Seve r al gr ou nd s al l egedl ysupp or t i ng t he i ssue wer e m ent i oned. O nl yone was exp l ai ned and 1 accom pani ed by ci t at i on t o t he r ecor d and t o aut hor i t y as r equi r ed by T exas R ul e of Appel l ate P roc ed ure 38. 1( h)

. I t per t ai ned t o t he o ff i cer ’ s pur por t ed f ai l ur e t o m i r andi z e ap pel l ant

. S i nc e i t was t he o nl yi ssue b rie fe d , i t w i l l b e th e o n l yo n e w e a d d re s s . See M c F a rla n dv . S ta te , 9 2 8 S .W .2 d 4 8 2 , 5 1 2 ( T e x . C r im

. A p p .1 9 9 6 ) (is s u e s th a t l a c k c i ta ti o n to e i th e r th e re c o rd o r a u th o rit ya n d d i s c u s s i o n a re w a i v e d .) NO. 07-08 -017 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER13, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ DE NN IS G ERALD H AR RI SON , J R. , Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 1 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF YO AK UM CO UNT Y; ST NO. 261 7; HON. KEL LY G. MOORE, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

______ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Den nisGerald H arris o n, J r. appeal s h isco nv icti on for poss ess ing a c ontroll ed subs tance. Hi s s ole i ss ue i nv olves the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on deny ing hi s mot ion to
s up pres s . W e affi r m.

1Appel l antt est i f i ed t hathe was al so sea r ched. 2 2 Back gr ound Di str ict attor ney

inv est ig ator

Ric k Di ckson re cei v ed i nformati on from a co nfidenti al infor mant t hat h e had prev iou sl y us ed on many

oc cas ion s. The i nformant tol d hi m that appel lan t woul d be in poss ess ion of methamphet amine on a cer tai n dat e, t hat a ppel lan t
woul d be dr iv ing a c ar

that the infor mant then desc ri bed, that the met hamphetami ne was at ap pellan t’s hom e, an d tha t app ellan t would be driv ing from Yoaku m Cou nty to Te rrell Cou nty and transpo rt ing so me of the do pe. T here af ter, Dickson con tacte d ap pellan t by walking up to him at his place of work and as ki ng i f he had an y dr ug s. Appel lan t deni ed that he di d. Di ckson then tol d appel lan t th a t h e wo u ld ha ve to s e a rch hi s veh icl e , t o w h ich st a te m e n t a p p e lla n t a lle ged ly sa id , “go ahead.” W hil e searchi ng the v ehi cl e, Di ckson ask ed i f appell ant h ad fini shed pack ing to

2 g o to Terrell C ounty

. He re pli ed th at he had n o t. An d , thoug h appel lan t i nit ial ly deni ed know ing w hat D ic ks on was tal ki ng aboutw hen t he l atter as ke d a b o u t the d ru g s, he subs eq uentl y

admi tted that “[ i] t’ s a t t he hous e.” Ap pel lan t then proceed ed to dr ive the invest ig ator

to hishome, open t he door , i nv it e hi m in , a n d sh ow hi m the methampheta mine. Author it y a nd It s A ppl icati on W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a moti on to su ppressunder the sta ndard s et forth in For

d v . St ate, 158 S.W .3d 488 , 493 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 2 0 0 5 ). The parties are
re ferred to thatca se for c onsi derati on. Next, one mus t be mirandi z ed onl y w hen he issu bje ct to c usto d ia l int er ro g ati on. Her re ra v. State, 241 S. W .3d 5 20, 5 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. Log ic all y , t hen, to beT h e s e s ta te m e n ts a re c o n ta i n e d i n a vid e o m a d e o f a p p e l l a n t a t h i s h o m e . 3 3 und ergoing custodial inte rrogation , t h e i n d iv idua l must b e in custo dy. Yet, one is not in
cus tody w hen he isbei ng hel d dur ing an i nv est ig ati v e det enti o n . Ar thur v. Sta te, 216 S.W .3d 5 0, 56 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 07, n o pet .)

. Next, there appea rsev ide nce of rec ord s howin g t h at ap pel lan t 1)was not handc uffed, 2 ) was tol d he was not under ar re st and was free to g o, 3)ac know led g ed th at 3 he had y et t o fini sh pack ing to g o to the famil y ranch in Terrell C o u n ty, 4 ) tol d the in ve s t ig a t o r t h a tt h e co n t ra b a n d wa s a th is h o u s e , 5 ) t o o kt h e o f f ic e r t o h is h o m e in h is o wn v ehi cl e, 6)was not h andcu ffed or tak en int o cus tody ev en after the met hamphetami ne was locate d in his hom e, 7) w as f ree to (an d actu ally did) go t o the fam ily

ranch in T errell Cou nty after the methampheta mine was confis cat ed; and 8) repl ied that he was not u nder
ar re st w hen as ked at t he s uppress ion hear ing

. To thi s w e add the i nformati on g iven to the off ic er by the confide nti al infor mant. The foreg oin g co nst it utes ev ide nce w hic h, i f beli ev ed, per mitt ed th e tr ial co urt t o c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t’ s l ibe rty was not suff ic ien tl y

rest ra ine d so as to raise th e en coun ter f rom a n investig ative dete ntion t o an arrest. In oth er words, the t ri al cour

t c oul d hav e l awfully d e te rmined that appel lan t was not i n c ust ody or unde rg o i n g c u s t o d i a l i n t e r ro g a t i o n a t t h e t i me a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , wa s n o t e n t i t l e d to be mirandi z ed. Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le the i ss ue and aff ir m the jud g ment.

Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.