NO. 07-08 -042 4-CR, 07-08 -047 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B SEPTEM BER28, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ FRANKLIN EL OY M ADRID, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 55, 127- C, 55,4 27- C; H ON ORABLE AN A ES TEVEZ, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Frankl in El oy M a d rid, appeal s from a j udg ment c onv icti ng hi m of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance (met hamphetami ne) w it h i ntentt o d e live r and a sec o n d judgme nt con v icting him of posse ssion of

a contro lled sub stan ce (heroin ). Appel lan t furt her

appeal s t he resul ti ng sentenc es of 28 y ears i ncarcerati on and $8,000 fine and sev en years incarceratio n an d $7 ,00 0 f ine. W e af f irm the judgmen ts.Fur ther re fe re n ce to t he war nin g s o f ri g hts found i n Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal 1 Procedu re ar

ti cl e 38. 22, s ect ion 2( a) , w il l be by referenc e to “s tatut or

y r ig hts .” 2 Backg ro und On Jan uary 1 3 , 2 0 07, law enforcem entof

f icers ex ecut ed a “no knock” sea rch w arrant a t 442 5 Buck Stree t in Pott er Count y . Upon en tering the reside nce, the of f icers encou nt ered a pp el l an t, a n ad ul t fema l e, a nd a n 11 y ea r o l d c hi l d. E ac h of t he a du lt occ upants was re strain ed and all of the o cc upants w ere broug ht i nto t he l iv ing room of the re si dence

. Off ic er

C hr is W alt ers o f the Potter C ounty Sheri ff ’s Depar

tment then re ad th e sta tutor y war nin g s e numerated in Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re ar ti cl e 38. 22, s ect ion 2(a), to a ppe llant. Ap pellan t v erba lly ackno w ledged th at he und erstoo d the statu tory 1 w ar nin g s that had been re ad to him. Howev er , W alt ers did not a sk appel lan t i f he w is hed to waiv e hi s r ig hts and the s tatut or y r ig hts form was not s ig ned by appel lan t bec ause he w as handc uffed. Immedia tel y after readi ng the sta tutor

y rig hts and confir ming that app ellantund erstoo d tho s e r ig hts, W alters aske d ap pellan t if he w ould talk to W alters. W alt ers t hen ex pla ine d to appel lan t w hy the pol ic e were the re and ask ed hi m if there was any co ntraband i n the resi dence

. Appel lan t s tated thatthere was a narcot ic s p ipe i n the residen ce, bu t tha t the p ipe w as nota ppe llant’s. Af ter ma king this statem entto W alters, appel lan t i nv oked his r ig ht to counsel and W alt ers ter minat ed his q uest ion ing of appel lan t. After appel lan t i nv oked his r ig ht t o c ounse l, Off ic er Ma y s ask ed appel lan t abo ut a safe that w as found in the resi dence. M a ys a sk ed appe ll ant i f he w anted to g iv e M ay s t he combi nati on to the safe or if Ma y s shoul d make a forced entr y int o th e sa fe . A p pel lan t g av e M ays t he c ombina ti on tothe safe, w hic h was used to op en th e safe. Insi de th e s afe,Appel lan t doe s n ot c hal len g e the tr ial co urt’ s p re -t ri al ru li ng on t he moti on to 2 supp ress by this ap pea l. 3 Ma y s found o v er

16 g ra ms of methamphet amine, $9,006 in cash, and cer tai n doc uments th a t l i n k e d a p p e l l a n t t o t h e i t e ms fo u n d i n t h e s a fe

. A s a re s u l t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y of the cont ra band, appel lan t was pla ced u n d e r ar re st. W hen app ell ant was booke d i nto t he Pott er C ounty C or re cti onal C enter , 2. 15 g ra ms of heroin was found in the w atc h pock et of his pan ts. Pr ior to the t ri al of the two c harg es ass erted a g ain st appel lan t, appe lla n t f il ed a moti on to su ppress al l ev ide nce obtai ned duri ng the search of appell ant’ s resi dence on t he basi s t hat t here was ins uff ic ien t probabl e c ause for th e is suanc e of t he search w ar ra nt an d, spec ific all y , for the w ar ra nt to author iz e a no knoc k entr y . After a hear ing on t he moti on, the trial court den ied th e sam e. Duri ng the trial, the State of fered t estim ony and evidence 2 obt aine d du ring the search of app ellant ’s residence . A p p e ll a n tt ime ly object ed to this evidence o n three sepa rate g roun ds. First, appe llant objected to testim ony from W alters c o n c e r n i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s o w n e rs h i p o r c o n t ro l o f t h e re s i d e n c e a s w e l l a s t h e p re s e n c e o f a dr ug pi pe i n the resi dence bec ause suc h s tatement s were t h e resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on and appel lan t nev er aff ir mati v ely and v olu ntar il y w aiv ed his sta tu to ry rig hts after they

w ere read t o hi m. S econd , app ellant obj ect ed to tes ti mony thathe g av e the combi nati on to the safe to Ma y s b ecaus e appel lan t’ s s tatementw as the resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on after

appel lan t had i nv oked his r ig ht t o c ounse l. F ina ll y , app ell ant o bje cte d to t he physi cal ev ide nce obtai ned from the s afe on the ba sis that the ev ide nce w as obt aine d as a direct result of Mays’s custodia l interrogation after app ellanthad inv oked his4

ri g ht t o c ounse l and, thus , was bar re d by “ the fr uitof the p ois onous tree” doctr ine

