Pedro Sifuentez, Sr. v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-12-00543-CR
PEDRO SIFUENTEZ, SR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Castro County, Texas
Trial Court No. A3399-1204, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid Jr., Presiding
September 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Pedro Sifuentez, Sr., appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled
substance, namely methamphetamine. Through a single issue, he contends that the
evidence is insufficient to establish the links necessary to connect him with the drug.
We affirm.
In addressing the issue, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893,
912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The essential elements at bar consisted of the State
proving that appellant knowingly exercised care, control, or management over the
controlled substance (methamphetamine) and knew the matter possessed was
contraband. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405-06 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Furthermore, when the accused does not have sole possession of the locale wherein
the drugs were found, we consider various indicia to assess the quality of the link
between him and the drugs. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161-62 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006). Those indicia consist of such things as whether 1) the accused was present
when the search was conducted, 2) the contraband was plainly visible by those present,
3) the drugs were near the defendant, 4) the defendant was under the influence of the
substance when found, 5) the defendant possessed other contraband or drug
paraphernalia when arrested, 6) the defendant uttered any incriminating statements, 7)
the defendant attempted to flee or acted in a way that indicated a consciousness of
guilt, 8) the defendant made furtive gestures, 9) the contraband emitted a recognizable
odor at the time, 10) the place where the drugs were found was enclosed, 11) the
amount of contraband was large, and 12) the accused was familiar or had experience
with drugs. Valle v. State, 223 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, pet.
dism’d). Moreover, the number of indicia present is not as important as the degree to
which they tend to tie the defendant to the contraband. Wallace v. State, 932 S.W.2d
519, 524 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1995, pet. ref’d).
Construing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, we encounter the
following evidence. Law enforcement officials obtained a warrant to search a house
2
belonging to appellant for drugs. While they executed that warrant, appellant was seen
coming from a bedroom in his underwear. Appellant and a female shared the room
from which he exited. Inside it was found a dresser and bed. On the dresser lay 1) a
purse containing two baggies of methamphetamine, 2) a baggie containing a green
leafy substance, and 3) another baggie next to a mirrored plate containing a white
crystalized powder substance. On the bed, the officers found a baggie also containing
methamphetamine. Elsewhere in that same room, they discovered money, scales,
empty baggies, and “meth pipes.”
Not present were appellant's fingerprints on any of the drugs or their containers.
Nor did he own the purse. So too did two other people live in the house. Neither party
cites us to any evidence suggesting that appellant was under the influence of any
intoxicant at the time of the search. Nevertheless, our description in the foregoing
paragraph of what the record contains leads us to conclude that some evidence exists
upon which rational jurors could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knew of
the methamphetamine and knowingly exercised care, custody, or control over
it. Moreover, this finding does not undermine our confidence in the verdict. Thus, the
evidence is sufficient.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3