In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00415-CR
NICHOLAS ANTHONY FRAZIER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 33851A, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding
August 4, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Nicholas Anthony Frazier, appeals his convictions for one count of
possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), one gram or more but less than four
grams1 and for one count of possession of a controlled substance (psilocin), four grams
1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.115(c).
or more but less than four hundred grams.2 On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence linking the controlled substances found in the house to him. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant had been staying at a residence located at 4518 Willow Street, Amarillo,
Texas. Texas Department of Public Safety CID Lieutenant Ben Dollar was leading an
investigation and performing surveillance at the residence.3 With the information
gathered throughout the investigation and provided by Chris,4 law enforcement was able
to obtain a warrant to search the home. On April 16, 2024, law enforcement executed
the search warrant on the home.
From his position at the bedroom window where Appellant had been originally
observed, Lieutenant Dollar explained that when he broke the bedroom window,
Appellant jumped up from the bed and ran out of the bedroom and into the living area.
Officers entered the house, secured Appellant in the living area, and undertook the
search. The bedroom, which the evidence showed to be where Appellant stayed, is
referred to as Bedroom 2, located on the northwest corner of the home.5
2 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.103(a)(5)(B)(ii), 481.116(d).
3 During his surveillance, Lieutenant Dollar witnessed a suspected drug transaction between Appellant and an acquaintance, “Chris.” When Lieutenant Dollar stopped Chris shortly after he left the exchange, Chris possessed 3.5 grams of suspected cocaine. With information from Chris and other information gathered throughout the investigation, law enforcement was able to obtain the search warrant for the residence.
4 Chris purportedly became a confidential informant and provided information relevant to this and
other drug investigations. To protect the identity of the acquaintance, who has been, at times, deemed a confidential informant, we employ the pseudonym “Chris” out of an abundance of caution.
5 Though it appears other items—including firearms and drug-related items—were also found in
Bedroom 1, the record does not reflect that Appellant was charged with possessing any of them. Only Bedroom 2 and its contents are relevant to this appeal.
2
On the bed in Bedroom 2, officers found Appellant’s passport, his social security
card, his VA card, his debit and credit cards, a folding knife, and cash. They also found
mail and prescription medications bearing Appellant’s name atop the dresser Appellant
acknowledged as his, along with Appellant’s clothing and shoes, television, “workout
enhancer” pills, massager, muscle balm, pain patches, a digital scale, and ointments, all
of which Appellant confirmed as belonging to him.
Inside one of the dresser drawers, officers found what appeared to be psychedelic
mushrooms and marijuana. In a container of coconut oil moisturizer atop the dresser,
officers discovered suspected fentanyl pills. Similarly, a nicotine pouch tin found atop the
dresser contained what appeared to be cocaine. Appellant said the controlled substances
did not belong to him.
As officers continued to search the house, Lieutenant Dollar took Appellant to his
police vehicle and conducted a brief interrogation, during which Appellant explained that
an unidentified man from Oklahoma City would travel to Amarillo to bring in controlled
substances of all varieties, including cocaine, marijuana, and candies. Appellant claimed
that he did not know the man’s name and only communicated with the supplier via
Snapchat. Although Appellant could not provide the supplier’s Snapchat username, he
assured Lieutenant Dollar that he could get him the information later. He denied that any
of the other occupants of the home had any dealings in this matter and affirmed that
anything found in the house would be his. He refused to say explicitly that he sold
controlled substances, but he did give information on the amount of cocaine he attained
from the supplier and the price paid.
3
In all, the lab reports confirmed the following were recovered from Bedroom 2:
48.08 grams of psilocin mushrooms; 1.76 grams of cocaine (in the form of cocaine-laced
papers, originally suspected to be LSD); and 1.13 grams of fentanyl. Consequently,
Appellant was charged with the following offenses: (1) manufacture or intent to deliver
cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams; (2) possession of
psilocin in an amount of four grams or more but less than 400 grams, and (3) possession
of fentanyl in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. See TEX. HEALTH
& SAFETY CODE §§ 481.115(c), 481.116(d).
At trial, Appellant testified on these charges. He claimed he had only returned to
Amarillo approximately three weeks earlier, after having been out of state for several
months for work-related duties. He shared the home with friends, Fabian and Crystal,
and their children. He expressly invited the family to use his room during his absence,
adding that several different people had stayed in the room while he was gone. As for
the suspected drug transaction with Chris, Appellant testified that it was a simple matter
of Chris coming by to pay Appellant money that Chris owed him.
As to Count I, the Randall County jury found Appellant guilty of the lesser-included
offense of possession of cocaine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four
grams. As to Count II, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged. The jury found
Appellant not guilty as charged in Count III. As punishment, the jury assessed a fine and
five-year sentences for both Count I and Count II to run concurrently. It also
recommended that these sentences be suspended and Appellant be placed on
community supervision for ten years. The trial court entered a judgment of acquittal as
to Count III. This appeal followed.
