¶ 6. On appeal, Fulton argues that Investigator Haley should not have been allowed to testify as an expert regarding narcotics sales and investigations and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. With respect to the first issue, we review the admission of evidence and ruling that an expert witness is qualified to testify for abuse of discretion. Triplett v. State, 814 So.2d 158, 162 (¶ 22) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). With respect to the second issue, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

On October 1, 1998, Joseph Triplett was convicted in the Circuit Court of Washington County of one count of possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to sell and on one count of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to serve sixty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections on the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and six years on the conviction for possession of cocaine. On January 22, 2002, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's convictions and sentences. Triplett v. State, 814 So.2d 158 (Miss.App. 2002), reh'g denied, April 16, 2002 (Cause No. 1999-KA-00290-COA). The petitioner did not seek to have the Mississippi Supreme Court review the decision of the Mississippi Court of Appeals under Rule 17 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. The petitioner filed an application for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief September 16, 2002.

Had this issue been preserved to review on appeal, the trial court still would not have erred in admitting Stovall as an expert witness. The standard of review in a trial judge's decision regarding whether an expert is qualified is abuse of discretion. Triplett v. State, 814 So.2d 158, 162 (¶ 22) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002). Although Walls never questioned Stovall's credentials at trial, the trial judge held a hearing and appropriately ruled Stovall as an expert forensic interviewer in accordance with M.R.E. 702. We, therefore, find this issue to have no merit.