AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed January 13, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00557-CR
BLAKE AARON LAWSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 005-80093-14
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
Blake Aaron Lawson waived a jury and pleaded not guilty to possession of marijuana in
an amount less than two ounces. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(a), (b)(1)
(West 2010). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at 120 days’
confinement in jail, probated for twelve months, and a $100 fine. In a single issue, appellant
contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED
Jason Pruett, a McKinney police officer, testified that on September 11, 2013, he and
another officer were parked at an apartment complex known for drug activity. Pruett saw a
passenger car enter the complex followed by a Suburban. One individual exited the passenger
car and got in the back seat of the Suburban. Pruett testified that when the vehicles entered the
area, he ran their license plates on his patrol car’s computer and learned neither vehicle was
registered to an address at the complex or in that area of town. Pruett followed the Suburban.
When he saw the Suburban fail to signal before turning, Pruett initiated a traffic stop. The
videotape from Pruett’s in-car camera was admitted into evidence.
Pruett testified that when he approached the Suburban, he noticed “multiple cigarettes
thrown out the driver’s side window or rear passenger window.” There were four people in the
Suburban: Lauren Barnett was in the driver’s seat; an unidentified male was in the front
passenger seat; Cody Noble, a known drug dealer, was in the back seat behind Barnett; and
appellant was in the back seat behind the unidentified male. Pruett testified he ordered Barnett
out of the vehicle. Barnett stated she was on probation for tobacco use, she and her mother
owned the Suburban, and they purchased the vehicle four days earlier. Barnett gave Pruett
consent to search the vehicle. When Pruett opened the door behind the driver’s seat to order
Noble out of the vehicle, he saw a pill bottle fall from Noble’s lap onto the floor. Pruett grabbed
the bottle and found a small bag of marijuana inside. Pruett testified that when he opened the
bottle, the odor of marijuana was strong inside both the bottle and the Suburban.
Pruett testified that after he handcuffed Noble and appellant, for officer safety, he
searched the back seat and found marijuana and a wooden pipe in the pocket on the back of the
front passenger seat. Pruett testified the front seat had been pushed back, which would cause the
-2-
knees of whoever sat behind it to “practically touch” the pocket. Pruett estimated appellant had
been sitting approximately ten inches away from the pocket. Pruett testified the pipe was “filled
with marijuana, packed in and ready to smoke,” and the two baggies found with the pipe
contained 0.41 ounces of marijuana. Appellant said he did not know the marijuana and pipe
were in the vehicle, and Noble said all the marijuana found in the vehicle was his. Appellant did
not have any drugs or paraphernalia on his person. Pruett testified he arrested both Noble and
appellant for possession of marijuana. Pruett further testified that based on his training and
experience, he believed appellant had to know there was marijuana in the vehicle due to its odor.
Pruett acknowledged that even though the bags of marijuana were in evidence bags, the odor was
noticeable in the courtroom. Appellant did not present any evidence at the trial.
APPLICABLE LAW
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict and 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, 319 (1979); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Brooks v.
State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). We are required to defer to
the fact finder’s credibility and weight determinations because the fact finder is the sole judge of
the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at
326.
To support a conviction for possession of marijuana, the State is required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant exercised actual care, custody, control, or management
over the marijuana and knew the material possessed was contraband. See Blackman v. State, 350
S.W.3d 588, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The State may prove this by linking appellant to the
-3-
crime. See id. These links may include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the drugs are in plain
view; (2) the accused’s proximity to and accessibility of the drugs; (3) whether other drugs or
paraphernalia were present; (4) whether the place where the drugs were found was enclosed; and
(5) whether the conduct of the accused indicated a consciousness of guilt. Evans v. State, 202
S.W.3d 158, 162 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Links between appellant and the drugs may be
established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. See Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402,
406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, no set formula of facts exists to dictate a finding of links
sufficient to support an inference of knowing possession. See Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 827, 830
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). It is the logical force of the evidence, and not the number of
links, that supports a fact finder's verdict. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d 158 at 166.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient because there were three other individuals
in the vehicle and he was not in exclusive control of the place where the drugs were found.
Appellant asserts there is no evidence showing he had knowledge of or control over the
marijuana, the drugs were not in plain view, and there were no drugs found on his person. The
State responds that the evidence is sufficient to show appellant knowingly possessed the
marijuana.
The evidence shows several links between appellant and the marijuana. Appellant and
Noble, a known drug dealer, sat in the back seat of the vehicle where drugs were found. The
drugs were in a pocket on the back of the front passenger seat; appellant was sitting behind the
front passenger seat while Noble was sitting behind the driver’s seat. Appellant was within reach
of and had easy access to the marijuana. Moreover, a rational trier of fact could reasonably
believe appellant could smell the odor of marijuana inside the vehicle due to the fact that
-4-
comments at trial indicated the odor of the marijuana was detectable in the courtroom while still
in the evidence bags.
Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational trier of fact could
find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly and intentionally possessed the
marijuana. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction. We overrule
appellant’s sole issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/ Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140557F.U05
-5-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE AARON LAWSON, Appellant Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 5 of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00557-CR V. 005-80093-14).
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 13, 2015.
-6-