Hackleman v. State, No. 03-94-00076-CR

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtBefore CARROLL; CARL E.F. DALLY
Citation919 S.W.2d 440
PartiesDavid HACKLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Decision Date14 February 1996
Docket NumberNo. 03-94-00076-CR

Page 440

919 S.W.2d 440
David HACKLEMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 03-94-00076-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas,
Austin.
Feb. 14, 1996.
Rehearing Overruled May 1, 1996.

Christopher P. Morgan, Austin, for appellant.

Ronald Earle, District Attorney, C. Bryan Case, Jr., Matthew B. Devlin, Assistant District Attorneys, Travis County Courthouse, Austin, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, C.J., and ABOUSSIE and DALLY, * JJ.

CARL E.F. DALLY, Justice (Retired).

Appellant David Hackleman waived a jury trial, and after his plea of not guilty, the trial court found him guilty of possessing methamphetamine, cocaine, and marihuana. Controlled Substance Act, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, sec. 1, § 481.115, .121, 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 2230, 2936, 2939 (Tex.Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.115, 481.121, since amended.) The punishment enhanced by proof of a prior felony conviction was assessed by the trial court at imprisonment for sixteen years.

Page 443

ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and also urges that the trial court erred (1) in finding the search warrant affidavit sufficient and refusing to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence; (2) in holding a Franks hearing in camera; (3) in holding an in camera hearing without a timely, specific objection by the State; (4) in refusing to require the disclosure of identity of police officers who detained the informer; (5) in refusing to grant a motion for continuance; and (6) in refusing to grant a new trial. The State cross appeals, urging that the trial court erred in assessing punishment of imprisonment for sixteen years and in not finding that the State proved all of the alleged prior felony convictions, thus requiring minimum punishment of imprisonment for twenty-five years. We will overrule the points of error of both appellant and the State and affirm the judgments.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

We summarize the evidence heard by the trial court as the trier of fact. "[T]en maybe fifteen" peace officers executed a warrant authorizing the search of a residence and the arrests of Deborah Ann Reel and appellant who were alleged to be in charge and control of the residence. On entering the residence, the officers found appellant in the kitchen, wearing shorts, and preparing breakfast. Reel was found in the master bedroom. Both appellant and Reel were handcuffed and placed in the living room. Later appellant was taken to the bedroom where he put on a pair of jeans. The officers found another pair of jeans on the dresser in the master bedroom; in one pocket was a small plastic bag containing an "off white" powder; in another pocket was a wallet containing appellant's driver's license and his Department of Corrections identification. A wicker basket was also on the dresser. The basket contained a small electronic scale--"very typical of the types of scales that drug dealers will utilize in their trade,"--many unused small plastic bags, perfume bottles, and other items. A man's watch was found near a container holding marihuana seeds. Officers found a "bong"--"that's a slang term for an item used to smoke marihuana"--in a china cupboard. Methamphetamine, cocaine, and marihuana were found in closed containers in various places in the master bedroom, in a clothes hamper, in a china cupboard, on a night stand, in purses, and in other places. In a large standing tool chest, just outside the bedroom door, officers found a plastic bag containing methamphetamine, cocaine, and marihuana. They also found $2,100.00 in cash and $249.00 worth of food stamps in the bedroom. The evidence revealed that Reel leased the residence and was billed for the utilities. There was evidence that appellant had worked as an automobile mechanic. Appellant offered and the trial court admitted for "the appellate record" a Department of Public Safety investigation report which states that both Reel and appellant denied selling narcotics and that appellant said that (1) all of the money seized belonged to Reel; (2) Reel was one-month pregnant with his child; and (3) Reel had rented the property for two years and he (appellant) had been living there for six months. A Department of Public Safety forensic chemist testified he had analyzed, identified, and determined the weight of the various drugs found by the officers in their search. The white powder in the bag found in appellant's jeans was identified by the chemist as methamphetamine. The chemist testified the methamphetamine found in the bag was visible and capable of being measured.

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Appellant in his first three points of error contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he possessed either methamphetamine, cocaine, or marihuana. Appellant argues that, assuming a rational factfinder could have inferred appellant knowingly possessed the controlled substances, it could also have rationally inferred that he did not and that the codefendant or someone else possessed the contraband. He also argues that he was not affirmatively linked to the alleged controlled substances. He cites Humason v. State, 728 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), and many other cases. On the other hand, the State argues that Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), expressly abrogated the reasonable hypothesis analytical

Page 444

construct for appellate review and implicitly discarded the affirmative links analysis.

This Court has recently considered the issues presented here.

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). In order to prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove the accused exercised care, control, and management of the substance, and that the accused knew the substance possessed was contraband. Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Cude v. State, 716 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). When the accused is not in exclusive control of the place the contraband is found, there must be independent facts and circumstances linking the accused to the contraband. Cude, 716 S.W.2d at 47.

* * * * * *

By arguing that the record supports a reasonable hypothesis other than his guilt, appellant essentially urges us to return to a pre-Geesa reasonable hypothesis analysis of the evidence. This we will not do, as we are bound to follow Geesa. We will instead consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to see if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

* * * * * *

Although the affirmative links analysis may have developed in service of the reasonable hypothesis construct, we believe its usefulness survives Geesa. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to establish an accused's knowledge of contraband and his control over it, the existing body of law describing affirmative links between a defendant and contraband is an appropriate means of applying the Jackson rationality standard of review.

* * * * * *

Affirmative links are these secondary facts that indicate the accused's knowledge and control of the contraband. We conclude that an affirmative links analysis remains a convenient and logically sound method of applying the Jackson standard of reasonable doubt in some cases.

Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 187-88 (Tex.App.--Austin 1994, no pet.).

More recently, the Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed the continued vitality of using an affirmative links analysis after Geesa:

Accordingly, it is not fair to say that our opinion in Geesa significantly compromised our "affirmative links" case law.... Nevertheless, some of our precedents, including Humason, do invoke the "outstanding reasonable hypothesis" standard in connection with a search for evidence linking the accused to illegal drugs. Clearly, any aspects of those cases which rely on that standard no longer control. The ultimate consequence is that each defendant must still be affirmatively linked with the drugs he allegedly possessed, but this link need no longer be so strong that it excludes every other outstanding reasonable hypothesis except the defendant's guilt.

Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).

Affirmative links, connecting this appellant to the contraband include: (1) methamphetamine found in the bedroom in the same jeans as appellant's driver's license and appellant's Department of Corrections identification; (2) appellant's admission that he had a close relationship with Reel and had resided with her for six months in the residence where all of the contraband was found; (3) evidence that appellant was an automobile mechanic together with methamphetamine, cocaine, and marihuana found in a tool chest near the bedroom; (4) jeans which appellant put on were in the bedroom where the contraband was found; (5) a wicker basket found on the dresser beside appellant's jeans contained small plastic bags and a small scale

Page 445

often used in the illicit drug trade. From these affirmative links the trier of fact could reasonably infer that appellant knew of the existence of the contraband and exercised control over it.

We disagree with appellant's argument that the "minuscule trace" of methamphetamine found in appellant's jeans does not rationally prove "knowledge or knowing possession." There was a visible, measurable quantity of the contraband in the plastic bag found in appellant's jeans. That is sufficient to establish knowing possession. Kemp v. State, 861 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd). We also disagree that the amount of marihuana was insufficient to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Salinas v. State, NUMBER 13-19-00504-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 13, 2021
    ...the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true"); see Hackleman v. State , 919 S.W.2d 440, 448 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, pet. ref'd untimely filed) ; see also McCray v. Illinois , 386 U.S. 300, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967......
  • Martinez v. State, No. 08-01-00501-CR (TX 7/15/2004), No. 08-01-00501-CR
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 15, 2004
    ...in this case, the State must prove independent facts and circumstances affirmatively linking him to the contraband. Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed). An affirmative link generates a reasonable inference that the accused knew of the ......
  • Lemmons v. State, No. 04-00-00557-CR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 13, 2002
    ...784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd);......
  • State v. $5,500.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 08-07-00235-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 16, 2009
    ...search warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hypertechnical manner. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331; Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 447 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed). If the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Salinas v. State, NUMBER 13-19-00504-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 13, 2021
    ..."in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true"); see Hackleman v. State , 919 S.W.2d 440, 448 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, pet. ref'd untimely filed) ; see also McCray v. Illinois , 386 U.S. 300, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)......
  • Martinez v. State, No. 08-01-00501-CR (TX 7/15/2004), No. 08-01-00501-CR
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 15, 2004
    ...in this case, the State must prove independent facts and circumstances affirmatively linking him to the contraband. Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed). An affirmative link generates a reasonable inference that the accused knew of the ......
  • Lemmons v. State, No. 04-00-00557-CR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 13, 2002
    ...784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd);......
  • State v. $5,500.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 08-07-00235-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 16, 2009
    ...search warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hypertechnical manner. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331; Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 447 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed). If the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT