C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

J OSE DEL GADO, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 00 30 -C R

Appea l from 384th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 20060D04403)

O P I N I O N Jose De lg a do a

pp e a ls h is c on vic tio n o f p os se ssi on of a us a ble qu anti ty of

mari jua na . In h is tw o is su e s for re vie w, he c omp la ins that th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sh

a ff ir mativ e lin ks c on ne c tin g him to t he c on tr a ba nd . F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e a ff

ir m. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On September

5, 2006, El Pa s o p a

tr o l o f fice r Mar tin Moncada w as sea

rchinga public par

king lot for nar cotics with the help of his dog , Reno. Reno, who wa s trained to dete ct and a lert to odors of coca ine, marijuana , heroin, and methamphetamines, aler ted Moncada to a g old 1987 Pontiac F ie rr o. Af

ter searc hin g the re ma ind e r o f t he pa rk inglot wi th n o a le rt s to any

oth e r v e hic le s, Moncada and Reno re tu rn ed to the patr ol car and par ked appr ox imately

fifty y ards a way from the Fier ro. Moncada

lear ned from a “lane chec k” with U .S. Customs that the Fier ro had cr ossed from J uare z int o El Paso ear lier that day . At that p o i nt, he saw A ppellant appr oach the car . Appellant opened the passeng er- side door, which a ppear ed to be u n l o cked, and re ache d into the vehicle. He then wa l k ed t o t h e drive r-side door and used ke y s to enter the ve hicle and sta rt the eng ine. AsAppellan t b ega n to back out of his par king spa ce, Monc ada dr ove up behind him. He a pproac hed Appellant, i d en tified himself, and e x plained that Reno ha d aler ted to the pre sence of nar cotics

emanating f

rom the vehic le. Appellant beca me extremely

nervous; his hands shook as he g ave Moncada his identification car d, and he beg an to stutt er a s he talked. A ppellant told Moncada

that the vehicle belong ed to someone el s e an d that he wa s taking it back to J uare z for the owner

. Moncada lear ned that the ve hicle’s lice nse plates were reg istered to a 1993 Merc ury , and he knew Appellant wa s not the reg istered owne r of the c ar. After obtaining Appellant’s consent, Moncada and R eno searche d the i nterior a nd exterior of the ve hicle. Reno aler ted t o the back of t he car ag ain. Moncada chec ked that ar ea a nd found a hidden com

p artm e n t. I n s id e , M o n c a d a f o u n d b u n d le s o f

ma r ij u an a w e ig h in g a

p p r o xim a te ly

1 00 pounds. Fra

nk Gutierre z, an El Paso detective a ssigne d to the “stash house” unit, estimated the stree t value of the drug s to be $134,000. At trial, Moncada identified phot og raphs of the 1987 Pontiac Fie rro a nd the hidden eng ine compar tment in which he found the marijuana . He a lso identified photogr aphs showing a spiral notebo o k in th e p a s s e n g e r s e a t. B a s e d o n h is e xp e r ie n c e an d tr a in in g , M o n c a d a b e li e v e d that the notebook was a

rec ord of na

rcotics tra

nsac t i o n s . Gutierre z recog nized the notebook as a “ drug le dg e r” wi th i nf

or matio n c on sis te nt w ithna rc oti c s tr ans a c tio ns . The jury found Appe llant guilty

of possession of a usable quantit y of marijuana in an amount

ov e r f if ty po un ds bu t le ss th an 2, 00 0 p ound s. He wa s se nte nc e d to e ig ht ye ars ’ c omm un ity supervision, which include d 300 hours of c ommu n i ty service , a drugtreatment prog ram, a nd a $1,000 fine. SUF F ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE I n two related issues for revie w, Appellant challeng es the leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy of thee vid e nc e to s us ta in h is c on vic tio n, c omp la ini ng th at th e State did no t pr ov e be y on d a

re a so na ble doubt that he intentionally and knowing ly

possessed the mar ijuana. Stand ards of Review I n revie wing the leg al suffic iency of evide nce, w e conside r all of the ev idence in the light most favora

ble to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have f ound the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318- 19, 99 S.Ct . 2781, 2788-89, 61 L .Ed.2d 560 (1979). W e l ook at “e vents occ urringbefor e, during and af ter the c ommissi on of the of fe n s e an d m ay rely

on actions of the de fenda nt which show an understandingand comm o n d es i gn to do the prohibited ac t.” Ho op e r v . S tate , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) qu oti ng Cor do v a v . S tate , 6 9 8 S. W. 2 d

1 0 7 , 1 1 1 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 8 5 )

. We

mus t a c c ount f

or “ the re sp on sib ili ty

of the tr ie r o f f

a c t to fa ir ly

re so lve c on fl ic ts in tes tim ony , to weig h the evidence, and to drawrea sonable infe renc es fr om basic fa cts to ultim ate f acts.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d at 13 quoting Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318-19, 99 S.Ct. at 2781. As an interme diate appe llate cour t, we ar e also c on s t i tutionally empower ed to re view the fa ctual sufficiency

of the e vidence used to establish the ele ments of an of fense

. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 6 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) c iti ng Cle wis v . S

tate , 922 S.W .2d 126, 129 -30 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). I n a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, a ll e vid e nc e is view e d in a ne utr a l li g ht. Cle wis , 9 22 S.W. 2d

a t 12 9. Ev ide nc e may

be fa c tua lly

ins uf fi c ie nt i f it is so we a k th a t it wo uld

c le arl y be wr on g and manif e stl y un jus t for the ve rd ic t to sta

nd , or if the a dv e rs e fi nd ingis a g a ins t the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the ava ilable evidenc e. Johnson , 23 S.W.3 d at 11. We m us t det erm in e wheth e r a

ne utr a l r e vie w o f a ll the e vid e nc e de mon str a te s th a t th e pr oo f o f guil t is so

o b v i o u s l y we akas t o u n d erm i n e co n fi d en ce i nt h e j u ry ’s d et erm i n at i o n , o r p ro o f o f gu i l t , al t h o u gh ample if take n alone, is g reatly outweig hed by

contra ry proof. Id.Ele m e nt s o f the Offen se

To prove posse ssion of marijuana, the State mu s t n e c e s s a r il y prove that the acc used exercise d

car e, contr ol, and manag ement over the marijuana , and that he kne w he wa s i n p o s s es s i o n of the contra band. Ma rti n v . S

tate , 753 S.W .2d 384, 386 (Tex.Crim.App. 1 9 88). Possession involves more th an s im p ly b e in g w h e r e th e a c ti o n is ; it r e qu ir e s e xe r c is e o f d o mi n io n an d c o n tr o l over the thing alleg edly possessed. Mc Go ldr ic k v . S tate , 682 S.W .2d 573, 578 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). Evidence

mus t a ff ir mativ e ly lin k the a c c us e d to the c on tr a ba nd by e vid e nc e ind ic a tin g kn ow le dg e and c on tr ol. Me nc ha c a v . S

tate , 901 S.W .2d 640, 651 (Tex.App--El Paso 1995, pet. r ef’ d), c iti ng W ald on v . S tate , 579 S.W .2d 499, 501 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). The burde n of establishing aff irmative links rests upon the State. Menc haca, 901 S.W .2d at 651, citing D a m r o n v . Sta te , 570 S.W .2d 933, 935 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ). Pr oo f o f k no wl e dg e is an in fer e nc e dr awn by the jur y fr om a ll circ umstances. Di llo n v . S tate , 5 74 S.W. 2d

92 , 9 4 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ). Kn owled g e may ari se from the c onduct of a

nd rema rks by the ac cused or

from cir cumstance s surrounding the ac ts eng ag ed in by the ac cused. Sh ar

pev . S tate , 881 S.W .2d 487 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1994, no pet.)

. An a ff ir mativ e lin k, wh ic h may be sh ow n by e ith e r dir e c t or c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e , “ mus t establish, to the requisite level of c onfidenc e, that the a ccuse d’s conne ction with the drugwas more than just fortuitous.” Br own v . S tate , 911 S.W .2d 744, 747 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Fa ctors that may aff irmatively

link the acc used to contra band include whether : (1) the contra band wa s in plain view

or re cover ed fr om an enc losed plac e; (2) the acc used wa s the owner of the pre mises or the plac e wher e the c ontraba

nd was found; ( 3) the a ccuse d wa s fo u n d with a larg e amount of c ash; (4) the

c on tr a ba nd wa s c on ve nie ntl y

a c c e ssibl e to the a c c us e d; ( 5) the c on tr a ba nd wa s f ound in c los e proxi mity to the acc used; (6) a

strong residual odor

of the c ontraba

nd was pre sent; (7) the a ccuse d possessed other

contra band whe n arr ested; (8) para pherna lia to use the contra band wa s in view, orfound on the a ccuse d; (9) the phy sical condition of the acc used indicated rec ent consumption of the contra band in que stion; (10) conduct by the acc used indicated a consciousness of g uilt; (11) t he

acc used attempted to f

l ee ; (1 2) the a ccuse d made f urtive g estures; (13) the ac cused ha d a spec ial

connec tion to the contra

band; (14) the occ upants of the pr emises g ave c onflicting statements about rele vant matters; (15) the ac cused ma de incr iminating stateme nts connec ting hims elf to the contra band; (16) the quantity

of the contraband; and (17) the acc used was observe d in a suspicious

are a under

suspicious circumstanc es. Las sa int v . S tate , 79 S.W .3d 736, 740-41 (Te x .App.--Corpus Christi 2 0 0 2 , n o pet.). Any list of affirmative links is non-ex clusive. Cas te lla no v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 800, 805 (Tex.App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). The logic al forc e the f actor s play

