Bobby Lee Fletcher v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 13, 2006
• Docket: 11-04-00305-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed April 13, 2006

Opinion filed April 13, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-04-00305-CR

                                                    __________

                                 BOBBY  LEE  FLETCHER, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                       STATE  OF  TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

                                                          Taylor County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. 21,289-A

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Bobby Lee Fletcher of the offense of possessing between four and two hundred grams of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver.  The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 35 years.  We affirm. 

Appellant presents two issues for review.  In these issues, he challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in support of his conviction.  Appellant specifically contends that the evidence fails to show his intent to deliver.  We disagree. 

To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of 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 crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).  To determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence supporting guilt is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the evidence contrary to the verdict is so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof could not have been met.  Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

In cases involving unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove that the accused exercised care, custody, control, or management over the substance and that the accused knew that the matter possessed was contraband.  Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).  When the accused is not shown to have had exclusive possession of the place where the contraband was found, the evidence must affirmatively link the accused to the contraband.  Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).  Furthermore, the intent to deliver a controlled substance may be proven by circumstantial evidence.  Ingram v. State, 124 S.W.3d 672, 675-76 (Tex. App.CEastland 2003, no pet.).  Inferences regarding the intent to deliver can be made from the conduct of the defendant as well as the amount of the controlled substance possessed and the manner in which it was possessed.  Id.; Rhodes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 242, 251 (Tex. AppC Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 945 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

The record shows that, after a two-week surveillance, the police executed a search warrant at appellant=s residence.  Officer Steve Rogers testified that he asked the three occupants B appellant, Pamela Medico, and Wendy Dower B if anyone wanted to surrender any hidden drugs.  Appellant was the only one of the three to respond.  He indicated that drugs were in the house, and he showed Officer Rogers where they were.  Appellant led Officer Rogers to a bedroom and indicated that methamphetamine was located in a bag on the bed where appellant and Medico had been sleeping. Appellant stated, AThe only thing I have left is about an 8-ball of speed in that bag.@  Appellant told Officer Rogers that the methamphetamine was in a bank bag inside of a larger bag or purse.  Officer Rogers found the methamphetamine exactly where appellant said it would be:  in a small, zippered bank bag about the size of a coin purse.  The larger bag or purse contained items belonging to Medico and appellant.  Appellant=s wallet was in the larger bag.

Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found throughout the house.  Among the items found were scales, pipes used to smoke marihuana and methamphetamine, a spoon and syringe, and small baggies like those often used to package and sell methamphetamine.  Both methamphetamine and marihuana were found during the search.  The methamphetamine found in the bag on appellant=s bed weighed 4.57 grams.  The methamphetamine found in a guitar string package in the living room weighed .06 grams.  Officer Rogers testified that the quantity of methamphetamine found in the bag was too large for personal use.  He also indicated that a controlled buy was conducted at appellant=s residence during the two-week surveillance.

Medico testified on appellant=s behalf.  She testified that appellant was her boyfriend and that she never saw him sell any drugs.  Medico claimed ownership of the pipes, the scales, and the methamphetamine found in the bag, which she says was her purse.  Medico testified that she used the scales to make sure she received the quantity paid for when she bought drugs for her personal use.  Medico denied the existence of the syringe and spoon and knew nothing of the metham-phetamine found in the guitar string package.  Medico also stated that Officer Rogers was lying about the location of the scales.  She said they were in her purse, not out in plain view on the table as Officer Rogers had testified.  Medico also testified that the methamphetamine was in her purse but that it was not in a smaller bank bag or coin purse.  She also contradicted the officer=s testimony regarding the baggies used for packaging methamphetamine to sell.  According to Medico, they were not in her purse.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we hold that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury=s verdict.  The evidence showed sufficient affirmative links to connect appellant to the methamphetamine, and sufficient circumstantial evidence was introduced to show that he possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to sell it.  Drugs, drug paraphernalia, and scales were found in appellant=s residence.  A quantity of methamphetamine that was too large for personal use was found in a bag on the bed where appellant had been sleeping.  Appellant=s wallet was also in that bag.  A controlled buy had recently been conducted at appellant=s residence.  During the execution of the warrant, appellant led the officers to the methamphetamine and stated that that was all he had left.  In addition to the methamphetamine, there were several small, empty baggies like those used to put methamphetamine in when it is sold.  The jury was free to disbelieve Medico=s testimony to the contrary and to find that appellant possessed the methamphetamine with intent to deliver.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.13 (Vernon 1981), art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); see also Rhodes, 913 S.W.2d at 250-51.  Appellant=s issues are overruled. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

RICK STRANGE

JUSTICE

April 13, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.