### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00353- CR

St e phe n Dwa yne Ca nnada , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 20401 20, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Stephen Dway ne Canna da g uilt y

of deliver ing a

simulated controlled substanc e. See Tex. Hea lth & Safety Code Ann. § 482.002(a) (2) (West 2003). Cannada challeng es the suff

iciency of the e vidence supporting the verdic t. We affirm the judgm en t of conviction.
BACK GR OUND

During the nig ht of J anu ary 8, 2004, the Austin Poli ce D epar tment conducted a

n
un de rc ov e r na

rc oti c s op e ratio n aro un d F if th, Sixth and Sa

bin e str e e ts, an are a

targ e te d b y

the APD b a s e d o n th e p r e v a le n c e o f c r a c k c o c a in e d e a li n g . Ca n n a d a a p p r o a c h e d u n d e r c o v e r

office r Mark2

Lue ra and a sk e d if he wa s “ loo kin g .” Whe n L ue ra re sp on de d tha t he wa s, Cann a da sa id he wo uld “hoo k u p ” th e o f f ic e r . Ca n n a d a to ld Lu e r a to f o ll o w h im , s tati n g , “ I ’ v e g o t i t a r o u n d th e c o r n e r.” Luera ref used to g o with Cannada. Cannada eventually walked around a corne r whe re he confe rre d wi th t wo me n. Cann a da

re tur ne d c arr y ingan o bje c t in

his ha nd and a sk e d L ue ra fo r t we nty do lla rs . Luera g ave Ca nnada the money

and Canna da hande d the offic er a small object wra

pped in eith er white ce llophane or a

paper towel. L uera asked Ca n n ad a if “ it” was “ g ood,” to which Canna da responde d aff

irmatively . Luera

then sig naled “ takedown” office rs, and Canna da wa s arr ested. For ensic tests per formed on the substance Cannada sold to L uera

reve aled that it was not a controlled substance afte r all, but an ordinar y rock, possibly

a piec e of limestone. Canna da wa s indicted and subseque ntly convicted of

delivery of a simulated c ontrolled substance
. See id . The district court sentenc ed Canna da to eig hteen months imprisonment. This appeal e nsued.
DI SCU SSIO N Cannada bring s a single point of err or contendingthat the evidenc e wa s insufficient to s u p p o rt a f in d in gth a t he w a s g u il ty

o f d e li v e r in g a

s im u late d c o n tr o ll e d

s u b s ta n c e to Lu e r a . We will construe Canna da’s point to challeng e both the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence
. Stand ard of review

When there is a c halleng e to the lega l sufficie ncy of t he evidence to sustain a c riminal conviction, we consider whether a rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. Vo do c ho ds k yv . S tat e , 1 58 S.W.3d 50 2, 50 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 0 4 ). W e re view all the3

e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t, as su me that the tr ie r of fa c t re so lve d co nf lic ts i n the testimony , weig hed the evidenc e, and drew rea sonable infere nces in a manner that supports the verdic t. Gr iff

in , 614 S.W .2d 155, 1 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). I t is not necessar y that ever y fac t point directly

and indepe ndently

to the defe ndant’s g uilt; it is enoug h if the conc lusion is warrante d by the combined a

nd cumulative for ce of

all the incriminating circ umstances. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 871 S.W .2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We consider e ven er roneously admitted evidenc e. Id. I n a f ac t u al s u fficie ncy

revie w, we c onsider all the e vidence equally , including the testimony of def ense w itn es s es and the exi stence of alter native hy potheses. Or on a v . S

tat e , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no pet.). We cons ider a ll the evidence , rig htly or wrong ly admitted. Se e Cam ar ill o v . S tat e , 82 S.W .3d 529, 537 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). Due de fer ence must be acc orded the fac t-finder ’s determinations, particula rly those conc erningthe
we ig ht a nd c re dib ili ty

of the e vid e nc e , a

nd we may

dis a g re e wi th t

he re su lt o nly

to p re ve nt a
man ifest injustice. J

oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We will deem the eviden ce fa ct u ally

insufficient to sustain the convic tion if the proof of guilt is too weak or the contra ry evidenc e is too strong to support a finding of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. Zuniga , 144 S.W. 3d a t 48 4- 85 ; see J

ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Appli cation Cannada

was c o nv ic te d

under se ction 482.002(2) of the hea lth and safe ty

code, w hich pr ov ide s:4

(a) A per son commits an offense if the per son k n owing ly or intentionally

. . . de liv e rs a simulated controlled substance and the pe rson:

. . . (2) represe nts the substance to be a c ontrolled substance in a man ner that w ou ld lead a rea sonable pe rson to believe that the substance is a controlled substance.

. . . T ex . He al t h & S af

et y C o d e An n . § 4 8 2
. 0 0 2 (a )( 2 ) (e mp h as i s ad d ed ). C an n ad a ap p ea rs t o ch al l en ge the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e that Ca

nn a da (1 ) “ de liv e re d” a

(2 ) s ub sta

nc e that w a s r e pr e se nte d to be a “ simulated controlled substance .”
De liv e ry Cannada

em p h asi zes that after

he wa s arr ested, the A PD did not find the $20 buy

m o n ey i nh i s p o s s es s i o n . Ho we v er , Of fi ce r Lue ra t es t i fi edt h at h e d i d gi v e C an n ad a $ 2 0 i nex ch an ge for what was re prese nted to be a r ock of c rac k coc ai n e. Offic er Christopher Conchin, one of the
arr esting office rs, adde d that it is not unc ommon in underc over arr ests to be unable to find the mone y g iven to a dea ler.

Moreove r, deliver

y under se ction 482.002(a) (2) can be proven w ithout establishing that L ue ra a c tua lly pa id C ann a da

the $2 0. Th e de fi nit ion

of “ de liv e r” in c ha

pte r 4 82 of the he a lth and saf ety code includes offe ring to sell a simulated controlled substanc e. I n addition to testify ing that mo ne y

a c tua lly c ha ng e d h and s, Lue ra

te sti fi e d th a t Ca

nn a da of fe re d h im the subs tanc e in exchang e for

$20.I n h is a pp e llate br ie f, Cann a da

c la ims that he wa s a c tua lly “ ha ra ssi ngOf

fi c e r L ue ra be c a us e 1 they wer e pre sent in the are a.” 5

Considering all the evidenc e in a neutr al light, a rational trier

of fa ct could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that Cannada a cted with i n t ent to offe r to sell a simulated controlled substance to L

uera . S e e Vodochodsky , 158 S.W. 3d a t 50 9; Zuniga , 144 S.W .3d at 484-85. Moreov e r , p r o o f o f g u il t is n o t s o w e a k , n o r th e c o n tr ar y e v id e n c e s o s tr o n g , a s to rende r the evidenc e fa ctually

insufficient. See Zuniga, 144 S.W .3d at 484-85; Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 9. The
e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y an d f

a c tu a l l y s u f

f i c i e n t t o s u

p p o rt t h e j u r

y’ s f i n d i n g o n t h e e l e m e n t o f

d e l i v e r y. Representing th e substance to be a sim ulated control led substan ce Cannada sug g ests that he could not be c onvicted of delivering a simulated controlled
su bs ta n c e b e c a

u s e t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t h e e v e r e xp l i c i t l y r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e s u b s ta nc e in question was cr ack c ocaine , but employ ed only the slang term “r ock.” Se e Jenk ins v . S tat e , 820 S.W. 2d 17 8, 17 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Bo y k in v . S tat e , 818 S.W .2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Jenk

ins and Bo

y k in , howeve r, co n s trued subsec tion (1) of he alth and saf ety code se ction 1 482.002(a) , which re qu i res proof that a de fenda nt “expressly

repr esents the substanc e to be a controlled substanc e.” See Tex. Hea lth & Safety Code Ann. § 482.002(a )(1) (West 2003). Cannada , by contra st, was indicted under subsection (2) of section 482.002(a) , which require s proof only that the def endant “ repr esents the substanc e to be a controlled substanc e in a manner that would lea d a
re a so na ble pe rs on

to b e lie ve that th e su

bs tance is a contr oll e d s ub sta nc e .” Th e he a lthand

sa fe ty
c od e fu rt he r e la bo rate s:6

(a) I n deter

mining whe ther a

person ha s repr esente d a simulated contro l led su bs tanc e to b e a

c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e in a mann e r that w ou ld l e a d a re a so na ble person to believe the substance was a co n t ro l led substance , a cour t may consider, in a ddition to all ot her log ically rele vant fa ctors, whe ther: (1 ) the sim

ulate d c on tr oll ed su bstanc e wa s p a c ka g e d in a mann e r n or

ma lly us e d f or the de liv e ry

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e ; (2) the delivery or intended delivery included an exchang e of or d em an d for proper ty as consider ation for de livery of t he substance and the amount of the consider ation was substantially in excess of t he reasonable value of the simulated controlled substance ; and (3) the phy sical appe ara nce of the finished product c ontaining the substance was substantially

identical to a c ontrolled substance
. Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 482.003 (West 2003). L uera test i fi edt h at C an n ad a i n qu i re d wh et h er h e w as “l o o k i n g. ” Lue ra , wh o has bee n wi t h t h e p o l i ce d ep ar t m en t ’s s t re et re s p o n s e un i t fo r on e an d o n e- h al f y ea rs , ex p l ai n edt h at “l o o k i n g” is s tr e e t te rm ino log y

for , “Are y ou

loo kin g to b uy

c ra c k?” H e a dd e d th a t Ca nn a da ’s pr omi se to

“ h o o k [ h i m ] u p ” u s u a l l y m e an s , “ I’ l l t a k e c ar e o f yo u . I’ l l g i v e yo uc r a c k
. If yo u ’ r e l o o k i n g t o b u y, I ’m the on e tha

t’ s g oin g to s up ply

it. ” S ergeant Rob e rt

Mc Cow an, wh o h a d b e e n invo lve d in h u n dre d s o f p ri o r dr

u g arre s t s , al s o t es t i fi ed
. W h en as k edwh at l an gu age i s t y p i ca l l y u s edd u ri n g a purc ha se of

c ra c k c oc a ine , M c Cow an r e sp on de d, “ I t c an be any thi ng fr om jus t sim

ply e y e c on ta c t. I ’ve ma de a lot of buy s just – y ou look at a g uy and a guy

looks at y ou and y ou both know what’s g oing on. So any

wher e fr om there, all the way up to ask if – y ou ask them if they have a 20. You ask t hem i f t hey ’re holding. They ’ll ask y ou if y ou’re looking. I t’s – nobody say s, do y ou have a

ny
cra ck coc aine? ”7 Lue ra de sc ri be d th e su

bs tanc e de li v e r e d

t o h i m b y C a nn a da a s b e ingwr a

pp e d in wh ite
c e llo ph ane or a pa

pe r tow e l. Lue ra ind ic a te d tha t this is co mmo n pa c ka g ing fo r cr a c k c oc a ine . T his ob se rv a tio n w a s echoe d by Gl or ia Rod ri qu e z, a fo re ns ic dr

ugc he mis t f

or APD fo r t

hir te e n y e a rs , who tests cra ck coc aine on a daily basis as part of her

job responsibiliti es. Rodrig uez testified that the roc k Cannada

delivere d to L

uera rese mbled a cra ck rock, a nd that under the circ umstances it was
rea sonable for

Luera to believe he had bee n g iven a r ock of c rac k coca ine. Luera further testified that Cannada asked him f or the twenty

dollars saying that he, Cann a da , w ou ld g ive Lue ra the ro c k. Mc Cow an s ta te d h is und e rc ov e r o ff ic e rs us ua lly

pa y tw e nty dollars for one rock of

cra ck coc aine. Considering th e foreg oing e vidence , including the packa g ing, the rock’ s simil ar appea ranc e to cr ack c ocaine , and the fac t that Ca nnada sold it to Luera

in a manner

ty pical of a cra ck
coca ine dea l, see Tex. Health & Safety Cod e An n. § 482.003, we c onclude that the e vidence was le g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the jur y ’s ve rd ic t th a t Ca

nn a da kn ow ing ly or

int e nti on a lly delivere d the roc k to Luera in a manner t hat would have led a r easona ble per son to believe that it was
cra ck coc aine. An de rso n v . S tat e , 895 S.W .2d 756, 758 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994, no pet.). F or the same r easons, we conclude that the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the finding t hat the roc k Cannada g ave L uera was a “simulated controlled substanc e.” See Tex. He alth & Saf ety Code Ann. § 482.001(4) (We st 2 00 3) (d e fi nin g “ simulate d c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e ” un de r C ha

pte r 4 82 a s a “s u b s ta n c e th a t is p u r

p o rte d to b e a c o n tr o ll e d s u b s ta n c e , b u t is c h e mi c a ll y d if f e r e n t from the controlled substanc e it is purported to be.” ).8 CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled Cannada ’s sole point of erro r, we affirm the district court’s judgme nt of conviction.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: January

12, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh