1 No. 06- 15 -00095- CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA

JAMES ARTHUR BAXLEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appealed in Cause No. 1424312

8 th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

By:/s/ Matthew H. Harris Matthew H. Harris Assistant District Attorney State Bar No 24083142 P.O. Box 882 Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483 (903) 885-0641 ACCEPTED 06-15-00095-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/27/2015 4:29:33 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK2 I DENTITY OF P ARTIES AND C OUNSEL

Pursuant to Texas Rul e of Appellate Procedure 38(a), the following is a list of all

parties to the trial court’s judgment and the names and addresses of all trial and

appellate counsel:

Appellant Appellant’s appellate counsel James Arthur Baxley Wade A. Forsman P.O. Box 918 Sulphur Springs, TX 75483

- 0918 903.689.4144 telephone 903.689.7001 facsimile wade@forsmanlaw.com

Appellant’s trial counsel Cynthia Braddy 1109 Main Street Commerce, TX 75428 903.2 43.3577 telephone

Appellee Appellee’s trial & appellate counsel The State of Texas Matthew Howard Harris Assistant District Attorney 8 th Judicial District P.O. Box 882 (75483

- 0882) 114 Main Street Sulphur Spring s, TX 75482 903.885.0641 telephone 903.885.0640 facsimile mharris@hopkinscountytx.org3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

ISSUES PRESENTED 5

STANDARD OF REVIEW 5

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 5

I. The trial court did not err in crediting the testimony of Mark Estes 6

II. The pretext doctrine is no longer valid law 6

III. Appellant failed to preserve error 8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9

CERTIFIC ATE OF WORD COUNT 94 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Archie v. State , 799 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1990)

..... 7
Burgess v. State , 816 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

................................ ...... 7

Stewart v. State

, 611 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)

............................... 8

Turrubiate v. State , 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

.......................... 5

U.S v. Lefkowitz , 285 U.S. 452, 467 (1932)

................................ ............................. 7

Rules
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3)

................................ ............................. 9
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1

................................ ................................ ... 9

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38(a)................................................. 25 ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant argues that: (1) the trial court should not have credited the

testimony of Sergeant Mark Estes, and (2) law enforcement should not be allowed

to evade the warrant requirement through “creativity”. Despite a lack of specificity,

Appellant appears to refer to search warrants because arrest warrants existed in

this case. Appellant argues that the trial court should have granted Appellant’s

motion to suppress, and that failing to do so was an abuse of discretion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Upon reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, the standard

of review is abuse of discretion with regard to the trial court’s factual findings. The

standard of review relating to the trial court’s application of law to fact is de novo

.

Tu rrubiate v. State , 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Appellant was arrested pursuant to valid warrants which were relied upon by

Sergeant Mark Estes in go od faith, and were even admitted to evidence in the case.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to believe the testimony of

Mark Estes . It does not “strain the credulity of a reasonable person” to believe the

testimony of Sergeant Estes, and there is no evidence that he used Appellant’s

valid arre st warrants as a pretext to “go fishing”

. The pretext doctrine , which is6

apparently relied upon by Appellant, does not exist

. Finally, even if the pretext

doctrine did exist, Appellant did not preserve error

.

I. The trial court did not err in crediting the testimony of Sergeant

Mark Estes during hearing on Appellant’s motion to suppress.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in crediting the testimony of

Sergeant Estes. Evidently the crux of Appellant ’s argument is that the trial court

abused its discr etion by not finding that Sergeant Estes l ied when he said that he

had seen Appellant’s name on a warrant list, drove by his house, and arrested

Appellant after confirming the warrant s through dispatch. To believe the sworn

testimony of a peace officer wit h 14 years’ experience , according to Appellant,

constitutes an abuse of discretion. Even if that were true, Appellant cites no

authority for this proposition or even the legal basis for his argument

– he simply

states that the motion to suppress should hav e been granted because Serg eant Estes

was not being honest about his reasons for being at Appellant’s home.

II. The pretext doctrine is no longer valid law

Appellant proposes that Sergeant Estes “went fishing” because he doesn’t

normally serve warrants. Appellant insinuates that Sergeant Estes somehow

behaved illegally or improperly and that the motion to suppress should have been

granted because he used the municipal warrants as pretext to arrest and search7

Appellant for evidence of another crime. The fa llacy of this argument, however, is

that the “pretext doctrine” is no longer valid law. It formerly existed to prohibit

officer s from using an arrest for one crime as pretext to search for evidence of

another. Archie v. State , 799 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex. App

. — Houston [14th Dist.]

1990), aff'd sub nom. Burgess v. State , 816 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

(citing U.S v. Lefkowitz , 285 U.S. 452, 467 (1932) )

. Under the old line of cases if

pretext form ed the basis for a warrantless search, then any resulting e vidence

seized may have be en rendered inadmissible

. Id. In practical application, courts

found it nearly impossible to determine the subjective intent of officers when

making stops and arrests, so the pretext doctrine was explicitly abandoned in

Garcia v. State

, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) . As the law currently

stand s , an officer’s subjective intent in making an arrest is irrelevant as long as

there exists an objectively valid, legal basis for the arrest. Id. Here, the arrest was

made pursuan t to arrest warrants which were admitted as evidence at trial by the

trial counsel for Appellant ( V ol. 5; p. 203; l. 2

- 23 ).

Appellant further complains that law enforcement should not be allowed to

“evade the general requirement that warrants be used”, pr esumably referring to

search warrant s , because the arrest was simply pretext for Sergeant Estes to search

Appellant for controlled substances. The law is quite clear that a search incident to

a lawful arrest requires no warrant if the se arch is restricted to the arrestee and8

those objects immediately associated with the arrestee. Stewart v. State

, 611

S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)

. Here, Sergeant Estes arrested Appellant

pursuant to a valid arrest warr ant, and then proceeded to s earch him incident to that

arrest. The contraband was located on Appellant’s person. There is no doubt that a

search warrant was not required.

III. Even if the pretext doctrine existed, App ellant failed to preserve

error.

Appellant’s trial counsel, Cynthia Br addy, raised a single suppression issue

on the morning of trial

- that there may be an important legal distinction between

capias pro fines and arrest warrants ( Vol. 5 ; p. 173, l. 8

– p. 174., l. 1)

- but Ms.

Braddy never once mentioned that the search of Appellant and seizure of the

controlled substance should be suppressed because the warranted arrest was pretext

to search for evidence of another crime. Despite the fact that it appears as though

Appellant is attempting to raise that very issue now, it was never raised in the trial

court. The issue was not raised in the motion to suppress, and it has not been

preserved for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1

.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The State requests that this Court AFFIRM Appellant’s conviction by the

jur y.9 By:/s/ Matthew H. Harris Matthew H. Harris Assistant District Attorney State Bar No 240 83142 P.O. Box 882 Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483 (903) 885

- 0641

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

instrument was forwarded to counsel for Appellant, Wade Forsman , on this the 27 th

day of July , 2015.

By:/s/ Matthew H. Harris Matthew H. Harris Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3), this document contains 1,342 words.

By:/s/ Matthew H. Harris Matthew H. Harris Assistant District Attorney