Johnson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-00552-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00552-COA ; 2009-CT-00552-SCT ; 2009-CT-00552-SCT ; 2009-CT-00552-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-30-2010
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of cocaine - Motion to suppress - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J., dissents without separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2009
Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: R. I. Prichard, III
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED TO SIXTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH NINE YEARS SUSPENDED, FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND TO PAY A $3,000 FINE
District Attorney: HALDON J. KITTRELL
Case Number: K07-0372P

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Arvin Phillip Johnson




CHARLES E. LAWRENCE JR.



 
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS  

    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

    Topic: Possession of cocaine - Motion to suppress - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Arvin Phillip Johnson was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to sixteen years, with nine years suspended, five years of post-release supervision, and to pay a $3,000 fine. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Motion to suppress Johnson argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence as the search of the vehicle was illegal, and the evidence obtained from the search should have been excluded. Warrantless searches may be conducted in certain instances, such as a consensual search, a search incident to arrest, an inventory search, a search under exigent circumstances if probable cause exists, and a search of a vehicle when making a lawful contemporaneous arrest. In this case, Johnson arrived at the store immediately after the drug sale to the MBN informant, and the agent testified that Johnson was detained mainly to make sure that evidence was not being taken from the scene. The search was reasonable to ensure the safety of law enforcement in the context of a drug dealer’s arrest. The purpose of a pat-down search is to ensure the safety of law enforcement. Johnson argues that, as he was already handcuffed and on the ground, it was unnecessary to search the car for weapons. The MBN agents, upon arriving at the store to arrest the drug dealer, encountered an unknown party, Johnson, who was talking to the dealer and standing next to a car. The agent testified that this situation, coupled with the loss of manpower, presented the MBN agents with an immediate safety concern. Johnson was in very close proximity to the driver’s door of the car. The circuit court did not err in finding that it was reasonable for law enforcement to search the front area of the car in order to ensure officer safety. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues that the State failed to prove all the elements of constructive possession; therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He argues that there is neither any evidence that he drove the car to the store, nor that he was the owner of the vehicle where the drugs were found. Constructive possession is established by evidence showing that the contraband was under the dominion and control of the defendant. There must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that the defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular contraband and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. In an instance like this case, where the defendant is the driver but not the owner of the car that contains the drugs, the State must show additional incriminating facts to link the defendant to the contraband. Here, the State provided sufficient incriminating facts to support constructive possession. Johnson is correct that no one saw him in the car. However, it is reasonable for the jury to infer that Johnson arrived in the car. When the confidential informant left the convenience store, the vehicle in question was not present, nor was Johnson. When the police arrived minutes later, the vehicle was parked in front of the store, and Johnson was standing next to it, talking to the drug dealer. Further, there was no evidence presented that any other persons were there when the agents arrived. No definitive evidence was presented regarding who owned the car. However, when questioned about the ownership of the car, the agent testified that he thought it was Johnson’s mother who owned the car. Defense counsel raised no objection to this testimony. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that Johnson was related to and/or knew the owner of the car. Johnson was standing next to the driver’s side of the car, within reaching distance of the sun visor where the cocaine was found. Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable and fair-minded jury to find Johnson guilty of constructive possession of a controlled substance.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court