Robert Ryerson Riggs v. State

Opinion filed October 6, 2005 Opinion filed October 6, 2005 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-05-00012-CR __________ ROBERT RYERSON RIGGS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12,512 O P I N I O N A jury convicted Robert Ryerson Riggs of manufacturing a controlled substance, metham-phetamine, in an amount over 400 grams. The trial court assessed punishment at 60 years imprisonment and a fine of $20,000. We affirm. Issue on Appeal In his sole issue, appellant contends that the evidence was factually insufficient to prove that he manufactured methamphetamine. Standard of Review To determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence supporting guilt is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the evidence supporting guilt is so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof could not have been met. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex.Cr.App.2004); Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.2004); Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex.Cr.App.2002); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). The jury, as the trier of fact, was the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to their testimony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. arts. 38.04 & 36.13 (Vernon 1979 & 1981). Evidence at Trial On January 18, 2004, Deputy Gary Morris and Department of Public Safety Troopers Don Stoner and Trace Lattimore went to the Parkview Mobile Home Park in Mineral Wells acting on an anonymous tip that appellant was cooking methamphetamine. Upon arrival, all three officials smelled ether, a chemical used to manufacture methamphetamine, emanating from the mobile home. Deputy Morris then knocked on the door and secured written consent to search the premises from the lessee. Upon entering the dwelling, Deputy Morris and Trooper Lattimore found two containers smelling of ether in the bathroom, which where later confirmed to contain methamphetamine. Immediately adjacent to the bathroom, they found appellant, lying half-on and half-off the bed either asleep or passed out. Appellant was awoken and searched. He had approximately a dozen blister packs of pseudoephedrine in his shirt pocket, a key ingredient for manufacturing methamphetamine. In the bedroom closet near where appellant was found, a trooper found used coffee filters[1] containing methamphetamine powder and a third container of fluid with ether and pseudoephedrine pills, which was also tested later to confirm that it held methamphetamine. At that point, Deputy Morris called the Cross Timbers Narcotics Task Force, secured the scene, and turned the investigation over to Sergeant Richard Ferguson. Ferguson, a sergeant of the Graham Police Department and a member of the Cross Timbers Narcotics Task Force, collected and tagged the evidence including empty packages of batteries[2] from the kitchen trash and a number of small plastic bags commonly used to package and sell methamphetamine. He also found a black bag on the bed where appellant was lying that contained two bags of marihuana and two bags of methamphetamine. Additionally, Sergeant Ferguson found a loaded gun under the edge of the mattress where appellant was lying. In the kitchen cabinet, a Marlboro cigarette box with a baggie containing white powder and two syringes was found. Other methamphetamine accessories were collected as evidence including tin foil, small aquarium hoses, a Sudafed box stuffed with coffee filters, muriatic acid,[3] and a syringe loaded with methamphetamine. William Chandley, a forensic chemist with the Department of Public Safety in Abilene, testified that the evidence tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine, in an amount exceeding 400 grams. Analysis The State had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly manufactured methamphetamine in an amount of 400 grams or more. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ' 481.112(a) & (f) (Vernon 2003). To sustain a conviction, the State had to affirmatively link the defendant either to an interest in the place where manufacturing was taking place or to the actual act of manufacturing. See Martin v. State, 727 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 1987, no pet=n); East v. State, 722 S.W.2d 170, 171-72 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 1986, pet=n ref=d); Chapin v. State, 671 S.W.2d 608, 610-12 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet=n). AManufacture@ is defined as the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of any controlled substance other than marihuana by the extraction from substances of natural origin, chemical synthesis, or the combination thereof. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ' 481.002(25) (Vernon Supp. 2004 - 2005). Appellant concedes that he was in possession of methamphetamine but argues that there was only speculation linking himself and the manufacturing of the drug. Appellant, however, was clearly aware of his surroundings that contained evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing all around given the presence of the ingredients and the strong smell that could be smelled from the outside of the mobile home. Sergeant Ferguson testified before the jury that he could smell ether before entering the residence and that the Ainside just reeked of it.@ Appellant carried a dozen packs of a key ingredient in his shirt pocket and had a loaded gun immediately beneath the bed he was lying on. There was testimony that officers routinely found firearms where drugs were being sold or manufactured. Sergeant Ferguson also testified that the three containers with ether and pseudoephedrine, which were part of the manufacturing process, could have Apowdered out@ more methamphetamine. The presence of the ether-filled containers and ingredients is more consistent with manufacturing than simply possession of the final product. A jury could have reasonably concluded that appellant was involved in the manufacturing process of methamphetamine taking place around him. We hold that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury=s verdict. We overrule appellant=s sole issue. The Court=s Ruling The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. TERRY McCALL JUSTICE October 6, 2005 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and McCall, J. [1]During the methamphetamine manufacturing process, coffee filters are commonly used to filter powder out of the methamphetamine. [2]Batteries contain lithium metal which, when combined with anhydrous ammonia, will melt into the crushed up pseudoephedrine pills and will be converted to methamphetamine. [3]Commonly used as a drain cleaner, but also for Apowdering out@ methamphetamine from a liquid solvent.