Barnett v. State

Following denial of his motion to suppress, Derrick Barnett was convicted at a bench trial of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He appeals, contending that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress; the evidence was legally insufficient; and that the trial court erred “by denying appellant a supersedeas bond pending his appeal.” Finding no error, we affirm. 1. We first consider Barnett’s second enumeration, attacking the sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and Barnett no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. The factfinder’s verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Citations and footnotes omitted. Haywood v. State , 248 Ga. App. 210 546 SE2d 325 2001. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

So viewed, the evidence was that, around 9:00 p.m. on September 26, 2003, Washington police officer Bridges, with his canine Boris, was on patrol in his marked canine unit when he saw a pickup truck operating with one headlight out. Bridges initiated a traffic stop and found Derrick Barnett driving the truck, with no passengers. Bridges asked Barnett for his driver’s license and proof of insurance, which Barnett provided. Bridges then advised Barnett of the headlight problem and that Bridges was going to do an open air search around the truck with Boris. Barnett was told to stay in the truck with his windows up, for his safety, during this search.