State v. Morisset

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Geronimo
Morisset, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-476

Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed
November 1, 2010 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Geronimo
Morisset appeals his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base crack, trafficking cocaine in excess of
ten grams but less than twenty-eight grams, and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a violent crime.  On appeal, Morisset contends the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State
failed to prove Morisset exercised dominion and control over the area where the
drugs were found.  We disagree.

South Carolina courts have "repeatedly recognized that a
conviction for possession of contraband drugs requires proof of actual or
constructive possession, coupled with knowledge of the presence of the drugs."  State v. Halyard, 274 S.C. 397, 400,
264 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1980).  "Constructive
possession occurs when the person charged with possession has dominion and
control over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs were found."  State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 45, 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995).  "Such
possession may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence."
 Halyard, 274 S.C. at 400, 264 S.E.2d at 842.  "When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial
court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its
weight."  State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648
(2006). 

The
State produced evidence of Morisset's dominion and control over the entire
residence where the drugs and gun were found: Morisset was the only resident present
at the time of the search, police found paperwork associating Morisset to the
residence in the living room and bedroom, and police found Morisset's GED
certificate displayed on the living room wall.  The Record also revealed drugs as
well as drug manufacturing and distribution materials in the residence.  Thus,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence
supported submitting the case to the jury. 

AFFIRMED.[1]

FEW,
C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.