STATE v. ELLIS (2025)

Defendant, Brandon Ellis, appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 12, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant with possession with intent to distribute marijuana weighing less than 2.5 pounds in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A) (count three).¹ Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on June 14, 2023.² On September 18, 2024, the case proceeded to trial, and on September 19, 2024, the jury found defendant guilty as charged.

On September 25, 2024, defendant filed a Motion for New Trial, and on October 25, 2024, he filed a Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal. On October 31, 2024, the trial court denied both post-trial motions, defendant waived sentencing delays, and the court sentenced defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for ten years. Later, on that same date, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging defendant to be a third-felony offender, and defendant denied those allegations.

On November 26, 2024, defendant filed a Motion for Appeal that was granted on December 2, 2024. On January 13, 2025, defendant stipulated to the habitual offender bill, after which the trial judge vacated the original sentence and resentenced defendant as a third-felony offender to imprisonment at hard labor for fifteen years without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

FACTS

Keith Branchcomb of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office (“JPSO”) is a task force officer assigned to the Drug Enforcement Agency. He testified at trial that in May 2023, he received a narcotics complaint identifying a specific red Audi that would frequent certain areas of Avondale; the complainant had observed the black male driver of the Audi conducting apparent narcotics transactions.

On May 15, 2023, Detective Branchcomb went to the area identified by the complainant to canvass the area for the Audi. He located the Audi and began conducting surveillance on it. He observed the Audi frequent a gas station near the Westbank Expressway and North Claiborne Parkway. He recalled that the black male driver exited the vehicle and conducted a hand-to-hand transaction with the occupant of another vehicle consistent with a narcotics transaction. He continued surveillance of the Audi into the Avondale area where it proceeded to the RaceTrac gas station on U.S. Highway 90. The driver exited his vehicle and conducted another apparent narcotics transaction with someone from another vehicle. Once the Audi left the RaceTrac, Detective Branchcomb continued surveillance until the driver started making evasive maneuvers. Detective Branchcomb terminated surveillance because he did not want to alert the driver to police presence.

On May 16, 2023, Detective Branchcomb conducted a check for the Audi at a residence associated with the Audi, but the vehicle was not there. He then started canvassing the Avondale area. He saw the Audi coming down U.S. Highway 90, turn into the RaceTrac on Avondale Garden Road, and back into a spot behind the RaceTrac where it remained parked. Detective Branchcomb parked near a gas pump and watched the Audi, whose driver sat in the vehicle. After a while, a gray Buick occupied by two black males passed in front of him. The black males looked directly at him as they drove by and headed to the area where the Audi was located. Detective Branchcomb later identified the driver of that Buick as defendant, Brandon Ellis, the front seat passenger in the Buick as Tyler Alexander, and the driver of the Audi as Shawn Washington.

Detective Branchcomb testified that Washington exited the Audi carrying a white backpack and got into the rear passenger seat of the Buick, which then left the area. Detective Branchcomb called for additional units to help with surveillance of the Audi, and slowly, over time, a couple of units joined the surveillance. The Buick later returned with defendant driving. The three subjects, including defendant, got out of the vehicle and hung around the Buick. While they were hanging out, a Toyota RAV4 with a commercial license plate, which he explained was typical for a rental vehicle, arrived and parked near the Audi and the Buick.³

Detective Branchcomb explained that prior to the arrival of the Toyota, he “gave up the eye” to JPSO Detective Jesse Steer. He testified that Detective Steer, who did not testify at trial, observed Weston Barker exit the Toyota and carry a plastic bag or package, later determined to contain marijuana (State's Exhibit 6), to “the passenger of the Buick.” Detective Branchcomb admitted he did not see the delivery of the package to the passenger, nor did he know if defendant was in the Buick when the package was delivered to the passenger. He explained he was “solely going off of Detective Jesse Steer's observations and what he is relaying to me over the radio.” Detective Branchcomb pointed out that prior to this incident, he had never seen defendant before.

Based on these observations, Detective Branchcomb formulated plans with his group to arrest Washington for his active attachments, pointing out he was on parole for prior narcotics charges. His group put on their tactical vests that read “Sheriff” and their badges, after which they activated their emergency lights and approached. Detective Branchcomb testified that defendant, Washington, and Alexander ran to nearby woods, while Barker surrendered immediately. JPSO Sergeant Nicki Garnier later apprehended Washington. Detective Branchcomb stated that he activated his body camera when the subjects started running. As Detective Branchcomb continued through the woods, he observed Alexander discard a black zippered bag or satchel.

Detective Branchcomb asserted that although defendant and Alexander continued running deep through the woods, he could still see them. He asked for a Third District patrol unit to set up a perimeter to assist with apprehension of the subjects. Defendant subsequently “split through the clearing,” and Alexander continued to another woodline. Defendant continued through the clearing until he arrived at U.S. Highway 90. Defendant did not have anything in his hands. Defendant started running when he saw the detective, but tripped and fell onto U.S. Highway 90. Third District patrol officers then apprehended defendant. Upon his arrest, nothing was recovered from defendant's person.

Detective Branchcomb testified that they searched the area and retrieved the black zippered bag that Alexander discarded during the foot pursuit. Inside the bag was a plastic bag containing approximately three grams of cocaine, another plastic bag containing approximately seven grams of marijuana, a pill bottle containing four tramadol and 120 oxycodone, and $698 in currency.⁴ Detective Branchcomb asserted that the money and drugs found in the bag were consistent with drug distribution. He testified that when Barker was arrested on the scene, he conducted a search incidental to the arrest and found $505 in U.S. currency on him. He determined that those funds and the $698 seized from Alexander's bag were the proceeds of narcotics distributions.

Detective Branchcomb testified that the officers located cell phones and a set of keys on the ground next to the Buick. He explained that a narcotics canine handler subsequently arrived. The dog sniffed the exterior of all three vehicles—the Buick, the Audi, and the Toyota—and the dog gave a positive alert that narcotics were located inside those vehicles. All three vehicles were towed to the investigations bureau, after which Detective Branchcomb obtained search warrants for them.

Detective Branchcomb testified that upon execution of the search warrants, a plastic bag containing marijuana (State's Exhibit 6) was found sitting on the center console of the Buick, the vehicle driven by defendant; a plastic jar containing marijuana was found near the center console of the Buick (State's Exhibit 7); loose marijuana was found on the floorboard and driver-door pocket of the Buick (State's Exhibit 8); and Washington's white backpack was found on the back seat of the Buick. He testified that the plastic bag containing marijuana that was subsequently recovered from the center console (State's Exhibit 6) was the bag observed by Detective Steer in Barker's possession. He explained that when Barker arrived in the Toyota, he walked over to the Buick and presented it to the passenger. Detective Branchcomb also indicated he later saw the plastic bag of marijuana on the center console in plain view through the open window.

Detective Branchcomb also testified that eleven grams of cocaine were found inside of Washington's backpack on the back seat of the Buick. Inside a backpack found in the Audi were a digital scale, which he explained was typically carried by drug dealers to weigh their narcotics prior to distribution, and plastic baggies, which he explained were common drug paraphernalia associated with street-level distribution of narcotics.

Detective Branchcomb asserted that there was a loaded 9 mm magazine for a pistol in the driver-door pocket in the Buick, and there was more loose marijuana just above where that magazine was located. He stated that there was a pill bottle in the front passenger-door pocket in the Buick, and inside the pill bottle were tramadol, Adderall, and another prescription medication similar to what was recovered from Alexander's bag. He also stated they found a loaded Glock 9 mm pistol equipped with a high-capacity magazine underneath the backpack in the back seat of the Buick. He explained that there was some loose marijuana located in the rear driver-side door pocket in the Buick. They also located a wallet in the front passenger area of the Buick, and inside of the wallet was a Louisiana Identification Card issued to defendant. Inside the Toyota RAV4, the vehicle driven by Barker, they found a backpack containing a loaded 9 mm pistol.

Justin Mourain, a forensic drug analyst at the JPSO crime lab, testified as an expert in the field of the analysis and identification of controlled dangerous substances. He testified that the vegetative material in the plastic bag retrieved from the center console of the Buick (State's Exhibit 6) contained marijuana with a net weight of 90.40 grams; the vegetative material in the plastic jar retrieved from near the center console of the Buick (State's Exhibit 7) contained marijuana with a net weight of 14.30 grams; and the loose vegetative material from the floorboard and the driver-door pocket of the Buick (State's Exhibit 8) contained marijuana with a net weight of 6.16 grams.

