Opinion
No. 05-03-01108-CR.
Opinion Filed March 29, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-00817-VJ.
Before Justices JAMES, WRIGHT, and BRIDGES.
OPINION
Ike Bailey appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in an amount of less than one gram. After the jury found appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at seven years' confinement and a $1,000 fine. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. We overrule appellant's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment. We review sufficiency challenges using well-known standards of review. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 10-11 (Tex.Crim. App. 2002) (factual sufficiency). To support appellant's conviction, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally and knowingly possessed cocaine in an amount of less than one gram. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a) (Vernon 2003). To do so, the State must prove appellant exercised care, control, or management over the cocaine and knew it was contraband. See Guiton v. State, 742 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). The record shows that Dallas Police Officers Tom Clayton and Philip Strodtman responded to a complaint about drug dealing at a well-known drug house. Strodtman drove Clayton to the rear of the house where Clayton waited where he could not be seen. Strodtman then drove to the front of the house. Appellant was standing outside near the driveway. As Strodtman approached the house in the patrol car, appellant saw him and turned and walked away. Clayton saw appellant walk away from Strodtman, drop a container onto the ground near Clayton, and then walk back toward Strodtman. While Strodtman spoke with appellant, Clayton looked into the container and saw two rocks of cocaine. Clayton nodded to Strodtman who then arrested appellant. Although appellant maintains this evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because it only shows he "abandoned property on the street," not that he owned the abandoned property or knew that it contained cocaine, we disagree. Appellant was outside a known drug house holding a small container with cocaine inside. When he saw a police car, he immediately turned and walked to a place where he thought he could not be seen, and dropped the cocaine onto the ground. Viewed under the appropriate standards, this evidence is sufficient to support the jury's determination that appellant intentionally and knowingly possessed cocaine. See Noah v. State, 495 S.W.2d 260, 263 (Tex.Crim. App. 1973) (police officer saw appellant throw a package from a moving car); Nelms v. State, 834 S.W.2d 110, 114 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd) (officer saw appellant drop two rocks of cocaine to the floor); Blackmon v. State, 830 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd) (officer saw appellant throw matchbox containing cocaine into grass); Edwards v. State, 807 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd) (appellant threw object into a car as he was being approached by the police). We overrule appellant's first and second issues. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.