|
|
|
|
Opinion filed June 22, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00072-CR
__________
BARRY E. ALLEN, JR., Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 385th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR29496
O P I N I O N
The jury convicted Barry E. Allen, Jr. of possession of methamphetamine and assessed his punishment at confinement for 180 days. We affirm.
Issues Presented
In two issues, appellant argues that the evidence was both Alegally@ and Afactually@ insufficient to support his conviction. In particular, appellant contends that the evidence linking him to the methamphetamine was Aso weak@ that the evidence is both legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction.
Standards of Review
In deciding whether the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict in order to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In order to determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence supporting guilt is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the evidence contrary to the verdict is so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof could not have been met. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
Evidence Presented
The indictment charged that appellant possessed less than one gram of methamphetamine on March 7, 2004. There were three witnesses who testified for the State during the first phase of trial on February 3, 2005. The first two were Midland police officers,[1] and the third was a chemist who worked for the Texas Department of Public Safety.
After the State rested, appellant testified that he did not possess the methamphetamine which was found by the police when they responded to a Adomestic disturbance@ complaint from the motel where appellant and his wife had a room.
Officer Troy Eugene Hively testified that the dispatcher sent him to the Westwind Motel in Midland because of a report of a fight in one of the rooms at the motel. Officer Hively was directed to Room 34. When he knocked on the door of that room, Officer Hively said that he was told by a female to wait while she got dressed. After he waited for several moments, the door was opened by a blonde pregnant female who had a cut lip and who seemed to be extremely anxious. Officer Hively testified that there were several knives in plain view, that the woman=s Aeyes were darting about,@ that her Aarms were jerking a little bit,@ and that the situation Aseemed to be consistent with drug use.@ Officer Hively testified that the woman said that she had not been fighting with her husband and that she beckoned the officer to come into the room. She said that her husband was in the bathroom and told the officer that he would have to wait until her husband finished to talk to him. Midland Police Officer William Taylor Welch arrived while they were waiting for appellant.
Officer Hively also testified that, when appellant came out of the bathroom, appellant was Aalso exhibiting some symptoms.@ Officer Hively said that appellant=s eyes were darting about, that appellant could not seem to sit or stand still, and that appellant Aseemed to be very shaky.@ Officer Hively explained about the video recorder units which are in the Midland Police squad cars and the microphones which are carried by the officers. Officer Hively said that he turned on the microphone while he was at the motel. Officer Hively had the dispatcher check the computer for any outstanding warrants on the two people who were in the room. There was an outstanding warrant for appellant=s arrest. After the dispatcher told them about the outstanding warrant, Officer Welch took appellant into custody and transported him.
As they were getting ready to leave the room, Officer Hively noticed some brass pipe fittings on the dresser. Officer Hively said that it was a Amarihuana pipe@ and that he could smell the marihuana and see the residue in the pipe. Officer Hively testified that appellant gave consent for the search. Officer Hively began his search in the bathroom because appellant had spent so much time in there. Under some dirty towels, Officer Hively found syringes and a Aspoon that looked consistent with drug use.@ In the bathtub, Officer Hively found a set of scales. Officer Hively said that he did not arrest appellant=s wife Abecause he did not want to take a pregnant gal to jail.@
Officer Welch said that, when appellant came out of the bathroom, he had appellant step outside the room so that he could interview him while Officer Hively interviewed appellant=s wife. Officer Welch said that it was the policy of their department to make separate interviews of the two parties when there is a domestic disturbance call. Officer Welch testified that he turned on his microphone while he was talking to appellant. When the dispatcher reported an outstanding warrant, appellant was handcuffed. Officer Welch testified that he Aasked for consent to look around in the room@ and that appellant said that they could Ago ahead and look.@ Officer Welch said that he AMirandized@[2] appellant and that appellant agreed to talk to him. The tape recording was played for the jury, but it was not transcribed by the court reporter.
Appellant told Officer Welch that he was having a Abad trip.@ Officer Welch took appellant to the emergency room after personnel at the detention center told him to take appellant to the hospital. The doctor decided that appellant should be admitted to the hospital. During cross-examination, Officer Welch agreed that the tape recording showed that, when appellant told him to Ago ahead@ with the search, appellant also said: AI don=t have anything here.@
Dennis Hambrick, a chemist who worked for the Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that the exhibits submitted to him contained methamphetamine. One of the exhibits weighed .23 grams, and the other weighed .11 grams.
Appellant testified in his own behalf. He admitted two prior felony convictions. He further testified that he had never had any drug-related convictions and that he worked as a driller on drilling rigs and ran the crews. Appellant then testified about the events leading up to his arrest. Appellant said that his wife was pregnant and that the police had both of them in handcuffs. Appellant said the first police officer said that, if appellant would Atake the rap@ and say that Ait was mine, he would leave my wife out@ of it. Appellant said that the drugs which the police found were not his drugs. Appellant also testified during examination by his lawyer that he did say something like: AI=ll take the rap.@ Appellant testified that he said that so the police officers would not take his wife to jail.
Opinion
We review the fact-finder=s weighing of the evidence and cannot substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Cain, 958 S.W.2d 404; Clewis , 922 S.W.2d 126. Due deference must be given to the fact-finder=s determination, particularly concerning the weight and credibility of the evidence. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jury was the sole judge of the weight of the testimony and of the credibility of the witnesses. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.13 (Vernon 1981) and art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979).
In cases involving unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove that the accused exercised care, control, or management over the substance and that the accused knew that the substance was contraband. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). When the accused does not have exclusive possession of the place where the contraband was recovered, the evidence must affirmatively link the accused to the contraband. Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406; Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App.1995); Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The link, however, need not be so strong that it excludes every other reasonable hypothesis except the defendant=s guilt, and the evidence can be direct or circumstantial. Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406; Brown, 911 S.W.2d at 747-48.
The evidence sufficiently links appellant to the methamphetamine and establishes that appellant=s connection with the contraband was Amore than just fortuitous.@ Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406; Brown, 911 S.W.2d at 747. A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offense. The evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict. Further, when viewed in a neutral light, the evidence supporting guilt is not so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, and the evidence contrary to the verdict is not so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof could not have been met. The evidence is factually sufficient. Both of the issues which were presented for review are overruled.
This Court=s Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
BOB DICKENSON
SENIOR JUSTICE
June 22, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: McCall, J., and
Strange, J., and Dickenson, S.J.[3]
[1]The videotapes which were made by the officers were also played for the jury, and the audio portion of those tapes support the officers= version of the incident. Both tape recordings were played for the jury during trial.
[2]Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[3]Bob Dickenson, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland sitting by assignment.