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