Before McMILLIN, P.j., Diaz, And King, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam:
PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/95
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BILBO MITCHELL
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DELIVERY OF COCAINE: SENTENCED TO 10 YRS TO SERVE IN THE MDOC & ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF COURT OF $234.50, LAB FEE OF $100. AS WELL AS FINE OF $1,000.
Johnny Gill was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County of sale of cocaine and sentenced to a term of ten years imprisonment. On appeal Gill contends that the evidence submitted by the State was insufficient to convict him of the sale of cocaine. We find no error and affirm the judgment and sentence.
On August 24, 1994, narcotics officers with the Meridian/Lauderdale County Drug Task Force set out to make a controlled buy in the Davis Court and Victory Village area of Meridian. Undercover Agent Lee Wilson was sent out with a confidential informant (CI). When they reached the particular neighborhood the CI noticed someone standing at the intersection and stopped the automobile. That individual came over to the car. The CI asked for forty dollars worth of crack cocaine for his friend and the individual got into the car. As they drove around, the individual sold Agent Wilson two rocks of cocaine.
After the buy, Agent Wilson was able to pick out the photograph of Gill as the person from whom he bought the cocaine. Wilson testified that he was paying close attention to Gill during the buy for purposes of making a later identification. Wilson positively identified Gill in court. Wilson stated that his in-court identification was based on his own recognition of Gill and not on the CI's identification or upon a photograph of Gill.
Gill denied making the sale and testified that he was with his girlfriend on the day in question, but could not remember exactly where they were or what they did. The girlfriend was not called to testify.
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to disturb the jury's verdict is quite limited. Clayton v. State, 652 So. 2d 720, 724 (Miss. 1995). We consider the evidence in the light most consistent with the verdict. Id. The prosecution must be given the benefit of "all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Id. We may not reverse unless one or more of the elements of the offense charged is such that ...