Wright v. State ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL WRIGHT, §
§ No. 36, 2015
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below:
§
§ Superior Court of the
v. § State of Delaware, in and for
§ New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. I.D. No. 1406015553
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 30, 2015
Decided: October 19, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 19th day of October 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief, the
State of Delaware’s response, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Paul Wright (“Wright”), filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s January 14, 2015 denial of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. The State of
Delaware argues that the judgment below should be affirmed. We agree and AFFIRM.
(2) On June 19, 2014, Wright was arrested outside of the Fairview Inn in
Wilmington, Delaware. During May and June of that year, Detective Randolph Pfaf
(“Pfaf”), a member of the City of Wilmington Police Department who was assigned to
and deputized with the Drug Enforcement Administration, communicated with a
1
suspected drug dealer via text messages and phone calls to a certain cellular telephone
number. The communications during this period of time were with respect to a planned
purchase by Pfaf of two “logs” of heroin—constituting approximately 260 individual
bags of the prohibited substance—for $750 on June 19, 2014. Pfaf was directed by the
communicating individual, the suspected drug dealer, to proceed to room 165 at the
Fairview Inn (“Room 165”) to consummate the transaction.
(3) Upon arriving at the Fairview Inn, Pfaf observed Wright in front of the
hotel’s office, located on the side opposite that of Room 165. After obtaining a search
warrant for Room 165, police officers executed the warrant, discovering a contraceptive
box containing 26 bags of heroin within a bedside dresser. Pfaf also discovered a bag of
marijuana in Room 165.
(4) Simultaneous with the execution of the search warrant, Detective Ahmard
Reddick (“Reddick”) of the Wilmington Police Department observed Wright in front of
the Fairview Inn’s office with a cellular phone in his possession. Before arresting
Wright, Reddick searched Wright and found no weapons, drug paraphernalia, or
contraband. Reddick discovered only a cellular phone, which Wright placed at his side
upon the detective’s approach, and a key card granting access to Room 165. When Pfaf
redialed the cellular phone number he had previously been communicating with to
arrange the heroin purchase, Wright’s phone rang, revealing an image of Wright and a
child on the device’s screensaver. Wright admitted to Reddick that the cellular phone
was his.
2
(5) On January 14, 2015, after a two-day trial, a jury found Wright guilty of
Possession of Heroin as a lesser included offense of Drug Dealing, as well as Possession
of Marijuana. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case during the trial below, Wright
moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed the heroin and marijuana at
issue. The Superior Court denied the motion. Wright was sentenced to 90 days of Level
5 incarceration, with credit for 90 days served for the marijuana possession. In addition,
as a result of the heroin conviction, Wright was sentenced to 6 months of Level 5
incarceration with credit for 130 days served, suspended after 130 days for 6 months of
Level 3 supervision. This appeal followed.
(6) Wright contends that that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he possessed the heroin and marijuana, and he requests that his
convictions and sentences for possession of heroin and possession of marijuana be
reversed. Wright argues that mere proximity to controlled substances—or mere
association with persons who have possession and control of such substances—is
insufficient to establish his knowing possession and control.
(7) “We review de novo a trial judge’s denial of a criminal defendant’s Motion
for Judgment of Acquittal to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements
3
of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.”1 Further, “[f]or the purposes of this
inquiry, this Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence of [a]
defendant’s guilt.”2
(8) In order to “establish constructive possession [of a controlled substance],
the State must present evidence that the defendant: (1) knew the location of the drugs;
(2) had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs; and (3) intended to
guide the destiny of the drugs.”3 This Court has found that “a prima facie case of
constructive possession may be established if there is ‘evidence linking the accused to an
ongoing criminal operation of which possession is a part.’”4 However, “mere proximity
to, or awareness of[,] drugs is not sufficient to establish constructive possession.”5
(9) Before June 19, 2014, the date of Wright’s arrest, Pfaf had been
communicating via text messages and phone calls with a suspected drug dealer
concerning a purchase of heroin, and Wright was in possession of the phone associated
with the communicating telephone number on the day he was taken into custody.
Further, during Pfaf’s discussions with the potential drug dealer, the latter instructed Pfaf
to appear at Room 165 to complete the transaction. Wright, at the time of his arrest, was
waiting near Room 165 and possessed a key card required to access the room, which
housed the controlled substances. Therefore, viewing the evidence in a light most
1
White v. State, 906 A.2d 82, 85 (Del. 2006) (citing Priest v. State, 879 A.2d 575, 577 (Del.
2005)) (emphasis in original); see also Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 989 (Del. 2004) (quoting
Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998)).
2
Hardin, 844 A.2d at 989 (quoting Cline, 720 A.2d at 892).
3
White, 906 A.2d at 86 (quoting Hoey v. State, 689 A.2d 1177, 1181 (Del. 1997)); see also
Wright v. State, 2014 WL 1003584, at *1 (Del. Mar. 7, 2014) (citations omitted).
4
Wright, 2014 WL 1003584, at *1 (quoting Hoey, 689 A.2d at 1181) (emphasis added).
5
White, 906 A.2d at 86 (internal citations omitted).
4
favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could properly determine beyond a
reasonable doubt that Wright knew the location of the quantities of heroin and marijuana
at issue. Similarly, given the presence of the key card on Wright’s person and Pfaf’s
drug-related communications with the number associated with Wright’s cellular phone, a
reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright exercised dominion
and control over the heroin and marijuana at issue in this case.
(10) Wright’s reliance on this Court’s holding in White v. State6 does not change
this result. In White, police searched the apartment of the defendant’s son, who had been
the subject of an investigation for his possible involvement in selling drugs. The
defendant was present at the time of the search, as she was residing at her son’s
apartment on a temporary basis. In the walk-in closet of the master bedroom, police
found 177 grams of white powdered cocaine, 6.5 grams of uncolored crack cocaine in a
women’s shoe, and 3.16 grams of marijuana. Upon searching the defendant’s person,
police discovered 4.63 grams of pink crack cocaine in her right sock. The police found
nothing of the defendant’s in the walk-in closet. The State prosecuted the defendant for
Trafficking in Cocaine over 100 grams and Conspiracy to Traffic in Cocaine. At the
close of the State’s case, the trial judge denied the defendant’s Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal. On appeal from the trial judge’s denial of the motion, this Court found that
“no rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] exercised
6
906 A.2d 82 (Del. 2006).
5
dominion and control over, or ‘intended to guide the destiny of,’ the white powdered
cocaine found in the walk-in closet.”7
(11) Wright’s possession of both a key card granting access to Room 165 and
the cellular phone used to arrange the transaction in the same space would enable a
reasonable jury to conclude that he constructively possessed the heroin and marijuana. In
White, the defendant’s strongest link to the controlled substances was her proximity to the
drugs and temporary residence in her son’s apartment where they were found. Here,
Wright possessed the key card necessary to enter Room 165 and the cellular phone used
to arrange the alleged sale. The cellular phone was admittedly his, it bore his image on
its screensaver, and it rang when Pfaf redialed the potential drug dealer’s number. The
key card and cellular phone would permit a rational jury to reach the conclusion beyond a
reasonable doubt that Wright knew the location of the contraband, had the ability to
exercise dominion and control over the drugs, and intended to guide the destiny of the
controlled substances. A rational jury, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
the State, could, therefore, properly reach the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that
Wright committed the offenses charged.
7
Id. at 86.
6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
7