Singleton v. State

Citations: 381 S.W.3d 874; 2011 Ark. App. 145; 2011 Ark. App. LEXIS 150Docket: No. CA CR 10-913

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; February 23, 2011; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Felton Singleton was convicted by a jury on multiple drug-related charges, including possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana with intent to deliver, maintaining a drug premise, and misdemeanor tampering with physical evidence, resulting in a forty-year aggregate sentence. On appeal, Singleton contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; however, the court affirmed the convictions.

During the trial, evidence was presented from Sergeant Alan Hamby, who described the SWAT team's execution of a search warrant at Singleton's residence on July 15, 2009. Singleton was found on the bathroom floor, while two others fled the scene. Detective Rick Kizer testified about the discovery of various drugs, including marijuana and cocaine, within the house and toilet. Surveillance equipment was found both inside and outside, indicating potential drug activity and a means to alert occupants of police presence.

Kizer also noted that Singleton identified the residence as his own during an interview. Detective Tim Stankevitz provided testimony regarding hydrocodone pills found in a bedroom but stated he had not witnessed Singleton selling drugs. Detective Lawrence Wellborn explained the implications of the surveillance system for officer safety and detailed the typical packaging and pricing of drugs, emphasizing that the amount of cocaine found in the toilet exceeded personal use quantities, indicating intent to distribute.

A pill press can produce pills from methamphetamine and other drugs, with methamphetamine-cocaine pills selling for $40 to $80 each. Wellborn assessed the quantity of pills in the house as indicative of a sale amount, noting that drug houses typically store small quantities and maintain a division between drugs and money. Forensic chemist Kim Brown testified that eight pills seized weighed a total of 2.5007 grams and contained various substances, including cocaine and methamphetamine, but she could not separate the weight of the individual substances. Singleton's wife testified to his drug addiction and frequent absences, though she denied his residence at a specific location. Singleton claimed he was at his son’s house for drugs but denied ownership of the drugs found when police arrived, stating he was simply using drugs. He admitted to lying about his address to authorities. After the evidence was presented, Singleton's motions for directed verdict were denied, and he was found guilty by the jury. Singleton subsequently filed a timely appeal. The standard for reviewing directed verdict motions focuses on whether substantial evidence supports the verdict, evaluated in favor of the prosecution's case.

The fact-finder, not the appellate court, is tasked with weighing evidence and determining credibility. Under Arkansas law, possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver is illegal. A possession of more than one gram of cocaine creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to deliver. Singleton does not contest possession of cocaine but argues insufficient evidence for intent to deliver, citing the absence of scales, money, guns, or cutting materials, and the fact the cocaine was packaged in a single bag. However, the trial produced no evidence to rebut the presumption, aside from Detective Stankevitz's testimony about not witnessing drug sales at Singleton's residence. Singleton references United States v. Stephens to support his appeal, noting similarities but recognizing a key difference: the statutory presumption in his case due to the 2.2957 grams of cocaine, which exceeds the threshold. Declining to recognize the presumption as substantial evidence would undermine its legal significance.

Regarding methamphetamine possession, Singleton claims the State did not prove he possessed a usable amount, which is defined as at least 200 milligrams. The court found that he possessed a usable quantity sufficient to trigger the rebuttable presumption of intent to deliver. Singleton argues his possession of eight pills, which contained methamphetamine, did not exceed a trace amount and cites Harbison v. State, which reversed a conviction based on insufficient evidence of usable quantity. He contends that the decision in Ficklin v. State, which deemed pills containing methamphetamine as a usable amount, contradicts Harbison and improperly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, allowing jury speculation on the substance's quantity.

The court distinguishes the case of Ficklin from Harbison based on the presence of pills versus powder residue. In Ficklin, the total weight of the eight pills containing methamphetamine and adulterants was 2.5007 grams, exceeding the 200 milligrams threshold necessary to establish a rebuttable presumption of intent to deliver methamphetamine. Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-402(a)(2), it is illegal to maintain a premises used for obtaining or using controlled substances. Singleton admits that 4305 Maryland was used for this purpose but disputes evidence of his ownership or residence there, claiming he only used the address to avoid detection by bail bondsmen. The jury, however, found insufficient credibility in Singleton's claims and testimony from his wife.

Regarding tampering with physical evidence, Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-53-111 defines the offense as altering or concealing evidence to impair its availability in legal proceedings. Singleton contends there was no evidence that he tampered with evidence, arguing that merely placing drugs in the toilet does not equate to tampering. The court found his argument unpersuasive, noting that he was convicted of misdemeanor tampering, indicating he did not succeed in obstructing the prosecution. Singleton admitted to attempting to dispose of drugs as police arrived, which constituted sufficient evidence of tampering despite not successfully flushing them. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, agreeing on the sufficiency of evidence for the tampering charge, while Singleton did not appeal his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.