Steven John Gonzales v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00608-CR

Steven John GONZALES,
Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,
Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2023CR9699
Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 25, 2026

AFFIRMED

Appellant Steven John Gonzales was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled

substance in penalty group 1, 4-200 grams, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE ANN. § 481.112(d); see also id § 481.102(2) (identifying heroin as a member of penalty

group I). Gonzales filed a pretrial motion to suppress any evidence resulting from his allegedly

unlawful arrest, but the trial court denied Gonzales’ motion. In two issues, Gonzales complains

that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because: (1) there was no affirmative
04-24-00608-CR

link to him and the drugs, and as a result, (2) he was wrongly arrested so the evidence was illegally

obtained. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State stipulated that Gonzales was arrested

without a warrant. The State’s sole witness was San Antonio Police Department Officer Marco

Trevino. Officer Trevino’s body worn camera footage was entered as State’s Exhibit 1.

On July 21, 2023, Officers Trevino and Carrow were responding to an unrelated call when

they noticed Gonzales and Daniel Garcia seated on opposite sides of a utility pole. Officer Trevino

observed Garcia shove something under the utility pole, which caught his attention as suspicious

behavior because the area was known for crime and drug use. Officer Carrow continued

responding to the unrelated call, while Officer Trevino stopped and approached Gonzales and

Garcia with the intention of initiating a consensual encounter. In plain view and in arm’s reach of

the men were multiple syringes, some loaded with heroin and some used, a torchlight, and two

bags, one blue and one yellow. Officer Trevino testified that based on his experience and training,

he recognized the syringes to be loaded with heroin. Officer Trevino detained both individuals for

his safety. While the men were detained, Officer Trevino asked the men who the drugs belonged

to. The men denied having drugs.

Officer Trevino searched the blue bag, which was open and caught his attention because it

had an orange needle cap sticking out of it. Officer Trevino asked the men where they got the

drugs and who the blue bag belonged to. Neither Gonzales nor Garcia claimed the blue bag.

Officer Trevino then asked who the yellow bag belonged to and Gonzales stated the bag was his.

When Officer Trevino opened the yellow bag, he found a syringe filled with heroin and a bag of

what Gonzales confirmed to be heroin. Shortly after, Gonzales asked Officer Trevino if he could

-2-
04-24-00608-CR

have a cigarette. Officer Trevino answered yes and asked if the cigarettes were in his bag.

Gonzales said yes and gestured towards the yellow bag. In the yellow bag Officer Trevino found

cigarettes, bags of methamphetamine, a scale, an empty bottle of lactose (a drug cutting agent) and

two cellphones. Officer Trevino continued to search the yellow bag as Officer Carrow read the

men their Miranda rights. After Gonzales was read his Miranda rights, he claimed the yellow bag

and identified the drugs that Officer Trevino found therein.

At the motion to suppress hearing, Gonzales, through counsel, argued Officer Trevino did

not have probable cause to detain him, and Officer Trevino did not have probable cause to arrest

him because there was no affirmative link from Gonzales to the syringe found under the utility

pole. Gonzales emphasized that it was Garcia, not him, who was affirmatively linked to the drugs.

The trial court found that the men were legally detained, there was probable cause to arrest

Gonzales, and the search of the yellow bag was a search incident to arrest. The trial court

suppressed all statements Gonzales made pre-Miranda: asking for a cigarette and gesture to the

yellow bag to identify where the cigarettes were located. Thereafter, Gonzales waived his trial

rights and entered an open plea of no contest. The trial court found Gonzales guilty and sentenced

him to a term of five years imprisonment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

“We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under a bifurcated

standard of review.” Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 189–90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). In

reviewing a trial court’s decision, we do not engage in our own factual review. Romero v. State,

800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We afford almost complete deference to a trial

court’s rulings on questions of historical facts and application-of-law-to-fact questions that turn on

-3-
04-24-00608-CR

an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Johnson v. State, 154.W.3d 644, 652–53 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2002). But when a trial court’s rulings do not turn on the credibility and demeanor of the

witnesses, we review de novo a trial court’s rulings on mixed questions of law and fact. Id. Unless

a trial court abused its discretion by making a finding not supported by the record, an appellate

court will defer to the trial court’s fact findings and not disturb the findings on appeal. See Miller

v. State, 393 S.W.3d 255, 262–63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

B. Affirmative Link

On Appeal, Gonzales first argues the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion to

suppress because there was no “affirmative link” between him and the heroin. However, the

purpose of a pre-trial motion is to address preliminary matters, not the merits of the case. Woods

v. State, 153 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Affirmative links to evidence pertain to the

sufficiency of evidence. State v. Jimenez, 763 S.W.2d 436, 436 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1988, writ

ref’d). There is no pretrial procedure to test the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case.

State v. Iduarte, 268 S.W.3d 544, 551 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding motion to suppress does

not include holding a mini-trial on the sufficiency of the evidence to support an element of the

offense); see also Carter v. State, No. 05-94-00063-CR, 1995 WL 238661, at *4 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Apr. 21, 1995, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding motion to

suppress is concerned with the legality of the search or seizure). Therefore, the trial court did not

err by refusing to suppress the evidence based on allegedly insufficient links. We overrule

Gonzales’ first issue.

C. Lawful Arrest

Gonzales next argues that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion to suppress

because he was unlawfully arrested without probable cause or an affirmative link to the

-4-
04-24-00608-CR

contraband. As the argument goes, because he was unlawfully arrested, the evidence was

unlawfully obtained and cannot be saved by the attenuation of the taint doctrine.

A warrantless arrest may be lawful if the officer has: (1) probable cause to arrest with

respect to the individual in question; and (2) authority to arrest under a statutory exception. Torres

v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). When an officer sees a person possessing

drugs in plain view, the officer has probable cause to arrest the person. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 14.01(a) (“A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender

when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as

a felony or as an offense against the public peace.”); see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §

481.112(a), (d) (establishing possession of controlled substance in penalty group two as second

degree felony when amount is at least four grams but less than 400 grams). An officer also has

probable cause to seize the drugs. See Miller, 393 S.W.3d at 266 (holding officer can seize item in

plain view when officer views from place officer has right to be and it is immediately apparent

that viewed item constitutes evidence of criminal activity). In determining whether probable cause

existed, we apply a totality of the circumstances test. State v. Baldwin, 664 S.W.3d 122, 130 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2022) Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but far less evidence than

that needed to convict. See Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

A search incident to an arrest is one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement for

searches. State v. Drury, 560 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref’d). There

are two justifications for a search incident to arrest: “(1) the need for officers to seize weapons or

other things which might be used to assault [a]n officer or effect an escape, and (2) the need to

prevent the loss or destruction of evidence.” State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399, 410 (Tex. Crim.

-5-
04-24-00608-CR

App. 2014). Given the purposes of the exception, an officer may search the arrestee’s “personal

effects.” Dew v. State, 214 S.W.3d 459, 462 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Here, Officer Trevino observed Garcia shoving something under the utility pole, which

caught his attention as suspicious behavior, especially since the area is known for crime and drugs.

As he approached, Officer Trevino observed multiple syringes with apparent drugs and a torch in

plain view and within arm’s reach of both men. Officer Trevino found a syringe loaded with

heroin. And finally, Gonzales claimed the yellow bag which contained drugs and drug

paraphernalia. Based on the totality of the facts, Officer Trevino had probable cause to arrest

Gonzales for possession of drugs and Officer Trevino conducted a valid search incident to arrest.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 14.01(b) (allowing police officer to arrest someone after

observing individual commit crime); see Gabriel v. State, No. 04-15-00759-CR, 2017 WL 68577

(Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(finding a warrantless search of a backpack located in the bed of a truck after defendant handcuffed

a lawful search incident to arrest). Therefore, the search and arrest were not misconduct so the

attenuation of the taint doctrine is not applicable. See Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016)

(explaining the doctrine applies when there is a “connection between unconstitutional police

conduct and the evidence”). Accordingly, we overrule Gonzales’ second issue.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

-6-