Agent John Wiebelt testified as an expert in the field of narcotics distribution, possession versus possession with the intent to distribute, quantity, pricing, and drug paraphernalia. He testified that a cup (referred to earlier as a jar) like the one in State's Exhibit 7 found near the center console in the Buick was used by narcotics distributors to weigh drugs on digital scales. He explained that the 108 grams of marijuana in State's Exhibit 6 was worth approximately $500 to $700.⁵ He further explained that the quantity for the average user was one-half to one gram and the amount of marijuana in the instant case was between 100 and 200 dosage units—more than just for personal use.

Agent Wiebelt testified that the street value for the amount of marijuana in the instant case would be between $1,100 and $4,400, depending on whether it was sold in half or whole grams. He testified that based on the amount and variety of drugs found in the Buick, defendant and his two co-defendants had a “one stop shop” to provide any drug the user needed. Agent Wiebelt asserted that the currency seized in this case indicated distribution of narcotics. He further testified that the digital scale also showed possession with intent to distribute. He provided that a gun was found in the vehicle and guns and drugs go hand-in-hand. He maintained that gas stations were very common places to meet for drug transactions.

It was Agent Wiebelt's opinion that defendant possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it because he had the marijuana in the “bulk bag” on the console and a cup to weigh it. It was also his opinion that defendant was acting in concert with his associates in drug distribution. He further testified that it was his opinion that defendant was a principal to the crime of possession with intent to distribute marijuana as he was driving his associates around to conduct drug deals.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In his only assignment of error, defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his post-trial motions based on insufficient evidence. He asserts the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because there was no evidence he possessed or constructively possessed the marijuana or intended to sell it. Defendant points out he was only seen driving the Buick, but not engaging in any drug transactions, and no drugs, contraband, or excessive cash was found on his person when he was detained. Defendant contends his associates had been seen possessing or discarding bags containing drugs, guns, and money. He maintains there was no evidence to show he was aware of the business the other three men were conducting, or that he was complicit in the drug activity. Defendant states he was only charged with the marijuana violation and not with all the other drugs found in the cars and bags like his associates were. He also states Washington possessed the digital scale, and the cash was found in the bag Alexander discarded and on Barker's person. Defendant provides that Agent Wiebelt said nothing about his actions or possessions that indicated he was involved in the sale or possession with intent to sell marijuana.

On September 25, 2024, defendant filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851 arguing the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. On October 25, 2024, defendant filed a Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following a hearing on October 31, 2024, the trial judge denied both post-trial motions.

Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851, a motion for a new trial is based upon the supposition that an injustice has been done to the defendant, and unless such injustice is shown, the new trial motion shall be denied no matter upon what allegations the motion is grounded. State v. Paul, 15-501 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/27/16), 185 So.3d 188, 198. When a motion for a new trial is based on the verdict being contrary to the law and the evidence, there is nothing for review on appeal. State v. Lloyd, 21-645 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/24/22), 348 So.3d 222, 231, writ denied, 22-1354 (La. 11/22/22), 350 So.3d 499. However, both the Louisiana Supreme Court and this Court have addressed the constitutional issue of sufficiency of the evidence under this circumstance. State v. Leach, 22-194 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/22), 356 So.3d 531, 541. The question of sufficiency of the evidence is properly raised in the trial court by a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 821. State v. Nguyen, 22-286 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/27/23), 359 So.3d 108, 118.

The constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence is whether, upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find that the State proved all of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Gassenberger, 23-148 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/20/23), 378 So.3d 820, 829. This directive that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution requires the reviewing court to defer to the actual trier of fact's rational credibility calls, evidence weighing, and inference drawing. Id. This deference to the fact-finder does not permit a reviewing court to decide whether it believes a witness or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Further, a reviewing court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses for that of the fact-finder and overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. Id. As a result, under the Jackson standard, a review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence does not require the reviewing court to determine whether the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether, upon review of the whole record, any rational trier of fact would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. State v. Robertson, 22-363 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/29/23), 360 So.3d 582, 590. When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, “[A]ssuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. On appeal, the reviewing court does not determine if another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events. State v. Williams, 14-882 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/14/15), 170 So.3d 1129, 1136, writ denied, 15-1198 (La. 5/27/16), 192 So.3d 741. Instead, the appellate court must evaluate the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

The credibility of a witness is within the sound discretion of the trier of fact, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. State v. Hutchinson, 22-536 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/18/23), 370 So.3d 769, 781, writ denied, 23-1296 (La. 2/27/24), 379 So.3d 662. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. at 782.

