Full Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00452-CR Desmond Kane Cosper, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 13th District Court of Navarro County, Texas Senior Judge H. D. Black Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. D42787-CR JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Desmond Kane Cosper was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, under one gram, and sentenced to one year in a State Jail facility. The trial court suspended Cosper’s sentence and placed him on community supervision for three years. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND Officer Folsom, with the Corsicana, Texas Police Department, stopped Cosper at about one in the morning because Cosper was riding a bicycle in a neighborhood without a rear reflective light. The officer explained to Cosper that a rear reflective light was necessary for his safety and for others approaching him from behind at night. For officer safety, Folsom called for backup. In the meantime, Folsom conducted a pat-down of Cosper and asked him to empty his pockets. As he was doing so, Cosper dropped a cigarette case which opened upon hitting the ground, revealing cigarettes and a folded piece of paper. By that time, Officer Brooks, also with the Corsicana Police Department, had arrived, saw the opened case, and picked up the paper. Upon opening the paper, Brooks discovered methamphetamine. MOTION TO SUPPRESS Cosper first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Cosper’s motion to suppress the drug evidence discovered by the officers and introduced into evidence. We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion under a bifurcated standard of review. State v. Torres, 666 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). While we afford almost total deference to the trial court's determination of historical facts and the trial court's rulings on mixed questions of law and fact, especially when those determinations are based on an assessment of credibility and demeanor, we review pure questions of law as well as mixed questions of law and fact that Cosper v. State Page 2 do not turn on an assessment of credibility and demeanor de novo. Id. at 740– 741. When a trial court denies a motion to suppress and does not enter findings of fact, as in this case, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling and assume the trial court made implicit findings of fact that support its ruling as long as those findings are supported by the record. Wexler v. State, 625 S.W.3d 162, 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The party that prevailed in the trial court is afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. Wexler, 625 S.W.3d at 167; State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Further, we should uphold the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress so long as its ruling is correct on any legal theory applicable to the case. McClintock v. State, 541 S.W.3d 63, 74 n. 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). When Officer Folsom stopped Cosper on his bicycle, Folsom conducted a pat-down of Cosper for officer safety. Cosper had said he had something similar to brass knuckles on him and had a “hammer/hatchet” in his bag. Folsom noticed a hard case in Cosper’s left chest jacket pocket which Cosper said was his cigarette case. Cosper then revealed a previously forgotten heavy- weight box cutter on his belt, which Folsom retrieved. When asked if he would Cosper v. State Page 3 mind emptying his pockets, Cosper complied and either placed or dropped almost everything he retrieved from his pockets on the ground. When reminded about the left chest pocket, Cosper said “sorry,” retrieved the cigarette case, and dropped it to the ground. The case opened upon hitting the ground, revealing cigarettes and a folded piece of paper which Officer Brooks retrieved. Brooks asked Cosper if this was a piece of paper to which Cosper responded, “I don’t know.” As Brooks began opening the paper, Cosper agreed with him that people pretty much know what’s on their person. Once methamphetamine was discovered in the paper, Cosper was arrested. Cosper specifically contends on appeal, as he did in his motion to suppress, that the officers exceeded the scope of Cosper’s consent to search by obtaining the folded paper from the cigarette case and opening it. However, a police officer in a public place has the authority to seize anything he has probable cause to believe constitutes contraband. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738, 103 S. Ct. 1535, 1541 (1983); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587 (1980); State v. Dobbs, 323 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances known to law enforcement officers are “sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” Marcopoulos v. State, 538 S.W.3d 596, 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) Cosper v. State Page 4 (citation omitted). To determine whether an officer had probable cause, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We also take into account the training, knowledge, and experience of law enforcement officials. Pugh v. State, 624 S.W.3d 565, 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Wiede, 214 S.W.3d at 25. Cosper was in a public place, a neighborhood street, at night-time, when he was stopped by Folsom. Folsom was cautious with Cosper because he moved around when talking to Folsom and regularly looked up the street. Based on his training and experience, Folsom believed Cosper’s actions to be a sign that Cosper was either going to run or had contraband on him. Because of this, Folsom also called for backup. Cosper then admitted to carrying a “hammer/hatchet” and something similar to brass knuckles. He forgot he was carrying a heavy-weight box cutter but then allowed Folsom to take it after Cosper happened to sweep back his jacket, revealing the box cutter. Cosper did not give Folsom an address of where he was staying in Corsicana when asked but, instead, stated that he was remodeling a house either on 2nd or 28th street. Further, Cosper knew he had a cigarette case in the left chest pocket of his jacket, but when he was asked to empty his pockets, he failed to empty the chest pocket. After being reminded, he retrieved the cigarette case and dropped it to the ground which caused it to open. Officer Brooks, who Cosper v. State Page 5 arrived at the scene as Cosper was emptying his pockets, stated that, based on his training and experience, the way the paper was folded up made him believe that there was some type of narcotic folded up inside the paper. After reviewing the testimony of the officers and the video evidence introduced during the motion to suppress hearing, and, based on the totality of the circumstances and on the officers’ training and experience, the trial court could have determined that Brooks had probable cause to open the paper revealing the methamphetamine. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cosper’s motion to suppress on this legal theory applicable to the case. Cosper’s first issue is overruled. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his second issue, Cosper contends the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed methamphetamine. Specifically, Cosper contends there was insufficient evidence to affirmatively link him to the methamphetamine; thus, the State failed to prove that he knowingly possessed it. Cosper's reliance on the affirmative links rule, however, is misplaced. Under the “affirmative links” doctrine, the defendant's link to the contraband must have been more than a fortuitous proximity. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). It applies to instances when Cosper v. State Page 6 the defendant does not have exclusive possession of the location where the contraband is discovered. See Foster v. State, 635 S.W.2d 710, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (affirmative-links doctrine applies in absence of “direct evidence of the defendant's exclusive possession” of contraband). It does not apply, however, when the contraband is discovered in a place exclusively controlled by the defendant. See Deere v. State, 631 S.W.3d 762, 768-69 (Tex. App.— Eastland 2021, pet. ref'd); see also White v. State, No. 01-23-00041-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 358, at *31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 28, 2025, no pet.). Here, the State was not required to present evidence affirmatively linking Cosper to the methamphetamine because it had come from a place that he exclusively controlled—his own coat pocket. Furthermore, Cosper was on his own bicycle with no one else around when stopped by Officer Folsom. Under these circumstances, the affirmative links rule does not apply. See id. Accordingly, any alleged lack of affirmative links does not render the evidence insufficient, and Cosper’s second issue is overruled. ARTICLE 42.07 In his last issue, Cosper complains that the trial court erred in failing to ask whether there was any reason why Cosper should not be sentenced as required by article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. Cosper v. State Page 7 CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.07. Cosper did not object to the trial court’s alleged failure. A complaint about the court's failure to follow article 42.07 must be preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); see Tenon v. State, 563 S.W.2d 622, 623-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (holding that nothing was preserved for review when appellant failed to object to the trial court's failure to follow article 42.07); Hunter v. State, 691 S.W.3d 247, 253 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2024, no pet.); Eisen v. State, 40 S.W.3d 628, 637 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref'd). See also Webb v. State, No. 10-25-00160-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 8834, at *10 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 17, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op. not designated for publication). Cosper acknowledges that he did not object at trial regarding this alleged error. Regardless, he argues that we should reach the merits of his issue. Cosper’s argument does not persuade us to bypass the established preservation requirements. Accordingly, because Cosper did not object, his third issue is not preserved and is overruled. CONCLUSION Having overruled each of Cosper’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Cosper v. State Page 8 LEE HARRIS Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: October 29, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Harris, and Justice Westerfeld Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25 Cosper v. State Page 9