NO. 07-05 -023 7-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 15, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ BENNIE L. COLLINS A/ K/A BE NNY L. COLLI NS, APP ELL ANT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 5- 409,185 ; H ON ORABLE CE CI L PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Be nni e L. Col li ns present s a si ng le is sue chal len g ing the suffici ency of the ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on of poss ess ion of a cont ro ll ed subs tanc e w it h i ntentto d e l i v e r . P u n i s h me n t , e n hance d b y a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , w a s a s s e s s e d b y t h e j u r y a tl i fe impr is onment a nd a $10,000 fine. W e w il l aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. The obj ect iv e facts g iv ing r is e t o a p p ell ant’ s p ro sec uti on are l arg ely undi sput ed. The di sput ed i ss ues at tr ial w ere appel lan t’ s know led g e and i ntent
. In l ate F ebr uar y 2004 Lubbo ck pol ic e off ic er

D amien Pl easan t recei v ed i nformati on th at a person w it hTesti mony rev eal ed th e w ar ra nts w ere for failu re to dis pla y a dr iv er ’s l ic ense and 1 for failure to a ppe ar. Th e indictm enterroneo usly alleged th e of fense occurred “on or abou t” February 2 23, 2 005. T his defect w as not fatal to appel lan t’ s p ro sec uti on bec ause the d ate o f the offense show n by

the ev ide nce w as before t he dat e of the ind ictment and w it hin the li mita ti ons per iod

. See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 21.02( 6) (Vernon 2 005) ; Sledge v. State , 953 S.W .2d 2 53, 2 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. 2 outs tandi ng w ar ra nts co uld be found a t a par ti cul ar l ocat ion

. Dr iv ing to the loc ati on, Pl easan t found app ell ant si tti ng al one i n the dr iv er ’s se at of a p ar ked car . After the o ff ic er obtai ned app ell ant’ s i denti ficat ion , and w hil e appel lan t remaine d i n the car , t he officer confir med there w ere w ar ra nts for a ppel lan t’ s a rre st
. As Pl easan t retur ned t o s peak to 1 appel lan t, a s econd off ic er ar ri v ed as bac kup. W hen app ell ant g o t o ut of the ca r, the secon d o f

f ic e r saw a ba g of

w hathe be liev ed was crack coca ine on the f loor of the car. The off ic ers a rrest ed appe ll ant a nd c onduc ted a se arch of the v ehi cl e, w hic h did not rev eal any othe r ev ide nce. Subs eq uent tes ti ng sh ow ed th e c ontent s o f the bag off ic ers recov ered cont ain ed c ocai ne and w eig hed 6. 2 g ra ms. A May200 5 indictm ent charged appe llant w ith posse ssion of a con trolled sub stan ce in penal ty

gro u p one w it h i ntentto del iv er . The i ndi ctmentco ntai ned an enhanc ement 2 parag ra ph al leg ing a pr ior felony co nv icti on for del iv er y of a c ontroll ed su bst ance. Appel lan t pl ed notg uil ty to the indi cte d of

fense but true to th e enhan cementparag ra ph and the c ase w as tr ied to a jur y . At tr ial the off ic ers ex pla ine d the bag w as found in front of the driv er’s seat. It w ould not have bee n v isible to a seat ed driv er, butw ould have been v isible
w hen g etti ng i nto the car

. As ev ide nce of appel lan t’ s int ent t o s ell the coc ain e, t he St ateNo app ellate issue i s raised concernin g the adm issibility of the extraneo us of fense 3 ev ide nce. Al thoug h appel lan t’ s b ri ef does n ot ex press ly st ate w hether

his chal len g e i s t o the 4 leg al or factual su ff ic ien cy

of the ev ide nce, the sta ndard of rev iew he sta tes , his cita ti on to Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) , and hi s p ra y er for an acq uittal ra ther

than a ne w

tr ial , al l suppo rtour

co ncl usi on th at he co ntends the ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on w as leg all y i nsuffici ent. 3 present ed te sti mony , o v e r a p p ell ant’ s o bje cti on, thathe h ad s old co cai ne to an u ndercov er 3 off ic er i n Sept ember

2004. App e l l a n t n o w p re s e n t s a s i n g l e i s s u e c h a l l e n g i n g t h e l e g a l s u ffi c i e n c y o f t he ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on. The l eg al suffici ency st andard of re v iew

req uires us 4 to v iew the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to t he prosec uti on and deter mine w hether any rational tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Poi

ndexter v. St ate , 153 S.W .3d 4 02, 4 05 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) , c it ing Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 31 8- 19. App ellant ’s arg um entfocuse s o n w het her the ev iden ce sho w ed “af f irmative links” b e twe e n a p p e lla n t an d th e co n tr a b a n d

. Ci ti n g Br own v. Sta te , 911 S.W .2d 7 44, 7 48 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 95), th e Sta te’s brief point s t o e vid e n c e it believes supp orts the jury deter minat ion of po ss ess ion and ev ide nce suppo rt ing the d eter minat ion thatappel lan t had an i ntentto del iv er . W e address both of thos e el ements
. T h e p o s s e s s io n e le m e n to f t h e ch a rg e d o f

f e n s e r e qu ir e d t h e S t a t e t o p ro ve appel lan t ex erci sed cont ro l, m anag ement, or care ov er

the subs tanc e w hil e k now ing i t t o be c ontraband. Poi

ndexter , 153 S.W .3d at 405 -06. Recognizi ng th at a perso n ma y jointlyIn Des hong, like here, th e c ont raba nd in questio n w as a con trolled sub stan ce 5 found on th e floor board of a c ar i n frontof the d ri v er ’s se at. 625 S. W .2d a t 329

. In Evan s , deci ded after the br iefs w ere filed in his appeal , t he c our t dropped t he 6 modifier “ aff ir m a ti v e” from t he des cr ipt ion of a defendant’ s l ink s t o the co ntraband. 202 S.W .3d a t 161 n. 9. 4 poss ess proper

ty w here c ontraband i s found b ut no t nec ess ar il y jo in tly pos ses s t he c o n t ra b a n d , o u r c o u rt s a p p ly t h e ru le t h a t“[ w] h e n t h e a c c u s e d is n o tin e xc lu s ive poss ess ion of the p lac e w here the su bst ance is found, it cannot b e c oncl uded t hat t he acc used had k now led g e of and c ontrol ov er the cont rab a n d u n le ss there are addi ti onal ind e p e n dent facts and c ircums tanc es w hic h aff ir mati v ely l ink the acc used to t he cont raba nd. ” Id. a t 40 6 , qu o ti n g Des hong v . St ate , 625 S.W .2d 327, 329 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1981) ( other

i nter nal ci tati on omi tted)

. The “ li nks ” re q uirement i s d esi g ned t o protec t t he 5 inn ocentby sta nder from conv icti on merely bec ause of his “ fortui tous prox imi ty to someone else’s drugs.” Evan s v . St ate , 202 S.W .3d 158 , 161 -62 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). 6 Here, the ev iden ce is that a ppe llant w as i n e xc lusiv e po ssession of the vehicle in
w hich th e coca ine w as foun d. He w as alon e in the car. W e do n ot agree th at th e evidence suppo rt s t he s tatementi n appel lan t’ s b ri ef that h is frie nd and her chi ld had bee n i n the ca r ear li er in the day

. The tes ti mony show ed onl y that off ic ers re lea sed the car to the fr ien d after appel lan t’ s a rrest . The on ly ev ide nce on ow nershi p of the car w as that off ic er Pl easan t bel iev ed i t belo n ged to appel lan t’ s mot her

. The threshol d c ondi ti on req uir ing ind ependentfacts and ci rc umstan ces l ink ing appell ant t o the co ntraband, that of joi nt poss ess ion of the p lac e at w hic h i t w as found, therefore, is not presenti n thi s c ase.5

Fur ther , ev ide nce of l ink s present here inc lud ed the loc ati on of the c ocai ne unde r appel lan t’ s le gs while h e w as seat ed i n the ca r. See E vans , 202 S.W .3d at 163 (court describe d coca ine less tha t a foot away f rom d efend antas being “ri ght und er his nose ”); Des hong , 625 S.W .2d at 329 (e v alu ati ng simi lar ev ide nce)

