### NUM BER 13-08- 084- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
JEF FE RY A LA N RIC HIE, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 29t h Dist rict C ou rt of W ha rton C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A j ur y found appel lan t, Jeffery Al an R ic hie , g uil ty

of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subst ance w ith inte nt to deliv er in an am oun t of 4 gram s or mo re but less th an 2 00 grams, and s entenc ed hi m to a l ife i mpri sonm e n t in t he Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nalPosi t i v e f i ndi ngs wer e m ade by t he j ur y dur i ng t he p uni shm ent pha se of t he t r i al wi t h r esepct t o t he 1 enhan cem ent / habi t ual par agr aphs oft he ch ar ge. 2 Jus ti ce–I nst it uti onal D iv is ion

. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.112 ( Ver non 1 Sup p. 20 09). By four issues, Richie com plains that the trial court erred by 1) den y ing his
mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , 2 ) r e fu s i n g t o r eq uir e t h e S t a t e t o s u p p l y t h e i d e n t i fi c a t i o n o f a confide nti al infor mant, 3) al low ing ev ide nce of a parole w ar ra nt t hat he cl aims w as nev er prod uc ed , an d of 4 ) i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el

. W e affi r m. I. M OT I ON TO S U PPRESS By hi s first is sue, R ic hie as ser ts that the t rial court er re d i n det er mini ng thatthe arrest an d sea rch w arrant a f f ida vit conta ined suf

f icient informa tion to estab lish proba ble
caus e. A . Facts On Jun e 18 , 200 7, T om my Johnso n, a sergean t w ith the W harto n Coun ty She riff ’s Dep artment Narc o ti cs T ask F or ce, su bmit ted a probabl e c ause aff ida v itto a mag is trate and obt ain ed a search w ar ra nt for Ric hie ’s resi dence

. Ri chi e had been un der i nv est ig ati on fo r s e ll in g c o c a in e a n d cr a c kco c a in e . J o h n s o n t e s t if ie d t h a th e h a d b e e n co n t a c t e d b y a conf iden tial informa nt in ref eren ce to Richie selling co c a in e a nd crack coca ine w ithin tw enty -fours o f seeki ng the w ar ra nt. The i nformant noti fied J ohnso n tha t he had recei v ed a tel ephone cal l from R ic hie on J une 16, 2007. The i nformant tol d Johns on that Ri chi e had called h im an d asked h im to com e to his hou se. A ccording t o Joh nson ’s af f idavit, Ri chie ask ed th e i nformant to c ome ov er onl y w hen he had c ocai ne. Johns on s tated thatthe informa nt had p rov ided reliab le informa tion in the p ast and kn ew w hat cocaine and crack
coc ain e l ooked l ik e. Acc ordin g to the a ff ida v it , t he informant had prev iou sl y been to an d had obs er

v ed coc ain e and had se en meas ur ing cu ps and mi crow av es that Ri chi e us ed to3

“coo k ” t h e c ra ck cocaine at his residen ce. T he inf orma nt ad v ised th at coca ine de alers came t o R ic h ie ’s house t o c ook the c ra ck co cai ne, t hat R ic hie us ed c ocai ne, a nd th at Richie w as on parole. The informa nt repo rted to John s o n o n the day before the search
w ar ra nt w as ex ecut ed that the i nformant had dr iv en by R ic hie ’s r esi dence and obser v ed
nar cot icac ti v it y

there. This co inc ide d w it h J ohnso n’s personal know led g e tha t he had obse rv ed p eop le at the residence t hat h e knew, f rom experience , w ere involv ed w ith drugs. B . St and ard o f Rev iew W hen rev iew ing a mag is trate’ s d eci si on to i ss ue a w ar ra nt, tr ial and appel lat e c our ts app ly a h ig h ly

def eren tial stan dard in keepin g w ith the constitu tiona l preferen ce for a
w ar ra nt. Rod

ri guez v. Sta te , 232 S.W .3d 5 5, 61 ( Tex . Crim . App. 200 7)

. An app ell ate
cour t s houl d i nter pr et t he affid a vit in a c ommon sen se and real is ti c mann er , w it h the know led g e that the mag is trate may make re asona ble i nferenc es. Id. W h e n in d o u b t , we defer t o al l re asona ble i nferenc es that the mag is trate c oul d hav e made. Id. Th e inquiry is w het her the re are suf f icient facts, couple d w ith inf eren ces f rom th ose f acts, to estab lish a “ fair probabi li ty ” that ev ide nce of a par ti cul ar cr ime w il l li kel y

be found a t a par

ti cul ar loc ati on. Id. at 62. The is sue is not w hether othe r facts coul d hav e been inc lud ed i n the aff ida v it ; t his C our

t’ s focus sh oul d be on the forc e of the facts that ar e i n the aff ida v it , not thos e tha t are omi tted from the aff ida v it

. Id

. W hil e informati on f ro m an unn amed i nformant alo ne does not est abl is h probabl e caus e, the infor mant' s t ip, co mbined w it h i ndependen t pol ic e inv est ig ati on, may prov ide a s ubst anti al basi s for the probabl e- caus e findi ng . Davis
v. Sta te, 1 44 S .W .3 d 19 2, 2 00 ( Tex

. Ap p. –F or t W or th 2 00 4, p et

. r ef' d)

. Th e i nfo r mant’s
re li abi li ty and the b asi s o f his or

her kn ow led g e are rel ev ant in deter mini ng probabl e c ause. Il li noi s v . G ates , 462 U .S. 213, 230 ( 1983) ; Ashcra ft v. State , 9 3 4 S

. W

. 2 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 3 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 1996 , pet . ref ’d).4

Ri chi e urg es that the mag is trate e rred bec ause there w as no w ay to tel l from the aff ida v ithow

ol d the i nformati on w as, thatthere w as no show ing of w hen t he c onfidenti al infor mant had been in the h ouse, an d J o h n so n di d notst ate, w it hin the confine s o f the aff ida v it , w hen he had c onduc ted s ur v eil lan ce of the resi dence

. The ev ide nce before the mag is trate w as that Ri chi e w as under i nv est ig ati on ev en before t he i nformant cont act ed J ohnson . The infor mant c ontac ted J ohnso n on the d ay before t he w ar ra nt w as is sued. The i nformant adv is ed that he had rec eiv ed a tel ephone
c a l l fro m a p p e l l a n t a n d t h a t R i c h i e “ d o e s t h i s w h e n h e [ a p p e l l a n t ] d oe s h av e s om e cocain e.” John son h ad also received a t ip tha t Richie w as selling crack cocain e f rom h is hou se on June 18, 2007 , the sam e da y John son signed his af

f idavit. The magistrate could hav e reas onabl y

inferr ed that if the n ar cot ic s a cti v it ies w er e ong oin g , t hey w er e oc cur ri ng cl ose to the p oin t i n ti me w hen J ohnso n recei v ed th e i nformati on from t he i nformant that h e h a d se e n i ll e ga l s u b s t a n c e s a ta p p e ll a n t ’s r e s id e n c e a n d J o h n s o n h a d o b s e rve d kn o wn dr ug deal ers a t app ell ant’ s resi dence . One of the us ers, Kendr ic k R ig g ins , w as ide nti fied by the infor mant as a pe rs on w ho “c ooked ” coc ain e at appel lan t’ s house

. Addi ti onal ly , t he tel ephone cal l from appel lan t t o the i nformant w as w it hin 48 h ours o f the w ar ra nt. App ly ing the com mo n-sen se ap proa ch advocate d by the court of criminal app eals in Rod ri guez , w e con clude thatthere was suf f icient evidence to issue a w arrant to search appel lan t’ s resi dence

