Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________________
No. 91-1301
_________________________________________
RICHARD RAY GILLEY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
VERSUS
JAMES COLLINS, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division,
Respondent-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
_______________________________________________________________
August 4, 1992
Before GOLDBERG, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
Richard Gilley having been granted habeas relief because there
was insufficient evidence to support his state conviction for
possession of marijuana, the sole issue before us "is whether,
after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt", as held
in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in
original). We AFFIRM.
I.
Near Huckabay, Texas, on August 26, 1986, while Texas

Department of Public Safety Pilot Billy Peace, Texas Ranger John
Dendy, and Sheriff David Coffee conducted a search by helicopter
for stolen vehicles, Peace noticed a marijuana patch, pointed it
out, and circled the area. A man later identified as Jessey Gilley
was seen running out of the patch and into the bushes toward two
trailer houses.
The helicopter followed a pickup truck that left one of the
trailers and landed near it. It was occupied by Jessey Gilley's
wife and children. Peace observed smoke coming from the marijuana
patch; and, when he and Dendy took the helicopter back up, they
observed Jessey Gilley standing by the fire. He was arrested; 461
marijuana plants, seeds, fertilizer, tools, and farming, drip
irrigation and spraying equipment were seized. Appellant Richard
Gilley, Jessey's brother, was out of state at the time of Jessey's
arrest, but turned himself in.

That October, Richard Gilley was charged with possession of
more than five but less than 50 pounds of marijuana. And that next
May, after he waived his right to a jury trial, the trial court
found him guilty and sentenced him, inter alia, to fifteen years'
imprisonment. A Texas court of appeals affirmed the conviction in
an unpublished opinion.1 Richard Gilley petitioned unsuccessfully
1
The same court reviewed Richard's and Jessey's convictions.
Jessey was convicted in a trial held separately and before
Richard's, and the Texas appellate court issued two very similar
opinions. For Richard's appeal, the initial opinion stated that
"[t]he jury convicted Richard Ray Gilley". As noted, his trial was
not before a jury. The opinion also quoted the testimony of a
witness who testified at Jessey's, but not Richard's, trial.
Although these errors were corrected in a substituted opinion,
- 2 -

for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
A 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas application was filed in
1989, raising one of the issues presented on direct appeal:
insufficient evidence. Accordingly, the State agreed that he had
exhausted state remedies. The magistrate-judge recommended that
the application be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies,
but in the alternative, that it be granted on the grounds of
insufficient evidence. Both parties filed objections to that
report. The district court, after a de novo review of the
magistrate-judge's findings and recommendation and the parties'
objections, adopted the report and dismissed the application for
failure to exhaust. Both parties moved to amend the judgment,
agreeing that state remedies had been exhausted. Pursuant to an
amended opinion, the judgment was amended in February 1991 to state
that state remedies had been exhausted, and habeas relief was
granted based on insufficient evidence.2
they reflect the possible confusion over what evidence was
considered in Richard Gilley's trial, as discussed in note 4,
infra. As the federal district court stated, "[t]he trial court
may have found additional facts connecting [Richard Gilley] to the
marijuana in this or [an]other trial, if so, such findings have not
been shared with this court." As discussed in note 4, while there
may have been additional evidence against Richard in Jessey's trial
or elsewhere, such evidence cannot be considered on appeal.
Obviously, we may consider only evidence from Richard Gilley's
trial, as contained in the record on appeal. See, e.g., Fed. R.
App. P. 10 (the record on appeal); Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324; Guzman
v. Lensing, 934 F.2d 80, 82 (5th Cir. 1991).
2
Throughout the proceedings in state and federal court, Richard
Gilley remained free on bail.
- 3 -

II.
"Our standard of review in a habeas action alleging
insufficient evidence is set out in Jackson ...."3 Guzman v.
Lensing, 934 F.2d 80, 82 (5th Cir. 1991); see Wright v. West, 60
USLW 4639, 4641 (1992). The sole issue before us is whether,
pursuant to Jackson, the evidence was sufficient to support Richard
Gilley's conviction.
A.

As noted, "`the relevant question is whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Guzman, 934 F.2d at 82
(quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319) (emphasis in Jackson). As
discussed in note 1, supra, our consideration of the sufficiency of
the evidence for Richard Gilley's conviction is, of course, limited
to a review of the evidence presented at his trial and contained in
the record on appeal.4 Id.
3
The Jackson standard applies to both bench and jury trials;
Jackson, like this case, involved review of a bench trial. 443
U.S. at 309, 311 & n.3, 317 n.8 (it "is of no constitutional
significance" whether the trier of fact is a judge or jury).
4
At oral argument, the State asserted for the first time that
we should consider evidence supposedly discussed at a pretrial
hearing; and it described physical evidence supposedly found in
Richard Gilley's trailer that would link him to the marijuana.
However, the admission of that evidence at his trial does not
appear in the record on appeal; and the alleged evidence is not
mentioned in the briefs, the district court opinion, or the
magistrate-judge's report. At oral argument, the State cited both
a suppression hearing at which the trial court ruled against
Richard Gilley, and the following colloquy from his trial in
support of its claim that the alleged exhibits are a part of the
record before us on appeal:
- 4 -

MR. CARNEY:
Your Honor, could we go ahead and
open the ... pretrial exhibits so that I might have
them already open and available and to use for
examination?
THE COURT:
That's fine. For the record, there
has already been a trial before a jury in this
court with regard to ... The State of Texas vs.
Jessey Ray Gilley, and I understand both the State
and Defendant will be using exhibits from that ...
proceeding, either the pretrial or trial ....
No authority need be cited for the rule that we generally
decline to consider issues raised for the first time at oral
argument. But, the State's assertion is not a new issue; the only
issue is the sufficiency vel non of the evidence. Simply put, what
is in the record is in the record. Obviously, the appellate
process would have been greatly aided by the State making this
assertion in its opening brief, so that Gilley could have responded
in his. (The process was further impeded by the State not filing
a reply brief, even though Gilley's brief repeatedly challenged the
State's reading of the record.)
Turning to the merits of this most untimely assertion, the
alleged exhibits referenced at oral argument for the first time are
not part of the record on appeal in this case. As discussed in
note 1, supra, this seeming confusion about what was in evidence at
Richard Gilley's trial was the basis for the district court's
stating the following:
It is hoped the facts upon which this case is
ultimately decided at the appellate level are the
facts presented by the parties to the district
court.
[The State] urges, and the state courts have
held, that [Richard Gilley] exercised care,
custody, control, or management over the marijuana
by his ownership of, and living on the land (each
of which was joint with Jessey Gilley), his
frequent comings and goings to the 118 acre tract,
and the marijuana tract not being visible from
either mobile home.
The trial court may have found additional
facts connecting [Richard Gilley] to the marijuana
in this or [an]other trial, if so, such findings
have not been shared with this court.
The [Texas] Court of Appeals ... in its second
- 5 -

The State maintains that the magistrate-judge erred by
engaging in a Texas state law reasonable hypothesis analysis,
e.g., Humason v. State, 728 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987),
and contends correctly that only the Jackson standard should have
been applied. But, in fact, it appears that Jackson was the
standard applied by both the magistrate-judge and district judge.
In any event, as stated, "[o]nly Jackson need be satisfied, even if
state law would impose a more demanding standard of proof."
Schrader v. Whitley, 904 F.2d 282, 284 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 265 (1990); see Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
"Under Jackson, we may find the evidence sufficient to support a
conviction even though the facts also support one or more
reasonable hypotheses consistent with the defendant's claim of
innocence." Gibson v. Collins, 947 F.2d 780, 783 (5th Cir. 1991).
Therefore, the question before us is whether any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
unpublished opinion at page 4 pithily opines the
"mother hubbard" type phrase "... as well as the
other facts and circumstances...." which suggest
more factual findings but again this court is
bereft of said other facts and circumstances.
[The
State]
...
offers
no
additional
affirmative
links[,]
simply
expounding
the
platitude that the marijuana was not far from where
he lives; however, a minimum of two hundred yards
through dense live oaks is twice the length of a
football field which annually in the fall is found
to be a long distance in many Texas towns on Friday
night.
(Emphasis added.)
- 6 -

(possession of more than five but less than 50 pounds of marijuana)
beyond a reasonable doubt.
B.
Under Texas law, "[i]n order to establish the unlawful
possession of a controlled substance the State must prove two
elements: (1) that the accused exercised care, control and [or]
management over the contraband, and (2) that the accused knew that
the matter possessed was contraband." Guiton v. State, 742 S.W.2d
5, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (citations omitted). "`Possession'
means actual care, custody, control or management." Tex. Health
& Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(38) (West 1992) (Texas Controlled
Substances Act). "[P]ossession must be a voluntary act." Garcia
v. State, 790 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1990, rev.
granted). Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.01(b) (West 1974) provides:
"Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains
or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the
thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his
control."5
It is not necessary to prove that the accused had exclusive
possession of the contraband; however, "[w]hen [as here] the
accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the
substance is found, it cannot be concluded that the accused had
knowledge of and control over the contraband unless there are
additional independent facts and circumstances which affirmatively
5
This definition applies to prosecution under the Texas
Controlled Substances Act. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.03(B)
(West 1974).
- 7 -

link the accused to the contraband." Guiton, 742 S.W.2d at 8.
Needless to say, the State must present evidence of such additional
facts and circumstances. Id. Circumstances relevant to
establishing this affirmative link to the contraband include: (1)
defendant's presence when the search warrant was executed; (2)
contraband in plain view; (3) defendant's proximity to and the
accessibility of the narcotic; (4) defendant under the influence of
narcotics when arrested; (5) defendant's possession of other
contraband when arrested; (6) defendant's incriminating statements
when arrested; (7) defendant's attempted flight; (8) defendant's
furtive gestures; (9) presence of odor of the contraband; (10)
presence of other contraband or drug paraphernalia, not included in
the charge; (11) defendant's ownership or right to possession of
the place where the controlled substance was found; and (12) place
where drugs found was enclosed. Chavez v. State, 769 S.W.2d 284,
288-89 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, review ref'd)
(citations omitted).
C.
Factual "findings made by the state court are entitled to a
presumption of correctness in federal habeas proceedings." King v.
Collins, 945 F.2d 867, 868 (5th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Collins, No.
91-2668, slip op. 5451, 5453 (5th Cir. June 30, 1992); 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d). We are not, however, "necessarily bound by ... [those]
findings." Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 597-98 (1982).
Section 2254(d) permits a federal court to conclude
... that a state finding was `not fairly supported
by the record.' But the statute does require the
federal courts to face up to any disagreement as to
- 8 -

the facts and to defer to the state court unless
one of the factors listed in § 2254(d) is found.
Id. at 597-98 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8)). Applying the §
2254 presumption of correctness to the state court's findings of
fact does not conflict with the review mandated by Jackson.
[A]s a general matter, Jackson follows the basic
legal standard that in order to preserve the state
factfinder's role a federal court must review the
evidence
in
light
most
favorable
to
the
prosecution. Section 2254(d), on the other hand,
provides guidance as to the extent a federal court
should probe a state court's factfinding when
ruling on habeas petitions.
Chandler v. Richards, 935 F.2d 915, 917 (7th Cir. 1991).
The State contends that the district court erred in holding
that "a rational trier of fact could not have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that ... [Richard] Gilley knew of the marijuana's
existence, or exercised control over it." It maintains that the
following factors establish the requisite affirmative link between
Richard Gilley and the marijuana: (1) the proximity of his trailer
to the marijuana patch; (2) "the size and sophistication of the
Gilley marijuana farm"; and (3) his ownership of, and commutes to
and from, the property where the marijuana patch was located.
Consistent with the appropriate standard of review under Jackson
and § 2254, we review the district court's findings of fact under
the Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g.,
Smith, slip op. at 5453; Guzman, 934 F.2d at 82.
1.
Peace testified that a water well was located about 300 to 400
yards from the patch and that the "first trailer house [was] not
- 9 -

too awful far from the [well]." Sheriff Coffee testified that the
closest trailer house was 75 to 100 yards from the patch, and that
the pickup truck in which Jessey Gilley's family fled came from a
second trailer house "a little further down [a dirt] road." Deputy
McWhorter, who prepared the police report, testified that a gate
was located fifty yards from the first trailer, that a metal shed
(barn) was "approximately a hundred yards ... maybe further" beyond
the gate, and that the patch was about 25 or 40 yards beyond the
shed.
Based upon, inter alia, a review of Peace's testimony and
photocopies of aerial photograph exhibits,6 the district judge
agreed with the finding by the magistrate-judge, and found, as
quoted in note 4, supra, that the marijuana was "a minimum of two
hundred yards through dense live oaks [from where Richard Gilley
lived -- a distance which] is twice the length of a football field
which annually in the fall is found to be a long distance in many
Texas towns on Friday night."
This finding of fact by the district judge was not clearly
erroneous. And, although the distance between the marijuana patch
and the trailer is disputed, there is no dispute regarding the
visibility of the patch -- not one person testified that it was
visible from the trailers. Jerry Gordon, who lived near the
property, testified that the area was "very thickly wooded, many
draws, branches, and creeks running through it, it's a very rough
6
On appeal, the State has substituted the actual photographs
introduced at trial. Needless to say, they should have been
provided earlier to the district court instead.
- 10 -

pasture." According to Peace, there was "no way" to see the patch
from either of the trailers and it was not immediately visible
"until you're looking down at it." Ranger Dendy testified that,
using the dirt road on the property, one could enter the property,
pass both trailers, pass the well house, circle around and exit
without being anywhere near the patch. And, contrary to the
State's reading of the record, that road did not run to the
marijuana patch. Deputy Jackson testified that "[a]round the patch
there was nothing but brush, you couldn't see very far outside the
patch itself." Regardless of the distance between the trailers and
the patch, the State failed to prove that it was visible from
either of the trailers.
2.
The State asserts next that "the substantial expenditure of
money and time, made in connection with the marijuana patch,
situated close to the mobile home in which Richard Gilley and his
family lived show that he not only knew about the marijuana, he
planned to make a handsome profit from it." These assertions,
however, are again wholly unsupported by the record. There was no
evidence of the costs incurred in cultivating the marijuana, no
evidence that Richard Gilley contributed to whatever costs were
incurred, and no evidence that he expected to make a profit.
To show this sizeable, sophisticated marijuana operation and
link Richard Gilley to it, the State points to the drip irrigation
system; to pipe, supposedly used for it, that was stacked against
both trailer homes; and to the barn, which contained tools and
- 11 -

supplies. There was no evidence, however, linking Richard Gilley
to the barn or the irrigation system.7 For example, along with the
marijuana plants seized from the property, the State seized tools,
valves, and farming, drip irrigation, and spraying equipment.
Richard Gilley's fingerprints were not found on any of these items.
As another example, and as noted, the State contends erroneously
that the above referenced dirt road ran from the trailers to the
patch.
3.
Richard Gilley was one of the owners of the property where the
marijuana was found; however, as noted, this is not enough to prove
the requisite "exercise of care, custody, control or management"
over it. See, e.g., United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 882
(10th Cir. 1987) ("[T]he state of legal title to the fields ...
[is] not germane to the question whether [one has] the power and
ability to exercise dominion and control over the marijuana.").
The State also introduced electric and telephone records and
testimony from a neighbor that he observed Richard Gilley coming
and going "on a daily basis" to prove that he lived on the
property. But, establishing an affirmative link between Richard
Gilley and the property does not establish the requisite
affirmative link between him and the marijuana. As noted, the area
7
Richard Gilley arranged to have the water well drilled; and it
was used, among other uses, to irrigate the marijuana. The well
contractor testified that Gilley "requested a unit that was big
enough to serve two households." There is no evidence that the
well was anything more than "a four inch domestic water well" with
a standard eighty gallon pressure tank. And, there is no evidence
linking the irrigation use to Richard Gilley.
- 12 -

was extremely dense with woods and underbrush. As also noted, the
State's witness, Ranger Dendy, testified that one could enter the
property, pass both trailers, pass the well house, circle around
and exit without being near the marijuana patch.
III.
An affirmative link between Richard Gilley and the marijuana
is a requisite element for the charge of possession when, as here,
the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the
contraband is found. On this record, this is the missing link.
And, without this link, no rational trier of fact could have found
possession beyond a reasonable doubt. In sum, and viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State
has shown that Richard Gilley co-owned property that was extremely
brushy and densely wooded, that he commuted to and from it, that he
contracted to have a well built, and that a marijuana patch existed
on this property which could not be seen from the trailers or the
road leading to and from them. But, inter alia, the record does
not contain sufficient evidence for any rational trier of fact to
find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Gilley exercised care,
custody, control or management over that marijuana. Therefore, the
judgment granting habeas relief is
AFFIRMED.
- 13 -