DARLENE ANNE MORTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED as Modified; Opinion Filed March 29, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00772-CR
............................
DARLENE ANNE MORTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-82824-05
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Whittington, Francis, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Francis
        A jury convicted Darlene Anne Morton of possession of methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram and assessed punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility, probated for five years. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm.
        On August 18, 2005, Allen police officer Gary Garayua stopped a vehicle a few minutes past midnight because it had a non-working headlight. Appellant, who was driving the vehicle, initially said she left her driver's license at home. When Garayua checked his computer, he found that appellant's driver's license had been suspended, and she had outstanding warrants for traffic offenses. When confronted with this information, appellant admitted she knew her driver's license was suspended and said she was going to the Twin Creeks subdivision to clean the pool areas. Garayua observed that appellant's eyes were dilated “more than normal,” and she had “quick, jerky movements” and red sores on her face. Garayua testified that individuals who use methamphetamine often have red sores on their faces. Garayua arrested appellant for driving with a suspended license. During a search of appellant's vehicle, Garayua found appellant's purse in the “passenger side area.” Garayua looked inside appellant's purse and saw a clear-plastic makeup bag that contained makeup and a glass pipe with residue wrapped in a tissue. When Garayua told appellant he found a pipe in her vehicle, appellant said she knew the pipe was inside her purse, but it belonged to her son. Appellant said she found the pipe and was going to take it to her son's school to show the school officer. Garayua testified appellant pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia for the pipe in an earlier proceeding.
        Kaye Davis, a chemist at the Garland Crime Lab, testified she had to perform tests to determine the identity of the substance inside the glass pipe. Analysis showed the pipe contained a “trace amount” of methamphetamine. Davis testified a trace amount means an amount that is too small to be weighed on the lab's equipment. The smallest amount the lab can weigh is 0.01 grams. The residue on a pipe normally coats the inner surface and is very difficult to scrape out to weigh. Davis testified that even if she could scrape out the residue from the pipe, it probably would be less than 0.01 grams, so she normally reports the amount as a trace amount. As an example of a trace amount, Davis testified if you emptied a packet of artificial sweetener and looked back inside the package, the material adhering to the sides would be analogous to a trace amount.
 
 
        In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 191-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The fact- finder is the exclusive judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Harvey v. State, 135 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.).
        In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Unless the record clearly reveals a different result is appropriate, we must defer to the fact-finder's determination concerning what weight to be given to contradictory testimony. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
        The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 2003). To do so, the State had to prove appellant exercised actual care, control, or management over the methamphetamine and knew it was contraband. See Taylor v. State, 106 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Affirmative links between appellant and the contraband may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. See Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, 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).
 
 
        Appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient because (1) only a trace amount of methamphetamine was found inside the pipe, (2) the chemist could not identify the substance in the pipe until it was analyzed, (3) appellant did not know contraband was inside the pipe, and (4) there was no evidence appellant was around when the pipe had been used. The State responds that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction.
        There is no requirement that one must possess a usable amount of a controlled substance in order to be convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.002(38), 481.115(a). There was no testimony presented that the substance inside the pipe was not visible to the naked eye. See, e.g., Joseph v. State, 897 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). And, Davis testified she analyzed residue inside the pipe and identified it as a trace amount of methamphetamine. Davis explained that trace amount means the quantity of residue was too small to measure on the lab equipment. Even if the quantity was too minute to be measured, other evidence can prove that an accused knew the substance in her possession was a controlled substance. See Scott v. State, 825 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd). Appellant admitted she knew the pipe was inside her makeup bag. Appellant initially lied about her driver's license, then admitted she knew her license was suspended. Garayua observed that appellant exhibited several clues he associated with methamphetamine use, namely, overly dilated eyes, jerky body movements, and red sores on the face.
        Viewing the evidence under the proper standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine. See Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 415; Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 166; Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191-92. We resolve appellant's issues against her.
        We note the trial court's judgment contains several discrepancies. On our own motion, we modify the trial court's judgment to show a jury convicted appellant of the offense, appellant entered a not guilty plea, and there was no plea agreement in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
        As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MOLLY FRANCIS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060772f.u05