Schwartz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Schwartz v. State

685 S.W.2d 333, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1227

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 20, 1985

DocketNo. 669-83

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 685 S.W.2d 333 (Schwartz 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

Schwartz v. State, 685 S.W.2d 333, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1227 (Tex. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Neil Adam Schwartz, appellant, was convicted in the trial court after he pled guilty to an indictment which charged him with committing the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, heroin. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, punishment was assessed by the trial judge at seven (7) years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections, probated, and a $3,000 fine. On appeal, the Houston [Fourteenth] Court of Appeals reversed, see Schwartz v. State (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1983), holding that because appellant’s arrest was based upon an informer’s tip that failed to meet the two-pronged test that was announced in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and explicated in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1969), the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidence the law enforcement officials seized.

However, in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), which had not been decided when the court of appeals handed down its opinion in this cause, the Supreme Court of the United States held, for Fourth Amendment purposes, that the “Aguilar two-pronged test” was to be replaced with a “totality of the circumstances” test.

Because Illinois v. Gates, supra, had not been decided when the court of appeals handed down its opinion in this cause, we will remand this cause to the court of appeals in order that it can reconsider the issue in light of Illinois v. Gates, supra.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Neil Adam Schwartz, appellant, was convicted in the trial court after he pled guilty to an indictment which charged him with committing the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, heroin. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, punishment was assessed by the trial judge at seven (7) years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections, probated, and a $3,000 fine. On appeal, the Houston [Fourteenth] Court of Appeals reversed, see Schwartz v. State (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1983), holding that because appellant’s arrest was based upon an informer’s tip that failed to meet the two-pronged test that was announced in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and explicated in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1969), the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidence the law enforcement officials seized.

However, in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), which had not been decided when the court of appeals handed down its opinion in this cause, the Supreme Court of the United States held, for Fourth Amendment purposes, that the “Aguilar two-pronged test” was to be replaced with a “totality of the circumstances” test.

Because Illinois v. Gates, supra, had not been decided when the court of appeals handed down its opinion in this cause, we will remand this cause to the court of appeals in order that it can reconsider the issue in light of Illinois v. Gates, supra.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 S.W.2d 333, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-state-texcrimapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack