Requiring the State to prove the accused's "affirmative links" to the contraband is intended "to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon his fortuitous proximity to someone else's drugs." In re A.P., 512 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2017, no pet.) (quoting Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)). A reasonable inference that the accused knew of the existence of the contraband and exercised control over it arises when an affirmative link is present.
"The amount of cash must be viewed in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances to determine whether it is a large quantity." See Torres v. State, 466 S.W.3d 329, 333-34 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.); cf. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 165 (stating that defendant's having $160, viewed in a vacuum, was "hardly dispositive" but that evidence showed defendant did not have a job, and concluding that when combined with other evidence that he was found sitting next to $1,300 worth of contraband in plain view, the $160 had slight probative value in connecting him to the contraband); In re A.P., 512 S.W.3d 602, 609 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.) (stating in juvenile proceeding that fifteen-year-old A.P.'s having $140 was evidence of a link with the drug operation going on in the house he had been arrested in). Here, the only evidence linking the cash to Appellant was that it was under his seat.