Mark Hoff v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
07-15-00011-CR
SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AMARILLO, TEXAS
6/10/2015 3:13:37 PM
Vivian Long, Clerk
NO. 07-15-00011-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
FILED IN
7th COURT OF APPEALS
AMARILLO, TEXAS
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
6/10/2015 3:13:37 PM
VIVIAN LONG
AMARILLO, TEXAS CLERK
MARK HOFF
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C35,611
COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE'S BRIEF
Amy L. Cadwell
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Navarro County, Texas
SBN: 24057435
800 N Main St., Suite 203
Corsicana, Texas 75110
903-654-3045
903-872-6858 (fax)
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
1
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Honorable Amanda Putman
Judge of the County Court at Law
800 N Main St., Corsicana, Texas 75110
Mark Hoff
Appellant
Damara H. Watkins
Trial Counsel, Appellate Counsel
1541 Princeton Drive
Corsicana, Texas 75110
R. Lowell Thompson
Criminal District Attorney, Navarro County, Texas
800 N Main St., Suite 203
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Amy L. Cadwell
Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Navarro County, Texas
Attorney at Trial, Attorney on Appeal
800 N Main St., Suite 203
Corsicana, Texas 75110
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF T.IIE CASE ......•...................•......•.........•......•.......................•......•5
THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED......................•............•..•.6
STATEMENT OF FAcrS ...............................................................................•.....•...•6
SUMMARY OF T.IIE ARGUMENT ................•...................•..........................•.........7
STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S ISSUES .............................................7
I. The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress ... 7
CONCLUSION............................•.........................•......................................................9
PRAYER .....................•......................................................•............•.........................•.10
CERTIFICATE OF SER'VICE ......•.................................................................•.......10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................•...........................•............•.•........ ll
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) .......................... 7
Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 613,616-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ............................ 8
State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ................. 7, 8, 9
4
NO. 07-15-00011-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AMARILLO, TEXAS
MARK HOFF
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C35,611
COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE'S BRIEF
Comes now, The State of Texas, by and through the undersigned Assistant
Criminal District Attorney of Navarro County, Texas, and files the State's brief in the
above-styled and above-numbered cause.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 22, 2014, Appellant was indicted for the offense of Possession of a
Controlled Substance <1g in a drug-free zone. Appellant filed a motion to
suppress the evidence which was heard by the trial court on September 3, 2014.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence on that same day and
Appellant entered a guilty plea on November 20, 2014. After a review of the
5
evidence and following the completion of a pre-sentence investigation, the trial
court sentenced Appellant to seven (7) years confinement in TDCJ-ID; however
the court suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision
for .a term of ten years. This appeal follows that final judgment.
THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE ONE
The trial court did not err in denying Appellant motion to suppress the drug
evidence.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Clint Andrews, an investigator with the Navarro County Sheriffs
Department (hereafter NCSO) drug unit, obtained a search warrant for Appellant's
residence based on information received by a confidential informant. I RR Exhibit
I. Following the issuance of the warrant, officers with the NCSO executed the
warrant and located a baggie containing methamphetamine, a pipe and prescription
pills. /d. at 9. During the search of the house, an officer observed Appellant ingest
what they suspected was methamphetamine. Id. Sergeant Darrell Waller arrested
Appellant and Detective Rickey Ragan informed Appellant of his Miranda rights.
I RR at 9-10. Detective Ragan then asked Appellant if he had ingested a narcotic
and Appellant confirmed that he had. /d. at 11. The statement given by Appellant
was not recorded. /d.
6
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause to issue a
warrant because the confidential infonnant had a successful track record and the
infonnation provided was reliable and was corroborated by the officers.
STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S ISSUES
I. The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress
drug evidence.
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court
applies a bifurcated standard of review. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The reviewing court gives almost total deference to the
trial court's determination of historical facts that depend on credibility, while the
appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law
to those facts. /d. The review of an affidavit is not reviewed de novo, rather
deference is given to the magistrate's determination of probable cause. State v.
Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
B. Analysis
The search warrant affidavit in this case provided sufficient probable cause
for the magistrate to conclude that a search would uncover evidence of
wrongdoing. During the hearing on the matter, the evidence established that the
7
confidential informant was credible and reliable. See State v. Duarte, 389, S.W.3d
349, 357-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 613, 616-17
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In Dixon, the Court of Criminal Appeals discussed the
reliability of confidential informants and commented that they may be considered
reliable if they have a "successful track record." 206 S.W.3d at 616-617.
The facts of the current case are distinguishable from the facts in Duarte, the
principal case upon which Appellant relies. In Duarte, the affidavit was based
almost entirely on hearsay information supplied by a first-time confidential
informant. 389 S.W.3d at 355. In that case, the Court of Criminal Appeals
discussed the importance of additional information to corroborate the informant's
statements. /d. Here the affidavit stated that Detective Andrews was assigned to
the narcotics division of the NCSO, that the confidential informant had a
successful track record with Detective Andrews in the investigation of narcotics
cases, the informant had been to Appellant's residence within the 48 hours
preceding issuance of the warrant and had seen Appellant in possession of
methamphetamine. The affidavit also included the information that other narcotics
officers were familiar with Appellant and had knowledge that narcotics,
specifically methamphetamine, had been possessed and distributed from this
location in the "recent past." Finally, Detective Andrews had prior knowledge of
Appellant obtained during his investigation of previous narcotics cases.
8
A review of the search warrant affidavit in this case clearly rebuts
Appellant's argument. The search warrant was not obtained based upon the
hearsay infonnation from a previously unknown confidential infonnant, as was
done in Duarte. 389 S.W.3d 355. On the contrary, the affidavit specifically
provided infonnation that corroborated the infonnant's statements. Accordingly,
the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based provided sufficient probable
cause for the magistrate to determine a search would uncover evidence of
wrongdoing and, for this reason, the trial court did not err in denying Apppellant' s
motion to suppress.
C. Conclusion
The search affidavit was sufficient to provide the magistrate with a
substantial basis to conclude that a search warrant would uncover evidence of
wrongdoing. The confidential informant was credible and reliable. For these
reasons, the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress.
CONCLUSION
The judgment in this case should be affinned. The evidence presented to the
trial court was sufficient for the magistrate to determine there was probable cause
to believe a search would uncover wrongdoing. The confidential infonnant had a
reliable track record and the language of the affidavit was sufficient for a search
warrant to be issued. The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to
9
suppress.
PRAYER
For all of the foregoing reasons, The State of Texas prays that this
Honorable Court conclude that Appellant's conviction and punishment be in all
things affirmed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Is/ Amy L. Cadwell
Amy L. Cadwell
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
SBN: 24057435
Navarro County, Texas
800 N Main St., Suite 203
Corsicana, Texas 75110
903-654-3045
903-872-6858 (fax)
acadwell@navarrocounty.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Amy L. Cadwell, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document has been delivered via email to Appellant's attorney on the 101h day of
June 2015.
Is! Amy L. Cadwell
Amy L. Cadwell
10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Amy L. Cadwell, certify that the State's Brief is in compliance with Rule
9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure with a word count of 1,382 and
Times New Roman typeface no smaller than 14-point font.
Is/ Amy L. Cadwell
Amy L. Cadwell
11