EDWARD ANTHONY MUNIZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County

NUMBER 13-04-625-CR

 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

EDWARD ANTHONY MUNIZ, Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Justices Ya ez, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Without the benefit of a plea agreement, appellant, Edward Anthony Muniz, pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine in an amount of less than one gram. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.102(3)(D) (Vernon Supp. 2006); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(b) (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of five years. In his sole issue before this Court, appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because his car's license plate was not displayed in violation of the law. Thus, appellant argues that the traffic stop that led to his arrest was made without probable cause. We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On April 16, 2004, appellant was stopped by a police officer solely because the license plate on his car was partially obscured by a license plate frame. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. 502.409 (Vernon 2007). The frame partially obscured the word "Texas." After the stop, the officer discovered that appellant, who was "nervous, shaky, moving in his drivers [sic] seat," was in possession of less than one gram of cocaine. Appellant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.102(3)(D), 481.115(b). On September 8, 2004, appellant moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop on the ground that the car's license plate was not in violation of the law and the stop was therefore made without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion. On that same day, appellant waived trial by jury and pleaded guilty. See Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 , 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). (1) The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. This appeal ensued.

 

II. Standard of Review

The appropriate standard for reviewing most trial court's rulings on a motion to suppress is a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to the trial court's determination of historical facts and reviewing de novo the court's application of the law. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The facts in the present case are undisputed. Accordingly, we will review the trial court's application of section 502.49 de novo.

III. Analysis

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his car's license plate was not displayed in violation of the law. The evidence is undisputed that the word "Texas" on appellant's car's license plate was partially obscured. A person commits an offense under section 502.409(a) if the person attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or registration insignia that:

(6) has an attached illuminated device or sticker, decal, emblem, or other insignia that is not authorized by law and that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on the plate or the name of the state in which the vehicle is registered; or

 

(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material that:

(A) distorts angular visibility or detectability; or

 

(B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design feature of the plate.

Tex. Transp. Code Ann. 502.409. Recently, in construing this statute, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a license plate frame partially obscuring the word "Texas" was a violation of the statute. State v. Johnson, 219 S.W.3d 386, ___ (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2007). We conclude appellant's car's license plate frame was in violation of section 502.409. Accordingly, the officer was justified in stopping appellant's vehicle and the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Appellant's sole issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

_________________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

 

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 21st day of June, 2007.

1. Under Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2), both bargaining and non-bargaining defendants who plead guilty can appeal rulings on written, pre-trial motions as well as jurisdictional issues.