T ex. H ealth and Safety C ode Ann. , § 481 .11 2(a) (Vernon 200 3). 1 NO. 07-06 -043 4-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 PANEL D JU LY28, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ GABRIE L PEREZ, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 5- 408,866 ; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPINION Appel lant, G abr iel Perez , pl ed g uil ty i n open cour

t t o the felony

offense of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e ( coc ain e) w it h i ntentto del iv er , enhanc ed, a nd w as 12

sent enced to si xty

y ears confine ment. He cont ends by tw o i ss ues that the t ri al cour t er re d w hen i t den ied hi s moti on to su ppress al l phy si cal ev ide nce and al l sta tements made as a resul t of an i ll eg al search and ar re st. W e aff ir m. Back ground A Lubb ock

C ounty G ra nd J ur

y retur ned an ind ic tment charg ing Appel lan t w it h poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance (t o- w it : c o ca ine) w it h i ntentto del iv er . Appel lan t subs eq uentl y

fil ed a moti on to suppress all phy si cal ev ide nce and al l his st atements
. At the h ear ing , D PS Troopers Katr ina Jones and Cor ina Gainey testi fied that on Aug ust12, 2004, they

w ere trav eli ng eas t on the U .S. 87 front ag e road at C o u n ty Roa d 7200 w hen the y stopp ed a car becau se its regi stration h ad expired. A s Jone s app roach ed th e driv er, Gai ney approache d the pas seng er . Appel lan t w as the p ass eng er . Nei ther the dr iv er

nor the p ass eng er

co u ld produc e a d ri v er ’s l ic ense and bot h appea re d to be ner v ous. A li cens e c heck

rev eal ed th at the dri v er had outs tandi ng w ar ra nts
. It w as als o det er mined tha t the car belon ged to a th ird party. T h e t ro o p ers arrested the driver, read him his Mi ra nda r ig hts , and pl aced him in the front s eat o f the pat ro l car . At t he troopers’ req uest , Ap pel lan t v olu ntar il y ste pped out of t he car . Jo nes ask ed Appel lan t i f he had any w eapons or nar cot ic s i n the ca r and he answ ered, “ No. ” W hen t he troop ers f risk ed Ap pellan t as a safety precautio n, th ey not iced he had a w hite p owdery subs tanc e on his bl ack

pant s. As he s tood by

the ro adsi de, they

se ar ched the c ar

i nci dent to t he dr iv er ’s ar re st. I n the ca r, they di sc ov ered s cal es cov ered w it h a w hit e re si due in the3

glov e com partm ent o n the passe nger side. Th ey also no ticed a similar w hite p owdery subs tanc e on the flo or board on the pass eng er si de w hil e the dr iv er ’s si de floor board w as cl ean. They

bel iev ed th e w hit e s ubst ance w as coc ain e. Gai ney as ked Appel lan t t o remov e hi s s hoes and he re fuse d

. She ad v is ed Appel lan t he w as under ar re st for pos ses si on of dr ug parapher nal ia, handc uff ed hi m, and place d him in the ba ckseatof the pa trol car behin d the driv er. Appe llant wa s read his Mi ra nda r ig hts and he i ndi cat ed th at he understo od th ose ri g hts

. The troopers t hen re sumed thei r search of the c ar . Af ter com pletin g the ir search, Jone s returne d to th e pa trol car and sa t in the back seatw it h Appe ll ant. She noti ced A p p e lla nt w as v er y ner v ous and had remov ed a shoe. Af ter the y arriv ed a t the coun ty jail, Gaine y searche d the p a t ro l car and foun d six ind iv idu all y -w ra pped rock s o f cocai ne unde rn eath the front pass eng er seat. T he c ocai ne ro ck s w er e i n pl ast icbag g ies and appeared to hav e been ki ck ed under neath the front s eat f rom th e rear seatw here Appe llant ha d sat while being transpo rted to the cou nty j ail. Jones pl aced Appel lan t under ar re st for pos ses si on of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. Sh e the n adv is ed App ell ant t hat, if he c ar ri ed any co ntroll ed s ubst ance int o the jai l, the p oss ess ion charg e w oul d b e bumped up to a hi g her ch arg e bec ause they

had entered a cont ro ll ed facil ity w it h a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. Ap pel lan t respon ded that he had a n addi ti onal rock of coc ain e i n hi s s ock

. The troopers s ecured th e addi ti onal narcot ic s a nd book ed App ell ant. T he rocks locate d und er the f ront seat and the rock foun d in App ellant ’s sock, w hich w ereIn his brief , App ellantcites only the followi ng statem entbythe trial court in sup port 2 of his conte ntion thata ruling w as ma de o n his mo tion to supp ress: “S inc e thi s i s s et for

tr ial on M onday , i f y ou- all w ant t o presentanythi ng to the Cou rton M onday

mor nin g at 8:30, y ou may do so. I doubt the C our t’ s r uli ng is g oin g to be any

di ff erent t han i t w as in Mr . Erev ia’ s c ase, but –. “

4 si mil ar to the w hit e pow der

y substa nce found on the scal es in the g lov e c ompartment and floor board on the p ass eng er si de of the v ehi cl e, t est ed pos it iv e for coc ain e. At t he end of the heari ng , w it hout maki ng a definit iv e r uli ng on t he record, t he tr ial cour t ex pr ess ed doub t as to w hether i ts r uli ng w oul d be any diff erent f ro m a r uli ng i ss ued in another cr imi nal cas e i nv olv ing the dr iv er of the v ehi cl e. O ur

rev iew of the remaini ng 2 re cord rev eal s n o addi ti onal i ndi cat ion thatthe tr ial co urt ev er r ule d on Appel lan t’ s mot ion

. Fur ther more, the re cord does not re flectthe tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng i n the othe r cr imi nal ca se, nor w hether the is sues present ed i n ei ther hear ing w ere s imi lar

. Discus sion Appel lan t c ontends hi s i nit ial ar re st for pos ses sion of dr ug parapher nal ia lac ked probabl e cause becau se the car ’s dri v er clai med ow nershi p of

the sc ale s. M oreov er , he a ss e rt s t h e tro o p e rs d id no t h a ve re a so n a b ly tru stwort h y info rm a ti o n w a rra n ti n g a re asona ble person to be li ev e Appe ll ant h ad c ommitt ed or w as co m m it ti ng a c ri me w hen he was arrested for posse ssion of drug paraph erna lia. A s a result, Ap pellan t cont end s all phy si cal ev ide nce and h is st atements foll ow ing the all eg ed i ll eg al ar re st shoul d be suppress ed.As prev iou sl y st ated, the re cord does not reflectthe tr ial court ’s rul ing in the othe r 3 cr imi nal ca se, nor

ca n w e det e rm in e wh e ther the is sues present ed i n eac h hear ing w as si mil ar . 5 I n i t i a l l y , A p p e l l a n t fa i l e d t o p r e s e r v e h i s o bj e c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o h i s a r r estand subs eq uent search for appeal becau se the record does not re flectan a dv erse ru li ng by the tr ial co urt on his moti on to su ppress . R u le 3 3 .1 (a) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re req uires, among other thi ng s, that the record s how the tr ial co urt “ ru led on t he r e q u e s t , o bj e c t i o n , o r mo t i o n , e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r i mp l i c i t l y . . . . ” Te x . R. App. P. 33.1( a) (2 )( A)

. See G utier re z v. Sta te, 36 S.W .3d 509 , 511 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 01). Furthe r, the t ri al cour

t’ s “ Cer ti ficat ion of Defendant ’s R ig ht of Appe al” st ates “ a defendant may appeal only

. . . those matters that w ere rai sed by w ri tten moti ons filed and ruled on befo re t ria l .

. . . ” Emphasi s a dded. Here , the tr ial co urt nei ther ex pli ci tl y

nor i mpli ci tl y

r ule d on Appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress . “W hil e the fact t hat t he tr ial judg e ulti matel y found [ appel lan t] g uil ty i s a factor to be co nsi dered i n det e rm in ing w hether the tr ial co urt r ule d adv ersel y on h is moti on to supp ress, it is notdispositive.” Mo ntanez v. Sta te, 195 S.W .3d 101, 105 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 6) (a defend antcan ab and on a mot ion to supp ress before e n t e ri n g a guilty plea). Moreover, to co nstitu te a ruling, th e trial co urt’s e x plicit o r implicit statem ent s mustdo m ore than jus t ind ic ate that the tr ial cour t is lea nin g one w ay or

the other

. See S auced a v . St ate, 129 S. W .3d 1 16, 1 24 n. 6 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. Here, w e hav e no more than an i ndi cat ion that the c our

t i s l eani ng tow ard i ss uin g a r uli ng si mil ar to a r uli ng in anot her

cr imi nal ca se. 36

Accordin gly , not hing b efore this Court w as prese rv ed belo w for re v iew

beca use th e record does not s uff ic ien tl y

sh ow thatAppel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress w as deni ed. That s aid , how ev er , t he tr ial co urt’ s judg ment w oul d be aff ir med ev en i f error w as prese rv ed. Th e initial traf f ic stop an d sub sequen t f risk of Ap pellan t’s person w ere prop er. It i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t l a w e n fo r c e me n t o ffi c e rs ma y l a wfu l l y s t o p a n d d etai n a motor is t w ho c ommits a t ra ff icv iol ati on, Gar ci a v. St a te, 827 S. W .2d 9 37, 9 44 (Tex .C ri m.Ap p . 1 992) , and , onc e an off ic er has v ali dly

deta ine d an ind iv idu al, he o r she ma y cond uct a l im it e d p ro tective search for w eap ons if he ha s a reason able fear for his safety

. Mo rr

is on v . St ate, 132 S. W .3d 3 7, 45 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 Dis t.] 2004, pet. th re f ’d ) (ci ti n g Ter

ry v. Ohi o, 392 U .S. 1, 27 , 88 S.C t. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 ( 1968) ). The uncon trov erted t est imony at the h ear ing w as that the c ar w as sto pped for

l ack of re g is trati on and Appel lan t w as fris ked for s afetyreason s. In add ition, the t roop ers co ndu cted a valid se arch of t he car in ciden t to the driv er’s ar re st. See State v. Gr

ay, 158 S. W .3d 4 65, 4 69- 70 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ; W iede v . St ate, 157 S.W .3 d 87, 96- 7 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2005, pet. ref’d)

. The v ehi cl e s ear ch inc ide nt t o ar re st can in clu d e a s e a rc h of the pass eng er co mpart ment of the v ehi cl e. New York v. Be lt on, 453 U .S. 454, 460, 101 S. Ct . 286 0, 69 L.E d.2d 768 ( 1981) ; We lc h v. State, 93 S.W .3d 50, 59 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2) ( W o ma ck, J., concu rring ). Furthermo re, a v ehicle search can inc lud e the v ehi cl e’s g lov e c ompartment. Satter white v. Sta te , 726 S.W .2d 8 1, 86- 7 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) , re v’ d on other

gr ounds, 486 U .S. 249, 250- 51, 1 08 S. Ct . 179 2,“Proba b le c a u s e de als w ith prob abilities.” Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 8 5, 87 4 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) . W hil e it req uires more than mere sus pic ion , i t may be e sta bli shed b y fa r l e s s e vid e n c e t h a n t h a tn e c e s s a ry t o su p p o rta co n v i c t i o n o r e ve n a f in d in g b y a pr eponderance of ev ide nce. Id

. A person commi ts the offense of poss ess ion of dr ug parapher nal ia if the person 5 knowingl y

uses or posse sses w ith inte nt to use drug parap hern alia to pro cess, pa ck, ingest or i nhal e a c ontroll ed s ubst ance int o the human b ody

. Tex . H eal th & Safety C ode An n. § 481 .12 5(a) (Vernon 200 3). Scales m ay be classif ied as “drug parap hern alia.” See Har gr ove v. State, 211 S. W .3d 3 79, 3 86 (T ex .App. –San A ntoni o 2006, pet. ref’d) , cer t. denied,

___U.S. ___ , 128 S.Ct. 13 4, 16 9 L.E d.2 d 93 (2007 ). 7 100 L. Ed.2d 284 ( 1988)

. See als o W il li am s v. State, 726 S.W .2d 9 9, 10 0 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) ; Mo re no v

. St ate, 124 S.W .3d 339 , 350 (Tex.App .–Corp us C h ri s t i 2003 , no pe t.). Thu s , pu rs ua ntt o a v al i d v eh i c l e s ea r c h i nc i de ntt o th e dr i v er ’ s a r r es t, t he t roop ers obser v ed th e w hit e pow der

y su bst ance on th e floo rb oard on the p ass eng er si de of the ve h ic le a nd d iscovered the sca les covered w ith a w hite residu e in the unlocke d glove compar tment. App ellant ’s dem ean or, discovery o f t he residue -cov ered scales, the w hite p owdery subs tanc e on the p ass eng er floor board, an d the f actthat Appell ant’ s pants w ere c ov ered w ith a similar subst ance believed by the troope rs to be coca ine sup plied p roba ble cau se 4 for the troop ers to arrest Ap pellan t for posse ssion of the dru g para phe rnalia. The troope rs 5 w er e notreq uired to know t hatt he scales w ere con traba nd; their reason able belief thatit w as cont ra band w as suffici ent. Tex as v. Br own, 460 U. S. 730, 742- 43, 103 S.C t. 1 5 3 5, 75 L .Ed .2d 502 (1983 ). Just becau se the driv er ma y have also bee n imp licated in posse ssion of

the scales is not con trolling for pu rpose s of dete rmining w het her prob able8

caus e ex is ted for

Appel lan t’ s a rre st. See G om ez v. Sta te, 365 S. W .2d 1 65, 1 66 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 1 9 6 3 ) (ci ti n g Ha r g i s s v . Sta te, 1 7 2 T ex .C ri m. 531, 360 S.W .2d 8 81, 8 82 (1 962) ). Acc ordin g ly , Ap pel lan t’ s a rrestfor p oss ess ion of dr ug parapher nal ia w as supp orted byproba ble cau se an d w as, th erefore, legal. Fi nal ly , Ap pel lan t’ s s ubsequ ent s tatementat the c ounty j ail i n respon se to t he Trooper Jo nes’ s w ar nin g that , i f anyaddi ti onal cont ra band w as found ins ide the cont ro ll ed facility the pe nalty w ould be en h ance d, cam e sho rtly af ter App ellanthad receiv ed h is Mi ra nda w ar nin g s a nd w as v olu ntar y . S e e Jo n e s

v . S ta te, 1 1 9 S. W .3d 7 66, 7 73 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; E x p a r te B a g ley

, 509 S.W .2d 332 , 338 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 4). W hen t he ac cus ed i s a dv is ed of hi s r ig hts , i ndi cat es h e understa nds his r ig hts , and thereafter ele cts to tal k w it h an ar re sti ng off ic er , t he ac cus ed w aiv es his Fifth Amend ment ri g hts

. Id. (ci ti n g United S tates v. Gay tan, 74 F .3d 5 45, 5 55 ( 5 C ir . 199 6) , cer t. denied, th 519 U.S. 821 , 117 S .Ct. 77, 1 36 L.E d.2 d 36 (19 96)). Hav ing received his Mi ra nda r ig hts at t he ti me of his ar re st, Appel lan t w aiv ed thos e ri g hts w hen he ele cte d to re spond to the trooper ’s sta tement after bei ng transpo rt ed to the county j ail

. See Jo nes v. Foun tain , 121 F.Sup p. 57 1, 58 1 (E.D. T ex. 2000 ). Accordingly , w e overrule both issues.9 Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.
Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Ju sti ce Do not p ubl is h.