Appellant wa s also convicted of bail jumping and f

ai lure to appe ar in CR2002-376 (our 1 ca u s e n u mb er

0 3 -0 4 -0 0 0 1 7 -C R) and senten ce d t o t en y ea rs ’ i mp ri s o n m en t , b u th e d o es n o tch al l en ge that c on vic tio n o n a

pp e a l. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-04-00017- CR NO. 03-04-00046- CR NO. 03-04-00047- CR NO. 03-04-00048- CR

Te r r y U llo a, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT

NOS. C R20 02-37 6, CR 2003 -250, C R20 03-25 1 & C R20 03-25 2, HO NORAB LE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Our opinion and judg ments issue d Au g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , are withdrawn, a nd the following opinion is subs tituted.

Appellant Te rry

Ulloa was indicte d for se vera l instances of d rug possession and delivery occur ring on or a b o ut J une 21, Jul y 6, J uly 13, and De cembe r 15, 2000. The jury found 12

appellant guilty

of possession and delivery of marihuana in a drug -fr ee zone on July 13, delivery

of marihuana in a drug -fr ee zone on J uly 6, possession of coca ine and methamphetamine in a drug -fr ee zone on J uly

13, and possession of mar ihuana on De cembe r 15. The jur y found him not guilty

of delivery of marihua

na on June 21. He wa s sentence d to two y ear s’ imprisonment for ea ch count of possession of marihuana , ten y ear s for eac h delivery count, and fifty y ear s eac h for the coca ine and methamphetamine c ounts. He conte nds that the evidenc e is leg ally insufficient to support: (1) the conviction for de livery

of marihua

na on Jul y

6 and Jul y

13; (2) the c onvictio n fo r p o s s es s i on of marihuana on Dec ember 15; a nd (3) the jury ’s finding s of a dr ug -fr ee zone r elated to the July 6 and J uly 13 char g es. As discussed be low, we r ever se the c onviction for mar ihuana possession on De c e mbe r 1 5, 20 00 . We a ff ir m th e re ma ini ngc on vic tio ns . Stand ard of Review I n revie wing the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, we view the e vidence in the light most favora

ble to the ver dict and ask w hether any rational trier of fac t c ould have f ound the essential elements of the offe nse bey ond a rea sonable doubt. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W.3 d 1, 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Ho war

d v . S tat e , 97 2 S. W.2 d 1 21 , 1 24 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 98 , n o p e t.) . T he State may prove the elements of an of fense by circ umstantial evidence
. Ba rn es v . S tat e , 62 S.W .3d 288, 297 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). We dete rmine the suff iciency of t he evidence ba sed on the cumulative e ffe ct of a ll of t h e ev i d en ce. Id . The jury may acc ept or re

ject all or a

ny of the evidenc e pre sented, may

drawrea sonable infe renc es fr om the evidenc e, and must re concile a ny evidentiar y conflicts. Id . at 298.Cause CR2003-251 contai n s gu ilty verdic ts in count I I Iand count IV; count I I Iis for 2 mari hu ana

de liv e ry on July 6 a

nd c ount IV i s f

or de liv e ry on July 13 . In h is s umm ary

of his po int s of er ror, a ppellant states, “T he Evidenc e is L eg ally I nsufficie nt to Support t he Conviction as to Count I I Iin Case Number

CR2003-251,” but h e at t acks the evidenc e supporting count I I Iand count IV. We w ill e xami ne the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s up po rt

bo th c ou nts
. 3 Deliver y of Marihu ana on Ju ly 6 and July 13 Appellant ar g ues that t he evidence is leg ally insufficient to support t he convic tions for de livery

of marihua

na on Jul y

6 and 13. He a sser t s t h at beca use no one sa

w him deliver the 2 drug s on J uly

6, there is no evidence that would allow the jury to find it was he who m ade the delivery . He f

urther contends that neither delivery was made direc tly to the underc over office r, but instead throug h a third par ty , and bec ause he was not a pa rty to the s ubsequent tra

nsfer to the office r, the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly

ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns . Fa c tua l Su mm ar

y I n 200 0, Pe te Ar

ro y o, an und e rc ov e r n arc oti c s o ff ic e r w iththe Com a l Co un ty Sheriff’ s Offic e, beg an buying sma ll quantities of dr ug s from Robert Ortiz. On J une 15, Or tiz was out of marihuana an d as k ed Arroy o to drive him to the west side of Ne w B raunf els to buy more. Ortiz said that Arroyo should drop him off bef ore the actua l destination beca use Arr oy o “couldn’ t g o near the house whe re he wa s b u y i n g” beca use “Te rry” wa s para

noid and did not want anyone parkingin front of his hous e. Ar roy o dropped O rtiz off, and Ortiz walked up a street c alled Peca

n Cor ne r, re tur nin g e mpt y -h and e d b e c a

us e Te rr y wa s n ot h ome . Wh e n th e y c a me ba c k late r t o s e e if Terr y had re turned, Or

tiz pointed to 2870 Pecan Corne r and sa id, “That’s Te rry ’s house.”Appellant wa s orig inally char g ed with delivery of m arihua na on J une 16 as well, but that 3 c h ar g e w a s n o ts u

b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y. 4 On J une 16, Ar

roy o asked if he could get a pound of m arihua na. Ortiz said he could, 3

an d o n J u n e 2 1 , A r

r o yo r e tu r n e d w i t h $ 5 0 0 s u

p p l i e d b y t h e D e p art m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y . A r r o yo dr ov e Or tiz b a c k to the are a

ne ar P e can Co rner and

g a ve Or tiz th e mon e y . A rr oy o w a tc he d O rt iz
wa lk t o a nd fr om t he dr ive wa

y a t 28 70 Pe c an Co rn e r, los ing sig ht of him fo r a bo ut e le ve n mi nu te s. Ortiz returned wi th a bagof marihua na and sa id that the person he g ot the drug s from wa s upset beca use Arr oy o had par

ked too close. On J uly 6, Arroyo ag ain went to buy a pound of ma

rihuana
. He dr ov e Or

tiz to the we st s ide of

tow n a nd dr op pe d h im o ff

on a str e e t ne ar P e c an Co rn e r. Or tiz
was g one for about ten or fifte en minutes and re turned with a ba g of marihua na. Adam Pastrano of the Comal County

Sheriff’ s Offic e wa s perf o rming surveillance , and he r ode by on a bicycle a

nd stopped at a near

by house, all the while obser ving O rtiz’s activities at 2870 Pecan Corne r. Pastrano ha d been sh own a

ph oto g ra phof a pp e lla nt a nd g ive n h is d e sc ri pti on

a s “ a sle nd e r- bu ilt

Hi sp a nic male,” and P astrano saw Ortiz with a short-ha ired man matching the desc ription. At trial, Pastrano
c ou ld n ot b e sure that a pp e lla nt w a s th e man h e saw, bu t he sai d app e lla nt “ ha s th e same appea ranc e.” Pastrano said, “I couldn’t see a fa ce, but the f eatur es we re the re.” Pastrano testified tha t a s o f J u l y 1 3 , a

p p e l l an t h a d s h o rt h a i r , w h i l e h i s b r o t h e r , T o n y U l l o a , h a d h a i r a l m o s t t o his sh ou lde rs . On J uly

13, Arroyo agai n d ro pped Or tiz off ne ar Pec an Corner , and Or tiz returne d with a bagof marihua

na. Two sur

veillance office rs posing as a sur veying c rewsaw Or

tiz approa ch 28 70 Pe c an Cor

ne r, sp e a k to so me on e ins ide , and the n ste p int o the y ard to wa it. Ap pe lla nt c a meRowlette-Ulloa did not w an t to testify ag ainst appellant. She a sserted that she was 4 appellant’ s common-law wife, testify ing that she and appellant dated and lived toge ther on and off , starting in about Fe bruar

y 2000, and throug hout the ir relationship re fer red to e ach other a s husband and wife . After

a hear ing, the trial court deter mined that appellant and Rowlette-Ulloa we re ma rried two day s befor e Thanksg iving in 2000. Up until that point , including June and July 2000, they

wer e datin g and be g inn ing to liv e tog e the r. Th e tr ia l c ourt ru le d th a t Ro wl e tte -U llo a and a pp e lla nt c ou ld not claim the spousal privileg e as to e vents occ urring befor e late N ovember

2000. 5 out of the house a

nd g ave O rtiz a b ag i n ex ch an ge for something. L ater that night, the police executed a se arc h war

rant of the house and f

ound in the back be droom sever al bag s o f marihua na and a g lass jar c ontaining se vera l small plastic bag s of whit e and brownish substances, w hich wer e deter mined to contain coc aine a nd methamphetamine. I

n the same r oom, of

fice rs also found more tha n$ 2 , 0 0 0 , in c lu d in g mo n e y A r r o y o u s e d to b u y th e ma r ih u an a e ar li e r th a t d ay , an d

a w a llet containing appellant’ s driver’ s license a nd social sec urity

car d. I n the bedr oom closet, they found
owner ship papers f

or seve ral ve hicles, all listing appe llant’s addre ss as 2870 Peca n Corner. Appellant and his brothe r, Tony Ulloa, wer e in the living r oom when the police arr ived. Af te r t he se arc h, a

pp e lla nt a nd To ny Ul loa c on te nd e d that it wa s To ny , no t a pp e lla nt, who owned a

nd dealt the dr

ug s. Tony Ulloa testified at tria l that the drug s were his and that it was he who de livered dr

ug s directly to Ortiz. He also said that he lived in the house a nd used the ba ck bedroom exclusively and that appellant did not live in the house. Howeve r, the polic e n ev er deter mined that Tony

Ulloa lived in the house, while re cords led the m to believe appe llant did live there , and seve ral off

icer s testified that Tony

Ulloa see med unce rtain about or w as unable to describe what drug s were found or how the y wer e pac kag e d
. F u

r th e r, F auna Rowle tte-Ulloa, a ppellant’s wife , testified that starting in Febr uary 2000, she fr equently

stay ed at the house with appe l l an t
. She 4 testified that at times she, her son E.R., a ppellant, appellant’ s mother, and Tony Ulloa all had lived6

in th e house. She, E.R., and appellant used the back be droom, appe llant’s mother used the othe r be dr oo m, and sh e did

no t kn owwh e re To ny

sta y e d. Row le tte -U llo a

mov e d o ut o f a

pp e lla nt’ s h ou se at t he end of J un e 2 0 0 0 an d d id n o t r e tu r nu n ti l s o me ti me a f

te r Ju ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 0
. Sh e d id

n o t know
w h a tt h e s l e e p i n g ar

r an g e m e n t s w e r e w h i l e s h e w a s aw ay. Appellant conc edes that the surveillance team saw him deliver the drug s to Ortiz on July 13
. Ho we ve r, be c a

us e Pa str ano did

no t se e the fa c e of

the pe rs on

ha nd ingthe dr

ug s to Or tiz on J uly 6, he ar g ues the e vidence is leg ally insufficient to show it wa s he who made the delivery on that date. We disag ree .

Viewe d in the light most favor able to the verdic t, the evidenc e shows that appellant lived in the hous e at 2870 Pecan Corner, specifica lly in the back bedroom where the police found the drug s and larg e sums of money , including mone y used by Arroyo to purcha se drug s on J uly 13. Ortiz tol d the police that “ Terr y ” wa s his source f

or t he marihuana boug ht by Arroyo. Pastrano saw Ortiz meet with a short-hair ed, slim-built Hispanic man. Appellant’s de fensive a rg ument was that it was his brother Tony , not appellant, who was making the drugdeliverie s to Ortiz. However, Tony Ulloa had longhair in Jul y 2000, and the police watche d appellant make a ver y simil ar de livery

on July 13 . T he jur

y wa s e nti tle d to lis te n to the e vid e nc e and dr aw r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s th e re fr om. See B arnes , 62 S.W .3d at 298. A rea sonable jury could infer that it was appe llant who delivere d the drug s to Ortiz on J uly

6. Appellant next arg ues that bec ause the evidenc e shows he g ave the drug s to Ortiz, not to Arroyo, the evidence is leg ally insufficient to show that he ma de an a ctual tra nsfer to Arroy o. A person c ommits the offense of delivery of marihua

na whe n he knowing ly

or intentionally

deliversActual tra nsfer is defined a s “the manua l transfe r of pr operty from the transfer or to the 5 transfe ree or to the transferee’s age nts or to someone ident i f i ed in law w ith the transferee .” Heb e rli ng

v . S tat e , 8 3 4 S. W. 2 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 4 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 2 )
. Co n s tr u c ti v e tr an sfer

is “the transfe r of a

controlled s u b s t an ce either be longingto the defe ndant or unde r his direc t or indirect control, by

some other pe rson or manne r at the instanc e or dire ctio n o f t he def endant.” Davila v. Sta te , 664 S.W .2d 722, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 7 marihuana . Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.120(a) (West 2003). The indictments a lleg ed that a pp e lla nt “di d th en and

the re int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

de liv e r, by

a c tua l tr ans fe r, to P e te A r r o y o ” le s s th an f

iv e p o u n d s o f ma

r ihuana. See generall

ySim s v . S

tat e , 1 1 7 S. W. 3 d

2 6 7 ( T e x. C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( d i s cu s s i n g an d d i s t i n gu i s h i n g co n s t ru ct i v e a n d ac t u al tra n s fe rs ). T h e c h ar ge

5 instructed the jury

that “deliver ” mea n t the “a ctual tra nsfer from one pe rson to another ” and that appellant c ould be con v i ct ed u n d er the law of pa rties if the off

ense w as committed by

someone appellant soli cited, encoura g ed, directed, or aided in the commi ssion of t he off ense. See Te x. He a lth & Saf ety Code Ann. §§ 481.002 (8 ) (West Supp. 2004-05) (def ining “ deliver” ), .120 (de livery of marihuana ); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 7.02 (West 2003) (law of parties)
. The jury could have found t hat Ortiz acte d either as Arroyo’s age nt or as a ppellant’s “stee rer ,” som eone who solicits business for a drug deale r. Se e Ma ra ble v . S tat e , 85 S.W .3d 287, 2 9 1 & n . 1 1 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( C o c h r an , J
. , c o n c u r r i n g )
. In J u n e , w h e nO rt i z f i r s th a d A r r o yo dri v e him to appellant’s house , he told Arroyo that “Te rry” wa s upset beca use Arr oy o had par

ked too close to the house dur ing the transac tion. When Arroyo asked O rtiz i f he c ould ge t a pound of
mari hu ana , O rt iz c on ta c te d a pp e lla nt a nd a c te d a s th e g o- be tw e e n for the la te r sa le s. Th e jur y c ou ld
re a so na bly have c on c lud e d th a t O rt iz wa s an a g e nt o f A rr oy o o r r e pr e se nte d a nd wa s id e nti fi e d w ith Arroy o. Se e He be rli ng

v . S tat e , 8 3 4 S
. W
. 2 d

3 5 0 , 3 5 3

- 5 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 )
. A l t e r n a t i v e l y,Rowlette-Ulloa g ave the video to the police in Aug ust 2002, when she wa s in a women’s 6 shelter. Although appellant argued at trial that the tape should be protec ted by marital privileg e, the trial court r

uled that Rowlette-Ulloa w aived a ny privileg e by

voluntarily

g iving it to the police. 8 the jury could have found that appe llant assisted in Ortiz’s delivery of the mar ihuana to Ar

roy o and
c o n v ic te d h im a s a p arty
. See M arab le , 85 S.W .3d at 291 (Cochr an, J., concurring ). Whether appellant knew Arroy o in particula r was the i ntended recipient is of no i mportance
. See H eberling , 834 S.W .2d at 353-54. We hold that the evide nce is leg ally sufficie nt to support the c onvictions for delivery of marihua

na on Jul y

6 and Jul y

13 and over

rule a ppellant’s first issue.
Dec em ber 15 P ossession Charge I n his second point of er

ror, a ppellant arg ues t hat t he evidence is insuffic ient to show that he possessed ma

rihuana on or about De cembe r 15. We ag ree . The State introduced i n t o ev i dence a videotape g iven to them in Aug ust 2002 by Rowlette-Ulloa. The tape is labe led, “[E.R.] at Ter ry ’s, X-Ma s 2000.” On the tape, appe llant is seen sta n d in g n e xt to th e s to v e in th e k it c h e n . H e ma k e s s o me jo k in g g e s tu

r e s an d ta lk s to RowletteUlloa as she makes the tape
. Be hind him, several c lear plastic bag s are visible under a cha ir. The 6 bag s appea

r to contain something , but t h e color or texture of the conte nts is not clear. RowletteUlloa asks what the bag s are , and appellant answe rs, “I t’s two sisters, Mary and Jane,” who a

re g oing to make appe llant some money . Serg eant Roge lio Ga rza testified that he be lieved the ba g s contained marihuana . On cross-examination, Gar za said that he did not know the bag s contained ma rihuana
and that th e ba g s w e re ne ve r s e ize d o r t e ste d b y the po lic e to d e te rm ine the ir c on te nts
.9 T h e S tate ar g ues that bec ause G arza thoug ht the bag s contained ma rihuana and beca use “M ary

J ane” is slang f

or marihua

na, the e vidence is leg ally sufficie nt to support the conviction. We disag ree . I n De sh on g v . S tat e , one of the case s cited by the S tate, the police office r’s testimony that he found a

bagcontaining what he believed to be marihuana was suff icient to prove that the substance was in fa ct marihua na. 625 S.W.2d 327, 329-30 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1981). Howeve r, in that case , the offic er a ctually saw the c ontraba

nd in person, and the defe ndant did not challeng e the office r’s abilit y to rec og nize marihuana. Id
. at 330. I n He rn an de z v . S tat e , the cour

t he ld t hat a de fe nd ant’ s st a tem ent to a po lic e of fi c e r t hat a su bs tanc e wa s h e ro in w a s su ff ic ie nt t o prove that the def

endant possesse d heroin. 698 S.W.2d 679, 680 (Tex. C rim. App. 1985). In that
c a se , th e of

fi c e r s aw the de fe nd ant h old inga ne e dle a nd a pa c ke t of tin fo il an d a sk e d w hat it wa s, and the de fenda

nt said it was “stuff.” Id
. Th e def e nd ant a rgue d th a t “ stu ff

” did no t su ff ic ie ntl y prove that the substance w as her oin, but the court noted that the police office r also testified without objection that the defe ndant told him the substance was heroin. Id . The c ourt held that bec ause the d ef en d an t did not object to or cha lleng e that testimony , the def endant’ s statement of fa ct was sufficie nt to support the verdict. Id . at 679-80.

He re , G arza

g a ve his op ini on

a bo ut wh a t he be lie ve d the ba g s c on ta ine d, ba se d o nly
on his vie wi ngof

the vid e ota

pe . H e did

no t se e the su

bs tanc e in p e rs on

and c ou ld n ot s ay

wi th
c e rt a int y that it wa s ma ri hu ana . App e lla

nt c ha lle ng e d G arza

on c ro ss- e xami natio n, re su lti ngin Gar za’s admission that the substance wa s never seized or tested. Neither p ar t y points us to case law dire ctly on point. Appellant states that he conducte d an exhaustive sear ch and did not find a ny case s in which a de fenda nt was convicted of10

dr ug po sse ssi on wh e n the su bs tanc e ha d ne ve r be e n in the State ’s c us tod y a t so me po int . T he State notes that appe llant has not pointed t o au t hority requiringthe State to have a ctually possessed a substance to pr ove it s i d en t i t y . We have f ound sever al ca ses in which a de fenda nt was convic ted without the drug s having been te sted in a l aboratory , but those case s g ener ally involved a police office r’s testimony

that he or she actua lly

viewed, f

elt, o r s m el l ed t he substance in question and believed the su b s t an ce to be contra band. See , e.g. , Deshong , 625 S.W .2d at 329-30 (of fice r d i s c o v e r e d

an d o b s e r v e d c o n t r a b an d h ims e lf ); Os bo ur n v . S tat e , 5 9 S. W. 3 d

8 0 9 , 8 1 2 , 8 1 7 ( T e x. App.—Austin 2001), aff’d , 9 2 S. W. 3 d 5 3 1 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( o f f ic e r w a s tr a in e d

to r e c o g n iz e
mari hu ana

and te sti fi e d th a t su

bs tanc e ha d a

pp e ara nc e and od or of mari hu ana ); Ve ne

ga s v . S tat e , 877 S.W .2d 542, 544 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 1994, no pet.) (of fice r tes t i fi ed that substance smelled, loo ke d, and fe lt l ike mari hu ana ); se e als o R ob e rts v . S tat e , 9 S. W. 3 d

4 6 0 , 4 6 2

- 6 4 ( T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 99 , no p e t.) (d e fe nd ant c on vic te d o f d e liv e ri ngdr ug s to a min or ba se d o n mi no rs ’ testimony that defe ndant g ave the m marihuana , which they had used be fore and knew its effe ct and
re c og nize d it s o do r, and

dis c ov e ry

of sma ll amo un ts of mari hu ana in pla c e s con sis te nt w ithmin or s’ de sc ri pti on s of wh e re dr

ug s we re us e d and hid de n)
. We have fo un d on e c a se in whi ch a j uv e nil e defe ndant was a djudicated de linquent for a dr ugoffe nse whe n the drug s were neve r seized by the p o li c e. S ee In r e L .G. , 728 S.W .2d 939, 943 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) . I n that
case , L .G. and two other j u v en i l es were videotape d “eng ag ing in c onduct consistent with the inge stion of coca ine,” but the powde ry substance w as consumed a nd not rec overe d b y

the police.I n a similar ca se, a defe ndant was convicted of drug possession based on a videotape taken 7 by the police f

rom Conde and Kin g, two people c aug ht with cocaine and drugpara pherna lia and arr est ed fo r d ru g possession. Ke ph ar t v . S

tat e , 8 88 S.W. 2d

82 5, 82 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 1 993), rev’d on other grounds , 8 7 5 S. W. 2 d 3 1 9 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o ld in g th a t vide otape should not have bee n admitt ed into evidenc e). Bu t se e An gle ton v . S tat e , 971 S.W .2d 65, 68-69 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ) ( ho ldi ng that rul e of e vid e nc e 90 1 s ho uld be us e d to de te rm ine a dmi ssi bil ity of vi deotape evidenc e, rather than te st used in Ke ph ar t ). Ki ng te sti fi e d that sh e and Con de we nt t o Kepha rt’s house, that Conde ha d a cle ar pla stic bag of cocaine with him, that Kephart inhale d coca ine, that King made c rac k coca ine on Kepha rt’s stove, and that Kephar t s m o k ed s o m e of the cra ck coc aine. Ke

ph ar t , 888 S.W .2d at 828. The vide otape showe d Kepha rt sitting next to C onde as he he ld a clea

r plastic bagcontaining a white powde r and a lso showed some of the seized drug para pherna lia. Id
. at 829. I n a statement to the police, K ephar t said that other people had snorted coca ine. Id . at 829. The c ourt held that the videota pe and the para

pherna lia corroborated King’s accom plice testimony that appellant ha d used and posse ssed coc aine. Id
. Se e als o H

all v . S tat e , N o . 0 1

- 0 0

- 0 0 9 1 0

- CR , 2 0 0 1 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 78 0 4 , a t * 1 3

- 1 5 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Di s t
. ] Nov. 21, 2001, no pet.) ( not desig nated f or publication). In Ha ll , the defe ndant was c onvicted of e ng ag ing in c riminal activity , including the overt act of deliveringcra ck coca ine. Id . at *5. The delivery was shown throug h a videotape on which Ha ll “demonstrated how to se ll c rac k coca ine to customers.” Id
. at *9. The c ourt held that the State prove d that the substance seen on the video was c ocaine beca use Ha ll and his c ohort admitted on the video that it was c rac k coca ine and corroborating evi d en ce s u pported that conclusion
. Id . at *15. The c orrobor ating e vid e nc e inc lud e d “ te sti mony that [Ha ll] w a s a

me mbe r o f .
. . a

str e e t g angwh os e pr ima

ry purp os e is to sell narcotics for

profit, g uilty

pleas t o possession of coc aine with intent to deliver f rom four oth e r [g ang ] me mbe rs . . ., and oth e r s c e ne s f

ro m th e vid e ota

pe which all ten d to make [Ha ll’ s] admission more likely

than not to be true.” Id
. 11 Id . at 941. We held that the testimony of one of the other juveniles that L .G. told her the substanc e
was c ocaine was dire ct evidenc e that L .G. possessed c ocaine
. Id . at 942-43. 7 I n th is c a se , G arza

vie we d a vid e ota pe , whi c h sho ws pla sti c ba g s und e r a t a ble a c ro ss
a ro om a nd fr om t hat, f or me d a n o pin ion that the su

bs tanc e in t

he ba g s w a s ma

ri hu ana . G arza

did not see the dr

ug s in pe rs o n an d h ad no sensor y information about the substanc e shown in the videotape. See D eshong , 62 5 S. W.2 d at 32 9- 30 ; Os bo ur n , 5 9 S. W.3 d at 81 2; Vene gas , 877 S.W .2d at 544. The vide otape does not show appellant or any one else using the substance c ontained in theA drug -re lated offe nse may be enhanc ed, for example, f rom a state-jail felony to a third- 8 deg ree felony

or fr om a s econd- deg ree to a first-deg ree felony , and punis hment may be incr ease d, for example, the minimum confine ment incre ased by five y ear s and the minimum fine doubled. See Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 481.134(b) -(f ) (West Supp. 2004-05). 12 bag s in a manner

consistent with drug use. See L.G. , 728 S.W .2d at 941. No witness testified that appellant told them that the bag s contained ma rihuana
. See H

ernandez , 6 98 S.W. 2d

a t 67 9- 80 ; L.G. , 728 S.W .2d at 942. The State pr oduced only the videotape, showing bag s appar ently containing
so me un ide nti fi a

ble su bs tanc e , a

nd a pp e lla nt’ s st a te me nt, ma de wh ile he is j ok ingaro un d w ith Rowlette-Ulloa, a

bout “Mary

and J ane.” The State wa s require d to prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that appellant possessed marihuana on or about Dec ember 15, 2000. Although “M ar y an d J an e” might be a

ref ere nce to marihuana , Gar za’s opinion, combined with a st atement that might be a sla ng ref ere nce to mar ihuana, is i n s u ff icient to show be

y on d a re as on ab le do ub t that appellant in fa ct po sse sse d ma

ri hu ana in De c e mbe r. To a llo w a c on vic tio n b a se d o n th is e vid e nc e c ou ld l e a d to absurd r esults. We sustain appellant’s sec ond point of err or. Drug-F ree Zone F ind ings Ap p el l an twa s co n v i ct edo f p o s s es s i o nan d d el i v ery i n a “d ru g-f

re e” z o n e. A d ru grelated offe nse is enhanc ed if it was co m m i t t ed within 1,000 feet of “ premises owne d, rente d, or 8 lease d” by

a school, including a day -ca re c enter , which is define d as a “ chil d-ca re f acility that p r o v id e s c ar e f

o r mo r e th an1 2 c h il dr e nu n d e r 1 4 y e ar s o f

a g e f o r le s s th an2 4 h o u r s a

d ay . ” T e x. Hea lth & Safe ty

Cod e An n . § 4 81.134 (West Supp. 2004-05); Tex. Hum. R es. Code Ann. § 4 2
. 0 0 2 (7 ) (West Supp. 2004-05). The State off ere d evidenc e that the He adstart Prog ram, a n org anization that provides day car e for children betwee n the age s of three and five during the schoolAlthough the se offenses occurr ed in J uly , the statute does not exempt offense s committed 9 during summer vac ations, when c hildren may not be pre sent. See id . § 481.134. Hea dstart stopped operating at 2910 I H-35 a fter the school y ear ended in Ma

y 2003. Appellant as serts that Mault’s testimony showed that he measure d from appe llant’s 10 mailbox to the fenc e, but the record is not so clea r as appellant claims. Mault testified, “With the odometer I

started at the mailbox
. . . and drove to the back door of He adstart two se parate way s.” Mault “ac tually

drove on the streets” and found the distance to be “a littl e bit further .” Mault wa s 13 y ear , operated a f

acility within 1,000 feet of a

ppellant’s h o u s e, an d the jury returne d aff

irmative finding s that appellant ha d in fac t conducted dr ug -re lated ac tiviti es within a drug -fr ee zone. I n his third point of error, a ppellant ar g ues that the jury ’s finding s of a drug -fr ee zone
are not supported by

the evidenc e. He asser

ts that the evidenc e does not show that Hea dstart had a le a se fo r t he fa c ili ty in Jul y 20 00 or that hi s h ou se wa s w ith in 1 ,0 00 fe e t of He a ds tart ’s pr e mis e s. De lia Go me z, who wo rk s for the He a ds tart Pr og ra m, te sti fi e d tha t in June and July of 20 00 , H e a ds tart

op e rate d a

fa c ili ty a t 2910 I H- 35 in N e w B ra un fe ls t hat se rv e d a

bo ut t we nty children. Gomez describe d two photogr aphs introduce d into evidence as showing the building a nd 9 pla y g ro un d o ut o f w hic h H e a ds tart op e ra te d. A s ig n o n th e sid e of the bu ild ing r eads , “ CCSCT Hea dstart Child Development Center .” Mark Mault, investigator for the district attorney ’s offic e, testified that he mea sured the distanc e fr om appellant’s mailbox to the fence line of the chur ch and the Hea dstart fa cility

using a rolling measure , and determined that appe llant’s mailbox was 574 fe et fro m the fe nce. Ma

ult said that “[r] ight be hind the fenc e is the F irst Presby terian Churc h and Hea dstart.” Mault clar ified that immediately behind the fe nce is a

parkinglot, which was used by the churc h an d

H e a d s ta rt. M a u lt “ u n d e r s to o d ” th a t H e a d s ta rt l e a s e d th e f a c il it y f r o m t h e c h urch. Mault also used a digital odometer to mea sure the distanc e fr om appellant’s mailbox to Headstart’s back door and found it to be one -tenth of a mile. 10then asked, “B ut y ou couldn’t go t hroug h the fence. Or could y ou? ” Mault answe red, “ Icould not

g o direc tly

from one point to another , no, sir.” 14 Appell ant arg ues that there was insuffic ient testimony that Hea dstart lease d the fac ility and no evide nce of

exact ly how fa r it was fr om his house to Headstar t’s “lea sehold,” a

nd there fore , the evidenc e is leg ally insufficient to support the drug-f ree zone finding s. We disag ree . Go me z te sti fi e d th a t Head st art op e rate d o ut o f t he bu ild ingin q

ue sti on . M a

ult testified that he be lieved He adstart lea sed the fa cility from t h e church and used the parkinglot immedi at el y b eh i n d the fe nce. Ma ult testified that appellant’s mailbox, which is in front of the house and y ar d , wa s located w ell within 1,000 feet both of the f ence and the ba ckdoor of the Hea dstart fa cility
. Although the State could have been mor e thoroug h in the evidenc e pre sented, we ho ld t hat ba se d on the te sti mony and ph oto g ra ph s of ap pe lla

nt’ s hou se and ma ilb ox, the str e e ts i n qu e s ti o n , an d

th e H e a d s ta

rt f a c il it y , th e ju r y c o u ld h a v e f o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t tha t appellant c ommitt ed the of fense s within a drug -fr ee zone. Se e Y ou ng v . S tat e , 14 S.W .3d 748, 753- 54 (T e x. Cr im
. App . 200 0) (o ff ic e r t e sti fi e d th a t pr e mis e s w e re ow ne d b y sc ho ol a nd that tr a ff ic whee l showed offe nse took place 335 fee t from school; maps wer e also a dmitted showing limits of dr ug -f re e zon e ); Fl ue lle n v . S

tat e , 104 S.W .3d 152, 158-59 (Te x . App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.) (super intendent testified that stadium w as used by school and off

ense took plac e within one block of sta dium) ; W

hit e v . S tat e , 5 9 S. W.3 d 3 68 , 3 69 -3 71 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 01 , p e t. ref ’d) ( measuringwhee l showed off ense took plac e 617 feet from proper ty owned by

churc h, which operated school on same pr emises). The evi d ence is leg ally sufficie nt to show that appellant’s15

possession and deliver

y of drug s to o k p l ac e wi thin 1,000 feet of H eadsta rt’s fa cility

and that Hea dstart lease d the fa cility from the c hurch. We ove rrule a ppellant’s third issue.
Conclusion We h ave overrule d appellant’ s first and third issues on appe al. Howe ver, w e have sustained his se cond issue, holding that the evidenc e is le g ally insufficient to support his conviction for dr ug possession on Dece mber 15, 2000. There fore , we rende r a judgme nt of acquittal as to c ount I Iin trial court ca

use number CR2003-252 (our cause number 03-04- 0 0 048-CR). We affir m the conviction for c ount Iof that ca use (possession of ma

rihuana on J uly 13, 2000) and the convictions in cause numbers CR2002-376, CR2003-250, and CR2003-251.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Af fi rm e d in Part ; Re ve rs e d a

nd Re nd e re d in

Part in C a us e No . 0 3- 04 -0 00 48 -C R Af fi rm e d a s to Ca

us e No s. 03 -0 4- 00 01 7- CR, 03 -0 4- 00 04 6- CR & 03 -0 4- 00 04 7- CR Filed: Oc tober 7, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh