NO. 07-07 -029 6-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 B MA Y20, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOH N ER IC TREV IN O, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 33 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF S AN SA BACOU NT Y; RD NO. 552 3; HON. GUILFORD L. JONES III, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t J ohn Er icTrev ino appeal s h is co nv ic ti on for possessi ng a c ontroll ed subs tanc e ( methamph e ta m ine ) w it h i ntentto del iv er i n a d ru g free z one. On appeal , he cont end s the af

f idavit used to o bta in a s e a rc h wa rrant au tho riz ing the search of his residen ce failed to estab lish proba ble cau se. I tpurpo rtedly failed to esta blish prob able caus e s inc e i t di d notes tabl is h the r e liabil ity of the n amed i nformant. W e aff ir m the conv ic ti on.2

Standa rd

of Rev iew A se ar ch w ar ra nt may not be i ss ued unl ess su ff ic ien t facts are present ed to a mag is t ra t e w h i c h p e r mi t h i m t o c o n c l u d e t h a t p ro b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s s u p p o rt i ng the w ar ra nt’ s i ss uance . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 18 .01 (b) (Vernon Su pp. 200 7). Furth e r mo r e , t h e fa c t s mu s t b e c o n t a i n e d i n a “ s w o r n a ffi d a v i t ” a c c o mp a n y i n g the appl ic ati on for the w ar ra nt and ill ust ra te 1) thata s peci fic o ff ense w as commi tted, 2) that the specif ically

described prope rty

or items to be sou ght and seiz ed co nstitu te evidence of that o ff ense or

ev ide nce that a parti cul ar perso n committ ed the offense, and 3) thatthe proper ty or i tems in q uest ion are l ocat ed ator on t he par

ti cul ar person, pl ace, or

thi ng s t o be s ear ched. Id. art. 18.01( c)
. W hether the facts menti oned i n the aff ida v itare adeq uate to es tabl is h probabl e c ause depends on t he total ity of the ci rc umstan ces , Ram os v. State, 934 S. W .2d 358, 362-6 3 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1996) , and those c ircums tanc es must appear in the four

co rn ers o f the aff ida v it
. Ca te s v. State, 12 0 S. W .3 d 35 2, 3 55 n .3 ( Tex
. C r i m. App. 2003)
. To be enou g h, t he facts mustper mit the p arty i ss uin g the w ar ra nt t o rea s on ab l y

c on c l ud e th at“ th ere i s a fai r p rob ab i l i ty

t ha t c on trab an d or

e v i de nc e of a c r i me wil l b e foun d in a pa rticular place. ” Il li noi s v . G ates, 462 U .S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct . 231 7, 2332, 76 L. Ed.2d 517 ( 1983)
. And, in re achi ng hi s de cis io n, t he mag is trate may draw re asona ble i nferenc es from the f act s a nd c ircums tanc es all eg ed. Ram os v. State, 934 S.W .2d a t 363
. Fi nal ly , w e do not rev iew the deci si on de n ovo ; rath er the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng is ac corded deference. Swear ing en v . St ate, 143 S.W .3d 808 , 811 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 4). App lication o f the Stan dard Th e disput e before us co ncer ns the reli abi li ty of the i nformant w ho prov ide d the facts all eg ed i n the aff ida v it
. The in formant, Del fina F lores, had been ar re ste d by off ic er3

A ll e n B ro wn fo r p o s s e s s in g m e t h a m p h e t a m in e a n d m a ri ju a n a t h e sa m e d a y B ro wn ex ecut ed th e aff ida v itse eki ng a w ar ra nt. Ac cordin g to Fl ores, appel lant h a d giv en her me tha mp het am ine to sell at her place of w ork. She h ad p icked th e drugs up at ap pellan t’s residen ce tw o da y s earlier at 11:00 p.m . So to o did she disclose tha t app ellanthad more dr ug s a nd dr ug parapher nal ia at hi s resi dence w hen she l eft, thatappel lan t c ontac ted h er by pho ne th e ne xt day to tell her he had bought mo re narco tics for her to se ll, that she sold bet w een $20 0 an d $4 00 worth of narcotics a da y

for app ellant , and thata p p ellant ’s roo mma te , D us ti n Tal i fer ro, a l s o de l i v ered c on trol l ed s ub s ta nc es t o he r from t he s am e re si dence
. This i nformati on prov ide d t h e m a g is trate s ubst anti al basi s t o bel iev e F lores w as credible for the followi ng reasons. Fi rs t, the mag is trate w as not d eal ing wit h an unnamed i nformant. F lores w as ide nti fied as the infor mant and des cr ibe d w here and w hen s he ac q uire d t h e d ru g s from appel lan t and hi s roommate, how appel la n t u se d h e r to s ell dr ug s, and t he v alu e of the dr ug s s he w oul d sell on a dail y basis
. See M

atam or os v. State, 9 0 1 S
. W
. 2 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1995) ( st a ti n g tha t w here the i nformant is named, the a ff ida v iti s e noug h to est abl is h probabl e c ause if i t i s s uff ic ien tl y deta il ed to su g g estdi re ct know led g e on the infor mant’ s p art)
. Seco nd, F lores inc ulp ated hersel f as a dr ug dealer
. Ma rs h v . St ate, Nos. 07- 06- 0263- CR& 0 264- CR , 200 7 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 2931 at *6 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo Apr il 17, 2007, pet. re f’d) ( memorand um opi nio n) ( re cog niz ing thatst atements ag ain st penal int erest s may

i n and of themsel v es ser v e to est abl is h the r e lia b il ity or credi bil ity

of the infor mant)
. Third, t he i nformant did not si mply des cr ibe a on e- ti me deal ; rather , s he di sc los ed an o ngoing cri min al busin ess be tw een herself , app ellant , and the roo mm ate w hich4

enco m p a s sed n ot on ly the pla ce w here at she acquired the drugs, but also th e locale w hereat she sol d them and the amount she sol d on a dai ly basi s. And, it is t h is latter ci rc umstan ce that dis ti ng uis hes our si tuati on from t hat i n State v . Wester , 109 S. W .3d 8 24 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2003, no pet .)
. In W ester , the infor mant w as not par t of a co n ti n u ing cr imi nal ente rp ri se. N or di d he inc ulp ate more than hims elf and the d efendant. Indeed, the W ester co urt not ed th e l ack of thes e c ircums tanc e w hen di sti ng uis hin g i ts ci rc umstan ces from t hose in Me ji a v . St ate , 761 S.W .2d 35 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] th 198 8, pe t. ref ’d) (w here in the informa nt w as de em ed credible since, amo ng othe r things, he g av e the names of the p eopl e from w hom he repeated ly boug ht t he dr ug s)
. Finally , the a f

f idavit includ ed a descript ion of t he hou se f rom which the drugs w ere obtai ned, the mot or

v ehi cl es w hic h w oul d be found adj acentto the house, and the i denti ty of those w ho ow ned t he v ehi cl es. The l atter owne rs h a p pened t o c oin ci de w it h the ind iv idu als w ho s uppl ied F lores her i nv entor y . Simp ly put, the factu al recitatio ns w ithin the a f f idavit w ere en ough to “sugg est direct knowledge on the informa nt’s pa rt.” Ma tam or os v. State , 901 S.W .2d a t 478
. Thus, the tr ial co urt w as jus ti fied i n c oncl udi ng thatF lores w as credi ble
. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice
Do not p ubl is h.