Bustillos v. State
425 S.W.3d 44
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Christian and Ivan Bustillos were convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to deliver, in Lonoke County.
- The information charged one count and did not allege a specific amount of cocaine.
- On December 18, 2011, Sgt. Overton stopped an Arizona-registered vehicle on I-40; Ivan drove and Christian rode as front passenger.
- Cocaine was discovered inside the vehicle: three bundles totaling 3008.5 grams; found in the interior, including foam insulation in the body molding.
- Ivan claimed ownership of the vehicle and that he possessed the contraband; Christian testified he did not know about the drugs.
- The trial court denied directed-verdict motions, later the jury found both guilty; the court sentenced both to 40 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence to prove Ivan possessed cocaine. | Ivan had control over the vehicle and nerve indicators supported possession. | Insufficient evidence tying Ivan to the contraband. | Ivan's conviction affirmed; substantial evidence found. |
| Whether Christian could be guilty given joint occupancy and lack of knowledge. | Christian drove and was in joint control of the vehicle with Ivan. | No substantial evidence he knew of or possessed the cocaine. | Christian's conviction reversed and dismissed; not proven he possessed. |
| Whether the amount possessed had to be pled as an element and affected sentencing. | Amount informs sentencing; information need not plead exact amount for offense. | Lack of specific amount in information limits sentencing to minimum under statute. | Statute creates varying penalties by amount; information put on notice; no error in sentencing instructions; McMillan and Apprendi distinctions applied; amount not a required element to plead. |
Key Cases Cited
- George v. State, 356 Ark. 345 (Ark. 2004) (constructive possession may be inferred; factors in joint-occupancy cases)
- Walker v. State, 72 S.W.3d 517 (Ark. 2002) (insufficient evidence to infer knowledge in joint occupancy requires evidence)
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (severity of punishment linked to identified fact need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (scope of Apprendi; not overruling McMillan on ordinary facts)