JUAN JOSE TRINIDAD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion September 15, 2009
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-01382-CR
No. 05-08-01383-CR
............................
 
JUAN JOSE TRINIDAD, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-73083-QW, F07-55115-QW
.............................................................
 
OPINION
 
Before Justices Wright, Richter, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Richter
 
 
        A jury convicted Juan Jose Trinidad of possession with intent to deliver heroin and methamphetamine in amounts of 400 grams or more. The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment and a $1000 fine in each case. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
Applicable Law
 
        In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the verdict. See Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
        The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally and knowingly possessed with intent to deliver heroin and methamphetamine in amounts of 400 grams or more. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (f) (Vernon 2003). To do so, the State had to prove appellant exercised actual care, control, or management over the cocaine and heroin and knew they were contraband. See Taylor v. State, 106 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). The control over the contraband need not be exclusive, but can be jointly exercised by more than one person. See id. at 831. Links between appellant and the contraband must be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. See Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, no set formula of facts exists to dictate a finding of links sufficient to support an inference of knowing possession. See Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 830. It is the logical force of the evidence, and not the number of links, that supports a fact-finder's verdict. See Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Evidence Presented
 
        The jury heard testimony from four narcotics officers who were investigating drug trafficking by bus at the El Espresso bus lines located in a strip mall on north Westmoreland. On July 23, 2007, the officers were standing around the parking lot waiting for a three-o'clock bus from Houston to arrive. The officers were in plain clothes. Detectives Jesus Martinez and Edward Byrum testified that after they watched people get off the Houston bus, they observed appellant and a woman walk side-by-side from the terminal toward the bus. Appellant was pulling a large black bag with wheels while the woman pulled a smaller blue bag with wheels. As appellant and the woman walked across the parking lot toward the bus, appellant made eye contact with Martinez and Byrum, made a “stutter step” and hesitated, then continued walking. Appellant said something to the woman as he continued staring at Martinez and Byrum. Appellant and the woman stopped near the front of the bus and got in line. Appellant appeared “nervous and fidgety.” Appellant kept looking over at Martinez and Byrum while whispering to the woman. Martinez and Byrum observed that the black bag appellant carried appeared to be new because it still had tags on it and had the key dangling from the lock.
        Martinez and Byrum watched appellant and the woman stand in line for about five minutes. Then, appellant and the woman walked away from the bags and went to a store located next door to the terminal. Martinez and Byrum remained near the bags, and two other detectives followed appellant and the woman. Martinez and Byrum kept their eyes on the bag. No one touched or moved either bag. After several minutes, appellant and the woman came out of the store. The woman walked toward the bus, but appellant went into a Western Union store down the sidewalk from the terminal. The woman walked directly to the blue bag, placed the bag in the baggage compartment under the bus, and boarded the bus. Several minutes later, appellant left Western Union, walked directly to the bus, and boarded. Appellant passed by the black bag without acknowledging it. Martinez and Byrum boarded the bus and identified themselves as police officers to appellant and the woman. Martinez interviewed both appellant and the woman because he was the only officer who spoke Spanish.
        Martinez testified appellant stated he was traveling to North Carolina via Houston. When Martinez asked to see appellant's ticket, the woman who had been with appellant gave Martinez two tickets that said “Houston to Atlanta.” Appellant and the woman gave Martinez their identification cards. Martinez testified both appellant and the woman were traveling under “fictitious and assumed names” because the names on their identification cards were not the same names listed on the tickets. When Martinez asked appellant if he and the woman had any luggage, they both stated they had one blue bag and that all their clothes were together in that bag. Appellant and the woman gave the officers consent to search the blue bag. Byrum exited the bus and searched the blue bag, which contained men's clothing (jeans, shirts, underwear) and a towel, but no drugs. Martinez asked appellant about the black bag he saw appellant pulling across the parking lot. Appellant denied he had a black bag or that anyone saw him with a black bag. Martinez exited the bus, picked up the black bag that was still in the same spot where appellant had left it, and took it on the bus. Martinez asked all the passengers if anyone claimed the bag. Everyone on the bus denied ownership of the black bag.
        Martinez testified he took the black bag off the bus and searched it. The black bag contained a blanket, women's underwear with the tags still on them, a towel, and four bundles wrapped in cellophane. Later analysis showed the bundles contained 2.31 kilograms of heroin, 8,974 grams of methamphetamine, and 1 kilogram of lidocaine, a topical anesthetic, whose appearance was the same as “crystal methamphetamine.” Martinez and Byrum arrested appellant and the woman and transported them to division headquarters. The woman was later released from custody because she had pulled the blue bag, which did not contain any contraband. Martinez and Byrum testified they watched appellant pull the black bag from the bus terminal, through the parking lot, and set it near the front door of the bus. Appellant had care, custody, and control over the black bag and was the only person who touched the black bag.
        Detectives James Miltmore and Samuel Hussey testified they also observed appellant and the woman walk out of the terminal carrying two bags: appellant carried a black bag and the woman carried a blue bag. Although they wore plain clothes, appellant seemed to notice them as he got near the bus. Appellant appeared to be nervous after seeing the officers, and continually looked back at them while whispering to the woman. When appellant and the woman left their bags near the bus and walked to a store near the terminal, Miltmore and Hussey followed them. Appellant and the woman walked around inside the store for several minutes, then the woman walked back to the bus and appellant walked to a “check cashing store.” Miltmore and Hussey followed appellant, but they stayed outside because they could see appellant through the store's glass storefront. There was no one else inside the store except appellant. After several minutes, appellant exited the store and walked to the bus, bypassing the black bag. Miltmore stayed near the bus' front door to keep an eye on the black bag while Hussey boarded the bus and stood near the driver to provide backup coverage for Martinez and Byrum.
        Appellant did not present any evidence during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.
Discussion
 
        Appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient because he did not know there were drugs inside the black bag, and he did not open or look inside the bag. Appellant asserts the factors that tend to link him to the drugs are also consistent with innocent behavior, such as, he was nervous only because he is Hispanic and he saw several large, Caucasian undercover officers lurking in the parking lot, he could have been helping the woman take her luggage to the bus because women's clothing was found inside the black bag, and anyone can stumble when walking. The State responds that the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction.
        The evidence presented shows four narcotics detectives observed appellant carrying the black bag that contained heroin and methamphetamine. None of the detectives saw anyone else carry or even touch the black bag. The drugs found were accessible by and in close proximity to appellant, appellant's behavior was “nervous and fidgety,” and appellant attempted to abandon the bag that contained the drugs. The jury heard testimony that appellant was traveling under a different name and gave officers conflicting statements about his travel destination.
        It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and the jury was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
        Viewing all of the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude it is legally sufficient to support appellant's convictions. See Vodochodsky, 158 S.W.3d at 509; Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 830. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
081382F.U05