Lorenzo Antonio Alfaro v. State, 14-19-00143-CR

Undercover detective "Julio" sought heroin; Williams introduced Julio to Cameron Anonsen, who acted as a middleman for heroin transactions.
Anonsen introduced Julio to appellant Lorenzo Alfaro; Alfaro sold Julio and Anonsen just over 2 grams of heroin (Julio later turned over a .93g sample that tested positive).
A separate transaction directed Julio and Anonsen to meet Jermel Lewis at a gas station; Lewis was arrested immediately after that sale.
Texts and a recorded phone call between Julio and Alfaro were admitted: Alfaro asked about quantities, said he had cut ties with Anonsen, said he sent a "homeboy" who was arrested and bonded out, and later texted "H stain."
Alfaro was indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity (combination of three or more persons) by delivering 1g–<4g of heroin; a jury convicted him of that offense.
On appeal the court held the evidence insufficient to prove the required continuity for an organized criminal combination, but sufficient to convict Alfaro of the lesser included offense of delivery of a controlled substance (1g–<4g); the judgment was modified, conviction affirmed as modified, sentencing reversed, and case remanded for a new punishment hearing.

Issue	State's Argument	Alfaro's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to prove an ongoing "combination" (≥3 persons) / continuity element of engaging in organized criminal activity	Chain-of-supply evidence, texts/call, Lewis was arrested after a transaction and Alfaro said he bonded his "homeboy" — jury could infer Alfaro, Anonsen, and Lewis acted together and intended continuity	No evidence linking Alfaro to Williams or Arbuckle; evidence shows at most episodic dealings and Alfaro cut ties with Anonsen; no proof of intent to participate in a continuing scheme	Evidence legally insufficient to prove the required continuing course of criminal activity; conviction for organized criminal activity cannot stand
Appropriate remedy when greater offense fails	If organized-crime conviction fails, the court may reform judgment to a lesser included offense if supported by evidence	Alfaro concedes evidence shows delivery of >1g and <4g and requests modification and new punishment hearing	Court reformed judgment to conviction for delivery of controlled substance (1g–<4g), affirmed as modified, reversed sentencing, remanded for new punishment hearing

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (application of sufficiency standard in Texas)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (deference to factfinder on credibility and inferences)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (cumulative effect of evidence may support conviction)
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729 (use of hypothetically correct jury charge to measure sufficiency)
Nguyen v. State, 1 S.W.3d 694 (organized-crime statute requires proof of a continuing course of criminal activities)
Lashley v. State, 401 S.W.3d 738 (continuity element and limits on inferring ongoing combination from single episode)
Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61 (continuity requires more than a plan to commit a single act)
Dowdle v. State, 11 S.W.3d 233 (continuous activities can include related noncriminal acts in context)
Munoz v. State, 29 S.W.3d 205 (multiple crimes alone do not establish intent to continue working together)