Motion for a directed verdict; Possession of meth with intent to deliver; People v Robar; Sufficiency of the evidence for simple possession of meth; People v Baham; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to renew the motion for a directed verdict; Request for the trial court to consider a lesser-included offense

The court held that the trial court in defendant’s bench trial did not err in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the possession of meth with intent to deliver charge, and that there was sufficient evidence for his conviction of simple possession of meth. Further, it rejected his claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to renew the motion and for asking the trial court to consider the lesser-included offense. To prove possession of meth “with intent, the prosecution must establish that: (1) the defendant possessed a controlled substance, (2) the defendant knowingly possessed the controlled substance, (3) the defendant intended to deliver the controlled substance, and (4) the controlled substance weighed a specified amount.” The court concluded that a rational fact-finder “could have found that these elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. An officer testified that, during a strip search, he found two bags containing a substance in the right pocket of defendant’s shorts. The substances in each bag were identified as methamphetamine. Testimony established that the two bags weighed a total of 21 grams and that the contents of the larger bag weighed 17.8857 grams.” A police witness (D) testified, as an expert, that a typical meth user “does not purchase more than one gram at a time for personal use, that a typical user ‘can get high seven to ten times off a quarter-gram,’” and that the amount defendant possessed “had a ‘street value’ of at least $2,500 dollars. He further testified that if a smaller package and a larger package of a suspected controlled substance are found on the same person, the smaller package is typically for personal use, and the larger package will likely be sold later.” The trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict despite D’s testimony “he did not personally believe that defendant was intending to deliver” meth when he was arrested. As to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction, a rational fact-finder could conclude that he knew two bags containing meth “were in his pocket, knew of their character, and had the right to control them. Although defendant claimed that he had borrowed the shorts and denied knowing” meth was in the pocket, the fact-finder was free to find he was not credible. Affirmed.