Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A sheriff’s deputy stopped Ryan Booker McGee for driving 86 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone. McGee activated his turn signal about 15 seconds after the deputy activated his emergency lights but did not stop for another minute and a half, despite an available shoulder and no traffic. The deputy smelled marijuana upon approaching the car and later found marijuana residue on the passenger-side floor and methamphetamine beneath the driver’s seat. McGee owned and was driving the vehicle, which also carried his brother and wife.
Police found marijuana on McGee’s person after he admitted possessing it, and patrol-car video later showed him reaching into his pants and tossing aside an unidentified object. Following a bench trial, McGee was convicted of possessing between one and four grams of methamphetamine. After he pleaded true to two enhancement allegations, the trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to 26 years in prison. McGee challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to make a closing argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the evidence sufficiently linked McGee to the methamphetamine. Beyond his ownership and operation of the vehicle, the court relied on his delayed stop, the drugs’ location beneath his seat, the marijuana odor, his possession of marijuana, and his furtive conduct in the patrol car. Taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, those circumstances permitted a rational finding that McGee knowingly exercised control over the methamphetamine. The court declined to rely on the deputy’s vague and equivocal recollection that McGee may have tried to claim ownership of it.
The court also held that McGee failed to preserve his closing-argument claim. His attorney expressly stated that the defense was “resting and closing,” did not object when the court immediately announced its verdict, and did not raise the issue in a motion for new trial. Even assuming preserved constitutional error, the court found it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because McGee did not identify any argument counsel would have made or explain how it could have affected the conviction or punishment. The court therefore affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s ownership and operation of a vehicle do not alone prove possession, but they may support a conviction when combined with other affirmative links to drugs found inside.
- The combined logical force of the evidence matters more than the number of affirmative-link factors, and the absence of some factors is not affirmative evidence of innocence.
- A defendant may waive the constitutional right to closing argument by failing to request argument or object, and a motion for new trial may be required when there was no earlier opportunity to object.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates how Texas courts evaluate constructive possession when drugs are found in a vehicle occupied by several people. Proximity to the driver, vehicle ownership, possession of other drugs, and conduct suggesting consciousness of guilt may collectively establish knowing possession even though the drugs were concealed and other occupants had access to the vehicle.
It also underscores the importance of preserving a denial-of-closing-argument claim and identifying concrete prejudice. Even an assumed constitutional violation may be held harmless when the appellant does not explain what closing argument would have added or how it might have changed the result.