NO. 07-07 -016 4-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 AU GU ST 24, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ANT IONE DESHAN GENT RY , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 54, 585- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t An ti one D eshan G e n tr y pl ead g uil ty

to poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subst ance and brings this ap pea l from the trial cou rt ’s d e n ia l of his mot ion to supp ress. T hrou gh one po int of

error, appe llant con ten ds tha t by den y ing his m otion , the t rial court ab us ed i ts d i s c ret i on . W e affi r m.See T ex. Health & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 5(c) (Vernon 2 003 ). This is a third 1 degree felon y

pun ishab le by imp risonm entfor any term of not m ore tha n ten y ears or less tha n tw o y ears. T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 12. 34 (Ve rnon 200 3). 2 Back g ro und After a traff icst op, a ppel lan t w as charge d b y indi ctmentw it h i ntent ion all y and know ing ly

pos ses si ng co cai ne in an amount o f one g ra m or more butl ess than four g ra ms. The i ndi ctmentl ater w as amended to incl ude an enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph bas ed 1 on a prior felon y conviction. The reafter, appellan t f iled a mo tion to supp ress the e v iden ce found dur ing the sto p, ar re st, and se a rch. F oll ow ing a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress . Appel lan t, pursuant to a ple a ag re ement, ple ad g uil ty to the o ffense charg ed and w as sent enced to nin e y ears o f impr is onment a nd a $1,000 fine. This appeal foll ow ed. One w it ness , an Amar il lo pol ic e off ic er , tes ti fied at the hear ing on appe ll ant’ s mot ion to s uppress . He tes ti fied th at ab out n oon on th e day i n q uest ion he s aw

a v ehi cl e w it h a temporar

y tag trav eli ng ahead of him. H e the n obs erved the dr iv er , i denti fied l ater as a p p e ll a n t , m a k e a wid e ri gh tt u rn o n t o S a n b o rn S t re e t
. Co n c lu d in g h e h a d o b s e rve d two traff ic viol a ti o n s, one i nv olv ing the tag and the o ther i nv olv ing the w ide tur n, t he officer cond ucte d a traf

f ic stop. W hen he m ade co nta ct w ith app ellanta nd request ed h is driv er’s li cens e, ap pel lan t t old hi m he di d not hav e one. Appel lan t t hen g ot ou t of the car and the of f icer req uest ed c o n s e n tt o se arch him beca use “[h] e w as sha king” and said he d idn’t hav e any i denti ficat ion
.T h e S t a t e co n t e n d s a ls o t h a t t h e co c a in e in a p p e ll a n t ’s p o s s e s s io n wo u ld h a ve 2 been ad mis si ble i n any

ev ent u nder the doct ri ne dis cus sed in Fletcher v. Sta te, 90 S .W .3d 419 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2002, no pet .) , i n w hic h w e hel d dr ug s found du ring searches inc ide nt t o the defendant’ s arrestafter disc ov er y of outs tandi ng w ar ra nts w ere ad missible w it hout re g ard to the law fulness of the i nit ial dete nti on. W e do not a ddress thi s c ontent ion
.

3 Dur ing hi s s earch of appell ant, the o ff ic er loc ated a w all et c ontai nin g i denti ficat ion
. The off ic er

co nduct ed a chec k o n appel lan t’ s i denti ficat ion , f in d in g sev en out sta ndi ng w ar ra nts
. The off ic er

pl aced appel lan t und er ar re st on th e w ar ra nts and doubl e- chec ked the d eal er ’s tag s o n the ca r to en sure the v ehi cl e w as not stol en. The off ic er dete rmi ned that the t ag w as leg it imat e. The off ic er then se arched t h e v ehi cl e i nci dent to ar re st and found narcot ic s t hat resul ted i n appel lan t’ s p re sentprosec uti on. Ana ly sis In ap pel lan t’ s p oin t of er ro r, he c ontends the tr ial co urt abu se d i ts dis creti on by deny ing the moti on to su ppress ev ide nce der iv ed f ro m t h e traff icst op as there w as no “inheren tly

ill egal act” to justif

y the warrant less stop . Appe llant does not app ear to conte st his ar re st based on the outst andi ng w ar ra nts or the searc h inci dent to arrest
. Inste ad, h e 2 arg ues the i nit ial st op w as not b ased on reason abl e s uspi ci on. W e w il l address onl y that cont enti on. A tr ial co urt' s r uli ng on a moti on to s u p p re ss i s rev iewed for abuse of dis creti on. Oles v. State, 993 S.W .2d 1 03, 1 06 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 999)
. In a suppress ion hear ing , t he tr ial co urt i s t he s ole j udg e of t h e c re d ib il ity

of the w it ness es and t he w eig ht t o be g iv en thei r tes ti mony . Sta te v. Ross , 32 S.W .3d 8 53, 8 55- 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App.2 000) . U nder the appl ic abl e s tandard, w e w il l re view the re cord ev ide nce and al l re asona ble i nferenc es4

therefrom i n the l ight mos t fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng . Vi

ll ar re al v. State , 935 S.W .2d 1 34, 1 39 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 996) ; Tay lor v. Sta te , 20 S.W .3d 5 1, 54 -5 5 ( Tex .App.
– T exarkana 20 00, pet. ref'd). In rev iew ing tr ial co urt r uli ng s o n matt ers s uch as m o ti ons to s uppress , app ell ate cour ts afford al most total deferen ce to tr ial cour t deter minat ion s of his tor ic al facts. Guz m an v. State , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App .19 97). How ever, deten tion a nd re a s o n able sus pic ion are by nature leg al conc epts and are proper ly su bje ct to de n ovorev iew
. Hun ter v. State, 955 S.W .2d 1 02, 1 07 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 997) ; Sander s v . St ate , 992 S .W .2d 7 42, 744 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, pet. re f'd). Acc ordin g ly , for pur poses of Four th A mendment ana ly sis w e giv e ap prop riate de feren ce to th e trial co urt's det ermin ation o f historical facts, but we rev iew

the deci si on of the tr ial co urt de n ovoas to w het her the h istorical facts, v iewed from t he s tandpoi nt of an obj ect iv ely re a sonable person so si tuate d as w as the police o f f icer, am oun t to “reason able suspicion ” suf f icient to justif

y an investigatory detent ion
. Or

nel as v. United S tates , 517 U.S. 690, 697- 99, 1 16 S. Ct . 165 7, 16 61- 62, 1 34 L.Ed. 2d 911 (1 996) ; Guz m an, 955 S.W .2d a t 89. At t he hear ing , the o ff ic er tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t’ s v ehi cl e first attract ed hi s a ttent ion becau se ithad a deal er ’s or paper tag rather

than a reg ula r li cens e pl ate. H e not ed th at s uc h ta g s ma y

b e s us pi c i ou s , pa rti c ul ar l y i f t he y a re un rea da bl e, b ec au s e th e police dep artm entcomm only find s stolen cars w ith tem pora ry tags covering the hard plate s. He also te stif ied th at be cause of the variety

of ty pes of t em pora ry

t ags, it is h ard to te ll ex actlyT he o f f icer te stif ied he “had tw o v iolation s: [t]h e plat es ob scured to w here I could 3 not read i t effecti v ely

from w her e I wa s p a tr oll ing to make s ure tha t t his l ic ense pla te bel ong ed on th is veh icl e . As I w as tr y ing to g et t his i nformati on, h e made t he w ide r ig ht turn atw hich tim e I decid ed to g o ah ead and make the s t o p so I could m ore ef fectively read the pla te.” 5 w hat ty pe of pl ate i s o n a c ar w hen d rivin g b e h in d i t. H ere, t he officer sa id the t ag w as attac hed onl y

i n one pla ce, ca usi ng i t t o flap and mak ing i t di ff ic ultto re ad i n traff ic
. W it h respect t o appellant’s r ig ht t ur n, t he officer st ated appel lan t t ur ned i nto t he cent er of Sanbor n St re et. The record i ndi cat es the res ide nti al st re et had no cente r str ipe
. The off ic er

sa id appel lan t w as “s traddl ing ” the cent er of the road as he t ur ned, and ag re ed w it h the prosec utor

thatthe cent er

of appel lan t’ s c ar

w as in the c enter

of the road. Ev ide nce show ed th at a pothol e or dete ri orated por

ti on of the aspha ltroadw ay w as loc ated on the ri g ht si de of t he ro adw ay , about hal f a blo ck , or “1 2 houses” f ro m the int ersecti on atw hic h appel lan t made his tur n. The off ic er sa id he s topped appel lan t bas ed on b oth of

his observed v iolation s. 3 W hile a po lice of

f icer must have prob able cause for a f ull custod ial arrest, a me re sto p of an ind iv idu al for the pur poses of i nv est ig ati on does not re q uire suc h su b sta nti al jus ti ficat ion
. Gajewski

v. Sta te, 944 S.W .2d 450, 452 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1997, th no pet .) , citi

ng T er ry v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1, 20- 22, 8 8 S. CT. 1868, 1879- 81, 2 0 L.E d.2d 889 (1 968)
. Thus, for a temporar y dete nti on, a n off ic er

musthav e reason abl e su sp icion, show n throug h s peci fic a rt ic ula ble facts , t hat s ome unus ual acti v ity i s or has oc cur re d, t hat the d etai ned person is conne cte d w it h the act iv ity , and that the u nusua l act iv ity i s rela ted to t he c ommis si on of a c ri me. Hoa g v . St ate, 728 S.W .2d 3 75, 3 78- 80 ( Tex .Crim .App.Beca use w e conc lud e the tr ial cour t’ s act ion w as cor re ct under thi s theor y , w e do 4 n o t f u rt h e r ad d re ss th e of f ice r’s te st im o n y con ce rn in g th e te m p o ra ry ta g.

6 1987)
. This dete rmi nati on is based on the total ity of the c ircums tanc es. Gar ci a v . St ate, 43 S. W .3d 5 27 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)
. There is no req uirement t hat a par ti cul ar statut e be v iol ated in order to g iv e ri se to re asona ble sus pic ion
. Gajewski, 944 S.W .2d a t 452 ; Lock ett v. State, N o. 01 -0 8- 00225- CR , 200 9 W L 40234, * 3 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] st Jan. 8, 2009, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publi cat ion ). The subj ect iv e intentof the o ff ic er

i s i rrele v ant t o the dete rmi nati on of the ex is tenc e of reason a ble su spi ci on; ins tead, w e appl y

an o bje cti v e s tandard, i nq uir ing onl y w hether the evide n ce re v eal s a n obj ective b a sis f o r the s top. Garcia , 43 S.W .3d a t 530 ; Po well v. Sta te, 5 S .W .3d 3 69, 376- 77 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 1999, p e t. ref ’d) , cer t. denied, 529 U. S. 1 116, 120 S. Ct
. 197 6, 14 6 L.E d.2 d 80 5 (200 0). W e find the t ri al cour

t p ro p e rl y

co uld hav e c oncl uded t he officer tes ti fied to facts giv ing r ise to a reaso nab le suspicio n a p p e ll a n tviolated a traf f ic law in the m ann er of

his ri g h tt u r n . A p p e l l a n ta n d t h e S t a t e b o t h re fe r t o s e c t i o n 5 4 5
. 1 0 1 o f t h e T ra n s p o rt ati on 4 Cod e, w hic h req uires a dr iv er to make r ig ht t ur ns as cl osel y as pract ic abl e to the ri g ht- hand cur b or edg e of the ro adw ay . Tex . Transp. C ode An n. § 545.101 (a ) ( Ver non 1999). Atthe hear ing , app ell ant reli ed on the obst ru cti on in the road t o ex pla in his w ide tur n. SeeT e x. Trans p. C ode An n. § 545.051 (a )( 2) (V er non 1999) (req uir ing dr iv ing on the ri g ht hal f of the ro adw ay unl ess , inter alia , an obst ruction n ecessita tes mo v ing to the left). But evidence shows t hat t he pot hol e or deter iorated aspha ltw as not l ocat ed atthe int ersecti on butw as “1 2 houses ” d o wn the s treet from the int ersecti on. The tr ial co urt w as free t o det er mine7

th e w ei g htt o be g i v en t he e v i de nc e of a n ob s tr ucti on i n th e roa d. Th ere al s o w as s om e uncer tai nty i n the tes ti mony as to w hether appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e w as merel y near the cent er of Sanbor n or

w as in the cent er of t he street, but the tr ial co urt w as free al so to ac ceptthe t e s t i mo n y h e w a s “ s t ra d d l i n g ” t h e c e n t e r. Se e Gu zman, 955 S.W .2d a t 89; Ross , 32 S.W .3d a t 855 -5 6. Appel lan t c ontends our dete rmi nati on of the re asona ble ness of the sto p shoul d be c o n t ro ll e d b y Her

nandez v. Sta te, 9 83 S.W .2d 867 , 869 (Tex.App .–A ustin 1 998 , pet . ref ’d). There, the off ic er

st opped a veh ic le immedi atel y after obser v ing it dri ft br iefly

ov er the w hit e li ne di v idi ng two l anes of tra ff ictrav eli ng i n the sa me dire cti on. The cour t c oncl uded t hat thi s sing le br ief i nst ance of dri fting sl ig htl y i nto a n adj acentl ane of traff icdi d notal one prov ide the off ice r with reason abl e s uspi ci on th at a cr imi nal traff icoffense had bee n commi tted. Id. A s imi lar co ncl usi on w as re a ched in Ehr har t v . St ate, 9 S .W .3d 9 29 (Tex .App. –Beaumont2000, no p et.) inv olv ing an al leg ati on of l ane s traddl ing , and State v. Tar vi n, 972 S.W .2d 9 10, 9 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1998, no pet .) inv olv ing an al leg ati on of lan e dr ifti ng . As the State poi nts out, each of these case s inv olv ed suspected v iol ati ons of the s tatut e req uir ing dr iv ers t o dr iv e w it hin a s ing le lan e of traff ic
. See Tex . Tr a n sp. Co d e A n n . § 5 4 5
. 0 6 0 (V e rn o n 1 9 9 9 ). T h a tst a t u t e f u rt h e r p ro vid e s a d ri ve r m a y n o tm o ve from the si ng le lan e unl ess thatmov ement c an be made s afely
. Id . at545. 060( a) (2 ). The hold ings of

the case s o n w hich app ellantrelies dep end ed at least in part on the ab sence of ev ide nce the d efendant’ s a cti on of cross ing a l ane di v idi ng l ine w as unsafe. See, e.g., Her nandez , 983 S.W .2d a t 870 -7 1. Trans por tati on Code § 545.1 01, o n w hic h the Sta te8

re li es here, contai ns no ex cept ion for dev iat ion s made sa fely
. See Tex
. Trans p. Cod e Ann. § 545. 101( a) ( Ver non 199 9)
. Appel lan t’ s c it ed c ases are thu s i nappos it e. The ev ide nce present ed at t he hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress su ppor ts the t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng . Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appe ll ant’ s s ole poi nt of er ro r on appe al and affirm the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.