C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

J OHN ROB ERT SABEDRA, Ap pe lla nt,
v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 76 -C R

Appea l from 203rd District Court of Da llas County , Texas (T C # F -0 66 24 91 -P )

O P I N I O N J ohn Robert Sabedr a appe als h i s co n v i ct ion of unlawful possession of 400 g rams or more of coc aine with intent t o deliver. A j ury found Appellant guilty and asse ssed punishment at fiftee n y e ar s ’ im p r is o n me n t i nth e in s ti tuti o n a l d iv is io no f th e T e xa s D e p artm e n t of Cr im in a l Jus ti c e . We
re v er s e t h e j u d gm en to f t h e t ri al co u rt an d re m an d fo r an ew p un i s h m en th ea ri n g. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On Fe bruar

y 14, 2006, Samuel Hussey , a nar cotics d et ec t i v e with the Da llas Poli ce Depa rtment, saw Appe llant at t he Tornado bus station in Dallas, Texas. Appellant was pullinga re d Am er i ca nT o u ri s t er

s u i t c a s e. Hu s s ey ’s at t en t i o n wa s dra wn t o Ap p el l an tb ec au s e h e w as p ac i n g,
swea t i n g profuse ly

throug h his coat, and ha ving tr ouble bre athing . As he a pproac hed, Hussey
no ti c e d th a t Ap p e ll an t b e g an h av in g mo r e d if f ic u lt y b r e a th in g . T h is in d ic a te d to H u ssey that Ap pe lla nt w a s nerv ou s. Hu sse y and De te c tiv e Jesu s Ma

rt ine z, a K- 9 h and le r, wa lke d u

p to Appellant, identified themselves, and asked if they could speak with A ppellant. App el l an t s ai d, “Okay
. ” Hu s s ey asked to see Appellant’s bus ticke t and Appellant showe d it to him . The ticke tshowed that Appellant was trave ling from Houston to Chica g o. Ba sed on his e x perie nce, Hussey

knew that both cities a

re “ hub cities” a

nd there had bee n a hig h incidence of drugcourie rs trave ling on that bus line. I n response to H ussey ’s reque st f or identification, Appe llant produce d his Texas driver’ s license. Hussey

noticed that ea ch time he a sked Appe llant a question he would re peat the question back to the detec tive befor e answ eringit. I n Hussey ’s experienc e, this indicates a pe rson i s b e i n g u n t ru t h fu l b ec au s e r ep ea t i n g th e qu es t i o ni s an ef fo rt t o gai nt i m e b ef

o re re s p o n d i n g. Hussey asked Ap p el lant whether he wa s on any

medication bec ause he was swe ating and see med to be havingtrouble bre athing , but A ppellant said he was fine . Appellant told Hussey that the re d suitcase wa s hi s . Hussey asked A ppellant the purpose for his trip, but Appellant said, “ Idon’t know.” At that point, Hussey asked Appellant for permission to sear ch his lugg ag e, but Appellant ref used. Detective Martinez then t old Appellant they wer e g oing to de tain his lugg ag e for a ca nine sniff and Ma

rtinez broug ht out his dog, Reag an. When Martinez told Appellant t hat Reag an wa s g oing to sniff

the lug g ag e, Appe llant said, “Oka y .” Re a g an, a bla c k L a br a do r r e tr ie ve r t

ra ine d to sn if

f o ut c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e s, a g g re ssi vely aler ted to a substance in Appellant’s suitcase , indicating the pre sence of a c ontrolled sub s t ance. Martinez informed Appe llant of the aler t and place d him under ar rest. Mar tinez obtained a sea

rch
wa rr ant f or the su itc a se . In h is a ff

ida vit fo r t he se a rc h w arr ant, De tec ti ve Mart ine z spe c if ie d h is suspicion that Appellant pos s essed a nd conce aled a

controlled substanc e. Mar tinez described the proper ty to be sea rche d as Appe llant’s “re d Americ an Tourister soft-sided ca

nvas uprig ht suitcase.” Ad dit ion a lly , h e e xpla ine d th a t Re a g an h a d a ler te d to the od or

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e in Appellant’s suitca se by

scratching on it. After obtainingthe s i g ned wa rra nt, Martinez informed Detec tive Hussey

that Appellant’s lug g ag e could be opened. T en vac uum-seale d packa g es of
coca ine, weig hing a

total of 9.55 kilogr ams including dilutants and adulterants, were found inside.A j ur y fo un d App e lla

nt g uil ty of un lawf ul p os se ssi on

of 40 0 g ra ms o r m or e of

c oc a ine wi th intent to deliver and a ssessed punishment at fifteen y ear s’ i mprisonment in the insti tutional divis ion of the Te x as De partment of Criminal Just ice. Appe llant timely filed notice of

appea l. VOID SENTE NCE I n his first point of error , Appellant ar g ues that t he jury ’s failure t o assess a mandatory fine rende rs his sentence void. Appellant contends that the case should be reve rsed, or in the alternative,
re ma nd e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt f o r a n e w p un i s h m e n t h e ar i n g . T h e S t a t e a g r e e s th a t Ap p e l l an t ’ s c a se must be remande d to the trial court f or a ne w punishment hear ing. Section 481.102 of the Te x as Hea lth a nd Safety Code lists cocaine unde r “Pena lty Group 1.” T EX .H E AL TH &S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481 .1 02 (3 )( D) (V e rn on 20 03 ). A pe rs on c omm its an o ff

e ns e if he knowing ly

manufa cture s, d elivers, or possesses with intent to deliver a c ontrolled substance l i s t ed in Penalty

Group 1. Id. § 4 8 1
. 1 1 2 ( a )
. A n o f f e n s e un d e r Su

b s e c ti o n ( a ) is p un is h a

b le by imprisonment for life or f or a term not mor e than ninety -nine y ear s or less than fifte en y ear s, and a fine not to exce ed $250,000 , if the amount of t he controlled substance to whic h the offe nse applies is , b y a g g r e g a te w e igh t, in c lu d in g a d u lt e r an ts o r

d il u ta n ts , 4 0 0 g r ams o r

mo r e . [E mp h a s is a d d e d ]. Id. § 481.112(f)
. Under Section 481.112(f) , a fine is mandatory
. Se e Sc ott v . S tate , 988 S.W .2d 947, 94 8 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton

[1st Di st. ] 199 9, no pe t.) (h old ingthat a fi ne is m and a te d b y

Te xas H e a lth and Safe ty

Code § 481.112(f) ). Be cause the jury

did not assess a fine , the sentenc e fa l l s o u t s i d e of the statutory limit s of Te xas H e a lthand

Sa fe ty Cod e se c tio n 4 81 .1 12 (f ). A s e nte nc e outsi de the stat ut ory li mi ts i s
v o i d , and we lack a

uthority to refor m the sentenc e by

addingpunishment. Ib arra v . S tate , 1 77 S.W. 3d 28 2, 28 4 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 200 5, no pe t.) ; Re e d v . S tate , 795 S.W .2d 19, 21 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.). The appropr iate dispos i tion is t o reve rse thejudgme nt and re mand for a new punishment hea

ring . T EX .C ODE C RIM .P R OC .ANN . art. 44.29(b) (V e rn on 20 06 ); se e Ib arra , 1 77 S.W. 3d a t 28 4; Sc ott , 988 S.W .2d at 948. We sustain Poi nt of Error One. M OTI ON TO SU P P RE SS I n three rel ate d p oints o f e rr or , App e lla nt a lle g e s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y de nyinghis motion to s uppress. Appe llant argues that he w as i l l ega l l y detained, his a

rre st was made w ithout probable cause , and his lug g ag e wa s unlawfully sear ched. Standard of Review We reviewa trial c ourt’s rulingon a motion to suppress using the b i fu rc ated standard of revie w ar ticulat ed in Gu

zm an v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). See Carmouc he v. Sta te , 1 0 S. W.3 d 3 23 , 3 27 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Kru g v . S tate , 86 S.W .3d 764, 765 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 2002, pet. ref

’d). B eca use the trial judg e is the sole trier of fa ct regar d i n g cr ed i b i lity and weig ht to be g iven to a witness’s testimony , we do not e ng ag e in our own f actua l reviewof the trial court’s de cision. Se e Sta te v . R os s , 3 2 S. W.3 d 8 53 , 8 55 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Ro me ro v . S tate , 800 S.W .2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). We give almost total defe renc e to the trial court’ s ruling on questions of historical fact and application of la w to fac t questions that turn on an eva luation of
cre dibilit y and demeanor. Mo nta ne z v . S tate , 195 S.W .3d 101, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). A trial court’s r ulings on mix ed questions of lawand fa ct that do not turn on the cr edibility and deme anor of witnesses a

re r eviewe d de novo
. Id
. Whe n r uli ngon a motio n to su

pp re ss, the tr ia l c ourt

is the so le and

e xclu siv e tr ie r o f f

a c t. Ro me ro , 800 S.W .2d at 543. We revie w a trial court’s decision on a mot ion to suppress under an abuse of discretion standa

rd. Ga ine s v. S tate , 99 S.W .3d 660, 665 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Unde r this standard, we g ive almost total de fer ence to a trial cour t’s deter minationof historical fa cts supported by the re cord, e specia lly

when the tr ial court’s findings are based on an evaluation of cre dibilit y

and deme anor. Id. We w ill re ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on on ly wh e n it
a pp e ars an e rr on e ou s le g a l st and ard wa s a pp lie d o r whe n n o r e a so na ble vie w of th e rec or d c ou ld
su pp or t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion un de r t he c or re c t la w a nd th e fac ts v ie we d in

the lig ht m os t favor able to its leg al conc lusion. DuBo sev . S tate , 915 S.W .2d 493, 497-98 (Te x .Crim.App. 1996). As long as the trial c ourt’s rulingis within t he “zone of rea sonable disag ree ment,” we will not interce de. Id. at 497. Howe ver, w e re view de novo a tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n o f r e a so na ble suspicion and proba

ble ca use. Gu zm an v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 87 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). An ac cused se eki n g to suppress evidenc e on the ba sis of illega l police conduc t bear s the burden of proof to r ebut a presumption of proper police conduc t. Mo re no v . S tate , 124 S.W .3d 339, 344 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). The a ccuse d satisfies the burden by proving that the police ac ted without a war rant. Id. The burden t hen shi fts to the S tate to either produce a wa

rra nt or prove the re asonable ness of the disputed conduc t. Id. I f the State produc es a w arr ant, the burde n of proof shifts back to the a ccuse d to show the inv al i d ity of the wa

rra nt. Id. We uphold a trial court’s r uling on a suppression motion if it i s rea sonably supported by the rec ord and is corre ct on any theory of law a pplicable to the c ase. Id. at 345. This is true even if the dec ision is correc t for
rea sons differ ent from those a dvocate d by the trial cour

t. Id. Encounters Be tween Officers &Citi zens A police of

fice r m ay approa ch an individual in a public place, a sk him whether he is willi ng to answer questions, an d p o s e questions to the per son if he is willing to listen. State v. Pe rez , 85 S.W .3d 817, 819 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(findingthat rea sonable suspicion is r e q u ir e d f o r a detention, but no t an e nc ounte r) . D ur ingan e nc ounte r, the ind ivi du a l is fr e e to i g no re t he of fi c e r a nd wa lk
awa y . Mu ne ra v . S

tate , 9 65 S.W. 2d 52 3, 52 7 (T e x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [14t h Di st. ] 199 7, pe t. r e f’ d) . Solong a s a re asonable person would fe el fre e to disreg ard the office r and g o about his business, the

encounte r is consensua l and will not trig g er Four th A mendment protec tion. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 4 29 , 4 34 , 1 11 S.Ct . 2 38 2, 23 86 , 1 15 L .E d. 2d 38 9 ( 19 91 ). Ev e n w he n o fficers have no ba sis fo r s us pe c tin g a

pa rt ic ula r i nd ivi du a l, t

he y may a sk him g e ne ra l qu e sti on s o r a sk to ex ami ne h is ide nti fi c a tio n, a s lo nga s th e po lic e do no t c on ve y a me ssa g e that c omp lia

nc e wi th the ir

re qu e st i s require d. Se e id . at 434-35, 111 S.Ct. at 2386. A detention re quires an of fice r to have a re asonable suspicion to believe that an individual is involved in criminal activity
. Se e Ba le nti nev . S tate , 71 S.W .3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). A detention is justified when the de taining of fice r has spe cific a

rticulable f

acts whic h, taken tog ether wi th r a tio na l in fe re nc e s f

ro m th os e fa c ts, le a d h im t o c on c lud e that the pe rs on de ta ine d a c tua lly is, has been, or soon will be eng ag ed in cr iminal activity
. Id. The controlling question in determining wh e the r t he re wa s a

de te nti on is whe the r t

he a c tio ns of the of

fi c e r w ou ld h ave ma de a

re a so na ble person f eel that he was not fr ee to de cline the of fice r’s re quest or other

wise terminate the enc ounter. State v. Ve lasquez , 9 94 S.W. 2d 67 6, 67 9 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). A p oli c e of fi c e r’ s c on du c t in asking questions and re questing consent to sea rch does not alone render an encounter a detention. Hu nte r v . S

tate , 9 55 S.W. 2d 10 2, 10 6 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). A c on se ns ua l e nc ounte r b e c ome s a detention only

if the off ice r co nvey s a messag e that complianc e is requir ed. Id. A p e rs on wh os e lugg ag e is detaine d is stil l free to continue his travels or c arr y out other per sonal ac tiviti es pending rele ase of the lug g ag e. Da v is v. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 240, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Howeve r, such a seizure c an re strain the per son since he is subjec ted to the possible disruption of his travel plans in order to r emain with his lugg ag e or to a rra ng e for its return. Id. Thus , r e a so na ble su sp ic ion

is require d in order to de tain a per son’s lug g ag e. Id. at 244. A d e te nti on

mus t be su

pp or te d b y re a so na ble su sp ic ion

ba se d o n s pe c if

ic , a rt ic ula ble fa c tsI n ou r r ev i ew of t h e s u ppr es s i on i s s u es , w e h av e con s i der ed t h e ev i den ce f r om t h e bot h t h e s u ppr es s i on 1 h e a rin g a n d trial o n the m e rits b e c a u se the p a rtie s re lit iga te d the su p p re ssio n issu e a t t ria l. R a c h a l v. S ta te , 917 S. W
. 2d 7 9 9 , 80 9 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 19 9 6 ). wh ich, i n l ight of t he o ffi cer’s ex peri ence a ndkn owl edge, t ogeth er wi th reas on abl e inf e re nc e s, wo uld
s u p p o rt d e ta in in g th e s u s p ect. Pe te rso n v . S tate , 8 57 S.W. 2d

92 7, 93 1 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.). W h et h er an off icer has re asonable suspicion to make an investig atory stop must be based on a

n objective standa

rd; we c onsider the totality of t he circumstance s at the time of the stop. Ic k

e v . S tate , 36 S.W .3d 913, 915 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. re f’d)
. The e vidence submitt ed at the suppr ession hear ing a nd at trial establishes that the initial
enco un ter bet ween th e det ect iv es an d Ap pel lan t at th e bu s st ati on was a con sen su al e nco un ter
. By 1 the time Appellant re fused to conse nt to a sear ch of his suitcase and the detec tives informed him that his suitcase would be detained for a dog sniff, re asonable suspicion exi sted to believe A ppellant was involved in criminal ac tivity . Even be fore Detec tive Hussey approa ched A

ppellant, he had observe d him pa c ing , sw e a tin g pr of

us e ly thr ou g h h is c oat, a

nd havin g tr ou

ble br e a thi ng . App e lla

nt b e c ame
even mor e ner

vous when Husse y

and Mar

tinez approac hed him. The det ectives ide ntified themselves and A

ppellant ag ree d to speak with the m. During the conver sation, Appellant exhibited sig ns of ne rv ou sn e ss a

nd de c e pti on . A lth ou g h App e lla nt cl a ime d that the lug g a g e wa s h is, the name on it did not m atch Appe llant’s driver’ s license. More signific ant, Appellant did not know why he
wa s tr ave lin g to Chic a g o. B a se d o n th e tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s, the de te c tiv e s h a d r e a so na ble suspicion to detain Appellant. Ick e , 36 S.W .3d at 915. A lug g ag e sniff by

a dogis n ei t h er a

n investigatory

stop nor a sea

rch a nd seizure. United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct
. 2637, 2644, 77 L .Ed.2d 110 (1983). A re asonable and articula ble suspicion is not necessa ry befor e t h i s i s au t horized. Id. Th e re is n o le g iti mate expectation of privac y

when possessingan illeg al nar cotic. Se e Ro dr igu e z v . S tate , 106 S.W .3d 224,2 2 9 ( T e x. Ap p . - - H o u s t o n[1 s tD i s t
. ] 2 0 0 3 , p e t
. r e f’ d) ; W il so n v . S tate , 98 S.W .3d 265, 272 (T ex . Ap p . -- Ho u s t o n[ 1 s tDi s t
. ] 2 0 0 2 , p et
. re f’ d ). A t ra i n edn ar co t i cs d o g’s p o s i t i v e a l ertfo r d ru gs is sufficient to establish proba ble ca u s e for an arr est. DeJ

esu s v . S tate , 917 S.W .2d 458, 461 (T e x.Ap p. --Ho us ton

[14t h D ist .] 19 96 , p e t. r e f’ d) . Re a g an p os iti ve ly a le rt e d to a

su bs tanc e in Appellant’s suitca se. Afte r Mar tinez informed him of the aler t, Appellant was a

rre sted and handcuf fed. The ref

ore, D etec tive Martinez had probable cause to arr est Appellant. De J esus , 917 S.W .2d at 461. Se ar c h W arra nts &Pr ob ab le Cau se When review ing a mag istrate’s de cision to issue a war rant, we apply

a hig hly defe rential standard in ke eping with the constitutional pre fer ence for a wa rra nt. Ro dr igu e

z v . S tate , 232 S.W .3d 55, 61 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). We interpret the a ffidavit in a “ commonsensical a nd rea listi c manne r,
rec og nizi ng that the mag istrate may draw rea sonable infere nces.” Id. Whe n in do ub t, w e de fe r t o all the re asonable infere nces that the mag istrate could have made
. Id. Pr ob a ble c a us e e xists wh e n, un de r t he tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s, the re is a “ fa ir probabil it y ” th a t c o n tr a

b an d o r e v id e n c e o f

a c r im e w il l b e f

o un d a t t h e s p e c if ie d lo c a ti o n. Rodriguez , 232 S.W .3d at 60. The test is whether a rea sonable rea ding by the mag istrate would lea d to the conclusion that the af fidavit provided a

substantial basis for the issuanc e of the war rant. Id. To jus ti fy th e is su anc e of a se arc h w arr ant, the a ff

ida vit su bmi tte d in

su pp or t mu st s e t f

or th f a c ts
su ff ic ie nt t o e sta

bli shpr ob a

ble c a us e that: ( 1) a sp e c if

ic of fe ns e ha s be e n c omm itt e d; ( 2) sp e c if ic a lly descr ibed prope rty

or items to be sear ched for and seized constitute evidenc e of the offe nse; and (3) the prope rty

or i t ems constituting such e vidence are located at the particula r plac e to be se arc hed. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art
. 18 .0 1( c ) (V e rn on 20 05 ). Whe n de te rm ini ng wh eth er pr oba ble
cause exis ts, w e examine only the four corne rs of the af fidavit. Ma sse

yv . S tate , 933 S.W .2d 141,14 8 ( Tex .C ri m. App. 19 96 ); Blak e v . S tate , 125 S.W .3d 717, 723 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). I n h is a ff ida vit fo r t he search warrant , D e te c tiv e Mart ine z expl a ine d th e ba sis fo r h is suspicion that A

ppellant possessed and conce aled a controlled substance in the suitcase. Ma rtinez descr ibed the consensual encounter with Appellant at the bus station. He ex plained that his trained
narc o tic detec tion dog a lerted to the odor of a c ontrolled substance in Appellant’s suitcase by
scratching on it. Thus, probable c ause e x isted to p ro p er l y issue the sea

rch w arr ant. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art . 1 8. 01 (c ); Rodriguez , 232 S.W .3d at 61. The trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress. W e overrule Points of Error Two, Thre e, and F our. Having sustained Point of Error O ne, we reve rse the judg ment of the trial c ourt an d re m an d for a new punishment hearing
. SeeT EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 44.29(b)
. November

12, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)