Luciano Vargas Padilla v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 979
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- On Sept. 13–14, 2012 a confidential informant (CI) arranged a staged sale: CI met Appellant Luciano Vargas Padilla, who identified himself as “Chano,” negotiated to buy 1 kg cocaine, and agreed to meet the next day.
- The CI, working with Sgt. J. Brawner (Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office), was searched, fitted with an audio recorder, and coordinated a signaling plan if he saw the buyers’ money.
- At a Burger King the next morning Appellant said “I went early to pick up the material,” handled a bundled $28,500 from the car’s glovebox, and the CI signaled he had seen the money.
- The CI drove away with Appellant and others following; a uniformed officer (directed by Sgt. Brawner) stopped their car without a traffic cause and searched it, finding the seized money under Appellant’s seat.
- Appellant was indicted for illegal investment in cocaine, moved to suppress the money as fruit of an illegal stop/arrest, challenged sufficiency of non-CI corroboration, and complained the court omitted a jury instruction on corroboration. The trial court denied suppression; jury convicted and sentenced Appellant to 10 years; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Padilla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to suppress — was the stop/detention illegal? | Officers had reasonable suspicion based on a reliable CI who arranged the buy, called to set time/place in front of Sgt. Brawner, signaled after seeing money, and led the car to be stopped. | Stop/arrest lacked probable cause and thus the detention/search were unlawful; evidence must be suppressed. | Stop was a supported investigative detention based on totality (CI reliability + corroborating facts); even assuming subsequent arrest was illegal, search and seizure of money preceded any exploitation of that illegality. Affirmed. |
| 2. Jury instruction — omission of CI-corroboration instruction | Corroborating non-CI evidence existed and was sufficient; omission was harmless. | Failure to instruct jury on statutory corroboration (Art. 38.141) caused egregious harm. | No objection at trial; under egregious-harm standard, the non-CI evidence sufficiently corroborated the CI so omission was not egregiously harmful. Affirmed. |
| 3. Corroboration of CI testimony — sufficiency of non-CI evidence | Non-CI evidence (Appellant’s presence, recorded statements referencing “material,” handling the cash, the bundled cash found under his seat) tended to connect Appellant to the offense. | CI testimony was uncorroborated or unreliable (prior staged buys didn’t lead to arrests; change of meeting place). | Eliminating CI evidence, remaining circumstantial facts were sufficient to tend to connect Appellant to the crime. Corroboration requirement satisfied. Affirmed. |
| 4. Standing to challenge search (passenger) | N/A — State contends evidence not obtained by exploitation of any Fourth Amendment illegality toward passenger. | As a passenger, Padilla argued he could suppress evidence if detention/search exploited his Fourth Amendment rights. | Padilla had no possessory interest in vehicle but could challenge if evidence was obtained by exploitation of his illegal detention; court found no such exploitation here and denied suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (passenger may challenge search only if evidence obtained by exploitation of illegality)
- Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (corroboration standard for accomplice/informant testimony)
- Matthews v. State, 431 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (totality-of-circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (informant veracity, reliability, basis of knowledge relevant)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (egregious-harm review for omission of corroboration instruction)
- Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (corroborating circumstantial evidence may suffice)