We no te that a pp ellant’s nam e in the ind ictm ent in Cause No. 11 -07 -00 37 2-CR w as A nd rew Craw f ord Collier and that 1 appe lla nt’s nam e in t

he indic tm ent

in Ca use N o. 11- 07-00373- CR w as A ndre w Cr aw f ord C olli er , Jr. Opinion filed July 23 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### Nos . 11 -0 7- 00 37 2- CR & 11 -0 7- 00 37 3- CR

____ ____ __ AN DR EW C RA WFOR D C OLLIER , JR ., Ap pellant
V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 350th Distric t Court

Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 8298D & 7540D

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n Cause No. 11-07-00372- CR, the t rial court convicted Andr ew Cra wford Collier, Jr., upon 1 his ple a of g uil ty , o f p os se ssi on of cocain e wi th i nte nt t o d e liv e r. Th e tr ia l c ourt a sse sse d h is p u n i s h m en t at ten y ear s confineme nt. I n Cause No. 11- 07-00373-CR, the trial cour t convicted app e ll an t, u

p o n h is p le a o f g u il ty , o f p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt p la c e d a p p e ll ant on

c omm un ity su pe rv isi on fo r f our y e ars . T he State fi le d a mot ion to r e voke a

pp e lla nt’ s c omm

un ity2

supervision alleg ing numerous vi olations of the t erms and c onditions of his communi ty supervision including: c ommitt ing the offe nse of possession w ith intent to deliver a controlled substanc e, using alcohol, and usingmarihuana

. Appellant pleaded true to those three alleg ations, and the trial court

re vo ke d a pp e lla nt’ s c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on and a sse sse d p unish me nt at f our ye ars c on fi ne me nt. We a ff ir m. I n his sole issue on appea l, a ppellant argues that the trial court e rre d in denying his motion to suppress. A trial c ourt’s denia l of a motion to suppr es s i s reviewed for an abuse of discre tion. Ba le nti ne v . S

tat e , 71 S.W.3 d 763 , 7 68 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Carawa yv . S tat e , 255 S.W .3d 302, 30 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —E a stl and 20 08 , n o p e t.)

. I n r e vie wi nga tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on

a mot ion to s up pr e ss,
an ap p el l at e c o u rt m u s tv i ew t h e e v i d en ce i nt h e l i g h t m o s tfa v o rab l e t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’s ru l i n g. Sta te v . Ke lly , 204 S.W .3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We must give g reat defe renc e to the trial court’ s findings of historical facts as l ong as t he record supports the findings. Torre s v . S tat e , 18 2 S. W.3 d 8 99 , 9 02 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); G uz m a n v . Stat e , 95 5 S.W. 2d 85 , 8 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997). We also g ive defere nce to the t rial court’s ruling s on mix ed questions of lawand fa ct when those r

ulings turn on a

n evaluation of cre dibilit y and deme anor. Guzman , 955 S.W .2d at 89. Where such r

ulings do not turn on an e valuation of c redibility and dem ea n o r, we review the trial court’s a ctions de novo. Id. Offic er Chad Jenkins, a spec ial operations ag ent for the Abilene Police De partment, testified that he re ceive d information from a confide ntial informant that a black male dr iving atan, mid19 80 s mo de l Ca dil la c wa s se lli ng c ra c k c oc a ine in the 14 00 blo c k of Me sq uit e . T he inf

or mant a lso g a v e O f f ic e r Je n k in s th e ma

n ’ s a p p r o xim a te a g e , h e ig h t, an d w e ig h t. O nJa n u ar

y 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , the confide ntial informan t co n t acte d Offic er Jenkins with additional information that the same blac k male wa s seate d in the Cadillac in the 1400 block of Mesquite and wa s wea

ring a base ball cap, ta

n jacke t, and blue jea

ns. The informant stated t hat t he black male wa s in possession of cra ck coc aine t hat was inside a black plastic trash bag

. Offic er J enkins went direc tly to the location and saw a black male wea

ring clothing that matched the descr iption. He was sitting in a ve hicle that matche d the inf or ma tio n. Ap pe lla

nt’ s p hy sic a l de sc ri pti on

a lso ma tc he d th a t g ive n b y the inf or mant. Offic er Jenkins testified t hat he and Age nt Steve R og ers passed by the vehicle and noted a lic e ns e plate numbe r. Of fi c e r Jenk ins pla

nn e d to re tur

n to the statio n a

nd ob ta in a se arc h w arr ant.3

Howeve r, whe n Offic er Jenkins drove by the location a se cond time, he saw the black male leaving the re sidence of a known drug deale r. Offic er J enkins and Ag ent Roge rs decide d to make conta ct with the individual when he e ntere d the public roa dway . Appellant identified himself to the office rs
a ft e r t he y we nt u p to him . T he of

fi c e rs tol d a

pp e lla nt t he y ha d r e a so n to be li eve he was in possession of coc aine a

nd reque sted consent to sea rch a ppellant. Appellant de nied c onsent to sear ch. Of fi c e r Je nk ins then in for me d a pp e lla nt t hat he ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to b e lie ve a

pp e lla nt w a s in po sse ssi on

of c oc a ine and

that he wa s g oin g to c on du c t a se arc h. Ap pe lla

nt t he n y e lle d to th e pe op le ins ide of the re sid e nc e
. Th e of fi c e rs tho ug ht a

pp e lla nt mig ht ru

n awa y , and the y g ra

bb e d him by

his clothing. O ffice r Jenkins reache d into appellant’s pocke t and found a black pla s t i c t ra sh bag containing cra ck coc aine. Of fice r J enkins arr ested appellant a nd advised him of his rig hts. Upon

a fu rt he r s e arc h o f a

pp e llant, Offic e r Je nk ins fo un d $ 63 2. Ap pe lla nt d e nie d c on se nt t o s e arc h h is

ve hic le . O ff

ic e r Je nk ins c a lle d f

or a ssi sta nc e in s e c ur ingthe ve hic le wh ile he le ft the sc e ne to o bta in

a sea rch w arr ant for a

ppellant’s vehic le. Ap pe lla nt s pe c if ic a lly argue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis mot ion

to s up pr e ss beca use he w as sea

rche d pursuant to an unlawful arre st. Howeve r, Officer J enkins testified that he found the drug s in appellant’s p o ck et prior to placingappellant unde r ar rest. The drug s were not found as a

result of a

sear ch incident to ar

rest. Circumstance s short of probable cause may justify a temporar y detention for the purpose of investigation. Gar

za v. S tat e , 7 71 S.W. 2d

54 9, 55 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ); My e rs v . S tat e , 203 S.W .3d 873, 882-83 (Te x . App.—Eastland 2006, pe t. re f ’ d )

. A te mporary

detention is justified when the detainingoffice r has spe cific a rticulable f

acts that, take n toge ther with rational infere nces f rom tho se fa c ts, le a d h im t o c on c lud e tha t th e pe rs on

de ta ine d is , has be e n, or

so on wi ll b e e ng a g e d in criminal ac tivity

. My e rs , 20 3 S.W. 3d a t 88 2- 83

. Th e art ic ula ble fa c ts us e d by the of

fi c e r m us t c re a te

so me re a so na

ble su sp ic ion

that so me a c tiv ity

ou t of the or din ary

is oc c ur ri ng or ha s oc c ur

re d, so me sug g estion to connec t the detainee with the unusual ac tivity , and some indication that the unusual activity is related to c rime. Ga rza , 771 S.W .2d at 558. Offic e r Je nk ins re c e ive d s pe c if ic inf or ma tio n th a t a

pp e lla nt w a s in po sse ssi on

of dr ug s. Offic er Jenkins rece ived a de tailed desc ription of appellant and his location. Officer J enkins verif

ied the information he rec eived a nd then saw a

ppellant leavinga house w here Offic er Jenkins knew4

drug s were sold. Office r Jenkins h ad re as o n ab le suspicion to detain appe llant. After de taining appellant, the office rs phy sically restra ined appe llant when it appea red a s though he might attempt to run awa

y
. Whil e restraining appellant, Office r J enkins rea ched into appellant’s pocke t and found

cra ck coc aine. We must no w d et ermine w hether Offic er Jenkins had probable cause to searc h

a pp e lla nt. Probable c ause to sea

rch e x ists when the totality of the c ircumstance s allows a conc lusion that there i s a fa i r p ro b ability of finding contra

band or e vidence at a pa

rticular loc ation. Dixon v. Sta te , 206 S.W .3d 613, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Probable cause is a fluid conc ept that turns on the assessment of probabiliti es i n particula r factual contex ts. Id . I n Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supre me Court develope d th e t o t ality -of- the-c ircumstance s test to replac e the “ twoprong ed test” of Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 (1964). Dixon , 206 S.W .3d at 616. Under the Gates test, th e “verac ity ” and “ basis of knowledg e” pr ong s of Aguilar for a ssessing the usefulness of an informant’s tips ar e n o t independe nt. Id. They are rele vant consider ations in the tot a lity -o f- the -c ir c ums tanc e s ana ly sis that tr a dit ion a lly ha s g uid e d p ro ba ble -c a us e de te rm inatio ns , and a de ficienc y

in one may

be compe nsated for

by a strongshowing as to the other. Id. Off ic e r Je nk ins re c e ive d in fo rm a tio n f ro m a “ qu a lif ie d” c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant. Offic er Jenkins was familiar with the informant and ha d worke d with the i nformant in the pa st. The informant provide d Offic er J enkins with detailed information of appellant’s r ece nt where abouts and wi th h is p os se ssi on

of c ra c k c oc a ine . A n in fo rm ant’ s f ir sth and ob ser vat io n of

c ri min a l a c tiv ity prov i d es a s t ro n g b asis for the inf ormant’s knowle dg e of the fac ts he rela y s. Id. at 617. The informant g ave O ffice r Jenkins num erous ve rifiable de tails such as appe llant’s loca t i o n, phy sical descr iption, clothing desc ription, and the make and model of the vehicle. Of fi ce r J enkins went immediately

to the location and ve rified the de t ai l s given by the informant. Of

fice r Jenkins saw appellant in the de scribed ve h i cle at the location the informa nt provided. Soon therea fter, Offic er Jenkins observed a ppellant leave a re sidence wher e drug s were sold. Of fi c e r Je nk ins c or

ro bo ra te d th e de ta ils g ive n b y

the inf or mant p ri or

to d e ta ini nga

pp e lla nt. Corrobor at i n g the exist ence of the c ocaine befor e police ma y sear ch for

that coca ine is neither

n e c e s s ar y n o r , in ma

n y c a s e s , p o s s ible. Id. at 619. Off icer J enkins had proba

ble ca use to believe5

appellant ha d cra ck coc aine in his possession; there fore , the trial cour t did not err in deny

ing appellant’ s motion t o suppress. See id. Appellant’s sole issue on a ppeal is over

ruled. I n Ca us e No . 1 1- 07 -0 03 73 -C R, a pp e lla nt ple a de d tr

ue to f our v iol a tio ns of

his c omm

un ity supervision as alleg ed in the State’s motion to revoke . Two of the a lleg ation s involved the conviction in Cause No. 11- 07-00372-CR. The trial court did not err in denying a

ppellant’s motion to su p p re s s in Cause No. 11-07- 00372-CR. Moreover , appellant plea ded true to two other alleg ations. Proof of a violation of a single term or c ondition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial cour

t’s decision to revoke

. Mo or e v . S tat e , 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). We have considere d all of appe llant’s arguments on appea l, and all ar e over ruled. The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

J I M R. W RI GHT

CH I EF JUSTI CE

J uly 23, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.