×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
WA Conviction of Possession of a Controlled Substance Affirmed
Gary Hutt was a prisoner in the Grant County Jail in Ephrata, Washington.
In November of 2003 Paul Holland left drugs in a toilet tank at a medical
center across the street from the jail, where a prisoner pretending to be
ill could pick them up to smuggle them to Hutt. A receptionist at the
medical center became suspicious and called police, who found the drugs.
Jail prisoners testified that Holland was to leave the drugs in the toilet.
Holland admitted using the medical center restroom the day the drugs were
found there, and his name and other information were found in Hutt's wife's
purse. Holland was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and
of conspiracy to deliver' the same.
On appeal, Division 3 of the Washington Court of Appeals considered
Holland's position that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that
he possessed the drugs. Div. 3 found the above evidence to be more than
sufficient to support the jury's finding that Holland possessed the drugs
and affirmed his convictions. See: State v. Holland, 127 Wash.App. 1019
(Wash.App. Div. 3, 2005) (Not Reported in P.3d).
In November of 2003 Paul Holland left drugs in a toilet tank at a medical
center across the street from the jail, where a prisoner pretending to be
ill could pick them up to smuggle them to Hutt. A receptionist at the
medical center became suspicious and called police, who found the drugs.
Jail prisoners testified that Holland was to leave the drugs in the toilet.
Holland admitted using the medical center restroom the day the drugs were
found there, and his name and other information were found in Hutt's wife's
purse. Holland was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and
of conspiracy to deliver' the same.
On appeal, Division 3 of the Washington Court of Appeals considered
Holland's position that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that
he possessed the drugs. Div. 3 found the above evidence to be more than
sufficient to support the jury's finding that Holland possessed the drugs
and affirmed his convictions. See: State v. Holland, 127 Wash.App. 1019
(Wash.App. Div. 3, 2005) (Not Reported in P.3d).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State v. Holland
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 127 Wash.App. 1019 (Wash.App. Div. 3, 2005) (Not R |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent v. PAUL CHARLES HOLLAND, Appellant
No. 23015-5-III
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE
127 Wn. App. 1019; 2005 Wash. App.
May 3, 2005, Decided
NOTICE: [*1] DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 04-1-00026-5, John M. Antosz, J., entered May 18, 2004. State v. Holland, 2005 Wash. App. (Wash. Ct. App., May 3, 2005)
JUDGES: Sweeney, A.C.J., and Schultheis, J.
OPINION:
Affirmed by [*2] unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Sweeney, A.C.J., and Schultheis, J.
No. 23015-5-III
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE
127 Wn. App. 1019; 2005 Wash. App.
May 3, 2005, Decided
NOTICE: [*1] DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 04-1-00026-5, John M. Antosz, J., entered May 18, 2004. State v. Holland, 2005 Wash. App. (Wash. Ct. App., May 3, 2005)
JUDGES: Sweeney, A.C.J., and Schultheis, J.
OPINION:
Affirmed by [*2] unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Sweeney, A.C.J., and Schultheis, J.