Court Opinion

ID: 9718680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:29:57.200473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:01.467392
License: Public Domain

BEN Z. GRANT, Justice,
dissenting.
The high court in this state for criminal matters has held that a defendant is entitled to know the type of transfer with which he or she is charged. The high court has also held that a constructive transfer may take the form of the actor placing the contraband in a particular location and then advising the recipient of this location so that the recipient can retrieve the narcotics. Queen v. State, 662 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). That is what happened in this case, and I am bound to follow the precedent established by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The majority opinion says that the Court of Criminal . Appeals changed this definition in the application to the facts in Nevarez v. State, 767 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex. Crim.App.1989). In Nevarez, testimony indicated that the appellant’s codefendant *173slid the bag containing the marihuana over to the officer. This case does not change the precedent set in the Queen case.
In Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref d), cited by the majority, the court said, “Even though appellant did not pick up the shoe box and hand it to DeBlanc, appellant was in control of the transaction (standing guard), and effected the transfer by telling DeBlanc ‘it’ was in the shoe box.” Id. at 69. The parties to the transactions were in the same room, and the situation suggests that the shoe box was within reach of the recipient. This evidence would support an actual transfer.
If the present case is determined to be actual delivery, then the guidelines are further muddled between what is actual delivery and constructive delivery, and prosecuting attorneys preparing an indictment have no guidelines left to follow.
Precedent is established by the ratio decidendi of the case, not the dicta. Having said that, I would add that not even the dicta in Nevarez could be read to control in the present case. It is a reach to find that this fact situation is an actual transfer instead of a constructive transfer.
The majority opinion stretches the meaning of the term “within his reach.” This term would encompass something laid on a table in lieu of handing it to the recipient, or any way that it is made available to another by placing it within the actual reach of where that party is sitting or standing.
It was said that Rob Roy MacGregor had the longest arms of any man in Scotland, but even he could not have reached from one room in the building to another to obtain the contraband. It was out of reach. Thus, this case should be construed to be one in which the actor places the contraband in a particular location and then advises the recipient of this location so that the recipient can retrieve the narcotics. This, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals, is a constructive transfer.
If the Court of Criminal Appeals wants to change the definition of constructive delivery, this would be an excellent case to review to establish clear guidelines of the difference between these two types of deliveries.
I respectfully dissent.