i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No
. 04 -0 7- 00 82 4- CR Stephanie Ann G ON Z AL ES , Ap pe lla nt
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 218th J udicial District Court, Kar nes County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 05 -0 6- 00 04 6- CRK Honora ble Donna Ray es, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: April 29, 2009 AFF I RMED Ste ph anie Ann G on zal e s w a s c on vic te d by a jur y of de liv e ry

of be tw e e n f

our a nd 20 0 g ra ms of coc aine, a

nd sentenc ed by

the cour t to twenty y ear s incar cer ation. I n two points of error, Gonzales argues the e vide n c e was leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to prove the pac kag e deliver ed by Gonzales
wa s th e su

bs tanc e that te ste d p os iti ve fo r c oc a ine
. We dis a g re e and a ff ir m the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04

- 07

- 00 82 4- CR

- 2- Raul Guerr ero w orked f

or the 81st District Nar cotics Task F orce as an inve stigator during Marc h 2004. I n the cour se o f h is w o r k , Guerr ero use d confide ntial informants and sometimes worke d
un de rc ov e r. Gu e rr e ro te sti fi e d o ne of his c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ants se t up a me e tin g fo r G ue rr e ro to buy coca ine from Stephanie Gonzales. On Mar ch 8, 2 0 0 4 , Guer rer o and his partne r we nt to the restaur ant in Kar

nes City wher e the mee ting had been schedule d, and Guer rer o met Gonzales in the pa rk inglot . A ft e r so me ne g oti a tio ns , Gu e rr e ro pa id $2 00 and Go nza le s ha nd e d h im a

c le ar p la sti c bagcontaining a “c hunk.” She told him it was “g ood coca ine.” Guer rer o testified he drove back to the task forc e office in Flore sville with the bag g ie in the cente r console of

his car. When he ar

rived at the office , Guer

rer o put the bag g ie in the evidenc e locker assig ned to him and locked it. The next m orning , Guer rero remove d the bag g ie from the locker and pre pare d to send it to the crime lab. Gue rre ro we ighe d the substan ce , p re p ar ed the
s u b m i s s i o np a

p e r w o r k , a n d p u t i t a l l i n an e n v e l o p e h e i n i t i a l e d an d s e a l e d
. P u r s u an tt o o f

f i c e p o l i c y, these proc edure s were witnessed by another ag ent or a

supervisor. Gue rre ro then put the e nvelope in a ma ili nge nv e lop e and

se nt i t by c e rt if

ie d ma il to the Te xas De pa rtme nt of Pub lic Sa fe ty

c ri me lab in Corpus Christi. Guer rer o identified S tate’s e x hibit 1 as being the enve lope in which he pla ced the bag g ie Gonzales g ave him and that he mailed to the DPS crime lab. Written on the envelope are Guer rer o’s his initi als and the date he pr epar ed it. He c tor Ca de na , a

c he mis t w ho wo rk e d at th e DPS c ri me la b in Cor pu s Chr ist i in 2 00 4, a lso testified for the S tate. C adena testified t hat when a piece of evidenc e was rec eived in the crime lab, the evidenc e custodian opened it, a ssigne d it a unique laboratory case number, and ente red it into the logbook. The evidence custodian would write the la boratory case number on the e nvelope, r emove the submission form s en t b y the ag ency from the e nvelope, a

nd then re seal the e nvelope. The04

- 07

- 00 82 4- CR

- 3- information on the form sent by the submitti ng ag ency and the lab c ase numbe r we re the n enter ed into the computer. I n this c ase, the evidenc e was assig ned lab case number L 3C- 8 1 5 5 2 , an d t hat number is written on State’s e x hibit 1. After re sealing the enve lope, t he evidence c ustodian place d it in the lab’s evidenc e vault until it was time to be analy zed. Cadena testified he analy

zed the substance submitted by Guer rer o in State’s exhibi t 1, and conclude d the net we ight wa s 5.73 g rams and the substance contained c ocaine . After completing the te sts , h e pu t th e evi den c e ba c k in to t he or ig ina l e nv e lop e , s e a le d it , a nd pla c e d it in t he va ult . H is conclusions appe ar on St at e’s e x hibit 2, the lab report. The lab ca se number a nd the information fr om t he su bmi ssi on fo rm – the su sp e c t’ s name , the a g e nc y c a se numbe r, and the of fe ns e date – a ll
a pp e ar o n th e la

bo rator y re po rt . Ca de na

te sti fi e d th e e vid e nc e wo uld be ke pt i n th e DPS la

b’ s v a ult
un til it w a s r e tur

ne d to the su

bmi tti nga g e ncy to gethe r w iththe la b r e po rt . H e te sti fi e d e xhibi t 1 appea rs to have be en opene d and reseale d twice – once by the l ab’s evidence custodian and once by him. The tape around the edg es of e x hibit 1 was place d there by the DPS lab, and Cadena

conclude d exhibi t 1 has not been unse aled a nd opened sinc e he se aled it. Th e State ’s fi na l w itn e ss w a s Jes se Ev ins , a det e c tiv e wi th t he F lor e sv ill e Pol ic e De pa rtme nt. I n 20 04 , De te c tiv e Ev ins wa s the a ssi sta nt c omm and e r of the 81 st Judic ia l Di str ic t Na rc oti c s T a sk For ce and oversa

w its da y -to-day operations. De tective Evins testified all the nar cotics task for ces in the state we re shut d o wn i n 2006. The c hief of the Flore sville Pol ice De partment a cce pted responsibility

for the e vidence that had bee n collecte d by the 81st Task F orce , and ass igne d Detec tive Evi n s t o gat h er the evidenc e. De tective Evins testified he went to the DPS crime lab in Corpus Christi t o collect e vidence that had bee n submitt ed by the 81st Task F orce . State’s exhibit 1 was one of the pa c ka g e s h e pic ke d u p f ro m the DPS la

b in Corp us Chr ist i. Wh e n h e re c e ive d St a te ’s e xhibi t04

- 07

- 00 82 4- CR

- 4- 1 from the c rime lab, the la b repor t, State’s ex h i b i t 2 , wa s s tapled to it. Detec tive Evins took the
e vid e nc e ba c k to F lor e sv ill e and pla c e d it in the e vid e nc e loc ke r at the po lic e de pa rtme nt, wh e re it
re ma ine d unti l the tr ia l. De te c tiv e Ev ins too k the e nv e lop e and a tta c he d r e po rt ou t of the loc ke r i n Flore sville the night be fore he testified a nd broug ht them with him t o court in Ka rnes City
. Viewingthis evidence in the light most favor able to the jury ’s verdic t, a rational fa ct-finde r
c ou ld have fo un d be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t G on zal e s d e liv e re d th e c on te nts of State ’s e xhibi t 1 to Guerr ero, a

nd that the contents of State’s ex hibit 1 tested positive for c ocaine . Acc ording ly , we
overr ule Gonzales’s leg al insufficie ncy point of err or. See J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Gonzales also ar g ues the evidenc e is f actua lly insufficient to suppor t the verdic t, contending the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the ve rdict. Gonzales ar g ues two
a lle g e d in c on sis te nc ie s in the State ’s e vidence a

nd the fa ilure of

the State to p re se nt w itn e sse s to
corr oborate Guer

rer o’s version of the sale compels this re sult. The State is not required to pre sent any particula r witness and, in this case , met its burden to prove G onzales delivere d the controlled substance without the need for additional witnesses. See Pa y an v . S tat e , 1 9 9 S. W. 3 d

3 8 0 , 3 8 3 ( T e x. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. re f’d) , cert. de nied , 549 U.S. 1170 (2007). The failure to present cumulative evide nce doe s not amount to evidence inconsistent with the verdict. Mo re ov e r, we dis a g re e wi th t he ass essme nt t

hat th e State ’s e vid e nc e wa s in te rn a lly inconsistent. Gonzales contends “the State’s witn es s es were unable to state with any deg ree of
cer tainty whether or not the alleg ed contr aband had b een r eturne d to the task forc e, by use of the mails, or by

in-person tra

nsfer .” Detective Evins testified unequivoca lly that he phy sically

collecte d State’s exhibit 1, which wa s l abele d with the case number a ssigne d to the substance se nt by04

- 07

- 00 82 4- CR

- 5- Gu e rr e ro , a

nd wh ic h h a d th e c or

re sp on din g la

b r e po rt a tta c he d to it, fr om Cor

pu s Chr ist i, c arr ie d it to Flore sville, and place d it in the evidence locker
. This testimony was not cha lleng ed or contra dicted. Gonz ales relies on Cadena ’s gene ral description of the DPS lab’s proc edure s, during which he stated that afte r testing a substance, he would rese al it and put it back into the vault. Afte r the lab re p o rt wa s generated, a n evidenc e custodian w ould mail the evidence envelope and re port back to the submitting a g ency . Caden a wa s n ot asked a bout and did not purport to have a ny knowledge o f whether or howthe evidenc e in t his c as e was re turned to the task f orce . Detec tive E v i n s e x p l a i n e d

t h a tb e c a u s e t h e n ar c o t i c s t a s k

f o r c e s w e r e p arto f

D P S , t h e D P S l a

b a l m o s ta l w a ys k ep t t h eir e vidence until a court issued an or der of destruction. He rec alled only a fe w instance s when, due to case specific circ umstances, the c ontraba nd was mailed ba ck to the task for ce. Go nza le s a lso c on te nd s G ue rr e ro ’s de sc ri pti on of the su bs tanc e Go nza le s del ive re d to hi m as a “ chunk” c onflicts with Ca d en a’ s t es timony that he per formed his c hemical a naly sis on a

“ po wd e r s ub sta

nc e .” Th is i ssu e wa s n ot f ur the r expl or e d dur ing the tr ia l. V ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in a neutr al light, especia lly the State’s evide nce e stablishing the c hain of c ustody , we c annot say the evidenc e supporting the verdic t is outwe ighe d by the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the contra

ry evidenc e so as to re nder the verdic t clearl y wrong a nd manifestly

unjust. See Ro be rts v . S tat e , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We theref ore ove rrul e Go nzales’s second point of
err or. The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d. Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice

Do no t pu bli sh04

- 07

- 00 82 4- CR

- 6-