Henderson, Ashley Jack Cody, PD-0446-15

Background

Dallas police obtained a warrant to attach a GPS tracker to an Acura they had seen Henderson drive while investigating burglaries. The tracker showed the Acura had been at a Haskell drugstore the night it was burglarized.
Surveillance video and recovered trash connected the Acura and persons seen in the video to the burglary. Haskell officers obtained arrest warrants for Henderson.
Four days after the burglary, Dallas officers located Henderson in a motel room in Dallas, arrested him, and observed clothing in the room matching items in the burglary video.
Officers searched the Acura parked at the motel without a warrant and seized oxycodone pills, gloves, and burglary tools. Henderson objected at trial to admission of some items (chain-of-custody initially; later sought to “un-admit” pills and gloves on lack-of-probable-cause grounds).
The trial court admitted the items; a jury convicted Henderson of possession of oxycodone (4–200 g) with a 60-year sentence. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Henderson petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals raising waiver and probable-cause/staleness issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Henderson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admission of pills and gloves — timeliness/waiver	Objection to admission was preserved because the State re-litigated the issue at trial by presenting additional testimony after Henderson renewed his objection; therefore appellate probable-cause challenge is timely.	Objection as to probable cause was untimely for pills and gloves because Henderson originally objected on chain-of-custody grounds and did not raise probable-cause contemporaneously; cannot raise new legal theory on appeal.	Court of Appeals: waiver — Henderson’s later probable-cause objection to pills and gloves was untimely and waived. Petitioner argues this was error.
Admission of burglary tools — probable cause for warrantless search (automobile exception)	Search was unconstitutional: four days elapsed (staleness); no plain-view evidence in car; clothing in motel linked to burglary but did not show drugs or stolen goods would still be in car; no reason to believe car contained narcotics. Evidence seized was fruit of poisonous tree.	Totality of circumstances (tracked car at drugstore, GPS history, Marrs Road trash linkage, motel room clothing matching video, convenience-store surveillance) gave fair probability that evidence of crime would be in the vehicle; automobile exception justified warrantless search.	Court of Appeals: probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances; search and admission of burglary tools (and, by its ruling, other items if not waived) was proper. Petitioner contends appellate court erred, particularly on staleness.
Sufficiency to prove Henderson possessed drugs found in Acura	(argued as mitigation) Pills in the Acura were not affirmatively linked to Henderson four days later, so evidence insufficient to prove he knowingly possessed those pills.	The charged possession offense rested on burglary video, owner’s inventory, GPS/tracker, motel-room evidence, and accomplice testimony; conviction valid without proving he possessed the pills in the Acura.	Court of Appeals: sufficiency challenge rejected; conviction supported by burglary evidence and accomplice testimony.
Scope of appellate review — use of trial testimony after suppression hearing	Trial court erred by not permitting re-litigation; appellate court should consider trial testimony because State reintroduced suppression issues at trial.	Appellate review may be limited to suppression hearing; however here the State presented additional testimony at trial and the trial court ruled after that, so appellate review can consider the trial testimony.	Petitioner argues Court of Appeals should have considered the re-litigated testimony to avoid waiver; Court of Appeals treated the pills/gloves probable-cause objection as waived.

Key Cases Cited

Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to trial court findings on historical facts)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (bifurcated review; deference to credibility-based fact findings)
Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when suppression issues are re-litigated at trial, appellate review may consider trial testimony)
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate complaints must comport with trial objections; preservation rules)
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App.) (implicit findings and appellate assumptions when no formal findings requested)
Gonzales v. State, 195 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. Crim. App.) (upholding evidentiary rulings if correct under any legal theory supported by the record)
Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App.) (automobile exception; probable cause requires a fair probability of finding evidence)
Keehn v. State, 279 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. Crim. App.) (vehicle readily mobile + probable cause supports warrantless search)