UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-20372
Summary Calendar
EARNEST KING,
Petitioner-Appellant,
VERSUS
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
H-95-CV-1616
November 26, 1997
Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
A Texas jury found Earnest King guilty of possession of
cocaine. After exhausting his state remedies, King unsuccessfully
sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. King appeals. He contends
that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
Specifically, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to show
that he knowingly possessed cocaine. We have reviewed the record
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
and the briefs of the parties, and find sufficient evidence to
support the conviction.
An officer of the Houston Police Department was dispatched to
an apartment complex in response to a citizen complaint regarding
drug trafficking in the area. Upon his arrival, he encountered
King, who at that time was staggering and incoherent. King’s eyes
were glazed and his speech was slurred. The officer arrested King
for public intoxication. During a post-arrest search of King’s
person, the officer found a crack pipe, still damp, in a pocket of
King’s trousers. The receptacle contained a residue that was
visible to the naked eye. The officer conducted a field test on
the residue found in the pipe, and it tested positive for cocaine.
Four tests subsequently performed by a police chemist showed the
positive presence of cocaine within the residue. In sum, the
amount of cocaine was too small to be measured, but it was apparent
to the naked eye and sufficient for scientific tests to confirm
that the residue was cocaine.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.2
AFFIRMED.
2
See Peters v. Whitley, 942 F.2d 937, 941 (5th Cir. 1991).
2