State v. Cardona-Gueton
2012 UT App 336
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- On Oct. 22, 2009, officers on bicycles observed Cardona-Gueton near Pioneer Park suspected of a drug deal.
- A bicycle at the scene contained a hidden compartment with fourteen crack rocks (~2 grams).
- Cardona-Gueton was charged with possession with intent to distribute, amended to include a drug-free-zone enhancement.
- Jury trial; defense moved for directed verdict on possession, intent to distribute, and the drug-free-zone enhancement—denied.
- Jury convicted of possession with intent to distribute and found the enhancement; sentenced January 14, 2011 to 5 years to life.
- Appeal challenged sufficiency of evidence for possession and for the public-park element of the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of possession evidence | Cardona-Gueton lacked a nexus to the drugs to prove possession. | State demonstrated incriminating proximity, statements, and behavior linking him to drugs. | Evidence sufficient; conviction supported. |
| Sufficiency of public park (drug-free zone) element | Public park term does not include sidewalks; trial should not treat park as defined by statute. | Trial court properly allowed jury to determine whether the park definition extended to the location. | Evidence sufficient; park finding sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316 (Utah 1985) (possession with intent to distribute requires possession and intent)
- State v. Layman I, 953 P.2d 782 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (constructive possession requires nexus and control)
- State v. Layman II, 985 P.2d 911 (Utah 1999) (affirmed constructive possession framework)
- State v. Salas, 820 P.2d 1386 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (linking defendant to drugs via proximity and conduct)
- State v. Davis, 155 P.3d 909 (Utah App. 2007) (enhancement must be proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. South, 932 P.2d 622 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (enhancement review in drug-free zone context)
- State v. Buck, 200 P.3d 674 (Utah App. 2009) (standard for evaluating reasonable-doubt in sufficiency claims)
- State v. White, 258 P.3d 594 (Utah App. 2011) (jury's common-sense understanding of terms in context)
- State v. Hirschi, 167 P.3d 503 (Utah App. 2007) (reaffirms standard for appellate review of verdicts)
- State v. Powell, 200 P.3d 674 (Utah App. 2009) (reiterates evaluation of alternative hypotheses)