Preview:

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS BRIAN K. WILLIAMS * * * * * * ******* APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 448-924, SECTION "B" Honorable Lynda Van Davis, Judge ****** Judge Patricia Rivet Murray ****** (Court composed of Judge Patricia Rivet Murray, Judge Dennis R. Bagneris Sr., Judge Roland L. Belsome) Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. District Attorney Yolanda J. King Assistant District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Laura Pavy LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 750602 New Orleans, LA 701750602 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT NO. 2005-KA-0718 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

AFFIRMED This is a criminal appeal. Brian Williams appeals asserting as his sole assignment of error the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of simple possession of cocaine. Finding no errors, we affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 28, 2004, Mr. Williams was charged with one count of simple possession of cocaine. At his arraignments on June 3, 2004 and again on July 8, 2004 when the case was re-allotted, Mr. Williams pled not guilty. On January 18, 2005, his first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict. On March 8, 2005, a six-person jury found him guilty as charged. On March 24, 2005, the trial court sentenced Mr. Williams to serve five years at hard labor. Although the State filed a multiple bill charging Mr. Williams as a fourth offender, he pled guilty as a second offender. The trial court vacated its original sentence and resentenced Mr. Williams as a second offender to serve seven years at hard labor. This appeal followed. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On May 19, 2004, at about 5:00 p.m., New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") Officers Alita Richardson and Augustine Yates were on proactive

patrol in an area of the Sixth District known for narcotics activity in its many abandoned, blighted buildings. When the officers entered the 2100 block of Thalia Street, they spotted Mr. Williams standing inside an abandoned double located at 2118 Thalia Street. Although the front door of the double was secured with a padlock, it had a gaping hole in the wall through which the officers spotted Mr. Williams. The officers were familiar with Mr. Williams from the neighborhood. The officers had previously discovered narcotics activity in this particular double. The officers exited their car, walked through a grassy lot to the double, and entered it through the hole in the wall. Inside the double, the officers found Mr. Williams and another man. Mr. Williams appeared startled to see the officers. He was dirty, staggering, and had an unpleasant odor. The officers could not discern whether the odor was alcohol. Mr. Williams' eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. Mr. Williams told the officers that he lived a few blocks from the double. The officers arrested both Mr. Williams and the other man for violating two municipal ordinances--criminal trespass and public intoxication or drug incapacitation. Due to Mr. Williams' unsteady physical condition, the officers elected to take him to Central Lockup. Before putting Mr. Williams in the back of

the police car, Officer Yates frisked him. In so doing, Officer Yates found two small rock-like substances in Mr. Williams' pants pocket. Officer Yates retrieved those objects and found them to be two individually wrapped rocks that appeared to be crack cocaine. The officers advised Mr. Williams of his rights and placed him under arrest for possession of crack cocaine. A further search of Mr. Williams' person revealed a cigarette lighter. At trial, Nhon Hoang was stipulated to be an expert in the identification and classification of controlled dangerous substances. Mr. Hoang testified that the two rocks tested positive for cocaine. DISCUSSION In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Williams contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of simple possession of cocaine. The standard for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled; to-wit: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Under this standard, the appellate court "must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v, Neal, 00-0674 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 676, 678 (citing State v, Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1984)). State v. Brown, 2003-0897, p. 22 (La. 4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1,18; see

also State v. Sykes, 2004-1199 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/9/05), 900 So.2d 156. Mr. Williams was convicted, as charged, of simple possession of cocaine. In order to support this conviction, the State had to prove that he knowingly and intentionally possessed cocaine. See State v. Hall, 2002-1098 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/19/03), 843 So.2d 488; State v. Chambers, 563 So.2d 579, 580 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990). The evidence presented proved that Mr. Williams had two rocks of crack cocaine in his pants pocket. However, he argues that he was so incapacitated that he might not have known the cocaine was in his pants pocket. Continuing, he makes the supposition that due to his incapacitated state, the other man inside the double could have seen the officers surreptitiously approach and planted the cocaine into his pants pocket without him knowing. This argument, however, is speculative. No evidence was presented at trial to suggest to the jury that the other man saw the officers approaching before Mr. Williams saw them so as to allow the other man to accomplish this task. Moreover, Officer Yates testified that Mr. Williams was wearing very tight jeans, making it difficult to get the cocaine in or out of his pants pocket. Although Mr. Williams's supposition is technically possible, it does not rise to the level that would compromise a

reasonable doubt as to whether he knew the cocaine was in his pants pocket. We thus find this assignment of error unpersuasive. ERRORS PATENT Our review of the record reveals there are no patent errors. DECREE For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. AFFIRMED



Download 158888.pdf

Louisiana Law