in establishing the eleme nts of the offe nse is more important than the numbe r o f fa ctors involved. See J ones v. Sta te , 963 S.W .2d 826, 830 (Tex.App.--Te x arka na 1998, pet. r ef’ d). I f evide nce sug g ests that the ac cused has dominion or control over the vehicle in which the contra band is conc eale d, the ac cused may be in possession of the c ontraba nd. Castellano , 810 S.W .2d at 806. (findingthat defe ndant ex erc ised control over a car and possession of its contraba nd

as a p as s en ger wh en h e i n s t ru ct ed t h e dri v er t o co n t i nu e o nt h e f re ew ay an d n o tex i t ). Kn o wl ed ge of the pre sence of contra

band may be inferr ed from control over the vehicle in which the contr aband is c oncea led, particula

rly when the amount of contra band is larg e enough to indicate that the a ccuse d knew of its presenc e. Castellano , 810 S.W .2d at 806. W h en contra band is found in hidden compar tments in a vehicle, the cou rt s h o u l d not rely solely upon control of the ve hicle to show knowledg e. Id. Ad d i t i o n al fa ct o rs i n d i ca t i n g k n o wl ed ge, s u ch as ci rc u m s t a n c e s i n d i ca t i n g a consciousness of

g uilt, mus t be examined. Id.

Ana lys is o f the Affir m at ive Links Th e fa c ts h e re c los e ly

pa ra lle l Menc h aca . There , customs inspectors found pa ckag es ofmarijuana

totaling a

pproxi mately

fifty pounds hidden throug hout the defe n d an t ’s s tation wag on. Menc haca , 901 S.W .2d at 644. The initial inspector f ound a small c y lindrical object wra pped in duct tape u n d er n ea t h the front f ender and similar objects we re f ound with the help of a

trained c anine. Id. A letter indicating a plan to me et at a location to disc uss a “matter ” was found i n t h e v eh i cle. Mencha ca ha d difficulty

opening his trunk when aske d beca use his hands we re shaking. Menc haca , 901 S.W .2d at 652. Althoug h Mencha ca’ s conviction could not stand entirely on his control of the statio n w a g on , o the r fa c tor s af fi rm a tiv e ly lin ke d him to the mari jua na . T he jur

y c ou ld h a ve ratio na lly inferr ed that the va lue of the c ontraba nd indicated knowledg e, that this knowle dg e was the ca use of Mencha ca’ s nervousne ss, and that the spec ifics of the le tter indicate d a drugdeal. Id. Simi larly , Appellant exerc ised control o v er the vehicle a nd its contraband be cause he wa s the driver a

nd sole occ upant. Aff

irmative links then connec ted Appellant with the mar ijuana. The quantity and location of the contra band, conduc t during Appellant’s inter action with Monca da, and the notebook found in the ve hicle all play ed a log ical role in linki n g Ap p el l an t to the contra band. Moncada found ap proxi mately

100 pounds of marijuana in a hidden compa

rtment. Appellant beca me ner vous when Monca da explained the re ason for the stop, and Monca da noticed that Appellant’s ha

nds were shaking and he be g an to stutter a s he talked. L ike the letter in Menc haca , the spiral notebook f

ound in the car linked Appellant to drugactivity . Ba sed on their e x perie nce a nd training , Moncada

and Gutierre z both believed the notebook to be a ledg er c ontaining inf ormation related to narc otics transac tions. This evidence is leg ally sufficie nt to sustain the conviction. Turning to a fa ctual sufficie ncy revie w, Appellant a

rg ues that the State pre sented too fe w aff irmative links. Monc ada could not r eca ll who owned the car , but he knew that it did not belong to A pp e lla nt. Th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e that App e lla nt m a de any

inc ri min a tin g st ateme nts or that a larg e amount of c ash wa s found on him. No drug s were found on Appe llant and he did not attemptto flee. We c onclude, howeve r, that a jury could rationally infer that Appellant had knowledg e of

the marijuan a b as ed on three fac tors: (1) the c ontraba nd was c oncea led in a hidden c ompartment

and va lue d at $1 34 ,0 00 ; ( 2) Ap pe lla nt w a s n e rv ou s, sh a kin g , a nd stu tt e r ingduri nghis e nc ounte r w ith Mo nc a da ; and (3 ) t

he inf or matio n in the sp ir a l no te bo ok

wa s c on sis te nt w ithna

rc oti c s tr ans a c tio ns . A neutra l reviewof t his evidenc e fails to demonstrate that proof of g uilt was so obviously weak as to un d er m ine conf

idence in the jury ’s ver dict. Nor is the proof of g uilt gre atly

outweig hed by

c on tr ary e vid e nc e . T hu s, the c on vic tio n is su pp or te d b y fa c tua lly su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e . We ov e rr ule bo th i ssu e s f

or re vie w a nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. Fe bruar y 26, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)