Jones, Lydell Anton
PD-0772-15
Tex.Sep 25, 2015Background
- A jury convicted Lydell Anton Jones of possession with intent to deliver/manufacture >400 grams of PCP; jury found three enhancement priors true and assessed 65 years.
- A U.S. Postal Inspector suspected a Priority Mail package sent from Long Beach, CA to a restaurant in The Woodlands addressed to "Lydell Jones." The inspector arranged delivery and waited; Jones picked up the box the next day.
- After Jones left the restaurant, Deputy Martin stopped him for a vehicle violation, found the sealed box in plain view on the backseat, and ultimately obtained a dog alert and opened the package to find vacuum-sealed bottles containing PCP (total ~2,643 grams).
- Officers seized a mobile phone from Jones; a forensic search (pursuant to warrant) produced text messages, contact entries, and photos of shipping labels; deputies also noted bank deposit slips found in the vehicle.
- At trial Jones argued (1) insufficient evidence he knowingly possessed or intended to deliver PCP, (2) evidence from the phone was unauthenticated/hearsay, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Court of Appeals affirmed; this opinion reviews those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: knowledge and intent to deliver | Jones: sealed mailed box + no odor and no opening = insufficient proof he knew contents or intended delivery | State: circumstantial links (possession of mailed box addressed to him, prior similar shipping evidence on phone, text messages showing package/bank activity, deposit slips, quantity too large for personal use) support knowledge and intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, sufficient circumstantial proof of possession with intent to deliver |
| Authenticity of phone data | Jones: phone was not his (mother-in-law owned it), so contents unauthenticated and not necessarily attributable to him | State: Jones possessed and used the phone during stop, phone rang repeatedly, photos/texts tied to shipments/to Jones, so prima facie authentication satisfied | Affirmed — trial court reasonably found sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to determine phone/content authenticity |
| Hearsay: text messages, photos, and deposit-slip testimony | Jones: messages and photos were out-of-court statements offered for truth and thus inadmissible hearsay; deputy’s testimony about deposit slips was similar hearsay | State: many messages were admissions or party-opponent/co-conspirator statements; other messages admitted for context/course-of-conduct (not offered for truth); deposit slips were circumstantial corroboration, not introduced to prove exact amounts | Affirmed — text messages and deposit-slip testimony admissible as non-hearsay admissions or as non-hearsay contextual evidence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Jones: counsel failed to object to video of his refusal to consent to search and to admission of unredacted video; failure prejudiced outcome | State: record shows counsel pursued multiple defenses, motions, and cross-examination; omission not shown to be so deficient or prejudicial as to meet Strickland | Affirmed — claim not firmly founded on record; Jones failed to show deficient performance and prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (circumstantial evidence standard)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication of electronic/social media evidence)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (possession requires control/management and knowledge)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can establish guilt)
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (application of Jackson sufficiency standard)