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 stopped for speeding, during which law enforcement discovered cocaine in the center console of his vehicle, along with a digital scale and baggies elsewhere in the vehicle. The cocaine weighed 12.83 grams, significantly more than the .20 grams considered a "personal use unit" of cocaine. This led to the Defendant's conviction for trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for trafficking cocaine and claimed that the statute criminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is void for vagueness.
• Appellee: The State maintained that the evidence was sufficient for the conviction, emphasizing the quantity of cocaine found, the presence of a digital scale and baggies, and contested the Defendant's claim regarding the vagueness of the marijuana possession statute.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking cocaine.
• Whether the statute criminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is void for vagueness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (M. Monica Zamora, J., and Julie J. Vargas, J., concurring):
  The Court conducted a two-step process to review the sufficiency of the evidence for the trafficking conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining if a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt (para 2). The Court found the quantity of cocaine, along with the digital scale and baggies, sufficient to support the conviction for trafficking, indicating possession with intent to distribute (para 3).
  Regarding the vagueness claim, the Court determined that the statute criminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana was not vague, as it clearly defined the crime. The Court interpreted the Defendant's argument as a challenge to selective prosecution, which does not render a statute unconstitutionally vague. The Defendant's abandonment of the selective prosecution claim due to lack of records further weakened his position, leaving no adequate record on appeal to review the claim (paras 4-5).