Tommy Earl Landrum, Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 13, 2024
• Docket: 10-23-00007-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00007-CR

TOMMY EARL LANDRUM, JR., Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 82nd District Court Falls County, Texas Trial Court No. 11190

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tommy Earl Landrum was found guilty by a jury of the second-degree felony

offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d). The jury found two allegations of prior felony

convictions true and assessed Landrum’s punishment at forty years in the penitentiary. The trial court sentenced Landrum accordingly. Landrum brings this appeal seeking

reversal of the trial court’s judgment. We affirm.

Background

On November 10, 2021, deputies with the Falls County Sheriff’s office responded

to a night-time call of a suspicious vehicle on County Road 494 North in Chilton, Texas.

When the deputies arrived on the scene, they observed a blue Mercury Grand Marquis

sedan parked in the road with its lights turned off, and passenger door open. Landrum

was in the driver’s seat and Shandra Morris was in the passenger seat. Deputies

discovered Morris had a cut on her leg and called EMS to the scene. In a search of the

vehicle, the deputies found drug paraphernalia, a black and grey “Nissan” case that

contained several small plastic bags of methamphetamine, several cigars, and a receipt.

Landrum was arrested and subsequently indicted.

Issue

In one issue, Landrum complains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence

of two extraneous offenses.

AUTHORITY

We review the trial court’s admission of extraneous-offense evidence for an abuse

of discretion. Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). As long as the

trial court’s ruling was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement,” there is no abuse

of discretion and the trial court's ruling will be upheld. Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155,

Landrum v. State Page 2 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible

to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformity therewith. TEX. R.

EVID. 404(b). If extraneous-offense evidence has relevance apart from character

conformity, it is admissible if the proponent persuades the trial court that it tends to

establish some elemental fact or that it rebuts a defensive theory. Santellan, 939 S.W.2d at

168. “Whether extraneous[-]offense evidence has relevance apart from character

conformity, as required by Rule 404(b), is a question for the trial court.” Moses v. State,

105 S.W.3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

DISCUSSION

During Landrum’s trial, the State was permitted to admit evidence of two

occasions when law enforcement found Landrum to be in possession of

methamphetamine. Both encounters resulted in Landrum being indicted for possession

of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and both extraneous offenses were

pending cases in Falls County at the time of Landrum’s trial.

On appeal, Landrum argues that admission of the two extraneous incidents was

“unnecessary because the State had already drawn a straight line between [Landrum]

and the controlled substance.” Landrum contends admission of the extraneous incidents

amounted to “overkill” and that the “evidence provided no help to the jury in resolving

the contested issue of possession.” Landrum also calls on us to reexamine our holding in

Aguilar v. State, in which we held that a defensive theory presented during jury selection

Landrum v. State Page 3 and/or opening statement can open the door to evidence of extraneous offenses. No. 10-

21-00118-CR, 2023 WL 2308266, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 1, 2023, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication). We decline to do so.

During trial, the State argued that evidence of the two extraneous offenses was

needed to refute Landrum’s defensive theory regarding Landrum’s lack of intent or lack

of knowledge of the methamphetamine. The State also argued the two extraneous

offenses were admissible under the doctrine of chances.

Landrum’s defensive theory was first developed during jury selection when

Landrum asked panel members whether anyone had ever had something left in their

vehicle, home, or office that was not theirs. Specifically, Landrum asked about “leftover

bags, boxes, purses” and how “possession can be difficult sometimes,” which was

followed by statements to the panel regarding having knowledge of the contents of any

item. Landrum‘s inquiry essentially asked whether it was fair to automatically conclude

that a person has knowledge of the contents of an item found on their person or in their

car. Landrum, in his opening statement, renewed his theme from jury selection by stating

that “[i]t's going to be very important for you to listen and to hear what the police found

and where they found it, and who else was there. Because just like we talked about in

Voir Dire possession can get complicated.” Finally, Landrum’s cross examination of the

two investigating deputies questioned whether Landrum had knowledge of the

methamphetamine. Specifically, Landrum asked whether there was an attempt to

Landrum v. State Page 4 recover fingerprints or DNA from the Nissan case or the plastic bags containing

methamphetamine, whether an effort was made to determine if either occupant of the

automobile owned a Nissan automobile, whether a credit card receipt found in the

Nissan case that matched a credit card found in Landrum’s possession could have been

from Morris’s use of the credit card, and whether Morris smoked cigars. Landrum’s

defensive theory made the extraneous offenses relevant to the material, non-propensity,

issues of knowledge and intent. See Santellan, 939 S.W.2d at 168. Where the material issue

addressed is the defendant’s intent to commit the offense charged, the relevancy of the

extraneous offense derives purely from the point of view of the doctrine of chances.

Plante v. State, 692 S.W.2d 487, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), holding modified by Harrell v.

State, 884 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

Whether analyzed under Rule 404(b) or the doctrine of chances, we conclude the

trial court could have reasonably decided that the extraneous offense evidence at issue

had noncharacter conformity relevance where it rebutted Landrum’s defensive theory

that he had no knowledge of the methamphetamine found in the Nissan container located

in the Mercury Grand Marquis sedan, thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

admitting the extraneous offense evidence and its admission did not violate Rule 404(b).

We overrule Landrum’s sole issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MATT JOHNSON Justice

Landrum v. State Page 5 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith (Chief Justice Gray concurs.) Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Landrum v. State Page 6