Esteban Galvan v. State ( 2000 )


Menu:

  • NUMBER 13-99-084-CR


    COURT OF APPEALS


    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


    CORPUS CHRISTI

    ___________________________________________________________________

    ESTEBAN GALVAN,

    Appellant,

    v.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    On appeal from the 197th District Court

    of Cameron County, Texas.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    O P I N I O N


    Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez, and Rodriguez


    Opinion by Justice Chavez






    Esteban Galvan, appellant, was convicted of the offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance(1) after pleading not guilty. The conviction was enhanced by two prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance and appellant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Appellant complains the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for possession of the controlled substance. We overrule this point of error and affirm the conviction.

    Chief Investigator Rene Lopez of the Cameron County Drug Task Force received information from a confidential source that appellant and Carlos Garza were willing to sell an ounce of cocaine at the informant's house. Lopez selected Miguel Sanchez to act as an undercover officer to make the buy. Agent Sanchez arrived at the informant's house and had a conversation with the informant inside the house. Sanchez saw appellant and Garza parked in front of the house. Garza got out of the car and approached agent Sanchez, asking to see the money. Sanchez said he wanted to see the cocaine first, so the pair walked to the car where appellant was sitting in the driver's seat. Garza opened the passenger door and Sanchez saw a clear plastic baggie containing white powder on the front seat, just inches from appellant. Sanchez greeted appellant, but appellant merely looked at Sanchez without answering. Sanchez and Garza then discussed the cocaine's weight and quality, and negotiated the price in front of appellant. Once the terms were clear, Sanchez returned to his vehicle to get the money and signaled the Task Force to move in and make arrests. Sanchez then returned with Garza to the house where the informant was still standing. Sanchez then noticed that appellant's car was gone. Inside the house, Garza told Sanchez that appellant was the owner of the cocaine before handing it over to Sanchez. As Sanchez started to pay the Task Force entered and arrested Garza.

    Chief Lopez and two other investigators testified that they approached the house wearing police raid gear, bullet proof vests with gold badges on the outside and black masks or caps that said "police" in large letters. As the agents approached, appellant began to drive away, passing within one-half car length of the officers. One agent began to follow appellant, but Chief Lopez called off the chase out of concern for safety and because they knew appellant and could locate him later. The contents of the baggie were later determined to be 27.98 grams of cocaine.

    Garza was deceased at the time of trial. The informant was not located for trial and did not testify. Appellant did not testify.

    The standard of review for appellate courts when reviewing the evidence's legal sufficiency is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, en banc). Therefore, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. A person commits the offense of possession of cocaine if he knowingly or intentionally possesses cocaine. Possession is defined as "actual care, custody, control or management." Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002 (38) (Vernon 2000 Supp.). The State must prove the accused was in possession of the cocaine and that the accused had knowledge that the substance was cocaine. King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Typically, exclusive possession of the premises where the contraband is located is sufficient to establish the statutory elements. Campos v. State, 716 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. App.­Corpus Christi 1986, no pet.).

    Here, the evidence shows appellant and Garza had 27.98 grams of cocaine in a bag on the seat of the car. The cocaine sat in plain view a few inches from appellant who was in exclusive control of the cocaine while Garza was in the house. He was within earshot while Garza and agent Sanchez discussed the drug deal in detail, including the weight, quality and price of the cocaine. Garza also told Sanchez before the other officers moved in to arrest that the cocaine belonged to appellant.

    Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is sufficient proof that appellant exercised care, custody, control or management of the cocaine and that he knew the substance was cocaine such that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence established the essential





    elements of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. This evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict.

    The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.



    MELCHOR CHAVEZ

    Justice

    Do not publish.

    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.3.

    Opinion delivered and filed this

    the 27th day of July, 2000.

    1. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a) (Vernon 1992).

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-99-00084-CR

Filed Date: 7/27/2000

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021