4
ANALYSIS
By his one issue, Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to establish he
possessed controlled substances recovered from the home he shared with multiple
individuals. We disagree.
Due process requires the State to prove each element of the charged crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766, 772–73 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011). In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict to determine whether, based on the evidence and
reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d 756, 761 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2023) (citations omitted); see Reese v. State, No. 07-19-00253-CR, 2020 Tex.
App. LEXIS 3771, at *15 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 4, 2020, pet. ref’d) (citing Queeman
v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017)). A proper review of evidentiary
sufficiency considers the cumulative force of the evidence. Garcia, 667 S.W.3d. at 761–
62.
We give deference to the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts
in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts. Reese, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3771, at *15 (citing Jenkins v. State, 493
S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)). The jury is the sole judge of credibility and
weight to be attached to the testimony of witnesses. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516,
525–26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). When the record supports conflicting inferences, we
5
presume that the jury resolved any conflicts in favor of the verdict and will defer to that
determination. Id. In a sufficiency inquiry, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence
are equally probative. Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
Legal sufficiency is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a
hypothetically correct jury charge. Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Because Appellant was convicted of knowingly possessing a controlled
substance, to prove the requisite intent to possess, the State had to show that Appellant
(1) exercised control, management, or care over the substance in question and (2) that
he knew that the substance was contraband. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
§§ 481.115(a), 481.116(d), 481.002(38) (defining “possession” as “actual care, custody,
control, or management”). Regardless of whether the evidence of such is direct or
circumstantial, it must establish that a defendant’s connection to the contraband was
more than fortuitous. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005),
overruled on other grounds by Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166, 173 n.32 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2015). A defendant’s mere presence at the location where drugs are found is
insufficient, by itself, to establish actual care, custody, or control of those drugs. Tate,
500 S.W.3d at 413 (citing Oaks v. State, 642 S.W.2d 174, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)).
Presence or proximity, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to establish
the element of possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158,
162 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When the contraband is not in the exclusive possession of
the defendant, a factfinder may nonetheless infer the defendant intentionally or knowingly
possessed the contraband if there are sufficient independent facts and circumstances
justifying such an inference. Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406; Runels v. State, No. 07-22-6
00173-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 5146, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 6, 2023, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has adopted a list of several relevant
considerations that may support such an inference by linking a defendant to the
contraband: (1) whether the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2)
whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) whether the defendant was in proximity to
and had access to 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. See Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 414. These considerations serve to
guide us in our analysis.
According to Lieutenant Dollar, Appellant was located on the bed in Bedroom 2
when law enforcement entered the house. Appellant then immediately got up and rushed
to the living area where he was detained and secured by officers. Officers found
contraband in containers both atop and within the dresser in Bedroom 2. Although not
necessarily in plain view, the contraband was both accessible and nearby Appellant.
7
Appellant admitted to having occupied the room four to five nights a week upon his return
to Amarillo approximately three weeks prior.
There is no evidence whether Appellant was under the influence of narcotics at the
time of the search. There is no evidence that Appellant made any attempt to flee outside
his rapid exit from Bedroom 2. There is no evidence Appellant made any furtive gestures.
There is no evidence of an odor of contraband in the house.
Appellant did, however, admit to possessing the marijuana discovered in his truck
and the guns found in Bedroom 2. He acknowledged he was not permitted to possess
either. When Lieutenant Dollar interviewed Appellant at the scene, Appellant admitted
having purchased narcotics from an unidentified man who came to town from Oklahoma
City and who communicated with Appellant only through Snapchat. While Appellant
acknowledged that he did make incriminating statements during the interview, he testified
that he felt compelled to do so by Lieutenant Dollar’s offer of leniency for information
related to the narcotics supply chain.
Appellant acknowledged that he lived in the house with Fabian and Crystal with
their permission. He also acknowledged Bedroom 2 was his bedroom. Appellant
admitted that he owned a digital scale but denied the one photographed atop his dresser
was the one he owned. He did confirm at least twice that the dresser belonged to him.
Cash and Appellant’s identifying information were discovered on Appellant’s bed.
Appellant denied that he owned the nicotine pouch tin on the dresser but admitted that
he used pouches from that brand in the past. He also testified that the dresser in which
the mushrooms were found contained his clothing and underwear.
8
The logical force of this evidence, both direct and circumstantial, supports the
finding that Appellant knowingly possessed the mushrooms found in his dresser drawer
and the cocaine found in the tin atop his dresser. Accord Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d
440, 444–45 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, pet. ref’d, untimely filed) (when appellant admitted
to residing in his girlfriend’s home but denied knowingly possessing controlled
substances, identifying information within the room noted as a factor to consider in linking
appellant to the contraband found in the room within his clothing, toolbox, and basket on
the dresser in which he stayed). Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the substances.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgments of
conviction.
Laura A. W. Pratt
Justice
Do not publish.
9