Opinion filed May 27, 2011



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 10

- 00 237

- C R

__________
BERNARD WILLIAMS , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106 th District Court

Dawson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09

- 6917

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Bernard Williams of the offense of possession of 200 to 400 grams of
cocaine with the intent to deliver, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed punishment at confinement for thirty years and a $10,000 fine. We affirm. Appellant presents two issues on appeal, both challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Relying on the sufficiency standard addressed in Broo ks v. State
, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) , appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to show that he possessed the cocaine and that he possessed it with the intent to deliver. Under this standard, we must review2

all of the evidence in t he light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979) ; Brooks , 323 S.W.3d at 899

. To prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the Sta te must prove tha t the accused exercised care, custody, control, or management over the substance and that the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband. Poindexter v. State , 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);

Martin v. State , 753 S.W.2d 384, 38 6 (Tex. Cr im

. App. 1988). When the accused is not shown to have had exclusive possession of the place where the contraband was found, t he evidence

must link the accused to the contraband and establish that the accused’s connection with the drug

was more than fortuitous. Evans v. State , 202 S.W.3d 158, 161

- 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006);

Pollan v. State , 612 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Among the many “links” that have been recognized to establish possess ion of contraband is whether the accused possessed other

contraband or narcotics when arrested

, whether the contraband was in plain view, and whether the accused owned or possessed the place where the drugs were found

. Evans , 202 S.W.3d at

162 n.12.

The r ecord shows that Lamesa police conducted surveillance of appellant’s house du ring

the summer of 2009 and used the services of a co nfidential informant to make three separate controlled buys at the residence

. In o ne of the transaction s , appellant was the person who sold to

the individual. I n the other two, appellant’s cousin , Dwight Mason, was the seller. Police then

obtained and executed a search and arrest warrant

. A ppellant was apprehended in side the house

in the rest room , and Mas on was apprehended outside

. Appellant had several small rocks of

crack cocaine in his pocket. As soon as one of the officers walked into the kitchen, he saw a plate containing 80 to 100 rocks of crack cocaine and two razor blades

. The testimony showed

t hat this co caine w ould be for distribution , not for personal use. Police also found a plastic bag

in the same cabinet that contained large rocks of crack cocaine that were still damp , suggesting

recent manufactur e

. More than 250 grams of cocaine w ere fou nd in the kitchen. Mail addressed to appellant at that addres s was found in the living room. Appellant testified that he had never sold crack cocaine to anyone, that he had no knowledge of the cocaine in the kitchen, and that he did not have any cocaine i n his pocket at the

time of his arrest. Appellant admitted that the house belonged to him and that he lived alone

, but3

he testified that other people were in and out regularly and that, when he was arrested, he had just arrived at his house after being gone for two days

. We hold that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed the cocaine found in his kitchen and that he possess ed it with the intent to

deliver. Appellant was linked to the contraband in the kitchen by evidence showing that appellant owned the house, was inside the house at the time of the search, had several rocks of crack cocaine in his pocket at that time, and had sold cocaine to a confidential informant in a controlled buy that was conducted at appellant’s house. Appellant’s issues are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

May 27, 2011

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel 1 consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill, J. 2

1 Rick Strange, Justice, resigned effective April 17, 2011. The justice position is vacant pending appointment of a successor by the governor.

2 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.