Opinion
02-23-00310-CR
12-12-2024
Da Shawn Lamond Williams, Appellant v. The State of Texas
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 297th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1795850
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bonnie Sudderth, Chief Justice
I. Introduction
A jury convicted Appellant Da Shawn Lamond Williams of aggravated robbery and the murder of Christon Jones and assessed Williams's punishment at 25 years' confinement for the aggravated robbery and 50 years' confinement for the murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 19.02(c), 29.03(b).
The jury found that Williams used a deadly weapon during the offenses.
In a single point, Williams asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and thereby allowed into evidence a distinctive backpack that linked him to the scene of Jones's murder. Because Williams's arguments on appeal do not comport with the ones he made in the trial court, he has failed to preserve this complaint. We overrule his sole point and affirm the trial court's judgment.
II. Background
Jones was murdered in May 2020 during the second of two robberies that occurred in Isac Hernandez's home. In the first robbery, a limited-edition "Backwoods 'Dark Stout' backpack" had been stolen; in the second robbery, in which Jones was shot and killed, the State charged Williams with the above offenses.
Almost a year later, in March 2021, after the murder of Patrick Lovell Boone Jr., the police executed a search warrant on Williams's home and seized, among other things, the limited-edition backpack that had been stolen in the first robbery at Hernandez's home. Before the Jones trial, Williams sought to suppress the backpack and its contents, arguing,
(1) The backpack exceeded the warrant's scope in that the search warrant affidavit listed it as an item to be seized but the search warrant did not;
(2) The backpack's contents-including two of Hernandez's old school IDs-were not listed in the search warrant or in the sponsoring affidavit;
(3) The officers should have obtained an additional search warrant for the backpack and its contents; and
(4) The backpack was "stale as far as the timing goes."
The trial court overruled Williams's objections and found that the backpack had been incorporated by reference into the search warrant from the affidavit.
The search warrant's language had incorporated the affidavit by reference "for all purposes." See Green v. State, 799 S.W.2d 756, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ("[T]he warrant and supporting affidavit must be read together and a determination of validity made according to the totality of circumstances."); see also Greene v. State, 358 S.W.3d 752, 756 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref'd) ("The description contained in the affidavit limits and controls the description contained in the warrant.").
During trial, Williams generally reurged his objections to the admission of photos of the backpack and school IDs, and the trial court overruled these objections and admitted them into evidence. At the trial's conclusion, the jury convicted Williams of murder and aggravated robbery. After the punishment trial, the trial court sentenced Williams in accordance with the jury's punishment assessments and set Williams's sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
III. Preservation
In a single point, Williams complains that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the warrant lacked probable cause. Specifically, he argued:
(1) The date of Boone's murder is set forth incorrectly;
(2) The affiant failed "to explain how he determined that [911 caller Tanner] Horner's and [Tanner's girlfriend Kassi] Wayt's testimony was reliable and credible"; and
(3) The affidavit "relies extensively upon unnamed, anonymous, and unidentified 'family members' [of Boone] whose hearsay testimony is unsubstantiated and with no substantial basis identified for crediting the hearsay testimony" or independent investigation to corroborate the information.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented a timely objection to the trial court, stating the specific grounds for the desired ruling, and the appellant's argument on appeal must comport with his trial objection. Gibson v. State, 541 S.W.3d 164, 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Vasquez v. State, 483 S.W.3d 550, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); see also Tex.R.App.P. 33.1 (stating preservation rule); Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877, 884-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explaining that "the reason that any objection must be specific in the first place is so that the trial court can avoid the error or provide a timely and appropriate remedy, and the opposing party has an opportunity to respond and, if necessary, react"); Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ("Whether a party's particular complaint is preserved depends on whether the complaint on appeal comports with the complaint made at trial.[] In making this determination, we consider the context in which the complaint was made and the parties' shared understanding at that time.").
Because, as set out in our recitation above, Williams's arguments to the trial court differ from those he is making on appeal, he has failed to preserve his suppression complaint for our review. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1; Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 464. Accordingly, we overrule his sole point.
IV. Conclusion
Having overruled Williams's sole point, we affirm the trial court's judgment.