Erik Flountez Gardner a/k/a Erik Gardner a/k/a Eric F. Gardner a/k/a Eric Gardner a/k/a Eric Flountez Gardner a/k/a Erik Floutez Gardner v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: April 14, 2026
• Docket: 2025-KA-00298-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2025-KA-00298-COA

ERIK FLOUNTEZ GARDNER A/K/A ERIK APPELLANT GARDNER A/K/A ERIC F. GARDNER A/K/A ERIC GARDNER A/K/A ERIC FLOUNTEZ GARDNER A/K/A ERIK FLOUTEZ GARDNER

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/06/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAVID H. STRONG JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JOSEPH SCOTT HEMLEBEN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: WILLIAM BRENDON ADAMS NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/14/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A driver was pulled over by law enforcement after running a stop sign. Officers found

marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and two firearms in his SUV. As a result, the vehicle

was impounded overnight at a local body shop, and the next morning body shop employees

found a baggie full of fentanyl pills behind the gas cap of the SUV.

¶2. The driver was later indicted and found guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon,

trafficking of fentanyl, and aggravated trafficking of methamphetamine. On appeal, he only

takes issue with his conviction for the trafficking of fentanyl. He claims the proof was insufficient to find he had constructive possession of the fentanyl, and that the verdict was

against the weight of the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS

¶3. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Minutes before midnight, Erik Gardner was

stopped by law enforcement in Brookhaven while driving a black Ford Excursion. After he

pulled over, officers smelled the odor of marijuana seeping out of the SUV. Gardner and the

sole passenger, his sister, were subsequently ordered out of the Ford.

¶4. A search led to the discovery of a digital scale with a white, powdery residue in the

center console area of the Excursion. Bodycam footage showed that officers also popped the

hood of the SUV, and a duffel bag was found by the engine. It contained two handguns, a

quantity of methamphetamine, and crack cocaine.

¶5. Gardner was read his rights and taken into custody. Gardner told law enforcement that

his sister did not know anything regarding the drugs. Gardner’s SUV was impounded and

promptly transported to a local body shop.

¶6. The next morning, one of the body shop’s employees arrived for work. The Excursion

blocked his path, so he looked for the keys to move it out of the way. Unable to find the keys

inside the vehicle, he looked behind the gas cap. When it was opened, a cellophane bag full

of blue pills fell out. The authorities were called, and testing later revealed there were 184

pills and they were fentanyl.

¶7. A search of Gardner’s phone revealed an image of him posing next to a black Ford

Excursion while holding a handgun. It also contained a video of Gardner counting out

2 blue-colored pills.

¶8. Consequently, Gardner was indicted on three counts. First, for unlawful possession

of a firearm by a felon; second, for the unlawful trafficking of at least forty dosage units of

fentanyl; and third, for aggravated trafficking of at least two hundred grams of

methamphetamine. Counts two and three were charged with a firearm enhancement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶9. At trial, the state called a half dozen witnesses. First was one of the Mississippi

Bureau of Narcotics agents who had stopped Gardner. He explained the circumstances of

the stop and that law enforcement had found meth, cocaine, and handguns in the Excursion.

He also told the jury that Gardner had told him his sister was not involved with the drugs, and

that “if it wasn’t hers, then it had to be his.” The agent also explained the discovery of the

dozens of fentanyl pills hidden behind the gas cap.

¶10. Lincoln County Sheriff Steve Rushing took the stand to discuss a phone call Gardner

made while housed in the local jail. Calls out were recorded, and the jury heard a call

Gardner made to a woman where he said, “[T]hey got me,” and that law enforcement “looked

under the hood, and they found it.”

¶11. The jury also heard from the tow truck driver for the body shop where the Excursion

was towed. He explained the body shop was surrounded by a cyclone fence, but it did not

have barbed wire. He detailed that motion-sensitive cameras were all around the fence. The

cameras were sensitive enough that they were set off “all the time” by wandering dogs or

cats.

3 ¶12. The State also put on proof from the State crime lab, which had tested and determined

that law enforcement had seized 624.53 grams of methamphetamine, as well as 184 pills of

fentanyl and some partial tablets.

¶13. Once the State rested, the defense moved for a directed verdict. The defense argued

that “the chain of custody was lost on the vehicle itself” and the fact that the SUV was left

at a private lot overnight raised enough doubt as to who was in possession of the fentanyl

pills discovered the following day. The trial court denied the motion.

