Vincent Oliva v. State
07-14-00386-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 30, 2015Background
- Early morning robbery of two Texas Tech track members; one assailant wore a purple TCU hoodie and took a cell phone and coin purse.
- Victim’s mother received calls from someone offering to sell the phone; police set up a sting and arrested Oliva when he offered the phone to an undercover officer.
- Oliva’s girlfriend (Shamyra) led officers to the apartment; she unlocked the door and an occupant (Mimi) invited officers in and signed a written consent to search.
- Officers observed and seized a purple TCU hoodie in the living area; the victim identified the hoodie and recognized Oliva’s voice on a recorded phone call.
- Shamyra testified Oliva admitted robbing two women for a cellphone, and Oliva was found in possession of the victim’s phone.
- Oliva was convicted of robbery and appealed, arguing suppression error, denial of juror questioning, and insufficient evidence of identity.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Oliva's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless apartment search and seizure of hoodie | Mimi had authority to consent; officers reasonably believed she had authority; entry also by Shamyra and hoodie was in plain view | Search was illegal without a warrant; evidence and statements should be suppressed | Search valid: Mimi’s consent and apparent authority justified entry/search; plain view also supported seizure |
| Right to individually question potential jurors about bias | Trial court allowed appropriate voir dire; appellant failed to preserve error by not proffering specific questions | Trial court refused to call certain venire members for individual questioning, denying meaningful inquiry and impartial jury rights | No reversible error: appellant didn’t preserve complaint because no specific questions were submitted for the record |
| Sufficiency of evidence identifying Oliva as robber | Victim identified hoodie and voice; Oliva had the stolen phone; girlfriend’s admission that Oliva confessed | Identification was unreliable; connection to Oliva was insufficient | Evidence sufficient: rational factfinder could convict beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings and consent-search principles)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (warrantless home searches presumptively unreasonable)
- Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (presumption against warrantless searches)
- Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (apparent authority and mixed question of law and fact for consent searches)
- Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (third-party consent and common authority principles)
- Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Betts, 397 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (plain view doctrine for officers legitimately within a premises)
- Caldwell v. State, 818 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (preservation of error for denied voir dire questions)
- Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (error preservation requires showing specific proper questions were prevented)