Hatim Atiq, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Hatim Atiq appeals his conviction for dealing in cocaine as a level 3 felony and claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Atiq lived with Stacy Strunk at her house in Richmond, Indiana. Stacy drove a Dodge which her father, Buddy Strunk (“Buddy”), had purchased.¹ On May 2, 2024, Atiq and Stacy drove the Dodge to a Love's truck stop to shower because Stacy's house did not have electricity. Buddy and his wife could not find Stacy, were concerned, and looked for her. Buddy's wife and son found the Dodge at Love's, drove it to Buddy's house, and parked it in the garage.² Stacy and Atiq walked from Love's back to Stacy's house. Atiq, Atiq's brother, and Stacy drove to Dayton, Ohio, in a vehicle which belonged to Atiq's father to “go Door Dashing.” Transcript Volume II at 110. Stacy could not call her family because her phone was broken.

[3] During the trip to Dayton, Atiq told Stacy that there were drugs “behind the radio” in the gray Dodge, she “needed to get ‘em back,” and he planned to sell the drugs. Id. at 113, 121. Law enforcement detained Atiq, his brother, and Stacy in Ohio, and Stacy was released that night. Stacy spoke with the Indiana State Police and informed them about the drugs in her father's vehicle. State Trooper Jacob Ridgway arrived at Buddy's house and, after obtaining Buddy's consent, searched the Dodge. He found a plastic bag containing pills and two plastic bags containing several smaller plastic bags which contained a powder later determined to be 5.37 grams of cocaine.

[4] Atiq made multiple phone calls from jail in Ohio. During one call, Atiq stated “all my shit is in her dad's car still.” State's Exhibit 17, File 8, at 3:55-4:00. During another call, Atiq told Stacy, “if it's gone you just need to tell me now so I don't keep thinking there's shit in there” and “if you know it's already gone you just need to tell me now so I don't keep thinking there's money [inaudible].” State's Exhibit 17, File 11, at 5:17-5:33. He later stated, “what did they do with that shit they [ ] found in the car” and “that was damn near $2,000 worth of shit.” State's Exhibit 17, File 20, at 12:10-30.

[5] The State, in an amended information, charged Atiq with: Count I, dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance as a level 2 felony; Count II, dealing in cocaine as a level 3 felony; and Count III, auto theft as a level 6 felony. The court held a jury trial. When asked to “explain to the jury what you're looking at as far as distinguishing a simple possession case versus a potential dealing case,” Trooper Ridgway testified:

Yeah. So, when I'm looking for, say, a dealing case, one of the major things I'm looking for is how it's packaged and the amount. Usually, when I locate someone who is just using for personal use or them and another person, it's usually a pretty small amount, anywhere between a gram to three grams and it's usually kept in one complete bag. It's not separated out in any way, shape or form. When I'm looking for a dealing case one of the things I'm looking for is the amount as well as how it's packaged. So usually, when I'm looking for dealing it'll be packaged separately in individual baggies and it would be anywhere between a quarter gram all the way up to three grams depending on the amount that is being sold. Also, I'm looking for, like, any sort of U.S. currency that might be on their person, or in and around the drugs, as well as scales and things like that.

Transcript Volume II 93-94. When asked, “[i]s there a typical amount or weight that you're looking for in a dealing case, or can it vary,” he answered: “It can vary. Anywhere between, just the stuff that I've investigated, anywhere between, you know, ten, twelve grams all the way up to a pound or two pounds worth is pretty typical.” Id. at 94. When later asked, “[y]ou mentioned when you were in the body camera footage the cellophane” and “[i]s that something that you were looking for or noticed,” he testified, “Yeah․ sometimes, depending on where it's being stored, they could accidently [sic] cut one of the bags or just a portion of it could fall out, and that cellophane is a pretty common way to store very large amounts.” Id. at 95. After the State rested its case, Atiq moved for a directed verdict on Counts I and III, and the court granted the motion as to Count I and denied the motion as to Count III. The jury found Atiq guilty of dealing in cocaine as a level 3 felony under Count II and not guilty of auto theft under Count III.

Discussion

[6] When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[7] Atiq argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to deliver the cocaine. He argues the quantity of cocaine found in this case “is above the personal-use range but nearly half the amount the trooper often associated with dealing.” Appellant's Brief at 11. Also, he acknowledges the cocaine “was packaged individually” but contends that “no other indicia of dealing were found in the vehicle” and that no U.S. currency, scale, or ledger were found. Id.

[8] Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 provides that a person who possesses, with intent to deliver, cocaine commits dealing in cocaine and that the offense is a level 3 felony if the amount of the drug involved is at least five grams but less than ten grams. The intent to deliver may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. Intent involves a person's state of mind, and a factfinder may infer its existence from the surrounding circumstances. Id.

[9] Atiq does not dispute that the cocaine belonged to him. With respect to Trooper Ridgway's testimony regarding the “typical amount ․ in a dealing case,” while the amount of cocaine found in this case of 5.37 grams is less than the quantities mentioned by Trooper Ridgway of ten grams to two pounds, he also testified that the amount “can vary” and that he also considered how the drug was packaged. Transcript Volume II at 94. He testified that “a pretty small amount, anywhere between a gram to three grams,” which is “usually kept in one complete bag” and “not separated out in any way,” is typical of possession for personal use. Id. at 93-94. He testified, “usually, when I'm looking for dealing it'll be packaged separately in individual baggies and it would be anywhere between a quarter gram all the way up to three grams depending on the amount that is being sold.” Id. at 94. The Certificate of Analysis produced by Indiana State Police Forensic Services indicates that Laboratory Item 001 consisted of a “Sealed plastic bag containing two zip-lock plastic bags, one (A) containing eight knotted plastic bags containing white powder, and one (B) containing five knotted plastic bags containing white powder,” the item contained cocaine, and the item's total net weight was 5.37 grams. State's Exhibit No. 1. Further, the State elicited testimony from Stacy that, during the trip to Dayton, Atiq told her that there were drugs in the Dodge and that he planned to sell the drugs. Specifically, when asked “[d]id he discuss with you at any time what he planned to do with these drugs,” Stacy replied affirmatively, and when asked “[w]hat did he tell you,” she answered “Sell ‘em.” Transcript Volume II at 119. The State also presented recordings of phone calls Atiq made from jail during which he referred to the value of the drugs. The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence—the amount of cocaine, the manner in which it was packaged, and Atiq's comments—that he possessed the cocaine with intent to deliver.

[10] Based upon the record, we conclude the State presented evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Atiq committed dealing in cocaine as a level 3 felony.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Atiq's conviction.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Buddy testified that he purchased the vehicle for Stacy but that he had not yet transferred the title to her name.

2.   Buddy testified that Stacy did not have access to the vehicle after it was retrieved from Love's and before police searched the vehicle.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.