Hector Campos Casanova v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00160-CR
Hector Campos CASANOVA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1999-CR-2920
Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 7, 2001

AFFIRMED

Nature of the Case

Casanova was convicted on two counts of possession of one to four grams of heroin with intent to deliver. He pleaded true to the habitual offender enhancement. The trial court sentenced Casanova to forty-five years on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. Casanova timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Casanova asserts there is legally and factually insufficient evidence to affirmatively link the heroin to him in support of his conviction. Specifically, he claims the evidence failed to prove the offense elements or that he exercised care, control and management over the contraband and knew the substance possessed was a controlled substance. We disagree.

Legal And Factual Sufficiency

Standard of Review

In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence to 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); Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 254-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). We conduct this review by examining the relevant evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider the evidence on both sides but set aside the verdict only if "such a step is necessary to arrest the occurrence of a manifest injustice." Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d at 7,9; Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Evidence

Based on information provided by a reliable informant, a San Antonio police officer set up surveillance to observe the reported drug activity. This undercover police officer observed Casanova repeatedly selling balloons which he took out of his mouth. Familiar with this technique as indicative of drug dealing, the officer determined an arrest was in order. Following proper procedure, the undercover officer requested two uniformed police officers assist in arresting Casanova. After the uniformed officers arrived, they sat in the undercover officer's unmarked car and observed Casanova perform what appeared to be drug transactions in front of his house. In order to make the arrest, the police officers circled the block and approached Casanova in his front yard. One of the uniformed officers exited the unmarked police car and approached Casanova. Casanova raised his left hand to his mouth and then ran to the front door of the house. The officer ordered him to stop and identified himself as a police officer. Continuing to flee, Casanova entered the house with the officer right behind him. The officer saw balloons in Casanova's left hand as he ran straight through the house. Casanova threw the balloons into a trash can in the kitchen. He immediately put up his hands. The officer handcuffed Casanova and retrieved the saliva covered balloons from the trash can. This officer maintained visual contact with Casanova during the entire incident. The arresting officer's testimony affirmatively linked Casanova to the heroin discovered in the balloons. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we determine the evidence is legally sufficient.

We turn next to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence. In addition to the evidence previously discussed, Casanova contends other people in the house could have put the balloons in the trash can. The record indicates the officers entering the house noticed the presence of an elderly woman and later became aware of a man in the house believed to be Casanova's brother. At trial it was also pointed out that the officers focused their attention on Casanova and were not definite where the other man in the front yard went. While Casanova established the presence of others at the time of arrest, the compelling testimony by the arresting officer affirmatively links Casanova to the drugs pulled out of the trash can. Considering the evidence on both sides in a neutral light, we find there is factually sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Accordingly, Casanova's points of error are overruled and we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Conclusion

Having found the verdict is supported by both legally and factually sufficient evidence, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Karen Angelini, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH