Leroy Bartie v. State
14-16-00674-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- HPD officers surveilled 3019 Bain based on information of a narcotics operation; they observed a buyer (Henry Wilson) enter, exit empty‑handed, and leave; officers stopped the vehicle and found PCP.
- Wilson told officers he bought PCP from appellant (Leroy Bartie). Appellant approached officers and was detained.
- Shanika Butler exited the same residence, told officers she was Bartie’s wife, had lived there 7–8 months, and volunteered that more drugs were inside, specifying types and locations.
- Butler signed a written consent to search the residence; officers found drugs matching her description, a stolen gun, cash, mail addressed to both Butler and Bartie, and women’s clothing.
- Bartie moved to suppress the evidence as the warrantless search lacked valid consent; the trial court denied the motion, found Butler had (apparent) authority, and the court of appeals affirmed after Bartie pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreed recommendation and received concurrent 25‑year sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless search based on third‑party consent | State: Butler had actual or apparent authority to consent; she lived there, identified as wife, described drugs, and signed consent | Bartie: Butler was merely a guest with no authority; an objectively reasonable officer would not believe she could consent | Court: Denied suppression—trial court’s credibility findings supported apparent/common authority; consent was valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings and deference to trial court findings)
- Zuniga‑Hernandez v. State, 473 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (application of abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court as sole trier of fact at suppression hearing)
- Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate review limited to whether record supports trial court findings)
- Flores v. State, 177 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (same)
- Limon v. State, 340 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (consent and third‑party/common authority doctrine)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (warrantless entry into a residence constitutes a search)
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (consent searches as exception to warrant requirement)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent standard)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority to consent under an objective standard)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (limits on co‑occupant consent when a present occupant objects)
- Brown v. State, 212 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (spouse’s apparent authority to consent to search of jointly used space)
- Mejia v. State, 761 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (admissions against penal interest can bolster credibility)
- Cullen v. State, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (oral findings of fact on suppression motions may be treated as findings on the record)
- Hauer v. State, 466 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (deference to oral findings of fact on suppression)