Court Opinion

ID: 3207361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-05-27 07:11:33.64114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:17.274357
License: Public Domain

m ORIGINAL PSav»                                                           *
      THE" SJ&£*-&£3£&^                           "~T\4 e Sopj°m£k4£L
. —,                 vS        ^                  j^a^/i) 7?w0

 df±£p(9eaoflf.          __        l                                  :
                                                         Rt£0-
jJ-L- P^iAJ^//nM< O^ f^l^/P                       €QURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS
         "•                                 '           MAY 2O2'0i3

              £>Q/0bS f^AJSe//^-^                     Abel Acosta, Cierk

       ftj-hwei/ fee j^/bA/ (^^lh/3^
       $Ljkti&U7?/9-faaz£t P-e •
         $^fiMri;eM SA fofYi'/fc lt-2$£&£.
              '5dJ'gPS'-Zffo fii)t(8is>j8?r~3r?{           mp/nl«^@kk>^^
                           ^yd®M~i4~ws®?~c£

   ^§&^U&£ o^_                          ^^-^^^^Ajpf^mX^^-I
            ^XSxja^.                           jSbfi

  izty-P^^                                             — —
                       Jii^LtoWi
                        j£*/2_JI*eiju!£^^              4«0-

        "^
     ^-4—      •Jzfch^Mhfli'       \-^-t^^ju^M^zil^
    l+J&UL&iuQM-^^
             —./   J

a. r-J . j^/g^/ (?}&lJna.i~_ '.Au&J ^j.asjm&4JL
               ^u^^Lq^iZ^

IkidJlMJL^^^
 7V/\m^                           v*£- taj/ijt
              fs I        /O^Aoi/. ;>g?oj
» ^fo£y ftlUo UuW(j/L-7
 0   4   WJ

                                        ^   «-   443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Merritt v.

State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

       As the factfinder, the jury is the exclusive judge of witness credibility and the weight of

the evidence. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809(Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Thejury is permitted

to draw any reasonable inferences from the evidence so long as the inference is supported by the

record. Id. Further, the reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence is within the factfinder's

exclusive province. Wyattv. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). If a record supports

conflicting inferences, the appellate court presumes the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor

of the prevailing party and therefore defers to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319;

Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Direct evidence and circumstantial

evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a
                                                                                   04-14-00887-CR

conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to

support the conviction. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Hooper v.

State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also Canida v. State, 446 S.W.3d 601, 605

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.).

       A person commits the offense of possession of a chemical precursor with intent to

manufacture a controlled substance if, with intent to unlawfully manufacture a controlled

substance, the person possesses or transports an immediate precursor, a chemical precursor, or an

additional chemical substance named as a precursor by the director of the Texas Department of

Public Safety under Texas Health and Safety Code Section 481.077(b)(1). TEX. HEALTH &

Safety Code Ann. § 481.124(a)(2)(3) (West Supp. 2015). The Texas Controlled Substances Act

("TCSA") defines pseudoephedrine as a "chemical precursor." Id. § 481.002(51)(0) (West Supp.

2015). In Texas, possession may be proved by showing a defendant had actual care, custody,

control, or management of an item. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(39) (West Supp. 2015);

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(38) (West Supp. 2015). According to the TCSA:

       "Manufacture" means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding,
       conversion, or processing of a controlled substance other than marihuana, directly
       or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, independently by
       means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical
        synthesis, and includes the packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling
        or relabeling of its container."

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(25) (West Supp. 2015). Additionally, the TCSA

identifies methamphetamine as a controlled substance. Id. § 481.102(6) (West 2010).

                                           Application

        The evidence presented at trial consisted of testimony from Sgt. Johnson, Corporal Vela,

controlled substance analyst Jose Martinez from the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS"),

and Tessa Stanley, one ofthe six people arrested the day the search warrant was executed. Calbat
                                                                                     04-14-00887-CR

and Mrs. Calbat testified in Calbat's defense, and the State presented additional rebuttal testimony

from Travis Morgan and Jessie Calbat, Calbat's brother.

       Stanley testified she heard Calbat and Mann discussing a plan to make money by

manufacturing and selling methamphetamine. Calbat agreed to use his trailer to "cook" the

methamphetamine so he could receive a larger cut of the profits. Stanley testified she drove Mann

and another woman to several stores in San Antonio, where the couple purchased the ingredients

and materials to manufacture methamphetamine using Calbat's and Mann's combined funds. On

cross-examination, Stanley admitted some of the ingredients or materials were purchased with her

credit card.     Stanley additionally testified Calbat and Mann thoroughly discussed the

manufacturing process and carried the purchased materials and ingredients into Calbat's trailer

after the shopping trip.

        Stanley testified the manufacturing process did not go as planned and one of the trailer's

occupants was becoming physically ill. Stanley took her friend Kolbee Trammel toCalbat's trailer

to help figure out what had gone wrong. According to Stanley, Trammel told Calbat that incorrect

or difficult to use ingredients had been purchased and other ingredients were not being handled

properly. Stanley testified the ingredients and materials for manufacturing methamphetamine
were not gathered in a central location, but were located throughout the trailer when she and
Trammel arrived. Stanley also testified the smell in the trailer was horrible and smelled of "rotten

Easter eggs that just keep cooking." Stanley further testified she saw a bottle hand-labeled
hydrochloric acid, in addition to Sudafed tablets and boxes "everywhere." Stanley stated she
witnessed Calbat handling the Sudafed boxes, blister packs, and tablets. Stanley also testified she

watched several different people using a coffee grinder to grind up the Sudafed tablets to be used

in the methamphetamine manufacturing process.
                                                                                       04-14-00887-CR

       Sgt. Johnson testified the seized items, including the materials, ingredients, and suspected

methamphetamine residue, were found in various places throughout the trailer. During Sgt.

Johnson's testimony, the State played for the jury an instructional video of methamphetamine

production, and Sgt. Johnson explained how each of the seized items could have been used in the

methamphetamine manufacturing process as shown in the video. Sgt. Johnson also explained how

the pseudoephedrine tablets would have been ground up using a coffee grinder and consumed

during the manufacturing process.

       Martinez, the DPS controlled substance analyst, testified the Bandera County Sheriffs

Department sent six samples to the DPS lab for "controlled substance" analysis. According to

Martinez, of the six samples, two could not be analyzed, two contained no controlled substances,

and two tested positive for methamphetamine.               The samples that tested positive for

methamphetamine were both liquid and crystal form.

       Calbat took the stand in his defense, testifying he and his wife had been living in the trailer

for only three days. According to Calbat, the items described by Sgt. Johnson were not his and

items shown in the State's exhibits had been left in the trailer by its previous tenants. Calbat

testified he was not manufacturing methamphetamine in the trailer, and also testified any strong

odor in the trailer was from his cooking a roast. Calbat insisted he did not know the seized items

depicted in the State's exhibits were present in the trailer.

        Rachel Calbat, Calbat's wife, also testified the couple had been living in the trailer for only

three days. Additionally, Rachel insisted there were no strong odors, testifying the only smell in

the trailer was from a roast Calbat was cooking.

        In response, the State presented testimony from Calbat's landlord, Travis Morgan. Morgan

testified Calbat's parents rented the property for Calbat in July 2013 and Calbat moved in within
                                                                                      04-14-00887-CR

a few weeks. Calbat's brother Jessie also testified Calbat had been living at the property for

approximately six months at the time of the offense.

       In this case, the jury charge tracked the Health and Safety code definition of possession.

Given the charge, the jury was authorized to find Calbat possessed pseudoephedrine if it found he

exercised care, custody, control, or management over pseudoephedrine. Stanley testified she

witnessed others purchase and deliver Sudafed tablets containing pseudoephedrine to Calbat for

the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.            Stanley's additional testimony that she

witnessed Calbat with the Sudafed boxes, coupled with Sgt. Johnson's testimony that the empty

boxes and blister packs were found in Calbat's residence supports a reasonable juror's belief

beyond a reasonable doubt Calbat possessed pseudoephedrine. The jury was within its rights as

the factfinder to resolve any conflict between Stanley's and Calbat's testimonies regarding the

existence and possession of pseudoephedrine in Stanley's favor. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319;

Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 30.

       Further, Stanley, Corporal Vela, and Sgt. Johnson testified regarding the odor in andaround

Calbat's trailer. According to Corporal Vela and Sgt. Johnson, the odor was strong and distinct

and one they closely associated with methamphetamine manufacturing.               Additionally, Sgt.

Johnson explained how many of the seized items displayed evidence of having been used during

the methamphetamine manufacturing process. This testimony, coupled with the existence of

methamphetamine in liquid and crystal forms, constituted evidence of recent methamphetamine

manufacture.

        When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational factfinder

could have found Calbat possessed pseudoephedrine. A rational jury could also have determined

Calbat possessed the pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

Consequently, the court concludes the evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain the jury'sfinding
                                                                               04-14-00887-CR

that Calbat committed the offense of possession of a chemical precursor with the intent to

manufacture a controlled substance.

       Calbat's sole issue on appeal is overruled.

                                          Conclusion

       The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                      Jason Pulliam, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH