1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00555-CR

____________________

DOMINIQUE J. DAVIS A/K/A LUCKIE LATRICE PARKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court 

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21342

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Dominique J. Davis a/k/a Luckie Latrice Parker appeals her conviction for 

possession of marijuana. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(b)(4) 

(West 2010). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her 

conviction, and argues the judgment erroneously states that she pleaded guilty to 

the offense. Because we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified to reflect appellant’s plea of not 

guilty.
2

Shane Granelli testified that in May 2010 he was a trooper with the Texas 

Department of Public Safety and was working a criminal interdiction task force in 

Livingston. He witnessed appellant make an unsafe lane change and initiated a 

traffic stop. Granelli smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside 

the car. Appellant had her six-year-old daughter in the vehicle with her.

Granelli approached the passenger’s side of the vehicle, identified himself, 

asked appellant to step to the rear of the vehicle, and requested that she produce 

her driver’s license. Appellant handed Granelli an Arkansas driver’s license with 

the name of Dominique Davis, the name appellant used to identify herself to 

Granelli. The picture on the driver’s license appeared to be appellant.

Granelli explained why he initiated the traffic stop. Appellant initially stated 

she owned the vehicle but later claimed her goddaughter, Ashley Thompson, 

owned it. The fact that appellant was claiming that the vehicle was owned by 

someone else piqued Granelli’s interest because, as he explained at trial, typically 

people transporting narcotics will use a rental car or someone else’s vehicle to 

avoid an automatic link to the narcotics they are transporting. Appellant told 

Granelli that she was coming from Houston, where she was a college student, and 

she was travelling to Little Rock to visit her family. Granelli testified appellant was 

trying to steer the conversation away from her travel plans and that she had a 
3

nervous laugh and could not be still. The vehicle was determined to be owned by 

someone other than appellant.

Granelli informed appellant that he was going to issue her a warning as a 

strategy to see if her nervousness would subside. Granelli asked her why her 

goddaughter, whom appellant claimed owned the vehicle, was not traveling with 

her. Appellant stated that her goddaughter was staying in Houston, and just 

appellant and her daughter were traveling to Arkansas.

Appellant gave Granelli consent to search the vehicle. Granelli explained 

that appellant attempted to interfere with his search, and her nervousness appeared 

to increase as Granelli began searching the trunk. He found in the truck a black 

luggage bag with a lock on the zipper. He cut the lock off the bag and opened the 

bag. He confiscated from inside the bag what appeared to be about twenty pounds 

of marijuana packed in a plastic bag and saran wrap. Granelli testified that, based 

on his experience as a trooper, the substance smelled like fresh marijuana and 

looked like marijuana.

Appellant told Granelli that her goddaughter had put the bag in the vehicle 

and had told appellant that she would pick it up the next day, an explanation that 

seemed contradictory to what appellant had earlier told Granelli. Appellant had 

approximately $1,000 in cash in her purse. Granelli testified that it seemed unusual 
4

to him for an unemployed full-time student to be carrying this amount of cash.

Granelli explained at trial that, based on appellant’s demeanor and anxiety about 

the search, he believed that she knew the marijuana was in the vehicle. Granelli 

placed appellant under arrest and read appellant her Miranda warnings. The trial 

court viewed a videotape of the traffic stop. Laboratory testing subsequently 

confirmed that the presumed narcotics amounted to approximately twenty pounds 

of marijuana. Granelli testified the marijuana had a street value of $16,000 to 

$24,000. 

David Oliver, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives in Little Rock, Arkansas, testified. He had his first 

encounter with appellant in 2005, when he executed a search warrant on the home 

and business of Michael White, a “large-scale drug dealer in the Little Rock area 

and a gang member” with whom appellant, at the time, was living. Law 

enforcement recovered cocaine, marijuana, and firearms. In 2007, Oliver had 

contact with appellant again during an investigation of gang members who were 

selling cocaine and drugs. Appellant and her sister were in relationships with 

members of the family that were under investigation. In 2011, Oliver was 

executing an arrest warrant for a shooting suspect who was staying at appellant’s 

house. When officers went to the house, appellant identified herself to Oliver as 
5

someone else. No criminal charges were filed against appellant regarding these 

encounters with law enforcement.

