The opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. PD-0377-24 & PD-0378-24
THE STATE OF TEXAS
v.
ERIK RODRIGUEZ, Appellee
ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
BEXAR COUNTY
FINLEY, J., filed a concurring opinion.
CONCURRING OPINION
This is a plain view case. Law enforcement seized Appellee’s cell phone,
which led to his prosecution for child pornography. The trial court suppressed
the evidence obtained from law enforcement’s subsequent search of the phone.
On appeal, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its
RODRIGUEZ CONCURRENCE — 2
discretion in its ruling. In doing so, the court of appeals erred twice. First, by
applying the wrong standard of review. Second, in the conclusion it reached. I
agree with the Court’s decision to reverse the court of appeals. However, I
disagree with the Court’s reasoning. Consequently, I respectfully concur.
I. Analysis
a. Motions to Suppress
I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the court of appeals applied the
wrong standard of review. Maj. Op. at 5. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress is reviewed for abuse of discretion standard. Villarreal v. State, 935
S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). While we afford “almost total
deference” to a trial court’s ruling on “application of law to fact questions”—
also known as “mixed questions of law and fact”—when resolving those
questions turns on the evaluation of credibility and demeanor, Guzman v.
State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), we review de novo those
questions that do not, id. Here, because resolving the trial court’s ruling does
not turn on questions of credibility and demeanor, the court of appeals should
have applied de novo review. The Court concludes the same and, therefore,
reaches the correct conclusion on the threshold issue regarding the appropriate
standard of review in this case.
RODRIGUEZ CONCURRENCE — 3
b. Plain View Doctrine
However, the Court errs in its plain view analysis. The question is not
whether Detective Jackson “only needed probable cause to associate Appellee’s
personal cell phone with criminal activity,” Maj. Op. at 7; the proper question
is whether the “incriminating nature” of the cell phone in Appellee’s hand was
“immediately apparent” when Detective Jackson made contact with him,
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136 (1990) (quoting Coolidge v. New
Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971)). It was.
At the time Detective Jackson seized the cell phone, she knew the
following information: (1) there was only one personal cell phone number listed
in San Antonio Police Department’s records for Appellee; (2) that cell phone
number received text messages and CashApp transactions from Gonzalez; (3)
the text messages and corresponding payments reflected that Appellee had
sent Gonzalez confidential information in exchange for payment; (4) Appellee
was holding a cell phone in his hand when he encountered Detective Jackson,
at his police station, while he was on the way to morning roll call.
The court of appeals’ opinion, in essence, would require Detective
Jackson to know that the phone Appellee had on him was the same phone he
used to communicate with Gonzalez. This level of certainty is not required for
probable cause. Detective Jackson knew that Appellee’s phone would likely
RODRIGUEZ CONCURRENCE — 4
contain incriminating information—in the form of text messages and
payments—and she encountered him at his police station, on the way to roll
call, with a phone in his hand. A person “of reasonable caution” in Detective
Jackson’s position would believe that the phone Appellee was holding
contained incriminating information. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983).
On this record, Detective Jackson had sufficient probable cause to meet the
“nondemanding” requirements of the plain view doctrine. Foreman v. State,
613 S.W.3d 160, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Accordingly, Detective Jackson’s
seizure of the cell phone was lawful.
II. Conclusion
Applying the proper de novo standard of review, the incriminating
nature of Appellee’s cell phone was “immediately apparent” at the time of its
seizure. I agree with the Court’s judgment to reverse the court of appeals and
remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. I do not join the
Court’s reasoning. Therefore, I respectfully concur.
Filed: May 14, 2025
Do Not Publish