Opinion
No. 07-17-00109-CR No. 07-17-00110-CR
10-25-2017
SERGIO LEE RAMOS, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 72,006-D & 72,008-D, Honorable Don Emerson, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.
Sergio Lee Ramos (appellant) appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. His sole issue concerns whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Allegedly, the officer had no legitimate basis to stop his vehicle. We affirm.
The applicable standard of review is discussed in Ramirez-Tamayo v. State, ___S.W.3d___, ___, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 881, at *9-12 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2017) and Morales-Acosta v. State, No. 07-15-00321-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8274, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We utilize it here in addressing appellant's issue.
Next, the basis for stopping a vehicle may be provided by more than one person. Hrgic v. State, No. 07-12-0426-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2838, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 18, 2013, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). That is, the officer who initially conducts the detention need not be personally aware of every fact that supports reasonable suspicion; rather, the collective knowledge of the cooperating officers is determinative. Id. When such suspicion exists was most recently explained by our Court of Criminal Appeals in Ramirez-Tamayo. It arises when an officer has specific, articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Ramirez-Tamayo v. State, ___S.W.3d at ___, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 881, at *10-11. Under this test, we look to the totality of the circumstances to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. Id. Although, individual circumstances may seem innocent in isolation, if they combine to reasonably suggest the imminence of criminal conduct, an investigative detention is justified. Id. at *12.
The record at bar contains evidence of a 9-1-1 call reporting that a white Chevy Tahoe was "sitting out in front of" the residence at 1400 North Marrs "where no one was supposed to be at." A description of the driver's clothes and ethnicity were also provided by the caller. The call was placed by a neighbor sometime after 5:00 a.m. The neighbor was watching the house for the resident who was apparently gone. This information was told to the officer dispatched to the scene.
Apparently, the person living at the abode had left for several days.
At approximately 5:51 a.m., the officer arrived in the area and encountered a vehicle matching the description given him. The vehicle was being driven down a street. The driver's description also matched that provided the officer in the dispatch. With this information in hand, the officer stopped the vehicle and encountered appellant driving it.
The record evidence contained the following articulable facts: 1) the time of morning, 2) appellant having been seen outside a particular residence, 3) the resident of the house being gone, 4) the neighbor being asked to watch the house by the resident, 5) the neighbor being the one to make the call, 6) the description of the vehicle and driver being provided by the neighbor, 7) the neighbor disclosing that the vehicle and driver were not supposed to be at the house, 8) this information being dispatched to the officer, and 9) the officer personally seeing within the neighborhood a vehicle and driver matching the descriptions shortly after being dispatched to the area. Together, they reasonably suggest unusual circumstances indicative of imminent criminal conduct, or so a reasonable officer and fact-finder could have inferred. See Beale v. State, No. 05-07-00855-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4402, at *7-8 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 17, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upholding the stop given evidence of 1) a 9-1-1 caller who reported a "suspicious" vehicle parked in a driveway, 2) the caller providing a description and license plate number for the vehicle, 3) the call being placed between 7:30 and 8 a.m., and 4) the officer arriving in the area and seeing a vehicle matching the description in an alley and a person enter it). Given the deference due that decision as explained in Ramirez-Tamayo, we find no error.
The issue is overruled, and the judgments are affirmed.
In his brief, appellant alluded to the voluntariness of his post-detention comments and whether they were made while in custody. Yet, he did not incorporate those topics within a point of error or issue on appeal. Nor did he brief them in any way. So, assuming arguendo that he sought to raise them, the absence of briefing resulted in their waiver. See Gonzalez v. Park, No. 07-16-00305-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 4624, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that because Gonzalez failed to cite authority or provide argument supporting his claims for relief, he waived his claims due to inadequate briefing).
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.