Marcus James Lynn, Jr. v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00237-CR Marcus James Lynn, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Susan N. Kelly, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2023-1919-C2 JUSTICE Westerfeld delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a jury trial, Marcus James Lynn, Jr. was convicted of possession of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d). After pleading true to two felony enhancement paragraphs, his punishment was assessed at forty years in prison. In one issue on appeal, Lynn challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.  Sufficiency of the Evidence Lynn challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the mens rea element of his conviction. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND RELEVANT LAW The Court of Criminal Appeals has summarized a non-exclusive list of fourteen factors that may demonstrate a link connecting a defendant to the knowing possession of contraband: (1) the defendant's presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant's proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) whether the defendant made incriminating statements when arrested; (7) whether the defendant attempted to flee; (8) whether the defendant made furtive gestures; (9) whether there was an odor of contraband; (10) whether other contraband or drug paraphernalia were present; (11) whether the defendant owned or had the right to possess the place where the drugs were found; (12) whether the place where the drugs were found was enclosed; (13) whether the defendant was found with a large amount of cash; and (14) whether the conduct of the defendant indicated a consciousness of guilt. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 162 n. 12 (Tex. Crim App. 2006). However, “ultimately the inquiry remains that set forth in Jackson [v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)]: Based on the combined and cumulative force of the evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?” Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex. Marcus James Lynn, Jr. v. The State of Texas Page 2 Crim. App. 2016); see also, Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). ANALYSIS On appeal, Lynn does not contest that he possessed the pills in question; rather, he asserts that the State failed to prove his knowing possession of methamphetamine because “there was no evidence adduced that [he] (1) knew that the pills were in Penalty Group 1, or (2) knew the pills contained methamphetamine.” Methamphetamine is a Penalty Group 1 substance. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.102. In support of his position, Lynn notes that the arresting officer and forensic scientist initially believed the pills contained MDMA, a Penalty Group 2 substance, until forensic testing revealed that the pills contained methamphetamine. Id. at § 481.103(a)(1). Lynn directs us to the Supreme Court case McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), and emphasizes the Court’s holding that the “knowledge requirement may be met by showing that the defendant knew he possessed a substance listed on the schedules, even if he did not know which substance it was[,]” or “by showing that the defendant knew the identity of the substance he possessed.” McFadden, 576 U.S. at 192. Marcus James Lynn, Jr. v. The State of Texas Page 3  The exact chemical substance and its penalty group are elements that must be proven by the State. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115. But the “knowing” mens rea requires that the defendant “knew the substance was contraband,” not that he knew the actual drug he possessed or the substance’s assigned penalty group. Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413; see also Fletcher v. State, No. 10-22-00018-CR, 2022 WL 7288321, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 12, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Reviewing the evidence in the appropriate light, and considering the non-exclusive Evans factors, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Lynn knowingly possessed a controlled substance, even if he did not know the exact substance he possessed or its penalty group. A law enforcement officer observed Lynn walking from car to car in a store parking lot shortly after midnight, speaking with each vehicle’s occupants before disappearing from view and then returning. Notably, none of the individuals exited their vehicles, pumped gas, or entered the store. When a marked police car arrived, Lynn quickly went inside the store. The officer observed Lynn peering around a machine near the entrance. Once the marked vehicle drove away, Lynn emerged from the store with another individual. The other individual was carrying a backpack. Lynn and his companion then entered a car with several other individuals and left the area. Marcus James Lynn, Jr. v. The State of Texas Page 4  The officer later observed Lynn and his companion walking on foot, with Lynn carrying the backpack. When Lynn saw the officer, he ran approximately twenty yards before stopping. When the officer approached Lynn, Lynn began arguing with him. Lynn then handed the backpack he was carrying to his companion and suddenly became calmer. The officer described a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the backpack, which contained several items indicative of drug distribution, including forty-one methamphetamine pills, twenty-eight Xanax pills, individually-packaged baggies of marijuana, and a scale. Lynn was also carrying “a wad of cash” on his person. Viewed in their totality, Lynn’s physical possession of the backpack, evidence indicating his awareness of its contents, his evasive actions and attempt to flee, and his possession of the “wad of cash” support the jury’s reasonable inference that Lynn knowingly possessed a controlled substance. Accordingly, we overrule Lynn’s sole issue on appeal. Conclusion Having overruled Lynn’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. ANDREA WESTERFELD Justice Marcus James Lynn, Jr. v. The State of Texas Page 5 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 5, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Harris, and Justice Westerfeld Affirmed Do Not Publish CRPM Marcus James Lynn, Jr. v. The State of Texas Page 6