ound and the car was not in appellant's exclusive control or possession, the State had to present independent facts and circumstances affirmatively linking appellant to the contraband to establish he knew of the cocaine and exercised control over it. Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 747-48 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Porter v. State, 873 S.W.2d 729, 734 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd). In determining whether the State presented sufficient evidence affirmatively linking appellant to the contraband, we consider such circumstantial factors as the contraband's location in relationship to appellant's personal belongings, whether the contraband was in plain view, appellant's relationship to others with access to the car, whether appellant owned or drove the car, any incriminating statements, and appellant's proximity to the cocaine. See Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd); Earvin v. State, 632 S.W.2d 920, 924 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1982, pet. ref'd) (en banc). Additionally, we consider the amount of contraband found. Pollan, 612 S.W.2d at 596; Villegas, 871 S.W.2d at 896-97; Earvin, 632 S.W.2d at 924. Although the amount is not determinative by itself, the larger the amount, the more effective the presence of the drugs becomes at establishing an affirmative link. See Villegas, 871 S.W.2d at 896-97 (concluding ninety pounds of cocaine and 165 pounds of marijuana found throughout house sufficient to indicate appellant knew of and exercised control over the contraband); Sosa v. State, 845 S.W.2d 479, 483 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd) (concluding, inter alia, appellant, who was driving an eighteen-wheel truck carrying 600 kilograms of cocaine valued at over $60 million, was aware of nature of cargo). In arguing the State failed to affirmatively link him to the cocaine, appellant notes (a) there was no evidence Patterson smelled any drugs when
Many factors may support a finding that an accused had knowledge of the presence of drugs and the right to exercise control over them in addition to access and control of the place and premises where the drugs are found. See Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896-97 (Tex.Ct.App. 1994). Other factors include incriminating statements made by the defendant, incriminating actions of the defendant upon the authorities' discovery of the drugs, the location of the drugs among or near the defendant's personal belongings, the defendant's fingerprints on the packages containing the contraband and any other circumstance which links the defendant to the drugs.
Additional links have been identified by our sister courts. See e.g., Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25, 28-29 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (incriminating statements made by accused connecting himself to contraband); Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (proximity of contraband to defendant's personal belongings). Although both parties' briefing used the term "affirmative links," the Court in Evans recognized that "affirmative" added nothing to the plain meaning of "link" and declared that, going forward, it would use "only 'link' so that it is clear that evidence of drug possession is judged by the same standard as all other evidence."
driven by the accused; or (5) found in an enclosed space; whether (6) the odor of narcotics was present; (7) drug paraphernalia was present, in view of, or found on the accused; (8) the accused's conduct indicated a consciousness of guilt (e.g., furtive gestures, flight, conflicting statements); (9) the accused had a special relationship to the drug; (10) the accused possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (11) the accused was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (12) affirmative statements connected the accused to the drug; (13) the accused was present when the search was conducted and whether others were present at the time of the search; (14) the accused was found with a large amount of cash; (15) the amount of contraband found was large enough to indicate that the accused knew of its existence; and (16) the accused's relationship to other persons with access to where the drugs were found. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162, n. 12; Roberson, 80 S.W.3d at 735, n. 2; Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). These are simply some factors that may circumstantially establish the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a knowing “possession,” but they are not a litmus test.
Id. at 748. If the accused is not in sole control of the location where the drugs are discovered, additional links must be revealed between the accused and the controlled substances. Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Cude v. State, 716 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)). An "affirmative link" is not a legal rule, but simply a shorthand method of proving that the accused possessed the contraband knowingly or intentionally. Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd).
Id. at 748. If the accused is not in sole control of the location where the drugs are discovered, additional links must be revealed between the accused and the controlled substances. Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Cude v. State, 716 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)). An "affirmative link" is not a legal rule, but simply a shorthand method of proving that the accused possessed the contraband knowingly or intentionally. Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd).
Id. at 748. If the accused is not in sole control of the location where the drugs are discovered, additional links must be revealed between the accused and the controlled substances. Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Cude v. State, 716 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)). An "affirmative link" is not a legal rule, but simply a shorthand method of proving that the accused possessed the contraband knowingly or intentionally. Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd).
If the accused is not in sole control of the location where the drugs are discovered, additional links must be revealed between the accused and the controlled substances. Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Cude v. State, 716 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)). An "affirmative link" is not a legal rule, but simply a shorthand method of proving that the accused possessed the contraband knowingly or intentionally.
Id. at 748. If the accused is not in sole control of the location where the drugs are discovered, additional links must be revealed between the accused and the controlled substances. Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Cude v. State, 716 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)). An "affirmative link" is not a legal rule, but simply a shorthand method of proving that the accused possessed the contraband knowingly or intentionally. Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
Villegas v. State, 871 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd).