PD-0527-15 & PD-0528-15 PD-0527&0528-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/6/2015 3:16:27 PM Accepted 5/7/2015 1:05:02 PM ABEL ACOSTA No. CLERK IN THE TEXAS COTJRTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Nos.01-14-00343-CR and 01-14-00344-CR In theFirstCourtof Appeals ofTexas

Damion CorneliusGordwin, Appellant V.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appellant's AmendedPetitionfor DiscretionaryReview

JeraldK. Graber TSB # 08240320 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 May 7, 2015 Tel.713-224-232 [email protected] Attomey for Appellant StatementRegarding Oral Argument

Appellant waives oral argument.

IDENTITY OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 68.a(a),the followingpersonsareinterested parties: Appellant Mr. DamionGordwin Ha:ris CountyJail 1200BakerSt.

Houston,TX 77002

Trial Judse TheHonorableKatherineCabaniss 248kDistict Court 1201Franklin Houston,Texas77002

Attomeysfor State Ms. Molly Wurzer(in trial) Mr. Alan Curry (on appeal) Haris CountyDA's Office 1201Franklin,6* Floor Houston,Texas77002

Attorneyfor Appellant Mr. JamesSims(in trial) Mr. JeraldK. Graber(on appeal) 917Franklin,Suite510 Houston,Texas77002 Table of Contents Page STATEMENTREGARDINGORAL ARGUMENT 2 IDENTIry OF INTERESTEDPARTIES a J

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5 STATEMENTOF THE CASE 7 STATEMENTOF PROCEDURALHISTORY 8 APPELLANT'SGROUNDSFORREVIEW 8 REASONFOR REVIEWING GROUNDFOR REVIEW 8 ARGUMENT 9 CONCLUSIONandPRAYERFORRELIEF 15 CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE 15 CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE T6 Index of Authorities Cases page Broolrs v. State, S.W.3d893,895(Tex.Crim. App. 2010) IO,12 Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 11, 13 20l0,pet. refd) Evans v. State, S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 11 Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830 (Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist.] 2001,pet. refd) 11 In re Winship, 397U.S.359,361,g0S.ct. 1069, 107r, 10,13 2sL.Ed.2d368(1970) Jaclrsonv. Virginia, 443U.S.307,99 S. Ct. 278t, 6r L.Ed.2d 560,(1979) r0, 12 King v. State, S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995) 11,13 Laster v. State, S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim. App. 2009) 10, 13 Poindexter v. State, 153S.W.3d402,405(Tex.Crim. App. 2005) 11 Williams v. State, S.W.3d742,750(Tex.Crim.App. 2007) 10, 13 Statutes.Codesand Rules

Tex.Health& SafetyCodeg 481.002(38) 11 Tex.Pen.Codeg 1.07(a)(39) 11 Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(d)(1) 13 Tex.R. App.Proc.66.3(c) and(f) 8 To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals:

Statementof the Case Appellant was chargedby indictmentwith the felony offensesof tamperingwith physicalevidencein causenumber1397495andpossession of a controlledsubstancein causenumber 1397496.(CR 9, 9)'. Appellant entereda pleaof not guilty andthe casesweretriedbeforea jury. (RR III 10).

The jury found appellantguilty of both charges.(RR III L7I-I72). After a hearing,thejury sentenced sentencing appellantto threeyearsin prisonon the tamperingwith evidencecaseandtwo yearsin prisonon the possession of a confrolledsubstance case.(RR V 55).

Appellanttimely filed a writtennoticeof appeal.(CR 57, 58). Thefial courtcertifiedthe defendant's right of appeal.(CR 56, 57).Appellantrequests oral argumentin this case.

1- Cause number1397495 is citedfirst.followedby cause number1397496.

Statement of Procedural History On April 30,2015, a panel of the First Court of Appealsissuedan un- published opinion affirming the trial court's judgments in these two cases.

Appellant files this first petition for discretionaryreview with this Court.

AppellantosGround for Review

1 ) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe convictionof possession of a controlledsubstancesince appellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or control over the cocaine thatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.

2) The Courtof Appealserredin findingthat the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe convictionof tamperingwith evidenceunderthe theorythat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The indictmentandjury chargedid not allegethat appellant"concealed"the evidence.The evidenceis insufflrcientto supportthe convictionfor tamperingwith evidencesince appellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggie in a toilet.

Reasonfor ReviewingAppellantosGroundfor Review

ThelowerCourt'sruling shouldbereviewedpursuantto Tex.R. App. P. 66.3(c)and(0.