Appellant testified that her given birth name is Luckie Latrice Parker and 

that she was the person depicted on the videotaped traffic stop. Her license was 

suspended at the time of the traffic stop, so she identified herself as Dominique 

Davis and gave Granelli a driver’s license with that name. The driver’s license 

belonged to her sister-in-law, who looked like appellant. According to appellant, 

the vehicle was owned by her goddaughter, Ashley Thompson. Appellant 

explained she was driving from Houston to Little Rock when Granelli initiated the 

stop. She claimed she did not own the bag containing the marijuana and that at the 

time of the traffic stop she did not know there was marijuana in the trunk of the car 

she was driving. Appellant testified that Thompson had put the bag in the trunk and 

it was appellant’s understanding that the bag contained Thompson’s clothes and 

school books. She claimed that she was not nervous during the traffic stop but 

instead was acting the way she did because she was cold.

Appellant admitted that her ex-fiance, Michael White, lives in Little Rock 

and was a major drug dealer. She admitted to using other aliases during past 

encounters with law enforcement, and that she and others swapped names to try to 

confuse law enforcement.
6

Appellant argues in her first issue that the evidence is insufficient to support 

her conviction. Appellant contends that the evidence presented merely shows that 

she was the driver of an automobile that happened to have marijuana in the trunk.

She contends that her mere presence in the vicinity of the marijuana is insufficient 

to support her conviction for possession.

When examining the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court reviews 

all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether 

any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 

L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). We must give full deference to the fact-finder’s responsibility 

to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw 

reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Hooper v. State, 214 

S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 

750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

“To prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must 

prove that: (1) the accused exercised control, management, or care over the 

substance; and (2) the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband.”

Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Tex. 

Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(38) (West 2010). In Evans v. State, 202 
7

S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the Court explained that “[r]egardless of 

whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, it must establish that the 

defendant’s connection with the drug was more than fortuitous.” A defendant’s 

mere presence at the location where drugs are found is insufficient, by itself, to 

establish care, custody, or control of the drugs. Id. at 162. However, presence or 

proximity, in combination with other direct or circumstantial evidence, may be 

sufficient to establish that element beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. On appeal, the 

non-exclusive factors we consider in determining whether sufficient evidence links 

the appellant to the controlled substance include: (1) the contraband is in plain 

view; (2) the defendant owns the premises where the contraband is located; (3) the 

contraband is conveniently accessible to the defendant; (4) the contraband is found 

in close proximity to the defendant; (5) a strong residual odor of the contraband is 

present; (6) drug paraphernalia is in view or is found near the defendant; (7) the 

defendant is found in a physical condition that indicates consumption of the 

contraband; (8) the defendant engages in conduct that indicates consciousness of 

guilt; (9) the defendant has a special connection to the contraband; (10) contraband 

is found in an enclosed place; (11) the occupants of the premises provide 

conflicting statements about relevant matters; and (12) affirmative statements 

connect the defendant to the contraband. Gregory v. State, 159 S.W.3d 254, 260 
8

(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, pet. ref’d). The evidence is sufficient when the 

logical force of all the evidence and the reasonable inferences from the evidence 

support the finding that the appellant exercised actual care, custody, control, or 

management of the contraband. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162, 166.

Granelli testified that a strong odor of burnt marijuana was emanating from 

inside the car. Appellant initially said she owned the vehicle she was driving and 

then acknowledged she did not own the vehicle. She presented a driver’s license 

that was not hers and gave an alias when Granelli asked her name. She appeared 

nervous during the traffic stop, even after Granelli informed her he only intended 

to give her a warning. According to Granelli, although appellant consented to a 

search of the vehicle, she became increasingly nervous during the search and 

attempted to interfere with the search. Granelli concluded that, based on 

appellant’s demeanor and actions, she knew the marijuana was in the trunk.

Appellant, who claimed she was an unemployed, full-time student, had $1,000 in 

cash in her purse. Approximately twenty pounds of marijuana was recovered from 

a bag in the trunk. The combined logical force of all of the circumstances was 

sufficient for the trial court to find that appellant knew there was marijuana in the 

trunk of the vehicle she was driving, and that she exercised care, custody, or 
9

control over the marijuana. A rational fact-finder could find all the elements of the 

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s first issue is overruled.

In her second issue, appellant contends that the judgment erroneously states 

that she entered a plea of guilty to the offense when, in fact, she pleaded not guilty.

Appellant requests that the judgment be amended to correctly reflect her plea. The 

reporter’s record demonstrates that appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense of 

possession of marijuana. We modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that 

appellant pleaded not guilty to the charged offense, and we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment as modified.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Justice

Submitted on October 29, 2013

Opinion Delivered November 13, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.