### NUM BER 13-07- 0032 9-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
TA UR INO A LB ERT O A LV A REZ , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt o f L iv e Oa k C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Tauri no Al ber to A lv arez , w as charg ed by ind ictment w it h int enti onal ly or k n o win gl y p o s s e s s in g a co n t ro ll e d su b s t a n c e — c o c a in e —wh il e in a co rr e c t io n a l fa c il i t y. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 38.11( d) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007) ; see a lsoT EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 48 1. 00 2( 29 ) ( Ve r no n Su pp . 20 07 ) ( prov i di ng th at c oc ai ne i s a “n arcot ic dr ug ” w it hin the cont ext of t he Tex as Con troll ed Sub sta nces Act)

. After findi ng2

appel lan t g uil ty , t he j ur

y as ses sed puni shmentat fifteen y ears’ co nfinement in the Tex as Dep artment of Cor re cti ons and im posed a $5 ,000. 00 fine. By three i ss ues, appel lan t cont ends that: ( 1) the ev ide nce is leg all y and factu all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on; (2 ) the p ro sec utor

m ade an improper

co mment on his fail ure to tes ti fy; and (3 ) there w as no e vid ence add uced at trial that th e Live Oak Count y Sherif f ’s Departm entis a
c or recti on al fac i l i ty

. W e affi r m. I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND The charg es ag ain st appel lan t s temmed from a traff icst op and the s u b se que nt arrest an d con f inem entof app ellantat the Liv e Oak Cou nty Sherif f ’s Departm enton Ap ril 26, 2 006. a. Trooper Richa rd Russell ’s Tes timony T ro o p e r R ic h a rd Ru s s e ll t e s t if ie d t h a th e st o p p e d a p p e ll a n tfo r d ri vin g s ix t y - f ive mil es per hour i n a f ifty -fiv e mile per

hour z one. After

maki ng the sto p, Trooper R uss ell ran a records chec k o n appel lan t and w as adv is ed th at ap pel lan t had two out sta ndi ng w ar ra nts for hi s arrest

. Mo re ov er , Trooper Russ ell performed a seri es of sobr iety tests on a ppel lan t beca use h e sme lled of alcoho l and ap pellan t adm itted to have bee n drinking alcoho lic bev erag es ear li er . Troo p e r Ru ss ell note d tha t app ell ant was extremely ni ce and coope ra ti v e pr ior

to ar ri v ing at the s her iff’s d epar tment. Trooper R uss ell su bseq uentl y

co nduct ed a “p at do w n” se arch of appell ant’ s o uter cl othes for w eapons . Trooper R uss ell tes ti fied tha t h e d id not chec k a ppel lan t’ s b oots b e c a u s e itwo u ld h a ve b e e n u n s a fe t o d o so a lo n e o n t h e si d e o f t h e h ig h wa y. Appel lan t w as pla ced under ar re st and w as tr anspo rt ed to the Liv e Oak C ountyT h e S ta te ’s w itn e s s , E f r a in P e r e z , a f o r e n s ic s c ie n tis t w ith th e D e p a r tm e n t o f P u b lic S a f e ty C r im e 1 Lab, t est i f i ed t hat he anal y z ed t he b aggi e an d con cl uded t hat i t cont ai ned 6. 55 g r am s of cocai ne. 3 She riff ’s Of

f ice w here we was p laced in boo king room #2 w hich con taine d an intoxil yz er, a metal tabl e w it h two c hai rs thatfaced each other , and a f il ing ca bin et i n one cor ner of the
ro om. Trooper

Russ ell testi fied that he coul d see “j ustaboutev er ythi ng on t he floor” of the bo ok i ng roo m a nd t ha t th ere w as n ot hi ng o n th e fl oo r w he n ap pe l l an t en te red t he roo m. Once in the bo oking room , Tro ope r Russell noted thatapp ellant began to act
un us ua l

. H e refu s ed t o ta k e a brea th testa nd rep ea te dl y a s k ed t o us e th e res troo m. Beca use appel lan t had not been full y se arched at t his ti me, D eputy Ken Bake r esc orted him to t he re st ro o m t o ens ure tha t app ell ant d id not a ttemptto dest ro y ev ide nce. A p p e ll a n t ’s re s t ro o m re qu e s ts e e m e d p e c u li a r t o T ro o p e r Ru s s e ll b e c a u s e o f t h e re p e t it ive and i nsi ste nt na ture i n w hic h he ask ed. Depu ty Bake r retu rned app ellantto the b ookin g room a nd T roop er Russell himse lf
w entto use th e restroo m. Troop er Russell t estif ied tha t Depu ty Bake r an d the o the r jailers sta y ed w it h appel lan t i n book ing ro om #2 w hil e he used the re stroom. U pon retur nin g from the re stroom, Trooper Rus sel l tes ti fied that appel lan t w as bent ov er “ li ke he w as sc ra tch ing at hi s knee or sc ra tch ing his ankl e.” Trooper Russ ell furth er

st ated that shor

tl y thereafter he sa w a baggie on the f loor, four to six inche s f rom a ppe llant’s rig ht foot . Troo per Russell immedi atel y

pi ck ed up the bag g ie and perfor med a field test o n the co ntent s o f the bag g ie,
w hic h y iel d e d a p o s i t i v e i d e n t i fi c a t i o n fo r c o c a i n e . O n c e h e s e i z e d t h e b a g g i e , T ro o p er

1 Rus sel l s t a t e d t h a ta p p e l l a n tb e c a me i ra t e ; a p p e l l a n tc u rs e d a n d re p e a t e d l y d e n i e d t h at the b ag g ie w as his

. Fi nal ly , Trooper Rus sel l tes ti fied that iti s n ot c ommon procedu re to tes t for fing er pr int s o n an it em of ev ide nce that an officer has al re ady

handl ed.4

b. Deputy

Ken Baker’s Testimony Depu ty Bake r testif ied th at he w as w orking at the Live Oak Coun ty She riff ’s Of f ice on th e ni g ht of appel lan t’ s a rrest , and thathe w it ness ed Troope r Ru ss ell es cor ti ng appel lan t i nto t he booki ng ro om. D eputy Bak er furth er note d tha t he obser

v ed n othi ng on the flo or of the b ooki ng room at the t ime appel lan t w as escor ted t o the room. Dep uty Bake r testif ied th at T roop er Russell asked him to escort app ellantto the restroom . W hile in the res troom, Deputy Bak er noti ced that appel lan t app ro ached the ur ina l, acted l ik e he
u n zip p e d h is p a n t s , lo o k e d o ve r h is sh o u ld e r t o se e h im st a n d in g i n t h e d o o rwa y, immedi atel y

acted a s i f he w as zi ppi ng up h is pant s, and t hen s aid he was finis hed. Dep uty Bak er note d that he bel iev ed that appel lan t di d notl ik e hi s p re senc e i n the door w ay becau se itke pt hi m from doing w hat he real ly w anted to do

. Dep uty

Bak er st ated that he did not hear

o r se e a ppel lan t actual ly us e the rest ro om. D eputy Bak er then es cor

ted appel lan t bac k t o the booki ng room and re lea sed him to t he j ail ers. Onc e ag ain , D eputy Bake r did not noti ce anythi ng on t he flo or of the b ooki ng room. Fi nal ly , D eputy Bak er testif ied th at no othe r inmat es w ere brou ght into the boo king room w hile ap pellan t w as in bo ok i ng roo m # 2 or

i n th e res troo m. c. Rudolfo Garcia ’s Tes timony Rud olfo Ga rc ia tes ti fied th a t he w as employ ed as a j ail er at the L iv e Oak

C ounty She riff ’s Of

f ice on th e night of

app ellant ’s arrest. Garcia n o t e d t hatthe jailers are
re spons ibl e for the upkeep of the book ing rooms a nd th at be fore anyone ent ers t he booki ng room, the jai lers make sure not hin g i s l eft ins ide the ro om. G arci a furt her st ated tha t app ellant w as the f irst inm ate taken inside the boo king room thatnight and th at he did5

not o bser

v e anythi ng on the floor of t he ro om w hen Trooper R uss ell es cor

ted a ppel lan t t o th e roo m. d. Pablo Vil lafranc a’s Testimony Pab lo Villaf ranca testif ied th at he w as a jailer at the Liv e Oak Cou nty Sherif f ’s Of f ice on th e night of

app ell a n t’s arrest. Villaf ranca corroborat ed Ga rcia’s testimo ny tha t the re
w ere no items o n the f loor of t he boo king room othe r than th e cab inet, table , and chairs. Vi ll afranc a noted that the Liv e Oak Cou nty Sher iff’s Off ic e i s a se cured c or re cti onal faci li ty and t hat o nce ind iv idu als are es cor ted i nsi de th e bui ldi ng , t hey are notfree to l eav e. II. P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND Appel lan t w as ind icted f o r int enti onal ly or kn ow ing ly

pos ses si ng a c ontroll ed subs tanc e—c ocai ne—w hil e i n a c or re cti onal faci li ty on D ecember

7, 2006. Al so cont ain ed in the i ndi ctmen t was a n enhan cementparag ra ph w hic h not ed th at ap pel lan t had been
c o n v i c t e d p re v i o u s ly—on D e c e mb e r 1 2 , 1 9 9 0

— o f t h e fe l o n y o ffe n s e o f b u rg l a r

y o f a habi t a t i o n . O n J a n u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 7 , a p p e l l a n t fi l e d a mo t i o n t o s u p p re s s e v i d e n c e of the sei z ed c ontraband. The tr ial co urt, how ev er , denied appel lan t’ s mot ion after a he ar ing on Apr il 23, 2007. After a jur

y tr ial on Ma y 16, 2007, appel lan t w as found g uil ty

. Appel lan t el ect ed to hav e the j ur

y as ses s h is p u n ish m e n t. The j ur y su bseq uentl y

as ses sed puni shmentat fifteen y ears’ co nfinement in the Tex as Dep artment o f C o rre cti ons and i mposed a $5,000. 00 fine. Als o on Ma y 16, 2007, the t ri al cour

t c erti fied th at ap pel lan t’ s c ase w as not a pl ea barg ain ca se and t hat h e had the r ig ht t o appea l his co nv icti on. App ellant f iled his not ice of app eal, motio n to ap poin t coun sel to ha ndle his appe al,6

and a moti on for bond on Ma y 16, 2 007; the t ri al cour t den ied appel lan t’ s mot ion for b ond. On J une 7, 2007, appel lan t filed a moti on for new tr ial and a moti on i n ar re st of judg ment,
ass erti ng that : (1 ) the v erdict w as cont ra ry to the l aw

and ev ide nce, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21.3( h) ; ( 2) juror

m is condu ct occ ur re d after the jur y w as sel ect ed and seat ed; ( 3) the Stat e inten tiona lly , knowing ly , or recklessly destroyed exculpat oryev ide nc e; a nd ( 4)t he t r i al court commi tted mater ial er ro r by fail ing to g ra nt a mis tr ial upon a s how ing thatthe Stat e di d not compl y w it h hi s w ri tten re q uest s per tai nin g to the Stat e’s int ro duct ion of hi s pr ior co nv icti on. The tr ial co urt den ied app e lla n t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial and moti on i n ar re st of jud g ment after

a he ar ing on J uly

5, 2007. This appeal ens ued. III . S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW a. L egal Su ff icien cy

R ev iew In a leg al suffici ency

rev iew , w e v iew

the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prosec uti on to dete rmi ne w hether any rati onal tr ier

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

. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ; W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. The tr ier of fact is the sol e jud g e of t he facts, the credi bil ity of t he w it ness es, and the weig ht g iv en to t est imony

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Jacks on , 443 U. S. a t 318 -3 9; Beckhamv. Sta te , 29 S.W .3d 1 48, 1 5 1 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet. re f'd). W e do not reev alu ate t he w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the ev ide nce, w hether ci rc umstan ti al or

di re ct, nor

do we s ubst it ute our ow n jud g ment for that of the tr ier of fact. Mo sley v. State , 141 S.W .3d 816, 821 (Tex . App.–Tex ar kana 2004, pet. re f'd); Beck ham , 29 S. W .3d a t 151 . I nst ead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

.7

Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. Mo re ov e r, i n a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , eac h fact need no t poi nt di re ctl y and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of the appel lan t, as lon g as the cumul a ti ve fo rc e of al l the inc ri minat ing ci rc umstan ces i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t t he c o n vict io n . Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S. W .3 d 9 , 1 3 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Johns on v . St ate , 8 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 3)). Ci rcumst ant ial ev iden ce is as proba tiv e as d ir e c te v iden ce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of an a cto r; ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce alon e c a n be suff ic ien t t o est abl is h g uil t. Guev

ar a v . St ate , 152 S .W .3d 4 5, 49 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). On ap pea l, both ci rc umstan ti al and di re ct ev ide nce cas es are ex amined us ing the same s tandard of
re v iew

. Id. W e meas ure the su f

f ici e n cy of the e v ide nce by the ele ments of the offense as defined b y

the hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7); Adi v. S tate , 94 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. re f'd). "Suc h a c harg e woul d ac curatel y se t outthe law , wou ld be aut hor iz ed by the indictm ent , and w ould not unn ecessa rily increase the Sta te's burden of proof .” Malik , 953 S.W .2d a t 240

. T h e elements of the c harg ed offense i n thi s c ase are: ( 1) appel lan t poss ess ed (2) a cont ro ll ed subst ance or dang erous dr ug ( 3) i n a c or re cti onal faci li ty

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 38. 11( d) ; see als o T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 48 1. 00 2( 29 ). A su ccess ful l eg al suffici ency ch all eng e w il l re sul t i n the rendi ti on of an acq uittal by

the re v iew ing co urt. Adi , 9 4 S. W .3 d at12 8 (cit in g Ti bbs v. Fl or ida , 457 U .S. 31, 41-42 (1982 )).8

b. F act ual Su ff icien cy R ev iew In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mine
w het her the evidence is so w eak that the jury 's v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anifestly unj ust

. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414-15

. Af ter consid ering all of the evidence in the record relate d to appe llant's suff iciency challen ge, w e com pare the evidence w eighed b y the jury t h a tt e n d s t o p ro ve t h e e le m e n t a l fa c ti n d is p u t e wi t h t h e e vid e n c e t h a tt e n d s t o d is p ro ve it

. Santel

lanv. Sta te , 939 S.W .2d 155 , 164 (Tex. Crim. App . 199 7) (en ban c). This Court
w ill notrev erse the jury 's v erdict un less w e can saywith so me o bjective basis in the record that the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of t he ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. W ats on , 204 S. W .3d a t 415

. IV. A N AL Y S IS A . Po ssessio n of

a C on trol led Su bst ance In hi s first is sue on appe al, appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev id e n ce i s leg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o es tabl is h “ an affirmat iv e l ink that[a ]p p e llantw as in act ual ca re , custo dy or contro l of

the con tro ll e d s u b s tan ce.” In essen ce, ap pellan t challen ges solely t h e su f f ic ie n c y o f

t h e e vid e n c e a s t o p o s s e s s io n o f t h e co n t ro ll e d su b s t a n c e . Co n ve rs e ly, the State argues that“[t]he num ber of ‘l inks’ betw een the accuse d and the contrab and in q uest ion i s n ot de ter minat iv e[;] rather [,] i t i s t he c umulat iv e and lo gica l fo rce of the ci rc umstan ces w hic h det er mines wh e th e r the e v ide nce is su ff ic ien t t o demons trate t he ele ment of

p o ssess ion .” As su ch, the Stat e as ser ts that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t t o es tabl is h the el ement of pos ses si on. In arg uin g thatthere w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce that the cont ro ll ed subst ance foundT h e r u le w a s p r e v io u s ly r e f e r r e d t o a s th e “ a ff ir m a tiv e lin k s r u le ,” b u t t h e c o u r t o fc r im in a l a p p e a ls 2 i n E v a n s v . S ta te , not ed t hat “ aff i r m at i v e” add s not hi ng t o t he p l ai n m eani ng of“l i nk. ” 202 S. W

. 3d 1 38, 162 n .9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e re fo re , t h e c o u rt o f c rim i n a l a p p e a l s n o w r e fe rs to th e “ l i n k s ,” a s o p p o s e d to “affi rm ati ve l i nk s . ” I d. 9 on th e f loor of

boo king room #2 w as no t in his “actua l care, custo dy, or cont rol,” seeT EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.0 7( a) (3 9) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007) , app ellan t cit e s to the c our t of
cr imi nal appeal s’ dec is ion i n Evan s v . St ate , 202 S.W .3d 1 38 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. In Evan s , the co urt of

crim inal app eals not ed tha t in a posse ssion of a contro lled sub stan ce prosec uti on, the Stat e must prov e: “( 1) the acc used ex erci sed cont ro l, manag emen t, or care ov e r th e s u bst ance; and (2 ) the a cc used knew the matter

pos ses sed w as cont raba nd. ” Id. at 161. In arti cul ati ng the “l ink s” r ule , the Evan s co urt s tated that : 2 Regardless of

w het he r t h e e v iden ce is direct or circum stan tial, it mu st est abl is h tha t t he defendant’ s c onnecti on w it h the dr ug w as more than fortui tous

. This i s t he s o- cal led “aff irm a ti v e l ink s” r ule w hic h protects the inn ocentby sta nder

—a re lat iv e, fri end, or ev en s trang er t o t h e actual po s s e s s o r

—fro m c o n v i c t i o n m e re l y b e c a u s e o f h i s fo rt u i t o u s p ro x i mi ty to someone els e’s dr ug s. Me re presenc e at the loc ati on w here dr ug s a re found is thus i nsuffici ent, by

i tse lf, t o es tabl ish actual ca re , c ust ody , or co ntrol of thos e dr ug s. H ow ev er , presenc e or prox imi ty , whe n c ombine d w it h oth er ev ide nce, ei ther

director circums tanti al ( e.g ., “l ink s” ), m ay w ell be suff ic ien t to es tabl is h tha t el ement be y ond a re a so n a b le doubt. I t i s . . . notthe number of li nks thati s d is posi ti v e , but rather the log ic al force of all of the evidence, direct and circumsta ntial. Id. a t1 6 1 -6 2 (c it a t io n s o m it t e d ). T h e co u rtf u rt h e r n o t e d t h a tT e xa s co u rt s h a ve recogni z ed a n on - ex c l us i v e l i s t of p os s i bl e “ l i nk s ” a s s uffi c i en t, “ ei th er s i ng l y o r in
c o m b in a t ion, to estab lish a person ’s possessio n of contrab and .” Id. at 162 n. 12 ( ci ti ng Ol iv ar ez v. Sta te , 171 S.W

. 3 d 2 8 3 , 291 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 5, no pet. )). T he list include s the followi ng fa ctors: (1 ) the d efen d a n t' s p resenc e w hen a search is co nduct ed; ( 2) w hether the cont ra band w as in pla in view ; ( 3) the defendant' s p ro x imi ty to and t he acc ess ibi li ty of t he narcot ic ; (4 ) w hether the defendant w as under the10

influ ence of narc oti cs w hen arrest ed; (5) w hether the defendant pos ses sed other co ntraband o r narco ti cs w hen ar re ste d; ( 6) w hether the defendant made i n c r i mi n a t i n g s t a t e me n t s w h e n a r re s t e d ; ( 7 ) w h e t h e r t h e d e fe n d a nt attempt ed to flee; ( 8) w hether the defendant made furti v e g est ures; ( 9) w hether there w as an odor

of cont ra band; (1 0) w hether other cont ra band or dr ug parapher nal ia w ere pres ent; (1 1) w hether the defendant ow ned or had the r ig ht t o pos ses s t he pl ace w here the dr ug s were found; (1 2) w hether the pla ce w here the dr ug s w ere found w as encl osed; ( 13) w hether the defendant w as found w it h a l arg e amountof cas h; an d ( 14) w hether the condu ct of the defendant i ndi cat ed a cons ci ousne ss of g uil t. Id. (cit in g Ol

iv ar ez , 171 S.W .3d at 291 ). Fi nally, t he co urt intim ate d tha t the se are just “s ome factors w hic h may ci rc umstan ti all y

es tabl is h the l eg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to prove a knowi ng ‘possession .’ The y are nota litmus te st.” Id. Appel lan t arg ues that of the fourt een facto rs i nti mated by the cour

t of cr imi nal appeal s, “4 out of the 14 w ere present

. . . 8 ou t of 14 fact ors w ere notprese nt at all . So basica lly [,] on ly

35% of the facto rs enum erate d by the [c]ou rt of [c]rimina l [a]pp eals w ere shown b yt he e v i de nc e to h av e ex i s te d. ” A pp el l an t, h ow ev er , ha s mi s ap pl i ed t he “ l i nk s”
ru le a s d e s c ri b e d b y Evan s . As prev iou sl y

m enti oned, iti s “ not t he number of li nks thati s d is posi ti v e, bu t rather the logi cal force of

all of the evidence , direct an d circumst ant ial.” Id. at 162 . Th e record
re flect s t hat appel lan t w as arrest ed and tak en to the Liv e Oak County Sher iff’s D epar

tment for a n i n t o x i l yz e r t e s t

. Th e t e s t i mo n y o f Tro o p e r R u s s e l l , D e p u ty B a k e r , G ar ci a, an d Vi ll afranc a es tabl is hed t hat t here w as nothing on t he floor of booki ng room # 2 pr ior to appel lan t’ s o cc upati on of the ro om. Trooper R uss ell ’s test im o n y d emonst ra ted t hat app ellantmad e f urtiv e gestures in scratchin g his ankle a nd th at sho rtly therea f ter a ba gg ie cont ain ing co cai ne w as found w it hin four to s ix i nches of appel lan t’ s ri g ht foot. Troo per Russell also com me nte d on a ppe llant’s insisten t requests to use the restroo m im me diate ly11

u p o n arr iv ing at the s her iff’s d epar tment. H e not ed th e c hang e i n appel lan t’ s d emeanor from fri endl y

to bel li g erent o nce the b ag g ie w as dis cov ered. Dep uty Bak er al so tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t made furti v e g est ures in the re stroom by act ing l ik e he had us ed th e rest ro om w hen he re all y had not. D eputy

Bak er bel iev ed th at appel lan t des ired to dest ro y the c ocai ne by flus hin g i t dow n the toi letbut w as re luctant to do s o c onsi der ing hi s p re senc e i n the door w ay . Perez ’s tes ti mony es tab lis h e d t h a t t he bag g ie cont ain ed 6. 55 g ra ms of co cai ne. Garci a and Vi ll afranc a tes ti fied th at bo oki ng ro om #2 w as onl y occ upi ed by appel lan t, that the L iv e Oak C ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tment is a se c u re d co rr e c t io n a l fa c il it y, a n d t h a ta p p e ll a n twa s n o tf re e t o le a ve . Cl e a rl y, appel lan t’ s c onnecti on w it h the co cai ne w as more than fortui tous

. Therefore, the “ log ic al force of the evid e n c e ” suppo rts the prem ise tha t app ellantposse ssed th e coca ine w hile detai ned i n booki ng ro om #2 of t he Liv e OakC ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tment, a c or re cti onal facility . W e con clude thatthe evidence prese n t ed a t trial is legally suf f icient to supp ort appel lan t’ s c onv ictio n . W e furt her co ncl ude t hat, w it h respect t o appel lan t’ s fact ual suf f iciency cont ent ion, th e jury ’s v erdict is not againstthe great w eight and prepo nde rance of the ev ide nce as to be cl ear ly w ro ng or

unj ust

. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at41 4- 15. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. B. Comments on A ppella nt’s Refusal to Testify By hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends that“ [t] he prosec utor m a d e an i mprop er c om me nto n th e [a ]p pe l l an t’ s fai l ure to t es ti fy .” Th i s i s s ue w as me nt i on ed i n th e “ PO IN TS OF ER RO R” se cti on of appel lan t’ s b ri ef, but was n o t m e nti oned ag ain i n the br ief. The
re mainde r of appell ant’ s br ief does not c ontai n any arg ument, author ity , or ci tati on to theW e n ote t ha t th e jury ch arg e c on t ai ne d t he fol l ow i ng de fi ni t i on for a “co rr ec t i on al fac i l i t y ”: 3

“ ‘ [ c] or r ect i onal f aci l i t y ’ m eans a pl ace d esi gnat ed by l aw fort he conf i nem ent ofa per son a r r est ed f or , char ged w i th , o r c o n v i c te d o f a c rim i n a l o ff e n s e . T h e te rm i n c l u d e s a c o u n tyja i l .” 12 re cord reg ardin g thi s i ss ue. W e the re fore conc lud e that appel lan t has i nadeq uatel y br iefed and t herefore w aiv ed th is i ss ue. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h). Accordingly , w e overrule appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. C . T h e “ C o r re c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty” In hi s th ird i ss ue on appeal , app ell ant a ss erts that no ev ide nce w as present ed at trial to esta blish an essen tial elem ent of the indictm ent—tha t the Live Oak County Sherif f ’s Off ic e i s a co rrect ion al facil ity w it hin the defin it io n prov ide d by se cti on 1. 07 of the penal code. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.07(a )( 14)

. Ess enti all y , appell ant conte nds that the
ev ide nce is leg all y

i nsuffici ent t o demons trate t hat a co ntroll ed s ubst ance w as poss ess ed in a “correctiona l fa cility .” The State coun ters by arguing tha t the t estim ony of Villaf ranca est abl is hed t hat t he Liv e Oak County Sheri ff ’s Of

fice w as a correct ion al facil ity w it hin the defini ti on prov ide d by

se cti on 1. 07 of the penal co de. See i d. 1. A pp licab le L aw Sect ion 1. 07(a )(14) of

the pe nal cod e provides tha t a “correctiona l fa cility ” is: a place design ate d by law for the con finement of a person arrested for, ch a r g e d w it h , o r c o n v ic te d o f a cr i m i n a l o f f e n s e . T h e t e rm include s: (A) a muni c i p a l o r

c o u n t y j a i l ; ( B ) a c o n fi n e me n tfa c i l i ty o p e ra t e d b y

t h e T e x as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce; ( C) a confine ment faci li ty operated under cont ra ct w it h any

di v is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justi ce; and (D ) a c ommunity

co rrect ion s faci li ty

operated by

a co m m u nity

su per v is ion and c or re cti ons depar

tment. Id. (emp hasis ad ded ). 3 2. Disc ussi on13

The record c ontai ns the t est imony of Vi ll afranc a who s tated the follo w ing upon q uest ion ing by

the Stat e: Q: Now , Liv e Oak C oun ty She riff ’s Depa rtme nt, once an indiv idua l is in there and they ’re under ar re st, are the y

free to l eav e? A: N o, ma m. Q : I s ita se c u re d co rr e c t io n a l fa c il it y? A: Y es , ma ’ am . Appel lan t arg ues that: ( 1) the facil ity w as not a j ail i n the tradi ti onal se nse; ( 2) the Liv e Oak C ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tment is par

t of t he Liv e OakC ounty C our thous e and the jai l is not par

t of or adj acentto the b uil din g co ntai nin g the sher if f ’s depart ment; and ( 3) appel lan t w as not c onfined g iv en th at he w as not “l ock ed up behi nd bars.” W e di sag re e. As previously me ntion ed, the record de mo nstrat es tha t app ellantw as un der arrest and w as not free to l eav e the Li v e Oak C ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tment. I n fact, appel lan t w as conf ined w ithin th e Live Oak Count y Sherif f ’s Departm entbuilding for an into x ilyz er test after his ar re st for s peedi ng and sus pic ion of dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. “C onfinement” i s n ot de fi n ed i n the penal co de, b ut w e do not c onst ru e “c onfinement” to mean that a p p e ll ant was re q uired to be “ loc ked up behi nd bars” or re q uired to w ear

an o ra ng e j umpsui t. See C am pos v. State , 6 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 7 , 6 5 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1981) ( hol din g thatw hen words in a cr imi nal sta tute are not defined, the words employ ed are g iv en th eir pl ain meani ng ). W e find that any rest ri cti o n o f

o n e ’s li ber

ty af forde d by l aw const itute s a “conf inem ent .” See B L A CK ’ S L AW D I CTI ONA RY240 (7 th ed

. 200 0) (def ining “conf inem ent ” as “[t]he act of imp risoning or restraining some one . . . .”) ; Scott v . St ate , 672 S.W .2d 4 65, 4 66 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) ( defini ng the ter m “ confine ,”14

w it h respect t o the offense of esca pe, a s “ to k eep w it hin bounds or i mpri son ”) ; see a lso T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.05( a) -( b) ( Ver non 200 3) ( noti ng thatthe code “s hal l be
cons tr ued a cc o rd in g to the fair i mportof thei r ter ms, to promote j ust ic e and effectthe obj ect iv e of the code” and that secti on 311. 011 app li es to t he c o n st ru ction of the pena l code) ; T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 311. 011( a) ( Ver non 199 8) ( w ords sh a ll b e c onst ru ed
a c c o rd in g t o t h e ru le s o f gra m m a r a n d co m m o n u s a ge ). Be c a u s e h e wa s n o tf re e t o le a ve the faci li ty , app ell ant was, therefore, confine d w it hin the meani ng of secti on 1. 07( a) (1 4) of the p enal co de. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.07( a) (1 4)

. Gi v en Vi ll afranc a’s tes ti mony thatthe facil ity

i s a se cured c or re cti onal f a cil ity and the factthatappel lan t w as under ar re st and w as not free t o leav e, w e c oncl ude t hat t he
ev ide nce is l eg all y

su ff ic ien t t o es tabl is h tha t t he Li v e Oak C ounty Sheriff ’s D epar

tment
w as a “ cor re cti onal faci li ty ” as cont emplat ed by se cti on 1. 07( a) (1 4) of the p enal co de. See id. Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON H av i ng o v er r ul ed a l l o f ap pe l l an t’ s i s s ue s , w e affi r m.

_________

_________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX .R .A PP .P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Ma y , 200 8.