NO . 03-13-00724-C

R I N TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S O F TH E THIR D DISTRIC T O F TEXA S STEPHE N TRAC Y MEREDITH , Appellan t V . TH E STAT E O F TEXA S Appelle e Appea l i n Caus e No . 4128 6 i n th e 424 * Judicia l Distric t Cour t o f Burne t County , Texa s Brief For Appellee OFFIC E O F DISTRIC T ATTORNE Y 3 3 ^ an d 424 * JUDICIA L DISTRICT S Wile y B . McAfee , Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 725 , Llano , Texa s 7864 3 Telephon e Telecopie

r (325 ) 247-575 5 (325 ) 247-527 4 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u

s By :Gar y W . Bunyar d Assistan t Distric t Attorne y Stat e Ba r No . 0335350 0 ATTORNE Y FO R APPELLE E Januar y 7,201 5 Oral Argument Waived ACCEPTED 03-13-00724-CR 3685444 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/7/2015 3:27:48 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKIdentity Of The Parties Tria l Cour t Honorabl e Danie l H . Mill s 424 * Judicia l Distric t Burne t Count y Courthous e Anne x (North ) 170 1 Eas t Pol k St. , Suit e 7 4 Burnet , T X 7861 1 State/Appelle e Richar d Crowthe r (Pretria

l Counsel ) Assistan t Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 Stat e Ba r No . 0517420 0 Pete r Kei m (Tria

l Counsel ) Assistan t Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 Stat e Ba r No . 1553250 0 Blak e Ewin g (Tria

l Counsel ) Assistan t Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 Stat e Ba r No . 2407637 6

i

iGar

y W . Bunyar d (Appellat

e Counsel ) Assistan t Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 Stat e Ba r No . 0335350 0 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u

s Appellan t Michell e Moor e (Tria

l Counsel ) Publi c Defende r 100 8 N . Wate r St . Burnet , T X 7861 1 (512 ) 234-306 1 Stat e Ba r No . 0079829 4 Michae l Watso n (Pretria

l an d Tria l Counsel ) Assistan t Publi c Defende r 100 8 N . Wate r St . Burnet , T X 7861 1 (512 ) 234-306 1 Stat e Ba r No . 2406080 4 Gar y E . Prus t (Appellat

e Counsel ) Attorne y a t La w 160 7 Nuece s St . Austin , T X 7870 1 (512 ) 469-009 2 Stat e Ba r No . 2405616 6 gary@prustlaw

. co m

ii

iStephe

n Trac y Meredit h (Appellant

) TDC J #0189343 8 SI D #0535967 2 Nathanie l J . Nea l Uni t 905 5 Spu r 59 1 Amarillo , T X 79107-969 6

i vTable Of Contents Pag

e Inde x o f Authoritie s v i Statemen t o f th e Cas e 2 Statemen t o n Ora l Argumen t 2 Respons e t o Issue s Presente d 3 Statemen t o f th e Fact s 4 Summar y o f th e Argumen t - Respons e t o Issu e No . 1 1

0 Th e tria l cour t properl y denie d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s becaus e th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s provide d officer s probabl e caus e t o believ e tha t Appellan t ha d narcotic s hidde n i n th e impounde d vehicle . Argumen t o n Respons e t o Issu e No . 1 1 1 Praye r fo r Relie f 1 6 Certificat e o f Wor d Coun t 1 6 Certificat e o f Servic e 1 7

VIndex Of Authorities Cas e La w Pag e Carrol l v . Unite d States . 26 7 U.S . 132 ; 4 5 S . Ct . 280 ; 69L . Ed . 54 3 (1925 ) 1 1 Florid a V . Mevers . 46 6 U.S . 380 ; 10 4 S . Ct . 1852 ; 8 0 L . Ed . 2 d 38 1 (1984 ) 11,12 , 1 4 Guzma n V . State . 95 5 S.W.2 d 85 , 8 9 (Tex . Crim . App . 1997 ) 1

2 Michiga n V . Thomas . 45 8 U.S . 259 ; 10 2 S . Ct . 3079 ; 7 3 L . Ed . 2 d 75 0 (1982 ) 1 2 State V . Clack, 13-13-00345-C

R (unpublishe d memorandum ) 12

, 1 3 Stat e V . Elias . 33 9 S.W.3 d 66 7 (Tex . Crim . App . 2011 ) 1

2 Stat e V . Ross . 3 2 S.W.3 d 853 , 85 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 2000 ) 1

2

v iConstitution

s UNITE D STATE S CONST . Amen d I V 1 1 TEXA S CONST , art . 1 § 9 1 1 Statutes/Rule s TEX . R . APP . PROC . 34. 2 4 TEX . R . APP . PROC . 34.5(e ) 4

vi iNO . 03-13-00724-C

R I N TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S O F TH E THIR D DISTRIC T O F TEXA S STEPHE N TRAC Y MEREDITH , Appellan t V . TH E STAT E O F TEXA S Appelle e Appea l i n Caus e No . 4128 6 i n th e 424 * Judicia l Distric t Cour t o f Burne t County , Texa s

BriBf For Appellee T o Th e Honorabl e Justice s O f Sai d Court : No w come s th e Stat e o f Texas , hereinafte r calle d Appellee , an d submit s thi s brie f pursuan t t o th e provision s o f th e Texa s Rule s o f Appellat e Procedur e i n suppor t o f th e State' s reques t affir m th e judgmen t o f th e tria l court . 1statement Of The Case Appellan t ha s adequatel y describe d th e Statemen t o f th e Case .

Statement on Oral Argument Th e xmdersigne d waive s Ora l Argument . Th e undersigne d doe s no t believ e tha t Ora l Argumen t wil l b e beneficia l fo r thi s cas e fo r th e reaso n tha t th e issue s ar e straigh t forwar d an d lac k an y nove l o r comple x nuances . Shoul d th e Cour t believ e tha t Ora l Argumen t wil l assis t th e Cour t i n an y way , th e undersigne d wil l accommodat e th e Court .

2Response To issues Presented Respons e T o Issu e One :Th e tria l cour t properl y denie d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s becaus e th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s provide d officer s probabl e caus e t o believ e tha t Appellan t ha d narcotic s hidde n i n th e impounde d vehicle .

3statement Of Tfte Facts Appellan t ha s no t accuratel y describe d th e fact s o f thi s case . Th e Stat e o f Texa s doe s joi n wit h Appellan t t o stipulat e t o th e recreatio n o f th e charg e an d jur y forms , th e original s o f whic h ca n no t b e locate d b y th e distric t cler k an d ar e therefor e no t include d i n th e origina l Clerk' s Record . Sup p R R Vol . Il l Exh . 1 an d 2 ; TEX . R . APP . PROC . 34.2 , 34.5(e) . Appellan t wa s indicte d o n Apri l 2 , 2013 , fo r th e offens e o f Possessio n o f a Controlle d Substance , Cocaine , i n a n amoun t o f les s tha n on e gra m an d th e Indictmen t furthe r allege d tha t prio r t o th e commissio n o f thi s offens e Appellan t ha s bee n previousl y convicte d o f fou r stat e jai l offenses . C R Vol . 1 Page s 4-5 . Appellan t file d a motio n t o suppres s evidenc e o n Septembe r 4,2013 . C R Vol . 1 Pag e 10 . Th e tria l cour t conducte d a hearin g o n th e motio n t o suppres s o n Septembe r 11,2013 . R R Vol . 2 . A t th e hearin g th e partie s stipulate d tha t (1 ) ther e wa s a warrantles s searc h o f th e vehicl e (R R Vol . 2 Pag e 5) , (2 ) th e vehicl e wa s impounde d becaus e th e drive r di d no t hav e a vali d driver' s Hcens e (R R Vol . 2 Page s 5 , 8 - 9) , an d (3 ) shortl y afte r th e vehicl e wa s impounde d officer s use d a K-9 t o conduc t a fi-ee ai r snif f durin g whic h th e K- 9 alerte d bu t th e subsequen t searc h o f th e vehicl e yielde d n o narcotics . R R Vol . 2 4Page

s 5 - 9 . Th e officer s als o conducte d a n inventor y searc h whic h yielde d dru g paraphernali a bu t di d no t yiel d an y narcotics . R R Vol . 2 Page s 5-9 . Th e impoun d facilit y wa s owne d an d operate d b y Deput y Constabl e Garr y Adams . R R Vol . 2 Page s 10-11 . Jus t imde r tw o week s later , afte r Appellan t ha d bee n release d o n bond . Appellan t wa s allowe d acces s t o hi s vehicl e t o retriev e persona l item s a s Appellan t wa s unabl e t o clai m possessio n o f th e vehicl e itsel f a t tha t time . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 11 . Whil e Appellan t an d hi s companio n wer e insid e th e vehicl e locatin g an d retrievin g item s o f persona l property . Deput y Constabl e Adam s wa s standin g at th e front doo r o f th e vehicl e supervisin g th e action s o f Appellan t an d hi s companion . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 11 . Appellan t wa s retrievin g item s fro m th e driver' s sea t are a o f th e front passenge r compartmen t whil e th e companio n wa s retrievin g item s fro m th e bac k are a o f Appellant' s Suburban . R R Vol . 2 Page s 5 , 15 . Deput y Constabl e Adam s observe d Appellan t heavil y tuggin g at th e front o f th e storag e consol e attache d t o th e headline r o f th e vehicle . R R Vol . 2 Page s 11 , 1 8 - 19 . Deput y Constabl e Adam s directe d Appellan t t o sto p pullin g o n th e storag e consol e t o avoi d damag e t o th e vehicl e whil e i t i s i n impoun d an d Appellan t complied . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 11 .

5Presumabl

y afte r Appellan t an d hi s companio n lef t th e facility . Deput y Constabl e Adam s contacte d Burne t Count y Sheriff s Deput y Bindsei l an d reporte d tha t base d o n hi s previou s trainin g Deput y Constabl e Adam s believed , from wha t h e ha d observe d o f Appellant' s actions , tha t ther e wer e narcotic s stil l i n Appellant' s vehicle . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 12 . Th e nex t da y Deput y Constabl e Adam s gav e acces s t o th e interio r o f Appellant' s vehicl e t o Office r Will s an d Office r Fritsch . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 13 . Office r Fritsch , seate d i n th e driver' s seat , tugge d a t th e fron t o f th e storag e consol e i n th e headline r i n th e sam e fashio n tha t Deput y Constabl e Adam s observe d Appellan t doing , an d a n item/materia l fel l out . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 13 . O n cross-examinatio

n Deput y Constabl e Adam s testifie d tha t th e impoun d facilit y i s fenced , locked , an d no t ope n t o th e genera l public . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 14 . Appellant' s vehicl e wa s locke d at al l time s wit h th e ke y i n a locke d bo x i n Deput y Constabl e Adams ' office . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 13 . Deput y Constabl e Adam s fiirther testifie d tha t th e manne r i n whic h Appellan t wa s pullin g a t th e storag e consol e wa s different fro m a n attemp t t o ope n th e compartment s buil t int o th e console . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 18-21 . Base d o n hi s trainin g an d experienc e Deput y Constabl e Adam s wa s familia r wit h th e practic e o f hidin g narcotic s i n secre t storag e area s withi n vehicles . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 21 . Deput y Constabl e Adam s testifie d h e ha s bee n i n la w enforcemen t 1 8 years , ha s attende dmultipl

e school s i n narcotic s investigation , an d ha s assiste d DP S an d othe r la w enforcemen t officer s wit h numerou s stop s ove r th e pas t te n years . R R Vol . 2 Page s 22-23 . Deput y Bindsei l testifie d tha t h e ha s bee n a traine d K-9 handle r fo r te n years . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 25 . Deput y Bindsei l testifie d tha t hi s curren t K- 9 partner , Ringo , wa s initiall y traine d a s a patro l do g i n Europ e an d the n furthe r traine d fo r narcotic s detectio n at th e Hil l Countr y Do g Cente r an d ha s bee n workin g i n th e fiel d wit h Deput y Bindsei l sinc e 2007 . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 26 . Ring o doe s annua l certificatio n i n bot h narcotic s an d patro l wor k whic h i s supplemente d b y monthl y training . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 28 . Deput y Bindsei l testifie d tha t h e receive d a cal l o n Jun e 7 , 2012 , t o g o t o th e impoun d lo t an d hav e Ring o conduc t a free ai r snif f aroun d Appellant' s vehicle . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 27 . Ring o alerte d a t th e driver' s sid e door . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 27 . Afte r summarizin g th e evidenc e (R R Vol . 2 Page s 3 3 - 34 ) th e tria l cour t denie d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s an d mad e th e followin g findings : 1 . Ther e wa s probabl e caus e articulate d b y th e dog ; 2 . Th e furtiv e gesture s the n see n subsequen t creat e th e totalit y o f circumstanc e wher e tha t justifie d th e subsequen t search ; 73

. Th e office r i s wel l traine d an d know s thes e furtiv e gestures , ha s see n the m i n th e past ; an d 4 . Ther e wa s probabl e caus e t o execut e th e search . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 37 . A t tria l Burne t Polic e Office r Nolan d Hick s testifie d h e stoppe d Appellan t fo r drivin g wit h a n invali d driver' s license . R R Vol . 4 Pag e 22 . I n preparatio n fo r towin g Appellant' s Suburba n officer s conducte d a n inventor y searc h durin g whic h officer s locate d a pai r o f blu e jean s containin g tw o plasti c baggie s wit h suspiciou s residu e whic h th e officer s considere d t o b e dru g paraphernali a an d a whit e towe l wrappe d aroun d a clea r glas s pip e wit h a bow l o n th e en d tha t i s commonl y use d i n smokin g methamphetamin

e an d cocaine . R R Vol . 4 Page s 24-26 . Deput y Bindsei l testifie d abou t bein g calle d t o th e impoun d lot , runnin g Ring o aroun d Appellant' s vehicle , an d Ring o alertin g o n th e vehicle . R R Vol . 4 Page s 4 1 - 45 . Investigato r Will s the n testifie d abou t conductin g th e unsuccessfu l searc h followin g th e K- 9 alert . R R Vol . 4 Page s 5 5 -57 . Investigato r Will s the n testifie d abou t returnin g t o th e impoun d lo t afte r receivin g notic e fro m Deput y Constabl e Adam s o f Appellant' s suspiciou s conduc t whe n retrievin g persona l propert y fro m th e vehicl e an d findin g a bagg y containin g a n off-whit e rock-lik e substanc e suspecte d t o b e cocaine . R R Vol . 4 Page s 58-60 . Investigato r Will s too k th e substanc e t o th e DP S la b fo r testing . R R 8Vol

. 4 Pag e 61 . Th e DP S forensi c scientis t testifie d tha t th e substanc e submitte d wa s 0.1 4 gram s containin g cocaine . R R Vol . 4 Pag e 80 . A t th e tim e tha t th e actua l substance , State' s Exhibi t Eight , wa s offere d i n evidenc e Appellan t reurge d hi s motio n t o suppres s whic h th e tria l cour t denie d an d th e exhibi t wa s admitte d int o evidence . R R Vol . 4 Pag e 82 .

9Summary Of The Argument on Response to issue No. i (1 ) Th e tria l cour t properl y denie d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s becaus e th e totalit y o f th e circumstance

s provide d officer s probabl e caus e t o believ e tha t Appellan t ha d narcotic s hidde n i n th e impounde d vehicle . Appellan t complain s tha t th e tria l cour t shoul d hav e grante d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s becaus e an y probabl e caus e tha t officer s ha d develope d a t th e tim e tha t th e vehicl e wa s impounde d becam e stal e du e t o passag e o f tim e an d th e officer s wer e require d t o obtai n a searc h warran t t o conduc t a subsequen t searc h o f Appellant' s impounde d vehicle . However , officer' s observatio n o f Appellan t attemptin g t o acces s wha t appeare d t o th e office r a s a hidde n compartmen t whil e Appellan t wa s late r removin g persona l item s fro m th e impounde d vehicle , couple d wit h prio r informatio n gathered , includin g th e fre e ai r snif f alert , provide d officer s adequat e probabl e caus e t o believ e tha t contraban d wa s store d i n a hidde n compartmen t abov e th e storag e uni t attache d t o th e headline r o f Appellant' s vehicle .

1 0Argument On Response to Issue No. 1

I t i s wel l know n tha t th e genera l rul e o f la w i s tha t a citize n shal l b e free from governmen t intrusio n withou t a warrant . UNITE D STATE S CONST . Amen d IV ; TEXA S CONST , art . 1 § 9 . Bot h federa l an d stat e court s hav e recognize d tha t th e citizen' s righ t t o a n expectatio n o f privac y i n a n automobil e i s muc h lower . Carrol l V . Unite d States . 26 7 U.S . 132 ; 4 5 S . Ct . 280 ; 6 9 L . Ed . 54 3 (1925) . Wher e th e fact s an d circumstance s withi n polic e officers ' knowledg e an d o f whic h the y ha d reasonabl y trustworth y informatio n ar e sufficient i n themselve s t o warran t a ma n o f reasonabl e cautio n i n th e belie f tha t contraban d i s bein g transporte d i n th e automobil e whic h th e officer s sto p an d search , th e officer s ar e justifie d i n conductin g th e search . Carrol l V . Unite d States . 26 7 U.S . a t 162 . I n a cas e occurrin g i n Florida , th e defendan t wa s stoppe d i n hi s ca r an d arreste d fo r sexua l battery . Florid a v . Mevers . 46 6 U.S . 380 ; 10 4 S . Ct . 1852 ; 8 0 L . Ed . 2 d 38 1 (1984) . A t th e tim e o f hi s arrest , polic e officer s searche d hi s automobil e an d seize d severa l items . Florid a v . Meyers . 46 6 U.S . a t 380 . Th e vehicl e wa s the n towe d wher e i t wa s impounde d i n a locked , secur e area . Supra. Approximatel

y eigh t hour s later , a polic e office r wen t t o th e compoun d and , withou t obtainin g a warrant , searche d th e ca r fo r a secon d time . Additiona l evidenc e wa s seized . Supra. I n it s judgmen t reversin g th e tria l court' s suppressio n o f th e evidence , th e Suprem e Cour t pointe d ou t 1 1it s holdin g i n th e Thomas cas e (Michiga n v . Thomas . 45 8 U.S . 25 9 198 2 ) i n whic h th e Cour t uphel d a warrantles s searc h o f a n automobil e eve n thoug h th e automobil e wa s i n polic e custod y an d eve n thoug h a prio r inventor y searc h ha d akead y bee n made . Florid a v . Meyers . 46 6 U.S . at 382 . Th e Cour t emphasize d tha t th e justificatio n t o conduc t suc h a warrantles s searc h doe s no t vanis h onc e th e ca r ha s bee n immobilized . Supra. A revie w o f a tria l court' s rulin g o n a pretria l motio n t o suppres s i s wel l established . (1 ) Th e appellat e courts , includin g thi s Court , shoul d affor d ahnos t tota l deferenc e t o a tria l court' s determinatio n o f th e historica l fact s tha t th e recor d support s especiall y whe n th e tria l court' s fac t findings ar e base d o n a n evaluatio n o f credibilit y an d demeanor . (2 ) Th e appellat e cour t shoul d affor d th e sam e amoun t o f deferenc e t o tria l courts ' ruling s o n "applicatio n o f la w t o fac t questions, " als o know n a s "mixe d question s o f la w an d fact, " i f th e resolutio n o f thos e ultimat e question s turn s o n a n evaluatio n o f credibilit y an d demeanor . (3 ) Th e appellat e court s ma y revie w d e nov o "mixe d question s o f la w an d fact " no t fallin g withi n thi s category . Stat e V . Ross . 3 2 S.W.3 d 853 , 85 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 2000 ) (quoting Guzma n v . State . 95 5 S.W.2 d 85 , 8 9 [Tex . Crim . App . 1997]) ; Stat e v . Elias . 33 9 S.W.3 d 66 7 (Tex . Crim . App . 2011) . Appellan t seek s t o rel y o n th e unpublishe d memorandu m decisio n o f th e Thirteent h Cour t o f Appeal s numbere d 13-13-00345-C

R style d State v . Clack. Th e Clack cas e ca n no t properl y b e compare d t o th e instan t cas e becaus e o f th e diversit y 1 2o f th e cas e facts , h i Clack th e Cour t pointe d ou t tha t th e defendan t wa s no t i n o r aroun d th e vehicl e a t th e tim e o f arres t an d th e vehicl e wa s properl y parked , wa s no t impedin g traffic , an d ther e wa s n o nee d t o insur e th e protectio n o f th e vehicl e s o a s t o justif y bein g towe d an d impounded . Furthe r th e fact s o f th e cas e neve r ros e t o a leve l o f probabl e caus e t o believ e tha t evidenc e o f a crim e wa s locate d withi n th e vehicle . I n th e cas e unde r presen t consideratio n Appellan t wa s drivin g hi s vehicl e and , upo n hi s arres t fo r drivin g withou t a vali d driver' s license , i t wa s necessar y t o to w an d impoun d th e vehicl e t o safeguar d th e vehicl e an d t o allo w fo r prope r flow o f traffic . Durin g th e inventor y searc h officer s locate d dru g paraphernali a withi n th e vehicle . Onc e th e vehicl e wa s secure d i n th e impoun d lo t th e K-9 alerte d at th e driver' s doo r o f th e vehicl e givin g officer' s probabl e caus e t o believ e tha t narcotic s wer e locate d withi n th e vehicle . A searc h o f th e obviou s area s withi n th e vehicl e di d no t resul t i n discover y o f an y narcotics . Later , whil e th e vehicl e wa s stil l i n a secure d are a wit h n o suggestio n o f th e vehicl e havin g bee n disturbe d o r tampere d with . Appellant , whil e retrievin g persona l property , wa s observe d attemptin g t o pul l dow n a storag e compartmen t buil t int o th e headline r o f th e vehicle . Th e furtiv e act s o f Appellan t suggeste d t o Deput y Constabl e Adam s tha t Appellan t ha d somethin g hidde n betwee n th e storag e compartmen t an d th e roo f o f th e vehicle , a n are a tha t i s no t typicall y accessibl e t o th e operato r o f th e vehicl e withou t causin g damag e t o th e vehicle . Suc h 1 3furtiv

e act s b y Appellan t gav e officer s reaso n t o believ e tha t th e initia l aler t o f th e K-9 wa s indee d a positiv e aler t an d allowe d officer s t o g o directl y t o Appellant' s hidin g spo t an d retriev e th e narcotic s hidde n there . A s pointe d ou t b y Appellant , th e tria l court , i n denyin g Appellant' s Motio n t o Suppress , mad e th e followin g finding s a t th e conclusio n o f th e suppressio n hearing : 1 . Ther e wa s probabl e caus e articulate d b y th e dog , 2 . Th e furtiv e gesture s the n see n subsequen t create d th e totalit y o f th e circumstanc e wher e tha t justifie d th e subsequen t search , 3 . Th e office r i s wel l traine d an d know s thes e furtiv e gestures , ha s see n the m i n th e past , 4 . S o al l together , th e Cour t finds tha t ther e wa s probabl e caus e t o execut e th e search . R R Vol . 2 Page s 34 , 37 . I n th e Florid a v . Meyer s cas e cite d herei n above , th e Unite d State s Suprem e Cour t approve d th e officers ' secon d searc h o f th e impounde d vehicl e 8 hour s late r base d merel y o n th e origina l probabl e caus e facts . I n ou r case , whil e ther e i s a longe r tim e ga p ther e i s als o a n intervenin g facto r whic h relate s bac k t o th e probabl e caus e develope d throug h th e K-9 aler t givin g officer s a bette r indicato r o f wher e th e narcotic s coul d b e found . 1 4Ther

e bein g n o controvertin g fact s admitte d a s evidenc e o r an y othe r facto r o r suggestio n tha t th e historica l fact s hear d b y th e tria l cour t wer e fals e o r misleading , thi s Cour t shoul d giv e th e tria l cour t tota l deferenc e o f th e tria l court' s fac t finding s a s the y ar e base d o n th e credibilit y an d demeano r o f th e testifyin g witnesses . Th e Cour t shoul d furthe r giv e th e tria l cour t tota l deferenc e o f th e tria l court' s ruling s o n applicatio n o f la w t o th e instan t fac t question s a s th e resolutio n o f thos e ultimat e question s turne d o n a n evaluatio n o f credibilit y an d demeano r o f th e testifyin g witnesses . Ther e wa s n o indicatio n i n th e evidenc e adduce d at tria l tha t an y o f th e evidenc e admitte d durin g th e suppressio n hearin g wa s fals e o r misleading . Fo r thes e reason s th e relie f sough t b y Appellan t i n hi s Issu e Presente d mus t b e denie d an d th e judgmen t o f convictio n an d sentenc e b e affirmed .

1 5PRAYE R FO R RELIE F WHEREFORE

, PREMISE S CONSIDERED

, Appelle e pray s th e Cour t den y Appellant' s appea l an d affir m th e judgmen t o f th e tria l court . Respectfull y submitted , OFFIC E O F DISTRIC T ATTORNE Y 3 3 ^ an d 424 * JUDICIA L DISTRICT S Wile y B . McAfee , Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 Telephon e Telecopie

r (325 ) 247-575 5 (325 ) 247-527 4 m m Assistan t Distric t Attorne y Stat e Ba r No . 0335350 0 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u

s ATTORNE Y FO R APPELLE E CERTIFICAT

E O F WOR D COUN T Thi s i s t o certif y tha t th e pertinen t portio n o f thi s brie f contain s 2,59 7 word s printe d i n Time s Ne w Roma n 1 4 fon t accordin g t o th e WordPerfect TM X 7 wor d coun t tool .

1 6CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E Thi s i s t o certif y tha t a tru e cop y o f th e abov e an d foregoin g instrument , togethe r wit h thi s proo f o f servic e hereof , ha s bee n forwarde d b y standar d mai l o n th e 7t h da y o f Januar y 2014 , t o Mr . Gar y E . Prust , Attorne y fo r Appellant , b y emai l an d b y EServe . Assistan t Distric t Attorne y

1 7