Appellant was charged by separate felony informations with two violations of Article IV of Act 590 of 1971 (Controlled Substance Act); namely, the alleged delivery (sale) of marihuana and codeine. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (1971 Supp.). Subsequently, the charges were reduced to misdemeanors. The trial court, sitting as a jury, found aрpellant guilty on both charges and sentenced him on each offense to one year confinement with six months suspended.
For reversal of the marihuana conviction appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict “on which another defendant had entered a plеa of guilty and had been sentenced.” He recognizes that in misdemanors there is no distinction betweеn accessories and principals. Hubbard v. State,
On appeal we review the sufficiency of the evidеnce with all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee and if there is any substantial evidence to support the finding of the trier of facts, wе must affirm. Mumphrey v. State,
Neither can we agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict as to the sale of codeine “in that the State failed to prove that the drug involvеd was one that would be listed in any of the schedules as a ‘controlled drug’.” Appellant admitted that hе offered to sell the officer some “reds” or codeine and about an hour after the marihuana sale appellant returned, as agreed, and sold this same officer 40 tablets with codeine which he had acquired by a prescription for his own use as a muscle relaxant. It is argued that no proof was presented to show that these Soma tablets with their codeine content are included in the Act. Appellant was charged uner Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (1971 Suppl.), which provides:
“Criminal penalties. — (a) *** it is unlawful for any person to deliver *** a controlled substance.
(1) Any person violates this subsection with respect to* ^ ^ ^
(iv) a substance classified in Schedule V, is guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be imprisоned for not more than one [1] year, fined not more than $5,000, or both; “
§ 82-2615 provides that “[T]hat the controlled substances listed” in Schedule V include:
“(b) Any compound, mixture, or preparation containing limited quantitiеs of any of the following narcotic drugs, which also contains one or more nonnarcotic аctive medicinal ingredients in sufficient proportion to confer upon the compound, mixture, оr preparation, valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the narcotic drug alone:
(1) Not more than 200 milligrams of codeine, or any of its salts, per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams;”
It is undisputed that appellant sold 40 pills each containing one quarter or 16 milligrams of codeine. The сriteria for inclusion in Schedule V is that “(1) the substance has low potential for abuse relative to thе controlled substances listed in Schedule IV.” § 82-2612. In our view the proof is sufficient to subject the codeine tablets to inclusion under Schedule V as a "controlled substance.” There was testimony, as indicated, that the tablets contained 16 milligrams or one quarter grain of codeine and were availablе only be prescription. The compound or mixture (tablets) was medically prescribed for aрpellant’s use to "relieve pain in the back.” Obviously the prescription, with codeine, contained active medicinal ingredients which conferred upon the tablet valuable medicinal qualities. Therefore, although appellant legally possessed the tablets by a prescription, his sаle of the compound or mixture is clearly prohibited by the Act and makes him subject to the criminal penalties therein.
Affirmed.