Ortiz v. State
1996 Tex. App. LEXIS 4043, 1996 WL 495584, 930 S.W.2d 849 (1996)
Rule of Law:
A conviction will be upheld if the evidence is legally and factually sufficient, meaning a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict is not clearly wrong or unjust. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires proving both deficient performance and prejudice, particularly when the underlying legal claims for suppression would have been meritless.
Facts:
- On May 9, 1995, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Texas Department of Public Safety Troopers Bruce Roberts and Paul Noble observed Henry Julio Ortiz driving a red 1986 Chevrolet Camaro past them on Interstate 30 East, weaving left, hitting the grassy median, and continuing to weave within his lane.
- After being pulled over, Ortiz exited the Camaro, approached the troopers, and upon questioning, appeared nervous, exhibited vague answers about his contracting work (unable to name crew members), could not identify where he bought his car, and had no proof of insurance.
- Ortiz refused the troopers' request to search his car for drugs and folded his arms in a defensive manner.
- Within twenty minutes, a certified drug dog handler, Scott Sewell, arrived with his drug dog, which alerted to the presence of drugs by scratching at the passenger door and then the trunk of Ortiz's Camaro.
- Upon opening the trunk, officers discovered more than fifty pounds of marijuana in five wrapped and taped bundles under a blanket, a hand-drawn map showing a route from San Antonio to Memphis, and a prescription pill bottle for Prozac.
- Ortiz testified at trial, denying he had been weaving, stating he acquired the Camaro from an unidentified Hispanic in San Antonio, denied knowledge of the marijuana, and claimed he was going to Memphis for contracting work and took Prozac for a nervous breakdown.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Julio Ortiz was convicted by a jury for possession of more than fifty pounds, but less than two thousand pounds, of marijuana.
- The jury assessed Ortiz's punishment at seven years' imprisonment.
- Ortiz (Appellant) filed two motions to suppress evidence in the trial court.
- Ortiz (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, raising three points of error: insufficient evidence, unreasonable seizure and search, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to urge his motions to suppress evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support Henry Julio Ortiz's conviction for knowingly and intentionally possessing more than fifty pounds of marijuana? 2. Did Henry Julio Ortiz properly preserve his claim that officers seized and unreasonably detained him, and subjected him to a warrantless search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, for appellate review? 3. Was Henry Julio Ortiz denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the Texas Constitution when his trial counsel failed to obtain a ruling from the trial court on his motions to suppress evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - HOLCOMB, Justice
1. Yes, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support Henry Julio Ortiz's conviction for knowingly and intentionally possessing more than fifty pounds of marijuana. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Ortiz had care, control, or management over the contraband and knowingly possessed it, as required by Jackson v. Virginia. This conclusion is supported by Ortiz's sole possession and operation of the vehicle, the large quantity of marijuana, the drug dog's alert (indicating smell), the hand-drawn map consistent with drug courier activity, and his nervous behavior and inconsistent statements to officers. Furthermore, after impartially reviewing all the evidence as required by Clewis v. State, the jury’s verdict was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. The cumulative force of these incriminating circumstances was sufficient to warrant a conclusion of guilt, even in a circumstantial evidence case. 2. No, Henry Julio Ortiz did not preserve his claim regarding unreasonable seizure and search for appellate review. An accused must obtain a ruling on a motion to suppress and object at trial to the introduction of the offending evidence to present an error for appellate review, as established in Calloway v. State. The record submitted to the court did not contain any rulings on the two motions to suppress filed by Ortiz, nor did he object to the admission of the evidence seized during the trial. 3. No, Henry Julio Ortiz was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The court applies the two-pronged Strickland v. Washington test, requiring the defendant to show (1) deficient performance by counsel and (2) prejudice resulting from that deficiency. The initial traffic stop was constitutionally proper, as the troopers had reasonable suspicion to believe Ortiz was driving under the influence due to his dangerous weaving. During the stop, Ortiz's nervous behavior, vague answers regarding his work, inability to name crew members, and lack of eye contact developed into reasonable suspicion, justifying further detention until the drug dog arrived. An open-air sniff by a drug detection dog is not a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment, per United States v. Place. Once the dog alerted, the troopers had probable cause to search the vehicle. Since the stop, subsequent detention, and dog sniff were all properly conducted, any motions to suppress would have been properly overruled by the trial court. Therefore, counsel's failure to urge a meritless objection or motion does not constitute deficient performance or demonstrate prejudice under Strickland.
Analysis:
This case provides a comprehensive review of the standards for legal and factual sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions, reiterating the deference appellate courts give to jury verdicts under Jackson v. Virginia and Clewis v. State. It also serves as a crucial reminder for legal practitioners regarding the strict procedural requirements for preserving Fourth Amendment claims for appellate review, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining explicit trial court rulings on motions to suppress and making contemporaneous objections. Furthermore, the opinion rigorously applies the Strickland v. Washington test for ineffective assistance of counsel, highlighting that counsel's failure to pursue meritless motions does not constitute deficient performance or satisfy the prejudice prong, thereby setting a high bar for such claims in search and seizure contexts.
