State v. Collins

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

HEATHER LYNN COLLINS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0138

FILED 11-19-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. V1300CR202180105
The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip A. Tomas
Counsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. COLLINS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Heather Lynn Collins appeals her convictions and resulting
probation for possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and
possession of drug paraphernalia. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Collins and her co-defendant, Dean Allen Cotton, resided
together in a house in Cottonwood. Beginning in November 2020, police
officers began surveilling the house for drug activity. Over several weeks,
the officers observed that the house was frequented by individuals with
known drug histories. They also observed vehicles stop at the house and
leave after only a few minutes, which they recognized as a pattern of short-
term traffic indicative of drug sales.

¶3 On January 13, 2021, officers observed a black Hummer pull
up to the house. The driver entered the home for a few minutes, came back
outside, and drove away. Officers requested a search warrant for Cotton’s
and Collins’ house. Officers then executed the search warrant on the house
that evening.

¶4 During the search, officers found a methamphetamine bong
containing burnt residue on the kitchen counter. In a kitchen drawer, they
found a clear, plastic-wrapped bag containing about half a fist-sized
amount (28.72 grams) of methamphetamine, nestled among common
kitchen items such as a pizza cutter, knives, and cooking utensils. The same
drawer also held two smaller baggies of methamphetamine, a metal
scooper with white crystalline residue, and a sandwich-sized Ziploc bag
filled with about 250 unused miniature Ziploc baggies. In an adjacent
kitchen drawer, officers found Collins’ credit card. And in a kitchen cabinet
below the drawer, officers found a digital scale with residue, a
methamphetamine pipe with residue, and two more baggies of
methamphetamine, alongside other standard kitchen items such as baking
sheets and muffin tins.

2
 STATE v. COLLINS
Decision of the Court

¶5 The State charged both Collins and Cotton with possessing
dangerous drugs (methamphetamine) for sale, a class two felony (Count
One); two counts of misconduct involving weapons, each a class four felony
(Counts Two and Three); and two counts of possessing drug paraphernalia,
each a class six felony (Counts Four and Five). After the superior court
granted the State’s motion to consolidate, the State tried Collins and Cotton
together. During trial, the court dismissed Counts Two and Five.

¶6 At trial, an officer testified that he found both male and female
products and clothing throughout Cotton’s and Collins’ home, and no one
else appeared to live with them. He added that the home “seemed like a
married couple’s house,” “[t]here was nothing in there that seemed that it
wasn’t shared property,” and “there wasn’t [sic] any special rooms that
were under lock and key or anything like that.” He explained that the
kitchen was in the middle of the home, and the methamphetamine bong
sitting on the kitchen counter was “kind of a center piece just being out in
the open like that.”

¶7 After the State presented its case-in-chief, Collins moved for
a judgment of acquittal on the remaining counts under Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20. The superior court denied the motion. The
jury found Collins guilty of the lesser-included offense in Count One—
possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine)—and Counts Three
and Four.

¶8 After trial, Collins filed a renewed motion for judgment of
acquittal, or in the alternative, a motion for new trial. The superior court
granted the motion as to Count Three, but denied the motion as to Counts
One and Four. After denying Collins’ motion for reconsideration, the court
sentenced Collins to three years’ probation, including a term of 120 days in
jail, with no presentence incarceration credit. Collins timely appealed. We
have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Collins contends the evidence did not support her convictions
on Counts One and Four, and the superior court should have granted her
renewed motion for judgment of acquittal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(b)(1).

¶10 We review the denial of a Rule 20 motion de novo. State v.
West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). Our review is confined to determining
whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. State v. Pena, 235 Ariz.
277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). Substantial evidence is “proof

3
 STATE v. COLLINS
Decision of the Court

that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support
a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v.
Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419
(1980)). “When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the
facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no
discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603
(1997) (citation omitted). We review the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the verdicts, State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013), and
resolve all conflicts in the evidence against Collins, State v. Bustamante, 229
Ariz. 256, 258, ¶ 5 (App. 2012). “[I]n reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we do not distinguish circumstantial from direct evidence.” State
v. Borquez, 232 Ariz. 484, 487, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).

¶11 To prove Collins committed possession of a dangerous drug,
the State had to show she (1) knowingly possessed a dangerous drug, and
(2) the substance was in fact a dangerous drug. See A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1).
To prove Collins possessed drug paraphernalia, the State had to show she
possessed with the intent to use “drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate,
cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce,
process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject,
ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a drug in
violation of [A.R.S. Title 13, Chapter 34].” See A.R.S. § 13-3415(A).

¶12 Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug. A.R.S. § 13-
3401(6)(c)(xxxviii). A person acts “knowingly” if, “with respect to conduct
or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense,” they are
“aware or believe[]” their “conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance
exists.” A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(b). “Possession” means a person “knowingly
exercised dominion or control over property,” A.R.S. § 13-105(35), and it
may be actual or constructive, State v. Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 9 (App.
2013). “Constructive possession exists when the prohibited property ‘is
found in a place under the defendant’s dominion or control and under
circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant
had actual knowledge of the existence of the property.’” State v. Cox, 214
Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Villavicencio, 108 Ariz. 518,
520 (1972)). “The terms ‘dominion’ and ‘control’ carry their ordinary
meaning, such that dominion means ‘absolute ownership’ and control
means to ‘have power over.’” State v. Ingram, 239 Ariz. 228, 233, ¶ 21 (App.
2016) (quoting Cox, 214 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 9).

¶13 Substantial evidence supports Collins’ convictions for
possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The
evidence showed Collins resided in the house with Cotton and was not just

4
 STATE v. COLLINS
Decision of the Court

a frequent guest. Methamphetamine was stored in their kitchen alongside
commonly used kitchen items, and a methamphetamine bong sat on their
kitchen counter in plain view. Collins’ credit card was in the kitchen
drawer next to the drawer with methamphetamine. “[I]t was the function
of the jury to decide what inferences could be drawn from the evidence.”
State v. Parra, 104 Ariz. 524, 526 (1969) (citation omitted). As the superior
court correctly noted, “A reasonable juror could easily [have] infer[red] that
anyone living in the house could not help but know the drugs and drug
paraphernalia were there.” And further, the residue found on the bong,
scooper, scale, and pipe could support a juror’s reasonable inference that
Collins used or intended to use the paraphernalia.

¶14 Collins purports to have merely occupied the house with
Cotton, suggesting the true possessors of the methamphetamine were
Cotton and his associates. But multiple people can jointly possess property
under the theory of constructive possession. See Ingram, 239 Ariz. at 233,
¶ 22 (citations omitted). Thus, jurors could reasonably conclude that
Collins and Cotton jointly possessed the drugs and paraphernalia found in
their shared home.

¶15 Substantial evidence reasonably supports the conclusion that
Collins possessed a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and drug
paraphernalia, and the superior court did not err in denying her Rule 20
motion as to Counts One and Four.

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV

5