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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 417 -CR

Da vid Al e xa nde r Bai le y , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LAMP ASAS COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 7877 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap p e ll an t D a v id

A le xan d e r

B a il e y p le a d e d n o c o n te s t t o p o s s e s s in g mo r e than 400 g ram s o f m ethampheta mine with intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a) , (f) (West Supp. 2009). The trial cour t adjudg ed him gu i l t y an d , pursuant to a plea barg ain, imposed a thirty -five- y ear prison sentenc e. Appe llant bring s forwa rd ni ne issues by

which he conte nds that the trial cour t erre d by overr uling his pre trial motions to quash the indictment and to suppress evidenc e, the e vidence is insufficient t o support the conviction, and the written judg ment of convic tion does not c onform to the court’s oral pronounce ment of sentenc e. We w ill modify the judgme nt and af

firm it as modified.2 INDICTMENT AND EVIDENCE SUF F ICIENCY Th e ind ic tme nt co nta ine d two c ounts . Co un t on e a lle g e d th a t a pp e lla nt “ kn ow ing ly manufa cture [d] , b y p ro d u ction, prepa ration, compounding , conver sion, or proce ssing, dire ctly or indirectly by ex t rac tion from substance of natura l orig in, independently by means of c hemical
s yn t h e s i s , o r

b y a c o mb i n a t i o no f

e x t r a c t i o nan d

c h e m i c a l s yn t h e s i s , a

c o n t r o l l e d

s u b s t an c e , n a m e l y, Methamphetamine, in an amount of 400 g rams or more .” Se e id
. § 481.002(25) (defining “manuf actur e”) . Appellant moved to quash this count, urging that the State was r equire d to specify wh et h er h e h adm a nu fa ct u re d

t h e m et h am p h et am i n e b y p ro d u ct i o n , p re p ar at i o n , co mp o u n d i n g,
conver sion, or proce ssing. The motion also arg ued that the State wa s require d to specify whether th e ma n u f

a c tu r i n g w a s d o n e b y e x t r a c t i o n , c h e m i c a l s y n t h e s i s , o r a c o mb i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o . We
ne e d n ot d e c ide wh e the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y ov e rr uli ng the mot ion be c a

us e the State su

bs e qu e ntl y dismiss ed count one , eff

ectively g iving a ppellant the re lief he soug ht. I ssue nine is overr uled. Appellant wa s convicted on count two of the indictment, whic h alleg ed that he “knowing ly possess[ed] , with intent to deliver, a c ontrolled substance , namely Methamphetamine, in a n amou nt o f 4 00 g ra

ms o r m or e .” Ap pe lla

nt m ov ed to qua shthi s c ount o n th e g ro un d th a t it failed to a lleg e the pe nalty g roup, and he no w asserts that the trial court e rre d by overr uling the motion. Appellant ar g ues that the pe nalty g roup must be alle ged an d proved be cause the various contr olled substance ma nufac turing , delive r

y , a n d p ossession offense s are define d acc ording to the penalty

g roup in which the substanc e appe ars. Se e id
. §§ 481.112-118. Appe llant rea sons that beca use a pe rson cannot be prosec uted for manufa cturing , delivering , or possessing a substance that3

is not li sted in a penalty

g roup, the pe nalty

g roup must be alleg ed in the indictment. Althoug h we ag ree with a

ppellant’s premise, we do not a g ree with his conclusion. Count two of the indictment
a lle g e d th a t a

pp e lla nt p os se sse d me tha

mph e tamin e wi th i nte nt t o d e liv e r. Me tha mph e tamin e is listed in penalty

g roup one. Se e id
. § 481.102(6). The indictment g ave a dequate notice to appe llant of the off ense he was a ccuse d of committing. Se e Ba ile y v . S tate , 5 43 S.W. 2d

65 3, 65 5 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1976). Alternatively , appellant c ontends that it was nec essar y to al l ege the penalty

g roup beca use methamphetamine is a lso listed in pe nalty g roup three , as an isomer of phente rmine. See Tex. Hea lth & Saf

ety Code Ann. § 481.104(a )(7) (West Supp. 2009). Acce pting a s true appe llant’s
asser tion that methamphetamine is an isomer of phenter mine, methamphetamine ne verthe less is not included in pena lty

g roup three beca

use it is specifica lly

listed in penalty

g roup one. Se e id . ( “ un le ss lis te d in ano the r p e na lty

g ro up ” ). Ap pe lla

nt a lso po int s o ut t

hat me tha

mph e tamin e is l ist e d a s a schedule I I s t imulant. Se e id . § 481.032. This is irreleva nt beca use the c riminal penalties for
m an u fa ct u ri ng , delivering , or possessing a sche dule substance apply only if the substance is not listed in a penalty g roup. See Tex. Hea lth & Safety Code Ann. § 481.119 (West 2003). I ssue one is overrule d. Appellant conte nds that the evidenc e is insufficient to support his conviction. I n a plea ba rg ain ca se, t he defenda

nt must have the trial court’s permission to appea l any matters except those that wer e ra ised by written motion filed and rule d on befor e trial. Te x . R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)
. Appellant does not have the trial court’s permission to c halleng e the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, and the issue is not properly

befor e us. Se e Ly on v . S

tate , 872 S.W .2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)4

(construingprede cessor

rule). I n any event, ap pellant’s sworn written judicial stipulation that he “intentionally

and knowing ly

possess[ed] , with th e i n t ent t o deliver, . . . 400 g rams or more of
me tha mph e tamin e ” is s uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the fi nd ing of g uil t. F or the same re a so n th a t th e State was not re quired to alleg e the pe nalty g ro u p i n t h e i ndictment, it was not require d to prove the penalty g roup in order

to meet its burden of pr oof. I ssue two is overr uled.
SUP P RE SSIO N I SSU ES Appellant conte nds that the trial court err ed by overr uling his motion to suppress the
me tha mph e tamin e and

oth e r ev ide nc e se ize d d

ur inga se arc h o f h is r e sid e nc e be c a us e the a ff

ida vit supporting the sea

rch w arr ant did not state probable cause . The a ffidavit wa s prepa red a nd signe d by Serg eant Ricky e F eist of the Tex as Department of Public Safety (DPS) on Dec ember 28, 2005. T h e w ar r an tw a s i s s u e d

an d e x e c u t e d t h a ts a m e d ay. The proba

ble ca use portion of the a ffidavit beg an by descr ibi n g Fe i s t ’s extensive tr a ini ngand

e xpe ri e nc e in d

ru g law e nf

or c e me nt. Th e a ff

ida vit the n s tate d th a t in

e arl y 20 05 , D PS L ieutenant Jed Shelton, working w ith the rural a rea narc otics task force, re ce i ved an a nony mous te le ph on e c a ll. Th e c a lle r t old S hel ton th a t a pp e lla nt “ wa s ma

nu fa c tur ingand

tr a ff ic kin g in methamphetamine.” The informer also said that appellant worke d at L arr y ’s Lube in L ampasa s. The aff idavit went on to state that in May 2005, Shelton rece ived another anony mous tip. This informer stated t h at appellant wa s manufac turing and selling methamphetamine at his residence , located at 705A Western Stree t, in L ampasa s. The informer also told Shelton that “a couple of months” prior to the tip, appellant had ha d an ac cident while manuf actur ing me thamphetamine a nd had blown a h o l e i nt h e c ei l i n g an d

ro o f o f h i s h o u s e. Ac co rd i n g t o t h e a ff i d av i t , S er gea n t M i k e G u l l ed ge5

inv e sti g a te d th e se con d ti p and ob se rv e d a larg e patc h o n th e ro of

of the ho us e . G ull e dg e a lso identif ie d a p p e ll an t b y

p e r s o n a l o b s e r

v a ti o nan d

b y h is dr iv e r ’ s li c e n s e p ic tu r e . G u ll e d g e le ar

ned that appellant ha d a “le ng thy criminal re cord inc luding arr es ts for manufa cturing /delivery of controlled substanc e in pena lty g roup 1, and Forg ery , secur ing e x ecution of doc ument by dece ption
and tampe ri ngwi th g ov e rnme nt re c or ds
. [Ap pe lla nt] is on pa ro le un til July

07 , 2 00 7. ” Th e a ff

ida vit went on to state that on May 16, 2 0 0 5 , Gulledg e met with appe llant’s parole office r, David Reed, in L a mpa sa s and

a dv ise d h im o f t

he a lle g a tio ns . Re e d a g re e d to do a ho me vis it. Re e d w e nt t o L arr y ’s Lub e , p ic ke d u

p a pp ell ant , a

nd we nt t o 7 05 A We ste rn . Wh ile ins ide the re sid e nc e wi th
a pp e lla nt, Re e d “ ve ri fi e d th a t th e re wa s a ho le in t he ro of of the kit c he n w hic h w a s in the pr oc e ss of be ingre pa ir e d. ” Re e d c on ve y e d th is i nf or matio n to Gu lle dg e , w ho pa sse d it on to F e ist
. We q uo te mos t of

the re ma ind e r o f t

he a ff ida vit : On 12-20-2005, D PS Narcotics Sg t. R i ck y e K. Feist was contac ted by L ampasa s Police Chief Tim Ang erma n, who advised that he had a source of information reg ardingthe nar cotics ac tiviti es of DA VI D AL EXAND ER BAI L EY. Sgt. F eist went to the L ampasa s Police Depa rtment to persona lly interview the source wh o h a s b e e n id e nti fi e d b ut w ish e s to re ma in a no ny mou s d ue to s a fe ty

re a so ns . The sourc e told Sgt. F eist that the source has per sonal knowledg e re g ard i ng the illega l manufac ture of me thamphetamines a nd h as also been a use r of methamphetamine. On or about 12-18-05 the source was at BA I L EY’s re sidence and persona lly

observe d crushe d pseudoephe drine table ts on a plate inside B AI L EY’s dr e sse r, tw o ( 2) pl ast ic gas t y pe c on ta ine rs in t

he kit c he n s ink

wi th a bla c k h os e connec ting the two ( 2) c ontainers. The source also persona lly observe d other chemica ls under the sink ar ea. The sourc e st ated that on or about 12-18-05 the source pe rsonally smelled a strong odor of Anhydrous Ammonia in the kitchen a rea .6

The sourc e told Sgt. F eist that BAI L EY per sonally t o l d t h e source that he wa s utiliz ing the container s to manufac ture Anhydrous Ammonia. The sourc e told Sgt. F eist that on one occ asion while B AI L EY wa s manufact uring me tha mph e tamin e tha

t th e sme ll o f A mmo nia

wa s so str on g that it a lmo st kil le d h im. The sourc e also told Sgt. F eist tha t the source saw seve ral plastic ba g g ies of methamphetamine inside a dresse r dra

wer in BAI L EY’s be droom. The sourc e told Sgt. F eist that when BAI L EY was finished m anufa cturingthe illeg al me tha mph e tamin e that B AI L EY sto re d th e c on ta ine rs un de r t he kit c he n sink

are a in his residenc e. Sg t. F e ist ha s r e c e ive d tr a ini ngand is c e rt if ie d in inv e sti g a tiv e te c hn iqu e s r e latin g to cland e sti ne me tha

mph e tamin e la

bo rator ie s and

is a lso c e rt if

ie d a s a Site Sa fe ty Of fi c e r a nd is f a mil iar w iththe manu fa c tur e of meth amp het amin e and

that th is information is consistent with the clande stine manufac ture of me thamphetamine. The sourc e told Sgt. F eist that sou rc e h ad persona lly observe d and used methamphetamine w ith BAI L EY on numerous oc casions while at his residence
.

. . . On 12 -2 2- 05 , Sg t. F e ist

ha d th e so urce pl ace a r e c or de d p ho ne c a ll t o B AI L EY to discuss the manufa cture of illega l me thamphetamine. Sgt. Fe ist listened t o t he rec ording and hea

rd duringthe conve rsation that B AI L EY agre ed to let the sourc e assist him i n the manufa cture of methamphe tamine on 12-27-2005.
Pr ob a ble c a us e to s up po rt

th e iss ua nc e of a se arc h w arr ant e xists wh e n th e fa c ts
su bmi tte d to the ma g ist

rate are su ff

ic ie nt t o ju sti fy a con clu si on that th e ob je c t of the se arc h is probably on the pre mises to be sear ched at the time the war rant is issued. Cas sia s v . S tate , 71 9 S. W.2 d 5 85 , 5 87 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); State v. Bradley , 966 S
. W
. 2 d 8 7 1, 873 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). The suff iciency of the a ffidavit is deter

mined by consideringthe totality of the c ircumstance s set forth within t h e fo u r cor ners of the document. Illinois v. Gates , 46 2 U .S. 21 3, 23 8 ( 19 83 ); He nn essy v . S tate , 660 S.W. 2d 87 , 9 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ); Bradley ,7

966 S.W .2d at 873. The a ffidavit must be interpr et ed in a common sense a nd rea listi c manne r,
rec og nizi ng that rea sonable infere nces may be draw n from the af fi d av i t. He

sp e th v . S

tate , 249 S.W .3d 732, 737 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref ’d). The issuing mag istrate’s de termination of proba ble cau s e m u s t be g iven g reat defe renc e and w ill be sustained if the mag istrate had a substantial basis for co n cl u d i n g that probable cause was shown. Gates , 462 U.S. at 236-37; Sw ear in gen v. Sta te , 1 43 S.W. 3d 80 8, 81 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); J oh ns on v . S

tate , 803 S.W .2d 272, 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

We a g re e wi th a

pp e lla nt t hat th e a no ny mou s ti ps re c eiv ed in e arl y 20 05 did no t in themselves g ive the mag istrate proba ble ca u s e t o b elieve tha

t methamphetamine wa s likely to be found inside appe llant’s residenc e on De cembe r 28, 2005. The information rec eived from the two informer s, in addition to being stale, c ont ai n ed n o i n dicia of r eliability
. See G ates , 462 U.S. at 24 4- 46 ; Pa ris h v . S

tate , 939 S.W .2d 201, 203 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). Althoug h the fa ct that th e ro of

ha d b e e n dama g e d wa s c or ro bo ra te d, the re wa s n o c or

ro bo ra tio n r e g ard ingthe c a

us e of th e d am age. The par ole offic er’ s home visit with appellant at 705A Western did, howeve r, confirm that this addre ss was appe llant’s residenc e.

The a nony mous source F eist interviewe d on Dec ember 20 was a lso an informer

of no established cr edib il it

y . But unlike the e arlier

informer s, this source provide d information that was
rec ent and de tailed, bore an indicia of reliability , and w as corroborated by the af fiant. Read in a
common sense manne r, the a ffidavit told the mag istrate that this source had bee n in appel l an t ’s residenc e on De cembe r 18 and ha d seen, he ard, a nd smelled things that F eist, a t raine d and experience d narc otics off i ce r, re cog nized were consistent with the illicit m anufa cture of8

methamphetamine. F urther, the source had ca lled ap p el l an t o n Dec ember 22 and, within Fe ist’s hear ing, arr ang ed to manufa cture methamphetamine w ith appellant on Dec ember 27. Although the source’s claim to have se en methamphe tamine in appellant’ s residenc e on De cembe r 18 wa s not sp e c if ic a lly c or ro bo ra te d b y F e ist , th e c or

ro bo ra tio n o f t he so ur c e ’s oth e r i nc ri min a tin g state me nts g ave the mag istrate a r easona ble basis fo r i n ferring that the claim wa s true. See State v . Ozuna , 88 S.W .3d 307, 310 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 20 0 3 , p et. ref’d). G iving the de termination of probable cau s e t h e defe renc e it is due, we hold that the ma g istrate had a substantial basis for concluding that methamphetamine would be found at a ppellant’s re sidence on Dec ember 28, 2005. I ssue three is overrule d.

Appellant conte nds that the probable cause aff idavit contained information that had be e n unla wf ull y ob ta ine d a

nd sh ould n ot h a ve be e n c on sid e re d in de te rm ini ngwh e the r p ro ba ble
c a us e to s e arc h e xiste d. F ir st, a pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t a

pp e lla nt’ s pa ro le of fi c e r u nla wf ull y e nte re d h is residenc e in May

2005 under f

alse pre tenses. S ec ond, appellant a sserts that the De cembe r 22 telephone c all was unlaw fully interce pted. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 16.02 (West Supp. 2009). Neither of th e s e c o n te n ti o n s w a s p r e s e n te d to th e tr ia l c o u rt, an d th u s n e it h e r w a s p r e s e r

v e d for appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 33.1. I ssue four is ove rruled.

