Court Opinion

ID: 9406892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 06:07:43.377354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.003330
License: Public Domain

Affirm and Opinion Filed June 30, 2023

                                       In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-00714-CR

             MIGUEL ANGEL VILLAREAL-GARCIA, Appellant
                               V.
                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 416-82170-2022

                                    OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Nowell
      A jury convicted appellant Miguel Villareal-Garcia of online solicitation of a

minor and sentenced him to five years in prison. In a single issue, he argues the trial

court abused its discretion by allowing an unqualified witness to provide unreliable

expert testimony regarding cellphone data extraction and admitting the extracted text

messages into evidence. We adopt the Fort Worth Court of Appeals’ reasoning in

Wright v. State, 618 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, no pet.), wherein
the court concluded the State was not required to establish a Kelly-style reliability1

predicate through expert testimony “for such a basic technique.” We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

                                             Background

        Officer Lee McMillan worked in the child exploitation unit with the Collin

County Sheriff’s Office. As part of an undercover operation, he took a photograph

of an adult female coworker and used age regression software to create a photograph

of a fifteen-year-old girl. He placed the photograph on several websites using the

name “Peyton” and provided his contact number.

        Around October 1, 2021, appellant first texted “Peyton,” and the two

continued exchanging text messages for the next several weeks. Appellant asked if

she wanted to make love, and she answered, “I’m up for making love if you’re okay

I’m 15.” She also told appellant she did not want to get “preggers” so he would need

to use a condom or get Plan B. Appellant acknowledged “Peyton” was fifteen and

wanted to “do the love with” her but did not want to go to jail because of her age.

        On October 26, 2021, appellant and “Peyton” arranged to meet at a park near

her home that “ha[d] places we can hide.” Appellant asked for directions, confirmed

    1
      In Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), the court explained that evidence derived
from a scientific theory must satisfy three requirements to be considered reliable: (1) the underlying
scientific theory must be valid; (2) the technique applying the theory must be valid; and (3) the technique
must have been properly applied on the occasion in question. Id. at 573.
                                                   –2–
he had Plan B, and texted when he was two minutes from the park. “Peyton” said

she could not wait to see him and asked what kind of car he would be driving.

      Appellant was arrested at the park. When he was apprehended, officers

recovered cellphones from his pocket. Officer McMillan extracted data from one of

appellant’s cellphones using Cellebrite and Magnet Axiom software. The State

indicted appellant for online solicitation of a minor based on the text messages.

      The trial court conducted a rule 702 hearing to determine the admissibility of

the text messages. During the hearing, Officer McMillan explained, among other

things, his qualifications and Cellebrite software.

      At the end of the hearing, defense counsel objected to Officer McMillan’s

expert testimony because (1) the science had not been sufficiently peer reviewed,

and (2) he did not believe “it’s reliable just because he says it is” or because of his

educational background “when this field is so relatively new and not been tested by

the Court for its reliability.” The State responded Officer McMillan had testified in

hundreds of cases regarding the technology and “obviously [has] the training and

experience in computer work. He is the leader in this county in the investigation,

and we would offer that he is absolutely an expert and has been proven by the peers

of this county at least.” The trial court overruled appellant’s objections and allowed

the text messages into evidence. The text messages were the only evidence linking

appellant to the crime.

                                         –3–
      The jury convicted appellant and sentenced him to five years in prison. This

appeal followed.

                                      Discussion

      In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by

admitting the text messages into evidence.          The State responds copying text

messages from a cellphone to a computer is a simple task that does not require expert

testimony. It encourages the Court to adopt the Fort Worth Court of Appeals’

reasoning in Wright v. State, 618 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021,

no pet.), in which the court concluded expert testimony is unnecessary to establish

the reliability of Cellebrite software, and data extracted from the software can be

authenticated instead under Texas Rule of Evidence 901.

      We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse

of discretion. Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249, 264–65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). A

trial court does not abuse its discretion if the decision to admit evidence is within the

zone of reasonable disagreement. Beham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2018). If the trial court’s ruling on admissibility is correct under any applicable

theory of law, the trial court’s decision should not be disturbed, even if the trial court

gives the wrong reason for its ruling. Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895, 908 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2016).

      Appellant argues Officer McMillan’s “generalist computer science degree”

failed to establish he understood the techniques to extract cellphone data; he did not

                                           –4–
have a clear understanding of the underlying technique for reliable data extraction;

and there was no evidence in the record that he used any peer-reviewed methodology

or that any such methodology had been accepted within a given field.

        We agree the Fort Worth Court of Appeals’ decision in Wright is analytically

sound and adopt its reasoning. As the court explained, “One purpose served by the

[Kelly] reliability requirement is to ensure that complex or unfamiliar systems and

ideas—those that ‘require significant expertise to interpret’ or that are ‘based on

scientific theory’—do not lead the lay fact-finder astray.” Wright, 618 S.W.3d at

893 (quoting Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). The

court reasoned that using Cellebrite technology to transfer data was “so simple” and

“so plainly verifiable and free of scientific variability, that a lay witness’s

corroboration of the results based on personal knowledge would sufficiently guard

against misleading the fact-finder, even without an expert or a reliability predicate.”

Id.2    Thus, so long as the data extracted from the cellphone was properly

authenticated by lay testimony, no reliability predicate or expert testimony was

required. Id.; see also TEX. R. EVID. 901(b)(9) (explaining evidence about a process

    2
      In reaching this conclusion, the court also found support in several analogous federal cases. See
United States v. Montijo-Maysonet, 974 F.3d 34, 47 (1st Cir. 2020) (“You don’t need to be a software
engineer to pick up a cellphone, open a messaging application, and interpret the words in the bubbles as
messages sent and received.”); United States v. Marsh, 568 F. App’x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2014) (order) (federal
agent’s testimony about Cellebrite data extraction did not cross the line into expert testimony for which a
reliability predicate would be required because testimony did not turn on or require technical understanding
of the programming); United States v. Seugasala, 702 F. App’x 572, 575 (9th Cir. 2017) (excusing a
detective’s testimony regarding Cellebrite from rule 702’s expert-testimony requirements because
testimony not based on technical or specialized knowledge).
                                                   –5–
or system may be authenticated by “describing a process or system and showing that

it produces an accurate result”). The court subsequently upheld the trial court’s

admission of the text messages and photos extracted from the cellphone because the

detective authenticated the evidence under rule 901(b)(9). Wright, 618 S.W.3d at

894.

       Applying the Wright analysis, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by admitting the text messages from appellant’s cellphone. Officer

McMillan testified he understood how to create and read mobile forensic

examination reports through his Cellebrite certification and explained he used

Cellebrite to create the mobile forensic report of appellant’s cellphone activity. He

explained the Cellebrite software used a transfer protocol to transfer the data from

the cellphone. Officer McMillan could not say with certainty Cellebrite extracted

all the data from appellant’s cellphone because every phone model is different and

no software can keep up with the constant availability of new apps. He did, however,

confirm the method of extracting the text messages using Cellebrite was

“straightforward,” and the software extracted all the text messages from appellant’s

phone. He compared the data through “hashing,” and his comparison “looked

complete so [he] didn’t do anything else beyond using Cellebrite.” He confirmed

all of the extracted text messages were true and accurate copies of the texts on

appellant’s cellphone. He explained that once he extracted the data, he compared it

to a known sent text message and confirmed the data’s accuracy.              Officer

                                        –6–
McMillan’s testimony provided the corroboration that the information was correct.3

He then used another program called Magnet Axiom to convert the extracted data

into a more readable format for the average person. He gave this information to the

District Attorney in a PDF format and on a USB drive. This testimony sufficiently

authenticated the extracted data through lay testimony to satisfy rule 901(b)(9). See

TEX. R. EVID. 901(b)(9); see also Wright, 618 S.W.3d at 894.

        Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling

appellant’s objections and admitting the text messages into evidence. We overrule

appellant’s sole issue.

                                              Conclusion

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                       /Erin A. Nowell//
                                                       ERIN A. NOWELL
220714f.p05                                            JUSTICE

Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

    3
      Appellant was free to, but did not, put on evidence that the transfer or the resulting data was in fact
tainted, manipulated, or fabricated.
                                                    –7–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

MIGUEL ANGEL VILLAREAL-                      On Appeal from the 416th Judicial
GARCIA, Appellant                            District Court, Collin County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. 416-82170-
No. 05-22-00714-CR          V.               2022.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Reichek and Garcia
                                             participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 30th day of June, 2023.

                                       –8–