Opinion
No. 1-839 / 01-0163.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, C.H. PELTON, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (1999). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, Robert P. Ranschau, and Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristin Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, Michael E. Wolf, County Attorney, and Gary P. Strausser, Assistant County Attorney for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Edwin Bailey appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (1999). Bailey contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and (2) the district court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.
Bailey contends there is insufficient evidence for a jury to find him guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. He claims he was merely an individual user of marijuana. We review his claim of insufficient evidence for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We will uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. "Substantial evidence is evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
We find substantial evidence supports Bailey's conviction. A search of his person revealed a small bag of marijuana, a pager, a box cutter, $20 in one pocket and $593 in another pocket. A search of Bailey's car yielded a pair of pants containing two small bags of marijuana, empty plastic bags, a compressed brick of marijuana, and a postage scale. These items are consistent with drug trafficking. Additionally, a police officer observed Bailey involved in a transaction with another individual in an area known for drug trafficking. Finally, Bailey's pager contained phone numbers followed by the number "50" or "20," numbers consistent with the volume of marijuana sold by dealers. From these facts, a jury could reasonably conclude Bailey was involved in the delivery of marijuana.
Bailey also contends the district court erred in overruling his motion for new trial based on the claim that the weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict. We review this claim for abuse of discretion. See State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998). On review, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Bailey's motion.
AFFIRMED.