Court Opinion

ID: 9648612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:30:29.765975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:04.207053
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. I do not believe the State proved that Curtis Anthony Mayes, the appellant, knowingly possessed 0.2 milligrams of cocaine.
In point of error one, the appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly possessed the cocaine in question. I agree. The trace amount of residue obtained through a spectrograph test is insufficient to show the appellant knowingly possessed cocaine.1
To explain my dissent, I ask the reader tomorrow morning, before you put sugar into your coffee, to spill a minute amount of sugar on the table. Then, separate one grain of sugar from the rest. (If you are over 35 years of age, you will probably need your reading glasses.) With the tip of your finger pick up one grain of sugar and put it in the palm of your hand. It is hard to see, but hold it up to light. The appellant in this case was indicted for possessing that amount of cocaine, was convicted of possessing that amount of cocaine, and was sentenced to 55 years in the penitentiary for possessing that amount of cocaine.
Today’s holding, that a person can be found guilty of possession of 0.2 milligrams of cocaine, which is about the size of one grain of sugar,2 stretches the logic of our criminal laws to the breaking point. That a person who possessed the equivalent of one grain of sugar of cocaine, can be sent to the penitentiary for 55 years, goes a long way to explain why our jails are filled beyond capacity.
The appellant, who appeared intoxicated, was seen drinking a beer. Officer Peder-son, who testified the appellant’s condition was consistent with one who was coming “off” a cocaine high, was not an expert and could not distinguish between intoxication from beer and cocaine. If we reduce Ped-erson’s testimony to its actual value, none, the State proved that the appellant was drunk, had a glass pipe in his pocket, and the glass pipe had a residue of cocaine.
We have no information about the glass pipe and how it came into the appellant’s possession. A neighbor and friend of the appellant testified that he had seen discarded glass pipes and syringes in the neighborhood and had found some in his own front yard. He testified that he had never seen the appellant use drugs. (The appellant’s prior convictions were not for drug offenses.)
To find the appellant guilty, we must infer that he took some action to possess the pipe knowing that it had cocaine residue in it. The possession of a dirty glass pipe, or as in Jarrett, a piece of a car antennae, should not be enough to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of possession of cocaine. Neither should it be enough to send a defendant to the penitentiary for 55 years, or as in Jarrett, for 44 years.
The following amounts of controlled substances have been held sufficient to convict for possession: 23.8 milligrams, Huff v. State, 630 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, pet. ref’d); 9.5 milligrams, Simpson v. State, 668 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.); 3.9 milligrams (0.4 in a syringe and 3.5 milligrams in a bag), Lavigne v. State, 782 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.]), aff'd, 803 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); 3.2 milligrams, Kent v. State, 562 S.W.2d 855, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); 2.2 milligrams, Manuel v. State, 782 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d); 2 milligrams, Jarrett v. State, 818 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.); 1.7 milligrams, Tomlin v. State, 338 S.W.2d 735, 737 (Tex.Crim.App.1960); 0.8 milligrams, Thomas v. State, 807 S.W.2d 786 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. granted); 0.3 milligrams, Alejandro v. State, 725 S.W.2d 510, 515 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.).
In Coleman v. State, 545 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that 5.06 milligrams *9was not sufficient to support a conviction.3 Thus, of the above cases, any amount less than 5.06 milligrams is probably suspect. Here we have two-tenths of a milligram. If 5.06 milligrams was not enough to sustain a conviction, two-tenths of a milligram is also insufficient.
Today’s holding, that 0.2 milligrams is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of possession of cocaine, reaches beyond any other holding on trace amounts of drugs. On this record, the State should have charged the appellant with possession of drug paraphernalia, not cocaine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.125 (Vernon Pamph.1992).
I would reverse and remand for the entry of acquittal.

. The trace amount of 0.2 milligrams was obtained by dissolving the pipe’s residue in two-thirds normal sulfuric acid and then extracted into chloroform and then back into sulfuric acid. This liquid substance was then placed under the ultraviolet spectrometer. The liquid's ultraviolet radiation was similar to cocaine heat.

. In Jarrett v. State, 818 S.W.2d 847, 850 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (O’Con-nor, J., dissenting), the testimony showed that 2 milligrams of cocaine was the equivalent of 10 grains of sugar. If 2 milligrams equals 10 grains of sugar, 0.2 milligrams equals 1 grain of sugar.

. In Coleman, the defendant was found with 5/28,000 of an ounce, which is the equivalent of 5.06 milligrams. The formula is 5/28,000 oz. = .000178571. oz.; .000178571 oz. / 1 x 1 mg. / .00003527 oz. = 5.06 mg.