On November 11, 2009, Victor Cantrell sold cocaine to a confidential informant and an undercover police officer, and he did so within 1,000 feet of the Butler Street Apartments, a housing complex apparently operated by the Gainesville Housing Authority. Cantrell subsequently was tried by a Hall County jury and convicted of unlawful sale of a controlled substance, an act prohibited by OCGA § 16-13-30 b, and unlawful distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a “housing project,” an act prohibited by OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b. On appeal, no one disputes that the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to sustain the former conviction, but Cantrell argues that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the latter. The problem is, he says, that no evidence at trial shows that the Butler Street Apartments were occupied by low or moderate-income families, which, according to our precedents, is necessary to prove that a housing complex is a “housing project,” as that term is used in OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b. We agree that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a housing project, and we are constrained to reverse that conviction.1
For the purposes of OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b, “housing project” means “any facilities under the jurisdiction of a housing authority which constitute single or multifamily dwelling units occupied by low and moderate-income families pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 8.” OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b. As we have explained before, when the State prosecutes someone under OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b, it must prove that the housing complex at issue is, in fact, a “housing project,” and that requires, among other things, proof that the complex consists of dwelling units occupied by low and moderate-income families. See, e.g., Quarterman v. State, 305 Ga. App. 686, 689-690 1 a 700 SE2d 674 2010 reversing conviction under OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b where State failed to offer competent evidence that housing complex was “occupied by low and moderate-income families”; Williams v. State, 303 Ga. App. 222, 224 1 692 SE2d 820 2010 same; Mahone v. State, 296 Ga. App. 373, 376 3 674 SE2d 411 2009 same; Collins v. State, 278 Ga. App. 103, 106 1 b 628 SE2d 148 2006 same; Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. App. 77, 81 2 447 SE2d 74 1994 same.
