Winn, Elijah Deonza v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 13, 2005
• Docket: 14-04-00486-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 13, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 13, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-04-00486-CR

ELIJAH DEONZA WINN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02CR1540

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Elijah Winn appeals a conviction for possession of a controlled substance^[1] on the ground that the evidence was factually insufficient to prove that he possessed the contraband.  We affirm.

In a factual sufficiency review, we view all the evidence in a neutral light, both for and against the finding, and set aside the verdict if proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury=s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof.  Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Appellant=s sole issue argues that the evidence of possession was factually insufficient because three other people had access to the apartment bathroom where the drugs were found and there was no direct link between appellant and the drugs.

The evidence most directly establishing appellant=s possession of the drugs was the testimony of a police officer that appellant had made spontaneous statements admitting that the cocaine belonged to him.  Appellant points to the testimony of two others at the apartment who denied seeing any drugs in the toilet bowl where they were found and to contradictory testimony by: (1) his girlfriend that her statement implicating appellant to police was made under duress and that the cash found at the apartment was her tax refund money; (2) another witness at the apartment that he never heard appellant admit the drugs belonged to him; and (3) the police officers regarding who found the cash.

Although there are inconsistencies in the evidence, they do not refute the evidence of guilt or otherwise render it factually insufficient.  Accordingly, appellant=s sole point of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 13, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]           A jury found appellant guilty and the trial court assessed punishment of fifteen years confinement.