Boyett v. State

• Decision Date: 02 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 06–15–00024–CR,06–15–00024–CR
• Citation: 485 S.W.3d 581
• Parties: Rodney Boyett, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

485 S.W.3d 581

Rodney Boyett, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06–15–00024–CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Submitted: December 3, 2015
Decided: February 2, 2016

Michael Mowla, Michael Mowla, PLLC, Cedar Hill, TX, for appellant

Gary D. Young, Lamar County & District Attorney, Paris, TX, for appellee

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

OPINION

Opinion by Justice Burgess

Rodney Boyett pled guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. Boyett was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and was ordered to pay a $500.00 fine. However, in accordance with the terms of his negotiated plea agreement, Boyett's sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for three years.

On appeal, Boyett argues (1) that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence because the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to make a Terry¹ stop or probable cause to search his vehicle and (2) that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress allegedly coerced statements made during a subsequent custodial interrogation. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Boyett's motion to suppress. In his last point of error, Boyett argues that his guilty plea was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The trial court did not grant Boyett permission to appeal his sufficiency issue. Accordingly, we dismiss Boyett's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for want of jurisdiction, overrule Boyett's remaining points of error, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Concluding that Foreman Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop Boyett and Probable Cause to Search his Truck

A. Standard of Review

"The standard of review for the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is abuse of discretion." Harris v. State, 468 S.W.3d 248, 254 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2015, no pet.)(citing Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Freeman v. State, 62 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd)). " 'In a suppression hearing, the trial court is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.' " Id. (quoting State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). Thus, "[w]e ' "should afford almost total deference to a trial court's determination of the historical facts that the record supports[,] especially when

485 S.W.3d 586

the trial court's fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor." ' " Id. (quoting State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)(quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997))). However, "[w]e review 'de novo the [trial] court's application of the law of search and seizure to those facts.' " Id. (quoting Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 856). "The evidence should be viewed 'in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.' " Id .(quoting Ballard, 987 S.W.2d at 891; Freeman, 62 S.W.3d at 886).

" 'In a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, a defendant bears the initial burden of proof to demonstrate that the search and seizure occurred without a warrant.' " Id. at 254(quoting Hitchcock v. State, 118 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2003, pet. ref'd)(citing Bishop v. State, 85 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex.Crim.App.2002))). "Once the defendant demonstrates that a warrantless search occurred, the burden shifts to the State to prove that a warrant existed or that an exception, under either the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution, justified the warrantless search given the totality of the circumstances." Id. (citing State v. Steelman, 93 S.W.3d 102, 106 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Bishop, 85 S.W.3d at 822; Hitchcock, 118 S.W.3d at 848). In the present case, the parties agree that the search in question was executed without a warrant. Consequently, the State was required to prove the existence of a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment.

B. Evidence Presented at the Hearing on Boyett's Motion to Suppress Regarding the Circumstances Leading to His Arrest

Boyett and his wife, Jessica Boyett (Jessica), were arrested by Leigh Foreman, an officer with the Paris, Texas, Police Department (Department). Foreman testified about the Department's experience with methamphetamine cooks from Oklahoma making "pill runs." In his experience, people involved in manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma travel to the Paris, Texas, area to buy pseudoephedrine² pills to avoid detection by the law enforcement authorities where they live.³ Foreman testified that in the five years prior to the suppression hearing, he had investigated from ten to twenty such cases. In every one of the cases he investigated, the defendants were from Oklahoma, and all had a similar buying pattern. Namely, two or more people travelling together would each purchase pseudoephedrine at different pharmacies within a very short time period.

Foreman testified that while on patrol in an unmarked vehicle, he was contacted by Lieutenant Anson Amis, who was tasked with monitoring pseudoephedrinepurchases in the area. Foreman testified about the computer program used by Amis to monitor pseudoephedrine purchases in Paris as follows:

485 S.W.3d 587

A. He has a program that monitors—the program itself monitors the purchases of pseudoephedrine. Through that system he is allowed to flag people that he think[s] may or may be suspicious, suspicious buying patterns. He contacted me and stated that Jessica Boyett had just purchased pseudoephedrine at CVS located downtown at 507 Clarksville.

According to Foreman, Amis had the ability to monitor pseudoephedrine purchases in real-time.⁴ Foreman explained that Amis told him "that over a period of time he had monitored [the Boyetts'] buying pattern" and "[a]fter observing their buying pattern, he had thought that it was suspicious, and he had flagged them to where he would be notified every time they bought." Amis thought the Boyetts' buying pattern was suspicious because they "had the same address on their drivers['] license[s]," indicating that they were from Rattan, Oklahoma, and had been buying pseudoephedrine "in the Paris area at different pharmacies in a close timeframe together." Based on his experience in investigating such cases, that indicated to Foreman that the Boyetts were being deceptive about purchasing pseudoephedrine.

Foreman testified that on the day he detained the Boyetts, Amis received notice that Jessica had purchased pseudoephedrine at the CVS Pharmacy located at 504 Commerce Street. He asked Foreman to travel to the CVS Pharmacy located at 3710 Lamar Avenue to see if the Boyetts would attempt to purchase pseudoephedrine at that location as well. According to Foreman, Amis provided him with the description of and a license plate number for a pickup truck registered in Rodney Boyett's name. Foreman testified that when they arrived at the CVS Pharmacy on Lamar Avenue, they saw the pickup truck Amis had identified as being registered to Boyett.

After finding Boyett's truck at the CVS Pharmacy, the officers put the Boyetts under surveillance. After leaving the pharmacy, the Boyetts travelled to The Home Depot, where they parked and went inside the store for about ten to twenty minutes. The Boyetts then left The Home Depot and traveled to the nearby Walmart. Foreman noted that Walmart sells other items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, such as camp fuel, cold packs, liquid heat, coffee filters, rubber tubing, and peroxide. When the Boyetts left the Walmart parking lot, they travelled onto Highway 271, which is the highway that leads back into Oklahoma from Paris. The traffic stop took place on Highway 271. Foreman testified that based on his training and experience investigating pill run cases, people making such runs make other stops at stores such as The Home Depot, Atwoods, Tractor Supply, Walmart, Walgreens, and the two CVS locations to buy the other items necessary to manufacture methamphetamine before returning to Oklahoma.

Foreman testified that in the process of surveilling the Boyetts, he "observed a

485 S.W.3d 588

traffic violation where they failed to maintain a single lane" "[i]n about the 1100 block of the northeast loop." He explained, "they were in the right lane, and the vehicles left side tires crossed over the center line into the left lane before going back." After observing this alleged traffic violation, Foreman decided to conduct a traffic stop. However, due to the "really heavy" 5:00 p.m. traffic, Foreman waited to conduct the traffic stop until the Boyetts merged onto the highway that would lead them back to Oklahoma. Amis and Moore also stopped to assist.

After the stop, Foreman approached Boyett, informed him that he was being stopped for failing to maintain a single lane, asked him for identification, and requested that he step out of the vehicle. In response to Foreman's questioning, Boyett stated that he been to CVS, The Home Depot, and Walmart. Foreman testified...