Austin v. Commonwealth

Full title: CHARLES WINFRED AUSTIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia. Alexandria

Date published: Aug 17, 1993

Record No. 0405-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 0405-92-4

August 17, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ALFRED D. SWERSKY, JUDGE.

Susan F. Korfanty, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General; Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Fitzpatrick.

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^_

_ Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.

JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER.

In this appeal, Charles Winfred Austin (appellant) contends that the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria (trial court) erroneously admitted a laboratory analysis report that identified the material found in his possession as cocaine, and further asserts that without the report, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possession of cocaine. The error alleged is that the report does not distinguish between the material found in appellant's jacket and that found between the mattress and box springs of a bed.¹ Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1 The trial court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove appellant possessed the cocaine found in the bed.

When the materials were discovered, they were "field tested" and preliminarily determined to be cocaine. The materials were then sent to the laboratory and a certificate of analysis, duly authenticated, was timely filed with the trial court. The report contains the following relevant information:

Sealed packaging containing two (2) plastic bags, each containing chunky off-white material.

RESULTS:

Cocaine, Schedule II. Total weight of material: 5.99 grams.

From the language in the report, the trial court could reasonably infer that both bags contained cocaine. The record contains no evidence that there was any material contained in either bag that could be construed as anything other than cocaine. Thus, we hold that the report was properly admitted and the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.