§ 48 1.1 12(a ) Tex. Health & Sa fety C ode Ann. (Vernon 200 3). 1 NO. 07-07 -013 9-CR

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D OC TOBER10, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ BYRON E. SIRES , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 412540; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Fol low ing a no t g uil ty

pl ea, A ppel lan t, By ro n E. Si re s, was conv ic ted b y a j ur y of poss ess ion of metha m p h e ta m ine w it h i ntentto del iv er , enh anced

. Pu nis hment w as 1 as s es s ed by th e tr i al c ou rt at for ty - fi v e y ea rs c on fi ne me nt

. Ap pe l l an t rai s es four issues.2

By hi s first three is sues , Appel lan t q uest ion s w hether tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for (1 ) neith er f iling a mo tion to supp ress the co ntrab and , nor objecting to its adm is s io n at trial; (2 ) neither

fil ing a mot ion to suppress hi s o ra l sta tements reg ardin g the cont ra band, nor obj ect ing to thei r admis si on into ev ide nce; (3) neither fil ing a mot ion to suppress hi s o ra l sta tements reg ardin g the cont ra band un der ar ti cl e 38. 22, § 3( a) of the Tex as Code of Cr imi nal Procedu re , nor object ing to thei r admis si on into ev ide nce. By his fourth and final issue, Ap pellan t question s w het her the trial cou rt e rred in ref using trial counse l’s request that the j ur

y be c harg ed pursuantto arti cl e 38. 23 of t he Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . W e affi r m. Back ground On M ar ch 28, 2 006, Appel lan t v olu ntar il y w ent to t he Lubb ock Pol ic e D epar

tment to meetw it h C or poral W alt er Sc ott and ATF ag ent, Gar y Sty ers, conc er nin g hi s a g re ement t o se rve a s a co n f id e n t ia l i n fo rm a n tin u n d e r c o v e r i n ve s t ig a t io n s o f

il li c itd ru g a c t ivi t y. Appel lan t, Scott, and Sty ers e ng ag ed in a shor t, g eneral conv ersat ion about the basi cs of the p ro posed w or ki ng ar ra ng ement i n one of the pol ic e i nter v iew rooms. Ho wever, no ag re ement w as fully

formal iz ed nor

had a w ri tten ag re e m ent b een ex ecut ed dur ing the conv ersat ion

. Acc ordin g to Sty ers, dur ing the course of t hat conv ersat ion , Scott ask ed App ell ant, “[ d]o y o u h a ve a n yth ing on y ou? I nee d y ou to st and up and empty y our poc ket s.” Appel lan t respon ded, “[ o]h, I didn’ t know I w as g oin g to be searched, ” and then reache d3

int o hi s p ock et an d pul led out a bag g ie cont ain ing a subs tanc e that w hen t est ed, a mounted to 4. 5 grams of

met ham phe tam ine. W hen App e ll a n twas asked b y Scott why

he w as in poss ess ion of methampheta mine, he re pli ed that he needed money and sel li ng dr ug s w as t h e o n ly wa y h e h a d t o m a k e m o n e y. Scott re cal led the ev ents somew hat differentl y . He coul d notrecal l ask ing Appel lan t to empty hi s p ock ets but admit ted i t w as poss ibl e. Scott’ s re col lecti on w as that he adv is ed Appel lan t t hat h e neede d to pat h im d ow n for w eapons and cont ra band. Sc ott re membered Appel lan t s ay ing , “ [o]h man. I di dn’ t k now I w as g oin g to be s earched. ” Sc ott als o recal led Appel lan t s ay ing , “ I hav e to do s omethi ng to make mone y .“ W hen t he meeti ng co mmenced , Ap pel lan t w as not i n c ust ody nor w as he bei ng det aine d. Altho ugh the ev iden ce sho w s thatAppe llant did n o te n ga ge in any cond uct neces si tati ng a s earch, the off ic ers t est ified thatthe pr imar y reason Appell ant w as “s ear ched” w as for s afetyco ncer ns. O ther reason s o ff ered w ere routi ne procedure, unw ri tten p o lic y, and t o protec t t he i nteg ri ty of a dr ug i nv est ig ati on. Acc ordin g to the of f icers, af ter App ellantplaced the cont raba nd on the tab le, he w as arrested . Both Styers and Scott te stif ied th ey w er e “ s hocke d” thatAppe llant cam e to a m eet ing at the po lice depar tment car ry ing an i ll eg al subs tanc e.4 A rt icle 38.23 Add re s s in g App ellant ’s issues in a logical rathe r than se quentia l order, w e be gin w ith issue four. By his fourth issue, Ap pellan t challen ges the trial court’s den ial of defense counsel ’s re que st thatthe charg e i ncl ude an ins tr uct ion pursuantto arti cl e 38. 23 of the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure. Article 38. 23 p rov ides, in relevant pa rt, as follows: (a ) N o ev ide nce obtai ned by an o ff ic er

or othe r person in viol a ti on of any p ro v i s i o n s o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Te x a s , or of the Constitu tion o r law s of the Unite d S t a t e s o f

A me rica, shall be ad mitt ed in ev ide nce ag ain st the a cc used on th e tr ial of any cr imi nal ca se. In any case w here the legal evidence raises an issue here und er, the jury shal l be i nst ru cte d tha t i f it bel iev es, or has a reason abl e d o u b t, t hat t he ev ide nce w as obtai ned in v iol ati on of t he prov is ion s of t his Ar ti cl e, t hen and in suc h ev ent, the j ur

y sh all di sreg ard any

su ch ev ide nce so obtai ned. Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.23( a) ( Ver non 200 5)

. Dur ing oral submi ss ion of t his appeal , the S tate confess ed th at a fact i ss ue ex is ted re g ardin g w hether

Appel lan t w as ask ed to empty hi s p ock ets or

w heth e r h e wa s told he w as g oin g to be searched. Notw it hst andi ng the Stat e’s co nces si on, w e c oncl ude t hat t he fa c t s p re s e n t e d d o n o tim p li c a t e a “vi o la t io n o f a n y p ro vis io n s o f

t h e C o n s t it u t io n o r l a ws of the St ate of

Te x as, or of

the Con stitutio n or law s of the United Sta tes of Ame rica.” Thu s, the t ri al cour

t di d noter r in re fusing to g iv e the req uest ed i nst ru cti on.5

The tr ig g er ing mecha nis m for an arti cl e 38.23 i nst ru cti on i s c omplex

. See O u r s b o u r n v. State , 259 S.W .3d 159 , 177 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 8). A defend antmust est abl is h the foll ow ing re q uirements : (1 ) the ev ide nce must ra is e an is sue of fact ; ( 2) the ev ide nce on th at factmustbe a ff ir mati v ely co ntes ted; and (3) the cont est ed fact ual i ss ue mu st be m ate rial to the la wf ulne ss of the cha llenged con ductin obta ining the evidence soug ht t o be ex cl uded. Id. Thi s fact ual disput e can be rai sed onl y by aff ir mati v e ev ide nce, not b y mere c ro ss -e x aminat ion q uest ion s o r arg ument. Id. Ag ent S ty ers t est ified dur ing directex aminat ion that Cor poral Scott t old Appel lan t, “I need y ou to st and up and empty y our poc ket s.” D ur ing di re ct ex aminat ion , Sc ott tes ti fied th a t h e to ld Ap p e lla n t he n e e d e d to p a t h im do wn fo r wea p o n s o r co n tr a b a n d . A lt h o u gh Scott c oul d notrecal l ask ing Appel lan t t o empty hi s p ock ets , t hat factalone do es not c re ate a fact q uest ion . F urther more, ass um ing ar guendo, that a fact iss ue ex is ted a s t o w hether or n ot App el l an t w as a s k ed t o em pty h i s p oc k et s , th ati s s ue w as n ev er a ffir ma ti v ely cont est ed. Mo st impor tantl y thoug h, how ev er , re sol uti on of thati ss ue w as not mat er ial to the l awfulness of the c hal len g ed c onduc t i n obt ain ing the ev ide nce. Appel lan t’ s p osi ti on i s p re dic ated on th e as sumpti on th at hi s p ro duct ion o f the cont ra band w as in re spons e to a pol ic e “ search” w it hin the cont ext of a cons ti tuti onal r ig ht to be free from an u nreason abl e s earch or se iz ure. H e r a ise s lac k o f probab le caus e, ex ig ent c ircums tanc es, and Mi ra nda w ar nin g s i n s uppor t of hi s a rg ument t h a t he w as h a rm e d by th e tri a l co u rt ’s re f u sa l to gran ta n a rt icl e 38 .2 3 in st ru ct io n in th e ju ry cha rge6

beca use th e evidence estab lished th at th e me tha mp het am in e a nd h is statem ent s w ere obtai ned i ll eg all y . W e di sag re e. The protec ti ons ag ain st unreason abl e s earches and sei z ures affo rd e d b y t h e U nit ed Stat es Con sti tuti on, A rt icl e I , § 9 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on, a nd ar ti cl e 38. 23 are not impl ic ated under

the facts of t his cas e. Appel lan t v olu ntar il y w ent to t he pol ic e s tati on to speak w it h off ic ers about becomi ng a confide nti al infor mant. He w as not in cu st o d y nor w as he th e s ubj ectof an i nv est ig ati v e det enti on. Si tuati ons th at may co nst it ute c ust ody inc lud e ( 1) w hen a sus pect is phy si cal ly depr iv ed of hi s freedom in any si g nific ant w ay ; ( 2) w hen a law

enforc ement officer

tel ls a sus pect he canno t lea v e; ( 3) w hen l aw enforc ement off ic ers create a situ ati on that w oul d lead a re asona ble perso n to bel iev e that hi s freedom of mov e m e n t has been s ig nific antl y rest ri cte d; an d ( 4) w hen t here i s p ro babl e c ause for ar re st and l a w e n f or cementoff ic ers d o nottel l the s uspect t hat h e i s free to l eav e. See Dowth itt v

. St ate , 931 S.W .2d 244 , 255 (Tex.Cri m . A p p . 199 6). None of these c ir c u m s t a n c e s a p p ly. App ellantw entto the police de partm entto coop erate w ith law enforcem entas a confide nti al infor mant i nv est iga ti ng dr ug ac ti v ity . W hether he remov ed th e methampheta mine from hi s p ock et i n respon se to Sco tt ’s q uest ion to empty hi s p ock ets or w hether he did so in respo nse to being tol d he w oul d be searched, hi s c onduc t w as not in re s p o n se to an ex ercise of police au tho rity . Appe llant’s con ductw as v olun tary and it coul d be cons ide re d i mpli ed c onsen t. Ap e rso n i mpli edl y co nsent s t o a s earch by7

eng ag ing i n c ertai n ac ti v it ies that , by thei r v er y natu re , i nv olv e a d imi nis hed ex pect ati on of pr iv acy . Br

own v. Sta te , 856 S.W .2d 1 77, 1 81 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993)

. Vol untar il y ag re ein g to w or k w it h the pol ic e as a c onfidenti al infor mant c lea rl y i nv okes a di mini shed ex pect ati on of priv acy. W e con clude thatthe m ate rial fa ct issue raised b y t h e e v iden ce in this case w as not mat er ial to the l awfulness of the c hal len g ed c onduc t i n obt ain ing the evidenc e. Thus, Appel lan t w as not e nti tl ed to an a rt ic le 38.23 ins tr uct ion , and the tr ial co urt di d not er r in re fusing to g ra nt on e. Iss ue four is ov er ru led

. In ef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel B y is s u e s o n e , two , a n d t h re e , A p p e ll a n t c o n t e n d s d e fe n s e co u n s e l wa s in e f fe c t ive in faili ng to file a moti on to su ppress ce rt ain ev ide nce and i n fail ing to obj ectto int ro duct ion of that e v ide nce. W e di sag re e. A c lai m of ineffecti v eness i s rev iew ed unde r the s tan d a rd se t outi n Strickland v. W ashi ngton , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 20 52, 80 L.E d.2 d 674 (19 84). Under Str ickl and , a defendant must est abl is h that (1 ) couns el’ s per formance w as defici ent ( i. e . , fell below an obj ect iv e s tand a rd of re asona ble ness ), and (2 ) there i s a reason abl e probabi li ty thatbut for c ounse l’ s d efici ent perfor mance, the re sul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different, a reason abl e probabi li ty bei ng a probabi li ty

su f f ici e n t to under mine confide nce in the outc ome. Ex parte Ellis , 233 S.W .3d 3 24, 3 30 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Ry lan der v. State , 101 S.W .3d 107 , 110 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 03). In ot her w ords, a d efend antmust dem o n st ra te by a p re p o n d e ra n ce of th e evid e n ce th a t t h e de f ici e n t p e rfo rm a n ce prej udi ced8

his defense. Mitch ell

v. Sta te , 68 S.W .3d 640, 642 (Tex .C ri m.App . 2 0 0 2 ); Thompson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)

. Fai lure to make the req uired s how ing of ei th er d efi c i en t pe r

for ma nc e or

s uffi c i en t prej ud i c e de fea ts th e i ne ffec ti v en es s c l ai m. Thom pson , 9 S. W .3 d at81 4 , c it in g Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 70 0. The adeq uacy

of defense c ounse l’ s a ss is tanc e i s b ased upon t he to ta lit y o f the re p re se ntati on rather

than by i sol ated act s o r omis si ons of tri al couns el. T h o m p son , 9 S.W .3d a t 814

. Al tho u gh th e c o nst it uti onal r ig ht t o c ounse l ensures the r ig ht t o reaso nab ly

ef fective counse l, it does no t guarante e errorless coun sel w hose comp ete ncy or ac curacy

of re present ati on is t o b e j udg ed by hi ndsi g ht. Rob er

tso n v . St ate , 187 S.W .3d 4 75, 4 83 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)

. Appel lat e re v iew of t ri al couns el’ s represent ati on is hi g hly deferen tial and presumes thatco unsel ’s co nductfell w it hin the w ide rang e of re asona ble and professi onal represent ati on. See Andr ews v . St ate , 159 S.W .3d 9 8, 10 1 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)

. See a lso Bone v . St ate , 77 S.W .3d 8 28, 8 33 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)

. To defeat the presumpt ion of re asona ble professi onal as si sta nce, any al leg ati on of inef fectiveness m ust be f irmly foun ded in the record, and the record must af f irmatively demonst ra te t he al leg ed i neffect iv eness . S e e Ma l le tt v. Sta te , 65 S.W .3d 5 9, 63 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)

. See also Thom pson , 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t8 1 3 - 1 4. H ow ev er , w here the all eg ed dereli cti ons are er ro rs o f omiss ion de h ors t he record rather than co mmiss ion re v eal ed i n the tr ial record, c oll ateral attac k may be t he v e h icle by

w hic h to dev elo p a detai led record of

the al leg ed i neffect iv eness . See Fr eem an v . St ate , 125 S.W .3d 5 05, 5 0 6 - 0 7 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2003)

. See gen erally Ma ss ar o v . U nited St ates , 538 U .S. 500,9

123 S.Ct. 16 90, 1 694 1 55 L.E d.2 d 714 (20 03) (stating t hatwhen a claim o f inef fectiveness is raised on directa ppe al, a trial record is usually notsuf f iciently develope d to est ablish such a claim). T he claim s of

inef fectiveness raised byAppe llant on app eal are all alleged errors o f o m is s io n b e yo n d t h e re c o rd

. No m o t io n fo r n e w t ri a l wa s f il e d a ll e gi n g i n e f fe c t ive assistan ce of

co unse l. W hen in ef

fective a ssistance o f

co unse l claim s a re ra ised on direct appeal , t he record i s u ndev elo ped and canno t adeq uatel y re flect the moti v e behi nd tr ial couns el’ s a cti ons. Ma llett , 65 S. W .3d 59, 63 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 1). “Trial coun sel shou ld ordin ar il y

be a fforded an oppor

tuni ty to ex pla in [her

] ac ti ons before b ein g denounc ed as in e f f e c t ive .” Goods

peed v . St ate , 187 S.W .3d 3 90, 3 92 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ( q uoti ng Ry lan der , 101 S.W .3d a t 111 ). Ab sentsu ch an oppor tuni ty , an appe ll ate c our t s houl d not find c ounse l’ s p er

formance defici ent u nle ss her co nductw as “s o o u trag eous that no com pet entatto rney w ould have engaged in it.” Ga rcia v. St ate , 57 S.W .3d 4 36, 4 40 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) , cer t. denied , 537 U .S. 1195, 123 S. Ct. 1 3 5 1 , 154 L. Ed.2d 1030 (200 3). App ellantalleges trial counsel w as inef fective in fa iling to f ile a mo tion to supp ress the met hamphetami ne and his sta tements that he int ended t o s ell the methampheta mine to mak e money . He als o c ontends there c oul d noth a ve been a sound tr ial st ra teg y for failing to a ttem pt to have the e v iden ce sup presse d. An allegatio n of inef fective assistance in faili ng to file a moti on to su ppress pl aces the burden on an appe ll ant t o prov e tha t t he10

moti on w oul d hav e been g ra nted in order to sat is fy the Str

ickl and prong s. See Jack

son v. State , 998 S.W .2d 9 54, 9 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)

. See als o R ober son v. State , 852 S.W .2d 50 8 , 5 1 0 -1 2 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) ( unl ess there i s a sh ow ing thata pretr ial moti on had meri t and that a ru li ng on the motion w oul d hav e chang ed the outcome of the case, coun sel w ill notbe inef fective fo r fa iling to asse rt th e mo tion). Havi ng prev iously held thatthe m eth am phe tam ine an d App ellant ’s sta tem ent s were la wf ully obta ined , it is unl ik ely thatAppel lan t w oul d hav e prev ail ed on a moti on to su ppress . Appel lan t furt her

al leg es that tr ial co unsel w as ineffecti v e i n fail ing to obj ectto the admis si on int o ev ide nce of t he methampheta mine and his sta tements

. W h e n al le gin g ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of c ounse l for failu re to obj ect , an appel lan t must demonst ra te t hat the t ri al cour

t w oul d hav e er re d i n ov er ru li ng an o bje cti on i f defense couns el had made one. See V

aughn v . St ate , 931 S.W .2d 564, 566 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)

. Appel lan t doe s not a rg ue or demonst ra te in his br ief tha t had tr ial co unsel obj ect ed to the admis si on of the methampheta mine and his sta tements , t he tr ial co urt w oul d hav e er re d i n ov er ru li ng the object ions. W it hout a moti on for new tr ial or othe r opport u n it y for

co unsel to defend her strateg y , w e dec li ne to find h er per formance defici ent. Bas ed on the t o ta lityof the represe nta tion, w e are un able to conclu de th at Ap pellan t has dem onst rated thatdefense couns el’ s p er

formance fell bel ow

an o bje cti v e s tandard of reason abl eness or that couns el’ s c onduc t w as so outrag eous that no c o m p e te nt attor ney w oul d hav e eng ag ed11

i n i t

. A p p e l l a n th a s fa i l e d t o m e e tt h e fi rs tpro n g o f Str ickl and

. I ss ues one, tw o, an d three are ov er ru led

. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice

Ca m p b e ll, J. , c o n cu rrin g. Do not p ubl is h.