Greenwood v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Greenwood v. State

495 S.W.2d 930

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 20, 1973

DocketNo. 46183

StatusPublished

This text of 495 S.W.2d 930 (Greenwood v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greenwood v. State, 495 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of marihuana; the punishment, two (2) years.

This is a companion case to Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 495 S.W.2d 927 (6/20/73), this day decided.

Trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury. The sole question presented in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The facts have been sufficiently set forth in Wilson v. State, supra, and will not be restated other than to note appellant stipulated “the dark brown, leathery substance described by Lt. Pete Taylor was hashish in the amount of 1.08 grams”. Lt. Taylor testified that he found a “brown leather looking type substance”, he believed to be “hash” on appellant’s person.

We hold, as we did in Wilson v. State, supra (ground of error # 3), that the trial court was authorized to conclude that joint possession was shown.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of marihuana; the punishment, two (2) years.

This is a companion case to Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 495 S.W.2d 927 (6/20/73), this day decided.

Trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury. The sole question presented in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The facts have been sufficiently set forth in Wilson v. State, supra, and will not be restated other than to note appellant stipulated “the dark brown, leathery substance described by Lt. Pete Taylor was hashish in the amount of 1.08 grams”. Lt. Taylor testified that he found a “brown leather looking type substance”, he believed to be “hash” on appellant’s person.

We hold, as we did in Wilson v. State, supra (ground of error # 3), that the trial court was authorized to conclude that joint possession was shown.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 S.W.2d 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwood-v-state-texcrimapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack