Page 31 - July August 2020 TPA Journal
P. 31
determination of probable cause. Moreover, appeals, we vacate the court of appeals’
this type of defect highlights the reason why judgment and remand this case to that court
our Legislature enacted the statutory good- for it to address those issues in a manner not
faith exception. Accordingly, we hold that the inconsistent with this opinion.
good-faith exception is not automatically
State v. Arellano, Court of Crim. Appeals
precluded where, as here, the defect is an
th
illegible magistrate’s signature. no. PD-0287-19, May 06 , 2020.
[The remainder of the opinion focuses upon ****************************************
legal arguments regarding applicability of the
ELEMENTS – ROBBERY – MENS REA.
good faith statute.]
Having determined that the good-faith After a nine-day jury trial, Jermaine Webster
exception is not automatically precluded here, Harris was found guilty of seventeen criminal
we move to the State Prosecuting Attorney’s counts, including two counts of carjacking and
two additional issues presented on two counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance
discretionary review: (1) whether the blood of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
evidence should be suppressed after applying Harris appeals his convictions for carjacking and
the statutory good-faith exception to the facts possession of a firearm, contending the evidence
of this case; and (2) whether the trial court is insufficient, and challenges the “special
conditions” imposed as part of his supervised
abused its discretion by refusing to consider
release. We affirm.
the documentary evidence submitted by the
State with its post-suppression-hearing brief
In early 2016, Jermaine Webster Harris and two
and by failing to make adequate findings of
codefendants were indicted in the Eastern District
fact and conclusions of law. These issues,
of Texas. Approximately eight months later, a
however, have not been adequately considered superseding indictment named two additional
by the court of appeals. The sole basis for the codefendants. The superseding indictment
court of appeals’ holding in this case was its charged Harris with seventeen counts. Relevant
determination that the magistrate’s signature here, Harris was charged with two counts of
was illegible in violation of Article 18.04(5), carjacking and two counts of using, carrying, and
which rendered, as a matter of law, the warrant possessing a firearm in relation to and in
facially invalid such that no law enforcement furtherance of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). Harris pleaded not guilty, and the case
officer could reasonably claim good-faith
proceeded to trial. The jury convicted Harris on all
reliance upon it.
counts. Harris filed a Motion for a Judgment of
The court of appeals erred in holding that Acquittal, which the district court denied.
reliance on the statutory good-faith exception
[Sentencing discussion omitted]
was automatically precluded based on an
illegible magistrate’s signature in violation of
Harris contends that there was insufficient
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 18.04(5).
evidence to support his conviction under 18
Because the remaining issues in the case have
U.S.C. § 2119 on two counts of carjacking.
not been properly addressed by the court of Specifically, he argues that there was insufficient
July/August 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 27
