1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07-455- CR DON AL L E N W E S T B R OOK AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 396TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### O N AP PELLA N T ’ S PET I T I O N FORD I SC RET I O N A RYREV I EW

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON Pur su antt o T exa s Rul e o fA ppe l l at e Pr oce dur e 50, w e w i t hdr aw our J a n u a ry8 , 2 0 0 9 o p i n i o n a n d j u d g m e n t a n d s u b s ti tu te th e fo l l o w i n g . S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 50. W e w r i t e t o c l ar i f y on e s t at em enti n ouror i gi nalopi ni on.2

A ppe l l an tD on Al l en W es t br ookap pea l s hi s con vi ct i on f orunl aw f ul pos se ss i on ofa f i r ea r m by a f el on. I n t w o poi nt s, W es t br ookar gue s t hatt he e v id e n c e isle g a llya n d f a c t u a llyin s u f f ic ie n tt o s u p p o rth isc o n v ic t io n . W e w ill a f f i r m. II . F ACTUALB AC KG ROUND D epu t i esH ow ar d R. Johns on, JoseA r r oyo, and Raym ond Gar ci a w i t h t he Tarr antC oun t y S her i f f ’ s D epart m entr esp o n ded t o a dom est i c di st ur bance di spat ch atH azelFi ncher ’ s r esi dence on J ul y 20 , 20 06 , at10 : 30 p. m . W hen th e ykn o c k e d o n the fr o n t do o r, W e stb roo ka n s w e re d a n d all o w e d the m to ent ert he hou se. D eputy A r r oyo st ayed w i th W est br ook and hi s son C ody i n t he gam e r oom w hi l e D eputy Johnson w entt o check o n W e stbr ook’ s m ot her , H azel Fi ncher , i n t he back oft he r esi dence. D eputy Johnson no t ed t hatFi ncherw as v e ryu p s e t a n d a g i ta te d . D e p u tyJ o h n s o n w a sc o n c e rn e d a b o u t F i n c h e r’s saf et y, so he col l ect ed a pi st ol and a shot gun f r om Fi ncher , and w i t h her con se nt , he se cur ed t hem i n t he t r unk of t he pat r ol ca r . A ft er he col l ec t ed and se cur ed Fi nch er ’ s pi st ol an d s hot gun, heas ke d W es t br ooki ft her e w er e a ny m o re w e a p o n s, an d W e stb roo ksa i d tha t he h a d a s h o tg u n i n h i s ro o m . D e p u ty John so n ask ed W es t br ookw hi ch r oom w ashi s, an d W es t br ooks t art ed w al ki ng2 ... In r e b u t t a l, D e p u t y J o h n s o n t e s t if ie d t h a t W e s t b r o o kw a ss t a n d in g in

t he gam e r oom ne xtt o t he poolt abl e w hen heas ke d hi m i ft her e w er e a ny m or e w ea ponsi n t he hous e. As s oon a s D epu t y Johns on as ke d W es t br ookt he que st i on, W es t br ooks t art ed w al ki ng do w n t he hal l . W es t br ookw asnot al r ea dy w al ki ng do w n t he hal l w hen D epu t y Johns on as ke d hi m t he que st i on. 3 dow n t he hal l w ay; D epu t y Jo hns on s t oppe d W es t br ookand t ol d hi m t o poi nt 2 t o w h e re th e w e a p o n w a s l o c a te d . W e s tb ro o k p o i n te d to th e l e ft s i d e o fh is bed w her e t her e w as a den i m shi rt , an d i nsi de t he shi rtw as a Br ow ni ng t w el vegau ge sh ot gun t hatha d f ours hel l s i n i t . D epu t y Johns on not ed t hatW es t br ook di d notsee m s ur pr i se d w hen t he den i m s hi rtw asr em ove d t o r eve al t he sh ot gun. D epu t y Ar r oyo al so t es t i f i ed t hatw hen D epu t y Johns on a sk ed W es t br ook ift h e r e w e r e a n yw e a p o n s in t h e h o u s e , W e s t b r o o ks a id t h a tt h e r e w a so n e in hi s bed r oom an d t hatD epu t y Jo hns on w enti n t he bed r oom an d r et r i eve d t he s h o t g u n , w h ic h h a d “ a ja c k e th u n g o v e rito rs o m e t h in g .” D e p u t yA r r o y o s a id t hatW es t br ookdi d notm ak e a ny c om m ent s abo utw ho ow ned t he gun. Fi nch er t es t i f i ed t hatatt he t i m e o ft he i nci den t , he rda ught erKar en Le i gh W e stb roo kan d K a ren ’s so n B ri a n S a u b l e w e re s tay i n g w i th h e r, a lo n g w i th W es t br ookan d hi s so n C ody. Fi nch ers ai d t hatBr i an and Cody w er e o cc upyi ng W es t br ook ’ s r oom an d t hat W es t br ook w as sp end i ng t he ni ght s on t he cou ch.4

S he sai d t hatal l ofhi s cl ot hes w er e i n hi s car because she had becom e m ad at h i m , a n d h e w a s p l a n n i n g to m o v e o u t. F in c h e rt e s t if ie d t h a ts h e lo v e d g u n s a n d o w n e d a .3 8 c a lib e rp is t o l,
w hi ch sh e kep tunde rhe rm att r es s; a Br ow ni ng t w el ve- gau ge sh ot gun t hats he bough ti n 1985, w hi ch sh e n or m al l y ke pt i n t he cl os eti n he rbe dr oom ; an d a t w el ve- gaug e p um p shot gun thath ad or i gi nal l y bel ong ed t o herfat her . Fi ncher kne w t hatW es t br ookco ul d notpos se ssan y guns . Fi nch ersai d t hatW es t br ook

“ w o u l d n o t e v e n p i c ku p a g u n , l e t a l o n e h a v e p o s s e s s i o n .” Fi ncherdi d not know how t he B r ow ni ng shotgun m oved fr om hercl oset t o W es t br ook ’ s bed r oom . She sai d t hatC ody and Br i an nor m al l y ha d t o a skf or herper m i ssi on t o use herg u ns butt hatC ody m usthave t aken i tw i t hou ther per m i ssi o n . S he al so sai d t hatt he depu t y sher i f ft ook herguns w i t hou ther p e r m is s io n b u ta d m it t e d t h a ts h e d id n o tc o m p la in t o h im . A tt he con cl us i on ofFi nch er ’ s t es t i m ony, she sa i d t hats he di d nott el l t he dep ut y s her i f fon t he day o ft he i nci den tt hatt he Br ow ni ng s hot gun w asnot W es t br ook ’ s bec aus e t he dep ut y sh er i f f di d not as k her w ho t he s hot gun b e l o n g e d to . S h e a l s o a d m i tte d t h a t s h e h a d n e v e r c a l l e d t h e d i s tri c t a tto rn e y ’s of f i ce t o r el at e t o t hem t he f act s abou t t he B r ow ni ng shotgun t hatshe t est i f i ed to i n co u rt .3 ... K ar en adm i t t ed t hatshe had been con vi ct ed oft hr ee f el oni es. 5 Br i an, w ho w ass i xt ee n a tt he t i m e o ft r i alan d Fi nc her ’ s gr and so n a nd W e s t b r o o k ’s n e p h e w , t e s t if ie d t h a th e h a d g o n et o a f r ie n d ’s h o u s e a tt h e t im e w h e n W e s tb ro o kw a sa rre s te d b u tth a t h e w a ss ta y i n g a t h i sg ra n d m o th e r’s hous e. He sa i d t hatW es t br ookha d be en sl ee pi ng on t he cou ch and t hathean d hi s cou si n Cody ha d be en st ayi ng i n W es t br ook ’ s r oom . B r ia n s t a t e d t h a tt h e B r o w n in g s h o t g u n in q u e s t i o n b e lo n g e d t o h is gr andm ot her . H e t est i f i ed t hathi s gr andm ot herkeptt he shot gun i n hercl oset a n d th a t h e h a d re m o v e d i t fro m t h e c lo s e ta n d h a d ta k e n i t to W e s tb ro o k ’s r oom t o cl ean i tb ecause h e h ad pl anned to t ake i tw hen he w enthunti ng t hat
w eekend. A ccor di ng t o B r i an, W est br ook di d not know t hat t he shot gun w as i n hi s r oom . Att he con cl us i on ofB r i an’ s t es t i m ony, he al so adm i t t ed t hathe h a d n e v e r to l d th e s h e ri ff’sd e p a rtm e n t o r th e d i s tri c t a tto rn e y ’so ffice h i ss to ry abou tt he B r ow ni ng shotgun ort hathe w as concer ned t hathi s uncl e had been u n fai rl ych a rge d w i th p o ss e ss i o n o f i t. Kar en, W es t br ook ’ s si ster , t es t i f i ed si m i l ar l y t o he rs on— t hats he and

3 Bri an w er e st ayi ng atFi ncher ’ s house butt hatt hey w e re not pr esentw hen W e s tb ro o kw a sa rre s te d . K a re n l i k e w i s e te s ti fi e d th a t B ri a n a n d C o d yw e re st ayi ng i n W est br ook’ s r oom . Kar en sai d t hatshe di d not know th e re w as a6

gun i n W es t br ook ’ s r oom . She kn ew t hathe rm ot herow ned a pi st ol an d a coup l e ofshot gun s, i ncl udi ng t he B r ow ni ng, butsh e s a i d t hatt he pi st ol w as u n d e r he r m o th e r’ s m a ttr e ss an d tha t t h e B row n i n g sh o tg u n w a s i n the clos e t. K ar en st at ed t hatW estb roo kw i l l nott ouch a gun. She furt herst at ed t hat p o lic e h a d s t o p p e d h e r f o r h a v in g a n o n w o r k in g t a il lig h ta n d t h a ts h e h a d t o ld t he of f i cerw ho st opp ed hert hatt he B r ow ni ng w as notW est br ook’ s. W es t br ookul t i m at el y t ookt he st and i n hi s def ens e, and hi s t es t i m ony m i m i ck ed hi s r el at i ves ’ t es t i m oni es — t hathe , hi s m ot her , Kar en, Cody, an d Bri an w er e st ayi ng athi s m ot her ’ s house; t hatt he boy s sl epti n hi s r oom ; t hat he sl epti n t he g a m e ro o m o r t he den; t hathe knew hi s m ot herow ned gu ns, i ncl udi ng t he sh ot gun ati ss ue; and t hathekn ew heco ul d notpos se ssa gun. H e t esti f i ed t ha t he do es no t kn ow ho w t he sh otgu n ar r i ve d i n his ro o m . H e t es t i f i ed nu m er oust i m est hathenot i ce d t he sh ot gun w hen hew al ke d byt he e n tryto h i s ro o m an d tha t he p o i n ted i t ou t t o the d e p u ty s h e ri ff. D ur i ng i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he St at e c onc ede d t hatt he sh ot gun w asnot ow ned byW est br ook bu tar gued t hat t he evi dence w as suf f i ci entt o show t hat he had pos se ss i on ofi t . The t r i alco urtt her ea ft erf ound W es t br ookgui l t y oft he of f ense of f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m and sent enced hi m t o f i ft een year s’ con f i nem ent . Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.7 II I. S UFFICI ENCYS TA NDA RDS OFR EVI EW A . Le galSuff i ci enc y I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y of t he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on, w e vi ew al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ost f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on i n or der t o det er m i ne w h e th e r any r at i onal t r i eroff actcoul d have f oun d t he essent i al e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Ja cks o nv. V ir ginia , 443 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 235 S. W . 3d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h i s s tan d a rd g i v e s fu l l p l a yt o t h e re sp o n sibi l i ty o f t h e tr i e r of fac t t o r esol ve confl i ct s i n t he t est i m ony, t o w ei gh t he evi dence, and t o dr aw re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e sfro m b a s i c fa c ts to u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jacks on , 44 3 U . S . at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d at778. The t r i eroff ac ti s t he s o l e j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e . S eeT e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Ma rgra ves v. S tate , 34 S . W . 3d 912, 919 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). T h u s , w h e n p e rfo rm i n g a l e g a l s u fficie n c yre v i e w , w e m a yn o t r e -ev a l u a te th e w e i g h t an d cre d i b i l i ty o f t h e ev i d e n c e an d su b sti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e wb erryv. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U . S . 1 1 3 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I n s t e a d , we “d et er m i ne w het hert he nec es sa ry i nf erence s ar e r ea so nab l e b as ed upon t he co m b i n e d a n d c u m u l a t i v e f o r c e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e w h e n v i e w e d i n t h e l i ght8

m ostf avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” Ho op er v. S tate , 214 S. W . 3d 9, 16–1 7 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2007 ) . W e m us tpresu m e t hatt he f ac t f i nde rr es ol ved an y con f l i ct i ng i nf er enc esi n f avo r oft he pr os ec ut i on a nd de f ert o t hatr es ol ut i on. Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. The suf f i ci enc y oft he evi den ces houl d bem ea su r ed by t he el em ent s of t he of f ense as def i ned byt he hyp ot het i cal l yc o rr e c t j ur y char ge f ort he case. Ma l i kv. S tate , 9 5 3 S .W .2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); Bowdenv. S tate , 1 66 S . W . 3d 4 66 , 4 70 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 20 05 , pet . r ef ’ d) . Such a c har ge w oul d beonet hatac cur at el y s et s outt he l aw , i s au t ho r i zed by t he i ndi ct m ent , doesnotunnece ss ar i l y r es t r i ctt he St at e’ s t heo r i esofl i abi l i t y, an d ade qua t el y des cr i best he part i cul arof f ens e f orw hi ch t he def end antw ast r i ed. G ol l i har v. S tate , 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Ma lik , 953 S .W .2 d a t 2 4 0 . T h e l a w a s a u th o ri z e d b y th e i n d i c tm e n t m e a n s th e s ta tu to ry e l e m e n ts o f th e c h a rg e d o ffe n s e a sm o d i fi e d b yth e c h a rg i n g i n s tru m e n t. S ee Curryv. S tate , 3 0 S .W .3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). B. Fact ualSu ff i ci ency W h e n r e v ie w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta co nvi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4S . W . 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4( T ex . C r i m . A pp . 2 0 0 6 ); D r i cha s v. S tate , 17 5 S . W . 3d 79 5, 79 9 ( Tex . C r i m . A p p . 20 05 ) . W e t hen ask w het her9

t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hatt he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd m ani f es t l y un j us torw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghst he e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a tt h e f a c t f i n d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. W atson , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 23 S. W . 3d 1, 11 ( Te x . Cr i m . Ap p . 20 00 ) . To r e v e r s e u n d e r t h e s e con d gr ound,
w e m ust det er m i ne, w i t h som e obj ect i ve basi s i n t he r ecor d, t hat t h e g r eat w e i g h t an d p rep o n d e ran c e o f al l the ev i d e n c e , th o u g h l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t, c o n tra d i c ts th e j u d g m e n t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y suf f i ci entevi den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t th is c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r o n g o rm a n if e s t ly u n ju s t s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s re s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin t h e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m a y n o t s i m p l y s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g m e n tf ort he fa c tfin d e r’s . Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 ; Ca i nv. S tate , 958 S. W . 2d 404, 407 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n le s s t h e r e c o r d c le a r lyre v e a lst h a ta d if f e r e n tre s u lt i s app r opr i at e, w e m ustde f ert o t he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on oft he w ei ghtt o be gi ven con t r adi ct or y t est i m oni al evi dence becau se r esol ut i on o f th e conf l i ct10

“ o fte n tu rn so n a n e v a l u a ti o n o f c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r, a n d t h o s e j u ro rsw e re i n at t endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d a t8. Thus , w e m us tg i ved ued e f e r e nc e t o t hef a c t f i nd e r ’ sd e t e r m i na t i ons, “p art i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i onsco nce r ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . at 9. A n opi ni on add r essi ng f act ual suf f i ci ency m usti ncl ude a di sc us si on oft he m os ti m po rt an tan d r el eva ntev i den cet hats upport s t he ap pe l l an t ’ s co m pl ai nt on ap pe al . Sim sv. S tate , 99 S. W . 3d 600, 603 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).

IV . S UFF I CI E NTE VIDENCET OS UPP ORTC ONVI CT I ON I n hi s t w o poi nt s, W es t br ookar gue s t hatt he evi den cei s l egal l y a nd f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entt o s upporthi s con vi ct i on f orpos se ss i on ofa f i r ea r m by a fe l o n . S p e c i fi c a l l y , W e s tb ro o ka rg u e sth a t h i sk n o w l e d g e o f th e fi re a rm ’s lo c a t io n a n d h is p r e s e n c e a tt h e lo c a t io n w h e r e t h e f ir e a r m w a sf o u n d is i ns uf f i ci entt o e stabl i sh ac t ualca r e, cu st ody, co nt r ol , orm ana gem entoft he f i r e a r m. Tex as Penal C ode sect i o n 4 6 .0 4 p r ovi des t hata per son w ho has been con vi ct ed ofa f el ony com m i t s an of f ens e i fhepos se ss esa f i r ea r m aft ert he con vi ct i on a nd be f or e t he f i ft h a nni ver sa ry oft he per so n’ s r el ea sef r om c o n fi n e m e n t. T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 4 6 .0 4 (a )(1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). W es t br ookdoe s notdi sp ut e t hathe had a pr i orf el ony con vi ct i on. I ns t ea d, he11

ar gue s o n l yt h a th e d i d n o tp o s s e s st h e f i r e a r m t h a tt h e d e p u t i e sf o u n d . O ur a n a l y sis w i l l the refo re fo c u s o n this n a rr o w arg u m e n t. P o s s e s s io n isd e f in e d b yt h e p e n a l c o d e a s “ a c t u a l c a r e , c u s t o d y , c o n t r o l, o r m a n a g e m e n t.” T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 .0 7 (a )(3 9 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). W hen t her e i sn o e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e a p p e l l a n tw a si n e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o ft he p la c e w h e r e t h e f ir e a r m w a sf o u n d , t h e S t a t e m u s to f f e ra d d it io n a l, i n d e p e n d e n t fa c ts a n d c i rc u m s t a n c e sth a t l i n kh i m to th e fi re a rm . Sm ith v. S tate , 17 6 S . W . 3d 90 7, 91 6 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 20 05 , pet . r ef ’ d) . The l i nks bet w ee n W es t br ookan d t he f i r ea r m m ay be es t abl i sh ed by e i t herdi r ec tor c i rc u m s ta n ti a l e v i d e n c e . S e ePo i n dex ter v. S tate , 153 S. W . 3d 402 , 406 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); se ealso Eva n s v. S tate , 202 S . W . 3d 158, 161– 62 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp . 20 06 ) . I n det er m i ni ng w het hersuf f i ci entl i nks exi st , w e l ook at f a c t o r s , s u c h a sw h e t h e rt h e f i r e a r m w a si n p l a i n v i e w , w h e t h e rW e s t b r ook ow ned t he pr em i ses w her e t h e fi rear m w as f oun d, w het herhe w as i n cl ose pr oxi m i t y t o t he f i r ea r m and had r ea dy acc es s t o i torw het heri tw asf ound on hi s per so n, w het herheatt em pt ed t o f l ee , w het herhi s co nducti ndi ca t ed a c o n s c i o u s n e s so f g u i l t, w h e th e r h e h a d a s p e c i a l c o n n e c ti o n to th e fi re a rm , w het hert he fi r ea r m w asf ound i n a n e ncl os ed sp ac e, an d w het herhem ade i n c ri m i n a ti n g s ta te m e n ts . Sm ith , 176 S. W . 3d at916. I ti s t he l ogi ca l f or ceof12

t he f ac t or s, nott he num beroff ac t ors p r es ent , t hatde t er m i nesw het hert he e l e m e n ts o f th e o ffe n s e h a v e b e e n e s ta b l i s h e d . Id. A s s e tf o rt h a b o v e , t w o c o m p e t in g s t o rylin e sw e r e d e v e lo p e d a tt r ia l. Bot h Deput y Jo hns on a nd Deput y Ar r oyo t es t i f i ed t hataft erD epu t y Jo hns on had co l l ec t ed a pi st ol and a sh ot gun f r om Fi nch er , hew entt o t he gam e r oom and as ke d W es t br ook w het her t her e w er e any ot her w ea ponsi n t he hous e a nd t hatW es t br ookr epl i ed t hatheha d a s ho t gu n i n hi s bed r oom . W es t br ook a ttem p ted to g e t i n clos e p rox i m i ty to th e sh o tg u n w h e n h e w a s ta k i n g D e p u ty J o h n so n t o i t s l ocat i on, butD eputy Johnson m ade hi m st op and poi ntt o i t. W e stb roo kp o i n ted to a d e n i m sh i rt b u n d l e d n e x t to W e stb roo k ’s b e d . D e p u ty John so n t he r ea f t ergr abb ed t he den i m s hi rtbund l e n extt o W es t br ook ’ s bed , w hi ch he unw r app ed t o r eve ala Br ow ni ng t w el ve- gau ge sh ot gun w i t h f our sh e l l s i n i t. T he cont r adi ct ory s t ory de vel ope d byW es t br ook ’ s r el at i vesan d W es t br ookhi m se l fw ast hatW es t br ookha d no kno w l edg e o ft he sh ot gun, w hi ch w as ow ned byhi s m ot her . W est br ook’ s r el at i ves bel i eved t hatBr i an had rem o v e d the sh o tg u n fr o m h i s g ran d m o th e r’ s c l o se t a n d h a d tak e n i t t o W es t br ook ’ s r oom t o cl ea n i t . W es t br ook t es t i f i ed t hat he sa w t he shot gun w hen hew al ke d byhi s r oom an d poi nt ed i toutt o t he de put y s her i f f , but13

D eputy Johnson t est i f i ed t hathe coul d not t el l r i ght aw ay t hatt he obj ectnear th e b e d w a s a sh o tg u n b e c a u se i t w a s w rap p e d i n a d e n i m sh i rt . Th e t r i al court , as t he sol e tr i ero ffact s, co ul d have w ei ghed t he depu t i es’ t es t i m ony m or e hea vi l y ba se d on cr edi bi l i t y de t er m i nat i onst han i tw ei ghe d t he t est i m ony o fW est br ook and hi s r el at i ves. W her e, as her e, t he f act f i nder
w ei ghst he evi den ceba se d on cr edi bi l i t y, t he f ac t f i nde rm ay cho os e t o be l i eve s o m e te s ti m o n ya n d to d i s b e l i e v e o th e r te s ti m o n y . S e eL a n c o nv. S tate , 253 S. W . 3d 699, 707 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2008 ) ( r eve r si ng a ppe l l at e c ourtf orhol di ng evi den cef ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entbase d on t w o c onf l i ct i ng s t or i es ) . I n Lancon , t he courtof cr i m i nal appeal s expl ai ned t hat “an appel l at e courtm ustgi ve def er ence to a [fa c tfin d e r’s ] d e c i s i o n re g a rd i n g w h a tw e i g h t to g i v e c o n tra d i c to ry t es t i m oni alev i den cebe ca us e t he dec i si on i s m os tl i ke l y bas ed on a n e val uat i on o f cre d ib il it yan d d e m e a n o r, w h i c h the [ fac tfi n d e r] i s i n a b e tter po sit i o n to j udg e. ” Id. at706. The t r i alco urt w as ent i t l ed t o bel i evet he t es t i m ony oft he dep ut i esan d t o di sb el i evet he t es t i m ony ofW es t br ookan d hi s r el at i ves , an d th i s c red i b i l i ty d e term i n a ti o n d o e s n o t ren d e r th e e v i d e n c e fac tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t. See i d. V i ew ed i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he ver di ct , a r at i onal t r i eroff act coul d have f oun d f r om t he f oreg o i ng evi dence and t est i m ony o ft he depu t i es t hatW es t br ookpos se ss ed t he f i r ea r m t hat t he dep ut i esdi sc ove r ed nex tt o t he14

bed i n hi s bedr oom because he w as abl e t o di r ect l y poi nti toutt o depu t i es even t h o u g h t h e s h o t g u n w a s w r a p p e d in a d e n im s h irt . V ie w in g a ll t h e e v id e n c e in a n eut r al l i ght , t he evi den ce su pport i ng t he con vi ct i on— t hough con t r ove rt ed by t he t es t i m ony t hatW es t br ook ’ s so n a nd ne phe w w er e s l ee pi ng i n hi s bed r oom and t hatW es t br ookdi d notow n t he sh ot gun— i s no ts o w ea k t hatt he f act f i nder ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ear l y w r ong and unj ust . W e ther ef or e hol d t hat t he evi dence i s l egal l y and f a ct ual l y suf f i ci entt o pr ove t hatW est br ook knew o f, e x e rc i s e d c o n tro l o v e r, a n d th e re fo re p o s s e s s e d th e s h o tg u n . S ee Ram os v. S tate , Nos . 02- 07- 00118

- CR, 02- 07- 00119

- CR, 2008 W L6237 77, a t*7 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h M ar . 6 , 2008 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f or p u b l i c a ti o n ) (ho l d i n g tha t e v ide n c e w a s l e g a l l yan d fac tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su pportconvi ct i on f orunl aw f ul poss es si on off i r ea r m w hen shot gun w asf ound in m a s t e r b e d ro o m c l o s e t, w h i c h a p p e l l a n t s h a re d w i th h i sw i fe ); Smithv. S tate , N o . 1 2 -0 6 -0 0 0 2 1 -C R , 2 0 0 7 W L2 1 7 8 5 4 1 , a t* 3 (T e x . A p p .— T y le rJ u ly 31 , 20 07 , no pet . ) ( m em . o p ., n o t desi gnated f orpubl i cat i on) ( hol di ng t hat evi den cew asl ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y suf f i ci entt o s upportco nvi ct i on f orunl aw f ul pos se ss i on off i r ea r m w hen pi st ol w asf ound i n pl ai n vi ew i n l i nen cl os etne xt to b e d ro o m w h e re a p p e l l a n t s l e p t); A usti nv. S tate , Nos . 14- 00- 01389

- CR, 14- 0 0 -0 1 3 9 0 -C R , 2 0 0 2 W L 3 7 0 0 4 5 , a t * 3 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] M a r. 7, 20 02 , no pet . ) ( not desi gnated f orpubl i cat i o n ) (ho l di ng t hatevi dence w as15

l ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y s uf f i ci entt o s upportco nvi ct i on f orunl aw f ul pos se ss i on of f ir e a r m t h a to f f ic e r sf o u n d in b e d r o o m c lo s e tb e c a u s e c lo s e tc o n t a in e d m a il a d d r e s s e d to a p p e l l a n t); Hol l and v. S tate , Nos . 05- 99- 00821

- CR, 05- 99- 00822

- C R, 2002 W L 115582 , at* 7 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l asJan. 3 0, 2 002 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( not d e si gnated f orpubl i cat i on) ( hol di ng t hatevi dence w as l egal l y suf f i ci entto suppo rtconvi ct i on f orunl aw f ul possessi on of f i r ear m t hato f f i cer s f oun d i n back c e n ter c l o se t th a t w a s a c c e ss i b l e to a p p e l l a n t) . W e o v e rr u l e W e stb roo k ’s tw o poi nt s. V . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d W e s tb ro o k ’s tw o p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: D A U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua ry 26, 2009