Opinion
No. 05-15-00228-CR
04-15-2016
AMANDA MICHELLE MANDELBAUM, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1400656-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Amanda Michelle Mandelbaum appeals from her conviction for possession of a controlled substance of four grams or more but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine. In her sole issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Irving police officers David Pevey and Jon Graves responded to a call regarding possible credit card fraud at a hotel. The hotel clerk and the police officers went to the first of two rooms rented with the card, which was unoccupied, but a sweater left on the floor gave Officer Pevey the impression someone had rushed out of the room. The hotel clerk and police officers moved onto the second room, which was occupied by Michael Hinojosa. Hinojosa then received a call from Appellant, and he told Appellant to come up to the room to explain to the police officers who was paying for the room.
After Appellant arrived, she admitted she had been staying in the room for a couple of days with Hinojosa. Officer Pevey noticed Appellant and Hinojosa appeared nervous, and he detected the smell of marijuana, so he asked for permission to search the room. Appellant and Hinojosa both granted permission. Officer Pevey searched Hinojosa and found a little baggie of what he believed to be methamphetamine. He handcuffed Hinojosa and left him sitting on the bed in the room as he continued his search. Officer Pevey searched inside a green bag located on the bed in the room and found baggies, a scale, and a small black backpack. Inside the backpack was a prescription bottle for Xanax with the name "Mandelbaum" on it, as well as multiple small baggies of marijuana and methamphetamine and one large bag containing methamphetamine. Officer Pevey continued his search in the bathroom, finding a marijuana pipe and two small bags, one black and one leopard print. The black bag contained another large bag of methamphetamine. The officers arrested Appellant and Hinojosa.
Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance of four grams or more but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine. Following her plea of not guilty, she was convicted by a jury and sentenced to five years in state jail, probated for ten years. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, arguing the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The trial court overruled her motion. She then timely filed her notice of appeal.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW & APPLICABLE LAW
When deciding whether evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction, we must assess all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In a possession of a controlled substance prosecution, the State must prove that: (1) the accused exercised control, management, or care over the substance; and (2) the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband." Id. Regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, it must establish that the defendant's connection with the drug was more than fortuitous. Id. This "affirmative links" rule protects the innocent bystander—a relative, friend, or even stranger to the actual possessor—from conviction merely because of his fortuitous proximity to someone else's drugs. Id. at 161-62. Mere presence at the location where drugs are found is thus insufficient, by itself, to establish actual care, custody, or control of those drugs. Id. at 162. However, presence or proximity, when combined with other evidence, either direct or circumstantial (e.g., "links"), may be sufficient to establish that element beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not the number of links that is dispositive, but rather the logical force of all of the evidence, direct and circumstantial. Id.
The following is a non-exclusive list of possible "affirmative links" that Texas courts have recognized as sufficient, either singly or in combination, to establish a person's possession of contraband: (1) the defendant's presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant's proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) whether the defendant made incriminating statements when arrested; (7) whether the defendant attempted to flee; (8) whether the defendant made furtive gestures; (9) whether there was an odor of contraband; (10) whether other contraband or drug paraphernalia were present; (11) whether the defendant owned or had the right to possess the place where the drugs were found; (12) whether the place where the drugs were found was enclosed; (13) whether the defendant was found with a large amount of cash; and (14) whether the conduct of the defendant indicated a consciousness of guilt. Id. at 162 n.12. II. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
Appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to prove all the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. She urges there are insufficient independent facts to affirmatively link her to the contraband, contending that any connection she had was merely fortuitous and that her mere presence is not enough to establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. More specifically, she argues the pill bottle with the name "Mandelbaum" belonged to her father, and there is no evidence she knew the bottle was in the bag found in the hotel room. Her explanation for its presence is that one of the men also staying at the hotel must have taken it during a visit to her father's residence. She also argues the only other factor linking her to the contraband was the police officer's testimony that she and Hinojosa were exchanging glances as if "trying to come up with a story of what's going on," which she characterizes as "pure speculation." She offers the alternative explanation for her questioning looks as innocently asking Hinojosa, "what's going on?"
We note the record reflects the following evidence affirmatively links Appellant to the methamphetamine. First, Appellant was present when the search was conducted. She admitted she had a key to the hotel room and that her luggage with her belongings was in the bathroom where a marijuana pipe and a large bag containing 4.4 grams of methamphetamine were found. Officer Pevey testified as to a strong smell of marijuana in the room. He also testified to finding other drugs and paraphernalia in the hotel room.
While Appellant attempts to distance herself from ownership or any right to possess the hotel room by arguing her name was not listed as renting the room, she told Officer Pevey she had been staying in the hotel since November 25 and planned to stay until November 28. She also admitted her luggage was in the bathroom and that she had a key to the hotel room. Appellant also attempts to argue in her brief that she had not been in the hotel room for hours before the search was conducted, but she testified at trial she left the hotel room at 8:30 p.m. that evening, which is approximately when the police officers were called to the hotel. Officer Pevey testified he arrived at the hotel room by approximately 9:00 p.m., and Appellant arrived approximately five minutes later.
Finally, with regard to Appellant's argument concerning Officers Pevey's and Grave's testimonies about her demeanor, the record reflects both officers testified that both Appellant and Hinojosa appeared nervous. While Graves testified the two were calm at first, he noted both became nervous as Officer Pevey continued his search, which indicated to him—based on his training and experience in law enforcement—they were trying to hide something or knew what was in the room. Officer Pevey testified Appellant appeared to hold back information from him, looked to the ground, and appeared nervous when he questioned her about the fact that names other than hers and Hinojosa's were listed on the hotel rooms. He also testified that as he continued his search and discovered contraband in the hotel room, Appellant and Hinojosa continued to appear nervous and looked back and forth at each other as if trying to come up with an explanation for the results of the search. In response to Appellant's alternate explanation for her demeanor as well as her explanation for the presence of her father's prescription drugs, we note the prosecution has no affirmative duty to rule out every hypothesis except that of guilt. Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Reviewing the foregoing in the light most favorable to the verdict, the logical force of the evidence supports a rational trier of fact's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant exercised control, management, or care over four grams or more but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine and that she knew it was contraband. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 161-62. We overrule Appellant's sole issue.
CONCLUSION
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 150228F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1400656-J.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 15th day of April, 2016.