Opinion filed No vember 5, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 01 25 -CR

___ ____ ___ JAM I LINN SP ENC LEY , A ppellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 220th Distric t Court
Com anche County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC CR-07- 03014

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted J ami L inn Spencley of poss ession of m ethamphetamine in the amount of less than one g ram. The trial court sentenced Spencley to eig hteen months confine ment, probate d fo r f ive y e ars , a

nd a sse sse d a

fi ne of $1 ,5 00 . We a ff

ir m. Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts Spencley borrowe d her stepf

ather ’s pickup bec ause her vehicle neede d repa irs. She had bee n in possession of the pickup for one and one -half hour s when Of fice r Be n Rowell pulled her ove r for

n o t h a v in g ano p e r ati o n a l l ic e n s e p l a te li g h t. O f

f ic e r Ro w e ll o b s e r

v e d Sp e n c le y a c ti n g “ n e r

v o u s [l y ]”2

while he d i s p at ch ed her

information in order

to give her a

war ning ticke t. He aske d and she

c on se nte d to a

se arc h o f t

he ve hic le . Of

fi c e r Row e ll se ize d a g la ss p ipe wi th r e sid ue in i t. H e a lso seized a clea

r plastic bag with w hite powder residue in it; he had found the bagi n s i d e a z ippere d bank bagon the front passeng er’ s seat. Of fice r Rowell suspecte d, and labor atory testing later confirme d, that the plastic bagcontained a trac e amount of me thamphetamine. Legal & Factual Sufficiency Spencley co m plains that either no e vidence or insufficie nt evidence supports the jury ’s verdic t ag ainst her. To deter mine if the evide nce is lega lly sufficie nt, we must review all of the e vidence in the light most favor able to the ve rdict and de termine whether any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307 (1 97 9) ; J ac k so n v . S tate , 1 7 S. W.3 d 6 64 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). To de te rm ine if the e vid e nc e is fac tually sufficie nt, we must review all the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht and deter mine wh et h er the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is so weak that the verdict is clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust or whether the ver dict is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the conf licting e vidence

. W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006). The State wa s require d to prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that Spencley intenti onally

or knowing ly

possessed methamphe tamine. T EX . H E AL TH & S AF E TY C ODE ANN . § 481.115 (Ve rnon Sup p. 20 09 ). Whe n th e c on tr a ba nd is n ot f ound on the de fe nd ant’ s pe rs on or a pla c e sh e e xclu siv e ly po sse sse s, it m ay

sti ll be a ff

ir mativ e ly lin ke d to he r t

hr ou g h in de pe nd e nt f

a c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc e s. Br own v . S

tate , 911 S.W .2d 744, 745-48 (Te x . Crim. App. 1995). Aff irmative l inks are

c ir c ums tanc e s, in a dd it io n to pr e se nc e , th a t ju sti fy the c on c lus ion

that th e de fe nd ant k

no wi ng ly possessed the c ontraba

nd. Evans v . S

tate , 202 S.W .3d 158, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Circumstance s that can link a de fenda nt to contraba

nd include the f

ollowing: (1) that the def

endant

was prese nt w here the substance was found; (2) that the contra band was in plain view; (3) that the contra band wa s found in proxi mity to and was acc essible to the def endant; (4) that the def

endant wa s under the influence of the drug s; (5) that the de fenda nt possessed other c ont ra b an d ; (6) that the defe ndant made inc riminating state ments; (7) that the de fenda nt made an attempt to flee; (8) that the defe ndant m ad e fu rt i v e gestures; (9) that there was a n odor of c ontraba

nd prese nt; (10) that the3

defe ndant owned or had a rig ht of possession to the place wher e contr aband w as found; (11) that the drug s were found in an e nclosed spac e; and ( 12) that the de fend an t h ad a lar g e amount of c ash. Ha rri s v . S tate , 994 S.W .2d 927, 933 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. re f’d) . The number of fa ctors is n o t as important as the log ical for ce or deg ree to which the fa ctors conne ct the drug s to the defe ndant. Be lla rd

v . S tate , 101 S.W .3d 594, 599 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, pet. re f’d)

. Th e State su ff

ic ie ntl y c on ne c te d Sp e nc le y

to t he m etham

ph e tamin e . Sp e nc le y

wa s in possession of the vehic le. Of fi ce r R o we ll found the g lass pipe a f oot from the drive r’s sea

t and fo un d th e b a g c o n t a i n i n g m e t h a mp h e t a m i n e r e s i d u e i n t h e p a s s e n g e r ’ s s e a t

. O f f i c e r R o w e l l a lso ob se rv e d Sp e nc le y ’s e xtre me ne rv ou sn e ss dur ing the tr a ff ic sto p. Af

te r r e vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in the li g h t mo s t f

a v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t, a r a ti o n a l ju r y c o u ld f in d Sp e n c le y g u il ty o f possession of methamphetamine be y ond a re asonable doubt. Additionally , under a neutra l review , the evidenc e was not so weak that it made the verdic t ma nifestly unjust a

nd clea rly wrong nor wa s it ag ainst the g re a t w e ig ht an d pre po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e
. Ac c or din g ly , we ho ld that the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support Spencley ’s conviction. We over rule Spenc ley ’s two issues. Conclusion The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

RI CK STRANGE

JUSTI CE

November

5, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.