Opinion
No. 04-02-00816-CR.
Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2002-CR-3467, Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding. AFFIRMED.
Sitting: Alma L. LOPEZ, Chief Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After the trial court denied Annie Rochelle Woods' motion to suppress, she pleaded no contest to the state jail felony offense of manufacture/delivery of cocaine in an amount less than one gram and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for eighteen months. She now appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to suppress. We affirm. In her first issue, Woods argues the trial court erred in telling defense counsel that, because Woods was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision and thus not convicted of the charged offense, she could not appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. However, as the State concedes, Woods has the right to appeal the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure then in effect. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(b)(3)(B) (repealed) (now Tex.R.App.P.25.2(a)(2)(A)); see also Amir v. State, 45 S.W.3d 88, 88 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1748 (2003)). Woods' first issue is thus moot. In her second issue, Woods argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to suppress because the traffic stop during which her identity was obtained was initiated without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. We disagree. To justify an investigative detention, "the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that some abnormal activity has occurred or is occurring; an indication that the activity is criminal in nature; and some suggestion to connect the detained person with the unusual activity." Willhite v. State, 937 S.W.2d 604, 606 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd). The requisite "reasonable suspicion may be transferred from one officer to another so that a valid detention may be effected." Id. at 607 (citing Pyles v. State, 755 S.W.2d 98, 109 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988)). However, "when it appears that the detaining officer acted upon nothing other than a radio dispatch or request to apprehend," "the focus lies upon the information known to the officer who made the broadcast." State v. Jennings, 958 S.W.2d 930, 933 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no pet.). "While this does not mandate that he testify, the State must nevertheless present evidence justifying said officer's broadcast or request; in other words, it must be shown that the officer who made the stop or arrest did so upon the request of someone who had reasonable suspicion or probable cause." Id. The stipulated facts in this case justified Woods' detention. On June 13, 2001, a woman called "Ebony" sold to Sergeant Edward Trefger, working undercover, approximately one gram of cocaine. Because an offense was committed in his presence, Trefger was authorized to arrest "Ebony" at that time. See Tex.Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 14.01 (Vernon 1977). However, Trefger wanted to continue his surveillance of "Ebony" and other suspects and therefore did not arrest "Ebony" at the time of the sale. Instead, after Sergeant Trefger observed "Ebony" entering a vehicle, surveillance officers followed the vehicle, and instructed San Antonio Police Officer David Espinoza to stop the vehicle in which "Ebony" was riding as a passenger and identify the occupants. "Ebony's" Texas identification card identified her as Annie Rochelle Woods. The stipulated facts conclusively establish that the collective knowledge of the officers involved established reasonable suspicion to believe that Woods had committed a crime and therefore justified her detention. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.