James Walton was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana. He appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction and sentence, enumerating as error the general grounds and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Viewed in a light to support the verdict, the evidenсe shows that prior to executing a search warrant, police gave a marked $10 bill to a confidential informant and sent him to purchase crack cocaine at a duplex in which Walton and his co-defendant, Richard Slater, lived. After the informant returned with a $10 piece of crack cocaine, the police executed the search warrant for the residence.
One of the officers who executed the warrant testified that he went into the bathroom and saw Walton and Slater lеaning over the commode. Slater was raking cocaine from a plate into the toilet where several bags of cocaine had already been thrown. Slater attempted to flush the toilet as the officer struggled to push him away. Another officer then came into the bathroom and saw Walton attempting to flush the toilet. Both men were eventually restrained and removed from the bathroom. The police retrieved the bags from inside the commode and bags discovered beside the commode on the floor.
*774 When the police searched Walton, they recovered the marked $10 bill from his pocket. A search of Walton’s bedroom produced one piece of crack cocaine from the bed, a bag of marijuana from a dresser drawer, $570 in cash from the dresser, a nine-millimeter automatic gun, and bullets. Therе were 115 pieces of crack cocaine in the bags retrieved from the toilet and 24 pieces of crack cocaine in bags discovered on the floor, each piece packaged for sale.
1. Walton contends the evidence demonstrated that the contraband belonged exclusively to Slater, the leaseholder. For this proposition, Walton relies on his and Slater’s testimony that the contraband belonged only to Slater and that he disapproved of both the drugs and Slater’s enterprise, which was conducted from the duplex. Walton also denied any knowledge of the marked $10 bill. Slater testified that prior to the arrival of the police, he had been cutting the crack cocaine in Walton’s bedroom and that he placed the cash on the dresser.
There is a rebuttable presumption of possession against the owner or lessee of premises where contraband is found.
Mobley v. State,
We also reject Waltоn’s contention that two other persons present and arrested at the time the police executed the search warrant had equal access to the duplex. One of the individuals was present to purchase cocaine. “[T]here is no evidence these persons had equal access to that area where . . . the drugs [were] seized. Merely being somewhere within the premises for a relatively short but unspecified
*775
time before drugs subsequently are found therein does not reasonably raise thе defense of equal access.”
Jones v. State,
2. Walton contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. He argues that trial counsel’s performance was deficient because counsel did not challenge the search warrant by filing a motion to suppress and counsel failed to object to the trial court’s сonsideration of his National Crime Information Center (NCIC) printout in imposing his sentence.
“At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the burden was on [Walton] to establish that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. [Cit.] To meet this burden, [Walton] was required to show not only that trial counsel’s performance was deficient, but also that, absent trial counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different. [Cits.]”
White v. State,
(a) “When urging ineffeсtive assistance of counsel on the basis of counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, appellant must ‘make a strong showing that if trial counsel had made а motion to suppress, the damaging evidence would have been suppressed. [Cits.]’ [Cit.]”
Ruffin v. State,
(b) Walton contends that in sentencing him, the trial court improperly considered the convictions listed on his NCIC printout without objection by trial counsel. It does not appear likely, however, that Walton’s sentence would have been any different if defense counsel had objected to the NCIC printout.
First, the record reveаls that on direct examination, Walton volunteered that he had a prior marijuana conviction. In addition, the record also shows that immediately after the jury returned the verdict, the trial court sentenced Walton, as a recidivist, to the maximum thirty years on the cocaine conviction and ten years on the marijuana conviction, tо be served concurrently. The court then ordered a post-sentence investigation for the purpose of revealing factors which might support the probatiоn of portions of the sentence. See OCGA § 17-10-1. At the sentencing hearing following that investiga *776 tion, the State revealed to the trial court that it recently discovered Walton’s NCIC record which contained a number of prior convictions, including drug convictions. Walton contends that the State failed to give pretrial notice of these cоnvictions as required by OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) and that the convictions likely influenced the trial court’s decision to maintain the maximum sentence. The record reflects, however, that the trial court specifically found that the post-sentence investigation failed to reveal anything which would support probating any of Walton’s sentence. Hence, Walton has no basis for arguing that the sentence would have been different but for counsel’s failure to object to the NCIC printout.
(c) Walton raises other “errors” allegedly committed by defense counsel. Sufficient evidence was introduced at the hearing, however, to permit the trial court to conclude that counsel’s performance was not deficient; thus, the court’s denial of Walton’s motion for new trial was not clearly erroneous.
Smith v. State,
Judgment affirmed.