James Levern Gordon v. State of Texas ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed July 15, 2010
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-09-00051-CR
    __________
    JAMES LEVERN GORDON, Appellant
    V.
    STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 104th District Court
    Taylor County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 16085B
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    After the denial of his motion to suppress, James Levern Gordon entered an open plea of
    guilty to the offense of possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver.
    The trial court convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for life and a fine
    of $100,000. We affirm.
    In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his
    motion to suppress the evidence because the affidavit in support of the search warrant was
    inadequate. The cornerstone of the Fourth Amendment and its Texas equivalent is that a
    magistrate shall not issue a search warrant without first finding probable cause that a particular
    item will be found in a particular location. Rodriguez v. State, 
    232 S.W.3d 55
    , 60 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2007). Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a “fair
    probability” that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at the specified location. 
    Id. A magistrate’s
    determination to issue a search warrant is subject to the deferential standard of
    review articulated in Illinois v. Gates, 
    462 U.S. 213
    (1983), and Johnson v. State, 
    803 S.W.2d 272
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Swearingen v. State, 
    143 S.W.3d 808
    , 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
    We must give deference to a magistrate’s determination of probable cause and affirm that
    decision “so long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would
    uncover evidence of wrongdoing.” 
    Swearingen, 143 S.W.3d at 810
    .
    In this case, a search warrant was issued for the residence located at 802 Eastover Drive
    in Abilene. The affidavit in support of the search warrant reflects that Officer Chris Smith
    received information from a credible, reliable confidential informant that Debra Ann Vernon was
    distributing crack cocaine and that the informant had seen Vernon in possession of several pieces
    of crack cocaine. Officer Smith verified that Vernon resided at 802 Eastover Drive in Abilene
    and, along with other officers, set up surveillance of that residence. Officer Smith believed that
    appellant lived at the residence with Vernon.        The officers retrieved trash bags from the
    receptacle located in the alley behind the residence.       Inside the trash bags were receipts
    belonging to Vernon and appellant, a burnt marihuana cigar, and a plastic sandwich bag
    containing two pieces of plastic with cocaine residue on them. The affidavit also indicated that
    appellant and Vernon had outstanding warrants from Georgia for trafficking cocaine.
    We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that probable cause
    existed for the issuance of the search warrant. Although the affidavit did not indicate when the
    confidential informant saw Vernon in possession of cocaine, it did give specific dates and times
    related to the officers’ surveillance of the residence. The dates on the receipts found in the trash
    were recent, and the search warrant was issued the day after the officers found the contraband in
    the trash. Thus, contrary to appellant’s contention, the information was not stale as it was based
    not merely upon the informant’s information but upon the officers’ investigation. The magistrate
    had a substantial basis for concluding that it was reasonably likely that a search of the house
    would uncover evidence tending to show that the occupants were guilty of possession of cocaine
    or marihuana. See Davis v. State, 
    202 S.W.3d 149
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Swearingen, 
    143 2 S.W.3d at 811
    ; State v. Delagarza, 
    158 S.W.3d 25
    (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.).
    Appellant’s issue is overruled.
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    JIM R. WRIGHT
    CHIEF JUSTICE
    July 15, 2010
    Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    McCall, J., and Strange, J.
    3