chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable
doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship,
l2 397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L.Ed.2d 368(1970); Lasterv.
state,275s.w.3d 5r2,517 (Tex.crim. App. 2009);williamsv. state,235
S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the
verdict,the evidenceis insufficientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno
evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the
offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes a reasonable doubt.Laster
v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This standard appliesequallyto both directand
circumstantial evidence. King v. State,895S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App.
1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.]
20l0,pet.refd).
A personcommitsthe offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence(as
specificallychargedin the indicfinent)if, knowingthat an offensehad been
committed,alter or destroya thing, namelycocaine,with intentto impair its
investigationof or official proceeding verity as evidencein any subsequent
relatedto theoffense.(CR9); Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(dX1).
In this case,the evidenceis insufficientto supporta convictionfor
tamperingwith physicalevidencesincethere is no evidencethat appellant
actually alteredor destroyedthe cocainethat was found in the toilet. The
indictment and the jury charge in this case did not allege that appellant
concealedthe evidence,one of the methodsin which one could committhe
offense under$ 37.09(d)(1); (CR9,39-43).The andthejury charge indictment
only allegedthat appellantalteredor destroyedthe physicalevidence.(CR 9).
Therefore,the Courtof Appealserredin finding (1) that "the jury couldhave
foundthat [appellant]"conceal[ed]"the evidence,(2)that "thejury couldhave
reasonablyinferred that appellantconcealedthe cocainethat the officers
recoveredfrom the toilet, and (3) that "the jury couldhavereasonablyfound
that appellantconcealed...cocaine." Gordwinv. State,No. 01-14-00343-CR
pgs. 8-10. The jury was not authorizedto (April 30, 2015,unpublished),
convictunderthetheorythatappellant"concealed"the evidence.
The only evidencethat was presentedto the jury was that appellant
flushedthe toilet thatcontainedthe baggieof cocainethatwasput thereby the
co-defendant. Thereis no evidencethatthe physicalevidencewaseveraltered
or destroyed.In fact, sincethe cocainewas inside a plastic baggie,it was
shownthat the cocainewasnot alteredat all. Furthermore.sincethe cocaine
wasretrievedby the police,the evidencewasnot destroyedin anyway.In this
case,the most that the Statecould prove was that appellantcommittedthe
offenseof attemptedtamperingwith physicalevidence.However,sincethe
elementsof tamperingwith physicalevidencewerenot provenby the State,
appellantrequeststhat this Courtacquithim of the offenseof tamperingwith
physicalevidence.
I4 Conclusionand Praver
Appellantpraysthatthis HonorableCourtgrantAppellant'sPetitionfor
Discretionary Review,reversethe decisionof the Courtof Appeals,andacquit
appellantin eachcause.
Respectfu lly Submitted,
lsl Jerald Graber
JeraldK. Graber 917Franklin, Suite510 Houston, Texas77002 713-224-2323 Attorneyfor Appellant
Certificateof Compliance
I, JeraldK. Graber,do certify that this petition is in compliancewith
Rule 9 sincethe entiredocumentconsistsof 2,250wordsand is typedusing
14-pointfont.
lsl Jerald Graber
JeraldK. Graber
Certificateof Service
I herebycertiff that a copy of this PDR was serveduponthe followiirg
partiesvia e-file:
Alan Curry Hanis CountyDistrictAttomey'sOffice 1201Franklin.6* Floor Houston,TX'77002
StateProsecutingAttorney P.O.Box 12405 Austin,Texas 787L1
lsl Jerald Graber
JeraldK. Graber
I6 Opinion issuedApril30, 2015
In The
6ourtof9ppeEls For The
fritstDfstrictof@exug
NO. 0l-14-00343-CR NO. 0l-14-00344-CR
DAMION CORNELIUS GORDWIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS,Appeilee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris CountyoTexas Trial Court CaseNos. 1397495& t3gi4g6 MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury foundappellant,DamionCorneliusGordwin,guilty of the offensesof tamperingwith physical evidencerand possessionof a controlled substance, namely cocaine,weighing less than one gram.t It assessed his punishmentat confinementfor threeyearsfor tamperingwith physicalevidenceand confinement
for two yearsfor possessionof a controlledsubstance,with the sentences to run concuffently. In threeissues,appellantcontendsthat the evidenceis insufficient to support his convictions and the trial court erred in entering a deadly weapon
finding in itsjudgment.
We affirm.
Background
HoustonPolice Department("FIPD") Officer M. Santuariotestifiedthat on
August 9,2013, while working in the IIPD NarcoticsDivision, he and otherlaw
enforcementofficers "serve[d] and execute[d]a fno knock] searchwarrant,,at a residence.