No application to university campus.

- Because the crime for possession of marijuana and a firearm took place on a university campus, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4 had no application. Carter v. State, 319 Ga. App. 609, 737 S.E.2d 714 (2013).

Evidence of selling controlled substance sufficient.

- When a police officer set up surveillance of an area located within 1,000 feet of an elementary school and 1,000 feet of a public housing project using a video camera, observed the defendant sell cocaine or marijuana in five transactions, and described the buyers to other police officers who apprehended the buyers and found the buyers in possession of the drugs which the defendant had sold the buyers, the videotape of the transactions and the testimony of the observing police officer along with the laboratory evidence regarding the drugs that were recovered from the various buyers was sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions under the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-20 et seq., on five counts of selling a controlled substance and additional counts of selling the drugs within 1,000 feet of a school and selling the drugs within 1,000 feet of a public housing project. Robinson v. State, 259 Ga. App. 595, 578 S.E.2d 235 (2003).

Sufficient evidence for conviction.

- Evidence held sufficient for possessing cocaine, possessing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a housing project, and attempted bribery, where police officers observed defendant engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction, they thereafter found cocaine on the sidewalk where defendant had been standing and cocaine in defendant's pockets, and defendant told a police officer who was counting defendant's money to take it and defendant's watch, and that defendant would pay the officer more in a week if the officer would let defendant go. Hester v. State, 261 Ga. App. 614, 583 S.E.2d 274 (2003).

Evidence that when a buyer went to the defendant's residence, the defendant had cocaine, which defendant then sold to the buyer, was sufficient to prove the elements of possession with intent to distribute for purposes of finding violations of O.C.G.A. §§ 16-13-32.4(a) and16-13-32.5(a). Smith v. State, 278 Ga. App. 315, 628 S.E.2d 722 (2006).

Defendant's conviction of possession of drugs with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4(a) was supported by sufficient evidence in the form of the testimony of police who searched the defendant's home, of the evidence custodian, of the forensic chemist who tested the drugs, and of a house mate who witnessed the defendant selling drugs. Harkins v. State, 281 Ga. App. 512, 636 S.E.2d 698 (2006).

In the possession of drugs with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4(a) case, the defendant's argument, that the evidence supported a reasonable hypothesis of innocence because the evidence showed that the prohibited conduct took place entirely within a private residence, failed; the reasonable hypothesis rule was inapplicable since there was direct evidence of the defendant's guilt in the form of admissions by the defendant and the defendant's boyfriend and in the form of testimony by the defendant's house mate who witnessed the defendant selling drugs. Harkins v. State, 281 Ga. App. 512, 636 S.E.2d 698 (2006).

Sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school, despite an argument on appeal that no evidence of either actual or constructive possession was presented, as: (1) sufficient additional evidence, albeit circumstantial, tied the defendant to said crimes and established more than the defendant's mere presence to the drugs seized; and (2) the proved facts excluded any reasonable hypotheses that a crime could have been committed by anyone else. Slaughter v. State, 282 Ga. App. 276, 638 S.E.2d 417 (2006).

There was sufficient evidence to support convictions of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30(b), possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a housing project under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.5(b), and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a public school under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4(a), based on the traffic to and from the defendant's trailer an investigator witnessed, the hand-to-hand exchanges the investigator witnessed, the 1.66 grams of crack cocaine, broken into pieces, that was recovered after one hand-to-hand exchange, and the fact that the trailer park was within 1,000 feet of a housing project and a public school. Smith v. State, 291 Ga. App. 353, 662 S.E.2d 176 (2008).

Given an alternative school's security officer's actual observation of a hand-to-hand exchange from a juvenile to another student at the school and the discovery of marijuana in the recipient's hand immediately thereafter, the only reasonable hypothesis was that the juvenile had just possessed the marijuana satisfying former O.C.G.A. § 24-4-6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-14-6). In the Interest of T. M., 303 Ga. App. 322, 693 S.E.2d 574 (2010).

Officer's testimony regarding the location of parks, schools, and public housing in the area, the distance of which was confirmed through use of a global positioning system, supported the defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of public housing, within 1,000 feet of a state park, and within 1,000 feet of a school. Evans v. State, 318 Ga. App. 706, 734 S.E.2d 527 (2012).

Evidence that the smell of chemicals associated with methamphetamine production were detected inside and outside a shed where the defendant resided and that the shed contained empty plastic bags of a type used in the distribution or storage of drugs, a used baggie with methamphetamine residue, and a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue supported the defendant's convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession with the intent to distribute of a controlled substance near a school. Pennington v. State, Ga. App. , 816 S.E.2d 762 (2018).

Insufficient evidence.

- Evidence that juvenile was in the same dressing room with another boy and departed the area just before marijuana was discovered on the other boy and that the juvenile was later found to have $269 in the juvenile's possession was not sufficient to support a delinquency adjudication for violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4. In re A.D.C., 228 Ga. App. 829, 493 S.E.2d 38 (1997).

Jury instruction.

- Defendant was not entitled to an affirmative defense jury instruction under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4(g), relating to prohibited conduct occurring entirely inside a private residence, in a possession of drugs with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of § 16-13-32.4(a) case; there was no evidence that the affirmative defense was applicable as there was no evidence that the drug possession was not for the purpose of financial gain. Harkins v. State, 281 Ga. App. 512, 636 S.E.2d 698 (2006).

Because the defendant did not admit that the defendant possessed with intent to distribute methamphetamine, the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense in O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.4(g). Pennington v. State, Ga. App. , 816 S.E.2d 762 (2018).

ALR.

- Validity, construction, and application of state statutes prohibiting sale or possession of controlled substances within specified distance of schools, 27 A.L.R.5th 593.

Validity, construction, and application of state statutes enhancing penalty for sale or possession of controlled substances within specified distance of playgrounds, 23 A.L.R.6th 679.

What constitutes "aggravated felony" for which alien can be deported or removed under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) - marijuana offenses under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(43)(B), 76 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1.

What constitutes "aggravated felony" for which alien can be deported or removed under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) - cocaine and crack cocaine offenses under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(43)(B), 76 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 61.

What constitutes "aggravated felony" for which alien can be deported or removed under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) - heroin offenses under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(43)(B), 78 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 133.

What constitutes "aggravated felony" for which aliens can be deported or removed under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) - illicit methamphetamine offenses under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(43)(B), 78 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 151.

What constitutes "aggravated felony" for which alien can be deported or removed under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) - Miscellaneous or unspecified narcotics offenses under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(43)(B), 79 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 335.