Kelly v. State
331 S.W.3d 541
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; enhanced by two prior narcotics convictions.
- A motion to suppress challenged the legality of the traffic stop and subsequent search.
- Officers admitted stopping the vehicle for no front license plate and performed a warrantless search after consent.
- Narcotics found in the vehicle included methamphetamine in a cup and additional meth behind a hairbrush; later a second set of drugs was found.
- Appellant was not initially handcuffed or told rights; after drugs were located, he was handcuffed and arrested.
- Trial court denied suppression; Appellant pled guilty to the charged offense and true to enhancements; sentence was 25 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search was voluntary | Kelly contends consent was not voluntary | Shattuck's testimony about consent is not credible | Consent proved voluntary by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the initial traffic stop and detention were justified | Stop was pretextual and detention improper | Stop for no front license plate justified; detention reasonable | Detention reasonable; traffic stop valid |
| Whether evidence of the hairbrush narcotics should be suppressed under 38.22/ Miranda | Custodial interrogation without Miranda should suppress drugs | Article 38.22(3)(c) applies; custodial interrogation exception permits admissibility | Second set of drugs admissible under custodial interrogation exception |
| Whether 38.23/ Miranda issues affected admissibility of the second narcotics | Argues suppression under 38.23; Miranda rights not properly advised | Appellant waived basis for suppression; provided no argument; appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (fact-finding and deference in suppression rulings)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (implicit factual findings supported by the record)
- Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (voluntariness of consent; totality of circumstances)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (time limits for traffic-stop detention; feasible investigation)
- Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (detention during traffic stop; fishing expedition prohibition)
- Magana v. State, 177 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (consent to search during lawful stop; no need for extended detention)
- Cardenas v. State, 36 S.W.3d 243 (Tex.App.-Hou. [1st Dist.] 2001) (consent to search during lawful detention; scope of stop)
- Herrera v. State, 80 S.W.3d 283 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002) (distinction on prolonged detention during multi-officer response)
- Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (warning that cannot have to refuse; evidence of voluntariness of consent)