Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00296-CR

Vincent Trevino GOMEZ Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR12346

Honorable Jennifer Pena, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellant Vincent Trevino Gomez Jr. appeals his conviction for possession with intent to 

deliver a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, of more than four grams and less than 

200 grams. On appeal, Gomez argues the evidence is insufficient to establish affirmative links 

between him and the contraband found in a vehicle. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

BACKGROUND

While patrolling one night, San Antonio Police Department Officers Zachary Rodriguez 

and Reynaldo Sanchez initiated a traffic stop after observing a vehicle improperly make a wide 
04-21-00296-CR

- 2 -

right turn without signaling. When the officers approached the vehicle, Officer Sanchez saw a 

handgun tucked between the driver’s seat and center console. The officers ordered the driver, 

Gomez, to exit the vehicle and arrested him for unlawfully carrying a weapon. Officer Rodriguez 

then conducted an inventory search and found a backpack in the front passenger seat. The officer 

searched the backpack and found the following items: a baggie of methamphetamine, an 

assortment of pills in different baggies, a methamphetamine pipe, a digital scale, and a ledger. 

Gomez told the officers he had borrowed the vehicle from Jeff Rodriguez, and he denied 

knowledge of the handgun and items in the backpack. The officers arrested Gomez for possession 

of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and a jury found him guilty. The trial court assessed 

punishment at ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division

pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Gomez now appeals.

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the combined and cumulative 

force of all the admitted evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether 

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt. See Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Under this standard, the 

jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility given to the evidence, and we must give 

deference to the reasonable inferences drawn by the jury. See id.; Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 

854, 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). These inferences cannot be based on speculation. Tate, 500 

S.W.3d at 413 (citing Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). “When the 

record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of 

the verdict.” Id. 
04-21-00296-CR

- 3 -

Applicable Law

A conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance requires the State to prove: 

(1) the accused exercised control, management, or care over the substance and (2) the accused 

knew the matter possessed was contraband. Id.; see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115(a) 

(providing person commits offense of possession of controlled substance by knowingly or 

intentionally possessing controlled substance); see also id. at § 481.002(38) (defining possession 

to mean “actual care, custody, control, or management”). “A defendant’s mere presence is 

insufficient to establish possession.” Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413. Direct or circumstantial evidence 

must establish the defendant’s connection with the contraband was more than fortuitous. Evans v. 

State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When the accused is not in exclusive 

possession of the place where the contraband was found, a jury may infer the defendant 

intentionally or knowingly possessed the contraband if sufficient independent facts and 

circumstances exist to justify such an inference. See Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413–14 (citing 

Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). 

To help guide our analysis, we consider a non-exclusive list of fourteen factors, known as 

“affirmative links,” provided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 414. These factors 

may, either singly or cumulatively, establish a person’s possession of contraband. They include:

(1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the 

contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and the accessibility 

of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when 

arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when 

arrested; (6) whether the defendant made incriminating statements when arrested; 

(7) whether the defendant attempted to flee; (8) whether the defendant made furtive 

gestures; (9) whether there was an odor of contraband; (10) whether other 

contraband or drug paraphernalia were present; (11) whether the defendant owned 

or had the right to possess the place where the drugs were found; (12) whether the 

place where the drugs were found was enclosed; (13) whether the defendant was 

found with a large amount of cash; and (14) whether the conduct of the defendant 

indicated a consciousness of guilt. 
04-21-00296-CR

- 4 -

Id. (quoting Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12). The number of links is not dispositive; rather, 

we must consider whether the logical force of the circumstantial evidence supports the jury’s 

verdict. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162. Finally, the absence of some links does not undermine the 

links present in the case. See id. 

Application

Here, the State produced testimony from the officers to establish Gomez’s possession of 

the contraband. According to Officer Rodriguez, when he and Officer Sanchez approached the 

vehicle, Officer Sanchez told him he saw a handgun in plain view. Officer Rodriguez testified he 

opened the driver’s side door, advised Gomez not to reach for the gun, and instructed Gomez to 

exit the vehicle. He testified Gomez was cooperative, appeared “[j]ust real relaxed,” and said he 

was on his way to pick up some milk for his son. The officers then performed an inventory search 

and found the narcotics inside a backpack on the passenger’s seat; the backpack sat on top of 

Gomez’s cell phone. Both officers further testified during the inventory search, Officer Rodriguez 

had trouble opening the trunk and Gomez explained how to open the trunk by lifting a lever on the 

back seat. 

Officer Rodriguez testified when he asked Gomez about the narcotics, Gomez told him the 

vehicle belonged to his friend Jeff, and Jeff sold drugs. According to the officers, Gomez told 

them Jeff was staying at a hotel, and he borrowed Jeff’s vehicle to buy some milk for his son. Both 

officers testified they were unable to trace the vehicle registration to Jeff, and there was nothing in 

the vehicle indicating whether Jeff owned it or who owned it. According to Officer Rodriguez, it 

was common for drug dealers to use another person’s vehicle “to go make their drops.” 

Gomez argues this evidence is insufficient because nearly all the factors show he was 

unaware contraband was in the vehicle he had borrowed. He argues the evidence only establishes 

he was the sole occupant of the vehicle where the officers found the contraband, and his mere 
04-21-00296-CR

- 5 -

presence is insufficient to support an inference of possession. However, “the absence of various 

affirmative links does not constitute evidence of innocence to be weighed against the affirmative 

links present.” Jones v. State, 466 S.W.3d 252, 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. 

ref’d) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the evidence establishes Gomez was not only in the presence of contraband, but he 

was also within reach of the backpack containing the contraband, and the backpack was sitting on 

top of his cell phone. See Ruiz v. State, No. 04-18-00942-CR, 2019 WL 4280068, at *2–*3 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio Sept. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming 

conviction of possession when evidence showed, among other things, case containing 

methamphetamine was easily within defendant’s reach despite no evidence defendant owned 

vehicle); Via v. State, No. 01-18-00182-CR, 2019 WL 1474157, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Apr. 4, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming conviction of 

possession when evidence showed, among other things, defendant driver had access to and control 

over enclosed space where methamphetamine was found). It is also undisputed Gomez had the

right to possess the vehicle he was allegedly borrowing, and there was evidence Gomez was 

familiar with the vehicle and how to open the trunk. 

We therefore conclude the logical force of this evidence could have caused a rational jury 

to infer Gomez placed the backpack on top of his cell phone in the passenger seat next to a handgun 

tucked between the driver’s seat and the console. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 166. Thus, when 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment of conviction, we conclude a 

rational jury could have determined Gomez knowingly and intentionally possessed the contraband. 

See Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413. Gomez’s sole issue is overruled. 
04-21-00296-CR

- 6 -

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Do Not Publish