Court Opinion

ID: 9774833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:35:03.507482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:16.648836
License: Public Domain

*15OPINION
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is possession of heroin; the punishment, 35 years.
Jury trial was waived. In his first ground of error appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show possession. Cf. Flores v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 901.
Police officers, armed with a warrant, went to a Dallas residence, where they arrested several people including the appellant. At the time of his arrest, appellant was awake in the living room talking to another man. He did not have on a shirt, and needle marks were visible on his arm. However, the officers could not say if the marks were recent. Appellant’s wife was sitting on a bed in the middle bedroom of the apartment and his father was asleep in the front bedroom. On the medicine cabinet of the bathroom located off a hall between the kitchen and middle bedroom, the officers discovered a bent spoon. In a closet adjacent to this bathroom, they discovered a raincoat with 25 tin foil packets of heroin in the pocket.
In order to sustain a conviction, the State must prove: (1) that the accused exercised actual care, control and management over the narcotic or dangerous drug, and (2) that he knew the object he possessed was contraband. Higgins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 515 S.W.2d 268; Floyd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 828. Where an accused is not in exclusive possession of the premises, it cannot be concluded that he had knowledge of the narcotic and control over it, unless there are additional independent facts and circumstances which link the accused to the narcotic. Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 511 S.W.2d 296; Wright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 170.
There was no showing that the residence was under the control of the appellant or that the raincoat belonged to him. See Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 340. As in Higgins, supra, no independent circumstances were shown to connect the appellant with the heroin.
The allegation in the affidavit for the search warrant that the house in question was the appellant’s residence was not self-proving. The trial court in sustaining appellant’s objection to whether the person described in the warrant was the appellant specifically stated that the affidavit and warrant would only be considered for the validity of the search. The only mention in the record that the residence was appellant’s is contained in the testimony of the officer who obtained and served the warrant. He named the house as “Prank Guitier-rez’ residence”, without indicating whether he was referring to appellant, Frank Guitierrez, Jr., or his father, Frank Guitierrez, Sr. No utility bills, rent receipts, personal letters or other material was introduced to show that appellant lived in or had control over the premises. Cf. Wright, supra; Williams, supra; Haynes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 739.
There were several other persons on the premises in addition to appellant, his wife and father, all of whom had access to the closet and bathroom. It was a rainy night and there was no showing that the raincoat was not brought in by another person. Appellant made no furtive gestures, did not attempt to flee, and the needle marks were not shown to be recent. Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 517 S.W.2d 782.
In the case relied upon by the dissent, Curtis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 519 S.W.2d 883, there was testimony from the landlord that Curtis had rented the apartment and she was present when he moved in. Letters addressed to Curtis were found in the bedroom which was the only room containing significant furniture. Marihuana was found in a coat inside the closet in that bedroom. At the time of his arrest, Curtis and four others were seated in a circle with marihuana and a marihuana cigarette butt near the center of the circle. These independent facts and circumstances were sufficient to link Curtis with the contraband found in the closet.
*16Even when construed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence in the case at bar is insufficient to show possession. It is therefore unnecessary for us to discuss appellant’s remaining ground of error.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.