. Appel lan t’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

II. F A I LU RE T O R EQU I R E THE I NF ORMA NT ’ S I DENTI TY Ri chi e arg ues by

hi s s econd i ss ue th at the t ri al cour t er re d i n refusing to re q uire the St ate t o di sc los e the i denti ty of it s c onfidenti al infor mant. H e c lai ms t hat w hen a confide nti al infor mant i s p re sentat the t im e o f a n i ll eg al transac ti on, h e i s a mater ial
w it ness and must be i denti fied. See A nder son v. Sta te , 81 7 S. W .2 d 69 , 72 ( Tex

. C r i m.5

App. 1991)

. A

. St and ard o f Rev iew W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s d eni al of a moti on to dis cl ose a c onfidenti al infor mant und er an abus e of di sc re ti on s tandard. Tay lor v. Sta te , 604 S.W .2d 175, 17 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980)

. Und er

thi s s tandard, w e aff ir m the jud g ment, unl ess the tr ial co urt' s d eci si on w as so cl ear ly

w ro ng as to li e out si de th at z one w it hin w hic h reason abl e person s mig ht dis ag re e. See Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 8 1 0 S

. W. 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 0 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 )

. W e maynot subs ti tute our jud g ment for th at of the tr ial co urt; ra ther , w e mustdec ide w hether the t ri al cour

t' s d eci si on w as ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. Id. W e m u st c o nsi der al l the ci rc umstan ces of the c ase to de ter mine w hether the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by not
re q uir ing the Stat e to dis cl ose the informant 's identi ty

. Por ti ll o v . St ate, 117 S.W .3d 9 24, 928 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 3, no pet. ). B. A nal ysis The Stat e has the “p ri v il eg e to re fuse to dis cl ose the ide nti ty of a person w ho has fu r n i s h e d i n fo r ma t i o n r e l a t i n g t o o r a s s i s t i n g i n a c r i mi n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n .” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 508( a)

. As suc h, t he St ate may w it hhol d the ide nti ty of an i nformant unl ess the infor mant: (1 ) par ti ci pated in the o ff ense; ( 2) w as pr esentat the t ime of t he offense or ar re st; or

( 3)
w as o th e rw is e s how n to be a mater ial w it ness to the t ra nsac ti on or to w hether

appel lan t know ing ly

co mmitt ed th e ac t c harg ed. W il li am s v . St ate, 7 8 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1 9 8 , 1 9 9 -2 0 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990, pet re f’d)

. The r ecord does not re flectthatthe infor mant w as pr esentw hen a ppel lan t w as ar re ste d, no r does itsh ow thatthe infor mant par

ti ci pated in the o ff ense for w hic h appel lan t
w as arrested

. W hen informa tion from an informa nt i s used only to establish p ro bab le
caus e for a s ear ch w ar ra nt an d the i nformant w as not a p a rt ic ipa nt i n the off ense or6

pr esentw hen the s ear ch w ar ra nt w as ex ecut ed, t he i denti ty need not b e di sc los ed beca use th e informa nt’s test imo ny is not esse ntial to a fair dete rmina tion o f g uilt, rathe r, iti s o nly r ele v ant t o a d eter minat ion of probabl e c ause. Washington v . St ate , 902 S.W .2d 649 , 655 -57 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 5, pet

. ref ’d). For t hese reason s, w e ho ld that there w as no abus e of di sc re ti on. Appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.

III. Fail ure to Introd uce Ev idence of Parol e Viola tion By issue th ree, Richie com p la ins tha t the “state failed to prove defend ant ’s arrest and s ea r c h w ere ba s ed u po n a pa rol e w ar r an t” a nd a rg ue s t ha t ev i de nc e of a p arole
v iol ati on s houl d nothav e been admit ted a bsentthe admis si on of the w ar ra nt i tse lf. The tr ial cour t ov er ru led appel lan t’ s obj ect ion to ev ide nce re g ardin g the fact that he w a s on parole

. At t ri al, appel lan t prev iou sl y i ntroduce d ev ide nce of his parole v io la ti on by requesting the trial cou rt to adm it the search w arrant af f idavit as an exhibit. The af f idavit
re ferr ed to the parole v iol ati on. The tr ial co urt admi tted the d ocument

. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e revi ew the trial court's decision to adm it or e xc lu d e e viden ce un der an abu se of dis creti on s tandard. Mc Ca rt y v. Sta te, 257 S.W .3d 238 , 239 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08). W e w ill not rev erse a trial court w hose ruling w a s w ithin th e “z one of reason able disagreem ent .” Montgom er y v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d at 379-80. A tri al cour t’ s o v er ru li ng of
an o bjectio n to evidence g ene rally w ill not result in r e versal w hen othe r similar ev iden ce is r ecei v ed w it hout obj ect ion

. See Richar dson v. State , 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 2 , 3 5 2 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. r ef’d) ; Elder v. State, 1 32 S.W .3d 2 0, 27 (T ex. App.– Fort W orth 20 04, p et. re f'd).7

B. A nal ysis Here, t he i denti cal ev ide nce w as already admi tted int o ev ide nce by appel lan t atthe time trial counse l objecte d to th e testim ony a s violating th e mo tion in limine

. T he trial court did not abuse i ts dis creti on. Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. In ef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance A

. A rguments By is sue four, Ri chi e compl ain s that tr ial couns el w as ine ff ect iv e. Ri chi e poi nts to
numerous shor

tco ming s, inc lud ing co unsel ’s f ail ur e to: ( 1) i nter v iew hi m before tr ial about the und erly ing fa cts; (2) v isit the scen e; an d (3) inv estigate a nd int erv iew w itnesse s. He also argues th at cou nsel failed to request and presen t to the court evidence und er Br ady
v. Ma ry lan d , 373 U .S. 83 ( 1984) , w it h reg ard t o t he di sc los ur e of the ide nti ty of the infor mants w hic h w oul d hav e “ facil it ated proof that defendant w as not inv olv ed [i n] t he dr ug transac ti on . . . ” R ic hie al so cl aims thattr ial co unsel fail ed to req uesta he ar ing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware , 438 U .S. 154 ( 1978) , w hic h al low s a se ar ch w ar ra nt t o be v oid ed if a de fendant c a n prov e del ibe ra te fals ehood o r re ck les s d is re g ard of the tr uth b y the aff ian t. H e furt her makes arg uments w it h reg ard to tr ial co unsel ’s i neff ect iv eness dur ing the s entenc ing phas e of the tr ial

. W hil e appell ant’ s bri ef is repl ete w it h arg ument al leg ing trial counse l’s i nef

fectiveness, n ot on ce do es ap pellan t refer to a n y r e c o rd referen ce in suppo rtof his cl aims

. B

. St and ard o f Rev iew Our rev iew

of coun sel's performa nce m ust be highly def eren tial. Stricklan d v. W a sh in g ton , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8 , 6 8 9 (1 9 8 4 ). A d e fe n d a n tse e k in g re li e f fo r i n e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel mustdemons trate t hat: ( 1) co unsel 's per formance fail ed to8

cons ti tute re asona bly

eff ect iv e as si sta nce by fall ing bel ow

an o bje cti v e s tandard of
reaso nab lene ss und er the p rev ailing profession al norm s; and (2) there is a reason able prob ability tha t, bu t for coun sel's def icient pe rforma nce, the resu lt of the pro ceed ing w ould hav e been different. Id. at 69 4; Bone v . St ate, 7 7 S.W .3d 828 , 833 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02). The burden of provin g i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el is on t he appe ll ant a nd req uires proof bya preponderance of the ev ide nce. Sta ffor d v . St ate, 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 06 n. 1 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ; Can non v . St ate, 668 S.W .2d 401 , 403 (Tex. Cr im. A p p . 198 4). An allegatio n of

inef fective assistance of

coun sel w ill be su s taine d on ly if it is firm ly founded i n the r ecord. Mc Far lan d v . St ate , 928 S.W .2d 482 , 500 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 6); Stone v. State, 17 S.W .3d 348 , 350 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 0, pe t. ref 'd). Eff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el is g aug ed by the total it y

of the repr esent ati on from the p re -t ri al re pr esent ati on of the acc used throug h the puni shmentst ag e of t he tr ial

. Ex parte W alker, 777 S.W .2d 427 , 431 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89). T hus, the tr ial as a w hole must be rev iew ed and not i sol ated inc ide nts of couns el' s p er formance. Can non , 668 S. W .2 d at4 03

. Th e s ta nd ard of r ev i ew f or in effec ti v e as s i s ta nc e of co un s el is the s am e for al l phase s o f the tr ial

. He rn a n d e z v. State, 988 S.W .2d 7 70, 7 72 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 9). Di re ct appeal i s u sual ly an i nadeq uate v ehi cl e for rai si ng su ch a c lai m beca use the
re cord i s g enerall y

undev elo ped. Goods

peed v . St ate , 18 7 S. W .3 d 39 0, 3 92 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 200 5). Th is is true wi t h r e ga rd t o the questio n of def icient pe rforma nce—in w hich
couns el' s c onduc t i s rev iew ed w it h g re at de ference , without t he di sto rt ing eff ect s o f hin dsi g ht—

w her e c ounse l' s reason s for fail ing to do s omethi ng do n ot ap pear i n the r ecord. Id. The c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s has sta ted that tr ial co unsel sh oul d ordin ar il y be a ff orded an oppo rt u n ity

to ex pla in his or

her ac ti ons before b ein g denoun ced as ine ff ect iv e. Id

.9

Abse nt such an op portu nity, an app ellate co u rt s hou ld notf ind de f icient pe rforma nce
u n le s s t h e ch a ll e n ge d co n d u c twa s “s o o u t ra ge o u s t h a tn o c o m p e t e n t a t t o rn e y wo u ld h a ve engaged in it.” Id

. C

. A nal ysis W h ile Ric hie co mplai ns that his tr ial co unsel di d notco nducta s uff ic ien t inv est ig ati on, h e does not suppo rthis a ss erti on by facts or ci tati ons to t he record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i)

. Any all eg ati on of i neff ect iv eness of c ounse l must be demons trated by the re cord. Th o m

pson v. State , 9 S. W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m App. 1999)

. Tri al
couns el did fil e a mot ion to dis cov er the c onfidenti al infor mant, but t he moti on w as deni ed. Tri al couns el als o filed a moti on to suppress and adv ocat ed s trong ly at the h ear ing on t he
mo t i o n . I t , t o o , w a s d e n i e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt

. R i c h i e u rg e s t h a tt h e d i s c o v e r y o f Br ady
ma terial might have allowed h im to unco v er e v iden ce tha t could h ave been helpf ul in his d e fe n s e . H e c i t e s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o rt h i s ar g ument. S e e Thompso n, 9 S. W .3d a t 813 ( hol din g thatal leg ati ons of ineffectiv e as si sta nce ar e i neff ect iv e i n the abse nce o f

record supp ort). Richie also argue s t h a t coun sel failed to f ile a mo tion for a Franks hear ing

. How ev er , ther e is no ev ide nce in the record tha t O ff ic er Jo hnson eng ag ed in del ibe ra te fals ehood o r re ck les s dis re g ard for the tr uth in his aff ida v it

. To suc ceed on a c lai m of inef

fecti v e as si sta nce on th e bas is thatco unsel fail ed to fil e a mot ion , an appel lan t mus t s how

thatthe moti on w oul d hav e s ucc eeded. Aki n v . St ate , 981 S.W .2d 297 , 301 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 19 98, no pe t.). An a pp el l at e c ou rt s ho ul d no t de c l are tr i al c ou ns el i ne ffec ti v e w i th ou t a r ec or d sh o wing th a t t he had some o ppor tuni ty to ex pla in absen t out ra g eous condu ct that no compet ent a ttor ney

w oul d hav e eng ag ed i n. Goods peed , 187 S .W .3d a t 392

. Richie here has poi nt e d u s t o n o t h i n g t h a t w o u l d q u a l i fy a s o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t

. W e o v e r r u l e i ss ue10

four. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of appell ant’ s i ss ues, w e a f f irm t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 11th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.