Richard Earl Driver, Jr. v. State
05-14-00135-CR
Tex. App.Jun 3, 2015Background
- Appellant Richard Earl Driver Jr. challenges convictions for burglary of a habitation and fraudulent use/possession of identifying information.
- Trooper Rhodes conducted a traffic stop after speeding; a search of Driver’s car revealed stolen items linked to Carmichael’s burglary.
- Driver provided multiple, shifting explanations for possession of the stolen items; some items included Carmichael’s driver’s licenses and Munson’s social security card.
- Miranda warnings were administered after the property was found; Rhodes testified to observations suggesting drug use by Driver.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress and convicted Driver; punishment included life for burglary and 20 years for the identifying-information offense.
- Driver appeals on suppression and sufficiency theories; the court affirms the judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the pocket-search during the traffic stop lawful? | Driver argues the pocket search exceeded scope. | State asserts car search justified by automobile exception. | Yes; automobile exception supported the car search, upholding denial of suppression. |
| Is the burglary evidence legally sufficient? | Insufficient link between Driver and break-in. | Possession of recently stolen property supports burglary guilt. | Sufficient beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained/false explanations support guilt. |
| Is the fraudulent-use/possession of identifying information evidence sufficient? | Insufficient briefing; arguments not adequately developed. | Evidence viewed in light of the record supports conviction. | Sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (bifurcated standard for suppressions: deference to factual findings; de novo legal review)
- Keehn v. State, 279 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Hollis v. State, 971 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998) (review of automobile search rationale)
- Taylor v. State, 20 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (application of automobile exception)
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (probable cause in automobile searches)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (analyze scope of vehicle search under automobile exception)
- Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (drugs/contraband search following observations)
- Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (possession inference from stolen property)
- Sutherlin v. State, 682 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (unexplained possession factors for burglary)
- Adams v. State, 552 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (reasonableness of possession explanations)
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (jury verdict must be beyond reasonable doubt)