Opinion
No. 05-04-01558-CR
Opinion Filed December 14, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 003-80197-04. Affirm.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Christopher Lynn Proctor appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana. After the jury found appellant guilty, it assessed punishment at 180 days' confinement and a $2000 fine. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. We overrule appellant's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant's specific complaint is that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction because the testifying police officer did not identify the substance he possessed as Cannabis sativa L. Appellant acknowledges the officer identified the substance he possessed as "marijuana," and that in Carmouche v. State, 540 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976), and Williams v. State, 524 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined that it is not necessary for a testifying witness to identify marijuana as Cannabis Sativa L. Nevertheless, appellant, without explaining how, maintains that these cases are not dispositive because they were decided before "the implementation of the Texas Rules of Evidence and before the decisions in Jackson v. Virginia[, 443 U.S. 307 (1979),] and Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)." We disagree and decline appellant's invitation to overrule Carmouche and Williams. In Williams, the court of criminal appeals determined that although Texas law defines marijuana as the plant "Cannabis sativa L.," the legislature did not intend "to limit offenses relating to mari[j]uana to those cases in which it was shown that the species involved was sativa L. and exempt other species, if indeed there are various species of mari[j]uana." Williams, 524 S.W.2d 710. Thus, a stipulation by a chemist that the substance was "mari[j]uana" and the lay opinion of an experienced police officer that the substance was "mari[j]uana" were sufficient to support the appellant's conviction. Id. We see no reason why the rules of evidence, Jackson, or Clewis, would require this Court to conclude differently. Here, as in Williams, the arresting officer identified the substance appellant possessed as marijuana. Although he did not specifically identify the substance as Cannabis sativa L., his testimony is legally and factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction. See Carmouche, 540 S.W.2d at 703; Williams, 524 S.W.2d at 710. We overrule appellant's first and second issues. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.