Brodrick Michael James v. State, 01-15-00103-CR

Background

Appellant Brodrick Michael James pled guilty to three counts of delivery of a controlled substance; punishment was tried to the court and he received concurrent 45-year sentences.
Prior to the narcotics transactions, Investigator Marcos Salinas (undercover) recorded multiple phone calls and video-recorded controlled buys of methamphetamine from James.
After a July 18, 2014 meeting regarding a proposed cocaine purchase, two calls were received from James’ phone: one confirmatory call and a second accidental call (a "butt dial") in which James was overheard stating he planned to rob the undercover officers during the drug transaction.
Investigators used the recording of the accidental call to suspend further dealings and to support the investigation and prosecution; James challenged admission of that recording as a Fourth Amendment and Texas wiretap violation.
On the day of trial James asked to discharge his court-appointed counsel; the trial court denied the request. James later pleaded guilty and proceeded to punishment, then appealed, raising: (1) denial of new counsel request, (2) admissibility of the accidental-call recording, (3) ineffective assistance for failure to preserve the Fourth Amendment objection, and (4) scope of appealability after his plea.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Trial court refusal to discharge court-appointed counsel on day of trial	James: denial abused discretion; he felt uncomfortable and had potential new counsel ready	State: request made at the last minute with no evidence of conflict, bad faith, or inability of counsel to represent him; court must manage docket	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; denial proper.
2. Admissibility of the accidental ("butt dial") phone call	James: recording invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy and violated Fourth Amendment and Texas wiretap law	State: James voluntarily used his phone and exposed the conversation through carelessness; no objectively reasonable privacy expectation; not an "oral communication" protected by statute	Recording admissible; no Fourth Amendment or Texas-wiretap violation.
3. Ineffective assistance for failing to object to the recording	James: counsel's failure to preserve Fourth Amendment/wiretap objection was deficient and prejudicial	State: underlying Fourth Amendment/wiretap claim lacks merit; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection; silent record does not rebut presumption of reasonable strategy	Ineffective-assistance claim fails; no deficient performance or prejudice shown.
4. Scope of appeal after guilty plea and waiver/no PSI	James: contends he retained right to appeal both guilt-innocence and punishment	State: plea resulted in court determining punishment and certification limited appeal to punishment; but appellate jurisdiction may extend given open plea on punishment issues	State concedes appellate jurisdiction extends to points raised; certification issue resolvable on remand if needed.

Key Cases Cited

Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (defendant bears burden to show legitimate expectation of privacy to challenge government intrusion)
Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for objective reasonableness of privacy expectation; totality-of-circumstances test)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view/plain-feel principles where lawful vantage point negates expectation of privacy)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no Fourth Amendment protection for information knowingly exposed to third parties)
Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (observing contraband from lawful vantage point involves no protected expectation of privacy)
Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appealability rules after guilty pleas; distinctions for open pleas and plea bargains)