Johnny Chevis v. State
09-15-00211-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Johnny Chevis was tried by jury for possession of marijuana (5 lbs or less but >4 oz); indictment included three prior-felony enhancement paragraphs that, if valid, raised punishment to second-degree felony range.
- Police surveilled a Beaumont residence for ~two weeks observing short visits consistent with drug distribution; Chevis was observed at the house multiple times.
- A search warrant execution produced video evidence; officers found a duffle bag in the only bathroom containing four clear bags of marijuana totaling about 3.6 pounds, additional drugs, two visible loaded handguns, a hidden pistol, drug paraphernalia (scales, glassware), and other indicia of trafficking.
- Chevis exited through a side door near the back of the house (others exited front); he was searched and found carrying $12,071 in bundled cash. He pleaded not guilty; jury found him guilty at guilt phase.
- At punishment, Chevis pleaded "true" to all three enhancement paragraphs; the jury assessed 20 years and $10,000. On appeal he raised (1) insufficiency of evidence of knowing possession, (2) insufficiency of evidence to support the enhancements, and (3) ineffective assistance at punishment (the last not reached due to disposition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chevis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowing possession | Evidence (presence at scene, marijuana in plain view in only bathroom, proximity to side door, large quantity, scales, weapons, $12k in bundled cash, prior surveillance showing short transactions) supports inference Chevis knowingly possessed and was distributing marijuana | Evidence did not affirmatively link Chevis to the bathroom marijuana; mere presence insufficient without stronger proof | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for conviction (rational jury could infer knowing possession) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for enhancement sequencing under Penal Code §12.425(b) | Enhancements established by certified judgments and plea of true at punishment phase | Chevis argued the record affirmatively shows prior probated convictions were not final before the later offense, so sequencing required for enhancement failed | Reversed as to punishment: record affirmatively shows sequencing not proved; enhancement improper; remand for new punishment hearing |
| Ineffective assistance during punishment phase | State did not need to argue because plea of true accepted | Chevis claimed counsel ineffective at punishment (not detailed here) | Not addressed (rendering of new punishment hearing made consideration unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sufficiency review in Texas)
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury and inferences)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App.) (elements of unlawful possession)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App.) (affirmative links for nonexclusive possession)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sequencing requirement for habitual enhancement)
- Donaldson v. State, 476 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. Crim. App.) (probated sentence not final until revocation and appeal resolved)
- Rich (Ex parte) v. State, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plea of true generally waives challenge to enhancement except when record affirmatively shows enhancement improper)
- Mikel v. State, 167 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.) (affirmative-record exception where enhancement sequencing is not proved)