Brandee Michelle Nichols v. State
12-14-00287-CR
Tex. App.Sep 2, 2015Background
- DPS Trooper Shepherd stopped Brandee Nichols after observing her vehicle approach with apparent high-beam headlights; video and testimony conflicted but the trial court credited the trooper.
- Upon contact Shepherd smelled alcohol, observed slurred speech and unsteadiness; Nichols admitted drinking two beers and performed poorly on field sobriety tests.
- Nichols refused a portable breath test after asking about an attorney; Shepherd arrested her for DUI and arranged towing when no one could timely take the vehicle.
- Pursuant to DPS policy, Shepherd began an inventory search of the impounded vehicle, found a narcotics pipe in Nichols’s purse, and after comments by Shepherd Nichols told him methamphetamine was present; Shepherd then found the methamphetamine.
- Nichols moved to suppress arguing (1) the traffic stop was unlawful, (2) the arrest lacked probable cause, and (3) her disclosure (and subsequent discovery) of meth was induced by promises/threats; the trial court denied suppression and entered findings.
- Nichols pleaded guilty; at a bench punishment trial she admitted prior enhancements; appellate court modified the written judgment to correctly reflect Nichols pleaded “true” to enhancement paragraphs one and two and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop | Shepherd lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause because Nichols’s low beams, not high beams, were on | Trooper observed high beams and committed a traffic violation; trial court credited trooper | Stop was lawful; trial court did not abuse discretion (issue overruled) |
| Whether statement/search was coerced/induced | Nichols argued Shepherd’s promises/threats induced her to disclose location of meth, so statement and resulting seizure must be suppressed | Shepherd’s remarks were general ("it’ll be worse" if she hid things) and not a specific, authoritative promise or coercion | Statement was voluntary; no promise or coercion of sufficient influence; suppression denied (issue overruled) |
| Trial-court judgment accuracy | Written judgment misstated enhancement/jurisdictional findings | Record shows Nichols pleaded true to enhancement paragraphs one and two and court found them true | Appellate court modified judgment to reflect true pleas/findings and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (officer may stop motorist who commits traffic violation)
- Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (deference to trial court fact findings in suppression proceedings)
- Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (promise must be positive, authoritative, and influential to render confession involuntary)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation of suppression issues requires specific trial-court presentation)
- Miller v. State, 312 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (law-enforcement coercion standard for involuntary statements)