashboard camera confirmed the sequence of events

and the fact that the front-seat passenger did not appear to have touched anything on or

around the driver’s side of the car.

       Jarrett’s motions for dismissal were denied, and this appeal followed. The thrust of

Jarrett’s argument is that the State failed to prove that he was in constructive possession of

any of the contraband found in the Gucci-like bag (the loaded gun and over thirteen grams

of marijuana), in the blue bag (the mix of fentanyl and heroin), or in the backpack (individual

                                              2
bags of marijuana). Jarrett emphasizes that contraband was found in closed containers, so

no contraband was in plain view. We hold that Jarrett has failed to demonstrate reversible

error.

         The State is not required to prove actual possession but may instead prove that the

accused was in constructive possession. Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 567, 444 S.W.3d

880. For constructive possession, the State must establish that the defendant exercised care,

control, and management over the contraband. Id. Constructive possession may be inferred

where contraband is found in a place immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused

and subject to his control. Id. Where, as here, the vehicle is jointly occupied by the driver

(Jarrett) and a front-seat passenger, additional linking factors must exist to tie the accused to

the contraband. Joint occupancy of a vehicle, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish

possession or joint possession. Baker v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 515, 588 S.W.3d 844. Other

factors to be considered in cases involving automobiles occupied by more than one person

are (1) whether the contraband is in plain view; (2) whether the contraband is found with

the accused’s personal effects; (3) whether it is found on the same side of the car seat as the

accused was sitting or in near proximity to it; (4) whether the accused is the owner of the

automobile or exercises dominion and control over it; and (5) whether the accused acted

suspiciously before or during the arrest. Id. There is no requirement that all, or even a

majority, of the linking factors be present to constitute constructive possession of the

contraband. Id.

                                               3
       While none of the contraband was in plain view, the loaded Glock handgun and

bagged marijuana were found in a shoulder bag that Jarrett attempted to take with him as

he exited the car. That evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, very nearly

proved actual (as opposed to constructive) simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm,

providing ample evidence to support that conviction. The evidence certainly presented

enough linking factors to render that conviction supported by substantial evidence.

       As to Jarrett’s convictions for possession of fentanyl, heroin, and marijuana, each with

the purpose to deliver, Jarrett challenges only the State’s evidence that he had constructive

possession of each item of contraband. He adds that the State did not fingerprint any of the

contraband to confirm that Jarrett had ever handled any of the items. We hold that there

were sufficient linking factors for the fact-finder to conclude that Jarrett was in constructive

possession.

       Jarrett was the driver of this vehicle, which was registered to him. The contraband

was found on his side of the vehicle. The blue bag containing the mix of fentanyl and heroin

was in the driver’s-side door. The backpack containing bags of marijuana was found behind

the driver’s seat, in proximity to Jarrett. Other relevant considerations are the facts that

Jarrett had an outstanding warrant for distribution of fentanyl, and he had what appeared

to be a small rock of fentanyl and substantial sums of cash in his pocket. Looking at the

proof in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to

support the fact-finder’s conclusion that Jarrett was in constructive possession of the

contraband contained in the items on his person and in the containers located in the driver’s-

                                               4
side door and behind the driver’s seat. See McCastle v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 162, 392 S.W.3d

369.

       Affirmed.

       VIRDEN and WOOD, JJ., agree.

       Mac J. Carder, Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender, for

appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               5