PD-0527-15 & PD-0528-15 PD-0527&0528-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/6/2015 3:16:27 PM Accepted 5/7/2015 1:05:02 PM ABEL ACOSTA No. CLERK
IN THE
TEXAS COTJRTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Nos.01-14-00343-CR and 01-14-00344-CR
In theFirstCourtof Appeals ofTexas
Damion CorneliusGordwin, Appellant
V.
The State of Texas, Appellee
Appellant's AmendedPetitionfor DiscretionaryReview
JeraldK. Graber TSB # 08240320 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 May 7, 2015 Tel.713-224-232  Attomey for Appellant StatementRegarding Oral Argument
Appellant waives oral argument. IDENTITY OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 68.a(a),the followingpersonsareinterested
parties:
Appellant
Mr. DamionGordwin CountyJail 1200BakerSt. Houston,TX 77002
Trial Judse
TheHonorableKatherineCabaniss 248kDistict Court 1201Franklin Houston,Texas77002
Attomeysfor State
Ms. Molly Wurzer(in trial) Mr. Alan Curry (on appeal) Haris CountyDA's Office 1201Franklin,6* Floor Houston,Texas77002
Attorneyfor Appellant
Mr. JamesSims(in trial)
Mr. JeraldK. Graber(on appeal) 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 Table of Contents
Page
STATEMENTREGARDINGORAL ARGUMENT 2
IDENTIry OF INTERESTEDPARTIES a J
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENTOF THE CASE 7
STATEMENTOF PROCEDURALHISTORY 8
APPELLANT'SGROUNDSFORREVIEW 8
REASONFOR REVIEWING GROUNDFOR REVIEW 8
ARGUMENT 9
CONCLUSIONandPRAYERFORRELIEF 15
CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE 15
CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE T6 Index of Authorities
Cases page
Broolrs v. State, 323 S.W.3d893,895(Tex.Crim. App. 2010) IO,12
Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 11, 13 20l0,pet. refd)
Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 11
Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830 (Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist.] 2001,pet. refd) 11
In re Winship, 397U.S.359,361,g0S.ct. 1069, 107r, 10,13 2sL.Ed.2d368(1970)
Jaclrsonv. Virginia, 443U.S.307,99 S. Ct. 278t, 6r L.Ed.2d 560,(1979) r0, 12
King v. State, 895 S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995) 11,13
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim. App. 2009) 10, 13
Poindexter v. State, 153S.W.3d402,405(Tex.Crim. App. 2005) 11
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d742,750(Tex.Crim.App. 2007) 10, 13 Statutes.Codesand Rules
Tex.Health& SafetyCodeg 481.002(38) 11
Tex.Pen.Codeg 1.07(a)(39) 11
Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(d)(1) 13
Tex.R. App.Proc.66.3(c) and(f) 8 To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals:
Statementof the Case
Appellant was chargedby indictmentwith the felony offensesof
tamperingwith physicalevidencein causenumber1397495andpossession of
a controlledsubstancein causenumber 1397496.(CR 9, 9)'. Appellant
entereda pleaof not guilty andthe casesweretriedbeforea jury. (RR III 10).
The jury found appellantguilty of both charges.(RR III L7I-I72). After a
hearing,thejury sentenced sentencing appellantto threeyearsin prisonon the
tamperingwith evidencecaseandtwo yearsin prisonon the possession of a
confrolledsubstance case.(RR V 55).
Appellanttimely filed a writtennoticeof appeal.(CR 57, 58). Thefial
courtcertifiedthe defendant's right of appeal.(CR 56, 57).Appellantrequests
oral argumentin this case.
1- Cause number1397495 is citedfirst.followedby cause number1397496. Statement of Procedural History
On April 30,2015, a panel of the First Court of Appealsissuedan un-
published opinion affirming the trial court's judgments in these two cases.
Appellant files this first petition for discretionaryreview with this Court.
AppellantosGround for Review
1 ) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe convictionof possession of a controlledsubstancesince appellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or control over the cocaine thatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.
2) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe convictionof tamperingwith evidenceunderthe theorythat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The indictmentandjury chargedid not allegethat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The evidenceis insufflrcientto supportthe convictionfor tamperingwith evidencesince appellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggie in a toilet.
Reasonfor ReviewingAppellantosGroundfor Review
ThelowerCourt'sruling shouldbereviewedpursuantto Tex.R. App.
P. 66.3(c)and(0. Argument
Theevidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor possession of a
confrolledsubstance sinceappellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or conffol
overthe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.Appellantnevertouched
the cocaineor the baggiecontainingthe