Martinez v. State

• Decision Date: 23 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 04-09-00205-CR,No. 04-09-00204-CR,04-09-00204-CR,04-09-00205-CR
• Citation: Martinez v. State, No. 04-09-00204-CR, No. 04-09-00205-CR (Tex. App. Nov 23, 2011)
• Parties: John David MARTINEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

John David MARTINEZ, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee

No. 04-09-00204-CR

No. 04-09-00205-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-570-CR

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

REVERSED AND REMANDED

After the trial court denied John David Martinez's motion to suppress, he pled guilty to the offenses of driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. On appeal, this court affirmed, holding the trial court did not err in denying Martinez's motion to suppress. Martinez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 24, 29 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009), reversed, Nos. PD-1238-10 & PD-1239-10, 2011 WL 2555712 (Tex. Crim. App. June 29, 2011). On discretionary review, the Court of Criminal Appeals held the investigatory detention of Martinez was not supported byreasonable suspicion. Martinez, 2011 WL 2555712, at *4. The court reversed our judgments and remanded the causes to this court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.

Because there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the original stop, the trial court should have granted Martinez's motion to suppress and ruled that any evidence resulting from the stop is inadmissible at trial. See Martinez, 2011 WL 255712 at *4; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.23 (West 2005). To decide if the error requires reversal, we must identify the "fruits" of the illegal detention and search and determine whether the fruits have "somehow been used" by the State. See Gonzales v. State, 966 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Martinez sought to suppress the marijuana found on his person after his arrest, his oral and written statements, evidence of his actions at the time of the stop and thereafter, the results of any breath test, and evidence of his refusal to take any breath test. The record reflects the following evidence was obtained after the stop: 1) Martinez performed and failed field sobriety tests; 2) Martinez provided a breath sample measured by a portable breath test device, which indicated his alcohol concentration was "0.151"; 3) Martinez refused to submit another breath sample for the intoxilyzer; and 4) marijuana was found in a white envelope removed from his person at the police department. This evidence was all included in the arresting officer's report, which the State introduced in support of Martinez's pleas of guilty. The State thus clearly used the fruits of the unlawful detention in obtaining the judgments of guilt.

In its brief on original submission to this court, the State argued the evidence was admissible even if the arresting officer's actions violated the Fourth Amendment because Martinez failed to demonstrate the officer engaged in "culpable misconduct or egregious behavior." The State contends that absent such showing, the exclusionary rule is not "triggered." We interpret the State's argument to suggest that a "good-faith" exception should apply underthe facts of this case. Texas has a statutory "good-faith" exception to its exclusionary rule....