AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In October 2014, police executed a search warrant on the Defendant's trailer, finding multiple individuals inside, including the Defendant. The search led to the discovery of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia in the master bedroom, which the Defendant admitted to occupying. The Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in removing a Spanish-speaking juror and contended that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the juror’s removal was not unconstitutional and that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the Defendant's knowledge and control of the cocaine, supporting the conviction (paras 7, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in removing a Spanish-speaking juror from the venire panel.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (paras 1, 7, 13).

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia were affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• B. ZAMORA, Judge, with J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge concurring:
  The court declined to address the merits of the Defendant's constitutional claim regarding the removal of a Spanish-speaking juror, citing waiver due to the Defendant's failure to object at trial. It was determined that the Defendant, through his counsel, waived any potential structural defect that could have arisen from the juror's dismissal (paras 7-11).
  On the issue of sufficiency of evidence, the court found that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the Defendant's knowledge and control of the cocaine found in the master bedroom of his trailer. The court highlighted the Defendant's admission of residing in the trailer, the discovery of items indicating his residence there, and his specific knowledge of drugs located in the bedroom. The presence of men's athletic shorts containing cocaine on the bed in the master bedroom, where the Defendant was found, further supported the inference of constructive possession (paras 12-18).