Gordwin, Damion Cornelius

PD-0527-15 & PD-0528-15 PD-0527&0528-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/6/2015 3:16:27 PM Accepted 5/7/2015 1:05:02 PM ABEL ACOSTA No. CLERK IN THE TEXAS COTJRTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS Nos.01-14-00343-CR and 01-14-00344-CR In theFirstCourtof Appeals ofTexas Damion CorneliusGordwin, Appellant V. The State of Texas, Appellee Appellant's AmendedPetitionfor DiscretionaryReview JeraldK. Graber TSB # 08240320 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 May 7, 2015 Tel.713-224-232 graberlaw@sbcglobal.net Attomey for Appellant StatementRegarding Oral Argument Appellant waives oral argument. IDENTITY OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 68.a(a),the followingpersonsareinterested parties: Appellant Mr. DamionGordwin Ha:ris CountyJail 1200BakerSt. Houston,TX 77002 Trial Judse TheHonorableKatherineCabaniss 248kDistict Court 1201Franklin Houston,Texas77002 Attomeysfor State Ms. Molly Wurzer(in trial) Mr. Alan Curry (on appeal) Haris CountyDA's Office 1201Franklin,6* Floor Houston,Texas77002 Attorneyfor Appellant Mr. JamesSims(in trial) Mr. JeraldK. Graber(on appeal) 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 Table of Contents Page STATEMENTREGARDINGORAL ARGUMENT 2 IDENTIry OF INTERESTEDPARTIES a J TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5 STATEMENTOF THE CASE 7 STATEMENTOF PROCEDURALHISTORY 8 APPELLANT'SGROUNDSFORREVIEW 8 REASONFOR REVIEWING GROUNDFOR REVIEW 8 ARGUMENT 9 CONCLUSIONandPRAYERFORRELIEF 15 CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE 15 CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE T6 Index of Authorities Cases page Broolrs v. State, 323 S.W.3d893,895(Tex.Crim. App. 2010) IO,12 Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 11, 13 20l0,pet. refd) Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 11 Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830 (Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist.] 2001,pet. refd) 11 In re Winship, 397U.S.359,361,g0S.ct. 1069, 107r, 10,13 2sL.Ed.2d368(1970) Jaclrsonv. Virginia, 443U.S.307,99 S. Ct. 278t, 6r L.Ed.2d 560,(1979) r0, 12 King v. State, 895 S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995) 11,13 Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim. App. 2009) 10, 13 Poindexter v. State, 153S.W.3d402,405(Tex.Crim. App. 2005) 11 Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d742,750(Tex.Crim.App. 2007) 10, 13 Statutes.Codesand Rules Tex.Health& SafetyCodeg 481.002(38) 11 Tex.Pen.Codeg 1.07(a)(39) 11 Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(d)(1) 13 Tex.R. App.Proc.66.3(c) and(f) 8 To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals: Statementof the Case Appellant was chargedby indictmentwith the felony offensesof tamperingwith physicalevidencein causenumber1397495andpossession of a controlledsubstancein causenumber 1397496.(CR 9, 9)'. Appellant entereda pleaof not guilty andthe casesweretriedbeforea jury. (RR III 10). The jury found appellantguilty of both charges.(RR III L7I-I72). After a hearing,thejury sentenced sentencing appellantto threeyearsin prisonon the tamperingwith evidencecaseandtwo yearsin prisonon the possession of a confrolledsubstance case.(RR V 55). Appellanttimely filed a writtennoticeof appeal.(CR 57, 58). Thefial courtcertifiedthe defendant's right of appeal.(CR 56, 57).Appellantrequests oral argumentin this case. 1- Cause number1397495 is citedfirst.followedby cause number1397496. Statement of Procedural History On April 30,2015, a panel of the First Court of Appealsissuedan un- published opinion affirming the trial court's judgments in these two cases. Appellant files this first petition for discretionaryreview with this Court. AppellantosGround for Review 1 ) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe convictionof possession of a controlledsubstancesince appellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or control over the cocaine thatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet. 2) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe convictionof tamperingwith evidenceunderthe theorythat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The indictmentandjury chargedid not allegethat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The evidenceis insufflrcientto supportthe convictionfor tamperingwith evidencesince appellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggie in a toilet. Reasonfor ReviewingAppellantosGroundfor Review ThelowerCourt'sruling shouldbereviewedpursuantto Tex.R. App. P. 66.3(c)and(0. Argument Theevidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor possession of a confrolledsubstance sinceappellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or conffol overthe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.Appellantnevertouched the cocaineor the baggiecontainingthe cocaine.