Shatanee Howard v. State, 12-16-00308-CR

On Oct. 13, 2015, Tyler PD Officer Luis Aparicio stopped a vehicle after its driver, Frederick Gholston, failed to yield and nearly caused a head‑on collision; Gholston admitted drinking a 24‑oz beer can.
Officer Aparicio suspected an open container offense, asked Gholston to exit and performed field sobriety tests; Gholston was not intoxicated and received a warning for driving with a suspended license.
Seconds after receiving the warning, Gholston consented to a search of the vehicle and told the officer there was an open container in the back seat.
During a search of the passenger compartment and a back‑seat bag, the officer smelled marijuana and found a marijuana cigar in a cigar pack inside a striped bag; Appellant Howard identified the bag as hers and was arrested for possession of marijuana (<2 oz.).
Howard pleaded guilty with deferred adjudication but reserved the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress; she raised three issues on appeal (suppression, bill of costs, legal sufficiency of costs).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Howard)	Held
1. Whether evidence from the search should be suppressed as an unreasonable extension/search of the stop	Officer had reasonable suspicion/probable cause of an open container, Gholston consented, and his admission located the beer can justified the search; smell of marijuana furnished probable cause to search bag pockets	Officer contends the stop was unlawfully prolonged after ticket issuance (citing Davis and Rodriguez), so subsequent search and seizure were unconstitutional	Court upheld denial of suppression: consent + admission + odor provided probable cause; stop extension was justified by open‑container suspicion
2. Whether court costs assessed are invalid without a bill of costs in the record	A supplemented, certified bill of costs was later added to the record and satisfies Article 103.001	Howard argued absence of a contemporaneous bill prevented challenge and that later supplementation is improper	Court found the later certified bill of costs proper and Article 103.001 satisfied; costs may be reviewed on appeal
3. Whether evidence legally supports assessment of court costs	Costs are statutorily authorized; appellate review asks whether a statutory basis exists, not traditional evidentiary sufficiency	Howard argued insufficiency of evidence to assess specific costs	Court verified statutory bases for items and overruled the challenge; costs stand

Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate standard of review for trial court factual findings and mixed questions)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court on credibility/demeanor for law‑to‑fact rulings)
Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (probable cause standard for vehicle searches)
Juarez v. State, 758 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (validity of consent searches without a warrant)
Meeks v. State, 692 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (consent must be positive and unequivocal)
Leach v. State, 35 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (officers may request consent after traffic stop if request is reasonable and noncoercive)
Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (continued detention without reasonable suspicion for drug investigation invalidated search)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (police may not prolong traffic stop beyond its mission absent reasonable suspicion)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (omitted bill of costs can be supplemented on appeal; appellate review focuses on statutory basis for costs)
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court costs reflected in a certified bill need not be orally pronounced to be effective)