A Crisp County jury found Gary Bass guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, OCGA § 16-13-30 j 1, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a housing project, OCGA § 16-13-32.5 b. He appeals pro se from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the prosecutor knowingly presented perjured testimony, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance of the hearing on his motion for new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm. 1. In support of his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, Bass asserts that the evidence against him was uncorroborated and contradicted by the testimony of defense witnesses. Specifically, Bass complains that none of the State’s witnesses corroborated the testimony of the officer who arrested him and who subsequently discovered four packages of marijuana and a money bag inside his truck. He also claims that the officer’s testimony regarding where the officer apprehended him was contradicted by the testimony of his defense witnesses. Regardless whether Bass’ contentions are true, however, they do not demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
a When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or her conviction, “the relevant question 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 beyond a reasonable doubt.” Citation omitted; emphasis in original. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 III B 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. It is the function of the jury, not this Court, to resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Id. In fact, “a jury is authorized to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of witnesses, and it serves as the arbiter of conflicts in the evidence before it.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Bray v. State , 294 Ga. App. 562, 563 1 669 SE2d 509 2008.
