State v. Shauna Lee Green

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 17, 2013
Docket05-12-01619-CR
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Shauna Lee Green (State v. Shauna Lee Green) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Shauna Lee Green, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 17, 2013.

SIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01619-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant V. SHAUNA LEE GREEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-21583

OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Myers Opinion by Justice FitzGerald

In the course of this prosecution for methamphetamine possession, the trial judge granted

appellee Shauna Lee Green’s motion to suppress certain evidence. The State appeals. We

reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

In the summer of 2011, the police began investigating some incidents of prescription

fraud. Eventually their investigation led them to suspect that appellee and her husband Jim Bob

Green were involved in illegal, drug-related activity. After surveilling the Greens’ house for a

few days, detectives searched some trash obtained from trash cans at their residence. Based on

the contents of the trash cans and other evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, a

detective prepared an affidavit for search warrant and presented it to a magistrate. The magistrate issued a search warrant for the Greens’ residence, authorizing and directing the police

to search for illegal drugs and related items. The police executed the search warrant and

recovered a number of items from the residence.

Appellee was then indicted for possession of methamphetamine in an amount less than

one gram. Appellee filed a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from the search pursuant to

warrant. After conducting a hearing, the trial judge granted appellee’s motion. In his order, the

judge recited that “the affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to provide probable

cause.” The State timely perfected this appeal. 1

II. ANALYSIS

In a single issue, the State argues that the trial judge erred by granting appellee’s motion

to suppress.

A. Applicable law

A magistrate may not issue a search warrant without first finding that there is probable

cause that a particular item will be found at a particular location. Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d

697, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Probable cause for a search warrant exists if, under the totality

of the circumstances presented to the magistrate, there is at least a fair probability or a substantial

chance that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at a specified location. Id. Probable

cause does not require a showing that it is more likely than not that the item or items in question

will be found at the specified location. Id. The magistrate may interpret a probable-cause

affidavit in a common-sense manner and may draw reasonable inferences from it. Id.

We review the trial judge’s decision that the magistrate lacked probable cause to issue a

search warrant under a de novo standard of review. State v. Wester, 109 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex.

1 Jim Bob Green was indicted for possession of methamphetamine in an amount between one and four grams, and he also succeeded in suppressing evidence. We decide the State’s appeal in his case, No. 05-12-01618-CR, at the same time we decide this appeal.

–2– App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). By contrast, we give great deference to the magistrate’s decision to

issue the warrant, inquiring whether under the totality of the circumstances the magistrate had a

substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. Id.; see also State v. Coker, 406 S.W.3d

392, 395 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref’d). The substantial-basis standard of review “does

not mean the reviewing court should be a rubber stamp but does mean that the magistrate’s

decision should carry the day in doubtful or marginal cases, even if the reviewing court might

reach a different result upon de novo review.” Flores, 319 S.W.3d at 702 (internal quotations

and citation omitted). We must consider the totality of the circumstances contained within the

four corners of the affidavit in reviewing the magistrate’s determination, and we should not read

any parts in isolation from the rest. See State v. Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565, 570, 571 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2011). Moreover, we do not focus on what other facts could or should have been included

in the affidavit; rather, we focus on the combined logical force of the facts that are in the

affidavit. Coker, 406 S.W.3d at 396.

B. The probable-cause affidavit and other evidence

Detective Ralph Woods of the Duncanville Police Department executed the probable-

cause affidavit. The affidavit supported the following facts, which ultimately led the police to

believe appellee’s residence at 433 Vincent Street in Cedar Hill contained drugs or other

evidence.

In August 2011, a CVS Pharmacy pharmacist reported a forged prescription for

hydrocodone-APAP to the Duncanville Police. The prescription had been presented by a woman

named Andrea Takats two days earlier. Later, the police investigated another report of a

fraudulent hydrocodone prescription, this time at a Kroger pharmacy in Duncanville. This

prescription bore the name Andrea Takats and listed an address, 318 Shorewood in Duncanville.

In October 2011, an undercover detective recovered a plastic trash bag from the curb in front of

–3– the residence at 318 Shorewood. Examining the bag’s contents later, the detective found a

photocopied prescription form from Dr. Felix Starghill, D.D.S. and Associates, P.C. The patient

information appeared to have been removed during previous alterations, and the prescription

section contained liquid paper covering unknown writing. The detective contacted Dr. Starghill,

who reported that many fraudulent prescriptions had been filled recently with his name listed as

the authorizing doctor. Dr. Starghill also reported that he had written a Motrin prescription for

his patient Andrea Takats a few months earlier, and that the fraudulent prescriptions began to

appear after that time.

Police officers obtained a search warrant for 318 Shorewood, and they executed that

warrant on October 12. Ronald Takats was present at the time and admitted that he had used

methamphetamine two days earlier. Ronald Takats also said that Andrea Takats was his

daughter and that she was obtaining prescription medications and selling them. In the search, the

police recovered several items of interest, including some marijuana and a variety of medication

caplets and capsules. The police also recovered three bottles of prescription medication with

labels made out to “Yolanda Carr.”

A person named Rosanna Rushing was also present at 318 Shorewood at the time of the

search. She told the police that she had been staying at the Takats residence for a couple of days,

and that an older white woman named “Sherrie,” who drove a blue Mercedes, had come to the

residence during that time. Rushing’s cell phone contained a telephone number for “Sherrie

home,” and a computer check revealed that the telephone number was registered to Ken Howell

of 1233 Sawsawi Trail in Desoto. Further investigation revealed that Sherrie Marie Howell lived

at the same residence.

The police began surveilling 1233 Sawsawi Trail in Desoto. On two different occasions,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Illinois v. Gates
462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Wester
109 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Flores v. State
319 S.W.3d 697 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
State v. Jordan
342 S.W.3d 565 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
State v. Coker, Jeffrey Brian
406 S.W.3d 392 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Shauna Lee Green, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shauna-lee-green-texapp-2013.