Ap pe lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e a ff

ida vit c on ta ine d mate rial mi sst a te me nts of fa c t. Se e Fran k s v . D e law ar e , 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Unde r Franks , it was appellant’s burden to prove by a pre pondera

nce of t h e ev i d ence that Fe ist gave the mag istrate fa lse information knowing ly or intentionally , or with rec kless disreg ard f or the truth. Id . at 15 6; Ma sse yv . S tate , 933 S.W .2d 141, 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).9 Appellant conte nds that Fe ist falsely stated in the aff idavit that dur ing the re corde d telephone c onversation between a ppellant and the source on Dec ember 22, appellant “ ag ree d to let the source assist him i n the m anufa cture of m ethamphetamine on 12-27-2005.” Appellant urg es that the transc ription of this call shows that there was no mention duringthe ca ll of methamphetamine, manufa cturing , assisting, or the date.

T h e tr an s c r ip ti o n c o n ta in s th e f o ll o w in g e xc h an g e b e tw e e n th e s o u r c e (CI ) and
a pp e lla nt:
C I: D o yo ut h i n k

I c o u l d c o m e M o n d ay o r

T u e s d ay? MR. B AI L EY : Y ou

c an c ome any

tim e y ou wa nt. CI : I s the offe r st i l l o n t h e table, me moving in so Ican tr y to help my self out (inaudible)? M R
. B A IL E Y : C e rt a i n l y.

. . . MR. BAI L EY: I m ean, if y ou’re not try ing to he lp y ourself, w hy should Icontinue to try and help you? CI : Rig ht. I ’m making a rule for my self, like the only time I ’m g oing to e ver do dope rig ht then is when I ’m with you, at y our house or whateve r. I t’s not why (inaudible) y ou know what I

mean? Yea

h, Iknow it’s very

hard to quit any

way , but y ou know.

. . . C I: I’ m r e a dy t o , yo ukn o w
— I t h i n k I’ m g o i n g t o h a v e t o g o a b o u ti ti na

w e i r d w ay, y ou know, l ike Ip la

nto , y o ukn o w , qu it

a ll th e d o p e an d

a ll th a t, b u t m ay

b e f or starter s, y ou know, I can just (inaudible). Only time Ido it is when I ’m with y ou or whateve r at y our house or something like that, y ou know. MR. BAI L EY: Well, I don’t see—10

CI : There ’s less place s to do it, l ess people to g et it from, less—y ou know. MR. B AI L EY : I

do n’ t se e that a s w hat w a s c a us ingy our p ro ble m. CI : Imean, I

don’t know. I

g uess we c an talk about it, b u t I ’m not g oing to do any thing until—y ou know, do any thing until Ig o to y our house with y ou there . Can we wa it for a while to ( inaudible)? MR. BAI L EY: Huh? CI : Can we wa it? Can we do it—Can we c ook it there whe n Icome like on Monda y or Tuesday ? Be cause Iknow I ’m g oing to be needingit bad. I ’m not g oing to lie. B e c a us e I ’m no t g oin g to b e a

ble to d o a

ny thi ngwh ile I ’m

a t my g ra ndma ’s
. MR. B AI L EY : Y e ah. Do n’ t w or ry a bo ut t hat. It’ s n ot a

pr ob le m. CI : Oh, so we c an do it there when I g et there ? MR. BAI L EY: Yea

h. When questioned at the suppre ssion hearingreg ardingthe ac cura cy of the a ffidavit’s descr iption of the telephone call, Fe ist testified that the aff idavit refle cted his under standing of what was said dur ing the conver sation “in terminolog y that we’ re use d to in lis tening to narc otics
conver sations.” The trial court found Fe ist’s te stimony to be cre dible. I n o v er ru l i n g appellant’ s Franks contention, the trial c ourt found:
P ersons who sell, manufac ture or de al in illega l and controlled substanc es often speak obliqu el y

and in stree t terminology reg ardingtheir plans and a ctivities. The rec orded phone call includes discussions that are consistent with the manufa cturing of me tha mph e tamin e . F e ist [’s ] de sc ri pti on of the De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 05 re c or din g in the [probable ca

use af fidavit] is true a

nd acc urate . I t is a rea sonable interp re t at ion fo r a tr a ine d a nd e xpe ri e nc e d n arc oti c s o ff ic e r su c h a s F e ist to re late in an a ff ida vit for a sear ch wa

rra nt that “B AI L EY ag ree d to let the source assist him i n the manufa cture of methamphe tamine on 12-27-2005.” 12-27-2005 wa s the Tuesda y following 12-22-2005.11 We r eview a trial court’s de cision on a Franks issue under the same standa rd applied to o th e r s u

p p r e s s io n is s u e s , an d th

u s w e g iv e a lm o s t to ta l d e f e r e n c e to th e c o u rt’ s rulings on qu e sti on s o f h ist or ic a l f

a c t and on a pp lic a tio ns of

law t o f a c ts that turn on an e va luatio n o f c re dib ili ty and demea

nor. Fe no gli o v . S

tate , 252 S.W .3d 468, 473 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2008, pet. ref’d)
. Duringthe re co rd ed co n versation, appellant ag ree d with the source that “we [can] cook it there [appellant’s reside nce] when I come like on Monday or Tuesday ,” which was Dece mber 26 and 27, 2005. This evidence , viewed in the lig ht most favorable to the ruling and in the conte x t of the
rema inder of the conver satio n , re as o n ably supports the trial cour

t’s finding that Fe ist had a g o o d

- f a i t h b e l i e f

t h ath i s d e s c r i p t i o no f

t h e c a l l w a s a c c u r a t e . A p p e l l an td i d n o te s t a b l i s h b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that F eist’s ac count was intentionally or knowing ly

false, or made with a re ckless disreg ard f or the truth. Appellant complains of se vera l other alleg ed misstatements in the aff idavit, but he did no t c ha lle ng e any

of the m in his Fran k

s motion or at the hea

ring . I ssue six is overrule d. Appellant also c ontends that Fe ist de liberate ly omitted material information from the probable cause aff

idavit. He conte nds that Fe ist’s aff idavit failed to tell the mag istrate: (1) a ppellant told the source on D ece mber 22 that he did not have a ny methamphetamine, ( 2) appe llant told the
source on Dec ember 22 that he did not want to make any methamphetamine, a

nd (3) that the sour ce did not go to appe llant’s residenc e on De cembe r 27 to make me thamphetamine.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the court of c riminal ap p ea l s has dec ided whethe r Franks a pp lie s to omi ssi on s f

ro m se arc h w arr ant a ff

ida vit s, bu t se ve ra l federa l and Te xas c ourt s of appe als have applied the Franks analy sis to omi ssions. Se e Da rb yv . S tate , 145 S3d 714,12

72 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or

t Wo rt h 20 04 , pe t. r e f’ d) (c oll e c tin gc a se s) ; se e als o M as se yv . S tate , 933 S.W .2d 141, 146 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 9 6 ) (“ This Court has indicated that we might not
rec og nize application of Franks to omissi ons of fa ct.”) ; 40 Georg e E. Dix & Robert O. D awson, Te x as Prac tic e: C

rim ina l P ra c tic e an d Pro c e du re § 6.39 (2d ed. 2001 & Supp. 2008) (her eaf ter

“ Di x & D aws on ” ). We w ill a ssume fo r t he purp os e of th is op in ion th a t Franks do e s a pp ly to omi ssi on s o f f

a c t. One of the alleg ed omissions from the aff idavit—appellant’s claim that he told the
source on Dec ember

22 that he did not want to make me thamphetamine—wa s not proved. The transcr iptions of the Dece mber 22 tele phone ca lls do not contain such a s t at em en t, and appe llant cites only a leading question asked by defe nse counse l at the Franks hear ing. Another of the alleg ed omissions — that the source did not go to appe llant’s residenc e on Dec ember 27—was not asse rted below. Th e t ri al co urt found that the only omission asserted and pr oved—that appe llant told the
source o n Dec ember

22 that he did not then possess any methamphetamine—w as not a mate rial omission. W e ag ree . This fac t, had it been include d in the aff idavit, would not have r ender ed the aff idavit as a whole insufficient to show proba bl e ca u s e t o s ear ch on De cembe r 28. See D arby , 145 S.W .3d at 722. I ssue five is over ruled. Appellant wa s prese nt at 705A Western Stree t when the police arr ived to execute the
sear ch wa rra nt. The re cord shows that he was taken outsi de and sear ched, and t hat a bagcontaining 5.5 g rams of methamphetamine was found in his poc ket. Appellant c ontends that this searc h was
un lawf ul a nd tha t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y fa ili ng to su pp re ss t

he e vid e nc e se ize d. He ba se s th is13

contention on the fact t h at t h e war rant a uthorized only

the sea rch of the re sidence ; it did not
e xpre ssl y dir e c t th e po lic e to a

rr e st o r s e arc h a

pp e lla nt. Both the w arr ant and the suppor ting aff idavit stated that the pre mises at 705A Western was under appellant’ s control. Texas c ase law assumes that office rs ex ec u t i n g a
se arc h w arr ant m ay

a lso de ta in an d sea

rc h a per so n f

ound on the pr e mis e s if

that pe rs on

is r e a so na

bly believed to be an occ upant or other wise direc tly

associate d with the premises. Se e W or the y v . S tate , 80 5 S. W .2 d 435 , 4 38 n. 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Con ne r v . S tate , 712 S.W .2d 259, 260 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin

19 86 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; se e als o Di x & Da ws on § 6. 10 4 (2 d e d. 20 01 ). I n a ny e ve nt, the of fi c e rs ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to a rr e st a pp e lla nt b a se d o n th e ir

disc ov ery of a

larg e qu anti ty of suspec ted methamphetamine and methamphe t am i n e paraphe rnalia inside the house . They
wer e author ized to search a ppellant’s per so n as an incident of that arr est. Se e Ke r v . Ca lif or nia , 374 U.S. 23, 41 (1963). I ssue seve n is overrule d.

I n his remaining issue, appellant contends that the trial court’s w ritten judg ment does not conform to the c ourt’s ora l pronounce ment of sentenc e. The sentenc e pronounc ed in open cour t was thirty -five year s’ imprisonment. The written judg ment, in addition to the prison term, imposes
a $2 00 0 fi ne and or de rs a pp e lla nt to pa y $2 09 in c ourt c os ts and $1 40 in re sti tut ion
. The S tate
con cedes that th e jud g me nt s ho uld be re fo rm e d to de le te the fi ne . B e c a us e “ re sti tut ion

is punishment,” we c onclude that the r estitution order must also be dele ted. S e e E x parte Cavazos , 203 S.W .3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Court costs are not punitive, howeve r, and ne ed not be included in the or al pronounc ement of se ntence as a prec ondition to their inclusion in the written judgme nt. W

e ir v . S tate , 278 S.W .3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).14 App e ll an t a ls o a s s e rts th a t th e ju d g me n t d o e s n o t g iv e h im th e p r o p e r amount of jail time credit. See Tex . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 42.03, § 2(a) ( West S upp. 2009). The jud g me nt s tate s th a t a

pp e lla nt i s to re c e ive c re dit

fo r t ime sp e nt i n jai l f

ro m D e c e mbe r 2 8, 20 05 to June 11 , 2 00 7, wh ic h w e c a lc ulate to b e 53 0 d ay s. Ap pe lla nt re fe rs us to thi s st a te me nt b y de fe ns e
c ouns e l a t se nte nc ing : “ I ’v e be e n p re se nte d h e re a do c ume nt t

hat in dic a te s h e ha s 6 38 da y s [ja il
cre dit] .” The document to which c ounsel ref err ed is not in the rec ord. We d o n o t have suf ficient i n f o r m a t i o nb e f

o r e u s t o d e t e r

m i n e w h e t h e r

t h e t i m e c r e d i taw ar d e d

i n t h e j u d g m e n ti s c o r

r e c t
. If appellant c an docume nt his claim to additional jail t ime cre dit, he should a pply to the district court for a judgme nt nunc pro tunc. Se e Ex pa rteY ba rra , 149 S.W .3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). I ssu e e ig ht i s su sta ine d in pa rt and ov e rr ule d in pa rt
. The district cour

t judgment is re formed to de lete the f ine an d restitution. As ref ormed, the judg ment is affirme d.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: Oc tober 27, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh