Gabriel Moreno v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 364th District Court of Lubbock County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 7th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Gabriel Moreno v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 364th District Court of Lubbock County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 07-07-00205-CR

Case Date: 11/21/2007

Plaintiff: WENDI BUSSARD

Defendant: ROY SPEARS AND BRUCE SPEARS--Appeal from 343rd District Court of San Patricio County

Preview:NO. 07-07-0205-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 21, 2007 ______________________________

GABRIEL MORENO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2006-412,309; HON. BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING _______________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Gabriel Moreno (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Via a single issue, he contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his oral or written statements. We affirm.

Background Trooper Bill Horton (Horton) testified that he stopped a vehicle for impeding traffic. The vehicle was traveling at 50 miles per hour in the left lane in a 60-mile-per-hour zone.1 The trooper observed approximately four to six vehicles going around the slower one. Horton initiated a stop, asked the driver to step out of the vehicle, and asked for his driver's license. The driver informed the trooper that he did not have a driver's license and that he had outstanding arrest warrants. Appellant was then arrested and placed in the patrol vehicle. Within minutes of the arrest, the trooper confirmed that appellant was the subject of outstanding warrants and informed appellant that he was being arrested pursuant to the warrants and for driving without a license. The vehicle was impounded, and an inventory was conducted. The inventory uncovered the presence of the controlled substance. Issue - Motion to Suppress Appellant contends that the State "failed to carry its burden of proof to show that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion for his original warrantless traffic stop of [a]ppellant." We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress under the standard announced in Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) and Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). It requires us to give almost total deference to the trial court's findings of historical fact and review de novo the application of the law to the facts. Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d at 652-53.

1

The trooper testified that the posted m inim um speed lim it for the area was 45 m iles per hour.

2

Next, though we question the legitimacy of the initial stop conducted by Horton, we need not address whether it rendered inadmissible the evidence subsequently discovered. Instead, we conclude that the contraband was nonetheless admissible since it was discovered during a search incident to appellant's arrest on the outstanding warrants. See Fletcher v. State, 90 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. App.

Download 12258.pdf