# Jimmy Bernard Brown v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 31, 1995 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2859521 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) - **Decided:** May 31, 1995 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2859521 ## Opinion text TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-94-00581-CR Jimmy Bernard Brown, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 203RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. F-94-40131-IP, HONORABLE BILL STEPHENS, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM A jury found appellant guilty of delivering less than twenty-eight grams of cocaine. Controlled Substances Act, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, sec. 1, § 481.112, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230 , 2935 ( Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 , since amended). The district court assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for fifteen years and a $1500 fine. Dallas police officer Townsend Howard testified that he approached appellant in an undercover capacity and asked to purchase two "dime rocks" of crack cocaine. Appellant took Howard inside a duplex apartment and introduced him to Sandra Creel, telling Creel to "take care of [him]." Another man handed Creel a matchbox from which she extracted a rock of what was proved to be crack cocaine. The officer gave Creel $20 and left. Appellant was present during the entire transaction and asked Howard for a piece of the cocaine he purchased from Creel. In his only point of error, appellant contends Howard's testimony is legally insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the question is whether, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Geesa v. State , 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Griffin v. State , 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Appellant points to certain discrepancies between Howard's trial testimony and his testimony at an earlier hearing in this cause. These discrepancies concern the name of Howard's partner on the day of the offense, the number of rocks purchased, and the weight of the contraband. Appellant also notes that the officer testified he did not notice appellant's two silver teeth at the time of the offense. Finally, appellant points to the testimony of his mother, who said appellant did not own the type of clothing Howard testified he was wearing on the day of the offense. In essence, appellant's point of error is an attack on the credibility of Howard's testimony. The officer's credibility was for the jury to decide. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979). All of the factual issues now raised by appellant were brought out at trial and vigorously argued by defense counsel. The jury obviously found Howard to be a credible witness despite the alleged discrepancies in his testimony. A rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty as a party to the delivery of cocaine. The point of error is overruled. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith Affirmed Filed: May 31, 1995 Do Not Publish --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2859521. Public record. Not legal advice.