Opinion filed November 5, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

___________

No. 11-08-00125-CR

 __________

JAMI LINN SPENCLEY, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 220th District Court

Comanche County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CCCR-07-03014

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

The jury convicted Jami Linn Spencley of possession of methamphetamine in the amount of

less than one gram. The trial court sentenced Spencley to eighteen months confinement, probated

for five years, and assessed a fine of $1,500. We affirm.

Background Facts

Spencley borrowed her stepfather’s pickup because her vehicle needed repairs. She had been

in possession of the pickup for one and one-half hours when Officer Ben Rowell pulled her over for

not having an operational license plate light. Officer Rowell observed Spencley acting “nervous[ly]”
2

while he dispatched her information in order to give her a warning ticket. He asked and she

consented to a search of the vehicle. Officer Rowell seized a glass pipe with residue in it. He also

seized a clear plastic bag with white powder residue in it; he had found the bag inside a zippered

bank bag on the front passenger’s seat. Officer Rowell suspected, and laboratory testing later

confirmed, that the plastic bag contained a trace amount of methamphetamine.

Legal & Factual Sufficiency

Spencley complains that either no evidence or insufficient evidence supports the jury’s

verdict against her. 

 To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must 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 essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307

(1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). To determine if the evidence is

factually sufficient, we must review all the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the

evidence supporting the verdict is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or

whether the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the conflicting evidence.

Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Spencley intentionally or

knowingly possessed methamphetamine. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (Vernon

Supp. 2009). When the contraband is not found on the defendant’s person or a place she exclusively

possesses, it may still be affirmatively linked to her through independent facts and circumstances.

Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 745-48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Affirmative links are

circumstances, in addition to presence, that justify the conclusion that the defendant knowingly

possessed the contraband. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Circumstances that can link a defendant to contraband include the following: (1) that the defendant

was present where the substance was found; (2) that the contraband was in plain view; (3) that the

contraband was found in proximity to and was accessible to the defendant; (4) that the defendant was

under the influence of the drugs; (5) that the defendant possessed other contraband; (6) that the

defendant made incriminating statements; (7) that the defendant made an attempt to flee; (8) that the

defendant made furtive gestures; (9) that there was an odor of contraband present; (10) that the
3

defendant owned or had a right of possession to the place where contraband was found; (11) that the

drugs were found in an enclosed space; and (12) that the defendant had a large amount of cash.

Harris v. State, 994 S.W.2d 927, 933 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref’d). The number of factors

is not as important as the logical force or degree to which the factors connect the drugs to the

defendant. Bellard v. State, 101 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, pet. ref’d). 

The State sufficiently connected Spencley to the methamphetamine. Spencley was in

possession of the vehicle. Officer Rowell found the glass pipe a foot from the driver’s seat and

found the bag containing methamphetamine residue in the passenger’s seat. Officer Rowell also

observed Spencley’s extreme nervousness during the traffic stop. After reviewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find Spencley guilty of possession of

methamphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, under a neutral review, the evidence

was not so weak that it made the verdict manifestly unjust and clearly wrong nor was it against the

great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is legally

and factually sufficient to support Spencley’s conviction. We overrule Spencley’s two issues. 

Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RICK STRANGE 

JUSTICE

November 5, 2009

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

McCall, J., and Strange, J.