Jason Allen Harris v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 8, 2024
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00074-CR
JASON ALLEN HARRIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-83363-2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Reichek
Jason Allen Harris appeals the trial court’s order of deferred adjudication for
the offense of possession of methamphetamine. In a single issue, he contends the
trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged with intentionally and knowingly possessing
methamphetamine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams on or
about December 9, 2020. He was arrested following a traffic stop, and he moved to
suppress evidence resulting from his arrest, which he claimed was illegal.
At the motion to suppress hearing, Officer Cary Wittwer with the McKinney
Police Department testified for the State. On the afternoon of December 9, 2020,
Wittwer saw a vehicle parked on the street in front of a known drug house in
McKinney. Wittwer parked out of sight and waited for the vehicle to leave. When
it did, Wittwer followed it. Wittwer testified the driver, appellant, signaled his
intention to turn right at a stop sign, but did not signal until he got to the stop sign.
The transportation code requires a driver to signal a turn 100 feet before turning.
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104(b) (“An operator intending to turn a vehicle
right or left shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement
of the vehicle before the turn.”). On cross-examination, Wittwer testified that he was
“maybe 100 yards” behind appellant when he saw the violation.
Wittwer pulled appellant over, and appellant consented to a search of his car.
No drugs were found in the car. Wittwer did not testify about finding
methamphetamine, but the prosecutor told the judge drugs were found on a
passenger. The State believed the drugs were purchased by appellant and given to
his passenger. Video from Wittwer’s dash camera that shows appellant driving and
the subsequent stop was admitted into evidence.
Private investigator Daryl Parker testified for appellant. He investigated
whether a traffic violation occurred in this case. In doing so, he reviewed Wittwer’s
dash cam video. Parker took a screen shot from the video at the moment he first
detected a traffic signal from appellant’s car. Using landmarks like trees, he made
–2–
calculations about the distances involved. Parker first used Google Earth, then he
went to the scene and measured in person. Parker estimated appellant signaled
somewhere between 105 and 119 feet before he turned. But he also stated he did
not believe it was possible to determine when the signal started. According to Parker,
Officer Wittwer was over 200 yards away when appellant signaled and Parker did
not think he could see the turn signal from that distance. On cross-examination,
Parker agreed the dash cam video was a little bit grainy. He also said it was possible
that eyes can see things a little bit better than dash cameras can.
The trial court took the matter under advisement and later denied the motion
to suppress. Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court
deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for
two years. The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal matters raised by
written motion filed and ruled on before trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A).
Analysis
In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court’s denial of his motion to
suppress is contrary to the evidence. Appellant cites Parker’s testimony that
appellant signaled more than 100 feet in advance of the turn and asserts the State did
not controvert the distances Parker testified about. Appellant argues the trial court’s
ruling does not involve the credibility of the witnesses and should be reviewed de
novo.
–3–
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated
standard of review. Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
First, we afford almost total deference to the trial judge’s determination of historical
facts. Id. The judge is the sole trier of fact and judge of witnesses’ credibility and
the weight to be given their testimony. Id. Appellate courts may review de novo
“indisputable visual evidence” contained on a videotape recording admitted into
evidence at a suppression hearing. State v. Duran, 396 S.W.3d 563, 570 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013). Unless visual evidence is indisputable, however, a deferential standard
of review applies to a trial court’s determination of historical facts based on a
videotape. See id. Appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the trial court’s ruling. Id. at 570–71. When, as here, there are no written findings
explaining the factual basis for the trial judge’s decision, we imply findings of fact
that support the ruling as long as the evidence supports those findings. Meekins v.
State, 340 S.W.3d 454, 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Second, we review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo.
Cole, 490 S.W.3d at 922. We will sustain the court’s ruling if the record reasonably
supports the ruling and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. Id.A warrantless traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure that is analogous to
temporary detention; it must be justified by reasonable suspicion. State v. Hardin,
664 S.W.3d 867, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). If an officer has reasonable suspicion
that a person committed a traffic violation, the officer may conduct a traffic stop. Id.–4–
Reasonable suspicion exists if the officer has specific articulable facts that,
combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead the officer to
reasonably conclude the person is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal
activity. Id.We disagree with appellant that our review in this case is purely de novo.
Appellant does not argue the video evidence is indisputable. As appellant’s own
witness acknowledged, the dash cam video of Officer Wittwer pursuing appellant is
grainy. One witness testified for each side, and, as the trial judge put it, their
testimony is at “polar opposites.” Wittwer testified appellant did not signal his turn
until appellant reached the stop sign where he turned. Parker estimated that appellant
signaled more than 100 feet in advance of the stop sign. Whether Wittwer had
reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop was a function of the credibility of the
witnesses. We defer to the trial court’s implied finding that appellant did not signal
at least 100 feet before he turned, whether that finding was based on Wittwer’s
testimony and/or on the trial court’s interpretation of the video evidence. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to its ruling, the trial court did not err in
denying the motion to suppress. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
–5–
We affirm the trial court’s order of deferred adjudication.
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
230074F.U05
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JASON ALLEN HARRIS, Appellant On Appeal from the 199th Judicial
District Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-23-00074-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 199-83363-
2021.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice
Reichek. Justices Carlyle and Miskel
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 8th day of July, 2024.
–7–