State v. Williamson ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 23-0107

Filed Date: 12/28/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2023