THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
NORRIS, Judge.
¶1 Sergio Gonzales appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale and the resulting sentence. Gonzales argues the superior court should have granted his motion for acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 20 because the State failed to present substantial evidence of his guilt.1 Gonzales further argues the evidence failed to support the jury's verdict finding him guilty. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989), the record reflects the State presented substantial evidence supporting Gonzales's conviction for possession of marijuana for sale. Therefore, we disagree with both arguments and affirm his conviction. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶¶ 15-16, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (appellate court reviews the superior court's decision on a Rule 20 motion de novo. The inquiry is whether State presented "substantial evidence," which is "such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"); State v. Sharma, 216 Ariz. 292, 294, ¶ 7, 165 P.3d 693, 695 (App. 2007) (appellate court's review of the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a conviction is also limited to determining "whether substantial evidence supports the verdict").
¶2 The State was required to present substantial evidence Gonazales "knowingly . . . possess[ed] marijuana for sale." Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 13-3405 (2010). Possession can be either actual or constructive:
Constructive possession is generally applied to those circumstances where the drug is not found on the person of the defendant nor in his presence, but is found in a place under his dominion and control and under circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of the narcotics.
State v. Villavicencio, 108 Ariz. 518, 520, 502 P.2d 1337, 1339 (1972). At trial, police detectives testified they followed a man driving from a house in Glendale to a FedEx store. The man attempted to ship a large box the police detectives discovered contained a bale of marijuana. The detectives then obtained a search warrant for the house. After knocking and announcing themselves at the door, the police raided the house. As they entered, two people fled through the back of the house. Gonzales, who was upstairs in the master bedroom, jumped out of a window into a swimming pool behind the house, where he was arrested.
¶3 Police detectives further testified that, as they entered the house, they "could smell a very strong odor of fresh marijuana coming from inside the house," and found roughly 1,800 pounds of baled marijuana in closets. In the closet adjacent to the master bedroom, the police found bales of marijuana that had been packaged in FedEx boxes, along with packaging material. A detective, who the court certified as an expert in drug trafficking, testified the house was consistent with a "stash house" in which drugs were stored and packaged for sale.
¶4 The police interviewed Gonzales, who asserted — as he does now on appeal — he was visiting from Tucson to do pool and landscaping work at the house, but "repeatedly denied doing anything with the drugs." Detectives testified, however, that the pool had not been cleaned and that they did not find any pool or landscaping tools at the house. A detective also testified Gonzales told him he knew there were drugs in the house and he thought it was "probabl[e]" he would be doing something with drugs, such as "wrap or transport." We hold this evidence was substantial and sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt Gonzales knowingly had "dominion and control" over marijuana for sale, and we therefore reject Gonzales's arguments to the contrary.
¶5 Gonzales further argues that because the jury found him not guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia the police found near the marijuana, the jury's verdict finding him guilty of possessing the marijuana was "disjointed" and "makes no sense." We disagree. Even assuming these verdicts were inconsistent, Arizona courts have long held "consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary," State v. Zakhar, 105 Ariz. 31, 33, 459 P.2d 83, 85 (1969), and "may be the result of leniency." State v. Garza, 196 Ariz. 210, 212, ¶ 7, 994 P.2d 1025, 1027 (App. 1999).
¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Gonzales's conviction for possession of marijuana for sale and the resulting sentence.
ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge, DONN KESSLER, Judge, concurring.
