Curley Hawthorne Jefferson v. State
06-17-00126-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Nixon confessed to burglarizing Bucks N Ducks and said he traded stolen items to Curley Jefferson for cocaine.
- Sheriff McKnight obtained a search warrant for Jefferson's residence specifying several stolen items.
- Officers executed the warrant, secured the residence, and observed three baggies with white substances in plain view (one in a bedroom tray, one in a flushed toilet).
- Officers seized the baggies; lab analysis of the "white chunks" baggie showed 1.55 grams of cocaine.
- Jefferson was charged and convicted for possession of cocaine (≥1g and <4g), receiving 20 years and a $2,000 fine.
- On appeal Jefferson argued (1) the cocaine was outside the warrant’s scope and officers exceeded the warrant, and (2) the trial court gave an incorrect plain-view jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of cocaine seized during warrant execution (plain-view) | Jefferson: seizure exceeded warrant scope; plain-view limited to items related to the listed offense | State: officers were lawfully on premises securing the residence and lawfully seized contraband in plain view; plain-view not so limited | Court: admissible — plain-view applies when officer is lawfully on premises and item is immediately apparent contraband |
| Preservation of scope/exceeded-warrant complaint | Jefferson argued scope limitation at trial only in terms of plain-view being limited to listed-offense items | State: trial objection did not raise argument that officers searched where listed items could not be seen or rely on different warrant subsections; thus not preserved | Court: complaint not preserved for appellate review; cannot consider unraised theories |
| Jury instruction on plain-view seizure | Jefferson: instruction erroneous because plain-view seizure should be limited to items related to warrant-listed property | State: instruction correctly stated law permitting seizure of plain-view contraband when officers have probable cause | Court: no error — instruction is a substantially correct statement of law (consistent with controlling precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dobbs, 323 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plain-view seizure permitted when officer lawfully on premises pursuant to warrant)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plain-view doctrine and immediately apparent standard)
- Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (officers securing premises may seize contraband seen during cursory security checks)
- Vuong v. State, 830 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (officer securing a room may seize plainly visible narcotics)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (preservation rule: litigant must inform trial court of grounds for objection so court can act)