### 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- 07 -0 01 20 -C R

______________________________ MI CHAEL

CL EVELAND, Appe llant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 34971-B

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. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Mic h a e l C le v e la

n d e n te r e d ano p e np le a

o f g u il ty to p o s s e s s io no f

a c o n tr o ll e d

s u b s tance
. On appe al, he c omplains that the trial court erre d by denying his motion to suppress the c ontraba nd that was the basis of the prosec ution, be cause it wa s obtained pursuant to a n illega l a rre st. Cleve land argues that there was no probable cause to justi fy arr esting him for public intox ication. We disag ree and af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. 1. Bac kgr ound F ac ts The e vidence shows t h at C leveland w as a pa sseng er in a car stopped by

Offic er G lenda Merr ell of t h e Kilg ore Police D epar tment who was patrolling in an a rea of the c ity

known for
narc otics violations. She stopped the car bec ause it had no lice nse plate. The driver a nd Cleveland stepped out, and she asked the driver if she could sear ch the car . He assented, and she found va rious
narc otics para

pherna lia, including some straws with white re sidue inside, and some bits and piec es of marihua

na scattered a

bout. She arre sted the driver and then, ba sed on wh at s h e d escribed as Cleveland' s "slurr ed spee ch, re d, bloodshot ey es, and [beca use he] appea

red to be intox icated," and be c a us e he a dmi tte d d

ri nk ing , s he arr e ste d h im a s w e ll. At that point, Merre ll put both the driver and C leveland in the back seat of her squad car and took the m to jail. When she c hecke d the bac k seat a fter bookingthem, she found two small bag g ies
o f w h i t e p o wd er

re s i d u e. On p l ay i n g t h e v i d eo t ap e ( wh i ch wa s ru n n i n g t h e w h o l e t i m e) , al t h o u gh the camera

was pointed out the windshield, t h e ir c o nv e r sation was cle arly

audible, and w as explained3

by Merr ell as follows, " You could hear Mr. Cleveland coac hing the 18-y ear -old white male on how to ge t the substance out of his mouth and hide it in t he seat." 2. P ublic Int ox ic at ion Ele m e nt s A per son commits an offense if the person appea rs i n a public plac e while intoxi cate d to the deg ree that the per s o n m ay en d ang er the person or another . T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.02(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). I n this case, the issue is not whe ther the e vidence is sufficient to uph o l d a findingthat Cleveland wa s g uilty , bey ond a re asonable doubt, of t he offense of public intox ication, as he was not
c on vic te d o f t

hat of fe ns e . H e re , th e iss ue is w he the r M e rr e ll h a d p ro ba ble c a us e to a rr e st. Pr ob a

ble
c a us e e xists if the of

fi c e r ha s re a so na

bly tr us tw or thy inf or matio n s uf

fi c ie nt t o w arr ant a

re a so na ble belief an offe nse has been or is being committed. Mc Ge e v . S tate , 1 05 S.W. 3d

60 9, 61 4 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2003). While probable c ause require s more than mere suspicion, it re quires fa r less evide nce than the evidenc e neede d to suppor t a conviction. Mi dd

le ton v . S tate , 1 2 5 S. W. 3 d

4 5 0 , 4 6 0 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2003). 3 . St a nd a r d o f R e v ie w I n re vie wi ng a wa

rr antl e ss arr e st to d e te rm ine the e xiste nc e of pr ob a ble c a us e , c ourt s sh ou ld examine the facts known t o the officer at the time of the a rre st. Am or es v . S

tate , 816 S.W .2d 407, 41 5 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Car te r v . S tate , 150 S.W .3d 230, 240 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004,
no pe t.) . Wh e the r p ro ba

ble c a us e e xists is d e te rm ine d b y a pp lyingthe " tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s"4

test. Amores , 8 16 S.W. 2d a t 41 3. Th e State be ars the burd e n to pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of pr ob a ble
cause to justify

a wa rra ntless arre st or sear ch. Id. An of fi c e r ha s pr ob a

ble c a us e to make an a

rr e st wh e n th e fa c ts a

nd c ir c ums tanc e s w ith in t

he of fi c e r' s k no wl e dg e , a

nd of wh ic h h e ha s r eason a

ble tr us tw or thy inf or matio n, are su ff

ic ie nt t o w arr ant a

pe rs on of re a so na ble c a uti on to b e lie ve that a p arti c u la r p e r s o n h a s c o mm itte d o r is c o mm itti n g an o f fense
. Id. ; Ra nd

olp h v . S tate , 152 S.W .3d 764, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pe t.). Th e sta nd ard fo r r e vie wi nga

tr ia l court ' s r

uli ngon a mot ion to s up pr e ss e vid e nc e is a bu se of discre tion. Ol es v . S

tate , 993 S .W .2 d 103, 10 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Fr e e ma n v . S tate , 62 S.W .3d 883 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref' d). At a hea ring on a motion to suppress, the trial court is the sole trier

of fa ct and judge of the cre dibilit y of the witnesse s as well as the weig ht to be g iven their testimony
. Ro me ro v . S tate , 800 S.W .2d 539, 543 (Tex. Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 90). We thus aff ord almost total defe renc e to the trial court' s deter mination of historical fac ts that th e record
su pp or ts, e sp e c ia lly

wh e n th e fa c t- fi nd ing s a

re ba se d o n an e va luatio n of the wi tne sse s' c re dib ili ty 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. Th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at the su pp re ssi on he a

ri ng is vie we d in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the trial cour

t's r uling to dete rmine whe ther the trial court abused its discr etion in de nying the motion to suppress. State v. Dixon , 206 S.W .3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).5

4. Appli cation of L aw—Probable Cause to Ar rest J udg ed in that light, ther e is evidenc e that, on a r ainy Dec ember

night at 2:07 a.m., Cleveland admitted to the o ff

i cer he ha d "be en drinking ." I n the offic er' s opinion, Cl evela nd was in an intox icated state to the extent that it would have been da ng erous f or him to walk away
. He was then on a public hig hway

in Kilgor e and ha d no one loca lly available who could esc ort him to safety . The office r base d her c onclusion of proba ble ca use to arr est on Cleveland 's slurred spe ech, bloodshot ey es, admission that he had be en drinkingalcohol and his location (now afoot) in a high c rime ar ea, with no one ava ilab l e t o p ick him up. Com pa re W ar de n v . S tate , 8 9 5 S. W. 2 d

7 5 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 19 94 , p e t. r e f' d) . T he se fa c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc es we re su ff ic ie nt t o w arr ant a pe rs on of re a so na ble c a uti on to b e lie ve that Cle ve land ha d co mm itt e d th e of

fe ns e of pu bli c intox ication. The tria l court did not abuse its discre tion. The contention of e rror is overrule d. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

J ack Ca rter Carter Date Submitted: Marc h 28, 2008 Date D ecide d: April 9, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh