ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
MICHAEL D. DUNLAP
STATE OF ARKANSAS
November 28, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
HON. CAROL C. ANTHONY,
A Ouachita County jury convicted appellant Michael Dunlap of possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia for which
he was sentenced to 360 months’ and 120 months’ imprisonment respectively. On appeal,
he claims that there was insufficient evidence to support either conviction and, as such, the
trial court erred in its denial of his directedverdict motions. We disagree and affirm.
Amotion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.When
determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether the verdict is supported
by substantial evidence, which is evidence that is of sufficient certainty and precision to
compel a conclusion one way or the other. When determining if sufficient evidence exists,
we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Ladwig v. State, 328 Ark.
241, 943 S.W.2d 571 (1997).
On appeal Dunlap first claims that the State failed to carry its burden on the
possessionwithintenttodeliver conviction because it did not establish that the cocaine
recovered at the crime scene had ever been in his actual possession. Indeed, the testimony
from Carol Brewer established that Dunlap passed her some items to hold while he was
being arrested in front of his apartment—a black box with a ribbon on it, some keys, and
some money—but that she did not notice Dunlap handing her a plastic bag. However, she
also admitted that she was not paying close attention to what Dunlap was passing to her.
According to her testimony, after receiving the items from Dunlap, she placed them on a
nearby chair as she was ordered to do by one of the arresting officers, Romero Scruggs.