### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 06 -0 02 31 -C R

______________________________ J AMES RENE HAYES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 6th J udicial District Court

L amar County , Texas Trial Court No. 20312

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON About 3:00 a.m. Dec ember 24, 2002, Paris police office r Doug Murphy , who was on patrol in a re sidential neig hborhood, noticed a vehicle in a

drivewa y , with Greg Mallory

leaningin talking to J ames Rene Hay es, who sat in the ve hicle. B eca use there had bee n rec ent vehicle and re sidence burg laries in the area , Murphy stopped to investigate. Mallory and Ha y es said they

had just dropped of f a wo man at th e re sid e nc e bu t w e re n' t sure of he r n a me ; H ay e s th ou g ht h e r n a me wa s V ic ki. Murphy went to the door of the house in front of w hich Hay es' vehicle w as par ked. A man a

nswere d the door a

nd told Murphy

that he thoug ht a woman ha d just been droppe d off. The woman wa s summoned to the door, confirmed t hat s he had just been droppe d off by Hay es, and a dded that Ha y es was he r " man." Confronting Mallory and Hay es with the inconsistency in how well they knew the woman, Murphy

asked to sea

rch the ir persons. Both men consente d. On Hay es' person wa s found around $1,200 in cash. Murphy testified t hat Hay es t old him that was " g as money ," w hich Murphy thought was far more than was neede d to pur chase g as for the 100-mile trip Hay es h ad s ai d was planned. How ever , on the DVD r ecord ed o n t h e patrol ca r ca mera , Hay es see ms to also say

so me thi nga

bo ut u sin g the mon e y

fo r C hr istma s p re se nts . M ur ph y re qu e ste d, and

re c e ive d, Ha

y e s' consent to sea

rch the vehicle. When Murphy looked in the ca

r, he f ound an ey eg lass holder containing sever al roc ks of cr ack c ocaine

. I n a sin g le thr e e -d ay tr ia l inv olv ing thi s c ha rg e and tw o oth e rs oc c ur

ri ng a t dif fe re nt t ime s, Hay es wa s convicted of

three char ges of possession of a controlled substanc e, coc aine, of four orAll three indictments alleg e possession with intent to deliver; the State aba ndoned the 1 de liv e ry a lle g a tio ns . Ple a se see our o pin ion s in c a us e numbe rs 06 -0 6- 00 22 9- CR and 06 -0 6- 00 23 0- CR , bo th 2 sty led Ha y es v . S tat e , issued the same date as this opinion. 3 mor e g ra ms b ut l e ss t

ha n 2 00 grams. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.115(d)

1 (V e rn on 20 03 ). He ha s f

ile d a c on so lid a te d a

pp e a l a tta c kin g a ll th ree c on vic tio ns . E a c h c a se involved a separate offe nse date, and som e of Hay es' appellate issues are case specific

. We affir m

e a c h c on vic tio n and se nte nc e on thi s date
. We a ff ir m the tr ia l c ourt ' s jud g me nt in thi s c a se be c a us e 2 (1) the f ruit of the sea

rch w as prope rly admitted, (2) Hay es has not established that his trial counsel was ine ff ec tive, (3) Ha

y es' complaint about alleg edly expert testimony

was not pre serve d, and (4) Ha y es' due-pr ocess point of e rror is mult ifarious a

nd inadequately

briefe d. ( 1) The Fruit of the Search W as Properly Admitted Hay es cla ims the searc h in the ear ly morning hours of De cemb er 2 4 , 2 002, was

un c on sti tut ion a l; i f t

his is the c a se , th e c ra c k c oc a ine and mon e y se ize d a s p art of the se arc h s ho uld have be e n s up pr e sse d. Ha y e s c la ims that th e of

fi c e r h a d s a tis fi e d a ll h is q ue sti on s e arl ie r and

wa s, at t he t im e of t he s earch , o n an "unau th ori z ed fi sh in g ex ped it io n. " There is a video re cord of

the incident, showing Murphy talking to H ay es and Ma llory at the

car , and including audio of Murphy talking to the two pe ople inside the house. Hay es cla ims that the sec ond poli ce ca r at the sce ne blocke d Hay es in the drivew ay and cr eate d a situation where a4

re a so na ble pe rs on

wo uld no t ha ve fe lt f re e to l e a ve . H ay e s sa

y s th a t Mu

rp hy pr e se nte d n o a

rt ic ula ble f a c t s t o s u p p o rth i s i n v e s t i g a t i v e d e t e n t i o nan d qu e s t i o n i n g o f

H a ye s an d M a l l o r y. An investig ative dete ntion must be founde d on specific , articula ble fa cts amounting to more t h an a m er e h u n ch o r s u s p i ci o nt h at , co mb i n edwi t h t h e o ff i ce r's p er s o n al ex p er i en ce an d kn o wl ed ge and any logic al infer ence s, cre ate a rea sonable suspicion that cr iminal activity is occurr ing. See Am or es v . S

tat e , 8 16 S.W. 2d

40 7, 41 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Ga rza v . S tat e , 771 S.W .2d 549, 558 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ); Ho ag v . S tat e , 728 S.W .2d 375, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). We review the t rial court's ruling on a mot ion to suppress usi ng an abuse -of- discretion standa rd. Ol es v . S

tat e , 99 3 S. W.2 d 1 03 , 1 06 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); F r e e m a n v . S

tat e , 6 2 S. W. 3 d

8 8 3 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2001, pet. re f' d). In a suppression hear ing, the trial court is the sole trier of fac t and judg e of the witnesses' cre dibilit y and the we ight to be g iven their testimony

. T he evide nce should be viewe d in the light most favor able to the trial court' s ruling. Sta te v . B all ar d , 987 S.W .2d 88 9, 89 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Freem an , 62 S. W.3d at 886. W e should aff ord almost total de fe re nc e to the tria l c ourt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f h ist or ic a l f a c ts that th e re c or d s up po rt s, e sp e c ia lly when the f

act- finding s are based on an evaluation of the witnesse s' cre dibilit y and deme anor. Sta te

v . R os s , 3 2 S. W.3 d 8 53 , 8 56 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Freem an , 62 S.W .3d at 886. Murp hy sa id h is i nit ia l in ve sti g a tio n wa s a r e su lt o f t he e arl y mor nin g ho ur and a re c e nt s pate of burg laries in the are a. As he re ceive d inconsistent stories from Mallory , Hay es, and the woman at the re sidence , he had f

urther a rticulable r easons to continue inve stigating. The art ic ula ble fa c tsWhen consent to sear ch is obtained, such a sear ch may

be conduc ted without a war rant. See 3 Minnesota v. Dic kerson , 5 08 U. S. 3 66 , 3 72 (1 99 3) ; Mc Gee v. Sta te , 1 0 5 S. W. 3 d 6 0 9 , 6 1 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2003). We note that the jury was c harg ed that it must find Hay es not g uilty if it found that Murphy 4 did not have rea sonable suspi cion t o detain Hay es bef ore a sking f

or conse nt to searc h the vehicle

. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.23 (V ernon 2005)

. 5 us e d b y the of fi c e r m us t c re a te so me re a so na

ble su sp ic ion that so me a c tiv ity ou t of the or din a ry

is

occur rin g o r h a s o c c u r

r e d , s o me s u g g e s ti o n to c o n n e c t th e d e ta in e e w it h th e u n u s u a l a c ti v it

y , and some indication the unusual activity is related to c rime. My e rs v . S tate , 2 0 3 S. W. 3 d

8 7 3 , 8 8 2 ( T e x. App.—Eastland 2006, pe t. r ef' d). A rea sonable suspicion de termination is made by consideringthe totality of the c ircumstance s. Fo rd v . S tat e , 15 8 S

. W .3d 488, 492–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ma y so ne t v . S tat e , 91 S.W .3d 365, 372 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd ). W e n ote that Hay es conse nted to the sea rche s of his person a

nd then of the ve hicle. About ten minutes elapsed 3 fr om the on se t of the e nc ounte r to the tim e a t w hic h M ur ph y a sk e d to se arc h th e tw o me n' s p e rs on s; no more than eig hteen minutes e lapsed betwee n Murphy ' s first contac t w ith the men and finding the

coca ine. Ba sed on our r eview of

the record, including the video exhibit of the e ncounter , we c annot say , consideringthe totality of the circ umstances, that the trial cour t abused its discretion in finding that Murphy

had the r equisite rea sonable suspicion to investigate the situation. 4A claim of ine ffe ctive assistanc e is be tter pursued by way of habea s corpus, with which the re 5 is s ome op po rt

un ity fo r the re c or d to have be e n de ve lop e d r e g ard ingtr ia l c ouns e l' s r e a so ns fo r h is or her actions. See G oodspeed , 1 87 S.W. 3d 39 0; Bo ne v . S

tat e , 7 7 S. W. 3 d

8 2 8 , 8 3 3 n . 1 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2002). 6 ( 2) Haye

s Has Not Establ ished That His T rial Couns el W

as Ineffec tive Hay es complains that h i s co u nsel, who re prese nted Hay es both at trial and on a ppeal, wa s

c on sti tut ion a lly ine ff

e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto r e qu e st a

he ari ngon

the va ri ou s o ff ic e rs ' qu a lif

ic a tio ns to offe r expert testimony . We overrule this point of er ror. C l ai m s t hat counse l provided ineff ective a ssistance a

re e valuated unde r the Strickland tw o - p art te s t r e qu ir in g a s h o w in g o f b o th d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r ma n c e an d prejudice

. See Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). A Strickland claim must be " firmly

founded in the recor d" and " the record must aff

irmatively

demonstrate" the meritorious nature of the c laim. Goodspee d v. Sta te , 187 S.W .3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S. W. 3 d

8 0 8 , 8 1 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1999). Di re c t a pp e a l is us ua lly

an in a de qu a te ve hic le fo r r a isi ngsu c h a c la im b e c a

us e the re c or d is g e ne ra lly un de ve lop e d f

or the ob je c t of lit ig a tin g or

pr e se rv ingthe c la im and thu s of te n in c omp le te or inade quate f

or this purpose. See G oodspeed , 1 87 S.W. 3d a t 39 2; Fr e e ma n v . S

tat e , 125 S.W .3d 5 50 5, 50 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Fu lle r v . S tat e , 224 S.W .3d 823, 828–29 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.). This is true with reg ard to the que stion of deficie nt perfor mance . We review counsel' s conduct with g reat de fer ence , without the distorting ef fec ts of hindsight, espe cially wher e counsel' s rea sons f

or failing to do something do not a ppear in the rec ord. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at7

813. The Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls ha s said that "tr ial counsel should ordinar ily be af forde d an opportunity

to expl ain his actions" bef o re a court finds that he or she rende red ine ffe ctive assistance

. See Goodspeed , 1 8 7 S

. W

. 3 d at 3 9 2 n . 1 4 (q u o t i n g Ry lan de r v . S tat e , 101 S.W .3d 107, 11 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 )) ; Fo xv . S tat e , 1 75 S.W. 3d

47 5, 48 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 05 , p e t. ref ' d). As it applies to the conduct in the instant off ense, H ay es' claim of inef

fec tive counsel is base d

on his a s s e rt i o nt h a tl aw e n f o r c e m e n tw i t n e s s e s i mp r o p e r l y g a v e e xp e r

to p i n i o n s d

u r i n g t h e ir t es t i m o n y . Ha y es cl ai m s t h at h i s t ri al co u n s el wa s o b l i gat edt o re qu es ta h ea ri n g, o u t s i d e t h e j u ry 's prese nce, on the admissibili ty of these opinions. See T EX . R. E V ID . 705. Hay es complains that Murphy , in his testim ony

about his encounte r with H ay es, said Hay es had a larg e sum of cash, " The majority , hundreds." The only testimony

offe red by

Murphy which could be said to offe r an opinion was Murphy ' s statement that he wa s suspicious of Hay es' claim that t he cash was " g as money " f or

a " hund re d mi le tr ip. " We f

a il t o s e e ho w this state me nt, a s in te rp re te d by Ha y e s and argue d in his brief, a mounts to an expert opinion. Counsel c ould not be deeme d ineffe ctive for f ailing to objec t t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y, an d

an y S trickland complaint nece ssarily

fails. Cf. Ex parte Thompson , 179 S.W .3d 549, 559–60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (def endant not entitled t o jury char g e on lesser

inc lud e d off

e ns e ; the re fo re , c ouns e l no t in e ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto r e qu e st) ; Mc

Fa rla nd v . S

tat e , 845 S.W. 2d 82 4, 84 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ) ( no t in e ff e c tiv e fo r atto rn e y

to f a il t o o bje c t to a dmi ssi ble evidenc e).8

Any alleg ation of ineffe ctiveness must be firmly founded in, a nd aff irmatively

demonstrated by , the re cord. Mc

Fa rla nd v . S tat e , 928 S.W .2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Fa ilure to make the require d showing of either defic ient perf ormanc e of counsel or pre

judice to def

endant de feats the ineffe ctiveness c laim. Id. Absent t hose showings, an appellate court cannot conclude the c onviction

re sulted from a br eakdow n in the adver sarial pr ocess that r ender s the result unre liable. E xp ar te Menc haca , 854 S.W .2d 128, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellant bea rs the burden of proving by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that counse l was ineff ective. Thompson , 9 S. W. 3 d a t 8 1 3

. We find that, under the se circ umstances, Ha y es has not ca

rried that burden. ( 3) Haye

s' Complaint About Allegedly Expe rt Testimony W as Not Preserved Hay es ar g ues that M u rp h y was im proper ly allowed to testify

that drug deale rs ca

rry $100 bil ls; a c tua lly

Murp hy sa id o nly tha t he wa s susp ic iou s whe n h e fo un d th a t H ay e s h a d a pp ro xima te ly $1,200 in mostl y

$100 denominations. Murphy said nothing about the ca sh making him suspicious that Hay es wa s a drugdeale r. Reg ardle ss of the import of Murphy ' s test i m o n y , Hay es off ere d no objection to this testim ony . There fore , he has not prese rved this matter for our re view. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1( a )( 1) (A ); W

ils on v . S tat e , 71 S.W. 3d 34 6, 34 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). We o ve rr ule this point of er

ror.9

( 4) Haye

s' Due-Proce

ss Point of Error

Is Multifarious and Inadequately Briefed Hay es argues that numerous ruling s by the trial court, in the a g g reg ate, de prived him of due pr oc e ss. As we e xpla in i n o ur op ini on in the c omp anio n ca se , c a us e numbe r 0 6- 06 -0 02 30 -C R, this po int of e rr or is b oth mul tif ari ou s and

ina de qu a te ly

br ie fe d, and

is o ve rr ule d f or tho se re a so ns . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s h R

. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J anuar y 16, 2008 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 1, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh