Ramos, Roy Anthony v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ramos, Roy Anthony v. State

DecidedJuly 19, 2005

Docket14-03-01326-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Ramos, Roy Anthony v. State (Ramos, Roy Anthony 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

Ramos, Roy Anthony v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-03-01326-CR

ROY ANTHONY RAMOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1174132

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Roy Anthony Ramos appeals a conviction for marijuana possession^{^[1]} on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained in an unlawful search of his apartment conducted before appellant had consented to any search or been arrested. However, because there was evidence that the marijuana was in plain view of the officers after appellant consented to their entry into his apartment, it was within the trial court=s discretion to deny the motion to suppress.^{^[2]} Accordingly, appellant=s sole issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Guzman, and Murphy.^{^[3]}

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

^{^[1]} Appellant entered a guilty plea, and the trial court assessed punishment at 15 days confinement.

^{^[2]} In reviewing a trial court=s ruling on a motion to suppress, we afford almost total deference to any determination of historical facts based on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of witnesses. Masterson v. State, 155 S.W.3d 167, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Under the plain view doctrine, evidence is not illegally obtained by police officers if: (1) they have a right to be where they are when they see it: and (2) it is immediately apparent that there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity. Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

^{^[3]} Senior Chief Justice Paul C. Murphy sitting by assignment.

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

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-03-01326-CR

ROY ANTHONY RAMOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1174132

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Roy Anthony Ramos appeals a conviction for marijuana possession^{^[1]} on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained in an unlawful search of his apartment conducted before appellant had consented to any search or been arrested. However, because there was evidence that the marijuana was in plain view of the officers after appellant consented to their entry into his apartment, it was within the trial court=s discretion to deny the motion to suppress.^{^[2]} Accordingly, appellant=s sole issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Guzman, and Murphy.^{^[3]}

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

^{^[1]} Appellant entered a guilty plea, and the trial court assessed punishment at 15 days confinement.

^{^[2]} In reviewing a trial court=s ruling on a motion to suppress, we afford almost total deference to any determination of historical facts based on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of witnesses. Masterson v. State, 155 S.W.3d 167, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Under the plain view doctrine, evidence is not illegally obtained by police officers if: (1) they have a right to be where they are when they see it: and (2) it is immediately apparent that there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity. Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

^{^[3]} Senior Chief Justice Paul C. Murphy sitting by assignment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramos, Roy Anthony v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-roy-anthony-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack