Dana Comstock Taylor v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 6th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Dana Comstock Taylor v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-06-00246-CR

Case Date: 11/14/2007

Plaintiff: James Elias Harris

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 294th District Court of Van Zandt County

Preview:Jon Paul Denman v. State of Texas--Appeal from 2nd
District Court of Cherokee County
Opinion filed June 26, 2008
Opinion filed June 26, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
No. 11-06-00312-CR
JON PAUL DENMAN, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 2nd District Court
Cherokee County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 16090
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The jury convicted Jon Paul Denman of delivery of cocaine in the amount of four or more grams but less than two
hundred grams and assessed his punishment at confinement for five years. We affirm.
There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reflects that, under direction of the Dogwood
Trails Narcotics Task Force, Chris Martinez arranged to purchase, and did in fact purchase, 15.32 grams of crack
cocaine from appellant. The buy was made on property that appellant owned. Prior to making the buy, law enforcement
officers fitted Martinez with a recording device and used it to record the transaction. The recording was introduced into
evidence over appellant=s objection.
In his sole issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to the admission of the
Task Force=s surveillance video of the transaction. Appellant contends that the Asurreptitious@ video taken by a
Acooperating individual@ constituted an illegal search and violated his federal and state constitutional rights as well
as his state statutory rights. Appellant acknowledges that the issue is Areally a question of degree@ as to how Afar@
law enforcement officers may Aoperate.@ Appellant asks this court to extend the holding in Kyllo v. United States,
533 U.S. 27 (2001), to the facts of this case.
As appellant acknowledges, Kyllo is factually distinguishable from the facts of his case. In Kyllo, a confidential
informant or Acooperating individual@ did not arrange to purchase a controlled substance. Instead, U.S. Department
of the Interior agents used a thermal-imaging device to detect infrared radiation not visible to the naked eye that would
be emitted from the high-intensity lamps Kyllo would be using if he was growing marihuana inside his home as agents
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9018.html[8/20/2013 7:30:41 PM]

suspected. The Court held that the use of the Thermovision imaging was an unlawful search of Kyllo=s home and
emphasized its holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980), that Athe Fourth Amendment draws >a firm
line at the entrance to the house.=@ Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 40. In the present case, the sale of crack cocaine took place in
Athe club@ on 22.8 acres that appellant owned and where his brother was Astaying.@
We decline to extend the holding in Kyllo to the facts of this case. Appellant has not established that the trial court
erred in overruling his objection to the recording. The issue is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JIM R. WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
June 26, 2008
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9018.html[8/20/2013 7:30:41 PM]

Download 9018.pdf