Paul David Johnson v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 06-17-00143-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 6, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Paul David Johnson was convicted of manufacturing or delivering more than four grams but less than 200 grams of methadone and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate his intent to deliver the drug. The case stemmed from a traffic stop on June 4, 2016, conducted by Officer Frances Rylant, who identified the vehicle as coming from a known drug residence. Johnson was a passenger in the vehicle, which was driven by Laura Massey. During a pat-down, Deputy William Whitten found an unlabeled pill bottle in Johnson's pocket, which he claimed contained Seroquel, although the prescription presented did not match his name. Officers discovered baggies and a glass pipe with white residue in the vehicle, believed to be methamphetamine. Rylant noted Johnson's prior knowledge of drug activities at the residence and his attempts to take responsibility for the drugs found, stating he didn’t want Massey to get in trouble. Johnson also had $1,270 in cash on him at the time of arrest. The pills were later confirmed to be methadone, leading to his conviction for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Johnson's argument regarding insufficient evidence of intent to deliver.

Warren Mitchell, an investigator with the Greenville Police Department, testified at trial regarding common practices among drug dealers, specifically their tendency to remove labels from pill bottles to hide the nature of the drugs and the seller's identity. He noted that it has become typical for individuals to carry smaller drug quantities in cellophane bags for easier concealment, and that wholesale dealers often carry large quantities—such as ninety methadone pills—and significant cash, exemplified by an amount of $1,270.00. Following this testimony, the jury convicted Johnson of manufacturing or delivering methadone and sentenced him to life in prison. 

On appeal, Johnson argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his intent to deliver the methadone. The legal sufficiency review requires considering all evidence in favor of the jury's verdict to determine if a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This review respects the jury's role in resolving testimony conflicts, weighing evidence, and inferring facts. The appellate court cannot reassess the evidence's weight or credibility and recognizes that circumstantial evidence can independently establish guilt. Legal insufficiency exists only when acquittal is the sole appropriate verdict. The sufficiency is assessed based on the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge, which accurately reflects the law and the indictment without raising the State’s burden or limiting its liability theories.

An individual in Texas commits a crime if he knowingly manufactures, delivers, or possesses with intent to deliver a controlled substance categorized in Penalty Group 1. The indictment against Johnson alleged he intentionally possessed methadone, weighing four grams or more but less than two hundred grams, with intent to deliver. Although Johnson acknowledged sufficient evidence for possession, he contested the proof of intent to deliver. The State must demonstrate intent, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony from law enforcement. Factors indicating intent include the location of arrest, quantity of drugs, packaging, presence of paraphernalia, cash possession, and the defendant's drug user status. 

Johnson argued that the evidence did not support intent to deliver methadone, noting that the quantity found (90–120 pills) is standard for legal prescriptions. However, there was no evidence he had a valid prescription, and he was arrested at a known drug residence with an unlabeled bottle containing over ninety pills. The presence of packaging materials and cash further suggested intent to sell. The jury, as the fact-finder, assessed the credibility of witnesses and evidence, leading to a verdict of guilt, which was deemed supported by sufficient evidence. The court affirmed the trial judgment.