NO. 07-07 -047 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 B OC TOBER29, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ KIRBY DALE CANT RELL , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 6 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF G AR ZACOU NT Y; NO . 06- 2364; HO NO RA BLE CAR TER T. SC HI LDK NE CH T, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant , KirbyDale Cantrell, was con v icted o f felon y of fe n s e of driv ing w hile int ox ic a t e d a n d t h e j u r y fu rt h e r fo u n d , t h a ta tt h e t i me o f c o mm i s s i o n o f t h e o ffens e, app ellantused or ex hibite d a de adly weap on, to-w it: a m o tor v ehicle. The trial court sentenced appel lan t t o ei g ht years c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Appell ant a ppeal s b y three i ss ues. W e modi fy the jud g ment t o del ete t he aff ir mati v e findi ng of a deadl y weapon. The j udg ment i s a ff ir med as modified
.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Backg ro und On Au gust 28, 20 06, a Garz a Coun ty Depu ty S h e riff was no tif ied of

a possible intoxicated driv er hea ded his direction. The dep uty was informe d tha t a w aitress, whose name was know n, ha d obs e rved a ppel lan t and anot her i ndi v idu al dr ink ing from a paper sac k cov ered bottl e at a dr iv e- in re sta urant i n Pos t, Tex as. The wait re ss furth er tol d the Gar z a C ounty

Sher iff’s d is patc her

thatt h e s a ckc ontai ned al cohol and the d ri v er and p a s s e n ge r we re d ri n k in g i t
. T h e wa it re s s ga ve a d e s c ri p t io n o f t h e v e h ic le , a n d it s two w hit e mal e occupan ts and stat ed that the v ehi cl e had left he aded s outh on U .S. Hi g hw ay 84. The d e p u ty sh e ri ff proceed ed to dr iv e toward Pos t and met a ca r matchi ng the desc ri pti on oc cupi ed by two w hit e ma les
. Upo n meeti ng the desc ri bed c ar , t he depu ty tes ti fied th at bo th t he dr iv er and pass eng er

l ooked di re ctl y

at him w hen he pass ed by
. The depu ty tu rn e d h is ca r around an d foll ow ed th e c ar thatappel lan t was dr iv ing
. The desc ri bed v ehi cl e immediat ely slowed dow n below

the speed limi t. After

a s hor t per iod of ti me, th e deputy

drov e i n the r ig ht l ane next t o appel lan t’ s c ar . W hen he loo ked int o the v ehi cl e nei ther

appell ant nor the pass eng er w oul d make eye co ntact w it h hi m. The d eputy testif ied th at bo th driver and passe nger stared straight ah ead and app eare d to be nervous. T he d epu ty initiate d a stop. W hen the de put y came to the driv er’s w indo w , he im me diate ly smel led the odor

of alc ohol. A p p e lla n t then s tepped from hi s v ehi cl e and the d eputy noti ced the a lc ohol odor w as comi ng f ro m appel lan t’ s brea th. Furt her , t he depu ty noti ced that appel lan t was sl ur ri ng hi s words w hen he spok e. Ins ide t he c ar , t he depu ty noti ced empty b e e r b o tt les , i ncl udi ng one in a brow n paper bag
. The deputy

then ca ll ed for the T exas Departm entof

Public Safety ( DPS) troop er assigned to the area to come and assist3

w ith ad min istering field sobriety tests. Th e DPS troo per arrived an d ad min istered f ield sobr iety tes ts. The D PS t ro oper tes ti fied tha t h e formed a n opi nio n tha t app ell ant was in to xica te d an d , as a re su lt , ask e d a p p e lla n t to give a sp e cim e n o f h is bre a th fo r te st in g. Appel lan t refused. Subs eq uentl y , the troope r req uest ed the mag is trate i n Pos t t o i ss ue a search w ar ra nt for a spec imen of ap pel lan t’ s blo od. The war ra nt was is sued and app ell ant w as tak en to a ho spi tal i n Lubbo ck , Texas, w here a spec imen of hisblood was obtai ned. The anal ysi s o f the blo od re v eal ed it cont ain ed 0.09 g ra ms of al cohol per 100 mil li li ters o f blo od. In a pre- tr ial hear ing , app ell ant chal len g ed the init ial stop c ontendi ng thatthe deputy lac ked re asona ble su spi ci on to stop him. After hear ing the deputy tes ti fy and hea ri ng the re cordin g of the c all from t he wait re ss , t he tr ial co urt ov er ru led appell ant’ s objecti on to the stop . During those same pre-trial proce edin gs app ellant not if ied the court th at he was also cont endi ng thatthe search w ar ra nt was not v ali d. Howev er , that matter w as not t aken up unti l the D PS t ro oper

tes ti fied attr ial
. At tr ial , a hear ing w as hel d out si de th e presenc e of the j ur y on t he appe ll ant’ s mot ion to suppress the search w ar ra nt. The tr ial co urt ov er ru led a p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p re s s t h e w a r ra n t
. Atth e co n c l u s i o n of t h e St a t e ’ s ca s e i n c h i e f, app el lant m oved for a directed v erdict w hich w as overruled. Th e jury subse quently conv icted a ppel lan t and found thathe h ad us ed or ex hib it ed a deadl y

we a p o n dur ing commi ss ion of the o ffense. Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed. B y t h re e is s u e s a p p e ll a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t ri a l c o u rtco m m it t e d re ve rs ib le e rro r b y: 1) a d m it ting the results of the blo od te st; 2) f inding tha t the dep uty had reaso nab le su s p i c i o n fo r

t h e i n i t i a l s t o p ; a n d , 3 ) t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y a n d fa ct u a l l y

i nsuffici ent4

to sup port th e f inding of a dea dly w eap on. W e w ill ad dress each o f app ellant ’s issues in tur n as present ed. Standa rd of Rev iew Appel lan t c ontes ted b oth t he bl ood t estand the i nit ial st o p t h ro ug h a mot ion to suppress the ev ide nce. A tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a moti on to su ppre ss i s re view ed by an abuse of di sc re ti on sta ndard. See Ol es v . Stat e, 993 S.W .2d 103, 106 (T e x.Cri m .A pp. 1999) ; Ma ddox v. Sta te, 682 S. W .2d 5 63, 5 64 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1985)
. W hether the tr ial cour t abu sed it s d is creti on depe nds upon w hether , g iv en th e reco rd and the l aw , i ts deci si on fell outs ide the z one of reason abl e dis ag re ement. See Beni tezv . St ate, 5 S. W .3d 915, 918 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, pet. ref’d)
. Howev er , i f the facts dete rmi nati v e of the mo tion a re und ispute d, th en th e revi ew is de n ovo . See O les , 993 S.W .2d at 106; Guz man v . Stat e, 95 5 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). W e mu st uph old th e tr ia l court’s decision on an y

g roun ds, w het her or notrelied upo n by the trial court, w hen the sta nda rd of rev iew

i s for abus e of di sc reti o n . See S tate v . R oss , 32 S.W .3d 8 53, 8 55 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; St ate v . Cl emmer, 999 S.W .2d 9 03, 9 05 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, pet . ref’d). Bloo d T est App ellant ’s conte ntion regardin g the inv alidity of the blo od te st is ancho red on his i n t e r p re t a t i o n o f t h e i mp l i e d c o n s e n t l a w i n t h e S t a t e o f Te x a s . See T EX . T R ANSP . C ODE A NN . Ch. 724 (V er non 1996)
. One par ti cul ar secti on prov ide s that a s peci men may not be tak en from a person if the person re fuses t o s ubmitto the t aki ng unl ess sp eci fic e x cept ion s5

enumerated in secti on 724. 012( b) of t h e Tran spor

tati on C ode app ly
. See T EX . T R ANSP . C OD E A NN § 72 4.013 (V er non 1996 ). Al l p a rt iesag re e tha t t he except ion s o f sect ion 724.012 (b ) did not appl y i n this case. Accordin g to appel lan t’ s conte nti on, the taki ng of the blo od s peci men, af

ter appell ant had refused to gi v e a spec imen of his breath, was il leg al and t he resul ts shoul d hav e been suppress ed. This ve ry contenti on has been prev iou sl y dec ide d adv erse to ap pel lan t by the Tex as Co u rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls
. See B eeman v . St ate, 86 S. W .3d 6 13, 6 16 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a to b t a i n i n g a v a l i d l y i s s u e d s e a rc h wa r ra n ta u t h o r i z i n g t h e t a k ing o f a spec imen does not c onst it ute a v iol ati on of the impl ied co nsentl aw and is a v ali d method of o b t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e )
. A s t h e C o u rt i n B e e ma n p o i n t s o u t , t h e i mp l i e d c o n sentl aw ex pands on t he St ate’ s s earch capab il it iesby prov idi ng anot her

framewor k t o obt ain a specim en o f

a driv ing w hile intoxicated suspe ct’s bloo d. Id. a t 615 . It doe s not ho w ever, suppl ant t he abi li ty

of the Sta te t o obt ain a s earch w ar ra nt. Id. F urther , t o c onst ru e the imp lied conse nt l aw as limiting the ability of an inv estigating of f icer to obta in a se a rch w ar ra nt i s a n abs urd resul t cont ra ry to the sta tute’ s int ent. Id. Onc e a s earch w ar ra nt ha s been i ss ued, the q uest ion of impl ied co nsentbec omes moot
. Id. at 616. Our si ste r Cou rt s of Appeal s h av e foll ow ed the hol din g in Beeman. See Gatewood v . St ate, Cau se No. 11- 07- 00153- CR , 200 8 Tex
. App. LEX IS 7381 at *2 (Tex .App. –Eas tl and O cto ber 2, 2008, no pet. h.)( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) , Dye v . Stat e, Cau se No. 08- 02- 00018- CR , 200 3 Tex . App
. L EXIS 1556 at * 4, ( Tex .App. –El Pas o F ebr uar y 20, 2003, no pet .)( not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)
. Thus, w e concl ude that the admiss ion of the b loo d tes t was6

not o uts ide the z one of reasona b le di sag re ement an d, he nce, was not a n abus e of dis creti on. Beni tez , 5 S.W .3d a t 918
. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s first is sue is ov er ru led
. Rea sonab le Susp ic ion for I nit ial Sto p A police o f

f icer’s interaction w ith a citiz en ca n be cla ssif ied as an enco unt er, detent ion , o r se izure. See C it iz en v . St ate, 39 S. W .3d 3 67, 3 70 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Dist.] 200 1, no pet. ). Encoun ters occur w hen police of f icers ap p ro a c h an indiv idua l in publ icto ask

ques ti ons. Id. Encounters do not re q uire any j ust ific ati on w hats oev er on t he par t of an o ff ic er . Id. (c it ing U .S. v . M endenhal l, 446 U. S. 544, 555, 100 S.Ct . 187 0, 64 L.Ed. 2d 497 (1 980) ). An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on i s a co nfrontat ion of a c it iz en by l aw enforcem entof

f icers w here in a citiz en yields to a display of auth orityand is temp orarily detai ned for pur posesof an i nv est ig ati on. J ohnso n v . St ate, 912 S. W .2d 2 27, 2 35 (Tex .C ri m.App.1 995)
. An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on i s p er mitt ed i f it is s uppor ted b y re asona ble su spi ci on. Ci ti z en, 3 9 S. W .3d a t 370
. See als o T er ry v. Ohio, 392 U.S . 1, 27, 88 S. Ct . 186 8, 20 L.E d.2d 889 ( 1 9 6 8)
. Rea sonab le sus pic ion i s a par ti cul ar iz ed and obj ect iv e bas is for s uspecti ng the p erson is , hasbeen, or so on w il l be eng ag ed i n c ri minal a ct i v i ty . C i t i z e n , 3 9 S
. W
. 3 d a t 3 7 0 ( c i t i n g C ro c k e tt v . S t a t e , 8 0 3 S
. W
. 2 d 3 08, 3 11 (Tex .C ri m.App.1 991) ). A det ermin ation of w het her the police inte raction is an enco unt er, detent ion or

se iz ure i s a ss ess ed by

l ooki ng at the t otal ity

of the c ircums tanc es. Se e H unter v . St ate, 955 S. W .2d 1 02, 1 04 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. In t he c ase before t he C our t, the o ff ic er

was direct ed to the v ehi cl e dr iv en by appel lan t as a resul t of the obser v ati ons of a ci v il ian w it ness at a dr iv e- in re sta urant. The7

re cord rev eal s t hat t he w it ness ca ll ed th e Garz a County di spat ch w hen app ell ant l eft the dr iv e- in and notifie d dispa tch of her c oncer ns re g ardin g appel lan t c onsumi ng al cohol and dr iv ing
. The w it ness ide nti fied hersel f and desc ri bed her encou nter w it h ap p e lla n t. Fur ther, b a sed upon he r obser v ati ons, the w it ness opi ned t hat a ppel lan t was cont inu ing to c onsume alc ohol
. This infor mati on, alo ng w it h g eneral desc ri pti on of the v ehi cl e and the number of occ upants was re layed to the deputy sher iff. Upo n seei ng a v ehi cl e matc hin g the d esc ri pti on of the v ehi cl e w it h the des cr ibe d number of oc cupan ts, the deputy tur ned around an d foll ow ed th e v ehi cl e. Upo n follo w ing the v ehi cl e dr iv en by appel lan t and pul li ng up b eside the vehicle, ne ither occu pan t would lo ok at the d epu ty or in a ny ma nne r make ey e contact w it h him ev en th oug h the oc cupan ts had prev iou sl y made eye c ontact w it h the d e p u ty wh e n h e m e tt h e ve h ic le b e fo re t u rn in g a ro u n d t o p u rs u e t h e ir ve h ic le
. Ad d it io n a ll y, the record ref lects tha t the v ehicle d rive n by appellan t sudd enly sl owed to a spe ed well bel ow the speed l imi t w hen t he depu ty was behi nd them. W hen all of these facts are tak en tog ether , i t i s a pparen t th a t the dec is ion to sto p appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e was based upon a re asona ble su spi ci on th at i s s uppor ted b y the re cord. Ci tizen , 39 S. W .3d a t 370
. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on in ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress . Ol es, 993 S.W .2d a t 106
. Dea dly W eapon F ind ing Appel lan t c hal len g es both the l eg al and factu al su f f ic ien cy of the e v ide nce to supp ort the jury

