i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No s. 04 -0 8- 00 71 6- CR, 04 -0 8- 00 71 7- CR, & 04 -0 8- 00 71 8- CR

Ra ul G AL LEG OS , J r., Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 216th J udicial District Court, Ba ndera County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 08-067, 08-068, & 08-069 Honora ble Stephen B . Ables, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 10, 2010 AFF I RMED A jury found Raul Galleg os, J r. g uilty of one count of manufa cturingmethamphetamine, see T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.112 (Ve rnon 2003), one co unt of possession of immediate prec ursors of me thamphetamine with the intent to manufa cture methamphetamine, see id. § 481.124 (Ve rnon 2003), and one count of possession of methamphetamine. See id. § 481.115 (Ve rnon 2003). The jury

assessed G al le g os’s punishment at 60 y ear s confineme nt for manuf actur ing04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

1 ... A c o p y o f t h e re c o rd e d c o n v e rs a tio n w a s intr o d u c e d into e v id e n c e a n d p la ye d fo r th e ju ry d u rin g trial.

- 2- methamphetamine, 10 year s confineme nt f or possession of immediate pr ecur sors of methamphetamine, and 50 y ear s confineme nt for possession of methamphetamine. Af ter re viewing the re cord, w e conc lude there is leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence t o s u p port ea ch of Ga lle g os ’s c onvic tio ns . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nts . B ACKG ROUND Of fi c e rs fr om t

he B and e ra

County She ri ff ’s De pa rtme nt r e c e iv e d

i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m a n inmate at the B ander a County

J ail, Ronnie Morg an, about a clande stine methamphetamine la boratory loc a te d at th e re sid e nc e of Rus se ll K oc h. Of

fi c e rs arr ang e d f

or Mo rg an’ s r e le a se fr om j a il t o a ssi st them with their investigation. They s u b s equently equipped Morg an with a body microphone a

nd sent him to Koch’s re sidence to purcha se methamphe tamine. 1 Morg an testified at trial that Koch wa s workingoutside of hi s g ara g e when he ar rived at the residenc e. Morg an g ree ted Koch upon his arr ival and followe d Koch into his g ara g e. Upon e ntering th e g ar a g e , M o r g an o b s e r v e d G a l l e g o s r e a d i n g a m a g a z i n e . M o r g an kn e w G a l l e g o s be c a us e Galleg os had helpe d Morg an and K och pre pare materia ls for the manuf actur e of me thamphetamine in the past. Koch be g an mix ing in gre d i en t s for the manufac ture of me thamphetamine a nd then heate d the ing redie nts in an elec tric fr y er. The three men continued spea king w ith each othe r for

more than twe nty

minutes. At one point during the ir conve rsation, Koch a sked someone to g et him a clamp. Eventually , Morg an aske d Koch if he had any

methamphetamine f

or sale. K och t o l d M o rga n he did not have a ny methamphetamine a

vailable at that time a

nd instructed Morg an to r eturn late r that same da y . Be fore04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

2 ... Chemi s t Joel B udge t ol d t he j ur y t hat cl andes t i ne manuf act ur er s of

met hamphet ami ne wi l l proces s s t r i ker p a d s fro m m a tc h e s to o b ta in p h o sp h o ru s, a n ing re d ie n t re q u ire d fo r th e p ro d u c tio n o f m e tha m p h e ta m ine w h e n a c e rta in f or mu l a i s u s ed.

- 3- Mo rg an le ft

Ko c h’ s r e sid e nc e , Koc h ask e d M or g an to g e t hi m so me matc he s. 2 Galleg os remaine d in K oc h’ s g ara g e a s Mo rg an le ft
. Morg an met with police f ollowing his visit to K o ch ’s residence. B ased on Mor g an’s observations and conver sation with Koch, authorities immediately obtained a se arc h war

rant for Koch’ s premises. When the po lice executed the war rant late r that day , they

appre hended K och trying to leave his re sidence throug h a side door. Galleg os was found sitti ng in the bathroom on top of a
c lo s e d to il e t. O f

f ic e r s d e te c te d

a s tr o n g o d o r

c o n s is te n t w it

hme th amp h e ta

mi n e p r o d

u c tion perme ating the pre mises, and they quickly discovere d evidenc e of a methamphetamine la boratory in K och’s g ara g e. Offic ers found various items a nd materia ls c onsistent w i t h a c l andestine methamphetamine operation inside a tool box in Koch’s g ara g e as w ell as other items in plain view that are c omm on ly

a sso c iate d w iththe pr od

uc tio n of me tha

mph e tamin e . Th e ite ms a nd mate ri a ls seized by police included: g lasswar e; a f ry er; droppe r cont ai n er s ; a bagof match books; HEET bo ttl e s; r e d p ho sp ho ru s; i od ine ; bo xes o f m e dic ine c on ta ini ngps e ud oephed ri ne; co ff e e fi lte rs ; a candy thermometer ; clamps; plastic tubing; pH pa per; a nd a g lass laboratory

rod. Of fi c e rs a lso se ize d me tha

mph e tamin e in b oth

liq uid and po wd e r f or m at th e sc e ne . Apla sti c
so da bo ttl e c on ta ini ngliq

uid wa s f ound un de rn e a th a

wo rk be nc h in Ko c h’ s g ara g e a

pp ro ximate ly five fee t f rom the table sa

w wher e Koc h had bee n “cooking .” Joel Budg e, a la b analy st employ ed by the Texas D epar

tment of Public Saf

ety , testified the liquid contained methamphetamine, which, alongwith adultera

nts and dilutants , we i gh ed 4 2 0.25 g rams. A dish conta ining 2.88 g rams of04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

3 ... B udge t es t i f

i ed t hat a t hi r d exh i bi t co nt ai ni ng . 62 gra ms of p owd er ed met hamphet ami ne was al s o s ubmi t t ed t o t h e D PS l abor at or y f or a n al y s i s ; h owe v er , t h e r ec or d doe s n ot di s cl os e wh er e t h i s e x h i bi t w as di s cov er ed.

- 4- powder ed methamphetamine was found on a desk in the main living are a of the home. 3 In a locke d box also found i n the gar ag e, deputies discovere d three seale d box es of medicine, a bottle labeled sulphuric iodine (with conte nts that appea red to be iodine pellets), and c offe e filters that appea red to contain phosphorus. The me dicine boxes indicated they contained pills containing ps e ud oe ph e dr ine
. Nume ro us fi re arm s we re a lso se ize d fr om the g ara g e and ho me , in c lud inga

ri fl e found in the bathroom whe re G alleg os was located. Koch a nd Galleg os wer e ar

rested f ollowing the e x ecution of the sear ch wa rra nt. Galleg os
wa s su bs e qu e ntl y

c ha rg e d in thr e e se pa

ra te indic tme nts wi th m anu fa c tur ingmor e tha n 4 00 g ra ms of methamphetamine, posse ssion of immediate prec ursors (pse udoephedr ine, re d phosphorus, and iod ine ) w iththe int e nt t o ma nu fa c tur e me tha

mph e tamin e , a

nd po sse ssi on

of mor e tha n 4 00 g ra ms of methamphe tamine. All three of Ga lleg os’s case s wer e consolidated for tria l, and a jury convicted Galleg os on all three c ounts. This appeal followe d. S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE On appe al, Galleg os argues there is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient e vidence to support the finding s that he: (1) ma nufac tured methamphetami ne; (2) posse ssed immediate pre cursor s of meth amp h e ta

mi n e w it

hth e inte n t t o ma

nu f a c tu r e me th amp h e ta

mi n e ; ( 3 ) p o s s essed methamphetamine; a

nd (4) possesse d a dea dly wea pon. We reviewGalleg os’s sufficie ncy challeng es under

well-e stablished standards of revie w. Se e Lan c on v . S tate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (T e x. Cr im
. App
. 2008 ) ( fa c tua l su ff ic ie nc y ); Cla y ton v . S tate , 2 35 S.W. 3d

77 2, 77 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2007) (le g al suffic iency ).04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 5- A. M anufa c tu r e of M e th am phe ta m ine To prove the offe nse of manufa cturing methamphetamine, the State had to prove Galleg os knowing ly

manufa cture d methamphetamine in a n amount of more than 400 g rams. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 4 8 1
. 1 1 2
. “ ‘ M anu f a c tu r e ’ me an s th e p r o d

u c ti o n , p r e p aration, propag ation, compounding , conv er s i on, or proc essing of a c ontrolled substance other than marihuana , direc tly

or indirec tly

by extraction from substance s of natura l orig in, independently by means of c hemical sy

nthesis, or by

a combination of extraction and c hemical sy nthesis, and includes the pac kag i n g o r re p ac kag ing of the substance or labe ling or rela beling of its container
. Id. § 481.002(25) ( Ver

non 2003). Evidence d em o n s t rating any of the proc edure s listed in section 481.002(25) is suffic ient to supp o rt a co n v iction for the manuf actur e of a

controlled substanc e. Gr e e n v . S

tate , 9 30 S.W. 2d

65 5, 65 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1 99 6, pe t. r e f’ d) . T he State c ou ld establish an off

ense e ither by

showing Galleg os acte d on his own to manufac ture methamphetamine or by showing Galleg os, actingwith intent to promote or assist w ith the commission of the offense , solicited, encour ag ed , d ir e cted, a ided, or attempted to aid Koch manuf actur e methamphe tamine. See T EX . P EN . C ODE ANN . §§ 7.01, 7.02 (Ve rnon 2003). To obtain a conviction for the manufa cture of a controlled substance, the State must l i nk the defendant either t o an int ere st in the pl ace wher e the manufa cturing was taking place or to the
ac tu al ac to f m an u fa ct uri n g. W e bb v . S tate , 275 S.W .3d 22, 27 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 2008, no pet.); Is ha m v . S

tate , 258 S.W .3d 244, 248 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d). T his may occur throug h circ umstantial evidence
. W ebb , 275 S.W .3d at 27. “Although mer e pre sence at a dr ug la bo rator y is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a c onvic tio n fo r m anu fa c tur ing , it is a c ir c ums tanc e te nd ingto04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 6- prove gu i l t t h at , when combined with other fa cts, shows that the ac cused w as a pa rticipant in the manufa cturing .” Id. In a ty pic a l dr ugpo sse ssi on

c a se , th e State is r e qu ir e d to link th e de fendan t to the d ru g to protec t the innocent by stander f rom conviction base d solely upon his or her proxi mity to someone else’s dr ug s. Po ind

e x te r v. S tate , 1 53 S.W. 3d

40 2, 40 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Gi lm or e v . S tate , No. 2-06-302- CR, 2008 W L706621 , * 2 (T ex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated f

or publication). F actor s commonly used to affirmatively

link a defe ndant in a drug possession case include whether : ( 1) the a ccuse d was pre sent when the sear ch wa s conducte d; (2) the contra band wa s in plain view; (3) the a ccuse d wa s i n clos e proximi ty to and had a cce ss to the contra band; (4) the acc used wa s under the inf luence of nar cotics whe n ar re s t ed ; (5) the acc used posse s s e d o th e r c o n tr a b an d o r n ar c o ti c s w h e nar

r e s te d ; ( 6 ) th e a c c u s e d

ma d e in c r im inating state me nts wh e n a

rr e ste d; ( 7) the a c c us e d att e mpt e d to fle e ; (8) the a c c us e d ma de fu rt ive g e sture s; (9) ther e wa s an odor of contra band; (10) othe r contra

band or dr

ug para pherna lia was pre sent; (11) the ac cused owned or ha d the rig ht to possess the place wher e the drug s were found; (12) the place wher e the dr

ug s were found wa s enclosed; ( 13) the a ccuse d was found w ith a larg e amount of c ash; and (14) the conduc t of the ac cused indicated a c onsciousness of guilt. Ev an s v . S tate , 202 S.W .3d 158, 162 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). By contra st, in a drugmanufa cturingcase , wh i l e t h e S t ate must still provide a link, the purpose of

such a r equire ment is to protect the innoce nt by stander who mere ly inadver tently happens onto a methamphetamine lab. Gi lm or e , 2 00 8 WL 70 66 21 a t *2 . “ Al tho ug h th e ana ly sis is b a sic a lly the same whether

the offe nse is the po s s es sion of a contr olled substance or the manufa cture of a controlled substanc e, the f actor s considere d may be diffe rent.” Id. For example, the manufa cture04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 7- of methamphe tamine occ urs in the open, wher eas possession ma y occur in a dra wer or an e nvelope. Id. W h e nm e th amp h e t am i n e i s m anu f a c tur e d , i ttyp i c a l l y g e n e r a t e s a s tr o n g o d o r , n o tm e r e l y a residual odor
. Id. Th e pa ra ph e rn a lia us e d in me tha mph e tamin e manu fa c tur ingare re lativ e ly cumber some and ty

pically are in plain view, and the quantity of contra band will be rela

tively high. Id. “As a conseque nce, the fac t that a def endant ha s a prolong ed pre sence on the pre mises weig hs
more heavily ag ainst that defe ndant when me thamphetamine is beingmanufa cture d on the pre mises than it does in a mere possession case .” Id. In this case, Ga lleg os contends he w as nothing more th an an innocent by stander a t the clande stine methamphetamine la boratory found at Koch’ s residenc e. The re cord, how ever , ref utes this contention. The jury hear d evidenc e linking Gal l egos to the ac tual act of manufa cturing
me tha mph e tamin e . F ir st, the State int ro du c e d the a

ud io r e c or din g of

Mo rg an’ s c onve rs a tio n w ith Koch, f rom which the jury

could infer

Galleg os provid ed assist ance to Koch in pre paringthe cl an d es t i n e m et h am p h et am i n e l ab fo r o p er at i o n . T h e au d i o re co rd i n g re v ea l s an ap p ar en tex ch an ge be tw e e n Koc h an d Ga lle g os wh e re in Ko c h ask s Ga lle g os fo r a cl amp an d the n dir e c ts G a lle g os to the location in the g ar age wher e the c lamps are located. The re cord shows that when off icer s
exe cu t ed their searc h war rant late r that day , a clamp was discover ed in the par t of the laboratory wher e the methamphetamine produc tion had occur red. Second, the jury

hear d the testimony

of David Va ug ht, an offic er f

rom the Ba

ndera County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, who stated Morg an had indic at ed to hi m that Koch and G alleg os were in the proce ss of manufa cturingmethamphetamine wh ile he wa s at th e re sid e nc e . Ac c or din g to Va ug ht, Mo rg an to ld h im “ the y we re ri g ht i n th e mid dle04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

4 ... See Po i nd ext er , 153 S. W
. 3d at 406 ( s t at i ng a j ur y i s en t i t l ed t o cons i der i nadmi s s i bl e h ear s ay admi t t ed wi t ho ut ob ject i o n). A l t ho ugh M o rg a n tes t i f i ed at t ri al t hat he did no t ob ser ve G al l ego s ass i st i ng K o ch m anuf act ure m e tha m p h e ta m ine , t h e ju ry w a s fre e to d isb e liev e su c h t e s ti m o n y in its ro le a s fac tfi n d e r. S e e S to g ie ra v . S ta te , 191 S. W
. 3d 194, 196 ( T ex . App.

— Sa n Ant on i o 2005, n o pe t . ) ( r ec og n i zi n g t h e j u r y e v al u at es t h e cr edi bi l i t y a n d de mea n or o f witn e sse s a n d d e te rm ine s the w e igh t affo rd e d c o n tra d ic ting tes tim o n y).

5 ... G al l ego s was present at K o ch’ s res i d ence at t he st art of t he m anuf act uri ng p roce ss and was s t i l l t here hours la te r w h e n o ff

ic e rs e x e c u te d the ir se a rc h w a rr a n t.
6 ... “ Pul l i n g ma t ch es ” i s a t er m u s ed t o de s cr i be t h e pr oce s s w h er e an i n di v i du al s epa r at es ma t ch es f r om mat ch book s f

or pu r pos es of

c ol l ec t i n g t h e ph os ph or ou s of f of t h e s t r i k er pad s t o u s e i n t h e man u f ac t u r e of m e tha m p h e ta m ine . T h is p ro c e ss u su a lly o c c u rs b e fo re the a c tua l “co o k ing ” o f m e tha m p h e ta m ine
.

- 8- of . . . cooking[m ethampheta mine] or blowing off

a cook.” 4 In light of suc h evidenc e, we believe the jury was fr ee to c o n cl u d e that Ga lleg os was an a ctive par ticipant in the manufa cturingof methamphetamine. Alternatively , Galleg os asserts the recor d is devoid of any evidenc e demonstrating he knew Koch’ s unlawful intent when he purportedly handed Koch the clamp. Once ag ain, the re cord doe s not suppor

t G alleg os’s contention. The rec ord shows Galleg os attempted to hide from police ( in a bathroom) when office rs raide d the suspected methamphetamine laboratory . The jury also h eard te sti mony ind ic a tin g Ga lle g os ha d a pr olo ng e d pr e se nc e a t a pla c e wh e re a str on g od or

c omm on ly associate d with the manufa cturingof methamphe tamine was de tectable
. 5 Next, the jury hear d that office rs discover ed in plain view a varie ty of item s an d materia ls indicating me thamphetamine manufa cturing
. Finally , Morg an testified that it is uncommon for a person to sta y around a
me tha mph e tamin e la

bo rator y if he or sh e is n ot a ssi sti ngwi th t he man ufac tu ri ng pr oc e ss i n s ome
manner and that Galleg os had assist ed him and Koch manufa cture methamphetamine in the pa st by “pulling matches.” 6 Ba sed upon such e vidence , we c onclude th e re co rd shows Galleg os was cog nizant of Koch’ s unlawful intent a nd aided Koc h’s unlawf

ul manufac ture of me thamphetamine.04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 9- L astly , Galleg os ar gues his conviction for ma nufac turing methamphetamine c annot stand beca use there is no evidenc e any of the proc edure s listed in the statute’s definition of manufa cturing
wer e occ urringat the t i m e o f h i s arr est. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.002(25) (stating manufa cture means the production, preparation, propag ation, compounding , conver sion, or proce ssing of

a contr olled substance othe r than mar ihuana, dire ctly or indirec tly by extraction from substances of

natura l orig in, independently by means of chemica l sy

nthesis, or by

a combination of extr a c ti o n an d c h e mi c a l s y n th e s is , an d in c lu d e s th e p a c k a g in g o r r e p a c k a g in g o f th e s u b s ta n c e or labelingor re labelingof its c ontainer)
. Galleg os’s argument, howeve r, ig nores the f act that of fice rs dis c ov e re d li qu id c on ta ini ng meth amph e tamin e wh e n th e y se arc he d th e pr e mis e s. Th is
me tha mph e tamin e , to g e the r w iththe c umu lativ e fo rc e of a ll the oth e r i nc ri min a tin g c ir c ums tanc e s, sug g ests methamphetamine pr ocessingwas still ongoingat th e ti meo f f ic e r s r a id e d

K o c h ’ s r esidenc e. We t he re fo re re

je c t G a lle g os ’s c on te nti on on a pp e a l. B. P os se ssi on o f Im m e dia te P r e c ur so r s o f Me th am phe ta m ine To prove the offe nse of possession of an immediate prec ursor with the intent to manufa cture methamphetamine, the State must show a person, with the intent to unlawf ully manufa cture methamphetamine, posse ssed an immediate pr ecur sor of methamphetamine. T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.124(a) (2). In this c ase, the State could establish an off ense by showing Galleg os either: (1) acte d on his own; or (2) acte d with the intent to promote or assist the offe nse by soliciting, enc ourag ing, direc ting, aiding , or attempting to a id a nother pe rson in the commission of the offe nse. SeeT EX . P EN . C ODE ANN . §§ 7.01, 7.02. Galleg os was cha

rg ed with possessing the f

o ll o w ingprec ursor substanc es: pseudoephe drine;
re d p ho spho rous ; and

iod ine . A lth ou g h G a lle g os a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e po sse ssi on of the se04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 10- substances is a violation of the law if possesse d under the rig ht set of cir cu m s t an ce s , he believe s those circ umstances a

re not pre sent in this case be cause the State fa iled to intro d uce e vidence establishing the substances seized by police were actually pseudoephe drine, re d phosphorous, and iodine. We a

re unpersua ded by this c ontention be cause the State introduced suff i ci en t ev i dence
e sta bli sh ingthe su

bs tanc e s a

uth or iti e s se ize d we re , in fa c t, the pr e c ur so rs a lle g e d in the ind ic tme nt. Th e re c or d r e ve a ls the State pr e se nte d the te sti mony of a la bo rator y c he mis t, Joe l B ud g e , to establish the identity

of the re d phosphorous and iodine c onfiscate d by authorities. B udg e testified iod ine is “ ve ry

e a sy to r e c og nize ” du e to i ts di st inc tiv e od or and a pp e ara nc e . H e state d io din e is known to cause staining a nd will stain “ever

y thing a round i t . . . brown.” Budg e explained he examined a plastic bottle of g ray pel l et s an d concluded, based upon his obser vations of the
s u b s t an ce , th e s u

b s t a n c e c o u l d b e n o th i n g o th er th an i o d i n e. As fo r t h e r edp h o s p h o ro u s , Bu d ge noted it is “rea l easy

to rec og nize” beca

use of its “c hara cter istic appea ranc e.” B udg e testified he examined a plastic bottle containingred pow der and conducte d a pre liminary test on the substance , which “tur

n[ed] positive” for red phosphorous. Ba sed on his observations, Budg e believe d the re d powder analy zed was re d phosphorous. The jury , as the fa ctfinder, wa s fre e to believe Budg e’s testimony , deter

mine what weig ht to g ive it, a nd drawany

rea sonable infe renc es in deter mining the nature of the substanc es ana ly zed. Se e Stogie ra v . S

tate , 191 S.W
. 3d 194, 196 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.). The jur y appar ent l y b el i ev ed B udg e’s testimony as to the identity

of the iodine and re d phosphorous seized by authorities, and we must defer to such finding s on appea l. As for the rema ining substance at issue, the S tate introduce d the sea led pac kag es of medic ine containingpseudoephe drine c onfiscate d from Koc h’s pre mises. The labe li n g on the sea led pac kag es indicates e ach pa ckag e held medic ine containingpseud o ep h ed rine. This labe ling se rved a s proof04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

7 ... H avi ng d et er mi ned t her e i s su f f i ci ent ev i dence es t abl i s hi ng t he s ubs t anc es s ei zed wer e ps eudoephedr i ne, red p ho spho rous, a nd i o d i ne, we reject G al l ego s’ s al t ernat i ve co nt ent i o n t hat t he co urt ’ s “char ge l eaves op en t he st rong p o ssib ili ty t h a t t h e ju ry c o n v ic te d [G a lleg o s] o f c o m m itt ing a n o ff e n se fo r w h ic h the re is l e g a lly ins u ff ic ie n t ev id e n c e .”

- 11- o f th e c o n t e n t s o f

th e p a c k a g i n g an d th e r e f

o r e e s t a b l i s h e d th e i d e n t i ty o f

th e s u b s t an c e f o r th e j u r y. Se e Sh aff e r v . S tate , 184 S.W .3d 353, 361 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) ( holding evidenc e wa s leg ally

and fa ctually

sufficie nt to prove appe llan t was in possession of pseudoephe drine whe re the seale d cold m edicine packa g es i ntroduce d by the State included labe ling indic at i n g i t s contents conta ined pseudoe phedrine ). B eca use the State wa s able to establish the identity of the substan ce s fo r t h e jury throug h the evidenc e it prese nted at trial, se e ge ne ra lly Ma nn ing v . S tate , 637 S.W .2d 941, 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 8 2) (indicating State must prese nt
c he mic a l an a ly sis or

oth e r e vid e nc e to e sta

bli shthe ide nti ty

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e ), we mus t
overr ule Galleg os’s contention. 7 Ga lle g os fu

rt he r c on te nd s th e re is le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt his conviction bec ause the re i s no evidenc e linking him to the pseudoe phedrine , red phosphor ous, or iod ine se ize d f

ro m K oc h’ s p re mis e s. Re g ard le ss o f whe the r t he e vid e nc e is d ir e c t or

c ir c ums tanti a l, it mus t e sta

bli shthe de fe nd ant’ s c onne c tio n w ithan il le g a l su bs tance wa s mo re tha

n f or tui tou s. Evans , 202 S.W .3d at 161. W hen, as he re, the defe ndant is not in ex clusive possession of the plac e wher e the illeg al s ubstance s are found, the State must show additional links between the defe ndant and the c ontraba

nd. Poindexte r , 153 S.W .3d at 406. The number of fac tors linking the def endant to the contra

band is le ss importa

nt tha n the logic al forc e with which all the evidenc e, both direc t and circ umstantial, connec ts the defe ndant to the contra band. Evans , 202 S.W .3d at 162. Galleg o s p o ints o ur a tt e n ti o n to v ar io u s r e c o r d e xc e r p ts s u g g e s ti n g th a t n o n e o f the contra band items belong ed to Galleg os. I n decidingwhether the ev i d en ce is sufficient to link the04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 12- acc used to contra

band, howe ver, the trier of fac t is the ex clusive judg e of the cre dibili ty of the witnesses and the weig ht to be g iven to their testimony
. Poindexte r , 153 S.W .3d at 406. The jury was thus fre e to disbelieve the testimony in question and we w ill not i nt ru d e u pon the jury ’s evaluation of such testimony on appea l. See id. Although G alleg os did not o wn t h e residence whe re the prec ursors and othe r contra band items were discovere d, he neve rtheless ha d a prolong ed pre sence at the location despite the strong odor of methamphetamine produc tion and the open a nd obvi o u s p re s ence of we apons, drug s, and other items nee ded to m anufa cture methamphetamine. G alleg os was found in c lose proxim ity to the
are a whe re the prec ursors and other items were discovere d by police. F urther, the rec ord shows Galleg os actively

participa ted in the manufa cturingoperation at Koch’s r esi d en ce and eve n atte mp te d to h id e f r o m a u th o r it ie s w h e no f

f ic e r s ar r iv e d to e xe c u te th e ir

w ar r an t. We b e li e v e the log ic a l f or c e of the se fa c tor s is su ff

ic ie nt t o li nk

Ga lle g os to t

he pr e c ur so rs . C. P os se ssi on o f Me th am phe ta m ine Be sides convictingGalleg os of manufa cturing more than 400 grams of me thamphetamine, the jury also found Galleg os g uilty of poss ession of m ore than 400 g rams of me thamphetamine. To prove unl aw fu l p ossession of methamphetamine, the State must show a per son knowing ly or intentionally possessed the controlled substance. T EX . H EA LTH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.115. In the ca se at bar, the State could establish an off ense e ither by

showing Galleg os acte d on his own
o r b y s h o wi n g Ga l l ego s ac t edwi thth e i n t en tt o p ro m o t e o r a s s i s t th e o ff en s e b y s o l i ci t i n g,
encour ag ing, dir ecting , aiding , or attempting to a id a nother person in the commission of the offe nse. T EX . P EN . C ODE ANN . §§ 7.01, 7.02. “The mere prese nce at a place wher e contr aband is be ing use d
or po sse sse d b y

oth ers do es no t ju sti fy

fi nd ingtha

t a pe rs on is i n jo int

po sse ssi on

or is a pa rt y to04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 13- an off ense.” Ro be rso n v . S

tate , 80 S.W .3d 7 3 0 , 7 3 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2002, pet ref ’d). Gallego s ar gu es t h er e i s i n s u fficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine be cause there is no evidence linking him to the controlled substance se ized from Koc h’ s p re mis e s. Th is a rgume nt i s e sse nti a lly

the same argume nt h e ra ise d to c ha lle ng e his
con v ic ti o n f

o r p o s s e s s io n o f imme d iate p r e c ur s o r s o f me th amp h e ta mi n e . A s d is c u s s e d in our dispositi on of Ga lleg os’s s u ff i ci en cy complaint above, the rec ord conta ins ample evidenc e linking Galleg os to the contraba

nd and other items seized by authorities. We there fore overr ule Galleg os’s sufficie ncy

complaint for the same reasons dis cussed in our disposition of his complaint concerning the suffic iency

of the e vidence linking him to the prec ursors of me thamphetamine. D. P ossession of

a Deadly Weapon Galleg os contends the e vidence is insuff icient to suppor

t the finding that he used or exhibi ted
a de a dly we a

po n dur ing e a c h off

e ns e . Ev ide nc e the a

pp e lla nt pe rs on a lly us e d or exhi bit e d a de a dly
wea pon is not necessa

rily require d when he is a party
. Torre s v . S tate , 2 3 3 S.W.3d

2 6 , 3 0 ( T e x. App.—Houston[1 s t D is t. ] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. )
. Wh e n , a s h e r e , th e a p p e ll an t i s a

p arty , e v id e n ce demonstrating the appe llant knew a de adly wea pon would be used or

exhibi ted is sufficient to support a dea dly wea pon finding
. Id. In th is c a se , th e jur

y c ou ld c on c lud e Ga lle g os wa s awa re a de a dly we a po n wou ld be us e d in the c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e s. Th e reco rd sh ow s K oc h a nd Ga lle g os we re e ng a g e d in manufa cturing and possessing contra band and that multi ple fire arms we re loc ated at the scene of the illega l activities. Many

of the we ap o n s s eized by police duringthe ra id on Koch’s pr emises wer e04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 14- vis ibl e to a

nyon e e nte ri ngthe pr e mis e s. Th e re c or d f ur the r re ve a ls Ga lle g os wa s in c los e pr oximi ty to the wea pons during his participation in the i lleg al activiti es, and that he was a pprehe nded by

police in a bathr oo m w he re a ri fl e wa s loc a te d. B a se d on the se c ir c ums tanc e s, a tr ie r of fa c t c ou ld r a tio na lly conclude Galleg os knew of K och’s intent to u s e t h e firea rms to fac ilitate the commission of the alleg ed off

enses. Ac cording ly , we r ejec t Galleg os’s sufficie ncy complaint. D OU BLE J E OP ARDY At th e c o n c lu s io n o f o r a l ar g u me n t, w e inv it e d G a ll e g o s to s u b mi t a p o s t- s u

b mi s sion brief reg ardinga double jeopardy issue not raised below or in his orig inal appellate briefing
. Galleg os’s po st- su bmi ssi on br ie f a sse rt e d h is c onvic tio ns fo r m anufact ur ingand po sse ssi ngthe same methamphetamine violate s double jeopar dy principles. “[A] double jeopar dy claim m ay be ra ised for the fi rs t ti me on a

pp e a l
. . . wh e n the un dis pute d fa c ts sh ow the do ub le je op ard y vio latio n is c le arl y appar ent on the fa ce of

the re cord a

nd when e nforc ement of usua l rules of proc edura l defa ult serves no leg itimate state interests.” Go nz ale z v. S tate , 8 S.W .3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Any do ub le je op ard

y vio latio n in thi s c a se is n ot c le arl y a pp are nt o n th e fa c e of

the re c or d. As a

re su lt, we de cline to addr ess Galleg os’s double jeopa rdy complaint on appea l. C ONCL US I ON Havingconsidere d the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdicts, we c onclude a rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found Galleg os g uilty of eac h of the offe ns es al l ege di n the indictments. See Clayton , 2 35 S.W. 3d a t 77 8. F ur

the r, a ft e r re vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l li g ht,
we c annot say

the ev i d en ce supporting these convictions is so obviously weak as to undermine04
- 08
- 00 71 6- CR, 04
- 08
- 00 71 7- CR, & 04
- 08
- 00 71 8- CR

- 15- confide nce in the f

actf inder’s de termination or is g reatly outweig hed by

contra ry proof. See Lancon
v . S tate , 253 S.W .3d at 705. Acc ording ly , the trial cour t’s judgme nts are a ffirme d.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice DO NO T PU B L I SH