¶14. Gardner took the stand to testify in his defense. Gardner first attempted to argue that

he believed the initial stop was illegal, but admitted he “rolled [the] stop” sign that led to him

initially being pulled over. Defense counsel asked him, “[W]hat do you state to the jury

regarding your guilt or innocence[?]” Gardner responded, “I’m guilty, and I’m innocent.”

While he was not going to concede guilt on “all three counts,” he cryptically stated “some

of the counts I’m both.”

¶15. But when asked specifically about the fentanyl pills discovered behind the gas cap,

Gardner stated he had “no knowledge of that.” In the end, Gardner testified, “I’m not

necessarily innocent, but I’m not necessarily guilty, too.”

¶16. On cross-examination, when the prosecution directly asked him about the

methamphetamine found under the hood of his SUV, Gardner responded that he wanted to

“plead no content,” attempting to avoid answering the question as to whether he knew it was

there. The trial judge instructed Gardner to answer. The defendant reluctantly responded

that the meth “wasn’t mine, but it was found in my truck.” The district attorney asked who

4 the drugs belonged to, and Gardner said, “I don’t know.” The defendant was asked if the

“Dope fairy” brought the drugs, and Gardner responded that there was “[n]ot no dope fairy.”

He also disclaimed that the guns belonged to him.

¶17. As to the fentanyl pills discovered the next morning, Gardner conceded, contrary to

the theory of his defense, that “nobody was trying to set me up.” Instead, he testified to the

jury that the search of his SUV was the only set up, which he again proclaimed to be illegal.

¶18. While still on cross-examination, the State brought in images and videos discovered

on Gardner’s cell phone. Specifically, the State asked about a picture that showed Gardner

holding a gun that was the same make and model of the gun taken from under the hood at the

scene. Gardner responded that it did not matter that the guns looked the same—“if you ain’t

got the serial number, that means it’s not the same gun.”

¶19. Following this, the State asked about a video found on Gardner’s phone that depicted

him counting little blue pills like those found in the baggie hidden behind the gas cap.

Gardner answered by explaining to the jury that the video was from “over a year” ago and

that the pills pictured were his “Xanax pills,” not fentanyl.

¶20. The State circled back to the methamphetamine and asked Gardner to whom it

belonged. He admitted “if it’s in my truck, evidently, it’s in my possession.” When asked

if this reasoning also applied to the fentanyl pills discovered behind his SUV’s gas cap,

Gardner responded, “I don’t know nothing about no fentanyl pills.”

¶21. The jury found Gardner guilty of all three charges. Gardner timely appealed and the

case was assigned to this Court for review.

5 DISCUSSION

¶22. On appeal, Gardner does not attack the convictions relating to his possession of

methamphetamine or firearms. He only argues that the evidence was insufficient to support

the conviction for unlawful possession of fentanyl and that the verdict was contrary to the

weight of the evidence in relation to the conviction for unlawful possession of fentanyl.

Finding no error, we affirm.

I. There was sufficient evidence that Gardner constructively possessed the fentanyl pills.

¶23. Gardner first argues that the evidence produced by the State was “insufficient for

conviction” in regard to the charge for possession of fentanyl. Through appointed appellate

counsel, he contends that “since [he] did not have exclusive access to the Excursion, and

since more than one person had access to the vehicle,” this showed he did not have

constructive possession of the pills.

¶24. “We review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” Jones v.

State, 380 So. 3d 974, 980 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Johnson v. State, 904 So.

2d 162, 166 (¶7) (Miss. 2005)). We view the evidence in the “light most favorable to the

State.” Id. “We determine if any rational juror could have found the essential elements of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williams v. State, 285 So. 3d 156, 159 (¶11) (Miss.

2019). “We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether

we think the State proved the elements.” Poole v. State, 46 So. 3d 290, 293-94 (¶20) (Miss.

2010). “Rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the state

did.” Id. at 294 (¶20).

6 ¶25. Mississippi law holds that it is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally

to possess any controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or

pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his

professional practice[.]” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(c) (Supp. 2022). “To establish

possession of a controlled substance, the State must produce evidence that a defendant (1)

was aware of the presence of a substance, (2) was aware of the character of the substance,

and (3) was consciously and intentionally in possession of the substance.” Williams v. State,

334 So. 3d 68, 73 (¶5) (Miss. 2022) (citing Haynes v. State, 250 So. 3d 1241, 1244-45 (¶8)

(Miss. 2018)). “Possession can be actual or constructive.” Walker v. State, 390 So. 3d 504,

509 (¶14) (Miss. 2024).

¶26. Actual possession will be found when “the drug is actually found on the defendant’s

person (i.e., in his hands, mouth, pockets, etc.).” Sills v. State, 359 So. 3d 603, 610 (¶35)

(Miss. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Glidden v. State, 74 So. 3d 342, 348

(¶20) (Miss. 2011)). Meanwhile, “[c]onstructive possession exists where the contraband was

not found in the defendant’s actual physical possession but was ‘subject to the defendant’s

dominion or control.’” Walker, 390 So. 3d at 509 (¶14) (quoting Curry v. State, 249 So. 2d

414, 416 (Miss. 1971); see also Terry v. State, 309 So. 3d 1071, 1075 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App.

2020) (“when the defendant owns or controls the premises where the contraband is found,

there is a presumption of constructive possession of the contraband”) (quoting Jordan v.

State, 158 So. 3d 348, 351 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)).

¶27. In regard to “constructive possession, the State has to prove the defendant was aware

7 of the drug and intentionally, but not necessarily physically, in possession of it.” Sills, 359

So. 3d at 610 (¶35) (emphasis in original).

¶28. Gardner’s core theory at trial and on appeal is that he did not have constructive

possession of the fentanyl. During trial, he testified that he believed someone was setting

him up, and said he had no knowledge the pills were hidden behind the gas cap of the Ford.

On appeal, counsel argues there also was a major break in the time between Gardner’s arrest

and when the pills were found, and that other people had access to the SUV after it was

towed to the body shop.

¶29. These are defenses to constructive possession, but as this Court reasoned in Clemts,

this Court must consider all of “the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.”

Clemts v. State, 350 So. 3d 1165, 1169 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (citing Jones v. State, 330

So. 3d 793, 803 (¶35) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)). The jury heard Gardner say the Ford belonged

to him, repeatedly calling it “my truck.” They saw a photo of Gardner with the SUV. Scales

were inside the cabin, and meth and guns were under the hood—all of which Gardner agreed

were found inside his truck. While Gardner’s trial strategy was to cast doubt on the security

at the body shop where the SUV was impounded, the jury heard testimony that the shop was

rigged with a cyclone fence and cameras so sensitive they would go off when a cat walked

past.

¶30. The jury also heard a phone call Gardner made from jail where he talked about how

“they got me,” and they saw a video he took of himself counting out blue pills that looked

very similar to the fentanyl pills found behind the gas cap. The jury also heard from Gardner

8 himself, who told them “I’m not necessarily innocent, but I’m not necessarily guilty, too.”

¶31. Given the evidence produced at trial, we find there was sufficient evidence to support

the jury’s guilty verdict. Accordingly, we affirm.

II. The jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

¶32. Next, Gardner contends he is entitled to a “reversal with remand for a new trial”

because the charge for possession of the fentanyl “lack[s] additional incriminating evidence

to connect him beyond a reasonable doubt” to the possession of the fentanyl pills.

Particularly, he argues that the only facts established at trial were that “the fentanyl was not

found until the next day; multiple people had access to the vehicle; and [that] Gardner denied

any knowledge of the drugs.”

¶33. “A challenge to the weight of the evidence addresses the trial judge’s denial of a

motion for a new trial, which we review only for an abuse of discretion.” Perkins v. State,

392 So. 3d 690, 695 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288, 292

(¶21) (Miss. 2017)). The role of this Court is to “view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict and disturb the verdict only when it is so contrary to the

overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an

unconscionable injustice.” Little, 233 So. 3d at 289 (¶1).

¶34. Importantly, “[w]e do not reweigh evidence. We do not reassess the witnesses’

credibility. And we do not resolve conflicts between evidence. Those decisions belong

solely to the jury.” Id.

¶35. Taking all the evidence discussed above into account, we cannot say that the jury’s

9 verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Gardner argues there was

little proof the fentanyl was in his constructive possession. However, the jury was

empowered to determine the credibility of each witness, including Gardner, and resolve any

potential conflicts between the evidence presented to them. It was undisputed that Gardner

was driving the SUV, that he called it his truck, and that the baggie of fentanyl pills was

found behind its gas cap.

¶36. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gardner’s motion for

a new trial.

CONCLUSION

¶37. For the above-stated reasons, we affirm Gardner’s convictions and sentences as to all

counts.

¶38. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, EMFINGER, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.