NO. 0 7-0 2-0 302- CR IN T HE COURT OF APPEAL S FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEX AS AT AMARI LLO PANEL A APRIL 22, 2 004

____________

____________

______ RUDOLFO OSCA R ALVA REZ, APPE LLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

____________

____________

_________ FR OM THE 284 TH D ISTR ICT C OU RT O F M ON TGO ME RY C OU NTY; NO. 0 1-0 6-0 4080- CR; HO NORABLE DAVI D W ALKER, JUDGE

____________

____________

_______ Before JOHNS ON, C.J., and REAVIS and C AMPBELL , JJ. MEMORANDUM OPI NION Foll owing a pl ea of n otguil ty , app ell ant Rud olf o Oscar Alv arezwas conv icted bya jury of possession of a controlled substan ce and punishm ent was a ssessed at 20 years con fine me nt. Pres enti ng a sole point of error, appel lant cont ends t he tr ial court er red i n not grant i ng a d i re cted ve rd i ct du e to i ns uf

fi ci ent ev i den ce . We affi rm.

### 2

Foll owing surv eillan ce re sultin g fro m in form ation that co cain e w as b eing sold at a trail erhom e lo cat ed at2614 Appl ewood, Conroe Po li ce Office rs ob tai ned and ex ecut ed a search wa rran t. Once t he office rs s ecure d the three susp ect s, a ju veni le f emale i n the li vin g ro om, Am bro sia Ca ntu in the south bedroom, and appellant in t he north bedroom, a search of the resid en ce c om me nce d. Ira Edward J ohnson, an i nvest igatorwit h the dis tr ict attorney ’s off ice , was assi gned to assi stin t he sea rch o f t he nort h bedro om. While c onduct ing a thorough sweep of t he room he obser

ved an un opened blue Tupp erware container. After opening the container, he noti ced a brown paper bag wit h rope handl es t hatcont ained a bl ue pl ast ic groce rybag. Ins ide the groce rybag were two ot her pl ast ic bags con tainin g an off-white rock- like substance. J ohn son t est ified t hat wi th hi s exper ienc e he re cogni zed t he subs tanc e to be cocai ne. Upon the discovery , he alerted Officer Eli as Perez, who had obtained the search wa rran t, and af

ter Pereziden tified th e co cain e, he left the con taine r in its or igina l plac e un til a vid eo tape of the sce ne cou ld be ma de . Several othe r i tems c onnected to appel lant were also fo und in the blue Tupperw are container. A Ra dio Sha ck re ceip t, a ba nkstat emen t , an d a pa y ro l l st ub al l be ar i ng hi s n ame were found in c los e proxi mit y to w he re the coc aine wa s disc ove red . A sm all dig ital sca le com mo nly used f

or wei ghing cocai ne and a l arge q uantity of “ li tt le ba ggies ” use d for packagi ng coc aine for sa le w ere also insid e the con tain er. A ppell ant wasarrest ed for po sse ssio n of 264 .80 g ram s of c oca ine.

### 3

The Sta te’ s fi ngerpr int expert test ified he was giv en th e fi ngerpr int card s of appel lant and Ambrosi a Cantu to compare wi th t he la tent pri nts tak en from the brown paper bag fo und in the Tupperw are containe r. App ellan t’s left ind ex fin ge rprin t wa s ide ntified , but o ther prints did n ot ha ve s uffic ient rid ge deta il to ma ke a com pa rison . A drug chemist for

the Texas Depart ment of Publ ic Safety test ified t hatshe co nduct ed a sci enti fi c exam and a qu an titative a na lysis on the c oca ine e xhib its. The three exh ibits from the ba gs fo und i ns i de t he Tu ppe rw are c ontai ner t ot al ed 264 . 80 grams of cocai ne. Foll owing prese ntat ion of ot her ev iden ce, appel lant was conv icted for

posses sio n of 20 0 grams o r mo re b ut les s tha n 40 0 of coc aine . App ellan t’s sol e contenti on isthat the tr ial court er red i n notgranting a directed verdict due to ins uff ici ent e vid ence. W e dis ag ree. A challenge to t he denial of a directed verdict is an attackto the l egal suffici encyof t he evi dence. McDuff v. Sta te, 939 S. W .2d 6 07, 6 13 (Tex .Cr .App . 199 7), cert . den ied , 522 U.S. 844, 118 S. Ct. 125, 139 L. Ed.2 d 75 (19 97 ). In conduct ing a leg al su fficien cy revie w, w e ex am ine th e ve rdict, a fter vie win g the evid en ce in the li ght mos t f

avora ble to t he pros ecution, to determine whether any rati onal tri er of fact cou ld have f

ound the essent ial elements of the c ri me beyon d a reas onabl e doubt . J ackso n v. Virgini a, 44 3 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed.2 d 560, 573 (1979); Geesa v. State, 820 S.W .2d 1 54 , 157 (Tex .Cr.A pp . 199 1), overruled o n other gro u nds , Paulson v. State, 28 S. W .3d 5 70, 5 73 (T ex. Cr. App. 2000). As an app ellate cou rt, we may not sit as a thirtee nth juror, but mus t uph old the jur y' s verdict unl ess i t i s i rra ti onal or uns upported by

### 4

more than a “mere modicum ” of evidence. Moreno v. Sta te, 755 S. W .2d 8 66, 8 67 (Tex .Cr .App . 1988). The s tanda r d of revi ew is the same for directand ci rcumstanti al evidence cas es. Bu tler v. Sta te, 76 9 S.W .2d 2 34 , 238 (Tex .Cr.A pp . 19 89 ), ove rruled o n other ground s , Geesa , 820 S.W .2d a t 161 . Before dete rmini ng whet her t he evi dence i s l egall y s uff ici ent to s ust ain t he conv ict ion, we must revi ew the essent ial elements t he St ate wasrequi red to pro ve. A pe rson com mits the offense of possession of a control led subst a nce if he k no win gly or in tentio na lly posses ses it. Tex. H ea lth & S afe ty Cod e An n. § 481.115(a) (Vernon 2003). The State must pro ve the a ccu sed exe rcise d ac tual c are , custo dy, con trol, an d m an ag em en t ove r th e cont raband and t hat h e knew t he subs tanc e he poss essed wascont raband. Brown v . State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 747 (T ex. Cr. App. 1995). Thes e ele ments may be establi shed by circumst anti al evi dence. McGol dri ck v . State, 682 S. W .2d 5 73, 5 78 (T ex. Cr. App . 198 5 ). W hen the a ccu sed is no t in exc lusive pos ses sion or co ntro l of th e pla ce where the cont raband is found , the State must pro ve in de pe nd en t facts a nd circu ms tanc es a ffirm ative ly li nki ng him to the cont raband–the e vid ence must est abli sh t he accu sed’ s conne ct ion wi th t he cont raband wa s m ore than just fo rtuitou s. Br own , 911 S.W.2d at747. An af fi rmati ve l ink generates a reas onabl e inf erenc e tha tthe a ccu sed kne w o f the c on trab an d’s exi st ence and exe rcise d co ntro l ove r it. Id . Affir mative li nks i ncl ude but are no t l imi ted to: ( 1) the defenda nt’ s pre sence whe n the search warrantwas e xec ut ed; (2)whet her th e con traband was i n pl ai n vi ew; (3 ) t he1 Proof of j oi nt ownersh ip or p oss ess ion o f a co ntro lled s ub stan ce is s uffic ient to sup po rt a co nvic tion. See McGo ldrick v. State, 682 S.W .2d 573, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985 ). 

### 5 de fen da nt’s prox imi ty to and t he acce ssi bil ity of the cont raband; (4)whethe r t he defe ndant was under the influenc e of t he cont raband when arrest ed; ( 5) whet her t he defe ndant posses sed othe r con traband when ar rested; (6)whethe r t he defe ndantmade inc ri minat ing state me nts wh en arre sted ; (7) w he th er t he de fendant attempted to fl ee; ( 8) whet her t he defenda ntmade fur

ti ve gest ures; (9)whethe r t here was an odor of t he cont raband; (10) whether othe r con traband or

drug paraph ernal ia was pres ent; (11)whethe r t he defe ndant owned or had the ri ghtto posses s t he pl ace where the cont raband was fou nd; a nd (12) whether the plac e the cont raband was fou nd was enc los ed. Green v . Stat e, 89 2 S .W.2d 220, 222 (Tex.App.–Texa rkana 19 95, pet. ref’d); see al so Trej o v. Sta te, 766 S. W .2d 3 81, 384 (Tex.App.--Austin 1989 , no pet.). Additi onally, i t is t he logical force of the factors indiv idua llyor co mb ined that d eter min es w he ther the S tate's e vide nce links th e ac cus ed to the c on trab an d. Tre

jo , 766 S.W.2d at

385. The defens e attempted to show t hat e it her Cant u orhis gir lfri end who was in t he li vin g room owned t he c ocai ne. 1 It was not

dis puted that

the resi dence where the cocai ne was found was l eased to Cantu . A ddit ional ly , test imony from Offi cer P erezconced ed th atso me evidence li nked Cantu to t he coca ine; however , t he di st ri ctattorney ’s off ice made a deci sio n notto proceed against him at t hat ti me becau se the cocai ne was f ound on the opposi te s ide of the resi dence from hi s l ocat ion a t t he ti me of the searc h. Offi cer P erezwas als o all owed to tes tify that oth er d rug -rela ted fe de ral w arra nts w ere pen ding aga inst C an tu.

### 6

Appel lant

was not in exclusi ve control of the residence where the cocai ne was f ound. How ever, the fol lowi ng affir mati ve l ink s pro ved t hat h e knowi ngly orintenti onall y po ssess ed the cocai ne:

C he wa s pre sen t i n the n ort h bedro om of t he trail er home when the searc h warrant wasexecuted;

C t he co ca i ne was fo und i n t he nor t h b edroom;
C a latent finger pri nt from hi s l eft ind e x f in ger

was f ound o n t he brown paper bag con tainin g the blue gro cery b ag in wh ich th e coc aine was bundled in plasti c bags;

C a Radio Shack recei pt, a bank s tatement, and a pay rol l s tub a ll beari ng his name were f

ound i n the blue Tupper ware co ntai ner; and

C pa rap he rna lia such a s a di gital s cal e and baggi es used for packag ing cocaine for sa le were fou nd in the containe r. The pres ence of

appel lant ’s perso nal p apers ins ide t he container cont aini ng th e cocai ne and the other li nks g enerat e a reas onabl e inf erenc e tha t he knew about the cocai ne and exerc ise d cont rol ove r it. Althou gh the e vide nce is circu ms tantia l, after vi ewing i t i n the li ght most favo rab le to the v erd ict, we con clud e tha t any ra tiona l trier of fa ct cou ld have f ound t he essent ial elements of the crim e be yond a rea son ab le do ub t. Appel lant ’s sol e poi nt of error is overr uled. Accordingl y, the judgment of t he tr ial court i s affir med.

Do n H . Re avis Justi ce Do not publi sh.