NO. 07-07 -038 7-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 30 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ AN N MA RI E AD KIN S,

Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; TH NO. 54, 543 -E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. T hrou gh one issue , Ann Marie Adkins c h a ll e n ge s her convictions for engaging in organiz ed crimin al activi ty relate d to the sale of cont rolled sub stan ces. T he co nvictions, i n h e r v i e w , s h o u l d b e re v e rs e d s i n c e t h e i n d i c t m e n tfa i l e d t o s t a t e a n o f fe n s e . W e ov er ru le the i ss ue and aff ir m the jud g ment. Adki ns arg ues that the i ndict m e n t f a iled to al leg e offenses si nce itpur por ted t o “c harg e [he r] unde r T e x. Pen. Cod e Ann. 71.0 2( a) (5 ), ” but a ll eg ed i n c ount one “p oss ess ion w it h i ntentto del iver ,” a n d in c ount tw o “ sal e of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. ”2

Nei ther offense w as “d efined i n the Tex as Penal C ode, but rather [i s] found in the Contro lled Sub stan ces Act,” she contin ues. So, allegedly, “the chargi ng instrum ent . . . did not c harg e an ‘offense’ as defined i n the

. . . Penal C ode, and t he tr ial co urt [ lac ked] jur is dic ti on to hear

the matter .” F urther more, her co ntent ion is founded upon the opi nio n in S ta t e v. Co lyandro , 233 S.W .3d 8 70 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. In Colyandro , the court
re it erated that prov is ion s o f the Pena l Cod e found oth er than under

ti tl es one, tw o and three cannot be impor

ted int o or made par

t of an o ff ense created by so me other

co de or sta tute. Id. at 874- 75. There, the Stat e att empted t o prosec ute Col y andro and others for
cons piracy

to commi t an off ense defined i n th e T e xas El ect ion C ode. W e reje ct the
arg ument. Here, t he St ate i ndi cte d Adk ins for e ng ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri minal ac ti v it ies rela ti ng to th e posse ssion and distri but ion of drugs. T he specif ic of fense s involv ed were fo und in §71.02( a) (5 ) of the Tex as Penal C ode, not s ome othe r code. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 7 1 .0 2 (Ve rn o n Su p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (m a kin g crim in a l th e ac t o f un la wf u lly m a n u fa ct u rin g, del iv er ing , dis pensi ng , dis tr ibu ti ng or posses si ng a c ontroll ed s ubst ance w it h “ the i ntentto est abl is h, mai ntai n, or

par ti ci pate in a combinat ion or in the profits of a c ombina ti on or as a me mb er of

a criminal streetg ang”). In oth er words, §71 .02 (a)(5) creat es an of fense in and of i tse lf; t here i s n o need to l eav e the bounda rie s o f t he Pen al Cod e to make t he off ense compl ete. Nichol s v . St ate , 653 S.W .2d 768 , 774 (Tex. Cr im. A p p . 1 9 83) (so hol din g ). An d, t hat c ircums tanc e remov es the d is pute before u s from the penumbra of Col yandr o w herein the under ly ing offense w as found in the Tex as El ect ion C ode. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn3 Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.