I'_\\ "`U\§ T\§U\§C©m°§ ®F Cm/»W\ml_ f\ PP\QM§
N®%, mFL~?;\,‘lb<>'©L wa mf%_~ &\'N§D~zf)§

' .”)SO'OZ/(B
i~_vl\@ m’?x~: &,‘RA\[LDA Tmm\f@~ :_\IU\I gm _

L A mo \ \m§ REcEi\/ED m
COURT CF CR!M|NALAPPEALS

AU3 1 U lam

P<€P\\Q:Lm`@ 335me `r§> QQ\_)H_T §§an
¢-‘\D@L H€US‘€S?, @6@5’-3<

"T® _W\E H®NDR¢\&\_E mm ©¥ CR,Lm»\£/>Tl_ /\VP\§NS`»

C,;>m:§> mm\ bmva THM\IL mem mw»o~l\@&.$r
`_i;\L H\Q, M®\Ua, h\~§{\&é_ ME_ mm'mb€,e;é_ (L\DL "\qul$> PQCTF\J\\Y F\\£:>

"i\(\\:» P\wam<&_ m wm>r+ 95 t)`\@_ mama ORD@/HQP€P\\\
CAM M\>\E &k\ou§ %§` §O\\D\m; `
wm N><>\\.M<b L@,m:_@§ ~\:m wl TML mug m¢~

§Q»)z_d \l\w\zu? m\\e>_¥§€¢-T\\w_ Aaz\§?m@_\/AQ.QUL mow <\_\E
wolf :N\u>_§mm*;©r Y\LL »/xw>~m§ "\U\_»L\ ‘r\my,.d,§_ WSM

”T:) E£M.g\_@ \l DQ_\A;M_ML 4?3&15&».\%4L19j&)‘1u

T\Q% ’UQ §O\»<_L ~®¥E\Ce~» mm \QM\L»U_ ~\is>_ mg+ u_£»mlm`
N\N\§_\i~< YC\_\WL when 'm `T\r\&/

 

m+ m mm§\m¢>_ `ZXL<§@.Q_ mm
I\Wr \\Qw_ mesa 'P»©Ab'\_m CQUL wh r\D /%ym+ mM~

mma \\z;\yv_ mm :gm>. a

j_f}\l §\Y;\b:¥ w N\J\x‘oe,r %1~/\ C_\QJD,¢\\/ .&)l~()m& `\:'§4&¢\~
’T\»L P©\\@L &>¥"m>p &m; m+ NL \@4“64\493;_ /Qv \r\mé_
"@Q> mud `Y\@LUMU b 1\\

'“T»L N>\OU\M wing 113 E>w\iw 053 ma
¢WAL\~ILL 19sz 23 JQJ md \0 w<\_ 5\<3113&> w TH_

®Ymr umw rxawwz, 444- `m.AL MWT \4\4>_ 4\_\4\_ Als)+
\N\m\>_s,§. mm M_lc\;\¢x\ ~1(\4>~111§¥&4»

'/{\341 Mw\m §»1_\,444§1 mvv mt \\\§ />.M,M._~z §§ FUM_
_F‘\R>\UP_L HL L€>L)E’CT\:©F 91 ML\_. mmw>_ `\:¥Ql `E)\Q»L
\5 114 \\\%-N "Mmmm "PQQ,AMF\‘/ *4;\\<1\~ T\\a E\§\é:>_~u;_
\)&\3\\4~_ -`\\&\~`<_ hew w PP>€§M 1313 'T»\<>J@_¥Or~ \H»o_ @ST C\J)\L
w \4\4_3 '°m\m_ mmi \\KM_ mg A,\¥¥€,ejl`

"WL /W\QMM blow \j~m mud ESDTLQC `CC> Rgm¥
3411131114411\1 11@4>/\4444:,€5@41 411\_;¢1.1@1&"(_1"1&&3;
E\\DWCQ_ "<P wng Q% §\4\:‘§¢\;\\€\, \\

 

5 (`_TQ»QT:[Q r\_f’#? \‘?"'”19

”MQ»Q>§\~ ®r /W@Jm@§ 601141.11
"W&, /WY€A\MT 540\4¢:3 M+ N \&1 CL)M\“/ w

::1; wm mmé@ \41°:1§°445 ’[`I&L M;; 9mm wm

@Tv U°\,u~\\\\§fdr\_ IGT\EL E§§\;NM i\QL_ D'\ \n§)Q+\\ 1
A;\l_ Ya<>.wi§- 5\)1\\_ fm \§ g 1 D)©® `VQOM»C`/

”`UW¢ “P€’\mm EMQUQ> E@w \@4144414_ mw AU,A,ML
`_\5§3 LMQ\_ C©€\€%»

<;>

M \; ¢3(\§; 41>_\ @O\\L`[ T\\A<l% C&_u§e_§ F\N‘ mmér\>__”€d
‘?4\)2_ ©L RQQMX- lab \\Qm_ D_ LL§I>Q. SWMALLQ_E,&§

_T\F\§~ \kx\_§(:_\.(\\\\§°;z .S`\Q$\'L 'SB\\_ 15\_(f; |AF\`Y\).U§§JY` `$H\`_l\l`){;`/
wl 1945 uva ¥»®14¢3®14§1 m /A¢M…A»@r@_ K,@M\ L\b@(-/

1441 MM\\M 114\4>411 law w 145 “4`1\4,4~ 4\4@11 441
M®…w ® ix MW MF\»_ mem gm 13@194134~15@54§1
¢M_ ‘T§, 4\,;; T\\Q_ \£1;1_ w@a,\<~_ :m LQNMQT@& 1411TK ‘Uu§
LAM_

\…\\§§"\EY©AE Y'V\\? rf\\x\§» Cms §10@440.1\_ MUP<WUMT
'Pm~:-w *\w\wv T\\\§ mw\@\»_ wm 141>41\41 fpm
’YM mo mm§ 444\44@131 W\41<>mm 1411 ma Tm+

“”\\¢»L Mm\: mwo§r <WM \m;_ u»@\_‘® An»€;»&»
”`KML M'MM ml mM_Q_>_ 045l &_ mg m@em

MT\¢Q»<}©f \1®4>~ §§M wTK©Q` IQS»())QM)LL CCL>JL
w r\§©¥ G@\T

1191 1334 )1>.4491»& \4£1>,_ :l;em_ 1191
¢¢\L\_ `U\’; `\:Y\)F[&~ w\\\®»o_&$ w®; §§ DQ» F©z \

"T\»QL A,Lé_ §\»SJ\L m §§%QS§¢;<;

(3>)

 

c ga“c\m;m\§ ®¥;141\£1`<;1_

`_L C;P\u{t@\\` ivth (BT) ¥¥e'nrf£>\/ Sm<%& umw
9mm R:&\a+ A Tm_ ma umm: L,@P`/ m TFle_Ab@vL
md AMA\LL /><€\O\§M MM>M w@§~ m\\@_é_ mm
.éfixw\,@@ 134ng 49 -\C mm ge
Uw\u\\ \/>\\_ \D<Pm\%- ©¥'T£m;` P, ®,. w \SSD §
m\@\*u>c_ gmme ,AMJO‘T@¢@; -1%71/

 

@Q§,#€@\-D\\`/ §§41>441441@_\;
FW\OQU MT

®

SULPHUR SPR|NGS POL|CE DEPARTMENT

Narrative

Date of report: 04/18/2013 B`(“\C V\_ ( A\> Case Number: 1300010891

|ncident Number :1300010891

1. ON 04-18-2013 AT APPROX. 2115 P|Vl SGT. ESTES, SGT. CROUSE AND LT. MCCLURE OF THE SULPHUR
SPRINGS/HOPK|NS COUNTY SPEC|AL CR|MES UN|T MET W|TH A CONFIDENT|AL |NFOR|V|ANT, HERE
AFTER REFFERED TO AS CI(C|#12-11-180),AT A SECURE LOCAT|ON |N SULPHUR SPR|NGS, TX. THE
PURPOSE OF THE N|EET|NG WAS TO D|SCUSS THE PURCHASE OF CRACK COCA|NE FROM THE
DEFENDANT: GRAYLON TARAYE i`\/ERY B/M 05-10-1985.

2. AT APPROX. 2121 PM THE C| AND THE C|'S VEH|CLE WAS SEARCHED BY SGT. ESTES FOR |LLEGAL
NARCOT|CS OR IV|ONEY W|TH NEGAT|VE RESULTS. THE C| WAS AT TH|S T||V|E SUPPL|ED W|TH SEVERAL
RECORD|NG DEV|CES TO CAPTURE THE CONVERSAT|ON AND TRANSACT|ON BETWEEN THE C| AND
|VERY. THE C| WAS |SSUED$ 100.00 OF ||V|PREST MONEY TO N|AKE THE PURCHASE.

3. AT APPROX. 2:23 PM THE C| AND SPEC|AL CR|MES |NVEST|GATORS LEFT THE SECURE LOCAT!ON
'ENROUTE TO 310 W. BECKHAM ST. SPEC|AL CR|MES |NVEST|GATORS MA|NTA|NED SURVE|LLANCE OF
THE C| DUR|NG THE OPERAT|ON.

4. AT APPROX. 2:31 PM THE C| ARR|VED AT 310 W. BECKHAM ST. AND PARKED FAC|NG WESTBOUND |N
FRONT OF THE RES|DENCE. THE C| EX|TED THE VEH|CLE AND APPROACHED THE CARPORT DOOR AND
MET THE SUSPECT (GRAYLON |VERY) |N THE CARPORT. THE C| AND |VERY ENTER |NTO THE
RES|DENCE FOR A BR|EF |V|O|\/|ENT BEFORE THE C| EX|TS AND WALKS BACK TO H|S VEH|CLE TO GET A
JOB APPL|CAT|ON F_QRM FOR A SUBJECT |NS|DE THE RES|DENCE. -

5. AT APPROX. 2:33 PM THE C| RETURNS TO THE |NS|DE OF 310 W. BECKHAM ST AND BEG|NS SPEAK|NG
W|TH |VERY ONCE AGA|N.

 

7. AT APPROX. 2136 PM THE C| LEAVES |N H|S VEH|CLE AND PROCEEDS BACK TO THE SECURE
LOCAT|ON W|TH SPEC|AL CR|MES |NVEST|GATORS ST|LL N|A|NTA|N|NG SURVE|LLANCE OF THE C|.

8. AT APPROX. 2143 P|V| THE Cl AND SPEC|AL CR|MES |NVEST|GATORS ARR|VED BACK TO THE SECURE
LOCAT|ON. SGT. ESTES AT THIS T|ME TOOK CUSTODY OF DRUG EXH|B|T #1, S|X OFF-WH|TE ROCKS
BEL|EVED TO BE CRACK COCA|NE. SGT. ESTES ALSO TOOK CUSTODY OF NON-DRUG EXH|B|T #2, DVD-R
(V|DEO OF BUY) AND NON-DRUG EXH|B|T #3, CD-R (AUD|O OF BUY).

 

Officer: ESTES, MARK Approving Supervisor: ESTES, MARK

 

.,._____

Page l of 2

SULPHUR SPR|N'GS POL|CE DEPARTMENT

Narrative

Date of réport: 04/18/2013 Case Number: 1300010891

 

9. SGT. ESTES MA|NTA|NED CUSTODY OF ALL EXH|B|TS UNT|L RETURN|NG TO THE SULPHUR SPR|NGS
POL|CE DEPT. ONCE AT TH|S LOCAT|ON SGT. ESTES F|ELD TESTED THE SUSPECTED CRACK COCA|NE
US|NG A N|K (G) F|ELD TEST K|T. THE SUSPECTED COCA|NE TESTED POS|T|VE FOR THE PRESENCE OF
COCA|NE AND WE|GHED APPROX. 0.9 GRAMS.

10. SGT. ESTES SECURED DRUG EXH|B|T #1 |NTO THE SPEC|AL CR|MES SECURE LOCKER ON 04-18-
2013. SGT. ESTES'PACKAGED'AND PLACED DRUG EXH|B|T #1 INTO EV|DENCE ATTHE SULPHUR
SPR|NGS POL|CE DEPT. DRUG EXH|B|T #1 W|LL BE TRANSPORTED TO THE TEXAS DPS CRIME LAB
LOCATED |N TYLER, TX FOR DRUG ANALYS|S BY PROPERTY OFC. |RV|NG AT A LATER DATE.

11. THIS DEL|VERY OF CRACK COCA|NE WAS W|TH|N 1000 FT. OF PAC|F|C PARK ENHANC|NG TH|S
CHARGE TO MAN/DEL CS PG1<1G DRUG FREE ZONE "F3". TH|S WAS THE SECOND PURCHASE OF
CRACK COCA|NE FROM TH|S DEFENDANT ( GRAYLON |VERY) AT TH|S SAME LOCAT|ON (310 W.
BECKHAM ST.) W|TH|N A 1 WEEK |NVEST|GAT|ON |NVOLV|NG GRAYLON |VERY.

12. ATTACHED |S A COPY OF THE PROPERTY RECORD SHEET, DPS LAB SUBM|SS|ON, |MPREST MONEY,
D|GITAL PHOTO'S OF THE CRACK COCA|NE AND F|ELD TEST K|T, CR|M|NAL HlSTORY ON GRAYLON
|VERY, AND BOTH THE DVD-R (V|DEO) AND THE CD-R (AUD|O) OF THE BUY.

SGT. ESTES # 304 (SCU)
SULPHUR SPR|NGS POL|CE DEPT.

 

 

Of'ficer: ESTES, MARK Approving Supervisor: ESTES, MARK

Page 2 of 2

il §Ll\\l) r%~ CQ>§ 4

exchanged money for the-crack cocaine`a't Appellant’s apartment. The- transfer Was not Witnessed
by anyone else. 556'i\"/i§de"”of»vvas;:‘ma§.le*§)fat~h`e.ztrans-fér§:oiit¢'$i?tl?foo‘~'doe`s notes.*owla¥§tra*iil§l’é“f%liad§tal@en;*

; .»;;.-
,.~ \

:gplaefef‘§"?l~?l?‘~lii'e'='*onl».y»~tlling` yon"":'can see \"iir`i'§'the vide`oiis an .orange§un;gnarl_;edtpill»bottl‘ `.

 

_n€i**iiier‘e"“>i‘§sno»"

4 l:»_reco'rd'ed‘ transfer of thi"s‘pil‘l““bottle =or-anything from any pilléf'bottle_:fr;om the Appe_llant: to_ the Cl

l§-here Wasv no _'_ot_her __»corroborating,~_evidence offered by th€f`- Sfate.. ADuring cross=

€e`:~;almination of ` S gt'; lvlarl<h Estes\;b*.y,l\/l \Eorsman,‘ A¢ppe`i'l¢la_nt;’:sv trial »attorney,' S'gt. 'E~stesi§:a"greed#he

N

 

'Q~_ '

did.not Witness'{ any actual transfer take»rpla'e-e. He*§esti‘i:`i"e`df:'yl*§> ' \`

 

Qll€SfirQ¥Ij;j:"'Can'_We: agree-thatzyi(c§‘iii::>p“ers'orlra;lly;"“$:erge,ant, did not~ieyel)"all_; did not"*vii‘itiness

any actual?transfe"r. "

 

An_swer~:_' "TIThat’sjcorr_`ect.-':;,(Vo;l~.».'5, page 79, lines 9-_:1:§§`).
When yzos§%r:_?l~'fjl ~»i~‘,.§e_,,_the vC:I,',»si€;t`6.""§;_t_-i='n=iony',' the offictlsays they didn"t Watc_h>»»~'it;` ` they »_didn_'t

 

dn"t', see anything and they ~={ideo,,i;ir`;.es`~.riot,,.slicvv'wan§y_@;;gi~iqiig ».-i-J`*‘

  

§ . ' l
ln direct examination Ellis claimed the transfer Was completed by hand-to-`hand
transaction (Vol. 5; page 100, lines ll-25_. and page lOl, lines 1~4). The video shown to the jury
does not show any transfer taking place `from hand-to-hand, Whether it be money or cocaine All

the video shows is a " ill'bo)§" but not the content of the " illbox" (‘.’ol. 5, ave 108, lines 3-25,
P _ b P l _ P s

and page l0_9, lines l-l7). n _ _-.....»

ln ._l\_/lalone v. State_, 253 S.W.3d 253, 258,, (Tex. Crin:i; App. 2008) it srates;/_"/.We'hold that

c

the standard for evaluating su.n;';;)iency ol`the evidence for cli)rroboration under the accompli.ce- l

Witness rule applies when evaluating sufficiency of the evidence for corroboration under/the

,, /

z - . v

 

 

covert-agent`rule. - Accordingly, When Weighing the sufficiency of corroborating evidence under

- ~

,.

Art. 38. l 4l(a), a reviewing court must exclude the testimony of the covert agent from l
consideration and examine the remaining evidence (i.e., non-covert agent evidence) to determine
whether there is evidence that tends to connect the defendant to the commission of the offense-"

See also Taylor v. State, 328 S.W.3d 574, 5_77-78 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2010, pet..refd).

 

Jefferson v. State 99 S.W. 3d 790, 793 ('l`ex. App.--East_land 2003, pet. refd) states that
"Surreptitious recording [of drug buy] is also 'other evidence tending to connect' appellant With
the offense which was committed."' However the recording in evidence in this case does not
show any transfer. All that the tape shows is that the Cl was in the Appellant's home.

The State attempted to offer corroborating evidence When they offered a pill bottle

obtained from a later arrest over 2 months after the alleged transferi(July l, 2013) purported to be

the pill bottle shown on the video made some 74 days before the arrest (V-ol 3,.;ia,rze `1'.'_7.01, lines

l'/"~25, page l24, lines l3-l.6, page 125, lines ll-25, page 126, lines l-5). Appellant Would
show that this unmarked, non-descript pill bottle on the video 74 days prior to the arrest-.and

, seizure of the pill bottle used as State's exhibit 7 is not evidence that corroborates the Cl's

testimony concerning the transfer.
fliere was no "eyebal:ling'." of the transfer of money and the video the'State used does no`t

tshow"an actual transfer`ofmmfo¥ney"(\A/ol.i 5, page 2134, lill“€f§ 18-25, page ,'l§§,`,lin’,€_$ l7-,2,5)`. Also,

ther-money used for the drug purchase Was never recovered or found. Again, this time quoting ,`

i,l:i:t,;<iiMcCl ure :-`

/

_in ’"__._ you, "Sir, did nO‘f actually eyeball the changing of money between anybody‘? Fair?l'

141 .l'That?s fair.",'/'
f//"”____"

\1

tQ: "Y'ou/did notreyeballth`e"transfer~ of any controlled substance from one person to ther

ether? Fair?"'

,__,__..~_

` iA: "Fair.' " (vot. l5, pagei34, .Lia¢s¢ix¢z§, page 135,11;1@ 1) 2

/\dditionaily, there is what amounts to a conflict between the confidential informant's

l

testimony"ithat a transfer of money and drugs took place and what the video and officers
testimony actually shows This discrepancy between the Cl's testimony and the State's other
evidence is enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to Appellant's guilt and does not show the
corroboration The evidence presented as to transfer of drugs and money between Cl and
Appellant is therefore unsupported as required by Tex Code Crim. Proc. Ann MJ£__(§),_(Q.

In s'u:nnzar'y. the State's only corroborative evidence of actual transfer'taking place back
i:i_..d.ipril 18, 20`13, is a pill bottle cordi::c-atei from the`._»\¢_ppellant when a warrant was executed on
July l, 2013. The State’s claim that this is the same pill bottle in the video,is totally ivi_tbout any
proof (Vol. 5, pages 94'-95, pages 124-132, page 140, line l-l7). 'l`herefore, the S_tated.id not
prove the element of their offense for transfer beyond a reasonable doubt. And the statutc is
clear that you cannot use the Cl's testimony unless there is some corroborating evidence._

Therefore, considering the above argument and facts, Appellant urges the court to

overturn this sentence because the State did not meet their burden of proof and was not able to -

corroborate testimony of the confidential informant as to actual delivery and transfer. Without

corroborating evidence of transfer, there can be no conviction Therefore, this error is a

reversible error and this Court should render a not guilty verdict.

\

lO

