Darrius Capers was tried by a jury and found guilty of distributing cocaine and using a communication facility to facilitate a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substance Act “GCSA”. He appeals from the convictions entered on the verdict, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm his convictions. 1. Capers’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence is construed in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.1 This Court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia. 2 So long as there is some competent evidence to support each element of the state’s case, the verdict will be upheld.3
So viewed, the evidence shows that a confidential informant agreed to assist the sheriff’s department in a controlled drug buy. Using a phone number he already had, the informant telephoned Capers, who he knew as “D,” and asked to buy fifty dollars worth of cocaine. Capers told the informant to meet him at Capers’ apartment, and the men ended the conversation. Because the sheriff’s deputy would not be able to observe the activity at the apartment, the informant paged Capers so an alternate meeting place could be arranged. Capers called the informant back, and they arranged to meet at a Shell gas station. Capers instructed the informant to stand at the gas station pay telephone and pretend to use the phone while he waited. A tape recording and transcript of those conversations were admitted into evidence. The informant identified the voices on the tape as belonging to him and Capers. The informant also identified Capers as the man he knew as “D,” and positively identified Capers as the man involved in the transaction.