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana weighing less than two and a half pounds in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A). The crime of possession with intent to distribute marijuana requires proof that the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the drug and he or she did so with the specific intent to distribute it. State v. Cho, 02-274 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/02), 831 So.2d 433, 442, writ denied, 02-2874 (La. 4/4/03), 840 So.2d 1213. Guilty knowledge is an essential element of the crime of possession of contraband, and such knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. State v. Marshall, 02-1067 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 881, 887, writ denied, 03-909 (La. 9/26/03), 854 So.2d 345.

The element of possession may be established by showing that the defendant exercised either actual or constructive possession of the substance. State v. Proctor, 04-1114 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 901 So.2d 477, 482. A person may be in constructive possession of a drug even though it is not in his physical custody, if it is subject to his dominion and control. A subject can have constructive possession if he jointly possesses drugs with a companion and if he willfully and knowingly shares with his companion the right to control the drugs. State v. Lathers, 03-941 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/23/04), 868 So.2d 881, 885.

The mere presence of the defendant in the area where a controlled dangerous substance is found does not constitute constructive possession. However, proximity to the drug may establish a prima facie case of possession when colored by other evidence. State v. Bazley, 09-358 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/11/11), 60 So.3d 7, 20, writ denied, 11-282 (La. 6/17/11), 63 So.3d 1039. Factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute constructive possession include: (1) the defendant's knowledge that illegal drugs were in the area; (2) his relations with the person found to be in actual possession; (3) the defendant's access to the area where the drugs were found; (4) evidence of recent drug use by the defendant; (5) the existence of paraphernalia; and (6) evidence that the area was frequented by drug users. State v. Drewery, 12-236 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/30/13), 108 So.3d 1246, 1253. Drugs found in a car near the driver generally are held to be within the driver's constructive possession. State v. Furgerson, 34,344 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/2/01), 781 So.2d 1268, 1275, writ denied, 01-1102 (La. 3/22/02), 811 So.2d 921.

Under La. R.S. 14:24, “[a]ll persons concerned with the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.” Only those persons who knowingly participate in the planning or execution of a crime are principals to that crime. State v. King, 06-554 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/16/07), 951 So.2d 384, 390, writ denied, 07-371 (La. 5/4/07), 956 So.2d 600. Thus, in order to be convicted as a principal to a crime, a defendant must have the requisite mental state for the crime. State v. Hall, 03-906 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04), 875 So.2d 996, 1001, writ denied sub nom. State v. Barnes, 04-1875 (La. 12/10/04), 888 So.2d 834. While a person's mere presence at the scene of a crime does not make him a principal to the crime, a person is a principal who is at the scene of the crime ready to aid in its commission and is actually aware of his accomplice's intentions. Id. The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that the law of principals applies to crimes of narcotics distribution. See State v. Williams, 16-32 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/24/16), 199 So.3d 1205, 1215 (citing State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La. 1/26/96), 671 So.2d 896, 897). Thus, an intermediary who arranges or facilitates the transfer of narcotics from the seller to the buyer may be charged and punished as a principal in the act of distribution. Id.

In Williams, this Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a principal to the offense of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Williams, 199 So.3d at 1216. This Court pointed out that the defendant drove his co-defendant, Mr. Veal, and the cocaine to the narcotics transaction. Though the defendant stayed in the car during the transaction, he picked up Mr. Veal after the deal and then fled from the police driving the getaway vehicle. This Court found these facts established the defendant knowingly facilitated the transfer of narcotics and sought to avoid detection. Id. In reaching its decision, this Court cited State v. Johnson, 01-1455 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/29/02), 825 So.2d 1230, 1233, writs denied, 02-1850 (La. 1/10/03), 834 So.2d 437 and 02-1957 (La. 1/10/03), 834 So.2d 438 (where the defendant drove the vehicle when the passenger solicited the informant to buy drugs and positioned his vehicle in a more secluded location to avoid detection) Williams, 199 So.3d at 1215, and Furgerson, supra, 781 So.2d 1268 (upholding the defendant's conviction of possession of cocaine on the basis of evidence that the defendant was the driver of the car in which cocaine was transported, that his passenger transacted the drug deal, and that the driver ultimately decided whether the deal would happen or not) Williams, 199 So.3d at 1215. Furthermore, in Williams, this Court stated it is well-settled that the driver of a getaway vehicle is a principal to the crime committed. Williams, 199 So.3d at 1215-16.

