Peralez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Peralez v. State

815 S.W.2d 592, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 124, 1991 WL 99946

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 12, 1991

DocketNo. 965-90

StatusPublished

This text of 815 S.W.2d 592 (Peralez 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

Peralez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 592, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 124, 1991 WL 99946 (Tex. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for aggravated possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. Art. 4476-15 § 4.03.¹ The trial court overruled appellant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized in a search under warrant. Thereafter the appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court found appellant guilty after a bench trial and assessed punishment at fifteen years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.²

The court of appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the affidavit for search failed to recite sufficient facts to establish the existence of probable cause by the totality of the circumstances. Avilez v. State, 796 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 1990).³ We originally granted the State’s petitions for discretionary review to determine the correctness of this holding in light of the State’s contention that the court of appeals misapplied the decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), by improperly employing the reliability factor of Aguilar-Spinelli⁴ as part of its analysis.

Upon review of the briefs and arguments of both the State and appellant, we conclude that the State’s petitions were improvidently granted. Accordingly, the State’s petitions for review are dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., dissent.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for aggravated possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. Art. 4476-15 § 4.03.¹ The trial court overruled appellant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized in a search under warrant. Thereafter the appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court found appellant guilty after a bench trial and assessed punishment at fifteen years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.²

The court of appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the affidavit for search failed to recite sufficient facts to establish the existence of probable cause by the totality of the circumstances. Avilez v. State, 796 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 1990).³ We originally granted the State’s petitions for discretionary review to determine the correctness of this holding in light of the State’s contention that the court of appeals misapplied the decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), by improperly employing the reliability factor of Aguilar-Spinelli⁴ as part of its analysis.

Upon review of the briefs and arguments of both the State and appellant, we conclude that the State’s petitions were improvidently granted. Accordingly, the State’s petitions for review are dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 S.W.2d 592, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 124, 1991 WL 99946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peralez-v-state-texcrimapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack