OPINION
This case came before the Supreme Court on September 30, 2010, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. The defendant, Pedro Rodriguez (defendant or Rodriguez), appeals from a conviction of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and knowingly possessing one ounce to one kilogram of cocaine while operating a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), seven years to serve, thirteen years suspеnded, and thirteen years probation for each count. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial justice erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal brought pursuant to Rule 29 of the Superiоr Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1 After reviewing the memo-randa submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and, thus, the appeal may be decidеd at this time. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
Facts and Travel
On July 24, 2003, the Portsmouth Police Department coordinated a controlled purchase of cocaine with the assistance of a cooperating witnеss, Peter Austin (Austin). The record discloses that Austin had been arrested the day before for delivery of a controlled substance, and thus was motivated to assist the police. At detectives’ direction, Austin callеd his narcotics sup
While en route, Det. Leonard began to fear that the operation was getting too close to the Commonwealth of Mаssachusetts (and outside of this state’s jurisdiction). Austin was instructed to drive into the parking lot of a bus company in Warren and wait for his contact. The plan was to have Austin feign car trouble and ask the courier to meet him in Warren. Detective Leonard parked nearby with full view of Austin’s vehicle. At least two other detectives also were in the vicinity of the vehicle.
When he spotted defendant’s gray Chrysler drive past his location, Austin alerted the officers; the Chrysler then doubled back and stopped next to Austin’s vehicle. As defendant exited and approached Austin, detectives moved in and arrested him. The defendant was observed tossing a blue plastic shopping bag under Austin’s car. The bag contained what the officers suspected to be cocaine. According to Det. Steven Calenda, the arresting officer, thе cocaine “was in baseball form, almost the same size as a baseball. It contained mostly rock [cocaine] but there was some powder also.”
Miranda warnings were given at the scene and defendant was transported to Warren police headquarters, where officers asked him if there were any other narcotics in his vehicle. When defendant admitted that there was more cocaine hidden in the car, he was escorted to the vehicle, where he accessed a highly sophisticated secret compartment that was in the area of the passenger-side airbag. 2 A small blaсk bag containing another baseball-sized rock of cocaine and thirteen smaller bags of cocaine were seized.
On September 18, 2003, defendant was charged by criminal information with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of more than one ounce of cocaine while operating a motor vehicle. He subsequently was convicted by a jury and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. The defendant timely appealed, contending that the trial justice erred by denying his Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.
Standard of Review
A motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Rodriguez,
Analysis
The only issues before this Court are whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find defendant guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of оver an ounce of cocaine while operating a motor vehicle. Rodriguez asserts that the state failed to establish that he had guilty knowledge that he was in possession of cocaine in the blue bag as well as in his automobile; he further contends that the state failed to establish that he had the requisite intent to deliver the cocaine. We will address each argument in turn.
I
Knowledge of Nature of Object
“In Rhode Island possession within thе context of a criminal statute means an intentional control of an object with knowledge of its nature.”
State v. Colbert,
The record before us is replete with evidence from which a jury could find that Rodriguez knew there was cocaine in the blue bag that he tossed under Austin’s car and in the black bag that was seized from his automobile. The evidence disclosed that defendant met Austin in the Warren parking lot to consummate a prearranged drug deal. The defendant was apprehended as he approached Austin’s car while carrying approximately four ounces of crack cocaine. When the police arrived, Rodriguez intentionally attempted to discard the bag by throwing it under Austin’s car. This evidence is sufficient to prove the element of possession of cocaine. Thus, a jury could conclude that defendant knowingly possessed an enumerated quantity of narcotics.
Additionally, defendant argues that there was no evidence that he knew that the black bag, found in the car’s hydraulically-operated hidden compartment, contained cocaine. This argument is without merit. The compartment was discovered when Rodriguez, in response to questioning, admitted that more drugs were hiddеn in his car. The defendant told the officers that the drugs were located in a hidden compartment, and he then proceeded to demonstrate how the compartment was ac cessed — no simple feat. 3 In light of the fact thаt Rodriguez was the registered owner of a vehicle engaged in drug trafficking, that he admitted to police that cocaine was stored in his car, and that he was arrested during the commission of a preаrranged drug deal, the totality of the circumstances in this case amply supports a jury finding that Rodriguez knew full well that he was in possession of cocaine.
II
Intent to Deliver Cocaine
To prove possession of cocainе with intent to deliver, “the state must show that a defendant was in possession of
As to the last element — whether the defendant had the requisite intent to deliver the cocaine — this Court has held that “a factfinder can infer an intent to deliver illegal narcotics solely on the basis of the amount of the drugs found.”
Williams,
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superiоr Court. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
Notes
. Because Rodriguez flattened his sentence on June 3, 2010, he has moved to withdraw a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking rеview of the trial justice's denial of his motion to reduce sentence on mootness grounds.
. While the ignition was running and by operating both the driver and rear passenger automatic windows, simultaneously pressing the еmergency brake, and using a magnet in the area of the lights, the hidden hydraulically-operated compartment opened to reveal the cache of drugs.
. After viewing photographs of the compartment, die seasoned trial justice described it as the most sophisticated hiding place he had ever seen.