i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No s. 04 -0 9- 00 02 9- CR & 04 -0 9- 00 03 0- CR

Alfre d M AR TIN EZ , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No.1, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 243020 & 243023 Honora ble Al Alonso, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 11, 2009 AFF I RMED Alfre d Martinez was c onvicted of c ommitt ing the ft and possessing marijuana
. On appe al, he
argue s tha t th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio ns . We a ff

ir m.04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND On Fe bruar

y 4, 2008, Martinez wa s working as a cashie r in a pa

rking lot during the San Antonio Rodeo. As a ca shier, Mar tinez was issued an apron as part of his unifor m. Ma rtinez’s job
was to c o ll e c t $ 8 f

r o m v e h ic le s e n te r in g th e p ar k in g lo t’ s g a te , p la c e th e mo n e y in h is a p ron, and then place a par

king ticke t stub betwee n the vehicle ’s windshield and da shboard, whic h was proof that th e ve hic le ha d p a id to park in the lot . A s p art of the ir tr a ini ng , a ll c a sh ie rs we re tol d th a t a ll parkingtickets and money collecte d from vehicles must be kept in their apron. And, ca shiers we re tol d to pu t w hate ve r p e rs on a l mo ne y the y ha d in the ir ba c k p oc ke ts a

nd no t th e ir fr on t po c ke ts. Deputy Sheri ff Dere k Ure sti was working secur ity at the rode o and wa s assig ned to watc h the par king lot ca shiers. Ac cordingto Deputy Ur es t i , h e beg an to notice that Ma rtinez followed proper proce dures most of the time. However , some of t he ti me, M artinez took money from vehic les enter ing the lot, but ins tead of placingthe m oney in his apron, placed the money in the front pocke t of his jeans. De puty

Ure sti noti ced that with respe ct t o these vehicles, M artinez did not place pa rking stubs on the vehicles’ dashboards. So, Deputy Ure sti approac hed some of the vehicles that he had noticed had not rec eived parking stubs, and confirmed that the vehicles did not have par king stubs dis pla y e d o n th e ir

da shbo ard s. De pu ty

Ur e sti the n c a lle d h is s up e rv iso r, Cha rl e s Ro mans . Deputy Sheriff Rober

t Guerr ero w as also wor

king se curity

and watching Martinez. L ike Deputy U r e s ti , h e n o ti c e d

th a t wh e nM arti n e z t o o k mo n e y f r o m v e h ic le s , h e d id

n o t a lw ay s p lace pa rk ingstu bs on the ve hic le s’ da sh

bo ard s. An d, De pu ty Gu e rr e ro a lso sa w that w he n M art ine z did not give a par

king stub to ente ring car s, he plac ed the money collecte d in his right fr ont pocket, not his a pr on . So , D e pu ty

Gu e rr e ro fo llo we d s e ve ra l of the c ars that ha d n ot r e c e ive d p ark ing stu bs to04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

- 3- their par king s p ac es. Deputy

Guer rer o then conf

irmed that these c ars did not have parkingstubs dis pla y e d o n th e ir

da shbo ard s. L ike De pu ty Ur e sti , h e the n c a lle d h is s up e rv iso r, Rom ans . Romans, a cr imi n al i n v estig ator with the District Attorne y ’s Off ice, wa s the supervisor of
secur ity at the rode o. After

being informed of

a possible theft in prog ress, Romans we nt to the parkinglot and beg an watching Martinez. L ike Deputies Ure sti and Guerre ro, R omans watc hed as Martinez, from time to time, took money from a dr iver wi t h o u t gi v i ng the driver a par king stub, fo lde d th e mon e y

un de rn e a th t

he tic ke ts h e ha d n ot s old , a nd the n p la c ed th e fol ded

mon e y in h is rig ht front pocket. After w atchingMartinez for a bout an hour to an hour

and a ha lf, Romans made the de c isi on

to a pp ro a c h M art ine z. Ro mans a sk ed Mar ti nez if he ha d a ny thi ngin h is p oc ke ts. Acc ording to Romans, Martinez replied, “Y es, I have some marijuana in my pocket.” Romans then saw De puty

Guer rer o perf orm a pat-down sea

rch. H oweve r, i n s t ea d of pulling ma rijuana f rom Mart i n ez ’s right front poc ket, Guer rer o pulled out cash. Romans then pulled fr om Martinez’s left front pocke t a clea

r bagof what appea

red to be a usa

ble amount of mar ijuana leaves. Romans asked Mart ine z if the c a sh pu lle d fr om h is p oc ke t be lon g e d to him . A c c or din g to R oma ns , M art ine z sa id t h a tt h e m o n e y

d i d n o tb e l o n g t o h i m . R o m an s t h e n a s k e d , “ W e l l , w h y ar e y o ut a k i n g t h i s m o n e y ?” Ac c or din g to R oma

ns , M art ine z re pli e d, “ Wel l, it’ s bee n d on e be fo re , a nd I ’m jus t do ingit b e c a

us e Iwant to do it. Ineed the extra money .” Mar tinez was then taken to a poli ce trailer at the rodeo. At the police trailer, Wil l G loor, the Direc tor of Public Saf ety and Transport at i o n fo r t he rodeo, determined that the m oney found i n Martinez’s front pocket amounted to $240. Acc ording to Gloor, the money

“wa s crumpled up a

nd kind of pushed i n the pocke ts.” An audit wa s perf ormed by rec onciling the amount of t ickets Martinez sold versus the money he had in his apr on and fr ont po c ke t. T he a

ud it r e su lte d in

an o ve ra g e of

$2 40 , th e a mou

nt M art ine z ha d in

his fr on t po c ke t.04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

- 4- Martinez testified in his own defe nse at trial. Acc ording to Martinez, he did not steal $240; th e mo n e y w a s h is p e r s o n a l mo n e y an d w a s n o t in h is f r o n t po c k e t. I t w a s in

h is b a c k p o c k e t n e xt to h is wa lle t, wh ic h co nta ine d an a dd iti on a l $1 40 . M art ine z te sti fi e d th a t he ha d $ 24 0 o uts ide of his wallet bec ause it wa s too much cash to fit inside his wallet. Mar tinez al s o t es tified that he ne ver
a dmi tte d to the of

fi c e rs that he ha d s tol e n th e mon e y or th at he h a d ma

ri jua na in h is p oc ke t. Ac c or din g to Mart ine z, th e su bs tanc e fo un d in

his wa lle t w a s “ sativ a ,” wh ic h h e c la ime d is “ a lmo st like tobacc o, but it’s gr een.” “[I ]t g ives y ou a kind of hig h, but it’s lega l here in Texas.” Martinez was c harg ed wi t h theft in the amount of $50- $500, a Class B misdeme anor, a nd possession of marijuana

in an amount less than two ounces, also a Class B misdemeanor. Ma rtinez
wa ive d h is r ig ht t o a

jur y , a nd the c a se wa s tr ie d to the be nc h. Ma rt ine z wa s th e n f

ound g uil ty of bo th theft and posse ssion of marijuana , and in both case s was sentenced to 180 day s in jail probated for six mo nth s. S UF F I CI E NCY - T H EFT On appeal, M artinez argues that the e vidence is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to support his conviction for theft i n the amount of $50-$500, a Class B misdemea nor. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 31.03(e) (2) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009)
. I n a leg al sufficie ncy revie w, we view the evidenc e in the light most favor able to t h e v er d i ct and then determine w hether a rational trier of f

act c ould have found the essential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. Pr ibl e v . S tate , 175 S.W .3d 724, 729-30 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). I n a factual sufficiency revie w, we view all the evidenc e in a
ne utr a l li g ht a

nd wi ll s e t th e ve rd ic t asi de on ly if the e vid e nc e is s o w e a k th a t th e ve rd ic t is c le arl y wrongand manife stly

unjust, or the contra

ry evidenc e is so strong that the standar d of proof bey ond
a re asonable doubt could not have be en met. Id. at 730-31.04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

- 5- A per son co m m i t s theft “if he unlawfully appropr iates prope rty

with intent to deprive the
owner of prope rty .” T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 31 .0 3(a) (Vern on Sup p. 20 09 ). Ac c or din g to Mart ine z, th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s ho w that he un lawf ull y a pp ro pr iate d mo ne y

fr om h is
e mpl oy e r o r t

hat he int e nd e d to de pr ive his e mpl oy e r o f m on e y be c a us e his job du tie s r e qu ir e d h im to c ollect money

and hold that money

for his employ er until the end of his shift. Martinez also arg ues that “ther e is absolutely no way to tell which money was [Martinez] ’s own money and which mone y
was c ollected f

rom parkingvehicles a

nd, there fore , owned by

[hi s] employ er.” Martinez further argues that there is no evidence of how much mone y Martinez stole from his employ er. We find that the evidenc e is both leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence that Martinez
un lawf ull y a pp ro pr iate d $ 24 0 w ithintent t o d e pr ive his e mpl oy e r. Gl oo r t e sti fi e d th a t pu rs ua nt t o the policies and pr ocedu re s of Mar tinez’s employ

ment, cashie rs wer e not to have a ny persona l money in their front poc kets and at no time were to put any money collecte d from people parking in their front poc kets. Deputy Ure sti, Deputy

Guer rer o, and I n v es t i gator Rom ans all testified that the y saw M art ine z take mon e y fr om s ome ve hic le s a

nd pla c e that mon e y in h is f ro nt p oc ke t w hil e fa ili ngto g ive the patr on s p ark ingstu bs . D e pu ty

Ur e sti and De pu ty Gu e rr e ro c on fi rm e d th a t so me of those vehic les did not have park i n g s t u b s display ed on their f ront dashboar ds. Furthe rmore, a n
a ud it s ho we d th a t Ma

rt ine z ha d a

n o ve ra g e of

$2 40 , th e e xac t amou

nt co nta ine d in his f

ro nt p oc ke t. An d, the mon e y

in h is f ro nt p oc ke t w a s c rumpled up , li ke it h a d b e e n s ho ve d in his po c ke t. I nvestig ator Romans test i fi ed that he saw Mar tinez, after c ollecting money from vehic les but not g i v i n g p ar

k i n g s tu b s i n e x c h an g e , f

o l d t h e m o n e y c o l l e c t e d

an d p l a c e i ti n

h i s f r o n tp o c k e t
. F i n a l l y, I nvestig ator Romans also testified that Ma rtinez said he took the $240 in cash beca use he neede d the
e xtra mon e y . We ho ld t

he e vid e nc e is l e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt.04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

- 6- Wit h reg ard to fa ctual sufficie ncy , we note that Martinez emphasizes that Gloor testified that thirty to forty -five minutes be fore Martinez was a rre sted, Gloor had pe rfor med a “ drop audit” on Martinez’ s a

p r o n an d h a d n o t f

o u n d a d is c r e p an c y b e tw e e n th e nu mb e r o f ti c k e ts s o ld and the amount of ca sh contained in Mar tinez’s apron. Howe ver, that an audit was pe rfor med on Martinez’s apron befor e his arr est does not contradict the testimony of Ure sti, Guerre ro, or Romans. All three testified that they

saw Mar tinez put m oney

collecte d from vehicles into the front pocke t of his jeans while fa iling to gi v e the vehicle s parkingstubs in return. Thus, there would not be a discr epanc y betwee n the tickets sold and the a mount of cash Ma

rtinez held in his apron
. We also note that Martinez a r g ues De puty

Ure sti, Deputy

Guer rer o, and Investig ator Romans
wer e not cr edible. Howe ver, w hether Ure sti, Gue rr er o , an d Romans were testifying tr uthfully , or whether Martinez was testify

ing tr uthfully , was a

cre dibilit y

question for the t ri er of fa ct. When contra dictory

testimonial evidence turns on an eva luation of cre dibilit y and demeanor of

the witnesses, we must defer

to the trier of

fac t. Se e J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 00 ). We t

he re fo re ho ld t

hat th e e vid e nc e is a lso fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt. P O SSESSI O N O F M ARI J UANA Martinez argues that the e vidence is both lega lly and fac tually insufficient that he possessed a usable quantity

of marijuana in an amount of two ounc es or less. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF E TY C ODE ANN . § 481.121 (Ve rnon S upp. 2009). Martinez complains that (1) the State did not off er a ny phy sical evide nce of

the marijuana , b ut i n s te ad off ere d only witness testimony ; (2) the mar ijuana wa s not weig hed or f

ield tested; and (3) the State did not prove that the substanc e wa s not sativa. I nv e sti g a tor

Rom ans te sti fi e d th a t he a sk e d Ma rt ine z wh e the r he ha d any thi ng in h is p oc ke t. Martinez replied, “ I ’ve g ot a little marijuana in my pocket.” Acc ording to Romans, he then pulled04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

- 7- out of Martinez’s pocke t a clea r bagwith “what a

ppear ed to be mar ijuana leaves” in it
. The “ g ree n le a fy su bs tanc e ” ha d the “ sme ll of mari jua na ,” and Rom ans be lie ve d it to be mari jua na ba se d o n h is experience and tra ining. He did not test the substance be cause Martinez told him t he substance was
m ar i j u an a a n d b ec au s e R o m an s co n fi rm edi twa s m ar i j u an a b as edo nh i s ex p er i en ce an d t ra i n i n g. Mart ine z al so c omp la ins that th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s ho w t

hat he po sse sse d a

us a ble qu anti ty of mari jua na . “ Us a ble qu anti ty ” ha s b e e n d e fi ne d a s “ an amou nt s uf fi c ie nt t o b e a

pp lie d to the use c ommonly

made ther eof.” Pe lha m v. Sta te , 1 6 4 T e x. Cr im
. 2 2 6 , 2 9 8 S. W. 2 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 57 ); se e als o Mo or e v . S tate , 562 S.W .2d 226, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Common
uses of marijuana

include smoking in cig are tte form or in a pipe. See P elham , 298 S.W .2d at 173;
se e als o Le

je un e v . S tate , 538 S.W .2d 775, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) . An offic er’ s testimony that
a substance is a usable quantity of marijuana is sufficient to support a c onviction. Nal ls v . S tate , No. 05 -0 8- 01 25 4- CR, 20 09 WL 19 81 85 4, a t *4 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s July 10 , 2 00 9, no pe t. h .) . B oth I nvestig ator Romans and D eputy Guer rer o testified that the a

mo u nt o f ma r ijuana found in Mar

tinez’s pocket wa s enoug h to be place d and smoked in a c iga rette r oll or pipe. We theref ore hold that the evidenc e is leg ally

sufficie nt to show t h at M artinez possessed a usable amount of marijuana. See Nal ls , 2009 WL 1981854, at *5 (holding that arr esting office r’s testimony based on his experienc e that amount constituted usable quantity was suff icient to sustain conviction). With r e s p e c t t o f

a c tu a l s u f f i c i e n c y , w e n o t e t h a t i t w a s t h e t r i e r o f f a c t ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

to assess the witnesse s’ cr edibility . The trier of fa ct was f

ree to acc ept or re

ject th e t es timony

of any witness. Flan ag

an v . S tate , 675 S.W .2d 734, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1984) (opinion on reh’ g ). De puty

Guer rer o and I nvestig ator Romans both testified that the substanc e wa s marijuana. Martinez testified t hat t he subst ance was sativa. Deputy Guer rer o and I nvestig ator Romans testified04
- 09
- 00 02 9- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 03 0- CR

1 ... W e al so no t e t hat i n bri ef i ng t hi s i ss ue, M art i nez at t em p t s t o dis t i ngui sh O sb o u rn v . S ta te , 92 S. W
. 3d 531, 5 3 8
- 3 9 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), whi ch hel d t hat an arr est i ng off i cer’ s i d ent i f

i cat i o n of m ari

juana unde r t he f

act s o f t he c a se w a s a d m issib le a s a l a y o p inio n un d e r T e x a s R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 1
. O sb o u rn , ho w e v e r, d o e s n o t ap p ly t o this a p p e a l. M a rtine z h a s o n ly b ro u g h t su ff ic ie n c y iss u e s. M a rtine z h a s n o t b ro u g h t a n iss u e u n d e r R u le 7 0 1 o r p o inte d to any p l ace i n t he reco rd where he p res erved s uch an issu e fo r a p p eal by ma ki ng a R ul e 7 0 1 ob ject i o n t o t he o f f i cers t es t i f y i ng about t he s ubs t anc e bei ng mar i j uan a.

- 8- that Ma rt ine z po sse sse d a

us a ble qu anti ty . M art ine z te sti fi e d that he did no t ha ve e no ug h s a tiv a

in h i s p o c k e t t o s m o k e . W h e t h e r D e p u t y G u e r r e r o an d In v e s t i g a t o r

R o m an s w e r e t e s t i f

yi n g t r u t h f u l l y, or whe ther Mar

t i n ez wa s t estifying tr

uthfully , was a

cre dibilit y

question for the trie r of f act. See Johnson , 2 3 S. W.3 d at 8. We t he re fo re ho ld t

hat th e e vid e nc e is a lso fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt. D I RE CT E D V E RDI CT Martinez argues that the trial court err ed in ove rruling his moti on for dire cted ve rdict on the possession char g e. A c omplaint about overrulinga motion for dire cted ve rd ict is in actuality an attack upon the sufficie ncy of evide nce to sustain the c onviction. Mc Du ff v . S tate , 939 S.W .2d 607, 61 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). We h a ve a lr e a dy he ld t hat th e e vid e nc e is b oth

le g a lly and fa c tua lly sufficie nt that Martinez possessed a usa ble quantity

of marijuana
. 1 C ONCL US I ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt
.

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH