Court Opinion

ID: 9630807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:21:16.390553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:13.103199
License: Public Domain

COCHRAN, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
Adhering, as I do, to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Seals v. State,1 that the term “adulterants and dilutants” refers to substances which increase the usable bulk or quantity of a controlled substance or are part of the manufacturing process,2 I cannot join the majority opinion.
However, the evidence in this case was sufficient to support a finding that the weight of the “pure” liquid methamphetamine, before it was poured into the bottle of bleach, weighed more than 400 grams. Specifically, appellant’s co-defendant testified that the liquid methamphetamine mixture almost filled a glass container that was approximately eight inches tall and four or five inches in diameter. The co-defendant testified that he poured the methamphetamine from this container into the bottle of bleach in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the evidence as the police approached. The State’s chemist testified that this glass container would have held 1,234.86 grams of liquid methamphetamine. This amount is three times the 400-gram minimum necessary to support a conviction under the State’s indictment.
Thus, for purposes of this case, it is legally irrelevant whether one includes or excludes the weight of the corrosive bleach. Either way the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction of the aggravated offense of possession of 400 or more grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. I therefore join in the judgment of the Court, but not its reasoning.

. 187 S.W.3d 417, 423 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., dissenting).

. See Wright v. State, 201 S.W.3d 765, 770 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).