Ricky Scott Rice v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 8, 2006
• Docket: 10-06-00306-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-06-00304-CR

No. 10-06-00305-CR

No. 10-06-00306-CR

Ricky Scott Rice,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 04-03335-CRM-272, 04-04173-CRF-272

and 04-04174-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

          Ricky Rice appeals the denial of his motion to disqualify the Brazos County District Attorney in each of his three criminal cases.

          The Clerk of this Court warned Rice that because it appeared to the Court that the orders from which the appeals were taken were interlocutory, the Court may dismiss the appeals unless a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeals.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Rice has not responded to the Clerk's warning.

          These appeals are dismissed.

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 8, 2006

Do not publish

[CR25]

#160;                                                                                                               

      Robert Earl Morris appeals from his plea-bargained conviction for possession of cocaine in the amount of 4 grams or more but less than 200 grams with intent to deliver. Morris states in his notice of appeal that he intends to appeal the court’s pretrial suppression ruling.

      Morris’s counsel filed an Anders brief. Counsel stated in the brief that he would promptly explain to Morris his right to file a pro se brief or other response and advise him that he could obtain a copy of the record from the district clerk. The certificate of service reflects that counsel provided a copy of the brief to Morris. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.) (to satisfy Anders requirements, counsel may certify to the Court that counsel has: (1) provided Appellant a copy of the brief; (2) informed Appellant of the right to review the record; and (3) informed Appellant of the right to file a pro se brief or response). The Clerk of this Court also notified Morris that he could file a brief or response, but he has not done so.

      Counsel concludes that the only “potential source of error” in this case concerns the court’s denial of Morris’s suppression motion. As counsel notes and the record reflects, law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for a car Morris had been seen driving earlier and in which Morris’s wife said she had seen cocaine. The registered owner of the car was Morris’s aunt. Morris testified in the suppression hearing that he did not drive the car and that he did not have any ownership interest in the car. Accordingly, Morris did not have standing to challenge the officers’ search of his aunt’s car. See Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

      Counsel concludes that, other than the potential suppression issue, the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. This Court has conducted an independent review of the record and has reached the same conclusion. See Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 691-92.

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must advise Morris of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. Id. at 694.

                                                                   FELIPE REYNA

                                                                   Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 10, 2004

Do not publish