Flores v. State
| Decision Date | 23 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-03-01379-CR.,14-03-01379-CR. |
| Parties | Douglas Huff FLORES, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Clay S. Conrad, Houston, for appellant.
Lori DeAngelo Fix, Houston, for appellee.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, FROST, and SEYMORE.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of marihuana weighing more than fifty pounds and less than two thousand pounds. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for nine years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. In a single point of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress. We conclude the trial court should have suppressed the marihuana discovered during the warrantless search of appellant's home. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Prior to entering a guilty plea, appellant filed a motion to suppress seeking to have all evidence discovered as a fruit of the warrantless search of his home suppressed pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See U.S. CONST. amend. IV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9; TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.23 (Vernon 2005). After an oral hearing, the trial court denied appellant's motion. Appellant subsequently entered a guilty plea and filed a notice of appeal.1 We review whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to suppress.
A. The Hearing
At the motion-to-suppress hearing, the parties stipulated the search was made without a warrant. The relevant facts from the motion-to-suppress hearing are as follows:
On January 21, 2002, Deputy James A. Savell of the narcotics task force team of the Harris County Sheriff's Department received a "narcotics tip or clue call, [from an] anonymous person [who] called into [the] office, indicating that there was a person at [the address of] 812 English, who was involved in the sale of narcotics, specifically, large amounts of marijuana."2
On January 22, 2002, Savell contacted Sergeants Donald Pierce and Robert Barber, both members of the narcotics enforcement team of the Harris County Sheriff's Department, and informed them of the tip. The three officers met and proceeded to 812 English in three separate marked patrol cars; all three officers were in uniform. Around 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m., the officers arrived at 812 English, a single story residence in a middle class neighborhood. Savell went to the front door and knocked, and a woman answered the door. Savell asked the woman who was in the residence at the time, and she stated her son and grandson were home. She told Savell her son's name was Douglas Flores, appellant. Savell asked to speak to him. She told him appellant was in the garage and went back inside the house to get appellant.
Savell did not wait at the front door for appellant's mother to return and instead walked with Sergeant Pierce around the corner of the house, back towards the garage. Sergeant Barber already had positioned himself where he could see the back of the house. All three officers proceeded toward the back of the house where appellant's mother had indicated appellant was located. They walked down the driveway toward the garage. Savell did not go through any fencing to get to the back area of the house. The officers then saw appellant exit the rear of the residence, and Savell asked appellant his name. Appellant was cooperative and identified himself. Savell described appellant as appearing apprehensive.
Savell told appellant he needed to talk about a narcotics investigation and asked him if he would come to the front yard with the officers. Appellant accompanied the officers to the front of the house. At the front of the house, Savell told appellant he had gotten information appellant was selling large quantities of marihuana from his residence. Appellant denied it. Pierce asked appellant for consent to search his residence. Appellant did not consent.
Pierce then indicated to Savell they needed to secure appellant, "for his safety, as well as ours, and [they] were going to weigh out some options as far as continuing the investigation." According to Savell, appellant was detained to maintain the status quo. It was Savell's experience that people who are suspected of dealing large amounts of narcotics often carry weapons. Consequently, for officer safety, appellant was patted down prior to being placed in the back of the patrol car. As Savell patted appellant down, he "immediately recognized an item similar to being a bag containing a course [sic] leafy substance in [appellant's] front right pants pocket." Savell's experience led him to recognize the item as being consistent with a bag of marihuana. Savell removed the item from appellant's pocket and discovered it was a bag of marihuana.
Appellant was handcuffed and seated in the rear of a patrol car. Savell told appellant he was not under arrest, they were conducting an investigation, and someone would return to talk to him in a minute. Appellant was not given Miranda warnings.3 According to Savell, appellant was handcuffed and placed in the back of the patrol car "[s]o [appellant] could be in a secure place . . . not roaming around the scene or trying to make contact or trying
Granek's appeal and subsequent Board orders
On May 13, 2002, Granek filed a motion for rehearing of the Board's April 24 order. On June 10, a few days after his motion for rehearing expired by operation of law, Granek filed a petition for judicial review of the Board's order in the Travis County district court. He also sought injunctive relief to prevent the Board from enforcing its order during the pendency of his administrative appeal. On June 11, the district court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the Board from enforcing its order "[p]rovided, however, that Plaintiff must not treat female patients without an assistant present." At the TRO hearing, the court evidently expressed concern that the Board's allegations against Granek were stale and that revocation was a disproportionate penalty.
The temporary injunction hearing regarding the April 24 order was subsequently held on June 27, 2002. At the hearing, counsel for the Board recounted the events at the TRO hearing and represented that Board staff "took [the district court's] words to heart" and had requested that the Board reconsider the revocation sanction it had assessed against Granek. However, Board counsel explained that, in his view, the Board was without jurisdiction to modify its order while Granek's suit for judicial review was pending. Board counsel thus requested that the court formally "remand this case back . . . for the limited purpose of them reassessing the penalty, not to remand the whole thing back." While not appearing to oppose this measure, Granek's counsel insisted that injunctive relief was necessary in the interim to prevent the Board from enforcing its still-live order.
The trial court issued a written order dated August 12, 2002, enjoining the Board from enforcing its April 24 order, staying that order, and setting trial on the merits.5 The court further remanded the April 24 order for "further proceedings . . . limited to a reconsideration and possible further action relating to the penalty imposed against . . . Granek" and ordered that, "If reconsideration and further action is taken," the Board was to "file any such changes or decisions with the Court."
On remand, the Board reconsidered its April 24 order during a meeting on August 16, 2002. On the same day, it issued a new "Final Order" that was substantively identical to the Board's April 24 order except that it changed the sanction from immediate license revocation to a three-year probated license suspension, subject to sixteen terms and conditions. The Board's first condition was "Respondent shall not examine or treat patients." Another condition required Granek to provide a copy of the order to all health care facilities where he had or sought privileges. The Board additionally assessed an administrative penalty of $25,000, notwithstanding its undisturbed conclusion of law 19 that "there is insufficient evidence to determine an appropriate administrative penalty against Respondent." Finally, although the Board replaced its original revocation sanction with a three-year probated suspension, it retained in full its explanation for the revocation sanction from the April 24 order.
On September 23, 2002, the Board issued an "Amended Final Order" purporting to correct a "typographical error" in the conditions stated in the August 16 order and ordering that Granek could not treat female patients during his probation period; he was permitted to treat male patients. Granek was served with a copy
of the Amended Final Order under a cover letter advising him of his right to seek rehearing within twenty days of receipt. He did not file a motion for rehearing specifically addressed to this order.
On October 25, 2002, shortly before the temporary injunction was to expire,6 Granek obtained, in his pending suit for judicial review, a new temporary injunction enjoining the Board from enforcing its April 24 order pending trial on the merits.7
On July 18, 2003, the district court heard Granek's administrative appeal on the merits. On September 4, the court rendered judgment reversing and remanding "the action of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners," with apparent reference to the Board's September 23, 2002 Amended Final Order. The district court held that the $25,000 administrative penalty could not be supported by the findings and conclusions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...to the case, the reviewing court must sustain it upon review. Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Flores v. State, 172 S.W.3d 742, 748 (Tex. App.-Houston 14th Dist. 2005, no pet.). This is true even if the trial court states the wrong reason for the correct decisio......
-
Martin v. Tex. Dept. of Protect. and Regul. Srvcs., Civ.A. H04-4160.
...Texas Constitution. (Docket Entry No. 1, ¶ 136). Section 9 claims are coterminous with the Fourth Amendment claims. See, e.g., Flores v. State, 172 S.W.3d 742, 744 (Tex.App. — Houston [14 Dist.] 2005). These claims are addressed above. Because Texas's immunity law parallels federal immunity......
-
Leal v. State
...in determining the validity of a search based on consent is whether the suspect had the option to withdraw his or her consent. Flores v. State, 172 S.W.3d 742, 749 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). An officer's invocation of section 724.012(b)(3)(B) is not alone sufficient to e......
-
Lewis v. State, 01-15-00778-CR
...(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. dism'd) (citing Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) and Flores v. State, 172 S.W.3d 742, 749-50 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.)).B. Analysis In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found......