State Of Louisiana v. Christy Leanna Steiner

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2021 KA 1337
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
CHRISTY LEANNA STEINER
Judgment Rendered: ' JUN 0 3 2022
On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 0327- F- 2020
Honorable Scott Gardner, Judge Presiding
Warren L. Montgomery Attorneys for Appellee,
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Matthew Caplan
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana
Gwendolyn K. Brown Attorney for Defendant/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Christy Leanna Steiner
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, CJ., PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.
PENZATO, J.
The defendant, Christy Leanna Steiner, was charged by bill of information
with possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies ( count 1), a
violation of La. R.S. 14: 95. 1; illegal carrying of weapons while in possession of a
controlled dangerous substance ( CDS) ( count 3), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 95( E);
possession of a schedule III CDS ( buprenorphine) ( count 4), a violation of La. R.S.
40: 968( C); and possession of less than 2 grams of a schedule II CDS
methamphetamine) ( count 7), a violation of La. R. S. 40: 967( C)( 1).' She pled not
guilty on all counts. Following a jury trial, she was found not guilty on counts 1
and 3 and guilty as charged on counts 4 and 7. She moved for a new trial and for a
post -verdict judgment of acquittal, but the motions were denied. On count 4, she
was sentenced to five years at hard labor. On count 7, she was sentenced to two
years at hard labor. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently,
suspended both sentences, and placed the defendant on supervised probation for
three years subject to payment of a $ 1000. 00 fine. The defendant now appeals.
For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
FACTS
On November 24, 2019, St. Tammany Parish Sheriff' s Office Deputy Boris
Medvedev investigated a report of people sleeping in a vehicle in front of a Shell gas
station.
Deputy Medvedev observed a pickup truck with the defendant asleep in the
driver' s seat and a male subject asleep in the passenger' s seat. Deputy Medvedev
also saw a glass smoking pipe in the vehicle.
A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed the presence of
methamphetamine, buprenorphine, a loaded firearm, syringes, additional smoking
pipes, Ziploc bags, and rolling papers.
Steven Michael Rodriguez was charged with multiple counts by the same bill of information.
His case was severed for purposes of trial.
W
The defendant testified at trial. She identified Steven Michael Rodriguez as
the passenger in the truck, and testified they stopped at the gas station to sleep
because they were exhausted from moving. She denied any knowledge, prior to her
arrest, of the presence of the gun in the truck. Additionally, she claimed she only
learned of the methamphetamine and buprenorphine in the car after viewing the
police report provided during discovery.
DISCUSSION
In assignment of error number 1, the defendant contends the evidence was
insufficient to support the convictions. In assignment of error number 2, she
contends the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. In assignment of
error number 3, she contends the trial court erred in denying the motion for a post -
verdict judgment of acquittal. She argues these assignments of error together,
claiming the evidence offered at trial failed to prove the essential element of
intent/guilty/knowledge" and therefore was inadequate to support a finding that she
was in constructive possession of the drugs at issue.
The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a
conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could conclude that the State proved the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See La. Code Crim. P.
art. 821( B). The Jackson a Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61
L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979), standard of review, incorporated in Article 821, is an objective
standard for testing the overall evidence, both direct and circumstantial, for
reasonable doubt. In conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of
Louisiana' s circumstantial evidence test, i.e., " assuming every fact to be proved that
the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict," every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15: 438. The reviewing court is required to evaluate
the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
3
determine if any alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror
could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a case
involves circumstantial
evidence and the trier of fact reasonably rejects the
hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the
defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt.
State a Smith, 2003- 0917 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 31/ 03), 868 So. 2d 794, 798- 99.
As applicable here, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to
possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedules II or III. La. R.S.
40: 967( C) & La. R.S. 40: 968( C). Methamphetamine is a controlled dangerous
substance classified in Schedule II. See La. R.S. 40: 964, Schedule II ( C)( 2).
Buprenorphine is a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule III. See
La. R.S. 40: 964, Schedule III (D)( 2)( a).
On the issue of whether the evidence sufficiently proved possession, the State
is not required to show actual possession of the narcotics by a defendant in order to
convict. Constructive possession is sufficient. Smith, 868 So. 2d at 799. A person is
considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled dangerous substance if it
is subject to his dominion and control, regardless of whether or not it is in his
physical possession. Also, a person may be in joint possession of a drug if he
willfully and knowingly shares with another the right to control the drug. However,
the mere presence in the area where narcotics are discovered or mere association with
the person who does control the drug or the area where it is located is insufficient to
support a finding of constructive possession. Id.
A determination of whether or not there is " possession" sufficient to convict
depends on the peculiar facts of each case. Factors to be considered in determining
whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute
possession include his knowledge that drugs were in the area, his relationship with
the person found to be in actual possession, his access to the area where the drugs
fl
were found, evidence of recent drug use, and his physical proximity to the drugs.
Smith, 868 So. 2d at 799.
The defendant argues the instant case is analogous to the factual situation
present in State a Bell, 566 So.2d 959 ( La. 1990) ( per curiam).
Additionally, she
cites State a Jackson, 557 So.2d 1034 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 1990) in support of her
argument that " there was no evidence that the pipe had been recently used or that it
was ever used illicitly."
Bell involved review of the attempted possession of cocaine convictions of
Alcides Bell and Andre Davis. Bell, 566 So.2d at 959. Bell was a passenger in
Davis' car, which was parked two doors away from Davis' residence. Id. Bell and
Davis were arrested after police officers approached the vehicle to tell the men to turn
down the radio and saw a distinctively wrapped package containing a white powder
among cassette tapes on a plastic console over the transmission hump of the car. Id.The court in Bell found insufficient evidence that Bell had dominion and control over
the cocaine in Davis' vehicle. Id. at 960. The court noted the State presented no
evidence that Bell exercised any control over Davis' car, that Bell had any other
drugs in his possession on his person, that he appeared under the influence of
narcotics, or that he had possession of any drug paraphernalia. The court also noted
it was Davis who lived in the neighborhood two doors away and who responded to
the request of the police to turn down the radio. Id.
Jackson involved review of a conviction for attempted possession of cocaine.
Jackson, 557 So. 2d at 1034. During a pursuit of a man named Lee Steele from an
area known for drug trafficking, and after Steele abandoned a matchbox containing
drugs, a police officer followed Steele into his apartment. Id. The defendant was in
the apartment standing next to a " little podium type home- made bar." Id. Also found
in the apartment were a glass pipe with cocaine residue, another pipe, a mirror with
traces of cocaine, a razor blade with traces of cocaine, test tubes, glasses, and a bag
5
containing a white substance which appeared to be a material used to cut cocaine. Id.at 1034- 35. The court in Jackson found insufficient evidence to establish that the
defendant exercised any dominion or control over the objects which had residue and
traces of cocaine. The court noted, "[ t] here was no evidence that the residue -
containing pipe was warm, that the defendant' s fingerprints were on any item, that
the defendant tested positive for cocaine, or that the defendant was anything more
than a guest in the apartment." Id. at 1035.
In contrast to Bell, there was evidence in the instant case that the defendant
was more than a mere passenger in the driver' s vehicle which contained a sealed
package of drugs. While, as in Jackson, there was no evidence in this case of recent
use of the glass pipe, that fact was relevant in Jackson because the only evidence of
Jackson' s dominion and control over the cocaine was that she " was standing next to
paraphernalia which had traces and residue of cocaine." Jackson, 557 So.2d at 1035.
In the instant case, however, the defendant was in the driver' s seat of her father' s
truck when the police discovered her, Rodriguez, and the drugs. She testified she had
been using the truck for approximately one month and had been using it during the
previous thirty-six hours to help Rodriguez move. There was also evidence of the
defendant' s dominion and control over the drug paraphernalia to constitute
possession in this case. Deputy Medvedev testified he saw a glass smoking pipe " in
the vicinity of both of the subjects." Based on Deputy Medvedev' s eight years of law
enforcement experience, including 400- 500 narcotics arrests, he testified that " a
glass pipe of that sort is generally used to smoke crack cocaine or
methamphetamine."
