NO. 07-05-0459-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEA LS FOR THE SEV ENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMAR ILLO PANELA JUNE 6, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ PETERRODRIGUEZ, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FROM THE 140 DISTRICTCOURT OF LUBB OCK COUN TY; TH NO . 2 00 5- 40 80 02 ; H ON ORAB LE JI M B OB D AR NE LL , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPB ELL an d HAN COCK an d PIRTLE , JJ. OP IN ION Fo ll ow in g a pl eao f n otg ui lty, Ap pe ll an t, Pe te r R od ri gu ez , w asco nv icte d bya ju ry of p os se ss io n of

a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e wi th i nt en t tode li ve r an d s en te nc ed to fi fte en ye ars confinementan d a $ 10,000 fine. Presenting five issues pertaining to two gen eral ca te go ri eso f a ll eg ed e rro r, heco nt en dsth e tri al co urt e rre d by(1 ) o ve rru li ng h ismo ti on toTe x . C od e Cr im . P ro c. An n. a rt. 3 8. 23 (V er no n 20 05 ). 1 2 su pp re sse vi de nc e an d (2 ) d en yi ng h isre qu es t f or a ju ry charge ins tru cti on p ursu an t t o article 38.23 of the Cod e of Criminal Procedure. Ba sed on the follow ing an alysis, we 1 reverse and remand. Ba ck grou nd F acts During asearch incide nt to a warrantless arrest, a Lubbo ck poli ce officer disco vered methamphetamine conceal ed in a pouch in Appellan t’s pants. Appellant was arrested for kidnappi ng his girlfriend, Lorie Frerran. According to the testimony, Corporal Scott O’Neil l of the L ub bo ck

P ol ic e De pa rtm en t res po nd ed toa ca ll from L or ie ’se stran ge d husba nd, Alberto Frerran, that Loriehad possibly been ab ducted from a B ig Lots parking l ot. When he arrived at the scene, Corporal O’N eill spoke wi th Alberto a nd an uni dentified w itness. Alberto id entified A ppellan t as the suspected abd uctor and po inted out Appell ant’s car i n th e p ar king lot. From the vehicle information, Corporal O’Neill was able to confirm that Appell ant was the vehicl e’s re gistered own er and o btain Ap pellant’s address. Heand several other o fficers then drove to the address i n an attempt to locate Ap pellant and Lorie

. Corporal O’N eill te stified that as they approached the reside nce, he o bserved Appellant “strugglin g” with L orie in the front yard and holding her arm. A ppellan t was immediately ha ndcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. C orporal O’Neill advised Appell ant that he was not under arrest but in “protective custody” until hecould determine3

what was going on. After spea king w ith the other parties, Corporal O’Neill inform ed Appell ant that he was under arrestfor kidnapping and transported him to a holding facility. An in ventory search of A ppellan t’s person revea led $184 in small bi lls, two digi tal scales, and a brown felt pouch containing several plastic baggies of a substance la ter determined to be methamphetamine. Ap pe ll an t w assu bs equentl y c ha rg ed w it h po ss es si on o f m et ha mp he ta mi new it h intent to del iver. Prior to trial, citing the Fourth Amendment to the Uni ted States Constitut ion an d article 38.23 of the Code, Ap pellant moved to supp ress the evid ence obtained during the search clai ming that the officer did not have probable causeto arrest him for kidna pping. The trial court, howe ver, stated its b elief that the officer “acted in good faith” and de nied the motion. Si milarly, at the conclusion of the e vidence, A ppellan t re qu es te d a ch argei ns tru cti on p ursu an t toa rti cl e 38 .2 3 th atwou ld h av e re qu ired th e jur y tod is re ga rd a nye vi de nc e ob ta in ed a s t here su lto f an un la wful arres t. B utth e tri al co urt de ni ed th e re qu es t s ta ti ng th ati t w as“al eg al i ss uea s o pp os ed toafa ctu al i ss ue .” Appell ant was subsequently convicted an d filed this appea l. Charge E rror By his fifth issue, App ellant co ntends the trial cou rt erred in ove rruling hi s objection to the charge of the court and hi s request for an instruction unde r article 38.23. When reviewing the record for j ury c harge error, we must first de termine whether error actual ly exists, an d second, whether suffic ien t har m resulted from the error to requ ire reversal o f4

th e co nv icti on . Hu tchv. S ta te , 9 22 S .W. 2d 1 66 , 1 70 -7 1 (T ex .C ri m.A pp . 1 99 6)(citin g Al m an zav . S ta te , 68 6 S .W. 2d 15 7, 17 1 (T ex .C ri m.A pp . 1 98 5) ). See al soT ex . C od e Cr im

. Proc . A nn . a rt. 3 6. 19 (V er no n 20 06 ). Article 38.23 Instruction Article 38.23 of the Code of C riminal Procedure provides, in relevant part, as fol lows: (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or o th er pe rs on in violation of any provi si on s of

t heC on sti tu ti on o r lawso f th e St at e of T exas , or of the Con stitution or laws of the Uni ted States of A merica, shall be admitted i n evidence against the accused on the trial of any crimina l case. In a nyca sewhere th e le ga l ev id en cera is esa n is su e he re un de r, th e jur y shall be instructed that if it bel ieves, or h as a r easonable do ubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisi ons of this Article, then a nd in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtaine d. Te x . C od e Cr im . P ro c. An n. a rt. 3 8. 23 (a ) (Ver no n 20 05 ). Appell ant urges hewas entitled to such an instruction because there was a factual dispute as to the circumstances su rrounding the basis for hi s arrest and, therefore, the subsequent d iscovery and seizure of th e me th am ph etam ine. A jury instruction un der article 38 .2 3 i s re qu ired on lywh en the re isa fa ctu al di sp ut e c on ce rn in g th e le ga li ty of th e se iz ure of e vi de nc e. Ga rzav. S ta te , 1 26 S .W. 3d 7 9, 8 5 (T ex .C ri m.A pp . 2 00 4) ; Pi er cev. S ta te , 32 S. W.3 d 24 7, 2 51 (Te x .C ri m.A pp . 2 00 0) ; We sb ro ok v. S ta te , 29 S.W.3d 1 03, 121 (Tex.Crim.App. 200 0). In this case, the trial court overruled A ppellan t’s objection to the5

failure of the charge to includ e an instruction under article 38.23, stating, “The Court is o f the opini on that that i s a legal issue as opposed to a factual issue. The Court will den y your request.” Accordingly, we must first determine whether there was a factual issue requi ring an a rti cl e 38 .2 3 in str ucti on . Fo r p ur po se s o f d et er mi ni ng w he th er a n arti cl e 38 .2 3 in str ucti on i s req ui re d, a factual issue exists when there is evid ence that con troverts those facts relied upon by the of fi ce r toes ta bl is h p ro ba bl e c au sefor th e ar re st. Se e Ga rza , 126 S.W.3d at 85-88. A fact issuecon ce rn in g wh et he r th e ev id en cewasl eg al lyo bt ai ne d ma y berai se d from a ny source and it does not matter whether the e vide nc e i s “ strong, weak, contradicted, unimpeached , o r u nb el ie va bl e. ” Id. a t 8 5. I f t hed ef en da ntsu cc es sfu ll y rai se s afa ctual dispute ove r whether the evidence was le gally obtained, i nclusion of a properly worded arti cl e 38.23 in str ucti on i s m an da to ry. Jo rd anv. S ta te , 562 S.W.2d 4 72, 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 197 8). Where there a re no disputed fact issues, the d etermination of probable cause to a rrest is a l egal i ssue and there is no ne ed to cha rge the jury on that is su e. B el

l v. St ate, 93 8 S. W.2 d 35(T ex .C ri m.A pp . 1 99 6)

. Co ns id er in g th e te sti mo nyi n th e pres en t c as e, we ag re e wi th A pp el la ntth atth ere was confli cting evid ence regardin g the ci rcumstances leadin g to hi s arrest for kidnapp ing. Corporal O’N eill did no t base hi s arrest on the struggle or po tential assault he had obse rved because h e testified that he would have relea sed App ellant h ad he determined that the kidnappi ng all egations were wrong. He testified that he arrested A ppellan t based o n “[t]he6

initial information received, the u ninvolved w itness information, an d th e victim’s information.” He did no t, however, elab orate regardi ng the d etails of this information. His only testimony c onc erning the basis for A ppellan t’s arrest was that the initia l complai nt referenced a po ssible abduction and the factt hat he o bserved App ellant h olding Lorie’s arm and “struggling ” with he r in front of the residence. Meanwhile , Lorie, the a lleged victim of the ki dna ppi ng, elaborated further on the events lead ing to Appell ant’s arrest. She testified that, prior to the incident, she had decided to stop seei ng Appell ant and return to her husband, Al berto. While shopping at Big Lots, Appell ant approached her and began pleading wit h h er not to leave him. At so me point during thei r encounter, Alb erto called her o n her ce ll phone a nd asked if he sh ould “cal l the cops.” She replied, “Yes, w hatever i t takes.” Lorie eventually agreed to fol low A ppellan t back to hi s h ous e. However, she ul timately drove A ppellan t to his house i n her car be ca us e hep ro mi se d he r t ha t h e wo ul d ge t h er a “2 0" o f m et ha mp he ta mi ne . Wh en th eya rri ve d atA pp el la nt ’sh ou se , A pp el la nttr ie d top ersu ad e he r t o co me in si de

. Bu t s herefus ed an d to ld h im to“ju st goi n an d ge t w ha t I n ee d, a nd l etmel ea ve .” As the twotalked in the front yard, the p olice and Alberto arrived. Lorie testified that whe n they saw the police, Appell ant was not holding her arm and they were not str uggling . When the officers approache d, Lorie tol d them, “ It’s okay. It’s okay.” She al so told Appell ant “not to worry” and “everything woul d be okay.” When Appellan t was handcuffed and place d in7

the patrol car, Lo rie stated that i t wa s “shocki ng” and she became upset and confused as tow hyth e of

fi ce rs we re a rre sti ng h im

. Regarding her discussi ons wi th the officers, Lorie recalled telling them about the argument at Big Lots but also recal led tell ing them that she did not bel ieve shehad been ki dn ap pe d. She testified th atw he n sh e to ld th e of fi ce rs ev er

yth in g wa s o ka y, Al be rto sq ue ez ed h er

a rm an d wh is pe re d “sh utth e fu ck u p, b it ch .” We conclude L orie’s testimony raised a factual dispu te as to A ppellan t’s arrest because that evide nce, if bel ieved, neg ated some of the facts asserted by Corporal O’N eill asth e grou nd s fo r prob ab leca us e toarres t A pp el la nt

. Co ns id er in g th e co nfli cti ng a cc ou nts as to the facts surrounding Ap pellant’s origi nal detention and subseq uent arrest, we agree that the evide nce at l east rai sed a factual dispute regarding w hether Corporal O’Neill had prob ab leca us e toa rre st Ap pe ll an t f or ki dn ap pi ng . Co ns eq ue nt ly , w e fi nd th atthetr ia l co urt erred when it refused Ap pellant’s request for an i nstruction pursuant to article 38.23. Hav in g de te rmi ne d th at th e tri al co urt er re d, we now co ns id er whether there was su ffi ci en t h ar m t o re qu ire re ve rsa l. Al m an zav. St

ate , 686 S .W.2d 157, 171 (Tex .Crim.App. 1984) (op. on reh’g). The standard for determining whether sufficient harm resulted from the charge e rror t o require reversal depen ds upon whether the a ppellan t made a timely objectio n toth e ch arge . Id

. Wh en , a s h ere, th e ap pe ll an t h asma dea ti me lyo bjection, charge error wil l require reversal "only as long as the error is not harmless." Id. The degree of h arm may be de termined in lig htof t he entire jury charge, the state of the8

evidenc e, including the contested issues and the weight o f the probative evidence, the argu me nts o f c ou ns el , a nd a nyo th er re le va nti nf

or ma ti on i n th e re co rd

. Id. In the present ca se, if instructed pursuant to article 38.23, the jury could have believed Lo ri e’s testimony a nd determined that Corporal O’N eill was not justified in ar re sti ng A pp el la ntfo r h er ki dn ap pi ng . In tha t ev en t, th eywo ul d h av e b ee n in str ucte d to di sre ga rd th e dr ug e vi de nc e ob ta in ed a s a re su lto f t hese arch i nc id en t t o th e ar re st. See art. 38.23. Becau se the jury wa s not provided thi s option, we conclu de the trial court’s failure to p rovide an article 38.23 instruction wa s harmful and sustain Ap pellant’s fifth issue. Our disposition of this issue pretermits App ellant’s remaining i ssues. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment a nd remand the cause for further proceedings.

Patrick A. P irtle Justice Publish

.