NO. 07-07 -014 9-CR NO. 07-07 -015 0-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 TOBER23, 2007

_________

_________

_________

__ CH AR LES RAY

H ALL, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NOS. 54 ,21 8-D & 54,2 19-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

_____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Ch a rl e s Ra y Ha ll a p p e a ls h is c o n vic t io n s fo r u n la wf u ll y p o s s e s s in g a f ir e a rm b y a felon and pos ses si ng a prohi bit ed w eapon. Vi a ei g ht i ss ues, he co n te n d s that the
ev ide nce is leg all y and factual ly ins uff ic ien t to suppo rt both conv icti ons. W e di sag re e and affi r m. Back ground Lieu ten ant Martin B irkenfeld of the Amar il lo Pol ic e D epar tment tes ti fied th at on August 19 , 200 6, arou nd 3 :10 in the m orning, he h eard a “couple of pop ping soun ds” w hich2

he w as unabl e to ide nti fy. Thereafter, he s low ly drov e towards the a re a from w hic h the sounds c ame. As he di d s o, he heard one more “p op” and ev entual ly obs er v ed four ind iv idu als w alk ing dow n the street from w here he th oug ht t he s ounds emanate d. The four ind iv idu als sa w

Bi rk enfeld an d beg an w alk ing “ the o th e r w ay ”; thi s c aused the off ic er to
w atc h the m. E v entual ly , he saw one w it h a “weapon o f some ty pe,” note d tha t “ itl ooked li ke a l ong g un. . . ,” ca ll ed for back -u p, an d k ept fol low ing them w it h his li g hts train ed on t h e g ro u p . U p o n re a l i z i n g t h a tt h e w e a p o n b e i n g c a r r i e d w a s “ d efini tel y. . . a s a w e d
- o ff shot gun,” the o f

f icer activ ate d his em ergency lig hts an d siren. At tha t poin t, the indiv idua ls began running. Birkenfeld no ted thatthe pe rson carry ing th e shot gun w as “w earing a dark shi rt , probabl y

dar k b lue , and i t had l arg e w hit e l etters o n the bac k.” The l etter ing m ade iteas y to desc ri be th e s hir

t, acc ordin g to the o ff ic er . Th e gro u p s p lit up w it h the person car ry ing the shot g un r unni ng i n a d irect ion different than the o thers. Bi rk enfeld foll ow ed hi m unti l the s uspect was los t i n an apar tment compl ex . Appel lan t was soon di sc ov ered byother off ic ers h idi ng behi nd a bush in an al ley by the apa rt m e n t co m ple x . Upo n s eei ng the detai nee, Bi rk enfeld i denti fied hi m as the person w it h the g un. This i denti ficat ion w as re it erated at t ri al. A saw ed- off sh otg un w as also foun d ly ing i n w eed s w ithin f iv e to te n feetof where app ellantwas arrested a nd wi thin the a ll ey w herein appel lan t ran. At t ri al, appel lan t attempted to di sc re ditBi rk enfeld’ s t e st im ony by focusi ng on t he fact th at t he officer

di d notkn ow

w hat t he ot her

thre e i n d ivi dual s were w ear ing and, therefore, mayhav e c onfused app ell ant w it h one of the others. So too was itof impor t t o appel lan t t hat h is fing er pr int s were notfound on t he w eapon. Appel lan t al so tr ied to show that someone other

than he c oul d ha ve b e e n t h e person w ho actual ly had the g un.3

Des pit e thi s, Bi rk enfeld reit erated that he w as not mis tak en i n i denti fyi ng appel lan t as the “o ne w ho w as car ry ing the ri fle [s ic].” T estif y ing on his ow n be half , app ellantsaid tha t he had b een a t hom e in the early hours o f A u gus t 19 but some fr ien ds had c ome by and ask ed hi m to a ttend a pa rty . In th fact, tw o par

ti es w ere occ ur ri ng at different ends of his apar tment compl ex . He atten ded the o ne th at was cl oses t t o hi s a par tment and drank beer

for a bout two hours. At t he ti me, he p ur po rte dl y

o bs er v ed a n i nd i v i du al i n po s s es s i on o f w ha t he b el i ev ed t o be a fi rea r m, ev en th oug h he w as not s ure w hat the obj ect w as. O nce the p oli ce showed up ev er y one scatte red. Accord ing to appe llant, h e ran be cause he ha d be en in trou ble w ith the police before a nd had been dr ink ing

. He als o deni ed pos ses si ng the fire ar m. The defense al so cal led Ver non R ay nard Anderson, w ho tes ti fied th at he w as w it h appel lan t t he ni g ht of the i nci dent and di d notobs er v e appel lan t c ar ry ing a g un. Y et, he ackno w ledged th at he lef t the party arou nd m idnight and w as not prese nt w hen the police
ar ri v ed. Issu es On e - Eight - L egal an d Factual

Su ff icien cy Throug h hi s e ig ht is sues , appell ant conte nds that the ev ide nce w as both leg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o 1) prov e he ex erci sed care, cus tody or cont ro l ov er the w eapon o r 2) aff ir mati v ely

l ink hi m to t he w eapon. W e ov er ru le the i ss ues. Standa rd

of Rev iew The appl ic abl e s tandards of rev iew ca n be found in Clewis

v. Sta te , 922 S.W .2d 1 26 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) , Evan s v . St ate , 202 S.W .3d 1 58 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 06) , and W ats on v . St ate , 20 4 S. W .3 d 40 4 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp . 20 06 )

. W e refe r t he p ar ti es t o th em .4

Next, i n esta blishing posse ssion, we use the sam e me tho dolo gy used to esta blish g uil t for poss ess ing co ntroll ed s ubst ances . Ngu yen v. State , 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 9 , 5 2 -5 3 (T e x. App.–Tex ar kana 2001, pet. re f'd). Thus, the Stat e must show that the acc used 1) exercised actua l care, cont rol, or custod y ov er the f ir e a rm , 2) w as con scious of his
conne cti on w it h it , and (3 ) poss ess ed the fire ar m know ingly or in tentional ly

. Id

. citi ng , Br own v. Sta te , 911 S.W .2d 744 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95). The record before us contai ns ey ew it ness testi mony i denti fyi ng appel lan t as the one
w ho p ossesse d an d ran w ith the shotgun . W het her to b elieve it was up to th e factf inde r. But, i f beli ev ed, i t prov ide d s ome ev ide nce upon w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld co ncl ude, bey ond reason abl e doubt , t hat a ppel lan t i ntent ion all y or know ing ly

posses sed the weapon. T o the exten t app ellantand othe rs ga ve t e stimo ny tha t cont radicte d Birkenfeld’s,
w e ag ain note thati t was the jur y ’s prerog ati v e to choos e w ho to bel iev e. Mo re ov er , ot her
ev ide nce suc h as appel lan t’ s e ffort t o flee and hi de as w ell as the prox imi ty between t he shot gun’s location a n d a p p e lla nt’s place of arrest lend f urthe r crede nce to the of f icer’s ide nti ficat ion of appel lan t as the poss ess or . In s um, v iew ing al l the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict l eads us to c oncl ude t hat b oth v erdicts enj oy ed th e s uppor t of l eg all y

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. An d thoug h the ev ide nce w as cont ra dictor y , t he v erdicts w ere notagai nstthe g re at weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of

the evidence nor clearly w rong or ma nifestly unju st. So, th ey too w ere suppo rt ed by

factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial co urt. Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.