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

• The Defendant was convicted for trafficking heroin. The evidence included 4.89 grams of heroin found in Defendant’s vehicle, along with materials commonly used in the packaging and sale of narcotics. The Defendant argued that the heroin was for personal use, not for trafficking, based on the quantity recovered and the manner of its packaging.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for trafficking heroin, contending that the quantity of heroin found was consistent with personal use and that the State failed to prove intent to transfer the heroin.
• Appellee (State): Argued that the evidence, including the quantity of heroin, the materials found with it, and the circumstances of its packaging, was sufficient to support the conviction for trafficking by proving the Defendant's intent to transfer the heroin.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking heroin.
• Whether the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by his convictions under Section 30-31-20(A).
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the vehicle stop.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• VARGAS, J., with MEDINA, J., and DUFFY, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking heroin, noting that the State provided evidence beyond the quantity of heroin to infer intent to transfer, including materials for packaging and sale of narcotics found in Defendant's vehicle (paras 3-5, 7).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the heroin was for personal use, emphasizing that the presence of scales, spoons, and plastic baggies in the same bag as the heroin supported an inference of intent to transfer (para 7).
  On the issue of double jeopardy, the Court concluded that the Defendant’s separate convictions for trafficking heroin and methamphetamine did not violate his right to be free from double jeopardy, as the Legislature intended punishment for each discrete act of trafficking different controlled substances (paras 9-13).
  Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court determined that the Defendant's argument did not establish a prima facie case for ineffective assistance, noting that the record indicated the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle. The Court suggested that this claim might be more appropriately addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding where a full factual record could be developed (paras 14-17).