Patrick Nicholas Taylor v. State ( 2016 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-15-00058-CR
___________________
PATRICK NICHOLAS TAYLOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23362
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its
discretion in finding that Patrick Nicholas Taylor or his mother voluntarily
consented to the request by a deputy employed by the Polk County Sherriff’s
Department to search the RV where they were living. Because the trial court’s
ruling to admit the evidence in the search of the RV is supported by evidence the
1
trial court considered during the pre-trial hearing1 that it conducted to address
whether the evidence should be admitted during Taylor’s trial, we conclude that
Taylor’s complaint is without merit and that the judgement should be affirmed.
Therefore, we affirm the jury’s verdict finding Taylor guilty of possessing
methamphetamine, a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
481.115(d) (West 2010).
1
Taylor did not file a written motion to suppress the evidence that the
deputy obtained in his search; instead, the issue regarding whether Taylor or his
mother voluntarily consented to the search arose on the morning before the trial
commenced while the court was considering Taylor’s motion in limine. Taylor’s
motion included a number of matters, including a request to bar any testimony
related to the seizure of items that the deputy found in his search of the RV. In its
brief, the State has not argued that Taylor, by failing to file a motion to suppress or
by failing to object to the evidence during the trial, failed to preserve his complaint
about the admission of the evidence for review on appeal. Nonetheless, we
conclude that the trial court made an evidence-based pre-trial ruling that focused
on whether the deputy obtained the necessary consent for the search conducted of
the RV. Additionally, the record reflects the trial court expressly ruled on Taylor’s
request in a pre-trial proceeding, finding that the deputy obtained the necessary
consent required for the search. Therefore, we conclude that Taylor did not waive
his right to have the complaint he has raised about the admission of the fruits of the
search reviewed on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (indicating that error
preservation for purposes of appellate review requires the complaining party to
demonstrate that the complaint made on appeal was presented to the trial court in a
timely request, objection, or motion, and to show that the trial court ruled on the
request); see also Writt v. State, 541 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)
(noting that when the defendant’s request to suppress evidence is supported by
evidence and the trial court considered evidence to resolve the motion in a pre-trial
hearing, the trial court’s ruling, for purposes of appeal, preserves error even if the
defendant in the course of the trial later fails to object to the admission of the
evidence made the subject of his pre-trial motion).
2
Background
After receiving a tip from an informant 2 that Taylor was selling
methamphetamine in a trailer park located near a prison, two deputies, both
employed by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, went to the park where the RV in
which Taylor was living was parked. During the suppression hearing, one of the
deputies testified that when he approached Taylor’s RV, he noticed there were two
women on the porch. The deputy asked one of the women, subsequently identified
as Taylor’s mother, if Taylor was inside. When Taylor’s mother said he was, the
deputy asked Taylor’s mother to ask that Taylor come outside. When Taylor’s
mother went inside, the deputy indicated that he heard Taylor’s mother yell to
Taylor that “the cops” were there looking for him. According to the deputy, he
stepped just inside the door of the RV due to his concerns for safety. After stepping
inside the door of the RV, the deputy indicated that he saw Taylor standing near a
bedroom door. When the deputy asked Taylor and his mother to step outside, they
complied.
The deputy indicated that he began to talk to Taylor while Taylor and his
mother were both standing outside the RV. The deputy testified that he told Taylor
2
On cross-examination at the pre-trial hearing, the deputy indicated that
before he received the tip that caused him to go to Taylor’s RV, the informant had
never before given him any tips.
3
an informant had told him that Taylor was selling methamphetamine from the RV.
However, Taylor denied that the tip was true. The deputy indicated that he asked
Taylor if Taylor used “narcotics or anything like that[;]” according to the deputy,
Taylor told him that he used a specific type of cannabis, which Taylor named.
Subsequently, according to the deputy, Taylor admitted that he had an illegal drug
inside the RV. When Taylor turned and began walking towards the RV, the other
deputy, standing near them, drew his taser. The deputy questioning Taylor
requested that Taylor come back towards him, and he also requested that the other
deputy stop pointing his taser at Taylor. At that point, the other deputy quit
pointing his taser at Taylor, and Taylor then began to calm down.
According to the testimony of the deputy who interviewed Taylor, Taylor
denied the deputy’s accusation that he was selling drugs from the RV. The deputy
explained that he asked Taylor if he could search the RV, but Taylor refused. At
that point, the deputy indicated that he had Taylor and his mother stand outside the
RV while he began the process of requesting a warrant authorizing the RV’s search
using a laptop that he had in his car. According to the deputy, Taylor then changed
his mind about whether he would allow the RV to be searched. After Taylor
advised the deputy that he would consent to the search, the deputy gave Taylor and
4
his mother a document,3 in which they indicated they were agreeing to his request
to search their RV. The deputy testified that Taylor and his mother both signed the
consent form, and the consent form is in the record and it was admitted into
evidence during the guilt-innocence phase of Taylor’s trial.
On cross-examination, the deputy denied that he ever said anything to
Taylor that might have caused Taylor to believe that Taylor’s mother would be
arrested had Taylor refused his request to search the RV. The deputy indicated that
in searching the RV, the officers found methamphetamine. According to the
deputy, after he located the methamphetamine, he arrested Taylor “for
manufactur[ing] and deliver[ing] a controlled substance.” 4
Taylor’s account of the events, as he described them during the pre-trial
hearing, differs in several respects from the account given by the deputy who
3
The document Taylor and his mother signed indicating that they consented
to the search of the RV was referenced by both parties during the pre-trial hearing;
however, neither attorney had the document marked as an exhibit for the record
that they created to reflect what occurred during the suppression hearing.
Nevertheless, the written consent, signed by Taylor and his mother, was
subsequently admitted into evidence during Taylor’s trial: it states that Taylor and
his mother freely consented “without being subjected to any threats, promises,
compulsion or persuasion of any kind[,]” and Taylor and his mother also
acknowledged that any items that the police seized in the search could be used
against them in criminal proceedings.
4
Approximately one year after the search, a grand jury indicted Taylor for
possessing a controlled substance, methamphetamine, alleging that the offense
occurred on or about April 25, 2013.
5
testified at the hearing. According to Taylor, he was asleep in a bedroom in the RV
when his mother called him. When he walked out of the bedroom into a bathroom
inside the RV, he saw a deputy standing near a door in the RV that opened onto the
RV’s porch. According to Taylor, the deputy asked him to step outside, and the
deputy informed him that “he wanted to have a conversation with me concerning
an anonymous tip.” Taylor indicated that while he was talking to the deputy
outside the RV, the deputy told him that an informant related to the deputy that
Taylor was “cooking or manufacturing methamphetamines in the trailer.” Taylor
testified that he denied the accusation, and he indicated that he became frustrated
when the deputy continued to question him about drugs after he denied the
accusation that he was manufacturing drugs in the RV. Taylor indicated that when
the deputy continued to question him, he informed the deputy that their
conversation was over and that he was going back inside his residence. According
to Taylor, when he turned to leave, the deputy questioning him put his hand on his
gun, while another other nearby deputy pulled out his taser. According to Taylor,
at that point, he held out his arms and said to the deputy who was questioning him
that if he was going to shoot him, go ahead, but if he did, he would “have [his]
badge by the end of the day and sue the police department.” Taylor indicated that
after he offered to surrender, the deputy questioning him told him to calm down.
6
At that point, Taylor indicated that he put his hands behind his back, and that a few
minutes later, the situation outside the RV had calmed and the deputy that had
pointed his taser at Taylor put his taser away.
Taylor explained that the deputy questioning him told him that his informant
had been watching Taylor for some time, that the deputy knew that Taylor’s
mother owned the trailer, and that he would make sure that Taylor’s mother went
to jail for whatever they found in the RV if Taylor forced them to obtain a warrant
to search the RV. According to Taylor, the deputy told him that it was in Taylor’s
interest to allow the police to search the RV; otherwise, the deputy indicated that
Taylor’s mother would be required to wait in the cold standing outside the RV
while the deputy arranged for a warrant, and that he would then make sure that she
would be the person they made “take the fall and go to jail.” Taylor indicated that
it was cold outside the RV in late April 2013 when the police were at the RV
requesting permission to allow them to conduct a search. Taylor testified that he
signed the consent form allowing the search because he was in fear of his mother’s
well-being and because he was worried that they had no other place to live.
After the police finished their search and found the contraband that was the
subject of Taylor’s trial, Taylor indicated he told the deputies that he had been in
Houston that day, that he was in the middle of a divorce, and that his wife had
7
“possibly planted [the contraband] while [he] was away[.]” Taylor agreed that he
and his mother signed the consent for the search. Taylor indicated that after the RV
was searched, the deputies did not arrest his mother.
Analysis
Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, a search conducted by police
with a person’s voluntary consent is not unreasonable. Meekins v. State, 340
S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The question of whether the defendant
or a person who controlled the property that police searched consented to a request
by governmental officials to search the property is a matter that presents a trial
court with a question that must be determined based on all of the circumstances
that the factfinder concludes occurred surrounding the search. Id. (citing
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)).
With respect to Taylor’s argument that he did not consent to the search,5 the
trial court ruled that Taylor and his mother’s consent had been voluntarily
5
According to Taylor’s testimony, the deputy questioning him “knew the
house was in my mother’s name[.]” In other places in his testimony, he refers to
the RV as his home. In his appeal, Taylor has not argued that his mother could not
consent to the deputy’s request to search the RV that she owned, and since he did
not file a formal motion to suppress, it is also unclear whether the trial court
focused on whether Taylor’s mother could have consented to the search. Here, the
trial court’s finding on consent fails to distinguish between whether the valid
consent came from Taylor, his mother, or from both. We note that generally, the
owner of the residence in which the person is living can consent to a request by
8
obtained. A trial court’s finding that a defendant consented to a requested search is
reviewed using a bifurcated standard. Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147, 150
(Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Under this bifurcated standard, the trial court’s factual
findings are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. When a trial
court’s findings of historical fact are supported by the evidence that was before the
court when it ruled, its findings are given almost total deference in the appeal
because such findings are usually dependent on the trial court’s evaluation of the
credibility of the witnesses who testified. See Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 48
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Under Texas law, the State has the burden to demonstrate
to the trial court by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant or the owner
of the property consented to the search voluntarily. State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d
242, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Because the trial court’s ruling in Taylor’s case followed a hearing in which
the witnesses gave somewhat inconsistent accounts of the historical events that led
police to search the residence, even if the search will necessarily implicate privacy
rights of others who also live there. See Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 560
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“A third party can consent to a search to the detriment of
another’s privacy interest if the third party has actual authority over the place or
thing to be searched.”). Because we resolve the case on the basis of Taylor’s
consent—an issue the parties join in their respective briefs—we need not reach the
question of whether an alternative ground for the ruling exists that might result in
the holding that Taylor’s mother’s consent justified the warrantless search of the
RV where Taylor lived.
9
Taylor and his mother to sign the consent that authorized the search, the trial court
was required to resolve the discrepancies as matters of credibility in deciding
whether Taylor and his mother voluntarily consented to the deputy’s request to
search the RV. See Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
As the trier of fact, the trial court could reasonably have chosen to believe the
testimony of the deputy who questioned Taylor and chosen not to believe all or
portions of Taylor’s testimony in the process of deciding Taylor’s motion seeking
to exclude the contraband that police found in their search. See State v. Ross, 32
S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Regardless of the trial court’s ruling on a
motion to suppress evidence, on appeal, the appeals court is required to review the
trial court’s ruling in the light most favorable to upholding the ruling on the request
a defendant makes to exclude evidence. See Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442,
447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
In Taylor’s case, the trial court, at the conclusion of the hearing, orally
pronounced its finding that the consent the deputy needed to conduct the search
had been voluntarily obtained. When a trial court makes oral findings on a motion
to suppress, its oral findings are given the same deference that is given to written
findings. See State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating
that the trial court’s findings and conclusions from the suppression hearing need to
10
be recorded in some way, whether written or stated on the record at the hearing);
Flores v. State, 177 S.W.3d 8, 14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d)
(applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to the review of a trial court’s oral
findings that followed a hearing on a motion to suppress).
In Taylor’s case, the trial court found that the consent to search the RV was
voluntary, and that finding is supported by ample evidence that the trial court could
have reasonably found believable during the pre-trial hearing. The testimony from
the pre-trial hearing indicates that Taylor and his mother signed the written consent
form before the RV was searched. Additionally, the trial court could reasonably
believe the deputy’s testimony that the deputy never threatened to arrest Taylor’s
mother before Taylor agreed to allow the deputy to search the RV, to believe the
deputy’s testimony that all weapons had been put away and that Taylor had calmed
down before signing the consent, and to believe the deputy’s testimony that he read
the consent to Taylor before Taylor decided to sign it. Additionally, it would not be
unreasonable for the trial court to have relied on language in the consent form
itself, found just above Taylor’s signature, which indicates that Taylor was
consenting to the requested search freely, without threat, promise, and without
compulsion of any kind.
11
We conclude that the State provided the trial court with clear and convincing
evidence showing that Taylor and his mother voluntarily consented to the
requested search; therefore, we hold the State was not required to obtain a search
warrant to search the RV. See McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2003) (explaining that a voluntary consent to a search is one of the exceptions
to the Fourth Amendment, which generally requires the State to obtain a search
warrant to search a defendant’s property). We hold the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by finding Taylor and his mother voluntarily consented to the search of
their RV. See Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);
accord State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We overrule
Taylor’s sole issue, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
___________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on November 16, 2015
Opinion Delivered June 1, 2016
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
12