(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. Washington v. State, 902 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd); Chavez v. State, 769 S.W.2d 284, 288-89 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. refd). The number of linking factors present is not as important as the “logical force” they create to prove the crime was committed. Gilbert v. State, 874 S.W.2d 290, 298 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). In this case, appellant clearly demonstrated his right to possess the house by informing the officers that he rented the house when they requested consent to search. See Edwards v. State, 813 S.W.2d 572, 576-78 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, appellant exercised control
holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building holding that exception applies to statement by handcuffed defendant as to location of a gun in an apartment even where most of the other adults in the apartment were handcuffed because even assuming the executing officers believed that the residence was secure  the circumstances were still sufficiently dangerous holding that protective sweep was permitted of adjacent room of apartment where apartment consisted of two small rooms holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found