f inding of

a d ead ly

weapo n. W hen b oth le gal an d factu al suf f iciency are attac ked w e mustfirst address the is sue of leg al suff ici e n cy. S ee C lew is v . St ate, 922 S.W .2d 1 26, 1 33 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
.8

In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce, we rev iew al l the e v ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r an y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa ctco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t
. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 9 9 S .Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. In c onducti ng a lega l suf fici ency rev iew , an app ellate court ma y

not sit as a th irteen th juror, b u tr a t h er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or unsup por ted by more than a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . Stat e, 75 5 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8). T o susta in a de a d ly we a p o n f inding, the ev iden ce mu st show that the objectin q uest ion meets t h e req uirement of a d eadl y weapon, see T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1.07( a) (1 7) (B) (V e rnon 2003) ; t he dead ly weapon was used dur ing the transacti on from w hic h the co nv icti o n wa s obtai ned, see Ex par te J ones, 957 S.W .2d 8 49, 8 51 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) ; and that other peopl e w ere put in actual danger , C ates v . St ate, 102 S.W .3d 7 35, 7 38 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003)
. A motor v ehi cl e may

bec ome a de adl y

weapon if us ed i n a mann er capab le of c ausi ng death or ser iou s bodi ly inj ur y . Ex par te M cKi than, 838 S.W .2d 560 , 561 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 2). In rev iew ing the ev ide nce at t ri al, we tur n to the t est imony of the d eputy

sh er iff w ho answered th e di spat ch. O n directex aminat ion he sta ted, “ There w as modera te tra ff icon South 84.” The deputy then agreed w it h the Stat e’satt or ney thatthe hig hw ay

i n q uest ion w as “p re tty

freq uented. ” Upon cross -e x aminat ion , the deputy f urther tes ti fied he obser

v ed no dang erous maneuve rs o r a ctions i n appel lan t’ s d ri v ing dur ing the per iod he fol lowed appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e. The DP S trooper tes ti fied th at he ar ri v ed on the s cene after the i nit ial9

sto p had been compl eted. Both off ic ers opi ned that dr iv ing a v ehi cl e w hil e intox ic ated exposed the pu blic to som e sort of risk. W hen we v iew

this evi d e n c e in the light most fav orabl e to the j ur

y ’s v erdict, w e are l eft w it h the follo w ing : 1)there was no te sti mony of any othe r v ehi cl es on the ro ad w it h appel lan t, onl y a g eneral obser v ati on th at t ra ff icat the ti me on t he day

i n q uest ion w as moderate, 2) appel lan t drov e i n a mann er thatv iol ated no traff icl aws, and 3)no o ther w it ness was present w hen appel lan t w as operati ng the v ehi cl e. The ev ide nce thus produce d amount s t o not hin g more tha n a “ hy pothet ic a l ri sk ” to t he dr iv ing publ ic
. Cat es, 102 S.W .3d a t 738
. As suc h, the ev ide nce is not le g all y su ff ic ien t to s ust ain the jur

y ’s v erdict. See Dr ic has v . St ate, 175 S. W .3d 7 95, 7 98 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. Acc ordin g ly , w e s ust ain appel lan t’ s i ss ue reg ardin g the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce and modi fy the judg ment delet ing the deadl y w eapon f ind ing
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43 .2(b). Beca use we have sustaine d ap pellan t’s issu e regarding the legal suf f iciency of t h e e v ide nce to s uppor t a deadl y

weapon fin din g , we need not a ddress the is sue re g ardin g the factual su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce on th e q uest ion of th e deadl y weapon f in d in g. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s firs t two is sues and del eted the a ff ir mati v e findi ng that a deadly weapon was used dur ing the commi ss ion of the o ffense, we aff ir m the jud g ment as modified
. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Publ is h.