DocketNumber： 06-07-00064-CV
Filed Date： 10/11/2007
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/7/2015
Jason Blakeney, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, filed a pro se civil suit in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Rusk County, Texas. Blakeney's original petition was filed June 28, 2006, and named Bill Saban and Kyle Freeman, former prosecuting attorneys of the Rusk County District Attorney's Office, as well as the State of Texas, as defendants. Blakeney's lawsuit alleged that, among other things, the defendants used fraud, deception, and undue influence to get him to enter into negotiated plea agreements on three criminal charges. (1) Thus, Blakeney sought to have the trial court (a) rescind the plea agreements and/or (b) enjoin the above-named defendants from enforcing the terms of his plea agreements in the three criminal cases.
On October 23, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Blakeney's suit. That motion called for the dismissal of Blakeney's suit for several reasons: First, the defendants believed Blakeney's original petition did not satisfy the procedural requirements of Section 14.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because he failed to attach the required listing of each of Blakeney's previously filed pro se civil lawsuits. (2) Second, the defendants alleged Blakeney's lawsuit was frivolous because the relief sought by Blakeney was more properly obtained (if his claims were meritorious, which the State did not so concede) through an application for writ of habeas corpus. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005). And, third, the defendants believed they were prohibited from being sued because the conduct complained of occurred in connection with the defendants' exercise of their official capacities as state officials, which entitled them to "absolute prosecutorial immunity as a matter of law."
The trial court, the Honorable Paul Banner, presiding, conducted a hearing February 14, 2007, on the State's dismissal motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion, finding that Blakeney's lawsuit concerned the exercise of conduct by the defendants in their official capacities as former prosecutors for the State and that the defendants were entitled to governmental immunity from suit. Blakeney now appeals. We affirm.
"District attorneys and other prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability when performing their prosecutorial functions." Charleston v. Pate, 194 S.W.3d 89, 90 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976); Font v. Carr, 867 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ dism'd w.o.j.); Miller v. Curry, 625 S.W.2d 84, 86-87 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). The acts of Freeman and Saban that Blakeney alleged as the basis of his suit were all performed in representing the State in prosecuting the multiple criminal cases against Blakeney. As such, they were acts intimately connected with the judicial process. The trial court correctly dismissed Blakeney's suit against the defendants on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.
Moreover, the relief ultimately sought by Blakeney--the "undoing" of his negotiated plea agreements in multiple criminal cases--is more properly the subject of an application for writ of habeas corpus. Blakeney acknowledges that he has previously filed several applications for the writs of habeas corpus in connection with the underlying criminal convictions, but that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied those applications. As such, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' decision(s) to adjudicate the merits of Blakeney's current claims via the post-conviction writ process would further serve as a bar to the trial court's ability to grant relief in this case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 4 (prohibiting trial court from considering challenges to criminal conviction on subsequent application when those challenges were not, but should have been, raised in first habeas application); see also Chandler v. Chandler, 991 S.W.2d 367, 392 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1999, pet. denied) (res judicata bars later lawsuit between same parties concerning same issues that were previously decided to finality). The trial court's written judgment properly recognized that bar, which the trial court took into consideration in rendering its judgment of dismissal.
In short, the trial court's judgment is proper and right under our law. It is, therefore, affirmed.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: September 6, 2007
Date Decided: October 11, 2007
1. The record reflects Blakeney agreed to plea bargains in three Rusk County cases: a ten-year
sentence in cause number CR98-065, a life sentence in cause number CR01-110, and a five-year
sentence in cause number CR98-067. The record further shows that, in exchange for Blakeney's plea
in those cases, the State dismissed an aggravated kidnapping charge (CR01-109), two attempted
escape charges (cause numbers CR01-160 and CR01-161), and an arson charge (cause number
CR01-162). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20.04 (Vernon 2003) (aggravated kidnapping generally
a first-degree felony); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.06 (Vernon 2003) (escape generally a third-degree felony); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.02 (Vernon Supp. 2006) (arson generally a second-degree felony); and see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.01(d) (Vernon 2003) (punishment for criminal
attempt generally one level below punishment for completed crime). According to Blakeney, the
first two sentences were to be served concurrently; Blakeney would not begin serving the third
sentence (of five years) until he had first completed serving the other sentences.
2. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004 (Vernon 2002).
s to establish the reliability or credibility of the informant. She argues the affidavit provides no details that make the statement credible, that the confidential informant had provided the affiant with information in the past relating to narcotics trafficking, which proved to be true and correct, worthy of belief. She further argues the affidavit failed to state whether this information led to arrests, convictions, or cases being filed and how many times the informant had given any information or over what period of time. She also argues the affidavit provides no factual support for the statement the affiant knows that the confidential informant is familiar with the appearance of cocaine.
The affidavit need not provide more specific details regarding the informant's reliability than to state the informant had given information in the past regarding narcotics trafficking which had proved correct. Torres v. State, 552 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Hammond v. State, 898 S.W.2d 6, 7-8 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.); Davis v. State, 696 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1985, no pet.). Because such a statement, when interpreted in a realistic and commonsense manner, indicates the informant's familiarity with controlled substances, no further details are required to spell out the informant's qualifications in recognizing specific drugs. See Torres, 552 S.W.2d at 824; see also Palmer v. State, 614 S.W.2d 831, 832-33 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
The affidavit clearly stated that the informant had provided information in the past relating to narcotics trafficking and that such information had proved true and correct. The affidavit went on to state the affiant knew that the informant was familiar with the appearance of cocaine. The affidavit was sufficient to provide the magistrate with facts on which to base a determination of the informant's credibility.
However, a finding of credibility and reliability for the information contained within the affidavit is not enough. The information in the affidavit, found to be credible and reliable, must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.
To this end, the affidavit must be sufficient to determine the timeliness of the information contained therein. See Sherlock v. State, 632 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982) (affidavit was insufficient where there was no information regarding when the informant's observations were made); Mendiola v. State, 865 S.W.2d 540, 542 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.) (affidavit was sufficient when it stated the informant's observation was within the past seventy-two hours).
Bass contends the phrase "within the past 48 hours prior to the issuance of this warrant" fails to provide the magistrate with a meaningful basis to determine the timeliness of the information the informant provided because the warrant could not have been issued at the time the affidavit was being prepared and it would be impossible for the officer to know, at the time the affidavit was being prepared, when or whether the warrant would be issued. However, the affidavit and the search warrant were signed the same day. The magistrate, viewing the date on the affidavit, would have been able to take that into account in interpreting the affidavit and making inferences from the facts stated therein. It is unnecessary to assume the magistrate interpreted the statement to mean the officer had anticipated the hour in which he would submit the affidavit to the magistrate, as the State suggests. Even assuming the magistrate interpreted that statement to mean within forty-eight hours of the affidavit being signed, which would put the informant's observation furthest back in time, to at most seventy-two hours, the affidavit provided some indication of when the informant's observations were made.
The State argues that a two-day lapse between the time of the informant's observations concerning the presence of drugs and the issuance of a warrant does not render the information stale. See Douglas v. State, 794 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). In the Douglas case, the court found that the period of time involved did not render the information stale. This determination was made even though the lapse of time between the presence of the informant on the premises in question may have been as long as four days before the issuance of the warrant. The court in Douglas recognized that "just how long a time may be permitted to elapse without destroying the basis for a reasonable belief as to the continuance of the situation set forth in the affidavit will vary according to the facts of the individual case." Id. at 101-02 (citing Moore v. State, 456 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). Thus, a determination of timeliness is based not only on the amount of time that elapsed since the informant obtained the information, but also on what that information was, as reflected by the affidavit. Even though the magistrate in the present case could reasonably infer that the information was obtained by the informant between forty-eight and seventy-two hours before presentment of the affidavit, this alone would not be enough for the court to determine the information was stale. There must be a substantial basis for the magistrate to have found there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in a particular place. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.
To this end, the affidavit must also sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. See Smith v. State, 962 S.W.2d 178, 184 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). Bass contends that because the affidavit contained an incorrect address and lacked supporting facts regarding the location to be searched, it failed to provide a nexus between the information the affiant received from the informant and the location described in the affidavit.
Minor discrepancies will not invalidate a warrant if the affidavit and warrant otherwise sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. See id.; see also Taylor v. State, 974 S.W.2d 851, 855-56 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.); Jones v. State, 914 S.W.2d 675, 678 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1996, no pet.). The warrant must identify the place to be searched sufficiently so that the officers who execute the warrant, acting as reasonable men, can locate that place and identify it from other places in the community. See Smith, 962 S.W.2d at 184 (citing Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)). Because such discrepancies or insufficiency may not be apparent on the face of the affidavit, evidence beyond the affidavit may be required at the hearing on the motion to suppress to determine whether the description of the location to be searched was sufficient. See Jones v. State, 914 S.W.2d 675, 678 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1996, no pet.).
Although the street address was incorrect on the affidavit, the location of the residence was described in detail. Brannon, the affiant and executing officer, was the only witness at the suppression hearing. Brannon testified he had obtained the street address from the Kilgore police records, as stated in the affidavit. Brannon also testified the informant had provided the description, except for the street address. The affidavit states the informant had been to the location listed in paragraph one. Brannon testified that he did not drive by to verify the description and address of the house before he wrote the affidavit because it would have been detrimental to his investigation, but that he was familiar with the house when the informant described the house to him, and he knew which house the informant was describing. Brannon testified he would be able to follow the description to locate the residence. He testified that the officers discovered the incorrect address during the execution of the warrant, but that the numerical address was the only error regarding the description of the house.
Based on the affidavit itself and the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress as summarized above, the description of the location to be searched was sufficient.
As to the contention the affidavit does not specifically show the basis of knowledge of the identity of Bass or the basis of the informant's knowledge that the premises were under Bass's control, the case of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, negates the necessity of a showing of the basis of knowledge and adopts a totality of the circumstances review.
The affidavit states the Kilgore police records indicated the suspect's address as 431 Wells Street. On the face of the affidavit, the magistrate could have inferred the suspect would have control over the address listed in the police records. However, the officers discovered that the street number listed in the affidavit did not correspond to the residence that was otherwise described in the affidavit. Because such error was not apparent on the face of the affidavit, we consider evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress. Officer Brannon testified he knew which house the informant was describing because he was familiar with the house.
Bass contends the use of the term "possession" without further supporting facts was a conclusory statement that cannot support a finding of probable cause. See Hall v. State, 795 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Parish v. State, 939 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.); Lowery v. State, 843 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd); Alvarez v. State, 750 S.W.2d 889 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref'd).
The affidavit in the present case makes clear that the basis for the informant's conclusion was personal observation; thus, the magistrate could reasonably infer that the informant observed the cocaine and the suspect in some way that, based on the relation of one to the other, the informant concluded that the cocaine was in the control of the suspect.
Reviewing the affidavit in the light of the totality of the circumstances, we find the information contained in the affidavit provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in a particular place.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Ben Z. Grant
Justice
Date Submitted: April 11, 2002
Date Decided: October 10, 2002
Do Not Publish
Chandler v. Chandler , 991 S.W.2d 367 ( 1999 )
Taylor v. State , 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 4142 ( 1998 )
Douglas v. State , 794 S.W.2d 98 ( 1990 )
Parish v. State , 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 139 ( 1997 )
Lowery v. State , 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 3216 ( 1992 )
Charleston v. Pate , 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 4382 ( 2006 )
Alvarez v. State , 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1037 ( 1988 )
Cassias v. State , 1986 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 879 ( 1986 )
Hall v. State , 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 123 ( 1990 )
Moore v. State , 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1452 ( 1970 )
Bridges v. State , 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1453 ( 1978 )
Palmer v. State , 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 988 ( 1981 )
Torres v. State , 1977 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1154 ( 1977 )
Miller v. Curry , 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 4455 ( 1981 )
Sherlock v. State , 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 895 ( 1982 )
Font v. Carr , 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 3323 ( 1993 )