JOE REEVES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed September 11, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00003-CR
............................
JOE REEVES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F05-59690-I
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Wright, Richter, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Lang
        A jury convicted Joe Reeves of unlawful possession of less than one gram of cocaine and assessed punishment at two years in a state jail facility and a $7500 fine. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's verdict. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
 
        On November 16, 2005, Dallas police officers Robert Pollard and Jennifer Castleburg were on routine patrol during the mid-morning in the North Oak Cliff area of Dallas when they received a tip that two men were sitting on a concrete slab at Cliff and Tenth Streets selling drugs. When the officers drove by the location, they saw appellant and Kevin Cooper sitting on a concrete slab behind a church, but did not observe any illegal activity. They drove by the area several times, and tried to involve other officers in investigating. Eventually, the officers continued patrolling their regular area. Later that day, the officers saw appellant and Cooper walking down the middle of Tenth Street. Pollard testified appellant was wearing a jacket and did not have anything in his hands. Pollard stopped appellant and Cooper for a city ordinance violation, pedestrian in the roadway. Pollard testified neither appellant nor Cooper was cooperative. When Pollard attempted to pat appellant down for weapons, appellant tried to pull away. Pollard grabbed appellant's jacket to restrain him. Appellant reached into his jacket pocket and threw a clear baggie on the ground. Pollard testified he saw the baggie in appellant's hand and saw it fly through the air and land on the ground a few feet away from them. Pollard handcuffed appellant, then retrieved the baggie. Later analysis showed the bag contained 0.36 grams of cocaine. Pollard testified there was no one else in the immediate area while he was detaining appellant, and there was nothing on the ground before appellant tossed the baggie to the ground.
        Castleburg testified she did not see appellant toss the baggie on the ground because she was focused on Cooper, who was stepping away from her and reaching inside his leather jacket. Castleburg drew her weapon and ordered Cooper to come back to her. She called for cover officers, who arrived as she was handcuffing Cooper. Castleburg testified that when she searched Cooper at the scene, she found crack cocaine and marijuana on his person. Castleburg did not recall if appellant was wearing a jacket or carried anything in his hand when they saw him walking down the street. Castleburg testified she did not find any alcohol at the scene, and did not recall appellant or Cooper being intoxicated.
        Kevin Cooper testified on appellant's behalf. Cooper testified he and appellant were walking to a friend's apartment when they were stopped by the police. Cooper admitted he and appellant were walking down the middle of the street. According to Cooper, he and appellant had been drinking that day, but were not intoxicated, and they “smoked weed” before being stopped by the police. Cooper testified it was “pretty cold” that day so he was wearing a leather jacket, but appellant was not wearing a jacket. Appellant was carrying a backpack and a radio “jam box” when they were stopped by the police. Cooper admitted he had drugs on his person when the police stopped him, and that he was reaching inside his jacket to get the drugs to “try to throw it.” Cooper did not see appellant throw anything, but he heard appellant say “that's not mine.”
        Shawana Mason, a civilian worker in the inmate property vault unit of the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, testified there was no jacket in appellant's personal property at the jail. Mason testified the property inventory sheet listing appellant's possessions when he arrived at the jail did not list a jacket. The inventory listing did not recite a wristwatch or three rings, but those items were in the property bag assigned to appellant. Mason testified inmates change into jail clothing in a large room with other inmates. It is possible that clothing is left behind or switched with other inmates.
        Appellant did not testify during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.
Applicable Law
 
        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 a factual sufficiency review, an appellate court views all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the fact-finder's verdict of guilt was rationally justified. See Roberts v. State, 220 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); 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 cocaine in an amount of 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 cocaine and knew it was 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. Affirmative 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). No set formula of facts exists to dictate a finding of affirmative 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). Possible affirmative links include: (1) whether the accused was present when the drugs were found, (2) whether the drugs were in plain view, (3) whether the drugs were found in proximity to and accessible to the accused, (4) whether the accused attempted to flee, (5) the amount of drugs found, and (6) whether the accused possessed weapons or a large amount of cash. See Porter v. State, 873 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd).
Discussion
        Appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient because he was not wearing a jacket that day and did not toss drugs on the ground. Appellant contends that because Cooper had drugs on his person and was wearing a jacket, he was the individual who possessed the cocaine. The State responds that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
        Pollard testified appellant resisted when he attempted to pat him down for weapons and, then, appellant reached into his jacket pocket, pulled out a baggie, and threw it to the ground. Pollard testified no one else entered the area when he made contact with appellant, and his partner was dealing with Cooper while he detained appellant. Cooper admitted he had cocaine and marijuana on his person and was reaching inside his jacket pocket to throw them out. However, Cooper testified appellant was not wearing a jacket that day, although he also said it was cold that day. Pollard testified appellant was wearing a jacket, Castleburg could not recall if appellant was wearing a jacket, and Mason testified there was no jacket listed with appellant's property when he came into the jail. Mason also admitted that a wristwatch and three rings appellant had when he came into the jail were not listed on appellant's property inventory listing.
        It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, and we must afford due deference to its determination. See Marshall, 210 S.W.3d at 625. The jury was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side. See Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
        We conclude the sum total of the evidence is sufficient to support a rational jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant exercised actual care, custody, and control of less than one gram of cocaine, and is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. See Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 415; Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 166; Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191-92. We overrule appellant's points of error.
        The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DOUGLAS S. LANG
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070003f.u05