The opinion
TYSON, Judge
dissenting.
The majority’s opinion concludes the State failed to present sufficient evidence tending to show defendant constructively possessed two packages of crack cocaine and holds the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of possession of cocaine. The majority’s opinion reverses the trial court’s order and remands this case with instructions to dismiss the possession of cocaine charge and vacate defendant’s habitual felon status. I disagree, vote to affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss, and find no error in the jury’s verdict or the judgment entered thereon. I respectfully dissent.
I. Standard of Review
The standard for ruling on a motion to dismiss is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged and (2) that defendant is the perpetrator of the offense. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court'must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. Any contradictions or discrepancies arising *129 from the evidence are properly left for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal.
State v. Wood, 174 N.C. App. 790, 795 , 622 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
II. Analysis
Possession of a controlled substance can be actual or constructive. State v. Baldwin, 161 N.C. App. 382, 391 , 588 S.E.2d 497, 504-05 (2003). “Constructive possession of a substance applies where the defendant has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. ... If the defendant’s possession over the premises is nonexclusive, constructive possession may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.” State v. Autry, 101 N.C. App. 245, 251-52 , 399 S.E.2d 357, 361-62 (1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
“A defendant’s presence on the premises and close proximity to a controlled substance is a circumstance which may support an inference of constructive possession.” State v. Kraus, 147 N.C. App. 766, 770 , 557 S.E.2d 144, 148 (2001) (quoting State v. Givens, 95 N.C. App. 72, 78 , 381 S.E.2d 869, 872 (1989)); see also State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 12-13 , 187 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1972) (internal citation and quotation omitted) (“[T]he State may overcome a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment as of nonsuit by presenting evidence which places the accused within such close juxtaposition to the narcotic drugs as to justify the jury in concluding that the same was in his possession.”). “[C]onstructive possession depends on the totality of circumstances in each case. No single factor controls, but ordinarily the question will be for the jury.” State v. James, 81 N.C. App. 91, 93 , 344 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1986) (citation omitted).
In State v. Autry, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the defendant’s charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, where evidence tended to show: (1) the defendant was found standing in a kitchen with two other people in a residence in which he did not live; (2) a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol, four packages containing cocaine, and $47.00 in cash were located on a table inside the kitchen; (3) the table was surrounded by chairs and within arm’s reach of the defendant; and (4) the defendant admitted his jacket was hanging on one of the chairs and the $47.00 in cash belonged to him. 101 N.C. App. at 252 , 399 S.E.2d at 362 .
*130 Because the defendant in Autry claimed ownership of two of the four items on the table, this Court concluded the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable mind to infer that the defendant constructively possessed the cocaine, an essential element of the charge of possession with the intent to sell or deliver cocaine. Id. at 252-53 , 399 S.E.2d at 362 ; see also State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 570 , 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984) (holding the defendant had constructive possession of cocaine based upon evidence tending to show: (1) the defendant was found in the apartment with two other people when officers conducted a search; (2) cocaine was located on a table approximatély six to eight inches away from where the defendant was standing when police arrived; and (3) officers recovered a key to the apartment and $1,700.00 in cash from the defendant’s pockets).
The factual backgrounds presented in Autry and Brown are analogous to the facts at bar. The evidence presented at trial tended to show defendant was found with one other person in a small bedroom, located in a residence upon which officers had executed a search warrant. Winston-Salem Police Officer A. J. Santos (“Officer Santos”) testified that upon entering the bedroom he observed an individual sitting in a chair located in the “back right corner” of the room. Defendant was sitting on the corner of the foot of-the bed facing the door. As officers approached, defendant “slid off the bed onto the floor,” approximately one to two feet away from the door.
Once officers had secured the scene, a secondary search was conducted. Officers recovered two plastic bags containing a white, rock-like substance, later shown to be crack cocaine. One package was recovered from behind the door, which both Officer Santos and Detective Paul opined was an area within defendant’s reach prior to being handcuffed. A second package of crack cocaine was recovered from the bed where defendant had been seated. Officers also found defendant’s driver’s license and birth certificate on top of a TV stand located within the bedroom. Finally, a search of defendant’s person revealed an undisclosed amount of money in his pockets.
Giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, defendant’s close proximity to both packages containing crack cocaine and the presence of other items that belonged to and positively identified defendant is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that defendant had the “power and intent” to exercise control over the two packages of cocaine recovered from the bedroom. Autry, 101 N.C. App. at 252 , 399 S.E.2d at 362 .
*131 The State presented “substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged and (2) that defendant is the perpetrator of the offense.” Wood, 174 N.C. App. at 795 , 622 S.E.2d at 123 . The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and submitted the possession of cocaine charge to the jury. Because I vote to uphold defendant’s possession of cocaine conviction, the trial court also properly submitted defendant’s charge of attaining habitual felon status to the jury.
III. Conclusion
Giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts at bar, sufficient evidence was presented tending to show the cocaine recovered from the bedroom was constructively possessed by defendant. Id. I vote to affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. The trial court properly submitted defendant’s charges of possession of cocaine and attaining the status of habitual felon to the jury. I find no error in the jury’s verdict and the judgment entered thereon and respectfully dissent.