711 S.W.3d 92
Tex. App.2024Background
- Dwayne Ernest Wharton was convicted by a jury of capital murder stemming from a 2018 home invasion and shooting death in Cypress, Texas.
- The prosecution established Wharton and an accomplice (Bobby Turner) surveilled the victim's home, forcibly entered, and Wharton shot the homeowner, Leandro Morales, during a robbery attempt.
- Investigators connected Wharton to the crime via surveillance footage, GPS data from Wharton’s vehicle (subject to a lien and dealership-installed tracker), palm prints, cell phone communications, and his own confession.
- Wharton appealed, raising six issues: sufficiency of the evidence (intent), admissibility of his custodial statements, warrantless use of GPS data, and hearsay regarding his phone number.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the conviction and admission of challenged evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence (Intent to Kill) | Shooting was accidental; no intent to kill; evidence supports lesser offense of felony murder | Use of deadly weapon at close range allows jury to infer intent to kill | Evidence sufficient for intent; conviction upheld |
| Admission of Custodial Statement | Statements obtained after invoking right to counsel violated 5th/6th Amendments and state law | Wharton reinitiated conversation, waived rights, and warnings were effective | No error; statement admissible |
| Warrantless GPS Data Use | Warrantless acquisition of third-party GPS tracking data violated privacy under U.S. and Texas Constitutions | No reasonable privacy expectation due to signed consent in purchase contract | No error; GPS search constitutional |
| Admission of Hearsay (Phone Number) | Testimony linking Wharton to cell number was hearsay, lacked proper authentication | Same information admitted elsewhere without objection | Any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (requirement that police not reinitiate interrogation after request for counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver)
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (warrant requirement for cell phone location data but distinguished for GPS in this context)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in data voluntarily given to third parties)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (physical trespass/GPS tracking is a search, but privacy distinction drawn here)