Opinion
No. 10-04-00225-CR
Memorandum opinion delivered and filed June 1, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 258th District Court, Polk County, Texas, Trial Court #17319. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals her conviction for felony possession of marijuana. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121 (Vernon 2003). In two issues, Appellant contends that the evidence that she possessed marijuana was insufficient. We will affirm. The evidence "must establish, to the requisite level of confidence, that the accused's connection with the drug was more than just fortuitous." Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Among the evidence that is probative of an accused's knowing possession of a controlled substance that is relevant here are:
• that a vehicle in which the accused was an occupant has a "noticeable odor" of a controlled substance. See Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).
• "that there was a large quantity of marijuana and cocaine." Bellard v. State, 101 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. ref'd).
• that the accused "was extremely nervous and got out to talk to the officer." Id.
• the accused's "presence when the search was executed." Rischer v. State, 85 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.).
• the accused's "proximity to and accessibility of the contraband." Id.
• the accused's "furtive gestures." Id.
• the "accused's right to possession of the place where contraband was found." Id.
• "drugs found in an enclosed place." Id.In Appellant's first issue, she contends that the evidence was legally insufficient. "In assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider all the record evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational jury could have found the accused guilty of all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); accord Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). The State points to the following, among other evidence. Appellant was a passenger in a rented van stopped for speeding on a highway commonly used to transport marijuana north from Mexico or Houston. When Appellant rolled down her window, the officer smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana from feet away, even though the marijuana was sealed in boxes inside the rear of the van and covered with agents to conceal its odor. Appellant was nervous, and got out of the van and put her hands on the van as though preparing to be searched. In the rear of the van, accessible from the passenger area, were seventeen boxes containing marijuana, and a suitcase of Appellant's clothes. The evidence is legally sufficient. We overrule Appellant's first issue. In Appellant's second issue, she contends that the evidence was factually insufficient. "In a factual sufficiency review, the appellate court views all the evidence in a neutral light and determines whether evidence supporting the verdict is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or if evidence contrary to the verdict is strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met." Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Appellant points only to evidence that she did not own, rent or drive the van, that her fingerprints did not appear on the marijuana packaging, and that there was no currency in the van. The evidence is factually sufficient. We overrule Appellant's second issue. Having overruled Appellant's issues, we affirm the judgment.