State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-0069

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Allen Marquise Burson,
Appellant.

Filed October 30, 2023
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CR-22-3526

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Ed Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Andrea Barts, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman , Judge; and
Schmidt, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree co ntrolled-substance crime,
arguing the evidence is insufficient to prove he unlawfully possessed the 90 Oxycodone
2
pills he obtained through a prescription attributed to a doctor who did not write or sign it.
We affirm.
FACTS
On April 22, 2022, a ppellant Allen Marquise Burson went to a pharmacy in
St. Cloud to have a prescription filled for 90, 30-mg instant-release Oxycodone pills. The
prescription was handwritten and contained a signature and Drug Enforcement
Administration registration number of a local doctor. The pharmacist verified Burson’s
identity and filled the prescription. When she became aware of the prescription, the doctor
who purportedly signed it reported the incident to law enforcement.
Burson was subsequently charged with third-degree possession of a controlled
substance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.023, subd. 2(a)(3) (2020). He waived his right
to a jury trial. At trial, the doctor testified that she did not write the prescription for
Oxycodone, has never seen Burson as a patient, and has never written a prescription for
him. The doctor explained that she rarely writes prescriptions by hand and the pad
Burson’s prescription was written on does not match the pad—in color or watermark—that
her clinic uses. She further testified that the signature on Burson’s prescription is not hers
and that she has never prescribed the number or strength of Oxycodone pills reflected in
the prescription. The doctor agreed that when she writes a prescription for Oxycodone, it
provides the patient for whom it is written lawful authority to possess that drug.
3
The district court found Burson guilty as charged and imposed a stayed 54-month
sentence.1
Burson appeals.
DECISION
In considering a sufficiency-of-the -evidence challenge, we carefully review the
record to determine whether the evidence is sufficient, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the conviction. State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012). We will
not disturb a verdict “if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence
and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably
have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257,
263 (Minn. 2016). We apply the same standard of review to both jury and court trials.
State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).
A person commits third-degree controlled-substance crime when they “on one or
more occasions within a 90-day period . . . unlawfully possess[] one or more mixtures
containing a narcotic drug, it is packaged in dosage units, and equals 50 or more dosage
units.” Minn. Stat. § 152.023, subd. 2(a)(3).
2 “U nlawfully” is defined as “ selling or
possessing a controlled substance in a manner not authorized by law.” Minn. Stat.
§ 152.01, subd. 20 (2020).

1 This sentence was executed on May 30, 2023.

2 There are five schedules of controlled substances. Oxycodone is a Schedule II controlled
substance. Minn. Stat. § 152.02, subd. 3(b)(1)(ii)(J) (2020).
4
Burson argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that his possession of the
Oxycodone was unlawful. Citing State v. Beganovic, Burson contends that the state was
required to prove—as an element of the offense—that he was “not authorized by law” to
possess the Oxycodone . 991 N.W.2d 638, 647 (Minn. 2023). Beganovic was convicted
of arson after burning down his own home. Id. at 641. The arson statute makes it a crime
for a person to “unlawfully by means of fire . . . intentionally destroy[] . . . any building
that is used as a dwelling.” Id. at 642 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 1 (2022)). Our
supreme court agreed with Beganovic that “unlawfully” is an element of the arson offense.
Id. at 654. And it concluded that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported his
conviction, observing that
[i]t does not make sense for a person who is somehow
authorized by law to burn his dwelling to do so at night, with
his family inside, without safety officials on the scene, and then
proceed to deny starting the fire in a 911 call and file an
insurance claim asserting that he did not start the fire.

Id. at 654-55.
We agree that unlawfulness is an element of the possession offense and conclude
that the state met its burden of proving that Burson obtained Oxycodone by means not
authorized by law. Burson was not authorized to present the prescription to the pharmacist
because it was not a valid prescription. Still, Burson contends that because the pharmacist
filled the Oxycodone prescription, after following the proper distribution procedure, his
possession was lawful. We disagree. The pharmacist’s actions are not at issue, Burson’s
are. The pharmacist’s perception that Burson presented a valid prescription signed by a
doctor does not make it so.
5
Like in Beganovic, the record does not support Burson’s insufficiency argument.
The doctor’s testimony shows that she did not write or sign the prescription; Burson has
never been her patient. And her unobjected-to testimony that a valid written prescription
gives a patient the lawful authority to possess Oxycodone, supports the district court’s
finding that Burson’s possession was not authorized by law. Based on our thorough review
of the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports Burson’s conviction.
Affirmed.