In State a Toups, 2001- 1875 ( La. 10/ 15/ 02), 833 So.2d 910, the Louisiana
Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling that there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding that the defendant, Mary Toups, exercised dominion
and control over the cocaine at issue. Following receipt of information that " Stan"
0
was selling drugs from his residence in New Orleans, the police conducted a
controlled buy from the address and obtained a search warrant for the premises.
Prior to executing the search warrant, the police conducted surveillance on the home
for approximately thirty minutes. Id. at 911. Upon entering the residence, the police
saw Toups and Stanley Williams, the known resident of the address, seated on the
sofa in the front living room, facing each other and apparently engaged in
conversation. Id. at 911- 12. Two pieces of crack cocaine, three clear glass crack
pipes, and a razor blade were on the coffee table directly in front of Toups and
Williams. Cash in the amount of $304. 00 and sixteen rocks of cocaine were in a
plastic container next to Williams. Id. at 912. The police had not seen Toups enter
the residence while it was under surveillance, suggesting she was present for at least
thirty minutes before the execution of the search warrant. Id. However, there was no
evidence inside the residence to indicate she resided there. Id. She gave a false name
when arrested. Id. She was charged with possession of the two pieces of cocaine
discovered on the coffee table. Id.The court in Toups found that most, if not all, of the factors used to determine
whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute
constructive possession had been met in the case: ( 1) Toups inevitably had
knowledge that drugs were in the area in that they were in plain view directly in front
of her; ( 2) she had access to the area where the drugs were found; ( 3) she was in very
close physical proximity to the drugs; and ( 4) the area was frequented by drug users,
as the police received confidential information that Williams was conducting drug
transactions, the police thereafter made a controlled purchase of drugs from Williams,
and sixteen rocks of cocaine were on the sofa next to Williams. The court found that
although there was no evidence of a specific relationship between Toups and
Williams, it would be reasonable to conclude they were not strangers because Toups
was with Williams for at least thirty minutes prior to his arrest, and Williams would
7
not sit at his coffee table with crack cocaine in plain view ready to be smoked with
someone he did not know personally or someone who he did not know would be
amenable to using the drugs. Further, the court noted, although there was no
evidence of recent drug use, the fact that the drugs and paraphernalia were on the
table in front of Toups and Williams combined with the fact that the paraphernalia
contained drug residue suggested they were preparing to use, or had already used, the
drugs. Lastly, the court noted the fact that Toups gave a false name upon arrest was
evidence of consciousness of guilt. Id. at 913- 14.
The defendant in the instant case disputes her knowledge that drugs were in
the area, arguing " the drugs were not in plain view, but rather, were secreted inside
the personal property of her co-defendant." This argument relies solely upon the
defendant' s own self-serving testimony that she first learned of the methamphetamine
in the truck when she read a police report that stated the methamphetamine " was
inside of a bicycle tire repair kit in the center console." The defendant claimed she
did not repair any bicycles and did not know the drugs were in the bicycle repair kit.
On cross- examination, however, she conceded she had not actually read in the report
that the drugs were in a bicycle repair kit, but rather had seen it in a picture, which
she further conceded was not in the police report.' The jury also heard a telephone
call placed to the defendant by Rodriguez from jail several days after he and the
defendant were arrested.3 Rodriguez offered to " take" ( i.e., plead guilty to)
everything" except the gun. The defendant did not question Rodriguez as to what
he meant by that.
Deputy Medvedev testified he found a " baggie" of methamphetamine in the
center console of the truck. On cross- examination, while he conceded the
2The scientific analysis report submitted in this matter referenced a " DELUXE TUBE REPAIR
KIT," containing less than 1 gram of methamphetamine. The police report referenced
a] pproximately 3g of suspected [ m] ethamphetamine ( center console)."
3The defendant had posted bail and was out of jail.
methamphetamine was not in " open sight," he restated it was in the center console.
He did not indicate the methamphetamine " baggie" was inside of a bag or a bicycle
repair kit. He also indicated the center console was "[ 1] ess than a foot" from where
the defendant was located in the truck, i.e., the driver' s seat, and was readily available
and accessible to her. Deputy Medvedev testified the buprenorphine was in a small
bag in the front of the vehicle.
Any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence presented in this case in the
light most favorable to the State, could find that the evidence proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence, all of the elements of counts 4 and 7 and the defendant' s identity as the
perpetrator of those offenses. The evidence supported the jury' s determination that
the defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute possession in
this case. The verdicts returned on counts 4 and 7 indicate the jury rejected the
defendant' s claim of lack of knowledge of the drugs. This case involved
circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact reasonably rejected the hypothesis of
innocence that the defendant was merely present in the area where the drugs were
discovered or merely associated with Rodriguez, who actually controlled the drugs
and the area where they were located. Even accepting the defendant' s theory that the
drugs belonged to Rodriguez, the defendant was still in a close enough relationship to
Rodriguez that she was helping him move for days and sleeping in a truck with him.
She also had access to the area where the drugs were found, i.e., the truck she had
borrowed from her father. Additionally, she was in close physical proximity to drugs,
with the methamphetamine " less than a foot" from where she was located in the
truck. Lastly, a glass smoking pipe generally used to smoke crack and
methamphetamine was " in the vicinity of [the defendant and Rodriguez]." Thus, the
evidence provided a basis for the jury to rationally conclude the defendant was at
least in joint possession of the drugs in her father' s truck, which she had been using
0
for at least a month, because she willfully and knowingly shared the right to control
the drugs with Rodriguez. See Smith, 868 So. 2d at 799.
In reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the jury' s determination was
irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them. See State a Ordodi,
2006- 0207 ( La. 11/ 29/ 06), 946 So. 2d 654, 662. An appellate court errs by
substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of
the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory
hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. State u
Calloway, 2007- 2306 ( La. 1/ 21/ 09), 1 So. 3d 417, 418 ( per curiam). In accepting a
hypothesis of innocence that was not unreasonably rejected by the fact finder, a
court of appeal impinges on a fact finder' s discretion beyond the extent necessary
to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. See State a Mire,
2014- 2295 ( La. 1/ 27/ 16), 269 So. 3d 698, 703 ( per curiam).
On the record before us, we find no error in the jury' s determination that the
evidence was sufficient to support the defendant' s convictions herein. We likewise
find no error in the trial court' s denial of defendant' s motions for new trial and
post -verdict judgment of acquittal. The defendant' s assignments of error are
without merit.
REVIEW FOR PATENT ERROR
This court routinely reviews criminal appeals for patent error. See La. Code
Crim. P. art. 920. Our review has revealed the existence of a patent sentencing error
in this case. The defendant moved for a new trial and a post -verdict judgment of
acquittal, and the motions were denied. The trial court erred by immediately
sentencing the defendant without waiting twenty- four hours after the denial of the
10
post -trial motions, as required by La. Code Crim. P. art. 873. 4 The record reflects no
waiver of this time period by the defendant.
Nevertheless, in State a Augustine, 555 So. 2d 1331, 1333- 34 ( La. 1990), the
Louisiana Supreme Court indicated that a failure to observe the twenty-four hour
delay provided in Article 873 will be considered harmless error where the defendant
could not show that he suffered prejudice from the violation. See State a White, 404
So.2d 1202, 1204- 05 ( La. 1981). In Augustine, the Louisiana Supreme Court
concluded that prejudice would not be found if the defendant had not challenged the
sentence imposed and the violation of the twenty-four hour delay was merely noted
on patent error review. Augustine, 555 So. 2d at 1334. In the instant case, the
defendant has not assigned error to the trial court' s failure to observe the twenty- four
hour delay prior to sentencing, nor has she contested the sentences imposed.
Accordingly, this patent sentencing error is harmless. See State a Major, 2019- 0621
La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 15/ 19), 290 So. 3d 1205, 1214- 15, writ denied, 2020- 00286 ( La.
7/ 31/ 20), 300 So. 3d 398.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 873 provides, "[ i] f a motion for a new trial, or in
arrest of judgment, is fled, sentence shall not be imposed until at least twenty- four hours after
the motion is overruled." The same twenty-four hour delay is required in the case of the denial
of a motion for post -verdict judgment of acquittal. State v. Stafford, 2020- 0299 ( La. App. lst
Cir. 2/ 22/ 21), 321 So. 3d 965, 968 n. 5.
11