Barry Anthony Willis, Jr. v. State
02-16-00163-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On July 5, 2014, DPS troopers stopped a vehicle for speeding; troopers smelled marijuana and found a small amount on passenger Alexia Gonzalez.
- Appellant Barry Willis was a passenger; he produced approximately $10,000 from his pocket when asked and was cooperative; Gonzalez consented to a vehicle search.
- A drug dog alerted to the vehicle and later to an envelope containing Willis’s money; officers recovered photos and texts from Willis’s phone (photos of large cash amounts and a text reading “One whole day to sell a pound, I’m on my game”).
- Officers found two marijuana blunts in the trunk and handwritten notes in the car; Willis was transported to the DPS office and interviewed (audio played at trial).
- Willis’s sister and brother-in-law testified they had given Willis about $10,000 earlier in the year; Willis was convicted of money laundering (Tex. Penal Code §34.02) and sentenced to 15 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Willis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an illegal arrest/search | Search and seizures (vehicle search, money, phone, dog alert, interview) were lawful: Gonzalez consented to vehicle search; probable cause supported detention/arrest | Arrest and subsequent searches/interview were unlawful and therefore evidence should be suppressed | Denied. Vehicle search valid by Gonzalez’s consent; even if Willis was arrested en route, probable cause existed based on totality of circumstances |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence to prove money laundering (knowing transport of proceeds) | Combined circumstantial evidence (drug-dog alert on money, drugs in car, photos and text linking Willis to cash/drug activity, inconsistent ownership of vehicle, notes) establishes nexus between cash and drug trafficking | Evidence insufficient: Willis cooperative, handed over cash, cash not hidden/vacuum-packed, claimed innocent source (family loan) | Affirmed. Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences permitted the jury to find nexus and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| 3. Admissibility of photographs from Willis’s phone | Photographs (cash, marijuana) and texts were relevant to show course of conduct, timeline, and rebut Willis’s innocence claim | Photographs were irrelevant and prejudicial | Affirmed. Photographs were relevant ("small nudge") to the State’s theory and to refute Willis’s claim that cash came from family loan |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings; deference to trial court on historical facts)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (factors for establishing nexus between seized cash and drug trafficking)
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (consent exception to warrant requirement for vehicle searches)
- Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (probable cause and warrantless arrest principles)