Jose Salvador Flores v. the State of Texas, 13-19-00048-CR

Appellant Jose Salvador Flores was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment; he appealed arguing suppression errors, improper admission of extraneous-offense evidence, and insufficiency of the evidence.
Police received a tip/BOLO about a white Volvo involved in a January 22 burglary; on January 25 officers in an unmarked car observed Flores driving a matching white Volvo near the burglary neighborhood and stopped him after observing furtive driving and other suspicious maneuvers.
After the stop officers found a paper with a Calle Cielo address; officers went to that address, the resident (Torres) consented to a search, and they recovered the stolen puppy reported taken in the Chapman Street burglary.
The State introduced video of a separate San Patricio burglary showing a white Volvo with the same distinguishing features (missing front plate, matching rims, black side strip) and similar method (kicking in the door); Flores had been arrested for the San Patricio burglary (charges later dismissed).
The Chapman Street homeowner identified the intruder by build/gait/arm swing from the burglary video; the jury viewed the Chapman Street burglary video and photos of Flores’s vehicle before convicting.

Issue	Flores's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Motion to suppress — initial stop	Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; stop based on an anonymous tip/innocent conduct	Officers had articulable facts (BOLO for white Volvo, rare vehicle, matching rims, missing front plate, proximity to crime scene, furtive driving)	Denied — totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion; stop was lawful
1b) Motion to suppress — search of Calle Cielo residence	Torres was only a guest and lacked authority to consent; Flores had standing	Torres was a resident with actual authority to consent; Flores may not have had standing to challenge	Denied — court could find Torres had authority; Flores failed to challenge standing on appeal
2) Admission of extraneous-offense evidence	404(b) exclusion: prior San Patricio burglary inadmissible character evidence	Admissible to show identity/modus operandi because the two burglaries shared distinctive, nearly identical features	Admitted — trial court did not abuse discretion; offenses sufficiently similar to show identity
3) Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flores committed the Chapman Street burglary	Videos, vehicle matching, homeowner identification by build/gait, recovery of stolen dog, and Flores’s arrest supported conviction	Affirmed — a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (noncriminal but persistent suspicious behavior can supply reasonable suspicion)
Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (totality of circumstances analysis for investigative stops based on suspicious driving)
Rodriguez v. State, 521 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (third party with actual authority may consent to search adverse to another)
Owens v. State, 827 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (extraneous-offense evidence may show modus operandi and identity when highly similar)
Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (modus operandi evidence admissible to prove identity when offenses show distinctive similarities)
Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for legal-sufficiency review using a hypothetically correct jury charge)