[n fact,the police indicated that they neversawappellantput any item into the toilet. While the testimony establishedthat the oflicers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes, thereis no evidencethat appellanteverpossessed the cocaine.Therefore,the Courtof Appealsered in findingthatthe evidenceis sufficientto supportthe verdict. Also,the evidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor tampering with physicalevidencesinceappellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethat was foundin a baggiein a toilet. The indictmentandjury chargeallegedthat appellantactuallyalteredor desffoyedthe physicalevidence.The Court of Appealserredin finding that the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe verdict under the theory that appellant"concealed"the evidence. However,the indictmentand jury chargedid not allege that appellant"concealed"the to thejury wasthat appellant evidence.The only evidencethat waspresented flushedthe toilet that containedthe baggieof cocainethat wasput thereby the 9 co-defendant. The physicalevidencethat was seizedby the policewasnever alteredor destroyed. Possession - CauseNumber1397496 of a ControlledSubstance The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard thrt a reviewing court shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis suffrcientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis requiredto prove beyonda reasonable doubt. Broolcsv. State,323 S.W.3d 893,895(Tex.Crim.App.2010);Jacksonv. Virginia,443 U.S.307,99S.Ct. 2781,6l L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship, 397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L. Ed. 2d 368(1970);Lasterv. State,275S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim.App. 2009);Williamsv. State,235 S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the verdict,the evidenceis insuflicientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes a reasonable doubt.Laster l0 v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This skndardappliesequallyto both directand circumstantial evidence. King v. State,895S.w.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston flst Dist.] 2010,pet.refd). Possession is definedas "actualcare,custody,control,or management." Tex. Pen.Code $ 1.07(a)(39) (West2011);Tex. Health& SafetyCode g 481.002(38). To proveunlawfulpossession of a controlledsubstance, the State must establishthat (1) the accusedexercisedcare,control,or management and(2) knewthe substance overthe contraband, wascontraband. Poindexterv. State,153 S.W.3d402,405 (Tex. Crim. App.2005). The evidencemust establishthat the accused'sconnectionwith the substancewas more than fortnitous.Id. at 405-06.Evidencemustlink the accused to the offensesothat onereasonably may infer that the accusedknew of the contraband's existence andexercised conffoloverit. Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830(Tex.App.- Houston[14thDist.] 2001,,pet.refd). Merepresence at the locationwherethe controlled substancewas found is insufficient, by itself to establish possession. Evansv. State,202S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006). In this case,thereis no evidencethat appellantactuallyexercisedcare, custody,or control over the subjectcocaine.The testimonyestablished that ChristopherHutchinsondiscardedthe baggieof cocaineinto the toilet. There 11 is no evidencethat appellantever touchedthe cocaineor the baggiecontaining the cocaine.In fact, the police indicatedthat they never saw appellantput any item into the toilet. (RR III 92, I42). While the testimony establishedthat the officers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes, thereis no evidencethat appellant ever exercisedcare, control, or managementover the confaband. Thus, the evidenceis insufficient to supportthe jury's verdict, and this court should enter a judgment of acquittal on the possessionof a controlled substanceconviction. Tamperingwith PhysicalEvidence- CauseNumber1397495 The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard that a reviewingcourt shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis sufficientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis requiredto provebeyonda reasonable doubt. Brooksv. State,323S.W.3d 893,895(Tex.Crim.App. 2010);Jacksonv. Virginia,443U.S.307,99 S.Ct. 2781,6I L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship, l2 397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L.Ed.2d 368(1970); Lasterv. state,275s.w.3d 5r2,517 (Tex.crim. App. 2009);williamsv. state,235 S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the verdict,the evidenceis insufficientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes a reasonable doubt.Laster v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This standard appliesequallyto both directand circumstantial evidence. King v. State,895S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 20l0,pet.refd). A personcommitsthe offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence(as specificallychargedin the indicfinent)if, knowingthat an offensehad been committed,alter or destroya thing, namelycocaine,with intentto impair its investigationof or official proceeding verity as evidencein any subsequent relatedto theoffense.