Atkins v. State, 11-18-00056-CR
| Decision Date | 19 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-18-00056-CR,11-18-00056-CR |
| Parties | JOHN LOUIS ATKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas
The State charged John Louis Atkins with first-degree murder under Section 19.02 of the Texas Penal Code. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b), (c) (West 2019). The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense and assessed his punishment at confinement for sixty-seven years. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. We affirm.
On appeal, Appellant raises four issues. First, Appellant claims that he was arrested without a warrant and without probable cause. In his second issue on appeal, Appellant claims that there was no probable cause to support the warrant to search Appellant's vehicle. In his third issue on appeal, Appellant claims that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle from his employer's private parking lot without a warrant and without probable cause. Finally, in his fourth issue on appeal, Appellant claims that the State was collaterally estopped from introducing evidence that Appellant was in possession of the murder weapon.
On appeal, Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Therefore, we will discuss the evidence related to the commission of the offense only in such detail as is necessary to the resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress. Detective Eric Vickers testified at the hearing on that motion. On July 26, 2015, Detective Vickers was a Crimes Against Persons detective with the Abilene Police Department. On that date, he was called to assist in the investigation of a homicide. The victim was Latisha Hilley. The body was found in a remote area behind a dilapidated house. Detective Vickers testified that he did not do much to assist in the investigation at the scene.
However, Detective Vickers testified that, sometime later, he spoke with Sybil Rene Brito. He referred to Brito and Avery Blane Burns as Hilley's roommates. When he talked with Brito, Detective Vickers discovered that Hilley worked as a prostitute. Detective Vickers testified that Brito told him that Hilley had been dropped off on South First Street around 1:00 a.m. on July 26, 2015, for her to work as a prostitute.
Brito said that Hilley always had her phone and kept in contact with Brito and Burns continually. However, later that morning, at 2:37 a.m., Hilley called from anunknown number. Hilley said that she had made $50 and was going to return home. Hilley also said that the battery on her phone had died. Hilley did not return home. Out of concern, Brito called the unknown number, but there was no answer. The information on the voicemail greeting indicated that the phone number belonged to "John Atkins."
Detective Vickers testified that he learned from other officers that Hilley had made no other contact with anyone after the 2:37 a.m. call to Brito and Burns. Detective Vickers also learned from other officers that Appellant had registered for a room at the Country Hearth Inn & Suites and had used the same "unknown" phone number that Hilley had used. Detective Vickers also learned that Appellant was employed by Lauren Engineering. As a result of this information, Detective Vickers went to Lauren Engineering to contact Appellant.
Detectives Joel Harris and Russell Antilley were also assigned to contact Appellant at Lauren Engineering, and they did so before Detective Vickers arrived. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Detective Harris testified that he was told by the Crimes Against Persons sergeant that Appellant was a person of interest in an ongoing homicide investigation. Detective Harris was given a photo of Appellant's driver's license and was told by other officers that they had reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant.
Detective Harris testified that, as he and Detective Antilley arrived at the employee parking area at Lauren Engineering, he saw Appellant walking out of a building toward his vehicle, a Ford "'F' series truck." Detective Harris stated that Appellant's truck was parked behind a fence but that he and Detective Antilley "drove right into [the parking lot]." He also stated that he did not see a sign that read "hard hat area only." In addition, Detective Harris testified that the gate was open on the evening that he contacted Appellant.
While Detective Antilley notified other officers of Appellant's location, Detective Harris got out of his vehicle, identified himself, and told Appellant that another detective needed to talk to him. Detective Harris testified that he told Appellant to remain where he was and not to go near his truck. However, Appellant appeared nervous and tried more than once to reach his truck. Detective Harris stated that there were "several occasions" when he had to physically block Appellant's path to the truck. Detective Harris testified that he did not allow Appellant into his truck because he was concerned that, given the nature of the crime under investigation, there may have been weapons in the truck and also because he wanted to prevent the destruction of any potential evidence.
When Detective Vickers arrived at Lauren Engineering, he told Appellant that Appellant was detained. He also told Appellant that applications for search warrants were being prepared so that the police could search Appellant's truck and motel room.
Detective Vickers eventually left Lauren Engineering to apply for search warrants. Another officer arrived to take Appellant to his motel room. As he was making applications for the search warrants, Detective Vickers learned from another detective that a cigarette butt that Appellant had discarded while talking to Detective Harris was the same brand and similar filter as a cigarette found near Hilley's body.
While Detective Vickers applied for the search warrants, Detective Harris stayed with Appellant's truck at Lauren Engineering. Later, but before the search warrant was obtained, Appellant's truck was towed to a secure bay controlled by the police department. After the search warrant was obtained, the police searched Appellant's truck. Among other items, the police found a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson "five-shot revolver." A firearms and tool marks examiner later determined that the bullet retrieved from Hilley's body was fired from the gun found in Appellant's truck.
We will first discuss Appellant's claim that the police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they illegally detained and arrested him. Specifically, Appellant maintains that the officers detained him without reasonable suspicion and subsequently arrested him without a warrant and without probable cause. Thus, Appellant argues, the evidence that was discovered as a result should have been suppressed.
Appellate courts review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We give "almost total deference to the trial court's determination of historical facts" and review the trial court's application of search and seizure law to those facts de novo. Id. (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Where, as here, the trial court does not make explicit findings of fact, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and assume that the trial court made implicit findings of fact that are supported in the record. Id.
"Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless detention of the person that amounts to less than a full-blown custodial arrest must be justified by a reasonable suspicion." Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances and exists when the officer has "specific, articulable facts" that, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead the officer to reasonably conclude that the person detained "is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity." Id.; Campbell v. State, 325 S.W.3d 223, 231 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.).
In contrast, a warrantless arrest is justified only if "probable cause exists with respect to the individual in question" and the arrest falls within one of the statutory exceptions in Article 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). "Probable cause to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer, and of whichhe has reasonably trustworthy information, would warrant a reasonably prudent person in believing that a particular person has committed or is committing a crime." Meiburg v. State, 473 S.W.3d 917, 922 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.).
Both investigative detentions and arrests are seizures. Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). Under both the United States and Texas constitutions, a seizure occurs when "a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave, and that person has yielded to the officer's show of authority or has been physically forced to yield." Id. While there is no bright-line test to distinguish an investigatory detention from an arrest, courts consider several factors, which include, but are not limited to, "the amount of force used to control the suspect, the duration of the detention, and the officer's expressed intent, i.e., whether he told the individual that he was under arrest or was being detained only for a temporary investigation." Crofton v. State, 541 S.W.3d 376, 379 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).
"An investigative detention . . . is a brief detention of a person reasonably suspected of criminal activity to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo . . . while obtaining more...
To continue reading
Request your trial