Cultivation

San Antonio Marijuana Cultivation ATTORNEY

Agents with law enforcement agencies in San Antonio and throughout Bexar County, TX, go to great lengths to find grow house operations where marijuana is being cultivated.

During these narcotics investigations, local law enforcement officers have experience finding indoor cultivation cannabis operations. When the officers located a suspected grow house, the officers will then attempt to secure a warrant to seize live plants, processed marijuana and various supplies related to the indoor cultivation of marijuana.

The detectives who work in the narcotics-investigations division have extensive formal training and investigatory experience in this area, including specific training on cases involving indoor cultivation and possession of marijuana.

Many of the narcotics investigators have handled hundreds of investigations involving indoor marijuana cultivation. Some of the detectives received advanced training in the detection, operation, and dismantling of indoor grow operations and are familiar with the characteristics of indoor marijuana grow operations.

Attorney for Marijuana Cultivation in San Antonio, TX

You also need an attorney experienced in fighting marijuana crimes to not only level the playing field but give you an advantage when fighting the case. Your attorney will file motions to suppress illegally seized evidence and motions to exclude prejudicial evidence.

If the case is not dismissed before trial, your attorney will also argue all of the reasons why the elements of the case cannot be proven, including a showing that you were actually in possession of the marijuana being cultivated.

If you are charged with being in possession of cultivated marijuana, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney in San Antonio and Bexar County, TX, to discuss your case. Find out about the charges pending against you, ways to avoid the typical penalties and important defenses that can be used to fight for an outright dismissal of the charges.

Call (210) 899-7566 today.

"Very Professional!"
Don and the entire are professional, courteous, respectful, and highly knowledgeable of the law and circumstances surrounding complex case issues and legal maneuvering!

- Gutz Company.
"A Great Experience!"
But with help at times gives us hope for a better tomorrow. Thank you again. God bless.

- Autisim Communicates Life Socially
"Great Experience!"
Great experience with this firm. Don Flanary is amazing at what he does.

- Shannon M.
"Trustworthy Firm!"
In the end, they are and feel will always be awsome. Because they truly love what they do and the proof is within the actions they take to care for you within your possibly life changing situation.

- Brandon R.
"Outstanding Experience!"
Outstanding experience with this firm!! Amanda is a phenomenal attorney with remarkable dedication and expertise.

- Adrienne G.
"She Is Excellent!"
Amanda is excellent, timely, and efficient. I felt like all my questions were dumb, but she was gracious and gave me the right info to make good decisions based on the best info available for my case.

- Cut Throat Finches
"The Best!"
Amanda is the best. I was falsely accused of not scanning all my items at a store causing my wife of 53 years and my family much distress.

- John F.
"Extremely Professional!"
If you're looking for an attorney, then look no further! Don and Amanda will fight for you and guide you through the process.

- River City Shooters

View All Reviews

Contact Our Firm

Ready to take action? Reach out to us today and let's start working towards your legal goals together. Whether you have questions about your case, need immediate assistance, or want to schedule a consultation, our experienced team is here to help.

Get Started

Penalties for Cultivating or Growing Marijuana

The penalties for possession of marijuana are found in Chapter 12 of the Texas Penal Code. The statutes provide for misdemeanor or felony penalties depending on the amount of cannabis possessed including:

Possession of 2,000 pounds or more of marijuana can be charged as a felony of the first degree which is punishable by a prison sentence ranging from five to 99 years or life imprisonment and/or a fine up to $50,000;
Possession of 50 pounds or more of marijuana, but less than 2,000 pounds can be charged as a felony in the second degree which can be punishable by a prison sentence ranging from two to 20 years and/or a fine up to $10,000;
Possession of more than five pounds of marijuana, but 50 pounds or less can be charged as a felony of the third degree which is punishable with a prison sentence ranging from two to ten years and/or a fine up to $10,000;
Possession of five pounds or less of marijuana, but more than four ounces can be charged as a state jail felony punishable by a jail sentence ranging from 180 days to two years and/or a fine up to $10,000;
Possession of four ounces or less of marijuana, but more than two ounces can be charged as a class A misdemeanor with a jail sentence of up to one year and/or a fine up to $4,000; and
Possession of two ounces or less of marijuana can be charged as a class B misdemeanor which is punishable by a jail sentence of up to 180 days and/or a fine up to $2,000.

Elements of Possessing Marijuana Being Cultivated

A person commits the felony offense of possession of marijuana when the marijuana is being cultivated if that person knowingly or intentionally possesses a usable quantity of the controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(a), (b). “Possession” is defined as “actual care, custody, control, or management.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(39) (West 2011); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(38) (West 2010).

To prove unlawful possession of marijuana, the prosecutor for the State of Texas must prove the following elements beyond all reasonable doubt:

The accused exercised care, control, or management over the cultivated marijuana; and
Knew the cultivated marijuana was contraband.

The elements of possession may be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence, although the evidence must establish that the accused\\\’s connection with the substance was more than fortuitous. When the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the contraband is found, the State must show additional affirmative links between the accused and the contraband located in the grow house.

An affirmative link generates a reasonable inference that the accused knew of the contraband’s existence and exercised control over it. Courts have identified the following factors that may help to show an accused’s affirmative links to a controlled substance:

The accused’s presence when a search is conducted;
Whether the contraband was in plain view;
The accused’s proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic;
Whether the accused was under the influence of narcotics when arrested;
Whether the accused possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested;
Whether the accused made incriminating statements when arrested;
Whether the accused attempted to flee;
Whether the accused made furtive gestures;
Whether there was an odor of contraband;
Whether other contraband or drug paraphernalia were present;
Whether the accused owned or had the right to possess the place where the drugs were found;
Whether the place where the drugs were found was enclosed;
Whether the accused was found with a large amount of cash; and
Whether the conduct of the accused indicated a consciousness of guilt.

Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 162 n. 12 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).

No set formula necessitates a finding of an affirmative link sufficient to support an inference of knowing possession; affirmative links are established by the totality of the circumstances. The courts have found that the number of factors present is not as important as the logical force the factors create to prove the accused knowingly possessed the controlled substance. Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d).

Continue Reading Read Less

Why Choose Flanary Law Firm, PLLC?

Constant Communication
At our firm, we always want our clients to feel empowered when defending against criminal charges. We aim to constantly communicate with our clients, answering questions and taking feedback as we progress through the case. We are always here to answer your questions or adjust your legal strategy as needed.
A History of Results
With multiple decades of experience between our attorneys, we have a history of proven results and happy clients. We always aim to get a criminal case dismissed or have the charges lowered to reduce any penalties our clients are facing. We are confident we can get you the results you deserve.
Experience You Can Count On
At our firm, we pride ourselves on the diverse range of criminal cases we have worked on. From federal felony charges to state misdemeanors, we know exactly how to build a defense strategy that's right for you. Our team can handle even the most complex cases and are willing to be flexible with our strategies.
Advice on Your Timeline
We understand that all criminal cases work at different paces. Whether you are just looking around for a lawyer because you're under investigation or you need immediate representation, our team can help. We will work with you no matter where you are in the process to protect your rights.
Free Initial Consultations
We understand that hiring a criminal defense attorney is a big decision that many people need time to make. That's why we offer all our potential clients a free consultation to see if we're the right legal team for them. We will review your case and begin building a legal strategy to defend your rights.
Personalized Legal Defense Strategies
All criminal cases are different, so our dense strategies are too. We would never re-use a legal strategy from one client to the next because your case is too unique. We will always build a defense strategy that's personalized and effective for you to get the outcome you deserve.

Possession of Marijuana in a Grow House Operations

Some factors are specific to a marijuana grow house. First, the courts will consider the fact that large quantity of contraband may be a factor affirmatively linking appellant to the contraband. Many complex and large-scale hydroponic operation found inside a home required a high degree of maintenance that included tending to the operation every day or every other day. Hydroponic cultivation of marijuana has a ninety-day growing cycle and the plants are often found in various stages of that cycle.

In these cases, the officers will often set up surveillance to determine who is coming and going from the residence. The officers will also determine who is paying the utility bill for the residence. For instance, in Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 411 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), the court considered whether a utility bill for a house addressed to the defendant at the home, among other things, a fact finder could conclude that the defendant lived at a house.

Hydroponic grow operations typically consume vast quantities of electrical power as a result of using grow lights, supplemental air conditioning units, fans, and water pumps. During these investigations, officers will look at the energy consumption of a suspected grow house to see if the usage is consistent with hydroponic m
marijuana grow house operations.

Courts across the United States have found that high electrical consumption combined with other facts is sufficient to show probable cause supporting the issuance of a warrant to search a house for marijuana. For example, in United States v. Gumula, No. 1:11CR105, 2012 WL 4753290, at *3–4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2012), the court concluded that the affidavit showed probable cause that marijuana would be found in the house based upon electrical usage five times higher than other houses, which the officer stated was consistent with indoor marijuana cultivation, closed window blinds, an unkempt yard, and the presence of a car belonging to a woman with a previous history of marijuana cultivation.

In People v. Quintana, 785 P.2d 934, 939–40 (Colo.1990), the court concluded that the affidavit was sufficient based on the following facts:

An informant’s disclosures verified by investigative police work;
The defendant occupied the premises;
The defendant owned a vehicle parked in front of the residence; and
Electrical usage that exceeded the use by two to three times the use of the preceding nine months; and
The presence of vehicle owned by defendant in front of the residence.

In People v. Kazmierski, 25 P.3d 1207, 1212 (Colo.2001), the court noted that excessive energy use in the case of marijuana cultivation is sufficient to tie the allegations of criminal activity to a particular location.

Continue Reading Read Less

Contact Us Today FREE CONSULTATION

A member of our team will be in touch shortly to confirm your contact details or address questions you may have.

First Name
Please enter your first name.
Last Name
Please enter your last name.
Phone
Please enter your phone number.

This isn't a valid phone number.
Email
Please enter your email address.

This isn't a valid email address.
Are you a new client?
Please make a selection.
How can we help you?
Please enter a message.
By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your request & other information using automated technology. Message frequency varies. Msg & data rates may apply. Text STOP to cancel. Acceptable Use Policy