Court Opinion

ID: 9897675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:23:32.225266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:39.277548
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Lorish

              ZION MONGOLES HOWELL
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 0986-22-2                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                NOVEMBER 8, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                            FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG
                                              Gordon F. Willis, Judge

                              (Alexander Raymond; Raymond Law, PLC, on brief), for appellant.
                              Appellant submitting on brief.

                              (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Leah A. Darron, Senior
                              Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
                              submitting on brief.

                     The circuit court convicted Zion Mongoles Howell of possession with intent to distribute a

              Schedule I or II controlled substance, possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled

              substance with intent to sell or distribute, and misdemeanor eluding the police. Howell asserts that

              the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.1 The case is decided without oral argument

              because the parties agree that oral argument is unnecessary. Code § 17.1-403(ii).

                                                        BACKGROUND

                     “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the

              light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Meade v. Commonwealth,

              74 Va. App. 796, 802 (2022) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)).

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                     1
                       Howell provides no argument challenging his eluding conviction; therefore, we do not
              address that conviction on appeal.
“Accordingly, we regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all

inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that evidence.” Id. (quoting Gerald, 295 Va. at 473).

       On December 28, 2020, City of Fredericksburg police officers obtained a search warrant for

a hotel room registered to Howell and his father. Howell and Laqorsha Lewis were the only ones in

the room when the officers arrived. As the officers entered, they immediately noticed a revolver on

the bed closest to the entryway. On the same bed, they found Howell’s identification card,

backpack and cellular phone, a black jacket with $400 in cash in the pocket, and a variety of empty

“cannabis bags” labeled “lemon-cherry gelato and snowman.” Under the mattress of the same bed,

the police discovered six bags containing “Molly,” a lab-made psychedelic drug, and over 80 grams

of Eutylone, a synthetic cathinone. The drugs “were in [a] Cannabis bag labeled ‘lemon-cherry

gelato.’” The police found scales and other drugs in the room, including marijuana and cocaine.

       During the search, the police detained Howell and Lewis outside the room where they could

hear the officers talking in the room. When one of the officers said, “gun,” Howell immediately

fled. After a brief chase, the police detained Howell in an adjacent parking lot. As he returned to

the hotel, Howell spontaneously stated that he had arrived there shortly before the police executed

the warrant and that he had just removed the gun from his backpack. He admitted that he was

involved in distributing marijuana. The Commonwealth introduced portions of Howell’s interview

with the police, as well as text messages from his phone about arranging drug transactions and

agreeing on prices.

       Fredericksburg Police Detective Stephen Lamar testified as an expert in the distribution of

narcotics and opined that the quantity of drugs seized from the hotel room was not consistent with

personal use. Further, the way the drugs were packaged, the presence of additional packaging

material, scales, money, gun, and the lack of ingestion devices all suggested that the drugs found in

the hotel room were not possessed for personal use.

                                                 -2-
        The circuit court convicted Howell of the charged offenses. Howell appeals.

                                               ANALYSIS

        Howell asserts that the Commonwealth’s evidence failed to prove that he was in possession

of the drugs and that he knowingly and intentionally possessed the firearm while possessing the

drugs. Howell argues that “while his personal items (ID etc) were found on the mattress, his

personal items were not found under the mattress near the drugs.” He reasons that the drugs were

“outside common observation” and that “a logical hypothesis” is that his father, with whom he

shared the hotel room, had secreted the drugs beneath the mattress without Howell’s knowledge.

Regarding the charge of possessing a firearm while in possession of drugs with the intent to

distribute, Howell argues that “because there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of

possession with the intent to distribute the Eutylone, there was insufficient evidence to find him

guilty of possessing the firearm while possessing the drug.”

        “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, ‘the

relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 122, 144 (2018) (quoting Kelly v.

Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 257 (2003) (en banc)). “This familiar standard gives full play to

the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the

evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Raspberry v.

Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 19, 29 (2019) (quoting Burrous v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 275,

279 (2017)). “In conducting our analysis, we are mindful that ‘determining the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight afforded the testimony of those witnesses are matters left to the trier of

fact, who has the ability to hear and see them as they testify.’” Id. (quoting Miller v.

Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 536 (2015)). “Thus, we will affirm the judgment of the trial

                                                   -3-
court unless that judgment is ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Id. (quoting Kelly,

41 Va. App. at 257).

        “To convict an individual of possession of a controlled substance, ‘the Commonwealth must

prove that the defendant was aware of the presence and character of the drugs and that he

intentionally and consciously possessed them.’” Merritt v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 719, 733

(2010) (quoting Castaneda v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 574, 583 (1989)). Such possession may

be actual or constructive; constructive possession “can be shown by ‘acts, statements, or conduct of

the accused or other facts and circumstances which tend to show that [he] was aware of both the

presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control.’”

Bagley v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 1, 27 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Wilson v.

Commonwealth, 272 Va. 19, 27 (2006)). “Furthermore, proof that a person is in close proximity to

contraband is a relevant fact that . . . may tend to show that, as an owner or occupant . . . of [the

premises], the person necessarily knows of the presence, nature and character of a substance that is

found there.” Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 432, 435 (1992). Further, constructive

possession principles apply equally to considering possession of a firearm and possession of illegal

drugs. See Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 625, 629-30 (2009). The Commonwealth is not

required to prove that the appellant’s possession was exclusive. Id.

        Howell was a registered guest of the hotel room and had been staying there with his father.

Upon entering the hotel room, the police immediately noticed the gun in plain view on the bed

closest to the door. When Howell heard the officers say “gun,” he immediately ran away,

suggesting his consciousness of guilt. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52, 58 (2010). Howell

admitted distributing marijuana, and text messages extracted from his phone indicated he sold other

drugs as well. Marijuana and cocaine were in plain view throughout the hotel room, as were the

scales and packaging material. The totality of the evidence proves Howell was familiar with illegal

                                                   -4-
drugs and suggests he was aware of the presence of the Eutylone secreted beneath the mattress on

which his personal possessions and the gun were placed.

        It is well established that in considering a sufficiency challenge, “[c]ircumstantial evidence

is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently

convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Simon v. Commonwealth,

58 Va. App. 194, 206 (2011) (quoting Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 53 (1983)). “The

Commonwealth need only exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence that flow from the evidence,

not those that spring from the imagination of the defendant.” Id. (quoting Hamilton v.

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751, 755 (1993)). “While no single piece of [circumstantial] evidence

may be sufficient, the ‘combined force of many concurrent and related circumstances, each

insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable mind irresistibly to a conclusion.’” Ervin v.

Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 505 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Stamper v.

Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 273 (1979)). “In other words, in a circumstantial evidence case . . .

the accumulation of various facts and inferences, each mounting upon the others, may indeed

provide sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” of a defendant’s guilt. Id.

        Here, the totality of the evidence supports the circuit court’s rejection of Howell’s

hypothesis of innocence and its conclusion that Howell possessed the drugs with the intent to

distribute them while also possessing the firearm. The Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient

for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Howell possessed the contraband. Accordingly, we affirm

the circuit court’s judgment.

                                                                                                Affirmed.

                                                  -5-