Paul Etie v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Paul Etie v. State

DecidedDecember 8, 1993

Docket03-93-00069-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Paul Etie v. State (Paul Etie v. State) 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

Paul Etie v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-93-069-CR

PAUL ETIE,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0915714, HONORABLE BOB JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

After accepting appellant's plea of guilty and hearing his judicial confession, the district court found appellant guilty of possessing less than twenty-eight grams of amphetamine. Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.116 (West 1992). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight years.

Appellant's sole point of error is that the court erred by overruling his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Appellant did not preserve this point for review, however, because his notice of appeal does not comply with rule 40(b)(1). Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1); Jones v. State, 796 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Berger v. State, 780 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.); see also Riley v. State, 825 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Were we to reach the merits of appellant's point, we would overrule it. The evidence at the suppression hearing reflects that appellant was arrested pursuant to warrant as he stepped from his pickup truck. Appellant does not contest the legality of this arrest. Immediately after the arrest, an officer searched the interior of the pickup and found the amphetamine in a satchel on the seat. The disputed issue below was whether the search of the pickup was a lawful inventory search. But the search of the passenger compartment of the truck and the containers therein may be upheld as a lawful incident of appellant's arrest. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1981); Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see State v. Williams, 814 S.W.2d 256, 260 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991), aff'd, 832 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (ruling on motion to suppress may be sustained on theory not presented to trial court).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed: December 8, 1993

Do Not Publish

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-93-069-CR

PAUL ETIE,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0915714, HONORABLE BOB JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

After accepting appellant's plea of guilty and hearing his judicial confession, the district court found appellant guilty of possessing less than twenty-eight grams of amphetamine. Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.116 (West 1992). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight years.

Appellant's sole point of error is that the court erred by overruling his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Appellant did not preserve this point for review, however, because his notice of appeal does not comply with rule 40(b)(1). Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1); Jones v. State, 796 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Berger v. State, 780 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.); see also Riley v. State, 825 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Were we to reach the merits of appellant's point, we would overrule it. The evidence at the suppression hearing reflects that appellant was arrested pursuant to warrant as he stepped from his pickup truck. Appellant does not contest the legality of this arrest. Immediately after the arrest, an officer searched the interior of the pickup and found the amphetamine in a satchel on the seat. The disputed issue below was whether the search of the pickup was a lawful inventory search. But the search of the passenger compartment of the truck and the containers therein may be upheld as a lawful incident of appellant's arrest. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1981); Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see State v. Williams, 814 S.W.2d 256, 260 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991), aff'd, 832 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (ruling on motion to suppress may be sustained on theory not presented to trial court).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed: December 8, 1993

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul Etie v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-etie-v-state-texapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack