Alexander Nathaniel Brenes v. State
06-15-00108-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Dec 23, 2015Background
- Police, acting on an informant tip, went to a Paris, Texas residence where occupants consented to a search; officers found marijuana packaging and learned from a resident (Deaton) that Brenes supplied marijuana and often carried contraband in a backpack.
- Deaton texted Brenes to arrange a buy; Brenes arrived in a green Toyota, entered the house, and was detained and handcuffed by detectives inside the home.
- Officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from Brenes’s parked vehicle, opened and searched the car without a warrant, and discovered marijuana, ecstasy tablets, scales, baggies and taped bundles; Brenes was arrested and later made recorded statements after initial Miranda warnings and a request for counsel.
- A grand jury indicted Brenes on two felony counts: (1) possession of marijuana (5–50 lbs) in a drug-free zone; and (2) possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (ecstasy / methylenedioxy methamphetamine) — the indictment omitted the prefix “3,4-” in the chemical name.
- Brenes moved to suppress the vehicle search and later pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement; the trial court denied the suppression motion and accepted the guilty pleas, sentencing Brenes to 20 years (count 1) and 25 years (count 2); the State abandoned the drug-free-zone allegation and agreed not to use Brenes’s recorded statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brenes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the indictment’s omission/misspelling of the controlled-substance name voids the conviction | The omission of “3,4-” (and related misspelling) means the indictment did not charge a statutory offense, rendering the judgment void | Typographical omission did not deprive Brenes of notice or the grand jury screening function; similar precedents reject void-judgment claim | Court rejected void-judgment claim; conviction stands |
| 2. Whether the 25-year sentence is illegal | Sentence inconsistent with charging instrument/plea bargain and thus should be vacated or plea withdrawn | Count 2 charged a first-degree felony (4–400 grams); 25 years falls within 5–99 year range; trial court correctly advised range | Sentence was within statutory range and therefore not illegal |
| 3. Whether the warrantless vehicle search violated Fourth Amendment and required suppression | Search unlawful; State used pretext/entreaty to obtain presence and then searched without a warrant | Officers had corroborated suspicion, smelled strong marijuana from the vehicle, and probable cause justified a warrantless search of a vehicle in custody | Suppression denied: odor plus corroborating facts established probable cause for warrantless vehicle search |
| 4. Whether the recorded statement should have been excluded under art. 38.22 and whether plea was invalid | Recorded statement inadmissible; trial court erred in accepting plea without ruling exclusion | Brenes waived specific Article 38.22 objection by not timely objecting; State also abandoned use of the statement and any error was harmless | Court found waiver/no reversible harm; plea acceptance not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (void-judgment doctrine and grounds for collateral attack)
- Guzman v. State, 959 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (warrantless vehicle searches supported by probable cause may be lawful without exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1985) (vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on probable cause without exigent circumstances and search need not be contemporaneous with seizure)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment protects only those expectations of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable; exposures to third parties are not protected)
- Amos v. State, 819 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (once probable cause to search a vehicle exists, officers may search immediately without a warrant)
- State v. Mazuca, 375 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discussing statutory identification of methylenedioxy methamphetamine in penalty group classification)
- Pina v. State, 38 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (failure to timely and specifically object to admissibility of statements under Article 38.22 waives the complaint)