EARNEST JEROME TAYLOR JR v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice O'Neill

Appellant appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine.   After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at eight years' confinement.   In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence.   For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Officer Chris Gautier, a deputy with the Grayson County Sheriff's Office, stopped appellant on U.S. 75 near the Oklahoma border for driving a vehicle with no front license plate.   Gautier obtained appellant's driver's license and proof of insurance.   He did a criminal records check and discovered appellant had a prior arrest for possession of marijuana, but no outstanding warrants.   When appellant denied that he had ever been arrested, Gautier asked appellant to get out of his vehicle.   Gautier patted appellant down and asked for consent to search his vehicle.   Appellant complied.   Gautier asked appellant to stand by the patrol vehicle while he did so.   During the search of appellant's vehicle, appellant approached Gautier and complained he had not been given his Miranda warnings.   Gautier then arrested appellant for not having a front license plate.   Gautier testified he then performed a “search incident to arrest” of the vehicle.   Meanwhile, back-up officers arrived to assist Gautier.   Police found crack cocaine, a handgun, and cash inside the vehicle.   Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress asserting the drug evidence in this case was seized illegally.   The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress based on both consent and a valid search incident to arrest.

On appeal, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.   He relies on Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct 1710, 1723 (2009), in which the United States Supreme Court held that police may only search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as part of a search incident to arrest if (1) the defendant is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or (2) if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.   The State agrees that police could not search appellant's vehicle pursuant to a search incident to arrest.   However, the State contends we must affirm the trial court's judgment because appellant has not properly challenged an alternative basis for the search.   Specifically, Gautier testified and the trial court found appellant consented to the search.   On appeal, appellant merely generally asserts “there is a conflict” in the testimony regarding whether appellant consented.   It is well settled that the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses at a suppression hearing.   See State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).   Appellant provides no legal argument and cites no legal authority to establish the search was not justified based on consent.   An appellant's brief on appeal must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.   See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h);  Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).   We will not make appellant's arguments for him.   We conclude this issue is inadequately briefed.   Because appellant has not shown the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, we resolve the sole issue against appellant.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Do Not Publish

Tex.R.App. P. 47

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE