Opinion filed July 31, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00148-CR

__________

JAIME DAVID GARCIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Mitchell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 7304

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Jaime David Garcia of possession of four grams or more 

but less than 200 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112 (West 2010). Appellant pleaded true to an 

enhancement allegation. The jury found the enhancement allegation to be true, and 

it assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for eighty years. In a single 

issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 

conviction. We affirm. 
2

Background Facts

The indictment alleged that, on or about March 30, 2011, Appellant 

knowingly possessed, with the intent to deliver, a controlled substance—namely,

cocaine—in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. Gary 

Clark, a former Mitchell County Deputy Sheriff, testified that, on March 30, 2011, 

he, Investigator Billy Sides, and Investigator Ronnie Stiltner were observing traffic 

on Interstate 20 when Appellant drove by them in a pickup. Appellant exited the 

highway and drove through the town of Westbrook. Deputy Clark had to drive 

about seventy miles per hour through the town of Westbrook to catch up to 

Appellant’s pickup. Appellant eventually pulled off the road and stopped his 

pickup. Deputy Clark determined that Appellant was driving without a valid 

driver’s license and arrested him for that offense.

The officers smelled the odor of marihuana emanating from the pickup. 

Deputy Clark asked K’Ana Garcia, who was in the front passenger seat of the 

pickup, to get out of the pickup. Deputy Clark then searched the pickup. During 

the search, Deputy Clark found a plastic bag that contained marihuana, a black 

pipe, a box of sandwich bags, a set of digital scales, a straw, and a hunting knife.

Based on the results of the search, the officers arrested Appellant and K’Ana for 

possession of marihuana. When Appellant realized that K’Ana was being arrested, 

Appellant told Deputy Clark that “everything in the truck” belonged to him.

Deputy Clark testified that a search of K’Ana at the jail revealed that she 

was in possession of 12.6 grams of cocaine1 at the time of her arrest. Deputy Clark 

said that 12.6 grams of cocaine is a lot of cocaine and exceeds the typical amount 

that would be possessed for personal use. He explained that digital scales are 

commonly used for weighing narcotics. Deputy Clark testified that sandwich bags, 

 1

Department of Public Safety Chemist Dennis Hambrick testified that he analyzed the substance 

found on K’Ana and determined that it weighed 12.6 grams and that it contained cocaine.
3

such as those that he found in Appellant’s pickup, are frequently used to package 

drugs for sale. Deputy Clark explained that the type of straw he found in 

Appellant’s pickup is commonly used to snort cocaine and said that the straw had a 

white residue on it that appeared to be cocaine. He also said that cocaine residue 

was on the console of the pickup.

Investigator Sides testified that a white powder residue was on the digital 

scales that were found in the pickup. He said that 12.6 grams of cocaine is a lot of 

cocaine. Investigator Sides explained that sellers of narcotics commonly use 

digital scales to weigh drugs in connection with their sales. He said that, normally, 

casual users of drugs do not use digital scales but that heavy drug users might use 

digital scales in an effort to make sure that they do not get “ripped off” when they 

purchase drugs. Investigator Sides testified that plastic sandwich bags are often 

used to package narcotics for sale. Investigator Sides said that the type of straw 

that was found in Appellant’s pickup is commonly used to snort cocaine and that 

the type of pipe that was found is used to smoke small amounts of marihuana.

K’Ana, who is Appellant’s ex-girlfriend, testified that, on March 30, 2011,

she and Appellant were driving from Colorado City to Big Spring when Deputy 

Clark pulled them over. K’Ana said that, before she and Appellant had left 

Colorado City, she saw a cigarette box that contained cocaine on the console in 

Appellant’s pickup. When she realized that Deputy Clark was attempting to pull 

them over, K’Ana asked Appellant what she should do with the cigarette box that 

contained the cocaine. According to K’Ana, Appellant told her to “throw it out.” 

K’Ana testified that she instead put the cocaine in her pants, because she thought 

that Deputy Clark would see her if she threw the cocaine out of the pickup.

After K’ana was arrested and transported to jail, she learned that she was 

going to be strip searched. Because K’ana realized that the cocaine in her pants 

would be found during a search, she surrendered the cocaine to an officer. K’Ana 
4

testified that, at the time of her arrest in this case, she and Appellant were heavy 

drug users. K’Ana said that she and Appellant could have used all of the 

confiscated cocaine in “[p]robably a couple of days.”

Analysis 

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that 

he possessed the cocaine. Rather, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

establish his intent to deliver the cocaine.

We review a sufficiency of the evidence issue, regardless of whether it is 

denominated as a legal or factual claim, under the standard of review set forth in 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the Jackson standard, we review all of the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any 

rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In conducting a sufficiency review, we defer to the jury’s 

role as the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight their testimony is 

to be afforded. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. This standard accounts for the 

factfinder’s duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to 

draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 

319; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). When the 

record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the 

conflicts in favor of the prosecution and defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 

U.S. at 326; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778.

“Deliver” means to transfer, actually or constructively, a controlled 

substance to another. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.002(8) (West 

Supp. 2013). Intent to deliver can be proved by circumstantial evidence, including 
5

evidence that an accused possessed the contraband. Moreno v. State, 195 S.W.3d 

321, 325 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d); Patterson v. State, 

138 S.W.3d 643, 649 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); Ingram v. State, 124 

S.W.3d 672, 675-76 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.). Factors courts consider

in determining whether an accused had the intent to deliver include: (1) the nature 

of the location at which the accused was arrested, (2) the quantity of the controlled 

substance in the accused’s possession, (3) the manner of packaging of the drugs, 

(4) the presence or absence of drug paraphernalia (for either use or sale), (5) the 

accused’s possession of large amounts of cash, and (6) the accused’s status as a 

drug user. Moreno, 195 S.W.3d at 325; Williams v. State, 902 S.W.2d 505, 507 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d). The number of factors present 

is not as important as the logical force the factors have in establishing the elements 

of the offense. Moreno, 195 S.W.3d at 326; Gilbert v. State, 874 S.W.2d 290, 298 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet ref’d). Expert testimony by an 

experienced law enforcement officer may be used to establish an accused’s intent 

to deliver. Moreno, 195 S.W.3d at 326; Mack v. State, 859 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.). 

The evidence showed that Appellant possessed 12.6 grams of cocaine, which 

is a large amount of cocaine. Deputy Clark explained that such a large amount of 

cocaine exceeds the amount of cocaine that is typical for personal use. 

Considerably smaller amounts of cocaine have been held sufficient to support a 

finding of intent to deliver. See Sneed v. State, 406 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2013, no pet.) (finding that appellant’s possession of 6.37 grams of 

cocaine, coupled with other evidence, established intent to deliver); Mack, 859 

S.W.2d at 528–29 (finding that evidence established appellant’s intent to deliver 

the 8.9 grams of cocaine he possessed). In this case, the officers found digital 

scales and sandwich bags in Appellant’s pickup. Investigator Sides explained that 
6

dealers commonly use digital scales to weigh the drugs they sell. The officers 

explained that dealers commonly use sandwich bags to package their drugs for 

sale. Considering the above factors, we conclude that the evidence offered at trial 

provided the jury with a sufficient basis to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, 

that Appellant possessed the 12.6 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. 

Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. 

Appellant’s sole issue is overruled. 

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY

JUSTICE

July 31, 2014

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.