Rochelle Mead v. State of Arkansas , 2023 Ark. App. 384 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 384ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-22-783
Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023
ROCHELLE MEAD APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 23CR-15-762]
V.
HONORABLE CHARLES E.
CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge
Rochelle Mead appeals the sentencing order entered by the Faulkner County Circuit
Court convicting her of trafficking methamphetamine, maintaining a drug premises within
one thousand feet of a church, possessing drug paraphernalia, and possessing marijuana. She
was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for the trafficking conviction and fines for the
other three convictions. On appeal, Mead challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting all four convictions, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate
that she constructively possessed the drugs or paraphernalia. We affirm.
The convictions arose from an investigation conducted on October 6, 2015, by
Officer Todd Wesbecher, an investigator with the narcotics unit of the Conway Police
Department. He responded to several anonymous tips regarding possible drug use and
distribution allegedly occurring at apartment D8 in the Salem Park Apartments in Conway.
While investigating the tip, Officer Wesbecher was told by neighbors that there was also
“heavy foot traffic” in and out of apartment D7, Mead’s apartment, that they believed might
be drug activity. Officer Wesbecher knocked on Mead’s door, which she opened just a few
inches. He identified himself, explained he was investigating claims regarding apartment D8,
and asked if he could come inside to discuss the matter. He testified that he noticed the odor
of raw marijuana coming from inside her apartment. Mead told Officer Wesbecher that he
could not come inside, so he asked her to come outside. She picked up her eleven-month-
old son and went outside. Mead told Officer Wesbecher that she lived there and had been
the sole lessee since her son was born in November 2014. Officer Wesbecher testified that
Mead was nervous and appeared to be hiding something.
Officer Wesbecher told Mead that, due to the smell of marijuana coming from her
apartment, he was going to secure the scene and obtain a warrant to search her apartment.
After he obtained a warrant, he asked Mead to leave the apartment, and she did. During the
search, officers discovered a large amount of methamphetamine under the kitchen sink in a
shoe box in three separate plastic bags; a small partially burned marijuana cigarette in a
candle jar in the kitchen; and a set of digital scales and a bag of methamphetamine on top
of the refrigerator. They also found two boxes of plastic bags in the pantry that were similar
to the bags found in the shoebox containing the methamphetamine. Finally, they discovered
a baggie containing eight grams of marijuana in a plastic bin in the closet in Mead’s bedroom,
one of two bedrooms in the apartment.
2
Although Mead had been the sole lessee since her son was born in November 2014
and admitted at trial that she and her son were the only people living in the apartment at
the time of the search, she testified that her sister and a friend, Jasmine, had come to stay
with her after her son was born and that Jasmine had moved out in August 2015. Mead also
said that her friend Shelby Mitchell had moved in during the summer of 2015, but Mead
asked Shelby to move out in September. Mead said that she had no knowledge of the drugs
or paraphernalia in the apartment, did not know how they got there, and had never smoked
marijuana or used methamphetamine.
The jury found Mead guilty of trafficking methamphetamine, maintaining a drug
premises within one thousand feet of a church, possessing drug paraphernalia, and
possessing marijuana. On appeal, she contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove
that she constructively possessed the drugs found in her apartment. Specifically, she argues
that this is a joint-occupancy case because the evidence demonstrated that multiple people
shared the apartment with her immediately preceding the search.
Before we address the merits of Mead’s argument, we must first address preservation.
To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must move for a
directed verdict at the close of the State’s case and at the close of all the evidence and must
state the specific grounds for the motion. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (2022); Break v. State, 2022
Ark. 219, at 4, 655 S.W.3d 303, 307. We have held that Rule 33.1 is to be strictly construed
and that the failure to adhere to the rule constitutes a waiver as to any question pertaining
to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. Akram v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 504,
3
at 2, 560 S.W.3d 509, 512. A general motion for directed verdict asserting merely that the
State has failed to prove its case is inadequate to preserve a sufficiency challenge for appeal.
Id., 560 S.W.3d at 512.
Although Mead moved for a directed verdict at the proper times, the motions were
not sufficiently specific to preserve the argument she now makes on appeal. At the close of
the State’s case, defense counsel made the following motion:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would like to make a formal Motion for a
Directed Verdict, Judge. The State has not met its
burden of proof in this matter and we would move for a
directed verdict.
COURT: On any particular count?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: All counts.
Then, at the close of all the evidence, defense counsel renewed the motion:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would like to renew my motion for a
Directed Verdict. The State has not met its burden of
proof and based on the testimony provided in the
defense case-in-chief, we would ask for a directed verdict.
Neither directed-verdict motion provided a specific ground on which it should be
granted. Counsel did not mention constructive possession or joint occupancy, which are her
sole arguments on appeal. Strictly construing Rule 33.1, as we must, we hold that Mead
failed to preserve her sufficiency argument for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm her
convictions.
Affirmed.
VIRDEN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.
4
Mark Alan Jesse, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Clayton P. Orr, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5