Gordwin, Damion Cornelius ( 2015 )

PD-0527-15 & PD-0528-15
PD-0527&0528-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 5/6/2015 3:16:27 PM
Accepted 5/7/2015 1:05:02 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
No. CLERK
IN THE
TEXAS COTJRTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Nos.01-14-00343-CR
and 01-14-00344-CR
In theFirstCourtof Appeals
ofTexas
Damion CorneliusGordwin, Appellant
V.
The State of Texas, Appellee
Appellant's AmendedPetitionfor DiscretionaryReview
JeraldK. Graber
TSB # 08240320
917Franklin,Suite510
Houston,Texas77002
May 7, 2015 Tel.713-224-232
graberlaw@sbcglobal.net
Attomey for Appellant
StatementRegarding Oral Argument
Appellant waives oral argument.
IDENTITY OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 68.a(a),the followingpersonsareinterested
parties:
Appellant
Mr. DamionGordwin
Ha:ris CountyJail
1200BakerSt.
Houston,TX 77002
Trial Judse
TheHonorableKatherineCabaniss
248kDistict Court
1201Franklin
Houston,Texas77002
Attomeysfor State
Ms. Molly Wurzer(in trial)
Mr. Alan Curry (on appeal)
Haris CountyDA's Office
1201Franklin,6* Floor
Houston,Texas77002
Attorneyfor Appellant
Mr. JamesSims(in trial)
Mr. JeraldK. Graber(on appeal)
917Franklin,Suite510
Houston,Texas77002
Table of Contents
Page
STATEMENTREGARDINGORAL ARGUMENT 2
IDENTIry OF INTERESTEDPARTIES a
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENTOF THE CASE 7
STATEMENTOF PROCEDURALHISTORY 8
APPELLANT'SGROUNDSFORREVIEW 8
REASONFOR REVIEWING GROUNDFOR REVIEW 8
ARGUMENT 9
CONCLUSIONandPRAYERFORRELIEF 15
CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE 15
CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE T6
Index of Authorities
Cases page
Broolrs v. State,
323 S.W.3d893,895(Tex.Crim. App. 2010) IO,12
Ervin v. State,
331 S.W.3d 49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 11, 13
20l0,pet. refd)
Evans v. State,
202 S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 11
Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830
(Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist.] 2001,pet. refd) 11
In re Winship,
397U.S.359,361,g0S.ct. 1069,
107r, 10,13
2sL.Ed.2d368(1970)
Jaclrsonv. Virginia,
443U.S.307,99 S. Ct. 278t, 6r L.Ed.2d 560,(1979) r0, 12
King v. State,
895 S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995) 11,13
Laster v. State,
275 S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim. App. 2009) 10, 13
Poindexter v. State,
153S.W.3d402,405(Tex.Crim. App. 2005) 11
Will. v. State,
235 S.W.3d742,750(Tex.Crim.App. 2007) 10, 13
Statutes.Codesand Rules
Tex.Health& SafetyCodeg 481.002(38) 11
Tex.Pen.Codeg 1.07(a)(39) 11
Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(d)(1) 13
Tex.R. App.Proc.66.3(c) and(f) 8
To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals:
Statementof the Case
Appellant was chargedby indictmentwith the felony offensesof
tamperingwith physicalevidencein causenumber1397495andpossession
of
a controlledsubstancein causenumber 1397496.(CR 9, 9)'. Appellant
entereda pleaof not guilty andthe casesweretriedbeforea jury. (RR III 10).
The jury found appellantguilty of both charges.(RR III L7I-I72). After a
hearing,thejury sentenced
sentencing appellantto threeyearsin prisonon the
tamperingwith evidencecaseandtwo yearsin prisonon the possession
of a
confrolledsubstance
case.(RR V 55).
Appellanttimely filed a writtennoticeof appeal.(CR 57, 58). Thefial
courtcertifiedthe defendant's
right of appeal.(CR 56, 57).Appellantrequests
oral argumentin this case.
1- Cause
number1397495
is citedfirst.followedby cause
number1397496.
Statement of Procedural History
On April 30,2015, a panel of the First Court of Appealsissuedan un-
published opinion affirming the trial court's judgments in these two cases.
Appellant files this first petition for discretionaryreview with this Court.
AppellantosGround for Review
1 ) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto
supportthe convictionof possession of a controlledsubstancesince
appellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or control over the cocaine
thatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.
2) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto
supportthe convictionof tamperingwith evidenceunderthe theorythat
appellant"concealed"the evidence.The indictmentandjury chargedid
not allegethat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The evidenceis
insufflrcientto supportthe convictionfor tamperingwith evidencesince
appellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggie
in a toilet.
Reasonfor ReviewingAppellantosGroundfor Review
ThelowerCourt'sruling shouldbereviewedpursuantto Tex.R. App.
P. 66.3(c)and(0.
Argument
Theevidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor possession
of a
confrolledsubstance
sinceappellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or conffol
overthe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.Appellantnevertouched
the cocaineor the baggiecontainingthe cocaine.[n fact,the police indicated
that they neversawappellantput any item into the toilet. While the testimony
establishedthat the oflicers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes,
thereis no evidencethat appellanteverpossessed
the cocaine.Therefore,the
Courtof Appealsered in findingthatthe evidenceis sufficientto supportthe
verdict.
Also,the evidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor tampering
with physicalevidencesinceappellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethat
was foundin a baggiein a toilet. The indictmentandjury chargeallegedthat
appellantactuallyalteredor desffoyedthe physicalevidence.The Court of
Appealserredin finding that the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe verdict
under the theory that appellant"concealed"the evidence. However,the
indictmentand jury chargedid not allege that appellant"concealed"the
to thejury wasthat appellant
evidence.The only evidencethat waspresented
flushedthe toilet that containedthe baggieof cocainethat wasput thereby the
9
co-defendant.
The physicalevidencethat was seizedby the policewasnever
alteredor destroyed.
Possession - CauseNumber1397496
of a ControlledSubstance
The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard
thrt a reviewing court shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis
suffrcientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis
requiredto prove beyonda reasonable
doubt. Broolcsv. State,323 S.W.3d
893,895(Tex.Crim.App.2010);Jacksonv.
Virginia,443
U.S.307,99S.Ct.
2781,6l L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient
to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most
favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each
essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable
doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship,
397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L. Ed. 2d 368(1970);Lasterv.
State,275S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim.App. 2009);Williamsv. State,235
S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the
verdict,the evidenceis insuflicientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno
evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the
offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes
a reasonable
doubt.Laster
l0
v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This skndardappliesequallyto both directand
circumstantial
evidence.
King v. State,895S.w.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App.
1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston flst Dist.]
2010,pet.refd).
Possession
is definedas "actualcare,custody,control,or management."
Tex. Pen.Code $ 1.07(a)(39)
(West2011);Tex. Health& SafetyCode g
481.002(38).
To proveunlawfulpossession
of a controlledsubstance,
the State
must establishthat (1) the accusedexercisedcare,control,or management
and(2) knewthe substance
overthe contraband, wascontraband.
Poindexterv.
State,153 S.W.3d402,405 (Tex. Crim. App.2005). The evidencemust
establishthat the accused'sconnectionwith the substancewas more than
fortnitous.Id. at 405-06.Evidencemustlink the accused
to the offensesothat
onereasonably
may infer that the accusedknew of the contraband's
existence
andexercised
conffoloverit. Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830(Tex.App.-
Houston[14thDist.] 2001,,pet.refd). Merepresence
at the locationwherethe
controlled substancewas found is insufficient, by itself to establish
possession.
Evansv. State,202S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
In this case,thereis no evidencethat appellantactuallyexercisedcare,
custody,or control over the subjectcocaine.The testimonyestablished
that
ChristopherHutchinsondiscardedthe baggieof cocaineinto the toilet. There
11
is no evidencethat appellantever touchedthe cocaineor the baggiecontaining
the cocaine.In fact, the police indicatedthat they never saw appellantput any
item into the toilet. (RR III 92, I42). While the testimony establishedthat the
officers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes, thereis no evidencethat
appellant ever exercisedcare, control, or managementover the confaband.
Thus, the evidenceis insufficient to supportthe jury's verdict, and this court
should enter a judgment of acquittal on the possessionof a controlled
substanceconviction.
Tamperingwith PhysicalEvidence- CauseNumber1397495
The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard
that a reviewingcourt shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis
sufficientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis
requiredto provebeyonda reasonable
doubt. Brooksv. State,323S.W.3d
893,895(Tex.Crim.App. 2010);Jacksonv. Virginia,443U.S.307,99 S.Ct.
