ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER

DIVISION IV

SCOTT CRAGAR

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-1138

MAY 2, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR99-151]

HONORABLE PAUL EDWARD DANIELSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Scott Crager appeals the jury's finding that he was guilty of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in Conway County Circuit Court. We affirm holding that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict and that no constitutional violation occurred.

Appellant was the passenger in a vehicle whose driver was stopped by Officer Gary Dilbeck for driving erratically. After stopping the vehicle, Officer Dilbeck recognized appellant and knew that he had an outstanding warrant from the officer's weekly review of outstanding warrants. Officer Dilbeck went back to his unit and, pursuant to normal police procedure, ran a check on both the appellant and the driver. This check revealed that the driver had a suspended driver's license.

While Officer Dilbeck was arresting the driver for driving on a suspended license, a

second officer, Lamont Chambers, arrived to assist the arresting officer. Appellant was removed from the vehicle and searched by Officer Chambers. At the suppression hearing, Officer Chambers testified that it was not his intention to actually take appellant into custody prior to the search. However, Officer Chambers's testimony at trial was that he knew there were outstanding warrants and that he had placed appellant under arrest. In the course of a pat-down search outside the vehicle, Officer Chambers found a baggie with an off-white powder substance in appellant's pant leg, which Chambers believed to be a controlled substance. After appellant was taken to the detention center, Officer Chambers went through appellant's personal possessions as part of the booking process. During the course of this search, he discovered a second baggie of an off-white substance inside appellant's wallet.

A chemical analysis of the substance inside the first baggie determined the substance to be psuedoephedrine, which is not a controlled substance. The charge filed against appellant for the substance found in his pant leg was later nolle prossed. The chemical analysis of the off-white substance found in appellant's wallet was chemically analyzed and determined to be methamphetamine, a controlled substance. Appellant was tried and convicted for possession of a controlled substance, based on the methamphetamine found in his wallet.

For his first point on appeal, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We, however, conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding. When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we willaffirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Engram v. State, 341 Ark. 196, 15 S.W.3d 678 (2000). Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without mere speculation or conjecture. Id. Here Officer Chambers testified that after appellant was arrested and transported to the detention center, his wallet and all other personal items were confiscated as part of the booking process. During a search of the wallet, Officer Chambers found a baggie of off-white substance. This substance was chemically tested by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and determined to be methamphetamine. Appellant testified that the substance in the wallet was not his.

"The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury" and not for the appellate court. Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 439, 17 S.W.3d 61, 76 (2000). As to alleged discrepancies in testimony, "the jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's." Id. Therefore, sufficient evidence supports the jury's assessment of the facts and we affirm the conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine.

Appellant next urges that the trial erred when it denied the appellant's motion to suppress by not finding that the pat-down search exceeded constitutional limits. The crux of his argument is that the conflict in the assisting officer's testimony, concerning his intent to arrest appellant, effectively negated the arresting officer's initiation of appellant's arrest and rendered all subsequent searches of appellant unlawful. We find this emphasismisplaced and need not address the issue. Appellant was charged with possession of methamphetamine. No doubt exists that this substance was discovered following appellant's arrest while he was in custody at the jail. The assisting officer's initial search is simply not at issue in this case.

The Supreme Court has held that pretext is a matter of the arresting officer's intent, which must be determined by the circumstances of the arrest. Stephens v. State, 342 Ark. 151, 156, 28 S.W.3d 260, 263 (2000), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1206 (2001). An ulterior motive does not in itself render an arrest pretextual when there is a valid overt reason to make the arrest. Id. (citing Mings v. State, 318 Ark. 201, 210, 884 S.W.2d 596, 602 (1994)). The reasoning is that the arrest for the overt violation would have taken place in any event; thus there is no reason to bring the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary doctrine into play. Id. Here, appellant was arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant. The arrest was not pretextual and the subsequent search was clearly after appellant was taken into custody.

Affirmed.

Hart and Neal, JJ., agree.