NO. 07-06 -032 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER25, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ LONNIE R. W ARREN, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 5- 410011; H ON ORABLE CE CI L G. PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON A p p e l l a n t , L o n n i e R a y W a r re n , p l ed gui lty

t o t h e o ffe n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont rolled sub stan ce, m eth am phe tam ine, o f less t h a n o n e gram af ter the trial court ov er ru led hi s mot ion to suppress . In ac cordance w it h a p lea barg ain , p u n is hment was ass ess ed at three y ears confinementin the Insti tuti onal Div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m.2 Back g ro und App ellant w as a passe nger on a mot orcy cle and w as no t w earing a helm et. Of f icers stop ped the m oto rcy cle for this reason . Aft e r b e in g stop ped , an of f icer of the Lu bbo ck Pol ic e D epar

tment ask ed appe ll ant his name. Appell ant g av e a name of Oll ie W ar re n and a dat e of bi rt h of “ 5- 8 of 58." W hen app ell ant was ask ed hi s a g e, he st ated “4 8" and imm edia tely cha nged his answer to “49 ." A ccording t o the d ate of birth gi v en, app ellant ’s ag e w as 47. Base d on thi s i nformati on, t he officer bel iev ed th at ap pel lan t had g iv en a ficti ti ous name and ag e. Dur ing the int er v iew , appell ant tol d the off ic er he d id not k now

the driv er of the m oto rcy cle butthen chan ged his state me nt an d indica ted they did know each other
. W hen as ked if he h ad any i denti ficat ion on h im, appel lan t repl ied he d id not, ev en thoug h the off ic er coul d see a w all et in his pants
. The off ic er as ked to s ee th e w all et an d foun d iden tif ication of

app ellantas Lon nie W arren. Ap pellan t w as the n arreste d for failure to i denti fy. Upo n check ing this perso nal identi ficat ion informati on i n the co mputer , i t w as deter mined that appel lan t had an o uts tandi ng w ar ra nt. D ur ing the encou nter w it h pol ic e, one of the off ic ers n oti ced a lea ther strap sti ck ing out of hi s pock et. The off ic er remov ed the strap an d foun d ap pellan t’s key s and a me tal con taine r de scribed as a m edicine -like bo t t l e a t t a c h e d t o t h e s t ra p . I n s i d e t h e c o n t a i n e r w a s a c l e a r p l a s t i c b a g g i e w i t h a w hit e cr y sta l subs tanc e. The subs tanc e l ater tes ted p osi ti v e for methampheta mine. Appel lan t fil ed a moti on to su ppress the ev ide nce of methamphetami ne c lai ming that the s ame w as found pursuant to a w ar ra ntl ess search w it hout probabl e caus e. The tr ial co urt c onducted a hear ing on the motion to suppress and, at the c oncl usi on of the hear ing , den ied the moti on to su ppress w it h o u t is sui ng a w ri tten order
. Appel lan t3

subs eq uentl y

pl ed g uil ty

and g av e not ic e of in tent to ap peal th e d eni al of the moti on to suppress . By a s ing le is sue, appel lan t c ontends that the deni al of t he moti on to su ppress w as an abus e of the tr ial court ’s disc re ti on. Appel lan t’ s cl aim is based upon the cont enti on th at the c onti nued de tenti on of appel lan t after the ini ti al sto p for v iol ati on of t he hel met law w as n o tre a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e t h e d e t e n t i o n w a s n o tb a s e d u p o n re a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n . W e dis ag re e. Standa rd of Rev iew W e rev iew

the act ion of the t ri al cour t in deny ing the moti on to suppre ss under an abuse of disc reti on s tandard. Vi ll ar re al v . St ate, 935 S. W .2d 1 34, 1 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1 9 9 6 ). In c o n d u ct in g t h is re view, we give a lm o stto ta l d e fe re n ce to th e tri a l co u rt ’s f in d in gs o f hi st o ric a l fa ct s, w h ile revie wing de n ovothe appl ic ati on of t he law to the fact s. Jo hnson v . St ate, 68 S. W .3d 644, 652-5 3 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. W e mustrev iew the total ity

of the ci rc umstan ce s t o as cer tai n w hether

or not the o ff ic ers’ dete nti on w as based upon any re asona ble su spi ci on to co ncl ude t hat a ppel lan t had committed or w as about to c ommit an offense. Se e Garci a v . St ate, 43 S.W .3d 527, 530 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)
. W here the tr ial cour t doe s n ot en ter

f ind ing s of fact, as in thi s cas e, we mustv iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s d eter minat io n a n d a ss ume thatthe tr ial co urt made impl ic itfindi ng s of fact that s uppor t i ts ru li ng as l ong as thos e findi ng s a re su ppor ted b y the record. W iede v . Stat e, 21 4 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7).4 Ana ly sis After re v iew ing appel lan t’ s br ief, it is cl ear that appel lan t does not cont est the v ali dity of the i nit ial traff icst op. Nei ther does appel lan t c ontes t t he fact that the s top was ini ti ated for a sus pect ed v iol ati on of the hel met safetyl aw s o f the s tate. T EX . T RA NS . C OD E A NN . § 661 .00 3 (Verno n Sup p. 20 06). App ellantseem s to place some si gn if icance on the fact tha t ultima tely no cita tion was issued for this particula r of fense . App ellantdoe s not con test the o bser

v ati ons of the officer

regar d in g whe ther

he was w ear ing a he lmetor not; therefore, the factthata t ic ketw as not u lt imat ely iss ued is of no i mport ance in our rev iew of the reason abl eness of the o ff ic ers’ st op. Pow e ll v . St ate, 5 S. W .3d 3 69, 3 77 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 1999, pet. re f’d) (cit in g C ritt enden v . St ate, 899 S. W .2d 6 68, 6 74 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) ) (h old ing thatan o bje cti v ely v ali d traff icst op is n o t unl awful under the Tex as Con sti tuti on, e v en th oug h the deta ini ng off ic er had an ul ter ior

moti v e for

maki ng the s top)
. App e ll a n t’s argumen t seem s to be th at th e de tainin g of f icers w entpast th e traf f ic sto p and cont inu ed th e det enti on for a per iod of ti me thatrendered the cont inu ed det enti on unl awful. Iti s t ru e that once the inv est ig ati on of the traff icst op had been c omplet ed th e off ic er co u l d n o l o n g e r l a wfu l l y d e t a i n o r q u e s t i o n a p p e l l a n t
. I d
. H o w e v e r , i t i s a l s o tr ue that, after

an ini ti al traff icstop, an of ficer is enti tl ed to rely

on a ll of the i nformati on obt ain ed dur ing the course of his co ntact w it h the ci ti z en i n dev elo pin g the arti cul abl e facts that w oul d j ust ify

a c onti nued i nv est ig ator y detenti on. Id. T he cri ti cal inq uir y becomes, di d the facts av ail abl e to the off ic er at the momentof the i nv est ig ator y dete nti on w ar ra nt a person of rea s on ab l e c au ti on to be l i ev e th at th e acti on ta k en , w he n v i ew ed from th e off icers’5

obj ect iv e pos it ion , w as appropr iat e. Dav is v . St ate, 947 S.W .2d 2 40, 2 43 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. To make t his dete rmi nati on w e mustag ain l ook at t he fa ct s, as dev elo ped dur ing the traf f ic stop. T he followi ng fa cts w ere de v elop ed b y the arrestin g of

f icers: 1) Appel lan t g av e a b ir

th date and tw o different ag es. Nei ther age matche d the b ir th da te; 2) According to on e of

f icer, app ellantapp eare d ne rv ous; 3) Appel lan t i nit ial ly

deni ed k now ing the person dr iv in g the motorcy cl e and the n ad mitt ed th at he , in fact, d id know the driv er; 4) App ellantstate d af

f irmatively

thathe did n ot ha v e an y ident if ication on his person a n d y et, after he v olu ntar il y g av e hi s b il lfold to the o ff ic ers, his tr ue ide nti ty w as lea rn ed. T he re c o rd s e e ms to be cap able of tw o inte rpretat ions. One is that the of f icers found the wall et an d i denti ficat ion before the a rrestbut after pla ci ng appel lan t i n the patrol car. Anot her

i nter pretati on i s t hat a ppel lan t w as under ar re st for s ome reason w hen t he w all et was ex amined
. In eit her int er pretati on, the o ff ic er w as per forming nec ess ar

y duti es in effect uati ng the ini ti al traff icst op, s peci fical ly obta ini ng appel lan t’ s p ro per i denti ficat ion
. Reg ardle ss of w hether

appel lan t w as detai ned for the v iol ati on of the hel met l aw or under ar re st, appel lan t c ommitt ed a cr imi nal offense by gi v ing a fals e or

fict it iou s n ame and date of bir th. See T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 38.02( b) (1 )- (2 ) ( Ver non Supp. 2006) . This is the ty pe of confli cti ng tes ti mony thatthe tr ial jud g e is i n the bes t pos it ion to make a dec is ion about
. A s s u c h , w e d e fe r

t o h i s d e c i s i o n a s t h e f i n d e r o f fa c t
. J o h n s o n , 6 8 S
. W. 3 d a t6 5 2 - 5 3
. W e mu st also infer the facts to be so foun d be cause there a re no w ritten f indings of fact entered in t h i s c a s e . W i e d e , 2 1 4 S
. W
. 3 d a t2 5
. T h e re fo re , fro m t h e t o t a l i ty o f t h e facts6

and c ircums tanc es w e find that the c onti nued de tenti on of appel la n t w as w ar ra nted. Garci a, 43 S.W .3d a t 530
. After the i nv est ig ator

y dete nti on of appel la n t, a nd dur ing furth er q uest ion ing , one of the officers pul led the lea ther strap out o f appell ant’ s p ock et. The c ontraband was in a cont ain er

on t he end of the s trap. This oc cur re d after the lea d off ic er

st ated that appel lan t w as bei ng ar re ste d for failure to ide nti fy. See T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 38. 02( b) (2 ) (V er non Supp. 2006)
. At thi s point , the of ficers coul d search appel lan t inc ide nt to a law ful ar re st. Sta te v. Ballard, 987 S.W .2d 889 , 892 (Tex.Cr im
. A p p. 19 99). Accord ingly , w e overrule appel lan t’ s c ontent ion and fi n d t h a t the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n deny ing app ellant ’s motio n to sup press. Con cl usi on Havi ng ove rr u le d a ppe llant’s sole con ten tion, the jud gmen t of the trial court is aff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.