Morales v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-15-00125-CR,06-15-00125-CR |
| Parties | CONSTANTINO RIOS MORALES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
CONSTANTINO RIOS MORALES, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 06-15-00125-CR
Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Date Submitted: November 5, 2015
January 29, 2016
On Appeal from the 249th District Court Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. F48830
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
Page 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After stopping a pickup truck driven by Constantino Rios Morales for several traffic violations and determining that Morales had various warrants outstanding for his arrest, Cleburne1 Police Officer Eric Alexander arrested Morales and, following that arrest, searched the truck with Patrol Lieutenant Shane Wickson. Among the items found in the truck during the search were three tablet computers—one of which was determined to have been stolen—thirty-nine grams of methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and $483.00 in cash.
As a result, a Johnson County jury found Morales guilty of possessing over four, but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.2 Morales was sentenced to forty-five years' imprisonment and fined $10,000.00.
On appeal, Morales argues various grounds related to his effort to suppress certain items of evidence, asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction, and claims he was wrongfully denied his right to due process, a fair trial, and a mistrial all springing from the trial court's comments, not in the jury's presence, concerning proof of the chain of custody.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court, because (1) Morales' issues regarding his arrest and the legality of the search were not preserved; (2) Morales' truck spoliation issue, though preserved, is inadequately briefed; (3) the search of the iPad did not violate Morales' Fourth
Page 3
Amendment rights; (4) legally sufficient evidence supports the finding that Morales possessed the drugs with intent to deliver; and (5) Morales did not preserve any complaint related to the trial court's comments regarding proof of the chain of custody.
(1) Morales' Issues Regarding His Arrest and the Legality of the Search Were Not Preserved
Morales asserts that, at the suppression hearing, no officer testified that he was under arrest or how the traffic stop resulted in his arrest, that the inventory search was conducted in accordance with Cleburne Police Department policies and procedures, or that they had probable cause to search the pickup. Therefore, he argues, because the State failed to show that the search was legal, the trial court erred in entering findings of fact in support of the legality of the search and in failing to suppress the evidence from the search. The State argues that Morales failed to preserve any error related to the legality of the search of the vehicle.
A motion to suppress evidence is a specialized objection to the admissibility of evidence. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 952 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). As such, a motion to suppress is required to meet the requirements of an objection. Carroll v. State, 911 S.W.2d 210, 218 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no pet.); Mayfield v. State, 800 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, no pet.). To preserve an issue involving the admission of evidence for appellate review, the objection is required to inform the trial court why, or on what basis, the evidence should be excluded. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Campell, J., concurring)).3 In order to preserve a
Page 4
complaint on appeal, "all a party has to do ... is to let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it." Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). However, the objection must be sufficiently clear so that the trial court has an opportunity to address or correct the purported deficiency. Ford, 305 S.W.3d at 533. For this reason, "shotgun objections" citing many grounds for the objection without argument will not preserve points on appeal based on authority that is just mentioned in the trial court without argument. Johnson v. State, 263 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. dism'd); Webb v. State, 899 S.W.2d 814, 818 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, pet. ref'd). A form motion to suppress asserting multiple grounds that are not subsequently asserted with argument at the suppression hearing will not preserve those grounds on appeal. See Johnson, 263 S.W.3d at 289-90. Also, an issue on appeal that does not comport with the objection made at trial presents nothing for appellate review. Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd).
In the trial court, Morales filed a generic motion to suppress alleging,
2. The actions of the Cleburne Police Department violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the Defendant under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and Article 38.23 of the Texas Rules [sic] of Criminal Procedure.
. . . .
4. Any tangible evidence seized in connection with [the pickup] was seized without probable cause or other lawful authority in violation of the rights of . . . Morales pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10 and 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
Page 5
The motion did not contain any allegation of fact or argument supporting these alleged violations.
At the hearing on Morales' motion to suppress, before any testimony was taken, trial counsel for Morales stated that his motion to suppress covered only two issues, spoliation of evidence resulting from the State's release of the pickup from its custody, and a possible statement or gesture made by Morales during the search.4 After testimony was taken, Morales also asserted the illegality of the search of one of the tablet computers, an iPad Mini (hereinafter, "the iPad"). At no time during the hearing did Morales argue that he was not under arrest at the time of the search or that there was not probable cause for the search. Further, Morales never contested the validity of the inventory search and never argued that the inventory search was not properly conducted.5 Therefore, his complaints regarding his arrest and the legality of the search are not preserved for our review.
(2) Morales' Truck Spoliation Issue, Though Preserved, Is Inadequately Briefed
Morales also argues that the State failed to properly preserve the pickup itself as a source of evidence, thereby preventing him from reviewing the pickup for exculpatory evidence and violating his rights under the due course of law provision of the Texas Constitution.6 The State
Page 6
responds that Morales failed to show that the State's actions in releasing the pickup violated his right to due process.
Although this issue was preserved for appellate review, the inadequate brief on this issue presents nothing for our review. Morales' brief asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress since the State failed to preserve the pickup, thereby preventing him from reviewing it for exculpatory evidence. Morales does not point us to any testimony in the record identifying any exculpatory evidence. Rather, he merely refers to possible "finger prints" as an example, without any argument or citing any authority holding that the presence or absence of finger prints in or on the pickup would in any way tend to exculpate him from the charged offense. "To preserve error on appeal an appellant's 'brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.'" Johnson v. State, 263 S.W.3d 405, 416 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref'd) (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g)). Further, "[w]here the 'appellant points us to nothing in the record, makes no argument, and cites no authority to support [ ]his proposition,' '[w]e will not make [the] appellant's arguments for him, and [will] hold the allegation to be inadequately briefed.'" Id. (quoting Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 23 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). When an issue is inadequately briefed, it "'presents nothing
Page 7
for review.'" Id. (quoting Saldano v. State, 232 S.W.3d 77, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). Since this issue is inadequately briefed, Morales has presented nothing for our review.7
(3) The Search of the iPad Did Not Violate Morales' Fourth Amendment Rights
Morales asserts also that the officers accessed and searched the iPad without a search warrant in violation of United States Supreme Court precedent. See Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). The State argues that, since the iPad is stolen property, Morales lacks standing to challenge the legality of its search.
At the suppression hearing, Alexander and Wickson both testified that the search of the pickup revealed the presence of three tablet computers, one of which was the iPad, which had inside of it a name and telephone number not belonging to Morales. Alexander testified that he and Wickson contacted the owner, who identified the iPad and professed not knowing Morales or the whereabouts of this iPad. Wickson also testified that they confirmed that the iPad was stolen.
Page 8
On cross-examination, Wickson described how he activated the iPad, unlocked it, pressed the "Settings" icon, then pressed another icon to obtain the name and telephone number of the purported owner. He also acknowledged that he did not have a search warrant to search the iPad. Morales argued at trial, and in his brief in this Court, only that accessing the owner information on the iPad without a search warrant was an illegal search, citing Ri...
To continue reading
Request your trial