NO. 07-06 -034 9-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 OC TOBER15, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ALE X M. FLORES, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 5- 409540; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Al ex

M . F lores, w as conv icted b y a j ur y of the o ffense of poss ess ion of a con trolled sub stan ce, coca ine, in an am oun t over fou r g rams b ut less tha n 20 0 grams. Appel lan t pl ed tr ue to the enhanc ement parag ra ph of the in dictment and t he j ur y se ntenc ed him to 30 y ears c onfinement in the I nst it uti o n a l Div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Criminal Justice. T hrou gh tw o issues, appe llant conten ds tha t the evidenc e wa s le gally ins uff ic ien t t o s how

hi s p o ss e ss io n of a por ti on of the coc ain e and that the a mount he po s s es s ed w as mo re th an fou r g ram s a s a l l eg ed

. W e affi r m.2 Factual Bac kg ro und
On June 2, 2005, Lubboc k Pol ic e Off ic er Scott Chi lde rs w as on pat ro l in the D epot Di str ict of Lubboc k. H e obs er v ed th e v ehi cl e bei ng dr iv en by ap p e lla n t h ad an ex pired re g is trati on s ti ck er . Upo n s toppi ng the v ehi cl e, O ff ic er Chil ders f urther

obser v ed th at t he i ns pe c ti on s ti c k er an d reg i s trat i on s ti c k er w ere for di fferen t v eh i c l es . The s te er i ng c ol um n on th e car had bee n “pun ched ,” me anin g tha t the car did not require a key to start it. All of these facts led the off ic er to sus pectthatthe car had been s tol en. App ellantw as the driv er o f t he car with Na tha n Lem on in the rig ht f ront pa ssenger’s seat. U p o n a p proachi ng the dr iv er ’s si de of the v ehi cl e, O ff ic er C hil ders a sk ed th e appel lan t t o s tep o ut of the car. As appel lan t w as compl y ing , Lemon sta rt ed to g et ou t of the c ar , butthe off ic er

adv is ed hi m to remain seat ed. Appel lan t stepped f ro m the car and, a t t h e sa m e tim e , L e m o n bo lt e d f ro m t h e ca r an d to o k o f f run n in g. As th is was oc cu rrin g, app ellanttried to pull f ree f rom the o f f icer b y sp inning outo f

his control. Of

f icer Childers
w re s t l e d a p p e l l a n t t o t h e g ro u n d a n d h a n d c u ffe d h i m. O ffi c e r C h i l d e rs p l a c e d appel lan t under ar re st for resi sti ng ar re st. Lemon w as lat er loc ated by a ba ck up u nitand ar re ste d.
After sec ur ing appel lan t, the p oli ce proceed ed to se cure the ca r by per forming an inv entor y of it s conte nts

. W hil e conduct ing the inv entor y , t he pol ic e l ocat ed a bag of w hit e pow der i n the se at ba ck

poc ketbehi nd th e pas seng er se at. A field tes t per

formed on the pow der tes ted p osi ti v e for coc ain e. App ellant w as take n to the jail w here app ellant beca me v eryunco ope rativ e. As a re sul t, appel lan t w as not immedi atel y proce ss ed for booki ng . Ins tead appel lan t w as pla ced3

in a holdi ng cell after

hi s p ersonal proper

ty had been g athered and inv entor ied

. Dur ing the inv en t o r y o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s p e rs o n a l p ro p e rty , a s ma l l b a g c o n t a i n i n g a w h i t e p o w der w as dis cov ered.
Bot h the larg e bag and the sma ll bag w ere submitt ed to the Depa rtme nt of Public Safety R eg ion al Cr ime Laborator y for anal y si s. At tr ial , the DP S forens icsc ien ti st tes ti fied that both bag s t est ed presumpt iv ely pos it iv e for

cocai ne and a sample from the larg er bag
w as found, after

sp eci fic t estin g, to be coc ain e. Total w eig ht of bot h bag s, w it hout the cont ain er , w as 8.04 g ra ms. After the j ur

y co nv icted appel lan t of

posses si on of

cocai ne in an amount o v er four g ra ms b u t les s t han 200 g ra ms and se ntenc ed appe ll ant t o 30 y ears c onfinement, app e l l a n tg a v e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. B y h i s a p p e a l , a p p e l l a n tp u t s fo rt h tw o i s s u e s . F i rs t, appel lan t al leg es that the e v ide nce w as leg all y insuffici ent to establ is h tha t he poss ess ed the c ocai ne found i n the se at ba ck poc ketbehi nd th e pas seng er ’s se at. Second, appel lan t cont ends that the e v ide nce was le gal ly i nsuffici ent t o prov e tha t he poss ess ed ov er four g ra ms of co cai ne. W e di sag re e. Standa rd of Rev iew
In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce, w e re v iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r an y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa c tco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t

. J a c k s o n v. Vi rg in ia , 443 U .S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. In c ondu ct in g a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , an4

app ell a t e c o u rt may not sit as a thirtee nth juror, but rath er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or

unsuppor

ted bym ore than a mere modi cum of ev ide nce. M oreno v . St ate, 755 S. W .2d 8 66, 8 67 ( T e x.Cri m .A pp. 1 988)

. Leg al suffici ency i s meas ured ag ain sta h ypot heti cal ly co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. See M ali k v . St ate, 953 S. W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. See al so Gol li har v . St ate, 46 S. W .3d 2 43, 2 55- 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 1).
T o co n vic ta ci t ize n o f p o s s e s s io n o f

a co n t ro ll e d su b s t a n c e , t h e S t a t e m u s tp ro ve that the a cc used 1) ex erci sed a ct u a l care, c ust ody , c ontrol, or manag ement ov er

the subs tanc e ; a n d 2 ) knew the matter

pos ses sed w as cont ra band. T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E TY C OD E A NN . § 481.002 (3 8) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 006) ; Poi ndexter v . Stat e, 15 3 S. W .3d 4 02, 4 05 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)

. Fur ther , the e v ide nce must est abl is h tha t t he ac cus ed’ s c onnecti on w ith the co ntraband was more than fortui tous

. Brow n v . St ate, 911 S. W .2d 7 44, 7 47 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 95 ). W h e n , a s in the case before the court, th e accu sed is notin ex cl usi v e pos ses si on of the pla ce w here c ontraband i s found, addi ti onal i ndependen t facts and circumsta nces must be shown tha t link the app ellantto the contrab and . Poind exter, 153 S. W .3d a t 406

. These i ndependen t facts , c ommonly referred to as “ aff ir mati v e l ink s,” that conn ectthe acc used to the c ontraband may be e sta bli shed by

di re ct or ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce. I d. at405- 06.
A number

of differentt ypes of “l ink s” hav e been ide nti fied by the appel lat e c our

ts in the State o f

T e xas. T hey may i nclud e, bu t are no t limited to: 1) the defend ant ’s presenc e w hen t he dr ug s were found; 2)w hether the dr ug s were i n p la in vie w ; 3) the defendant’ s p ro x imi ty

to and t he ac ces si bil ity of the drug s; 4) w hether the defendant w as5

under the influ ence of drug s w hen a rres ted; 5) w hether the defendant pos ses sed other dr ug s o r dr ug parapher nal ia w hen ar re ste d; 6) w hether the defendant made inc ri minat ing st 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 n t a t t e mp t e d t o fl e e ; 8 ) w hether the defendant made furti v e g est ures; 9) w hether there w as an odor of dr ug s; 10) w hether the defendant ow ned or had the ri g ht to poss ess the p lac e w here the dr ug s were found; 11 )
w hether the pla ce the d ru g s w ere found w as encl osed; 12) the amount o f dr ug s found; 13) whe th e r th e d e fe n d a n t po ss e ss e d wea p o n s; a n d 1 4 ) whe th e r a p p e lla n t po ss e ss e d a la rge am oun t of

cash. T aylor v . Sta te, 1 06 S. W .3d 827 , 831 (Tex.App .–Dallas 2 003 , no pe t.). How ev er , i t i s t he l og ic al force of these li nks and not the number of li nks w hic h det er mine
w hether the Stat e’s ev ide nce li nks the defendant t o the co ntraband. Id.
Ana ly sis Appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce was leg all y i nsuffici ent t o es tabl is h tha t he poss ess ed th e l arg er

bag of dr ug s found i n the seat back pock et of the pas seng er ’s se at. On th e e ven in g in que st io n a p p e lla n t w a s fo u n d to b e d rivin g a veh icl e in whic h th e dru gs w ere cont ain ed. Bei ng the dr iv er , appel lan t w as in sol e c ontrol of the v ehi cl e. As suc h, he coul d be sai d to be i n i mmediat e posses si on of the pl ace w here the dr ug s were found. The drugs w ere fou nd be hi nd th e pa s s en g er ’ s s ea t i n th e s ea t ba c k po c k et

. The s ea t back pock et behind the pass eng er ’s se at was w it hin the re ach of both app ell ant a nd th e pass eng er . The ju ry

co uld w ell co ncl ude t hat i t w as act u a lly eas ier for t he appe ll ant t o re ach the p ock et w here the dr ug s were found. The dr ug s found i n the se at ba ck poc ket
w ere a w hit e powder

. Appel lan t w as found to hav e another bag of w hit e powder

dr ug s o n his person. The re cord does not re flectthatthe pass eng er w as found to be i n pos ses si on6

of addit ion al dr ug s. The pas seng er attempt ed to flee w hen t he pol ic e s topped the v ehi cl e. W hen the p ass eng er

fled, the a ppel lan t attempted to es cape from the g ra sp of the arresting of

f icer, w hich led to his arrest for resisting arrest. Bo th ba gs teste d presu mp tiv ely posi ti v e for coc ain e. The la rg er bag tes ted q ual it ati v ely pos it iv e as co cai ne. W hen al l of the fact s a re tak en to g ether , w e c annot say thatthe jur

y made an ir ra ti onal dec is ion i n findi ng appel lan t g uil ty of poss ess ion of

cocai ne. Jac ks on, 4 43 U .S. at 319; Ross, 133 S.W .3d at 620. App ellantargues thatthere were a num ber of othe r li nks that did not ti e appel lan t t o the co cai ne. That arg ument has li ttl e persuas ion , for as sta ted abo v e, it is not the num ber o f l in k s thatis determ inative of the suf f iciency of

the St ate ’s proof, but ra ther

the log ic al force of the l ink s t hat a re demons trated. Tay lor , 106 S. W .3d at 83 1. In t his ca se, the facts that appel lan t w as dr iv ing the v ehi cl e, ap pel lan t attempted to es cape, the dr ug s w ere w it hin appel lan t’ s e asy reach, and appel lant’s po ss ess ion of oth er drugs contribut e significa n tl o gical force to link ap pellan t to the drugs and w as, therefore, leg all y

suff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t the j ur y ’s findi ng thatappel lan t w as g uil ty of posse s sion of

cocaine in an am oun t of four grams or mo re but less th an 2 00 grams. Acc ordin g ly , t he appe ll ant’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s first is sue re nders h is se cond is sue becomi ng m o ot. The DP S foren si c s ci enti st tes ti fied th at t he to tal w eig ht of the cont ra band, les s its pac kag ing
w as 8.0 4 grams, w ell o ve r t h e m in imu m of four grams or mo re required bythe Cou rt’s charg e.7 Con cl usi on The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.