Zamora, Rene, PD-1029-15

Zamora, equipment manager for UT women’s track team, was charged with multiple counts of improper photography (Tex. Penal Code §21.15) after a teammate discovered a flip-camera pointed at her while showering. A UT detective interviewed Zamora and later obtained a warrant to search his apartment and seize electronic devices.
Officers seized an Apple PowerBook and USB drives; forensic analysis found images and videos from locker-room and other locations, which the State used at trial.
Zamora was convicted by jury on one consolidated case and later pleaded guilty to the remaining counts; he received multiple two-year state-jail sentences, some concurrent, one consecutive, and one sentence suspended with three years’ probation to begin after another sentence ended.
Zamora moved to suppress the electronic evidence, arguing the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause that evidence would be on the premises when the warrant issued. The trial court denied suppression; the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Zamora also challenged the trial court’s ordering of a suspended/probated sentence to begin after a stacked term of years, arguing Penal Code §3.03(b)(3)(B) permits stacking of such sentences only when there is a plea agreement; the court of appeals rejected that reading and affirmed the sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Zamora)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Sufficiency of search-warrant affidavit to support probable cause to search computer/devices	Affidavit showed at best a possibility devices once contained images; no temporal nexus proving evidence probably remained on premises when warrant issued (4 days later)	Affidavit included victim report, Zamora’s admissions he filmed the victim and that his computer contained graphic photos, explanations of digital storage, and a missing camera storage card—supporting a fair probability evidence would be on the computer	Court of Appeals: probable cause established; suppression denied and conviction affirmed
2. Authority to stack a suspended/probated sentence on top of a previously stacked term under Penal Code §3.03(b)(3)(B)	§3.03(b)(3)(B) requires a plea agreement to permit stacking of probation on top of stacked terms; absent a plea bargain, court lacked authority to order probation to begin after another consecutive term	§3.03(b)(3)(B) provides an alternative basis to permit concurrent or consecutive sentences for §21.15 offenses and does not require a plea bargain; trial court had discretion to order the probation to run after the other sentence	Court of Appeals: §3.03(b)(3)(B) does not require a plea bargain; the sentencing order was permissible and affirmed

Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (probable-cause standard: fair probability; magistrate may draw reasonable inferences)
Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (affidavit insufficient where facts do not connect alleged criminality to the residence)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in search-warrant affidavits)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause requires more than mere suspicion)
Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (probable cause requires a fair probability that the object of the search is on the premises when the warrant is issued)