NO. 07-07 -007 4-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 FEB RU ARY21, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RE GIN ALD M IC HA EL M UR PH Y , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 52, 951 -A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Reginald Michael Murph y w as con v icted o f

pos s e s s io n of

a contro lled sub stan ce (cocaine ) in a drug f ree zone. He challen ges that con v iction by conten ding the evidence is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s ust ain hi s c onv icti on bec ause t h e S ta te fail ed toAppel l ant al so cl ai m s t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n de ny i ng h i s m ot i on f ori nst r uct ed v er di ct

. T hi s i s a 1 c h a l l e n g e to th e le g a l s u ff i c i e n c y o f th e e v i d e n c e . W i llia m s v . S ta te , 937 S. W

. 2d 4 79, 482 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ). 2 prov e tha t he ex erci sed act ual care, custod y , control, or managementof the c ontraband. 1 W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Back gr ound On J anuar

y 3 , 2 0 0 6 , around 7:30 a.m., pol ic e off ic ers e x ecut ed a search w ar ra nt for c o c a in e a n d drug paraph erna lia on room 109 at the Sund own M ote l on Am arillo Boul ev ard i n Amar il lo. Ap pel lan t and Ch a stity M adr id w ere named as subj ect s i n the s e a rc h w a r ra n t

. W h e n t h e y e n t e re d t h e ro o m b y u n a n n o u n c e d e n t r y , t h e o ff ic ers found app ellantly ing on the b ed, a nd Madrid sitting in a chair against the wall. Bot h pa rties w ere handc uffed w it hout inc ide nt. O n a mi crow av e w hic h w as si tti ng on a ni g ht s tand, the off ic ers found c ocai ne and marijua na. Al so found in the room w ere raz or bl ades, and $150
on a table and $14 0 in app ellant ’s pocket s in deno min ation s of ten an d tw ent y

dollar bills. Appl ic able Law The st and a rd s o f

r e v iew for l eg al and factu al suffici ency are found i n Jackson v. Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L .E d.2d 560 ( 1979) and W ats on v . St ate, 204 S.W .3d 4 04 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. W e refer t he par ti es to t hose cas es for rev iew

. Next, one may

not be c onv icted o f posse ss ing a c ontrolled subs tanc e unl ess he exercised actua l care, con t ro l, or custod y of it and k new

the matter

w as cont ra band. Poi ndexter v. Sta te, 153 S. W .3d 4 02, 405 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2005)

. Fur ther more, the cour

ts hav e divin e d n u merou s fact ors u seful in deter mini ng w hether the acc used’ s l ink

to the cont raba nd was more t h a n m ere fortuity. Tho ugh notan exclusiv e list, it includes such3

thi ng s a s w hether

1) the acc used w as presentw hen t he s earch w as condu cte d, 2)the cont ra band was pla inl y v is ibl e to thos e present , 3) the dr ug s were near t he defendant, 4) the d efendant w as under the influ ence of the subst ance found, 5) the defendant poss ess ed other co ntraband o r dr ug parapher nal ia w hen ar re ste d, 6)the defendant made any inc ri minat ing st atements , 7) the defendant attempted to flee, 8 ) the d efendant made any furti v e g est ures, 9) the cont ra band e m it ted a recog niz abl e odor at the t ime, 10) othe r c o n t ra b a n d o r d ru g p a ra p h e rn a li a wa s p re s e n t , 1 1 ) t h e d e fe n d a n th a d t h e ri gh tt o e xc lu s ive o r jo in t p oss ess ion of the l ocal e at w hic h the dr ug s were found, 12 ) the p lac e w here the dr ug s were found w as encl osed, 13) the acc used attempt ed to co n ce a l the c ontraband, and 14) the accu sed w as famili ar w it h the ty pe of con traband i nv olv ed. Kyte v . St ate, 944 S.W .2d 2 9, 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1997, no pet .) ; Hur tado v. State, 881 S. W .2d 7 38, 743 n.1 (T ex. App .–Hou ston [1 Dist.] 199 4, pet. ref ’d). T he n um ber of facto rs presentis st not a s i mport ant as the degree to w hic h theytend to li nk the d efendant to the cont ra band. W all ace v. State, 932 S.W .2d 519, 524 (Tex . App.–Ty ler 1995, pet. ref’d)

. Thus, itis t he logical fo rce of

the circum stan tial evi den ce, no t the num ber of links, th at sup ports a jury’s
v erdict. Evan s v

. St ate, 202 S. W .3d 1 58, 1 66 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. T he e v iden ce ad mitt ed a t trial show s: 1 ) ap pellan t w as prese nt in the room w here the drugs w ere foun d, 2) app ellantapp eare d no t to ha v e be en a w aken ed b y the of f icers’ ent ry , 3) app ellantw as in close proximity to th e drugs, 4 ) th e coca ine an d ma rijuana w ere in pla in v iew , 5) appel lan t had money on h im i n denomi nati ons that are freq uentl y us ed to purchas e dr ug s, 6) appel lan t’ s c ar had been ob ser

v ed in front of that p arti cul ar motel room for s ev eral day s pri or

to the e x ecut ion of the s earch w ar ra nt, 7) appel lan t had been in theA p p e lla n t o b j e c te d a t t h e tim e th e s e a r c h w a r r a n t w a s o ff e r e d in to e v i d e n c e o n th e b a s is th a t it 2 cont ai ned hear say . However , t he t r i al cour t ov er r ul ed t he o bjec t i on a nd adm i t t ed t he e v i dence wi t hout l i m i t at i on. T hat r ul i ng h as no t bee n cha l l enged on appea l

. T her ef or e, t he f act s con t ai ne d i n t he se ar ch w a rr a n t m a y b e c o n s i d e re d b y th e fa c tfi n d e r i n i ts d e te rm i n a ti o n . S e e P o in d e x te r v . S ta te , 153 S. W

. 3d 4 02, 4 0 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 4 ro o m o n t e n t o f ift e e n o c c a s io n s a n d a ls o s p e n t t h e n ig h t in it s e ve ra l ti m e s d u ri n g t h e two w eeks thatM adr id had bee n renti ng the ro om, 8) Ma dr id had been sel li ng dr ug s from the ro om and s moki ng mar ij uana w it h peopl e that came to the ro om, 9) the o ff ic ers a nsw ered cal ls on a ce ll phone found in the room and the c alls r e la te d t o t he s oli ci tati on or sa le of drugs, 10) a con f iden tial informa nt to ld the police tha t app ellantand Madrid h ad b een in poss ess ion of

cocai ne in the motel room w it hin 48 h ours o f obtai nin g the search w ar ra nt, 2 11) raz or bla des used for cutti ng dr ug s w ere found in the ro om, and 12)one pol ic e off ic er smel led the odor

of marijua na upon ente ri ng the ro om. Thes e facts are s uff ic ien t t o l ink appel lan t t o the dr ug s and show that he ex erci sed care, cust ody , or control ov er them. See Levar io v. State, 964 S. W .2d 2 90, 294- 95 (Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 1997, no p et.) ( findi ng the li nks su ff ic ien t w hen t he defendant shared th e bedroom, he w as sta ndi ng next to the bed
w hen t he officers entered the ro om, a spoon used to inj ect coc ain e w as on the bed, a s traw w it h a w hit e re si due on it w as on the nig ht sta nd, and mar ij uana was found on a dress er in a c los et)

. W e recognize that ap pellan t of fered an alte rnative the o ry fo r the jury ’s cons ide ra ti on. Ma dr id tes ti fied th at al l of the drug s w ere hers , that s he di d notpl ace them on th e nig ht sta nd unti l after appel lan t w ent t o s lee p, t hat a ppel lan t w as onl y i n the room to ha v e sexual re la t io n s wi t h he r, and th at she did notbelieve he kne w abo ut th e drugs. Mo re ov er , t he ro om w as re nted in Ma dr id’ s n ame and onl y female pe rs onal pos ses si ons w ere found the re . Y et, the j ur y w as not re q uired to bel iev e the tes ti mony of Ma dr id or

the5

other ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, see Evan s v . St ate, 202 S.W .3d 158, 166 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) , and w e c annot say thati ts re sol uti on of the confli cts in the e v ide nce under mines our confide nce in the v erdict. In shor t, the e v ide nce is both l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h.