NO. 07-07 -009 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER28, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ T HE ST AT E OF TE XAS, APPE LLA NT

V. MO SES GALVA N RI CO , J R. , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 173 77- B; H ON ORABLE JOH N B. B OAR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ell e e , Mose s Galv an Rico, Jr. w as indicte d for inten tiona lly and knowi ngly posse ssing l ess tha n o n e gram of met ham phe tam ine. Rico f iled a m otion to supp ress all eg ing , among oth e r grounds , t hat a rt ic les 18.0 6( a) and 18.07 of the Tex as Cod e ofAll article referen ces he rein are to th e T exas Code of Cri min al Proced ure un less 1 other w is e not ed. 2 Cr imi nal Procedu re w ere v iol ated becau se the s earch w ar ra nt was not timel y ex ecut ed. 1 The tr ial co urt ag re ed, a nd R ic o’s moti on was g ra nted. The S tate f ile d t h is ac cel erated app eal cha llenging the trial court’s order by one conte ntion , to-w it: the t rial cou rt erred in g ra nti ng Ri co’ s moti on to suppress becau se the search w ar ra nt w as ti me ly executed. Therefore, t he i ss ue before thi s C our t i s t he proper

co mputati on of the ti me to ser v e a search w ar ra nt. The resol uti on of thati ss ue is a q uest ion of l aw tur nin g upon t he proper i nt er pret at i on o f ar

ti c l es 1 8. 06 ( a)a nd 1 8. 07

. W e affi r m.

St and ard o f Rev iew Generall y , a tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a moti on to su ppress i s rev ie wed for a buse of dis creti on. Balenti

ne v. State , 71 S. W .3d 763 , 768 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). How ever, this appeal present s s ole ly

a q uest ion of l aw based on undi sput ed facts w hic h i mpli cat es a de n o vo re view. See Dyar v. Sta te , 125 S.W .3d 4 60, 4 62 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003)

. Se e also Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 8 5, 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

.

Timely Exec ution of

Sear ch Wa rrant T he ma x imu m life sp an of a se arch w arrant is det ermin ed b y article 18.0 6(a) w hich prov ide s that it “mus t be ex ecut ed w it hin three day s from the ti me of its iss uance .” W il li am s v . St ate, 965 S.W .2d 506 , 507 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 8) (holding thata warrant w hichSeeTe x . Gov’t C ode Ann. §§ 31 1.0 01-3 11. 034 (Verno n 200 5 & Sup p. 2007 ). All 2 section referen ces he rein are referen ces to the T exas Go v ernm entCode un less oth erw ise noted. 3 direct s i t be re tur ned w it hin t h re e days, ex cl usi v e of the day of it s e x ecut ion , may

be ex ecut ed atany

ti me on t he fourt h day after the date of is suanc e)

. T he m eth od o f

comp uting the period o f t im e for execution o f

a search warrantis det ermin ed b y

article 18.0 7, w hich prov ides that the time allowed for execution of a search w ar ra nt “ shal l be th re e wh ole day s, ex cl usi v e of the day of i ts is suanc e and of the day of i ts e x ec ut i on .” ( Em ph as i s a dd ed )

. A se arc h w ar ran t t ha t i s note x ec ut ed w i th i n th e ti me period p rov ided b y

a rticles 1 8.0 6(a) and 1 8.0 7 beco me s “f unct us of f icio.” Gr

een v . St ate , 799 S. W .2d 7 56, 7 59 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990)

. Hav ing fulfil led the purpose of its creati on, an u ntim ely serv ed se arch w arrant is of no f u rt h e r of

f icial fo rce or ef

fect an d an y

search w hose leg ali ty depends on that w ar ra nt is unautho ri z ed. Swanson v. State, 11 3 Tex .C r i m. 104 , 105 , 18 S. W .2d 108 2 (192 9). T he St ate conte nds a rticles 18.0 6(a) and 18.0 7 are irreconcilab le beca use a rticle 18.07 ru ns cont ra ry

to the c o m mon l aw

method for c omputati on of ti me and t he metho d p ro vide d by § 3 1 1 .0 1 4 (a ) of th e C o d e C o n st ru ct io n A ct wh ich pro vide s, “[i ]n co m p u ti n g a 2 p e ri o d o f d a ys , t h e f irs td a y is e xc lu d e d a n d t h e la s td a y is in c lu d e d

. ” U n d e r t h is t h e o ry, the State argues thatthe m ore recen tly ame nde d stat ute , art icle 18.0 7, sho uld con trol. See§ 311 .02 5(a). W e do not f ind th e stat ute s to be irrecon cilable an d dism iss this arg ument.Actof Ma y 27, 1965, 59 Leg ., ch. 722, § 1, 1965 Tex . G en. L aws 3 17, 3 86, 3 t h am ended by, Act of May 24, 1973, 63 Leg. , R.S. , ch. 399, § 2, 1973 T ex . Gen. La ws 8 83,

rd 984. 4 Next, the S tate cont ends that the p e rio d wit h in w hic h a s earch w ar ra nt mus t be ex ecut ed i s c omputed from the t ime i t i s i ss ued, appl y ing the ordin ar y meanin g of “day” to mean a tw enty-four

hour per iod

. By

ex cl udi ng the “d ay ” of it s is suanc e and the “day” of its execution , the State conte nds th at a sea rch w arrant m ust be ex ecut ed wi thin 120 hou rs o f t h e d a t e a n d h o u r o f

it s is s u a n c e (two e xc lu d e d “ d a y s ” p lu s “t h re e wh o le d a y” twe n tyfour hou r per iod s)

. See § 312 .00 2(a) (provi ding tha t w ords shall be g iv en th e iro rd in ary me anin g) . Th e Sta te ha s not pro v ided , and we d o notf ind, a ny aut hority supportin g this int er pretati on of ar

ti cl es 18.06( a) and 18.07. Therefore, w e di sag re e. To the c ontrar

y , i n Gonz

ale z v. Sta te , 768 S.W .2d 4 36 ( Tex .App. –Ho u sto n [1s t D is t.] 1989, no pet .) , a search w ar ra nt was is sued on October 1, 1 9 8 7 , a t 5 :2 0 p.m., and ex ecut ed on October

5, 1987, at 9: 30 p. m. Id. at 43 7. The cour t uph eld ex ecut ion of the w arrant a nd opine d tha t excluding the day of issuance and the da y

of ex ecut ion, a search w ar ra nt had to be ex ecut ed bym idn ig ht of the fourth day

after the day of it s i ss uance . Id. at 43 8. In s uppor

t of its co ncl usi on, t he c our t not ed th at al thoug h a mag is trate i s req uired to en dorse on th e s earch w ar ra nt t he dat e and hour of i ts is suanc e, t here i s n o req uirement to inc lud e the hour of execut ion of a search w ar ra nt in the o ff ic er ’s retur n. The Gonz ale z cour t con clu d e d t hat t he i ntentof the 1 965 c ode rev is ion of arti cl e 18. 07 ( addi ng the 3 re q uirement that a “mag is trate is sui ng a search w ar ra nt .
. . end orse on s uch w ar ra nt t he5

date and hou r of the i ss uance of the s ame”)w a s to p ro vi de c ertai nty as to the t ime of is suanc e of the search warra n t, and notto prov ide a s tar ti ng pl ace for c alc ula ti on of the w ar ra nt’ s max imum v ali dity . W hil e notex press ly

adopt ing thi s b ri g ht l ine r ule req uir ing thata s earch w ar ra nt be executed bymidn ight o f the fourth day aft er its issuance , the Court of Cri min al App eals in Gr een v . St ate, 799 S.W .2d 756, 761 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1990) , did hol d tha t a search w ar ra nt is sued on M arch 20, 198 7, an d ex ecut ed on Ma rc h 25, 1987, w as sta le w hen execut ed re sul ti ng in an i nv ali d s earch. See also Ma ttei v. St ate , 455 S.W .2d 7 61 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1970) ( Judg e Oni on di ss enting, hol din g thata s earch w ar ra nt i ss ued on Dec ember 5, 1968, and ex ecut ed on Dec ember 10, 1968, “woul d hav e c lea rl y been in v iol ati on” of the re q uirement t hat a se arch w ar ra nt be exe cut ed w it hin three w hol e days a fter i t was is sued, ex cl usi v e of the day

of is suanc e and day

of ex ecut ion ). Id. at 76 7. The undi sput ed facts in thi s cas e est abl is h that the w ar ra nt in q uest ion w as is sued on A ug us t 19 , 20 05 , at 2 :1 0 p. m and it was e x ecut ed o n Au g us t 24 , 20 05 , at9 :1 0 a. m. Ag re ein g w it h Gonz

ale z , we c oncl ude t he State had until m idn ig ht on the fourth day after the s earch w ar ra nt was is sued in w hic h to ex ecut e it. T herefore, as appl ied to the fact s o f thi s c ase, the Stat e had unti l midnighton A ug ust23, 2005, to execut e the w ar ra nt. Excl udin g the date of issuan ce (August 19 ), and the last day for legal ex ecut ion (August th 23 ), the Stat e had three w hol e day s (A ug ust 20 , 21 , and 22 ) to ex ecut e the war ra nt. rd th st nd Hav ing failed t o t imel y ex ecut e the se arch w ar ra nt, the war ra nt was sta le and “ functus6

of f icio.” T here fore, an y

search pu rsuan t to tha t w arrant was inv alid. T he St ate ’s sole cont ent ion is overr uled . Consequen tly , the trial court’s order grant ing M oses Ga lv an Rico’s moti on to su ppress i s a ff ir med.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Publ is h.