Collins v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-17-00922-CR,NO. 01-17-00920-CR,NO. 01-17-00921-CR,01-17-00920-CR,01-17-00921-CR,01-17-00922-CR |
| Parties | JAMES DOYLE COLLINS, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 76666-CR, 76667-CR, 76668-CR
A jury found appellant, James Doyle Collins, Jr., guilty of three separate offenses of possession of child pornography1 and assessed his punishment at confinement for five years and a fine of $10,000, confinement for five years and a fine of $10,000, and confinement for ten years and a fine of $10,000, to run concurrently. It then recommended that his ten-year prison sentence be suspended and he be placed on community supervision. The trial court, in accordance with the jury's recommendation, suspended appellant's ten-year prison sentence and placed him on community supervision for a period of ten years. In two issues, appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his convictions and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement.
We affirm.
Pearland Police Department ("PPD") Detective C. Arnold, a certified cyber-crimes investigator with the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force ("ICACTF"), testified that he, through the use of computers in his office, monitors certain file-sharing networks that "exist on the internet" in order toinvestigate the "distribution and receipt of child pornography."2 Arnold receives "a notification when someone [using a file-sharing network] uploads or downloads a [known] child pornograph[y]" image or video, and upon receiving a notification, he views the image or video to determine whether it constitutes child pornography.3 Arnold then obtains the location of the person using the file-sharing network based on the IP address assigned to that person.
In regard to appellant, Detective Arnold testified that on March 6, 2015, his computer "made a direct connection and download [of a known child-pornography video] from an IP address in Pearland, [Texas]." When Arnold viewed the video, he determined that it constituted child pornography. At the time, Arnold did not know the identity of appellant, but based on the IP address associated with the downloaded-child-pornography video, he obtained appellant's physical address. Arnold drove to appellant's residence in Pearland, Brazoria County, Texas, and determined that he had a secure internet connection.4 Arnold then obtained a search warrant for appellant's residence.5
On May 12, 2015, Detective Arnold, along with Homeland Security Special Agents D. Lewis and L. Erickson, PPD Detectives D. Vlasek and J. Cox, and two uniformed PPD patrol officers, served a search warrant on appellant at his residence. Upon arriving at appellant's home, Arnold, along with the other law enforcement officers, "clear[ed] the house" and identified the individuals that were present.Arnold and Lewis then interviewed appellant, while Vlasek and Cox "examine[d] and process[ed] all of the electronic[] [devices]" found in appellant's home.6
Detective Arnold noted that when he and Agent Lewis spoke to appellant, he was not in custody, was free to leave, and was not placed in handcuffs or in any type of restraints. Despite the fact that appellant was not in custody, Arnold informed him of his legal rights, and appellant waived them, agreeing to speak. Arnold did not coerce appellant, threaten him, or make any promises to him. And he recorded the interview with appellant.7
During his interview, which lasted approximately forty-five minutes, appellant stated that he was the only person living in his home and he had downloaded and used, on his electronic devices, certain file-sharing networks,8including "ARES,"9 "BearShare and Bear,"10 and "Limewire."11 When Arnold questioned appellant about certain terms that appellant may have used while searching the file-sharing networks, including the search terms "Vicky"12 and "PTHC,"13 appellant admitted that he had in fact viewed child pornography "out ofcuriosity" and he had searched for "Vicky," "PTHC," and "Baby J"14 when looking for pornography on file-sharing networks. (Internal quotations omitted.) When appellant had searched for "Vicky" on a file-sharing network, "[a] whole bunch of porn showed up." (Internal quotations omitted.) And when Arnold asked appellant if he had ever searched for a particular age while looking for pornography, appellant stated that he had searched for "12." (Internal quotations omitted). According to Arnold, appellant had downloaded twenty-five child-pornography images and videos over a four-month period from December 2014 until March 2015. Appellant stated that he would download a child-pornography image or video "to see if the children were real" and this would then "lead [him] to the next one." (Internal quotations omitted.) In other words, appellant admitted that he had downloaded, viewed, and continued to search for child pornography.
Appellant also stated in his interview that he had deleted the child pornography that he had found. And he had looked for "adult porn" or pornography involving "adult women." (Internal quotations omitted.) Further, when he had"tr[ied] to download movies," appellant stated that "suddenly porn would [just] come up." (Internal quotations omitted.) Appellant also stated that he had not realized that child pornography had actually been downloaded onto his computer. However, appellant admitted to looking at child pornography from 2011-2014. And at the end of his interview, he affirmed that he had "looked at child porn[ography]," explaining that he was "done looking at it" because he was "no longer curious." (Internal quotations omitted.)
Detective Arnold further testified that law enforcement officers found child pornography on more than one electronic device in appellant's home. In fact, they found over 900 child-pornography images and videos on appellant's electronic devices and discovered that appellant had been viewing and downloading child pornography over "a four-year period." Arnold opined that the large volume of child pornography found on appellant's electronic devices indicated that he had not been accidentally downloading child pornography. One electronic device contained 727 child-pornography images, a second device contained sixteen child-pornography images, and a third device contained 168 child-pornography images.
Detective Arnold explained that appellant had also been "distribut[ing] child pornography," noting that he had shared a child-pornography video with Arnold's computer. Specifically, on March 6, 2015, appellant had a child-pornography video in his "unique share folder" on the "ARES" file-sharing network, Arnold's computer"connected to [appellant's] share folder[,]" and Arnold "got the video from [appellant]." Arnold did concede that he did not know who specifically was using appellant's computer at the time that the child-pornography video was shared. However, appellant had told Arnold that he lived by himself and "[h]e was the one searching and . . . looking at the[] [child-pornography] videos."
Detective Cox, a computer forensic analyst with the ICACTF, testified that on May 12, 2015, he, along with other law enforcement officers, served a search warrant on appellant at his residence. Cox, as a computer forensic analyst, was responsible, along with Detective Vlasek, for "preview[ing]" or "[t]riag[ing]" any electronic devices found in appellant's home, including "hard drives, laptops, flash drives, [and] camera cards," to determine whether they contained "any evidence of child pornography." "[E]vidence of child pornography" could include file-sharing networks, "child[-]pornography files themselves," and "link files which would show any . . . files that [had been recently] opened on" a particular electronic device.
In regard to the electronic devices found in appellant's home, Detective Cox noted that, while "preview[ing]" or "[t]riag[ing]," he did not find any actual child-pornography files on appellant's devices, but he found "link files" with "titles that were consistent with child[-]pornography files."15 And Cox found file-sharingnetworks on multiple electronic devices in appellant's home. Although Cox did not find actual child-pornography files while "[t]riag[ing]" appellant's electronic devices, he "found evidence that child porn[ography] had been on some of the devices that [he was] look[ing] at." Cox noted that law enforcement officers seized several electronic devices from appellant's home so that "full forensic[] [analysis could be] done . . . at a later date by a forensic officer."
Detective Vlasek, a former computer forensic analyst with the ICACTF, testified that on May 12, 2015, he, along with other law enforcement officers, served a search warrant on appellant at his residence. Vlasek and Detective Cox were responsible for "preview[ing]" or "triag[ing]" the contents of the electronic devices found in appellant's home. And while "preview[ing]" or "triag[ing]" the devices, he found "link files" and "quite a few" of "peer-to-peer [file-sharing] programs." Vlasek explained that "link files" and "linked to" "[a]nything that [a] user [of an electronic device] has viewed, opened, [or] executed," and based on the titles of the "link files" found on appellant's electronic devices, Vlasek determined that they related to child pornography. Vlasek opined that the file-sharing networks and "link files" "indicat[ed] that child pornography exist[ed]" on appellant's electronicdevices. And law enforcement officers seized electronic devices from appellant's home that day.
Following the seizure of appellant's electronic devices, Detective Vlasek completed a forensic analysis and found downloaded child pornography on three electronic devices: (1) a "gray desktop computer," (2) a "Dell desktop" computer, and (3) a "PNY flash drive." In total, he found "[r]...
To continue reading
Request your trial