Williams v. State, No. 01-08-00936-CR (Tex. App. 6/3/2010)
| Decision Date | 03 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-08-00936-CR.,01-08-00936-CR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CLINTON WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
On Appeal from the County Court Colorado County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 20765.
Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, HANKS, and BLAND.
DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX.R.APP. P. 47.2(b)
Following a bench trial, a ppellant, Clinton Williams, was convicted of possession of marijuana in an amount of two ounces or less. See Act of May 29, 1994, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 2.02, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3705, 3709 (amended 2009) .1 The court assessed punishment at 180 days in jail, suspended the sentence, placed appellant on community supervision for two years, and imposed a $500 fine. On appeal, appellant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress, and (2) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
On March 25, 2008 at approximately 11:00 p.m., appellant was stopped by Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS") Trooper Josh West for traveling 19 miles over the speed limit. West initiated the stop as appellant passed him on I-10 traveling 84 miles per hour. After West activated his lights and began pursuit in his marked patrol car, appellant continued driving in the left lane for approximately 30 to 40 seconds before pulling over to the shoulder. West was in close proximity to appellant's vehicle during the pursuit and traffic was light, so he found it strange that appellant did not pull over sooner. West testified that he was certain appellant saw the marked patrol car. Because appellant took an unusually long time to pull over, West suspected that appellant might be trying to hide something in the vehicle.
Once stopped, West approached the vehicle. The back driver's side window of appellant's vehicle was covered with tape and cardboard, obstructing West's view inside. To make contact with appellant, West had to tap on the window to alert appellant to roll down the passenger side window. Appellant told West that he was traveling from Austin to Houston but inadvertently went through San Antonio because he was talking on his cell phone. West commented that San Antonio was "a little bit out of the way," and appellant responded that he "didn't even realize it until [he] was in San Antonio." West testified that I-10 was a main corridor for drugs, so appellant's route made him suspicious that appellant was possibly transporting drugs.
Trooper West determined that appellant's registration and inspection had both expired in December 2007. While speaking with the officer, appellant acted nervous and commented under his breath that "he was screwed." West testified that "[t]here was a faint smell of smoke, possibly marijuana coming from the vehicle." Appellant told the officer that he had been "smok[ing] menthol [cigarettes]."
Because of appellant's slow response to pull over, suspicious route, comment that "he was screwed," abnormal nervousness and shaking, and the smell of marijuana, Trooper West suspected appellant was involved in criminal activity. A check of appellant's criminal history revealed a prior arrest for possession of marijuana in 2001, as well as a prior arrest in Utah. West attempted to ask appellant if he had ever been arrested, but without letting the officer finish the question, appellant quickly answered, "No." West specifically asked appellant if he had ever been arrested for drugs or weapons, to which he responded, "no." West testified that appellant mentioned something about Utah but denied having a prior drug arrest. When asked, appellant also denied having any illegal drugs or weapons in his vehicle.
Because of his prior suspicions and appellant's misrepresentation of his criminal history, Trooper West asked for appellant's consent to search the vehicle. West testified that appellant responded, "Okay, but you probably don't want to due to the glass and the pornography in the vehicle."
Believing that appellant had consented to the search of his vehicle, West returned to his patrol car to inform dispatch that he planned to search the vehicle. As West approached the vehicle to begin the search, appellant became angry, asking the officer what he was doing. When West told him that he was going to search the vehicle, appellant said, "No, you're not." West explained to appellant that he had already consented to the search, but appellant denied ever giving consent. Appellant became very angry and belligerent, yelling that the officer was "not getting in the vehicle." Surprised by appellant's reaction, West tried to calm appellant by explaining that he thought he had given consent. West did not proceed with the search, but because of appellant's belligerent behavior, West detained and handcuffed appellant for his safety. When asked why he was refusing consent, appellant "stated that he had broken glass in the vehicle and he did not want [West] to pull his stuff out" and "scatter stuff everywhere." Additionally, appellant said he had "porn" in his vehicle that he "d[id]n't want pulled out."
To dispel his suspicions of criminal activity, Trooper West decided to call a canine unit to the scene. The DPS canine unit was not available, so he called a canine unit from a neighboring police department to the scene. Officer John Williams with the Eagle Lake canine unit arrived approximately 45 minutes later. Officer Williams noticed the smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle. A canine sniff open-air search was conducted around appellant's vehicle by a certified drug detection dog and Officer Williams. The dog alerted to the driver's side window and the passenger side door seam. After the dog's alert, Trooper West and Officer Williams searched the vehicle and found a baggie containing marijuana and a small tinfoil "hitter pipe" in the center console. West and Williams testified that, based on their training and experience, the substance in the baggie was marijuana. Also, based on his training and experience, Trooper West opined that it was a usable quantity of marijuana.
As captured in the video taken from West's dashboard video camera, appellant, after receiving his statutory warnings, explained that he "hung out with a girl [he] d[oes]n't usually hang out with and she gave [him] some weed." He admitted that he smoked the marijuana earlier that day before he had left Austin. He explained that he had planned to "throw it out the window an hour ago" and commented, "I should have thrown it out the window when I saw your lights." Appellant apologized to Trooper West for his attitude, and explained, Appellant also admitted that he had lied when he told West that he had pornography in the vehicle. Appellant stated, "That was just a cover-up for the weed."
The State offered, and the court admitted, the baggie containing the marijuana and the "hitter pipe" that was recovered from appellant's vehicle into evidence as State's Exhibits 1 and 1A. Appellant did not call any witnesses. However, appellant offered West's dashboard camera videotape into evidence and played it in its entirety for the court.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Trooper West and Officer Williams found the contraband as a result of an unlawful detention unsupported by reasonable suspicion. While he concedes that West had sufficient cause to initiate a traffic stop for speeding, appellant argues that his continued detention was unreasonable and a "fishing expedition" for unrelated criminal activity.
We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We view the evidence adduced in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. "We give almost total deference to a trial court's express or implied determination of historical facts and review de novo the court's application of the law of search and seizure to those facts." Id.
The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress but did not make explicit findings of fact or conclusions of law. "Under these circumstances, we imply the necessary fact findings that would support the trial court's ruling if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, supports these implied fact findings." Weaver v. State, 265 S.W.3d 523, 533 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. ref'd) (citing State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). We will sustain the trial court's ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case, even if the trial court gave the wrong reason for its ruling. State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
When a traffic violation is committed within an officer's view, the officer may lawfully stop and detain the person for the traffic violation. Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A traffic stop is a detention and must be reasonable under the United States and Texas Constitutions.2 Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc); Magana v. State, 177 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.). "Reasonableness is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances." Spight v. State, 76 S.W.3d 761, 765 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S. Ct. 417 (1996)). To be reasonable, a traffic stop must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983); Davis, 947...
To continue reading
Request your trial