From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Nov 2, 2017
No. 05-16-01205-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2017)

Opinion

No. 05-16-01205-CR

11-02-2017

ECHO JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1454981-H

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Bridges

Echo Johnson appeals her conviction of possession of less than one gram of heroin. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, appellant entered a guilty plea, and the trial court placed her on deferred adjudication probation for three years and assessed a $1500 fine. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in finding that the arresting officer could legally enter Appellant's vehicle and seize property under the plain-view doctrine. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

At approximately 9:40 p.m. on May 13, 2014, Dallas police officer Luis Estrella responded to a call in Dallas concerning two females selling drugs from their vehicle at a gas station. When he reached the gas station, Estrella saw two females sitting in a pickup truck, and he parked twenty feet away from the truck where they could not see him. Estrella got out of his car and approached the passenger side of the truck where appellant was sitting. The females were "doing movements toward the center console," but they still did not know Estrella was there. When appellant saw Estrella, appellant "made a furtive gesture with a left hand," and Estrella saw syringes in an open Crown Royal bag. Estrella asked appellant to exit the truck, and she complied. Appellant "had a liquid, an unknown liquid," and Estrella detained appellant until other officers arrived and field tested the liquid, which tested positive for heroin. Estrella arrested appellant for possession of a controlled substance.

Appellant was indicted for intentionally and knowingly possessing heroin in an amount less than one gram. Appellant filed a motion to suppress in which she argued the "warrantless stop, search and seizure in this case was unreasonable," and the substance taken from the vehicle should be suppressed and excluded from evidence. At the suppression hearing, Estrella testified that he observed an open Crown Royal bag containing syringes in the truck in which appellant was a passenger. The liquid in the syringes later tested positive for heroin. The trial court ruled that Estrella was "an officer standing in a public place" and "observing something in plain view." "Based upon the reason for contact [between Estrella and appellant] and [Estrella] observing something in plain view," the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant entered a guilty plea and received deferred community supervision for three years and a $1500 fine. The trial court certified appellant's right to appeal, and this appeal followed.

In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in "finding that the officer could legally enter Appellant's vehicle and seize property based solely on the officer's inarticulable hunch that under the plain-view doctrine, the items contained contraband." Specifically, appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress because there was no evidence that it was immediately apparent to Estrella that he was viewing contraband or evidence of illegal activity when he first saw the syringes.

In its brief, the State argues the trial court correctly denied appellant's motion to suppress because appellant failed to prove she had standing to challenge the search of the truck and the seizure of the syringes. However, the State concedes that appellant had standing to challenge her own detention. The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress based on an application of the plain-view doctrine, and appellant argues in her brief that the trial court erred in finding that Estrella could legally enter appellant's vehicle and seize property under the plain-view doctrine. Accordingly, our analysis addresses the plain-view doctrine as it applies to the facts of this case.

When a trial judge enters findings of fact after denying a motion to suppress, an "appellate court [must first] determine[ ] whether the evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling) supports these fact findings." Keehn v. State, 279 S.W.3d 330, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (quoting State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). If the findings are supported by the record, appellate courts will "afford almost total deference to a trial court's determination of the historical facts" when they "are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor." Id. (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Appellate courts give "the same amount of deference" to " 'mixed questions of law and fact[ ]' if the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor." Id. (quoting Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89). But when the resolution of mixed law and fact questions do not depend upon an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, appellate courts are permitted to conduct a de novo review. Id.

The seizure of items within "plain view" may be reasonable when the arresting officer has no warrant if: 1) the officers must lawfully be on the premises or otherwise properly be in a position from which they can view a particular item and have lawful access to it; and 2) it must be immediately apparent that the incriminating evidence is seizable as evidence of a crime. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990); Hardin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991) (following lawful detention of appellant to investigate violation of motor vehicle laws, officer possessed probable cause to believe syringe containing "yellow substance" in plain view in appellant's pocket contained a controlled substance). When an officer observes contraband "'from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment—or at least no search independent of the initial intrusion that gave the officers their vantage point.'" Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (quoting Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993)).

Here, Estrella received a call that two women were selling drugs from their vehicle at a gas station. When he reached the gas station, Estrella saw two women in a pickup truck. Estrella approached and saw appellant make a "furtive gesture" with her left hand. Estrella saw syringes in an open Crown Royal bag inside the truck. Estrella asked appellant to exit the truck and detained her until other officers arrived and a field test showed the syringe's contents tested positive for heroin. The record shows Estrella was in a public place, a gas station, responding to a call that two females were selling drugs at that location when he observed in plain view syringes containing a liquid. Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to suppress. See Keehn, 279 S.W.3d at 334; Hardin, 818 S.W.2d at 210. We overrule appellant's single issue.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

/David L. Bridges/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 161205F.U05

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1454981-H.
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 2, 2017.


Summaries of

Johnson v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Nov 2, 2017
No. 05-16-01205-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2017)
Case details for

Johnson v. State

Case Details

Full title:ECHO JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Nov 2, 2017

Citations

No. 05-16-01205-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2017)