Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11562 No. 6395
11-09-2016
RYAN ANDREW GASKINS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Andrew Steiner, Attorney at Law, Bend, Oregon, for the Appellant. Javier G. Diaz, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3AN-12-2589 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Jack Smith, Judge. Appearances: Andrew Steiner, Attorney at Law, Bend, Oregon, for the Appellant. Javier G. Diaz, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. Judge SUDDOCK.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Officers contacted Ryan Andrew Gaskins based on a citizen's report that he was driving erratically. During the contact, the officers discovered marijuana and methamphetamine in his vehicle. A jury convicted Gaskins of driving under the influence, and two counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance for possessing marijuana and methamphetamine.
On appeal, Gaskins only challenges his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly possessed that drug. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Gaskins's conviction.
AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(A).
Background facts
On the morning of March 18, 2012, in response to a report of erratic driving, Anchorage police contacted Gaskins at a convenience store. During the ensuing investigation, an officer conducted a pat-down of Gaskins and discovered a bag containing 7.6 grams of marijuana in his pocket. Another officer noticed a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray of Gaskins's car.
When the officers searched Gaskins's car, the interior smelled of marijuana. In addition to the marijuana cigarette in the ashtray, tiny flakes of marijuana littered the gearshift area. A small bag containing ten pills, nine of which later tested positive for methamphetamine, was found in the center console compartment of the car.
Gaskins admitted the marijuana in the car was his and that he had smoked marijuana earlier that morning. The officers did not ask him whether the pills found in the car belonged to him. Gaskins told officers that no one else had been in his vehicle that morning.
Gaskins submitted to a blood draw and tested positive for cannabinoids and benzodiazepine, a class of psychoactive drugs that includes Valium. He did not test positive for methamphetamine.
The State subsequently charged Gaskins with misdemeanor DUI, fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct for possession of methamphetamine, and sixth-degree controlled substance misconduct for possession of marijuana. At trial, a jury found him guilty on all three counts.
AS 28.35.030(a)(1), AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(A), and AS 11.71.060(a)(1), respectively.
The evidence of knowing possession was sufficient
On appeal, Gaskins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we resolve all conflicts and doubts in the evidence in favor of the jury's verdict and then ask whether, viewing the evidence in that light, a reasonable fact-finder could have concluded that the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
E.g., Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008).
Relying on Egner v. State and Marion v. State, Gaskins argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the pills found in his car. But each of those cases involved vehicles with two or more occupants, leaving no clear inference that the drugs found in the vehicle belonged to the defendant.
495 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1972).
806 P.2d 857 (Alaska App. 1991).
Eaken v. State, 2011 WL 4552303 (Alaska App. Sept. 28, 2011) (unpublished).
Here, by contrast, Gaskins admitted that the vehicle was registered to him, that he had recently been driving the car, that no one else had been in the car, and that the marijuana belonged to him. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convince a reasonable fact-finder that the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Johnson, 188 P.3d at 702. --------
We accordingly AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.