IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00036-CR

No. 10-12-00037-CR

ROBERT WESLEY THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. F45379 and F45567

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Wesley Thomas was convicted of the offense of possession of a controlled 

substance less than one gram and sentenced to twenty months in the state jail.1 TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (West 2010). Thomas was also convicted of the 

offense of fraudulent use of identifying information for which he was sentenced to 

 

1 Cause No. 10-12-00036-CR is an appeal from the judgment of conviction for the possession of a 

controlled substance. Cause No. 10-12-00037-CR is an appeal from the judgments of conviction for the 

offenses of fraudulent use of identifying information and tampering with a governmental record. The 

issue raised by Thomas is the same for both appeals.
Thomas v. State Page 2

thirty years in prison and of the offense of tampering with a governmental record for 

which he was sentenced to eight years in prison. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §§ 32.51, 37.10 

(West 2011). Thomas complains that the trial court erred by denying his motions to 

suppress evidence filed in each cause number because no reasonable suspicion existed 

for the officer to have initiated the traffic stop that led to the discovery of the 

commission of these offenses. Because we find that the trial court did not err by 

denying the motions to suppress, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Facts

At approximately 5:00 p.m., an officer was patrolling a neighborhood that had 

experienced a recent increase in burglaries and mailbox thefts, which commonly 

occurred during the daytime hours. The officer was very familiar with the area. While 

patrolling, the officer observed a white Corvette driven by Thomas that he had never 

seen before sitting near the road on a driveway facing a house approximately 50 yards 

up the driveway. The Corvette was parked next to that home's mailbox. No other 

vehicles were present at the residence. The officer found it odd that the vehicle was 

stopped where it was in the direction it was facing if the occupants were legitimately at 

the residence because of the length of the driveway, which would have provided a way 

to turn around to come out facing the road. The officer passed the home and turned 

around a corner to observe the Corvette and to run a license check. The officer 
Thomas v. State Page 3

observed the passenger of the vehicle, later found to be Leslie Dahn,2 and felt that Dahn 

stared at him suspiciously as he passed by the driveway. The license check showed that 

the vehicle was registered to an out-of-county address. 

The Corvette backed out of the driveway and drove toward the officer; however, 

the Corvette turned left onto the street where the officer had turned right. The officer 

turned around and began following the Corvette, which turned almost immediately 

into a neighborhood which consisted of a series of cul-de-sacs and ended in a dead end. 

The Corvette used its indicator at an intersection and then did not turn, but continued 

and turned at the next intersection onto a cul-de-sac. At this point, the officer activated 

his lights and effectuated a traffic stop.

Upon making contact with Thomas and Dahn, the officer discovered that each of 

them had active warrants. A search incident to arrest was conducted on Thomas and a 

small baggie of methamphetamine, a driver's license for a woman from Fort Worth, and 

a blank Texas ID were also found in this search. Additional methamphetamine; 

cocaine; nitroglycerin; a notebook containing names, dates of birth, social security 

numbers, and driver's license numbers of three people; two laptop computers with a 

printer and a magnetic stripe reader; assorted checks, credit cards, and gift cards; plastic 

baggies; and syringes were all found in the vehicle in a search conducted after Thomas 

and Dahn were arrested.

 

2 See Dahn v. State, No. 10-12-00049-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS _____ (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 6, 2012, no 

pet. h.).
Thomas v. State Page 4

Thomas and Dahn each filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence contending 

that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The arresting 

officer was the sole witness and the trial court denied the motions, which were heard 

jointly. Thomas then pled guilty and the trial court certified that he had the right to 

appeal the denial of the motions to suppress.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under a 

bifurcated standard of review. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2007). In reviewing the trial court’s decision, we do not engage in our own factual 

review. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The trial judge is 

the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be 

given to their testimony. Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 24-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

Therefore, we give almost total deference to the trial court’s rulings on (1) questions of 

historical fact, even if the trial court’s determination of those facts was not based on an 

evaluation of credibility and demeanor; and (2) application-of-law-to-fact questions that 

turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 673; Montanez 

v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101, 108-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 

652-53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). But when application-of-law-to-fact questions do not 

turn on the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, we review the trial court’s ruling 

on those questions de novo. Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 673; Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 652-53.
Thomas v. State Page 5

When reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we must view 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Wiede, 214 S.W.3d at 

24; State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When the trial court 

makes explicit fact findings, we determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the 

light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, supports those fact findings. Kelly, 204 

S.W.3d at 818-19. We then review the trial court’s legal ruling de novo unless its explicit 

findings that are supported by the record are also dispositive of the legal ruling. Id. at 

819.

Reasonable Suspicion

An officer conducts a lawful temporary detention when he has reasonable 

suspicion to believe that an individual is violating the law. Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 

492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) 

(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968)). Reasonable 

suspicion exists if the officer has specific, articulable facts that, when combined with 

rational inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably conclude that a 

particular person actually is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. 

Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Otherwise stated, those 

specific, articulable facts must show unusual activity, some evidence that connects the 

detained individual to the unusual activity, and some indication that the unusual 

activity is related to crime. Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 
Thomas v. State Page 6

2011). This is an objective standard that disregards any subjective intent of the officer 

making the stop and looks solely to whether an objective basis for the stop exists. Ford, 

158 S.W.3d at 492. It also looks to the totality of the circumstances; those circumstances 

may all seem innocent enough in isolation, but if they combine to reasonably suggest 

the imminence of criminal conduct, an investigative detention is justified. Derichsweiler, 

348 S.W.3d at 914. The relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is innocent or 

criminal, but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular noncriminal acts. Woods 

v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); see also Curtis v. State, 238 S.W.3d 376, 

379 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

The totality of the circumstances includes the police officers' training and 

experience. State v. Alderete, 314 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. ref'd). 

Accordingly, "when innocent facts, meaningless to the untrained, are used by trained 

law-enforcement officers, those facts, combined with permissible deductions therefrom, 

may form a legitimate basis for suspicion of criminal activity." Id. Other factors that 

courts may consider, although perhaps insufficient standing alone, include whether the 

temporary detention occurred in an area known for having higher rates of crime and 

whether the person stopped is displaying nervous or evasive behavior. See Illinois v. 

Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). 

The trial court's fact findings included that the neighborhood where the Corvette 

was parked was in a high crime area known for burglaries and mail thefts which had 
Thomas v. State Page 7

been recently increasing, particularly in the daytime; that Dahn appeared concerned 

about the officer's appearance; the vehicle was registered out of county in Fort Worth; 

the Corvette backed out of the driveway; and the Corvette turned onto a dead-end road. 

We find that the record supports these fact findings. 

Based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that trial court's fact findings 

support the trial court's determination that the totality of the circumstances gave rise to 

a reasonable suspicion that Thomas was about to engage in criminal activity. The facts 

known to the officer were sufficient to suggest that something of an apparently criminal 

nature was brewing. Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 917. Therefore, the officer had 

reasonable suspicion to stop Thomas and to detain him for investigative purposes. Id. 

at 914. The trial court did not err in denying Thomas's motions to suppress evidence. 

We overrule Thomas's sole issue.

Conclusion

Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 6, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]