OPINION
Wayne Michael Spencer was tried before a jury for unlawfully possessing less than one gram of methamphetamine, a controlled substance. He was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement pursuant to the habitual offender statute. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. � 12.42 (Vernon Supp. 2002). On appeal, he challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any 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); Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we begin with the presumption that the evidence supporting the judgment is legally sufficient, see Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), and we view all the evidence without the prism of “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d at 647. We determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both for and against the verdict, demonstrates that the proof of guilt is so obviously weak that it undermines confidence in the jury’s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When performing this review, we give due deference to the jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Id. at 16 n.20. We find the evidence factually insufficient only where necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Id. If we find factual insufficiency, we vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d at 648; Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d at 133-34.