Argument Theevidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor possession of a confrolledsubstance sinceappellantnevermaintainedcare,custody,or conffol overthe cocainethatwasfoundin a baggiein a toilet.Appellantnevertouched the cocaineor the baggiecontainingthe cocaine.[n fact,the police indicated that they neversawappellantput any item into the toilet. While the testimony establishedthat the oflicers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes, thereis no evidencethat appellanteverpossessed the cocaine.Therefore,the Courtof Appealsered in findingthatthe evidenceis sufficientto supportthe verdict.

Also,the evidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor tampering with physicalevidencesinceappellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethat was foundin a baggiein a toilet. The indictmentandjury chargeallegedthat appellantactuallyalteredor desffoyedthe physicalevidence.The Court of Appealserredin finding that the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe verdict under the theory that appellant"concealed"the evidence. However,the indictmentand jury chargedid not allege that appellant"concealed"the to thejury wasthat appellant evidence.The only evidencethat waspresented flushedthe toilet that containedthe baggieof cocainethat wasput thereby the

co-defendant.

The physicalevidencethat was seizedby the policewasnever alteredor destroyed.

Possession - CauseNumber1397496 of a ControlledSubstance The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard thrt a reviewing court shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis suffrcientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis requiredto prove beyonda reasonable doubt. Broolcsv. State,323 S.W.3d 893,895(Tex.Crim.App. 2010);Jacksonv.

Virginia,443 U.S.307,99S.Ct. 2781,6l L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship, 397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L. Ed. 2d 368(1970);Lasterv.

State,275S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim.App. 2009);Williamsv. State,235 S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the verdict,the evidenceis insuflicientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes a reasonable doubt.Laster

l0 v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This skndardappliesequallyto both directand circumstantial evidence.

King v. State,895S.w.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston flst Dist.]

2010,pet.refd).

Possession is definedas "actualcare,custody,control,or management." Tex. Pen.Code $ 1.07(a)(39) (West2011);Tex. Health& SafetyCode g 481.002(38).

To proveunlawfulpossession of a controlledsubstance, the State must establishthat (1) the accusedexercisedcare,control,or management and(2) knewthe substance overthe contraband, wascontraband.

Poindexterv.

State,153 S.W.3d402,405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The evidencemust establishthat the accused'sconnectionwith the substancewas more than fortnitous.Id. at 405-06.Evidencemustlink the accused to the offensesothat onereasonably may infer that the accusedknew of the contraband's existence andexercised conffoloverit. Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830(Tex.App.- Houston[14thDist.] 2001,,pet.refd). Merepresence at the locationwherethe controlled substancewas found is insufficient, by itself to establish possession.

Evansv. State,202S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006).

In this case,thereis no evidencethat appellantactuallyexercisedcare, custody,or control over the subjectcocaine.The testimonyestablished that ChristopherHutchinsondiscardedthe baggieof cocaineinto the toilet. There

is no evidencethat appellantever touchedthe cocaineor the baggiecontaining the cocaine.In fact, the police indicatedthat they never saw appellantput any item into the toilet. (RR III 92, I42). While the testimony establishedthat the officers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes, thereis no evidencethat appellant ever exercisedcare, control, or managementover the confaband.

Thus, the evidenceis insufficient to supportthe jury's verdict, and this court should enter a judgment of acquittal on the possessionof a controlled substanceconviction.

Tamperingwith PhysicalEvidence- CauseNumber1397495 The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard that a reviewingcourt shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis sufficientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis requiredto provebeyonda reasonable doubt. Brooksv. State,323S.W.3d 893,895(Tex.Crim.App. 2010);Jacksonv. Virginia,443U.S.307,99 S.Ct. 2781,6I L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship,

l2 397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L.Ed.2d 368(1970); Lasterv. state,275s.w.3d 5r2,517 (Tex.crim. App. 2009);williamsv. state,235 S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the verdict,the evidenceis insufficientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes a reasonable doubt.Laster v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This standard appliesequallyto both directand circumstantial evidence.

King v. State,895S.W.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App. 1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.]

20l0,pet.refd).

A personcommitsthe offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence(as specificallychargedin the indicfinent)if, knowingthat an offensehad been committed,alter or destroya thing, namelycocaine,with intentto impair its investigationof or official proceeding verity as evidencein any subsequent relatedto theoffense.(CR9); Tex.Pen.Code$ 37.09(dX1).

In this case,the evidenceis insufficientto supporta convictionfor tamperingwith physicalevidencesincethere is no evidencethat appellant actually alteredor destroyedthe cocainethat was found in the toilet. The indictment and the jury charge in this case did not allege that appellant concealedthe evidence,one of the methodsin which one could committhe

offense under$ 37.09(d)(1); (CR9,39-43).The andthejury charge indictment only allegedthat appellantalteredor destroyedthe physicalevidence.(CR 9).

Therefore,the Courtof Appealserredin finding (1) that "the jury couldhave foundthat [appellant]"conceal[ed]"the evidence,(2)that "thejury couldhave reasonablyinferred that appellantconcealedthe cocainethat the officers recoveredfrom the toilet, and (3) that "the jury couldhavereasonablyfound that appellantconcealed...cocaine." Gordwinv. State,No. 01-14-00343-CR pgs. 8-10. The jury was not authorizedto (April 30, 2015,unpublished), convictunderthetheorythatappellant"concealed"the evidence.

The only evidencethat was presentedto the jury was that appellant flushedthe toilet thatcontainedthe baggieof cocainethatwasput thereby the co-defendant.

Thereis no evidencethatthe physicalevidencewaseveraltered or destroyed.In fact, sincethe cocainewas inside a plastic baggie,it was shownthat the cocainewasnot alteredat all. Furthermore.sincethe cocaine wasretrievedby the police,the evidencewasnot destroyedin anyway.In this case,the most that the Statecould prove was that appellantcommittedthe offenseof attemptedtamperingwith physicalevidence.However,sincethe elementsof tamperingwith physicalevidencewerenot provenby the State, appellantrequeststhat this Courtacquithim of the offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence.

I4 Conclusionand Praver

Appellantpraysthatthis HonorableCourtgrantAppellant'sPetitionfor Discretionary Review,reversethe decisionof the Courtof Appeals,andacquit appellantin eachcause.

Respectfu lly Submitted, lsl Jerald Graber JeraldK. Graber 917Franklin, Suite510 Houston, Texas77002 713-224-2323 Attorneyfor Appellant

Certificateof Compliance I, JeraldK. Graber,do certify that this petition is in compliancewith Rule 9 sincethe entiredocumentconsistsof 2,250wordsand is typedusing 14-pointfont.

lsl Jerald Graber JeraldK. Graber

Certificateof Service I herebycertiff that a copy of this PDR was serveduponthe followiirg partiesvia e-file: Alan Curry Hanis CountyDistrictAttomey'sOffice 1201Franklin.6* Floor Houston,TX'77002 StateProsecutingAttorney P.O.Box 12405 Austin,Texas 787L1

lsl Jerald Graber JeraldK. Graber

I6 Opinion issuedApril30, 2015

In The 6ourtof9ppeEls For The fritstDfstrictof@exug NO. 0l-14-00343-CR NO. 0l-14-00344-CR

DAMION CORNELIUS GORDWIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS,Appeilee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris CountyoTexas Trial Court CaseNos. 1397495& t3gi4g6 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury foundappellant,DamionCorneliusGordwin,guilty of the offensesof tamperingwith physical evidencerand possessionof a controlled substance, namely cocaine,weighing less than one gram.t It assessed his punishmentat confinementfor threeyearsfor tamperingwith physicalevidenceand confinement for two yearsfor possessionof a controlledsubstance,with the sentences to run concuffently. In threeissues,appellantcontendsthat the evidenceis insufficient to support his convictions and the trial court erred in entering a deadly weapon finding in itsjudgment.

We affirm.

Background HoustonPolice Department("FIPD") Officer M. Santuariotestifiedthat on August 9,2013, while working in the IIPD NarcoticsDivision, he and otherlaw enforcementofficers "serve[d] and execute[d]a fno knock] searchwarrant,,at a residence. Santuarioactedas the "caseagent" and the "pointman,,for the entry

seeTex. PeNar,coon ANNr.$ 37.09(dX1) (vemonsupp. 2Mg; appellatecause number0l-14-00343-cR;trial courtcausenumber13g74g5. see Tpx. HearrH & sepnrv coop AwN. $$4s1.102(3xD), 481.115(a), (b) {:ryf" 2010); appellate cause number ot-t+-oo:+4-cR; trial court cause number 1397496. team' HPD Officer J. Elkins 'obreached the [front] door" of the residence.while I{PD OffrcerDelacertadeployedthe..flashbang."3 As Officer Santuarioenteredthe residence,he saw appellant,who ,,was armed,"and ChristopherHutchinsonrun into a hallway and then into a restroom.

He followed them because"[n]ormally in a situationlike th[is]', peoplerun to 'odiscardor destroynarcotics." When Santuarioarrived in the restroom,he saw Hutchinson"kneelingdown in front of the toilet," 'oonthe floor,,,while appellant threw a small 'opistol" onto the restroomfloor and then flushed the toilet repeatedly.The "pistol" o\vasa fioaded]semiautomaticf,] . . . small silver guo,,, with ooaround in the chamber." Although Santuarioorderedappellantto ,ostop,, flushing the toilet, he refusedand "[c]ontinuedflushing or pulling the [toilet] lever." WhenSantuariotried to removeappellantfrom the toilet,he resisted.

While appellantflushedthe toilet, Hutchinson'ohadhis handsin the toilet bowl," and Officer Santuarioo'sawsomethingleave his hands." As Santuario explained:"[I]t was [a] couplethingsthatweresmall[,which] [l]ookedlike plastic bags.. .." Generally,peopledo not "flush emptyplastic bagsdown the toilet," but rather "narcotics." Thus, it appearedto Santuario that appellant and Hutchinson were working together to flush the items down the toilet. When Officer Elkins commandedHutchinsonto o'stop"and "put his handsaway from the Oflicer Santuarioexplainedthat a "flash bang" "is a distractiondevice,,thatmakes a loud gunshot-likesound,flasheslight, andieleasesminimal smoke. toilet"' he did not comply. Elkins, therefore,o'reached in and basicallyyanked [Hutchinson] away from the toilet." After the offrcers removedappellantand Hutchinsonfrom the restroom,they "handcuffedand . . . escorted [them] out of the residence." Officer Santuariothen took "a closer look at th[e] toilet" and .,removedit from the base[on] the floor." Insidethe toilet,he foundo'asmall baggiethat had crack cocainein it." FIPDofficersalso searched the remainder the residence, ,of appellant,and Hutchinson,and they recovered$2,103 in cash, marijuanaand related paraphernalia,a "small digital scale,,,a beaker,a revolver, and a ,.baby bottlewith what appeared to be codeineinsideof it." Officer Elkinstestifiedthat he assistedwith the executionof the oono knock', searchwarrant at the residence.He breachedthe residence'sfront door with a "[b]attering device," and officer Delacertadeployedthe .,flash bang." After Santuarioyelled,,,[r]unners,,, Elkins followed Officer Santuariointo the residence, to alert the other officersthat "individuals insidethe residence [were] running." Generally,peoplerun in situationssuchasthis to "hide," "get rid of something,,, or to "get away from officers." Elkins saw appellantand Hutchinsonrun toward the restroom,and he and Santuariopursued.

Onceinsidethe restroom, OfficerElkinssawappellant'odisc ard"a,,[s]ilver automaticpistol" onto the floor and Hutchinson"by the toilet area discarding somethinginsidethe toilet." Hutchinsonhad his hands'oinsidethe toilet,,,and it lookedlike he was "[d]iscardingitemsinto the toilet." After Elkins commanded Hutchinsonto "show his hands"and 'ogetdown on the ground,"he did not comply.

Although his focus was on Hutchison,Elkins saw appellanto'reaching toward the lever of the toilet," "obseryedhis handson the levero"and could hearthe toilet flushing. According to Elkins, the toilet 'ohadbeen flushed several times.,, Eventually,Elkins o'forcefully. . .pullfed] [Hutchinson]off the toilet,' and took him into custody. In a subsequentsearchof the restroom,Elkins saw Offrcer Santuario'orecovera srnall bag of what appear[ed]to be crack cocaineout of the bottom of the toilet." t{PD officers also recoveredmarijuana, codeine, gfld "anotherpistol" from the residence.

Mona Colcatestifiedthat she,as a criminalistwith the controlledsubstances sectionof the IIPD CrimeLaboratory,"receive[s]andanalyze[s]evidence',to ,.test it for the presenceof controlledsubstances." She analyzedthe oosmallbag,, recoveredfrom the toilet andfoundthat it contained0.83gramsof cocaine.

Sufficiencyof the Evidence In his third issue,appellantarguesthat the evidenceis insufficientro support his convictionfor tamperingwith physicalevidencebecausehe did not ooactually alter[] or destroyl] the cocainethat was found in the toilet." In his first issue, appellantarguesthat the evidenceis insufficient to supporthis convictionfor possessionof a controlledsubstancebecauseo'thereis no evidencethat [he] actuallyexercisedcare,custody,or controloverthe subjectcocaine.', We review the legal sufficiencyof the evidenceby consideringall of the evidence"in the light most favorableto the prosecution"to determinewhetherany "rational trier of fact could havefoundthe essentialelementsof the crimebeyonda reasonable doubt." Jacl<son v. Virginia, 443U.S. 307, 3lg,99 S. ct. z7gl,27gg (1979). Our role is that of a dueprocesssafeguard,ensuringonly the rationalityof the trier of fact's finding of the essentialelementsof the offense beyond a reasonabledoubt. see Moreno v. state,755 s.w.2d g66, g67 (Tex. crim. App. 1988). We give deferenceto the responsibilityof the fact finder to fairly resolve conflictsin testimony,to weigh evidence,andto draw reasonable inferencesfrom the facts. williams v. state, 235 s.w.3d 742, 750 (Tex. crim. App. 2007).

However, our duty requiresus to o'ensure that the evidencepresentedactually supportsa conclusionthat the defendantcommitted"the criminal offenseof which he is accused.Id. Tampering with Physical Evidence A person commits the offense of tamperingwith physical evidenceif, knowing that an offensehas beencommitted,he alters,destroys,or concealsany record,document,or thing, with intentto impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidencein any subsequent investigationor official proceedingrelatedto the offense. Tex. PpNel CooBAr.nr.$ 37.09(d)(1)(VernonSupp. 2014). Hereothe underlying indictmentallegedthat appellant,'oknowingthat an offensehad been committed, to wit: POSSESSION oF CONTROLLED SuBSTANCE, ALTERIED] AND DEsrRoytEDl A THING, NAMELY, cocAINE with intent to impair its VERITY as evidencein any subsequentinvestigationof and offrcial proceedingrelatedto the aforesaidoffense." Officer Santuariotestifiedthat after he enteredthe residence,he followed appellant and Hutchinson as they ran into the restroom. Santuario found Hutchinson"kneelingdown in front of the toilet," ooon the floor," while appellant repeatedlyflushed the toilet. As appellant continuouslyflushed the toilet, Santuarioo'sawsomethingleave [Hutchinson's]hands." The 'osomething,' ..was small . . . it wasn'tjust one,it was a coupleof thingsthat weresnnall. [It] [l]ooked like plasticbags." Santuariodid not see"an;rthingelsein the toilet" "[o]ther than the plasticbags"thathe sawHutchinsondiscard.

Officer Santuarioexplainedthat "normally" peoplerun when officers entera residenceto "discard or destroy narcotics." And, basedon his training and experience,"people [do not] flush emptyplasticbagsdown [a] toilet.,, Instead, they flush "narcotics."And, afterofficersremovedappellantandHutchinsonfrom the restroom,Santuario"removed [the toilet] from the base [on] the floor" and found'oasmallbaggiethat had crackcocainein it.', Similarly, Officer Elkins testifiedthat he saw appellantand Hutchinsonrun toward the restroom. Once insidethe restroom,Elkins saw Hutchinson,.by the toilet area discardingsomethinginside the toilet." Hutchinson,shands were "insidethe toilet," and he was "discardingitemsinto the toilet.', The only things that Elkins couldseein the toilet werethe "items' thatHutchinson was discarding.

Elkins also saw appellant's"handson the [toilet] lever,o'and he heardthe toilet beingooflushed severaltimes." And Elkins sawOfficer Santuario,,recovera small bagof . . . crackcocaineout of the boffomof thetoilet." Appellant arguesthat "there is no evidence"that showshe 'oactuallyaltered or destroyedthe cocainethat was found in the toilet" becauseo.thecocainewas insidea plasticbaggie"and o'retrieved by the policeo"and,thus,,onotalteredat all,, or oodestroyed in any way." We note,however,that appellant'sargumentneglects to considerthat the jury was not requiredto find that he alteredor destroyedthe cocainefound in the single,"small baggie"recoveredfrom the toilet. Rather,the jury could have found that he o'concear[ed]" the cocaine. Id. And officer santuariotestifiedthat he saw Hutchinsonplace a ,'couple,,of o,small,,, ,,plastic bags"in the toilet, which appellantrepeatedlyflushed. And, basedon his training and experience,Santuarioexplainedthat "people[do not] flush emptyplasticbags down [a] toilet," but instead,they flush "narcotics." Officer Elkins similarly testified that Hutchinson"discard[ed]items into the toilet," which appellant was flushing.

o"Circumstantial evidenceis as probativeas direct evidencein establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidencealone can be suflicient to establishguilt."' Merritt v. state,36g s.w.3d 516,525 (Tex.crim. App. 2012) (quotingHooperv. state,214s.w.3d 9, 13 (Tex.crim. App. 2007)).Basedon the abovetestimony,the jury could havereasonablyinferredthat appellantconcealed the cocainethat the officers recoveredfrom the toilet. Moreover, it could have reasonablyinfened that cocaine,other than the cocainerecoveredfrom the single baggie,was flusheddown the toilet by appellant,and,thus,this other cocainewas alteredor destroyed.seeRabbv. state,434 s.w.3d 613,617 (Tex. crim. App. 2014) (noting '"a fact finder could reasonablyinfer from the evidencethat the baggieandpills weredestroyedby their passageinto fa]ppellant'sbody,');Hooper, S.w.3d at l5 (factfinderspermittedto draw reasonable inferencesif supported by evidence);see,e.g.,Diaz v. state,Nos. l3-13-00067-c& 12-13-0006g-cR, 2014wL 1266350,at *2 & n.3 (Tex.App.-corpus christi Jan.23,2014,nopet.) (mem.op., not designated for publication)(concludingjury couldreasonablyhave infened defendantdestroyedcocaineby flushing it down toilet where ,,therewas cocaine found aroundthe rim of the toilet bowl and in the toilet water, and fdefendant]hadjust exitedthe bathroonn");Turnerv. State,No. 13-12-00335-CR.

2013 wL 1092194,at *2 (Tex. App.-corpus christi Mar. 14, 2013,no pet.) (mem. op., not designatedfor publication) (holding factfinder could have reasonably found defendant destroyed cocaine by swallowing based on circumstantialevidence officer saw baggie with o'white or beige rock-like substance"in defendant'smouth and cocaine commonly packagedin such manner).

Viewing the evidencein the light most favorableto the jury's verdict, we conclude that the jury could have reasonablyfound that appellant concealed, altered,or destroyedcocaine.Accordingly,we hold that the evidenceis sufficient to supporthis convictionof the offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence.

We overruleappellant'sthird issue.

Possessionof a Controlled Substance A personcommitsthe offenseof possession of a controlledsubstance if he "knowingly or intentionallypossesses"less than one gram of cocaine. Tpx.

HeaLrH& Sapprv cooE AuN. $$ 481. 102(3XD),481.115(a),(b) (vemon 2010).

To prove that appellantcommittedthis offense,the Statehad to establishbeyonda reasonable doubt that he exercisedcontrol,management, or careover the cocaine and knew that it was contraband.Poindexterv. State,l53 S.W.3d 402,405(Tex. crim. App. 2005);seealso Tsx. pnuat-coDE Ar'rN.g 1.07(a)(39)(vernon supp. 2014). Althoughthe Stateneednot proveexclusivepossession of cocaine,it must

t0 establishthat a defendant'sconnectionwith the cocaineis more than fortuitous.

Evansv. state,202 s.w.3d r5g, 16142 (Tex. crim. App. 2006); wiley v. state, s.w.3d 807, 813 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 20l2,pet. refd). when a defendantis not in exclusivepossession of the placewherecontrabandis found, the Statemust show additionalaffirmative links betweenthe defendantand'the contraband.Deshongv. state,625 s,w.2d327,32g (Tex. crim. App. [panelop.]

1981);Kibble v. state,340 s.w.3d 14,1g (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2010, pet. refd). Mere presencein the sameplaceas contrabandis insufficient,by itself, to establishactual care,custody,or control. Evans,202 s.w.3d at 162. But, presenceor proximity to contraband,when combined with other direct or circumstantialevidence,maybe sufficientto establishpossession.1d.

Texascourtshaverecognizedthat the following non-exclusive,.affirmative links" may be sufftcient,eithersinglyor in combination,to establisha defenclant's possession of narcotics: (l) the defendant'spresencewhen a searchis conducted; (2) whetherthe contrabandwas in plain view; (3) the defendant'sproximity to and the accessibilifyof the narcotic;(4) whetherthe defendantwasunderthe influence of narcoticswhen arrested;(5) whetherthe defendantpossessed othercontraband or narcotics when arrested;(6) whether the defendantmade incriminating statementswhen arrested;(7) whetherthe defendantattemptedto flee; (8) whether the defendantmade furtive gestures;(9) whethertherewas an odor of narcotics;

(10) whether other contrabandor narcoticsparaphernaliawere present;(11) whether the defendantowned or had the right to possessthe place where the narcoticswere found; (12) whetherthe placewherethe narcoticswere found was enclosed;(13) whetherthe defendantwas found with a largeamountof cash;and (14) whetherthe conductof the defendantindicateda consciousness of guilt. Id. at n.12. It is not the numberof links that is dispositive,but rather,the logical force of the evidence,both direct and circumstantial,that is dispositiveto show possession . Id. at !62; Jamesv. state,264s.w.3 d2l5,2lg (Tex.App.-Houston Ist Dist.] 2008,pet.ref d).

Appellant arguesthat "there is no evidencethat [he] actuallyexercisedcare, custody, or control over the subject cocaine" becausethe evidenceat trial "establishedthat. . . Hutchinsondiscardedthe baggieof cocaineinto the toilet," "the police indicatedthat they neversaw appellantput any item into the toilet," and it was not shownthat "appellantever touchedthe cocaineor the baggiecontaining the cocaine." Officer Santuariotestified that appellantwas presentin the residence,which was equippedwith surveillanceequipmentat the time law enforcementofficers executedthe searchwarrant. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12, 16344 (presence whensearchconductedconstitutesaffirmativelink); see,e.g.,Lavignev. state,No.01-07-00995-cR,200g wL 31153g5,at*3 (Tex.App.-Houston[1st

T2 Dist.l Aug. 7, 2008, pet. ref d) (mem. op., not designatedfor publication) (concludingevidencesufficientwheredefendantfoundinsideresidence.,equipped with the extrasecurityassociatedwith a housededicatedto manufacturingcrack',).

Insidethe residence, officersfound lettersaddressed to appellantat the residence, picturesin the bedrooms,and male clothingthat matchedappellant'ssize. See Evans,202S.W.3dat 162 n.12, 164-65(receivingmail at residenceandpresence of clothingraisesreasonableinferencedefendantoccupiedresidence);Cooperv. state, 852 S.W.2d679,6g1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] lgg3, pet. ref d) (concluding rnail addressedto defendant, defendant's picture, and clothing appearingto fit defendantindicateddefendantoccupiedresidence).

When the offtcers enteredthe residence,appellant,along with Hutchinson, ran to the restroom,and Officer Santuariofound appellantstandingnext to and flushing the toilet, from which he later recovereda 'osmallbaggie [of] crack cocaine."SeeEvans,202S.W.3dat 162n.12(proximityto narcotic,attemptingto flee, and making furtive gesturesconstituteaffirmative links); see,e.g.)Jordan v. state, Nos. 02-L2-00470-c& 02-12-00471-cR,02-12-00472-cR, 2014 wL 1663404,at *3 (Tex. App.-Fort worth Apr. 24, 2014,no pet.) (mem.op., not designated for publication)(fleeingto restroomdid not indicatean "innocentstate of mind"); Perezv. State,No. 07-l l-00249-cR, 2012wL 1 122704,at *4 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Apr. 4, 2012,no pet.) (menn.op., not designatedfor publication)

t3 (concludingevidencesufficientto showpossession wherecocainefound in urinal "immediately adjacentto where [defendant]was standing");Garrett v. State, 16l S.W.3d664,671(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005,pet.refd) (evidencesufficientto show defendantpossessed crack cocainewhere defendantfound flushing bagsof crackcocainedowntoilet).

Although Hutchinson,rather than appellant,"had his hands in the toilet bowl" and discarded"something" that "[l]ooked like plastic bags," officer Santuariotestified that it appearedthat appellantand Hutchinsonwere working togetherto flush the itemsdown the toilet. ,See,e.g.,Sandersv. State,No. I I-12- 00151-cR,2074wL 3882185,at *6 (Tex. App.-Eastland Aug.7, 2014,pet. refd) (mem.op., not designatedfor publication)("[Defendant's]attempt[]to aid his mother's attempt to destroy evidence when officers arrived at the house, of guilt on his part.");perez,zol2 wL 1 122704,at *4 indicat[ed]a consciousness ("[A]t the same time [defendant] was arrested,two other individuals whom fdefendant]was observedto be standingvery closelyto, were observedattempting to throw awayor concealbaggiesof cocaine.',).

Officer Santuarioalso saw appellantthrow ooasemiautomatic[,]. . . small silver gutr,"which was o'loaded"with "a roundin the chamber""onto the restroom

t4 floor.a see Porter v. state,873 S.w.2d729,733 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994,pet. refd) (concludingpresenceof firearms in apartmentwhere cocaine located constitutedaflirmative link). And a searchof the remainderof the residence, appellant, and Hutchinsonrevealed $2,103 in cash, marijuana,and related which had beensitting in "plain view" on a table,a .osmalldigital paraphernalia, scale," a beaker,a revolver,and a o'babybottle with what appearedto be codeine inside of it." see Evans, 202 s.w.3d at 162 n.12, 163_-6s (presenceof other contraband, narcotics paraphernalia, and large amount of cash constitute affirmative links); Hargrove v. state, 2lr s.\M.3d 379, 396 (Tex. App.-san Antonio 2006, pet. refd) (concluding presenceof narcotics paraphernalia, including digital scale,andweaponsin houseconstitutedaffirmativelinks).

Viewing the evidencein the light most favorableto the jury's verdict,we concludethat sufficientaffirmativelinks connectappellantto the cocaine.And the jury could havereasonablyinfened from the cumulativeforce of the evidencethat appellantexercisedactualcare,custody,or controlof the cocaine.SeeEvans,202 S.W.3dat 166 (concludingevidence,'.whenviewed in combinationand its sum total, constitutedamply suflicient evidence"). Accordingly,we hold that the

Officer Elkins sirnilarly testified that he saw appellant o'discard" a "silver automaticpistol" on the floor, saw appellant"reaching toward the lever of the toilet," "observed[appellant's]handson the lever," and heardthe toilet flushing.

In a subsequentsearchof the restroom,Officer Santuario'orecover[ed]a srnallbag of what appearfed]to be crack cocaineout of the bottom of the toilet.;' And HpD officers recoveredmarijuana,codeine,and "anotherpistol" in the residence.

l5 evidenceis sufficientto supportappellant'sconvictionof the offenseof possession of a controlledsubstance.

We overruleappellant,sfirst issue.

DeadlyWeaponF'inding In his secondissue,appellantarguesthat the trial court erredin "enteringa deadlyweaponfinding in the judgmentfor possession of a controlledsubstance,' becauseo'there[was] no expressfinding by the jury that [he] usedor exhibiteda deadlyweapon,namelya firearm.,' When a jury is the factfinder,it must makean affirmativefinding concerning the use or exhibition of a deadlyweaponbeforethe trial court can enter a deadly weaponfinding in its judgment.La/leurv. state,106s.w.3d gl, g2 (Tex.crim.

App. 2003). 'oAffirmativefinding" meansan ooexpress determination"by the jury that a deadlyweaponwas actuallyusedor exhibitedduringthe commissionof the offense.Polkv. state,693s.w.2d391,393 (Tex.crim. App. 19g5). Thejury makesthe requiredaffirmativefinding when: (1) the indictmentallegesthe useor exhibition of a deadly weapon and the jury's verdict statesthat it found the defendant"guilty as chargedin the indictment"; (2) the jury finds the defendant guilty as allegedin the indictmentand,althoughthe useof a deadlyweaponis not specificallypleaded,the indictmentallegesthe use or exhibitionof a weaponthat is deadlyper se; or (3) thejury affirmativelyanswersa specialissueon the useor

I6 exhibitionof a deadly weapon. polk, 693 s.w.Zd, at 396; Johnsony. state. 6 s.w.3d 709,713-14(Tex.App.-Houstonflst Dist.] tggg,pet.refd).

Here,the indictmentspecificallyallegedthe use or exhibitionof a ,odeadly weapon"by appellant.5Officers Santuarioand Elkins testifiedthat appellant,.was arm€d" and threw a "small silver gun" onto the restroomfloor beforehe began flushing the toilet. And the jury, in its verdict, found appellant,.guilty of possessionof a controlled substance,namely, cocaine,. . . as chargedin the indictment."Further,the trial court'schargeto thejury includeda questionasking the jury to determinewhetherappellantusedor exhibiteda deadlyweaponduring the commissionof the offenseor during the immediateflight therefrom,and the jury answeredthe questionin the affinnative. See Polk, 693 S.W.2dat 394: Johnson,6 S.W.3dat 7 13-14.

Once the jury madethe affirmative finding, the trial court was requiredto enterthe finding in its judgment. SeeTBx. ConE CRrM.Pnoc. Ar.rN.arts. 42.01, $ 1(21),42.12,g 3g(a)(2)(vernonSupp.2M0; Johnson,6s.w.3d at7r4 (when jury makesaffrrmative finding on useof deadlyweapon,o'enteringthe affirmative finding in the judgment is mandatory;the trial court has no discretion").

The indictmentstates: "[A]t the time that the Defendantcommittedthe felony offenseof PoSSESSIONoF CONTROLLEDSUBSTANCEon or about AUGUST9,2013,ashereinabove alleged,heusedandexhibiteda deadlyweapon namely,a FIREARM, duringthe commissionof said offenseand durine the immediateflight from saidoffense."

I7 Accordingly,we hold thatthetrial courtdid not err in enteringthedeadlyweaipon findingin itsjudgment.

Weovemrleappellant's secondissue.

Conclusion Weaffirm thejudgmentof thetrial court

Terry Jennings Justice Panelconsistsof JusticesJennings,Keyes,andMassengale.

Do not publish. TEx.R. App.P. 47.2(b),