Michael Box v. State ( 2018 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00152-CR
MICHAEL BOX APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. F16-2185-367
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Michael Box appeals his conviction and four-year sentence for
possession of a controlled substance—less than one gram of methamphetamine.
In three issues, Box argues that the trial court erred by denying his suppression
motion, by viewing a video from the arresting officer’s in-car camera prior to trial,
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
and by considering evidence of a prior conviction for enhancement purposes.
Because we conclude that Box has failed to preserve his first two arguments for
review and because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting and considering the complained-of evidence, we will affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Officer Abimael Casanova of the Lewisville Police Department testified that
on August 23, 2015, he was working patrol when he saw Box driving his SUV
down Interstate 35. From Casanova’s view, it appeared that Box was driving
without the SUV’s taillights illuminated, so he initiated a traffic stop. After
approaching Box’s SUV from the passenger side for safety reasons, Casanova
questioned Box about the taillights and where he was going. According to
Casanova, Box was unusually nervous and fidgety. Casanova also did not
believe Box’s story about where he was going, allegedly to Walmart, because
Box had passed two Walmarts on his drive down Interstate 35. After Box
revealed that he did not have a drivers’ license on him, Casanova went back to
his patrol vehicle, ran Box’s name through the department’s system, and learned
that Box did not have a valid drivers’ license.
After returning to Box’s SUV, Casanova again asked Box where he was
going, and Box then explained that he was actually out driving around to clear his
head after an argument with his wife. By Casanova’s account, he asked Box to
step out of his SUV and then asked Box if he could search the SUV, to which
Box agreed and handed Casanova the keys to his SUV. Upon searching,
2
Casanova found three methamphetamine pipes, one of which contained a usable
amount of methamphetamine.
The trial court found Box guilty of possession of a controlled substance—
less than one gram of methamphetamine. After conducting the punishment
phase of trial and after having found the State’s two enhancement paragraphs to
be true, the trial court sentenced Box to four years’ incarceration. This appeal
followed.
III. DISCUSSION
In his first point, Box complains that the trial court erred by not granting his
motion to suppress. Specifically, Box complains that Casanova illegally asked
him to step out of his SUV and illegally searched his vehicle. The State argues
that Box has failed to preserve this issue for our review. We agree with the
State.
To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the
trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds
for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request,
objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d
670, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1461 (2016). Even
constitutional errors may be waived by failure to timely complain in the trial court.
Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). And the
complaint made on appeal must comport with the complaint made in the trial
court or the error is forfeited. Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex.
3
Crim. App. 2004); Vafaiyan v. State, 279 S.W.3d 374, 383 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2008, pet. ref’d). To determine whether the complaint on appeal comports
with that made at trial, we consider the context in which the complaint was made
and the parties’ shared understanding at that time. Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d
333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
In this case, at the beginning of trial, Box orally motioned the court to
suppress “everything” after the initial traffic stop. Box’s argument to the trial court
was that his taillights were illuminated and that, therefore, Casanova conducted
an improper traffic stop. Now, on appeal, Casanova is arguing that Casanova’s
asking Box to step out of his SUV and then searching the SUV was
unconstitutional. Because Box’s objection at trial does not comport with the
complaint he now makes on appeal, he has forfeited this complaint for our
review. See Pabst v. State, 466 S.W.3d 902, 907–08 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (“[A]ppellant argued in detail that the stop was illegal
because the temporary tag was legible and appellant had not committed a
crime[.] [R]epeating this statement did not make it apparent that appellant also
was urging that the stop was illegal because of its length.”). We overrule Box’s
first point.
In his second point, Box argues that the trial court impermissibly watched
the video from Casanova’s in-car camera prior to trial. Box argues that this
violated his right “to confront the witness sponsoring the video.” The State
4
argues that Box had agreed to allow the trial court judge to watch the video of the
traffic stop prior to trial.
We have examined the record, and it is obvious that the parties had
agreed to let the trial judge review the video prior to trial. Moreover, not only had
the parties agreed to let the trial judge review the video, Box never objected to
the trial judge having viewed the video, despite multiple opportunities, and thus
he forfeited this complaint for our review.
As mentioned above, to preserve a complaint for our review, a party must
have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states
the specific grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the
context of the request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Douds,
472 S.W.3d at 674. And a reviewing court should not address the merits of an
issue that has not been preserved for appeal. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530,
532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Because Box did not complain about the trial court judge having viewed
the video prior to trial when he was given the opportunity to, he has forfeited this
complaint for our review. We overrule Box’s second point.
In his third point, Box argues that the trial court impermissibly granted “the
State’s motion to amend the indictment to include the enhancements” and that
one of the judgments, labeled a judgment nunc pro tunc, was impermissibly used
to enhance his conviction. The State argues that it never moved to amend the
5
indictment and, among other arguments, that Box admitted to serving the prison
sentence detailed in the judgment that he now complains of.
At the punishment phase, over Box’s objection to State’s exhibit 10, the
State introduced evidence that Box had served prison time for two prior felony
convictions—burglary of a habitation and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
Regarding the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, the State introduced two
judgments with the same cause number—State’s exhibits 9 and 10. State’s
exhibit 9 indicates that Box served in a “SPECIAL ALTERNATE
INCARCERATION PROGRAM” for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, but
State’s exhibit 10, which has a handwritten title of “Nunc Pro Tunc,” indicates that
Box had been sentenced to ten years’ incarceration. Although Box’s argument
on appeal is difficult to understand, it appears as though he is complaining of the
trial court’s admitting and then considering State’s exhibit 10.
In general, we review a trial court’s admission of evidence under an abuse-
of-discretion standard. See Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d 77, 82–83 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2016). This means that as long as a trial court’s decision falls within the
zone of reasonable disagreement, we will not disturb it. See id. at 83.
Here, at the punishment hearing, Box admitted that he had spent “about
eight and a half years in prison” for the unauthorized-use-of-a-motor-vehicle
conviction. Thus, it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement for the trial
court to admit and consider the judgment titled “Nunc Pro Tunc,” which indicated
that Box had been sentenced to ten years’ incarceration, and that State’s exhibit
6
10 was the proper judgment for the court to consider regarding the State’s
enhancement allegation. We also agree with the State that there is no evidence
in the record that it ever moved to amend or was granted an amendment to the
indictment. We overrule Box’s third point.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Box’s three points on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; MEIER and BIRDWELL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 9, 2018
7