Wilson Blue III v. State
05-13-01381-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 25, 2015Background
- On Nov. 20, 2012, Dallas police entered apartment 214 in a high‑crime complex and observed appellant, Wilson Blue III, on a couch with scales, baggies, pill bottles, and apparent crack cocaine in plain view. An officer testified he saw Blue breaking crack and drop a revolver as he stood.
- Officers handcuffed Blue, found a key to apartment 214 on his person, and later executed a warrant. Search recovered methamphetamine on the coffee table, multiple rocks of cocaine, digital scales with residue, empty capsules, pill bottles, gun and ammunition, and three large Ziploc bags of cocaine in luggage in a back bedroom.
- Items linking Blue to the apartment included a doctor’s appointment card and a child‑support letter addressed to him found in the living room area.
- Blue testified he was a visitor who went to buy crack, denied handling guns or having the apartment key, and demonstrated limited use of his left hand (previously shot); his girlfriend and a witness offered supporting testimony for his account.
- At bench trial Blue was convicted of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (4–200 g) and possession with intent to deliver cocaine (400+ g); he appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and asking the judgments be modified to show he pleaded not guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Blue) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence: intent to deliver methamphetamine | Evidence of drugs in plain view, scales, baggies, cash, paraphernalia, proximity and linking items support intent to deliver | Blue was only a buyer/visitor; mere presence insufficient; defense witnesses corroborate | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to prove possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence: intent to deliver cocaine (large quantity in back bedroom) | Appellant linked by apartment key, mail and appointment card, cash, weapons, paraphernalia—supports knowing possession and intent to deliver | Blue denied access/possession of bedroom cocaine and said another person (“Slick”) was dealer | Affirmed: circumstantial and direct evidence sufficient to infer possession and intent to deliver cocaine |
| 3. Request to modify judgment (cocaine cause) | Agreed the judgment should reflect actual plea | Trial court record shows Blue pleaded not guilty but judgment listed guilty | Modified judgment to reflect plea of not guilty; affirmed as modified |
| 4. Request to modify judgment (methamphetamine cause) | Agreed the judgment should reflect actual plea | Same as above | Modified judgment to reflect plea of not guilty; affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable‑doubt sufficiency standard applied to appeals)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consider cumulative force of evidence when reviewing sufficiency)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- Nhem v. State, 129 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (elements of possession with intent to deliver)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (presence plus other factors can establish possession)
- McQuarters v. State, 58 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (nonexclusive factors linking accused to contraband)
- Taylor v. State, 106 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (weight of linking factors over number)
- Moreno v. State, 195 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (factors suggesting intent to deliver)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate authority to reform judgments to reflect the truth)