Michael Antonio Fuller v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » Michael Antonio Fuller v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-03-00400-CR

Case Date: 12/17/2003

Plaintiff: Michael Antonio Fuller

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County

Preview:David Lee Coleman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
Crim Dist Ct of Jefferson County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00237-CR
David Lee Coleman,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 89897
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Coleman appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(a) (Vernon
2003). We affirm.
Sufficiency of the Evidence. In Coleman s first and second issues, he contends that the evidence that he knowingly or
intentionally possessed cocaine was insufficient. Coleman argues that there is no evidence. Coleman concedes that he
was in exclusive care, control and management of the powder rock cocaine as it was in the bottom [sic] his front
pocket mixed with lint at jail book-in.
Legal Sufficiency. Considering the record evidence in the light most favorable to the jury s verdict, we determine that
a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Coleman knowingly or intentionally possessed
cocaine. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Prible v. State, No. AP-74,487, 2005 Tex. Crim. App.
LEXIS 110, at *12-*13 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 2005); Tex. Penal Code Ann. 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005)
( possession defined). We overrule Coleman s first issue.
Factual Sufficiency. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we determine that the evidence is not so weak that the
verdict is clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, nor is the contrary evidence so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-
doubt standard could not have been met. See Prible, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 110, at *16; Zuniga v. State, 144
S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We overrule Coleman s second issue.
Charge. In Coleman s fourth and fifth issues, he complains of the jury charge.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6631.html[8/20/2013 7:21:25 PM]

Verdict Form. In Coleman s fifth issue, he contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, After you have
reached a unanimous decision, your foreperson should sign the appropriate verdict attached to the charge, rather than,
If you reach a unanimous decision. Assuming, without deciding, that the trial court erred, any error was harmless. In
light of the otherwise unobjectionable charge and the overwhelming evidence, Coleman suffered no harm. See Ellison
v. State, 86 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Marvis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 878, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). We
overrule Coleman s fifth issue.
Burden of Proof on Prior Convictions. In Coleman s fourth issue, he contends that the trial court erred in denying
Coleman s request for a penalty-phase instruction that Coleman s prior convictions must be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. The trial court does not err in not giving such an instruction. Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 54 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2004). We overrule Coleman s fourth issue.
Evidence of Prior Convictions. In Coleman s third issue, he contends that the trial court erred in overruling Coleman
s objections to the judgments of Coleman s prior convictions in the penalty phase. Coleman argues that the quality of
the fingerprints and photographs is poor. These objections go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See
Robinson v. State, 739 S.W.2d 795, 802 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). We overrule Coleman s third issue.
Having overruled Coleman s issues, we affirm the judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Justice Vance concurring with note)*
Affirmed
Memorandum opinion delivered and filed July 6, 2005
Do not publish
[CR25]
* (Justice Vance concurs with a note: It is hard to understand why this opinion, even though it is a memorandum
opinion, does not adequately address Appellant s issues. The sufficiency issues contain no analysis of the evidence
whatsoever; no explanation is given how a charge that assumes a unanimous guilty verdict is harmless. Although I
concur in the judgment, I cannot join this opinion.)
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6631.html[8/20/2013 7:21:25 PM]

Download 6631.pdf