Following a jury trial, Vu Tran was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute.1 In this out-of-time appeal, Tran challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and further contends that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury as to the lesser included charge of simple possession.2 He also alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. For reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, and Tran no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.3 We neither weigh the evidence nor resolve issues of witness credibility, but determine only whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.4
So viewed, the evidence shows that a confidential informant advised the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department that he had arranged to buy drugs from an individual at 3:00 p.m. on April 20, 2004, in the parking lot of a restaurant. The informant racially identified the male involved in the transaction and indicated that he would be driving a maroon Toyota Tundra. The police set up surveillance at the restaurant, where they observed Tran drive a maroon Toyota Tundra into the restaurant parking lot at approximately 3:15 p.m. on April 20. One of the officers saw Tran reach through the back window of the vehicle and place a paper bag into the truck bed. The police instructed Tran to exit the vehicle, and they placed him in a patrol car. After the K-9 unit arrived at the scene, the dog alerted on the truck. The police searched the vehicle and found $2,420 in cash over the visor, razor blades, plastic baggies, and a scale in a compartment under the seat, and two sandwich bags with ten pills each in a bag in the bed of the truck. The pills tested positive for 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine “MDMA” or “ecstasy”.
