Opinion
No. 04-16-00247-CR
07-11-2018
Leandra M. SALINAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
From the County Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-012507
Honorable Walter R. Long Jr., Judge Presiding Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice AFFIRMED
This appeal arises from appellant Leandra Salinas's misdemeanor conviction for possession of a substance listed in Penalty Group 2-A of the Texas Health and Safety Code. It comes to us on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. See Salinas v. State, No. PD-0332-17, 2017 WL 4020884 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2017).
Background
Deputy Jimmy Loya of the Karnes County Sheriff's Office stopped the vehicle in which Salinas was a passenger for having an obscured license plate. Loya approached the vehicle on the passenger side, and as he spoke with the occupants, he smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana. Two additional deputies in a single vehicle arrived a short time later to assist with the traffic stop. Salinas and the driver, Albert Farias, were removed from their vehicle and placed in handcuffs. Loya informed them he was searching the vehicle because of the marijuana odor. As Loya searched the vehicle, Salinas voluntarily informed him there was a blunt, or rolled marijuana cigarette, in her purse.
Loya verified the purse he found belonged to Salinas and located the marijuana cigarette. He then asked Salinas if she had anything else on her, and Salinas responded she did. Loya discovered through further questioning that a baggie of synthetic marijuana and a plastic container with an unknown substance were hidden in Salinas's shirt. Loya placed Salinas under arrest after she retrieved the synthetic marijuana and a plastic container holding what Loya believed to be methamphetamine. According to the complaint authored by Loya, as well as Loya's testimony, Salinas was not given the Miranda warnings any time prior to being placed under arrest.
Although Loya testified he believed the substance to be methamphetamine based on his experience, the record in this case does not indicate whether later testing showed the substance to actually be methamphetamine.
Loya also testified he did not give Salinas the Miranda warnings following her arrest.
The State charged Salinas by information with the offense of "Possession of Dangerous Drug ... a substance listed in PG 2-A." The information identified the substance as "a synthetic chemical compound that is cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids." Salinas filed a motion to suppress the synthetic marijuana, arguing the reason for the traffic stop became moot once Loya was able to view the license plate and the synthetic marijuana was illegally obtained as a result of unwarned custodial interrogation. The trial court denied Salinas's motion to suppress. Salinas pleaded nolo contendere. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Salinas was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for twelve months and fined $50.
In the original appeal to this court, Salinas challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of a statement that Salinas contended was the product of an unwarned custodial interrogation. See Salinas v. State, No. 04-16-00247-CR, 2017 WL 993095 (Tex. App.—San Antonio March 15, 2017), vacated No. PD-0332-17, 2017 WL 4020884 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2017). We reversed the conviction determining the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress based on Officer Loya's failure to inform Salinas of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. at *6. We held that Salinas's statements to Officer Loya, and the drugs found as a result of her statements, should have been suppressed as the products of an unwarned custodial interrogation. Id.
The State filed a petition for discretionary review disputing this court's determination that Salinas was in custody at the time she made the contested statements. Additionally, citing United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (plurality opinion) and Baker v. State, 956 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), the State contended that even if our custody determination was correct, we erred by suppressing the drugs, which were the physical fruits of any unwarned custodial statement.
The Court of Criminal Appeals refused with prejudice ground one of the State's petition for discretionary review. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted ground two of the State's petition for discretionary review, vacated this court's judgment and remanded the case to us "to consider whether the drugs, as physical fruits of [Salinas]'s unwarned custodial statement, are required to be suppressed in light of Patane and Baker."
ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that Officer Loya did not advise Salinas of her Miranda rights before asking about the presence of drugs. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the exclusionary rule applies to statements resulting from unwarned custodial interrogation but not to the fruits of those statements. Baker, 956 S.W.2d 19, 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The Court stated that "mere noncompliance with Miranda does not result in a carryover taint beyond the statement itself." Id. at 23. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly denied Salinas's motion to suppress.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Irene Rios, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH