Timothy Bland v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion )

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 14th District Court of Appeals » 2012 » Timothy Bland v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion )

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 14-11-00451-CR

Case Date: 08/14/2012

Plaintiff: Timothy Bland

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion )

Preview:Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 14, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-11-00451-CR TIMOTHY BLAND, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1279005

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Timothy Bland, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). In three issues, appellant contends the trial court erred by (1) denying appellant's motion for disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, (2) denying appellant's motion to suppress, and (3) improperly limiting cross-examination of a witness during the suppression hearing. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Houston police officers Benjamin Gill, James Crawford, and Gordon Sullivan testified at the hearing and collectively provided the following account. For six weeks

before September 22, 2010, Officer Gill, of the narcotics division, received tips from a confidential informant that appellant was selling cocaine out of a boarding house by transporting it to other locations in a small magnetic box placed under the wheel well of his car.1 On the night of September 22, Officer Gill and his partner retrieved the informant, who pointed out the boarding house and appellant's car, and then left the informant at another location. At approximately 11:30 p.m., these officers began

surveillance of the boarding house. Shortly after midnight, they saw appellant drive away from the house in the car identified by the informant and commit several traffic violations. Thus, Officer Gill instructed uniformed officers to stop the car and relayed the informant's tip regarding appellant's method for transporting cocaine. The officers did not procure a warrant to search the car. Officer Crawford asked appellant to exit his car, performed a pat-down search for weapons, and placed him in the patrol car, for officers' safety. Officer Sullivan reached under the driver's-side, rear wheel well of appellant's car and retrieved a small box, which had cocaine residue on the outside. Officer Sullivan opened the box, which contained crack cocaine. Officers arrested

appellant and subsequently searched the boarding house. Although a narcotics dog alerted on appellant's room, no drugs were found there but were found in every other room. The State originally charged appellant with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and alleged two prior felony convictions for enhancement purposes. Appellant filed a motion to suppress and a motion for disclosure of the confidential informant's identity. At a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court sustained some of the State's objections when appellant attempted to question Officer Gill and introduce documents regarding the informant. At that time, the trial court, a visiting judge, mistakenly believed the presiding judge had already denied the motion for disclosure and the hearing solely concerned appellant's motion to suppress. After the

Because the informant's identity has not been disclosed, we will refer to him as a male, consistent with Officer Gill's references, although appellant suggests the informant is a certain woman.
1

2

trial court orally denied the motion to suppress, appellant re-urged that he had evidence to present supporting the motion for disclosure. The trial court indicated it would ascertain whether the presiding judge had ruled on the motion for disclosure. It is unclear what transpired off the record, but the next day the trial court denied the motion for disclosure. Appellant then agreed to a plea bargain after the State reduced the charge to possession of a controlled substance and abandoned one enhancement paragraph. sentenced appellant to sixteen years' confinement. II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to Suppress We will first address appellant's second issue, in which he contends the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to suppress the cocaine found on his car because officers lacked probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle. We must uphold the denial of a motion to suppress if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any applicable theory of law. Hereford v. State, 339 S.W.3d 111, 117

Download 14-11-00451-cr.pdf