### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 123 -CR

Har le y W ill iam F ike , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-08 -06 6 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM R. HENRY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appe ll a nt Harle y Wil liam Fike wa s convicted of theft of pr operty

valued at more than $1,500 but less than $20,000, a state ja il felony
. See Tex. P enal Code A n n . § 31.03(a) , (e) (4)( a) (West Supp. 2009). The trial court assessed a two-y ear suspended prison sentenc e and placed F ike on community

supervision for f

ive y ear s. The trial c ourt also imposed a fine of $1,000 and or dere d F ike to p ay

$2 0, 00 0 in re sti tut ion
. On a pp e a l, F ike argue s tha t the tr ia l court e rr e d by ov e rr uli nghis p re t ri al m o t i o nt o s u

p p re s s ev i d en ce o b t ai n edp u rs u an t t o a s ea rc h o f a r es i d en ce an d a r en t eds t o ra ge unit. I n two issues, Fike c ontends that (1) the aff idavit underly

ing the sear ch wa

rra nt of the re sidence failed to state probable cause for c oncluding that evidenc e of a crime or contra band would be f

ound
a t t h a t l o c a ti o n , an d

( 2 ) th e a f

f id a v it u n d e r ly in g th e s e ar c h w ar

r an t o f th e s to r a g e u n it

c o n ta in ed information obtained f

rom the illeg al sea

rch of the re sidence
. W e will affirm the judg ment of conviction.2

Stan dard of Revie w

We revie w the denia l of a motion to suppress for a buse of discr etion. Ol es v . S tat e , 99 3 S. W.2 d 1 03 , 1 06 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). I f the re fu sa l to su pp re ss w a s e rr or , w e loo k f or ha rm . Sta te v. D au

gh e rty , 931 S.W .2d 268, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We must reverse unless we conclude bey ond a re asonable doubt that the err or did not contribute to the conv iction. See Long

v . S tat e , 203 S.W .3d 352, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). I f the a ppellant was not ha

rmed by the admissi o no f

th e c o mp la in e d

- o f

e v id e n c e , w e a f

f ir m t h e c o n v ic ti o nd e s p it e an y e r r o r in th e tr ial court’s f ailure to suppre ss it. See Te x. R. Ap p. P. 4 4. 2( a ); Ne al v . S tat e , 2 5 6 S. W. 3 d

2 6 4 , 2 8 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Ib arra v . S tat e , 11 S.W .3d 189, 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (af firming conviction when, e ven assuming err or in admitting e vidence , appellant not har med by its admissi on).
Discussion Fike’ s arr est arose out of an investig ation of thefts at two substations operated by the L ower Colorado River Authority (L CRA)—the Sim Gideon substation i n Ba strop County and the McCarty L ane substation in Hay s County
. I n J anuar y 2007, the L CRA inst alled video surve illance
came ras at these substations. Tom Meneffee , t h en the a rea supervisor of

the L CRA panel shop, testified that in J anuar

y 2007, some items wer e taken from the Mc Carty L ane substation. Mene ffe e retrie ved the videota

pe fr om the surveillance came ra a nd made a copy of what had bee n videotaped. The re cordingshowed a

Penske moving van towing an empty trailer ap p ro ac h i n g the g ate to the substation. The passeng er got o u t of the van, c ut the lock off the g ate, ope ned it, and the va n and trailer w ere driven into the substation. After some elapse d time, the re cordingshows the same va n3

and tra iler exiti ng the substation with the trailer loade d with w hat appe are d to be wire cable cover ed by a tarp . T he re c or din g wa s a dmi tte d a s e vid e nc e a t tr ia l.

