State v Williams

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v RAYSEAN WILLIAMS

(AC 19362)

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Argued November 30, 2000

July 31, 2001

Jeremiah Donovan, with whom, on the brief, was Rita Christopher, for the appellant (defendant).

Rita M. Shair, assistant state's attorney, with whom were Terence Mariani, assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, John A. Connelly, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Mihalakos, Zarella and Dupont, Js.

MIHALAKOS, J.

Opinion

On November 18, 1998, the defendant, Raysean Williams, was charged in a six count substitute information with the following crimes: (1) count one, possession of a narcotic substance (cocaine) with the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a); (2) count two, possession of a narcotic substance (cocaine) with the intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b); (3) count three, possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b); (4) count four, possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with the intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b); (5) count five, possession of four ounces or more of a cannabis-type substance (marijuana) in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (b); and (6) count six, possession of four ounces or more of a cannabis-type substance (marijuana) within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d). A jury trial ensued, and it resulted in a verdict of guilty on counts one and two, and not guilty on the remaining counts. The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. After the defendant was sentenced, he appealed.

On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, (2) the search warrant for his apartment was invalid, and the court, therefore, improperly admitted incriminating evidence that the police had seized pursuant to the warrant, (3) the court abused its discretion when it did not permit him to dismiss his court-appointed attorney and proceed pro se, (4) the court improperly permitted a police detective to testify from memory regarding the defendant's driver's license after concluding at a suppression hearing that the seizure of the driver's license violated the defendant's constitutional rights, and (5) the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses the following facts. At approximately 11 a.m. on August 22, 1997, officers and detectives from the Waterbury police department (officers) traveled to the defendant's second floor apartment at 10 Webb Street, Waterbury, to execute a search warrant. After knocking on the defendant's door and receiving no response, the officers opened the door, which was unlocked, and entered the living room. Seeing no occupants there, they proceeded to the defendant's bedroom, where they found the defendant and his girlfriend, Kristy Chevarella. The defendant and Chevarella were detained.

The officers searched the defendant's apartment and found the following items: (1) one large plastic bag containing sixty-one small plastic bags, each of which contained a white, rock-like substance (cocaine, total of eight and one-half grams); (2) one ''Mobile Comm beeper;'' (3) one ''ready beeper;'' (4) one envelope containing $1700; (5) thirty live rounds of.357 caliber ammunition; (6) five live rounds of.38 caliber ammunition; (7) one plastic bag containing one razor blade and numerous unused plastic bags; (8) one Connecticut driver's license that listed ''Ray S. Williams'' as the licensed operator; and (9) one Connecticut nondriver identification card that belonged to Chevarella.

The officers also searched the basement of the defendant's apartment building. There, they found the following items: (1) one Ruger.357 caliber pistol containing one live round in its chamber and nine live rounds in its clip; (2) one Glock nine millimeter pistol containing one live round in its chamber and nine live rounds in its clip; (3) three clips of ammunition containing a total of seven live rounds of.45 caliber ammunition and fifteen live rounds of.357 caliber ammunition; (4) one box containing forty-eight live rounds of.38 caliber ammunition; (5) one brown paper bag that contained one razor blade and numerous unused plastic bags; and (6) one plastic bag containing 3.78 ounces of a plant-like substance (marijuana). The officers thereafter arrested the defendant.

I

The defendant first claims that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and, therefore, the court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Specifically, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he had exercised dominion and control over the cocaine seized from his apartment, and that he had the intent to exercise such dominion and control.¹ We disagree.

The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant's claim. Daryll Dublin, a Waterbury police officer, testified that he and his wife owned the two family house in which the search was executed. Dublin testified that the house had two floors and a basement, and that each of the two floors was rented as an apartment. Dublin further testified as follows. On August 22, 1997, the date the search was executed, the defendant and Chevarella lived in the apartment on the second floor. The defendant also used the basement to house his pit bull, and he paid Dublin an additional $50 per month in rent for the privilege of keeping the dog there. On several occasions, Dublin observed that the defendant was keeping the pit bull caged in the basement, which could not be accessed from inside either of the apartments. An exterior door provided the only access to the basement.

Nicholas DeMatteis, a Waterbury police detective, testified that he assisted in searching the defendant's apartment, and that while searching the bedroom he ''found a plastic bag with a razor blade and numerous unused, small ziplock bags'' in a nightstand. DeMatteis further testified that in the same nightstand he found a Connecticut driver's license. He testified that the name on the license was ''Ray Williams,'' and that the license photograph was of the male that he and the other police officers had found in the bedroom while executing the search warrant. DeMatteis identified that male as the defendant.

Fred Spagnolo, another Waterbury police detective, testified that he assisted in searching the defendant's apartment. Spagnolo testified that while searching the defendant's bedroom, he discovered sixty-one plastic bags, each of which contained a white, rock-like sub-stance.² Spagnolo further testified that (1) ''[r]azor blades are used to cut up the narcotics to package them for street sale,'' (2) ''[s]ometimes narcotics dealers will will keep dogs for again for protection against someone attempting to steal their drugs and their money,'' and (3) ''[c]ommonly... narcotics dealers do carry weapons to protect their drugs, their money and sometimes themselves from other narcotics dealers who would want to sell narcotics in their area.''

Timothy Kluntz, a Waterbury patrolman, testified that he assisted in searching the defendant's apartment. Kluntz testified that while searching the dresser in the defendant's bedroom, he found thirty live rounds of.357 caliber ammunition and five live rounds of.38 caliber ammunition.

Harold Setzer, another Waterbury patrolman, testified that he was in charge of searching the basement. Setzer testified that Dublin arrived and provided him with a key, which he used to access the basement. Setzer further testified as follows. While searching the basement, he found ''small ziplock bags.'' Bags of that type are called ''apple bags,'' and ''[t]hey're used to package crack-cocaine for street sales.'' In the basement, Setzer also found.38 caliber ammunition and a loaded.357 caliber Ruger handgun.

''In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we apply a [two part] test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the jury reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... In evaluating evidence, the trier of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant's innocence.... The trier may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.... As we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt... nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the trier, would have resulted in an acquittal.... On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury's verdict of guilty.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Berger, 249 Conn. 218, 224 25, 733 A.2d 156 (1999).

''In order to prove illegal possession of a narcotic substance, it is necessary to establish that the defendant knew the character of the substance, knew of its presence and exercised dominion and control over it.... Where, as here, the cocaine was not found on the defendant's person, the state must proceed on the theory of constructive possession, that is, possession without direct physical contact.... One factor that may be considered in determining whether a defendant is in constructive possession of...