Shawn Michael Walker v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-14-00473-CR
4146323
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
2/13/2015 1:51:41 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-14-00473-CR
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT AUSTIN, TEXAS
____________________________________________
2/13/2015 1:51:41 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
SHAWN MICHAEL WALKER, Clerk
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS
____________________________________________
Appeal in Cause No. 72029
in the 264th District Court of
Bell County, Texas
_____________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT SHAWN MICHAEL WALKER
_____________________________________________
JOHN A. KUCHERA
210 N. 6th St.
Waco, Texas 76701
(254) 754-3075
(254) 756-2193 (facsimile)
SBN 00792137
johnkuchera@210law.com
Attorney for Appellant
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents ii
Table of Authorities iii-v
Walker never said that the pink methamphetamine was his and that he 1-5
believed it to be only “cut”
To separately analyze each individual location where methamphetamine 5-7
was found (to determine if an inference of possession is warranted) is not
the same as addressing each “affirmative link” separately
It is not within the province of the jury to determine whether inferences 8-19
it makes are reasonable. And the inferences the State asks this Court
to make are not reasonable because they are not supported by
a “chain of factual evidentiary antecedents.”
(i) Rules for determining whether an inference is reasonable 9-11
(ii) Instructive cases – inference of possession was not reasonable 11-13
(iii) Instructive cases – inference of possession was reasonable 13-15
(iv) The State’s inferences are not reasonable 15-19
Certificate of Service 19
Certificate of Compliance 20
ii
Table of Authorities
Page(s)
Cases
Brewer v. State,
126 S.W.3d 295, 297 Tex.App. .......................................................................... 10
Brown v. State,
911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ............................................................. 6
County Court of Ulster County, N.Y. v. Allen,
442 U.S. 140 (1979) .............................................................................................. 9
Evans v. State,
202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ...........................................5, 6, 7, 8, 14
Evans v. State,
98 So. 440 (Miss. 1924) ...................................................................................... 15
Fisher v. State,
121 S.W.3d 38 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. ref’d)................................ 11
Franco v. State,
82 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref'd)......................................... 10
Grant v. State,
989 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ....9, 14, 15, 17
H & R Block E. Enterprises, Inc. v. Swenson,
2008 WI App 3, 307 Wis. 2d 390, 745 N.W.2d 421 ............................................ 8
Luke v. State,
No. 14-99-01358, 2001 WL 82934 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (unpublished) ...............................................................17, 18
Mahaffey v. State,
364 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ........................................................... 10
Marquez v. State,
921 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ........................................................... 10
iii
Moreno v. State,
821 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.App.-Waco 1991, pet. ref'd) .............................................. 6
Nguyen v. State,
222 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) ................ 11
Paulman v. State,
No. 2-07-291-CR, 2008 WL 4531707 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Oct.
9, 2008, pet. dism’d) (unpublished) ...................................................................... 6
People v. Davis,
663 N.E.2d 39 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) ..................................................................... 10
Pet. v. Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety,
404 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ............................. 8
State v. Guinn,
242 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) ................................................................ 13
State v. McClain,
968 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) ......................................................6, 12, 13
State v. Moiser,
738 S.W.2d 549 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) .................................................................. 6
Tot v. United States,
319 U.S. 463 (1943) .............................................................................................. 9
United States v. Hernandez-Beltran,
867 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 6
United States v. Longoria,
569 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1978) .............................................................................. 18
United States v. Stewart,
145 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 4, 5
United States v. Townsend,
474 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1973) ....................................................................9, 11, 12
Young v. Wainwright,
439 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1972) .............................................................................. 12
iv
Other Authorities
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) .................................................................... 10
New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (1971).................................. 10
v
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT
_____________________________________________________________
SHAWN MICHAEL WALKER,
Appellant,
v. No. 03-14-00473-CR
STATE OF TEXAS
____________________________________________________________
Appeal in Cause No. 72029
in the 264th District Court of
Bell County, Texas
____________________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT SHAWN MICHAEL WALKER
____________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES SHAWN MICHAEL WALKER, Appellant, by and through
undersigned counsel, and submits this reply brief pursuant to the provisions of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant raised two issues in his principal
brief. The State has filed its Brief. This Reply Brief is a response to several
assertions made by the State regarding Walker’s first issue. Appellant otherwise
rests on his principal brief.
1
Regarding Walker’s first issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain
Walker’s possession with intent conviction as a principal.
1. The State repeatedly states that there was evidence that Walker actually said that
the pink methamphetamine was his but that he believed it to be only “cut”:
The appellant stated that the pink substance was his, but insisted that it
was not methamphetamine but only “cut”, apparently referring to
MSM. (RR5 – 13, 21, 23). He identified the picture of that pink
substance recovered from the van. (State’s Exhibit 10). (RR5 – 11).
State’s Brief, pg. 7.
[Appellant] admitted that [the pink methamphetamine] belonged to him
but insisted that it was “cut” instead of methamphetamine itself.
State’s Brief, pg. 14.
Appellant . . . admitted ownership of the “pink” methamphetamine,
while claiming that it was only “cut.”
State’s Brief, pg. 15.
The fact that [Appellant] admitted possession of what tested as more
than 5 grams of methamphetamine while claiming that it was only a
substance dealers used to dilute and add weight to the controlled
substance surely supports an inference that he was aware of the
contraband in the van and exercised care, custody, control, or
management of it.
State’s Brief, pgs. 15-16.
Appellant admitted that the “pink” methamphetamine belonged to him,
while denying its identity.
State’s Brief, pg. 19.
The Appellant claimed ownership of the “pink” methamphetamine
2
found near a major quantity, expressing the mistaken belief that it was
only “cut.” There was nothing in the evidence to show why he would
possess “cut” except as part of the distribution of the
methamphetamine.
State’s Brief, pg. 22.
Appellant’s reply
Walker never said the pink methamphetamine was his and he never said it was
“cut.” Walker did not testify at trial. The State did introduce a videotaped interview
of Walker - State’s Exhibit 24. It is worth noting that the State’s brief does not cite
to the interview itself. This is because nowhere in that interview did Walker ever
say the pink methamphetamine was his and nowhere in the interview did he ever say
he thought it was cut.1 The State instead cites to the trial testimony of what others
said about the interview:
Vol. 5, pg. 13:
State: Now, the pink methamphetamine, the stuff that the defendant said was his
and that you had the conversation with him about?
Defense Counsel: Objection. Misstatement of the evidence.
Here, the “testimony” is actually a question posed by the State to which Walker
objected as being a misstatement of the evidence.
Vol. 5, pg. 21:
1
Walker did say at one point “I don’t know how she got it pink.” Ex. 24, 4:10:01.
3
State: In the interview, the defendant talks about MSM, correct?
Detective Mallow: Yes, sir.
Vol. 5, pgs. 22-23:
State: Now, in this case, in your interview, you talked to the defendant about the
pink dope, correct?
Detective Mallow: Yes, sir.
State: And that’s what he was primarily focused on, on testing it and making
sure that it is dope?
Detective Mallow: Right. Because he told me it was MSM.
But in the actual interview, Walker never says the words “cut” or MSM.”
“We have seen the tape.” This quote comes from United States v. Stewart,
145 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 1998) wherein the Fifth Circuit reversed appellant’s aiding
and abetting possession with intent to deliver cocaine conviction. Stewart was
driving a vehicle (that belonged to the passenger) and was stopped for a traffic
violation. Stewart hesitated when asked for consent to the search the vehicle but the
passenger gave consent to search and two weapons were found. As officers were
searching the passenger incident to arrest, they found 96 grams of crack cocaine in
his underwear. Id. at 275. The government relied on the arresting officer’s
testimony regarding Stewart’s conduct. The Fifth Circuit relied instead on the
videotape of the incident:
[T]he government offers evidence from Garney [arresting officer] that
Stewart appeared nervous during the traffic stop. Having reviewed the
4
videotape recording of the entire stop, we find no support for the
proposition that Stewart was unusually nervous or fidgety. Stewart was
no more nervous during the stop than any other citizen who has been
stopped on the side of the road by a police officer and required to stand
outside his vehicle for more than forty minutes. . . . The government
contends that Stewart hesitated before giving consent to search the
vehicle, and then shrugged non-committally. The government cites this
conduct as evidence of guilty knowledge. We have seen the tape. Once
again, there is nothing surprising about Stewart’s conduct. The car was
not his. (emphasis added)
Id. at 278.
Likewise in the instant case, this Court need not defer to the trial testimony of
the State’s witnesses as to what said Walker supposedly said in the interview – this
Court can simply listen to the interview to hear what he actually did say – and did
not say.
>>>>>>>
2. The State takes Walker to task for analyzing the “evidentiary links” separately
instead of as a whole, citing Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006):
The Appellant attempts to take these evidentiary links and separately
consider them, arguing in essence that each link alone is insufficient to
prove possession. That, however, is not the test, but rather the question
is whether all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, when combined
establishes a link with the contraband.
State’s Brief, pg. 15.
Appellant’s reply
5
The State confuses multiple evidentiary links with multiple locations of a
controlled substance. As Walker pointed out in his principal brief (pages 6-7),
possession is “location specific”; i.e. when a controlled substance is found in
multiple locations, each location must be analyzed separately to determine whether
there is evidence tending to tie the defendant to that location. In support of this
argument, Walker specifically cited as authority Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Moreno v. State, 821 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.App.-Waco 1991,
pet. ref'd); United States v. Hernandez-Beltran, 867 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1989) and
Paulman v. State, No. 2-07-291-CR, 2008 WL 4531707 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth
Oct. 9, 2008, pet. dism’d) (unpublished). The State’s brief makes to attempt to
address these cases.2 The State’s reliance on Evans v. State is inapposite. The
controlled substance at issue in Evans (cocaine) was all found in one place – not in
multiple locations:
Immediately in front of appellant—within one foot of his arm—was a
coffee table with numerous baggies of cocaine and pill bottles, also
containing cocaine.
2
Other instructive cases include State v. McClain, 968 S.W.2d 225, 226-227 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
(finding that the defendant's possession of methamphetamine was insufficient evidence to connect
him to bag containing items consistent with “meth lab equipment” that was found in a garage
closet, despite the fact the defendant was at the garage and he told the police that he saw another
person bring the bag into the garage and where the bag was located) and State v. Moiser, 738
S.W.2d 549, 558–59 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that despite the fact there was sufficient
evidence to prove defendant possessed psilocybin mushrooms located in a box in the dining room,
the state provided insufficient evidence that the defendant possessed marijuana located in various
other locations in the house).
6
Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 160.
The State’s failure to recognize the need to consider the location of each of
the items of methamphetamine on its own merits is evidenced by the fact that the
State continues to treat all five items of methamphetamine as a single unit:
When all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, is considered in the
light most favorable to the verdict, the combined logical force of that
evidence is sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Appellant possessed the methamphetamine
with the intent to deliver as charged in the indictment either
individually, or as a party, or both.
State’s Brief, pg. 10.
While in this case it is reasonable that the quantity alone is sufficient to
support a finding of intent to deliver, other circumstances include the
presence of the material used to dilute or increase the weight of
methamphetamine that is sold. The only logical inference from that is
that the accompanying methamphetamine was intended for delivery as
no mere user would dilute or increase the weight of his drug.
State’s Brief, pg. 19.
The Appellant and Tiffany Pierce were together in the van with a very
large and valuable quantity of methamphetamine and the items used to
process it for sale. They both had methamphetamine on their person.
Clearly, . . . a rational jury could have found from the evidence and
rational inferences based upon that evidence, beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Appellant possessed the methamphetamine with intent to
deliver either by his own conduct, [or] as a party with Tiffany Pierce[.]
State’s Brief, pg. 23.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
7
3. The State appears to cite Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
for the proposition that the reasonableness of inferences made by jurors in support
of the verdict is a question of fact, and therefore “cannot be erroneous:
Courts reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
must assume that jurors made all inferences in favor of their verdict so
long as reasonable minds could disregard all other inferences. Where
the parties may disagree about the logical inferences from undisputed
facts, the choice made by the fact finder cannot be erroneous.
State’s Brief, pg. 13.
Appellant’s reply
The State cites Evans for a proposition for which it does not stand. The issue
of whether or not an inference is reasonable is a question of law. H & R Block E.
Enterprises, Inc. v. Swenson, 2008 WI App 3, 307 Wis. 2d 390, 398-99, 745 N.W.2d
421, 425. What Evans says is that if there are multiple logical inferences that can
be made from undisputed facts, and those inferences are in conflict, a jury can
properly choose between the reasonable inferences:
Although the parties may disagree about the logical inferences that flow
from undisputed facts, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the
evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly
erroneous.”
Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162-63. It is not up to the jury to decide whether an inference
is reasonable. That is a job for the Court. See Peters v. Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety,
8
404 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“Although it is
certainly true that a fact-finder can draw reasonable inferences from the record, the
types of inferences that DPS argues are not ‘inferences’ at all – just mere speculation
and conjecture.”); Grant v. State, 989 S.W.2d 428, 434 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“[I]t is not a reasonable inference that another person placed a
large and valuable amount of marijuana in appellant’s car. Such an alternative
explanation for the presence of the marijuana is incredible.”); United States v.
Townsend, 474 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1973) (“A jury may draw the reasonable
inferences which the evidence warrants.”).
(i) Rules for determining whether an inference is reasonable
“It is often necessary for the trier of fact to determine the existence of an
element of the crime – that is an ‘ultimate’ or ‘elemental’ fact – from the existence
of one of more ‘evidentiary’ or ‘basic’ facts.” County Court of Ulster County, N.Y.
v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156 (1979). To do so is to make an inference. Id. However,
for an inference to be reasonable there must be a rational connection between the
facts proved and the fact inferred. See Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467 (1943).
“A reasonable inference within the purview of the law must have a chain of factual
evidentiary antecedents. If an alleged inference does not have a chain of factual
antecedents, then within the purview of the law it is not a reasonable inference but
9
is instead mere speculation.” People v. Davis, 663 N.E.2d 39, 44 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)
“[W]ithout a single factual evidentiary antecedent to support it the State’s alleged
inference that Davis had the opportunity to commit the homicide cannot bear water.”
Id. at 45.
As Walker noted in his principal brief:
“In the law of evidence, an inference . . . is a logical consequence flowing
from a proven fact.” Brewer v. State, 126 S.W.3d 295, 297 Tex.App.—
Beaumont 2004, pet. ref’d). “Logic” is “the apparently unavoidable cause and
effect relationship of events leading to a particular conclusion.” New
Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language 562 (1971). “Logical
relevancy” is defined thusly:
Existence of such a relationship in logic between the fact of which
evidence is offered and a fact in issue that the existence of the former
renders probable or improbable the existence of the latter. Black's Law
Dictionary 942 (6th ed. 1990).
(Appellant’s Brief, pg. 15). Examples: Mahaffey v. State, 364 S.W.3d 908, 913
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“Here, the record reveals that the highway on which
appellant was driving was comprised of ‘clearly marked lanes for vehicular travel’
and, therefore, was a ‘laned roadway’ as described in the definitions statute. . . . It
logically follows that once the clear markings on that highway terminated, so, too,
did the corresponding ‘lane.’”); Marquez v. State, 921 S.W.2d 217, 224 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1996) (Because a defendant has a right to a jury trial, it logically follows that
he has the right to waive his right to a jury trial); Franco v. State, 82 S.W.3d 425,
428 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref'd) (“If Franco was willing to take a breath
10
test after being told that he would lose his driver's license for ninety days if he
refused, it logically follows that he would have been willing to take the test if he had
also been told that a refusal would result in the additional loss of his commercial
license for one year.”); Fisher v. State, 121 S.W.3d 38, 40-41 (Tex.App.—San
Antonio 2003, pet. ref’d) (Given that it is improper for an expert witness to offer a
direct opinion as to the truthfulness of another witness, “it logically follows that a
lay witness is not permitted to offer an opinion that another witness is truthful.”);
Nguyen v. State, 222 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet.
ref'd) (“If the defendant can waive his right to object that no PSI was prepared, it
logically follows that a defendant can waive the right to complain about a part of the
PSI being left out.”).
(ii) Instructive cases – inference of possession was not reasonable
In United States v. Townsend, 474 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1973), wherein the
defendant was convicted of theft of equipment from a military reservation (the
federal offense charged required proof that the theft actually took place on a military
reservation), the question addressed was “whether possession of the property off the
military base can give rise to the inference that the property was received or
concealed on the base.” Id. at 211. Under the evidence adduced, the Fifth Circuit
answered the question in the negative:
11
There is an important difference between the inference from possession
to theft and the inference from possession outside the jurisdiction of the
United States to possession inside the jurisdiction of the United States.
It comes down, not to a question of law as such, but to a question of
geography. The difference is simply this, if possession would, as we
have held, support the inference of theft it must support the inference
of the location of the theft, because this theft could occur at only one
single location. That is, the theft had to occur at the Officers' Club. On
the other hand, the receiving and concealing of the stolen property
could have occurred for the first time at any number of locations which
were not within the special jurisdiction of the United States. In fact, the
only evidence on the question first places Appellant in possession of the
stolen equipment at Lubbock, Texas-ten miles from the scene of the
crime. (emphasis added)
Id. at 214. The Fifth Circuit went on to contrast this set of facts from the facts in
Young v. Wainwright, 439 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1972) wherein an inference of breaking
and entering was reasonable based on possession of stolen property:
[P]ossession of recently stolen property would support an inference of
breaking and entering with intent to steal [where the] crime . . . could
occur only in a single location, i. e., the location where the property was
stolen during a burglary.
Townsend, 474 F.2d at 214.
In State v. McClain, 968 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998), wherein the
appellant was convicted of attempted to manufacture methamphetamine, the relevant
facts were as follows. Appellant was detained in the service area of an auto repair
garage. In the closet of the garage office, a blue bag containing items “consistent
with meth lab equipment” were found. Appellant was searched and found to be in
possession of a pouch containing powder that tested positive for methamphetamine.
12
When questioned, Appellant stated that the blue bag had been behind the garage
when he got there and another individual brought it inside. Id. at 226. The State
argued on appeal that the pouch with powder found on Appellant’s person “indicates
that Appellant had a familiarity with methamphetamine.” The Court of Appeals
disagreed:
Although Appellant told [the officer] that the blue bag was behind he
garage when “they” got there, nothing in the evidence indicates the bag
was then unzipped. However, even if it was, there is no evidence that
Appellant was close enough to the bag to see what was in it.
Furthermore, even if he saw the contents, and even if he recognized
them as items used to manufacture methamphetamine, such knowledge
alone does not support a finding that Appellant had possession of the
items.
Id. at 227.
In State v. Guinn, 242 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008), the evidence showed
only that the defendant had walked out of a room in which there was
methamphetamine on a scale. Id. at 483. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that
it was not reasonable to infer that because he was walking out of the otherwise
unoccupied room, he had been the person measuring the methamphetamine: “[T]he
mere possibility that Guinn saw the methamphetamine on the scale and was the
closest person to it when he was arrested” did not create a reasonable inference that
he possessed it. Id. at 484.
(iii) Instructive cases – inference of possession was reasonable
13
Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006):
The State argues that the single most important link or connection
between appellant and the fourteen grams of cocaine rocks is the simple
fact that he was sitting directly in front of them. They were within arm's
reach; the coffee table was less than a foot away. This evidence
constitutes two extremely strong “presence” and “proximity” links.
Appellant was not merely present in a house with drugs cached away
somewhere, they were right under his nose. The drugs were in plain
view—a third link. He was alone in the house—a fourth link. He
immediately admitted that he knew why the police had walked in the
door—“Drugs.” That is a fifth link. He received mail at 923 Lombrano,
thus raising a reasonable inference that he lived there, which, in turn,
raises a reasonable inference that he had actual care, custody, and
control of items found in plain view on the coffee table. This is a sixth
link. He had $160 in twenties in his pocket, but he was apparently
unemployed. This is a seventh, albeit weak, link. The State argues that
the sum total of this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a
rational jury's finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant
exercised actual care, custody, control, or management of the fourteen
grams of cocaine on the coffee table. We agree. (emphasis added)
Id. at 163.
In Grant v. State, 989 S.W.2d 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no
pet.), the Fourteenth Court held that the jury could reasonably infer possession:
[A]ppellant was the sole occupant and driver of the car; appellant had
been driving the car for a couple of days as part of his job; the
marijuana was under the driver's seat, and thus close to appellant;
appellant had the only set of keys to the car; the closed bag containing
the marijuana could be readily seen by anyone opening the rear
passenger door and looking inside the car; the marijuana was wrapped
securely enough that its odor did not spread throughout the car; and the
drugs were not in a secret compartment of the car.
14
Id. at 434; see also Evans v. State, 98 So. 440, 442 (Miss. 1924) (two buckets of
whiskey, along with mash, found at recently operated still, and defendant coming
and going therefrom allowed for reasonable inference that defendant manufactured
or assisted in the manufacture of the two buckets of whiskey).
(iv) The State’s inferences are not reasonable
The State says that all that can be inferred about Pierce’s relationship to the
van is that she was driving the van:
Ms. Pierce, who had no relationship to the van belonging to the
Appellant’s girlfriend but was driving the van occupied by the
Appellant[.]
State’s Brief, pg. 23. The State is ignoring the additional facts that the van was full
of women’s clothes (no mention of men’s clothes) and it “[a]ppeared like somebody
might have been living in the vehicle.” 4 RR 49, 60, 68, 71. The large items of
methamphetamine were found in a bag containing women’s clothing (“bag behind
the driver’s seat” – 40.58 grams) and inside a laundry bag wrapped in a pair of
women’s pants (“frisbee methamphetamine” – 56.92 grams). 4 RR 51-52, 58-60,
88, 103. These facts would allow an inference of more than that Pierce was simply
driving the van. They would also allow the reasonable inferences that she had been
15
living out of the van and that she had cached the large quantities of
methamphetamine.
The State argues that because there was evidence that the van belonged to
Walker’s girlfriend or wife, he therefore had the sole right to control the van.
Appellant told both the arresting officer and the detective that the van
belonged to his girlfriend or wife. He stated that Ms. Pierce was not
the person in question and that the other two people in the van were
recently arrived passengers. The jury could reasonably find from that
Appellant had the right to control that van. . . . Someone had control
over it or the right to control it.
State’s Brief, pg. 16.
No one else in the van had any right to control the van except the
Appellant.
State’s Brief, pg. 22. But does the “chain of factual evidentiary antecedents” allow
one to reasonably infer this? When Walker was asked to consent to a search of the
van, he said the van didn’t belong to him and thus he couldn’t give permission for a
search. 4 RR 25-26. As noted above, it appeared that a woman had been living out
of the van. And a woman was driving the van. While it cannot reasonably be
inferred that Pierce owned the van, it can certainly be inferred that she did exercise
some control over the van. Even if some control of the van by Walker can be
inferred, he was not the only person who had control. However, the “ultimate”
“elemental” facts that State had to prove were possession of methamphetamine with
intent to distribute – not control of the vehicle. As noted above, given that the large
16
quantities of methamphetamine were cached with women’s clothing allows for the
reasonable inference that Pierce possessed them – not Walker. Unlike the defendant
in Grant, who had been driving the vehicle as the sole occupant for two days, there
is no “factual evidentiary antecedent” in this case establishing (1) that Walker had
been in the van for more than a short period of time, or (2) that he had ever been in
the van as the sole occupant.
The State cites Luke v. State, No. 14-99-01358, 2001 WL 82934 (Tex.App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (unpublished) in support of its argument that
Walker’s “close relationship” with the van’s owner somehow “linked” him to the
methamphetamine found therein. State’s Brief, pg. 16. The State fails to point out
the other “chain of factual evidentiary antecedents” present in Luke (wherein the
defendant was essentially caught with a small bag of cocaine in his hand):
Luke argues that his mere proximity to the crack cocaine is the only
evidence linking him to the possession of it, and that such evidence is
legally and factually insufficient to support this conviction. Luke,
however, overlooks the fact that mere proximity is not the only
evidence linking him to the possession of the substance. In fact, Luke
exercised sole possession over the vehicle where the crack cocaine was
found until just minutes before the traffic stop, not to mention the fact
that he is “closely related” to the owner of the vehicle. At the time of
the traffic stop, Luke sat in the passenger side of the vehicle, which is
where Officer Johnson found the 5.5 gram crack cocaine cookie.
Moreover, once the officers pulled over the vehicle, Johnson observed
Luke making a furtive gesture in an apparent attempt to hide the crack
cocaine. Johnson found the crack cocaine in the vehicle partly because
of this furtive gesture and partly because when he looked in the car he
saw a bit of a plastic bag and a corner of the cookie. (emphasis added)
17
Luke, 2001 WL 82934, at *3.
The State also suggests that it is reasonable to infer that no mere user would
be in possession of material (MSM) used to increase the weight of the
methamphetamine:
While in this case it is reasonable that the quantity alone is sufficient to
support a finding of intent to deliver, other circumstances include the
presence of the material used to dilute or increase the weight of
methamphetamine that is sold. The only logical inference from that is
that the accompanying methamphetamine was intended for delivery as
no mere user would dilute or increase the weight of his drug.
State’s Brief, pg. 19. The State’s inference, as a general proposition, is certainly
reasonable. But it begs the question – who possessed the MSM? Just as the
defendant in McLain, there is no evidence that Walker ever saw the MSM, let alone
possessed it. For the reasons set forth above, the reasonable inference is that Pierce
possessed the MSM – not Walker.
That State also makes the gigantic (and unwarranted) leap of inferring that
because Walker had a user amount of methamphetamine on his person, he was
therefore also in possession of the large amounts found in the van:
The Appellant and Tiffany Pierce were together in the van with a very
large and valuable quantity of methamphetamine and the items used to
process it for sale. They both had methamphetamine on their person.
State’s Brief, pg. 23. Walker would ask this court to note United States v. Longoria,
569 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1978), summarized in Appellant’s principal brief at pages 32-
18
33, wherein the Fifth Circuit reversed appellant’s conviction, holding inter alia, that
the fact that appellant had traces of marijuana in her pocket book did not establish
knowledge of or an intent to distribute the 176 pounds of marijuana found in
suitcases located in the trunk of the vehicle.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John A. Kuchera
John A. Kuchera
210 N. 6th St.
Waco, Texas 76701
(254) 754-3075
(254) 756-2193 (facsimile)
SBN 00792137
johnkuchera@210law.com
Attorney for Appellant
Certificate of Service
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Appellant’s Reply Brief has this day been mailed to the office of Mr. Bob D. Odom,
Assistant District Attorney, P.O. Box 540, Belton, Texas 76513.
SIGNED this 13th day of February, 2015.
/s/ John A. Kuchera
John A. Kuchera,
Attorney for Shawn Michael Walker
19
Certificate of Compliance with Rule 9.4
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)
because the brief contains 4,717 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) and
the type style requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because the brief has been
prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in Times
New Roman, size 14 font.
/s/ John A. Kuchera
John A. Kuchera,
Attorney for Shawn Michael Walker
Dated: February 13, 2015
20