Opinion
No. 10-05-00022-CR
Opinion delivered and filed September 14, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal fromthe 78th District Court, Wichita County, Texas, Trial Court No. 41,558-B. Affirmed.
Before Cheif Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and, Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pike appeals his conviction for possession of 400 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(f) (Vernon 2003); see also id. § 481.102(6) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). We affirm. In one issue, Pike contends that the trial court's charge was erroneous.
Our first duty in analyzing a jury-charge issue is to decide whether error exists. Then, if we find error, we analyze that error for harm. Preservation of charge error does not become an issue until we assess harm. . . . Thus, we review alleged charge error by considering two questions: (1) whether error existed in the charge; and (2) whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to compel reversal.Ngo v. State, No. PD-0504-04, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 457, at *9 (Tex.Crim.App. Mar. 16, 2005) (internal footnotes omitted); accord Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Pike argues that the charge erroneously lowered the State's burden of proof by omitting an element of the offense (citing Archie v. State, 615 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Ray v. State, 749 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, pet. ref'd)). The indictment repetitively alleged that Pike "did . . . intentionally or knowingly possess, with intent to deliver, possess a controlled substance" [sic] (emphasis added). The trial court's charge instructed the jury to find Pike guilty if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Pike did "intentionally or knowingly, with intent to deliver, possess a controlled substance." We do not perceive that the trial court erred. We overrule Pike's issue. Having overruled Pike's sole issue, we affirm.