AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed December 10, 2020
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01497-CR No. 05-19-01498-CR
DECARLOS SINGLETON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-71132-Y, F18-7113-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Browning Opinion by Justice Whitehill A jury convicted appellant of two counts of delivering methamphetamine.
After finding enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at
thirty-two years in prison.
In two issues, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions because the evidence does not establish that he was the person who sold
the drugs. We disagree. This case concerns (i) whether the affirmative links test applies where there is
evidence that the defendant physically possessed the contraband when the crime was
committed and (ii) the jury’s ability to weigh evidence and decide credibility issues.
As to the former, we reject appellant’s invitation to apply the affirmative links test
in this context. Regarding the latter, there was sufficient, direct and circumstantial,
evidence identifying appellant as the person who sold the drugs from his apartment
that a reasonable juror could have found his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Among other incriminating evidence, the undercover officer who twice
purchased the drugs at appellant’s apartment in face-to-face deals identified
appellant as the seller and specifically remembered appellant as a tall, bald male with
a unique identifying feature—gold teeth. Another undercover officer who was
present confirmed the descriptions. And a rational jury could reasonably have
concluded that appellant’s version of events was not credible. Therefore, we
conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and affirm the trial
court’s judgments.
I. BACKGROUND
An undercover officer purchased methamphetamine on two separate
occasions from an individual with gold teeth that he identified as appellant.
Appellant was subsequently charged in two separate indictments, with two
enhancement paragraphs each, with delivery of methamphetamine.
2 At trial, appellant denied making the sales. He acknowledged that he leased
the apartment from which the drugs were sold but claimed that he was living in
Houston with his mother at the time of the sale. The State presented evidence
refuting appellant’s version of events.
A jury found appellant guilty of both offenses. After finding the enhancement
paragraphs true, the court assessed punishment at thirty-two years in prison and
entered judgments accordingly. Appellant appeals from those judgments.
II. ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that two drug sales were made directly to the undercover
officer, Detective Womack. But appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to
support his convictions because it does not establish that he was the person who sold
the drugs. As discussed below, we disagree.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction by viewing
all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any
rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
This standard gives full play to the factfinder’s responsibility to resolve
testimonial conflicts, weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences from basic
facts to ultimate facts. Id. at 319; Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim.
3 App. 2015). And the factfinder is the sole judge of the evidence’s weight and
credibility. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.04; Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166,
170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Thus, when performing an evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not re-
evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder’s. See Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012). Instead, we determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable
based upon the cumulative force of the evidence when viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict. Murray, 457 S.W.3d at 448. We must presume that the
factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in the verdict’s favor and defer to that
resolution. Id. at 448–49. The standard of review is the same for direct and
circumstantial evidence cases; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct
evidence in establishing guilt. Dobbs, 434 S.W.3d at 170; Acosta v. State, 429
S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the
person who committed the offense. Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010). Identity may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial
evidence, or reasonable inferences from the evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d
274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
4 A person commits delivery of a controlled substance if they knowingly
manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to deliver methamphetamine. TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.112(a).
B. Identity Evidence Supporting the Convictions
Detective Darrell Womack of the Dallas Police Department arranged to
purchase ecstasy pills through a social media page run by the Dallas police. He
received details for his purchases over text messages and phone calls from a person
using a cell phone with a Houston area code. On January 18, 2018, he drove to a
Dallas apartment complex to make his first purchase.
The dealer asked Detective Womack to bring him some beer and cigarettes so
Detective Womack purchased these items at a nearby gas station on his way to the
sale. When Detective Womack arrived at the apartment complex, a large, bald male
stepped out of an apartment to meet him. The man had gold teeth and sounded like
the person Detective Womack had been speaking with on the phone. Detective
Womack identified appellant as that man.
Detective Womack was able to see appellant clearly. He shook appellant’s
hand and gave him the beer, cigarettes, and some cash in exchange for 20 pills. The
pills were field tested and showed positive for methamphetamine.
5 Later, Detective Womack texted appellant and asked to purchase 50 more pills
for $160. Appellant agreed and Detective Womack returned to the apartment
complex six days later.
When appellant came out of the apartment, he and Detective Womack
exchanged the cash for the pills at the back of Detective Womack’s car. Another
field test revealed the pills tested positive for methamphetamine.
Although it was dark when the transactions occurred, it was not so dark that
Detective Womack could not see the person handing him the drugs. During these
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed December 10, 2020
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01497-CR No. 05-19-01498-CR
DECARLOS SINGLETON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-71132-Y, F18-7113-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Browning Opinion by Justice Whitehill A jury convicted appellant of two counts of delivering methamphetamine.
After finding enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at
thirty-two years in prison.
In two issues, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions because the evidence does not establish that he was the person who sold
the drugs. We disagree. This case concerns (i) whether the affirmative links test applies where there is
evidence that the defendant physically possessed the contraband when the crime was
committed and (ii) the jury’s ability to weigh evidence and decide credibility issues.
As to the former, we reject appellant’s invitation to apply the affirmative links test
in this context. Regarding the latter, there was sufficient, direct and circumstantial,
evidence identifying appellant as the person who sold the drugs from his apartment
that a reasonable juror could have found his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Among other incriminating evidence, the undercover officer who twice
purchased the drugs at appellant’s apartment in face-to-face deals identified
appellant as the seller and specifically remembered appellant as a tall, bald male with
a unique identifying feature—gold teeth. Another undercover officer who was
present confirmed the descriptions. And a rational jury could reasonably have
concluded that appellant’s version of events was not credible. Therefore, we
conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and affirm the trial
court’s judgments.
I. BACKGROUND
An undercover officer purchased methamphetamine on two separate
occasions from an individual with gold teeth that he identified as appellant.
Appellant was subsequently charged in two separate indictments, with two
enhancement paragraphs each, with delivery of methamphetamine.
2 At trial, appellant denied making the sales. He acknowledged that he leased
the apartment from which the drugs were sold but claimed that he was living in
Houston with his mother at the time of the sale. The State presented evidence
refuting appellant’s version of events.
A jury found appellant guilty of both offenses. After finding the enhancement
paragraphs true, the court assessed punishment at thirty-two years in prison and
entered judgments accordingly. Appellant appeals from those judgments.
II. ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that two drug sales were made directly to the undercover
officer, Detective Womack. But appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to
support his convictions because it does not establish that he was the person who sold
the drugs. As discussed below, we disagree.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction by viewing
all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any
rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
This standard gives full play to the factfinder’s responsibility to resolve
testimonial conflicts, weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences from basic
facts to ultimate facts. Id. at 319; Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim.
3 App. 2015). And the factfinder is the sole judge of the evidence’s weight and
credibility. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.04; Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166,
170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Thus, when performing an evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not re-
evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder’s. See Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012). Instead, we determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable
based upon the cumulative force of the evidence when viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict. Murray, 457 S.W.3d at 448. We must presume that the
factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in the verdict’s favor and defer to that
resolution. Id. at 448–49. The standard of review is the same for direct and
circumstantial evidence cases; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct
evidence in establishing guilt. Dobbs, 434 S.W.3d at 170; Acosta v. State, 429
S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the
person who committed the offense. Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010). Identity may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial
evidence, or reasonable inferences from the evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d
274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
4 A person commits delivery of a controlled substance if they knowingly
manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to deliver methamphetamine. TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.112(a).
B. Identity Evidence Supporting the Convictions
Detective Darrell Womack of the Dallas Police Department arranged to
purchase ecstasy pills through a social media page run by the Dallas police. He
received details for his purchases over text messages and phone calls from a person
using a cell phone with a Houston area code. On January 18, 2018, he drove to a
Dallas apartment complex to make his first purchase.
The dealer asked Detective Womack to bring him some beer and cigarettes so
Detective Womack purchased these items at a nearby gas station on his way to the
sale. When Detective Womack arrived at the apartment complex, a large, bald male
stepped out of an apartment to meet him. The man had gold teeth and sounded like
the person Detective Womack had been speaking with on the phone. Detective
Womack identified appellant as that man.
Detective Womack was able to see appellant clearly. He shook appellant’s
hand and gave him the beer, cigarettes, and some cash in exchange for 20 pills. The
pills were field tested and showed positive for methamphetamine.
5 Later, Detective Womack texted appellant and asked to purchase 50 more pills
for $160. Appellant agreed and Detective Womack returned to the apartment
complex six days later.
When appellant came out of the apartment, he and Detective Womack
exchanged the cash for the pills at the back of Detective Womack’s car. Another
field test revealed the pills tested positive for methamphetamine.
Although it was dark when the transactions occurred, it was not so dark that
Detective Womack could not see the person handing him the drugs. During these
face-to-face exchanges, Detective Womack was sufficiently close to be able to see
appellant’s size, hair style, height, and gold teeth.
Detective Eric Enriquez of the Dallas Police Department provided Detective
Womack with backup during both purchases. Detective Enriquez observed a tall,
black male with no hair enter and exit the apartment, and he did not see anyone else
in the area that fit the general description of the drug dealer.
The rent rolls Detective Womack obtained show that appellant was leasing
the apartment appellant emerged from for the sales. Using information from the rent
rolls, Detective Womack obtained a photograph of appellant from the Department
of Motor Vehicles and recognized appellant as the person who sold him the drugs.
Detective Womack then obtained a search warrant for appellant’s apartment.
6 No one was inside the apartment when Detective Womack executed the search
warrant. Two digital scales were found inside the apartment. Detective Womack
also found mail in the kitchen cabinet addressed to appellant which appeared to be
paystubs from his employment. The paystubs were from a company based in Irving
for a pay period that predated the first drug purchase and ended after the second.
Appellant’s personal identification card and social security card were found in the
bedroom. The identification card was issued over a year-and-a-half before the drug
sales and showed appellant’s gold teeth.
Appellant testified at trial. He said that he was placed in the apartment by the
Federal government following displacement from the Houston area due to Hurricane
Harvey, but during the time of the drug sales, he was living with his mother in
Houston.
According to appellant, he provided a homeless person a key to his apartment
to use while he was out of town. Appellant opined that many people in the area fit
the drug dealer’s description and that it was easy for other people to get into the
apartment. Appellant also said that he never worked for the company listed on the
paystubs found in the apartment; he created them to help him find a different
apartment to live in.
Appellant denied delivering drugs to Detective Womack. He also denied that
the grim reaper tattoo on his arm was a good luck symbol commonly used by drug
7 dealers. He admitted, however, that he was convicted of drug possession in 2002
and was arrested for delivering crack cocaine in 2005. He also admitted he had a
permanent gold grill attached to his teeth.
Appellant relies on the “affirmative links test” to argue that there are
insufficient affirmative links to connect him to the crime. Specifically, he challenges
evidence that the phone number from which texts were made to Detective Womack
was not his, says he never had short hair, and he used the nickname “Los,” not
“Clow.” He further claims he did not live in the apartment, gave the keys to the
apartment to a homeless man, and did not deliver the drugs to Detective Womack.1
The affirmative links test is used when a defendant is not in exclusive
possession of the place where contraband is found. Taylor v. State, 106 S.W.3d 827,
830 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). In that instance, the State must present
additional evidence to affirmatively link the contraband to the accused. Brown v.
State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Courts consider a list of non-
exclusive factors to determine if there is sufficient additional evidence linking the
defendant to the contraband. See Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2016).
1 The person who responded to the police’s Facebook page recommended “Clow,” her cousin, as a person selling drugs and provided appellant’s contact information. Detective Womack’s reports indicated appellant had short hair. 8 Here, however, the State did not allege that appellant was simply present when
drugs were found, but rather that he possessed and sold the drugs. Appellant argues
he was not the seller. Thus, the issue is not whether there are sufficient links
connecting appellant to the contraband. Instead, the question is whether there is
sufficient evidence identifying appellant as the seller.
Appellant’s claim that he did not live in the apartment at the time and gave
the keys to a homeless person and therefore could not have been the seller conflicted
with Detective Womack’s testimony positively identifying appellant as the man who
came out of the apartment and sold him the drugs. This conflicting testimony, and
the other conflicting evidence appellant identifies, required that the jury make
credibility determinations. See Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (jury is exclusive judge of facts and evidentiary weight).
The guilty verdict reflects that the jury found the State’s identity evidence
more credible. And we do not substitute our judgment for the factfinder’s or reweigh
the evidence. See Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
On this record, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s convictions. We
resolve appellant’s two issues against him.
9 III. CONCLUSION
Having resolved all of appellant’s issues against him, we affirm the trial
/Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 191497F.U05
10 S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DECARLOS SINGLETON, On Appeal from the Criminal District Appellant Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1871132-Y No. 05-19-01497-CR V. CT.1. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Whitehill. Justices Schenck and Browning participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 10, 2020
11 S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DECARLOS SINGLETON, On Appeal from the Criminal District Appellant Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-71113-Y No. 05-19-01498-CR V. CT.1. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Whitehill. Justices Schenck and Browning participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.