NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

OLLY NEAL, Judge

DIVISION I

CACR00-1324

AUGUST 29, 2001

JOHN C. STUDER AN APPEAL FROM THE HOT

APPELLANT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR99-174-2]

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS HON. PHILLIP H. SHIRRON,

APPELLEE CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant, John Studer, was convicted of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture and possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture. He was sentenced to concurrent twenty-year terms in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant argues the following: the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of manufacturing of methamphetamine; the evidence was insufficient to support the appellant's conviction for possession of ephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine; and the evidence was insufficient to show that the appellant was in possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. We affirm.

On September 17, 1999, Officer Dennis Overton found several syringes of suspectedmethamphetamine in the purse of Camille Smith during a routine traffic stop. After her arrest, Mrs. Smith gave a custodial statement. Her statement was used as the basis for obtaining a search warrant of the appellant's residence. The search warrant also included the premises, curtilage, and vehicles.

The officers searched the residence, shop, and a camper trailer located on the premises. When the officers arrived, appellant and another individual were in the shop area. Appellant fled on a motorcycle and he was later apprehended by two officers. During the search, the officers found a methamphetamine lab located in the camper trailer. The trailer also contained paraphernalia used to manufacture methamphetamine. The officers apprehended Gary Mitchell inside the trailer. In the shop the officers found a tank containing anhydrous ammonia. The officers also found a large quantity of pseudoephedrine inside the residence. The following items were found in the appellant's bedroom: a spoon containing a white powder residue; several syringes; a small baggie of suspected methamphetamine; miscellaneous pills; a pink container with suspected methamphetamine; a set of scales with residue on it; a straw and razor blade with residue; and a bottle labeled "Vita-blend." Twelve hundred dollars were discovered under the stairs of appellant's home, and five hundred and ten dollars were discovered on appellant's person.

Appellant testified in his own defense at trial. He admitted that he was a methamphetamine user. Appellant also testified that he shared the residence with David Smith, Camille Smith, Gary Mitchell, and Harold Talbert. He admitted that he had received methamphetamine in the past from David Smith. Appellant also testified that Harold Talbertput the camper trailer on the property and that at one point Gary Mitchell lived in it. Appellant stated David Smith purchased the ammonia tank, and he never questioned him about it. The appellant admitted that the scales belonged to him. He stated the scales were used to make sure he was not shorted, however he denied using the scales to measure methamphetamine to sell. Appellant also denied owning the ephedrine.

At the close of the State's case the appellant moved for directed verdict on the grounds that there was no evidence to support a manufacturing conviction. Appellant argued there was no evidence he sold methamphetamine, manufactured methamphetamine, or possessed a precursor to methamphetamine. The trial court denied his motion. At the conclusion of all the evidence, appellant renewed his motion for directed verdict arguing there was no evidence that he manufactured methamphetamine, possessed methamphetamine with intent to deliver, or sold methamphetamine. Again, the trial court denied the motion. Sufficiency of the Evidence

On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Britt v. State, 344 Ark. 13, 38 S.W.3d 363 (2001). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will affirm the conviction if there is any substantial evidence to support it, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State. Chapman v. State, 343 Ark. 643, 38 S.W.3d 305 (2001). Substantialevidence is defined as evidence of such sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resort to speculation or conjecture. Williams v. State, 54 Ark. App. 352, 927 S.W.2d 801 (1996).

Manufacture of Methamphetamine

Appellant's first argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of manufacturing methamphetamine. The appellant argues that without proof that he exercised care, control and management over the contraband and proof that he knew the matter possessed was contraband, the State cannot establish constructive possession of the contraband and trailer used to manufacture the methamphetamine.

It is not necessary for the State to prove literal physical possession of drugs in order to prove possession. Dodson v. State, 341 Ark. 41, 14 S.W.3d 489 (2000). Constructive possession is sufficient. Franklin v. State, 60 Ark. App. 198, 962 S.W.2d 370 (1998); Bridges v. State, 46 Ark. App. 198, 878 S.W.2d 781 (1994). Constructive possession is the control, or right to control, the contraband in question. Bridges, supra. Constructive possession may be implied where the contraband is found in a place immediately and exclusively accessible to the defendant and subject to his control. Mayo v. State, 70 Ark. App. 453, 20 S.W.3d 419 (2000). However, when there is joint occupancy of the premises where the contraband is seized, some additional factor must be found to link the accused to the contraband. Id., 20 S.W.3d 419. In such an instance the State must establish that (1) the accused exercised care, control, and management over the contraband, and (2) the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband. Stanton v. State, 344 Ark. 589, 42 S.W.3d 474(2001). Control and knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances where there are additional factors linking the accused to the contraband. Williams v. State, 54 Ark. App. 352, 927 S.W.2d 801 (1996).

In the instant case there was a sufficient showing that the appellant exercised care, control, and management over the contraband and knew that the matter possessed was contraband. The evidence clearly established that the camper trailer was located within the curtilage of the property. The State presented evidence, supported by appellant's own testimony, that the property belonged to the appellant. The appellant admitted having access to both the shop and trailer. The State also presented evidence that all the necessary ingredients, solvents, chemicals and hardware necessary to manufacture methamphetamine were found in the camper trailer. A tank of anhydrous ammonia, a key ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine, was found in the shop located near the camper trailer. The facts established that when the officers arrived appellant was in the shop area, when he saw the officers he fled. Prior case law states that flight may be considered corroborating evidence tending to establish guilt. Chapman v. State, supra. The State also presented evidence that scales and a bottle of "Vita-Blend," a cutting agent used to give volume to methamphetamine, were found in the appellant's bedroom.

We find that there was sufficient evidence linking the appellant to the contraband. The evidence was of such a force that control and appellant's knowledge could be inferred from the circumstances without resorting to speculation and conjecture. Therefore, we hold there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's conviction for manufacturingmethamphetamine.

Possession of Ephedrine with Intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine

The appellant also argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-1102 (Repl. 1997) provides: "It shall be unlawful for a person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine . . . with intent to manufacture methamphetamine." Appellant argues the State did not present evidence establishing he was in possession of ephedrine.

The State presented evidence that large quantities of ephedrine were discovered inside the residence. Officer Pat Mahoney testified that ephedrine was found in the bedroom of Camille and David Smith and in a closet. Also, Norman Kemper testified there were 4,944 tablets of ephedrine recovered from the closet. We accept that the ephedrine found in the Smiths' bedroom was not within the appellant's care, control and management. However, we disagree with his argument that there was insufficient evidence to link him to the tablets found in the closet. We hold that based upon the evidence that the residence belonged to the appellant and the large quantity of ephedrine recovered from the closet, a jury would not have to resort to speculation and conjecture to find appellant possessed ephedrine. We conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the appellant's conviction for possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture.

Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Deliver

Appellant's last argument is that the evidence was insufficient to show that he wasin possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Evidence of an actual sale of methamphetamine is not necessary for a conviction of possession with intent to deliver. Owens v. State, 325 Ark. 110, 926 S.W.2d 650 (1996). In Arkansas, possession of more than two hundred milligrams of methamphetamine gives rise to a presumption of intent to deliver. Id., 926 S.W.2d 650; Rabb v. State, 72 Ark. App. 396, 9 S.W.3d 11 (1996).

At trial there was evidence that gave rise to the presumption. Kemper testified that 28.3 grams of methamphetamine base with a yield of 35.2 grams of methamphetamine was recovered along with 55.9 grams of methamphetamine oil which would yield 69.5 grams of powdered methamphetamine. Appellant's possession of the presumptive amount of constituted substantial evidence of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

We agree with the State's argument that there was sufficient evidence to support appellant's convictions. We also find that a jury would not have to resort to speculation and conjecture to convict the appellant on all charges. Therefore, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Hart and Vaught, JJ., agree.