## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00174

- CR

_________________________ __

On Appea l from the 297t h Di strict Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1530013D
Before Gabriel, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum O pinion by Justice Gabriel 

### F REDDIE 

### D. G ARRE TT 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION In two related points complaining of the State ’ s authen t ication of an exhibi t , Appellant Fr eddie D. Garrett appeals his conviction for possession of metham phetamine. S ee Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § § 481. 102,

. 115(b)

. Because the trial court did not reversibl y err by admitting the exhibit and the evidenc e is suffic ient to su pport his c onvi ction , we overrule his points and affirm the t rial court ’ s judgm ent. I. B ACKGROUND In the early morning hours of January 28, 2018, Fort Worth police were investigating a re ported kidnapping when they detain ed Garrett i n the parking lot of the Union Gospe l Mission

. Garrett consented to a se ar ch of his person, during which Officer Z

. Farah found a clear , knotted plastic bag containing a white substance

. Officer Farah ’ s partn er, Off i cer Sam antha Bennett , testifi ed at trial that she was
stan ding “ right next to ” Officer Farah an d watched him remove the clear plast ic bagg ie from Garrett ’ s shorts pocket

. Officer Bennett reca ll ed that Officer Farah ha nded her the baggie an d that she held it i n her closed fist unti l Officer Mark Stokes, one of the t

wo leading officers on scene, approa ched them. At that time, s he gave the ba ggie to Officer Stokes. Neither Offi cer Farah nor Offi cer Bennett placed any id en tifying mark s on the baggie , but Officer Sto kes testified to his practice of receiving evidence such as the baggie ; pla cing it in a second, d epartment

- issued pla stic baggie ; and pla cing both baggies in a large r yell ow envelope, on which he w rote the3

invest igation number, the property

- room
- tag number, the time he entered the evidence int o the property room, and his sign ature. A photograph of a yellow envelope with Officer Stok es ’ s sign atur e and a description of the contained items as

“ Whi Crystal like substance[,] green l eafy substance ” was admitted into evidence. T he white substance in the baggie was l ater tested and identified as 1.884 grams of metha mphetamine. A p hotog raph of the bagg ie containi ng methamphetamine was admitted at trial as Stat e ’ s Exhibit 10. The jury fo und Garrett guilty of possession of more than a gram of methampheta mine and assessed a seven

- year sentence. The trial cou rt entered judgment accordingly a nd this a ppeal followed. II. DISCUSSION Garrett b rings two point s on appeal , both related to the admission of State ’ s Exhibit 10 . In his first point , he ar gues that the trial court erred by admitting the exhibit o v er his obj ection because i t “ was not s uffi cien tly authenticated due to a failure of the St ate to show the beginning of t he chain of custody. ” In his second point , he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the con viction because Exhibit 1 0 was not sufficiently authentic ate d. We disagree with Garrett o n both points. A
. A DMISSION OF S TATE ’ S E XHIBIT 10 We revie w the trial court ’ s admi ssion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Gonzale s v. State , 47 7 S.W.3d 475, 4 79 (Tex. A pp.
— Fort Worth 2015, pet. ref ’ d)

. We4

w ill not disturb th e tri al court ’ s ruling as long as it is within the zone of reasonable disagreem ent. Id. Garrett argues that the photo of the baggie of me thamp hetamine was not properly au thenticated bec ause the o fficer who seized t he evidence

— O fficer Farah

— di d not testi fy and no officer dire ctly marked the baggie with initials or a signature

. In support of Garret t ’ s argument, he recites precedent holding that the chain of cust ody is concl usi vely proven if the seizing o fficer testifies that he seized the evi dence and pla ced his personal mark on the evidence. See Lagrone v. S tate , 942 S.W.2d 602, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ; Gar cia v. State , 537 S.W.2d 930, 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 976) ; Ell io t t v . Sta te , 450 S

. W.2d 863, 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). But this is n ot the only

w ay to establish the chain of custody and au thenticate evidence seized from a defendant. Evidence is proper ly authenticated by establishing that the matter in quest ion is

w hat its propon ent claims. Tex. R. Evid. 901(a). E vidence s ei zed by the police is most often authen ticated by showi ng its chain of custody. See , e.g. , Lagrone , 942 S.W.2d at 617

. Proof validating the beginning and the end of the chain of custody support s the a d missio n of evidence, barr ing any evidence of tampering or alteration. Drue ry v. State , 225 S.W.3d 491 , 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

. An y problems in the chain of custody affect the evidence ’ s weight to be assigned by the factfinder,

not its adm issi bility. Id

. a t 503

– 04.5

In this case, Officer Bennett testifi ed that she saw Offic er Farah pull the baggie of methamphetamine from Garrett ’ s pocket, that Officer Farah hand ed the baggie to her, that she held it in a “ closed fist , ” and that she ga ve the b agg ie t o Offic er Sto kes. Officer Stokes testified t o his practice of plac ing evide n ce like the baggie of methamphetamine into a second bag to prevent contamin ation ; placing both inside a yellow envelope marke d with the investi gation n umber, the propert y
- r oom
- tag number, the date and time, and his signature ; and checking it i nto the prop e rty room
. A photo of a yellow enve lope with an investigation number, property

- room
- tag number , and date and time correspondi ng to Garrett ’ s case, bearing Offi cer Stoke s ’ s sign atur e, and containing a small baggie of methamphetamine was admitted in to evide n ce. Contrary t o Gar rett ’ s argument , this evidence is sufficient to establish the beginning of the chain of custody

. Cf

. id. ( overruling argument that chain of cus tody

was not est abl i shed because inves tigator did not personall y seize the evidence ). The trial cour t therefore did not abuse its discretion by admitting State ’ s Exhibit 10 , and we overrule Garrett ’ s fi rst point

.

B. S UFFICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE In his second p oint, Ga rrett argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction be c ause State ’ s Exhibit 10 w as imp roperly admitted. Garrett ’ s argument fails because even if we agreed that State ’ s Exhibit 10 was improperly admitted

—

which we do not

— we stil l consid er impr operly admitted e vidence in6

conducting a sufficiency review. Jenkin s v. Stat e , 493 S.W.3d 583 , 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016 )

. V iewing all of the evid ence in the lig ht most f avorable to the verdict, we hold that it is s ufficient

— any rational factfind er could have found the crime ’ s essential elements beyond a reasonable doub t
. See Jackso n v. Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307 , 319 (1979 ) ; Queema n v. Stat

e , 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Te x. Crim. App. 2017)

. The evidence established that the baggie of me thampheta mine was discovered in Garrett ’ s pocket, which is sufficient to establish that h e k n owingly exerc ised actual care, c ontrol, and management over the contraband. See Toumey v. Stat e , No. 01

- 16

- 00144

- CR , 2017 WL 631841, at * 4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 s t Dist. ] F eb. 16, 2017, pet. r ef ’ d ) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ( upholding con v iction for possession o f methamphetamine found in defendant ’ s pocket ). We therefore over rule Garrett ’ s second point. III . CONCLUSION Having overruled bot h of Garrett ’ s point s, we af fi rm the trial court ’ s judgment.
/s/ Lee Gabriel Lee Gabriel Justice Do Not Publi s h Tex. R . App. P. 47.2(

b) Delivered : October 15 , 2020