Jones v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4300
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Jones was convicted by jury of: (1) possession of a firearm by a felon, (2) possession with intent to deliver cocaine (4–200 grams), and (3) possession with intent to deliver MDMA (ecstasy) (4–400 grams); he stipulated prior felony convictions for aggravated assault and arson, and the jury sentenced him to 99 years on each count, to run concurrently.
- A search warrant was issued for 219 North Pine Road based on a warrant affidavit by Officer A. Bjerke describing confidential informants, a controlled buy, and information that Jones kept firearms at the residence.
- Police executed the no-knock entry warrant at approximately 12:24 a.m. on November 6, 2007, finding drugs, a loaded handgun, scales, cash, and Jones present in the home, with other occupants also arrested.
- Jones challenged the suppression of evidence, arguing the affidavit failed to show probable cause (timeframe, reliability of informants, and location specifics), and sought Franks relief for alleged false statements.
- The trial court denied suppression and admitted evidence; Jones appealed raising multiple issues including probable cause, Franks, 38.23 instruction, informant disclosure, and sufficiency of evidence linking him to the firearm found.
- After rehearing, the court affirmed the judgments, with Justice Sharp dissenting on the 38.23 and timing arguments and urging reversal and remand on the first issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause sufficiency in the search warrant affidavit | Jones argues the affidavit lacks specificity/timeliness to show probable cause | Jones contends the warrant lacked sufficient facts and timing to establish probable cause | Affirmed; affidavit provided substantial basis for probable cause |
| Franks hearing and false statements in affidavit | Jones seeks Franks relief for alleged false statements by affiant | State argues no Franks hearing due to lack of precise falsehood allegations | Overruled; no Franks hearing warranted |
| Article 38.23(a) jury instruction | Jones asserts instruction should have been given due to contested timing of controlled buys | No material factual dispute affecting legality of the search; instruction not required | Overruled; no 38.23 instruction required |
| Disclosure of confidential informant identity under Rule 508 | Jones sought disclosure of the first informant’s identity | Disclosure not warranted as reliability of the first informant did not affect legality of search | Overruled; did not require disclosure |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking Jones to the firearm by a felon | Jones disputes links connecting him to the pistol found in the home | Evidence—residence, proximity to weapon, and related items—sufficient to link Jones to the firearm | Affirmed; both legal and factual sufficiency established |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (established totality-of-the-circumstances approach for probable cause; deference to magistrate's finding)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (cited for standard of reviewing application of law to facts in Franks context (authority cited within opinion))
- Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (example of sufficient specificity requirement for timing in affidavits; discusses gaps in time frames)
- Schmidt v. State, 659 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (requires closeness in time between event and warrant issuance for probable cause)
- Peltier v. State, 626 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (time-frame sufficiency in proximity to warrant issuance)
- Sutton v. State, 419 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (pre-Gates case addressing timing with 'recently' language and present-tense references)