Derrick Demond Cooks v. State
12-15-00059-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Defendant Derrick Demond Cooks was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to two years in state jail and a $6,500 fine.
- Before trial Cooks filed a general motion to suppress; at the suppression hearing he argued the traffic stop lacked probable cause but did not raise a Terry-search or nonconsent theory now advanced on appeal.
- At the suppression hearing the trial court found sufficient probable cause for the traffic stop and denied suppression.
- During trial the State offered the vial of PCP into evidence conditionally and later for all purposes; each time defense counsel stated "no objection."
- The State’s brief argues (1) Cooks failed to preserve his Terry/consent arguments for appeal and (2) he waived any objection by repeatedly saying "no objection" when the exhibits were admitted; the State asks the court of appeals to affirm the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (State's position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooks preserved on appeal the claim the search exceeded a Terry pat-down | Cooks contends the search exceeded the bounds of Terry and was unconstitutional | State: Cooks did not raise a Terry-based objection at the suppression hearing or in his motion to suppress | State: Not preserved; appellate court should not consider the new Terry theory |
| Whether Cooks preserved on appeal the claim he did not consent to the search | Cooks contends the search was not consensual | State: No argument about lack of consent was made at the suppression hearing | State: Not preserved; appellate review barred |
| Whether admission of the PCP evidence was waived at trial | Cooks challenges admission as unlawful on appeal | State: Defense counsel repeatedly stated "no objection" when exhibits were offered | State: Waived—saying "no objection" forfeits appellate complaint about admission |
| Standard of review for denial of suppression motion | Cooks implicitly asks appellate review of suppression ruling | State: Denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; trial court findings given deference | State: Even if arguable error, trial court within zone of reasonable disagreement; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for suppression rulings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (deference to trial court fact findings and mixed questions dependent on credibility)
- DuBose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (trial judge as exclusive factfinder at suppression hearings)
- Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (stating that an affirmative "no objection" waives admission complaints)
- Ranson v. State, 707 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (requirements for timely objection to preserve error)
- Brimage v. State, 918 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness reference)
- State v. Carter, 915 S.W.2d 501 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (deference to trial court suppression determinations)