Walker v. State

• Citation: 494 S.W.3d 905
• Decision Date: 04 August 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 14-15-00685-CR,14-15-00685-CR
• Parties: Jamon Derrell Walker, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

494 S.W.3d 905

Jamon Derrell Walker, Appellant

v.The State of Texas, Appellee

NO. 14-15-00685-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed August 4, 2016

Rehearing Overruled September 8, 2016

Discretionary Review Refused November 9, 2016

Ted Wood, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Clinton Morgan, Houston, TX, for State.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.

OPINION

Kem Thompson Frost

, Chief Justice

Appellant Jamon Derrell Walker challenges his conviction for capital murder, arguing in a single issue that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence found on appellant's cell phone pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant's supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause. Concluding the affidavit was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause and that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

At about 2:00 a.m. on July 18, 2013, officers from the Houston Police Department responded to a 911 call and found the complainant, Gerald Williams, shot to death in a church parking lot. A witness who lived next door to the church told police that after he had heard a gunshot, he looked out from his porch and saw someone put what looked like a rifle into the backseat of a dark-colored car and drive away. Police determined the car seen leaving the scene was the complainant's car, and the complainant's cell phone was missing from his cell phone belt clip. When police located the complainant's car the next day and initiated a traffic stop, appellant was driving the car and had the complainant's cell phone in his hand. Police also found a cell phone belonging to appellant in the car.

Police took appellant to the station for questioning. In a recorded statement, appellant admitted to being involved in the shooting. Officer Jesus Sosa obtained a search warrant to examine the contents of appellant's cell phone. The complainant's cell phone number was saved as a contact in appellant's phone. The complainant and appellant had exchanged multiple calls and text messages during the time period leading up to the shooting. Texts between appellant and the complainant on the night of the shooting indicated that the two men were planning to meet and that appellant was bringing a gun. Appellant's text message to the complainant read, “I got the heat nd everything lets doit nd move on homie! [sic]” Appellant's text messages to others indicated that appellant not only had a shotgun but also that he intended to obtain a car and expected to get money the night of the shooting. Police also recovered a shotgun from appellant's residence. The recovered weapon was consistent with the shotgun shell found at the scene where the complainant's dead body was discovered.

Charged with capital murder, appellant pleaded “not guilty.” At a bench trial, appellant moved to suppress the evidence from his cell phone on the grounds that the search warrant's supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause. The trial court denied appellant's motion, finding that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause. The trial court admitted the text and call information from appellant's cell phone into evidence.

The trial court found appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life confinement without parole. Appellant now appeals his conviction, challenging the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

While we typically review a trial judge's motion-to-suppress ruling under a bifurcated standard, a trial court's determination whether probable cause exists to support a search warrant's issuance is restricted solely to the affidavit's four corners. Bonds v. State , 403 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)

. When reviewing a magistrate's decision to issue a warrant, appellate courts as well as trial courts apply a highly deferential standard of review because of the constitutional preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant over warrantless searches. State v. McLain , 337 S.W.3d 268, 271–72 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). If the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search warrant probably would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, we will uphold the magistrate's probable-cause determination. Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ; Bonds , 403 S.W.3d at 873. The magistrate may interpret the affidavit in a non-technical, common-sense manner, drawing reasonable inferences solely from the facts and circumstances contained within the affidavit's four corners. Bonds , 403 S.W.3d at 873. We are not to invalidate a warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than a common-sense, manner.

Id.

When in doubt, we are to defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made. Id.

APPLICABLE LAW

A search warrant may not legally issue unless it is based on probable cause. U.S. CONST. amend. IV

; Tex. Const. art. I § 9 ; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.06 (West 2005). Under Texas law, “[n]o search warrant shall issue ... unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the issuing magistrate that probable cause does in fact exist for its issuance” and “[a] sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause” is filed with the search-warrant request. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18.01(b) (West Supp. 2015). Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability or substantial chance that evidence of a crime will be found at the specified location. Bonds , 403 S.W.3d at 872–73. Probable cause is a flexible and non-demanding standard. Id. at 873.

When a trial court examines whether there is probable cause to support a search warrant, the trial court is restricted to the four corners of the affidavit. McLain , 337 S.W.3d at 271

. For an evidentiary search warrant, the sworn affidavit must set forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause that (1) a specific offense has been committed, (2) the specifically described property or items that are to be the subject of the search or seizure constitute evidence of that offense or evidence that a particular person committed that offense, and (3) the property or items constituting evidence to be searched for or seized are located at or on the particular person, place, or thing to be searched. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18.01(c), 18.02(a)(10) (West Supp. 2015).¹

ANALYSIS

Appellant alleges that Officer Sosa's affidavit did not provide a sufficient basis to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause. Specifically, appellant argues the affidavit did not establish the second requirement—that the specifically described property or items made the subject of the proposed search or seizure constitute evidence of the offense or evidence that a particular person committed the offense. S...