Men eff ee te stified that on October 9, 2007, he wa s informed that some items we re missing from the Sim Gideon substation
. Menef fee and Ga

ry J uare z, an L CRA panel shop
su pe rv iso r, wen t to t

he su bs ta tio n to re tr ie ve the re c or din g fr om t he su rv e ill anc e c a me ra . B oth Menef fee and Juarez testifie d that on their wa y back to Austin they

saw a truck pulling a tra iler
car rying a spo o l o f wi re on its side cove red by a tar p. Menef fee testified that this struck him as unusual bec ause normally spools of wire are not transporte d on their si des and most haulers do not bother to cove r wire spools with tarps. Meneff ee c alled the L CRA office to find out what had been stolen from the Sim Gideon substation and was told it was a spool of w ire. M enef fee and Juarez then followed the truck a

nd trailer to Austin and sa w it enter CMC Recy cling Center, a scra p metal
rec y cling business. When Menef fee and Juarez arrive d at the re cy cling cente r, the tra iler wa s being weig hed empty

as par t of the proc ess of de termining the weig ht o f t h e m et al re moved from the trailer. Menef

fee and Juarez noted the license plate number s of the truc k and tra iler and g ave that information to the L CRA Range rs (lawenfor ceme nt office rs employ ed by L CRA). L CRA Range r B radle y

Wit tenborn testified that on October 9, 2007, he re ceive d a call fr om an L CRA employ ee inf orming him he had see n two men with a truck a nd trailer c arr

y ing what appe are d to be the wire missing from the Sim Gideon substation at the CMC Recycling Center. Wit tenborn we nt to the rec y clingcente r and spoke to the employ ees the re. Wittenborn re viewed the
re c y c lin g c e nte r’ s su

rv e ill anc e vid e o and ob ta ine d c op ie s of the dr ive r’ s lic e ns e s of the ind ivi du a ls who had sold the wire broug ht in on the trailer. He also made c opies of the r ece ipt for the wire and the che ck CMC Recycling used to pa y for the wire. The driver’ s licenses belong ed to Harle y FikeF ike do e s n ot c ha lle ng e the va lid ity of the a rr e st w arr ant. 1 See M iranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 4 and K e v in K e o g h , an d th e c h e c k w a s p ay a b le to H ar le y F ik e . Wi tt e nb o r n th e n c o p ied the surveillance video ont o a C D and photogr aphed the wire F ike and Ke og h broug ht to the rec y cling cente r. Witt enborn te stified that the next day , afte r conducting some surveillance of the re sidence at 128 VicksburgL oop in Elgin, the L CRA Range rs obtained a sear ch wa

rra nt for the residenc e and
an ar rest wa rra nt for Ha rley Fike. They

also obtained a

n arr est war

rant for Kevi n Ke o g h. The 1 Rang ers e x ecute d these wa rra nts and also obtained a

second se arc h war

rant for a st orag e unit Fike
s a id h e h a d r e n te d in B a s tr o p . T h e Ra

n g e r s a ls o r e qu e s te d , an d o b ta in e d , c o n s e n t f

r o m F ike’s daug hter to sea

rch he r ca r. L CRA Range r L ee D i ck t estified that he ha d revie wed the vide otape of the J anuar y 2007 theft at the Mc Carty L ane substation and deter mined that the per son seen unlocking the g a te in t

he vid e o matc he d th e de sc ript io n o f o ne of the pe op le se e n ta

kin g wi re to C MC Recy cling Center. Dic k testified that he be lieved that person to be Kevin Keog h. Using information from Ke og h’s driver’s l icense , Dick found a web pag e belongingto Keog h that had both Keog h’s picture a nd a picture of a vehicle matching the one used in the Oc tober 2007 thef t at the Sim Gideon
su bs ta tio n. Di c k te sti fi e d t hat he ex ecute d th e F ike arr e st w arr ant, and that a ft e r h e g a ve F ike his Miranda w ar

n i ng s, he a sk e d h im a

bo ut t he ve hic le inv olv e d in

the Sim G ide on

su bs ta tio n th e ft
. 2 Fike replied that the vehicle, a C hevrole t Suburban, was at a tra nsmissi on repa ir shop and the tra iler
was at a B astrop storag e fa cility
. Dick testi fied that when they went to the s torag e facility , a tra iler
ma tc hin g that see n in both surv e ill anc e vid e os wa s par ke d outs ide
. He ide nti fi e d the tr a ile r b y its distinctive two white whee ls on one side and two blac k wheel s on the other side. T he tra iler’s5

lic e ns e plate ma tc he d th e lic e ns e plate of the tr a ile r F ike an d K e og h w e re se e n w itha t CM C Recy cling Center.

L C R A R an ger L eonar d Sny der te stified that at the storag e fa cility he sawa tra iler matching the desc ription of the one obse rved by L CRA employ ees c arr

y ing a larg e spool o f wire down hig hway

71 from Ba strop to Austin, the one observe d at CMC Recycling Center, and the one
se e n in the vid e ota

pe e nte ri ngand

e xitin g on e of

the L CRA su

bs ta tio ns . Allie Phill ips, a CMC R ecycli n g Center e mploy ee, te stified that she g ather ed the company rec ords of pa

y ments to Harley

Fike f or coppe r wire he broug ht to the rec y cling cente r. He r
rec ords indicated that Fike sold insulated c opper w ire to the re cy cling cente r on January 8, 2007, as well as on seve ral other

dates. The se re cords we re a dmitted into evidence without objection. Acc o mp l i ce -w i t n es s Ke v i nKe o gh t es t i fi edt h at h e h adp l ea d edgu i l t y t o s t ea l i n g wire from L CRA’s McCarty

L ane a nd Sim Gideon substations . Keog h testified t hat he watched the video of the thef

t at the McCar

ty L ane substation a

nd that it showe d him wa lking to the g ate, c utting the chai n , an d o p e n in g th e g a te
. K e o g h te s ti f ie d th a t F ik e w a s th e dr iv e r o f th e Pe n s k e v an that then drove throug h the g ate pulling an empty trailer. K eog h confirme d at trial that the videotape show ed him closing the g ate be hind the trailer, a nd later ope ning the g ate to allow F ike to exit the substation. Ke og h te sti fi e d th a t F ike wa s dr ivi ng the Pe ns ke va n pu lli ng the tr a ile r n owloa de d w ithfo ur sp oo ls of c omm e rc ia l g ra de wi re c ov e re d with a tarp . Ke og h tes tif ie d tha t he an d Fi ke loa de d th e wi re on to the trailer at the McCarty L ane substation, stripped the wire at the storag e unit, a nd drove the wire to CMC Recy cling Center in Austin wher e they sold it. K eo gh t es t i fi ed that they had sold stolen wi re to C MC Re c y lin g Ce nte r on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns , and that e a c h tim e the y re c e ive d a c he c k p a y a

ble to Harle y Fike.The e vidence log indica tes that both the driving direc tions and the Penske re ntal ag ree ment 3 we re fo un d in

F ike ’s da ug hte r’ s c ar, wh ic h s he g a ve he r c on se nt t o th e po lic e to sear ch. At tr ia l, howeve r, the State’s w itness testified that these doc uments came from F ike’s re sidence
. 6 The trial c ourt admitted the following evidenc e that was the subject of Fike’ s motion to suppr ess evidenc e found at the 128 Vicksburg L oop residenc e: (1) a videotape of th e s ea rch, excluding the por

tion in which Fike a sserted his rig ht to counsel; (2) 25 rec eipts and we ight
cer tificates f rom CMC R ecycling showing that Fike sold wi re t o C MC Recy cling on numerous
occa sions; (3) printed driving direc tions fr om one addre ss in Bastrop to a nother location in Bastrop County ; (4) a r ental ag ree ment showing that Fike’ s daug hter re nted a t ruck f rom Penske Truc k L easing in Kear

ns, Utah for

five da y s beg inning on August 17, 2004; (5) a dec laration pag e showing 3 Fike c arr ied automobile insuranc e on three vehicles including a 1991 Chevrolet V1500 Suburba n, a 1998 Pontiac Gr and Prix , and a 1996 Che vrolet C2500 pickup truck; (6) a business ca rd fr om L ong horn Tra iler Rentals; and (7) a chec kbook for a Wells Farg o chec king a ccount. The trial court also allowe d the State’s witnesses to testify about what wa s found inside the storag e locke r: (1) pieces of wooden spools that likely belong ed to the L CRA; (2) hand tools used to strip and cut wire; a nd (3) jacks used to suspe nd spools of wire so that wire c an be unr olled from the spool that
wer e identified a s those taken f rom the McCar

ty L ane substation. Fike c ontends that the af fidavit underly

ing the sear ch wa

rra nt of the re sidence at 128 VicksburgL oop did not state probable c ause f or conc luding that c ontrab an d o r ev idence of
wr on g do ingwo uld pro ba bly be on the pr e mis e s at th e tim e of the se arc h, and

the re fo re fa ile d to establish probable cause . S e e R o d r i g u e z v . S tat e , 2 3 2 S.W .3d 55, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Cas sia s v . S

tat e , 719 S.W .2d 585, 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Specifica lly , Fike a rg ues that the aff idavit contains only

a conc lusory

statement of the a ffiant’ s belief, u n s u p p o rt ed by any fac tual7

alleg ations, that the items listed in the affidavit would proba bly be found on the premises. The
su ff ic ie nc y of the a ff ida vit is d e te rm ine d b y c on sid e ri ng the tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s se t f

or th within the four cor

ners of the document. I

ll in o is v . G ates , 462 U. S. 2 13 , 2 38 (1 98 3) ; Bradley

v . S tat e , 966 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tex. App.— Au stin 1998, no pet.). Her e, the f acts set f orth in the aff idavit that purport to establish probable cause are the obs ervations of W ittenborn, Menef fee , and J uare z, who observed F ike and Ke og h dri v e a t railer loaded with wire to CMC Recy cling Center; d o c u me n ts f

r o m th e r e c y c li n g c e n te r an d th e s tate me n t o f an e mp lo y e e w h o s tate d th a t F ik e and Keog h fre quently

come in with wire to sell; an d Austin Pol ice De partment Pawn Control re cords indicating that Fike sold 24,500 pounds o f alum inum and copper wire be tween January

and Oct o b er 2 0 0 7 . Fike a lso challeng es the va lidity of the sea

rch w arr ant of the stora g e unit on the g round that i t was procure d, in part, based on “information obtained fr om the illega l searc h of the VicksburgL oop residenc e.”

We are inclined to a g ree with Fike that the se arc h of the re sidence at 128 Vicksburg L oo p w a s unla

wf ul b e c aus e th e aff

ida vit un de rl y ingthe se arc h w arr ant d oe s n ot i nc lud e fa c ts sufficie nt to cre ate a substantial ba sis f or concluding that evidenc e of the theft would be found at that location
. Th e add res s o n F ike ’s dr ive r’ s li c e ns e is n ot t he Vi c ks burgre sid e nc e and the a ff ida vit contains no o th e r

f a c ts to s u p p o rt t h e a f f ia n t’ s c o n c lu s io nth a t F ik e r e s id e s , c o n tr o ls , o r h a s any
connec tion to that location. Never theless, we do not more thoroug hly analy ze the merits beca

use, for the r easons se t out below, we hold that any err or in deny

ing F ike’s motion to suppress evidenc e
wa s h arm le ss b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. The e rrone ous admission of evidence obtained in vi olation of the F ourth Amendment is constituti onal er

ror a naly z ed p u rsuant to Tex as Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 44.2( a). Long ,8

203 S.W .3d at 353. Rever sal is r equire d unless we c an dete rmine beyond a re asonable doubt that admission of the evidenc e found dur ing the sear ch of the ho u s e an d the storag e unit did not
c on tr ibute to t

he c on vic tio n or se nte nc e . T e x. R. A pp . P. 44 .2 (a ); J

on es v . S tat e , 119 S.W .3d 766, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)
. I f there is a rea sonable likelihood that the er ror mate rially

aff ecte d the fac t finder’ s deliberations, the error was not har

mless. Jones , 119 S.W .3d at 777. The f unction of the har mless error

analy sis is t o deter

mine to what ex t en t, if any , the er ror c ontributed to the conviction or punishment. Ha rri s v . S tat e , 790 S.W .2d 568, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). We are to c alculate , as near ly as possible, the probable impact of the err or on the fa ct finder in light of the other e vidence
. Jones , 119 S.W .3d at 777. We c onsider whether the inadmissible e vidence added something that cause d the fa ct finder to return a differ ent verdic t tha n it would have if the e vidence had not bee n admitted. Hi ll v . S tat e , 692 S.W .2d 716, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Fa ctors we consider inc lude the importanc e of the inadmissible evi d en ce to the prosec ution’s case , whether the evidenc e wa s cumulative, the pr es en ce or abse nce of evidenc e
corr oborating or cont ra d i cting materia l inadmissibl e evide nce, a nd the over all streng th of the prosec ution’s case
. De law ar e v . V an Ar sd all , 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986). Whil e we do not focus on the proprie ty

of the outcome of the trial, the pr esenc e of ove rwhe l m i n g evidence supporting the finding in question can be a fa ctor in the e valuation of ha rmless err or. W

esb ro ok v . S

tat e , 29 S.W .3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We consider whe ther ther e wa s a re asonable possibili ty that the
err or, either

alone or in context, m oved the f

act f i n d er fr o m a state of

nonpersua sion to one of persua sion as to the issue in question. Id.

Havingrevie wed t h e re cord, we conc lude that any err or in admitting this evidenc e is harmless and does not require reve rsal because we are convinced be y ond a re asonable doubt thatThe surve illance video of the theft shows that Fike was driving a Penske truck, but there 4 is no evidence that it was the same truck a s the one the subjec t of the August 2004 rental ag ree ment betwee n Penske Truc k L easingand F ike’s daug hter. 9 its admissi on had no impact on either the g uilty verdic t or punishment. See Tex. R. App. P . 44.2(a) ; He rn an de z v . S tat e , 60 S.W .3d 106, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). I n rea ching this conclusion, we have c onsidered the source and nature of the err or, the extent to which the evidenc e was e mphasized by the State, and pr obable c ollatera l impli cations of its admission. Se e Ha rri s v. S tat e , 790 S.W .2d 568, 585-87 (Te x . Crim. App. 1989).

Th e so ur c e of

the a lle g e d er

ro r is the tr ia l court ’s a dmi ssi on of so me of the do c ume nts seized from the re sidence and testimony reg ardingwhat th e L C R A R anger s found inside Fike ’s sto ra g e un it. Th e magni tu de o f t he e rr or , if

any , in a dmi tti ngthe do c ume nta ry e vid e nc e is insignifica

nt. The documentar

y evidenc e did little, if any thing, to impli cate Fike in the the ft. For
e xamp le , th e do c ume nt c on sis tin g of the pr int e d d

ri vin g dir e c tio ns sh ow s a r oute fr om 1 00 3 H ill Street in Ba strop to 1203b Highw ay 71 in B astrop. There is no indication on the map, nor w as there any testimony

at trial, re g ardingwhat wa s located at either addre ss. The drivingdirec tions alone have no probative value, a n d t h e S t at e m ade no e ffor t at trial to expl ain how this document tended to link Fike to the th ef t
. The same is true of the Penske renta l ag ree ment. That docume nt sh ow s th a t F ike ’s da

ug hte r r e nte d a

Pe ns ke tr

uc k f ro m a Ut ah r e nta l a g e nc y

fo r f ive da y s in Aug ust 2004—two and a ha lf y ear s befor e the theft at the M cCarty L ane fac ility . Ag ain, there was
no te sti mony

a t tr ia l of

fe re d to sh owho w this do c ume nt i mpl ic a te s F ike in t he the ft
. The

4 automobile insurance decla rations pag e and the chec kbook from a Wells Fa rg o bank ac count do not
on the ir fa c e te nd

to s ho w that F ike c omm itt e d th e the ft , a nd the State ma de no a tte mpt to e xpla in how this evidence incriminated him. To the extent the L ong horn Tra iler Rental business ca rd wa s10

evidenc e that F ike re nted a t railer, such evide nce w as cumulative of Fike’ s own statement to the police at the time of

his arre st, and was a lso confirme d b y t h e p o l i ce throug h their che ck of the trailer’ s license plate s. Finally , the most incriminating doc umentary evidenc e—the r ece ipts from CMC Recycling Center showingFike sold wire —wer e duplicative of evidenc e the State obtaine d from the r ecycling cente r itself. Copies of these rec eipts we re a dmitted through the testimony of Allie Phill ips, who testified that Fike had fr equently sold wire to the re cy cling cente r. Wit h reg ard to testimony

descr ibing what was found in the she d, Fike c ontends that its admissi on wa s h ar mful beca use without it, “there is no e vidence , other than the acc omplice testimony , that links Appellant to the offe nse at the Mc Carty L ane loc ation.” F ike ig nores the vide o
surv e ill anc e ta

pe sh ow ingKe og h a

nd F ike e nte ri ngthe Mc Cart y L ane su bs ta tio n a nd e xitin g wi th spools of wire. Not only did K eog h testify that he and F ike committed the theft, its commission was captur ed on videotape that was re viewed by the trier of

fac t. The loca

tion of the trailer

used in the the ft wa s vo lun tari ly pr ov ide d to the inv e sti g a tin g of fi c e rs by F ike wh e n the y e xec uted hi s arr e st
wa rr ant. Of fi c e rs wh o w a tc he d th e vid e ota pe we re a ble to i nd e pe nd e ntl y ide nti fy the tr a ile r u se d in the McCar

ty L ane the ft as the same trailer they saw in the parking lot of the storag e fa cility which they confirme d was re nted to Fike. T he license plates on the tra iler also matched t he plates of the trailer se en deliver ing w ire to CMC Recy cling Center. While testimony reg ardingwhat wa s found inside the storag e shed pr ovided additional circ umstantial evidence of F ike’s involvement in the the ft , it s a dmi ssi on

did no t c a us e th e tr ier of

fa c t to re a c h a

dif fe re nt r e su lt tha

n it oth e rw ise would have. Se e Ha rri

s , 790 S.W .2d at 588 (re cog nizi ng that overw helming e vidence of g uilt can be a fa c tor in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r e rr on e ou s intr od uc tio n o f e vid e nc e c on tr ibute d to appellant’ s conviction).11 I n revie wing t h e record, it is appare nt that the State did not rely heavily on the
c omp la ine d- of e vid e nc e in a tte mpt ing to p ro ve F ike ’s g uil t. I n e sta bli sh ingF ike ’s g uil t, t

he State relied mainly on the testimony of Ke og h, corr oborate d by the surveillanc e tape , the evidenc e elicited from the o f

f ic e r s w h o s aw F ik e ta

k in g w ir e to CM C R e c y c li n g Ce n te r , an d th e r e c e ip ts s h o w ing multipl e sale s of wire to the recy cling cente r i ncluding a sale shortly afte r the date wire was take n from the Mc Carty L ane substation. The probable im pact of admission of the evidenc e on the trie r of fac t w as minimal, if a

ny . We conclude that the admission of the complained- of evide nce did not disrupt the order ly

evaluation of the other e vidence of F ike’s g uilt or contribute to his conviction. Se e Ib arra v . S

tat e , 11 S.W .3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (er ror, if a ny , harmless if it did not inf lue nc e the jur

y ’s de lib e ratio ns to a

pp e lla nt’ s d e tr ime nt o r h a d bu t sl ight e ff e c t) . We ov e rr

ule Fike’ s appellate issue.
CO NC LU SION

Havingoverr

uled Fike ’s appe llate issue, we a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.

_____________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: September

22, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh