C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

ROBERT DI CKSON, Ap pe lla nt,
v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 09 -0 02 48 -C R

Appea l from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 20080D04351)

O P I N I O N Robert Dickson wa s convicted of possession of marijuana , more than f ive pounds, but less than fifty . He wa s sentence d to 4 y ear s’ imprisonment and fined $500. O n appea l, he challeng es the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence supporting the conviction. In May 2008, Appellant wa s employ ed as a cler k in an El Paso UPS S tore. His duties included handling“hig h-value ” and “ high- risk” pac kag es, and, g ener ally , he wor ked in an of

fice
awa y from the store ’s main customer se rvice counter . Acc ordingto Appellant, at the be g inning of ea ch shift, he would pr int a list of the high- value pa ckag es sche duled to move throug h the fac ility that day . He wa s responsible for locatingthose pac kag es in the wa rehouse and moving them to their desig nated de livery vehicle. D elivery

drivers w ere require d to sign for this ty pe of pa c ka g e , to a c kn ow le dg e it w a s in the ir po sse ssi on

fo r d e liv e ry . App e lla

nt w a s a lso re sp on sib le for movinghigh- value pa ckag es aw aiting de livery into the fac ility ’s sec ure c ag e while they
awa ited delivery . Appellant’s only contac t with the store’s customer service counter

was whe n-2-

he wa s called to take possession of a hig h-value packa g e fr om a customer a nd secur e it in the cag e. Har

ry Cutshall, J r. worke d at the UPS store as a secur ity g uard. O n May

8, 2008, he wa s statio ne d b e hin d th e c us tom e r c ounte r, ob se rv ingc us tom e r t ra ns a c tio ns , whe n App e lla

nt c ame into the store to mail a pac kag e. Appe llant was not schedule d to work that day . Appellant
arr ive d at th e sto re in a

c ar d ri ve n b y ano the r m an. Whil e Ap pe lla nt w a s in the sto re arr ang ingto ship the packa g e, the other man stay ed in the ca

r. Mr. Cutshall saw Appe llant personally enter the sh ipp inginf

or matio n into a

UPS c omp ute r. Th e n, de sp ite sto re po lic y that of f- duty
em p l o y ee s we re n o tal l o we d b eh i n d th e s erv i ce co un t er , Ap p el l an tp er s o n al l y ca rr i edth e p ac k age into the UPS warehouse. A ppellant re turned fr om the war ehouse w ithout the packag e, and Mr . Cutsh a ll w itn e sse d App e lla nt g e t ba c k in

the c ar h e arr ive d in , whe re the oth e r m an w a s st ill
wa i t i n g. Be cause Appellant’s se lf-handlingof the pa ckag e wa s unusual, Mr. Cutshall went to see wh e re Ap pe lla

nt l e ft the pa c ka g e . H e fo un d th e pa c ka g e ins ide the high- ri sk c a g e e ve n th ou g h it was not denote d as hig h value. Mr. Cutshall also noted that the pa ckag e wa s marked f or shipment to I ndianapolis, Indiana. Mr. Cutshall immediately contac ted his supervisors to re port Appellant’s unusua l actions. Mr. Cutshall’s supervisors conta cted the E l Paso Pol ice De partment to investigate the pac kag e fur ther. Th e El Pa so Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt’ s A lph a

Ta sk F or c e wa s d isp atc he d w itha c anin e un it t o investigate the pac kag e. The canine aler ted to the pac kag e. B ased on the canine ’s aler t, the office rs obtained a

sear ch wa

rra nt and opene d the box. I nside, the off icer s found seve ral bundles of mari jua na , w e ig hin gov e r t

hir te e n p ound s. Duri ngtr ia l, a ta sk fo rc e of fi c e r t e sti fi e d th at in-3-

El Paso, a “sourc e city ,” the mar ijuana wa s worth appr ox imately $250 per pound. The office r op ine d th at in

a “ de sti natio n c ity” su c h a s Ind iana po lis , th e same mari

jua na wa s w or th approximately

$750 per pound. Ap pr oximate ly

on e we e k e arl ie r, Mr . Cutsh a ll o ve rh e ard Ap pe lla nt a sk ingoth e r U PS
e mpl oye e s a

bo ut s hip pin gpr oc e dure s. Spe c if ic a lly , App e lla

nt s po ke wi th L

uc y Roj a s, a UPS customer se rvice cler

k. She rec alled Appe llant asking her howmuch it would cost to ship a packa g e, which he specifie d he wa nted to be deliver ed on a Satur day , via next-day or sec ond-day
a ir . App e lla

nt’ s q ue sti on s se e me d o dd

to M s. Roj a s b e c a

us e of Ap pe lla nt’ s e xpe ri e nc e wi th UPS. On May

9, the day

afte r he shipped his pa ckag e, Appe llant asked Ms. Rojas to chec k on the pac kag e with a tra ckingnumber. Ac cordingto Ms. Roj as, Appe llant was conc erne d about the pa c ka g e , a

nd “ wa s a fr a id. ” Whe n s he e nte re d th e inf or matio n into t

he c omp ute r s y ste m, Ms. Rojas told Appellant the packa g e had not be en deliver ed. She did not tell Appellant the status of the pac kag e, but re ported the infor mation to a store sec urity g uard. Duringtrial, Appellant off ere d his own expl anation for the pac kag e and his be havior. He te sti fi e d th at hi s jo b k e pt h im a wa y fr om t he c us tom e r s e rv ic e c ounte r, and that he ha d li ttl e knowledg e of U PS’s customer service proce dures. Ac cordingto Appellant, he a sked Ms. Rojas about diffe rent de livery

options out of curiosity , beca use he did not know a

bout that part of the business. He a lso testified that this was the first pac kag e he ha d ever shipped as a U PS custom er and that he a g ree d to ship the packa g e as a favor to his friend, “D avid.” Appe llant expl ained that he knew David bec ause the y

used the same barbe r. Appe llant often we nt to ge t his weeklyhaircut on his way

home from wor

k and wor e his UPS shirt or cap. Appellant testified that he ag ree d to mail the packa g e for David strictly

as a f avor a nd that-4-

he did not expect to be paid for the er rand. The two men met at the ba rber shop and Appe llant rode w ith David to a house whe re the y picked the pa ckag e up, and the n to the store. When they
ar r i v e d i nth e p ar

k i n gl o t , D av i d

i n s tr u c t e d Ap p e l l an tt o h av e th e p a c k a g e d e l i v e r e d o nS atur d ay, g ave A ppellant money

to pay for the shipping , and then wa ited in the car while Appellant we nt into the store. The shippinginformation indicated the sender was a company called “ Fine Print.” When Appellant enter ed the store , he aske d the cler k on duty what he ne eded to do to send the packa g e. He testified that the cle rk instructed him to enter the deliver

y information into the computer, the n he took the pac kag e to the counte r to pay . When a question came up about the
co n t en t s o f t h e p ac k age , Ap p el l an twe n tb ac k o u tt o th e c ar

wh er e D av i d

t o l d h i mth e p ac k age contained c omputer par

ts and ac cessor ies, worth betwe en $1,500 and $1,700. A ppellant testified that he tho ug ht h e re qu e ste d a nd pa id f or the pa c ka g e to b e de signate d a s “ high- va lue .” He a lso explained that he per sonally car ried the pa ckag e to the sec urity cag e bec ause he had neve r bee n told that UPS had a policy prohibiting off

-duty employ ees f

rom doing so. Appellant ra ises two issues on appea l, challeng ing the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the
e vid e nc e su

pp or tin ghis c onvic tio n. Spe c if ic a lly , App e lla

nt c on te nd s th e State fa ile d to e sta bli sh he wa s c on sc iou sly

awa re that th e pa c ka g e c on ta ine d il le g a l dr ug s. As a pre liminary

matter, we must note that since Appellant f iled his brief in this case , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has rule d that the only standard a

pplicable to dete rmine whether the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support each e lement of a criminal off

ense is the standa

rd f o r l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y d e f

i n e d b y J ac k so n v . V irg ini a. Se e Broo k

s v . S tate , 323 S.W .3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010)(holding that “the J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , s tand ard

is t he on ly sta nd ard that a revie wingcourt should apply in determiningwhether

the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support each-5-

element of

a cr iminal offense . . .”). The ref ore, w ithout addressingthe merits of Appe llant’s fac tual insufficienc y

argument further , we ove rrule I ssue Two. Whe n r e vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e su bmi tte d at tr ia l to de te rm ine its le g a l su ff ic ie nc y , th is Court e xami ne s a ll p re se nte d e vid e nc e , b oth pr op e rl y and imp ro pe rl y

a dmi tte d, in a

light m os t favor able to the ve rdict, to deter mine whether

any rational trier

of fa ct could find the e ssential elements of the alleg ed off ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. Mi ra mo nte s v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 132, 139-40 (Te x .App.--E l Paso, 2005, no pet.). In our re view, we are not to re-e x amine the evidenc e, imposing our

own judg ment as to whethe r guilt has been prope rly established beyond a
rea sonable doubt; rathe r, we are only to assess if both the explicit and impl icit findings by the trier of fac t are rational. Ly on v . S tate , 8 85 S.W. 2d

50 6, 51 6- 17 (T e x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 19 94 , p e t. ref ’d). Evide ntiary

inconsistencies a

re r esolved in favor of the ve rdict. Ma tso n v . S tate , 819 S.W .2d 839, 843 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). This standard is applica

ble to both direct a

nd circ umstantial evidence case s. Se e Ga rc ia
v . S tate , 871 S.W .2d 279, 280 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1994, no pet.) . “The trier of fac t, not the appellate court, is fre e to ac cept or reje ct all or a

ny portion of any

witness’s testimony .” Belton v. Sta te , 9 0 0 S
. W
. 2 d

8 8 6 , 8 9 7 (T ex . Ap p . -- E l P as o 1 9 9 5 , p et . re f'd ). Ac co rd i n gl y , a j ury ’s fi n d i n gs of fa ct in a cr iminal procee ding a re g iven substantial defe renc e. Le y v a v . S tate , 840 S.W .2d 757, 759 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1992, pet. r ef' d). Conviction for the cr iminal offense of possession of mar ijuana re quires a f inding that the defe ndant was c onsciously awa re of the illeg al substance
. SeeT EX .H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 48 1. 12 1( a )( Wes t 20 10 ); Brown v . S tate , 911 S.W .2d 744, 747 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). To
e sta bli sha c ri min a l de fe nd ant’ s c on sc iou s k no wl e dg e of

the mari jua na , th e State mus t g e ne ra lly-6-

rely on circ umstantial evidence that “af firmatively

links” the defe ndant to the drug s in a manner that demonstrates the defe ndant’s conne ction to the drug s was more than fortuitous. Se e Brown , 911 S.W .2d at 747. Althoug h there are numerous ty pes of e vidence and fa ctual sce narios that Texas courts have rec og nized as indicative of a person’ s possession of an illeg al substance , the “af firmative links” rule is not a litm us test. Se e Ev an s v . S tate , 202 S.W .3d 158, 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). The ce ntral inquiry in any possession case is whether the logic al forc e of the evidenc e indicate s that the defe ndant’s possession of the illeg al substance was more than fortuitous. Se e Brown , 911 S.W .2d at 747. Al th o u ghwe re co gn i z e t h atAp p el l an tt es t i fi edth ath e w as n o taw ar e t h atth e p ac k age contained ma

rijuana, the jury , as the fa ct finder in this case, wa s fre e to discount all or any part of Appellant’s testimony
. Se e Ed war ds v . S tate , 1 78 S.W. 3d

13 9, 14 4 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.). The evidenc e that Appe llant was aw are that the pac kag e conta ined an ill e g a l su bs tanc e inc lud e d: h is i nq uir y int o U PS sh ipp ingpr oc e dure s th e we e k b e fo re ; hi s reque st for trac king inf

ormation from Ms. Rojas; his fear ful demea nor af ter shippingthe packa g e; the evide nce that David did not join Appellant in the store when he shipped the packa g e; the evide nce that Appellant broke UPS poli cy by handlingthe pac kag e himself whe n he
wa s o ff duty ; and Ap pe lla nt’ s p la c e me nt o f t

he pa c ka g e in t

he “ high- va lue ” pa c ka g e c a g e wh e n it was not desig nated a s “hig h-value .” View ed in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, we conclude a rational jury

could have deter

mined beyond a re asonable doubt that Appellant was
c on sc iou sly

awa re that th e pa c ka g e c on ta ine d c on tr a ba nd . A c c or din g ly , th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly sufficie nt to support the jury ’s ver dict, and I ssue One is ove rruled. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d b oth of Ap pe lla nt’ s is su e s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.-7-

May 25, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)