(CR9); Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(dX1). In this case,the evidenceis insufficientto supporta convictionfor tamperingwith physicalevidencesincethere is no evidencethat appellant actually alteredor destroyedthe cocainethat was found in the toilet. The indictment and the jury charge in this case did not allege that appellant concealedthe evidence,one of the methodsin which one could committhe 13 offense under$ 37.09(d)(1); (CR9,39-43).The andthejury charge indictment only allegedthat appellantalteredor destroyedthe physicalevidence.(CR 9). Therefore,the Courtof Appealserredin finding (1) that "the jury couldhave foundthat [appellant]"conceal[ed]"the evidence,(2)that "thejury couldhave reasonablyinferred that appellantconcealedthe cocainethat the officers recoveredfrom the toilet, and (3) that "the jury couldhavereasonablyfound that appellantconcealed...cocaine." Gordwinv. State,No. 01-14-00343-CR pgs. 8-10. The jury was not authorizedto (April 30, 2015,unpublished), convictunderthetheorythatappellant"concealed"the evidence. The only evidencethat was presentedto the jury was that appellant flushedthe toilet thatcontainedthe baggieof cocainethatwasput thereby the co-defendant. Thereis no evidencethatthe physicalevidencewaseveraltered or destroyed.In fact, sincethe cocainewas inside a plastic baggie,it was shownthat the cocainewasnot alteredat all. Furthermore.sincethe cocaine wasretrievedby the police,the evidencewasnot destroyedin anyway.In this case,the most that the Statecould prove was that appellantcommittedthe offenseof attemptedtamperingwith physicalevidence.However,sincethe elementsof tamperingwith physicalevidencewerenot provenby the State, appellantrequeststhat this Courtacquithim of the offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence. I4 Conclusionand Praver Appellantpraysthatthis HonorableCourtgrantAppellant'sPetitionfor Discretionary Review,reversethe decisionof the Courtof Appeals,andacquit appellantin eachcause. Respectfu lly Submitted, lsl Jerald Graber JeraldK. Graber 917Franklin, Suite510 Houston, Texas77002 713-224-2323 Attorneyfor Appellant Certificateof Compliance I, JeraldK. Graber,do certify that this petition is in compliancewith Rule 9 sincethe entiredocumentconsistsof 2,250wordsand is typedusing 14-pointfont. lsl Jerald Graber JeraldK. Graber 15 Certificateof Service I herebycertiff that a copy of this PDR was serveduponthe followiirg partiesvia e-file: Alan Curry Hanis CountyDistrictAttomey'sOffice 1201Franklin.6* Floor Houston,TX'77002 StateProsecutingAttorney P.O.Box 12405 Austin,Texas 787L1 lsl Jerald Graber JeraldK. Graber I6 Opinion issuedApril30, 2015 In The 6ourtof9ppeEls For The fritstDfstrictof@exug NO. 0l-14-00343-CR NO. 0l-14-00344-CR DAMION CORNELIUS GORDWIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS,Appeilee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris CountyoTexas Trial Court CaseNos. 1397495& t3gi4g6 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury foundappellant,DamionCorneliusGordwin,guilty of the offensesof tamperingwith physical evidencerand possessionof a controlled substance, namely cocaine,weighing less than one gram.t It assessed his punishmentat confinementfor threeyearsfor tamperingwith physicalevidenceand confinement for two yearsfor possessionof a controlledsubstance,with the sentences to run concuffently. In threeissues,appellantcontendsthat the evidenceis insufficient to support his convictions and the trial court erred in entering a deadly weapon finding in itsjudgment. We affirm. Background HoustonPolice Department("FIPD") Officer M. Santuariotestifiedthat on August 9,2013, while working in the IIPD NarcoticsDivision, he and otherlaw enforcementofficers "serve[d] and execute[d]a fno knock] searchwarrant,,at a residence. Santuarioactedas the "caseagent" and the "pointman,,for the entry seeTex. PeNar,coon ANNr.$ 37.09(dX1) (vemonsupp. 2Mg; appellatecause number0l-14-00343-cR;trial courtcausenumber13g74g5. see Tpx. HearrH & sepnrv coop AwN. $$4s1.102(3xD), 481.115(a), (b) {:ryf" 2010); appellate cause number ot-t+-oo:+4-cR; trial court cause number 1397496. team' HPD Officer J. Elkins 'obreached the [front] door" of the residence.while I{PD OffrcerDelacertadeployedthe..flashbang."3 As Officer Santuarioenteredthe residence,he saw appellant,who ,,was armed,"and ChristopherHutchinsonrun into a hallway and then into a restroom. He followed them because"[n]ormally in a situationlike th[is]', peoplerun to 'odiscardor destroynarcotics." When Santuarioarrived in the restroom,he saw Hutchinson"kneelingdown in front of the toilet," 'oonthe floor,,,while appellant threw a small 'opistol" onto the restroomfloor and then flushed the toilet repeatedly.The "pistol" o\vasa fioaded]semiautomaticf,] . . . small silver guo,,, with ooaround in the chamber." Although Santuarioorderedappellantto ,ostop,, flushing the toilet, he refusedand "[c]ontinuedflushing or pulling the [toilet] lever." WhenSantuariotried to removeappellantfrom the toilet,he resisted. While appellantflushedthe toilet, Hutchinson'ohadhis handsin the toilet bowl," and Officer Santuarioo'sawsomethingleave his hands." As Santuario explained:"[I]t was [a] couplethingsthatweresmall[,which] [l]ookedlike plastic bags.. .." Generally,peopledo not "flush emptyplastic bagsdown the toilet," but rather "narcotics." Thus, it appearedto Santuario that appellant and Hutchinson were working together to flush the items down the toilet. When Officer Elkins commandedHutchinsonto o'stop"and "put his handsaway from the Oflicer Santuarioexplainedthat a "flash bang" "is a distractiondevice,,thatmakes a loud gunshot-likesound,flasheslight, andieleasesminimal smoke. toilet"' he did not comply. Elkins, therefore,o'reached in and basicallyyanked [Hutchinson] away from the toilet." After the offrcers removedappellantand Hutchinsonfrom the restroom,they "handcuffedand . . . escorted [them] out of the residence." Officer Santuariothen took "a closer look at th[e] toilet" and .,removedit from the base[on] the floor." Insidethe toilet,he foundo'asmall baggiethat had crack cocainein it." FIPDofficersalso searched the remainder the residence, ,of appellant,and Hutchinson,and they recovered$2,103 in cash, marijuanaand related paraphernalia,a "small digital scale,,,a beaker,a revolver, and a ,.baby bottlewith what appeared to be codeineinsideof it." Officer Elkinstestifiedthat he assistedwith the executionof the oono knock', searchwarrant at the residence.He breachedthe residence'sfront door with a "[b]attering device," and officer Delacertadeployedthe .,flash bang." After Santuarioyelled,,,[r]unners,,, Elkins followed Officer Santuariointo the residence, to alert the other officersthat "individuals insidethe residence [were] running." Generally,peoplerun in situationssuchasthis to "hide," "get rid of something,,, or to "get away from officers." Elkins saw appellantand Hutchinsonrun toward the restroom,and he and Santuariopursued. Onceinsidethe restroom, OfficerElkinssawappellant'odisc ard"a,,[s]ilver automaticpistol" onto the floor and Hutchinson"by the toilet area discarding somethinginsidethe toilet." Hutchinsonhad his hands'oinsidethe toilet,,,and it lookedlike he was "[d]iscardingitemsinto the toilet." After Elkins commanded Hutchinsonto "show his hands"and 'ogetdown on the ground,"he did not comply. Although his focus was on Hutchison,Elkins saw appellanto'reaching toward the lever of the toilet," "obseryedhis handson the levero"and could hearthe toilet flushing. According to Elkins, the toilet 'ohadbeen flushed several times.,, Eventually,Elkins o'forcefully. . .pullfed] [Hutchinson]off the toilet,' and took him into custody. In a subsequentsearchof the restroom,Elkins saw Offrcer Santuario'orecovera srnall bag of what appear[ed]to be crack cocaineout of the bottom of the toilet." t{PD officers also recoveredmarijuana, codeine, gfld "anotherpistol" from the residence. Mona Colcatestifiedthat she,as a criminalistwith the controlledsubstances sectionof the IIPD CrimeLaboratory,"receive[s]andanalyze[s]evidence',to ,.test it for the presenceof controlledsubstances." She analyzedthe oosmallbag,, recoveredfrom the toilet andfoundthat it contained0.83gramsof cocaine. Sufficiencyof the Evidence In his third issue,appellantarguesthat the evidenceis insufficientro support his convictionfor tamperingwith physicalevidencebecausehe did not ooactually alter[] or destroyl] the cocainethat was found in the toilet." In his first issue, appellantarguesthat the evidenceis insufficient to supporthis convictionfor possessionof a controlledsubstancebecauseo'thereis no evidencethat [he] actuallyexercisedcare,custody,or controloverthe subjectcocaine.', We review the legal sufficiencyof the evidenceby consideringall of the evidence"in the light most favorableto the prosecution"to determinewhetherany "rational trier of fact could havefoundthe essentialelementsof the crimebeyonda reasonable doubt." Jacl