. The coc ain e w as in pla in v iew and , as not ed, app ellantw as alon e in the car, seate d in the driv er’s seat. T he e vid ence of a pp el l an t’ s s al e of c oc ai ne i n Se pt em be r 2 00 4 w as a l i nk

s ho w i ng a pp el l an t’ s inv olv ement w it h coc ain e g enerall y and from w hic h his know led g e of i ts appearance may be i nferred. See Ma son v. State , 99 S.W .3d 652, 65 6 ( Tex .App. –Eas tl and 200 3, pe t. re f’d) (fin din g ev ide nce of subs eq uent extraneous offenses admi ss ibl e to show kn ow ing posse ssion). Viewed in the light mostfavorable to th e jury ’s ve rd ic t , t h e ev iden ce is suffici ent t o per mit a fact finder to ra ti onal ly find appel lan t ex erci sed cont ro l of the c ocai ne and k new

i t w as cont ra band. Inten t t o del iv er

ca n be prov en by

ci rc umstan ti a l ev ide nce. Ingr amv. Sta te , 124 S.W .3d 6 72, 6 75 ( Tex .App. -- East lan d 2003, no p et.)

. The Stat e’s arg ument s uppor ti ng the jur y findi ng of appel lan t’ s i ntentto d e li v er the coc ain e i s p re sent ed i n the co ntext of the factors i denti fied i n S m it h v. State , 737 S.W .2d 933 (Tex.App .–Dallas 1 987 , pet . ref ’d). Those fact ors a re : ( 1) the q uanti ty of cont ra band, (2 ) the manner in w hic h it w as pack ag ed, (3 ) the presenc e of l arg e amount s o f money , ( 4) w hether the defendant i s a dr ug us er , and (5 ) other ev ide nce of drug transacti ons. Id. at. 941. See al so Br anch v. State , 599 S.W .2d 324, 325 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) (cons ide ri ng amount of contraband a nd c ash)

. Our co urts cont inu e to loo k at the sa me core factors. See, e.g., R obi nson v. State , 174 S.W .3d 3 20, 331 ( Tex .App. -- Hou sto n [1s t D is t.] 2005, pet. ref’d) ; Jor dan v . St ate , 139 S.W .3d 723, 72 6M arezreferred to a c ircums tanc e i n w hic h a p ipe co ntai nin g the coc ain e w as 7 passe d arou nd a nd sm oked bysev eral users. 6 (T e x. A p p . – F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t
. ). Exp e rt t e s t im o n y a ls o m a y b e in t ro d u c e d t o p ro ve int ent t o de liv er . Id .; Ma ck v. Sta te , 859 S.W .2d 5 26, 5 29 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] st 1993, no pet .)

. T he St ate c haract er iz es the q uanti ty of coc ain e found here as “ larg e.” The q uanti ti es of drug s i nv olv ed i n the cas es the Stat e c it es are s ubst anti all y l arg er than the 6.2 g ra ms pres ent h ere. In Sm it h the def end ant posse ssed 1331 gram s of powder of w hich 349.5 g ra ms w ere pure coc ain e. 373 S.W .2d a t 941

. Si mil ar ly , t he defendant in Gabr iel
v. State , 900 S.W .2d 7 21 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) , pos ses sed 35.2 g ra ms of co cai ne. See also Bran ch , 599 S.W .2d 3 24, 3 26 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ( re v ’d o n rehear ing on o ther g ro unds) ( defendant pos ses sed 2,864 “h it s” of heroin ); Si m m ons v . St ate, 100 S. W .3d 4 84, 489 ( Tex .App. -- Tex ar kana 2003, pet. re f’d) , cer t. denied , 54 1 U .S

. 99 6 ( 20 04 ) ( 10 00 g ram s of cocain e supp orted f inding of inten t to de liv er). Noneth eless, th e Sta te’s evidence here inc lud ed th e tes ti mony of TonyM arez , an inv estigator w it h the narcot ic s d iv is ion of the Lubboc k Cou nty Sher iff’s Dep artment, w ho desc ri bed the q uanti ti es o f cra ckco cai ne typically inv olved in the perso nal use of the drug by a user. He chara cteriz ed a “$20 rock” of the sub stan ce, con tainin g “.20 or .25 g rams o f crack,” as an “av erage rock thatthey are sel li ng out there.” H e also sai d that a $20 roc k i s s uff ic ien t t o al low one to t hree peop le to “g et hi g h,” and that one g ra m of crack i s a deq uate for that resul t i n fiv e to fifteen peopl e. 7 Ma re zfurth er

opi ned t hat 6 .2 g ra ms of crack w oul d notbe for

personal use. O ther ev ide nce show ed the bag found w it h appell ant conta ine d more tha n one ro ck of coc ain e.Mareztestif ied a fat sto ne is a larger-than-no rmal rock of cocaine

. Te stimo ny also 8 re v eal ed the substa nce, w hic h Marezpurch ased from appel lan t on that occ asi on for $200, w eighed so me 3.82 g rams. 7 T he jury could have fo und the quan t it y o f cocaine presen t here ind icates a ppe llant’s poss ess ion of itw as acc ompani ed by an i ntentto del iv er

the su b st a n ce t o o thers. See Mack , 859 S.W .2 d a t 5 2 9 ( e v ide nce of 8.9 g ra ms of co cai ne as 29 rock s t og ether w it h tes ti mony

the area w as know n for dr ug sa les and users wo u ld n o t car ry thatamount of coc ain e)

. The record before us co ntai ns no te sti mony attr ibu ti ng any si g nific ance to t he w ay in w hich th e coca ine po ssessed byapp ellantw as pa ckage d

. W e a ls o f ind no ev iden ce suppo rt ing the thi rd factor l is ted i n Sm it

h

. No cas h w as found in the car and there w as no ev ide nce of the amo u nt found on appel lan t. Com par e Sm it h , ( $9,000 presenti n hot el ro om); Gabr

iel , 842 S.W .2d a t 331 ( $80 i n de f e n d a n t’s p ock et)

. See also Branch , 599 S.W .2d a t 325 ( $8,000 in smal l bil ls ). There w as no ev ide nce on the four th fact or , w hether appel lan t us ed c ocai ne. The Stat e al so re li es on the ev ide nce of ap pel lan t’ s e xtraneous sa le of coca ine as s u p p o rt i n g t h e fi fth Sm it h factor

. Inv est ig ator

M arezw as the u ndercov er off ic er w ho tes ti fied he w as int ro duced to appel lant b y a paid i nformant and bou g ht a “fat s tone” of 8
crack co cai ne from a ppel lan t i n Sept ember 2004, some si x months after the offense bei ng tried. Marez testif ied also that , imm edia tely af ter the purcha se, he asked app ellantfor a telep hon e nu mb er at w hich Marez could cont act him d ir e c t ly, w ithou t the informa nt’s inv olv ement. Appel lan t prov ide d M areza t ele phone n umber and a pas sw ord for thatM arez sai d, “[Appel lan t] adv is es me w henev er I cal l, jus t say ‘ Baby boy , w hat’ s u p,’ 9 and t hat w ay , he’ ll kn ow i t’ s me becau se nobody el se say s t hat t o hi m w hen t hey ca ll .” 8 pur pose. W e ag re e wit h t h e S tate that the j ur y co uld co nsi der

appel lan t’ s S eptember 9 200 4 sale to Marezand their conversation as evi den ce of app ellant ’s intentw ith respe ct to the 6.2 grams he posses sed on the occas ion in q uest ion here. See M ason , 99 S. W .3d at 65 6. This ev ide nce, co upl ed w it h tha t of appell ant’ s know ing posses si on of the coc ain e and v iew ed in t h e l ight most favorable to th e jury ’s v erdict, would justif y a rationa l fa ct finder ’s dete rmi nati on th at ap pel lan t pos ses sed the d ru g w it h the i ntentto del iv er i t. Acc ordin g ly , w e find the e v ide nce w as leg all y suffici ent t o s uppor t app ell ant’ s c onv icti on. Poi ndexter , 153 S.W .3d a t 405

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.