Darrian De'Anthony Davis-Sanders v. State
06-14-00189-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | May 15, 2015Background
- Appellant Darrian Davis-Sanders was adjudicated guilty on four causes on Sept. 25, 2014 (one 60‑year sentence and three concurrent 10‑year sentences) after the State moved to adjudicate based on alleged possession of methamphetamine and firearms.
- Garland PD officer, acting on an informant tip and corroborating phone call, went to an apartment complex, learned the renter had outstanding warrants, and performed a knock‑and‑talk; the door was opened by a female and officer observed marijuana smoke and drugs on a table.
- Officer performed what he described as a protective sweep, entered the room, detained occupants, and during the sweep recovered multiple bags; Davis‑Sanders was taken out of the bathroom and seated.
- Officer testified Davis‑Sanders identified a backpack as his, opened its large compartment, and the officer found Davis‑Sanders’s ID, a loaded handgun, and a baggie with a crystal‑like substance the officer recognized as methamphetamine.
- Davis‑Sanders testified he was a guest, denied prior knowledge of the items, said he was under a show of force and that officers pulled items out of bags while he sat restrained, and he disputes that he gave voluntary consent to search.
- Appellant’s sole appellate point: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress (1) the warrantless entry/protective sweep and subsequent search of bags, and (2) custodial interrogation/statements; he argues suppression would have prevented evidence used to revoke probation and to adjudicate guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis‑Sanders) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry and protective sweep of the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment | Officer lacked exigent circumstances; entry was effectively a warrantless residential search; sweep was a pretext to avoid obtaining a warrant | Officer relied on informant tip, corroborating phone call, visible marijuana and possible ongoing destruction of evidence, and a need to ensure officer safety | Not decided in this brief; appellant seeks suppression and reversal (appeal pending) |
| Whether the search of the backpack exceeded the scope of any lawful protective sweep or consent | Search of backpack was beyond cursory sweep; any alleged consent was involuntary because Davis‑Sanders was restrained and under show of force | Officer testified Davis‑Sanders identified the backpack as his and pointed to the compartment containing the gun and drugs | Not decided in this brief; appellant contends evidence should be suppressed |
| Whether statements or responses by Davis‑Sanders were custodial and should have triggered Miranda/Art. 38.22 warnings | Davis‑Sanders was effectively in custody (show of force, restrained, probable cause to arrest) so Miranda/38.22 warnings were required; responses and any resulting consent were involuntary | Officer maintains initial contact and questions occurred during a protective sweep/detention; any identification/answers do not rise to custodial interrogation requiring warnings | Not decided in this brief; appellant argues statements were inadmissible absent warnings |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress | Counsel’s failure to move to suppress was deficient and prejudicial because the only evidence supporting revocation/adjudication derived from the allegedly illegal search and statements | State would argue counsel’s performance was reasonable given the officer’s testimony and probable justifications for entry, sweep, search, and statements | Not decided in this brief; appellant asks this Court to find deficient performance and remand for a suppression hearing and new adjudication if evidence is excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (warrant required to enter residence to execute arrest of nonresident)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine; limited cursory search incident to arrest)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (consent and third‑party authority to permit entry)
- Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (protective sweep standard under Texas law)
- Limon v. State, 340 S.W.3d 753 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (warrantless entries/searches of residences analyzed under Fourth Amendment)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (consent to search analyzed under totality of circumstances)