Court Opinion

ID: 9911122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 16:10:29.897433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:03.592078
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                        No. 04-23-00086-CR

                                        Joe Anthony VEGA,
                                             Appellant

                                                 v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                     From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022CR6178
                           Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:      Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting:         Beth Watkins, Justice
                 Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                 Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Appellant Joe Anthony Vega was indicted on two counts of possession of a controlled

substance. A jury found Vega guilty of one count, and the trial court assessed punishment at eight

years’ confinement. On appeal, Vega raises two issues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support

the jury verdict; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to require the State to authenticate a

video. We affirm.
                                                                                      04-23-00086-CR

                                          BACKGROUND

       On March 27, 2022, San Antonio Police Officer Jose Portillo saw Vega sitting outside of

a vacant property. Portillo had issued Vega a warning for trespassing on the same property the

previous day. As Portillo and San Antonio Police Officer Rodney Franklin approached the

property, they saw another man—Justin Gleason—with Vega. Portillo also saw a backpack on the

left side of Vega, while Gleason was about “five feet” to the right of Vega.

       After a brief struggle, Vega was arrested for criminal trespass. Portillo then searched

Vega’s person, finding no contraband. However, when Portillo searched the backpack, he found a

large amount of methamphetamine. Gleason’s information was taken, and he was given a trespass

warning and released.

       Next to the property was a pawn shop with surveillance video cameras pointing towards

the property where Vega had been arrested. Portillo went to the pawn shop and reviewed the

surveillance video, which showed Vega walking to the property with the backpack. Portillo

recorded the pawn shop surveillance video with his body-worn camera.

       Vega was indicted on one count of possession of a controlled substance with an intent to

deliver and one count of possession of a controlled substance. His jury trial began on September

26, 2022. Portillo, Franklin, and Vega testified. The jury viewed several video clips from Portillo’s

body-worn camera—including the recording of the pawn shop surveillance video. The jury found

Vega guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance, namely: methamphetamine. The

trial court sentenced Vega to eight years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

       On appeal, Vega raises two issues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury

verdict; and (2) the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to require the State to

authenticate the pawn shop surveillance video recorded by Portillo’s body-worn camera. We first

address Vega’s evidentiary challenge.

                                                -2-
                                                                                     04-23-00086-CR

                                   EVIDENTIARY CHALLENGE

                                       Standard of Review

       “A trial judge’s decision on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard and will not be reversed if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement.”

Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). However, “[w]e may not determine

whether a trial court erred in the admission of evidence unless error is preserved for our review.”

Edwards v. State, 497 S.W.3d 147, 162 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) “To

preserve error, a party must object and state the grounds for the objection with enough specificity

to make the trial judge aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the

context.” Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing TEX. R. APP. P.

33.1(a)(1)(A)).

                                             Analysis

       Vega argues the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the portion of Portillo’s

body camera video recorded from the pawn shop surveillance video because the State failed to

authenticate the surveillance video. In response, the State argues that Vega did not object to the

authenticity of the recorded surveillance video at trial; therefore, Vega failed to preserve his

argument. During Portillo’s testimony, the following exchange occurred:

       State:                 Now, [Portillo], I’m going to show you what’s been marked
                              as State’s Exhibits 1 and 2. Can you look at those, and tell
                              me if you recognize them?

       Portillo:              This is — yes, these are the videos of my body-worn camera.

       State:                 And have you viewed these videos before testifying today?

       Portillo:              Yes, I have.

       State:                 And aside from redactions that were made, are they a fair
                              and accurate depiction of the events of March 27th of 2022?

                                               -3-
                                                                                     04-23-00086-CR

         Portillo:            Yes, they are.

         State:               Okay. At this time State will tender to defense State’s
                              Exhibits 1 and 2 for objection. Permission to publish, Judge?

         Trial Court:         Is there objection?

         Defense Counsel:     I’m sorry?

         Trial Court:         Objection.

         Defense Counsel:     No objection.

         Trial Court:         Admitted.

         Although Vega complains on appeal that the recorded surveillance video lacked proper

authentication, he did not raise this objection to the trial court. See Edwards, 497 S.W.3d at 163

(holding defendant waived argument to authentication of text messages because he failed to raise

a proper objection in the trial court). Accordingly, we hold Vega did not preserve his complaint

for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A).

                                 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

                             Standard of Review and Applicable Law

         We conduct a sufficiency review by looking at all of the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893,

899–902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony in favor of the

verdict. Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We “defer to the jury’s

credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the ‘sole judge’ of witnesses’ credibility

and the weight to be given testimony.” Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. Crim. App.

2012).

                                                -4-
                                                                                        04-23-00086-CR

       To support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the evidence must have

shown the defendant: (1) knowingly or intentionally possessed the controlled substance; and

(2) knew that the substance was contraband. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.115(a), (d),

481.102(6), 481.002(38). “A person acts intentionally” when “his conduct or to a result of his

conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.”

TEX. PENAL CODE § 6.03(a). “A person acts knowingly . . . with respect to the nature of his conduct

or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that

the circumstances exist.” Id. § 6.03(b). “Proof of a culpable mental state almost invariably depends

on circumstantial evidence, and a trier of fact can infer the requisite culpable mental state . . . from

all the circumstances, including the acts, conduct, and remarks of the accused.” Schoen v. State,

___S.W.3d___, No. 04-22-00022-CR, 2023 WL 4095251, at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June

21, 2023, no pet.). Likewise, “possession,” which means “actual care, custody, control, or

management,” can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence that “the defendant’s

connection with the drug was more than fortuitous.” Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006); TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(39).

       The evidence required to establish a defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed a

controlled substance is not a mechanical process. Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 161. Rather certain factors,

when combined with any reasonable inferences, will support a jury finding a defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 413–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (“In a

sufficiency inquiry, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative.”); Schoen,

2023 WL 4095251, at *5 (“[E]vidence affirmatively linking the defendant to the contraband

suffices for proof that he possessed it knowingly.”). Factors to consider include:

       (1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the
       contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and the accessibility
       of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when

                                                  -5-
                                                                                      04-23-00086-CR

       arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when
       arrested; (6) whether the defendant made incriminating statements when arrested;
       (7) whether the defendant attempted to flee; (8) whether the defendant made furtive
       gestures; (9) whether there was an odor of contraband; (10) whether other
       contraband or drug paraphernalia were present; (11) whether the defendant owned
       or had the right to possess the place where the drugs were found; (12) whether the
       place where the drugs were found was enclosed; (13) whether the defendant was
       found with a large amount of cash; and (14) whether the conduct of the defendant
       indicated a consciousness of guilt.

Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12. Although the above factors guide our analysis, “ultimately the

inquiry remains that set forth in Jackson: Based on the combined and cumulative force of the

evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt?” Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 414 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

318–19 (1979)).

                                              Analysis

       Vega argues the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction because he testified: the

backpack was not his; the drugs inside were not his; he did not know what was in the backpack;

he never put anything in the backpack; and that the backpack belonged to Gleason. Vega further

asserts the State failed to present evidence that his fingerprints were on the backpack or any of the

other items found in the backpack.

       At trial, Portillo testified that he approached Vega on the property and saw a black

backpack beside him within arm’s reach. Portillo also stated that when he advised Vega he was

under arrest, Vega became argumentative and began to resist commands, making it difficult to

place him in handcuffs. Portillo further testified that, in addition to the methamphetamine, he found

a glass pipe and a butane lighter in the backpack—which are items commonly associated with

methamphetamine use. Finally, in viewing the surveillance video, Portillo testified he observed

Vega carrying the backpack onto the property and observed Vega placing his hands into the

backpack.

                                                -6-
                                                                                       04-23-00086-CR

        Franklin testified that he was with Portillo the day Vega was arrested. Like Portillo,

Franklin testified methamphetamine was found in the backpack that was on the left side of Vega,

away from Gleason. The testimony from Portillo and Franklin, in addition to the admitted portions

of Portillo’s body camera, employing Evans factors (1), (3), (5), (7), (8), (10), and (12),

demonstrate affirmative links and reasonable inference of guilt. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162

n.12.

        The totality of the cumulative evidence shows: (1) Vega walked with the backpack in his

possession and control onto the property; (2) Vega was the only one to exercise control over the

backpack for the time in question; and (3) methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found

in the backpack. In sum, a rational jury could have found the evidence sufficient to sustain a finding

beyond a reasonable doubt that Vega intentionally and knowingly possessed methamphetamines.

See Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 417–18. We overrule this issue.

                                           CONCLUSION

        Having overruled the sole issue preserved for our review, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

                                                   Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                 -7-