NO. 07-05 -046 0-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 C JU NE 29, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ MICHAEL GOMEZ, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HO CK L EY CO UNT Y; TH NO . 04- 10- 5815; HO NO RA BLE H AR OLD PH ELAN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant , Michael Gom ez, w as convicted of mu rder and sent ence d to forty y ears in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment o f Cr imi nal Ju sti ce and fined $10, 000. Appel lan t c hal len g es the c onv icti on by three i ss ues: 1) thatthe ar re st of a p p ell ant was il leg al and t he ev ide nce obtai ned as a re su lto f the ar re st shoul d hav e been suppress ed; 2) thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n refusing to g iv e a req uest ed j ur y i nst ru cti on reg ardin g the leg al i ty o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s a r re s t ; a n d 3 ) t h e e v i d e n c e w a s l e g a l l y a n d fa c t u a l l y i n s u ffi c i ent t o prov e ea c h es s en ti al e l em en t of t he c r i me c ha rg ed

. W e affi r m.Miranda v. Ariz ona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 160 2, 16 L.Ed . 2d 69 4 (196 6). 1 2

Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und In ea rly June 200 4, th e L u b bock Po lice Departm entreceiv ed a “Cr ime Line” tip re g ardin g Ju li o Ar is mendez , I II, and appel lan t. As a resul t of t h e t ip, D etecti v e R ay Ma rt ine z , of the Lubboc k Poli ce Depa rt ment, beg an inv est ig ati ng a poss ibl e c ri me i nv olv ing the tw o i ndi v idu als

. After some i nit ial i nv est ig ati on, Det ect iv e M arti nezco ntacted H ock ley Co u n ty o f

f ic ia ls a b o u ta b o d y fo u n d i n Ho c k le y Co u n ty t h a tm ig h tb e t h a to f A ri s m e n d e z. T he b ody, w hich w as de te rm in ed to be Arisme nde z , w as foun d at an aba ndo ned farm house i n H ock ley Cou nty by Anthon y Loz ano, a fri end of Ar is mendez , and Gena ro Garci a, a c ousi n of Ar is mendez

. Sub sequen tly , app ellantwas a rrested in Lub bock b y Corporal Ray Lara . Lara initially stop ped the vehicle, in w hich ap pellan t w as ri d in g, af ter ascerta ining that a fem ale ass oci ated w it h the v ehi cl e w as show n to hav e an outs tandi ng w ar ra nt for her ar re st. After det ermin ing that the re wa s a fem ale am ong the three o ccupa nts of the vehicle, La ra sto pped t he v ehi cl e. Appel lan t was ask ed to i denti fy hims elf and ga ve a f icti ti ous name. Upo n di sc ov er

y of appel lan t’ s d ecei t, appel lan t was ar re ste d for failu re to ide nti fy. I nci dent to t he ar re st of the female and the appell ant, an inv entor y of the v ehi cl e w as per

formed and item s seiz ed f rom t h e ve hicle w ere late r adm itted into evidence at app ellant ’s trial. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant g av e incr imi nati ng statement s to the poli ce after the s top a nd after bein g giv en h is Mi rand a w arnings. 13

Appel lan t fil ed a moti on to sup p re ss t he ev ide nce sei z ed and v ar iou s s tatement s ma de as a result of

t he stop o f

t he v ehicle and h is arrest. The trial court den ied ap pellan t’s mo tion to supp ress during pretrial hea rings. Af ter the e v iden ce at the g uilt/inn ocen ce ph ase of the tr ial had conc lud ed, a ppel lan t req uest ed a jur y ch arg e on the leg ali ty

of the ar re st and sei z ure of ev ide nce, pursuantto arti cle 3 8 .2 3 o f the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . T he trial cou rt denie d the request. Th e jury foun d the app ellant guilty and he n ow app eals. Ini ti al Det enti on App ellantconte nds t hatthe trial court erred in ov erruling his motion to supp ress becau se the a rrestw as made w it hout re asona ble sus pic ion or probabl e caus e. Appel lan t posi ts that, as a resul t of t he il leg ali ty of t he ar re st, the e v ide nce sei z ed atthe ti me of the ar re st and t he s u b seq uent sta tements made by appel lan t s houl d hav e been ex cl uded. Appel lan t bas ed hi s s uppress ion moti on and obj ect ion s to the ev ide nce on th e F our th an d Four teent h Amendment s t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on; arti cl e I, secti on 9 of t he Tex as Con sti tuti on; a nd ar

ti cl e 38. 23 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . Appel lan t c ontends the tes ti mony of Lara did not establ is h anyleg al jus ti ficat ion to sto p the v ehi cl e in w hic h appel lan t w as ri din g . The re cord re v eal s that Lara w as on pat ro l in the ci ty

of Lubbock w hen he beg an to pas s t he v ehi cl e i n w hic h appel lan t was ri din g . As Lara g ot ne xt t o the v ehi cl e, he l ooked at the dr iv er , w ho appeared ner v ous, and saw

the ri gh tf ro nt pa ssenger ben d do w n an d com me nce what Lara described as “a lot of f urtive mov em e n t. ” Bas ed upon thes e obs er v ati ons, Lara made a dete rmi nati on to r un th e v ehi cl e’s reg is trati on number for war ra nts

. He pul led i n behi nd th e v ehi cl e and r a n the4

v ehi cl e’s re g is trati on number

. The re g is trati on chec k re v eal ed that the ow n e r, a y oung female, ha d a w ar ra nt ou tst andi ng . Lara tes ti fied th at he then pul led next t o the v ehi cl e at a traff icl ig ht t o det er mine if anypasseng ers w ere female. Upo n obser v ing that a p ass eng er w as a female, Lara g ot be hin d the v ehi cl e and ini ti ated a traff icst op. Appel lan t z eroes in on Lara’s tes t i mo ny on c ro ss -e x aminat ion w hen Lara ag re ed w it h the s tatementof appel lan t’ s c ounse l that, after obta ini ng the infor mati on from t he c omputer and v er ify ing thata pa ss eng er w as fem ale , “B asi cal ly yo u are gu ess ing that that w as w ho itw as. ” Appel lan t as ser ts that thi s tes ti mony

on c ro ss -e x aminat ion dooms the admis si on of any evidence or state me nts obtain ed as a result of the stop beca use it proves that L ara had nei ther

probabl e c ause nor

a reason abl e s usp ici o n t o s uppor t t he i nit ial st op of the v ehi cl e. W e generally rev iew

t he grant ing or den ial o f a mo tion to supp ress und er an ab use of discretion sta nda rd. See Ole s v. S t a t e , 9 93 S. W .2d 103 , 106 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). How ever, if the facts determ inative of the mo tion are und ispute d, then the re vie w is de novo . Id. W hen, as here, t here are no ex pli ci t findi ng s o f factm a d e b y the tr ial co urt, app ellate courts assu me thatthe trial court m ade imp licit find ings of fact w hich f ind sup port in the record and w hic h suppor t t he c oncl usi on of the cour t. See Stat e v . R oss , 32 S.W .3d 853, 855 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

. In de term ining if La ra’s tem pora ry dete ntio n o f

the vehicle w as justif ied, we must deter mine w hether

Lara art ic ula ted spec ificfact s w hic h, w hen t aken tog ether w it h rati onal inferences ar is ing from thos e facts, cons ti tute re asona ble sus pic ion

. See W oods v . St ate,5

956 S. W .2d 3 3, 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. The deci si on to detai n someone is made from a c onsi derati on of the total ity of the fact s. Ga rcia v . St ate, 43 S. W .3d 5 27, 5 30 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 01). Lara’s tes ti mony

rev eal s t he foll ow ing facts re li ed upon in deci din g w hether or not to det ain th e v ehicle: 1) the nervous app eara nce of the driv er w hen he noticed the police car; 2) the p a s s e n g e r

d u c k i n g d o w n b e l o w

e y e l e v e l w h i l e m a k i n g fu rt i v e m o v e me n t s ; 3) obt aining the comp ute r read outon t he vehicle’s regi stration thatshowed a fem ale ass oci ated w it h the v ehi cl e had an out sta ndi ng w ar ra nt; and 4)as cer tai nin g thata pass eng er w as, in fact, a female. This i nformati on w as suffici ent t o j ust ify Lara’s st op of the veh icl e , a s itw a s m o re th a n ju st a hu n ch or s o m e un p a rt icu la rize d su sp ici o n of w ro n gdo in g. Uni ted S tates v . Soko lo w, 4 9 0 U .S. 1, 7 , 109 S.C t 158 1, 10 4 L.E d.2d 1 ( 1989)

. The appel lan t reli es upon wo rd s ta ke n from preci se q uest ion s t o att empt t o demons trate t hat L a ra la ck e d an y re a so n a b le su sp ici o n to d e ta in th e veh icl e in w h ich ap p e lla n t was rid in g. Ho wever, as poi nted out a bov e, i t i s t he to tal ity of the c ircums tanc es that must be consid ered . Garcia, 43 S. W .3d at 530

. W hen the to tality of the circum stan ces are rev iew ed, it is clear tha t the of f icer articulate d v eryspecif ic fa cts to sup port his reaso nab le sus pic ion to sto p the veh ic le, therefore, the tri al cour t did not err

in deny ing the moti on to suppress . W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. Cha rg e Er ro r Appel lan t next c ontends thatthe tr ial courtcommitte d rev ersi ble er ro r w hen i t refused to g ra nt a jur

y i nst ru ct io n , p u rsu ant t o ar ti cl e 38. 23 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal6

Proced ure. T hatarticle provi des th at no evidence may be adm itted into ev iden ce against an ac cus ed i f obtai ned by l aw enforc ement i n v iol ati on of anyprov is ion of the C onst it uti on and laws of

eithe r the United State s or the Sta te of Te x as. T he sta tute f urthe r prov ides: In an y case w here the legal evi den ce raises an issue here und er, the jury shal l b e i n st ru cte d tha t i f it bel iev es, or has a reason abl e doubt , t hat t he ev ide nce w as obtai ned in v iol ati on of t he prov is ion s o f this 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. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38 .23 (a) (Vernon Su pp. 200 6). Appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce before t he j ur y reg ardin g Lara’s reason s for the i nit ial dete nti on of

the v ehi cl e rais ed th e i ss ue and, therefore, the j ur y sh oul d hav e been ins tr uct ed as per

the arti cl e. The re cord re flect s L ara w as the o nly w it ness w ho te sti fied in front of the j ur

y reg ardin g the facts of the i nit ial dete nti on. A fact issue abo ut th e initial stop may be raised f rom any so urce and the evidence maybe weak, st ro ng , c ontradi cte d, un impeac hed, or unbel iev abl e. G a rz a v . St ate, 126 S.W .3d 79, 85 (Tex.Crim.App

. 200 4). How ever, th e jury is required to rece iv e an article 38.23 ins tr uct ion only

w hen the tri al ev ide nce ra is es a fact ual i ss ue reg ardin g w hether the ev ide nce w as obtai ned i n v iol ati on of the Con sti tuti on or l aws o f the U nit ed St ates or the Stat e of Tex as. Se e Bel l v . St ate, 938 S. W .2d 3 5, 48 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)

. The ev ide nce before t he j ur y i s n ot di sput ed. The onl y dis pute inv olv ed th e meani ng o f t h e wo rd s used byLara to describe h is observations be fore de tainin g the v ehicle appel lan t was a pas seng er in. That di sput e i s a q uest ion of law for t he tr ial co urt i n maki ng a r uli ng on t he re a so n abl eness of the i nit ial dete nti on. This dete rmi nati on w as made by7

the t ri al cour

t atthe suppress ion hear ing

. Beca u se the ev ide nce sur ro undi ng the ini ti al sto p w as not d is puted, appel lan t was not e nti tl ed to the ins tr uct ion under arti cl e 38.23. Id. Accordin gly , the trial court did notcomm it r e ve rs ib le e rror. App ellant ’s second issue is ov er ru led

. Legal an d Factu al Suf f iciency Appel lan t next c ontends t hat t he ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o prov e two pa rti c ul ar

e l em en ts o f t he o ffens e of m urde r , as al l eg ed a g ai ns t hi m. Spec ific all y , app ella n t all eg es that the e v ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o prov e tha t t he body foun d at th e ab and one d farmh ouse w as tha t of the v ictim alleg ed in th e indictm ent , Julio Ar is mendez , III. Further , appell ant all eg es that the e v ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o prov e tha t the murder

oc cur re d i n H ock ley

C ounty , Tex as, as al leg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Address ing the Hoc kl ey C ounty chal len g e, w e note the all eg ati on that the murder occ ur re d i n H ock ley

C ounty i s a v enue al leg ati on. D ur ing the tr ial , t here w as no i ss ue ra is ed reg ardin g the v enue of the offense bei ng proper in Hoc kl ey C ounty

. Venue is not a cons ti tuent ele ment of t he offense charg ed. Stat e v . Bl anken shi p, 17 0 S. W .3d 6 76, 6 81 (Te x .Ap p.–Aust in 200 5, pe t. ref ’d). It is presu me d tha t v enu e w as proved at trial, un less d isp u te d attri a l o r th e re co rd a f f irm a ti vely sh o ws th e co n tra ry. Id . (c it in g T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( c) (1 ))

. Fur

ther , t he Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re prov ide s, in arti cl e 13. 07, t hat: If a person re cei v es an i nju ry i n one county

and dies in another

byreason of such inju ry , the of

fend er ma y

be prose cute d in the coun ty w here the injury w as re cei v ed or w here the deat h oc cur re d, or i n the co unty

w here the dead body i s found.8

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 1 3 .0 7 ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 06)

. Ev en had appel lan t cont est ed th e proof of v enue attr ial , w hic h he did not, the cr imi nal procedu re r ule s o f the Stat e of Tex as all ow

v enue ba sed on proof of w here the body of a decea sed w as found. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s c ontent ion reg ardin g the suffici ency of t he ev ide nce re lat ing to the Hoc kl ey C ounty al leg ati on i s o v er ru led

. Next, re g ardin g the leg al and fa ct u a l su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce re g ardin g the iden tity of

the victim, w hen both legal and factu al insuf f ic ie n c y a re r aised , w e w ill f irst address the is sue of le gal s u f f iciency

. See C lew is v . St ate, 922 S. W .2d 1 26, 1 33 (Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 6 )

. I f t h e e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y s u ffi c i e n t , w e t h e n re v i e w t h e factual suffici ency

ch all eng e. See i d. In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce, w e re v iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa c tco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e l e m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t

. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rg ini a, 4 4 3 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 62 0 ( T e x .C ri m.App. 2004)

. In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , an app ell a t e c o u rt may not sit as a thirtee nth juror, but rath er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or

uns uppor

ted b y more tha n a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . St ate, 755 S. W .2d 8 66, 8 67 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988) The i n d i c t me n ta l l e g e s , i n re l e v a n tp a rt , “

. . . i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r k n o w i n g l y

c a u s e t he death of an indi v idu al, namely , Jul io Ar is mendezIII .

. . .” The S tate prov ide d ev ide nce that ind ic ated that the b ody

w as found by

a c ousi n and a clos e f ri end of Juli o Ar is mendez , I II.9

Each tes ti fied th at t he body w as that of Ari smendezand that itw as ide nti fiabl e by a t attoo a n d t h e sh irth e wa s we a ri n g. Att ri a l, t h e re wa s n o co n f u s io n n o r d o u b tin t h is t e s t im o n y. W hen t his ev ide nce is v iewed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c annot say that a j ur y w as act ing i rrati onal ly

i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty as charg ed, inc lud ing the all eg ed ide nti ty of the v icti m. Hav ing det e rmined that the e v ide nce w as leg all y su ff ic ien t, w e now

tur n our attenti o n t o the factual su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce. W hen an appel lan t c hal len g es the factu al suf

f iciency of

the evidence supp orting his convi ction , t h e r e v iew ing court must det ermin e w het her, con sidering all the evidence in a n eut ral ligh t , t h e j uryw as ration ally jus ti fied i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See W ats on v . St ate, 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 5 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). In p e rfo rm in g a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n cy re vie w, we must g iv e defere nce to the factf ind er ’s determi nati ons if suppor ted byev ide nce and may not o rd er a new tri al si mply

because w e may

di sag re e w it h the v erdict. See id. at 417. As a n a p p e ll a t e co u rt , we a re n o tj u s t if ie d i n o rd e ri n g a n e w t ri a l u n le s s t h e re i s so m e o bje c t ive basis in the record dem onst rating that th e great w eight and prepo nde rance of the evidence cont ra dicts the j ur

y ’s v erdict. See id. Addi ti onal ly , an appel lat e opi nio n address ing factual s uffi c i en cy mu s t i nc l ud e a di s c us s i on o f t he mo s t i mp or ta nte v i de nc e th ata pp el l an t c l ai ms und ermin es the jury ’s v erdict. Sim s v . Stat e, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). Reg ard in g t he i ss ue of the ide nti ty of the v icti m, w e hav e prev iou sl y rev iewed th e ev ide nce re li ed upon by the State to prov e tha t t he v icti m w as Jul io Ar is mendez , I II. Ev en w hen v iew ed in a n eut ral ligh t , we c a n n o tsaythatthe jury w as no t rationa lly justif ied in10

f inding the app ellantg uilty of mu rder. T his f inding w ould include a f inding tha t the v ictim w as Jul io Ar is mendez , I II, as al leg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. A s re qu ir e d , we wil l a d d re s s t h e m o s tim p o rt a n te vid e n c e t h a tt h e a p p e ll a n tsa ys under mines the jur

y ’s v erdict. Id. Ap pel lan t c ontends thatw it ness Garci a w as unsure of his i denti ficat ion of the body

. This is based on c ro ss -e x aminat ion of the w it ness w here he tes ti fied th at he w as onl y i n the hous e for about 10 second s, tur ned to leav e, t hen t ur ned back a roun d to m ake su re it w as Arisme nde zbeca use h e w asn’t quite sure . W itness Lozano then testif ied he had to i den tif y Arisme nde z by a shirt he w as w earing. How ever, the jury h eard t his testim ony a nd resolved t he issue in question against app ellant . W e are mindful that w e are req uired to g iv e due deferenc e to the jur y ’s f ind ing s w hen s uppor ted by the ev ide nce. W ats on, 204 S.W .3d at 417. The bal ance of appel lan t’ s a rg ument i s n ot a di sc uss ion of ev ide nce that count ers the State’ s proo f of the ide nti ty

of the v icti m, rather iti s a co mplai nt ab out w hat t he St ate d id not do. Appel lan t c omplai ns that the S tate offered no DN A c ompar is on from a kn ow n s ample of Ar is mendez , no fing er pr int compar is on from A ri smendez , and no c ompar is on of denta l re cords from the know n dent al re cords of Ari smendez

. W hil e appel lan t may be c or re ct that there w as m u ch more that coul d hav e been done t o prov e the v icti m’s i d e n ti ty, t h a t i s n ot t he te st. R ather , t he question is, was the re evi den ce be fore the jury thatund ermin es our conf iden ce in the jury v erdict to th e po int tha t w e are inclined to say tha t no ratio nal jury could have fo und against the appel lan t bey ond a re asona ble doubt on thi s is sue. Id. The answer i s n o, t here i s n o ev ide nce that w oul d s o u n d e rm ine our co nfidenc e i n the j ur y ’s v erdict. Therefore, a p p e ll a n t ’s co n t e n t io n re ga rd in g t h e le ga l a n d fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n cy o f

t h e e vid e n c e t o p ro ve11

the i denti ty

of Jul io Ar is mendez , III , as the v icti m of t he murde r is ov er ru led

. Fi ndi ng the evidence b oth le gally

a nd factu ally

su f f icient to supp ort app ellant ’s convi ction for mu rder, as all eg ed, we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led al l of appel lan t’ s is sues , the judg ment of the tr ial courtis a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Publ is h.