Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 20, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00446-CR 

No. 05-15-00447-CR 

No. 05-15-00448-CR 

No. 05-15-00449-CR 

No. 05-15-00450-CR 

No. 05-15-00451-CR 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1455016-U; F-1455017-U; F-1455018-U; F-1455019-U; F1455020-U; F-1455021-U 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Roger Ladale Ford appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana in an amount 

greater than 4 ounces but less than or equal to five pounds in cause number 05-15-00446-CR, 

possession with intent to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an amount of 4 grams or more 

but less than 400 grams in cause number 05-15-00447-CR, possession with intent to deliver 

alprazolam (Xanax) in an amount greater than or equal to 200 grams but less than 400 grams in 

cause number 05-15-00448-CR, possession with intent to deliver dihydrocodeinone 
 –2– 

(hydrocodone) in an amount of 400 grams or more in cause number 05-15-00449-CR, possession 

with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount greater than or equal to 4 grams but less than 200 

grams in cause number 05-15-00450-CR, and possession with intent to deliver 

methamphetamine in an amount greater than or equal to 1 gram but less than 4 grams in cause 

number 05-15-00451-CR. A jury convicted appellant of each offense,1

 and the trial court 

sentenced him to four years’ confinement in cause number 05-15-00446-CR, twenty-five years’ 

confinement in cause numbers 05-15-00447-CR and 05-15-00448-CR, thirty-five years’ 

confinement in cause number 05-15-00449-CR, thirty years’ confinement in cause number 05-

15-00450-CR, and ten years’ confinement in cause number 05-15-00451-CR. In two points of 

error, appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the admission of drug 

evidence because the evidence was obtained in an illegal search of his vehicle, and the evidence 

was legally insufficient to prove appellant knowingly possessed marijuana and that appellant 

knowingly possessed any controlled substance. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

In May 2014, Dallas police officer Barrett Nelson was working with a U.S. Marshal task 

force executing high-risk felony arrest warrants. Nelson received four arrest warrants for 

appellant, and the warrants listed an address in Mesquite. Nelson went to the address and 

conducted surveillance on appellant to determine his pattern and the best time to arrest him. The 

next day, Nelson returned to appellant’s residence with a team of law enforcement officers to 

execute the warrants against appellant. Two Cadillacs, one green and one white, were parked in 

front of appellant’s residence. As the team was getting ready, Nelson saw appellant and 

appellant’s brother, Fabian, walk out of appellant’s residence. Appellant was carrying a “halffilled trash bag” that was “heavy on the bottom” and “twisted several times around the top,” and 

 1

 Also prior to trial, the State filed a notice that evidence of prior extraneous offenses might be introduced at trial, including fifteen charges 

of possession or delivery of a controlled substance, a taking a weapon from a police officer conviction, two assault on a public servant 

convictions, a robbery conviction, four failure to identify fugitive convictions, two driving while license invalid convictions, a tampering with a 

government record conviction, a criminal trespass conviction, and a theft of property valued at more than $50 but less than $500 conviction. 
 –3– 

he was “looking around.” When appellant got between the two Cadillacs, the team of officers 

moved in and started yelling, “Get on the ground.” Appellant “dropped the bag right beside 

him,” and officers handcuffed appellant and his brother. Nelson searched appellant and found a 

car key fob in appellant’s pocket. Appellant also had $1455 on his person. Nelson pushed a 

button on the key fob, and the green Cadillac’s trunk popped open. Appellant said the green 

Cadillac was his car. After verifying Fabian’s identity, police released him. Fabian picked up 

the bag appellant had been carrying and went to put the bag in the open trunk of the green 

Cadillac. Nelson thought this behavior was “kind of peculiar” because there was a dumpster 

nearby, and if the bag had been trash Fabian would have taken it “to the trash can.” As a result, 

Nelson detained Fabian and looked at the bag Fabian had placed in the trunk. There were other 

bags full of clothing in the trunk, but Nelson identified the bag appellant had been carrying by its 

“twisted-top nature” and its smaller size compared to the other bags. 

Detective Jonathan Sharkey of the Dallas police narcotics bureau was part of the team 

securing the scene of appellant’s arrest. Sharkey was about to close the trunk of appellant’s car 

when he looked at the bag in the trunk and “saw an impression of a pistol.” When the detectives 

opened the bag, they found scales and “a slew of narcotics and three pistols.”2

 The contents of 

the bag were inventoried and sent to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWIFS) for 

testing. Testing showed the contents included 276.3957 grams of Xanax, 410.73 grams of 

hydrocodone, 15.9610 ounces of marijuana, 1.0530 grams of methamphetamine, 16.6258 grams 

of cocaine, and 23.0370 grams of THC. Appellant was subsequently charged by indictment with 

possession of and/or possession with intent to deliver each controlled substance. 

At a pretrial hearing on the day of trial, defense counsel made the following statement: 

 2

 The bag contained a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol, a 9-millimeter Glock pistol, and a .45-caliber pistol. 
 –4– 

Last thing, Your Honor, I have a blanket motion to suppress evidence. Simply 

complains about everything that might be, basically, entered as evidence by the 

State and complains that it’s inadmissible because it was gathered in violation of 

the defendant’s rights. So prior to getting into the actual drugs being found, then 

I’ll probably ask for a break at that point so we can have a brief ruling by the 

court on this motion to suppress. 

The trial judge replied, “All right. Denied. Untimely filed.” The State called Nelson as its first 

witness. Nelson testified concerning his duties executing warrants and the circumstances 

surrounding appellant’s arrest, including appellant’s carrying a black trash bag, Nelson’s opening 

the trunk of the Cadillac, and Fabian’s taking the trash bag and placing it in the open trunk. At 

the point in the questioning where the prosecutor asked what Nelson saw when the bag in 

appellant’s trunk was opened, defense counsel requested a hearing outside the presence of the 

jury. After the jury was removed from the court room, defense counsel questioned Nelson about 

the sequence of events surrounding the opening of appellant’s trunk and the search of the bag in 

appellant’s trunk. Counsel re-urged his “motion on the record,” arguing that, because officers 

had only an arrest warrant, they no longer had any right to search the bag after Fabian took 

possession of the bag and put it in the trunk. On this basis, counsel objected to the admission of 

any evidence about the contents of the bag under sections 38.22 and 38.23 of the code of 

criminal procedure. In response, the State argued both appellant and Fabian “exercised care, 

management, custody, [and] control over the bag in the presence of the officers.” The trial judge 

ruled, “Motion is denied.” However, the trial judge granted counsel’s request to have a running 

objection to “any testimony related to the contents of this garbage bag.” 

At trial, both Nelson and Sharkey testified concerning the events surrounding appellant’s 

arrest and the discovery of the bag containing the drugs and pistols. In addition, Dallas police 

narcotics detective Todd Conway testified he reviewed recorded telephone calls appellant made 

from jail. A recording of the calls was played for the jury during Conway’s testimony. At the 

beginning of each call, a prerecorded message stated the call was coming from Lew Sterrett and 
 –5– 

was being recorded. In a call to his brother, appellant said “someone bought ice from him.” 

Conway explained that “ice” is crystal methamphetamine. Conway also testified appellant “said 

he got everything he had out of the house” and was “trying to make it look like the officers 

performed [an] illegal search of the vehicle.” The prosecutor asked Conway if appellant, in a 

subsequent call to the mother of his children, said “he put the dope in the car.” Conway testified 

appellant “said he put it in the trunk.” When asked what he had, appellant said he “had a lot of 

re-up.” Conway testified “re-up” is a commonly used narcotics sales term meaning appellant 

had purchased more narcotics. The jury subsequently convicted appellant of each of the charged 

offenses. These appeals followed. 

In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the 

admission of evidence seized as a result of an illegal search of his vehicle. Specifically, 

appellant argues the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, requiring that the vehicle 

be readily mobile and that probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband, did 

not authorize the search in this case. Appellant argues his vehicle was not mobile because police 

seized his car keys, and there was no evidence the car contained contraband. Appellant concedes 

that police had ample authority opportunity and legal authority to search the bag appellant was 

carrying at the time of his arrest. However, appellant argues, police showed no interest in the 

bag’s contents until Fabian placed the bag in the trunk of a vehicle. 

While searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable, seizing contraband 

in plain view does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Betts, 397 S.W.3d 198, 206 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “The ‘plain view’ doctrine permits an officer to seize contraband which 

he sees in plain sight or open view if he is lawfully where he is.” Id. (quoting DeLao v. State, 

550 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). Thus, three requirements must be met to justify 

the seizure of an object in plain view: first, law enforcement officials must lawfully be where the 
 –6– 

object can be “plainly viewed;” second, the “incriminating character” of the object in plain view 

must be “immediately apparent” to the officials; and third, the officials must have the right to 

access the object. Id. (citing Keehn v. State, 279 S.W.3d 330, 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). 

Here, police came to appellant’s residence with warrants for his arrest. Appellant walked 

outside carrying a trash bag, which he dropped when police moved in to arrest him. Nelson 

searched appellant and found a car key fob which opened the trunk of the green Cadillac. When 

Fabian was released, he picked up the trash bag appellant had been carrying and, instead of 

throwing it away or treating it like trash, he placed it in the open trunk of appellant’s car. As part 

of securing the scene, Sharkey was about to close the trunk of appellant’s car when he looked at 

the bag in the trunk and “saw an impression of a pistol.” Sharkey informed another detective, 

who “felt around the object and felt it was a firearm.” When the detectives opened the bag, they 

found “a slew of narcotics and three pistols.” 

Thus, police were lawfully where they could look at the bag in the open trunk of 

appellant’s car. The outline of a pistol inside the bag was immediately apparent. The officers 

therefore had a right to open the bag and seize the gun for officer safety purposes. Id.; see Terry 

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). The record shows Nelson did not open the trunk of appellant’s 

car to perform a search but instead to identify it as belonging to appellant. Appellant’s brother 

placed the bag in the trunk of appellant’s car, and police merely observed what was in plain 

view: the outline of a pistol inside the bag. 

Appellant characterizes this as a case in which the State was required to establish the 

applicability of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Appellant argues the 

automobile exception did not apply because appellant’s car was not mobile and there was no 

evidence the car contained contraband. However, the mere fact that Fabian placed the bag in the 

open trunk of a car does not require a showing that the automobile exception applied. Police 
 –7– 

could see the outline of a gun in plain view on the bag Fabian had just picked up off the ground 

and placed in the open trunk of appellant’s car. Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial 

court did not err in overruling his objection to the admission of evidence seized as a result of the 

search of the bag in the trunk of his car. We overrule appellant’s first point of error. 

In his second point of error, appellant argues the evidence is legally insufficient to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed marijuana or any other controlled 

substance. Specifically, appellant argues there is no proof that the bag appellant carried from his 

residence was the same bag containing weapons and drugs. Appellant also asserts generally that 

the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for possession of marijuana and convictions 

for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. 

We review the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard set out in Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). 

We examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Matlock, 392 S.W.3d at 667. We defer to the jury’s 

determinations of credibility and may not substitute our own judgment for that of the jury. 

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); King v. State, 29 

S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 

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

reasonable doubt that the defendant exercised dominion over the substance and that he knew it to 

be contraband. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Regardless of 

whether this evidence is direct or circumstantial, it must establish that a defendant’s connection 

to the contraband was more than fortuitous. Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 594–95 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2011). Thus, mere presence at the location where drugs are found is insufficient, by 
 –8– 

itself, to establish the requisite degree of control to support a conviction. Evans v. State, 202 

S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). That said, possession need not be exclusive. Henry v. 

State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). When the defendant is 

not in exclusive possession of the place where the substance is found, there must be additional 

independent facts and circumstances that link him to the contraband. Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 

406. 

Intent to deliver may be proved by circumstantial evidence, such as the quantity of drugs 

possessed, the manner of packaging, whether the defendant possessed a large amount of cash, 

evidence of drug transactions, and the nature of the location where the defendant was arrested. 

Taylor v. State, 106 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). Intent to deliver is a 

question of fact for the jury to resolve, and it may be inferred from the acts, words, or conduct of 

the defendant. Id.

Here, appellant came out of his residence carrying a trash bag that was later determined 

to contain scales and marijuana, THC, Xanax, hydrocodone, cocaine, methamphetamine, and 

three guns. Appellant also was carrying $1455 in cash. As officers moved in to arrest him, 

appellant dropped the bag next to him. After Fabian was released, he picked up the bag and 

placed it in the open trunk of appellant’s car. Sharkey saw the impression of a pistol in the bag, 

which led to the discovery of the narcotics. Nelson testified the bag containing the drugs was the 

same bag appellant had been carrying. Thus, appellant was carrying the bag when he left his 

residence, it contained a large quantity of drugs and scales, and appellant also had a large amount 

of cash on his person. Under these circumstances, we conclude the evidence was legally 

sufficient to show the bag appellant carried out of his residence and the bag containing drugs 

were the same bag and appellant knowingly possessed marijuana and knowingly possessed the 
 –9– 

other drugs with intent to deliver. Matlock, 392 S.W.3d at 667; Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 405; 

Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 831. We overrule appellant’s second point of error. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

150446F.U05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –10– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00446-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1455016-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 20, 2016. 

 
 –11– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00447-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1455017-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 20, 2016. 

 
 –12– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00448-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1455018-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 20, 2016. 

 
 –13– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00449-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1455019-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this April 20, 2016. 

 
 –14– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00450-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1455020-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 20, 2016. 

 
 –15– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00451-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1455021-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 20, 2016.