Zamora v. State, 48066
| Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48066,48066 |
| Citation | 508 S.W.2d 819 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Jacinto Ramirez ZAMORA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, Bob Hillin, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Maridell Templeton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for possession of marihuana. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty, punishment was assessed by the court at seven years.
In appellant's first three contentions it is urged that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
The record reflects that Federal Narcotic Agent Chism had a telephone conversation with one Josephina Santa Maria on September 1, 1972, in which arrangements were made for a quantity of marihuana to be delivered to the agent at the Ramada Inn in Grand Prairie later that night. Pursuant to such conversation a white 1966 Dodge sedan arrived at the motel about 10:30 p.m. that evening. Codefendant Casiano was the driver of the car, Josephina Santa Maria was the other occupant in the front seat and appellant was sitting in the back seat. Chism got in the car and asked Casiano 'if he had the stuff,' and Casiano replied, 'Yeah, do you have the money?' Chism replied that he had the money in his hotel room and asked Casiano if he would drive the car 'over to the hotel room where I had my car parked and we would transfer the stuff from his car to my car.' According to Chism, appellant was in the car throughout this conversation and was 'within hearing distance.' After the car was moved, Chism went to his hotel room where he talked to Federal Agent Hollenshead who, according to plans formulated by the officers, was to exhibit a roll of money to the persons selling the marihuana. Upon Chism returning to the car, Casiano opened the trunk. A footlocker containing twenty bricks of marihuana was opened by Casiano. A plastic bag in the trunk contained an additional nine bricks of marihuana. Chism stated appellant was standing by the car and observed all of the transactions. After the trunk was opened Hollenshead approached the vehicle where he observed appellant, casiano, Josephina Santa Maria and a black individual (Chism) 'standing around the rear of the vehicle' with the trunk opin. Hollenshead detected an odor coming from the automobile which he described as 'a very strong odor which I associate with marihuana.' Upon looking inside the trunk Hollenshead observed 'bricks of a green leafy substance' in the trunk, and gave a prearranged signal to other officers who converged on the car and arrested appellant, Casiano and Josephina Santa Maria.
Codefendant Casiano testified that he and appellant made the trip to Grand Prairie from Donna on the date in question as a result of one Chico Perez offering Casiano five hundred dollars to come to Dallas and pick up some money for Perez's family who lived in Pharr. Casiano did not have a car and offered appellant two hundred dollars plus expenses to drive him to Dallas to pick up the money.
While the record reflects that the vehicle was not registered in appellant's name (the record does not show to whom the car was registered), Casiano stated that he had seen appellant drive this automobile 'at other times down in Donna,' and that 'his mother or brother or somebody else' owned it.
Appellant drove Casiano to Grand Prairie where they were to the house of Josephina Santa Maria. Perez Perez arrived shortly thereafter, and, after asking for the keys to their car and making a trip outside while appellant and Casiano remained in the house, Perez told them to go to the Ramada Inn and pick up some money. Appellant did not want to dirve the car because 'he was not used to driving in big city,' and since Casiano had lived in Los Angeles for five years, it was agreed that he would drive the vehicle to the Ramada Inn. Casiano denied that he and appellant had any knowledge that the trunk contained marihuana. 1
Appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction in light of the opinion of this court in Payne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 732. In Payne, this court held that evidence showing only that drug was found in matchbox located on left side of dashboard of automobile in which defendant was a passenger was insufficient to support conviction of defendant for unlawful possession of dangerous drug.
Unlike Payne, where the evidence reflected nothing more than appellant was a passenger in the vehicle where the drug was found in a matchbox, appellant had secured and driven the vehicle in which the large quantity of marihuana was found from Donna to Grand Prairie on the day in question. See Hahn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 724; Aldridge v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 171. For this service, appellant was to receive two hundred dollars and expenses. Appellant had been seen driving the car in Donna, and Casiano believed the vehicle belonged to appellant's mother or brother. See Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 88.
It further appears that the only reason appellant did not drive the vehicle to the scene of the arrest was his reluctance to drive in city traffic. Unlike Payne, a discussion took place in the vehicle where appellant was a passenger relative to the purchase of 'stuff,' and the moving of the automobile where the 'stuff' could be transferred to the buyer's car. In addition, appellant was in a position to observe all of the transactions when the trunk was opened and the marihuana was examined by Chism. While appellant was 'standing around the rear of the vehicle,' prior to his arrest, Hollenshead noted a strong odor of marihuana coming from the automobile. See Adair v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247; Aldridge v. State, supra.
In proving possession in narcotic cases, facts and circumstances surrounding a search or an arrest may be shown to prove that the accused and other persons acted together in jointly possession a narcotic. Lewis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 699; Wright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 170; Collini v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 132; Harvey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 75.
We find that the combination of the foregoing circumstances provides the affirmative link between appellant and the contraband he is alleged to have possessed required by the decisions of this court in joint possession (narcotic) cases. See Barnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 504 S.W.2d 450; Powell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 705; Wright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 170; Collini v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 132; Sanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 648; Payne v. State, supra. We deem the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
In appellant's next two contentions it is urged that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. State
...State from again using that conviction to fix the status of an habitual criminal.' Id. (citations omitted). 5. See Zamora v. State, 508 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (holding that defendant's denial of knowledge that marijuana was in his car was a denial of the offense and did not ent......
-
Hughes v. State
...538 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) (appellant's presence and marihuana in plain view sufficient to revoke probation); Zamora v. State, 508 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Even ignoring these facts, it is clear that at the time of the search, appellant was in sole possession and control of the p......
-
Farmer v. State
...of the offense, including culpable intent; it only excuses what would otherwise constitute criminal conduct.’ ”); Zamora v. State, 508 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (the defense of entrapment necessarily assumes the act charged was committed; defendant's denial of knowledge that marij......
-
Rogers v. State
...the same time, each occupying a different courtroom. Id. at 680; Herrod v. State, 650 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Zamora v. State, 508 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Reed v. State, 500 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1973), overruled on other grounds, 522 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Judge......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...on entrapment if he does not admit the commission of the offense alleged (which includes the elements of the offense). Zamora v. State , 508 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). See also, Smith v. State , 733 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), vacated on other grounds , 761 S.W.2d 17 (Tex.Crim.......
-
Table of cases
...Yzaguirre v. State 394 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) 2:70 Young v. State 341 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) Z Zamora v. State 508 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) 3:860 Zanghetti v. State 618 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) 1:150, 6:10 Zubia v. State 998 S.W.2d 226 (Te......