Adrian Ramos Jr. v. the State of Texas

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00233-CR ___________________________ ADRIAN RAMOS JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1726332 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach  MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Adrian Ramos Jr. appeals his conviction for the possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b). On appeal, Ramos argues in a single point that the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress certain evidence that was obtained following a purportedly unlawful detention. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On April 14, 2022, at 11:30 p.m., Haltom City police responded to multiple 911 calls reporting a vehicle that had been abandoned at an intersection. One of the 911 callers also reported hearing a man and a woman yelling. When officers arrived, they found the vehicle in the intersection with its front doors open. The vehicle was dinging, indicating that the key had been left in the ignition. Upon closer inspection, they discovered that the key had actually been broken, and only part of it remained in the ignition. One of the responding officers, Raymond Browder, heard voices and began walking towards them. After walking up the street past two or three houses, he saw a woman—later identified as Dee Ann Snyder, Ramos’s girlfriend—emerge from behind a house. When Officer Browder asked Snyder if she was alright, she responded, “I don’t know.” Snyder appeared to be agitated and a little out of breath. She informed Officer Browder that Ramos had yanked her key out of the ignition while she was driving. She also told him that Ramos owned the house from behind 2 which she had emerged and that Ramos was currently behind the house. Based on Snyder’s comments and demeanor, Officer Browder suspected that domestic violence may have occurred. After another officer arrived at the house to stay with Snyder, Officer Browder walked along the driveway to the back of the house1 in an effort to locate Ramos and to “make sure that everything was okay and safe.” When Officer Browder reached the back of the house, he used his flashlight to look around the backyard and yelled Ramos’s name. He then heard the chain link fence rattling and saw Ramos jumping over the fence into his neighbor’s yard. After Ramos jumped the fence, Officer Browder told him to stop and identified himself as a police officer. Ramos, who had concealed himself in his neighbor’s yard, did not immediately comply. Ramos did not reveal himself or comply with Officer Browder’s commands until Officer Browder told him that he had a police dog. Officer Browder instructed Ramos to climb back over the fence into his yard, but he was unable to do so. Another officer then instructed Ramos to get on the ground in the neighbor’s yard, jumped the fence, and handcuffed him. The officers then escorted Ramos to the front of the house, retrieved his ID from his wallet, and placed him in a patrol car. After running a check, officers discovered that Ramos had outstanding warrants for his arrest. Once the warrants 1 There was no fence separating the front from the backyard. 3 were confirmed, officers placed Ramos under arrest and transported him to jail. When Ramos was being processed into jail, two red baggies containing a combined total of less than one gram of methamphetamine were found in his wallet.2 Based on the methamphetamine found in his wallet, Ramos was charged with possessing less than one gram of a controlled substance. He pled not guilty. Following a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to one year’s confinement.3 This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION In his sole point, Ramos argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress certain evidence—including the methamphetamine discovered in his wallet—as the fruits of an unlawful detention. We disagree. A. Standard of Review We apply a bifurcated standard of review to a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. State v. Martinez, 570 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). Because the trial judge is the sole trier of fact and judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony, Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 24–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), we defer almost totally to a trial court’s rulings on questions 2 One baggie contained 0.24 grams of methamphetamine,