Alexander Eli Martinez v. State
07-16-00468-CR
Tex.Jun 21, 2017Background
- Alexander Eli Martinez was indicted on four counts (two counts: possession with intent to deliver cocaine and methamphetamine — 4–200g; plus marijuana and small meth possession) following a December 4, 2014 search of his residence and vehicle.
- Law enforcement executed a warrant at 301 E. Chicago after surveillance and CI purchases; six people were in a Dodge Nitro parked at the residence when officers arrived.
- Officers observed Martinez in the rear center seat reaching down; he then fled on foot, was pursued, tasered (missed), and apprehended; he was found inside the home during the search and admitted ownership of items in the house after Miranda warnings.
- A pocket on the back of the driver’s seat contained multiple small baggies; lab testing identified ~21.59 g of cocaine and ~50.48 g of methamphetamine among other baggies.
- In the house, officers found marijuana bricks, ~1.63 g meth, glass pipes, and hidden firearms; Martinez had $1,215 on him including a $100 bill matching one previously used by a CI to buy cocaine from Martinez.
- A Snapchat video (recorded Dec. 4, 2014) showed Martinez asking if anyone wanted “pure cocaine” and counting money. A jury convicted Martinez on all counts; he received suspended five-year terms for the delivery counts and two years for the marijuana count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Martinez knowingly possessed cocaine (4g–200g) with intent to deliver | Martinez argued evidence did not establish custody, care, or control of the drugs in the car pocket because multiple people had access | State argued affirmative links (presence, proximity, furtive gesture, flight, incriminating statements, other drugs/paraphernalia, large cash, matching $100, Snapchat) connect Martinez to the contraband | Conviction affirmed: combined affirmative links permitted a rational juror to find Martinez knowingly possessed cocaine with intent to deliver |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Martinez knowingly possessed methamphetamine (4g–200g) with intent to deliver | Martinez made the same argument — that the State failed to prove he had control over methamphetamine found in vehicle | State relied on same affirmative links and evidence of distribution (large amounts, paraphernalia, prior CI sale) to show possession and intent | Conviction affirmed: evidence sufficient under Jackson/Brooks standard using affirmative-links analysis |
| Application of the ‘‘affirmative links’’ rule to circumstantial possession evidence | Martinez contended proximity and presence alone are insufficient because others in car could have placed drugs | State argued Evans factors (e.g., proximity, access, furtive gestures, flight, statements, other contraband, cash, Snapchat) together overcome mere-fortuity concern | Court held that the Evans factors, evaluated cumulatively, were sufficient to show possession beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether juror could reasonably infer intent to deliver from the quantity/other evidence | Martinez implied quantities and circumstances did not tie intent to him specifically | State pointed to quantities consistent with distribution, glass pipes, large cash, hidden firearms, prior buy, and inculpatory Snapchat | Held that quantities plus corroborating links supported a reasonable inference of intent to deliver |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence) (establishes that evidence is sufficient if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applies Jackson sufficiency standard in Texas criminal appeals)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App.) (affirms and explains non‑exclusive list of "affirmative links" used to prove possession from circumstantial evidence)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App.) (describes requirement that the accused’s connection to drugs be more than fortuitous)
- Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App.) (flight and consciousness of guilt as circumstantial evidence supporting possession/inference of guilt)