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 found guilty of trafficking a controlled substance (heroin) by possession with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. The conviction was based on evidence found during a police search of the Defendant's home, which yielded 21.5 grams of heroin on the living room coffee table, along with a syringe, baggies, and two digital scales. The amount of heroin found was deemed consistent with an intent to sell by two police officers (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trafficking conviction, specifically challenging the evidence of intent to transfer heroin to another person. Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to call any witnesses to support a defense against the intent to transfer heroin (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence of the heroin found in Defendant's home, including its packaging and quantity, which was argued to be consistent with an intent to distribute. Defended the sufficiency of evidence for the conviction and opposed the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 2-3, 5-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking a controlled substance by possession with intent to distribute.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to call witnesses in support of his defense against the intent to transfer heroin.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated and if his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a substantive motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation (paras 2, 4, 8-10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict finding the Defendant guilty of trafficking a controlled substance (heroin) by possession with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement was denied (para 1, 11).

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring): The Court found sufficient evidence for the jury to infer the Defendant's intent to distribute heroin based on the quantity and packaging of the drug found in his home. It was noted that intent and knowledge can often be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the case. The Court also held that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, as there was no demonstration that the outcome of the trial would have been different had witnesses been called to support his defense. Regarding the speedy trial claim, the Court determined that the issue was not preserved for appellate review due to the failure to invoke a ruling in the lower court. The Court further noted that the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add an issue regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for not filing a motion for speedy trial violation was denied because the claim relied on facts not developed in the record, suggesting that such claims are more appropriately brought in habeas corpus proceedings (paras 2-11).