In State v. Moore, 48,492 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/20/13), 128 So.3d 608, 612-13, writ denied, 13-3003 (La. 5/30/14), 140 So.3d 1175, while the vehicle driven and owned by the defendant with one passenger was stopped, the officer observed an open container in the vehicle. Subsequently, two large bags and two smaller bags of marijuana were found on the front passenger-side floorboard in plain view within the defendant's reach. The appellate court concluded the defendant clearly had dominion and control over the marijuana and thus found that the State established the defendant was in constructive possession of marijuana, pointing out that both access and proximity were shown. As to the intent to distribute, the appellate court found that both the amount (over two pounds) and the packaging (separation in multiple bags, two of which weighed a pound) indicated that its possessors intended to distribute the drug. Additionally, the Second Circuit pointed out the State's expert witness testified that the amount and packaging indicated intent to distribute. The Second Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict.

In State v. Ducre, 2008 KA 1644, 2008 WL 5377668 (La. App. 1 Cir. Dec. 23, 2008), writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Ducre v. State, 09-355 (La. 12/18/09), 23 So.3d 939, cert. denied, 560 U.S. 942, 130 S.Ct. 3365, 176 L.Ed.2d 1252 (2010), an officer stopped a vehicle being driven by the defendant; there were two passengers and a pit bull inside of the vehicle. An officer observed a portion of a plastic storage bag that contained six smaller plastic bags of marijuana protruding from underneath the driver's seat. Id. *1-*2. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana, pointing out the marijuana was located within the reach of the defendant's arm; he immediately exited the vehicle, creating distance between him, the officers, and the vehicle; he acted nervous; and he fled from the scene when instructed to get on the ground. The appellate court also found the marijuana was packaged in a manner consistent with distribution, and the vehicle did not contain any paraphernalia that could be used in the consumption of the drugs. Id. *4.

In State v. Brown, 42,188 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/07), 966 So.2d 727, 743-44, writ denied, 07-2199 (La. 4/18/08), 978 So.2d 347, officers conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle the defendant was driving. One of the officers observed a plastic bag of marijuana inside the ashtray and a plastic bag of cocaine inside the glove compartment when the defendant opened it. The appellate court found the State presented sufficient evidence from which a rational fact-finder could determine the defendant was in constructive possession of a large amount of cocaine and he had the intent to distribute it, pointing out the discovery of a large sum of money in the defendant's pocket, the cocaine inside the glove compartment, the marijuana in the ashtray, a loaded pistol and digital scales underneath the driver's seat, and testimony that the amount of cocaine was enough for 195 dosage units and had a street value of approximately $1,950.

In the instant case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of being a principal to possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

The trial testimony indicated defendant, Washington, Alexander, and Barker were engaged in the distribution of drugs. Detective Branchcomb testified he received a narcotics complaint identifying a red Audi that would frequent areas in Avondale. During his surveillance, Detective Branchcomb observed Washington, the driver of the Audi, conduct hand-to-hand transactions consistent with narcotics transactions at two different gas stations. The next day, Detective Branchcomb saw the Audi turn into a gas station and back into a spot behind it. Detective Branchcomb indicated a Buick driven by defendant with Alexander as the front seat passenger passed by him and drove to the Audi's location. Washington got into the rear seat of the Buick with a backpack, and the Buick left but later returned. Defendant and two other subjects then exited the Buick and hung around it. Detective Branchcomb asserted Detective Steer observed Barker, the driver of the Toyota, then exit the Toyota and carry a plastic bag or package, later determined to contain marijuana (State's Exhibit 6), to Alexander, the passenger in the Buick.

Detective Branchcomb testified that when the officers approached to arrest Washington for outstanding attachments, defendant, Washington, and Alexander took off running with Alexander discarding a bag later found to contain cocaine, marijuana, tramadol, oxycodone, and $698. Evidence of flight, concealment, and attempt to avoid apprehension is relevant and admissible to prove consciousness of guilt from which the trier of fact may infer guilt. State v. Davis, 18-485 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/10/19), 269 So.3d 1123, 1132, writ denied, 19-716 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 229.

Detective Branchcomb testified defendant was later apprehended, and his Buick was searched. A plastic bag containing 90.40 grams of marijuana was sitting on the center console (State's Exhibit 6), a plastic cup/jar containing 14.30 grams of marijuana was found near the center console (State's Exhibit 7), and 6.16 grams of loose marijuana was found on the floorboard and driver-door pocket (State's Exhibit 8). These items were found in the front seat of the Buick. Although it does not appear the State proved defendant was in the Buick when the 90.40 grams of marijuana in State's Exhibit 6 was delivered to the passenger, there was marijuana in the plastic jar near the center console and loose marijuana on the floor and in the driver-door pocket totaling approximately twenty grams that was within defendant's arms’ reach. See Moore, Ducre, Brown.

Further, there were items found in the Buick that indicated possession with intent to distribute marijuana. There was a loaded 9 mm magazine for a pistol in the driver-door pocket, a cup used to weigh narcotics near the center console, and a Glock pistol underneath the backpack in the back seat. The vehicle did not contain any paraphernalia that could be used in the consumption of the drugs. See Ducre.

Agent Wiebelt testified that the 108 grams of marijuana in State's Exhibit 6 was worth approximately $500 to $700, and the amount was between 100 and 200 dosage units, which he explained was more than just for personal use.⁶ Agent Wiebelt further testified that the street value of that marijuana would be between $1,100 and $4,400 depending on whether it was sold in half or whole grams. He testified that cups like the one recovered from near the center console in the Buick were used by narcotics distributors to weigh drugs on digital scales. Agent Wiebelt testified that based on the amount and variety of drugs found in the Buick, defendant and his associates had a “one stop shop” to provide any drug the user needed. He further testified the digital scale showed possession with intent to distribute. Agent Wiebelt provided that a gun was found in the vehicle and that guns and drugs go hand-in-hand. He also testified it was his opinion defendant was a principal to the crime as he was driving his associates around to conduct drug deals.

In light of the foregoing, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of being a principal to possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

The record was reviewed for errors patent according to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920, State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975), and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990). After review of the record, we find no error requiring corrective action.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   In that same bill of information, Weston Barker was charged with violations of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count one) and La. R.S. 14:95(E) (count two); Tyler Alexander was charged with violations of La. R.S. 40:966(A) (count three), La. R.S. 40:967(A) (counts four through six and eight), and La. R.S. 40:969(A) (count seven); and Shawn Washington was charged with violations of La. R.S. 14:95(E) (count nine) and La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count ten).On January 24, 2024, the State filed a superseding bill of information where it entered a nolle prosequi on count ten as to Shawn Washington.

2.   On July 24, 2024, the State filed an amended superseding bill of information charging defendant with possession with intent to distribute marijuana weighing less than 2.5 pounds in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A) in count six. In that same bill of information, the State made amendments regarding Weston Barker.

3.   Detective Branchcomb explained that in his experience, narcotics dealers often used rental vehicles to hide their identities.

4.   Detective Branchcomb later testified that there were two bags of cocaine recovered from that bag.

5.   Mr. Mourain testified, and his report indicates, that his exhibit 6 (State's Exhibit 6) had a net weight of 90.4 grams, his exhibit 7 (State's Exhibit 7) had a net weight of 14.30 grams, and his exhibit 5 (State's Exhibit 8) had a net weight of 6.16 grams. The total net weight of the marijuana in those exhibits was 110.86 grams. Agent Wiebelt's report reflects that he reviewed the lab report which he said showed that detectives seized a total of 110 grams of marijuana packaged in two bags, one container, and some loose marijuana.

6.   As was mentioned earlier, Mr. Mourain testified, and his report indicates, that his exhibit 6 (State's Exhibit 6) had a net weight of 90.4 grams, his exhibit 7 (State's Exhibit 7) had a net weight of 14.30 grams, and his exhibit 5 (State's Exhibit 8) had a net weight of 6.16 grams, for a total of 110.86 grams.

GRAVOIS, J.