Joe Mack Breed v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 91st District Court of Eastland County

Opinion filed March 29, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

   No. 11-06-00076-CR

__________

   JOE MACK BREED, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 05-20,833

O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Joe Mack Breed of the offense of possession with intent to deliver between 4 and 200 grams of methamphetamine. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for 60 years and a $10,000 fine. We affirm.

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress. Appellant argues that the contraband in this case should have been suppressed because a previous invalid detention led to the arrest warrant in this case. In reviewing a trial court=s ruling on a motion to suppress, appellate courts must give great deference to the trial court=s findings of historical facts as long as the record supports the findings.[1] Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Because the trial court is the exclusive fact-finder, the appellate court reviews evidence adduced at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court=s ruling. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We also give deference to the trial court=s rulings on mixed questions of law and fact when those rulings turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89. Where such rulings do not turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, we review the trial court=s actions de novo. Id.

The record from the hearing on the motion to suppress shows that appellant had been placed on community supervision for a theft offense on July 11, 2005. Thereafter, on August 16, 2005, appellant was stopped for a traffic violation. During this traffic stop, a police canine hit on appellant=s vehicle; drugs were found; and appellant was arrested. On September 27, 2005, due in part to the August 16 offense, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision. Pursuant to the presentment of the motion to revoke, the district judge ordered that a capias be issued for appellant=s arrest. On October 3, 2005, Officer Trey Blue saw appellant driving through town and, having prior knowledge of the warrant for appellant=s arrest, pulled appellant over in order to arrest him pursuant to that warrant. Incident to the arrest, Officer Blue searched appellant=s truck and found a maroon zipper bag containing a baggie of crystal substance, scales, another baggie that contained 26 smaller baggies, a straw with residue, and a spoon with residue.

In the present case, appellant was convicted of possessing the methamphetamine discovered in the maroon zipper bag during the October 3 search. Appellant sought to suppress that evidence because the arrest warrant was based upon a motion to revoke stemming from the August 16 incident, which allegedly involved an invalid detention. We need not address the validity of the August 16 detention in this case.

AAt any time during the period of community supervision the judge may issue a warrant for violation of any of the conditions of the community supervision and cause the defendant to be arrested. Any supervision officer, police officer or other officer with power of arrest may arrest such defendant.@ Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 21(b) (Vernon 2006). The motion to revoke upon which the warrant for appellant=s arrest was based included grounds for revocation other than the possession of items discovered during the August 16 detention. These additional grounds were that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by failing to avoid persons of disreputable character, by pulling a trailer with an expired registration that was not registered to him, and by failing to perform any of the required community service. These additional grounds were sufficient to support the warrant for appellant=s arrest. Article 42.12, section 21(b). Because these additional violations supported the issuance of the warrant, the warrant was valid regardless of the validity of the prior detention. Further, an officer may search a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of its occupants. New Yorkv. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). We hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant=s motion to suppress because the evidence was discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest based upon a valid arrest warrant. Appellant=s issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

March 29, 2007

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

[1]We note that the trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law and that neither party requested them. Consequently, we will Aimpl[y] the necessary fact findings that would support the trial court=s ruling if the evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court=s ruling) supports these implied fact findings.@ State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818-19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699-700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).