Court Opinion

ID: 4073178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 03:29:50.112347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:39.376709
License: Public Domain

PD-1308-15
                                                                                                                                                    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                                                                                                                                                     AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                    Transmitted 11/6/2015 5:34:31 PM
                                                                                                                                                      Accepted 11/9/2015 4:42:11 PM
                                                                         NO.	
  PD-­‐1308-­‐15	
                                                                      ABEL ACOSTA
                                                                                                                                                                              CLERK
                                                                                      	
  
                                                         IN	
  THE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  CRIMINAL	
  APPEALS	
  
	
                                                                     OF	
  THE	
  STATE	
  OF	
  TEXAS	
                                                            	
  
                                                                                 AUSTIN,	
  TEXAS	
  
                                                                   ____________________________________	
  
                                                                                               	
  
                                                                          ALVIN	
  VALADEZ,	
  JR.,	
  
	
                 	
           	
                	
       	
             	
          	
               Appellant,	
  
                                                                                             vs.	
  
                                                                                               	
  
                                                                         THE	
  STATE	
  OF	
  TEXAS,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
     	
           	
                	
       	
             	
          	
               Appellee.	
  
	
  
	
                 	
           	
  	
  	
        	
       	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  _____________________________________	
  
                          PETITION	
  FOR	
  DISCRETIONARY	
  REVIEW	
  FROM	
  THE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS	
  
                                FOURTH	
  COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS	
  DISTRICT,	
  SAN	
  ANTONIO,	
  TEXAS	
  
                                                                  CAUSE	
  NUMBER	
  04-­‐14-­‐00626-­‐CR	
  
                                                           	
  ________________________________________	
  
                                               APPELLANT’S	
  PETITION	
  FOR	
  DISCRETIONARY	
  REVIEW	
  
                                                          	
  	
  	
  ________________________________________	
  
                                                                                               	
  
                                                                                                                          EDWARD	
  F.	
  SHAUGHNESSY	
  III	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
  	
  	
  	
     Attorney-­‐at-­‐Law	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78212	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 (210)	
  212-­‐6700	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 (210)	
  212-­‐2178	
  (fax)	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 SBN	
  18134500	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 Shaughnessy727@gmail.com	
  
	
                 	
         	
   	
     	
                              	
          	
               	
                 	
  
	
                         November 9, 2015
	
                 	
           	
                	
       	
             	
          	
               	
                 Attorney	
  for	
  the	
  Appellant	
  
	
  
                                                                                               	
  
                                                                                               	
  

                                                                                               	
  
                                                                                               	
  
                                          TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  
                                                           	
  
   	
      	
      	
      	
      	
       	
        	
        	
    	
     	
     	
      PAGE(S)	
  
	
  
TABLE	
  OF	
  AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………………....................iii	
  
	
  
TABLE	
  OF	
  INTERESTED	
  PARTIES…………………………………………………………………………………...iv	
  
	
  
STATEMENT	
  REGARDING	
  ORAL	
  ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………......v	
  
	
  
APPELLANT’S	
  PETITION	
  FOR	
  DISCRETIONARY	
  REVIEW………………………………….......................6	
  
	
  
AUTHORITIES	
  IN	
  SUPPORT	
  OF	
  APPELLANT’S	
  PETITION	
  FOR	
  DICRETIONARY	
  
REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………...................................................................6	
  
	
  
NATURE	
  OF	
  THE	
  CASE……………………………………………………………………………………......................6	
  
	
  
	
  
PROCEDURAL	
  HISTORY	
  OF	
  THE	
  CASE…………………………………………………....…………………….....7	
  
	
  
	
  
REASONS	
  FOR	
  REVIEW………………………………………………………………....………………........................8	
  
	
  
	
  
GROUND	
  FOR	
  REVIEW………………………………………………………....…………………………………………9	
  
	
  
	
  
ARGUMENT	
  AND	
  AUTHORITIES	
  IN	
  SUPPORT	
  
OF	
  THE	
  GROUND	
  FOR	
  REVIEW…………………………...............………………………………….......................9	
  
	
  
	
  
CONCLUSION	
  AND	
  PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………....................13	
  
	
  
	
  
CERTIFICATE	
  OF	
  SERVICE………………………………………………………………………………..................14	
  
	
  
	
  
APPENDIX	
  …………………………………………………………………………………………………....……………..15	
  
	
  
	
       	
       	
      	
      	
     	
   	
       	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
       	
  

                                                     	
   ii	
  
                                                           	
  
                                                     TABLE	
  OF	
  AUTHORITIES	
  
                                                                     	
  
STATE	
  CASES	
  

Bonds	
  v.	
  State,	
  403	
  S.W.3d	
  867	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2013)…………………………………………………………..10	
  
	
  
Gibbs	
  v.	
  State,	
  819	
  S.W.2d	
  821	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1991)………………………………………………..…………….12	
  
	
  
Gordon	
  v.	
  State,	
  801	
  S.W.2d	
  899	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1990)………………………………………………………….12	
  
	
  
Janecka	
  v.	
  State,	
  739	
  S.W.2d	
  813	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1987)……………………………………………….………..12	
  
	
  
Jones	
  v.	
  State,	
  568	
  S.W.3d	
  847	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1978)…………………………………………………………….10	
  
	
  
McFarland	
  v.	
  State,	
  928	
  S.W.	
  482	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1996)………………………………………………………..12	
  
	
  
State	
  v.	
  McLain,	
  337	
  S.W.3d	
  268	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2011)……………………………………………...………….10	
  
	
  
State	
  v.	
  Streetman,	
  93	
  S.W.3d	
  102	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2002)……………………………………….....……………10	
  
	
  
Federal	
  Cases	
  
	
  
Aguilar	
  v.	
  Texas,	
  378	
  U.S.	
  108,	
  84	
  S.	
  Ct.	
  1509	
  (1964)…………………………………………….	
  .....................................10	
  
	
  
	
  
RULES	
  
	
  
Art.	
  38.23,	
  Tex.	
  Code	
  Crim.	
  Proc.	
  Ann.	
  (West	
  2014)………………………………..……………………………………10	
  
	
  
Art.	
  15.05,	
  Tex	
  Code	
  Crim.	
  Proc.	
  Ann.	
  (West	
  2014)………………………………………………….………………..…9,	
  13	
  
	
  
Tex.	
  Penal	
  Code	
  Ann.	
  §	
  71.01	
  (West	
  2014)…………………………………………………………………………………….11	
  
	
  
Tex.	
  Penal	
  Code	
  Ann.	
  §	
  71.02(West	
  2014)……………………………………………………………………………………..11	
  
	
  
Rule	
  66.3	
  (c),	
  Tex.	
  Rule	
  App.	
  Proc…..………………………………………………………………………………………………3	
  
	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                                                             	
  

                                                                       	
   iii	
  
                                                                             	
  
                                         Table	
  of	
  Interested	
  Parties	
  
                                                                	
  
TRIAL	
  COUNSEL	
  FOR	
  THE	
  STATE:	
  
Keith	
  Henneke	
  &	
  Steven	
  DeLemos	
  
Assistant	
  Criminal	
  Distric	
  Attorneys	
  
25th	
  Judicial	
  District	
  
211	
  W.	
  Court	
  St.,	
  Suite	
  260	
  
Seguin,	
  Texas	
  78155	
  
	
  
TRIAL	
  COUNSEL	
  FOR	
  APPELANT:	
  
	
  
Rolando	
  Garcia	
  
800	
  Dolorosa,	
  No.	
  101	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  TX	
  78207	
  
	
  
Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III	
  
206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  TX	
  78212	
  
	
  
APPELLANT’S	
  ATTORNEY	
  ON	
  APPEAL:	
  
	
  
Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III	
  
206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  TX	
  78212	
  
(210)	
  212-­‐	
  6700	
  
(210)	
  212-­‐2178	
  (fax)	
  
SBN:	
  18134500	
  
	
  
TRIAL	
  JUDGE:	
  
	
  
W.C	
  Kirkendall	
  
25th	
  Judicial	
  District	
  
Guadalupe	
  County,	
  Texas	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  
                                                                	
  

                                                          	
   iv	
  
                                                                	
  
                                    STATEMENT	
  REGARDING	
  ORAL	
  ARGUMENT	
  
	
  
	
         Counsel	
   for	
   the	
   appellant	
   would	
   submit	
   that	
   in	
   the	
   event	
   that	
   this	
   petition	
   is	
  
granted,	
   oral	
   argument	
   would	
   be	
   warranted	
   inasmuch	
   as	
   the	
   issue	
   to	
   be	
   resolved	
   by	
   this	
  
Court	
  is	
  novel	
  and	
  worthy	
  of	
  oral	
  argument	
  on	
  the	
  issue	
  presented.	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                           	
  

                                                                     	
   v	
  
                                                                           	
  
                                                                   PD-­‐1308-­‐15	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
ALVIN	
  VALADEZ,	
  JR.,	
  	
                 	
          	
         §	
                  	
     	
     IN	
  THE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  
	
       	
   	
  
Appellant	
              	
          	
         	
          	
         §	
  
	
            	
         	
          	
         	
          	
         	
  
	
            vs.	
      	
          	
         	
          	
         §	
                  	
     	
     CRIMINAL	
  APPEALS	
  
	
            	
         	
          	
         	
          	
         	
  
THE	
  STATE	
  OF	
  TEXAS,	
                  	
          	
         §	
                  	
     	
     	
  
	
            	
         	
          	
         	
          	
         	
                   	
     	
     AUSTIN,	
  TEXAS,	
  
Appellee	
               	
          	
  
	
  
                              ARGUMENTS	
  AND	
  AUTHORITIES	
  IN	
  SUPPORT	
  
                 OF	
  THE	
  APPELLANT’S	
  PETITION	
  FOR	
  DISCRETIONARYREVIEW	
  
                                    OF	
  CAUSE	
  NUMBER	
  0-­‐14-­‐00626-­‐CR	
  
                                                               	
  
TO	
  THE	
  HONORABLE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  CRIMINAL	
  APPEALS:	
  
	
  
	
      NOW	
   COMES,	
   Alvin	
   Valadez	
   Jr.,	
   defendant	
   in	
   the	
   trial	
   Court	
   and	
   appellant	
   in	
   the	
  

lower	
   Court,	
   by	
   and	
   through,	
   Edward	
   F.	
   Shaughnessy,	
   III,	
   attorney	
   at	
   law,	
   and	
   offers	
   the	
  

following	
   arguments	
   and	
   authorities	
   in	
   support	
   of	
   his	
   request	
   that	
   this	
   Court	
   grant	
   his	
  

request	
   for	
   a	
   Petition	
   for	
   Discretionary	
   Review	
   in	
   the	
   instant	
   case,	
   cause	
   number	
   PD-­‐1308-­‐

15.	
  	
  

                                                           NATURE	
  OF	
  THE	
  CASE	
  

	
            The	
   appellant,	
   Alvin	
   Valadez,	
   Jr.,	
   was	
   indicted	
   by	
   a	
   Guadalupe	
   County	
   grand	
   jury	
   for	
  

the	
   offense	
   of	
   Possession	
   of	
   a	
   Controlled	
   Substance	
   (Heroin	
   1	
   to	
   4	
   grams)	
   (Habitual)	
   in	
  

cause	
  number	
  13-­‐1568-­‐C.	
  (C.R.-­‐18)	
  The	
  appellant	
  was	
  tried	
  by	
  a	
  jury	
  and	
  convicted	
  of	
  the	
  

offense	
   as	
   charged	
   in	
   the	
   indictment.	
   	
   The	
   appellant	
   was	
   subsequently	
   sentenced,	
   by	
   the	
  

                                                                               	
   6	
  
                                                                                     	
  
jury,	
   to	
   Life	
   in	
   confinement	
   in	
   the	
   Texas	
   Department	
   of	
   Criminal	
   Justice-­‐Institutional	
  

Division.	
  	
  (C.R.-­‐64)	
  

	
          Notice	
  of	
  appeal	
  was	
  subsequently	
  filed	
  in	
  the	
  trial	
  Court	
  and	
  an	
  appeal	
  to	
  the	
  Court	
  

of	
   Appeals	
   for	
   the	
   Fourth	
   Court	
   of	
   Appeals	
   District	
   was	
   pursued.	
   (C.R.-­‐60)	
   	
   That	
   court	
  

affirmed	
  the	
  judgment	
  of	
  the	
  trial	
  court	
  in	
  a	
  published	
  opinion,	
  authored	
  by	
  Justice	
  Alvarez,	
  

on	
  September	
  16,	
  2015.	
  	
  This	
  court	
  has	
  granted	
  the	
  appellant	
  an	
  extension	
  of	
  time	
  to	
  file	
  

the	
  instant	
  petition	
  until	
  November	
  16,	
  2015.	
  	
  

	
  

                          PROCEDURAL	
  HISTORY	
  OF	
  THE	
  CASE	
  IN	
  THE	
  LOWER	
  COURT	
  

	
          On	
  September	
  16,	
  2015,	
  the	
  San	
  Antonio	
  Court	
  of	
  Appeals,	
  in	
  an	
  published	
  opinion,	
  

authored	
  by	
  Justice	
  Alvarez,	
  affirmed	
  the	
  judgment	
  of	
  the	
  trial	
  court	
  in	
  all	
  respects.	
  Valadez	
  

v.	
  State,	
  (No.	
  04-­‐14-­‐00626-­‐CR,	
  Tex.	
  App.-­‐San	
  Antonio,	
  September	
  16,	
  2015)	
  (Appendix	
  A)	
  The	
  

appellant	
   subsequently	
   filed	
   a	
   Motion	
   for	
   Extension	
   of	
   Time	
   to	
   File	
   a	
   Petition	
   for	
  

Discretionary	
   Review	
   with	
   the	
   Court	
   of	
   Criminal	
   Appeals.	
   	
   That	
   motion	
   was	
   granted,	
   and	
  

the	
  appellant	
  was	
  granted	
  an	
  extension	
  of	
  time	
  to	
  file	
  a	
  Petition	
  for	
  Discretionary	
  Review	
  

until	
   November	
   16,	
   2015.	
   	
   This	
   pleading	
   is	
   filed	
   in	
   compliance	
   with	
   this	
   Court’s	
   order	
  

granting	
  that	
  extension	
  of	
  time.	
  	
  The	
  appellant	
  would	
  submit	
  that	
  there	
  exists	
  one	
  ground	
  

for	
   review	
   that	
   warrants	
   review	
   by	
   this	
   Court.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   urged	
   by	
   the	
   appellant	
   that	
   there	
   exist,	
  

at	
   a	
   minimum,	
   two	
   distinct	
   reasons	
   for	
   reviewing	
   the	
   action	
   of	
   the	
   Court	
   of	
   Appeals	
   for	
   the	
  

Fourth	
  Court	
  of	
  Appeals	
  District.	
  

                                                                                     	
  

                                                                                     	
  

                                                             REASONS	
  FOR	
  REVIEW	
  

                                                                               	
   7	
  
                                                                                     	
  
                                                                         A	
  

	
         The	
  appellant	
  respectfully	
  petitions	
  this	
  Honorable	
  Court	
  to	
  grant	
  this	
  Petition	
  for	
  

Discretionary	
  Review	
  pursuant	
  to	
  Rule	
  66.3	
  (c),	
  Tex.	
  R.	
  	
  App.	
  Proc.	
  which	
  states	
  that	
  one	
  of	
  

the	
  non-­‐exclusive	
  reasons	
  for	
  this	
  Court	
  to	
  grant	
  a	
  petition	
  for	
  discretionary	
  review	
  is	
  that	
  

the	
  Court	
  of	
  Appeals	
  has	
  decided	
  an	
  important	
  question	
  of	
  state	
  law	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  conflicts	
  

with	
  the	
  applicable	
  decisions	
  of	
  the	
  Court	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Appeals.	
  	
  The	
  appellant	
  would	
  

respectfully	
  submit	
  that	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  the	
  Fourth	
  Court	
  of	
  Appeals	
  is	
  in	
  conflict	
  with	
  the	
  

applicable	
  decisions	
  of	
  this	
  Court.	
  

                                                                         B	
  

	
         The	
  appellant	
  respectfully	
  petitions	
  this	
  Honorable	
  Court	
  to	
  grant	
  this	
  Petition	
  for	
  

Discretionary	
  Review	
  pursuant	
  to	
  Rule	
  66.3(b),	
  Tex.	
  R.	
  App.	
  Proc.	
  which	
  states	
  that,	
  one	
  of	
  

the	
  non-­‐exclusive	
  reasons	
  for	
  this	
  Court	
  to	
  grant	
  a	
  discretionary	
  review,	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  Court	
  of	
  

Appeals	
  has	
  decided	
  an	
  important	
  question	
  of	
  state	
  law	
  that	
  has	
  not	
  been,	
  but	
  should	
  be,	
  

settled	
  by	
  the	
  Court	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Appeals.	
  	
  The	
  appellant	
  would	
  respectfully	
  submit	
  that	
  the	
  

Court	
  of	
  Appeals	
  has	
  decided	
  an	
  important	
  question	
  of	
  state	
  law	
  that	
  has	
  not	
  been,	
  but	
  

should	
  be	
  settled	
  the	
  Court	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Appeals.	
  

	
  

                                                                         C.	
  

	
         The	
  appellant	
  respectfully	
  petitions	
  this	
  Honorable	
  Court	
  to	
  grant	
  this	
  Petition	
  for	
  

Discretionary	
  Review	
  pursuant	
  to	
  Rule	
  66.3(d),	
  Tex.	
  R.	
  App.	
  Proc.	
  which	
  states	
  that,	
  one	
  of	
  

the	
  non-­‐exclusive	
  reasons	
  for	
  this	
  Court	
  to	
  grant	
  a	
  discretionary	
  review,	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  Court	
  of	
  

Appeals	
  has	
  misconstrued	
  a	
  statute.	
  	
  The	
  appellant	
  would	
  respectfully	
  submit	
  that	
  the	
  

                                                                      	
   8	
  
                                                                            	
  
opinion	
  of	
  the	
  Court	
  of	
  Appeals	
  has	
  misconstrued	
  a	
  relevant	
  provision	
  of	
  the	
  Texas	
  Code	
  of	
  

Criminal	
  Procedure.	
  

	
  

                                                                         	
  

                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                               	
  
                                                    GROUND	
  FOR	
  REVIEW	
  
                                                               	
  

                                                                   	
   9	
  
                                                                         	
  
                               THE	
  COURT	
  OF	
  APPEALS	
  ERRED	
  IN	
  HOLDING	
  THAT	
  
                                THE	
  APPELLANT	
  WAS	
  ARRESTED	
  PURSUANT	
  TO	
  A	
  
                               VALID	
  ARREST	
  WARRANT	
  AND	
  AS	
  A	
  CONSEQUENCE	
  
                              CONTRABAND	
  FOUND	
  ON	
  HIS	
  PERSON	
  WAS	
  LEGALLY	
  
                                       SEIZED	
  AND	
  ADMITTED	
  INTO	
  EVIDENCE	
  	
  
                                                                 	
  
                                                                 	
  
                                           ARGUMENT	
  AND	
  AUTHORITIES	
  
                                            IN	
  SUPPORT	
  OF	
  THE	
  GROUND	
  
                                                         FOR	
  REVIEW	
  
	
  

	
         	
          	
          	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  STATEMENT	
  OF	
  APPLICABLE	
  FACTS	
  

	
         Prior	
  to	
  the	
  onset	
  of	
  the	
  trial,	
  the	
  appellant	
  caused	
  to	
  be	
  filed	
  a	
  written	
  “Motion	
  to	
  

Suppress	
  Evidence”	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  sought	
  to	
  suppress	
  the	
  fruits	
  of	
  a	
  search	
  of	
  his	
  person.	
  	
  

Asserted	
  therein	
  was	
  a	
  claim	
  that	
  the	
  actions	
  of	
  law	
  enforcement	
  violated	
  the	
  Fourth	
  

Amendment	
  to	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  Constitution	
  along	
  with	
  Art.	
  38.23,	
  Tex.	
  Code	
  Crim.	
  Proc.	
  

Ann.	
  (West	
  2014)	
  (C.R.-­‐16	
  )	
  	
  The	
  trial	
  Court	
  conducted	
  an	
  evidentiary	
  hearing	
  on	
  the	
  

motion,	
  at	
  the	
  conclusion	
  of	
  which	
  the	
  motion	
  to	
  suppress	
  was	
  denied	
  and	
  findings	
  of	
  fact	
  

and	
  conclusions	
  of	
  law	
  were	
  entered	
  by	
  the	
  trial	
  Court.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

	
         The	
  trial	
  court	
  conducted	
  a	
  hearing	
  on	
  that	
  motion	
  prior	
  to	
  trial.	
  	
  (R.R.2-­‐4	
  thru	
  28)	
  	
  

At	
  the	
  hearing	
  it	
  was	
  established	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  was	
  arrested	
  on	
  August	
  28,	
  2012	
  by	
  

Officer	
  David	
  Camacho	
  of	
  the	
  Guadalupe	
  County	
  Sheriff’s	
  Department.	
  	
  The	
  arrest	
  of	
  the	
  

appellant	
  was	
  executed	
  by	
  means	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  issued	
  that	
  same	
  day	
  by	
  a	
  Justice	
  of	
  

the	
  Peace	
  for	
  Guadalupe	
  County,	
  alleging	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  

Engaging	
  in	
  Organized	
  Criminal	
  Activity.1	
  	
  Camacho	
  related	
  that	
  after	
  verifying	
  the	
  validity	
  

                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  
1
 The Warrant Of Arrest was admitted into evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress as
State’s exhibit 1. The supporting complaint/affidavit was admitted into evidence as State’s
exhibit 2.
                                                                                                                                                             	
   10	
  
                                                                                                                                                                   	
  
of	
  the	
  warrant,	
  he	
  along	
  with	
  a	
  fellow	
  officer,	
  went	
  to	
  the	
  home	
  of	
  the	
  appellant	
  in	
  Seguin.	
  	
  

After	
  locating	
  the	
  appellant,	
  Camacho	
  conducted	
  a	
  “search	
  incident	
  to	
  arrest”	
  which	
  

resulted	
  in	
  the	
  discovery	
  and	
  seizure	
  of	
  the	
  four	
  balloons	
  of	
  heroin	
  that	
  formed	
  the	
  basis	
  

for	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  indictment.	
  	
  (R.R.2-­‐12,	
  13)	
  	
  Camacho	
  also	
  related	
  that	
  he	
  had	
  no	
  reason	
  

to	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  that	
  formed	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  arrest	
  and	
  

subsequent	
  search	
  was	
  lacking	
  in	
  probable	
  cause.2	
  (R.R.12)	
  

	
         The	
  warrant	
  in	
  question	
  authorized	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  arrest	
  for	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  “Engage	
  

in	
  Organized	
  Criminal	
  Activity”.	
  	
  	
  The	
  warrant	
  was	
  supported	
  by	
  a	
  five-­‐page	
  

affidavit/complaint	
  presented	
  to	
  the	
  magistrate	
  by	
  Clint	
  Halbardier,	
  of	
  the	
  Seguin	
  Police	
  

Department.	
  	
  That	
  affidavit	
  purported	
  to	
  present	
  a	
  case	
  establishing	
  probable	
  cause	
  to	
  

believe	
  that	
  six	
  named	
  individuals3	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  Organized	
  Criminal	
  

Activity	
  by	
  committing	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  Aggravated	
  Assault	
  against	
  Roberto	
  Herrera	
  while	
  

committing	
  the	
  assault	
  in	
  concert	
  of	
  three	
  or	
  more	
  individuals.	
  4	
  	
  

	
         The	
  Halbardier	
  affidavit	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  detail	
  an	
  investigation	
  conducted	
  by	
  members	
  of	
  

the	
  Seguin	
  Police	
  department	
  regarding	
  an	
  alleged	
  assault	
  committed	
  against	
  Roberto	
  

Herrera	
  on	
  August	
  26,	
  2012.	
  	
  In	
  support	
  of	
  the	
  allegations	
  in	
  the	
  affidavit	
  Halbardier	
  relied	
  

in	
  substantial	
  part	
  on	
  information	
  provided	
  by	
  four	
  “unnamed	
  witnesses”	
  who	
  allegedly	
  

witnessed	
  the	
  assault	
  in	
  question,	
  or	
  were	
  privy	
  to	
  certain	
  circumstantial	
  evidence	
  relating	
  

to	
  the	
  assault	
  and	
  the	
  alleged	
  perpetrators	
  thereof.	
  	
  The	
  affidavit	
  in	
  question	
  contains	
  a	
  

number	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  assertions	
  regarding	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  five	
  suspects	
  named	
  in	
  

                                                     	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  
2
  Camacho did not relate what the warrant and underlying affidavit/compliant established vis-à-
vis probable cause in terms of an offense.
3
  The individuals named were as follows: Danny Ramon Gonzales, Roy Martinez, Alvin Valadez
(the appellant), Christopher Lopez, Ezekiel Longoria, and Abel Lomas.
4
  See: Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.02(a)(1) (West 2014)
                                                                                                                                                              	
   11	
  
                                                                                                                                                                    	
  
the	
  affidavit.	
  	
  With	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  assertions	
  in	
  the	
  affidavit	
  that	
  relate	
  to	
  the	
  acts	
  of	
  the	
  

appellant	
  there	
  are	
  four	
  assertions	
  	
  

contained	
  in	
  the	
  affidavit	
  that	
  purport	
  to	
  establish	
  probable	
  cause	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  

appellant	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  in	
  question.	
  	
  They	
  are	
  as	
  follows:	
  	
  

	
                                                    	
                                                    1)	
  UW35	
  stated	
  that	
  (the	
  appellant)	
  showed	
  up	
  after	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  at	
  his	
  residence	
  after	
  the	
  assault	
  and	
  threatened	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
                                      	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  UW3.	
  	
  UW3	
  also	
  asserted	
  that	
  the	
  Valadez	
  threatened	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  UW3	
  not	
  to	
  tell	
  anything	
  to	
  tell	
  the	
  police	
  anything	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  about	
  the	
  assault;	
  
	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    2)	
  UW46	
  purportedly	
  informed	
  the	
  affiant	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  had	
  made	
  threats	
  to	
  UW4;	
  
	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    3)	
  Halbardier	
  also	
  asserted	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  was	
  a	
  	
                      	
   	
   	
                                                                                                             	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  “documented”	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  Mexican	
  Mafia;	
  
	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    4)	
  Halbadier	
  also	
  included	
  a	
  non-­‐factual	
  conclusion	
  
	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  “is	
  acting	
  in	
  concert	
  with	
  the	
  other	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
                                        	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  suspects	
  in	
  trying	
  to	
  threaten	
  witnesses	
  not	
  to	
  give	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  their	
  testimony	
  to	
  police	
  and	
  to	
  help	
  avoid	
  prosecution	
  
	
                                                    	
                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  for	
  the	
  aggravated	
  assault	
  of	
  the	
  victim”.	
  
	
  
	
                                                    No	
  other	
  factual	
  assertions	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Halbardier	
  affidavit	
  relate	
  to	
  acts	
  

attributed	
  to	
  the	
  appellant	
  before,	
  during,	
  or	
  after	
  the	
  alleged	
  assault	
  against	
  Roberto	
  

Herrera.	
                           	
  

	
                Following	
  the	
  conclusion	
  of	
  the	
  hearing	
  the	
  trial	
  Court	
  denied	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  motion	
  

to	
  suppress	
  the	
  evidence.	
  	
  (R.R.2-­‐27)	
  Prior	
  to	
  the	
  onset	
  of	
  the	
  trial,	
  the	
  trial	
  court	
  made	
  

findings	
  of	
  fact	
  and	
  conclusions	
  of	
  law.	
  	
  Those	
  consist	
  of	
  the	
  following:	
  

	
                	
                 	
                 The	
  defendant	
  was	
  arrested	
  on	
  a	
  warrant	
  issued	
  
	
                	
                 	
                 on	
  August	
  28th,	
  2012	
  by	
  Justice	
  of	
  the	
  Peace	
  Precinct	
  
	
                	
                 	
                 Four,	
  Guadalupe	
  County,	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  probable	
  cause	
  
	
                	
                 	
                 affidavit	
  submitted	
  by	
  Detective	
  Clint	
  Halbardier.	
  
                                                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  
5
  The affiant described UW3 as a gainfully employed Texas resident with acquaintances involved
in the Mexican Mafia.
6
  The affiant described UW4 as a resident of Seguin with no criminal history.
                                                                                                                                                                                             	
   12	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                   	
  
	
  
	
            	
             	
     The	
  probable	
  cause	
  affidavit	
  for	
  said	
  warrant	
  	
  
	
            	
             	
     contained	
  information	
  that	
  established	
  probable	
  
	
            	
             	
     cause	
  for	
  (the	
  appellant)	
  to	
  be	
  charged	
  with	
  various	
  
	
            	
             	
     offenses,	
  including	
  conspiracy	
  to	
  commit	
  aggravated	
  
	
            	
             	
     assault,	
  aggravated	
  assault,	
  aggravated	
  assault	
  as	
  a	
  	
  
	
            	
             	
     party	
  to	
  that	
  offense,	
  organized	
  criminal	
  activity	
  to	
  
	
            	
             	
     commit	
  aggravated	
  assault,	
  obstruction	
  or	
  retaliation,	
  
	
            	
             	
     and	
  even	
  possibly	
  tampering	
  with	
  witnesses.	
  	
  	
   	
              	
            	
  
	
            	
             	
     Because	
  such	
  probable	
  cause	
  was	
  established	
  for	
  each	
  
	
            	
             	
     offense,	
  the	
  Justice	
  of	
  the	
  Peace	
  could	
  have	
  issued	
  the	
  
	
            	
             	
     warrant	
  naming	
  any	
  of	
  those	
  felony	
  offenses.	
  
	
  
	
            	
             	
     The	
  arresting	
  officers	
  were	
  acting	
  in	
  good	
  faith	
  	
   	
          	
         	
  
	
            	
             	
     reliance	
  on	
  the	
  warrant.	
  	
  Even	
  if	
  the	
  probable	
  cause	
  	
  
	
            	
             	
     was	
  inadequate	
  for	
  organized	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  
	
            	
             	
     probable	
  cause	
  was	
  established	
  for	
  other	
  felony	
  
	
            	
             	
     offenses.	
  (R.R.5-­‐18,	
  19)	
         	
  
	
  
                                              ARGUMENT	
  IN	
  THE	
  LOWER	
  COURTS	
  
	
  
	
            In	
  the	
  trial	
  Court	
  the	
  appellant	
  asserted	
  that	
  the	
  arrest	
  warrant,	
  that	
  formed	
  the	
  

legal	
  foundation	
  for	
  his	
  arrest	
  and	
  the	
  subsequent	
  search	
  of	
  his	
  person,	
  was	
  illegal	
  in	
  that	
  it	
  

failed	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  “probable	
  cause”	
  to	
  warrant	
  a	
  belief	
  by	
  the	
  issuing	
  magistrate	
  that	
  

the	
  appellant	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  Organized	
  Criminal	
  Activity.	
  	
  That	
  argument	
  

formed	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  sole	
  point	
  of	
  error	
  in	
  his	
  appeal	
  to	
  the	
  San	
  Antonio	
  Court	
  

of	
  Appeals.	
  	
  	
  

	
            The	
  appellant’s	
  sole	
  point	
  of	
  error	
  was	
  overruled	
  and	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  conviction	
  and	
  

sentence	
  were	
  affirmed	
  in	
  all	
  respects.	
  

                                                HOLDING	
  OF	
  THE	
  LOWER	
  COURT	
  

	
  	
        The	
  lower	
  Court	
  reasoned	
  as	
  follows:	
  “In	
  viewing	
  the	
  totality	
  of	
  the	
  circumstances	
  in	
  

a	
  common	
  sense	
  and	
  realistic	
  manner,	
  we	
  conclude	
  the	
  magistrate	
  had	
  a	
  substantial	
  basis	
  

for	
  concluding	
  that	
  probable	
  cause	
  was	
  shown	
  to	
  issue	
  the	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  against	
  Valadez.	
  

…	
  The	
  affidavit	
  provided	
  sufficient	
  facts	
  that,	
  together	
  with	
  reasonable	
  inferences	
  

                                                                          	
   13	
  
                                                                                	
  
therefrom,	
  provided	
  a	
  “fair	
  probability”	
  or	
  “substantial	
  chance”	
  that	
  Valadez	
  was	
  engaged	
  

in	
  organized	
  criminal	
  activity.”	
  Valadez	
  v.	
  State,	
  supra,	
  at	
  slip	
  op.	
  pg.	
  12.	
  

	
         The	
  appellant	
  respectfully	
  submits	
  that	
  the	
  holding	
  of	
  the	
  Court	
  below	
  is	
  in	
  conflict	
  

with	
  the	
  applicable	
  opinions	
  from	
  this	
  Court	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  what	
  constitutes	
  “probable	
  

cause”	
  for	
  an	
  arrest.	
  	
  The	
  appellant	
  also	
  would	
  submit	
  that	
  what	
  constitutes	
  “probable	
  

cause”	
  to	
  issue	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  for	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  Engaging	
  in	
  Organized	
  Criminal	
  Activity	
  

has	
  never	
  been	
  addressed	
  by	
  this	
  Court	
  and	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  an	
  important	
  question	
  of	
  state	
  law	
  is	
  

presented	
  by	
  the	
  instant	
  case	
  and	
  review	
  of	
  that	
  issue	
  by	
  this	
  Court	
  is	
  warranted.	
  	
  Lastly,	
  

the	
  opinion	
  of	
  the	
  Court	
  below	
  appears	
  to	
  misconstrue	
  the	
  statutory	
  provision	
  mandating	
  

that	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  must	
  contain	
  information	
  that	
  demonstrates	
  that	
  the	
  accused	
  has	
  

committed	
  some	
  offense	
  against	
  the	
  laws	
  of	
  the	
  State,	
  either	
  directly	
  or	
  that	
  the	
  affiant	
  has	
  

good	
  reason	
  to	
  believe	
  ,	
  and	
  does	
  believe,	
  that	
  the	
  accused	
  has	
  committed	
  such	
  offense.	
  See:	
  

Art.	
  15.05,	
  Tex	
  Code	
  Crim.	
  Proc.	
  Ann.	
  (West	
  2014).	
  	
  These	
  three	
  contentions	
  will	
  be	
  

addressed	
  hereinafter	
  in	
  the	
  order	
  set	
  forth	
  above.	
  

                                                                              	
  

                                                                              	
  

                                                                              	
  

                                                                              	
  

                                                                             I	
  

	
         With	
  respect	
  to	
  what	
  constitutes	
  “probable	
  cause”	
  this	
  Court	
  has	
  stated	
  on	
  a	
  number	
  

of	
  occasions	
  that	
  “probable	
  cause”	
  exists	
  when	
  the	
  affidavit/complaint	
  provides	
  the	
  issuing	
  

magistrate	
  with	
  sufficient	
  information	
  to	
  support	
  an	
  independent	
  judgment	
  that	
  probable	
  

exists	
  for	
  the	
  warrant.	
  Jones	
  v.	
  State,	
  568	
  S.W.3d	
  847	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1978).	
  	
  The	
  

                                                                         	
   14	
  
                                                                               	
  
establishment	
  of	
  probable	
  cause	
  mandates	
  that	
  an	
  affidavit	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  

contain	
  facts	
  and	
  circumstances	
  within	
  the	
  affiant’s	
  knowledge	
  and	
  of	
  which	
  he	
  has	
  

reasonably	
  trustworthy	
  information,	
  sufficient	
  to	
  warrant	
  a	
  prudent	
  person	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  

the	
  subject	
  of	
  the	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  has	
  committed	
  an	
  offense.	
  	
  State	
  v.	
  Streetman,	
  93	
  S.W.3d	
  

102	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2002).	
  	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  instant	
  case,	
  the	
  

issuing	
  magistrate,	
  and	
  the	
  reviewing	
  trial	
  judge	
  are	
  limited	
  to	
  the	
  contents	
  of	
  the	
  affidavit	
  

in	
  support	
  of	
  the	
  warrant/complaint.	
  	
  Aguilar	
  v.	
  Texas,	
  378	
  U.S.	
  108,	
  84	
  S.Ct.	
  1509	
  (1964);	
  

State	
  v.	
  McLain,	
  337	
  S.W.3d	
  268	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2011).	
  In	
  a	
  case	
  involving	
  a	
  warrant,	
  and	
  the	
  

underlying	
  affidavit,	
  there	
  are	
  no	
  credibility	
  issues	
  to	
  take	
  into	
  account	
  hence	
  an	
  appellate	
  

court	
  is	
  to	
  employ	
  the	
  de	
  novo	
  standard	
  of	
  review	
  in	
  passing	
  on	
  the	
  propriety	
  of	
  trial	
  court’s	
  

ruling.	
  See:	
  Bonds	
  v.	
  State,	
  403	
  S.W.3d	
  867	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  2013).	
  

	
  	
      The	
  opinion	
  of	
  the	
  Court	
  below	
  recognized	
  these	
  concepts	
  in	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  its	
  review	
  

of	
  the	
  trial	
  Court’s	
  ruling.	
  	
  Nevertheless,	
  it	
  is	
  and	
  was	
  the	
  appellant’s	
  contention	
  that	
  even	
  in	
  

reviewing	
  the	
  affidavit	
  in	
  a	
  “common	
  sense”	
  manner	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  a	
  “hypertechnical”	
  

manner	
  the	
  four	
  corners	
  of	
  the	
  affidavit	
  in	
  dispute	
  wholly	
  fail	
  to	
  support	
  a	
  finding	
  by	
  a	
  

reasonably	
  prudent	
  person	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  Engaging	
  in	
  

Organized	
  Crime.	
  	
  

	
          The	
  offense	
  of	
  Engaging	
  in	
  Organized	
  Activity	
  is	
  defined	
  in	
  a	
  highly	
  circumscribed	
  

manner,	
  and	
  is	
  limited	
  in	
  its	
  scope.	
  	
  It	
  requires	
  proof	
  that	
  the	
  accused	
  as	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  a	
  

criminal	
  street	
  gang	
  committed	
  or	
  conspired	
  to	
  commit…	
  aggravated	
  assault.	
  See:	
  Tex.	
  

Penal	
  Code	
  Ann.	
  §§	
  71.01(d)	
  &	
  71.02(a)(1)	
  (West	
  2014).	
  In	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  instant	
  case,	
  a	
  

valid	
  warrant	
  for	
  the	
  named	
  offense	
  would	
  necessitate	
  factual	
  assertions,	
  within	
  the	
  four	
  

corners	
  of	
  the	
  affidavit,	
  that	
  the	
  subject	
  of	
  the	
  warrant	
  that	
  the	
  named	
  suspect	
  had	
  acted	
  as	
  

                                                                           	
   15	
  
                                                                                 	
  
a	
  member	
  of	
  a	
  criminal	
  street	
  gang.7	
  	
  It	
  would	
  also	
  necessitate	
  factual	
  assertions,	
  within	
  the	
  

four	
  corners	
  of	
  the	
  affidavit,	
  that	
  the	
  suspect	
  person	
  had	
  committed	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  

aggravated	
  assault8.	
  Those	
  are	
  the	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  offense	
  for	
  which	
  the	
  instant	
  warrant	
  

was	
  issued	
  and	
  the	
  arrest	
  was	
  perfected.	
  	
  	
  

	
         It	
  is	
  the	
  contention	
  of	
  the	
  appellant	
  that	
  the	
  affidavit	
  is	
  question	
  is	
  wholly	
  devoid	
  of	
  

any	
  facts	
  that	
  would	
  support	
  a	
  finding	
  by	
  the	
  issuing	
  magistrate	
  that	
  the	
  named	
  suspect	
  

(the	
  appellant),	
  acting	
  as	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  a	
  criminal	
  street	
  gang,	
  as	
  defined,	
  had	
  committed	
  

aggravated	
  assault	
  on	
  the	
  person	
  of	
  Roberto	
  Machado	
  Herrera.	
  	
  The	
  entirety	
  of	
  the	
  affidavit	
  

in	
  question	
  reflects	
  nothing	
  more	
  than	
  actions	
  by	
  the	
  appellant	
  after	
  the	
  fact.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  no	
  

facts	
  contained	
  within	
  the	
  four	
  corners	
  of	
  the	
  affidavit	
  that	
  so	
  much	
  as	
  suggest	
  that	
  the	
  

appellant	
  assaulted	
  the	
  complainant	
  or	
  that	
  he	
  aided,	
  abetted	
  or	
  assisted	
  the	
  actors	
  named	
  

in	
  the	
  affidavit.	
  	
  The	
  implications	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  affidavit	
  suggest	
  nothing	
  more	
  than	
  the	
  

appellant	
  acquired	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  event	
  in	
  question	
  after	
  the	
  fact	
  and	
  sought	
  to	
  assist	
  

the	
  named	
  actors	
  avoid	
  apprehension	
  and	
  or	
  prosecution.	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  far	
  cry	
  from	
  presenting	
  

facts	
  to	
  the	
  issuing	
  magistrate	
  that	
  would	
  support	
  a	
  reasonable	
  belief	
  that	
  the	
  appellant	
  had	
  

participated	
  in	
  the	
  assault	
  in	
  any	
  fashion.	
  	
  

	
         By	
  finding	
  to	
  the	
  contrary,	
  the	
  court	
  below	
  has	
  issued	
  an	
  opinion	
  that	
  is	
  in	
  conflict	
  

with	
  the	
  holdings	
  of	
  this	
  Court	
  on	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  what	
  constitutes	
  probable	
  cause	
  for	
  an	
  arrest	
  

warrant.	
  	
  See:	
  McFarland	
  v.	
  State,	
  928	
  S.W.	
  482	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1996);	
  Gibbs	
  v.	
  State,	
  819	
  

                                                    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  
7
  “Three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable
leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities. Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 71.01(d), supra.
8
  The affidavit in dispute did not assert that the facts supported an arrest warrant on the grounds
that the appellant had conspired to commit the offense of aggravated assault as a member of a
criminal street gang. (State’s exhibit 3, pg. 2)
                                                                                                                                                             	
   16	
  
                                                                                                                                                                   	
  
S.W.2d	
  821	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1991);	
  Gordon	
  v.	
  State,	
  801	
  S.W.2d	
  899	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1990);	
  

Janecka	
  v.	
  State,	
  739	
  S.W.2d	
  813	
  (Tex.	
  Crim.	
  App.	
  1987).	
  

	
         The	
  opinion	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  is	
  in	
  conflict	
  with	
  the	
  applicable	
  holdings	
  of	
  this	
  court	
  

on	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  what	
  constitutes	
  a	
  valid	
  affidavit	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant.	
  	
  

Review	
  of	
  the	
  holding	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  is	
  warranted.	
  

                                                                                                                                                                     II	
  

	
         The	
  appellant	
  would	
  also	
  submit	
  to	
  this	
  court	
  that	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  what	
  constitutes	
  a	
  

valid	
  and	
  sufficient	
  affidavit	
  to	
  warrant	
  the	
  issuance	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant	
  for	
  the	
  offense	
  of	
  

Engaging	
  in	
  Organized	
  Crime	
  has	
  never	
  been	
  addressed	
  by	
  this	
  court	
  in	
  any	
  fashion,	
  	
  

Consequently,	
  this	
  case	
  presents	
  an	
  important	
  question	
  of	
  State	
  law,	
  that	
  has	
  not	
  been,	
  but	
  

should	
  be	
  decided	
  by	
  this	
  court.	
  	
  Review	
  of	
  the	
  holding	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  is	
  warranted.	
  

                                                                                                                                                                  III	
  

	
         Lastly	
  the	
  appellant	
  would	
  submit	
  that	
  the	
  holding	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  has	
  

misconstrued	
  the	
  statute	
  that	
  governs	
  the	
  sufficiency	
  of	
  arrest	
  warrants.	
  	
  More	
  specifically	
  

the	
  appellant	
  would	
  submit	
  that	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  has	
  misconstrued	
  Art.	
  15.05	
  

(2),	
  Tex.	
  Code	
  Crim.	
  Proc.	
  ann.	
  (West	
  2014)	
  which	
  sets	
  forth	
  the	
  statutory	
  requirements	
  for	
  a	
  

valid	
  affidavit	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  warrant.9	
  	
  The	
  opinion	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  has	
  

misconstrued	
  that	
  provision.	
  	
  Review	
  of	
  the	
  holding	
  of	
  the	
  lower	
  court	
  is	
  warranted.	
  

	
  

	
  

                                                   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  
9
 The complaint shall be sufficient, without regard to form, if it have these substantial
requisites:…. It must show that the accused has committed some offense against the laws of the
State, either directly or that the affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe that the
accused has committed such offense.
                                                                                                                                                            	
   17	
  
                                                                                                                                                                  	
  
                                                     CONCLUSION	
  AND	
  PRAYER	
  

           It	
  is	
  respectfully	
  requested,	
  by	
  the	
  appellant	
  that	
  a	
  petition	
  for	
  discretionary	
  review	
  

to	
  the	
  Fourth	
  Court	
  of	
  Appeals	
  be	
  granted	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  case	
  be	
  briefed	
  on	
  the	
  merits	
  of	
  the	
  

appellant’s	
  ground	
  for	
  review	
  with	
  argument	
  to	
  follow.	
  

                                                                                          Respectfully	
  submitted,	
  

                                                                                          	
  
                                                                                          /s/Edward F. Shaughnessy, III	
  
                                                                                          	
  
                                                                                          EDWARD	
  F.	
  SHAUGHNESSY,	
  III	
  
                                                                                          Attorney	
  at	
  Law	
  
                                                                                          206	
  E.	
  Locust	
  
                                                                                          San	
  Antonio,	
  Texas	
  78212	
  
                                                                                          (210)	
  212-­‐6700	
  
                                                                                          (210)	
  212-­‐2178	
  (fax)	
  
                                                                                          SBN	
  18134500	
  

                                                                                          Attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellant	
  

                                                                                          	
  

                                                                                          	
  

                                                                                          	
  

                                                                                          	
  

                                                                                          	
  

           	
          	
         	
          	
          	
         	
                   	
  

           	
  

           	
  

           	
          	
         	
          	
  

           	
  

                                                                            	
   18	
  
                                                                                  	
  
          	
         	
         	
         CERTIFICATE	
  OF	
  SERVICE	
  

	
        I,	
  Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III.,	
  certify	
  that	
  a	
  copy	
  of	
  the	
  foregoing	
  petition	
  was	
  

mailed	
  to	
  Heather	
  McMinn,	
  District	
  Attorney,	
  25th	
  Judicial	
  District,	
  211	
  W.	
  Court	
  Street,	
  

Suite	
  260,	
  Seguin,	
  Texas	
  78155,	
  on	
  this	
  the	
  _6_	
  day	
  of	
  November,	
  2015.	
  

/s/Edward F. Shaughnessy, III	
  

	
        	
         	
         	
         	
          	
         	
                   	
     	
     	
       	
  

	
        	
         	
         	
         CERTIFICATE	
  OF	
  SERVICE	
  

	
        I,	
  Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III	
  certify	
  that	
  a	
  copy	
  of	
  the	
  foregoing	
  petition	
  was	
  mailed	
  

to	
  the	
  office	
  of	
  the	
  State	
  Prosecuting	
  Attorney,	
  P.O.	
  Box	
  78711,	
  Austin,	
  Texas	
  78711,	
  on	
  this	
  

the	
  _6_	
  day	
  of	
  November,	
  2015.	
  

/s/Edward F. Shaughnessy, III	
  

	
  

                                                  CERTIFICATE	
  OF	
  COMPLIANCE	
  

	
        I,	
  Edward	
  F.	
  Shaughnessy,	
  III,	
  attorney	
  for	
  the	
  appellant	
  hereby	
  certify	
  that	
  the	
  

instant	
  pleading	
  contains	
  3624	
  words,	
  exclusive	
  of	
  the	
  appendix.	
  

/s/Edward F. Shaughnessy, III	
  

                                                                              	
  

                                                                              	
  

                                                                         	
   19	
  
                                                                               	
  
       APPENDIX	
  

               	
  

               	
  

               	
  

               	
  

               	
  

	
  

               	
  

               	
  

               	
  
               	
  

          	
   20	
  
                	
  
                               Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                                 OPINION
                                          No. 04-14-00626-CR

                                         Alvin VALADEZ Jr.,
                                               Appellant

                                                    v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                    From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 13-1568-CR-C
                             Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2015

AFFIRMED

           This case arises from the conviction of Appellant Alvin Valadez Jr. for felony possession

of a controlled substance. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, Valadez was

convicted by a jury. Valadez entered a plea of true to the State’s allegations regarding prior

consecutive felony convictions and the jury assessed punishment at life confinement in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

           In his sole issue on appeal, Valadez argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion

to suppress evidence because the complaint supporting the arrest warrant failed to demonstrate
                                                                                                04-14-00626-CR

probable cause he committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. We affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.      Factual Background

        1.       Valadez’s Arrest

        On August 28, 2012, a Guadalupe County justice of the peace signed an arrest warrant

authorizing the arrest of Alvin Valadez Jr. for the offense of engaging in organized criminal

activity. The warrant was supported by a complaint asserting Valadez and five other individuals

committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity with the underlying offense being

the aggravated assault of Roberto Machado Herrera Jr.

        2.       Arrest Warrant

        Seguin Police Department Detective Clinton Halbardier signed the five-page complaint 1

based on his investigation and that of the Seguin Police Department. In his application, Detective

Halbardier reported he relied on statements provided by four unnamed informants who directly

witnessed the assault in question or were privy to certain circumstantial evidence relating to the

assault. Detective Halbardier further averred that he believed these witnesses to be credible and

the magistrate could rely on them. He cited interviews with the victim, previous investigations of

the listed suspects, and Seguin Police Department offense reports and supplemental reports.

        Detective Halbardier’s complaint asserted that on August 26, 2012, Herrera was

approached by five or six men who questioned him about his gang affiliation. After Herrera

informed the group he was part of the “Orejones,” the group asserted they were the “EME” or the

“Merecido,” common names for the Mexican Mafia. The group further instructed Herrera that he

1
 We note Detective Halbardier is the complainant on the application of the arrest warrant. His statement is sworn
before the magistrate. The terms complaint and affidavit are, therefore, used interchangeably in this opinion.

                                                      -2-
                                                                                     04-14-00626-CR

should deny being a member of the Orejones because he was in Merecido territory. As Herrera

exited his vehicle, one of the individuals waived his arm and Herrera was attacked from behind

with a knife. Herrera was stabbed and beaten.

       Detective Halbardier averred that all six suspects, including Valadez, were confirmed to

be active gang members. The officer outlined Valadez’s affiliation as “a documented Mexican

Mafia gang member” and a “lieutenant with the Mexican Mafia,” based on national and state

database information searches.

       Detective Halbardier also relied on the statements of four witnesses who asked to be

unnamed in the complaint for “personal safety and security reasons.” Two of the witnesses were

gainfully employed, had previously provided credible information, and had acquaintances

involved in the Mexican Mafia. The third witness was present during the assault and his statement

corroborated Herrera’s statements, and the final witness had no criminal history. Two of the four

witnesses reported being threatened not to tell officers about the assault. Additionally, several of

the informants reported the assault stemmed from suspicions that Herrera stole drugs from

Valadez. Detective Halbardier’s complaint concluded,

       considering all of the known facts and the current information provided by the
       witnesses, [Valadez] has been named multiple times in the past as the leader of the
       Mexican Mafia in Seguin. [Valadez] is acting in concert with the other suspects in
       trying to threaten witnesses not to give their testimony to police and to help avoid
       prosecution for the aggravated assault on the victim.

A Guadalupe County justice of the peace issued the arrest warrant that same day, authorizing the

arrest of Valadez for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. After locating and

securing Valadez, Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office Investigator David Camacho executed the

arrest warrant and conducted a search incident to arrest. During the search, Investigator Camacho

discovered four balloons of heroin in Valadez’s pocket.

                                                -3-
                                                                                      04-14-00626-CR

B.     Hearing on the Motion to Suppress the Arrest Warrant

       On August 20, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on Valadez’s motion to suppress the

arrest warrant based on the complaint’s failure to establish probable cause.

       Investigator Camacho testified that on August 28, 2012, he traveled to Valadez’s residence

to arrest Valadez. Investigator Camacho was familiar with Valadez and positively identified

Valadez at his residence; after a short scuffle, Valadez was taken into custody without further

incident. The officer conducted a search incident to arrest and located four balloons of heroin in

Valadez’s pocket.

       Detective Halbardier described the overall structure of the Mexican Mafia and that

lieutenants were generally in charge of day-to-day operations in a specific city or county. He also

relayed the Mexican Mafia was known for engaging in both sanctioned and unsanctioned assaults.

Detective Halbardier testified that, in his opinion, the assault on Herrera was a sanctioned assault

by Valadez.

       Following the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Valadez’s motion to

suppress the evidence but did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law at that time. The

case was called before a jury on August 25, 2014. After both sides rested and closed their cases,

but prior to closing arguments, the trial court stated, on the record, the following findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

              [Valadez] was arrested on a warrant issued on August 28th, 2012, by Justice
       of the Peace Precinct Four, Guadalupe County, based on a probable cause
       [complaint] submitted by Detective Clint Halbardier.

               The probable cause [complaint] for said warrant contained information
       which established probable cause for Alvin Valadez, Jr., to be charged with various
       offenses, including conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, aggravated assault as
       a party to that offense, organized criminal activity to commit aggravated assault,
       obstruction or retaliation, and even possibly tampering with witnesses. Because
       such probable cause was established for each offense, the Justice of the Peace
       could’ve issued the warrant naming any of those felony offenses.
                                                -4-
                                                                                     04-14-00626-CR

                The arresting officers were acting in good faith reliance on the warrant.
        Even if the probable cause was inadequate for organized criminal activity, probable
        cause was established for other felony offenses.

See State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding the trial court’s findings

of fact and conclusions of law are sufficient if they are “recorded in some way, whether written

out and filed by the trial court, or stated on the record at the hearing”).

        In his sole issue on appeal, Valadez argues that because the complaint supporting the arrest

warrant failed to demonstrate probable cause that Valadez committed the offense of engaging in

organized criminal activity, the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the arrest

warrant.

                                SUPPRESSION OF ARREST WARRANT

A.      Standard of Review

        An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress on a bifurcated

standard of review, giving almost total deference to the trial court’s determination of historical

facts that depend on credibility choices; we review the court’s application of the law de novo. See

Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also Amador v. State, 221
S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2004); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Because we look only

within the four corners of the complaint to determine whether probable cause to issue a warrant

exists, the trial court is not required to make any credibility choices in inspecting the affidavit.

Robuck v. State, 40 S.W.3d 650, 654 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet ref’d).

        We note this case involves not only the trial court’s determination of probable cause, but

also the underlying question of the magistrate’s probable cause determination. In doing so, we use

a substantial basis standard of review based on the totality of the circumstances presented to the

magistrate. See Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Illinois v.
                                                  -5-
                                                                                     04-14-00626-CR

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236–39 (1983). A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress will be upheld

if there is any valid theory of law applicable to the case, even if the trial court did not base its

decision on that theory. State v. Steelman, 93 S.W.3d 102, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

B.       Argument of the Parties

         Valadez contends that because the State failed to demonstrate the arrest warrant was

supported by a complaint demonstrating probable cause to arrest on the charge of engaging in

organized criminal activity, the trial court erred in denying Valadez’s motion to suppress. Valadez

argues that the warrant was devoid of the facts necessary to support a magistrate’s independent

judgment that probable cause existed that either Valadez, “or any other named suspects, acted with

the intent to establish maintain or participate in the profits of a combination or a criminal street

gang.”

         The State counters that the arrest warrant was supported by probable cause for the offense

because the issuing magistrate could reasonably infer that Valadez had conspired with other

members of the Mexican Mafia to commit an aggravated assault against Herrera.

C.       Probable Cause to Support Issuance of the Warrant

         “An arrest warrant affidavit must provide the magistrate with sufficient information to

support an independent determination that probable cause exists to believe that the accused has

committed a crime.” McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), abrogated

on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 263 n.18 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); see also

State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Gurrusqueita v. State, 244 S.W.3d
450, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d). We must, therefore, determine whether the

probable cause affidavit in question provided the magistrate with sufficient information to support

an independent judgment that probable cause existed to issue a warrant for Valadez’s arrest. Flores

v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
                                                -6-
                                                                                     04-14-00626-CR

       1.      Totality of the Circumstances

       A reviewing court’s assessment of the affidavit’s sufficiency is limited to “a reasonable

reading” within the four corners of the affidavit while simultaneously recognizing the magistrate’s

discretion to draw reasonable inferences. See Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 354 (citing Rodriguez v.

State, 232 S.W.3d 55, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)); State v. Coker, 406 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref’d). The magistrate’s probable-cause determination must be upheld if

the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of a

crime. See Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 354 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236). Probable cause

requires the affiant to demonstrate there is a probability that the accused committed an offense,

not that the evidence proves the suspect’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moss v. State, 75
S.W.3d 132, 140 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d). “This is a flexible, nondemanding

standard.” Coker, 406 S.W.3d at 396 (citing Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 354). A magistrate is enabled

to draw reasonable, common-sense inferences from the facts and circumstances contained in the

affidavit; however, a magistrate may not merely rubber stamp the bare conclusions of others. See

also Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 354, Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 61.

       Our review focuses on the sufficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued “to ensure

. . . an abdication of the magistrate’s duty does not occur.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239. Our review

must remain realistic and not hyper-technical and we “must uphold the magistrate’s decision so

long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Duarte,
389 S.W.3d at 354; accord State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

       An appellate court’s focus cannot be on what other facts “could or should have been

included in the affidavit,” but rather must be “on the combined logical force of facts that actually

are in the affidavit.” Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 354–55; accord Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 60. The

affiant’s reliability, as well as the reliability of his sources, are part of the totality of the
                                                -7-
                                                                                     04-14-00626-CR

circumstances that the magistrate should evaluate in making a probable-cause determination. See

Coker, 406 S.W.3d at 396.

       We thus turn to the circumstances set out within the four corners of the probable cause

affidavit before us.

       2.      Charge Contained within the Arrest Warrant

       The complaint alleged that Valadez,

       on or about the 26th through 27th day of August, 2012, in Guadalupe County,
       Texas, did then and there commit the offense of Engaging in Organized Criminal
       Activity—Aggravated Assault by intentionally and knowingly causing serious
       bodily injury to the victim, Roberto Machado Herrera Jr., by punching, kicking and
       stabbing with a knife or lethal cutting instrument, while committing the act in
       concert of three or more individuals, against the laws of the State.

       Detective Halbardier’s affidavit averred that he relied on (1) the Seguin Police Department

offense report and supplements, (2) multiple offense investigations involving several of the named

suspects, (3) multiple witness interviews, (4) suspect interviews, (5) interviews of other involved

persons, and (6) his personal observations. We first address Detective Halbardier’s reliance on

unnamed informants.

       3.      Affidavit’s Reliance On Unnamed Informants

       “With regard to an informant’s tips, we take into account the informant’s veracity,

reliability, and basis of knowledge to determine the value of his assertions, as well as whether his

information is stale.” Rivas v. State, 446 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, no pet.)

(citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 233; Davis v. State, 144 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004,

pet. ref’d) (op. on reh’g)). “Corroboration of the details of an informant’s tip through independent

police investigation can also be relevant in the magistrate’s determination of probable cause.”

Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 197 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 241–42). The affidavit must also set forth the

basis upon which the officer formed the underlying “belief in an informant’s credibility and

                                                -8-
                                                                                         04-14-00626-CR

veracity.” Id. “‘[A] deficiency in one may be compensated . . . by a strong showing as to the

other, or by some other indicia of reliability,’ all of which are relevant considerations under the

totality of the circumstances.” Id. (quoting Gates, U.S. at 233).

        “While information from an unnamed informant alone does not establish probable cause,

the informant’s tip combined with an independent police investigation may provide a substantial

basis for the probable-cause finding.” Cf. Lowery v. State, 843 S.W.2d 136, 141 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d); Serrano v. State, 123 S.W.3d 53, 62–63 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet

ref’d). The unnamed informant’s credibility may be established by allegations that the informant

has proven reliable on previous occasions. Blake v. State, 125 S.W.3d 717, 726 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). “This reliability may be established by the general assertions

of the affiant, as stated in the affidavit, concerning the informant’s prior reliability.” Id.

        Here, Detective Halbardier indicated he relied on four different unnamed witnesses. The

first had “acquaintances involved in the Mexican Mafia and knows the details of the gang”; the

second was present when the assault occurred and corroborated the victim’s description of the

assault; the third is gainfully employed and has acquaintances involved in the Mexican Mafia; and

the fourth was a resident of Seguin with no criminal history. Detective Halbardier further opined,

“I believe the unnamed witnesses are credible and that I and any magistrate can rely on their

information in the matters such as these.” Although the third and fourth informants cannot be

characterized as eyewitnesses of the assault, both gave first-hand accounts of Valadez’s tactics.

        Detective Halbardier knew who the informants were and could hold them accountable for

their statements and was able to establish each informant’s inherent reliability or basis of

knowledge. Additionally, each of the witnesses provided their statements directly to the police,

rather than placing an anonymous call or tip, and were unnamed for the sake of their safety. See

Lockett v. State, 879 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d).
                                                  -9-
                                                                                       04-14-00626-CR

       4.      Other Information Relied upon by the Officer

       Information “of unknown reliability must be coupled with facts from which an inference

may be drawn that the informant is credible.” Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 357. However, when the

affidavit contains information given by an informant or eyewitness, the affidavit is sufficient if the

information adequately suggests direct knowledge on his or her part. Wilkerson v. State, 726
S.W.2d 542, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 894 (Tex. App.—El

Paso 1995, pet. ref’d) (“if the named informant is a private citizen whose only contact with the

police is a result of having witnessed a criminal act . . . the credibility and reliability of the

informant is inherent”).

       Detective Halbardier relied on another officer’s interview of the victim taken at the

hospital. In Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149, 156 n.20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals stated that “[o]bservations reported to the affiant by other officers engaged in

the investigation can constitute a reliable basis for issuing a warrant.”

               a.      Victim’s Statement

       Herrera told Seguin Police Detective Jaime Diaz that he was with two other individuals

when they drove by a party and one of his friends began talking to Ezekiel Longoria, one of the

named conspirators. Longoria asked Herrera “what gang he belonged to,” and Herrera replied

“Orejones.” When Herrera exited the vehicle, Longoria waived his hand and two other individuals

attacked Herrera from behind. Herrera stated “approximately five to six males were assaulting at

one time.” The informant also told Detective Diaz the assault was “set up” because Herrera was

suspected of stealing narcotics that belonged to Valadez. This statement was corroborated by the

third informant’s report that two of the individuals that attacked Herrera, including Valadez,

threatened the informant to “keep his mouth shut.” See Davila v. State, No. AP-76,105, 2011 WL
303265, at *6 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 2011) (not designated for publication) (relying on
                                                - 10 -
                                                                                    04-14-00626-CR

eyewitness identification of the shooter as support for the arrest warrant); State v. Ozuna, 88
S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d).

               b.      National and State Databases and other Officers’ Reports

       Detective Halbardier confirmed with local, state, and federal officers and with national and

state databases that Valdez was a lieutenant with the Mexican Mafia.

       During the past several months of investigating multiple violent gang-related
       offenses, working with several Local, State, and Federal officers, it has been
       confirmed that all of [these] six individuals are active gang members.

Detective Halbardier also testified he relied on reports from the Seguin Police Department. The

information contained in the affidavit may be based on either direct personal observations of the

affiant or on hearsay information. Belton, 900 S.W.2d at 893. In Belton, the appellant claimed

that because the affidavit in question reflected no personal knowledge on the part of the affiant,

the arrest warrant lacked probable cause. Id. at 894. The court rejected this argument, noting that

the affidavit contained a statement that the affiant possessed police reports and sworn statements,

as well as information from a witness who had actual knowledge concerning appellant’s

participation in a crime. Id.

       Because Detective Halbardier read the Seguin Police Department offense report and

supplements, investigated multiple offenses involving several of the named suspects, and

interviewed multiple witnesses, suspects, and other involved persons, his personal observations

meet the low threshold illustrated in Belton. Id.; see also Kolbert v. State, 644 S.W.2d 150, 153

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1982, no pet.).

       Corroboration means, that in light of the circumstances, the officer confirms enough facts

to reasonably conclude the information provided is reliable. See State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184,

189 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref’d). We therefore conclude that Detective Halbardier

                                               - 11 -
                                                                                                   04-14-00626-CR

was entitled to rely on the information provided to him by other officers’ investigations and thus

entitled to rely upon the information provided by the victim and the unnamed informants.

                                                 CONCLUSION

        In viewing the totality of the circumstances in a common sense and realistic manner, we

conclude the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause was shown to

issue the arrest warrant against Valadez. The officers obtained information from several unnamed

informants that corroborated the victim’s statement as well and the information provided by other

state, local, and national agencies. Given Detective Halbardier’s training and the stated credibility

of the unnamed informants, the magistrate could reasonably infer that Valadez was tied to the

assault on Herrera. The affidavit provided sufficient facts that, together with reasonable inferences

therefrom, provided a “fair probability” or “substantial chance” that Valadez was engaged in

organized criminal activity. See Flores, 319 S.W.3d at 702; Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 61.

Accordingly, we cannot conclude the trial court erred in denying Valadez’s motion to suppress his

arrest warrant. 2

        Having overruled Valadez’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

PUBLISH

2
 Because we conclude the magistrate had probable cause to issue the arrest warrant based on the allegations that
Valadez engaged in organized criminal activity in the assault of Herrera, we need not address Investigator Camacho’s
good faith exception.

                                                       - 12 -