### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 71 -C R

______________________________ ANTHO NY GEO RGE FOMB Y, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 276th J udicial District Court

Morris County , Texas Trial Court No. 10,035

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rEig ht plastic bag s of white powde r we re f ound in t he tra sh can; howe ver, only the bag 1 containing 6.59 g rams of c ocaine was tested f or ver ification of its contents. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON After a trial by jury , Anthony Geor g e Fomby was convicted of possession of more than f our g rams but less than 200 g rams of coca ine, a second deg ree felony that was e nhance d to first deg ree felony p u n is h me n t b y

a p r io r c o n v ic ti o n . T h e ju

r y a s s e s s e d F o mb y ' s p u n is h me n t at n in e ty
- n ine y ear s' imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine , to which he wa s sentence d by the trial cour

t. I. Bac kgr ound F ac ts On April 26, 2008, Texas Depa rtment of Public Safety

Trooper Roge r Penney

clocke d a ca

r driven by Fomby at seve nty -nine miles per hour in a seventy -mile-per -hour zone, and Penne y beg an following the vehicle . The ve hicle made two U-turns a nd eventua lly

turned int o the drivew ay of S am an d Di x i e Mo o re , n ei t h er o f wh o m kn ew Fo mb y . P en n ey p ark ed h i s p at ro l ca r b eh i n d Fo mb y 's

car and sawhim ge t out o f t h e vehicle, w alk to the Moores' front porc h and ca rry on a short

conver sation with someone, later identified as Dixie Moore, at the Moor es' front door. Penney looked throug h Fomby ' s car windows an d s aw an open conta iner of be er a nd a cle ar pla stic bag f o u n d to c o n ta in

0

. 6 g r a ms o f

c o c a in e . D ixi e s aw F o mb y p u t s o me th in g in to a s ma ll tr a s h c ann e xt to t he do or . Su

bs e qu e ntl y , a

pla sti c ba g c on ta ini ng

6. 59 grams of cocai ne w a s f ound in t he tr a sh

can. 1Fomby admits that he possess ed t he 0.6 g rams of c ontraba nd found in the vehic le, but 2 specific ally

challeng es the char g e that he possessed the 6.59 g rams of coca ine found in the tra sh can

. Las te r v . S

tate , 275 S.W .3d 512, 517–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 3 Id. at 518–19. 4 We find the trial cour

t's c harg e to the jury

to have b ee n i n s ubstantial, if not complete, 5 compliance with the applicable law, and thus, the e quivalent of a hy pothetically

corr ect c harg e. 3 On a pp e a l, F omb y c on te nd s the e vid e nc e su pp or tin g the c on vic tio n is leg a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt. We a ff

ir m the jud g me nt be c a

us e the e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly a nd fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o 2 prove posse ssion of a controlled substanc e. II. Legal and F actual Suf fi ciency I n h is s ole po int of e rr or , Fo mby argue s the e vid e nc e su pp or tin g his c on vic tio n w a s le g a lly and fa ctually

insufficient. We disag ree . After revie wing the evidenc e on the required st andar ds for l e g a l an d f a c tu a l s u f

f i c i e n c y, we f

ind the evidenc e suff

icient to support the jury

verdic t. 3 4 A. Stand ard of Review I n this anal y s i s , we use a hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e to eva luate both the leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy

of evide nce. Gr ott i v. S tate , 273 S.W .3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Such a 5

c ha rg e a c c ur a te ly

se ts o ut t he law, is a

uth or ize d b y

the ind ic tme nt, do e s not unn e c e ssa ri ly inc re a se the State ' s b ur de n o f p ro of or unne c e ssa

ri ly re str ic t th e State ' s the or ie s o f l ia bil ity , a nd a de qu a te ly descr ibes the particula

r offe nse for which the defe ndant was trie d. Vi lla rre al v . S tate , 286 S.W .3d 32 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09 ); Ma lik v . S tate , 953 S.W .2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).4

B. Requirem ent of Li nks to the Contr olled Su bstance A conviction for

po s s es sion of coca ine, a pe nalty g roup 1 controlled substanc e, see T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.102(3)( D) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008) , is suppor ted only when the defe ndant " knowing ly or intentionally possesses" the coc aine. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.115(a) (Ve rnon 2003). Proof of possession require s evidenc e that the a ccuse d exercised "a ctual ca

re, c ustody , control, or mana g ement" over the substance. T EX . P EN A L C OD E ANN . § 1 .0 7( a )( 39 ) ( Ve rn on

Sup p. 20 08 ); see also T EX . H E A L TH & S A FETY C ODE ANN . § 481.002(38) ( V e r n o nS u p p . 2 0 0 8 )

. T h u s , t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e t h e a c c u s e d ( 1 ) e x e r c i s e d

" a c tu a l c ar e , c u s t o dy, cont ro l , o r m anag ement over the [contraband]" and (2) knew that the matter " possessed" was contra band. Ma rti n v . S

tate , 753 S.W .2d 384, 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Whe n a n a c c us e d is no t in

e xclu siv e po sse ssi on

of the pla c e wh e re c on tr aba nd is f ound , it cannot be conclude d he or she had k n o wledg e or c ontrol over the c ontraba nd unless there are additional independe nt fac ts and circumstance s that link the ac cused to the c ontraba nd. Poindexte r

v . Sta te , 1 53 S.W .3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). These " links" may be either

direc t or circ umstantial and must establish, to the requisite level of confide nce, that the ac cused' s connec tion with the drugwas more than just fortuitous. Id. at 405–06. The number of links pre sent is not as important as the deg ree to which they tend to link the defe ndant to the controlled substanc e. Tay lor v . S tate , 106 S.W .3d 827, 831 (Te x . Ap p .—Dallas 20 03 , n o p e t.) ; W

ill iam s v . S

tate , 906 S.W .2d 58, 65 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, pe t. ref' d); W hit wor th5

v . S tat e , 8 08 S.W. 2d

56 6, 56 9 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 91 , pe t. re f' d)

. Th e re is no se t fo rm ula of fa c ts that dictate a finding of links suff icient to suppor

t a n infere nce of knowingpossession of contra band. Po rte r v . S

tate , 873 S.W .2d 729, 732 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, pe t. ref' d). None theless, re cog nized fac tors include whe ther: (1) the contra band was in plain view or r ecove red f rom an e nclosed plac e; (2) the a ccuse d was the ow ner of the premises or t he place where the contra band wa s found; (3) the

a c c us e d w a s found wi th a larg e a mou nt of c a sh ; (4) the c on tr a

ba nd wa s conve nie ntl y a c c e ssi ble to the ac cused; (5) the contra band wa s found in close proximit y to the acc used; (6 ) a st rongresidual odor of the cont raba

nd was pre sent; (7) the a ccuse d possessed other contra band whe n arr ested; (8) pa raphe rnalia to use t h e contr aband w as in view, or f ound on the ac cused; (9) the phy sical condition of the acc used indicated rec ent consumption of the contra band in que stion; (10) conduct by the ac cused indicated a c onsciousness of guilt; (11) the acc used attempted to flee; (12) the

acc used made furtive g estures; (13) the acc used had a specia l connec tion to the contraba nd; (14) the occupa nts of the pre mises ga

ve conf licting state ments about rele vant matters; (15) the acc used made incriminating statements conne cting himself or her self to the co n t ra b an d; (16) the qua ntity of the

c on tr a ba nd ; and (1 7) the a c c us e d wa s obse rv e d in a susp ic iou s ar e a un de r s us pic iou s c ir c ums tanc e s. Se e Las sa int

v . S tate , 79 S.W. 3d 73 6, 74 0–41 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 02 , no pe t.) ; Kyte v. Sta te , 944 S.W

. 2 d

2 9 , 3 1

– 3 2 ( T e x. A p p . — T e xar k an a 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t. )

. I t i s th e lo g ic a l f o r c e the fa c tor s h a ve in e sta

bli sh ing the e le me nts of the of fe ns e , no t the numbe r o f t he m, t hat is imp or

tant. I n ot h er words, we ask if ther e is evidenc e of c ircumstance s, in addition to m ere prese nce orSam did not see with whom Dix ie was speaking ; howeve r, he positively identified F omby 6 as the man speaking with Penne y . Dix ie testified F omby was similar in appe ara

nce to the ma

n that knocked on he r door, but she c ould not posit ively identify Fomby as the same man. 6 proxi mity , that ad eq u ately justifies the conclusion that the def endant knowing ly

possessed the substance. Ev an s v . S

tate , 202 S.W. 3d

15 8, 16 1 n .9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); se e ge ne ra lly King v. Sta te , 895 S.W .2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). C. F om by' s P os se ssi on o f the Co nt r aba nd Con sid e ri ngthe fr a me wo rk jus t se t out, w e no w t ur n to the fa c ts o f t

he c a se to d e te rm ine if sufficie nt evidence links F omby to the 6.59 g rams of c ocaine found in the trash c an. Penney parke d his patrol car

behind Fomby ' s car

and sawhim g et out of the vehicle, walk to the Moores' porch a nd

car ry on a short conve rsation with someone, late r identified a s Dix ie, at the Moore s' front door. The trash ca n in which the 6.59 g rams of c ocaine was found w as on the Moore s' porch a d j ac ent t o the door. While Fomby s p oke with Dixi e, Penney looked throug h Fomby ' s car windows and saw

an op e n c on ta ine r o f b e e r a

nd a c le ar p la sti c ba g c on ta ini ng a wh ite po wd e r. Af

te r l e a vin g the Mo or e s' porch, F omby

spoke with Penney

and admitted that the white pow der w as coc aine. Dix ie testified that a ma

n she di d not know knocked on her door and asked if the Moore s' car was for sale, a nd she told him "no." There was no " for sa le" sign on the car or in the Moore s' y ard. After the conve rsation, as Dixie was closing the door , she saw " him lean over and try to stuff something inside the tr ash ca n," " like he wa s pushing somethingdown towar d the bottom." She 6 explained to her husband, Sam, what h ap p en ed ; he sea rche d the trash c an, found the plastic bag7

c o n t a i n i n g 6

. 5 9 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e , an d a l e rt e d P e n n e y. T h e b a g o f

c o c a i n e w a s " w r a

p p e d s i m i l ar l y" to the plastic bagof coc aine in F omby ' s car . When f ace d with a rec ord that supports conflicting infere nces, we pr esume the trie r of f act resolved a ny conflict in support of the ve rdict. See id. a t 16 4 n .1 9; Ma tso n v . S tate , 819 S.W .2d 839, 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). "T he jury is the ex clusive j udg e of the cre dibilit y of witnesses a

nd of the we ig ht t o b e g ive n te sti mony , a nd it i s a lso the e xclu siv e pr ov inc e of the jur y to r e c on c ile

c on fl ic ts in the e vidence. " W esbroo k v . S tate , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d

1 0 3 , 1 1 1 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 )

. In resolving conflicts i n the evidenc e, a jur y "ma y acc ept one ve rsion of fa cts and re ject anothe r or rej ectany of a w it nes s ' t e s t im on y ." Ba k e r v . S tate , 986 S.W .2d 271, 276 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, pet. re f' d). Her e, F omby ' s p re s en ce a nd actions at the Moor es' residenc e indicate d suspicious circ umstances. The contra band wa s found in close proximit y to Fomby , rec overe d from an e nclosed p l ac e, an d

wa s co n v en i en t l y

a c c e s s i b l e t o Fo mb y . Ot h er co n t rab an d

wa s fo u n d

i nFo mb y 's possession. The logica l forc e of the evidence is sufficie nt for a jury to rea sonably infer that Fomby place d the bagof coc aine in the tra sh can, a nd there fore , t he bagof coc aine wa s knowing ly under F o mb y ' s c ar e , c u s to dy , c o n tr o l, o r ma n a g ement. Cf. Evans , 2 02 S.W. 3d at 16 2. Th e re is a

mpl e evidenc e supporting the verdic t f rom which a rational jury could find the e lements of possession of a contr olled substance be y ond a re asonable doubt. T he evidenc e is not so weak that the jury ' s verdict is clear ly wrongand manife stly

unjust.8

We overrule Fomby ' s points of error and af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: September 16, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 2, 2009 Do Not Publish