See Tex . H eal th &Safety C ode An n. § 481.121 (b )( 3) , § 481.112 (c) , ( d) ( Ver non 1 2003)
. NO. 07-07 -047 3-CR, 07-07 -047 4-CR, 07-07 -047 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER19, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CALVI N JARROD HEST ER, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 54, 995- E, 5 4,996- E, 5 4,997- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPINION Appel lan t C alv in Jar ro d H est er w as ind icted for

the off e n se s of posses si on of marijua na, p oss ess ion of coc ain e w it h i ntentto dis tr ibu te, enhanc ed, a nd pos sessi on of methampheta mine w it h i ntent to dis tr ibu te, enhanc ed. Ea ch ind ictment als o i ncl uded a 1 deadl y w eapon n oti ce. At tr ial , appel lan t ple ad g uil ty to each of t he three charg ed offenses and pl ead “ tr ue” to the e nhanc ements al leg ed i n the co caine a nd metha mphetami ne2

poss ess ion i ndi ctment s. Appel lan t el ect ed to hav e the tr ial co urt deci de puni shmentand to de ci de th e deadl y

w eapon i ss ue for each offense. The Stat e present ed evid e n ce to s how thatAmar il lo pol ic e off ic ers e x ecut ed a search w ar ra nt ata on e- bedroom hous e oc cupi ed by appel lan t a n d h is g ir lfri end. Bot h w ere presentw hen t he w ar ra nt was ex ecut ed. O ff ic ers found marijua na, me tha mp het am ine, c o c aine , and drug paraph erna lia in v arious loca tions in th e sma ll house , al ong w it h near ly $1,0 00 i n c ash. The ho use wa s e q uip ped w it h v ide o c amera s in s id e . Po li c e fo u n d a . 3 8 0 se m i- a u t o m a t icp i s t o l wi t h a m a ga zin e , st o re d in a Cro wn Roy al bag
. The bag w as in the bedroom ins ide a back pack loc ated on the floor , next t o a safe and a dress er . The safe c ontai ned c oin s a nd g ift c ards. O ne draw er of the d re ss er co n ta in e d m a riju a n a . T h e ba ck p a ckal so co n ta in e d a h o m e m a d e pl a st ic m a riju a n a bo n g. Appel lan t t old the pol ic e all the dr ug s were hi s, for hi s p ersonal us e. Both appel lan t and his g ir lfri end w ere ar re ste d. The next day , app ell ant’ s g ir lfri end pl aced a phone c all to her mother from t he Potter Cou nty Ja il , te lli n g h e r the poli ce mis sed a l arg e amountof cas h near the batht ub and ask ing thatsh e retr iev e the ca sh. Po li ce in te rce pted the c all and ex ecut ed a sec ond w ar ra nt, findi ng near ly

$8,0 00 in cash in the bathroom of appel lan t’ s resi dence , c oncea led in a Crow n Royal bag tha t app ellantadm itted w as his. App ellanttestif ied attrial. Although he ackno w ledged the m one y and drugs were his, he sa id the .38 0 pistol was not his. He testif ied he did no t know w here it came f rom. He sai d the bac kpac k was not h is , and thati t l ooked l ik e “ a female’ s b ag .” He said the bedroomThe tr ial courtsentenc ed appell ant to tw o y ears o f impr is onment for the marijua na 2 charg e, an d thi rty

y ears o f impr is onment for each of the coc ain e and methampheta mine charges. 3 cont aine d clothe s b elon ging t o ano the r fem ale f riend, in a dditio n to his gir lf riend’s cloth es. He further

st ated that Ma nuel C ampbel l, referred to in the re cord as a “ know n dr ug deal er ,” stayed at th e ho use occasion ally and w as the re just before the police arriv ed, cooking crack coc ain e. Appel la n t’s t est imony al so sug g est ed C ampbel l w as ang ry w it h hi m and ha d re asons to “g et” appel lan t. After hear ing the ev ide nce present ed, t he j udg e found i t s uff ic ien t t o s how appel lan t used the p is tol to facil it ate his pos ses si on and dis tr ibu ti on of con traband a nd ent ered a deadl y w eapon findi ng for each offense. On appeal , throug h si x issu e s, ap pel lan t 2 chal len g es the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the ev ide nce to suppor t the deadl y

w eapon fi nd i ng i n ea c h c au s e. W e affi r m. Ana lysis By appel lan t’ s s ix

i ss ues, he c ontends the ev ide nce present ed di d not show thatthe g un w as his , t hat i t was in cl ose prox imity t o d ru gs, t h a t he w as the s ole oc cupan t of the house , or

thatothe r ev ide nce direct ly l ink ed hi m to t he g un. Evi denti ar y S uffici ency Suppo rt ing D eadl y Weapon F

ind ing T o revi ew evi den ce for le gal suf f iciency, we mu st v iew

the evidence in the light most fav orabl e to the v erdict and determi ne if a rati onal tri er of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial ele ments of the offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. See Nar vai z v. Sta te , 840 S.W .2d 4 15,4

4 2 3 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 992) , cer t. denied , 5 0 7 U
. S
. 9 7 5 , 1 1 3 S
. C t
. 1 4 2 2 , 1 2 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 791 (199 3) citi

ng Jacks on v

. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 19, 9 9 S. Ct . 278 1, 27 89, 6 1 L.E d.2d 560 (197 9). A factua l suffici ency

rev iew req uires us to v iew

al l of the ev ide n ce in a n eutral li g ht a n d as k whe th e r th e ju ry wa s ra ti o n a llyj u st if ie d in f in d in g guil t (o r an af f irm a ti ve f in d in g) bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 415 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). W e ap p ly th e sa m e an a lysis to evid e n ce su p p o rt in g an a f f irm a ti ve d e a d ly w e a p o n f in d in g. See Me ndez

v. Sta te, N o. 01 -0 7- 00680- CR , 2008 W L 5263415, *2 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] Dec
. 18, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (conducti ng suf f iciency rev iew

of ev iden ce sup portin g dea dly w eap on f inding). Ev iden ce is fa ctua lly i ns uffi c i en t w he n th e ev i de nc e s up po rti ng t he c on v i c ti on is so w ea ktha t t he v erdi c t s ee ms cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unjust , or the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv icti on i s o utw eig hed by the g reat weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the con trary

ev iden ce so as to rend er the verdict cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust
. Gr

otti v. Sta te, 273 S.W .3d 2 73, 2 83 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 8); R ober

ts v. State , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Sanchez v. St ate , 243 S.W .3d 5 7, 72 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2007, pet. ref’d)
. O u r e v alu ati on s houl d not st int ru de upon the fact finder's role as the sol e judg e of the w eig ht and credi bil ity g iv en to any w it ness 's tes ti mony . See Fuentes v. Sta te , 991 S. W .2d 2 67, 2 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 999)
. The w eig ht t o be g iv en c ontradi cto ry tes ti monial ev ide nce is w it hin the so le p ro vinc e of the fact-f inde r. See Johns on v . St ate, 23 S .W .3d 1 , 7 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; Cai n v . St ate , 958 S
. W
. 2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 -0 9 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). I n co n d u c t in g a fa c t u a l- s u f f ic i e n c yr e vie w, weA firear m is a deadl y w eapon per

se . Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 1.07( a) (1 7) (A ) 3 (Verno n 20 03). 5 mu st discuss the ev iden ce tha t, acco rding to the appe llant, most unde rmine s the trial court's findi ng s. See Sim s v

. St ate, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). An affirmat iv e deadl y

w eapon fin din g may

be made w hen t he St ate e sta bli shes , inter alia , ( 1) thata de adl y

w eapon was used or

ex hib it e d d u rin g the co mmiss ion of a felony offense or

( 2) thatthe defendant was a par ty to the o ffense and knew that a deadl y

w eapon w oul d be us ed or

ex hib it ed. Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 42.12, § 3g (a )( 2) ( Ver non Su pp. 3 2008) . An y

empl oy ment of a fire ar m or other deadl y w eapon, ev en it s si mple poss ess ion , t o facil it ate the commi ss ion of an other offense cons ti tutes a "us e" of the w eapon. Patterson v. State, 769 S.W .2d 938 , 941 (Tex.Crim.App .19 89). In Patter son , officers e x ecut ing a s earch w ar ra nt found t he defendant si tti ng on a couc h near

a tabl e on w hic h methamphe tami ne w as loc ated. Id. at 939. A pi sto l w as on th e couc h bes ide the defendant' s l eg . Id
. The cour t hel d tha t t he ev ide nce suppo rt ed a findi ng that the d efendant us ed th e pi sto l to facil itate h is pos ses si on of the methampheta mine. Id. at 94 2. In Gale v

. St ate , tw enty

pounds o f

m ar ihu ana, sev eral unl oaded firear ms, and ammunit ion for t hose fire ar ms w ere found i n the bedroom cl oset of the defendant' s h ouse. Gale v . St ate, 998 S.W .2d 221 , 223 (Tex.Crim.App .19 99). T he co urt held thatthe evidence suppo rt ed a findi ng that the d efendant us ed th e w eapons to facil it ate h is pos ses si on of the ma r ij u ana. Id. at 226. In C ole m an v . St ate , dr ug s a nd dr ug parapher nal ia w ere found th ro u gho ut t he defendant' s resi dence
. Colem an v . St ate, 1 4 5 S
. W
. 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 0 - 51 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) . In a b e d ro o m , officers found a pi sto l, a r ifle, and a s afe conta ini ng6

b o t t le s o f

P CP a n d a la rg e a m o u n to f m o n e y. Id. at 65 1. The c our t hel d tha t a ra ti onal tr ier of factco uld find t hat t he defendant used the firea rms to facil it ate h is pos ses si on and dis tr ibu ti on of the dr ug s. Id. at 655. In W ynn v. State , the c our

t rev ersed a deadl y

w eapon f inding beca use the defend ant w as charged as a party to the of fen s e a n d t h e e v iden ce showed he w as not in the house w it h the drug s and guns , he w as not the only occupantof the hou se, the owner of the guns w as not det ermin ed, and no guns or drugs w ere foun d in the o nly room co nnect ed w it h the defendant. W ynn v. State, 84 7 S.W .2d 3 57, 3 60- 61 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 3) , aff’ d, 864 S.W .2d 539 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 3). Cou rt s h av e recog niz ed th at it is common for narc oti cs dealers to pos ses s firear ms for the p ur pose of prot ect ing thems elv es becau se they posse ss l a rg e amount s o f drug s a nd cas h. See, e.g., Mor

eno v . St ate , 978 S.W .2d 285 , 289 (T ex.App. –Fort W orth 19 98, no pe t.). See al so W il son v. Sta te, 132 S.W .3d 6 95, 6 98 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2004, pet. re f’d) (recogniz ing i t is “ rathe r settled” tha t w eap ons a re associat ed w ith the d rug trade ). The Court of Cr imi nal Appeals h a s n o te d that a firear m is “ used” dur ing the commi ss ion of the fel ony offense of poss ess in g c o n traband in the s ense that the firear m protects and faci li tates the care, c ust ody

and manag ement of the co ntraband. Gale, 9 9 8 S
. W
. 2 d at 224. See also D i m a s v . S ta te, 9 8 7 S.W .2d 152 , 154 -55 (Te x .Ap p.– Fort W orth 19 99, pet. ref ’d) (narcotics super v is or t e st if ie d i t was cus tomar y for d ru g deal ers t o hav e firear ms and “ use” them to prote ct the mse lv es, th eir drugs, and th eir mon ey)
. Ap pe l l an t arg ue s h i s c as e i s d ist i ng ui s ha bl e from Patter son , and i s more s imi lar to W ynn . H e p o i n t s t o e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g h e w a s n o tt h e o n l y o c c u p a n to f t h e h o u s e , a n d t h at7

h is gi rl f ri e n d kn e w t h e lo c a t io n o f t h e $ 8 0 0 0 h id d e n in t h e b a t h ro o m . Bu tt h e e vid e n c e sh o ws app ellantw as the p rimary occup anto f t he sma ll ho use. Amon g the items p olice foun d the re w as a rent recei pt i n appel lant’ s n ame. Appel lan t t est ified hi s rela ti onshi p w it h hi s g ir lfri end w as of lo ng sta ndin g, an d test if ied she , like appe llant, so ld ma rijuana . Neither her prese nce in the house nor her know led g e of t he hid den cas h w eaken s the inc ri minat ing in fe re n ces prop er l y d raw n from the pres en c e of t he p i s to l i n th e be droo m. Se e al so Cha rles v. State , 915 S. W .2 d 23 8 , 2 4 1 (T e x.A p p .– Be a u m o n t 1 9 9 6 , p e t. ref 'd ) (a lso di st in gui sh in g W ynn ). App ellantalso poin ts outthe evidence of the locatio ns at which the dif feren t drugs w ere found i n t h e h o u s e i s n o t s p e c i fi c , a n d a rg u e s t h e re i s t h u s n o e v i d e n c e t h e p i s t o l and t he dr ug s were found in cl ose prox imi ty
. W e di sag re e. Appel lan t t est ified the marijua na bl unts w ere i n th e dres s er

d raw er , an d ot he r

e v i de nc e al s o s ho w s ma r ij ua na i n th e be droo m. Appel lan t al so tes ti fied powder co cai ne and addi ti onal marijua na w ere found in the refri g erator in the k it chen. W hil e the pist ol w as not in the same contai ner as anyof

the dr ug s, itw as found v ery nea r the dresse r. Furthe r, th e bed room a nd th e kitche n of the ho use were imme diate ly adj acent , s o the pi sto l w as w it hin feet of the dr ug s l ocat ed th ere. Cit in g W ynn , app ell ant als o arg ues there is no ev ide nce his fing er pr int s were found on the g un o r in the roo m where it w as foun d, ot hers ha d acce ss to the hou se an d no ev iden ce shows h e ow ned t he g un. Appel lan t i s c or re ct the record c o n ta in s n o fing er pr intev ide nce. But fing er pr intev ide nce w as unnec ess ar y to est abl is h tha t app ell ant l iv ed i n the one- bedroom hou se, th at the room in w hich th e pisto l w as foun d w as his bed room , and thatthe ba ckpack c on ta i ni ng t he p i s to l w as o n th e fl oo r a l on g t he w al l betw ee n th e be droo m a nd t he b at hroo m, cov ered by

a bl anket
. Appel lan t t est ified to thos e facts
. Appel lan t denied the g un w as his , but8

itw as in hi s bedroom among o ther i tems he ac know led g ed w ere hi s, and t he tr ial co urt was not req uired to ac cepthi s d eni al. See Cain , 958 S. W .2d a t 408 -0 9. By hi s g uil ty pl ea, a ppel lan t admi tted he pos ses sed the c ocai ne and methampheta mine w it h the i ntentto dis tr ibu te i t. H e al so ple ad g uil ty to poss ess ion of marijua na and tes ti fied he sol d mar ij uana bl unts , and “ a blo ck of weed w it h a w hol e bunch of ro ll ed up blu nts ” w ere i n the bedroom dress er . The g un w as found ins ide the near by back pack in a Crow n Roy al bag , and appel lan t ac know led g ed ow nershi p of the $8000 c ash found in another st ashed C ro w n R oy al bag
. Base d on the s tandard di sc uss ed i n Patter son , 769 S.W .2d a t 941 , t he fact- finder co uld , f rom th e evidence it heard, infer thatapp ellantw as in posse ssion of the gun fou n d i n his bedroom and itw as used to protect and faci li tate his pos ses si on of dr ug s. See Hoope r v. State , 214 S .W .3d 9, 15 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 7) (discussing permissible inferen ces). Th e na ture of the w eap o n su ppor ts that conc lus ion
. See C ole m an, 145 S. W .3d a t 655 ( Coc hran, J ., conc ur ri ng ). Vi ew ing al l the e v ide nce in li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the j udg e’s v erdict, w e find that the ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t t o al low the fact finder

to deter mine bey ond a re asona ble doubt that appel lan t pos ses sed the weapon a nd us ed i t to faci li tate poss ess ion and int ended d is tr ibu ti on of marijua na, cocaine , and met ham phe tam ine. Accord in gl y, w e f ind th e evidence legally suffici ent t o s uppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g that appell ant used a deadl y w eapon d ur ing the commi ss ion of the t hree dr ug offenses . Appel lan t’ s first three i ss ues are ov er ru led
. On t he s ame ev ide nce, w e find the e v ide nce is al so factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he tr ial cou rt ’s aff ir mati v e deadl y w eapon fin din g s. Appel lan t t est ified thathi s g ir lfri end and9

Campbe ll had acc ess to his home, and effecti v ely argue s th e gu n c oul d hav e bel ong ed to eit her o f t h e m . As noted, he a ls o tes ti fied C ampbel l w as out t o “ g et” hi m. Vi ew ing the evidence in a neu tral light, w e f ind tha t favoring t he f indings is n ot so w eak, n or the co ntrary ev ide nce appel lan t emphas iz es so strong , as to m ake the t ri al cour t’ s fin din g s c lea rl y

w ro ng or ma nifestly unju st. Accordingly , w e hold tha t the evidence is factu ally suf f icient to supp ort the f inding tha t app ellantused a d ead ly weapo n during t he com mission o f the th ree na rcotics of fense s. W e overrule appe llant’s fourth , f if th an d sixth issue s. Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.