Trawitzki v. Commonwealth

Full title: PAUL FRANCIS TRAWITZKI v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk

Date published: Jul 20, 1993

Record No. 1976-91-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 20, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 1976-91-1

July 20, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PHILIP L. RUSSO, JUDGE.

Jean Veness (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.

Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Baker, Koontz^_ and Willis.

_ When the case was argued, Judge Koontz presided. Judge Moon was elected Chief Judge effective May 1, 1993.

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^__

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

JUDGE JERE M.H. WILLIS, JR.

On appeal from his conviction of possession of cocaine, Paul Francis Trawitzki contends that the evidence was insufficient to support that conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On August 30, 1990, Officer Hines spotted Trawitzki staggering across a business parking lot. After arresting Trawitzki for being drunk in public, Officer Hines searched him and found in his pocket an empty pipe and a small "baggie" of a green, leafy substance.

Trawitzki testified that, although he had used the pipe to smoke marijuana, it belonged to a friend. He said that he had mistakenly left his friend's house with the pipe in his pocket. He stated that he did not use cocaine and he did not know that the pipe contained cocaine. Deborah Huiatt of the Division of Forensic Sciences testified that her analysis of the pipe revealed cocaine residue and that the "baggie" contained marijuana. She also testified that only a chemical analysis could discover the composition of the residue in the pipe.

Trawitzki contends that the Commonwealth did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues that, although he possessed the pipe, the Commonwealth failed to prove that he knew that the pipe contained cocaine residue. He argues that, where the amount of cocaine is microscopic and there is no other evidence of guilty knowledge, the Commonwealth has not carried its burden of proof. We disagree.

Trawitzki was found in actual possession of the pipe. The trial court was not obliged to believe his account that the pipe belonged to someone else. His possession of the pipe supports the inference that it was his and that he knew its contents.See Robbs v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 153, 176 S.E.2d 429 (1970).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.