Ibarra v. State

• Decision Date: 29 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 11–13–00325–CR,11–13–00325–CR
• Citation: 479 S.W.3d 481
• Parties: Israel Joe Ibarra, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

479 S.W.3d 481

Israel Joe Ibarra, Appellant

v.The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 11–13–00325–CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Opinion filed October 29, 2015

Discretionary Review Refused January 13, 2016

Tim Copeland, Copeland Law Firm, Cedar Park, TX, for appellant.

Michael Fouts, District Attorney, Haskell, TX, for appellee.

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

OPINION

JOHN M. BAILEY, JUSTICE

The jury convicted Israel Joe Ibarra of possession of more than four grams but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2010). The trial court assessed Appellant's punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of sixty years. Appellant challenges his conviction in three issues. We affirm.

Background Facts

Haskell County Sheriff Winston Stephens¹ testified at both the suppression hearing and during trial that he received information from his predecessor, Sheriff David Halliburton, that a confidential informant told Sheriff Halliburton that Jason Mendez was dealing drugs in Haskell County. In response to Sheriff Halliburton's report, Sheriff Stephens set up surveillance on Mendez's house for approximately a month. Sheriff Stephens then received information from his own confidential informant that Mendez was dealing drugs. Sheriff Stephens testified that he had known his confidential informant for approximately twelve years. The confidential informant had given Sheriff Stephens reliable information related to criminal activity in the past. Sheriff Stephens also testified that the confidential informant had never given him information that was not reliable.

At Sheriff Stephens's request, the confidential informant attempted to buy drugs from Mendez on December 27, 2012, but Mendez was out of drugs that day. The confidential informant told Sheriff Stephens that Mendez would be going to Abilene that evening to "re-up his dope." The confidential informant said that Mendez would be traveling northbound in a silver car with a Dallas Cowboys star on the back windshield.

Sheriff Stephens observed Mendez leaving for Abilene at the time that the confidential informant told him that Mendez would be leaving Haskell. Sheriff Stephens attempted to intercept Mendez on his return to Haskell on December 27, but he missed seeing Mendez's vehicle return that evening. Sheriff Stephens testified that the confidential informant told him that Mendez would be leaving for Abilene to purchase more drugs the next evening (December 28) and would return to Haskell between 9:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. The confidential informant also told Sheriff Stephens that Santana Guzman would be in the vehicle with Mendez.

On the evening of December 28, Sheriff Stephens saw a silver Oldsmobile with a star on the back driving toward Haskell. Sheriff Stephens started driving behind the car. A check of the vehicle's registration information indicated that the car belonged to Mendez's brother. Sheriff Stephens activated his emergency lights and pulled the car over. Mendez was driving, Guzman was in the front passenger seat, Essie Alvarez was in the backseat behind the driver, and Appellant was in the backseat behind Guzman. Sheriff Stephens instructed Mendez to exit the vehicle and asked for his driver's license. Mendez replied that he did not have his license. Sheriff Stephens asked for permission to search the vehicle and Mendez consented. All of the occupants then exited the vehicle.

Sheriff Stephens, along with another officer, searched the vehicle. Sheriff Stephens testified that the car smelled of burnt marihuana. Inside the vehicle, the officers found an open box that contained a small amount of marihuana, two marihuana pipes with marihuana residue, and rolling papers. They also found digital scales on the front floorboard. The officers found, on the front driver's side above the door, a small scooper that is used to bag drugs.

Sheriff Stephens spoke with Guzman separately from the group. Guzman admitted that she had contraband on her person and retrieved a small bag from inside her pants. Inside the bag were several baggies, a small blue flashlight, and a small container of marihuana. Inside the baggies was an off-white, crystal-type substance. This substance was later tested and determined to be a total of 1.01 grams of methamphetamine.

All of the occupants were arrested for drug possession. Appellant did not have any identification on him, and he gave a false name when he was arrested. The car was impounded and searched again the next day. In the subsequent search, Sheriff Stephens found a small, soft-sided bag wedged between the backseat and the body of the vehicle on the driver's side. Sheriff Stephens also found another portion of a marihuana clip. Inside the soft-sided bag were Ziploc baggies that contained more off-white, crystal-type substance. The contents were tested and determined to be a total of 3.09 grams of methamphetamine.

Analysis

We first address Appellant's sufficiency issues. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in his second and third issues. We review sufficiency of the evidence issues under the standard of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) ; Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89 (Tex.App.–Eastland 2010, pet. ref'd). Under the Jackson standard, we review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 ; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). When conducting a sufficiency review, we consider all the evidence admitted at trial, including pieces of evidence that may have been improperly admitted. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) ; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). We defer to the factfinder's role as the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight their testimony is to be afforded. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. This standard accounts for the factfinder's duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 ; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the prosecution and defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781 ; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778.

In his second issue, Appellant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to deliver any of the methamphetamine. He contends that the State only showed that he was in close proximity to the drugs because they were located in a car in which he was a passenger. He also asserts that only an accomplice witness testified that he knew about the methamphetamine and its purpose. In this regard, Appellant contends that the accomplice's testimony was not corroborated by any independent evidence. In his third issue, Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove the amount of methamphetamine for which he was convicted. Appellant challenges the amount the State linked him to and argues that the evidence proven by the State amounts to less than four grams. Specifically, he asserts that there is insufficient evidence linking him to the methamphetamine recovered from Guzman's pants.

When, as in this case, the jury's verdict could have been based on the testimony of an accomplice, the sufficiency review must incorporate the accomplice witness rule stated in Article 38.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14 (West 2005). In order to support a conviction based upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating evidence that tends to connect the accused with the offense. Id. ; Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). In reviewing the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence, we eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and focus on the remaining portions of the record to determine whether there is any evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) ; Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462–63 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). The corroborating evidence may be direct or circumstantial and need not be sufficient by itself to establish the defendant's guilt; it is sufficient if the combined weight of the non-accomplice evidence tends to connect the defendant to the offense. Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 361 ; Gosch v. State, 829 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). We review the corroborating evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Taylor v. State, 328 S.W.3d 574, 578 (Tex.App.–Eastland 2010, pet. ref'd). Once corroborated, testimony of an accomplice may be considered by the jury in the same manner as any other competent evidence. See Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

Non-accomplice testimony was introduced showing that Appellant was in the back passenger seat near the location of the methamphetamine, that the car smelled of burnt marihuana, that marihuana was in plain view in the vehicle, that digital scales and rolling papers were also found in plain view, that the vehicle matched the description given to Sheriff Stephens by the confidential informant, and that the confidential informant told Sheriff Stephens that the driver of the vehicle was bringing drugs back from Abilene. In this case, the jury could have rationally found that the corroborating evidence tended to connect Appellant to the possession of the methamphetamine. Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 258–59 ; Woodruff v. State, No. 11–09–00171–CR, 2011 WL...