James Loyd Bankston v. State
05-14-00076-CR
| Tex. App. | May 13, 2015Background
- Appellant James Loyd Bankston was a passenger in a pickup stopped after leaving a house known to police for drug activity; the driver was Shaila Shirley.
- Deputy Wheeler stopped the truck for a signal violation, observed occupants moving inside the cab, and later conducted a search; paraphernalia and six baggies of a crystal substance were found (aggregate 15.95 g methamphetamine).
- Five baggies were found concealed on Shirley’s person; one baggie was found inside a duffel with men’s clothing that Bankston said was his; other drug paraphernalia and a syringe were found in the cab.
- Bankston gave statements during the stop (admitted recent drug use; said “If there is it ain’t mine” when asked about drugs) and removed his shirt after lights were activated.
- Bankston filed a pretrial motion to suppress asserting constitutional violations; the trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (4–200 g) and assessed 45 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment | Bankston: search of vehicle after stop was unconstitutional (not incident to arrest or impoundment) | State: search was proper; also argues Bankston failed to preserve the search complaint | Not preserved for appeal — Bankston limited suppression hearing to validity of stop and did not contest the search below; issue rejected |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession with intent to deliver (4–200 g) | Bankston: no evidence he possessed the methamphetamine | State: circumstantial factors link Bankston to drugs (presence, proximity, ownership claim to duffel, statements, paraphernalia, location) | Evidence sufficient to prove Bankston knowingly possessed (joint possession) the aggregate 15.95 g; issue overruled |
| Trial court’s refusal to submit lesser included offenses (simple possession 4–200 g; PWID <1 g; simple possession <1 g) | Bankston: jury should have been allowed to consider lesser offenses | State: no affirmative evidence supporting only lesser offenses or negating element of intent/quantity | No affirmative evidence that negates intent to deliver or that Bankston possessed <1 g; refusal not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Crouse v. State, 441 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (preservation requirement for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Bell v. State, 326 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requirements to prove unlawful possession)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (mere presence insufficient to establish possession)
- Brady v. State, 771 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1989) (joint possession theory)
- Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for harmful jury charge error)
- Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (when a lesser-included offense must be submitted)
- Wortham v. State, 412 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (affirmative evidence required to raise a lesser-included offense)