NO. 07-08 -049 9-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 D DE CE MB ER7, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ EAR NE ST LEE MA RS HA LL, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO. B17 ,64 2-08 05; HON. ED SELF, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

______ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. Ear nestLee Ma rs hal l (a ppel lan t) appeal s h is co nv icti on for poss ess ion of coc ain e. Via thre e issues, he con ten ds tha t the 1) trial court erred byden y ing his motion to supp ress an d 2) e v i de nc e w as i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt hi s c on v i c ti on . W e affi r m. Back ground On M arch 20, 2 008, a s earch w ar ra nt w as ex ecut ed at appel lan t’ s re si dence

. The
search w ar ra nt af

fidav itw as based on n umero us phone c all s t o the pol ic e aboutsu spi ci ous2

ac t ivi t y a tapp ellant ’s residence . Of f icer Ramiro San chez (Sanche z ) set up surveill ance o n t h e h o me . H e o b s e r v e d a l o t o f a c t i v i ty c o mi n g a n d g o i n g w h e re s e v e ra l c a me a n d l e ft
w it hi n a c o u p l e o f m i n u t e s . H e re c o g n i z e d s e v e ra l a s w e l l k n o w n d r u g u s e rs . Sa nchez cont act ed an infor mant he knew w ho w as abl e to setup a dr ug buy from app ell ant. The infor mant purchas ed th e dr ug s and retur ned t o meet w it h the off ic er . He infor med the off ic er thatappel lan t w as in pos se ss io n o f a l arg e q uanti ty

of coc ain e at his home. Fur ther more, Sanc hezl ear ned t hat appel lan t w as the person li v ing at t he resi dence and had c ontrol of same. Sanc hez , t hen, obtai ned t he afore menti oned s earch w ar ra nt. W hen ex ecut ing the w ar ra nt, the o ff ic ers found a ppel lan t i n the bath ro om hol din g i ts doo r s h u t

. H i s g i r l fr i e n d w a s d i s c o v e re d h i d i n g i n t h e b a t h ro o m c l o s e tb e h i n d s om e cl othes

. Fur

th e rm o re , a w hit e bas ebal l cap that appel lan t had been w ear ing ear li er that day w as seen ly ing on the floor of t he bathroom. The off ic er w as abl e to ide nti fy the c ap due t o a d is ti nct iv e mar k o r letter ing o n i ts f ro n t. N ext t o the ca p w as a pi pe of the ty pe used to smo ke crack cocain e, and when an of f icer attem pte d to retrieve the cap , a sma ll
w hit e rock

fell out of its br im. The w hit e ro ck ev entual ly tes ted to be 0.13 g ra ms of co cai ne. No ot h e r dr u gs were fo u n d th a t were co n n e ct e d to a p p e l l a n t. Nor was a la rge am oun t of

mon ey foun d eith er on ap pellan t or in the ho use. Addition a ll y, app ellant ’s gir lf riend te stif ied noto nly tha t the co caine was h ers b ut also tha t app ellanto w ned no ba ll cap. Issu e On e - D eni al o f Mo tiont

o Sup pr ess In his f irst issue, appe llant conten ds tha t the trial court erred by failing to g rant his moti on to su ppress bas ed on the factthatthe search w ar ra nt affidav itw as ins uff ic ien t t o suppo rtthe is suanc e of a search w ar ra nt. T his is so, acc ordin g to appel lan t, becau se the3

informa tion foun d in the w arrant rev eale d “only non -deta iled, inn ocen t activi ty w hich cou ld hav e ( and w as ev en w as [si c]) kn ow n to any one by means of cas ual obs er v ati on.” Furthe rmore , accordin g to ap pellan t, the “corrob orate d informa tion did notrela te to f utu re condu ct. ” H ow ev er , our re v iew of t he re cord shows that at the t ime the S tate offered i nto
ev i d e n c e t h e d r u g s fo u n d , t r i a l c o u n s e l s t a t e d “ n o o bj e c t i o n . ” Th u s , h e w a i v e d any compl ain t on appeal conc er nin g the a dmis si bil ity of the e v ide nce. See Holm es v. State , 248 S. W .3d 1 94, 2 01 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( hol din g that a “defendant w aiv es any com plainton ap pea l concernin g the adm issibility of ev iden ce w hen he af

f irmatively

state s, ‘N o obj ect ion ,’ at the t ime the e v ide nce is offered” ). W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue.

Issu es T

wo&T hr ee - Su ff icien cy o f th e Eviden ce Appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is both l eg all y and factual ly

insuffici ent to l ink him to t he c ocai ne. This i s s o bec ause 1) the ev ide nce w as not i n pl ain v iew , 2) he was n o t u n d e r th e in f lu e n ce of th e na rco ti cs w h e n a r r e st e d , 3 ) he po ss e ss e d no ot h e r dr u gs
w hen ar re ste d, 4)he made no i ncr imi nati ng st atem e nts w hen ar re ste d, 5)he d id not attemptto flee or make anyf urti v e ges tures, 6) the amount of coca ine w as v er y smal l, 7) the re w as no odo r of

contrab and , 8) he did notposse ss larg e sum s of cash no r w as he in
ex cl usi v e pos ses sion of the area w here the co ntraband was found, and 9) hi s g ir lfri end accep ted ow nersh ip of the dru gs. W e disagree an d overrule the issue s. T he sta nda rds by w hich w e revi ew the suf f iciency of

the evidence are w ell est abl is hed. W e refer t he par ti es to Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 99 S.C t. 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1 979) and W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06) for their
ex pla nati on.4

The ev ide nce of rec ord di sc los ed that 1) the house belon g ed to appell ant, 2) dur ing
su rveillance of

the ho use, a num ber of peo ple w ere see n ma king “ min ute ” or v eryshort
v i s i ts t o i t ( w hi c h acti v i ty w as c on s i s te nt w i th th at un de rta k en at a c rac k ho us e) , 3) s om e of the v is it ors were dr ug us ers kn o wn to t h e poli ce, 4) appel lan t had so ld dr ug s t o an off ic er ’s i nformant dur ing a v er y recentco ntroll ed buy

at the house, 5) appe ll ant was found both in the h ouse and in the ro om i n w hic h the dr ug s were l ocat ed, 6 ) appel lan t, w ho w as cl oses t t o the co cai ne ro ck , w as attempt ing to force the b athroom door cl osed as an officer tr ied to enter , 7) the cap appel lan t had been w ear ing ear li er that day co n ta in e d the cocain e, an d 8) tha t cap was discov ered on the bath room f loor next to a crack pipe. The se ind ic ia are more tha n s ome ev ide nce from w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld deduc e, be y ond
reaso n a b le d o u b t , tha t app ellantex ercised care , custo dy, and con trol of the dru g in q uest ion

. W hil e i t may

be t hat a ppel lan t’ s g ir lfri end c lai med ow nershi p of the cont ra band an d sai d appel lan t di d notow n the cap, that si mply created an al ter nate sc enar io and fact is sue for th e j ur

y to cons ide r. F urther more, the jurors were n o t req uired to bel iev e w hat t he female s aid

. Evan s v

. St ate , 202 S.W .3d 158 , 166 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). Upo n consi der ing the w hol e reco rd , w e cannot say thatthe ev ide nce pur por ti ng to cont radict the v erdict ov erw helm s tha t esta blishing guilt. Nor can w e say that the latter is
w eak. C onseq uentl y , w e c oncl ude t hat the v erdict of g uil ty has the suppo rtof both leg al and factu all y

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. The ju dg ment i s a ff ir med. Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.