1 ... S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 08- 003- CR
R OB E R T AD AM CL AUN CH AP P E L L ANT V
. TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 297TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- P u rsu a n t t o a p l e a b a rga i n , A p p e l l a n t R o b e rtA d a m C l a u n c h p l e d g u i l ty to pos se ss i on ofa con t r ol l ed su bs t anc e, nam el y m et ham phe t am i ne, i n t he am ount ofone orm or e butl ess t han f ourgr am s, and t he t r i al courtdefer r ed
a d j u d i c a ti o n an d p l a c e d h i m o n thre e y e a r s’ d e ferred ad j u d i c a ti o n co m m u n i ty super vi si on. A ppel l antpr eser ved hi s r i ght t o appeal t he d e n ia l o f hi s pr et r i al2 ... A m a do r v. S tate , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 );

G uzm a nv. S tate , 9 5 5 S .W .2 d 8 5 , 8 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ).

3 ... Ro m ero v. S tate , 8 0 0 S .W .2 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ); Best v. S tate , 1 1 8 S .W .3 d 8 5 7 , 8 6 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.).

4 ... W i e dev. S tate , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d 1 7 , 2 4

– 2 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); S tate v. Ro ss , 3 2 S .W .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), m odif i ed on other groun ds by S tate v. Cul len , 1 9 5 S .W .3 d 6 9 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).

2 m ot i on t o suppr ess al l f r ui t s ofa sear ch ofhi s per son. I n th r ee poi nt s, A ppel lantar gues t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o suppr ess, vi ol at i n g h i s ri ght s unde rt he Fourt h a nd F ourt ee nt h Am end m ent s t o t he C onst i t ut i on o f th e U n i t ed S t at es, underA rt i cl e I , Secti on 9 oft he T exas C onst i t ut i on, and und er art i cl e 38
. 23 oft he T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e. B e c a u s e th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e it s d i s c re ti o n i n d e n y i n g A p p e l l a n t’s
m o ti o n to s u p p res s, w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. W e r evi ew a t r i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess evi dence un der
a b i f u r c a t e d s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w. 2 I n r evi ew i ng t he t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on, w e d o
n o te n g a g e i n o u ro wn f a c t u a l r e v i e w. 3The t r i al j udg e i s t he sol e t r i eroff act
a n d ju d g e o ft h e c r e d ib i l i t y o ft h e w it n e s s e s a n d t h e w e ig h tt o b e g iv e n t h e ir t es t i m ony. 4T h e re fo r e , w e g i v e a l m o s t to ta l d e fe re n c e to th e tri a l c o u rt’s
r ul i ngs on ( 1) que st i ons ofhi st or i ca l f ac t , eve n i ft he t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on oft hos e f ac t s w as not bas ed on an eva l uat i on of cr edi bi l i t y a nd de m ea nor , an d (2 ) a p p l i c a ti o n -of-l a w -t o -f a c t qu e sti o n s th a t t u rn o n a n e v a l u a ti o n o f cred i b i l i ty5 ... A m ado r, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 7 3 ; Mo n tan ez v. S tate , 195 S. W
. 3d 101,

1 0 8

– 0 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); Jo h n so nv. S tate , 68 S
. W
. 3d 644, 652– 53 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ).

6 ... A m ado r, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 7 3 ; E strada v. S tate , 154 S. W
. 3d 604, 607 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); John so n , 68 S
. W
. 3d a t652– 53.

7 ... W i ede , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 2 4 ; S ta tev. Kelly , 204 S
. W
. 3d 808, 818 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).

8 ... Kelly , 204 S. W
. 3d a t818– 19.
9 ... Id
. a t819. 3 a n d d e m e a n o r. 5But w hen app l i ca t i on- of

- l aw - t o- f ac t que st i ons do not t ur n on th e c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r o f th e w i tn e s s e s , w e re v i e w th e tri a l c o u rt’s
r ul i ngs on t hos e q ues t i ons de nov o. 6 St at ed ano t her w ay, w hen r evi ew i ng t he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess, w e m ustvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
cou rt ’ s r ul i ng. 7W hen t he t r i al cou rt m ak es exp l i ci t f ac t f i ndi ngs , w e d et er m i ne
w het hert he evi dence, w hen vi ew ed i n t he li g h t m ostf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
cour t ’ s r ul i ng, suppor t s t hose f actf i ndi ngs. 8 W e th e n re v i e w th e tri a l c o u rt’s l ega l r ul i ng de nov o unl es s i ts e x p l i ci tf ac tf i ndi ngs t hatar e s upport ed by t he
r ec or d a r e a l so di sp os i t i ve oft he l ega l r ul i ng. 9W e m u s t u p h o l d th e tri a l c o u rt’s
r ul i ng i fi ti s suppor t e d b y th e r ecor d and corr ectunderany t heor y ofl aw
a p p l i c a b l e to th e ca se ev e n i f t h e tr i a l co u rtg a v e th e w r o n g r e a so n for i ts10 ... State v. Stevens , 2 3 5 S
. W .3 d 7 3 6 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 );

A rm en da ri

z v. S tate , 1 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), c ert. denied, 5 4 1 U .S . 9 7 4 (2 0 0 4 ). 4 r ul i ng. 10 The e vi den ce att he su ppr es si on hea r i ng sh ow s t he f ol l ow i ng. Dur i ng t he day on Sep t em ber26 , 20 06 , N ort h R i chl and H i l l s of f i cer s execut ed a sear ch
w ar r antf ort he r es i den ce ofLo r a J am es an d J. T. Cr aw f ord
. The w ar r ant aut hor i z ed a s e a r ch f ori l l ega l na r cot i cs . Af t ert he of f i ce r s had be en att he hous e f orap pr oxi m at el y f i f t ee n m i nut es , A ppe l l ant ar r i ved att he bac k d oorof t he hou se. A tt he suppr essi on hear i ng, A ppel l antt est i f i ed t hathe had ar r i ved att he hou se t o hel p J. T
. w ith hi s i nt er netconnecti on. A ppel l antf urt her t es t i f i ed t hat af t er he kno ck ed on t he bac k door , t he door w as ope ned , and he
s a w f o u ro f t h e o f f ic e r s w e a r in g b la c k s k i m a s k s a n d p o in t in g t h e irg u n s a th im
. A p p e lla n ta ls o t e s t if ie d t h a to n e o f t h e o f f ic e r s , S e r g e a n t R ic k S c o t t , p u lle d h im i n to t h e h o u se , p u t him i n h a n d c u ffs, fr i sk e d h i m , a n d se a rch e d h i s p o c k e ts
w i th o u t his co n se n t. S c o tt fo u n d a b a g g i e o f m e th a m p h e tam i n e i n a c i g a rette box i n A ppel l ant ’ s pocket
. W hen t he pol i ce l at erasked f orper m i ssi on t o sear ch A p p e l l a n t ’ s c a r , h e s i g n e d a c o n s e n tf o r m. S er geant S cot tt est i fi ed t hathe answ er ed t he back doo r , i denti f i ed hi m sel f , t ol d A ppel l antt o c o m e in to th e house, and f r i sked hi m . H e asked5

A ppe l l anti fhe ha d a ny c ont r aba nd on hi s per so n ori n hi s veh i cl e. Appel l ant st at ed t hat he di d not . Scot t t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antco ns ent ed t o a s ea r ch of hi s per son. Lat er , t he of f i cer s asked f orper m i ssi on t o sear ch A ppel l ant ’ s car
a n d o b tai n e d a w ri tten co n se n t f o rm si g n e d b yA p p e l l a n t. S er geant S cot tt est i f i ed t hat i tw as t ypi cal “pr ot ocol ” f orof f i cer s t o dr aw t hei r w eapon s i f anyon e ent er ed a secur ed ar ea and t hathe assum ed t he ot her
o ffice rs h a d d o n e s o , b u t a s fo r p o i n ti n g th e i r g u n s a t A p p e l l a n t, th a t “ w o u l d n ’t have hap pened ” because t hatw as notpro to c o l and w oul d have m eantt hat th e i r w e a p o n s w e re p o i n ted at S c o tt. A fte r h e a ri n g c o n fl i c ti n g te s ti m o n yo n th e i s s u e o f c o n s e n t, th e tri a l c o u rt deni ed t he m ot i on t o suppr ess. The t r i al co urten t er ed t he f ol l ow i ng f i ndi ngs of f ac t and co ncl us i ons of l a w : Th e C our t f i nds t haton S ept em ber26 , 20 06 , Sh ane K ot ar a, a p o l i c e o ffi c e r f o r t h e N o r t h R i c h l a n d H i l l s P o l i c e D e p a rt m e n t, o b ta i n e d a s e a rc h w a rra n t to s e a rc h a d u p l e x l o c a te d a t 7 7 1 2 M a ry D r i ve i n t he C i t y ofN ort h Ri chl and H i l l s. The C ourtf i nds t hatt he s e a rc h w a rra n t w a s e x e c u te d o n S e p te m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 b ym e m b e rs oft he N ort h R ic h l and H i l l s Pol i ce D epart m enti ncl udi ng O f f i cer K ot ar a and S er geant R i ck Sco t t . The C o u rtf i nds t hatt he sear ch w ar r antaf f i dav i tna m ed t w o pe r so ns ass us pec t s, Lo r a J am es an d J. T. Cr aw f or d, butt hatt he se ar ch w ar ra n t d i d notl i stt he D ef end ant , RobertA dam C l aun ch, asa su sp ec t . The C ourtf i nds th a t t h e re w a s n o arres t w a rr a n t f o r t h e D e fen d a n t. Th e C our t f i nds t hat af t er ent r y w as m ade and t he r esi dence6

w as be i ng se a rc h e d byt he of f i ce r s, t he D ef end antca m e t o t he b a c k d o o r o f th e re s i d e n c e a n d k n o c k e d o n th e d o o r. T h e C o u rt f i nds t hatSer gea nt Scot t ope ned t he door , i den t i f i ed hi m se l f , an d had t he D ef endan tcom e i nt o t he r esi dence. The C our tf i nds t hat Ser gea ntScot tdi d notpul l t he D ef end anti n to t he r es i den ce but t hathe t ook con t r ol oft he D e fe n d a n t a nd di d a Ter r y f r i sk oran out si de patoft he D ef end ant ’ s c l o th i n g t o l oca t e a ny f i r ea r m s or w eapon s f ort he pr ot ect i on of th e o ff ic er s. The C our tf i nds t hat t he D ef end antw as notunde rar r es t a t th i s t i m e a nd t hatno w ea pons w er e l oca t ed dur i ng t he pat dow n. Th e C our tf i nds t hat af t er t he pat dow n w as com pl et ed t hat t he D ef endan t w as asked f orconsentt o sear ch hi s per son and t hat t he D ef end antga ve hi s vol unt ar y ver bal co ns entf ors uch s ea r ch. The Courtf i ndst hatdur i ng t hi s t i m e Ser gea ntScot tl oca t ed a s u b s t a n c e b e lie v e d t o b e m e t h a m p h e t a m in e in a s m a ll p la s t ic b a g g i e i n side a c i g a rette b o xi n the D e fen d a n t’ s p o c k e t. T h e C o u rt fi n d s th a t d u ri n g th e s e e v e n ts th a t v a ri o u s o ffice rs had w eapon s, i n hand , out of t hei r hol st er s and i n a r eady orposed pos i t i on e i t her b y t hei rs i de orcl os e t o t hei rch es t s butt hatnone of t he w ea pons w er e poi nt ed at t he D ef end ant ori n t he di r ec t i on ofSer gea ntScot tan d t h e D e f end ant . The C ourtf i nds t hatt he D ef endan tgave vol untary ver bal consent f or t he sear ch w hi ch w as noti nduc ed orco er c ed by t he t hr ea tofan y po l i ce of f i ce r . The C ourtf i nds t hatt he D ef end antw as t hen ar r es t ed, ha ndc uf f ed and l at ergave hi s w r i t t en consent f ort he sear ch ofhi s vehi cl e. The Courtf i nds t hatt he i ss ue bef or e t he C ourti s w het heror n o tt h e D e f e n d a n tg a v e v o lu n t a r yc o n s e n tf o rt h e s e a r c h o fh is per so n. W i t h t he f ac t s oft hi s ca se , w i t houtt he vol unt ar y c ons ent o f th e D e fen d a n t, the o ffi c e rs w o u l d n o t ha v e h a d the au th o ri ty to c o n d u c t a s e a rc h o f th e D e fe n d a n t a fte r th e yfi n i s h e d th e T e rry f r i sk orpat dow n t o l ocat e any possi bl e w eapon s. T h e Cou rt c on c l ud e s a s a m a t t e r of l a w t ha t c on se n t t o se ar ch i s one oft he w el l

- es t abl i sh ed exc ept i o n s to t he const i t ut i onal r equi r em ent s of both a w ar r antand pr obab l e cause. T h e C o u rtco n c l u d e s a s a m a tter of l a w tha t t h e S tate i s b o u n d to11 ... W i ede , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 2 4

– 2 5 ; Ross , 32 S
. W
. 3d a t855. 7 s h o w b y c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e t h a tt h e c o n s e n tw a s f r e e ly gi ven . T h e Co u rth a s h e a r d c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i mo n yf r o m t wo p o l i ce of f i ce r w i t nes se s and t he D ef end anthi m se l fon t he i ss ue of consent. The C our t m ust det er m i ne t he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nesses and t he w ei ght t o be gi ven t o t he t est i m ony. H er e t her e i s no ot her evi den ce orvi deo t ape t o a i d the Courti n i t s det er m i nat i on c o n c e rning the v o l u n tari n e ss o f t h e co n se n t. The Courtf i nds t hatt he St at e h as s how n b y c l e a ran d con vi nci ng e vi den ce i n t hi s ca se t hatco ns entw as f r ee l y a nd vol untar i l y gi ven by the D ef endan tin th is case, Ro bertA dam C l a u n c h , a n d the refo re th e C o u rth a s d e n i e d the M o ti o n to Suppr es s and co ncl ude s as a m att erofl aw t hatt he evi d e n c e of m et ham phetam i ne i s adm i ssi bl e. Thus , t he t r i al co urtco ncl ude d t hat A ppe l l antga ve vol unt ar y ve r bal co ns entf or t he sear ch ofhi s per son and t hat t he consent w as nei t heri ndu ced norcoer ced b yth e th re a t o f a n yp o l i c e o ffice r. B e c a u se the tr i a l j u d g e i n a m o t io n to su p p res s i s th e so l e tr i e r of fac t,
w h e n th e e v i d e n c e c o n fl i c ts , a s i t d o e s i n th i s c a s e , th e tri a l c o u rt’s det e rm i n a ti o n ofcr edi bi l i t y w i l l notbe di st ur bed i fi ti s su pport ed by t he
r ec or d. 11 The t r i al co urt ’ s f i ndi ngs an d c o n cl us i ons , i ncl udi ng t he con cl us i on t hatco ns entw as vol unt ar y, ar e s upport ed by t he r ec or d.8

A ppl yi ng t he app r opr i at e s t and ar ds ofr evi ew , w e t her ef or e h ol d t hatt he tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts d i sc reti o n i n d e n y i n g A p p e ll a n t ’ s m o ti o n to
s u p p re s s . W e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’s th re e p o i n ts a n d a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 12, 2009