Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jan. 9, 2003, a Harris County grand jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with aggravated robbery under Texas Penal Code �29.03(a)(2). March 21, 2003, appellant filed a boilerplate motion to suppress any evidence obtained during a search of his residence allegedly conducted by the Houston Police Department Oct. 24, 2002, the day of his arrest. The appellant argued in very general terms that the search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, �9, of the Texas Constitution, because the search was conducted pursuant to a defective warrant, but appellant gave no factual or legal particulars as to why the warrant was defective. May 21, 2003, the state brought appellant to trial before a petit jury on his plea of not guilty. At the guilt stage of trial, the state presented six witnesses and several exhibits. Appellant then presented three witnesses to prove up an alibi. In rebuttal to appellant’s alibi evidence, the state offered the testimony of a federal law-enforcement agent who allegedly participated in a search of a “drug house” in Houston Oct. 24, 2002. The state explained to the trial court that the federal agent would testify that appellant was arrested in the drug house and was at that time “in possession of a gun that matched the description [of the handgun] used in the robbery.” Before the federal agent could testify, appellant urged his written motion to suppress and argued, again in very general terms, that the federal agent’s testimony should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. The trial court denied his motion to suppress and allowed the federal agent to testify. Appellant then took the stand in rebuttal and testified regarding, among other things, his possession of “a weapon” at the time of his arrest. The jury later found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment. The trial court assessed his punishment at imprisonment for 35 years. On direct appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in admitting the federal agent’s testimony regarding appellant’s possession of a handgun. The appellant argued that “since the State intended to justify the search on the basis of a warrant, it [was] incumbent upon the State to produce the warrant for inspection [by] the trial court for determination of [the warrant's] sufficiency.” Since the state failed to produce the warrant, appellant’s argument continued, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. On July 8, 2004, the court of appeals rejected appellant’s argument, upheld the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. HOLDING:The court of appeals’ judgment is affirmed. “When a defendant objects to the [trial] court admitting evidence on the ground that it was unlawfully seized and the State relies on a search warrant, in the absence of a waiver, reversible error will result unless the record reflects that the warrant was exhibited to the trial judge.” Cannady v. State, 582 S.W.2d 467, 469 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). The appellant never established his standing to challenge the search in question, i.e., he never established that he personally had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises that were searched. Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (standing under Fourth Amendment); Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (standing under Article I, �9). Although appellant asserted in his boilerplate motion to suppress that his residence was the place searched, he presented no proof of such claim to the trial court. In addition, appellant never established that the search in question was on its face unreasonable. Under these circumstances, the state had no duty to exhibit the search warrant and its supporting affidavit to the trial court, the court determines. OPINION:Holcomb, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Hervey, J., concurred in the result. Meyers, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.