from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 330, 319 Honorable Charles
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Peggy J. Sullivan Counsel for
E. STEWART, SR. District Attorney Counsel for Appellee
REBECCA A. EDWARDS JANET L. SILVIE Assistant District
MOORE, GARRETT, and CARAWAY (ad hoc), JJ.
defendant, Jakeith L. Francis, was found guilty by a jury of
one count of attempted possession of a Schedule III
controlled dangerous substance ("CDS")
(acetaminophen with codeine), in violation of La. R.S.
40:968(C) and La. R.S. 14:27, and one count of attempted
possession of a Schedule II CDS (methamphetamine), in
violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) and La. R.S. 14:27. He was
sentenced to serve 12 months at hard labor on each count,
with the sentences to be served concurrently, and was given
credit for time served. He appeals, claiming there was
insufficient evidence to support his convictions. For the
following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
February 12, 2015, Francis was stopped for speeding by
Officers Joseph Bassett and Josh Owen of the Shreveport
Police Department. Francis's girlfriend, Euradell Lewis,
was a passenger in the car. Officer Bassett smelled a strong
odor of marijuana and removed Francis and Lewis from the
vehicle. One of the officers noticed a bulge in Lewis's
clothing. She gave the officer a plastic bag containing
various drugs. According to Lewis, when the officers
activated their lights to pull Francis over, he removed the
bag from his pocket, threw it into her lap, and told her to
Francis and Lewis were arrested. Francis was originally
charged with possession of acetaminophen with codeine,
possession of marijuana, second offense, and possession of
Ecstasy ("MDMA"). The bill of information was later
amended to charge him with possession of acetaminophen with
codeine and possession of methamphetamine. He was tried by
jury on February 2, 2016, and was convicted of the responsive
verdicts of attempted possession on both counts. He was
sentenced as set forth above. On appeal, he claims the
evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions.
standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the
evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560
(1979); State v. Tate, 2001-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851
So.2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct.
1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004); State v. Carter, 42,
894 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1/9/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ
denied, 2008-0499 (La. 11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1086;
State v. Crossley, 48, 149 (La.App. 2d Cir.
6/26/13), 117 So.3d 585, writ denied, 2013-1798 (La.
2/14/14), 132 So.3d 410. This standard, now legislatively
embodied in La.C.Cr.P. art. 821, does not provide the
appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own
appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder.
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d
517; State v. Dotie, 43, 819 (La.App. 2d Cir.
1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.
11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297; State v. Crossley, supra.
Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving
both direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court
reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in such cases must
resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When
the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by
the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances
established by that evidence must be sufficient for a
rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of
the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La.
1983); State v. Speed, 43, 786 (La.App. 2d Cir.
1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582, writ denied, 2009-0372 (La.
11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299; State v. Crossley, supra.
there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the
resolution of which depends upon a determination of the
credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight
of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Speed,
supra; State v. Allen, 36, 180 (La.App. 2d Cir.
9/18/02), 828 So.2d 622, writs denied, 2002-2595
(La. 3/28/03), 840 So.2d 566, 2002-2997 (La. 6/27/03), 847
So.2d 1255, cert. denied,540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct.
1404, 158 L.Ed.2d 90 (2004); State v. Crossley,
supra. In the absence of internal contradiction or
irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one