Th e spe lling of a p p ellant ’s nam e follows the spelling fo und in the trial court’s 1 re cord. See T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 48 1.1 12 (Ve rnon Supp . 200 9).

2 NO. 07-08 -033 7-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER6, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ANGEL A OBAL LY, APPE LLA NT 1 V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 412208; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ang ela Obal ly , app ell ant, w as conv icted o f p o ss ess ion w it h i ntentto del iv er methampheta mine (met h) of at leas t 400 grams or more. Pursuantto appel lan t’ s e lecti on, 2 the t ri al jud g e as ses sed puni shmentat confine men t in t h e Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the T exas Departm ento f

C ri m inal Justice for 20 years. Appe llant ap pea ls v ia three issues. W e affi r m.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und In August 200 4, appe llant was residing at 9007 Alcove i n Lu bbo ck Count y . Robin W ar re n beg an stay ing at appel lan t’ s home duri ng Augus t 2004. Acc ordin g to the record, W ar ren w as i nv i te d to com e to t he h om e to h el p ap pe l l an t “ c oo k ” s om e me th from a Col eman c a m p f uel ca n. The record i s c lea r that appel lan t t ook the c amp fuel i nto t he hom e. W arren testif ied tha t app ellantt old her tha t Phil, w ho was identif ied as ap pellan t’s deal er , g av e her the fuel can. Appel lan t, how ev er , tes ti fied that she found it in the road on her w ay home fro m w or k. Appell ant t est ified thatsh e w ent t o bed, after retur nin g home, and aw oke to f ind W a rr e n an d on e of tw o ma les try ing to “g as” the m eth w hile W arren’s infant chi ld w as in the room. This l ed to a di sag re ement an d appel lan t l eft the h ome. W ar re n, on the other

hand, st ated that the e nti re g ro up was involv ed i n the “ cook ing ” of the meth butthatthey

ran i nto d ifficul ty

and appel lan t t ook a por ti on of the li q uid and left w it h it

. Appel lan t l eft in W ar re n’s ca r and went t o the home of Audra Bran. On A ug ust 13, 2004, Det ect iv e Er ic Har ri s of t he Lubboc k Pol ic e D epar tment w as atte mp ting to find W arren regarding an outsta ndin g felon y w arrant and s o m e fo rg ery charges. Harris had receiv ed a tip thatW arren’s car w as see n at a rura l re s iden ce in north w est Lu bbo ck Count y , w here A udra B ran resided

. Harri s procee ded to the residence and s aw W ar re n’s ca r in the dr iv ew ay . Becau se there appea re d to be s ev eral peopl e at the residence , Harris called for b ackup a nd blocke d the driv eway w ith his v ehicle. W hile aw ait ing bac kup, H ar ri s noti ced that in div idu als w oul d come out of the house and look at him and g o bac k int o the home. Bobby Bran, t he ow ner

of the h ome, ev entual ly ca me out and g ave Harr is and th e oth er of f icers, w ho h ad arri v ed at the sce ne, perm ission to en ter.3

Onc e i nsi de, H ar ri s was not a ble to find W ar re n, ho w ev er , t here w as a s trong ch emic al smel l that Har ri s s aid w as ass oci ated w it h meth “c ooki ng .” App e lla n t c ame forward and infor med H ar ri s t hat s he had dr iv en W ar re n’s car to the house

. Fur ther , appel lan t adv is ed Harris tha t W arren w as at ap pellan t’s hom e on A lcove. App ellante v ent ually drove back to th e Alcove add ress w ith Harris.
T h e t e s t im o n y a tt ri a l wa s d if fe ri n g a b o u twh a ta p p e ll a n ts a id t o Ha rr is o n t h e d ri ve back to her home. H ar ri s recoun ted tha t a p p e ll ant a dv is ed hi m thatnarcot ic s mi g ht be presentat the h ouse. Ap pel lan t t est ified thatsh e tol d H ar ri s that she had found a “met h lab ” in the road w hil e dr iv ing home. The record reflect s t hat t he ” meth l ab” referred to by appel lan t was act ual ly

the can of Col eman c amp fuel. U pon ar ri v ing at appel lan t’ s h ome, appel lan t s ig ned a cons ent t o s earch form. Appel lan t hid in the car w hil e H ar ri s a nd ot her off ic ers went i nto t he hous e and ar re ste d W ar re n. W hil e at the h ous e , Ha rris c a ll ed for off ic ers from the dr ug tas k force to be dis patc hed t o the sc ene. U pon s earchi ng the house , the o ff ic ers found d ru g paraphe r n a l i a , i ncl udi ng sy ri ng es, sp oons w it h resi due on them, and item s generally used in the prod uction of me th. Add itiona lly , of f icers fo und tw o con taine rs of met h inside a f re e ze r, one in a small Mason jar and the othe r in a blue tup perware pit cher

. These w ere fiel d tes ted a nd th ey tes ted p osi ti v e for meth. W ar re n and another ind iv idu al, w ho di d nottes ti fy at tr ial , were ar re ste d tha t day

. Appel lan t was ar re ste d at a lat er date

. At t he tr ial , W ar re n tes ti fied for the S tate and g av e a n a cc o u n t that ide nti fied appel lan t as the person w ho had the “met h lab ” and cl aimed that she had re cr uit ed W ar re n and her mal e c ompani on to co me ov er and ass is t in the met h “ cook .” F urther , W ar re n4

iden tif ied a lett er t h a ta p p e ll a n thad sent to W arren w hile bo th w ere in jail. The letter,
w hich w as introd uced into evidence , cont aine d ad mission s byapp ellantthatshe w as sorry that she g ot W ar re n inv olv ed in the meth si tuati on and thatappel lan t t ook the b lame for th e meth t h a t w a s l o c a t e d i n t h e h o u s e . Th e S t a t e a l s o p ro v i d e d t h e t e s t i mo n y of Ran dy Nel son, an i nv est ig ator for t h e S ta te , who i s a handw ri ti ng ex per t. N els on te sti fied th at, base d up on h is ex am inatio n of a han dwr iting ex em plar provided by ap pellan t, the le tter in question w as w ritten by a ppe llant and d id notapp ear to b e alte red. T he St ate ’s chem ist tes ti fied th at t he amountof meth found atthe house w as 1.17 kg and that the s olu ti on w as in a b a se s tate, meani ng thatthe li q uid had not b een g ass ed to extractthe meth i nto a pow der form. F urther , the chemi st sta ted t hat t he s olu ti on c ontai ned l ess than 1 pe rc ent conc entrati on of meth. App ellanttestif ied in he r ow n be half and claimed t h a tt h e o n ly meth in the ho use w as w hat h ad been m ade w it h the Coleman camp fuel, minus the hal f of it that she took to Audra Bran’ s house. Ap pel lan t t est ified thatW ar re n and the tw o mal es had g ass ed th e meth s he l eft. F urther , app ell ant s tated thatsh e had no k now led g e of the meth s olu ti on found in the freez er in a Ma son jar or pl ast icTupper

w are pi tch er . Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant attempt ed to co n tr a d ictt h e tes ti mony of Har ri s b y

sa y ing thatsh e tol d hi m about findi ng the C ole man fuel c an on her w ay home fro m w or k and that Har ri s was the o ne th at t old her to hi de i n hi s c ar

w hen he entered the h ouse. F ina ll y , app ell ant c lai med thather l etter to W ar re n had been al tered to reflectthatsh e w as re spons ibl e for the met h i n the hous e. The ju ry retur ned a v erdict of g uil ty to the c harg e of poss ess ion of meth w it h i ntent to distribut e. App ellantperfecte d he r appe al and alleges that th e evidence is l egally5

ins uff ici e n t to l ink

her to the met h di sc ov ered atthe Al cov e address ; t here i s i nsuffici ent corrobo ration of

the te stimo ny of

the acco mp li c e , W arren; a nd th e evidence is fact ually ins uff ic ien t t o prov e pos ses si on of the meth w it h i ntentto distri b u te. D is ag re ein g w it h ap pe l l an t, w e w i l l a ffir m. Cor ro borati on of Ac compl ic e Test imony
W e w il l firs t add re ss appel lan t’ s c ontent ion thatt h e ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o corrobo rate th e test imo ny of Robin W arren, a n acco mp lice as a ma tter of law . Th e record ref lects tha t the re w as no conte sted is s u e a bou t W arren’s stat us as an accom plice as a
m a tt e r o f la w a n d , in fa ct , t h e t r i a l co u rtso ch a rg e d t h e ju ry. T h e st a n d a rd b y wh ic h we rev iew the corrob oratio n of

