NO. 07-08 -022 7-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 A JAN UA RY

30, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JAMES ADAM COLE, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 84 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HA NS FO RD CO UNT Y; NO . 147 4; H ON ORABLE W ILLIA M D. SM ITH, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Follow ing a plea of

not guilty , App ellant , Jam es Ada m Cole, w as convicted by a jury of unlawf u l p o s s ession of a f irearm an d pu nishm entwas asse ssed a t eight y earsA n d e r s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 38 6 U
. S
. 73 8, 87 S
. C t
. 13 96 , 18 L. E d.2d 49 3 (19 67 ). 1 N otwi t hs t an di ng t ha t A p p e l l a n t w as i nfo rm ed of hi s ri gh t t o fi l e a pro s e p eti t i on for di s c ret i on ary 2 r ev i ew upon execut i on o ft he Trial C ourt ’ s C ertif ication o f

D ef endan t ’ s R i ght of Appeal , c o u n s e l m u s t c o m p ly w ith R u le 4 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u le s o fA p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t c o u n s e l s h a ll w ith in f iv e d a ys aft ert hi s opi ni on i s han ded down, send A ppel l anta copyoft he opi ni on a nd j udgm entt oget herwi t h no t i f i cat i on o f h i s ri g h t t o fi l e a p ro s e p e ti ti o n fo r d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w . I n r e Schulm an , at408 f n. 22 & at411 f n. 35. 2 confine ment and a $5 ,000 fine. In present ing thi s a ppeal , c ounse l has filed an Anders 1 br i ef i n s up po rt of a mo ti on t o w i th draw . W e g ran t c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on a nd a ffir m. In s uppor

t of hi s mot ion t o w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies he hasco nduct ed a cons ci enti ous ex aminat ion of the record and, i n hi s o pin ion , t he record reflec ts no potent ial ly

pl ausi ble bas isto suppo rtan a ppeal
. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 13 96, 1 8 L.E d.2d 493 ( 1967) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 06 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. Cou nsel has ca ndi dly di sc uss ed w hy , und er the cont ro ll ing author it ies , th e a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. See Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 (Tex .C ri m.App. 19 7 8 ). Couns el has demonst ra ted t hat h e has co mpli ed w it h the re q u i re me n t s o f Anders and In r

e Schul m anby ( 1) prov idi ng a copyof the b ri ef to Appel lan t, (2 ) noti fyi ng hi m of his r ig ht t o fil e a pro se re spons e if he desi re d to do so, and (3 ) infor ming hi m of his r ig ht t o fil e a p ro se peti ti on for dis cret io n a ry re view
. In re Schulm an , 252 S .W .3d a t 408
. By lette r, th is Cou rt grante d App ellantthirty days i n w hich 2 to exerci se h is r ig ht t o fil e a respon se to c ounse l’ s b ri ef, shoul d he be s o i ncl ine d. Id. at n.23. Ap pel lan t did not file a re s p o n s e . N e i t h e r d i d t h e S t a t e fa v o r

u s w i t h a b r i e f.3 Back ground Facts Acc ordin g to Dar

v in Patr ic k, a tire shop ow ner from Ka nsas , Ap pel lan t wor ked for him. Patr ic k loane d Appell ant his 1984 Bl az er to dr iv e to and from wor k. Pat ri ck , al so a g un c oll ect or , had a pa rt -t ime employee w ho hel ped hi m with f ili n g , boo kk eepi ng , and cl eani ng hi s g uns. O n J une 20, 2007, as wor k was w ind ing dow n, but before Pat ri ck l eft, he a sked h is emp loyee to clean some rif les and two rev olvers–a m atch ing pair of Rugers tha t w ere store d in cases. W hen Pa tr ic k a rr iv ed atwor k t he next mor nin g , h e n oti ced that one of the Rug er cas es w as mis si ng . He a sked hi s e mployee abou t i t and sh e s aid both ca ses had been left atthe shop. Shor

tl y after , he re por

ted the gun m is si ng . Me anw hil e, Appel lan t di d not show u p fo r workt hat d ay

and w hen Pa tr ic k c all ed App ell ant’ s w ife, s he c lai med not to know his w here abo uts. After lunch , Patrick learne d tha t App ellanthad bee n arreste d in Spe arma n, T exas. Jessica Ra s m u s s e n , a Spe arma n Police Of f icer, testif ied th at atapp rox ima tely 11:00 p.m. o n J une 20, 2007, she obser v ed a v ehi cl e w it h Kans as tag s c ro ss the y ell ow and w hit e l ine s o f a ro ad and then abr uptl y chang e lan es to pa ss a v ehi cl e w it hout usi ng a tur n s ig nal
. W hen s he c aug ht up to Appel lan t, she act ivated her emerg ency

l ig hts and sto pped h im
. She tes ti fied th at A ppel lan t had co mmitt ed traff ic v iol ati ons jus ti fyi ng the sto p. See Walter

v. Sta te , 28 S.W .3d 5 38, 5 42 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; Colem an v . St ate , 188 S. W .3d 7 08, 7 16 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 2005, p et. re f’d) , cer

t. denied , 549 U .S. 999, 127§ 4 6.04 (a)(1), T ex . P en al C od e A nn . (Ve rno n S up p. 20 08 ). 3 4 S.C t. 502, 166 L. Ed.2d 376 ( 2006)
. Al thoug h the traff ic v iol ati ons occ ur re d in Spear man, App ellantwas no t pulled ov er until he was ou tside th e citylimits. W hen O ff ic er

R asmus sen approache d the v ehi cl e, s he s mell ed al c o h o l a nd obse rv ed b eer bo ttles in the back sea t area . She ad min istered , and Appe llant succe ssf ully compl eted, fiel d s obr iety tes ts. Ap p e llant was coope ra ti v e and Off ic er R asmus sen infor med hi m thatsh e wa s goi n g t o s earch the vehi cl e. For sa fetyco ncer ns, sh e as ked him if th ere w ere an y

drugs, kniv es, or guns in the vehicle. According to the of f icer, Appel lan t admitted there w as a g un behi nd th e dr iv er ’sse at t hat b elo ng ed to the re g is tered o wne r. As s h e se a rch e d th e re , s h e fo u n d t h e R u ger gu n i n i ts ca se , b e e r bo tt le s, clo th in g, and personal bel ongin gs. She al so ra n a c ri minal hi sto ry ch eck on A ppel lan t and discovered he was no t a licensed g un ca rrier. Throug h the tes ti mony of O ff ic er Jas on W is tl er , a Borg er Pol ic e Officer , t he St ate int ro duced a 20 05 s tate jail fe lo n y co nv icti on of Appel lan t for inj ur y to a c hil d. A c opy

of th e j udg ment was int ro duced w it hout obj ect ion as Sta te’ s E x hib it11. F oll ow ing the prese nta tion o f

ev iden ce, th e jury convicted Appellan t of unlawfu l possessio n of a f irearm 3 and t hisappeal foll ow ed.5 Discus sion By the Anders br ief, couns el ra is es two poss ibl e poi nts of er ro r re lat ing to the d eni al of Appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress , t o-w it : the tri al cour t s houl d hav e s ust ain ed th e moti on (1 ) becau se Off ic er

R asmus sen obtai ned ev ide nce beyond her j ur is dicti onal l imi ts and ( 2) there was no probabl e c ause to s earch the vehi cl e Appe ll ant was dr iv ing
. Cou nsel then present s a uthor ity

i ndi cat ing tha t th e st op and detent ion were l awful and that Off ic er Ras muss en had probabl e c ause to s earch the vehi cl e. Generall y , a ci ty pol ic e off ic er does not hav e the auth or ity to sto p and ar re st persons for traff icv iol ati ons occ ur ri ng outs ide the off ic er ’sg eog ra phi c j ur is dicti on. See Tex . C ode Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar

t. 14.03( g )(Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ; State v . Kurt z , 152 S.W .3d 7 2 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. Howev er , t he or ig ina l traff ic offense g iv ing ri se to the s top i nv olved in this case occurred w ithin Off icer Rasm ussen ’s jurisdiction and i t is of no con sequen ce that the s top i tse lf ul ti matel y oc cur re d out si de of thatj ur is dicti on. Furthe rmore , Of

f icer Rassmu ssen b elieved App ellantwas op eratin g a mo to r veh i c le w hil e i ntox ic ated. I n Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 26 1 S
. W .3d 7 73, 7 76- 777 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2008, pet . ref’d), this Court con f ronte d the issue of w he t her a sto p an d de ten tion b y pea ce off ic ers o uts ide thei r home j ur is dicti on exceede d the ir auth or ity

w hen t he officer

had probabl e c ause to be li ev e the detainee w as dri v ing w hil e intox ic ated. This Cour t held thatA rti c e 1 4 .0 1 (d ) a n d (g )( 1 ) p ro v i d e i n re l e v a n t p a rt: 4 [ a] p ea c e off i cerwho i s out si de h i s j ur i sdi ct i on m ayar r est , wi t houtwar r ant , a per son who com m i t s an off ense wi t hi n t he o ff i cer ’ s pr esence orv i ew, i ft he off ense i s a f el ony , a v i ol at i on o f C h a p te r 4 2 o r 4 9 , P e n a l C o d e , o r a b re a c h o f th e p e a c e . * * * [ a] pea ce off i cerl i st ed i n Subdi v i si on ( 1) , ( 2) , or( 5) , Ar t i cl e 2. 12, who i s l i c en s ed under C hapt er170 1, O ccupat i ons Code, and i s out si de of t he o ff i cer ’ s j ur i sdi ct i on m ayar r est wi t ho uta wa r r an t a p er so n wh o co m m i t s an y off en se wi t hi n t he o ff i ce r ’ s pr es en ce o rv i ew , ot hert han a v i ol at i on o fSubt i t l e C, T i t l e 7, T r anspor t at i on Code. D r i v i ng whi l e i nt oxi cat ed i s an off ense i n v i ol at i on o fC hapt er49 oft he T exas Pena l C ode.
6 the a ppel lan t was proper ly de ta ine d under

ar ti cl e 14. 03( d) and (g )( 1) of the Texas Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . 4 Off ic er R asmus sen tes ti fied that w hen she firs t obser v ed Appel lan t dr iv e ac ro ss the y ell ow and w hit e l ine s of the road , she “tho ug ht he m ig ht be a poss ibl e drunk dr iv er ,” and deci ded t o i nit iat e a s top. U nli ke the o ff ic ers i n Kur tz , w here the appel lan t was sto pped solely for a traf

f ic v io la tion a nd th e of f icer was un aware of

the ap pellan t’s possible intoxication u ntil af

ter the stop, Of

f icer Rasmu ssen su spect ed Ap p e ll antof driv ing w hile intoxicated before the stop. Not only is driv ing w hile intoxicated a Chap ter 49 violation, it isal so a breach of the peac e j ust ify ing an o ff ic er to make an arrestoutsi de hi s j ur is dicti on. See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 49.04( a) ( Ver non 200 3)
. S e e a l s o R o m o v

. State , 577 S.W .2d 251 , 253 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 9). Th us, article 14 .03 (d) and (g )(1) did not proh ibit Appel lan t’ s s top a nd det enti on. Ma rt ine z , 261 S.W .3d a t 777
.7

Cou nsel co ncede s that if the sto p and detent ion w as leg al, Officer R asmus sen had probabl e c ause to s earch Appel lan t’ s vehi cl e bec ause w hen s he first approache d the v ehi cl e, she detect ed a fresh, as opposed to a sta le, odor of alcoho l emanati ng from t he v ehi cl e and als o obs er

v ed beer bott les in the back seat area, a v iol ati on of § 49.031 of the T exas Pena l Code. Accord ingly , coun sel correctlyconclud es the trial court did notabu se it s d is creti on i n deny ing Appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress . In ad dit ion , we hav e i ndependen tl y examined the enti re re c o rd to deter mine w hether there are any

non-frivolo us is suesw hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U. S. 7 5, 10 9 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 1988) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409 ; Sta fford v. State , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim
. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). W e ha v e foun d no such is sues . See G ain ous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 1 37 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1969)
. After re v iew ing the re cord and couns el’ s b ri ef, w e ag re e w it h couns el that there are no pla usi ble g ro unds for appeal
. See als o Bledsoev. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5). Acc ordin g ly , c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw i s g ra nted and the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment isaff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.