NO 04-14-00626-CR

In The Court Of Appeals For The 

Fourth Supreme Judicial District of Texas 

San Antonio, Texas 

ALVIN VALADEZ JR., 

 Appellant 

vs. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

On Appeal From the 25th District Court

Of Guadalupe County, Texas 

Hon. Bud Kirkendall 

Trial Court Cause No. 13-1568-CR-C 

APPELLEE’S BRIEF 

/s/Christopher M. Eaton

 Christopher M. Eaton 

 Assistant County Attorney 

 Guadalupe County, Texas 

 State Bar No. 24048238 

 211 W. Court St., 3rd Floor

 Seguin, Texas 78155 

 Phone: (830) 303-6130 

 Fax: (830) 379-9491 

 Attorney for Appellee 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00626-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/9/2015 8:54:33 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/9/2015 8:54:33 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
i

NAMES OF THE PARTIES

1. Alvin Valadez is the appellant. 

2. Rolando Garcia represented the appellant at the trial court.

3. Keith Henneke and Steven De Lemos represented the State of Texas at the trial 

court.

4. Edward Shaugnessy represents the appellant in his appeal to this Honorable 

Court.

5. Christopher Eaton represents the State of Texas for purposes of this appeal. 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NAMES OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................... v

United States Supreme Court Cases......................................................................... v

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Cases .................................................................. v

Texas Appellate Court Cases .................................................................................. vi

Texas Statutes.........................................................................................................vii

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ........................................................ ix

ISSUE PRESENTED .......................................................................................................... x

The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress because the 

arrest warrant was supported by probable cause for the offense of engaging 

in organized criminal activity. In the alternative, the arresting officer

properly relied on objective good faith under section 38.23(b) of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure when he arrested appellant .................................................. x

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................................................................................... 1

1. Appellant’s Arrest............................................................................................... 1

2. The Arrest Warrant ............................................................................................. 2

3. Conclusions of Law ............................................................................................ 5

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS................................................................................ 6

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. 8
iii

REPLY POINT 1: THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED 

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THE ARREST 

WARRANT WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE. IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, THE ARRESTING OFFICER PROPERLY RELIED 

ON OBJECTIVE GOOD FAITH UNDER SECTION 38.23(B) OF THE 

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN HE ARRESTED 

APPELLANT ........................................................................................................... 8

A. Standard of Review.................................................................................. 8

1. Magistrate’s Determination of Probable Cause ................................. 8

2. All Other Issues.................................................................................. 9

B. The Affidavit Supports The Magistrates Determination of 

Probable Cause Because There Was At Least A Probaility That 

Appellant Committed The Offense of Engaging In Organized 

Criminal Activity By Conspiring To Committ The Underlying 

Offense of Aggravated Assault And/Or As A Party To That 

Offense................................................................................................... 10

C. In The Alternative, The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant’s 

Motion To Suppress Because The Affidavit Contains Probable 

Cause For All Of The Additional Offenses Listed By The Trial 

Court. Based On These Findings The Warrant Should Be Upheld 

As Valid Or, In The Altertnative, The Arresting Officer Properly 

Relied On That Warrant Under The Good Faith Exeption Listed 

In Section 38.23(b) Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure..................... 16

1. The Trial Court Properly Held That Detective 

Halbardier’s Affidavit Contained Probable Cause For The 

Additional Offenses of Conspiracy To Commit 

Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Assault As A Party, 

Obstruction or Retaliation and Witness Tampering ................... 16

2. Because The Warrant Contained Probable Cause For The 

Additional Offenses Listed By The Trial Court The 

Warrant Should Be Upheld Just As The Warrants In 

Borsari v. State and Villegas v. State Was Under Very 

Similar Circumstances................................................................ 19
iv

3. Because The Warrant Was Support By Probable Cause 

For the Additional Offenses Listed By The Trial Court 

Investigaor Campos Acted In Objective Good Faith 

Reliance On The Warrant ........................................................... 23

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................... 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......................................................................................... 25
v

TABLE OF AUTHORTIES 

United States Supreme Court Cases

United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965)........................................................22, 24

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Cases

Barber v. State, 764 S.W.2d 232 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988) ..................................................................................................... 17

Beier v. State, 687 S.W.2d 2 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1985) ...............................................................................................15, 20

Creel v. State, 754 S.W.2d 205 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988) ..................................................................................................... 15

Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004), superceded by statute on other grounds, Tex. Crim. Proc. Code 

Ann. § 37.071(2)(e)(2)(B) (West 2013)........................................................................... 9

Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.3d 85 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). ...................................................................................................... 9

Jones v. State, 833 S.W.3d 118 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ...........................................................................................9, 10, 11

Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 9

McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.3d 482 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 10

Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) .................................................................................................8, 10

Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 10
vi

State v. Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 22

State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 8

Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 8

Texas Appellate Court Cases

Barrera v. State, 321 S.W.3d 137 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d).................................................................12, 17

Barton v. State, 962 S.W.2d 132 

(Tex. App-Beaumont 1997, pet. ref’d).............................................................................. 11

Bell v. State 169 S.W.3d 384 

(Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2005, pet. ref’d)............................................................................. 8

Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886 

(Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, pet. ref’d)............................................................................... 11

Borsari v. State, 919 S.W.2d 913 

(Tex. App.—Houston[14th] 1996, pet. ref’d) .............................................................19, 21

Cummings v. State, 651 S.W.2d 14, 15 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1983, no pet.)................................................................................ 11

Glaze v. State, 230 S.W.3d 258 

(Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d) ................................................................................... 8

Guerrero v. State, 2009 WL 2525434 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 462 (2012) (not 

designated for publication)............................................................................................... 8
vii

Hall v. State, 753 S.W.2d 438 

(Tex. App--Texarkana 1988), overruled on other grounds, 75S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1990)...................................................................................................................... 20

Husting v. State, 790 S.W.2d 121 

(Tex. App—San Antonio 1990, not pet.) ....................................................................15, 20

Miller v. State, 83 S.W.3d 308 

(Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d)................................................................................ 20

Moss v. State, 75 S.W.3d 132 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d)....................................................................... 10

Ozuna v. State, 88 S.W.3d 307

(Tex. App-San Antonio 2002, pet’ ref’d)......................................................................9, 11

Salio v. State, 910 S.W.2d 184 

(Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 1995, pet. ref’d).....................................................................11, 16

Shelton v. State, 2013 WL 5773692 

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.) (not designated for publication); ................................... 9

State v. Jimenez, 2008 WL 3823998 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).........................8, 11

White v. State, 746 S.W.2d 775 

(Tex. App—Dallas 1985, no pet.) ...............................................................................11, 16

Villegas v. State, 791 S.W.2d 226 

(Tex. App-Corpus Christ 1990, pet. ref’d)..................................................................19, 21

Texas Statutes

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § 38.23(b) (West 2013) ....................................................... 23

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 45.014 (West 2013)............................................................. 22

Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 141.001 (West 2013).................................................................. 22
viii

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 25.0014 (West 2013) ................................................................. 22

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 27.001-27.061 (West. 2013).................................................... 22

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.01(b) (West 2013)................................................................. 12

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.02(a)(1) (West 2013).......................................................12, 17

Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 15.02(a) (West 2013) ................................................................ 17

Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 22.02 (West 2013)..................................................................... 17

Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 35.05(a)(1)-(2) (West 2013)...................................................... 18

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 36.06(a)(1) (West 2013)............................................................. 18
ix

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument requested. 
x

ISSUE PRESENTED

The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress because the arrest warrant 

was supported by probable cause for the offense of engaging in organized criminal 

activity. In the alternative, the arresting officer properly relied on objective good faith 

under section 38.23(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he arrested appellant.
1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On August 6, 2013, appellant was indicted for the offense of possession of a 

controlled substance pentalty group one in an amount of more than one gram but less 

than four grams. (Clerk’s Records (“CR”), pg. 9). On June 12, 2014, appellant filed a 

motion to suppress. (CR, pg. 16). That motion was heard in front of Judge Kirkendall on 

August 20, 2014. (Reporter’s Record Vol. 2 (“RR”)). Judge Kirkendall denied the motion 

that same day. (RR Vol. 2, pg.27). After the denial of the motion to suppress, the case 

went to jury trial on August 25, 2014. (RR Vol. pg. 3-6). At trial the defendant was found 

guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. (RR Vol. 5, pg. 22; RR Vol. 6, pg. 103)

Appellant now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Because appellant’s only ground for review is the denial of his motion to 

suppress, appellee’s statement of facts will be limited to that issue.

I. Appellant’s Arrest

Investigator David Camacho of the Guadalupe County Sherriff’s Office was one 

of two witnesses to testify at the hearing. (RR Vol. 2). On August 28, 2012, he learned 

that there was an arrest warrant for appellant. Id. at 2 After confirming the warrant with 

dispatch, Camacho and another officer drove to appellant’s residence in order serve the 

warrant. Id. at 10-11. When Camacho arrived at appellant’s residence he knocked on the 

door and appellant answered. Id. at 11. Camacho informed him of the warrant and 

appellant attempted to run back inside the house in response. Id. In order to prevent him 

from escaping, Camacho grabbed appellant’s T-shirt and a scuffle ensued in appellant’s 
2

front yard. Id. Once appellant was secured, he was searched incident to arrest. Id. at 11-

12. During that search, Camacho found four balloons filled with heroine in appellant’s 

pockets. Id. at 12. Camacho stated that he had no reason to believe that the arrest was not 

supported by probable cause. Id. He also had no reason to believe that the arrest warrant 

was not valid. Id.

II. The Arrest Warrant

The arrest warrant authorized the arrest of appellant for the offense of engaging in 

organized criminal activity. (RR Vol. 7, State’s Exhibit No. 1). That warrant was 

supported by a five page complaint written by Detective Clinton Halbardier. (RR Vol. 7, 

Exhibit No. 2, pg. 1)1. That complaint stated that Halbardier had reason to believe 

appellant and five other individuals committed the offense of engaging in organized

criminal activity with the underlying offense being the aggravated assault of Roberto 

Herrera. Id. According to Halbadier, he obtained his knowledge by reading the Seguin 

Police Department offense reports and supplements, through previous investigations

involving several of the listed suspects, and his own interviews with multiple witnesses 

and suspects. Id.

The complaint indicated that Herrera was stabbed and beaten on August 26, 2012. 

Id. at 2. Before being taken to the hospital, Herrera stated that Danny Gonzales (one the 

six suspects listed in the affidavit) had been involved in the assault.2Id. at 2. At the 

 

1 Detective Halbardier’s affidavit does not contain pages numbers. However, in order to be as precise as possible 

with its citations appellee will refer to the first page of the complaint/affidavit as page 1 and the subsequent pages as 

pages 2-5 respectively with page 5 being the one with the magistrate’s signature. 

2 The other suspects listed in the affidavit were Roy Martinez, Christopher Lopez, Ezekiel Herrera Longoria, Abel 

Lomas, and appellant.
3

hospital, Herrera told Detective Diaz he was with Christopher Lopez and another 

individual on the night of the assault. Id. at 3. At some point Herrera was approached by

Ezekial Herrera Longoria who asked him what gang he was a member of. Id. When 

Herrera said “Orejones” Longoria told him he’d better deny being Orejones because this 

was a “EME” or “Merecido” area. Id. Earlier in the complaint, Dectective Halbarider 

implied “Merecido” is a reference to the Mexican Mafia when he noted that “Merecido 

Party” referred to ranking Mexican Mafia involvement. Id. 

After Longoria told Herrera to deny being Orejones, Herrera got out of his vehicle 

to speak with Longoria. Id. When he did so Gonzales and Abel Lomas approach him 

from behind. Id. Longoria then waived his had and Herrera was attacked from behind by 

five or six males, including Gonzales and Roy Martinez. Id. 

In addition, to Herrera’s statements the affidavit also contained statements from 

four witnesses who asked to be unnamed in the complaint for “personal safety and 

security” reasons. Id. UW1 was a resident of Seguin who was gainfully employed, had 

provided credible informantion in the past, had acquaintances involved in the Mexican 

Mafia, and knew the details of the Mexican Mafia. Id. UW2 was present on scene at the 

time of the assault and, according to the complaint, his statements were corroborated by 

Herrera’s statement. Id. UW3 was a gainfully employed resident of Texas who had 

acquaintances involved in the Mexican Mafia. Id. UW4 was also a resident of Seguin and 

had no criminal history. Id. In his complaint, Halbardier stated that based on the above 

information he believed these witnesses to be credible and that the magistrate could rely 

on them. Id. 
4

Notably UW2, in addition to stating that Gonzales and Lomas were involved in the 

assault, told Detective Diaz that he had heard one of the suspects yelling that this was a 

“Merecido Party.” Id. at 3. UW3 added that Gonzales had threatened him and told him to

not report the incident to the police. Id. Appellant also threatened UW3 and told him to 

not talk to the police about the assault on Herrera. Id. UW3 also told investigators that he 

had heard Gonzales talking to a high ranking member from the Mexican Mafia from San 

Antonio. Id. Specifically, he heard Gonzales telling this individual that the assault was set 

up by Christopher Lopez because Herrera was suspected of stealing drugs from appellant.

Id. UW4 stated Gonzales and appellant had threatened him. Id.at 3-4.

The complaint stated that all six suspects, including appellant were confirmed to 

be active gang members. Id. at 4. Halbadier learned this information over “the past 

several months of investigating multiple violent gang related offenses,” with ‘several 

[l]ocal, [s]tate, and [f]ederal [o]fficers.” Id. Halbardier outlined their specific affiliation, 

in relevant part as follows:

Alvin “Ace” Pan Valadez is a documented Mexican Mafia gang member 

through [n]ational and [s]tate [d]ata [b]ase information searches. He is also

[sic] lieutenant with the Mexican Mafia.

Danny Gonzales is a documented Mexican Mafia gang member through 

[n]ational and [s]tate [d]ata [b]ase information searches. Danny also has 

several gang related tattoos on his body, know [sic] to associate with gang 

member [sic], and has been arrested at documented gang member 

residences.

Christopher Lopez is a documented Mexican Mafia gang member through 

[n]ational and [s]tate [d]ata [b]ase information searches.

Ezekial Longoria associates with documented gang members, at locations 

frequented by gang members, and [sic]confirmed by credible informants.
5

Abel Lomas associates with documented gang member, at locations 

frequented by gang members, and [sic] confirmed by credible informants.

Abel has been identified as the offender in several aggravated assaults, 

home invasion robberties, and deadly conduct incidents. 

Roy Martinez associates with documented gang members, [sic] seen at 

locations frequented by gang members,[sic], and [sic] confirmed by 

credible informants.

Id. at 4.

Finally, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State called Detective 

Halbardier for the purpose of demonstrating some of the reasonable inferences that were 

made when Judge Friesenhahn signed the warrant. (RR Vol. 2, pg. 8). During his 

testimony Halbardier explained the overall structure of the Mexican Mafia. Id. at 17. He 

noted that lieutenants were generally in charge of a specific city or county. Id. He added 

that the Mexican Mafia, as part of their activities, engaged in assaults. Id. at 17-18. He 

described sanctioned and unsanctioned assaults. Id. at 18. A sanctioned assault was one 

the offender was given permission by a ranking member of the Mexican Mafia and an 

unsanctioned assault was one where no such permission was given. Id.3 According to 

Halbadier, the assault on Herrera was sanctioned by appellant. Id.

III. Conclusions of Law

At the trial on the merits (after the parties had rested, but before the jury’s verdict), 

the trial court issued several conclusions of law. (RR Vol. 5 pg. 18-19). The trial court 

concluded that:

 

3

If an assault was unsanction, the individual would have to explain themselves and could either be subject to a tax 

by the gang or be assaulted themselves Id. at 18.
6

(1) The defendant was arrested on a warrant issued on August 28th, 2012, by 

Justice Peace Precinct Four, Guadalupe County, based on a probable cause 

affidavit submitted by Dectective Clint Halbardier.

(2) The probable cause affidavit for said warrant contained information which 

established probable cause for Alvin Valadez Jr. to be charged with various 

offenses, including conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, aggravated 

assault as a party to that offense, organized criminal activity to commit 

aggravate assault, obstrution or retaliation, and even possibly witness 

tampering.

(3) Because such probable cause was established for each offense, the Justice of 

the Peace could’ve issued the warrant naming any of those felony offenses. 

(4) The arresting officers were acting in good faith reliance on the warrant. Even if 

the probable cause was inadequate for organized criminal activity, probable

cause was established for other felony offenses. 

Id. at 18-19.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

The trial court properly denied the trial court’s motion to suppress because the 

complaint contained sufficient probable cause to authorize appellant’s arrest for the 

offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. The magistrate could infer that 

appellant had conspired with other members of the Mexican Mafia, a well-known 

organized criminal street gang, to commit an aggravated assault against Robert Herrera.

Before and during the assault on Herrera there were references to the area being a 

“Merecido” or “Merecido party,” a reference to the Mexican Mafia. Just prior to the

assault one of the assialants, Ezekial Longoria, motioned for several others to attack 

Herrera from behind. Virtually all of the assialants, Longoria included, were either 

members of the Mexican Mafia or were known to frequently associate with them. Thus, 
7

the magistrate could have rationally inferred that the assault on Herrera was a sanctioned 

assault set-up by the Mexican Mafia. Furthermore, the complaint indicates that appellant 

was not only a member of the same gang, but was also one of its lieutenants and ran the 

organization within the city of Seguin. When this is combined with appellant’s multiple 

attempts to silence witnesses and the fact that the entire purpose of the assault was 

retaliation for Herrera stealing drugs from appellant, the magistrate could have rationally 

concluded appellant had conspired to commit the aggravated assault on Herrera as part of 

the Mexican Mafia. For the same reasons the magistrate also could have concluded that 

appellant was a party to the offense of enganging in organized criminal activity.

In the alternative, the warrant is still valid because the supporting complaint 

contained probable cause for the additional offenses listed in the trial court’s findings of 

facts. That a non-lawyer like Detective Halbardier might have inadvertently 

misinterpreted appellant’s post-offense behavior as part of the original offense rather than 

it’s own distinct conduct should not render the warrant invalid just as it did not in the 

cases of Borsari v. State and Villegas v. State. Alternatively, and for the same reasons, the 

arresting officer was relying on objective good faith under 38.23(b) of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. Both of these interpretations are consistent with common sense, nontechnical way courts typically analyze warrants. 
8

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

REPLY POINT 1: THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT’S 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THE ARREST WARRANT WAS 

SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE 

ARRESTING OFFICER PROPERLY RELIED ON OBJECTIVE GOOD FAITH 

UNDER SECTION § 38.23(B) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 

WHEN HE ARRESTED APPELLANT. 

A. Standard of Review

1. Magistrate’s Determination Of Probable Cause

Appellant incorrectly states de novo as the the standard of review for reviewing a

magistrate’s determination of probable cause. When reviewing the adequacy of the

affidavit or complaint for a search or arrest warrant the reviewing court applies a highly 

deferrential to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause and does not conduct a de 

novo review. State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Rodriguez 

v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 

808, 809-811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Admittedly, the above cases dealt with the review of a magistate’s determination 

of probable cause for a search warrant. McLain, 337 S.W3d at 272; Rodriguez, 232 

S.W.3d at 61; Swearingen, 143 S.W.3d at 809. However, that standard has been 

repeatedly applied to arrest warrants by state appellate courts, including this one. 

Guerrero v. State, 2009 WL 2525434 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d), cert. 

denied, 131 S.Ct. 462 (2012) (not designated for publication); State v. Jimenez, 2008 WL 

3823998 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication); Glaze v. 

State, 230 S.W.3d 258, 259 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d); Bell v. State 169 
9

S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2005, pet. ref’d); Shelton v. State, 2013 WL 

5773692 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.) (not designated for publication); See Ozuna v. 

State, 88 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. App-San Antonio 2002, pet’ ref’d) (decided before 

Swearingen, but applied “great deference” to a magistrates determination of probable 

cause). In addition, the Court of Criminal Appeals has made it clear that the same 

standard of review applies to the affidavits of both search and arrest warrants. Hankins v. 

State, 132 S.W.3d 380, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), superceded by statute on other 

grounds, Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § 37.071(2)(e)(2)(B) (West 2013); Jones v. State, 

833 S.W.3d 118, 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) . 

2. Standard of Review For All Remaining Issues

Though appellee firmly believes the trial court properly upheld the magistrates 

determination of probable cause, should this Honorable Court determine that it did not, 

appellee offers additional arguments in the alternative. The standard of review for those 

arguments is the traditional standard of review used in motions to suppress.

Under that standard, appellate courts give almost total deference to the trial court’s 

determination of historical fact and mixed questions of law and fact that rely on the 

credibility of a witness. Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919, 923-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2011); Questions of law and mixed questions of fact and law that do not depend on 

credibility determinations are reviewed de novo. Martinez, 348 S.W.3d 923-924; Guzman 

v. State, 955 S.W.3d 85-87-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
10

Finally, regardless of which standard of review applies, appellate courts must sustain 

the trial court’s ruling if it concludes that the trial court’s decision is correct under any

theory of law. Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

B. The Affidavit Supports The Magistrates Determination of Probable Cause 

Because There Was At Least A Probaility That Appellant Committed The 

Offense of Engaging In Organized Criminal Activity By Conspiring To 

Committ The Underlying Offense of Aggravated Assault And/Or As A Party 

To That Offense.

When reviewing a magistrates determination of probable cause, appellate courts 

look to the four corners of the affidavit or complaint. McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.3d 

482, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.3d 118, 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1992). The affidavit or complaint must provide the magistrate with sufficient information 

to support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. 

McFarland, 928 S.W.3d at 509, Jones, 833 S.W.3d at 123. However, it need not contain 

sufficient evidence that would convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. McFarland, 928 S.W.3d at 509. Instead, the reviewing court’s duty is to determine 

if there are sufficient facts, coupled with inferences from those facts, to believe that there 

is a fair probability that the accused committed an offense. Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 62

Moss v. State, 75 S.W.3d 132, 140 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d). 

An affidavit or complaint in support of a warrant is to be interpreted in a common 

sense and realistic manner, not a hypertechnical one. Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 61.

Realistic inferences may be drawn from the facts set forth in the complaint. Jones, 833 

S.W.3d at 123. “When in doubt, the reviewing court is to defer to all reasonable 

inferences that a magistrate could have made.” Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 61 (emphasis 
11

added). A determination of whether probable cause exists is made by examining the 

totality of the circumstances. Jones, 833 S.W.3d at 123.

In addition, when making a probable cause determination, the magistrate may find 

probable cause even when the affidavit is based on unnamed informants or witnesses. 

Ozuna, 88 S.W.3d at 310; Barton v. State, 962 S.W.2d 132, 134-138 (Tex. AppBeaumont 1997, pet. ref’d); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 894 (Tex. App.—El Paso 

1995, pet. ref’d). 

Generally, when evaluating an unnamed informant a reviewing court looks to the 

veracity or reliability of the informant and their basis of knowledge. Ozuna, 88 S.W.3d at 

310. The arrest affidavit need not prove both and a deficiency in one may be offset by a 

strong showing in another. Id. However, if the unnamed individual or victim is an 

eyewitness to the offense and, thus, “ ‘is the direct source of the information conveyed to 

the magistrate via a police officer’, corrbortive facts and other indicia of reliability are 

unncessessary.” White v. State, 746 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Tex. App—Dallas 1985, no pet.)

(quoting Cummings v. State, 651 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1983, no pet.); 

Belton, 900 S.W.3d at 894; Jimenez, 2008 WL 3823998. In other words, a person who is 

neither a paid informant nor associated with the police is inherently trustworthy when 

they advise the police of a crime. Salio v. State, 910 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Tex. App.—Ft. 

Worth 1995, pet. ref’d). This is because such people have put themselves in a position to 

be held accountable for their intervention. Id.

The trial court correctly held that the arrest warrant was supported by probable 

cause for engaging in organized criminal activity. A person commits that offense “if, with 
12

the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a 

combintation or as a member of a criminal street gang, the person commits or conspires 

to commit one of the following offenses...(1) aggravated assault.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. 

§ 71.02(a)(1) (West 2013).

In his brief, appellant asserts that there is no evidence tying him to the offense. 

However, appellant omits a number of key facts and rational inferences that could have 

been made by the issuing magistrate. First, a person can commit the offense of engaging 

in organized criminal activity either by committing one of the underlying offenses as a 

member of a criminal street gang or by conspiring to commit one of the underlying 

offenses. See Id. Under the engaging in orgazined criminal activity statute, conspiring to 

commit means:

that a person agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of 

them engage in conduct that would constitute an offense and that person 

and one or more of them perform an over act in pursuance of the 

agreement. An agreement constituting conspiring to commit may be 

inferred from the acts of the parties

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.01(b) (West 2013). Conspiring to commit an offense, even 

under the engaging statute, can be based on acts that occurred before, during, or after the 

offense and can be inferred from the acts of the offender. See Id; See Barrera v. State, 

321 S.W.3d 137, 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d).

4

 

4

In Barrera, the defendant was charge with engaging in organized criminal activity under the “conspiracy to 

commit” aggravated kidinapping as a party. Barrera, 321 S.W.3d at 152. When describing the Court of Criminal 

Appeals decision in Otto v. State, this court stated that “[t]he Court noted appellant’s position as leaders of the 

combination and held that their involvement in the planning, execution, and aftermath of the kidnapping was 

tantamount to encouraging, directing, aiding, or attempting to aid in the offense, and therefore, authorized a 

conviction under the law of parties. Id. at 154 (citations omitted, emphasis added).
13

In the complaint, the victim said that just prior to the assault he was asked by 

Longoria what gang he belonged to. When Herrera said “Orejones,” Longoria told to 

deny that because this was an “Eme” or “Merecido” area. As noted earlier in the 

complaint “Merecido” is a reference to the Mexican Mafia, which is a well known 

criminal street gang. Shortly thereafter, Longoria motioned to Lomas and Gonzales who 

approached appellant and, along with several others, attacked appellant from behind. 

According to Herrera, who is corroborated by UW1, those inviduals included Longoria, 

Lomas, Roy Rodriguez, and Danny Gonzales. As the complaint notes, Gonzales and 

Longoria are documented members of the Mexican Mafia, while Rodgiguez and Lomas 

have been known by law enforcement to frequently associate with Mexican Mafia 

members. Given that Longoria quickly signals several other Mexican Mafia members to 

attack Herrera from behind immediately after Herrera states his affiliation and exits his 

vehicle indicates that the magistrate could, at a minimum, rationally infer that Herrera 

was set-up. In other words, that the offenders had conspired to commit the assault in 

advance. This inference is supported by UW3’s statements to police.

During the investigation, UW3 told Detective Diaz appellant showed up sometime 

later and threated UW3. UW4 made similar statements. UW3 also stated that he observed 

one of the assailants, Danny Gonzales, conversing with a high-ranking member of the 

Mexican Mafia. Specifically, UW3 said he heard Gonzales say the assault was set up by 

Christopher Lopez, another documented Mexican Mafia member, in retaliation for 

Herrera stealing narcotics from appellant. When UW3’s statement is combined with the 

planned nature of the assault, the magistrate can properly infer that this was a sanctioned 
14

hit by the Mexican Mafia in retaliation for Herrera’s theft of appellant’s narcotics. It is 

also rational to infer that appellant was part of that planned retaliation when the whole 

point of the assault was revenge for an offense against appellant. This inference is further 

supported by appellant’s place in the gang that committed the assault. 

The complaint states that appellant is a documented member of the Mexican Mafia 

based an National and State data base information searches, a well as a Lieutenant within 

the gang, and has, in the past, been named as a the leader of the Mexican Mafia in 

Seguin. It would naturally be proper for a magistrate to infer that any sanctioned assault 

by the Mexican Mafia would go through its leadership. This inference is supported by 

Gonzales’s conversation with another high ranking member of the gang. Appellant was 

not only a part of that leadership, but, according to the complaint was its leader within the 

city of Seguin. As a result, the magistrate can infer that appellant was part of the 

agreement to commit the assault against Herrera. An inference that is further supported 

by appellant’s own attempts to silence witnesses in order to cover up a crime whose sole 

objective was revenge for a slight against appellant. 

In short, when the affidavit is viewed in a common sense manner with proper 

deference given to the magistrate’s determination of probable clause it is clear that the

arrest warrant is supported by probable cause. It is basic common sense for a magistrate 

to believe appellant was involved in conspiring to commit a crime that was clearly set-up 

beforehand, that was set-up on his behalf, that appellant helped cover up, that was 

perpetrated by a well-known criminal street gang that appellant led within the city of 

Seguin.
15

Additionally, the magistrate could also have concluded from these facts and 

inferences that appellant was a party to the offense. While appellant’s citation to Gamez 

v. State and Creel correctly sites the basic rule regarding the law of parties and postoffense behavior, it’s citation is an incomplete one. A person can still be a party as an 

accessory after the fact. See Creel v. State, 754 S.W.2d 205, 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)

(noting that an “accomplice witness is an individual who participated with the accused 

before, during and after the commission of the crime for which he is on trial) (emphasis 

added). If there is an agreement prior to the crime for that person to act as an accessory 

after the fact then they can be prosecuted as a party to the offense. Husting v. State, 790 

S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex. App—San Antonio 1990, not pet.). Moreover, in determining 

whether someone is a party a court can look to conduct that occurred before, during, and 

after the offense. Beier v. State, 687 S.W.2d 2, 3-4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). 

As noted above, the facts listed in the affidavit combined with rational inferences 

would allow the magistrate to conclude that appellant had helped conspire to commit the 

offense against Herrera. Therefore, by extension, that magistrate could also reasonably 

conclude part of his agreement to commit the engaging in organized criminal activity was 

to help cover it up by preventing its investigation and prosecution. 

Finally, to the extent that appellant complains that the information came from

unnamed witnesses that complaint is without merit. The magistrate could properly rely on

them as they were known eyewitness whose statement were corroborated and who 

possessed a very strong basis of knowledge. UW1 had a history of providing reliability 

information to the Seguin Department and his basis of knowledge was his own 
16

observations. Likewise UW3 and UW4, were also eyewitness (and victims) who, 

according to the affidavit, viewed the facts that they provided to Detective Diaz. That 

they provided those statements directly to the police means the police knew who they 

were and could hold those witness accountable for their statements. See Salio, 910 

S.W.2d at 188. Additionally, their status as known (though unnamed) eyewitness means

additional coorberation was unnecessary. See White, 746 S.W.2d at 775. Nevertheless, 

such corroboration existed. Specifically, UW1’s statements are corroborated by Herrera 

while UW3 and UW4’s statements corroborate each other. Therefore, the magistrate was 

perfectly justified in relying on these statements in making his determination.

C. In The Alternative, The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant’s Motion To 

Suppress Because The Affidavit Contains Probable Cause For All Of The 

Additional Offenses Listed By The Trial Court. Based On These Findings The 

Warrant Should Be Upheld As Valid. In Addition, The Arresting Officer

Properly Relied On That Warrant Under The Good Faith Exeption Listed In 

Section § 38.23(b) Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure.

1. The Trial Court Properly Held That Detective Halbardier’s Affidavit 

Contained Probable Cause For The Additional Offenses of Conspiracy To 

Commit Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Assault As A Party, Obstruction 

or Retaliation and Witness Tampering. 

Should this Honorable Court hold that the affidavit does not contain sufficient 

probable cause for the offense listed in the warrant, the warrant is still valid because it is 

supported for the additional offenses listed by the trial court in its findings of facts, 

namely: conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, aggravated assault as a part, 

obstruction or retaliation and witness tampering. Appellant does not appear to dispute the 

trial court’s findings of probable cause for these, but in the interest of completeness and 

to the extent that appellant does disagree with them, appellee will cover them briefly.
17

A person commits criminal conspiracy if “with the intent that a felony be committed 

he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct 

that would constitute the offense and he or one or more of them performs an overt act in 

pursuance of the agreement. Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 15.02(a) (West 2013). The primary 

difference between that and engaging in organized criminal activity’s “conspiring to 

commit” language is “conspiring to commit” requires that appellant personally commit 

some act in furtherance of the conspiracy while traditional conspiracy only requires any 

member do so before they can be punished for the agreement. Barrera, 321 S.W.3d at

141-42 (citing Barber v. State, 764 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). 

Consequently, if the offense the defendant conspires to commit under section 71.02(a) is 

a felony then by extension he has also conspired to commit that offense under section

15.02(a). In Part 1B, appellee sets forth at length the reasons the complaint supports a 

finding of probable cause for engaging in organized criminal activity by conspiring to 

commit the offense of aggravated assault. For those same reasons, the complaint also 

supports a finding of probable for conspiracy to commit aggravated assault under section 

15.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code. 

Additionally, the primary difference between committing the offense of engaging in 

organized criminal activity as a party and committing the underlying aggravated assault 

as a party is that the latter would not require proof that the offense be commited either 

pursuant to a combination or as part of a criminal street gang. See Tex. Penal Code. Ann. 

§ 71.02(a) (West 2013); See Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 22.02 (West 2013) Consequently, 

the same reasons that support a finding of probable cause that appellant committed the 
18

offense of engaging in organized criminal activity as a party also support a finding that 

appellant committed the offense aggravated assault as a party to the offense. 

Finally, there is is little doubt that appellate’s post-offense conduct constituted 

probable cause for the offenses of obstruction or retaliation and witness tampering. A 

person commits the offense of obstruction or retaliation “if he intentionally harms or

threatens to harm another by an unlawful act in retaliation for or on account of the service 

or status of another as a...witness, prospective witness, or informant.” Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 36.06(a)(1) (West 2013). Likewise, a person commits witness tampering if “with 

the intent to influence the witness he...coerces a witnesss or prospective witness in an 

official proceeding to (1) testify falsely, (2) to withhold any testimony, information, 

document or things...” Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 35.05(a)(1)-(2) (West 2013). 

The only purpose appellant could have had in threatening UW3 (and (UW4)) to 

not speak to the officers was to either prevent him from reporting the assault on Herrera 

or to withhold testimony or information law enforcement for the purpose. This is 

confirmed when appellant tells UW3 not to talk to the police about the incident. It is also 

supported by the fact that his co-defendant Gonzales was also instructing both UW3 and 

UW4 to not speak to the police. The magistrate and trial court or could reasonable

concludee that the reason they were threatened was because their status as witnesses or 

prospective witnesses. And though the threats are not specified, it would be rational to 

infer from the circumstances that harm via an unlawful act would come to both witness

should they disobey appellant and speak to police. 
19

2. Because The Warrant Contained Probable Cause For The Additional 

Offenses Listed By The Trial Court The Warrant Should Be Upheld Just 

As The Warrant In Borsari v. State and Villegas v. State Was Under Very 

Similar Circumstances. 

The core of appellant’s argument regarding the additional offenses listed by the trial 

court is that allowing the warrant to stand on findings of probable cause for those offense 

violates section 15.02(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant’s argument 

is misplaced and erroneously treats section 15.02(2) as the beginning and end of the 

issue. In Borsari v. State, the 14th Court of Appeals faced the same issue. In that case, a 

combination arrest-search warrant was issued that listed the violated offense as attempted 

capital murder when the affidavit supported the offense of solicitation of capital murder 

(the offense for which Borsari was charged and convicted). Borsari v. State, 919 S.W.2d 

913, 915 (Tex. App.—Houston[14th] 1996, pet. ref’d). In addressing Borsari’s argument 

that this error rendered the warrant invalid, the Court of Appeals held that: 

In reviewing the affidavit in support of the arrest-search warrant in a 

common sense manner under the standards noted above, we find the the 

affiant alleged to support a reasonable inference that appellant committed 

an inchoate offense in anticipation of commiting capital murder. Criminal 

attempt and solicitation are both inchoate crimes. It is of no consequence 

that the affiant may have reached the wrong legal conclusion in assessing 

the facts available to him. 

Id. at 918-19 (citations omitted, emphasis added). 

In support of its position the Court cited the case of Villegas v. State and Hall v. 

State. Id. Villegas dealt with a similar situation. Villegas v. State, 791 S.W.2d 226, 234-

35 (Tex. App-Corpus Christ 1990, pet. ref’d) In that case, the affidavit in support of an 

arrest warrant for capital murder only supported a charge of murder. Id. at 235. The court 
20

in that case upheld the validity of the arrest warrant and in the process made it a point to 

note that the affidavit was drafted by an officer operating without legal advice. Id. 

Finally, in Hall the court of appeals upheld an arrest warrant that was supported by an 

affidavit citing the wrong statute that Hall was accused of violating. Hall v. State, 753 

S.W.2d 438, 441 (Tex. App--Texarkana 1988), overruled on other grounds, 75S.W.2d 

195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

The question before those courts, especially in Borsari, is much like the one facing 

this Court, especially as it relates to the offenses of conspiracy to commit aggravated 

assault, obstruction or retaliation, and witness tampering. Though the elements for those 

offenses differ from engaging in organized criminal activity, the meaningful distinction 

that applies in this case is the characterization of appellant’s post-assault behavior. 

Specifically, whether that behavior was indicative of his intent to commit engagining in 

organized criminal acticity (either via conspiracy to commit or as a party), whether it was

post-offense conduct that either constituted his own criminal conduct (obstruction or 

retaliation and witness tampering), and/or whether it was merely evidence of his 

involvement in the overall conspiracy without arising to the level of an affimative act 

under 71.02(b)’s definition of “conspiracy.” 

Though cases like Gamez state the general rule, it is important to note that

statements like those in Hursting v. State make it clear post-offense conduct can still bind 

someone as a party under certain circumstances. See Hursting, 790 S.W.2d 121, 124. In

addition, post-offense behavior can also be used as evidence that a person is a party or a 

member of a conspiracy. Beier, 687 S.W.2d at 3-4 (party); See Miller v. State, 83 S.W.3d 
21

308, 314 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d) (conspiracy). The point is whether a 

person’s post-offense criminal conduct is its own separate offense, something that binds 

them as a party, or evidence of a conspiracy will vary from case to case and can turn on a 

single fact. There is no absolute rule as to which of the three it will fall under and it can 

even fall under more than one of them. 

It is not hard to imagine and, in fact, it is entirely reasonable to expect that a nonlawyer like Halbardier may inadvertently and erroneously, though understandably, 

misinterpret conduct like appellant’s as something that makes someone a party to the 

underlying offense when it might be its own separate offense. It is also incredibly easy to 

see how a non-lawyer like Halbardier could misinterpret appellant’s post-offense conduct 

as part of the original offense when that conduct was aimed at covering up an offense 

that, at a minimum, was commited by an organization he ran within the city and was 

committed in retaliation for a theft he was the victim of.

Additionally, appellee sees little difference between the situation before the courts 

in Borsari and Villegas. In both instances, the affiviant supporting the arrest warrant 

contained probable cause for an offense other than the one alleged on the face of the 

warrant. See Borsari, 919 S.W.2d at 915; See Villegas, 791 S.W.2d at 234-35. In both 

cases, the warrant was upheld as valid despite this error with the court in Borsari

explicitly stating that it did not matter that the affiant may have selected the wrong 

inchoate offense. See Borsari, 919 S.W.2d at 915. Consequently, just as the officer’s 

error was of no consequence in Borsari, Halbardier’s potential mischaracterization of 
22

appellant’s post-offense conduct as part of the original offense (as opposed to it’s own 

seperate offense) should be of no consequence. 

Such a holding is also consistent with how courts typically interpret warrants.

Specifically, the whole reason that affidavits or complaints should be interpreted in a 

common sense non-technical manner is because they are frequently drafted by nonlawyers who have no formal legal training and who are frequently in the midst of an 

active investigation. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108-09 (1965); State v. 

Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (n.8). In addition, Texas law permits 

non-lawyers to serve as Justice of the Peace while also permitting them to sign arrest 

warrants. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 45.014 (West 2013); See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 

141.001 (West 2013).

5

Appellant’s position would effectly grant both the affiant and the magistrate 

latitude in drafting/reviewing an affidavit in common sense, non-technical manner, but 

then be hypertechnical in regards to their legal conclusions despite the fact that the 

rational for applying the common sense standard exists in both circumstances. In both 

cases the drafting and review of these warrant is frequently done by people who are not 

attorneys and have no formal legal training. Appellee, does not argue for an absolute rule 

and only asks this court to apply the same reasonableness and common sense applied in 

Borsari and Villegas.

 

5 Chapter 27 of the Texas Government Code does not lay out any special requriements for Justices of the Peace 

(unlike Chapter 25’s for County Court and for example) of the peace and therefore, the Election Code’s general 

requirements for holding public office would be used. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 25.0014 (West 2013); See Tex. 

Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 27.001-27.061 (West. 2013).
23

As to appellee’s claim that such a reading violates section 15.02(2) of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure that argument is misplaced. The warrant listed an offense: engaging 

in organized criminal activity. It is the offense that Halbardier understandably, though 

possibly errorneously, believed appellant had committed. Though not ruling on the issue 

of section 15.02(2) specifically, the Court in Borsari upheld the warrant as valid as is as 

did the court in Villegas despite the fact that the affidavit provided probable cause for a 

different offense. 

3. Because The Warrant Was Support By Probable Cause For the 

Additional Offenses Listed By The Trial Court Investigaor Campos Acted 

In Objective Good Faith Reliance On The Warrant.

Alternatively, because the warrant contained probable cause for the additional 

offenses, Investigator Campos acted in objective good faith on the warrant when he 

arrested appellant. Section 38.23(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states:

[i]t is an exception to the provisions of Subsection (a) of this Article that 

the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective 

good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on 

probable cause.

Tex. Crim. Pro. Code Ann. § 38.23(b) (West 2013).

Appellee errorneously claims that Section 38.23(b) does not apply because the 

warrant is not supported by probable cause. The obvious implication of appellant’s 

argument is the “probable cause” mentioned by 38.23(b) refers only to the probable cause 

of the offense listed on the face of the arrest warrant and that any additional probable 

cause for any other offense is immaterial. Appellant cites no authority for his position.
24

Instead, this kind of case is an obvious one for the application of 38.23(b). As 

argued at length in Part 1C2, the real distinction between the unlisted offenses, notably 

obstruction or retaliation, witness tampering, and conspiracy to commit aggravated 

assault, is the characterization of appellant’s post-offense conduct. As also argued at 

length in that section, it is easy to see how a person without formal legal training, like 

Halbardier, could misinterpret post offense behavior as being a part of the original 

offense as opposed to a separate and distinct offense. In the case at bar, Halbardier made 

a good faith interpretation of the facts before him and should not be punished for not 

being a lawyer.

It would be one thing if the complaint was completely devoid of any kind of 

probable cause for any crime, but that is not the case. At worst, all Halbardier did is come 

to the incorrect, though understandable, legal conclusion about the specific nature of 

appellant’s post-offense conduct. Reading section 38.23(b) in this manner is also 

consistent with the way appellant courts typically interpret warrants: in a non-technical 

and common sense manner. See Ventresca, 380 U.S. at 108-09. Likewise, it avoids

placing non-attorney’s in the position of having to know all the nuances of law when they 

lack that specific type of training. Otherwise, courts may as well require that all affidavits 

and complaints be filled out by practicing attorneys. Appellant’s excessively rigid reading 

of section 38.23(b) would demand such perfection in an area of the law where courts 

have repeatedly said common sense, not hypertechnicality and perfection, is the standard. 
25

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, appellee respectfully prays that this court uphold the trial court’s 

denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

/s/Christopher M. Eaton

Christopher M. Eaton

Assistant County Attorney

Guadalupe County, Texas

State Bar No. 24048238

211 W. Court St., 3rd Floor

Seguin, Texas 78155

Phone: (830) 303-6130 

Fax: (830) 379-9491

Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served by email 

toAppellant’s attorney Ed Shaughnessy at Shaughnessy727@gmail.com on the 9th Day 

of April, 2015. 

 /s/Christopher M. Eaton

 Christopher M. Eaton