See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 4 9.04 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 1 

### NUM BERS 13-0 5-16 9-CR & 13-05-1 70-CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M A RIA VER A , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw o f K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z App ellant, M ar i a Vela , w as con v icted o f driv ing w hile into x icated (DW I) in trial cause 1 number 35878- 1 (a ppel lat e caus e number 13- 05- 00169)

. Appel lan t w as als o co n vi cte dSee T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 4 81

. 12 1(a ), (b)( 1) (V ern on 20 07 ). 2 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 4 9.09 (a) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 3 J a c k s o n v . Vir

g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); H a m p to n v . S ta te , 1 6 5 S .W .3 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 3 ( T e x . C r im

. 4 A pp . 20 05 ). 2 of posse ssing l ess tha n tw o ou nces o f marihu an a in trial cause nu mb er 358 78-2

2 (a ppel lat e c ause number 13- 05- 00170- CR ). The tr ial cour t ass ess ed puni shmentfor t he DW I c o n vict io n , w hic h w as enhanc ed, at 365 days’ i mpri sonment

. The ter m of 3 impr is onment w as su sp e n ded for one y ear , dur ing w hic h ti me appel lan t w as pla ced on com mu nity supe rv ision. T he trial court also imp osed a $3 50. 00 f ine an d $3 28. 50 in cou rt
cos ts. The t ri al cour

t as ses sed puni sh m ent for the poss ess ion -o f-mari huana c onv ic ti on at 18 0 da y s’ imprisonm ent . Th e term of imprison me nt w as susp end ed for tw o y ears, during w hich tim e ap pellan t w as place d on comm unity supervisi on. T h e t ria l court also imp osed a $25 0.0 0 f ine. In tw o issues, appe llant arg ues that ( 1) her convic t io n s are supp orted bylegally

and factu ally

insuf f icie n t ev iden ce, an d (2) her pun ishm entis dis propor

ti onate to t he s er iou snes s o f her cr imes , i n v iol ati on of the Ei g hth a nd F our teent h Am en dm en ts t o th e U ni te d St at es C on s ti tu ti on . W e affi r m. I. Leg al &F act ual Su ff icien cy A . St and ard s o f Rev iew In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t a conv ic ti on, w e v iew all the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdic t i n order to deter mine w hether

any ra ti onal e tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial el e m e n ts o f the cr ime bey ond a
re asona ble doubt

. I n a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e v iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht 4S e e W a ts o n v . S ta te , 20 4 S

. W

. 3d 40 4, 41 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ). 5 Id

. at 415

. 6 Id

. at 417

. 7 C a in v . S ta te , 95 8 S

. W

. 2d 40 4, 40 8-0 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 97 ). 8 3 and as k w hether

a j ur y w as ra ti onal ly jus ti fied i n findi ng g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. 5 W e the n det ermin e w het her the e v iden ce supp orting th e v erdict is so weak tha t the v erdict is clear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unjustor w hether

the v erdic t is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the c onfli cti ng ev ide nce. W e w il l n o t rev erse a c ase on a factual 6 suffici ency

ch all eng e unl ess w e c an s ay , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record, t hat t he g re at w e ight and pr eponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dic ts the j ur y 's v erdic t. The

7 fact- finder

i s t he ex cl usi v e jud g e of t he w it ness es’ credi bil ity and of the w eig ht t o be g iv en t o t h e ir t e s t im o n y. 8 B. T rial Ev id ence T he St at e ’s c a se against ap pellan t w as bu ilt on the testim ony of Kingsv ille Police Dep artment Off ic ers H enr y C antu and H er man C antu. O ff ic er Henr y Cantu test ified that on Ap ril 17, 2 004 , at ap proximate ly 2:20 a.m ., he w itnesse d ap pellan t run a stop sig n w hile ope rating a mot or v ehicle. Af ter app ellantfailed to imm edia tely stop her v ehicle in respo nse to the f lashing lig hts on his patrol vehicle, Of f icer Hen ry Ca n t u turne d on his
v ehi cl e’s si re n. Appel lan t t hen sto pped her v ehi cl e in front of a re si dence , w hic h w as her home. Appel lan t i mmediat ely ex it ed th e v ehi cl e and beg an w alk ing tow ards the resi dence

. Off ic er H enr y C antu int er pr eted appel lan t’ s c onduc t as an a tt e m pt t o ev ade hi m; he commanded appel lan t t o “ sto p,” and appel lan t th e n t ur ned around an d w alk ed to w ards him . He then imm edia t e ly p la ced a ppe llant in ha ndcu f fs and put he r in the back o f his4

patrol v ehi cl e. Off ice r Henry C antu tes ti fied th at ( 1) appel lan t admi tted to ha v ing a be er or tw o; ( 2) h e r speec h w as sl ig htl y sl ur re d; ( 3) her

ey es w er e red and blo odsho t; (4 ) her br eath smel led of alc ohol ; ( 5) sh e f a ile d to g iv e s traig htforw ard ans w ers t o q uest ion s ask ed; ( 5) he w a s u n a b le to compl etel y per form a ho ri z ontal g az e ny sta g mus t eston appel lan t bec a u se h e c o u ld n ot g et he r to c oncen trate o n the ti p of hi s p en; a nd ( 6) sh e ref used to take a breat halyz er test. He testif ied th at th ese factu al obse rv ance s w ere ind ic ators o f intox ic ati on, a nd he ex pr ess ed hi s b eli ef that a ppel lan t w as int ox ic ated. Off ic er H enr y C antu further

tes ti fied th at ( 1) the v ehicl e appel lan t w as seen operati ng w as re g is tered unde r her name; (2 ) a us abl e q uanti ty of mari huana w as found in the a sht ra y

of her v ehi cl e; ( 3) the v ehi cl e emi tted an odor of mari huana; (4 ) appel lan t st a te d th a t t h e m a rih u a n a be lo n ged to a f rie n d , a n d sh e as ke d fo r le n i e n c y i n exch a n ge fo r h e r p ro v i d i n g t h e fr i e n d ’ s n a me ; a n d ( 5 ) t h e v e h i c l e c o n t a i n e d a s e c o n d o c c u p a n t, Dan ie l T re vi no, w ho deni ed ow nershi p of the mari huana. Officer H er man C antu, w ho
ar ri v ed on the s cene shor tl y after appell ant’ s v ehi cl e w as pull ed ov er , testi fied that (1) he found mari huana c ig ar ettes i n appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e, commonl y re ferred to as “roache s” ; ( 2) he s mell ed a fresh odor of burne d mar ihu ana i n the v ehi cl e; ( 3) the amount o f mari huana
w as a usa ble quan tity; and (4) appellan t’s h a n d s d id not sm ell of marihu ana , w hich is ty pic all y an e ff ect iv e means of tel li ng w hether one has re cent ly

us ed mar ihu ana. Dan iel Trev ino , w ho w as in appel lan t’ s v ehi cle at the ti me she w as sto pped by Off ic er H enr y C antu, tes ti fied in app ell ant’ s b ehal f. Trev ino tes ti fied th at ( 1) he w as cur re ntl y dati ng appel lan t and thathe h ad been dati ng her at the t ime of her ar re st; ( 2) appel lan t had not had anythi ng to dr ink on t he ni g ht i n q uest ion ; and ( 3) he d id not k now how the ma rihuan a discovered by th e of f icers ca me t o be in appe llant’s v ehicle. Dr . JoseSee T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04. 9 I d. § 4 9.01 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 10 S e e L i ttle v . S ta te , 853 S. W

. 2d 1 79, 183 ( T ex . A pp . –C or pus Chr i st i 199 3, no pet

. ) ( “ T he 11 un c orrob ora t ed t es t i m on y of an arres t i ng offi c er i s su ffi c i en t t o p rove t he el em en t of i ntox i c ati on . ”)

.

C o tto n v . S ta te , 68 6 S

. W

. 2d 14 0, 14 3 n

. 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 85 ). 12 5 M. U g arte al so tes ti fied for appel lan t. He tes ti fied that (1 ) he had been ap pel lan t’ s medi cal doct or si nce 1993; (2 ) appel lan t s uff er ed from s y ste micl upus er ythematos us, fibromy a l g i a, and c hroni c depress ion , for w hic h she re cei v ed medic ati on; and (3 ) thes e ai lment s, alo ng
w it h the medi cat ion req uired for proper treatment, ca n affecta pe rs on’ s s p e e ch and beh avior. C. Sufficiency

of Ev idence Regarding DWI Conv iction I n o rd e r t o co n vic ta p p e ll a n to f d ri vin g wh il e in t o xic a t e d , t h e S t a t e h a d t o p ro ve beyond a reason able dou bt th at ap pellan t ope rated a mo tor v ehicle in a public place w hile int ox ic ated. O n appea l, appel lan t chal len g es the suff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce prov ing that 9 she w as int ox ic ated. U nder the Tex as Penal C ode, the ter m “i ntox ic ated” means (1 ) “n ot hav ing the nor mal use of mental or phy si cal facul ti es by

reason of the i ntro d uct ion of alcoh ol, a con trolled sub stan ce, a dru g, a da ngerous dru g, a comb inatio n of tw o or mo re of those subs tanc es, or any othe r subs tanc e i nto t he body ,” or ( 2 ) “ hav ing an a lc ohol
conc entrati on of 0.08 or more.” 10 Vi ew ed i n a l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the verd ict , we find t hat t he afore menti oned testim ony of

Of f icer Henry

Cantu constitu tes legally s u f f ic ie nt evidence of

app ellant ’s intoxication. Hi s obse rv ation s regarding app ellant ’s slurred spee ch, her bloo dsho t eyes,

11
an d a n a l c o h o l i c o d o r o n a p p e l l a n t ’ s b r e a t h , a l l c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e o f i n t o x i c ati on, as 12S e e H a rtm a n v . S ta te , 19 8 S

. W

. 3d 82 9, 83 4 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 06 , pe t

. di s m ’ d). 13 See T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 4 81

. 12 1(a ). 14 6 d o e s a p p e ll a n t ’s r e f u s a l t o t a k e a b re a t h a lyze r t e s t

. W h e n vie we d in a n e u t ra l l ig h t , we 13
canno t s ay

thatthe jur

y w as not rati onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng appel lan t g uil ty bey ond a
re asona ble doubt

. The ju ry w as free t o reje ct Trev ino ’s tes ti m o n y t hat a ppel lan t di d not drink on th e night in question ; f urthe rmore , the y w ere f ree to co nclud e tha t app ellant ’s behav ior w as the product of into x ic ati on, rather then a productof her

phy si cal ai lment s o r medic ati on. D. Sufficiency

of Ev idence Regarding Poss ess ion of Marihuana Conv iction I n o rd e r t o co n vic ta p p e ll a n to f p o s s e s s io n o f

m a ri h u a n a , t h e S t a t e h a d t o p ro ve beyond a reason able dou bt th at appe llant know ingly or inten tiona lly posse ssed a usab le q uanti ty of mari huana. O n appea l, appel lan t as ser ts that the Stat e did not prov e tha t t he 14 subs tanc e found i n her v ehi cl e w as mari huana. Appel lan t s peci fical ly as ser ts that “t he [S]t ate n ever of

fered a la b testresult indicat ing, in fa ct, tha t the alleged ‘roache s’ fo und in the a sh tray

of [her ] c ar co ntai ned mar ij uana. Al l that w as off er ed by the [S]t ate w as the tes ti mony

of the o ff ic ers a s t o w hat t hese ‘roache s’ may hav e c ontai ned.” In ad dition to Of

f icers Henry

Cantu and Herman Cantu statin g tha t, base d on th eir
ex per ien ce, they

bel iev ed th at t he c ig ar ettes found i n appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e c ontai ned mari huana, Off ic er Hen ry Can tu als o tes ti fied that appel lan t openl y admit ted to hi m thatthe ci g ar ettes co ntai n e d m a rih uana. H e tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t t old hi m thatthe mari huana belo nged to a f riend, and she aske d for lenien cy in exchange for her prov iding the f riend’s
name. Appel lan t nev er att empted t o refute thi s t est imony

. Acc ordin g ly , w e find that theS e e C u rr y v . S ta te , 910 S. W

. 2d 490, 497- 98 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 19 95 ) ( c i t i ng G a rc ia v . S ta te , 887 15 S. W

. 2d 8 46, 861 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 4) ( f ai l ur e t o r ai se Ei ght h Am endm ent obj ect i on a t t r i al wai v es an y such c l a i m o n a p p e a l )) ; Q u in ta n a v . S ta te , 777 S. W

. 2d 4 74, 479 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 198 9, pet

. r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t ha t fai l ure t o o bjec t t o a se nten c e a s cru el an d u nu s ua l forfei t s error).

See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33

. 1(a ). 16 S e e E w in g v . C a lifo r n ia , 53 8 U

. S

. 11 , 23 (200 3). 17 S e e J o rd a n v . S ta te , 4 9 5 S .W .2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ); Tre v in o v . S ta te , 174 S. W

. 3d 18 9 2 5 , 9 2 8 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f'd ); s e e a ls o E s c o c h e a v . S ta te , 139 S. W

. 3d 6 7, 80 ( T ex. A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 04 , no pe t

. ).

See Ew ing , 538 U

. S. at 23. 19 7 aforementi oned t est imony co nst it utes l eg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide n ce t h at t he subs tanc e found i n appel lan t’ s p oss ess ion w as mari huana. II. Disproportionate Punis hment Tex as cour

ts hav e c onsi ste ntl y

hel d tha t ev en c onst it uti onal er rors i nv olv ing disprop ortion ate sente nces ca n be w a ive d byfailing to object a t trial. Here, the record 15
re fle c t s t h a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t o bj e c t t o t h e i mp o s i t i o n o f p u n i s h me n t a t t r i a l n o r di d s he
ra is e the c o m p la in t in a moti on for new tr ial

. Ac cordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t 16 faile d to pr eser

v e this complai nt for

rev iew

. In anyev ent, the puni shment does not v iol ate
cons ti tuti onal prov is ion s. The Ei g hth A mendment do es not re qui re st ri ct propor ti onal ity bet w een the crim e a n d the sente nce; rather, it forbids on ly extrem e sen ten ces tha t are g ro ss ly dis propor

ti onate. Tex as cour ts hav e tradi ti onal ly hel d that, as lo n g as the 17 puni shmentas ses sed is w it hin the ra ng e presc ri bed by the Leg is lat ur e in a v ali d s tatut e, the p uni shmenti s n ot ex ces si v e. 18 T he p un i s hm en ts a s s es s ed in th e insta nt case w ere w ithin th e stat uto rily perm issible range. Th us, ap pellan t’s pun ishm ent s w ere no t grossly disprop ortion ate t o the of fense s. 19 Beca use appel lan t has fail ed to preser v e her co mplaint o n a p p e al, and becau se her8

puni shmentfell w it hin the li mits presc ri bed by a v ali d s tatut e, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fin al is sue. III. Conclus ion W e af f irm the trial court’s judgmen ts.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.