### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00235-CR
Christopher

Fr ed Burl

eson, Appe ll ant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T OF M ILAM C OUNTY NO. 24,433, HONORABLE FRANK SUMMERS, JUDGE PRESIDING
A j ury f ound appella

nt guil ty of posses si

ng less than

two ounc es of

mari hua na . See Te x. Heal th & Saf ety Code A nn . § 481.1 21(a), (

b)(1 ) (We st Supp . 2001)
. The coun ty c ourt assess ed pu nish men t at inc ar ce r at io n fo rsix mo nt hs. We will a ffir m.

TexasDe pa rtm en t of Pu b l i c S af ety Troo per J i

m m y Mor ga n testi fi ed t hat on t he after noon in ques t ion he w as d riving his pat ro l car w est on hig hway 77 near Camer on w hen he encountered

a whi te BMWtr aveli

ng in the oppo site direct ion. The o ff icer not iced that the BMW’s win dows app ear ed t o be tin

ted dark er tha n a l l owed b y l aw. Mo rg an t ur ned a nd st op ped t he BMW, of which ap pellant was t he driv er and sol e occupant. The off ic er walke d

up t o t he BMW w ith his t int
meter. As h

e tested t he tin

t o n the partial

ly opened driver’s si

dewi nd ow, M orga

n n oti ce d the od or of mar ihu an a c o ming fr o m t he ca r . Mo r ga n me ntioned t he o do rt o ap pe llant an d a sk ed t o se e h is driver’s license. Appe llant t old t he o ffi cer he did not have h

is li cense. Morgan h

ad appella nt step1 “Suns cr eening d evice” means a film, mat er ial, o r d evice u sed t o r edu ce t he effect s o f the sun.

Te x. Tr ansp . C od e Ann. § 54 7. 001 (9 ) ( West 199 9) . “Light t ra nsmission” mea ns t he r at io o f li ght that pas ses through a m aterial to the am

ount of l i ght that f

al l s on th e m aterial
. Id . § 547.0 01(3). 2 f ro m th e B MW, a

n d i n a s ub se qu en t se arch of th e c ar f oun d a mari h ua n a c i ga re tte i n th e rea r fl oor board. Appe llantmove d to suppress the m arih uana on the ground that it was s eize d as a r es ult of a n un constituti onal traf f i c stop. SeeU. S. C on st. am en d. IV; Te x . C on st. ar

t. I, 9; Tex. Code Cr im. Proc . A

nn . ar t. 38 .23 (W es t Sup

p. 2 001 ). Th

e overruli ng of t he mot ion t o s upp re ss is t he sub j ect of appe l l an t’s f i rst poi nt of error. When reviewing a ruling on a motion to su ppress , we de fer to the

trial court’s factual determinations but r evi ew de novo the cour t’s applica tion of t he law to the facts. See Guzman v. State , 955 S. W. 2d 85, 89 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1997)
. B ecause the county court did not make explicit

findings of fact, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s ruling a nd ass

ume the c ourt made findings that are supp orted by the record and but tress its conclusion. See Car

mouche v
. State , 10 S
. W. 3d 323 , 327-2 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)
. Appe llantcontends t her e w asno ob j ec ti ve l y rea son ab l e b as i s f

or th e traf

f i c s top because t he evide nce s how s t hat his car ’s windo w t intwasl egal . A pe rs on c om

m i ts a m i sdem ea nor if h e operates a moto r vehi cl e wi th a sunsc

reeni ng dev ic e on the side wi

ndows hav

in g a li gh t tran sm i ss i on of 35 percent o r less. Tex. Transp. Co de Ann. § 547.613(a) (1), (b)(2) ( West 1999)
. 1 Appe llantasserts t ha t se cti on 54 7.6 13 n otwi

th sta n di n g, t h e T ex as De pa rtm en t of Pu b l i c S af ety permi ts side wi ndow sunsc

reeni ng m aterial that t ransm

its as l ittle as 20 per cent of t he light st riking it
. He refers u s to the adm i nistrati ve rules g overn

i ng v ehi cle i ns pecti on stan dards
. See37 T ex.2 The co de a ut hor izes t he de par t ment t o p er mit a t hre e pe rc ent var iance fr om t he es t ablished light

tran sm i ss i on stan dard. See Tex. Transp. Code An n. § 547.613(d) (West 1999). Morgan testifi ed that the depa rtm en t ha s e xe rci se d th i s d i screti on an d p er mit s s un sc r ee ning film on s ide windo ws ha ving a li ght transmi

ssion as low as 32 percent . The relevant admi ni strat iv e rule does not reflect t hi s. See 37 Tex . Ad

m i n. C ode § 21 .1 (200 1). 3 A dm i n. Cod e § 23. 42( a), (b ) (2 001 ) (veh i cl e i ns pe cti on station will

in spect sunscreen

in g and rej ect if l i ght tran

sm i ttance of s i de wi

ndow s i s less

than 20 percen

t). Mo rg an t estif

ie d that his

me ter in dic ated that t he tin

t o n appel

la nt’s si de wi ndow had a l

igh t t ransm is si on of 28.6 p er cent. Two defense witne sses wh

o t ested the win

dow tint on appel la

nt’s car testif

ie d t hat t he l i gh

t transm i ss i on wa s e i th er 29 .1 p ercen

t or 3 2 p ercen

t. We are not persuaded that the depa rtm en t’s ve hi cl e i ns pe cti on regul ati ons c an or were in tended to ove rri dethe pe na l prov i si ons of t he code. 2 But whet her t he su nscr eening film on t he win dows of appel

la nt’s car was i

n f act lawf ul i s not determi

nativ e of appel

la nt’s poin t o f er ro r. Instead, t he ce nt ra l issue is whe t her Mo rg an had a r eas ona ble basis fo r su spe ct ing that appellant’s wi nd ow t int wa s u nla wfu l. A p o li ce o ffi cer may sto p and briefly det ain a pe rso n for invest igat ive purposes if t he o ffice r , in ligh t o f his e xp er ien ce , ha s a r ea so na ble su sp icio n su pp o r t ed by ar t icu lab le f ac ts that crim

in al activ ity ma y be af oot. Terry

v. Ohio , 392 U .S. 1, 30 (1 968). The reasonablenes s of a t empo ra ry de t ent ion must be exa mined in ter ms of t he t ot ality o f the ci rcum stan ces . Woods v. State , 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 7) . A t empo ra ry de t ent ion is just ifi ed w hen t he det aining of f i cer h assp ec i f

i c a rti cu l ab l e f

ac ts w hi ch , tak en toge the r wi th r ati ona l i nf ere nc esf rom those facts, lead

him t o co nc lud e t ha t t he pe r so n d et ain ed is, ha s be en , o rso o n w ill be e ng ag ed in crim in al acti vi ty. Id. A rea son ab l e suspici

on means m ore than a m ere h unc h or suspi cion. Davis v.4

State , 94 7 S .W .2d

24 0, 2 44 (Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 97 ). A

de ten ti on i s n ot pe r miss ible unless t he ci rcum stan ces obj ecti ve l y supp ort a reas onab l e su spi cion of cri m i na l acti vi ty. Id
. Off ic er Mor ga n testi f i ed th at h e h ad b een a troope r f or ten yea rs . H e s ai

d th at t h e win dows of appel

la nt’s car “ appeared darker than l egal .” Appel

la nt’s def ense wi tness agreed that appellant’s car wi

ndow s “ appe ar to be d

ark,” a fact t hat is co nfirmed by pho t og ra phs o f the car in the record. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, Mo rg an ans wer ed a ffi rmat ively when aske d if he “f ormed an opi ni on

. . . based upon a r easonabl e belief tha t t her e had been a t ra ffi c o ffense co mmi

t t ed u nder t he Tra ns porta ti on Cod e . . . . ” T h i s is a

f ai r s tate m en t of th e stan dard f

or a l awf ul tem porary invest igat ivedeten

tion
. Giv en the un contradicted testim

ony tha t appell ant’s si de wi ndows had a light transm ittance b el ow that permitted by section 547.613 ( an d e xp r es sing no o pin io n o n t he effe ct , if
an y , of the ad m i ni stra ti ve rul es ), the c i rcu m sta nc esga ve Morga n a rea son ab l e, a rti cul ab l e b as i s f

or sus pec t inga m

otor v eh i cl e s un scre en i n g v i ol ati on an d f or d eta i n i n g a pp el l an t to inve st iga t e t his
sus picion. The cases

ci ted by appella nt are dis tingui shab le in that there was no traff

ic violation e

ven if the facts were as the off

ic er sus pected them to be. See United

States v. Lopez-Valdez , 178 F.3d 282, 288 (5t h Cir. 1 999 ); United States v. Miller , 146 F .3d 274 , 279 (5 th Ci r. 199 8); Trahan v. State , 16 S.W.3d 146, 147 (Tex. App.—Beaum ont 2000, no pet .). Po in

t o f error one is

overruled. The coun ty c ourt i n str uc ted th e j ur orsto disregard the evidence found in appellant’s
car if they fou nd o r ha d a r eas ona ble do ubt whet her t he off ic er lawf ull y s to pped the ca r f or a w i nd ow t intvi ola tion
. SeeTex . Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.23
. By

poi nt of err ortwo, appella

nt urges that there i s n o ev i den ce to s up por

t th e j ur y ’s ad v er se f i n di n g on th is issue. Appe llant inco rp or at es by5

referen ce t he ar gument he made in supp or t of p oint of error o ne. For the reasons previ ously stated,
weove rrul e p oi nt two. Fin ally, app ellant c ont ends t he co unt y cou rt er ro neo usly per mitt ed t he pros ecutor to attack def ens e couns el

duri ng j ury argum ent. The cha l l enge d argum

ent was : We t r ie d e ve r ybo dy in t he wo r ld b ut t he r ea l fac t s o f t his c as e. We t r ie d Troo per Ji mm y Morgan, who’s si

tt in g righ t t here; we

tried l aw en f orc em en t; we tried the p rosecu

tion . You kn

ow, he ’sgood, Mr. Mc Lea n. He ’s good at cr ea t ing r ab bit trails, smo ke sc r ee ns, r ac e is su es . Jimm y Mor gan never sat there o n that witness stand – The obj ec ti on

t hat t he pr os ecu t or was st riking a t app ellant o ver t he shoulders of def ense couns el

was overru l ed. See Wilson v. Sta te , 938 S.W .2d 57, 5 8 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1996 ). The ch al l enged re marks shoul d be

cons i dere d i

ncon te xt . T he de fense c alled five witne sses, each

li ke appella nt an Afri can American, who tes ti f

i ed tha t Troop er M orga

n s toppe d or ot herwise detain ed them for what they

bel ie ved w ere nonexis t ent, pretextual reasons. The cl ear im port of thi s tes tim

ony wasthat the

wi tnes ses ha d be en stopped s ole l

y be caus e of

thei r race . In
r eb ut t al, the Stat e recalle d Morgan, who denied usi ng raceasa c ri

teri on i n d ec i di ng whether to stop
a motorist for a traff

ic off ense. The

Stat e al so call

ed an Afri

can Am er ican co unt y cons t able who testi f i ed th at Morgan

wastruthf

ul and prof ess i onal
. At appella

nt’s request, the court in structed t he j urors t hat the Uni ted St ates Consti tution prohib its the sel

ective enf orcemen t o f the la

w b as ed on ra ce an d c h arge d th

em to di sreg ard the evi dence s ei ze d durin

g the search of

appella nt’s car if the j urors beli

eved or had a
r ea so na ble doubt t hat the stop was motivated or based o n appellant’s ra ce . D uri n g h i s ow n argu men t,6

appellant’s counsel

remi nded the j urors o f the def en se wi tn esses’ testim

ony, des crib ed Morgan as “R obocop,”characterized

t he o ffice r ’s co nd uc t as “o bno xio us , ” a nd sa id that t he wi

tnesses h ad been “ba sic ally rousted by thi s m

an.” The prosecutor responded b y m aki ng the argum

ent to which app ellant obj ec ted . The p ros ecutor a l so r emin de d the j ury

of the con sta bl e’ s te sti mony an d of Mo r ga n’s st at eme nt t ha t he wa s u na ble t o se e a pp ella nt ’s fac e u nt il aft er he st o pp ed him.

The op inions cit ed by ap pellant ar e dist inguishable. In e ach, t he pr o se cu t o rdir ec t ly accused def en se c ouns el

of u nethical cond uct. SeeWi lson , 938 S.W.2d at 58 (defense c ounsel “wi shes
. . . t hat you t ur n a g uil t y man free” be cau se, unlike pr os ecu t or , “he do esn’t have t he obl i ga ti on to see t hat justice is do ne in this case” ); Fuente s v. State , 664 S.W.2d 333 , 3 35- 38 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1984) (repeated allegatio ns of unet hical condu ct by defense co unsel); Anders on v. State , 525 S.W.2d 20, 21-22 (Tex. Crim . App. 1975) (def en se c ouns el

accuse d of

l y i ng to j ury ); Lopez v. State , 705 S. W.2 d 29 6, 297 -9 8 ( Te x. App.—San A ntonio 1986, no pet.) ( defen se counsel ’s strategy
was to mi sl ead j ury, “

to keep as m

uch ev ide nce f rom y ou as po ssible”); Johnson v. State , 649 S.W.2d 111, 115 -1 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —S an A ntoni o 1983), aff’d , 662 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim . App. 1984) (num erous obje ctionab le

comm ents, in cl udin g that defens e counsel

wil l a tt em pt t o d ece ivejury du ring argum en t). The prosecuto r’s argum ent in this cause i s comparab le

to that at issuein Mosley v. State , 983 S. W.2 d 24 9, 258 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 8) . I n Mosley , the p ro secuto r said that defense counsel “h as a ttempted to get y

ou off the m ai n road , to div

ertyo u. . . .” and “want[ed] y ou t o t ake
a side r oa d, a se ries o f side r oa ds, ra bbit t ra ils, and a rabbi t t rail that wil l l ead you t o a dea d- end. The tru th is not t here.” The court of crim in al appeal s characteri

zed these remarks as “m

il der” t han those7

acc using def

en se c ouns el

of i m proper or un

ethi cal cond uct. Id . Ass uming, ho weve r, t hat t he defendant’s obje ction to t he argum ent should have been

su stai ne d, th e c ourt c onc l

ude d that the error was harm le ss af ter consideri

ng: (1 ) t he magnit ude of p re judice a rising from the prosecut or’s remarks; (2) the eff

ic acy of any correct iv e i nstruction by

the court ; an

d (3) the strength of the evi dence supp ortin g con vi cti on. Id . at 259 -60 ; see also Tex . R. A pp. P. 44 .2(b ). As in Mosley , t he prosecut or’s r emarks i n t his c au se we r e, at mo st , o nly mildly i m proper. While the o bject ion wa s o ver ru led and no c ur at ive act ion wa s t ake n by the c ou rt , t he evi dence o f appel la

n t’s guil t was stro ng. Li

ke the Mosley

court , we concl

ude that any

error was ha rm l ess . Mosley , 983 S.W.2d at 260. P oint of error three is ove rruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: May

31, 2001 Do No t Publis

h