Lydell Anton Jones v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3139
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Postal inspector suspected a Priority Mail package contained contraband; package addressed to “Lydell Jones” at a restaurant in The Woodlands. Jones agreed by phone to pick it up.
- Jones picked up the box; he was stopped soon after for a vehicle violation. He had a mobile phone that rang repeatedly during the stop and was in his possession when officers seized it.
- Deputies found the mailed box in plain view on the backseat; a K-9 alerted, the box was opened, and four bottles containing a total of 2,643 grams of PCP were recovered.
- Forensic analysis confirmed PCP; law enforcement testimony placed much PCP production and shipment origin in California and stated the quantity exceeded personal-use amounts.
- Investigators obtained a warrant to image the seized phone and recovered text messages, photographs of shipping labels, contacts, and call logs; officers also found bank deposit slips in the vehicle.
- Jones was convicted of possession with intent to deliver >400 grams of PCP; the jury found prior convictions true and sentenced him to 65 years. He appealed, challenging (1) admission/authentication and hearsay of phone evidence and deposit slips, (2) legal sufficiency of knowledge/intent to deliver, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to object to refusal-to-consent evidence and an unredacted video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of phone content | Phone was not his; State failed to show he authored or controlled messages/photos; unauthenticated and hearsay | Phone was in his possession, he used it at the scene, it contained photos/labels addressed to him and texts consistent with bank deposits; messages either party admissions or non-hearsay (context) | Admission did not abuse discretion: circumstantial links sufficed for prima facie authentication; texts and photos admissible as party admissions or non-hearsay/context evidence |
| Hearsay objection to deposit slips and texts | Texts and officer testimony about deposit slips were hearsay offered to prove money transfers | Texts were not offered for their literal truth but to show context/course of conduct; deposit-slip testimony likewise circumstantial and not admitted for truth of amounts | No error: texts and deposit-slip testimony admissible for context/circumstantial linkage, not to prove the literal truth of each entry |
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowledge and intent to deliver | No proof Jones knew contents or intended to deliver: no odor, no drugs on person, no cash/drug paraphernalia, innocuous pickup explanation | Circumstantial evidence (possession of box addressed to him, prior contact to pick up, phone photos/ texts showing shipment and bank activity, large quantity >400g, expert testimony about California source and distribution) supports knowledge and intent | Evidence sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to verdict, a rational jury could find beyond reasonable doubt knowledge and intent to deliver |
| Ineffective assistance re: refusal-to-consent evidence & unredacted video | Counsel should have objected to admission of Jones’ refusal to consent and to the unredacted video; failing to object was prejudicial | Counsel’s overall representation showed strategic advocacy; even without refusal evidence, other strong circumstantial proof existed; record lacks proof jury saw unredacted video during deliberations | Claim denied: record does not establish deficient performance/prejudice under Strickland; even if failure to object was error, it likely did not affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication of electronic/social-media evidence by circumstantial links)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (possession requires control and knowledge)
- Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (circumstantial evidence standard same as direct evidence)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (enumeration of non-exclusive possession "links")
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may be sufficient)
- Woolverton v. State, 324 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (admitting trade-organization evidence/texts as context/tool-of-the-trade rather than hearsay)