2781,6I L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient
to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most
favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each
essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable
doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship,
l2
397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L.Ed.2d 368(1970);
Lasterv.
state,275s.w.3d 5r2,517 (Tex.crim. App. 2009);williamsv. state,235
S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the
verdict,the evidenceis insufficientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno
evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the
offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes
a reasonable
doubt.Laster
v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This standard
appliesequallyto both directand
circumstantial
evidence.
King v. State,895S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App.
1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.]
20l0,pet.refd).
A personcommitsthe offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence(as
specificallychargedin the indicfinent)if, knowingthat an offensehad been
committed,alter or destroya thing, namelycocaine,with intentto impair its
investigationof or official proceeding
verity as evidencein any subsequent
relatedto theoffense.(CR9); Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(dX1).
In this case,the evidenceis insufficientto supporta convictionfor
tamperingwith physicalevidencesincethere is no evidencethat appellant
actually alteredor destroyedthe cocainethat was found in the toilet. The
indictment and the jury charge in this case did not allege that appellant
concealedthe evidence,one of the methodsin which one could committhe
13
offense
under$ 37.09(d)(1);
(CR9,39-43).The andthejury charge
indictment
only allegedthat appellantalteredor destroyedthe physicalevidence.(CR 9).
Therefore,the Courtof Appealserredin finding (1) that "the jury couldhave
foundthat [appellant]"conceal[ed]"the evidence,(2)that "thejury couldhave
reasonablyinferred that appellantconcealedthe cocainethat the officers
recoveredfrom the toilet, and (3) that "the jury couldhavereasonablyfound
that appellantconcealed...cocaine."
Gordwinv. State,No. 01-14-00343-CR
pgs. 8-10. The jury was not authorizedto
(April 30, 2015,unpublished),
convictunderthetheorythatappellant"concealed"the evidence.
The only evidencethat was presentedto the jury was that appellant
flushedthe toilet thatcontainedthe baggieof cocainethatwasput thereby the
co-defendant.
Thereis no evidencethatthe physicalevidencewaseveraltered
or destroyed.In fact, sincethe cocainewas inside a plastic baggie,it was
shownthat the cocainewasnot alteredat all. Furthermore.sincethe cocaine
wasretrievedby the police,the evidencewasnot destroyedin anyway.In this
case,the most that the Statecould prove was that appellantcommittedthe
offenseof attemptedtamperingwith physicalevidence.However,sincethe
elementsof tamperingwith physicalevidencewerenot provenby the State,
appellantrequeststhat this Courtacquithim of the offenseof tamperingwith
physicalevidence.
I4
Conclusionand Praver
Appellantpraysthatthis HonorableCourtgrantAppellant'sPetitionfor
Discretionary
Review,reversethe decisionof the Courtof Appeals,andacquit
appellantin eachcause.
Respectfu
lly Submitted,
lsl Jerald Graber
JeraldK. Graber
917Franklin, Suite510
Houston, Texas77002
713-224-2323
Attorneyfor Appellant
Certificateof Compliance
I, JeraldK. Graber,do certify that this petition is in compliancewith
Rule 9 sincethe entiredocumentconsistsof 2,250wordsand is typedusing
14-pointfont.
lsl Jerald Graber
JeraldK. Graber
15
Certificateof Service
I herebycertiff that a copy of this PDR was serveduponthe followiirg
partiesvia e-file:
Alan Curry
Hanis CountyDistrictAttomey'sOffice
1201Franklin.6* Floor
Houston,TX'77002
StateProsecutingAttorney
P.O.Box 12405
Austin,Texas 787L1
lsl Jerald Graber
JeraldK. Graber
I6
Opinion issuedApril30, 2015
In The
6ourtof9ppeEls
For The
fritstDfstrictof@exug
NO. 0l-14-00343-CR
NO. 0l-14-00344-CR
DAMION CORNELIUS GORDWIN, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,Appeilee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris CountyoTexas
Trial Court CaseNos. 1397495& t3gi4g6
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury foundappellant,DamionCorneliusGordwin,guilty of the
offensesof
tamperingwith physical evidencerand possessionof a controlled
substance,
namely cocaine,weighing less than one gram.t It assessed
his punishmentat
confinementfor threeyearsfor tamperingwith physicalevidenceand confinement
for two yearsfor possessionof a controlledsubstance,with the sentences
to run
concuffently. In threeissues,appellantcontendsthat the evidenceis insufficient
to
support his convictions and the trial court erred in entering a deadly weapon
finding in itsjudgment.
We affirm.
Background
HoustonPolice Department("FIPD") Officer M. Santuariotestifiedthat on
August 9,2013, while working in the IIPD NarcoticsDivision, he and otherlaw
enforcementofficers "serve[d] and execute[d]a
fno knock] searchwarrant,,at a
residence. Santuarioactedas the "caseagent" and the "pointman,,for the entry
seeTex. PeNar,coon ANNr.$ 37.09(dX1) (vemonsupp. 2Mg; appellatecause
number0l-14-00343-cR;trial courtcausenumber13g74g5.
see Tpx. HearrH & sepnrv coop AwN. $$4s1.102(3xD), 481.115(a),
(b)
{:ryf" 2010);
appellate
cause number ot-t+-oo:+4-cR;
trial court
cause
number
1397496.
team' HPD Officer J. Elkins 'obreached
the [front] door" of the residence.while
I{PD OffrcerDelacertadeployedthe..flashbang."3
As Officer Santuarioenteredthe residence,he saw appellant,who ,,was
armed,"and ChristopherHutchinsonrun into a hallway and then into a restroom.
He followed them because"[n]ormally in a situationlike th[is]', peoplerun
to
'odiscardor
destroynarcotics." When Santuarioarrived in the restroom,he saw
Hutchinson"kneelingdown in front of the toilet," 'oonthe floor,,,while appellant
threw a small 'opistol" onto the restroomfloor and then flushed the toilet
repeatedly.The "pistol" o\vasa fioaded]semiautomaticf,]
. . . small silver guo,,,
with ooaround in the chamber." Although Santuarioorderedappellantto ,ostop,,
flushing the toilet, he refusedand "[c]ontinuedflushing or pulling the
[toilet]
lever." WhenSantuariotried to removeappellantfrom the toilet,he resisted.
While appellantflushedthe toilet, Hutchinson'ohadhis handsin the toilet
bowl," and Officer Santuarioo'sawsomethingleave his hands." As Santuario
explained:"[I]t was [a] couplethingsthatweresmall[,which]
[l]ookedlike plastic
bags.. .." Generally,peopledo not "flush emptyplastic bagsdown the toilet,"
but rather "narcotics." Thus, it appearedto Santuario that appellant and
Hutchinson were working together to flush the items down the toilet. When
Officer Elkins commandedHutchinsonto o'stop"and "put his handsaway from the
Oflicer Santuarioexplainedthat a "flash bang" "is a distractiondevice,,thatmakes
a loud gunshot-likesound,flasheslight, andieleasesminimal smoke.
toilet"' he did not comply. Elkins, therefore,o'reached
in and basicallyyanked
[Hutchinson] away from the toilet." After the offrcers removedappellantand
Hutchinsonfrom the restroom,they "handcuffedand . . . escorted
[them] out of the
residence."
Officer Santuariothen took "a closer look at th[e] toilet" and .,removedit
from the base[on] the floor." Insidethe toilet,he foundo'asmall baggiethat had
crack cocainein it." FIPDofficersalso searched
the remainder the residence,
,of
appellant,and Hutchinson,and they recovered$2,103 in cash, marijuanaand
related paraphernalia,a "small digital scale,,,a beaker,a revolver, and a ,.baby
bottlewith what appeared
to be codeineinsideof it."
Officer Elkinstestifiedthat he assistedwith the executionof the oono
knock',
searchwarrant at the residence.He breachedthe residence'sfront door with a
"[b]attering device," and officer Delacertadeployedthe .,flash bang." After
Santuarioyelled,,,[r]unners,,,
Elkins followed Officer Santuariointo the residence,
to alert the other officersthat "individuals insidethe residence
[were] running."
Generally,peoplerun in situationssuchasthis to "hide," "get rid of something,,,
or
to "get away from officers." Elkins saw appellantand Hutchinsonrun toward the
restroom,and he and Santuariopursued.
Onceinsidethe restroom,
OfficerElkinssawappellant'odisc
ard"a,,[s]ilver
automaticpistol" onto the floor and Hutchinson"by the toilet area discarding
somethinginsidethe toilet." Hutchinsonhad his hands'oinsidethe
toilet,,,and it
lookedlike he was "[d]iscardingitemsinto the toilet." After Elkins
commanded
Hutchinsonto "show his hands"and 'ogetdown on the ground,"he did
not comply.
Although his focus was on Hutchison,Elkins saw appellanto'reaching
toward the
lever of the toilet," "obseryedhis handson the levero"and could hearthe
toilet
flushing. According to Elkins, the toilet 'ohadbeen flushed several
times.,,
Eventually,Elkins o'forcefully. . .pullfed]
[Hutchinson]off the toilet,' and took
him into custody. In a subsequentsearchof the restroom,Elkins saw Offrcer
Santuario'orecovera srnall bag of what appear[ed]to be crack cocaineout of
the
bottom of the toilet." t{PD officers also recoveredmarijuana, codeine, gfld
"anotherpistol" from the residence.
Mona Colcatestifiedthat she,as a criminalistwith the controlledsubstances
sectionof the IIPD CrimeLaboratory,"receive[s]andanalyze[s]evidence',to ,.test
it for the presenceof controlledsubstances." She analyzedthe oosmallbag,,
recoveredfrom the toilet andfoundthat it contained0.83gramsof cocaine.
Sufficiencyof the Evidence
In his third issue,appellantarguesthat the evidenceis insufficientro support
his convictionfor tamperingwith physicalevidencebecausehe did not ooactually
alter[] or destroyl] the cocainethat was found in the toilet." In his first issue,
appellantarguesthat the evidenceis insufficient to supporthis convictionfor
possessionof a controlledsubstancebecauseo'thereis no evidencethat
[he]
actuallyexercisedcare,custody,or controloverthe subjectcocaine.',
We review the legal sufficiencyof the evidenceby consideringall of the
evidence"in the light most favorableto the prosecution"to determinewhetherany
"rational trier of fact could havefoundthe essentialelementsof the crimebeyonda
reasonable
doubt." JaclId. And officer
santuariotestifiedthat he saw Hutchinsonplace a ,'couple,,of o,small,,,
,,plastic
bags"in the toilet, which appellantrepeatedlyflushed. And, basedon his training
and experience,Santuarioexplainedthat "people[do not] flush emptyplasticbags
down [a] toilet," but instead,they flush "narcotics." Officer Elkins similarly
testified that Hutchinson"discard[ed]items into the toilet," which appellant
was
flushing.
o"Circumstantial
evidenceis as probativeas direct evidencein establishing
the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidencealone can be suflicient
to
establishguilt."' Merritt v. state,36g s.w.3d 516,525 (Tex.crim. App. 2012)
(quotingHooperv. state,214s.w.3d 9, 13 (Tex.crim. App. 2007)).Basedon
the
abovetestimony,the jury could havereasonablyinferredthat appellantconcealed
the cocainethat the officers recoveredfrom the toilet. Moreover, it could have
reasonablyinfened that cocaine,other than the cocainerecoveredfrom the single
baggie,was flusheddown the toilet by appellant,and,thus,this other cocainewas
alteredor destroyed.seeRabbv. state,434 s.w.3d 613,617 (Tex. crim. App.
2014) (noting '"a fact finder could reasonablyinfer from the evidencethat the
baggieandpills weredestroyedby their passageinto fa]ppellant'sbody,');Hooper,
214 S.w.3d at l5 (factfinderspermittedto draw reasonable
inferencesif supported
by evidence);see,e.g.,Diaz v. state,Nos. l3-13-00067-c& 12-13-0006g-cR,
2014wL 1266350,at *2 & n.3 (Tex.App.-corpus christi Jan.23,2014,nopet.)
(mem.op., not designated
for publication)(concludingjury couldreasonablyhave
infened defendantdestroyedcocaineby flushing it down toilet where ,,therewas
cocaine found aroundthe rim of the toilet bowl and in the toilet water, and
fdefendant]hadjust exitedthe bathroonn");Turnerv. State,No. 13-12-00335-CR.
9
2013 wL 1092194,at *2 (Tex. App.-corpus christi Mar. 14, 2013,no pet.)
(mem. op., not designatedfor publication) (holding factfinder
could have
reasonably found defendant destroyed cocaine by swallowing based
on
circumstantialevidence officer saw baggie with o'white or beige rock-like
substance"in defendant'smouth and cocaine commonly packagedin
such
manner).
Viewing the evidencein the light most favorableto the jury's verdict, we
conclude that the jury could have reasonablyfound that appellant concealed,
altered,or destroyedcocaine.Accordingly,we hold that the evidenceis sufficient
to supporthis convictionof the offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence.
We overruleappellant'sthird issue.
Possessionof a Controlled Substance
A personcommitsthe offenseof possession
of a controlledsubstance
if he
"knowingly or intentionallypossesses"less than one gram of cocaine. Tpx.
HeaLrH& Sapprv cooE AuN. $$ 481. 102(3XD),481.115(a),(b) (vemon 2010).
To prove that appellantcommittedthis offense,the Statehad to establishbeyonda
reasonable
doubt that he exercisedcontrol,management,
or careover the cocaine
and knew that it was contraband.Poindexterv. State,l53 S.W.3d 402,405(Tex.
crim. App. 2005);seealso Tsx. pnuat-coDE Ar'rN.g 1.07(a)(39)(vernon supp.
2014). Althoughthe Stateneednot proveexclusivepossession
of cocaine,it must
t0
establishthat a defendant'sconnectionwith the cocaineis more than fortuitous.
Evansv. state,202 s.w.3d r5g, 16142 (Tex. crim. App. 2006);
wiley v. state,
388 s.w.3d 807, 813 (Tex.App.-Houston
[lst Dist.] 20l2,pet. refd). when a
defendantis not in exclusivepossession
of the placewherecontrabandis found,
the Statemust show additionalaffirmative links betweenthe defendantand'the
contraband.Deshongv. state,625 s,w.2d327,32g (Tex. crim. App.
[panelop.]
1981);Kibble v. state,340 s.w.3d 14,1g (Tex.App.-Houston
[lst Dist.] 2010,
pet. refd). Mere presencein the sameplaceas contrabandis insufficient,by
itself,
to establishactual care,custody,or control. Evans,202 s.w.3d at 162. But,
presenceor proximity to contraband,when combined with other direct
or
circumstantialevidence,maybe sufficientto establishpossession.1d.
Texascourtshaverecognizedthat the following non-exclusive,.affirmative
links" may be sufftcient,eithersinglyor in combination,to establisha defenclant's
possession
of narcotics: (l) the defendant'spresencewhen a searchis conducted;
(2) whetherthe contrabandwas in plain view; (3) the defendant'sproximity to and
the accessibilifyof the narcotic;(4) whetherthe defendantwasunderthe influence
of narcoticswhen arrested;(5) whetherthe defendantpossessed
othercontraband
or narcotics when arrested;(6) whether the defendantmade incriminating
statementswhen arrested;(7) whetherthe defendantattemptedto flee; (8) whether
the defendantmade furtive gestures;(9) whethertherewas an odor of narcotics;
11
(10) whether other contrabandor narcoticsparaphernaliawere present;(11)
whether the defendantowned or had the right to possessthe place where the
narcoticswere found; (12) whetherthe placewherethe narcoticswere found was
enclosed;(13) whetherthe defendantwas found with a largeamountof cash;and
(14) whetherthe conductof the defendantindicateda consciousness
of guilt. Id. at
162 n.12. It is not the numberof links that is dispositive,but rather,the logical
force of the evidence,both direct and circumstantial,that is dispositiveto show
possession
. Id. at !62; Jamesv. state,264s.w.3 d2l5,2lg (Tex.App.-Houston
Ist Dist.] 2008,pet.ref d).
Appellant arguesthat "there is no evidencethat [he] actuallyexercisedcare,
custody, or control over the subject cocaine" becausethe evidenceat trial
"establishedthat. . . Hutchinsondiscardedthe baggieof cocaineinto the toilet,"
"the police indicatedthat they neversaw appellantput any item into the toilet," and
it was not shownthat "appellantever touchedthe cocaineor the baggiecontaining
the cocaine."
Officer Santuariotestified that appellantwas presentin the residence,which
was equippedwith surveillanceequipmentat the time law enforcementofficers
executedthe searchwarrant. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12, 16344
(presence
whensearchconductedconstitutesaffirmativelink); see,e.g.,Lavignev.
state,No.01-07-00995-cR,200g
wL 31153g5,at*3 (Tex.App.-Houston[1st
T2
Dist.l Aug. 7, 2008, pet. ref d) (mem. op., not designatedfor publication)
(concludingevidencesufficientwheredefendantfoundinsideresidence.,equipped
with the extrasecurityassociatedwith a housededicatedto manufacturingcrack',).
Insidethe residence,
officersfound lettersaddressed
to appellantat the residence,
picturesin the bedrooms,and male clothingthat matchedappellant'ssize. See
Evans,202S.W.3dat 162 n.12, 164-65(receivingmail at residenceandpresence
of clothingraisesreasonableinferencedefendantoccupiedresidence);Cooperv.
state, 852 S.W.2d679,6g1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] lgg3, pet. ref d)
(concluding rnail addressedto defendant, defendant's picture, and clothing
appearingto fit defendantindicateddefendantoccupiedresidence).
When the offtcers enteredthe residence,appellant,along with Hutchinson,
ran to the restroom,and Officer Santuariofound appellantstandingnext to and
flushing the toilet, from which he later recovereda 'osmallbaggie
[of] crack
cocaine."SeeEvans,202S.W.3dat 162n.12(proximityto narcotic,attemptingto
flee, and making furtive gesturesconstituteaffirmative links); see,e.g.)Jordan v.
state, Nos. 02-L2-00470-c& 02-12-00471-cR,02-12-00472-cR, 2014 wL
1663404,at *3 (Tex. App.-Fort worth Apr. 24, 2014,no pet.) (mem.op., not
designated
for publication)(fleeingto restroomdid not indicatean "innocentstate
of mind"); Perezv. State,No. 07-l l-00249-cR, 2012wL 1 122704,at *4 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo Apr. 4, 2012,no pet.) (menn.op., not designatedfor publication)
t3
(concludingevidencesufficientto showpossession
wherecocainefound in urinal
"immediately adjacentto where [defendant]was standing");Garrett v. State, 16l
S.W.3d664,671(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005,pet.refd) (evidencesufficientto
show defendantpossessed
crack cocainewhere defendantfound flushing bagsof
crackcocainedowntoilet).
Although Hutchinson,rather than appellant,"had his hands in the toilet
bowl" and discarded"something" that "[l]ooked like plastic bags," officer
Santuariotestified that it appearedthat appellantand Hutchinsonwere working
togetherto flush the itemsdown the toilet. ,See,e.g.,Sandersv. State,No. I I-12-
00151-cR,2074wL 3882185,at *6 (Tex. App.-Eastland Aug.7, 2014,pet.
refd) (mem.op., not designatedfor publication)("[Defendant's]attempt[]to aid
his mother's attempt to destroy evidence when officers arrived at the house,
of guilt on his part.");perez,zol2 wL 1 122704,at *4
indicat[ed]a consciousness
("[A]t the same time [defendant] was arrested,two other individuals whom
fdefendant]was observedto be standingvery closelyto, were observedattempting
to throw awayor concealbaggiesof cocaine.',).
Officer Santuarioalso saw appellantthrow ooasemiautomatic[,]. . . small
silver gutr,"which was o'loaded"with "a roundin the chamber"onto the restroom
t4
floor.a see Porter v. state,873 S.w.2d729,733 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994,pet.
refd) (concludingpresenceof firearms in apartmentwhere cocaine located
constitutedaflirmative link). And a searchof the remainderof the residence,
appellant, and Hutchinsonrevealed $2,103 in cash, marijuana,and related
which had beensitting in "plain view" on a table,a .osmalldigital
paraphernalia,
scale," a beaker,a revolver,and a o'babybottle with what appearedto be codeine
inside of it." see Evans, 202 s.w.3d at 162 n.12, 163_-6s
(presenceof other
contraband, narcotics paraphernalia, and large amount of cash constitute
affirmative links); Hargrove v. state, 2lr s.\M.3d 379, 396 (Tex. App.-san
Antonio 2006, pet. refd) (concluding presenceof narcotics paraphernalia,
including digital scale,andweaponsin houseconstitutedaffirmativelinks).
Viewing the evidencein the light most favorableto the jury's verdict,we
concludethat sufficientaffirmativelinks connectappellantto the cocaine.And the
jury could havereasonablyinfened from the cumulativeforce of the evidencethat
appellantexercisedactualcare,custody,or controlof the cocaine.SeeEvans,202
S.W.3dat 166 (concludingevidence,'.whenviewed in combinationand its sum
total, constitutedamply suflicient evidence"). Accordingly,we hold that the
Officer Elkins sirnilarly testified that he saw appellant o'discard" a "silver
automaticpistol" on the floor, saw appellant"reaching toward the lever of the
toilet," "observed[appellant's]handson the lever," and heardthe toilet flushing.
In a subsequentsearchof the restroom,Officer Santuario'orecover[ed]a srnallbag
of what appearfed]to be crack cocaineout of the bottom of the toilet.;' And HpD
officers recoveredmarijuana,codeine,and "anotherpistol" in the residence.
l5
evidenceis sufficientto supportappellant'sconvictionof the offenseof possession
of a controlledsubstance.
We overruleappellant,sfirst issue.
DeadlyWeaponF'inding
In his secondissue,appellantarguesthat the trial court erredin "enteringa
deadlyweaponfinding in the judgmentfor possession
of a controlledsubstance,'
becauseo'there[was] no expressfinding by the jury that [he] usedor exhibiteda
deadlyweapon,namelya firearm.,'
When a jury is the factfinder,it must makean affirmativefinding concerning
the use or exhibition of a deadlyweaponbeforethe trial court can enter a deadly
weaponfinding in its judgment.La/leurv. state,106s.w.3d gl, g2 (Tex.crim.
App. 2003). 'oAffirmativefinding" meansan ooexpress
determination"by the jury
that a deadlyweaponwas actuallyusedor exhibitedduringthe commissionof the
offense.Polkv. state,693s.w.2d391,393 (Tex.crim. App. 19g5). Thejury
makesthe requiredaffirmativefinding when: (1) the indictmentallegesthe useor
exhibition of a deadly weapon and the jury's verdict statesthat it found the
defendant"guilty as chargedin the indictment"; (2) the jury finds the defendant
guilty as allegedin the indictmentand,althoughthe useof a deadlyweaponis not
specificallypleaded,the indictmentallegesthe use or exhibitionof a weaponthat
is deadlyper se; or (3) thejury affirmativelyanswersa specialissueon the useor
I6
exhibitionof a deadly weapon. polk, 693 s.w.Zd, at 396; Johnsony. state. 6
s.w.3d 709,713-14(Tex.App.-Houstonflst Dist.] tggg,pet.refd).
Here,the indictmentspecificallyallegedthe use or exhibitionof a ,odeadly
weapon"by appellant.5Officers Santuarioand Elkins testifiedthat appellant,.was
arm€d" and threw a "small silver gun" onto the restroomfloor beforehe began
flushing the toilet. And the jury, in its verdict, found appellant,.guilty of
possessionof a controlled substance,namely, cocaine,. . . as chargedin the
indictment."Further,the trial court'schargeto thejury includeda questionasking
the jury to determinewhetherappellantusedor exhibiteda deadlyweaponduring
the commissionof the offenseor during the immediateflight therefrom,and the
jury answeredthe questionin the affinnative. See Polk, 693 S.W.2dat 394:
Johnson,6 S.W.3dat 7 13-14.
Once the jury madethe affirmative finding, the trial court was requiredto
enterthe finding in its judgment. SeeTBx. ConE CRrM.Pnoc. Ar.rN.arts. 42.01,
$ 1(21),42.12,g 3g(a)(2)(vernonSupp.2M0; Johnson,6s.w.3d at7r4 (when
jury makesaffrrmative finding on useof deadlyweapon,o'enteringthe affirmative
finding in the judgment is mandatory;the trial court has no discretion").
The indictmentstates: "[A]t the time that the Defendantcommittedthe felony
offenseof PoSSESSIONoF CONTROLLEDSUBSTANCEon or about
AUGUST9,2013,ashereinabove alleged,heusedandexhibiteda deadlyweapon
namely,a FIREARM, duringthe commissionof said offenseand durine the
immediateflight from saidoffense."
I7
Accordingly,we hold thatthetrial courtdid not err in enteringthedeadlyweaipon
findingin itsjudgment.
Weovemrleappellant's
secondissue.
Conclusion
Weaffirm thejudgmentof thetrial court
Terry Jennings
Justice
Panelconsistsof JusticesJennings,Keyes,andMassengale.
Do not publish. TEx.R. App.P. 47.2(b),
18