accom plice w itness te stimo ny requires that th e revi ewi ng court eli mina te s a ll of

the acc ompli ce tes ti mony from c onsi derati on and then ex amines the rema ining portion o f

the reco rd to see if th ere is any ev id e n c e tha t ten ds to con nect appel lan t t o the co mmiss ion of the cr ime. Se e C ast il lo v . St ate, 221 S. W .3d 6 89, 6 91 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 07) (citi ng S ol om on v . Sta te, 4 9 S.W .3d 356 , 361 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 1)). The cor ro borati ng ev ide nce d o e s n ot ne ed to be s uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h appel lan t’ s g uil t, ra ther i t nee d onl y

tend to conne ct appel lan t t o t h e of fense. Id. There s impl y mustbe some n on- acc ompli ce ev ide nce w hic h ten ds to c onnect app ell ant to the c ommis si on of the offense all eg ed in t he i ndi ctment . I d. Howev er , t he mere presenc e of appel lan t atthe sc ene of the cr ime is i nsuffici ent c or ro borati on. See Ma lon e v . Stat e, 253 S. W .3d 2 53, 2 57 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 08). I n the f inal ana ly sis, “th e issue the n is n ot how an app ellate court
woul d i ndependen tl y ass e ss th e no n -a cc o m p lic e evid e n ce bu t whe th e r a ra ti onal fact-finder6

coul d c oncl ude t hat t he non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce ‘t e n ds to c onnect’ appel lan t t o the offense. ” Si mmons v . St ate, 282 S. W .3d 5 04, 5 09 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2009)

. W hen we appl y

the sta ndard of rev iew to the re cord, w e find that appel lan t admi tted to liv ing at the Alcove a d d re s s wh e re the m eth in q uest ion w as foun d. T he e v iden ce further reflecte d t h a t, w hil e H ar ri s was dr iv ing appel lan t from the B ra n resi dence to her house on A lc ov e, ap pel lan t admi tted to H ar ri s t hat h e mi g ht find narcot ic s a t t he resi dence

. W hil e it i s t ru e tha t app ell ant d eni ed mak ing the sta tement, i t was up to the fact finder to re sol v e tha t c onfli ct and we mustdefer to t he resol uti on adop ted b y the fact finder

. See Ev ans v . State, 202 S.W .3d 1 58, 1 63 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)

. Fur ther , t here w as the phy si ca l e v i d e n c e s e i z e d a tt h e re s i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g s y r i n g e s , s p o o n s w i t h re s i d u e , t he suppl ies neede d to manufacture meth, and the a ctu al meth. Then, t here i s t he l etter
w ritten by appe llant to W arren w hile bot h w ere incarce rated . In the letter, ap pellan t state s: 1) thatthe bla me for the m eth lab being the re to be gin w ith w as he rs; 2) that she shou ld hav e nev er

had the “ stu ff” there; an d 3) that she shoul d hav e told W ar re n tha t i t was there. This admi ss ion i s c ru ci al becau se the record i s c lea r that W ar re n knew about the C ole man fuel c an, s o i t i s a reason abl e i nferenc e tha t t he “ stu ff” that appel lan t w as re ferr ing to in the lette r was the met h tha t w as foun d in the f re e ze r in a Mason jar and plastic T upp erw are pitche r. Accordin gly , the jury could , followi ng the court’s charg e, ration ally f ind th at th ere w as ind ependentev ide nce that tended to c onnect app ell a nt t o the co mmiss ion of the offense. Se e Si mmons, 282 S. W .3d a t 509

. Therefore , we o verrul e appel lan t’ s i ss ue re ga rd in g c o rro b o ra t io n o f t h e a c c o m p li c e wit n e s s t e s t im o n y.7

Appel lan t’ s n ext tw o i ss ues chal len g e the l eg al suffici ency of cer tai n aspects of the Stat e’s proof and factual su ff ic ien cy of other as pect s o f the St ate’ s p ro of. Bec ause both the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce are chal len g ed, w e must firs t add re ss the leg al suffici ency

ch all eng e. See Cl ew is v . St ate, 922 S. W .2d 1 26, 1 33 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 199 6). If w e f ind th e evidence legally suf f icient, w e w ill the n add ress the factu al suf f iciency is sue. I d. at132.
L e ga l S u f f ic ie n cy Appel lan t’ s first is sue chal len g es the l eg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce tendi ng to conne cta p p e llant w it h the meth found at t he Al cov e address . In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce, w e rev iew al l the e v ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the
v erdict t o det er mine w hether any rati onal t ri 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

. Jac ks on v . Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v. S ta te , 133 S. W .3d 6 18, 6 20 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) . In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , an appel lat e c our t may not s i t a s a t h i rt e e n t h j u ro r , b u t ra t h e r mu s t u p h o l d t h e j u r y ’ s v e rd i ct u n l e s s i t i s i r ra t i onal or unsup por

ted b y more tha n a mere mo dic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . St ate, 755 S. W .2d 866 , 867 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 1 988 ). W e me asure the legal suf f iciency of

the evidence against a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. See M ali k v . State, 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 97).
In th e case before the court, app ellant w as not in excl usive possession of the ho use w here the meth w as found. Therefore, w e mustv iew the ev ide nce that w oul d l ink appel lan tT h e re c o rd is u n c le a r a b o u t wh e t h e r or n o t a p p e ll a n t h e ld a d e e d t o t h e p ro p e rt y, 2 how ev er , app ell ant’ s t est imony w as that she w as tr

y ing to buy

the house

. 8 to t he c ontraband t o det er mine w hether a rati onal j uror

co uld hav e found appel lan t g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt. See Poi ndexter v . Stat e 153 S.W .3d 4 02, 4 06 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re c o rd re f le ct s t h a ta p p e ll a n twa s t h e “o wn e r” o f t h e h o m e a tt h e A lc o ve ad dres s . Th e rec ord fur th er refl ects t ha t W ar ren a nd t he tw o mal es had bee n atthe h om e 3 for a day

or so pr ior to the a rrestof W ar re n on the d ay thatthe m e th i n q uest ion w as dis cov ered. Dur ing testi mony of both appell ant and W ar re n, the only m eth dis cus sed as ha v i ng b ee n brou g hti nt o th e ho me w as from th e “ me th l ab ” th atw as t he C ol em an c am p f u e l ca n. The meth di sc ov ered i n the freez er w as that for w hic h appel lan t was ind icted. Harris testif ied ap pellan ta dm itted there m ight be narco tics in the ho use a nd, w hile appel lan t den ied maki ng the sta tement, it w as for th e j ur y to re sol v e tha t c onfli ct. Se e i d. There w as dr ug parapher nal ia, i n the form of s y ri ng es and bur nt s poons w it h resi due on them, found in the h ouse. There w as meth man u fa ct ur ing parapher nal ia in the for m of tubi ng, g las s b eakers a nd j ars, and pi ck li ng sa ltfound i n the hous e. Fi nal ly , t here i s t he adm ission of

app ellantregarding the “stuf f” that appe llant said shou ld nothave been there and t h a t s h e s h o u l d h a v e t o l d W a r re n a b o u t

. I n a s mu c h a s W a r re n k n e waboutthe Col eman c amp f u e l can, the onl y othe r it em appel lan t’ s a dmis si on c oul d refer t o i s t he meth found i n the freez er . Al l of this ev ide nce coul d lead a ra ti onal tri er of fact to find t hat appel lan t exerci sed cont ro l, manag ement, or ca re ov er

the m e th i n q uest ion and that appel lan t k new

the matter

w as cont ra band. Id.9

Appel lan t c ontendsthatthi s c our t s houl d reso lv e thi s i ss ue i n her fav or bas ed upon the case of

