### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE SIXTHDISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA BOBBYJOE EVENS, APPELLANT



### v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § § § § 

### § § § 

### § Nos. 06-15-00081-CR



### STATE'S BRIEF

FROM THE 196mJUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL CAUSE NUMBER 27,364 THE HONORABLE J. ANDREW BENCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

THESTATEREQUESTS THE OPPORTUNITYTO PRESENTORAL ARGUMENTONLYIFAPPELLANT'S REQUESTIS GRANTED NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR. District Attorney Hunt County, Texas KELIM. AIKEN First Assistant District Attorney P. 0. Box 441 4111 Floor Hunt County Courthouse Greenville, TX 75403 kaiken@huntcounty.net (903) 408-4180 FAX (903) 408-4296 State BarNo. 24043442 ACCEPTED 06-15-00081-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/10/2015 7:28:17 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENTS Table ofContents
...........................................................................................................ii Index ofAuthorities
..................................................................................................... iii State1nent ofthe Case
.................................................................................................5 Issues Presented
....................................................................................................

### 6-21 1. The evidence was legally sufficient in that it proved every element ofthe offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
............................................................

### 6-15 2. Appellant received an appropriate sentence based upon the evidence heard at trial by thejuryfor a habitual offender facing 

### 25 years to life. Fmihermore, the trial comi imposed consecutive sentences after hearing both trials and Appellant's numerous admissions to selling drugs in Hunt County for overtwo decades.
.................................................................. 

### 15-21 Prayer
........................................................................................................................

### 21 Certificate ofService
................................................................................................22 Cetiificate ofCompliance with Rule 9.4
..................................................................

### 22

iiINDEX OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES: Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)
.................................6 Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240, 245-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)
......................7 Dewberryv. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), ce1i. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000)
.............................................................................................................. 6 Hines v. State, 978 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.-Texarkana, no pet.)
............................6 Fernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
................................. 7 Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979)
....................................... 11 Johnson v. State, 23 W.W.3d 1(Tex. Crim. App. 2001)
.......................................... 6 Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
................................. 7 Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)
.......................... 6 Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
...................................... 6-7 STATE STATUTES: TEX. CON. SUB. ACT§ 481.112(a) (Vernon 2015)
................................................... 7 TEX. PEN. C. § 1.07(a)(39) (Ve1non 2015)
............................................................... 7 TEX. PEN. C. § 6.01(b) (Vernon 20 15)
..................................................................... 7 TEX. PEN. C.§ 12.42(d) (Ve1non 2015)
.................................................................... 15

iii

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA BOBBY JOE EVENS, APPELLANT

v.


### THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § § § § § § § §



### STATE'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

### Nos. 06-15-00081-CR

NOW COMES the State ofTexas, Appellee, inthis appeal from Cause No. 

### 27,64 in the 

### 196th Judicial District Comi in and for Hunt County, Texas, Honorable J. Andrew Bench, Presiding, nowbefore the Sixth District Court ofAppeals, and respectfully submits this its briefto the Comi in suppmi ofthejudgment of sentence inthe court below.

4

### SUMMARY OF THE STATE'S ARGUMENT In this case there was overwhelming evidence ofAppellant's guilt. Thejury heard proofofeach required element in addition to numerous admissions made by Appellant and his conviction for federal charges that included the manufacture 

### I delivery ofdrugs on May, 26, 2010 in Hunt County, Texas with Misty Lynett Brigham (hereinafter "Brigham"). At punishment, Appellant's priors were admitted to showproofofat least two felonies in sequence. Thejury not only sawthe penpackets, andjudgments, but they heard Appellant's admissions to the priors to enhance him to habitual offender status. In this case, the State presented evidence showing Appellant's career as a drug dealer in Hunt County spanning thirty years. Appellant continuedhis drug sales when he was on probation, when he was on parole and even when he was incarcerated at the Hunt Countyjail. The evidence showed Appellant sold over five kilos ofcocaine in Hunt County withinjust a seventeen month time frame in 2010-2011. Appellant's criminal drug conspiracy led to the arrest and conviction ofover 28 other defendants including several ofhis family members and he was the head ofthe organization. Thejury heard sufficient evidence to compel them to impose a seventy-five yearprison sentence and the trial court heard enough evidence tojustify making this a cumulative sentence.
5STATE'S RESPONSE TO POINTS OF ERROR ONE The evidence was legally sufficient to prove Appellant guilty ofManufacture I Delivery ofCocaine as alleged in the indictment. Argument and Authorities The proper standard ofreviewto determine legal sufficiency is whetherthe evidence would suppmithe verdict whenviewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Johnson v. State, 23 W.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In other words, ifa reasonable trier offact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements ofthe crime, the verdict will be deemed legally sufficient. Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Hines v. State, 978 S.W.2d 169, 172 (Tex. App.-Texarkana, no pet.). This standard gives full play to the responsibility ofthe trier offact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weighthe evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts. Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307,319,99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When perfonning a legal sufficiencyreview, the comimay not sit as a thilieenthjuror, re-evaluating the weight and credibility ofthe evidence and substituting its judgment for that ofthe factfinder. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), ce1i. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000). The comimust consider all ofthe evidence submitted before thejury, 6including inadmissible evidence. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Specifically, the Comiheld that "once the trier offact has weighted the probative value ofunobjected-to hearsay evidence in its fact finding process, an appellate comi cannot deny that evidence probative value or ignore it in a review ofthe sufficiency ofthe evidence. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402,406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citingFernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 451, 453-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240, 245-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). A. The State proved every required element for the offense of possession with intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt. A person commits the offense ifthe personknowingly manufactures, delivers, orpossesses with intentto deliver a controlled substance listed inpenalty group one. TEX. CON. SUB. AcT§ 481.112(a) (Ve1non 2015). Possession means "actual care, custody, control or management." TEX. PEN. C.§ 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon 2015). Possession is voluntary ifthe possessorknowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware ofhis or her control ofthe thing for a time sufficientto terminate his or her control. TEX. PEN. C.§ 6.01(b) (Vernon 2015). The indictment requiredproofofthe following elements: 1) On or aboutthe 26th day ofMay, 2010 in Hunt County, Texas; 2) Bobby Joe Evens aka BobbyJoe Grant; and 3) acting together with Misty Lynett Brigham; 4) knowingly or intentionally possessed with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled 7substance, cocaine, in an amount ofmore than four grams but less thantwo hundred grams. CR6-7. B. Appellant admitted his guilt to this crime as part ofhis prior testimony in a federal case. There is no reason to doubt the reliability or believability ofAppellant's priortestimony that admitted to the elements ofthis crime. The ce1iified transcript was published to thejury. SE22. Furthermore, the transcripttends to connect Appellant to this offense in that on May 21, 2013 in a co-conspirators federal trial, Appellant testified thatBrigham was his girlfriend and that: Q: Now, inregards to Misty Brigham, back in May of2010, were you
aware that she was stopped with over 200 grams ofcrack cocaine? A: Yes, sir. Q: And whose crack cocaine was that that she was canying on May 26, 2010? A: Itwas mine. Q: Okay. And where was she going withthat crack cocaine, ifyou lmow? A: She was supposed to have been taking it to my nephew. Q: Your nephew, being who? A: Chase Grant. Q: And why was she taking it overto Chase Grant? A: Just to hold it until I getthere to cut it up. 8Q: And where were you leaving from that day? A: I was - we were leaving from a motel. SE29. An additional excerpt from the same testimony was admitted as State's Exhibit 29B. Appellant stated that he continued distributing crack cocaine while incarcerated in the Hunt Countyjailthough Brigham. !d. Appellant also admitted he usedjail calls to direct Brigham and give her instructions onhow to distribute cocaine. !d. Appellant explained how Brigham knew howto distribute cocaine because she hadbeen with him before he was incarcerated. !d. Appellant also made it clear that Brigham knewhis customers, supplier, and drop offlocations as well as what amounts ofdrugs to distribute based onAppellant's directions and being with him whenhe conducted business. SE 29B. A reasonable inference from this testimony shows that Appellant admitted to every element ofthis offense in his prior federal testimony. C. Thejury heard undisputed evidence that this offense occurred on May 26,2010 in Hunt County, Texas and involved both Appellant and his co-actor Misty Brigham. Misty Brigham told thejurythat the offense tookplace onMay 26, 2010 RRS/91-92. Thejury also sawphotos ofAppellant and Brigham showing them loading their vehicles that day before the traffic stop. SE7-10. Thejury also saw photos ofAppellant and Brigham as they encountered officers onMay 26, 2010. SE11-16. Inv. Mitchell also showedthejuryphotos ofthe d1ugs recovered.

9SE17-27. Inv. Mitchell sawAppellant and Brigham at the Best Western motel moving items from a motel room to two vehicles- his truck and Brigham's car. RR5/42- 44. Appellant was following Brigham as they left the motel. RR2/p.45, lines 3-9. When Officer StillwagonerpulledAppellant over for a traffic violation Brigham pulled over as well. RR5/p.47, lines 16-24. Officer Russell Stillwagoner identified Appellant and told them how Brigham was following Appellant on May 26, 2010justpriorto the traffic stop. RR5/26-29. When Stillwagonerpulled Appellant over, Brighampulled in behind him and parked like she was waiting on Appellant. RR5/p.29, lines 11-14. He stopped Appellant less than a mile fi·om the motel. RR5/p.29, lines 15-19. OfficerRobert Pembertonused canine Seko to conduct a sniffofAppellant's truck and Seko hit on both doorhandles ofthe vehicle. RR5/30-31. While officers did not find dtugs in Appellant's ttuck, Brigham did have marijuana in herpossession and handed it overto Inv. Jason Smith at the scene and was arrested. RR5/32-33; 48-49; 78-79. WhenBrigham was atTested, Appellant "aggressively" requested thather vehicle be left in his possession and Brigham agreed. RR5/50-51. D. Evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant and his co-actor Ms. Brigham possessed over four grams but less than two hundred grams ofcocaine with intent to deliver. Onthe way to thejail Brigham was asked ifshe had any other drugs in her
10possession and warned that taking a controlled substance into thejail would result in an additional charge. RR5/51-52. Brighamtold Inv. Mitchell she did not have any other drugs onher but at thejail she immediately said she needed to use the restroom. RR5/52-53. Inv. FeliciaWhite came to search Brighampriorto letting her go to the restroom and Brighamhanded over a halfpound ofcocaine. RR5/53-54; 86-89. Inv. Mitchell explainedhow 187 grams ofcocaine could be broken down and distributed into smaller amounts. RR5/56-57. Brigham lived at the hotel and Appellant stayed withher offand on. RR5/90-91. They were in a relationship from January 2010 on. RR5/103-104. In May, 2010 Appellant was helping Brigham move into his house onPepperpmi. RR5/p.92-93. Brigham was following Appellant on May 26, 2010 when she saw the traffic stop and pulled over. RR5/93-94. Brigham was anested atthe scene for possession ofmarijuana. RR5/94-96. On the way to thejail, Ms. Brigham rode with the investigators who told herthat ifshe had any more contraband she needed to tell them before she took it into thejail and faced an additional charge. RR5/96-97. When they gotto the police department Brigham gave Inv. White the cocaine she had onher. RR5/97-98. Appellant had initially placedthe cocaine in Brigham'spurse butwhen she knew she was going to be anested she tookthe cocaine and hid it on herbody. 

### Id. Brigham thought she couldhide the drugs

11fi·om the officers and not have to give them up so she could give them backto Appellant. RR5/98, lines 6-8, p.107, lines 13-15. Brighamtold thejurythatthe cocaine she had that day belongedto Appellant. RR5/p.98, lines 9-17; pp.116- 117. Brighamtold thejury she was cunentlyincarcerated for a federal drug cocaine conspiracy case and had worked out a deal in her federal case to testify against any co-actors, including Appellant. RR5/114-115. Brigham did not have
a deal regarding any state charges. RR5/114, lines 15-23. Brigham's federal conviction as based on her selling crack cocaine for Appellant. RR5/p.114-116. Brigham started selling drugs for Appellant when he got anested and asked herto "take over where he left off." RR5/116, lines 14-18. Prior to Appellant's atTest, Brigham was with Appellant whenhe sold cocaine or cut it up. RR5/116, lines 19-22. On May 26, 2010 that was the first time Appellanthadher can-y the drugs for him. RR5/117, lines 3-7. Priorto that, she had been with Appellant when he drove to get drugs from his supplier in Dallas. RR5/117-118. Appellanthad several people who sold drugs for him. RR5/118, lines 15-23. She sold drugs for Appellant from the time he was anested until she was taken into custody

- around six months. RR5/118-119; p.123, lines 17-22. When Appellant was injail, he would send her to Dallas to pickup his supply ofcocaine, usually in one hundred
12gram amounts. RR5/119-120. Appellant would then instruct her on howto break the drugs into certain amounts and who to take them too. RR51120-121. Brigham used the proceeds from drug sales to paythe bills while Appellant was injail, to buy more d1ugs, and to distribute moneyto otherpeople at his direction. RR5/122-123. She fmally stopped selling for him in July 2011 when she was caught with 100 grams ofAppellant's cocaine. RR5/125-127. Brighamhas only sold drugs for Appellant. 

### !d. Ms. KianaHenderson, forensic chemist for the D1ug Enforcement Administration crime lab, testifiedthat she tested the drugs recovered in this case and they contained a net weight of 187.3grams ofcocaine base. SE2 & 3. Appellant admitted that Brigham had 14grams ofcrack cocaine that was his
onMay 26, 2010 but claims she had taken it to Campbell to his nephew Chase Grant earlier in the mmning. RR5/134-135. Appellant admitted he helped Brigham move items from herhotel room that morning. RR5/135-136. Appellant
was there on May 26, 2010 when Brigham was arrested. RR5/137, lines 13-16. Appellant also admitted he tookpossession ofBrigham's car when she was arrested. RR5/137-138. Appellant saidhis federal testimony (in SE 29) was that the d1ugs Brighamhadthat day were his- meaning the cocaine he had given to Brigham earlier that mmning to deliver to his nephew. RR5/139k lines 1-24. Appellant claimed that the cocaine Brigham was caught with was another separate
13batch ofcocaine and nothis drugs that he had given her earlier that mmning. RR5/140-141; 187-188. Appellant admitted to his prior convictions. Appellant admitted he was convicted ofthe federal crime ofConspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base

- the same conspiracy where Brigham and 1 7 other co-actors were convicted. State's Exhibit 54. He was convicted of: 1.) Evading arrest with a vehicle enhancedto a second degree in 2008; 2.) Possession ofCocaine- a second degree felony in 1991; 3.) Possession with intentto deliver- a first degree felony in 1989; 4.) Receiving Stolen Property over $750.00; 5.) Escape in 1978; SE 50, 52, 53. State's exhibit 30-jail calls Appellant admitted that he was talking with Brigham inthejail calls admitted as State's Exhibit 30. RR5/150, lines 1-5. Appellant admitted that Brigham was selling drugs for him while he was injail. RR5/150, lines 8-21. Appellant was instructing her to get 63 grams ofcrack cocaine from his supplier and sell it. RR5/150-152. He told her to cookthe cocaine and get itto at least 112 grams. Id. Thejury also heard Appellant'sjail calls to Brigham where he explained how to cut the drugs into smaller amounts for sale and where to deliver
14the drugs. SE30. Inthese calls, thejury also heard Appellanttell Brigham what to do with his income from selling cocaine. 

### Id. At first Appellanttried to claim that Brigham only sold drugs for him for a month inApril 20 11, butthen he changed his story and eventually had to admit she was very involved in his d1ug business during theirrelationship. RRS/160- 180. Appellant admitted the largest amount ofdrugs he bought was 500 grmns of crack cocaine. RRS/170-171. He bought the drugs to sell them. RRS/172, lines 1-4. Appellant admitted that he broke the drugs down into sellable units of3.5 grams, 7 grams, 14 grams, 21 grams and 28 grams. RRS/173, lines 5-9. Appellant also admitted he sold d1ugs but claimed he did not use them. RRS/173, lines 15- 21. The evidence in this case is legally sufficient to prove Appellant guilty ofthe offense as charged; therefore, his conviction shouldbe affinned. 

### STATE'S RESPONSE TO POINTS OF ERROR TWO Appellant received an appropriate sentence based upon the evidence heard at trial by thejuryfor a habitual offender facing 25 years to life. Furthermore, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences after hearing both trials and Appellant's numerous admissions to selling drugs in Hunt County for over two decades. Argument and Authorities
15If

### a defendant is on trial for a third degree felony or higher, and the State proves that he has been finally convicted oftwo prior felonies in sequence, the punishment range increases to twenty-five years to life. TEX. PEN. C. § 

### 12.42(d) (Vernon 2015). First, Appellant admitted to each ofthese priors in his testimony. RR5/142-148. A.) Each of Appellant's prior felonies were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the pen packets as well as judgments offered to show how they were in sequence. 

### The State proved the allegations in each of the enhancement paragraphs through the admission of pen packs and judgements as well as Appellant's admissions. RR5/142-148. SE50, 52-53. Enhancementparagraph one allegedthat
on or about February 22, 1989 in 

### in 354th Judicial District Court ofHunt County, Texas in Cause 15,199 Appellant was finally convicted of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. SE50. The pen pack showed that Appellant received ten years for this first degree felony offense. !d. 

### Enhancement paragraph two alleged that on or about the 6th day ofJanuary, 1987 in 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas in Cause 13,493 Appellant was finally convicted of Theft by Receiving and Concealing Stolen Property over $750.00. SE50. Appellant first received probation in September of 1983 for this third degree felony butwas laterrevoked and sentencedto sevenyears 16

### in prison. 

### I d. Enhancement paragraph three alleged that on or about the 1st day of April, 1993, in the 354th Judicial District Court ofHunt County, Texas in Cause 15,663 Appellant was convicted ofPossession ofControlled Substance, Namely: Cocaine. SE52. Appellant was initially convicted on December 16, 1991 and placed on probationbutthatprobationwas later revoked and hereceived atwentyyear prison sentence for this second degree felony. 

### Id. Enhancement paragraph four alleges that on or about the 30th day ofJune, 1980 in the 196th Judicial District Comi ofHunt County, Texas in Cause 11,805 Appellant was convicted ofEscape. SE53. In 1978, Appellant initially received probation for this third degree felony but was later revoked and sentenced to two years in prison. I

### d. B.) The jury heard ample additional punishment evidence to sentence Appellant to seventy-five years for a habitual offense and the trial court heard ample evidence to justify a cumulative sentence. 

### Inv. Mitchell worked onthe drug conspiracy case fi·om May 26, 2010 through the trial. RR6/p.8, lines 12-14. The conspiracy involved fifty-one individuals. RR6/p.8, lines 17-20. The jury saw a powerpoint prepared by Inv. Mitchell explaining the makeup ofthe drug conspiracy Appellant was involved in. SE57; RR6/8-18. Appellant was the top person involved in the conspiracy in Hunt County, with other co-actors who worked for him. RR6/p.10, lines 1-17. Inv. 17Mitchell went onto explainto thejurythe role ofeach co-conspirator andhowthey worked for Appellant. RR6/10-18. Inv. Mitchell also explained how Appellant continued his drug sales from the Hunt County jail through jail calls to his coconspirators. RR6/15-16. Appellant made over 700 calls in a four month period and aboutthirty-five ofthose calls were offered into evidence. RR6/16, lines 8-22; SE56. Inv. Mitchell toldthejurythat since 1980'swhenhe started as an officer, a "a large percentage, any and everything from pettytheftup into andincludingmurder" ofthe crimes he works are drug-related. RR6/p.22, lines 15-19. Inv. Mitchell also confirmed that use ofcocaine can make someone more violent than they might be otherwise. RR6/pp.22-23. Inv. Mitchell verified that Appellant con·ectly explained the process for conve1iing powder cocaine to crack cocaine in his federal testimony. SE49; RR6/p.23, lines 4-12. He also verifiedthatthe quantities Appellant described inhis federal testimony were similar to the amounts of cocaine sold in Hunt County. RR6/p.23, lines 13-24. Inv. Mitchell also verifiedthatAppellant'stestimony about using nicknames to denote a specific quantity of d1ugs, such as a "vick" were accurate. RR6/23-24. Inv. Mitchell remindedthejurythat Appellant admittedto selling at least four (to five) kilos of cocaine in a seventeen month period from 2010 through 2011.
18SE49; RR6/p.29, lines 1-22. Inv. Mitchell told thejury that from a five kilo stash ofcocaine, approximately 150,000 people could get at least one high. RR6/30-31. One hundred fifty thousand is more than the entire population of Hunt County, Texas. RR6/p.31, lines 15-18. Inv. MitchelltoldthejurythatAppellantmade d1ug deals in the street, at car washes, convenience stores, grocery stores, parking lots

- in a lot ofpublic areas where innocent civilians were around. RR6/p.35, lines 3-18. Thejury also saw multiple photos showing where Appellant did business, and the vehicles he used for d1ug sales. SE 33-38. C.) Appellant's own admissions established a 30 year career selling drugs from marijuana to powder cocaine, to crack cocaine exclusively to the citizens of Hunt County. In addition to the admissions regarding Brigham and his d1ug business, the remainder ofAppellant's testimony from federal court was offered at punishment showing the jury how long he worked as a drug dealer in Hunt County. The additional infonnationthejuryheard from the transcript was: 1.) Appellant's most recent employment included roofing and selling d1ugs in Hunt County, Texas; 2.) at the time ofthe priortestimony, Appellant was incarcerated in federal prison for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base; 3.) his prior criminal history included multiple prison trips for burglary, larceny, d1ug trafficking and escape; 4.) he was distributing drugs in Hunt County, Greenville, Texas and became involved in the sale ofillegal d1ugs in the early to late 80's; 195.) Appellant started out selling marijuana in small quantities but increased the amount overtime and he started selling powder and crack cocaine in 1987 in increasing amounts 6.) He explained howto conve1i powder cocaine to crack cocaine and how 3.5 grams was a typical sell but he also sold in 7 gram amounts and called the 7 gram sell a "Vick" and 28 grams or an ounce called a "cookiejar"; 7.) Appellant toldthejurythat he came up with different codes orniclmames for the amounts ofd1ugs sold; 8.) AppellanttookBrighamwith himto pickup drugs from his supplier in Dallas; 9.) Appellant explainedhowhe wouldbuy large amounts ofd1ugs from his supplier and thenhe wouldbring it backto Greenville and cutthe dn1gs down into smaller amounts to package and sell; 1

0.) he delivered crack cocaine to customers in Greenville at convenience stores in town; 11.) he was stopped after meeting with Robert Lewis Smith (whomhe calls Emory) at a convenience store and had over $1,000.00 seized frmn him; 12.) Appellant specifically talked about his d1ug sales from February 2010 through September 2011; 13.) he identifiedhis house on Pepperport street and identifiedhis truck that he used to deliver drugs on several occasions; 14.) Appellant also testified to how several other co-conspirators from the federal case were tiedto his drug business as either suppliers orpeople who bought drugs from him; 15.) From Feb1uary 2010 through September 2011 Appellant sold at least four (to five) kilos ofcocaine; SE49. Appellant implicates himself as a d1ug dealer who sold cocaine to
20Smith in up to 7 gram amounts during the timeframe to include November 9, 2010 at various convenience stores in Greenville, Hunt County, Texas while driving his truck. Id. The jury heard sufficient evidence to justify the seventy-five year sentence imposed on Appellant as a habitual offender and the trial comihad ample evidence presentedtojustifyconsecutive sentencing inthis case; therefore,Appellant'spoints ofen-or should be denied and his conviction and sentence affinned. CONCLUSIONAND PRAYER FORRELIEF The State prays that the Court will affirm Appellant's sentence. Respectfully submitted,
NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR. District Attorney Hunt County, Texas


### Is/Keli M. Aiken KELI M. AIKEN Assistant District Attorney P. 0. Box441 4th Floor, Hunt County Comihouse Greenville, TX 75403 kaiken@huntcounty.net State BarNo. 240434482 (903) 408-4180 FAX (903) 408-4296

21CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE OF TYPEFACE AND WORD COUNT 

### In accordance with Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure 9.4 (e) and (i), the undersigned attorney or record certifies that Appellants Briefcontains 14-point typeface ofthebody ofthebriefand contains 3.943 words and was prepared on Microsoft Word 2013.

/s/ Keli M. Aiken 

### KELI M. AIKEN First Assistant District Attorney P. 0. 

### Box 441 4th Floor Hunt County Comihouse Greenville, TX 75403 (903) 408-4180 FAX (903) 408-4296 State BarNo. 24043442
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


### A true copy ofthe State's briefhas beenplaced in Elisha Hollis' box in the Hunt County District Clerk's Office, today September 10, 2015, pursuant to local rules.



### Is/Keli M. Aiken 

### KELI M. AIKEN First Assistant District Attmney

22