Jessica Boyett v. State
06-15-00023-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 5, 2015Background
- Appellant Jessica Boyett and co-defendant/husband Rodney Boyett were investigated for "pill runs" after pharmacy pseudoephedrine-sale reports suggested multiple small purchases from different Paris, TX pharmacies.
- Officers followed the Boyetts after they shopped at CVS, Home Depot, and Walmart; Officer Foreman stopped their vehicle on the asserted basis of a lane-maintenance violation.
- During the stop Foreman questioned them about pseudoephedrine and meth use, entered the vehicle without a warrant within minutes, found pseudoephedrine boxes, liquid HEET, tubing, and peroxide, seized the items, and arrested both.
- Both defendants were interviewed at the station; Boyett made inculpatory statements and signed a judicial confession. Appellant later pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and received a probated five-year sentence and fine.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the traffic stop was pretextual and unsupported by § 545.060; the ensuing search, arrest, and custodial statements were unlawful/coerced; and the judicial confession was legally insufficient under Art. 1.15.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument (Boyett) | State's Argument | Held (trial court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Lawfulness of the traffic stop | Stop was pretextual; officer lacked reasonable suspicion for investigative detention and did not observe a safety-related violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.060 | Stop was lawful based on observed lane encroachment and/or reasonable suspicion from pseudoephedrine-purchase data | Trial court denied suppression; found stop/search/arrest lawful |
| 2. Legality of warrantless vehicle search & arrest | Officer lacked probable cause to search; seizure of mere evidence (pseudoephedrine/ingredients) and arrest under Tex. Health & Safety § 481.124(b)(3) was unsupported | Items observed and statements obtained provided probable cause to search and arrest | Trial court admitted seized evidence; denied motion to suppress |
| 3. Voluntariness and admissibility of custodial statements | Statements were product of custodial interrogation after illegal arrest and were coerced (threats/denial of counsel) so inadmissible under Miranda/Art. 38.22 and due process | Statements were voluntarily given; no coercion or improper promises/threats that tainted admissibility | Trial court found statements voluntary and admissible |
| 4. Sufficiency of judicial confession to support guilty plea (Art. 1.15) | Judicial confession did not adequately plead/establish all elements of conspiracy (overt act "in pursuance to" agreement imprecisely pled); thus plea supported by insufficient evidence | Judicial confession and facts sufficed to show agreement and overt act (possession/transport of ingredients) | Trial court accepted plea and entered judgment based on the confession |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (distinguishes consensual encounters from investigative detentions and frames reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (investigative-stop standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (pretextual traffic-stop doctrine; objective justification analysis)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2015) (traffic-stop mission-limitation; further detention must be reasonably related to traffic stop)
- Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1936) (coerced confessions violate due process)
- Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Article 1.15 requires sufficient evidence to support a conviction on a guilty plea)