Adonis G. Hicks v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Fitzpatrick and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
ADONIS G. HICKS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1924-96-4 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
NOVEMBER 18, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
J. Howe Brown, Judge
Crystal A. Meleen, Senior Assistant Public
Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on
brief), for appellant.
Ruth Ann Morken, Assistant Attorney General
(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Adonis G. Hicks (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial
for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal,
he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that
he was aware of the presence and character of the cocaine and
that it was subject to his dominion and control, and (2) the
trial court erroneously refused to respond to the jury's question
1
regarding the applicability of parole to appellant's sentence.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm appellant's conviction.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
Appellant does not challenge the validity of the entry or
search of the residence.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible
therefrom. See Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176,
366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988). The jury's verdict will not be
disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
See id. The credibility of a witness, the weight accorded the
testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are
matters solely for the fact finder's determination. See Long v.
Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989).
The fact finder is not required to believe all aspects of a
witness' testimony; it may accept some parts as believable and
reject other parts as implausible. See Pugliese v. Commonwealth,
16 Va. App. 82, 92, 428 S.E.2d 16, 24 (1993).
[P]ossession of a controlled substance may be
actual or constructive. "To support a
conviction based upon constructive
possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to
evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of
the accused or other facts or circumstances
which tend to show that the defendant was
aware of both the presence and character of
the substance and that it was subject to his
dominion and control.'"
McGee v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 317, 322, 357 S.E.2d 738, 740
(1987) (quoting Drew v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 471, 473, 338
S.E.2d 844, 845 (1986)) (other citation omitted). Possession
"need not always be exclusive. The defendant may share it with
one or more." Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 99, 390
- 2 -
S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990) (en banc).
Although mere proximity to the drugs is insufficient to
establish possession, it is a factor that may be considered in
determining whether the accused possessed drugs. See Brown v.
Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 1, 9, 421 S.E.2d 877, 882 (1992) (en
banc). Ownership or occupancy of the premises on which the drugs
are found is also a circumstance probative of possession. See
Drew, 230 Va. at 473, 338 S.E.2d at 845 (citing Code § 18.2-250).
Thus, in resolving this issue, the Court must consider "the
totality of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence." Womack
v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 5, 8, 255 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1979).
Circumstantial evidence of possession is sufficient to
support a conviction provided it excludes every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence. See, e.g., Tucker v. Commonwealth, 18
Va. App. 141, 143, 442 S.E.2d 419, 420 (1994). However, "[t]he
Commonwealth need only exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence
that flow from the evidence, not those that spring from the
imagination of the defendant." Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.
App. 751, 755, 433 S.E.2d 27, 29 (1993). Whether an alternative
hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a question of fact, see
Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 269, 290, 373 S.E.2d 328,
339 (1988), and a determination by the fact finder, therefore, is
binding on appeal unless plainly wrong. See Traverso, 6 Va. App.
at 176, 366 S.E.2d at 721.
In this case, the only reasonable hypothesis flowing from
- 3 -
the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, is that appellant was aware of the presence and
character of the cocaine and exercised dominion and control over
it. When the police arrived at the residence with the warrant
for appellant's arrest, appellant's mother confirmed that he
resided there but was not at home. She then led them to a
bedroom she identified as appellant's. In a closet in that
bedroom, the police found a set of scales with white powder
residue and a piece of crack cocaine weighing 0.195 grams on the
shelf beside the scales. Appellant's mother "verified that that
was definitely the Defendant's room."
Appellant telephoned while the officers were present and was
advised that the officers had a warrant for his arrest, to which
appellant responded, "if it's an arrest warrant, you can't look
in my personal papers and you can't search my coat." After
obtaining a search warrant, the police found a tan winter coat in
appellant's size in the closet in which the scales had been
found. The coat's pockets contained a bag of 23.669 grams of
cocaine and two pay stubs bearing appellant's name and covering
two pay periods for the month prior to the search. Elsewhere in
the room, the officers found a variety of personal papers bearing
appellant's name, including multiple job applications, a resume,
other pay stubs, school diplomas, a traffic summons and a
Virginia identification card.
The trial court correctly concluded that appellant's
- 4 -
statement regarding the search of his coat and personal papers
was sufficient to show that appellant was aware of the presence
and character of the cocaine in his coat and on the shelf above
his coat and that he exercised dominion and control over it. The
jury was likewise entitled to conclude that this was the only
reasonable hypothesis flowing from all the evidence. Although
appellant's mother testified at trial that others had access to
the room and that appellant stayed there only occasionally, the
jury, as the finder of fact, was free to disregard her testimony
as incredible. See Pugliese, 16 Va. App. at 92, 428 S.E.2d at
24.
INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously refused,
in response to a question from the jury during deliberations, 2 to
instruct them on the inapplicability of parole to appellant's
sentence. The court responded simply, "You must set the sentence
you find to be appropriate under the circumstances and not
concern yourselves with what may happen afterward."
This assignment of error is controlled by Mosby v.
Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 284, 482 S.E.2d 72 (1997), in which we
held that "in non-capital felony cases a trial judge is not
required to instruct the jury that the defendant, if convicted,
will be ineligible for parole." Id. at 286, 482 S.E.2d at 72;
2
The jury asked, "What part of the sentence must be served
before possibility of parole?"
- 5 -
see Walker v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 50, 60-67, 486 S.E.2d
126, 131-35 (1997). A defendant has no due process right under
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), 3 to such an
instruction. See Mosby, 24 Va. App. at 288-90, 482 S.E.2d at
73-74. This principle applies equally to formal instructions
given prior to jury deliberation and questions asked by the jury
after deliberations have begun.
For these reasons, we affirm appellant's conviction.
Affirmed.
3
Simmons requires such an instruction only when the
Commonwealth argues future dangerousness in capital cases. See
Mosby, 24 Va. App. at 286, 290, 482 S.E.2d at 72, 74.
- 6 -