Opinion
No. 06-12-00017-CR
07-31-2012
REGINALD M. WADE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court
Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. 114-1225-11
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Reginald M. Wade appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine. Wade was a passenger in a car being driven by Alfred Carpenter. Officer Darrell Gardner with the Tyler Police Department conducted a Terry stop based on a belief that Carpenter had an outstanding warrant. After Gardner confirmed the warrant and arrested Carpenter, he elected to have the vehicle towed. During the inventory search, Gardner discovered 0.10 grams of crack cocaine. A jury found Wade guilty of possession of the cocaine and assessed punishment at one year and six months' imprisonment. The trial court sentenced Wade consistent with the jury's assessment, suspended the sentence, and placed Wade on five years' community supervision. Wade's issue on appeal is that the evidence is legally insufficient due to insufficient affirmative links to the contraband.
Originally appealed to the Tyler Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Tyler Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 15 (West Supp. 2011) (mandatory community supervision for violation of Section 481.115(b)—possession of less than one gram of cocaine).
In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref'd). Our rigorous legal sufficiency review focuses on the quality of the evidence presented. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917-18 (Cochran, J., concurring). We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury "to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
During the routine inventory of the vehicle prior to towing, Officer Gardner observed a camouflage bag on the floorboard near Wade's feet. Wade, who was not wearing a shirt, informed Gardner that the bag contained a shirt "he had on the previous night." Inside the bag, Gardner discovered a small "zipper-like black case." When Gardner removed the case from the bag, Wade said, "[A]in't nothing in there" and "reacted by grabbing it and trying to take it away . . . ." The case contained a substance later identified as 0.10 grams of crack cocaine. Wade denied ownership of the contraband.
On cross-examination, Gardner stated Wade said it was his "T-shirt from last night."
At trial, the State was required to prove that Wade exercised control, custody, management, or care over the controlled substance and that he knew the matter possessed was contraband. See Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(39) (West Supp. 2011). Mere presence at the location where drugs are found is insufficient, by itself, to establish actual care, custody, or control of those drugs. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162. Presence or proximity to drugs, however, when combined with other direct or circumstantial evidence, may be sufficient to establish control, management, custody, or care if the proof amounts to more than a strong suspicion or probability. Id. "The 'affirmative links rule' is designed to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon his fortuitous proximity to someone else's drugs." Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Wade argues any connection with the contraband was fortuitous. Wade notes the car did not belong to him, he was not driving, and the cocaine could have belonged to one of the car's other occupants. Wade argues that, because mere presence at the scene is insufficient, no rational juror could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he exercised the requisite amount of control over the contraband.
The links in the following nonexclusive list have been recognized as relevant to a person's possession of contraband:
(1) the contraband was in plain view or recovered from an enclosed place; (2) the accused was the owner of the premises or the place where the contraband was found; (3) the accused was found with a large amount of cash; (4) the contraband was conveniently accessible to the accused; (5) the contraband was found in close proximity to the accused; (6) a strong residual odor of the contraband was present; (7) the accused possessed other contraband when arrested; (8) paraphernalia to use the contraband was in view, or found on the accused; (9) the physical condition of the accused indicated recent consumption of the contraband in question; (10) conduct by the accused indicated a consciousness of guilt; (11) the accused attempted to flee; (12) the accused made furtive gestures; (13) the accused had a special connection to the contraband; (14) the occupants of theMuckleroy v. State, 206 S.W.3d 746, 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref'd). The number of links present is not as important as the degree to which they tend to link the defendant to the controlled substance. Taylor v. State, 106 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. App—Dallas 2003, no pet.).
premises gave conflicting statements about relevant matters; (15) the accused made incriminating statements connecting himself or herself to the contraband; (16) the quantity of the contraband; and (17) the accused was observed in a suspicious area under suspicious circumstances.
Wade argues the evidence is insufficient because more affirmative links are absent from this case than are present. The affirmative links test is a weighing test, not a balancing test. "The number of factors present is not as important as the logical force or the degree to which the factors, alone or in combination, tend to affirmatively link the accused to the contraband." Bates v. State, 155 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); see Isbell v. State, 246 S.W.3d 235, 238 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.); Washington v. State, 215 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.); Hurtado v. State, 881 S.W.2d 738, 743 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). "The absence of various links does not constitute evidence of innocence to be weighed against the links present." Satchell v. State, 321 S.W.3d 127, 134 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd).
The links present in this case are sufficient to tend to connect Wade to the contraband. The bag containing the contraband also contained a shirt belonging to Wade. Officer Gardner testified Wade never denied ownership of the camouflage bag. Wade's actions in trying to wrestle the case from the police officer and claiming there was not anything in the case demonstrate Wade knew the case contained contraband and was reluctant to have it searched. There was sufficient evidence to satisfy the links test. A rational juror could have concluded that Wade exercised control, custody, management, or care over the controlled substances and that he knew the matter possessed was contraband. The evidence is legally sufficient.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Jack Carter
Justice
Do Not Publish