Case Name: Patrick JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2004-06-17
Citations: 139 S.W.3d 723
Docket Number: No. 2-03-038-CR
Parties: Patrick JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
Judges: PANEL B: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 139
Pages: 723–730

Head Matter:
Patrick JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
No. 2-03-038-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
June 17, 2004.
Maggie McBride, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellant.
Tim Curry, Criminal District Attorney, Charles M. Mallin, Edward L. Wilkinson, Jorge Solis, Phelesa M. Guy, Assistant Criminal District Attorneys, Fort Worth, TX, for State.
PANEL B: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice.
Appellant Patrick Jordan appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. In two issues, he contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove intent to deliver. We affirm.
Factual Background
On November 11, 2000, Officer Stephen Myers observed a car make a right turn without signaling. Officer Myers began to follow the car, which was going "extremely fast." After turning onto another street, the car pulled over to the right side of the road, and appellant got out. The car then continued down the street.
As Officer Myers passed appellant, he saw appellant drop a plastic baggie about the size of a small softball on the street. The baggie had white chunks inside it. Appellant and Officer Myers were both traveling eastbound on the street. Officer Myers turned around and parked his car facing westbound. Appellant had changed directions and was now walking westbound. Officer Myers saw appellant pick up the baggie off the street.
As Officer Myers approached appellant on foot, appellant put the baggie in his right hand and then put his right hand in front of his pants waistband. Officer Myers told appellant to stop and take his hands away from his waistband. Officer Myers had to repeat his command two or three times before appellant complied. Officer Myers shook appellant's waistband, and the baggie fell out of his pants. Appellant said the baggie did not belong to him. Appellant was not carrying any weapons.
The baggie contained fourteen capsules with white powder, which were later determined to be cocaine, and sixteen capsules with brown powder, which were later determined to be heroin. It also contained two smaller bags containing crack cocaine. The total amount of cocaine powder in the fourteen capsules weighed about 1.65 grams, and the total amount of heroin in the sixteen capsules weighed about 1.94 grams. One of the smaller bags contained about .17 grams of crack, and the other contained about .28 grams.
At appellant's trial, Officer Myers testified that the area in which he stopped appellant was a high crime area and that drug houses were typically located on that street. He testified that it is common to package narcotics in baggies and in capsules. Officer Bruce Blaisdell, a narcotics officer with the Fort Worth Police Department, also testified that he had seen cocaine and heroin sold in capsule form before. Each capsule is generally sold for about $10. Officer Blaisdell said it is common to find a drug dealer with a variety of drugs in his possession because not all customers want to buy the same drugs.
Officer Blaisdell testified that the fourteen cocaine capsules were worth about $140, the sixteen heroin capsules were worth about $160, and the two bags of crack were worth about $30 to $35. Thus, appellant was carrying approximately $330 to $335 worth of drugs. Officer Blaisdell also testified that typical drug users buy only one to four capsules at a time and that they do not normally buy large quantities because they do not want to be caught with that much. Officer Blaisdell testified that in his eleven years with the Fort Worth Police Department, six of which were in narcotics, he had never seen a mere user possess that amount of drugs.
Standard of Review
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict in order to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 612 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789. When performing a legal sufficiency review, we may not sit as a thirteenth juror, re-evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence and, thus, substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131, 120 S.Ct. 2008, 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
To make a determination of factual insufficiency, a complete and detailed examination of all the relevant evidence is required. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). A proper factual sufficiency review must include a discussion of the most important and relevant evidence that supports the appellant's complaint on appeal. Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
The court of criminal appeals has recently restated and clarified the standard of review to be used by appellate courts in reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. In Zuniga v. State, the court held
There is only one question to be answered in a factual sufficiency review: Considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? However, there are two ways in which the evidence may be insufficient. First, when considered by itself, evidence supporting the verdict may be too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, there may be both evidence supporting the verdict and evidence contrary to the verdict. Weighing all the evidence under this balancing scale, the contrary evidence may be strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met, so the guilty verdict should not stand. This standard acknowledges that evidence of guilt can "preponderate" in favor of conviction but still be insufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, evidence supporting guilt can "outweigh" the contrary proof and still be factually insufficient under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Zuniga v. State, — S.W.3d -, -, No. 539-02, 2004 WL 840786, at * 7 (Tex.Crim.App. Apr.21, 2004).
Analysis
Appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove intent to deliver in that the only evidence tending to prove his intent is Officer Blaisdell's opinion that the quantity of drugs possessed by appellant indicated an intent to deliver. Intent to deliver can be proven by circumstantial evidence. See Rhodes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 242, 251 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 945 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 894, 118 S.Ct. 236, 139 L.Ed.2d 167 (1997); Williams v. State, 902 S.W.2d 505, 507 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd); Reece v. State, 878 S.W.2d 320, 325 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.). Courts have considered several factors in determining intent, including: (1) the nature of the location where the defendant was arrested; (2) the quantity of drugs the defendant possessed; (3) the manner of packaging of the drugs; (4) the presence or absence of drug paraphernalia (for use or sale); (5) whether the defendant possessed a large amount of cash in addition to the drugs; and (6) the defendant's status as a drug user. Williams, 902 S.W.2d at 507; Reece, 878 S.W.2d at 325. Expert testimony may be introduced to prove intent to deliver. See Bryant v. State, 997 S.W.2d 673, 675 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.); Rhodes, 913 S.W.2d at 251; Mack v. State, 859 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.); Branch v. State, 833 S.W.2d 242, 244-45 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd).
Here, appellant was arrested in a high crime area where drug houses were located. While he did not possess any drug paraphernalia indicating- an intent to sell, he also did not possess any indicating an intent to use. Two officers testified that the packaging of the drugs, in capsule form and in individual bags, indicated an intent to sell. Appellant possessed three different kinds of drugs. Finally, an experienced narcotics officer testified that the amount of drugs possessed by appellant indicated an intent to sell.
The dissent argues that these facts are as consistent with an intent to possess as an intent to deliver. However, in determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence to show appellant's intent and faced with a record that supports conflicting inferences, we "must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record — that the trier of fact resolved any such conflict in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution." Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Even reviewing the evidence in a neutral light, as required by the factual sufficiency standard of review, the evidence is not so weak that it cannot support the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is there evidence to the contrary that is so strong as to render it impossible for the jury to have found appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Based on our review of the record and applying the appropriate standards of review, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict. We overrule both of appellant's issues on appeal.
Having overruled appellant's issues, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
DAUPHINOT, J. filed a dissenting opinion.
. The dissent contends that if the legislature had intended for possession of more than a minimum amount of drugs to indicate intent to deliver, it would have included that intention in the delivery statute. However, it also follows that if the legislature had intended that an intent to deliver could be inferred only if a person possessed a particular quantity of drugs, it would have said so. In the absence of such a legislatively created rule, we decline to impose one.