NO. 07-05-0108-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY 18, 2006

______________________________ BALDEMAR ARMENDARIZ, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUN TY; NO. 3603; HONORAB LE RON E NNS, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Baldema r A rmendariz was convicted by a jury of delivery of cocaine and sentenced to 27 years confinement and a $10,000 fine. Presenting a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting a package2

containing the alleged cocaine into evidence because t h e State failed to prove chain of custody. We affirm.
Duri ng the c ourse of an undercover narcotics transaction, appellant provided SergeantJo e Gonzalez w ith a black package purported to be cocaine. After verifying it contained a white, powdery substance, Gonzal ez deliv ered the package to the Department of Public Safety crim e lab in Am arillo f or testin g. The p ackage was receiv ed and i ts contentswere examin ed by Bran don Conrad, a DPS chemist. Tests revealed the substance in the package to be 131.76 grams of cocaine. After testing, the package and its contentswere pla ced in aDPS stor age faci lity unti l the time of tr ial whe n they we re released to Gonzal ez.
Attrial, Gonzalez and Conrad testified regarding the package and its contents. When Exhibi t 1 was offered, by his general objection that a chain of custody had not been established, appellant objected to the admission of the ev ide nce. Appellant’s objection was overruled and the evidence was admitted. We review t h e trial court's decision to admi t evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 101-02 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996). T he trial court doe s not abuse i ts discretion when the evidence admitted is based on a belief that a reasonable juror could find the evidence has be e n authenticated or identified. Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 586 (Tex.Cr. App. 199 6). The requirement of authentication or identification to ren der an exhibit admissible is satisfied if the ev idence i s suffici ent to sup port a fin ding tha t the matt er is wha t its3

proponen t claims. Tex. R. Evid. 901(a). Thus, the State i s only required to make a showing to the trial court that the matter in question is what it purports to be. Garner v. State, 939 S.W.2d 802, 805 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref'd). Without evid ence of tampering, questions regarding chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence and not its admis sibilit

y. Lagron e v. State , 942 S.W. 2d 602, 6 17 (Tex. Cr.App. 1 997).
In the prese nt case, G onzal ez testified he placed the package he obtain ed from appellant

in an en velope i dentifie d by the t ime, date , a nd his initial s. The envelope was then sealed and hand -deliver ed to Con rad at theDPS cri me lab in Amarill o. Co nrad testified he rec eived the envelope by marking it with hi s initials and assigning it a uni que laborato rynumber. He then pl aced the envelope in the DPS storage va ult where it remained until i t was r emoved for testing. At the conclusion of the tests, Conrad was unable to return the substance to its original p acka ging and placed the substance in a plasticbag. This bag and the original packaging were placed back in the original envelope and returned to the storage vault wh ere they r ema ined until appellant’s trial. On the day of trial, Conrad released the envelope to Gonzalez.
Attrial, Gonzalez identified State’s Exhibit 1 as the envelope he received from the DPS crime lab and testified that it contained the original black packagi ng he obtained from appella nt. Conrad identified State’s Exhibit 1 as the package he received in thelaborato ry and testifie d that it did not a ppear tohave been tampered with in any way since it had been released back to Gonzalez. He further testified that when evidence is received from a law4

enforcement officer for testing, it is stored in a secure location until the time for analysis. Once it is analyzed , the evid ence is r eturned to that sec ure loca tion unti l it is re turned to the officer. Here, as in Bird v. State, 692 S.W.2d 65,70 (Tex. Cr. App. 1985), there being
no evidence of tempering presented, the objection simply went to t he weight of the evidence rather th an its ad missibil ity.
Based on the above, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in findin g the evidence to be that which the State asserted it to be. Appell ant’s is sue is ov erruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.