Buffington v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Ibekilo v. State

    626 S.E.2d 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the judge issuing the search warrant “plainly had a substantial basis” for determining that there was probable cause to issue the warrant of a residence when, inter alia, a reliable CI went to the residence, knocked on the door, entered, and then made a controlled purchase of what appeared to be heroin

    The trial court did not err in admitting the challenged documents, which were clearly relevant to the drug trafficking charge. See Buffington v. State, 245 Ga. App. 637, 638 (1) ( 538 SE2d 528) (2000). 3. Ibekilo contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

  2. Carter v. State

    583 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    This enumeration presents no basis for reversal. See Buffington v. State, 245 Ga. App. 637, 638(1) ( 538 S.E.2d 528) (2000).Judgment affirmed.

  3. State v. Cherry

    353 S.C. 263 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Our case law is in accord with other jurisdictions, as well. See, e.g.,United States v. Marszalkowski, 669 F.2d 655, 662 (11th Cir. 1982) ("the high purity of the cocaine found . . ., along with the recovery from [defendant's] apartment of substance used to cut cocaine, a large amount of cash ($10,500.00) and a weapon . . . constitute[d] surrounding circumstances from which [defendant's] intent to distribute [was] readily inferrable"); Buffington v. State, 538 S.E.2d 528, 529 (Ga.Ct.App. 2000) ($1400.00 in cash, written ledger containing names and initials, with numerical amounts in pounds and ounces, coupled with expert testimony deciphering the ledger, provided sufficient evidence of intent to distribute the large amount of marijuana possessed by defendant to support conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana); State v. Konfrst, 556 N.W.2d 250, 263 (Neb. 1996) (police expert testimony that individually wrapped baggies of drugs found in defendant's possession contained amounts normally sold on the street, that amount of drugs recovered was more than is commonly kept for personal use, that cash found is usual mode of payment, that triple scale found in defendant's possession is commonly used to weigh the drugs, and that the empty baggies found in defendant's possession were the same type as those used to hold the recovered drugs was evidence sufficient to support conviction for possession with intent to distribute); State v.Zitterkopf, 463 N.W.2d 616, 621