## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O

. P D

- 0 0 4 8

- 1 9

T H O M A S D I X O N , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E S E V E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

L U B B O C K C O U N T Y

H E R V E Y , J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E A S L E R a n d N E W E L L J J

. , j o i n e d

.

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I j o i n t h e C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n b e c a u s e I a g r e e t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l C S L I

r e c o r d s i n t h i s c a s e w a s h a r m l e s s u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e

. B u t I

w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o a d d r e s s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s ’ s a n a l y s i s a n d o u r d e c i s i o n i n L o v e v

.
S t a t e , 5 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 5 , 8 4 5 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 6 ) , w h i c h t h e l o w e r c o u r t r e l i e s o n

.Dixon –2

L o v e d e a l t w i t h A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 9 o f t h e T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d w h e t h e r t e x t 1

m e s s a g e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

— n o t t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

— a s i s t h e i s s u e h e r e

. A n d w h i l e i t i s 2

t r u e t h a t w e a n a l y z e d t h e s t a t u t o r y e r r o r i n L o v e f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l h a r m , w e w e r e w r o n g

t o d o s o a n d s h o u l d d i s a v o w t h a t p a r t o f t h e C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n

. 3

Article I , Section 9 states that, 1
The pe ople shall be sec ure in their pe rsons, houses, pape rs and possessions, fr om all unrea sonable seizures or sear ches, a

nd no war rant to sea

rch a ny place , or to seize any person or thing, sha ll issue without describing the m as nea r as may be, nor without probable c ause, suppor ted by oath or a ffirma tion.

T E X

. C O N S T . art. I , § 9.

I n rele vant par

t, Article 38.23(a ) states that, 2

No evidenc e obtained by

an off icer or other pe rson in violation of any provisions of the Constituti on or laws of the State of Te x as, or of

the Constitut ion or laws of the United States of Ame rica , shall be admitted in evidenc e ag ainst the ac cused on the trial of a

ny criminal ca se.

* * *

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 38.23(a ).

Har m analy sis is gover

ned by Rule 44.2 of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure. I n 3 rele vant par

t that rule states that,
(a) Constit utional Error. I f the a ppellate r ecor d in a cr iminal case r evea ls constitutional error tha t is subject to harmless err or re view, the c ourt of appe als must rever se a judg ment of convic tion or punishment unless the court dete rmines bey ond a re asonable doubt that the err or did not contribute to the convic tion or punishment.
(b) Othe r Err ors. Any

other e rror , defe ct, irre g ularity , or var iance that does not aff ect substantial rig hts must be disreg arde d.Dixon –3

W e u s e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

- h a r m s t a n d a r d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

v i o l a t i o n i s h a r m f

u l b e c a u s e t h e f

e d e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n n a t u r e , i n h e r e n t

i n t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

. He r n a n d e z v

. S t a t e , 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 1 0 6 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 1 ) ;

s e e T E X

. R

. A P P

. 4 4

. 2 ( a )

. U n l i k e t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e h e l d t h a t

t h e r e i s n o s u p p r e s s i o n r e m e d y i n h e r e n t i n A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 9

. H u l i t v

. S t a t e , 9 8 2 S

. W

. 2 d

4 3 1 , 4 3 7 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( c i t i n g W e l c h e k v

. S t a t e , 2 4 7 S

. W

. 5 2 4 ( 1 9 2 2 ) )

. I n s t e a d ,

t h e r e m e d y f

o r a n A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 9 v i o l a t i o n i s t o i n v o k e o n e o f T e x a s ’ s s t a t u t o r y

e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e s

. 4

T h a t b r i n g s m e t o t h e p r o b l e m w i t h L o v e

. V i o l a t i o n s o f s t a t u t e s a r e r e v i e w e d f o r

n o n
- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l h a r m , n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l h a r m

. T h u s , w e e r r e d w h e n w e a n a l y z e d t h e 5

s t a t u t o r y e r r o r i n t h a t c a s e f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l h a r m

. C o n s e q u e n t l y , w e s h o u l d o v e r r u l e t h a t

p a r t o f o u r o p i n i o n a t o u r e a r l i e s t o p p o r t u n i t y

. E r r o n e o u s l y a s s e s s i n g h a r m u n d e r t h e

* * *

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 44.2(a)–( b). The majority

of suppre ssion claims rely on the g ener al suppression re medy in Article 4 38.23(a) , but there a

re othe r more spe cific statutory suppression rules that c an be r elied on. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 18A.205 ( “The state may not use as evide nce in a

criminal proce eding information g ained throug h the use of a n interce ption device installed unde r this subchapte r if author ization for the device is not sought or is soug ht but not obtained.”). Presiding Judge Keller

has re ache d the same c onclusion. I n Hernande z , she wrote in 5 dissent that “Article 38.23 is a statutory mecha nism, not a constituti onal one, a nd any err or predic ated ther eon must be ana ly zed under the standa

rd of ha rm for non- constitutional errors.” Hernande z , 60 S.W .3d at 116 (Ke ller, P.J ., dissenting)

.Dixon –4

m u c h h i g h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

- h a r m s t a n d a r d u n f a i r l y p u n i s h e s t h e S t a t e

. 6

W i t h t h e s e c o m m e n t s , I j o i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y

.

F i l e d : J a n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 2 0

P u b l i s h

Clark v. State , 365 S.W .3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“[C] onstitut ional and non-

6 constitutional errors a

re subjec t to vastly

differ ent ana ly ses on appe al.”)

.