NUMBER 13-17-00491-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
JONATHAN DAVID LEWIS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant Jonathan David Lewis appeals his conviction for possession of child
pornography, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26 (West, Westlaw
through 2017 1st C.S.). A jury found appellant guilty, and the trial court assessed
punishment of eight years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–
Institutional Division and a $10,000 fine. By two issues, which we have reordered, appellant argues that: (1) the evidence supporting his conviction is legally insufficient;
and (2) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained
pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Suppression Hearing
1. Testimony
Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search
warrant, arguing that the supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause. Lee
Erickson, a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security, testified at the
suppression hearing. Agent Erickson is assigned to child exploitation investigations and
his agency is affiliated with the Houston Metropolitan Internet Crimes Against Children
(HMICAC) task force. Using specialized software, Agent Erickson monitors files being
shared by individuals using peer-to-peer (PTP) networks. PTP networks connect
computers using the same PTP software and allow the computers to share files, pictures,
videos, games, and programs.
2. Search Warrant Affidavit
The trial court admitted Agent Erickson’s search warrant affidavit into evidence.
According to the affidavit, PTP networks are “one of the most pervasive distribution
methods of child pornography[.]” An individual user receives files on a PTP network
through an Internet Protocol (IP) address. An IP address is a unique identifier for a
computer accessing the internet. Using a file’s “hash” digital signature, Agent Erickson
is able to identify known child pornography files, which are tracked by the National Center
2 for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
While conducting a PTP child pornography inquiry, Agent Erickson identified an IP
address sharing at least three known child pornography files. The title for these files
contained common child pornography search terms or “tags.” Through an administrative
subpoena, Agent Erickson obtained subscriber information from the internet service
provider controlling the IP address. The provider identified the IP address as being
assigned to an address in Bay City, Texas, where appellant resided. Agent Erickson
shared the IP address with Jonathan Cox, an officer with the Pearland Police Department.
Using this information, Officer Cox identified four child pornography videos in the PTP
share folder by referencing the files’ hash signature. Officer Cox provided Agent
Erickson with a compact disc containing the video files. Agent Erickson viewed the
videos and determined that they depicted minors engaging in sexual conduct.
Next, Agent Erickson visually inspected appellant’s residence. He noted multiple
secured wireless network systems in the front and rear of the home. He discovered a
pickup truck parked outside and confirmed that it was registered to appellant. Agent
Erickson and another agent knocked on the front door of the home and spoke to appellant.
As a ruse, Agent Erickson told appellant they were conducting an immigration
investigation and showed appellant a picture of an individual they were looking for.
Appellant told Agent Erickson that he resided in the home with his wife and daughter. In
his affidavit, Agent Erickson requested that a warrant be issued to seize various electronic
devices from appellant’s residence that might contain child pornography.
3 3. Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, and the case proceeded to
trial.
B. Trial
At trial, Agent Erickson testified concerning his investigation and efforts to secure
a search warrant. 1 After the search warrant was issued, Agent Erickson executed the
warrant with federal and state law enforcement officials. Agent Erickson located
appellant in the rear of the house and informed appellant why he was there. Officers
performed a security sweep of the house, while the forensic team began locating
computers and other electronic devices. Officer Cox, who was part of the forensic team,
used specialized software to determine the contents of the electronic devices. A Dell
laptop, which appellant confirmed to be his personal laptop, was in the living room.
Officer Cox examined its contents and identified multiple child pornography files.
Officer Cox testified that he has received training in using forensic software. The
software enables him to perform on-site previews to determine the contents of an
electronic device. This allows Officer Cox to identify electronic devices containing
contraband. After a suspect device is seized, Officer Cox conducts an in-depth forensic
analysis of the devices.
Officer Cox seized several devices from appellant’s residence, including the Dell
laptop, two hard drives, an iPhone, and two video recorders. Officer Cox discovered
multiple child pornography files on the Dell laptop as well as various search terms
1Agent Erickson’s testimony in this regard is largely duplicative of his affidavit testimony, which we detail above. We do not include Agent Erickson’s trial testimony on this topic to avoid redundancy. 4 commonly used to find child pornography. The search terms included variations of
“PTHC,” an acronym for preteen hardcore; pedo, which is short for pedophile or
pedophilia; and Lolita, which means “a precociously seductive girl.” Lolita, MERRIAM-
WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Lolita (last
visited September 17, 2018).
The trial court admitted multiple exhibits containing Officer Cox’s forensic analysis.
The exhibits identified search terms, search results, and file names found on the seized
devices. The trial court also admitted five video files that were found on the laptop. The
videos were published to the jury, and each depicted a child under the age of eighteen
engaging in sexual intercourse. Two videos were located in the recycle bin of the laptop.
The others were located under “Saved Games” in a folder titled “Y-O.” The trial court
admitted two additional exhibits, described as a “data dump” from the seized hard drives.
The exhibits showed various files downloaded from PTP software and the files’ location
on the hard drive. Officer Cox identified the files as child pornography.
Dewayne Lewis, a special agent with Homeland Security, testified that he
interviewed appellant in front of the residence. He read appellant his Miranda rights, and
appellant agreed to speak to him. According to Agent Lewis, appellant was well versed
in concepts such as IP addresses, file sharing, and PTP networks. Appellant admitted
that he used PTP networks to access adult pornography. Appellant claimed that some
child pornography may have shown up as a search result, but he denied intentionally
downloading the files. Appellant told Agent Lewis that he used search terms such as
young, Tiny Tasha, and Lola. Appellant stated that if he recognized a file as child
5 pornography, he would delete it. Appellant verified that the Dell laptop located in the
living room was his computer. Agent Lewis showed appellant multiple images taken
from videos found on the laptop, and appellant claimed to recognize at least two of them.
Appellant then acknowledged that there was likely child pornography on his laptop. He
told Agent Lewis that he viewed certain child pornography videos all the way through
before deleting them.
In a later interview at the jail, appellant told Agent Lewis that he recognized other
search terms commonly used to download child pornography. Appellant stated that he
watched the videos before deleting them due to his morbid curiosity.
Jennifer Lewis, appellant’s ex-wife, recalled receiving a call from a Homeland
Security agent while at work. Jennifer went home where she saw officers looking at the
computers in the house. Jennifer initially bought the Dell laptop for office use, but she
later gave it to appellant. Jennifer stated that appellant removed the spare hard drives
from junk computers.
Appellant testified that he discovered something on his computer last year that
should not have been there. A program on his laptop was frozen, and when he exited
the program, he saw a file sharing program displaying titles of videos. According to
appellant, he opened the downloaded files to confirm they were as the titles described.
After doing so, he claimed he deleted the files. Appellant described various acts of
sexual conduct involving minors that were depicted in the videos. Appellant testified that
he lied to Agent Lewis when he said he used certain search terms. Appellant denied
downloading the files, speculating that someone else, possibly his neighbor, had used his
6 computer to do so. Appellant claimed that he had never used the spare hard drives that
contained child pornography.
Officer Cox testified in rebuttal that a picture of appellant’s daughter was saved to
one of the spare hard drives alongside child pornography files.
The jury returned a guilty verdict. This appeal followed.
II. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By his first issue, appellant argues the evidence supporting his conviction was
legally insufficient.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
The standard for determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support
a conviction is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292, 293–94 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); see Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893, 898–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). The fact-finder is the
exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be given to their
testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899; Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence is within the fact-finder’s
exclusive province. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We
resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony in favor of the verdict. Bynum v. State, 767
S.W.2d 769, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).
The legal sufficiency standard of review is the same for both direct and
7 circumstantial evidence. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
For the evidence to be sufficient, the State need not disprove all reasonable alternative
hypotheses that are inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt. Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d
900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Rather, we consider whether the inferences necessary
to establish guilt are reasonable based upon the cumulative force of all the evidence.
Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
We measure the sufficiency of the evidence by the elements of the offense as
defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766, 773
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997)). Such a charge is one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the
indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily
restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for
which the defendant was tried. Id.
Under a hypothetically correct jury charge in this case, the State was required to
prove that (1) appellant (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) possessed (4) visual material
that visually depicts a child younger than eighteen years of age at the time the image of
the child was made (5) who is engaging in sexual conduct, and (6) appellant knew that
the material depicts a child younger than eighteen engaging in sexual conduct. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a). 2
2 “Sexual conduct” includes “sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.25(a)(2) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); see id. § 43.26(b)(2) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). “Visual material” means either (a) any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide or any photographic reproduction that contains or incorporates in any manner any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide, or (b) any disk, diskette, or other physical medium that allows an image to be displayed on a computer or 8 Appellant’s sufficiency argument is limited to whether he possessed the requisite
mental state. “A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his
conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage
in the conduct or cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(a) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
“A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or
to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct
or that the circumstances exist.” Id. § 6.03(b). “A person acts knowingly, or with
knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is
reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. The Texas Penal Code defines
“possession” of contraband as “actual care, custody, control, or management.” Id.
§ 1.07(a)(39) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
B. Analysis
Appellant contends that though there was evidence of deleted child pornography
files, there was no evidence that he had the ability to access the deleted files. Therefore,
according to appellant, he did not intentionally or knowingly possess child pornography.
Appellant’s argument misrepresents the evidence before the jury and is contrary to
controlling precedent.
In Wise, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted the “peculiarities of
determining knowing or intentional possession of computer pornography.” 364 S.W.3d
at 904. The Court concluded that “each case must be analyzed on its own facts.” Id. at
905. Thus, the Court held that in computer-pornography cases, “like all criminal cases,
other video screen and any image transmitted to a computer or other video screen by telephone line, cable, satellite transmission, or other method. Id. § 43.26(b)(3). 9 a court must assess whether the inferences necessary to establish guilt are reasonable
based upon the cumulative force of all the evidence considered in the light most favorable
to the verdict.” Id. Sufficient evidence to support a jury’s determination that the
defendant intentionally or knowingly possessed images of child pornography on his
computer may include evidence that: (1) the images of child pornography were found in
different computer files, showing the images were copied or moved; (2) the images of
child pornography were found on an external hard drive or CD, which indicates the images
were deliberately saved on the external devices; (3) the images stored on the computer
and the external hard drive were stored in similarly named folders; (4) the names of the
folders containing the images of child pornography necessarily were assigned by the
person saving the file; or (5) the defendant’s computer contained numerous images of
child pornography. Ballard v. State, 537 S.W.3d 517, 523 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2017, pet. struck) (citing Krause v. State, 243 S.W.3d 95, 110–12 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d)).
Here, contrary to appellant’s assertion, there were multiple undeleted videos found
on appellant’s laptop and hard drives. A forensic examination of the seized devices
revealed several videos depicting children engaging in sexual conduct. Only two of the
videos were found in the laptop’s recycle bin. The others were stored under “Saved
Games” in a folder titled “Y-O.” There were also commonly used child pornography
search terms stored on the laptop’s PTP software. The search results for the PTP
software contained explicit titles relating to child pornography. The evidence established
that appellant was the primary user of the laptop. Appellant admitted to viewing multiple
10 child pornography videos, although he claimed to have deleted them. The fact that other
child pornography videos remained in a specific folder on the laptop supports an inference
that appellant knowingly and intentionally possessed child pornography. See Ballard,
537 S.W.3d at 524; Krause, 243 S.W.3d at 111–12. Further, the presence of common
child pornography search queries found on the laptop is circumstantial evidence that
appellant acted knowingly and intentionally. See Ballard, 537 S.W.3d at 524; Krause,
243 S.W.3d at 111–12.
Agents also discovered child pornography on the disconnected hard drives. This
evidence supports an inference that appellant acted knowingly and intentionally in
deliberately saving the illicit files to the external devices. See Ballard, 537 S.W.3d at
524; Krause, 243 S.W.3d at 112.
Appellant suggested through his testimony that the child pornography files could
have been placed on his laptop by another person. However, the State need not
disprove all reasonable alternative hypotheses that are inconsistent with appellant’s guilt.
See Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903. Further, appellant’s explanation fails to account for the
child pornography found on the disconnected hard drives. The jury reasonably could
have rejected appellant’s alternative hypothesis. See Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 906–08;
Ballard, 537 S.W.3d at 524.
Viewing the totality of the evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to the
verdict, we conclude that the jury could have reasonably found beyond a reasonable
doubt that appellant knowingly and intentionally possessed the child pornography found
on the digital devices in his home. See Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 906–08; Ballard, 537
11 S.W.3d at 524; Krause, 243. We overrule appellant’s first issue.
III. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT
By his second issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant.
An appellate court normally reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress
by using a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to the historical
facts found by the trial court and reviewing de novo the trial court’s application of the law.
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). However, when
assessing the sufficiency of an affidavit for a search warrant, the reviewing court is limited
to the four corners of the affidavit. Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380, 388 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2004). Accordingly, when we review the magistrate’s decision to issue a warrant,
we apply a highly deferential standard because of the constitutional preference for
searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant as opposed to a warrantless search.
Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 810–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 234–37 (1983)). We must interpret the affidavit in a common sense
and realistic manner, recognizing that the magistrate was permitted to draw reasonable
inferences. Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149, 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
A search warrant may not legally issue unless it is based on probable cause. U.S.
CONST. amend. IV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.06 (West,
Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). To obtain a warrant, law enforcement must present to
a magistrate a sworn affidavit setting forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause that
12 a specific offense has been committed, among other requirements. TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 18.01(c) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Probable cause exists
when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found at the specified location, and the facts stated in a search
warrant affidavit are “so closely related to the time of the issuance of the warrant that a
finding of probable cause is justified.” State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 272 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011). “The focus is not on what other facts could or should have been included in
the affidavit; the focus is on the combined logical force of facts that are in the affidavit.”
State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354–55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). As long as the issuing
magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, we will
uphold that magistrate’s probable cause determination. McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271.
Appellant generally argues that Agent Erickson’s affidavit did not establish
probable cause that child pornography would be found at his residence. In his affidavit,
Agent Erickson details how he identified a particular IP address sharing known child
pornography files. Agent Erickson learned from the internet service provider controlling
the IP address that the address was tied to appellant’s residence. Agent Erickson
viewed video files shared by the IP address and confirmed that they were child
pornography. He then visited the residence and discovered that it had a secured
wireless network. A vehicle parked at the home was registered to appellant. Agent
Erickson also talked to appellant and confirmed that he resided at the home with his wife
and daughter.
13 We conclude that the facts and circumstances submitted to the magistrate within
the “four corners” of the affidavit provide a substantial basis for the magistrate’s
conclusion that child pornography would probably be found at appellant’s residence at
the time the warrant was issued. Thus, the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable
cause. See id. at 272. We overrule appellant’s second issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 11th day of October, 2018.