William Malchum Johnson v. State
11-15-00053-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Appellant William Malchum Johnson waived a jury; after a bench trial he was convicted of possession of a Penalty Group 1 controlled substance (less than one gram) and pled true to two prior felonies, resulting in a 15-year sentence.
- Officer Goodnight stopped Appellant for traffic/registration issues (expired registration, front/back plate mismatch) after the license-plate and insurance status were unclear.
- Appellant appeared nervous, produced no license or insurance, and a passenger gave inconsistent travel information; officer learned the passenger had active warrants.
- Officer Goodnight asked Appellant to exit and, with Appellant’s verbal assent to a weapons search, conducted a pat-down; he felt a small plastic baggie in Appellant’s front pocket.
- Without manipulating the baggie, Officer Goodnight removed it, observed a white powder, field-tested it as cocaine, and a lab report admitted at trial confirmed it was less than one gram.
- Appellant’s pretrial and in-trial motions to suppress the evidence were denied; Appellant appealed raising three issues (search legality, sufficiency of evidence, and improper closing argument).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of search/seizure (plain feel/scope of consent) | Search exceeded consent for a weapons pat-down; seizure of cocaine was unlawful | Seizure was lawful under the "plain feel" doctrine: officer immediately felt a baggie whose contour/feel indicated contraband without manipulation | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed — plain feel applied; officer did not impermissibly manipulate the item |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove possession of cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt | Field test, officer testimony, and lab report (admitted at trial) established possession of <1g cocaine | Court: Evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia; conviction affirmed |
| Improper closing argument | State’s closing argument was improper (claimed on appeal) | Appellant failed to object at trial, so issue is not preserved | Court: Issue waived for appellate review; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel doctrine permitting seizure when contraband identity is immediately apparent without manipulation)
- Griffin v. State, 215 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (upholding seizure of narcotics in containers based on officer’s immediate recognition)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court findings of historical fact and credibility in suppression rulings)