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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 264 -CR

Je sse Ro dr igu e z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-05 -20 5463 , HO NORAB LE MI CHAEL LY NCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
J esse Rodriguez appea ls hi s c o nv ic ti o n f o r p o s s e s s io n

o f c o c a ine with intent to deliver in an amount g reater than four gr ams but less than two hundre d g rams. See Te x. He a lth& Sa fe ty Code Ann. §§ 481.002(38) , .112(a) (West 2003). After finding an enha

nceme nt char g e to be true , the trial cour

t assessed punishment at fif teen y ear s’ conf

inement. Appellant c o n t en d s t hat the evidenc e at the be nch trial wa s leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to support his conviction in that the evidenc e fa iled to link him to the contra band. Be cause we conclude that the evidenc e wa s sufficient and links appellant to the c ontraba nd, we a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.
F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND F o l l o w i n g an

i n v e s t i g a t i o nb e g i n n i n g i nA u g u s t2 0 0 5 t h a ti n c l u d e d s e v e r a l d ays of surve illance of

a re sidence at 5107 Savore y L ane in Austin, on Oc tober 17, 2005, Michael Mancia s, a nar cotics investig ator with the Te x as De partment of Public S a fety , obtained and e x ecute d2

a sea rch w arr ant for the premises. P rior to the s ear ch, the office rs detained appellant in the par king lot of a loca l gr ocer

y store and t hen tra

nsported him back to the pr emises. Duringthe cour se of the sea rch, of fice rs found c ocaine , marijuana , and drugpara pherna lia in a che st of

draw ers a nd closet in the master b ed ro o m . Eleven ba g s of powder coca ine and one bagof cr ack c ocaine wer e found in the dresse r. Th e of

fi c e rs fo un d a

“ sif te r” fo r mari

jua na , two sc a le s, and a surv e ill anc e mon ito r i n the ma ste r b e dr oo m. M anc ia s te sti fi e d at tr ia l th at he a lso fou nd a g la ss p ipe , o f t

he kin d u se d to smoke marijuana , and a box of i nsulin sy ring es on t he dre sser. The office rs also seized surveillanc e equipment from the pr emises, includ in g a monitor in the ma ster bedr oom and camera s place d outside the house; one c amer a wa s positioned at the front door, a nd another was housed in ple x igla ss in a bir dh ou se in a

tr e e on the pr e mis e s. Following the sea

rch, the office rs place d appellant unde r ar rest. Tests perf

ormed on the dr ug s c on fi rm e d th e ba g s c on ta ine d c oc a ine in a n amou nt e xce e din g fo ur

g ra ms.
AN AL YSI S I n thre e iss ue s, a

pp e lla nt c on tend s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio n. Spe c if ic a lly , a pp ell ant ass e rt s th a t th e State fa ile d to aff irmatively

link him t o the drug s found in the re sidence
. Be cause appe llant was ar rested a way fr om t he pr e mis e s, the ho us e wa s le a se d in ano the r pe rs on ’s name , and oth e r pe rs on s ha d a c c e ss t o the house, a

ppellant urg es th at h e wa s not in ex clusive control of the pre mises, other par

ties had superior links to the contra band, and the links are ther efor e insuffic ient to connec t him to t he3

contra band. Appe llant does not dispute the weig ht a nd composition of the contra band, nor doe s he
c ha lle ng e the se arc h w arr ant.
Stan dard of Revie w

I n r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to sup po rt a c on vic tio n, we vie w a ll the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the verdic t in order to de termine whether any rational trier of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; Ev an s v . S tate , 202 S.W .3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Ha mp ton v . S

tate , 165 S.W .3d 691, 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Appellant contends that a r ational jury c o u ld n o t 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 th a t h e e xe r c is e d c ar e , c u s to dy , c ontrol, or
mana gem en t o ver the coca ine found in the master bedroom of the residenc e bec ause the State’s circ umstantial evidence failed to link him to the contraba nd. Appellant’s suffi ci ency complaint pe rt a ins on ly

to t he e le me nt c on c e rn ingwh e the r h e po sse sse d th e c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e , a nd we lim it our appe llate re view to that issue. Our le g al suffic iency revie w turns on whether enoug h evidenc e
ex i s t edfo r a n y

ra t i o n al fa ctfi n d er

t o fi n d b ey o n d a r ea s o n ab l e d o u b tt h at ap p el l an th adkn o wl ed ge of the pre sence of the c ontraba nd. When revie wing the factual sufficiency of t he evidence to support a convic tion, we view all the evidence in a neutral light, fa voring neither pa

rty
. W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Dr ic ha s v . S tate , 175 S.W .3d 795, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We then
a sk wh e the r t

he e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the c on vic tio n, a lth ou g h le g a lly su ff ic ie nt, is n e ve rt

he le ss s o
weak that the fa ct finder ’s deter mina t i o n is clear ly

wrongand manife stly

unjust or whether conflictingevidenc e so g reatly outweig hs the evidenc e supporting the convic t i o n that the fa ct4

finder’ s deter

mination is manifestly unjust. W atson , 2 04 S.W. 3d

a t 41 4, 41 7; J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W. 3d 1, 12 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). To reverse on groun ds of fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y , w e mus t de te rm ine , w ithso me ob

je c tiv e ba sis in t

he re c or d, that th e g re a t we ig ht a nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of a ll the evidenc e, thoug h leg ally sufficie nt, contradic ts the verdict. W atson , 204 S.W .3d at 417. I n deter mining whether the evidenc e is fac tually insufficient to support a c onviction that is neverthe less supported by leg ally sufficie nt evidence , it is not enoug h that this Court “har bor a subjec tive level of r easona ble doubt to overturn [the] conviction.” Id . We cannot conc lude that
a c on vic tio n is c le arl y wr on g or manif e stl y un jus t sim ply be c a us e we wo uld

have de c ide d d if

fe re ntl y t h an the fa ct finder

or bec ause w e disag ree with the fac t finder’ s resolution of a c onflict in the evidenc e. Id . We ma

y not simply substitut e our judgme nt f or the fac t f

inder’s. Johnson , 23 S.W .3d
a t 13 ; Cai n v . S

tate , 9 58 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). Un le ss t he re c or d c le arl y

re ve a ls that a diffe rent result is appropr iate, we must defe r to the fa ct finder ’s deter mination of the weig ht to be g iven contra dictory testimonial evidenc e because resolution of the c onflict “ofte n turns on an evaluation of cre dibilit y

and deme anor, and [the fac t finder wa s] i n attendanc e whe n the testimony was de livered.” Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 18. Thus, we must g ive due de fer ence to the fact finder ’s deter minations, “particular ly

those deter

mina t i ons conce rning the weig ht and cr edibility of the evidenc e.” Id . at 20. The Existence of Links

For the State to obtain a convic tion for possession with intent to deliver, it wa s require d to p r o v e th a t a

p p e ll an t ( i) e xe r c is e d

c ar e , c u s to dy , c o n tr o l, o r ma n a g e me n t o v e r

the controlled substanc e; (ii) intended to de liver the controlled substance to a nother; and ( iii) knew that5

the substance in his p o s s es s i o n was a controlled substanc e. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 48 1. 00 2( 38 ), .1 12 (a ); Po ind e x te r v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); King

v . S tate , 89 5 S.W. 2d 70 1, 70 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Ro be rso n v . S tate , 80 S.W .3d 730, 734-35 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2002, pet. re f’d)
. When the acc used is not in exclusive possession of the plac e whe re the substance is found, his knowle dg e of a nd control over

the contra

band ca nnot be esta blished unless there a

re a dditional independent fac ts and circ umstances whic h link him t o the contra band. Poindexte r , 153 S.W. 3d a t 40 6; see also Ev ans , 202 S.W .3d at 161-62. Whether the State ’s e vid e nc e lin kin g a de fe nd ant to the c on tr a ba nd in q ue sti on is d ir e c t or

c ir c ums tanti a l, i t mu st establish, “to the requisite level of confide nce, that the acc used’s connec tion with the drugwas more than just fortuitous.” Poindexte r , 1 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d at 4 0 5 -0 6 (c i t i n g Br own v . S tate , 911 S.W .2d 744, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)). The forc e of these links ne ed not be such as to e x clude ever y o t h er alternative hy

pothesis except the defe ndant’s guilt. Br own , 911 S.W .2d at 748. I nvestig ator Manc ias testified that beg inning in August 2005, he observe d appellant
on sever al occa sions e x it the residenc e at 5107 Savorey L ane during ear ly morning hours. Also on these oc casions, he obse rved a red pickup truck parke d in front of the house and sawappellant de part the re sidence in the truck. The red pickup truck was re g istered in appe llant’s name. Af ter a ppellant
was observe d at the residenc e on the morning of the sear ch, he le ft the re sidence in the red pic kup. A fe w minutes later, the office rs observe d a white van back into the drivewa y of the re sidence . The
oc c u p an t s , w h o w a i t e d o u t s i d e i n t h e v an , w e r e l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s Jo h n n y G u an a an d T an y a de la Santos. The white van ha d been obse rved in a n ear lier surveillance at the residenc e and w as included in the sear ch wa

rra nt. Neit h er Gu ana nor de la Santos ente red the residenc e bef ore the y wer e6

d e t a i n e d b y t h e o f

f i c e r s f o r t h e d u r a t i o no f

t h e s e ar c h o f

t h e r e s i d e n c e . T h e y a

p p e ar e d s l e e p y, incoher ent, and under the influence of some substance, “possibly a depre ssant-ty pe nar cotic.” I

n a
sear ch of the van, the office rs found a handgun and a mache te. De la Santos w as in possession of
a cr ack pipe . Guana

appea red to be living in the van. Neither Guana nor de la Santos w ere arr ested. Appellant wa s detain ed i nside the house dur ing the execution of the sea rch. H e aler ted Mancia s that he was diabetic and neede d insulin, which he kept in the re fr i g erator. Prescr iption medicine in appellant’s name was found i n the m aster bedroom. The of fice rs also found a box of insulin sy

ring es in the closet of the master bedroom. Coca ine, marijuana , and sca les wer e also found in the master

bedroom. A g lass pipe was f ound on the top of the dre sser. I n the s ame dresser drawe r as the c ocaine , Mancia s found seve ral doc uments linking appellant to the Savor ey L ane r esidenc e. The documents included pe rsonal cor responde nce addre ssed to appellant at the S avore y L ane r esidenc e and a

photogr aph of a

ppellant with a fe male. Another le tter date d 2003 was a ddresse d to appellant at a differ ent addr ess, 506 Tillery Street. Other paper s in a

ppellant’s name found in the draw er with the drug s included a sur ety bond rec eipt naming th e ap p el l ant and his attorney , a re ceipt for repa ir from a

n elec tronics store, a

nd a re ceipt for

the purc ha se of

tir e s. Manc ia s te sti fi e d a

bo ut t he ite ms d e mon str a tin g a pp e llant’ s d ist

ri bu tio n b us ine ss, including a

box containing lists of telephone numbers, the packa g ing of the indiv i d u al l y

wra pped bag s of measur ed cocai n e, scale s, and ca mera s and monitoring e quipment found in the house and y ard. Ma

ncias t es t i fi ed that surveillance equipment and monitors ar e commonly used by drug deale rs to aler

t occup an t s t o law enf

orce ment and for

protec tion ag ainst “drugrip-off s by other7

persons.” Mancia s observe d that there wer e three larg e dog s in the y ard of the re sidence and that two appea red to be ag g ressive. As the sea rch w as beingconducte d inside the house, appellant was taken outside. At
on e po int , a

c ar d ro ve up to t

he re sid e nc e , a

nd a man e xite d th e ve hic le and a pp ro a c he d a

pp e lla nt. They made ey e contact and beg an to speak. W hen appe llant raised his handc uffe d arms to make the cuff s visible, the “individual abruptly ended the conver sation, g ot back in his ca r and le ft.” The re sidence at 5 1 0 7 S avore y L ane ha d three bedrooms, including a master bedroom. The leasingag ent for the Savorey L ane house tes t i fi ed t h at Mary Rodrigue z leased the house beg inning in 1994. She had also signe d the re cent lea se cove ring the per iod from August 2004 throug h J uly

2005. The utilit ies wer e listed in the name of Mary Elias, who the ag ent identified a s the same pe rson as Mar

y Rodrigue z. On Mary Rodrigue z’s application to rent the house , she stated that her six children would live at the re sidence
. The ag ent had see n appellant at the residenc e but did not know if he lived there
.

Mary Elias testified on appe llant’s behalf that she had be en mar

ried to the a

ppellant for twe lve y ear s and that he w ould stay with he r “off and on,” but that he had g irlfriends. He kept his medications and some clothes at the house and Elias would wash his clothes “ and put them up.” When he stay ed at the house , he would stay in the m as t er b ed room with her. B ut she testified, appellant did not live at the house . Elias was not aw are of any drug s and did not know wher e they
c a me fr om. El ia s te sti fi e d that Gua na and de la Santo s had sp e nt s ome tim e in h e r b e dr oo m on a date sh e c ou ld n ot r e c a ll.8 Appellant’s sister te stified that M ar y Elias and appe llant were marrie d but that he lived at her

house on Tillery

Street and that he re ceive d mail at that addre ss. She acknowle dg ed that appellant sometimes spent time and sometimes spent the nig ht at the Savore y L ane house
. John ny Gu ana te sti fi e d th a t h e w a s o n

p r o b a t i o n fo r p os se ssi on

of c oc a ine in C a ldw e ll County . Although the white van be longe d to him, it was not in hi s name. He would drive the va n to 5107 Savorey L ane, beca use “[ he] was handy

man for the people who lived the re.” He testified that he wor

ked for appellant’ s company . Guana also testified that he w ould some times stay at the ho us e , b ut t

hat he sp e nt t

he nig ht in his van. He a c kn ow le dg e d that he ha d be e n in the ho us e wi th de la Santos, but denied that they had been i n the m aster bedroom. He knew a ppellant to live at the residenc e an d t h at is where Guana repor ted for w ork and r ece ived his job assignme nts from appellant. Gua

na had ne ver me t with appellant at the Tillery addre ss. Guana acknow ledg ed that he and de la Santos had bee n under the influence of drug s on the day of the sea

rch. The State introduce d other e vidence linking appe llant to the Savorey L ane hou se over a ten- y ear

period of time. A de tective with the Austin P olice De partment testified that he encounte red a

ppellant at the Savor ey

L ane r esidenc e in the cour se of his duties on October 31, 1995. Appellant wa s in the hous e with another male indi vidual who di d not reside at the hous e. On another
occa sion, on the m orning of Decembe r 17, 2005, a poli ce office r was dispatched to 5107 Savore y L ane in r esponse to a call that appellant’ s red pickup truck, whic h was pa rked in fr ont of the house, ha d b e e n d a ma g e d b y

tw o me n. I n r e sp on se to t he of fi c e r’ s q ue sti on s f

or the of fense re po rt , appellant r eporte d his address a s 5107 Savorey L ane. He told the officers the me n had bee n driving9

by his home for at le ast a month, including on one oc casion whe n appellant wa s stringingChristmas lights on his house.

We conclude that the logic al forc e fr om the totality of the links, including the pro xim it y o f d o c u me n ts an d me d ic in e b e lo n g in g to th e a p p e ll an t to th e c o n tr a

b an d an d the other dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia in the ma ste r b e dr oo m, i s su ff ic ie nt f or a ratio na l f a c t f ind e r t o li nk

a pp e lla nt t o the contra band in the bedr oom. A rational fa ct finder could have found the e lement of possession bey ond a re asonable doubt. See J ackson , 4 43 U. S. at 31 8- 19 ; Swe ar inge n v. Sta te , 101 S.W .3d 89, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

As to fac tual s u ff

i ciency , the fa ct finder

rea sonably

could have found that the packa g ed coc aine located nea r items belong ing to a

ppellant in the master bedroom along with the scale s and surve illance e quipment in the same room link him to the contraba n d
. Appellant’s
c on te nti on

that ot he r p e op le we re in t

he ho me and ha d a c c e ss to the pr e mis e s do e s n ot n e c e ssa ri ly lead to the conclusion that appellant did not ex erc ise ca re, c ustody , control, or mana g ement over the
coca ine found in the bedroom of the residenc e. At most, this evidence sug g ests that appellant may not have had exclusive control or possession of the contraba nd. Se e Ce da no v . S

tate , 24 S.W .3d 406, 412 (Tex. A

pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Possession of a c ontrolled substance , howeve r, need not be exclusive to constitut e a violation of the law. Ma rti n v . S tate , 75 3 S.W .2d 384, 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

The recor d in this case contains ample evidenc e to l ink appellant to the re sidence and the c on tr a ba nd fo un d in the re sid e nc e . T he c ourt ob se rv e d that eve n a de fe ns e wi tne ss r e fe rr e d to the Savore y

L ane a ddress a s appellant’s “ place ” on one occa sion. The re lative probative value of10

a ll the a bo ve e vid e nc e , inc lud ingthe c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s, wa s a sse sse d b y the tr ia l ju dg e in
rea ching his ve rd i ct
. When the trial judg e found a ppellant g uilty , he expressed his view tha t the evidenc e wa s probative and sufficie nt to support his finding
. The trial judge r ecounte d the evidenc e
u p o nwh i ch h e r el i ed , i n cl u d i n g:
the came ras and the way the came ras wer e place d, the way they wer e conne cted, the monitors or monitor of the camera s, the i tems found i n the m aster bedroom and the dr e sse r d ra we r, inc lud ingpe rs on a l pa pe rs , d ru g s, sc a le s in the c los e t, tog e the r w ith the insulin box , the m any contac ts people had with the defendant at that addre ss over the y ear s, in c lu d in g s u r

v e il la n c e a s r e c e n t a s th a t m o r n in g , [an d ] a ll th e o th er c on ta c ts.
We c annot rew eig h the evidenc e. See W atson , 204 S.W .3d at 417. We conclude that
a rational fac t finder c ould have f ound bey ond a reasonable doubt that the evidenc e linked appe llant to the contra

band. We also conc lude that the ver dict is no t s o against t he g reat weig ht and pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e a s to be manif e stl y un jus t, a nd pr oo f o f guil t is no t so weak a s to undermine c onfidenc e in the fa ct finder ’s deter mination. W e therefor e hold that the evidenc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt.
CO NC LU SION We overrule appellant’ s issues and af firm the judg ment of convic tion.11 __________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

8, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh