Brodnex v. State, NO. PD–1087–14
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Citation | 485 S.W.3d 432 |
| Decision Date | 23 March 2016 |
| Parties | Ike Antyon Brodnex, Appellant v. The State of Texas |
| Docket Number | NO. PD–1087–14 |
485 S.W.3d 432
Ike Antyon Brodnex, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas
NO. PD–1087–14
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Delivered: March 23, 2016
Raymond K. Fivecoat, Midland, for Appellant.
Carolyn D. Thurmond, Assistant District Attorney, Midland, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, for The State of Texas.
OPINION
Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Alcala, Richardson, Yeary, and Newell, JJ., joined.
Appellant was charged with the offenses of tampering with physical evidence and possession of a controlled substance after he was stopped by police and found to be carrying crack cocaine. Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied. After a bench trial, the trial court acquitted Appellant of the tampering offense but found him guilty of the possession offense. Appellant pled true to three enhancement paragraphs, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years' confinement. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have sufficient grounds to come into contact with him and that the discovery of the drugs was the result of an excessive pat-down search. Brodnex v. State, 11–12–00076–CR, 2014 WL 3639133, 2014 Tex.App. Lexis 7780 (Tex.App.Eastland 2014) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. Id. After refusing Appellant's petition for discretionary review, we granted review on our own motion in order to determine whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect based upon observing the suspect walking with another person at 2 a.m. in an area known for narcotics activity and based upon the officer's unsubstantiated belief the suspect is a "known criminal."
FACTS
Around 2:00 a.m., Officer Zachary Chesworth of the Midland Police Department observed Appellant and a female leave the Deluxe Inn on foot. Officer Chesworth testified that the Deluxe Inn is located in an area known for narcotic activity. Officer Chesworth approached the two individuals on a nearby street, asked them their names and what they were doing, and placed Appellant in handcuffs without placing him under arrest. When Appellant identified himself, Officer Chesworth asked Appellant, "Didn't you just get picked up?" and Appellant replied, "Hell no." Officer Chesworth then had Appellant and his female companion come to the front of the car. The video on Officer Chesworth's patrol car shows that, while lifting Appellant's shirt tail and patting down the exterior of his front pant pockets, Officer Chesworth asked Appellant, "You got anything on you?" to which Appellant replied, "No." Officer Chesworth then asked, "Mind if I check?" and Appellant appeared to reply "uh-uh" again. The officer continued his search, seeming to check all of Appellant's pockets and the area around his waistband. Officer Chesworth found an orange plastic cigar tube protruding from the back of Appellant's waistband and removed it. The cigar tube contained crack cocaine.
Officer Chesworth placed the cigar tube on the front bumper of the police car. As he began to talk to Appellant's female companion, he noticed movement from Appellant, so the officer approached him, and a struggle between the two ensued. Officer Chesworth testified that Appellant had been trying to empty the contents of the cigar tube into the street.
Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, challenging the stop and the search. At the suppression hearing, the video of the stop was played, and
Officer Chesworth testified about his encounter with Appellant. He stated that he originally placed Appellant in handcuffs for officer safety, partly because he believed Appellant was a "known criminal" for "drug possession and things of that nature." However, Officer Chesworth admitted he had no personal knowledge of Appellant's criminal record and knew only what he had been told by other officers. Officer Chesworth also cited, as reasons for placing Appellant in handcuffs, the time of day, the location of the stop, the fact that he was the only officer present, and that he did not know where his closest backup unit was.
The trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress, and Appellant proceeded to a bench trial where he pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and not guilty to tampering with evidence. The court found him not guilty of tampering but guilty of possession. Appellant pled true to three enhancement paragraphs and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.
COURT OF APPEALS
Appellant appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress, arguing that Officer Chesworth did not have sufficient grounds to "come into contact" with Appellant and that the officer's discovery of the cigar tube was the result of an excessive pat-down search. Id. at *1–2, 2014 Tex.App. Lexis 7780 at *3–4.
The court of appeals first explained that, while Officer Chesworth was free to approach Appellant and his companion initially, he was required to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity prior to handcuffing Appellant and initiating the investigative detention. Id. at *2–3, 2014 Tex.App. Lexis 7780 at *6–7. In examining whether Officer Chesworth had reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant, the court of appeals considered both Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex.Crim.App.2012), and Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex.Crim.App.2010), and concluded that the "totality of the circumstances" in this case provided Officer Chesworth an objective basis for suspecting that criminal activity was afoot. The circumstances that the court of appeals cited to that support the suspicion of criminal activity included the time of day, the area's general narcotic activity, and the officer's belief that the appellant was a "known criminal." Brodnex, 2014 WL 3639133, at *3–4, 2014 Tex.App. Lexis 7780, at *8–9. The court of appeals acknowledged that these three factors do not individually establish reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention, but determined that they may be considered together in analyzing the existence of reasonable suspicion. See Hamal, 390 S.W.3d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martinez, 11-20-00144-CR
...922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated standard of review. Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) ; Martinez , 348 S.W.3d at 922–23. We give almost total deference to the trial court's determination of the hist......
-
Wells v. State, NO. AP-77,070
...de novo mixed questions of law and fact that do not hinge on assessments 611 S.W.3d 406 of credibility or demeanor. Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). "If the ruling of the trial court is correct under any applicable theory of law, we will sustain its ruling......
-
Monjaras v. State, 01-19-00608-CR
...the sole one that conceivably could be damning is the prior arrest, which is not a basis for reasonable suspicion. See Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 437–38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (defendant's reputed status as "known criminal" not enough).Finally, in Crain , the Court noted t......
-
Hawkins v. State, No. 11-15-00106-CR
...922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated standard of review. Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) ; Martinez , 348 S.W.3d at 922–23. We afford almost total deference to the trial court's determination of histor......
-
State v. Martinez, 11-20-00144-CR
...922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated standard of review. Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) ; Martinez , 348 S.W.3d at 922–23. We give almost total deference to the trial court's determination of the hist......
-
Wells v. State, NO. AP-77,070
...de novo mixed questions of law and fact that do not hinge on assessments 611 S.W.3d 406 of credibility or demeanor. Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). "If the ruling of the trial court is correct under any applicable theory of law, we will sustain its ruling......
-
Monjaras v. State, 01-19-00608-CR
...the sole one that conceivably could be damning is the prior arrest, which is not a basis for reasonable suspicion. See Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 437–38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (defendant's reputed status as "known criminal" not enough).Finally, in Crain , the Court noted t......
-
Hawkins v. State, No. 11-15-00106-CR
...922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated standard of review. Brodnex v. State , 485 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) ; Martinez , 348 S.W.3d at 922–23. We afford almost total deference to the trial court's determination of histor......