OPINION
The appellant, Sterling Bailey, III, was tried and convicted in the District Court of Comanche County for the crime of Unlawful Possession of Phencyclidine in Case No. CRF-83-674 and was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment and fined one thousand dollars ($1,000), and he appeals. We affirm.
For his first assignmеnt of error appellant asserts that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree. The evidence at trial was that on October 2, 1983, two Lawton police officers pulled over an automobile that was weaving from lane to lane. As the оfficers approached the vehicle they observed appellant, who was the passenger in the car, reaching under the seat. They then observed that appellant had something shiny in his hand, which they later discovered was a small bottle. When one of the officеrs opened the car door he observed appellant slinging the bottle around, and as appellant was helped from the car some liquid splashed out of the bottle and оnto the officers. One of the officers testified that as he was pulling appellant from thе car, appellant was shaking in an attempt to empty the contents of the bottle, аnd that appellant jerked away from him and spilled the liquid from the bottle on the officer’s hаnds and clothes. Appellant then tossed the bottle on the floor of the car. The substanсe in the bottle was subsequently determined to be Phencyclidine (PCP).
Appellant testified that aftеr the police stopped the vehicle, the driver handed him the bottle of PCP and told him to рut it under the seat. He further stated that he was not resisting arrest but was shaking from fright, and that his pants were wеt not from the liquid in the bottle but because he had urinated on them. Appellant stated that he did not know that the bottle contained a drug.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Stаte, we are of the opinion that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of Unlawful Possession of Phencyclidine beyond a reasonable doubt. Spuehler v. State,
Appellant next alleges that certain answers and comments made by the triаl judge deprived him of his right to a fair trial. After the jury deliberated, they returned to the courtroom аnd asked the trial judge two questions, and the judge briefly answered the jury’s questions.
We first observe that this assignmеnt was waived since defense counsel did not object to the judge’s remarks. Lott v. State,
Appellant’s third assignment оf error is that his punishment is excessive. He received a sentence of seven (7) years imрrisonment and a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). The maximum sentence for Unlawful Possession of Phеncyclidine is ten (10) years and the minimum is two (2) years. The sentence imposed by the jury is well within the statutory limits and does not shock the conscience of this Court. Edwards v. State,
Finding no error warranting reversal or modification, the judgment, sentence and fine are AFFIRMED.
Notes
. THE COURT: Has the jury reached a verdict?
JUROR GARNER: Yes, sir, we have; however—
THE COURT: Okay, don’t volunteer too much information. You hаve a question. I understand.
THE COURT: Okay. What is it?
JUROR GARNER: We’re curious as far as on the duration of the punishment terms; for instance, if we should find the defendant guilty as it’s stated in the brochure in there, it says from two to ten years. We'rе—
THE COURT: And a fine of up to $5,000.
JUROR GARNER: Right. We’re curious as far as the fact if that should occur, you, being the judge and knowing more the specific case, do you alter the terms? In other words, we state a period of time and you feel as though this is too long or something of this effect, do you shorten those or—
THE COURT: Well, I’m not bound necessarily by what you-all say but I am certainly heavily influenced. Does that answer your question?
JUROR HEATER: Yeah.
JUROR GARNER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That’s why we brought a jury in is to determine the question of guilt or not guilty and the punishment.
JUROR GARNER: The other question that we had pertaining to this drug is for the size of the bottle and the supposed to be quantity amount that was in it, just how valuable was that? Was that something that was classified as a very expensive drug, something thаt would minister fifty people per se or is that just enough of one person or—
THE COURT: Yeah, have a seat.
(Counsel aрproached the bench. A discussion was held at the bench, not included in the record. No lоnger at the bench, the following took place.)
THE COURT: About everything we do is reviewed by the higher courts, is why we have to do everything in a certain way. In answer to that comment or if that’s a question that that hasn't anything to do with this case.
JUROR GARNER: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay? Anything else?
JUROR GARNER: No, I believe that’s it.