Sanchez v. State

CONCLUSION properly

The trial court evaluated the claim. The court was familiar with

Batson prosecutor appeared he occasions,

front of the on numerous

which is reflected the record. As we times,

have held several the trial court is position genu- the best to determine the proffered

ineness of the State’s reasons for strike, and a reviewing judgment

substitute its the trial

court’s.

A review of the entire voir dire and the

circumstances of the case does not demon- pretext.

strate a Given the combination of potential family connection and Maul- demeanor, plus

din’s the fact that the one

Hispanic juror was not struck

State, we cannot conclude that the trial clearly finding erred in proffered reasons for the strike pretext

were not a racial discrimina- Therefore,

tion. we reverse the appeals and remand the to the court any

case to consider

remaining issues.

JOHNSON, J., dissented.

ALCALA, J., did not participate. SANCHEZ, Appellant,

Artemio Orlando of Texas. STATE

No. PD-1264-11.

Court of Criminal Texas.

May Houston, Lewis, Appellant.

Chip B. Houston, D.A., Lisa Kugler, Eric Asst. Austin, McMinn, Attorney, C. State.

OPINION HERVEY, J., opinion delivered the KELLER, P.J., and in which the Court WOMACK, JOHNSON, PRICE, JJ„ COCHRAN, KEASLER, joined. .and to reverse The State asks which appeals, the court of judgment of that a blood-draw search held designated in a be executed statutory county court by a not be issued county. Sanchez judge of another 01-10-00433-CR, 2011 WL No. (Tex.App.- LEXIS 3824 Tex.App. 2011). May Dist.] Houston [1st petition for discretion- granted the State’s will affirm the ary review and appeals. the court

BACKGROUND Sanchez, Artemio Orlando Appellant, accident single-vehicle involved shortly midnight after only passenger March lost officers that the vehicle told curb, vehicle, drove over control retaining Appel- wall. crashed into a the vehicle at operating lant admitted and confirmed time of the accident couple that he had “consumed a beers” one the accident. sobri- prior During field county can tests, ety Appellant exhibited several clues executed in another Specifically, of He was and intoxication. arrested for grounds review fol- are as to “central transported intox.” lows: provide a breath and an sample,

refused to (1) The of appeals holding court erred in sought a search measure officer warrant to statutory county that a judge’s court alcohol content. reasons his blood For authority is limited to with- acting solely record, in the was undisclosed warrant county in the of the court. by statutory county a signed court (2) holding court erred in Montgomery County,1 and the war- statutory that a county court rant, face, its officer of commanded an could not issue a blood search warrant to seize in Harris peace suspect for a DWI located in another County Appellant’s and draw his blood. 0.163, blood alcohol content was which is twice legal more than limit. OF ARGUMENTS THE PARTIES

Subsequently, Appellant charged was argues The State ex- there is no with as a second He filed a DWI offender. plicit geographical limitation juris- to the results, suppress motion to the blood test statutory diction county of a judge. Ap- but it denied was trial court. See Tex.Code Crim. PROC. arts. 18.01-05. pellant pled guilty, and the trial court sen- State, According Leg- because the year in tenced him confinement for one placed jurisdictional islature in limitations county jail, probated years, for two statutory provisions, some in but not and assessed fine. $700 Chapter 18 of the Texas Code of Crimi- Appellant’s for re- appeal, On sole issue (which nal Procedure addresses search view contended that the warrants), for intended County judge Montgomery lacked courts to have statewide authority to issue a for search warrant jurisdiction. See id. Fur- arts. 18.20-.21. blood in San- Appellant’s Harris thermore, that, the State asserts because chez, 1936064, *1, 2011 WL at 2011 Tex. County County and Montgomery Harris 3824, LEXIS *1. App. The First Court judicial are in the administrative re- same reversed the au- gion,2 granting scheme trial court because it concluded that no thority statutory provision expressly grants state- to act allows them outside of their coun- wide ty, they acting if are within their admin- issue a Id. at judges to search warrant. region. istrative *5-6, 3824, at *18- Tex.App. LEXIS Alternatively, the State contends that effectively blood ar- petition the State’s for dis- search granted cretionary warrant,3 review so a to determine whether rest 74.042(c) (showing 1. The warrant was issued 2. Tex. Gov't County Montgomery County are Montgomery County, at Law Number Five of judicial region). the same administrative which is See court. (listing 25.1721 the five statuto- Gov’t Code (allowing 18.03 3. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. ry Montgomery County). courts in to order the arrest search of war would not authorize the and seizure types to issue both that, war- Appellant’s since rants. The State contends combined, distinguish- are both warrants rants arrest warrants warrants can be able, jurisprudence govern- subject issuance. different to statewide that, Hardy, ing the war each. See v. 963 S.W.2d although State argues State also (Tex.Crim.App.1997); also a “search see rant this case labeled warrant,” v. California, as an effect was the same Schmerber its allowing thus for statewide L.Ed.2d arrest (1966) drawing 119 Tex. the blood of a Hinkley (holding issuance. See 256, 581, the S.W.2d 582 defendant is considered search under Crim. Amendment). State, 821, 826-27 Fourth Powell v. S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1994). ANALYSIS contrast, that the Appellant argues

In protects The Fourth Amendment statutory in this case against unreasonable searches individuals the lacked statewide Const, The and seizures. U.S. amend IV. Legisla- Texas Constitution and the Texas of impli non-consensual extraction blood explicitly provide jurisdic- ture statewide and falls the privacy rights cates within they do judges, tion for but district Fourth protections of the Amendment. not do so Schmerber, Const, at V, 11; judges. Tex. art. Tex. Although 1826. a blood draw constitutes a art. also Appellant 1.23.

Code Crim. Proc. Amendment, under the search the Fourth that, statutory pro- argues although some will not be offended if the Constitution in judges visions certain allow occurs to a search pursuant draw valid benches, power to exchange such warrant. Beeman v. 86 S.W.3d limited to their See Tex. Gov’t in (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Accordingly, that, Appellant contends if 25.0012. case, this we are asked determine Legislature judges the of intended the in whether issued statutory county courts to have statewide County, was the Montgomery valid for it would not have limited draw in ability judges exchange of those that points benches. also out judi- The Texas Constitution distributes Legislature excluded power among cial several defined courts magistrates designated law the list of Legisla- and “other Texas courts” peace throughout as “conservators of the may necessary.4 ture deem These “other art. the State.” See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. courts” are known as courts. arts. 2.09-.10. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Finally, argues by a search in case was issued warrant for his blood is not the same court. Statu- that, were, tory county if it it are judges magistrates, arrest warrant and even Courts, person, given probable Appeals, the existence of in District in cause). Courts, Courts, Commissioners Peace, Courts and in of Justices V, 1 of 4. Article Section the Texas Constitu- by provided such other courts as be states, tion law. judicial power this State shall V, § Const, Tex art. Court, Supreme in one vested in one Appeals, in Courts of Court of Criminal duty magistrate pre- is “to magistrate “by and the acts virtue of his office.” jurisdiction within peace Conine, serve his Thus, here, 33 F.3d at 470. al- added). (emphasis ....” Id. art. 2.10 though the Montgomery County judge is a magistrate, his to act is defined delegates The Texas Constitution by his office as a statutory county court Legislature power to establish judge. That office has not given been jurisdiction county courts. jurisdiction statewide Legislature Const, V, 1,§ Compare Tex. art. with for search warrants. Const, V, § (expressly defining courts), jurisdiction of district and United Further, although has (5th Conine, States 33 F.3d expressly prohibited coun- Cir.1994) (“District judges empowered, are ty issuing court from a search warrant Constitution, judi the Texas to function be executed in another county, it has con- cially throughout state. District sistently limited or expand elected not to unique respect.”). Gen courts. erally, ju “[a] For example, Legislature the express- has over all proceedings, risdiction causes and ly authorized county court criminal, original and appellate, civil judges and judges district court to act in law for prescribed by county courts.” courts, each other’s but this authority is 25.0003(a). § Government Gov’t Code limited to matters pending within the provides Code that courts county of judge’s the bench. Tex. Gov’t specific jurisdiction have over certain crim 74.094(a). § Similarly, Legisla- the inal matters5 and the Montgomery County provided has ture that some judges may jurisdiction court here has concurrent assigned be “necessary dispose as to the district court over certain limited civil 25.1722(a). the accumulated § business” their admin- matters. Id. However, § istrative region. Id. 74.052. a In Legislature no statute has the judge may not be expressly granted statutory county courts assigned to hear a matter pending in a jurisdiction the issue district court outside the of the to be executed in another county.6 Al 74.054(b). judge’s residence. Id. In ad- though the Texas Code of Criminal Proce dition, while district court judges are al- explicitly any dure authorizes that magis exchange lowed to geo- benches without may trate issue an arrest which restrictions, graphical Legislature the statewide, can Legislature be executed privilege extended that same to statu- provision has declined to create such a tory county judges. See Tex. Const. search warrants. See Tex.Code Crim. (“And V, § art. (“A Judges may District arrest, Proc. art. 15.06 warrant of districts, exchange or hold courts for each by any issued ... ... magistrate shall State.”). other when any part they may expedient, extend to deem it As Conine, law.”). noted the Fifth Circuit and shall do so when required by specimen person driving (delineating arrested for 5. Tex. Gov't Code 26.045 criminal matters over which while intoxicated and who refuses to submit a specific jurisdiction). have breath or blood alcohol test. Tex.Code Crim. However, provision Proc. art. 18.01 (j). this 1, 2009, September 6. Effective the Code of speak magistrate’s jurisdic- does not to the provides "[a]ny mag- Criminal Procedure that only specific power tion—it confers artic- attorney istrate who is an licensed ulated. state issue a search warrant” for a blood asserting argument Article The State’s Finally, importance, and of crucial be treated Proce- that the search warrant should the Texas Code of Criminal 1.23 of merit. an arrest warrant is without judicial positions specifically lists dure including ignores practical differences The State that have statewide a search Ap- an arrest warrant and of the Court of Criminal between judges an Supreme protects An arrest warrant justices of the Texas warrant. peals, from an seizure Court, individual unreasonable justices appeals, of the courts of and can issued statewide person his of the district courts. Tex.Code judges upon assumption person county based Statutory art. Proc. Crim. likely stay geographical in the is not omitted. alleged of his offense for proximity previously, As stated Steagald extended time. See United jurisdiction have only States, 204, 213, 101 S.Ct. confers. Tex. Const. L.Ed.2d 38 id. at V, § 1. When the relevant J., In con (Rehnquist, dissenting). together, are read provisions trast, protect a search warrant is issued to acting county court is limited an individual an unreasonable search ex of his court unless within particular of the item is when location beyond authorized to act pressly Id. ascertainable. A differences because a search These arise lacks interests, where person’s privacy affects a county.7 of his own to be executed outside only posses- person’s as a seizure affects a expressly The Texas has not intru sory generally interests is less it although such granted v. Segura than a search. See United sive expressly prohibited that authori has not States, 796, 806, U.S. ty, consistently it has indicated that statu (1984). Consequently, L.Ed.2d 599 county courts of limited tory are courts case, an arrest warrant would allow jurisdiction. police to arrest but not to draw Here, the record reflects that compelled of his The sample blood. County executed was warrant in Harris infringes Appellant’s extraction of blood county judge signed that sam expectation privacy,8 so before (not Montgomery County. taken, from The Mont could be a search warrant ple warrant) County juris not have gomery judge necessary pro did an arrest was for an diction to issue search warrant an unreasonable tect County” “to be in Harris individual found of his blood. beyond such action reached CONCLUSION Therefore, County

Montgomery line. err draw The First Court of did not Appellant’s search warrant determining invalid. that a composed ry county issue a search 7. Some to, encompasses, county. but limited the counties of more than one Tex. Gov't Code composed. which it is relating §§ to statu- 25.2601-.2606. The laws (including tory articulat- those above) Ass'n, excep- apply equally, Ry. minor ed Skinner Labor Execs. 8. See 615-17, tions, multicounty statutory to such U.S. Schmerber, 25.2601(b), §§ There- 384 U.S. at Id. L.Ed.2d 639 courts. fore, multicounty statuto- 86 S.Ct. 1826. County Furthermore, judge Montgomery lacked judge desig- did not authority to issue a search warrant for nate that the warrant partic- be issued in a blood in Appellant’s Harris Stat- ular location. With the exception of a utory county lack the authori- search of real property, search warrants ty to issue a search warrant to be executed for objects movable do typically not in- affirm outside of their own specific clude a location for the search. of the court appeals. The search warrant specifically authorized

the search of Appellant. Although Appel- MEYERS, J., lant was located in Harris dissenting County, filed a opinion. judge explicitly did not designate where ALCALA, J., participating. the search was to occur. MEYERS, J., dissenting. I believe that properly issued the search warrant authority under his majority holds that statutory county judge. I would court judges lack the to issue a remand the case to the appeals to be executed outside of determine whether the execution of the county. Maj. their own op. at 686-87. search warrant in was val- here had the authority to issue id. Because the majority does not consid- the search warrant. The real issue is issue, er the correct I respectfully must whether the police had the dissent. execute the Montgom- warrant outside of

ery County. I would remand to the court to determine whether

search warrant became invalid because it

was executed in Harris County. arrest,

At the time of Appellant’s a war-

rant for blood could by judge be issued municipal record or attorney,

court who is a licensed or court, district court, Appeals, Criminal or Su- parte FLORES, Ex Martiniano R. preme Court. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Applicant. 18.01(c). Accordingly, Judge Stewart had to issue the warrant as a WR-77,503-01. No. magistrate of the Montgomery County statutory court. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The majority confuses the issue and fo- June judge’s authority cuses on the warrant outside of Montgomery County, validity

rather than the of the warrant

when it was executed

The judge’s authority simply does not end

because the warrant was executed in a Pro-se, for Appellant. continues, different This regardless McMinn, subsequent actions Attorney, Lisa C. Aus- tin, police. for State.

Case Details

Case Name: Sanchez v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: May 16, 2012

Citation: 365 S.W.3d 681

Docket Number: PD-1264-11

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.