Patrick Thomas Vaughn v. State ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-18-00298-CR
__________________
PATRICK THOMAS VAUGHN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 260th District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. D170191-R
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Patrick Thomas Vaughn appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance, specifically methamphetamine, in an amount greater than one gram but
less than four grams, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§
481.102(6), 481.115(a), (c). A jury convicted Vaughn of the offense, and after a plea
of “true” to enhancements for prior felony convictions, the jury sentenced him to
thirty years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
1
Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d). In one issue, Vaughn
contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
Background
The testimony at trial established that Bridge City Police Officers D.H. and
R.B. responded to a residence, described as a “small travel trailer,” to investigate a
report of a stolen vehicle made by the resident, Laura Huggins. Officer R.B testified
that upon arrival, they knocked on the door of the trailer and overheard a man, later
determined to be Vaughn, tell someone to open the door. Shortly thereafter, Huggins
opened the door and invited the officers into the trailer. Prior to entering, the officers
testified that they observed Vaughn sitting next to a table in the trailer “completely
nude.” Officer R.B testified that he instructed Vaughn to get dressed while he spoke
with Huggins.
Officer R.B. testified that once inside the trailer, Officer D.H. walked over to
the table to focus his attention on Vaughn and observed a substance that looked like
methamphetamine. Officer D. H. testified that he observed methamphetamine on the
table next to Vaughn, with a spoon containing methamphetamine residue and a used
syringe on the floor near Vaughn’s feet. Officer D.H. said there were a couple of
additional syringes on the table, and the trial court admitted a photograph of the
2
syringes at trial. Officer R.B. likewise testified that he observed Vaughn sitting next
to the table and methamphetamine outside of a baggy on the table next to him. The
trial court admitted photographs of the table showing where Vaughn would have
been sitting. Officer D.H. explained the significance of the items they observed and
that the presence of the spoon and syringes indicated that Vaughn and Huggins were
“shooting the meth.” The officers testified that after observing the
methamphetamine, they immediately took Huggins and Vaughn into custody, and
Officer D.H. collected the substance. The officers testified that they field tested the
substance, which tested positive for methamphetamine.
Once the officers secured the suspects, Officer R.B. conducted a secondary
search around the table and located a silver container with a lid on it. Officer R.B.
testified that he discovered a baggy that said “stay high” which contained most of
the methamphetamine. Officer D.H.’s testimony corroborated this. During trial, the
trial court admitted photographs of the baggy and container.
The officers asked who the narcotics belonged to, but Vaughn and Huggins
both denied it belonged to them. Officer D.H. explained that because the travel trailer
was very small, this meant everything was in one room and Vaughn and Huggins
would have walked right in front of the table and the syringe on the floor, so both
had knowledge and, therefore, both were arrested. Officer R.B. said that Vaughn
3
sitting in the house nude indicated he resided there, was very comfortable there, and
had been there a while. Both officers explained that they based the decision to arrest
Huggins and Vaughn on the totality of the circumstances, not solely because of their
presence at the scene. Officer R.B. explained that the syringes and the spoon
evidence drug usage in that location, and the totality of the circumstances indicated
possession.
When they arrived at the police station, Vaughn provided a written statement,
which the trial court admitted into evidence. Officer R.B. read a portion of it to the
jury:
Today, on Thursday, November 17, 2016, [Officers R.B. and D.H.]
came to the house to talk with both me and [Huggins] about the truck.
When they came inside the house, [D.H.] found some meth that was
laying on the table in front of where I was sitting. I had just sat down
when they arrived. Both [Huggins] and I use meth, but I did not know
the meth was inside the house. It had been two days since [Huggins]
and I used meth, and I thought it was all gone.
A forensic scientist from the Jefferson County Crime Lab testified that her
initial tests showed the substances recovered from the scene consisted of meth-
amphetamine, which was confirmed by further testing using a gas chromatograph
mass spectrometer. The scientist testified that the substances weighed .453 grams
and .695 grams, for a total weight of 1.148 grams. The trial court admitted a copy of
her report reflecting these findings as evidence.
4
Laura Huggins testified for the defense. Huggins testified that she ultimately
pled guilty to this possession charge and was incarcerated at the time of trial.
Huggins told the jury that Vaughn’s statement about using all of the
methamphetamine two days before was true and that she and Vaughn injected
methamphetamine two days before officers came to the trailer. Because they had
used all the methamphetamine, Huggins testified she bought more and put the drugs
on the table while Vaughn slept. As far as she knew, he never touched or moved
them, and he did not know anything about that methamphetamine. However,
Huggins confirmed that before she answered the door, she was sitting at the table
with Vaughn and was preparing to use the methamphetamine, which Vaughn
observed. Huggins admitted that Vaughn knew the methamphetamine was on the
table, and he had access to it. Huggins testified that they would share drugs and
confirmed they would watch each other shoot up. Huggins also testified that she lied
to police when she denied she owned the drugs.
Standard of Review
Upon a claim of legal insufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder
could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing
5
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)) (concluding the Jackson standard “is the
only standard that a reviewing court should apply” when examining the sufficiency
of the evidence); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In a
legal sufficiency review, we examine all evidence in the record, direct and
circumstantial, whether admissible or inadmissible. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d
735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’
credibility and weight given to their testimony, and we defer to the jury on those
matters. See Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Juries may
draw multiple reasonable inferences so long as each inference is supported by the
evidence presented at trial. Id. The jury may choose to disbelieve some testimony
and believe other testimony. Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
Analysis
To establish its case for possession of a controlled substance, the State must
prove Vaughn exercised care, control, or management over the methamphetamine
and knew the substance was methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code
Ann. § 481.115(a), (c); Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005), abrogated on other grounds by Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166, 173 n.32
(Tex. Crim. App. 2015). The evidence must show the defendant’s connection with
6
the drug was more than just fortuitous, which is the “affirmative links” rule.
Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 405–06; Nixon v. State, 928 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet.). If a defendant does not have exclusive possession
of the place where the controlled substance is discovered, additional facts beyond
mere presence must link him to the illegal substance. Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413–14.
The State is not required to prove exclusive possession of the contraband as control
may be jointly exercised by more than one person. McGoldrick v. State, 682 S.W.2d
573, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
The factors courts consider when determining the establishment of affirmative
links are:
(1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether
the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and
the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under
the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant
possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) whether the
defendant made incriminating statements when arrested; (7) whether
the defendant attempted to flee; (8) whether the defendant made furtive
gestures; (9) whether there was an odor of contraband; (10) whether
other contraband or drug paraphernalia were present; (11) whether the
defendant owned or had the right to possess the place where the drugs
were found; (12) whether the place where the drugs were found was
enclosed; (13) whether the defendant was found with a large amount of
cash; and (14) whether the conduct of the defendant indicated a
consciousness of guilt.
7
Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 162 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Tate, 500 S.W.3d
at 414. “It is . . . not the number of links that is dispositive, but rather the logical
force of all of the evidence, direct and circumstantial.” Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162.
Examining the “affirmative links” factors, Vaughn was in the small travel
trailer when the officers searched it. Some of the methamphetamine was found on
the table in plain view immediately next to where Vaughn was sitting, which
prompted officers to conduct a further search of the immediate area. In addition to
the methamphetamine, the officers located other paraphernalia including a spoon
with drug residue and syringes. Moreover, Vaughn made a statement to police
admitting to recently using methamphetamine with Huggins. Huggins also admitted
she lied to police. The jury could have disbelieved all or a portion of her testimony.
See Lancon, 253 S.W.3d at 707. Despite Huggins’s claims of ownership, her
testimony confirmed that they shared drugs, they watched each other inject it,
Vaughn knew the drugs were there, and he had access to them. The logical force of
the evidence establishes an affirmative link between Vaughn and the
methamphetamine. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162. The State is not required to
establish Vaughn had exclusive possession of the methamphetamine. See
McGoldrick, 682 S.W.2d at 578.
8
When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,
we determine the evidence is legally sufficient for a rational fact finder to conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that Vaughn knowingly possessed methamphetamine.
See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6); 481.115(a), (c); Brooks, 323
S.W.3d at 912. We overrule his sole issue.
Conclusion
We conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict
convicting Vaughn of possession of a controlled substance. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on November 4, 2019
Opinion Delivered November 13, 2019
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
9