Zamora, Rene
PD-1026-15
| Tex. | Oct 23, 2015Background
- Defendant Rene Zamora, UT equipment manager, was accused of filming a female athlete in a locker-room shower; police executed a warrant at his apartment and seized a laptop and storage devices containing images and videos.
- Zamora was convicted at jury trial on one consolidated cause and later pleaded guilty in six related causes; sentences included multiple two-year state-jail terms, one of which was ordered consecutive, and one two-year sentence was suspended and probated to commence after completion of another sentence.
- Zamora moved to suppress the evidence seized from his computer, arguing the search-warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause that contraband or evidence would probably be on his premises when the warrant issued. The trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, Zamora challenged (1) denial of the suppression motion and (2) the trial court’s ordering of a probated sentence to begin after a stacked state-jail term, arguing section 3.03(b)(3)(B) requires a plea bargain to authorize such stacking. The court of appeals affirmed on both points.
- The petition for discretionary review asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to revisit the probable-cause analysis (four-corners of the affidavit and timing) and the statutory interpretation of Penal Code § 3.03(b)(3)(B) regarding stacking when no plea bargain exists.
Issues
| Issue | Zamora's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Zamora’s residence/computer | Affidavit showed only the possibility evidence had ever been on the computer; it lacked temporal nexus or particularized facts that evidence probably remained at the residence when the warrant issued — suppression required | Affidavit contained direct admissions by Zamora that he filmed the victim, knew digital media can be stored on computers, and admitted his computer contained graphic sexual images; coupled with missing camera media card, this supported a fair probability evidence would be found | Court of Appeals: affidavit provided a substantial basis for the magistrate to find probable cause; denial of suppression affirmed |
| 2. Whether Penal Code § 3.03(b)(3)(B) requires a plea agreement before a trial court may stack a suspended/probated sentence on top of a stacked term-of-years sentence | Section 3.03(b)(3)(B) should be read to permit stacking under §21.15 only when there was a plea agreement as the subsection’s language distinguishes plea-agreement situations | Section 3.03(b)(3) allows stacking for §21.15 offenses, and subsection (B) is an alternative basis (plea-agreement cases) but does not limit the subsection (A) rule; no plea bargain needed to order consecutive/probated stacking | Court of Appeals: §3.03(b)(3)(B) does not require a plea bargain to authorize consecutive or cumulative sentencing for §21.15 offenses; sentencing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause standard for warrants)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause requires more than bare suspicion; reasonable belief standard)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App.) (probable cause = fair probability; magistrate may draw reasonable inferences)
- Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App.) (affidavit insufficient where facts were disjointed/imprecise and lacked nexus to searched premises)
- Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App.) (warrant supported only if affidavit makes it probable object of search is on premises at issuance)