Hig gins v

. Sta te, 515 S .W .2d 2 68 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 197 4). In Hig gins, the ho use in q uest ion wa s a l a rg e two s tor y st ru ctu re co nsi sti ng of 10 rooms, a bas ement, and hal lway s. There w ere 10 peopl e in the house at t he ti me of the s eiz ure of cont ra band. The onl y ev ide nce lin king t he appe ll ant i n H ig g ins to the h ouse w as two l etters found i n the din ing room tha t w ere ov er fiv e and a hal f months o ld. Pl us, there w ere personal bel ong ing s o f other

persons found in the house. T hese facts di sti ng uis h Hig g ins f ro m the case a t bar. Here, the une quiv ocal testimo ny was tha t app ellantw as in som e ownership or posse ssoryrelationsh ip w ith the hou s e . Addition ally , the re is the issue of app ellant ’s adm ission, w hich alte rs the factu al f rame w ork. W e do not fee l the Hig gins case co ntrols our revi ew of

the suf f iciency of

the evidence in the case before us. W h e n a ll o f

t h e e vid e n c e is vie we d in t h e li gh tm o s tf a v o r a b le t o t h e ve rd ic t , we cann ot say the jury

w as actin g irrational w hen it fo und app ellant guilty beyond a rea sona ble dou bt. Jackso n, 44 3 U.S. at 319 ; Ross, 133 S.W .3d at 620 . Accordingly , app ellant ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Factu al Suf f iciency Appel lan t’ s f ina l is sue is thatthe ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t a findi ng that appel lan t pos ses sed at l east400 g ra ms of meth w it h i ntentto d ist rib ute. W hen an appel lan t c hal len g es the fact ual suffici ency of t he ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on, t he re v iew ing co urt mus t deter mine w hether , cons ide ri ng all the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, the jur y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified in f ind ing the appel lan t gui lty beyond a re asona ble doubt

. See10

W ats on v . St ate, 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App

. 2 006)

. In pe rfor ming a fact ual suffici ency

rev iew , we must gi v e deference to the factf ind er ’s determi nati ons if su ppor ted by ev ide nce and may

not order

a ne w tr ial si mply

bec a u se we m a y d is ag re e w it h the
v erdict. See id. at 417. As an appel lat e cour t, w e are notj ust ified i n order ing a ne w tr ial unl ess there is some obj ect iv e basi s i n the record demons trati ng thatthe g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. See id. A ddi ti onal ly , an app ellat e opinio n ad dressing factu al suf f iciency mu st include a discussion of the m ost impor tant ev ide nce that appel lan t cla ims under mines the jur y ’s v erdict. Si ms v . St ate, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). Th e Court of Cri m in a l Ap pea ls has recen tly decla red tha t, w hen rev iew ing the evidence for factu al suf f ic ie ncy, the rev iew ing court shou ld me asure the evidence in a neu tral ma nne r against a “hy pot het ic a ll y c o rrectjury c h a rg e . ” V e ga v. S t a t e , 2 6 7 S

. W

. 3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 5 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c it in g W o o le y v. Stat e, 27 3 S. W .3d 2 60, 2 68 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) ).
T he e ssence of

app ellant ’s conte ntion is that, be cause a ppe llant of fered ev iden ce that is i ncons is tent w it h her g uil t, w hen we v iew

al l of the ev ide nce in a n eutral li g ht, the ev ide nce becomes insuffici ent to suppor t the jur y ’s determi nati on of

gui lt

. Such mig ht be the c ase if the appel lat e cour t w as direct ed to re- w eig h the ev ide nce, how ev er , t hat i s n ot our cha rg e. W atso n, 20 4 S.W .3d at 417 . Rather, we must po int to som e objective basis in the record tha t dem onst rates th at th e great w eight and p repo nde rance of the evidence cont ra dicts the j ur

y ’s ve rd ict. Appell ant’ s ass erti on th at t he c onfli ct in the t est imony about the C ole man ca mping f uel can does nothing to demonst ra te t hat t he ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. To beg in w it h, appell ant’ s analysi s compl etel y ig nores her

co nfessi on of11

guilt i n the letter w ritten to W arren. T hen , app ellant ’s analysis ignores t he fact th at th e jury has h eard all of

this evi den ce an d resolved t h e c o n f lict a gainst her. W e can notsimply deci de to i g nore the j ur y’s d e te rm in a ti on of the factual co nflicts. I d. Our rev iew of the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht con vinc e s us that the j ur y acted rati onal ly

w hen i t found app ellantg uilty beyond a reason able dou bt. Acco rdingly , app ellant ’s fin al issue is ov er ru led

. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.