NO. 07-07 -001 6-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 A JAN UA RY

22, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ DOMINIC RY

AN AYON, APPEL LANT v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; ST NO. 17, 860 -B; HON. JOHN BOARD, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Memorandum Opinion Appel lan t D omini c Ry an Ay on appe als from h is conv icti on of the offense of posse ssion of

a f irearm by a felon and his resulting sent ence of six y ears imp risonm entin the Institu tiona l Di v ision of t he T exas Departm entof Cri min al Justice. Via fo ur issues, app ellantcha ll enges th e legal and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort his c on v i c ti on . W e fi nd t he e v i de nc e s uffi c i en t an d affi r m.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 46.04 (V er non 200 3)
. This i s a thi rd deg re e felony 1 puni shabl e by

i mpri sonmenti n the i nst it uti onal di v isio n for any ter m of not more tha n 10 y ears o r les s t han 2 y ears a nd a fine notto ex ceed $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12. 34 (Ve rnon 200 3). Ap pe l l an t s ti pu l at ed to hi s fi na l fel on y c on v i c ti on an d al s o s ti pu l at ed th at his 2 poss ess ion of a firear m, i f any , oc cur re d afte r th is felo ny co nv icti on and before t he fifth anni v ersar

y of his rele ase from parole
. The addres ses as soc iat ed w it h appel lan t i n the depar tment’ s c omputer

sy ste m 3 include d the add ress of the ap artm ent . In the Cri me Sto ppe rs tip, of f icer s we re also prov ide d a d esc ri pti on of appel lan t’ s c ar , a bla ck Lex us. W hen office rs ar ri v ed atthe apar tment, they

note d the presenc e of a 2001 bl ack Lex us. 2 Back g ro und Appel lan t’ s i ndi ctment f o r p o ss ess ion of a firear m by a felo n al so setforth

1 appel lan t’ s 2 004 felon y co nv icti on of the offense of burg lar y of a hab it a tion. F oll ow ing 2 a p p e ll a n t ’s p le a o f

n o tgu il t y, t h is m a t t e r p ro c e e d e d t o t ri a l b y ju ry. At t ri al, the ev ide nce est abl is hed t hat A mari ll o C ri meStoppers rece ived a ti p tha t app ellanthad a saw ed-o f f shotgun a nd tw o han d grena des in an apa rtme nt. W hen of f icers w entto the apa rtme nt ide ntif ied in the tip, app ellanta nswered the d oor. W hen of f icers 3 tol d hi m of the ano ny mous t ip, appel lan t l aug hed and sa id h e d id n ’t hav e any hand g re nades
. H e tol d the off ic ers h is g ir lfri end had a s hotg un. At t he officers’ req uest , app ell ant read and si g ned a cons ent t o s e a rc h form t hat repe ate dly describe d the prem ises to be search ed as “my prem ises.” One of

the of f icers asked app ellantw here the shot gun w as locate d and h e poin ted in to th e be droo m an d told him itw as on th e bed. Officers l ocat ed th e s hotg un unde rn eath the s heets on t he bed. T he b arrel and stock of the gun ha d be en shorten ed by sawi ng. Appe llant accu rately told3

off ic ers t here w as o n e “ ro und” i n the ch amber of the g un. After obtai nin g co nsentto cont inu e searchi ng the apar tment, of ficers loc ated box es of 9 mm rounds and addi ti onal shot gun shells. After off ic ers retur ned t o their ve hic les , they

lear ned appell ant h ad prev iou sl y been conv icted o f a felony
. As a resul t, the off ic ers re tur ned to the door of t he apar tment and app ellantallow ed th em to reen ter. Th e of f icers ex plaine d to ap p e ll a n tt h a tthey w ere tak ing cu sto dy

of all of the it ems they had loc ated in thei r search. In respon se, appel lan t tol d one o f

t h e off ic ers t hat t he s hotg un w as there bec ause someone had t ri ed to break into h is apartm enton several occasion s. At t he c los e of the ev ide n ce , th e j ur y retur ned a v erdict of g uil ty as al leg ed i n the ind ictment. The c our

t as ses sed puni shmentat s ix ye a rs i mpri sonmentand thi s a ppeal follo w ed. Ana ly sis In re v iew ing i ss ues of leg al suffici ency , an appel lat e court v iews the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e t o t h e v erdict t o det er mine w hether , bas ed on that ev ide nce and re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e t h e re fro m, a ra t i o n a l j u r y c o u l d h a v e fo u n d e a c h e l e me n t o f the offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Swear ing en v . St ate, 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 95 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Con ner v. Sta te, 67 S.W .3d 192, 197 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) , citi ng Jacks on v

. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 19, 9 9 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979). The stan dard for legal su f

f iciency rev iew

“g iv es f ull play” to the jury ’s responsib ility to fairly resolve conf licts in the test imo ny, to w ei gh th e evidence , and to draw reaso nab le4

inferences f ro m basi c fact s t o ul ti mate facts
. Jacks on, 443 U. S. a t 319 ; Sander s v . St ate, 119 S.W .3d 81 8 , 820 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). If , gi v en a ll of the evidence , a ration al jury w ould nece ssarily ent ertain a reaso nab le dou bt of the defend ant ’s guilt, due p ro cess re q uires that w e rev erse and order a j udg ment of ac q uittal
. Swear ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95, citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 415, 42 3 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied, 507 U. S
. 9 7 5 , 1 1 3 S
. Ct
. 1 4 2 2 , 1 2 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 7 9 1 (1 9 9 3 ). Ci rc u m s t a n t ia l e vid e n c e is a s p ro b a t ive as directev ide nce in est abl is hin g g uil t, and c ircums tanti al ev ide nce alo ne c an be suffici ent to do so. Hooper

v. Sta te, 214 S.W .3d 9 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) , ci ti ng Guev ar a v. State, 152 S. W .3d 4 5, 49 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. A factua l suffici ency

rev iew of the e v ide nce is “ barely di sti ng uis habl e” from t he l eg al suf f iciency rev iew

und er Jackson v. Virginia
. Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). A factu al suf f iciency rev iew

conside rs w het her the ev iden ce supp orting g uilt, tho ugh legally suf f icient, is so w eak th at th e jury ’s v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anifestly unju st, or evi den ce con trary to the v erdict is such tha t the jury ’s verdi ct is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id.; Watson v. State , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414- 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Johns on v. St ate , 23 S.W .3d 1 , 11 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. In a factual suff ic ien cy rev iew , w e ag ain co nsi der al l the e v ide nce, but n ow i n a n eutral li g ht. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414
. Pursuantto Penal C ode § 46.04( a) , a person w ho has been conv icted of a felony commi ts an offense if he poss ess es a fire ar m: (1 ) after conv icti on and before the f if th anni v ersar

y of the person’ s rel ease from confinement follow ing conv icti on of the felony orA p e rs o n c o mm i t s a p o s s e s s i o n o ffe n s e o n l y i f h e v o l u n t a r i l y p o s s e s s es the 4 prohi bit ed i tem. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 6.01( a) ( Ver non 200 3)
. P o s s e ssion is a v olun tary act “if

the po ssessor kno w ingly obta ins or receiv es the thing posse s s e d or is aw are of hi s c ontrol of the thing for a su ff ic ien t t ime to pe rmi t hi m to t er minat e hi s c ontrol. ” Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 6.01( b) ( Ver non 200 3)
. 5 the person ’s release f rom supervisi on unde r comm unity supervisi on, parole, or man dat ory super v is ion , w hic hev er

date i s l ater ; or

( 2) after the per iod des cr ibe d by Subdi v is ion ( 1) , at any l ocat ion othe r than the p re mis es at w hic h the person li v es. Tex . Penal Co de Ann . § 46. 04(a ) ( Verno n 20 03). The Stat e must show appel lan t (1 ) ex erci sed act ual care, cont ro l, or cu sto dy of the fire ar m; ( 2) he w as cons ci ous of his co nnect ion w it h the firear m; and (3 ) he pos ses sed the f ir e a rm kn o win gl y o r i n t e n t io n a ll y. W e a n a lyze t h e su f f ic ie n c y o f

t h e e vid e n c e t o p ro ve 4 posse ssion of

a f irearm by a fe lon un der the rules ado pte d for dete rmining the suf f iciency of the ev id e n ce i n c ases of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. Bates v. Sta te, 155 S.W .3d 2 12, 2 16 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 2004, no pet .) ; Sm it h v . St ate, 118 S.W .3d 8 38, 8 41 (T e x.A pp.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet .) ; Ngu yen v. State, 54 S .W .3d 4 9, 52 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2001, pet. re f’d)
. T he St ate w as not req uired to prov e that appell ant had ex cl usi v e posses si on of the fire ar m; j oin t pos ses si on i s s uff ic ien t t o s ust ain a c onv icti on. Cude v. St ate, 716 S.W .2d 46, 4 7 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986)
. The Stat e can meet it s burden w it h director ci rc umstan ti al evidence, but it mu st esta blish tha t the defend ant 's conn ection w ith the f irearm was more than fortui tous
. Poi

ndexter v. Sta te, 153 S.W .3d 402 , 406 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5);6

Gr anthamv. Sta te, 116 S.W .3d 1 36, 1 43 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 2003, no p et.) ; Dav

is v. Sta te, 93 S. W .3d 6 64, 6 67 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2002, pet. re f’d)
. W hen the f ire arm is notfoun d on the accu sed's pe rson or is not in the accuse d's ex cl usi v e poss ess ion , addi ti onal facts must li nk the a cc used to t he firear m. Jones v. Sta te, 963 S. W .2d 8 26, 8 30 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kan a 1 9 9 8 , pet. re f’d)
. In de ter mini ng w hether s u f f ic ie n tli n k s e xis t , we e xa m in e fa c t o rs su c h a s wh e t h e r t h e f ir e a rm w a s i n p la in vie w, w het her ap pellan t owned the resid ence where the f irearm w as foun d, w het her he w as in c l os e prox i mi ty

to th e fi rea r m and had re ad y ac c es s to i t or

w he th er itw as fou nd o n hi m, w hether he a ttempt ed to f le e, w hether hi s c onduc t i ndi cat ed a cons ci ousne ss of g uil t, w hether he h ad a spec ial conne cti on to t he firear m, w hether the fire ar m w as found in an encl osed spac e, and w hether he made i ncr imi nati ng st atements
. T he num ber of facto rs presenti s n ot as i mport ant a s t he l og ic al force or the deg re e to w hic h the factors, alo ne or in combi nati on, t end t o l ink the acc used to t he c ontraband. S m it h v . S ta te, 1 76 S. W .3d 907 , 916 (Te x .Ap p.– Dallas 200 5, p e t
. ref ’d); Hawki ns v. State, 89 S .W .3d 6 74, 6 77 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 2002 , pet . ref ’d ); C or pus v. State, 30 S .W .3d 3 5, 38 st (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2000, pet. ref’d)
. th No setformul a of facts ex is ts to di cta te a findi ng of l ink s suffici ent to suppo rt an inference of know ing pos ses si on. Tay lor v. Sta te, 106 S. W .3d 8 27, 8 30 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 2003, no pet .) ; Ngu yen, 54 S .W .3d a t 53. Off i c e r t e s t i mo n y a n d a d e fe n s e e x h i b i t p re s e n t e d a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d tha t t he ide nti fied address , al ong w it h anot her address , w as ass oci ated w it h appel lan t’ s n ame. Off ic er t e s t i mo n y a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a c a r ma t c h i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n p ro v i d e d w as7

obser v ed atthe apar

tment and app ell ant a nsw ered th e door . O n that occ asi on, a ppel lan t w as the o nly ind iv idu al presentat the a par tment. Appel lan t al so re ferred to the apar tment as “h is ” and si g ned a cons ent for m thatrepeated ly referenc ed th e premis es to be se arched as “my premis es. ” Appel lan t knew ex act ly w here the shotg un w as loc ated in the b edroom of the ap artm entand knew the re w as on e “round ” in the cham ber. Furthe r, w hen of f icers ex ecut ed th e out sta ndi ng w ar ra nt for appel lan t’ s a rrestabout tw o w eeks after thei r ini ti al v is it , app ell ant a g ain ans w ered th e door at the a par

tment. The lo g ic al force of this ev ide nce tog ether i s l eg all y suffici ent to li nk appel lan t t o the fire ar m. A nd, w hen v iew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p ro se cu ti on, a rati onal tr ier of f act cou l d ha v e fou nd t he req ui s i te e l em en ts o f t hi s o ffens e. Th us , th e ev i de nc e is leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t app ell ant’ s c onv icti on. Fi ndi ng the ev ide nce leg all y su ff ic ie n t, w e tur n to the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce to s uppor

t app ell ant’ s conv icti on. Appel lan t present ed ev ide nce cont ra ry to the v erdict of

g uilt. A palm print lift ed f rom th e sho tgun ma tche d n e it her ap pellan t nor his gir lf riend. Duri ng cross-ex am inatio n of one of the police o f f icers, app ellantintrodu ced h is driv er’s license as evidence his listed add ress w as dif feren t f rom the ap artm ent ’s address. One o f the off ic ers d id not recal l w hat address w as in the d epar tment’ s c omputer

sy ste m for appe ll ant a nd admi tted he had no phy si cal ev ide nce ty ing appel lan t t o the sh otg un or the b ox es of ammuniti on. The off ic er also ack now led g ed he did not know w ho ow ned t he g un and ack now led g ed they did not l ocat e hand g re nades
. Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion of ano the r of

f icer, app ellantintrodu ced a lease for the a partm ent . Th e lease listed app ellant ’s g ir lfri end as the les see and did not li st any other oc cupan ts. The officer al so tes ti fied th at8

he bel iev ed th at s omeone “ ra n the tag ” to t he bl ack Lex us and fo u n d it bel ong ed to appel lan t’ s g ir lfri end. Appel lan t al so emphasi z es ev ide nce that the shotg un w as ow ned byhi s g ir lfri end. Evi den ce su p portin g tha t assertion came only f rom a ppe llant. It w as ap pellan t w ho to ld off ic ers t hat t he s hotg un bel ong ed to hi s g ir lfri end. H e al so tol d off ic ers t he g un w as g iv en to he r by her father
. W hen an off ic er su g g est ed appe ll ant mi g ht ob tai n an aff ida v itfrom the fath er, howev er, app ellantrespon ded he “w asn’t su re that ’s how it happ ene d, bu t tha t’s po s s i bl y w ha t ha pp en ed .” M oreo v er , th e s ta tu te d oe s n otreq ui re ow ne rs hi p of t he fi rea r m; itreq uires onl y

ca re , c ust ody , c ontrol or manag ement of i t. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 46.04( a) ( Ver non 200 3) ; Kni ght v. Sta te, N o. 07 -0 7- 0099- CR , 200 8 W L 38240 03 (T e x.A p p .–Am a rill o Au g. 1 5 , 2 0 08, p et. str ic ken) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication); Good v. State, N o. 01 -0 5- 00639- CR , 200 7 W L 27452 6 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] F eb. st 1, 20 07, p et. re f’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)
. Vi ew ing the enti re record i n a n eutral li g ht, and g iv ing due consi derati on to the ev ide nce cont ra ry

to the v erdict of g uil t, w e find no obj ect iv e bas is o n whic h to conc lud e the ev iden ce is so weak tha t the ju ry ’s verdict se em s clearly w rong and m anifestly unju st or that , g iv en th e ev ide nce to the cont ra ry , the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of all the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. W e therefore ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ues on appe al and affirm his co nv icti on and sent ence. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.