Court Opinion

ID: 4065876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 22:17:27.683287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:19.061471
License: Public Domain

:\x ‘T…; T@>u\§-Q@Mr m Qm/»\`\ML f\ FP@M§
N®%, mh~`?;\r)'b<>'©l wh m(%_- ?3\'37®~®3)

' lTSO`DVZ/OB
E'E}\P N’UE (:~)'R{\\{\_M§ "\_l/)M\/~\\[E“ l\lU`! gm

(`_ M\O\»M) RECEi\/-ED|N
CGURT CF CR!F.'HNAL APPEALS

,l?;U'§' 1 U 1313

P<€@\\@lmi§ %@:>mm;`\b comm mom
¢'-‘\\D@L AC©S§Q, @3@5"3<

"TQ T\%E mNDRA&LE mm §§ C!Amum_ AVP\§N&,‘.

emma mm (`Jf’\¢\\fm; 'THM\\IL y_\n>_R~/ wivth

`:U\l \:\~Q, M®\LL>, hi\\\€_é_ md c\&\svvmew.r\_ CAS@_ "?\D_S P€,CTF\J\\Y F\\e§

‘x\\\§ <’\QL%\\\QL ms wr>z»m+ 95 t)\>_ mata ORD@/HQ/W>\\`
CAM \m\>\L S\oul v“§` §O\\Dwa,

"-w_ W>\»M% C~@M;Ma§ wm \M_WTM_ mmi m¢~
f§.QW_§_ \I\\v\$r?;\§ IM<>_‘;Y€CT\\!P_ AS§\§TO_ML\/m®\_®_ CDUM§JL\ c\ux_'
mt .:N\\ngm_®r wl Am~m§ R>{\_ A ‘e§m,_m@r QMM

"T:> \:Mg\_@ \c DQLAMM wm 155 \§4 mh&) m

\%\»m ®’§ E\c@~» m\\:> ©M\@Q_}_ iLL v\e,r ‘m~/\ ('_\QD,¢\\/ .&)l~()m§ tm+
/Y\\L P®\\u)_ ®¥3\®.¢\ £553\[; H/&~\- V\Q_ lmle£Sb~ Rv \(\(L\§L
\CC> \»&55<\. \Y\CLU:PCUC>M

'“W>_ f_\P\OU\/A wm m Ew\i\@sr 553 ma
FWML\~&L\\_ f°)'\~i>)z> §§ 5<3\5 955 \D 1535 bmwe m+ M

®Ymr umw 555\\555 55 `m.m_ 55555 \N>_ 5a 550+
\N\mrz§§. mm \1\;5\3\<5\ ~rfh>;u§¥ew

'/\'\5»_ MM\\DJ 55@55§. 595/m mt \\\§ wame:r §§ RQLM(\_

F\RB\LP_L HQ_ USUVL`Y?©F Pv w "r\€&m“>~ `\:`LQA `H\Q»L
\§ F>¢ 555er ??Nm)@¢\\' `P@§Ablm‘/ w\~ T\\e_ E\§\<\.Q,Uuz_
\5055\\(_ »`\\~<3\»‘5_ mm w PP>Q§@ 555 'W\Q,L¥Or 555 @SY com
©"v \m_x 'Tsz.\m_ mu\\\_, &\AM_ m3 d\~§¥€r¢>_J/`

`YLL M>N\lm 553\5; 1355 \/\5\5 353[`\`5/5€__ "C<> RUM>§~
M»L\;Ms,\i \5_5<35/\…5;5'€<>»5 f-\LDI…¢:_ 505&'(_1‘%&53;

§x\pm@_ 39 555-55»>@55 <5% &\~5<\_\\5, \\5 odumme \QQQ

MMYF “\`©r /W@Jm@% dow

"W& /WVU\MT §\\0\,5§ 55®5- Y\Q, \b CL)YMST\“/ 555

355 ®M MU%%; \JW\®LA TKL TQ>U.)§ O€/FU»)M~ l\QJ`T

®? U°LU~\H\\M_ IUA\EL D§§\:H\HJD E\D\_ @\\115)&\:
555 5555@55 wm fm 5 /5 C_ @,@® mud

“§\35 Pm\m“r mr~@m> H@w \@@_M>_ MMQ_ 555/5sz
'_E© LQML C@P\€%»

 

@

”T\(\w_ 5 5\§5 5 90\\(_\{ "5\515 555555 m 3555~5:55535
@\\)2_ 95 RQ)§N+;§\- 553 mm fl ®5>5_ 5\~@30¢5551@5&,&§

T\Q\_ \5\§5\\\\5&5 §MM XB\\_ `\5 A-F\`Y\d_u§¢§)\r~ wing
1505\53 w (\DAF W\/SL¢ABC\')_\J\K_. 1555 A,M\MA§YQ__ wm \_Ab&(:/

1555 555.\\553 555@55 555 555 555 555 555 55

(-\55%\[5555 5;© `°’5 555\»5~ 555 mem 557 mw wm5§5
555 35 50 TN_ \£5:5 'W@{L\L 335 mmma"l`@o§ m[TK twa
1555

\N\~\\I\\§ §©5’5§ ?5\€ vv\\.a'&% 1955 §\0@553\_ MNMLMT
'szx> 3\555 355 mmb\)e_ won 5535\<5 C>M
'”3\\5 m 5\\5335 555535 W\L@mm 555 m>_ `M+
`_\‘~<_ AM»Q§5 \5555¥05¥ 555+ 555 555 'Rs Avr@g-‘P
“355 M»Mm 555 5055555 555 55 555/555 m@emr

555*355555 555 1555 55355©55~ r%mbLL CJM_
175<»\5€5 f\\©\~ 045\`[

555 5555 wm 555 :5€535 lam
555 355 mm. 35<555>5 555 ge 95 f©m

"Tm\_ 555 §\»05\5 555 §§%QS>Q@_
@QMCMQ\\”/ 535 m5555_

/5€5> ~5\55`(

(?>)

 

c' grimng 55 ;M\LEQD_

 

:5 CJP\Q\{L@\\` ~r\wm{ ® HWYM 55155 55wa

@5”5¥5 5:55:\5 5 Tm_ 555 0055;5; 509`/ m TFle_A/b@w_
1555 1555;)5555_ /W>`\§M RM<>M 505 m\\5<\_ mm
wm ®5&5%.\5:,`3@\5 553 _“\m_@@m”r 539
Uw\mvx\_ N*M\; QP”TQM, 9, ®.. M\SB>©%
1950 \'m_ 55555@5 ,m®'m@l ~1%7[/

@Q§¢Q@>)§;\\‘/ §\§2>»5{.555\5

AWQH /55T

®

SULPHUR SPR|NGS POL|CE DEPARTMENT

Narrative

Date of report: 04/18/2013 v®\\m\g lsc ( AB Case Number: 1300010891

|ncident Number :1300010891

1. ON 04-18-2013 AT APPROX. 2:15 P|\/| SGT. ESTES, SGT. CROUSE AND LT. |V|CCLURE OF THE SULPHUR
SPR|NGS/HOPK|NS COUNTY SPEC|AL CR|MES UN|T MET W|TH A CONF|DENT|AL |NFORMANT, HERE
AFTER REFFERED"TO AS C| (C|#12-11-180),AT A SECURE LOCAT|ON |N SULPHUR SPR|NGS, TX. THE
PURPOSE OF THE`|V|EET|NG WAS TO D|SCUSS THE PURCHASE OF CRACK COCAINE FROM THE
DEFENDANT; GRA`Y'LON TARAYE |VERY B/M 05-10-1985.

2. AT APPROX. 2:21 PM THE C| AND THE C|'S VEH|CLE WAS SEARCHED BY SGT. ESTES FOR |LLEGAL
NARCOT|CS OR MONEY W|TH NEGAT|VE RESULTS. THE C| WAS AT TH|S Tll\/|E SUPPL|ED W|TH SEVERAL
RECORD|NG DEV|CES TO CAPTURE THE CONVERSAT|ON AND TRANSACT|ON BETWEEN THE C| AND
|VERY. THE C| .WAS |SSUED$ 100.00 OF IMPREST MONEY TO MAKE THE PURCHASE.

3. AT APPROX. 2:23 PM THE C| AND SPEC|AL CR|MES |NVEST|GATORS LEFT THE SECURE LOCAT|ON
AE_NROUTE TO 310 W. BECKHAM ST. SPEC|AL CR||V|ES |NVEST|GATORS |\/|A|NTA|NED SURVE|LLANCE OF
THE C| DUR|NG THE OPERAT|ON.

4. AT APPROX. 2:31 PM THE C| ARR|VED AT 310 W. BECKHAM ST. AND PARKED FAC|NG WESTBOUND |N
FRONT OF THE RES|DENCE. THE Cl EX|T>ED THE VEH|CLE AND APPROACHED THE CARPORT DOOR AND
MET THE SUSPECT (GRAYLON |VERY) |N THE CARPORT. THE C| AND |VERY ENTER |NTO THE
RES|DENCE FOR A BR|EF MO|V|ENT BEFORE THE C| EX|TS AND WALKS BACK TO H|S VEH|CLE TO GET A
JOB APPL|CAT|ON F_QRM FOR A SUBJECT |NS|DE THE RES|DENCE.

5. AT APPROX. 2233 PM THE CI RETURNS TO THE |NS|DE OF 310 W. BECKHAM ST AND BEGINS SPEAK|NG
W\TH |VERY ONCE AGA|N.

 

7. AT APPROX. 2136 PM THE C| LEAVES IN H|S VEH|CLE AND PROCEEDS BACK TO THE SECURE
LOCAT|ON W|TH SPEC|AL CR|MES |NVEST|GATORS ST|LL MA|NTA|N|NG SURVE|LLANCE OF THE C|.

8. AT APPRO)<. 2;43 Plvl THE cl AND sPEclAL cRIMEs leESTlGAToRs ARRlvED BACK To THE sEcuRE
LocATloN. sGT. ESTES AT THls THle TooK cusToDY 0F DRUG E)§ _

exchanged money for'the-crack cocaine'at Appellant’s apartment The transfer Wa.s not witnessed

by anyone else. EA§ ”*v?i*d"e”“o§~vvas::imade*@fath'e:it¥ra?iis-fer?il?)'i`i't`i»ii?t¥"t`o‘o"'~*does-§§t*sh`o“vw¥§ft”fa’iisfe“i%li’ad§tal'253 S.W.3d 253` 258_,, ('_Te)<. Crirn; App. 2008) it states;/flll\/:e'hold that

c

the standard for evaluating sui"`i":<':iency ofthe evidence for corroboration under the accomplice~ .

Witness rule applies When evaluating sufficiency of the evidence for corroboration under/the

,r //

,__ ,,
¢ f

.i.,a£i

R)'

 

covert-agent`rule. 4 -Accordingly, when weighing the sufficiency of corroborating evidence under

'/ f\
,¢

Art. 38. l 41 (a), a reviewing court must exclude the testimony of the covert agent from '
consideration and examine the remaining evidence (i.e., non-covert agent evidence) to determine
whether there _is evidence that tends to connect the defendant to the commission of the offense."

See also Taylor v. State, 328 S.W.3d 574, 577-78 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2010, pet..refd).

 

Jefferson v. State 99 S.W.3d 790, 793 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2003, pet. refd) states that
"Surreptitious recording [of drug buy] is also 'o_ther evidence tending to connect' appellant with
the offense which was committed."‘ However the recording in evidence in this case does not
show any transfer. All that the tape shows is that the Cl was in the Appellant's horne.

The State attempted to offer corroborating evidence when they offered a pill bottle

obtained from a later arrest over 2 months after the alleged transfer\(.luly l, 2013) purported to be

17. 4a
~r~;‘r':- 17 \ 11 ~’-`-Q
.'r,‘.;-,'~ L._..O, a.n»~,»

the pill bottle shown on the video made'sorne 74 days be§;`o.re the attest (V-ol 5,

rp z

l'?'-Z§, page 124, lines'13-1_6, page 125, lines ll-25, page 126, lines l-5). Appellant would
show that this unmarked, non-descript pill bottle on the video 74 days prior to the arrest.and
seizure of the pill bottle used as State's exhibit 7 is not evidence that corroborates the CI's
testimony concerning the transfer `

There was no "e`yebal“ling" of the transfer of money and the video the'State used does not
tsh'ow an actual transfer`ofnioney (Vol.' 5, page l34`,"li_n`es 18-25,~ page ,'l`39,'1in"es 17-'25)-. Also,
the.»nion`ey used for the drug purchase was never recovered or found. Again, this time quoting _
§let¢al\/lé@:_l»ure:#

;:Q: "'»... you, lsir, did not actually eyeball the changing of money between'anybody"? ,Fair?"

fA: _l'That's fair.’ )"

/,__¢__`\
/ ,

tQ: "Y~ou"did not :eyeball` 7th.`e"transfer of any controlled substance from one person to the-.7

ether? Fair?"-

 

\ fA: "Fair.' " (Vol.15, pagel34, Lines 18-25, page 135, line l))

_.._.,_\.,<\
4 -`...

Additionaily,` there is what amounts to a conflict between the confidential informant's
testimony"ithat a transfer of money and drugs took place and what the video and officers'
testimony actually shov.-'s. This discrepancy between the Cl's testimony and the State's other

evidence is enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to Appellant's guilt and does not show the

corroboration The evidence presented as to transfer of drugs and money between CI and

 

Appellai)_t is therefore unsupported as required by Tex Code Crim. Proc. Ami art 384£_(21), (`o).

.l.n sumnzary. the State's only corroborative evidence of actual transfer"taking place back

in .-L`.:~pril 18 .'20`13, is a pill bottle confiscated from the A_ppellant When a warrant was executed on

Jul_v l, 2013. The State’s claim that this is the same pill bottle in the video,is totally without any
proof (Vol. 5, pages 94'-95, pages l2¢l-132, page 140, line l-l7). Therefore, the Stated_.id not
prove the elementof their offense for transfer beyond a reasonable doubt. And the statutle is
clear that you cannot use the Cl's testimony unless there is some corroborating evidences
Therefore, considering the above argument and facts, Appellant urges thecourt to
overturn this sentence because the State did not meet their burden of proof and was not able to k
corroborate testimony of the confidential informant as to actual delivery and transfer Without
corroborating evidence of transfer, there can be no conviction Therefore, this error is a

reversible error and this Court should render a not guilty verdict.

\

10