Hammontree v. State
| Decision Date | 29 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 12-21-00139-CR |
| Parties | JUSTIN ALLEN HAMMONTREE, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No 007-0102-20)
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Justin Allen Hammontree appeals his conviction for possession of between two hundred and four hundred grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Appellant raises five issues on appeal. We modify and affirm as modified.
On October 23, 2019, Appellant was stopped for the traffic offense of driving with an expired registration. The officer requested to search Appellant's vehicle, and Appellant repeatedly equivocated on whether he would consent. Ultimately, the officer requested a K-9 Unit. When the K-9 Unit arrived, the K-9 officer's drug dog alerted on Appellant's vehicle. Officers searched the vehicle and discovered, among other things, nearly 350 grams of methamphetamine.
Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between two hundred and four hundred grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and pleaded "not guilty." The indictment further alleged that Appellant previously had been convicted of a felony. Appellant later filed a motion to suppress, in which he argued that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, the officer caused the detention to last longer than necessary to accomplish the purpose of the stop, and, as a result, the contraband discovered during the ensuing search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The trial court overruled Appellant's motion.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial, following which the jury found Appellant "guilty" as charged. The matter proceeded to a trial on punishment, and the jury ultimately assessed Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his motion to suppress. Specifically, he contends that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, the officer caused the detention to last longer than necessary to accomplish the purpose of the stop, and, as a result, the contraband discovered during the ensuing search of his vehicle should be suppressed.
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard. Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Carmouche v State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 48 (Tex Crim. App. 2010); Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We give almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts especially if those determinations turn on witness credibility or demeanor and review de novo the trial court's application of the law to facts not based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). At a suppression hearing, a trial court is the exclusive trier of fact and judge of the witnesses' credibility. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Accordingly, a trial court may choose to believe or to disbelieve all or any part of a witness's testimony. State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). However, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. State v. Kurtz, 152 S.W.3d 72, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Thus, a failure by a trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id.
A routine traffic stop closely resembles an investigative detention. Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd); see also United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004). Because an investigative detention is a seizure that implicates the United States and Texas Constitutions, the traffic stop must be reasonable. U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV; TEX. CONST. ART. I, § 9; Johnson v. State, 365 S.W.3d 484, 488 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2012, no pet.). When evaluating the reasonableness of an investigative detention, we conduct the inquiry set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio to determine whether (1) the officer's action was justified at its inception; and (2) it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that initially justified the interference. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Under the first part of the inquiry, an officer's reasonable suspicion justifies an investigative detention. Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 242-43. Specifically, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is occurring or has occurred. Id. at 244. An officer has "reasonable suspicion to detain a person if he has specific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him reasonably to conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity." State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This is an objective standard. Id. Thus, when an officer has a reasonable basis for suspecting that a person has committed an offense, the officer may legally initiate an investigative stop. See Powell, 5 S.W.3d at 376 (citing Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375, 377-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)).
Under the second part of the inquiry, the "investigative stop can last no longer than necessary to effect the purpose of the stop." Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The issue is "'whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.'" Id. at 64 (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685-86, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985)). With regard to a traffic stop, an officer can conduct a license and warrants check. Id. at 63; see also Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354-55, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). An officer can check for outstanding warrants against the driver and can conduct other tasks that have the objective of "ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly." Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355, 135 S.Ct. at 1615. An officer also may ask the driver to exit the vehicle. See Strauss v. State, 121 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. ref'd).
An investigative stop that continues longer than necessary to complete the purpose of the stop is permitted if additional facts provide a reasonable suspicion of another crime or possible crime. Green v. State, 256 S.W.3d 456, 462 (Tex. App.-Waco 2008, no pet.). If a valid traffic stop evolves into an investigative detention for a drug related offense so that a canine sniff can take place, reasonable suspicion is necessary to prolong the detention. Id.; see also Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 349, 135 S.Ct. at 1614 (). We examine the totality of the circumstances to determine the reasonableness of a temporary detention. Curtis v. State, 238 S.W.3d 376, 380-81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
An officer may request consent to search a vehicle, even after the purpose of the traffic stop has been accomplished, as long as the request is reasonable under the circumstances and the officer has not conveyed a message that compliance with the officer's request is required. Haas v. State, 172 S.W.3d 42, 52 (Tex. App.-Waco 2005, pet. ref'd); Leach v. State, 35 S.W.3d 232, 235-36 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.); Simpson v. State, 29 S.W.3d 324, 328 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). But if consent is refused, the officer must have reasonable suspicion to continue to detain the person stopped. Haas, 172 S.W.3d at 52.
While reasonable suspicion allows an officer to temporarily detain someone, the officer must act to confirm or dispel his suspicions quickly. See Matthews v. State, 431 S.W.3d 596, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). One method of confirming or dispelling reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a drug-related offense is to have a trained K-9 unit perform an "open air" search of the vehicle. Id. If the drug dog alerts, the presence of drugs is confirmed, and the officer may conduct a warrantless search. See id. at 603-04. If the drug dog does not alert, generally, the temporary detention ceases. Id. at 604.
The Evidence[1] In the instant case, the trial court heard testimony from Smith County Sheriff's Deputy David Hickey pertaining to the events relevant to Appellant's motion. The State also admitted into evidence a video taken of the encounter by Hickey's body camera. During his testimony, Hickey recounted that on October 15, 2020, he assisted Whitehouse Police Department Officer Michael Osorio in a traffic stop for Appellant's driving with an expired registration, wherein Appellant also was found to be in possession of a firearm and a small amount of marijuana.
Hickey testified that on the night of October 23, 2019, he observed a vehicle traveling westbound on Loop 49 in Tyler, Texas. Hickey "ran the plates" and learned that the vehicle registration was expired. As a result, Hickey initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial