NO. 07-10-0470-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B JUNE 15, 2011

__________________________ SAM GARZA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________ FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT CO URT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2008-421,831; HONORABLE QUAY PARKER, PRESIDING

__________________________ Memorandum Opinion

__________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Sam Garza appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Two issues are as serted on appeal. The first involves the effectiveness of his trial counsel, while t he second encompasses the legitimacy of the traffic stop that initiated the detention during which the drugs were acquired. We affirm the judgment.2 Issue Two -- Traffic Stop We address the last issue first. Thr ough it, appellant contends that the officer who detained him lacked probable cause to ma ke the stop. We overrule the issue because, under the circumstan ces before us, the exist ence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support t he detention is irrelevant. Ap pellant was the subject of one or more outstanding arrest warrants at t he time of the stop and eventual arrest, according to the record. The existence of those warrants purged the detention of whatever taint that may have existed. Fletcher v. State, 90 S.W.3d 419, 420 (Tex. App. –Amarillo 2002, no pet.). Issue One -- Effectiveness of Counsel Appellant contends that hi s trial attorney was ineffective because he did not challenge the inventor y search of the car. The la tter was subject to challenge, according to appellant, since it was not undertaken in conform ance with departmental policy. We overrule the issue. The stop in question occurred at the behes t of another officer who had just been a witness to a controlled drug bu y via appellant and the office r’s confidential informant. Immediately after completion of the buy, the informant informed the officer that appellant had additional drugs in his vehicle (the latt er being the place in which the drug sale happened). This information was imparted to the officer who eventually detained appellant. Though we do not necessarily decide the issue, we nevertheless acknowledge that these circumstances c ould have led one to believe that probable cause existed to not only stop and arrest appell ant for drug trafficking but also to search the vehicle for the drugs being sold. See Hereford v. State, 302 S.W.3d 903, 905 (Tex.3 App.–Amarillo 2009), aff’d, No. PD-0144-10, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. L EXIS 730 (Tex. Crim. App. April 6, 2011) ( holding that a warrant is not needed to effectuate an arrest when the crime occurred in the presence of an officer); Campbell v. State, 325 S.W.3d 223, 231 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2010, no pet.) (holding that the existence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not depe ndent solely upon the information known to the detaining officer but rather the cumulative knowledge of those officers involved); Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Tex. App.–Fort Wo rth 2010, pet. ref’d) (holding that an officer need not acquire a search warrant to search fo r contraband in a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that drugs are present in that vehicle); see e.g., Garcia v. State, 327 S.W.3d 243, 248-49 (Tex. App.–San An tonio 2010, no pet.) (finding probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle when a police officer witnessed a known credible informant make arrangements fo r delivery of drugs at his residence in fifteen minutes, when the officers arrived they observed the person the informant had called in a vehicle located at the residence, and the vehicle attempted to drive away). Given this, trial counsel may have conclu ded that it would serve little purpose to question whether any “inventory search” under taken by the arresting officers was legitimate. See Kent v. State, 982 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d, untimely filed) (holdi ng that an attorney need not asse rt a meritless point to be effective); see also Palacios v. State, 319 S.W.3d 68, 75 (Tex. A pp.–San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d) (finding counsel not ineffective in failing to challenge an inventory search because there was probable cause to search the vehicle). And, since the decision to do so or not could fall within the realm of r easonable trial strategy, and nothing of record discloses what strategies, if any, motivat ed trial counsel to do what he did, appellant4 failed to prove that his attor ney rendered ineffective assistance. 1 Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requi ring us to presume that counsel had legitimate strategies for his actions); Ex parte Niswanger, 335 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (stating that the foregoing pr esumption cannot gener ally be overcome absent evidence in the record of the atto rney’s reasons for his actions). The judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

1 Trial counsel did include within his motion to suppress the contention t hat discovery of the contraband was not pursuant to a legitimate invent ory search. However, he apparently opted not to pursue that ground at the hearing.