STAFFORD v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ronnie D. Stafford, Jr., appeals his convictions for dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony,¹ and dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 2 felony.² Stafford raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In late October 2022, police with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department were conducting an ongoing investigation into Stafford's residence on Gladstone Avenue. On October 27, officers obtained a search warrant for the house. “Just a few minutes” before officers executed the warrant, Officer Jacob Chestnut observed Stafford “exit the front door of the residence carrying a black backpack.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 159. Officer Chestnut then watched Stafford walk to a Volkswagen Passat. Officer Chestnut “could not definitively see [Stafford] place the backpack inside of the car,” but Stafford “did not make any contact with any person as he left the trunk with empty hands.” Id. Stafford then returned to the house.

[3] A few minutes later, officers executed the warrant and searched the home. In the living room, officers found 7.54 grams of cocaine and cash. In an upstairs bedroom, officers found two small baggies that contained a total of 1.855 grams of fentanyl. While officers were searching the home, a canine conducted an open-air sniff around the Volkswagen and gave a positive alert. As a result, officers applied for and obtained a search warrant for the car. During the search of the trunk, officers found several “linking documents” with Stafford's name on them, including a class attendance sheet, a rental application, mail, and a resumé. Tr. Vol. 4 at 17-18. Officers also found a suitcase filled with alcohol wipes and unused needles and a black backpack. Inside the backpack, officers found three firearms, a total of 764.58 grams of cocaine, a total of 40.9996 grams of fentanyl, and 1.7876 grams of methamphetamine.

[4] The State charged Stafford with dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony (Count 1); dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 2 felony (Count 2); possession of cocaine, as a Level 3 felony (Count 3);³ possession of a narcotic, as a Level 3 felony (Count 4);⁴ two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 4 felonies (Counts 5 and 6);⁵ possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony (Count 7);⁶ possession of an altered firearm, a Level 5 felony (Count 8);⁷ and maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony (Count 9).⁸

[5] Following Stafford's arrest, officers intercepted a phone call where Stafford referred to a safe at his father's residence. Based on that phone call, officers applied for and were granted a search warrant for Stafford's father's residence on Hackberry Court. Inside the house, officers found a safe that contained 127.59 grams of cocaine.

[6] The court held a two-day jury trial beginning on June 11, 2024. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Stafford guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9 but not guilty of Counts 5, 7, and 8. Stafford also admitted to being a serious violent felon. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly. Thereafter, at a sentencing hearing, the court vacated the convictions for Count 3 and 4, leaving judgments of conviction for Counts 1, 2, 6, and 9. The court then sentenced Stafford to an aggregate sentence of seventeen years, with fifteen years executed and two suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Stafford asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions for dealing in cocaine or dealing in a narcotic drug.⁹ Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[8] To convict Stafford of dealing in cocaine, as charged in Count 1, the State was required to prove that he possessed at least ten grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(2) and (e)(1). Similarly, to convict Stafford of dealing in a narcotic drug, as charged in Count 2, the State was required to prove that he possessed at least ten grams of fentanyl with the intent to deliver. See id. On appeal, Stafford does not dispute that he possessed the 7.54 grams of cocaine and the 1.855 grams of fentanyl found during the search of his residence. However, he maintains that the State failed to prove that he possessed either the 764.58 grams of cocaine or 40.9996 grams of fentanyl found in the backpack in the Volkswagen or the 127.56 grams of cocaine found in the safe at his father's house. And he maintains that, “[a]bsent the cocaine and fentanyl found in those locations,” the State did not prove that he possessed at least ten grams of either cocaine or fentanyl. Appellant's Br. at 8. We cannot agree.

[9] It is well settled that “[c]onvictions for possession of illegal items can be based on either actual or constructive possession.” Grubbs v. State, 132 N.E.3d 451, 453 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Actual possession “occurs when a person has direct physical control over an item” while constructive possession “can be inferred when a person had the capability and intent to maintain dominion and control over the item.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

[10] Here, Stafford contends that the State failed to prove that he constructively possessed the drugs found in either location. But we agree with the State that we need not resort to an analysis of constructive possession because the evidence is sufficient to show that he actually possessed the drugs found in the backpack. Indeed, only a “few minutes” prior to the execution of the search warrant, Officer Chestnut personally observed Stafford exit his residence “carrying a black backpack.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 159. And he observed Stafford walk up to the Volkswagen. And, while he did not “definitively” see Stafford place the backpack in the trunk, he testified that Stafford “did not make any contact with any person as he left the trunk with empty hands.” Id. Then, when officers searched the trunk, they found only one black backpack, which contained 764.58 grams of cocaine and 40.9996 grams of fentanyl.

[11] Based on Officer Chestnut's personal observation of Stafford carrying the backpack that contained copious amounts of cocaine and fentanyl and his testimony that Stafford did not have contact with anyone else, a reasonable jury could conclude that Stafford was in actual possession of the backpack. And because the backpack contained substantially more than the required ten grams each of cocaine and fentanyl, the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions for dealing in cocaine and a narcotic drug.¹⁰

Conclusion

[12] The State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Stafford was in actual possession of the cocaine and fentanyl. We therefore affirm his convictions.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(e)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-48-4-1(e)(1).

3.   I.C. § 35-48-4-6(d)(1).

4.   I.C. § 35-48-4-6(d)(1).

5.   I.C. § 35-47-4-5(c)

6.   I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(b)(2).

7.   I.C. § 35-47-2-18.

8.   I.C. § 35-45-1-5(c).

9.   Stafford does not challenge his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon or maintaining a common nuisance.

10.   Because there were enough drugs in the backpack to support his convictions, we need not determine whether Stafford possessed the cocaine found in the safe at his father's house.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.