Bradley v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-16-00375-CR,01-16-00375-CR |
| Parties | JERMAINE NOLON BRADLEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas
The State indicted Jermaine Nolon Bradley for possession with the intent to deliver cocaine, a controlled substance, in an amount not less than 4 grams but not more than 200 grams. The case proceeded to trial before a jury. At the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury to find Bradley not guilty of the charge of possession with intent to deliver and submitted the case to the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession. The jury found Bradley guilty of the lesser-included offense. After finding true the enhancement paragraphs alleging that Bradley had a prior felony conviction and that the offense occurred in a drug-free zone, it assessed a sentence of 10 years' incarceration.
On appeal, Bradley contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly possessed cocaine, (2) the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge for cause to one prospective juror and in denying Bradley's challenges for cause to two others, and (3) the trial court erred in denying his request for a mistrial. We affirm.
Bradley's arrest followed a car accident that occurred in Richmond, Texas in May 2015. One morning, Bradley was walking in his neighborhood, which was known for a lot of drug activity and narcotics sales.
Bradley saw an acquaintance, Nicky, with two other people, standing outside a home in the neighborhood. Bradley approached Nicky, and the four got into Nicky's rental car, with Bradley in the driver's seat, Nicky in the front passenger seat, and the others in the back.
Before driving out of the neighborhood, Bradley swerved and hit another vehicle head-on. The individuals in that vehicle, who were friends with Bradley'swife, were very upset. As an angry crowd of neighbors began to gather around Bradley and the rental car, Nicky and her friends fled the scene, leaving the passenger door open.
By the time Officer V. Golovine of the Richmond Police Department arrived at the scene, the crowd had grown so large and agitated that Officer Golovine had to park about 50 or 60 feet away. He could not reach the cars or the people involved in the accident. He called for backup and Sergeant Horton arrived a few moments later. Bradley told Sergeant Horton that he was the driver of the rental car and that he was alone in the car when the accident happened. Other witnesses, however, told the officers that Bradley had passengers who left the scene after the accident. Sergeant Horton confirmed that the car was a rental and that it was not rented in Bradley's name.
Noticing the odor of burnt marijuana wafting through the open passenger door, Sergeant Horton initiated a search of the car's interior. She found the butt of a marijuana cigarette on the driver's side floorboard. In a grocery sack on the front passenger seat, she found a measuring cup, baking soda, and a digital scale. She also found a clear plastic bag containing crack cocaine in plain view on the front passenger-side floorboard, and another bag with two cocaine "cookies" in a compartment in the passenger-side front door. After discovering the contraband, Sergeant Horton arrested Bradley.
Bradley testified that he did not attempt to run away after the initial accident had occurred (and before the police arrived). Other witnesses, however, told Sergeant Horton that Bradley may have tried to run away, but was stopped by the crowd that gathered there.
The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident told Sergeant Horton that Bradley did not want the police to become involved. She also told Sergeant Horton that Bradley pulled a large handful of cash out of his pocket and offered it to her in an attempt to try to settle things without police involvement. When Sergeant Horton interviewed Bradley, Bradley denied making the offer and was not carrying any money. Bradley also claimed that he did not try to run away after the accident, and the crowd did not restrain him from leaving.
Bradley testified that he did not see the cocaine or the paraphernalia when he was getting into or out of the rental car. He claimed that he did not know that there was cocaine and paraphernalia in the vehicle. He further denied knowing that Nicky and her friends were in possession of the cocaine and paraphernalia and claims that he did not see Nicky holding onto anything after they got in the car or at any time before the accident.
We first address Bradley's complaint that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he both possessed the cocaine and knew what it was.
Appellate courts apply a legal-sufficiency standard in evaluating whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of the criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89 (1979); Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Under this standard, we "consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19, 99 S. Ct. at 2788-89). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury by reevaluating the weight or credibility of the evidence; we defer to its resolution of conflicts in the evidence, weighing of the testimony, and drawing of reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). This standard applies equally to direct and circumstantialevidence. Id.; see also Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ().
To prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised control, management, or care over the substance, and that the accused knew the substance was contraband. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115(a) ().
Possession need not be exclusive. McGoldrick v. State, 682 S.W.2d 573, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Woodard v. State, 355 S.W.3d 102, 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd). When the evidence establishes that an accused did not have exclusive possession of the place where the controlled substance was found, however, the trier of fact cannot conclude that the accused knowingly possessed the controlled substance unless additional, independent facts and circumstances affirmatively link the accused to the controlled substance. Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 594-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406); Kibble v. State, 340 S.W.3d 14, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]2010, pet. ref'd). The evidence "must establish, to the requisite level of confidence, that the accused's connection with the [contraband] was more than just fortuitous." Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Evidence that affirmatively links an accused to the substance is proof that he possessed it knowingly. Id. These "affirmative links" include evidence showing:
Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; see Burrell v. State, 445 S.W.3d 761, 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref'd). The State is not required to prove allof these links, and the "number of affirmative links [proven] is not as important as the logical force that they collectively create." Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 687, 691 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd). We consider only the links that are present; the absence of a particular link does not constitute evidence of innocence to be weighed against the existing links. James v. State, 264 S.W.3d 215, 219 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (citing Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.2d 127, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)); see Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162.
Bradley was driving the rental car when the accident occurred. Sergeant Horton discovered the contraband in plain view. The cocaine was in plastic bags on the passenger-side floorboard and door compartment; it was within Bradley's reach. See Robinson v. State, 174 S.W.3d 320, 326 (Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial