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 COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2008-421,831; HONORABLE QUAY PARKER, PRESIDING 

__________________________ 

Memorandum Opinion 

__________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

 Sam Garza appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled substance with 

intent to deliver. Two issues are asserted on appeal. The first involves the 

effectiveness of his trial counsel, while the 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. Through it, appellant contends that the officer 

who detained him lacked probable cause to make the stop. We overrule the issue 

because, under the circumstances before us, the existence of probable cause or 

reasonable suspicion to support the detention is irrelevant. Appellant was the subject of 

one or more outstanding arrest warrants at the 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 his trial attorney was ineffective because he did not 

challenge the inventory search of the car. The latter was subject to challenge, 

according to appellant, since it was not undertaken in conformance with departmental 

policy. We overrule the issue. 

 The stop in question occurred at the behest of another officer who had just been 

a witness to a controlled drug buy via appellant and the officer’s confidential informant. 

Immediately after completion of the buy, the informant informed the officer that appellant 

had additional drugs in his vehicle (the latter 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 could have led one to believe that probable 

cause existed to not only stop and arrest appellant 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. LEXIS 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 dependent 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 Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (holding 

that an officer need not acquire a search warrant to search for 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 Antonio 2010, no pet.) (finding 

probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle when a police officer witnessed a 

known credible informant make arrangements for 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 concluded that it would serve little purpose to 

question whether any “inventory search” undertaken 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) (holding that an attorney need not assert a meritless point to be 

effective); see also Palacios v. State, 319 S.W.3d 68, 75 (Tex. App.–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 reasonable trial strategy, and nothing of record 

discloses what strategies, if any, motivated trial counsel to do what he did, appellant 
4 

failed to prove that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance.1 Mata v. State, 226 

S.W.3d 425, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requiring 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 presumption cannot generally be overcome 

absent evidence in the record of the attorney’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 that discovery of the 

contraband was not pursuant to a legitimate inventory search. However, he apparently opted not to 

pursue that ground at the hearing.