State v. Williamson ( 2023 )

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
v.
NATHAN WESLEY WILLIAMSON, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 23-0107
FILED 12-28-2023
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-116533-001
The Honorable Monica S. Garfinkel, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Cory Engle
Counsel for Appellant
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Karen Moody
Counsel for Appellee
STATE v. WILLIAMSON
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
F O S T E R, Judge:
¶1 Nathan Williamson appeals his two drug-related convictions.
He contends that the superior court erred by denying his Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal because the State presented insufficient evidence to
support the verdicts. This Court disagrees and affirms his convictions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Police stopped a vehicle registered to Williamson, and driven
by his wife, for a traffic violation. Williamson was in the passenger seat.
During the stop, police found drug paraphernalia and five grams of
methamphetamine in the center console. They also discovered
paraphernalia and methamphetamine residue inside a small case on the
passenger-side floorboard.
¶3 Williamson was indicted on two charges: possession or use of
dangerous drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia. After the
State presented its case, Williamson moved for a judgment of acquittal
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 alleging there was
insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The court denied the motion,
finding that reasonable persons could accept the State’s evidence as
sufficient to warrant a conviction. The jury found Williamson guilty of both
counts. Williamson timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶4 “After the close of evidence . . . the court must enter a
judgment of acquittal on any offense charged . . . if there is no substantial
evidence to support a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). A Rule 20
motion on the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. State v. West,
226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011).
¶5 The sufficiency of evidence presented at trial is reviewed “to
determine if substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” State v.
Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, 75, ¶ 50 (2012). “Evidence is viewed in a light most
2
STATE v. WILLIAMSON
Decision of the Court
favorable to sustaining the verdict.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 15 (quoting
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595 (1993)). Both direct and circumstantial
evidence is considered. Id. at ¶ 16. But if “reasonable minds may differ on
inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and
the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” Id. at 563,
¶ 18 (quoting State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603 (1997)).
¶6 “In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, [this Court]
test[s] the evidence ‘against the statutorily required elements of the
offense.’” State v. Aguirre, 255 Ariz. 89, 92, ¶ 8 (App. 2023) (quoting State v.
Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, 505, ¶ 8 (App. 2005)). “[K]nowingly[ p]ossess[ing] or
us[ing] a dangerous drug” is a class 4 felony. A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1), (B)(1).
Using, or possessing with intent to use, drug paraphernalia is a class 6
felony. A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). Knowingly means “a person is aware or
believes that the person’s conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance
exists.” A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(b). Possession means “to exercise dominion or
control over property” and includes both “actual possession” and
“constructive possession.” A.R.S. § 13-105(34); State v. Ottar, 232 Ariz. 97,
99, ¶ 5 (2013).
¶7 “Constructive possession exists when the prohibited property
‘is found in a place under [the defendant’s] dominion [or] control and under
circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant
had actual knowledge of the existence of the [property].’” State v. Cox, 214
Ariz. 518, 520-21, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Villavicencio, 108 Ariz.
518, 520 (1972)) (alterations in original). “The terms ‘dominion’ and ‘control’
carry their ordinary meaning, such that dominion means ‘absolute
ownership’ and control means to ‘have power over.’” State v. Ingram, 239
Ariz. 228, 233, ¶ 21 (App. 2016) (quoting Cox, 214 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 9).
¶8 The State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
verdicts that Williamson possessed both drugs and paraphernalia. The
evidence showed that Williamson was inside the car where
methamphetamine and paraphernalia were found. The car was registered
solely in Williamson’s name. Men’s clothing and other items were scattered
throughout the car. Based on one officer’s testimony, the car’s general
appearance indicated Williamson and his wife had been living in the car.
This evidence was sufficient to show that Williamson exercised dominion
and control over the car where the drugs and paraphernalia were found.
Thus, the evidence demonstrated possession. “Reasonable persons could
accept [this evidence] as adequate and sufficient to support a guilty verdict
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Hausner, 230 Ariz. at 75, ¶ 50.
3
STATE v. WILLIAMSON
Decision of the Court
¶9 Williamson argues that it was his wife that possessed the
drugs and paraphernalia because they were found in the console and under
debris on the floorboard. He argues that substantial evidence did not
establish that he possessed the prohibited items. But two people can jointly
possess property under the theory of constructive possession. Ingram, 239
Ariz. at 233, ¶ 22 (quoting State v. Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 9 (App.
2013)). Thus, jurors could reasonably conclude that both Williamson and
his wife jointly possessed the drugs and paraphernalia found in
Williamson’s car.
¶10 Similarly, reasonable jurors could infer that Williamson knew
there were drugs and paraphernalia present. The methamphetamine and
paraphernalia discovered inside the center console were beside
Williamson. There was additional paraphernalia in a glasses case on the
passenger floorboard at Williamson’s feet, where he “would be stepping on
it.” Accordingly, reasonable jurors could infer that Williamson knew drugs
and paraphernalia were in the car.
CONCLUSION
¶11 Williamson’s convictions for possession or use of dangerous
drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia are supported by
sufficient evidence. Accordingly, Williamson’s convictions are affirmed.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: TM
4