. The tr ial cour t s ust ain ed appe ll ant’ s o bje cti on to st atements made byappell ant after he had inv oked his r ig ht t o c ounse l, but ov er ru led appel lan t’ s o ther o bje ct ions. After

the cas e was submi tted to t he j ur

y , t he j ur

y retur ned a v erdict findi ng appel lan t guilt y o f b o th the poss ess ion w it h i ntentto del iv er ch arg e as w ell as the poss ess ion ch arg e. After a br ief puni shmenthear ing , t he tr ial co urt s entenc ed appe ll ant a s i ndi cat ed abov e. By two i ss ues, appel lan t app eal s t he admi ss ion of ev id e n ce dur ing the g uil tinno cence p o rt ion of

app ellant ’s trial. App ellant ’s first issue con ten ds tha t the trial court er re d i n admitti ng testi mony f ro m W alt ers that appel lan t state d that he ow ned or co ntroll ed the resi dence and that there w as a dr ug pi pe i n the resi dence bec ause the S tate faile d to show an aff ir mati v e and v olu ntar y w aiv er of ap pel lan t’ s sta tutor y ri g hts

. Appel lan t’ s s econd issue con ten ds tha t the trial cou rt e rred in adm itting the con ten ts of the safe be cause such ev ide nce w as obtai ned as a resul t of M ay s’ s i ll eg al cus todi al int er ro g ati on. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. Standa rd of Rev iew As each of appell ant’ s i ss ues re lat e to the t ri al cour t’ s a dmis si on of ev ide nce, the abuse of dis creti on s tandard appli es to both iss ues. See W eather re d v . State, 15 S .W .3d 540, 542 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; G re en v . St ate, 934 S. W .2d 9 2, 10 1- 02 ( T e x.Cri m .A pp. 1996)

. A rev iew ing co urt app ly ing the abuse of dis creti on s tandard shoul d not re v erse a tr ial j udg e’s dec is ion w hose ru ling was w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Green, 934 S. W .2d a t 102 . I f the tr ial j udg e's dec is ion i s c or re ct on any theo ry of law5

appl ic abl e to the cas e, the deci si on w il l be sust ain ed. See State v . Ros s, 32 S. W .3d 8 53, 855- 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

.

Iss ue On e -Appel lan t’ s W aiv er of Stat utor

y R ig hts App ellant ’s first issue con ten ds tha t app ellant ’s statem ent s relating to his ow nersh ip of the res id e n ce and the p re senc e of a dr ug pi pe i n the resi dence w ere the resul t of custo dial inte rrogation w ithou t an af f irmative and v olun tary w ai ve r b y app ellantof

his sta tutor y r ig hts

. It is undi sput ed th at ap pel lan t was in c ust ody w hen W alt ers a sk ed appel lan t abo ut hi s o w nershi p and cont ro l of the premis es and w h e th e r there was any cont ra band i n the resi dence

. Addi ti onal ly , the ev ide nce is undi sput ed th at ap pel lan t was re ad th e s tatut or

y r ig hts found i n Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re ar ti cl e 38. 22, s ect ion 2( a) , and that he ex press ly st ated that he unde rs tood thos e r ig hts

. Appel lan t’ s first is sue sol ely rela tes to w hether

appell ant aff ir mati v ely

and v olu ntar il y

waiv ed hi s s tatut or

y r ig hts before mak ing the chal len g ed s tatement s. The Stat e respon ds to ap pel lan t’ s first is sue by cont endi ng that appel lan t w aiv ed his sta tutor y ri g hts becau se he w as re ad an affirmat ion t h a t s t a t e d t h a t“I f u rt h e r a gre e t h a ta n y st a t e m e n twh ic h I n o w m a k e is m a d e o f m y o wn free w il l after I kn o w ing ly , i ntel li g entl y and v olu ntar il y

w aiv e the abov e r ig hts ” and, thereafter, respon ded t o W alt ers’ s i nter ro g ati on. A w ai v e r

o f r i g h t s m a y

b e i n fe r re d fro m t h e a ct i o n s a n d wo rd s o f t h e p e rs on int er ro g ated. H arg ro v e v . St ate, 162 S. W .3d 3 13, 3 18 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 05, p et. re f ’d ). The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has st ated that “we do not . . . i nter pret t he oral confess ion st atute to re q uire an ex press verb a l statement from an a cc used that he6

w a i v e s h i s r i g h t s p r i o r t o g i v i n g the s t a t e me n t . I n re a c h i n g t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f a confess ion , t his C our

t l ooks at the t otal ity

of the ci rcumstances .” Ba re field v . St ate, 784 S.W .2d 3 8, 40 -4 1 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1989) , c ert. deni ed, 4 97 U .S. 1011, 110 S. Ct

. 3256, 111 L.E d.2 d 76 6 (199 0). Further, “the Court of Criminal App eals ha s app rov ed th e inferen ce of a w aiv er

f ro m the total ity

of the ci rc umstan ces i n the si tuati on w here an oral confess ion cont ain s a reci tati on of the art. 38.22 w ar nin g s a nd th e defendant in dic ates he understa nds his rig hts an d proce eds wi tho ut he sitation to participa te in the intervi ew.” Sta te v . Oliv er, 29 S. W .3d 190 , 193 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 200 0, pe t. ref ’d). In th e prese nt case , the e v iden ce esta blishes tha t app ellantwas read his statut ory w ar nin g s, appel lan t affirmed that he unders tood his r ig hts as read t o hi m, appel lan t di d not expressly

waive tho s e rig hts, a nd a ppe llant imm edia tely agreed to answer W alters’s q uest ion s. Thus, co nsi der ing the total ity of t he ci rc umstan ces , w e c annot say thatthe tr ial cour t abu sed its d is creti on i n al low ing the admis si on of the chal len ged st atements conc er nin g appel lan t’ s o w nership and c ontrol of the resi dence and presenc e of a dr ug pipe . B ecau se the t rial court did no t abu se its discretion in allow ing the adm ission of this ev ide nce, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. Iss ue Two -F ru itof the P ois onous Tree Byappel l a n t ’ s s e c o n d i s s u e , a p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e t h a tw as dis cov ered i n the sa fe w as obtai ned as a di re ct re sul t of Ma y s’ s int er ro g ati on of appell ant aft e r a p p e llant had i nv oked his r ig ht t o c ounse l and, therefore, the t ri al cour t abu sed it s dis creti on i n al low ing the ev ide nce to be admi tted. The Stat e resp onds thatthe search of7

the resi dence was condu cte d under the author ity of a v ali d s earch w ar ra nt an d, t herefore, the d is cov er

y of the c ontent s o f the s afe w oul d h a v e been obtai ned w it h or w it hout appel lan t’ s p ro v is ion of the c ombina ti on of the safe. The tr ial co urt proper ly

ex cl uded test imony

that appell ant g av e the co mbinat ion of the s afe to M ays. F urther , i t i s t ru e that the ev ide nce obtai ned f ro m the safe w as obtai ned by use of t he com bina tion tha t w as acquired in v iolation o f app ellant ’s constitu tiona l ri ghts. As suc h, the ev ide nce woul d ordin ar il y be re q uired to be ex cl uded. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.23( a) (V er non 2005)

. Howev er , subs ect ion (b ) of ar ti cl e 38.23 prov ide s t hat “I t i s an ex cept ion to the prov is ion s of S ubsecti on (a )

. . . that the e v ide nce w as obtai ned by a l aw enforc ement officer

acti ng i n obj ect iv e g ood faith reli ance upon a w ar ra nt i ss ued by a ne utral m agistr a t e ba sed o n prob able cause .” T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.23( b)

. In t he presentca se, there i s n o ev ide nce that Ma y s w as not act ing in g ood fait h re li ance on th e s earch w ar ra nt. T he search w ar ra nt author iz ed the off ic ers t o s earch the residen ce for me tha mp het am ine and n ecessa rily co v ered a ll con ten ts of t he reside nce in w hic h methampheta mine coul d be loc ated, su ch as the s afe. F urther , w hil e appel lan t fil ed a moti on to su ppress the ev ide nce obtai ned f ro m t h e s a fe on t he bas is thatthe w ar ra nt w as not s uppor

ted b y su ff ic ien t probab le caus e, t hat mot ion w as heard and ov er ru led by the t ri al cour

t. Appell ant has not present ed any i ss ue rela ti ng to the v ali dity of the war ra nt by thi s a ppeal

. Thus, becaus e the evi dence obtained f ro m the safe w as obtai ned by a l aw e n fo rc e m e n to f

f ic e r a ct in g i n o bje ct ive go o d fa it h re li a n c e u p o n a wa rra n tis s u e d b y a neu tral ma gistrate base d on probab le cause , w e conclu de that the trial court did notabu se8

its discretion in allowi ng the evidence obta ined f rom th e safe to be adm itted . W e overrule appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led both of app e lla n t’ s is sues , we aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial cour t.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.