Rodolfo Cabrera appeals from his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine. He asserts that insufficient evidence supports his conviction and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that a confidential informant arranged for a person named Arroyo to deliver two pounds of methamphetamine at a location in Hall County. Police officers set up surveillance at the delivery location and observed a sport utility vehicle park next to the confidential informant’s vehicle. Cabrera was the driver, and Arroyo was seated in the front passenger seat. After the confidential informant identified Arroyo, the police detained both Arroyo and Cabrera. Two dogs trained to detect the odor of drugs separately showed “a strong odor response” to the center console between where Arroyo and Cabrera had been sitting, but the officers did not find any drugs in it. An officer “standing at the back area of the vehicle” saw “a crack on the left-hand side of the vehicle on the interior in the storage area on the plastic on the side of the vehicle.” Another officer went “to the back area,” and after the plastic in the cargo area was pulled out, “reached in and recovered a bag which contained two Tupperware containers which contained . . . approximately two pounds of methamphetamine” worth $89,600. The registered owner of the sport utility vehicle lived at the same address as Cabrera. The police did not find any contraband on Cabrera’s person.
After entering into a guilty plea agreement with Arroyo shortly before Cabrera’s trial, the State called Arroyo as a witness. After acknowledging that he had been charged with and pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Arroyo refused to answer any of the State’s questions. The State also asked numerous leading questions about Cabrera’s involvement in the sale based upon statements made by Arroyo during his guilty plea hearing, and Arroyo refused to answer any of them. The State also asked whether Arroyo had been threatened since he pled guilty, sought to show that he had been in contact with Cabrera in jail, and tried to confirm that Cabrera found out he was going to testify. Arroyo refused to answer these questions as well. While Cabrera’s counsel objected to one of the questions on the ground that it was leading, the trial court overruled it. At the conclusion of its direct examination, the State introduced into evidence, without objection from defense counsel, a transcript from Arroyo’s guilty plea hearing. Later in the trial, defense counsel made a continuing witness objection to the plea colloquy being considered by the jury during their deliberations, and the trial court sustained the objection. A review of the transcript does not reveal that the plea colloquy was ever published or read to the jury.
