Wake, Michael Shaun v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wake, Michael Shaun v. State

DecidedDecember 9, 1999

Docket05-99-00142-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Wake, Michael Shaun v. State (Wake, Michael Shaun 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

Wake, Michael Shaun v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed December 9,1999

In The

Caitrt of Appeals Jfftftlj Ststmt at Qtexas at Dallas No. 05-99-00142-CR

MICHAEL SHAUN WAKE, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 8 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB98-25376-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Bridges and Farris1 Opinion By Justice Farris

The issues in this appeal are two: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Wake's motion to suppress, and (2) the factual sufficiency ofthe evidence. We overrule each of Wake's points of error and affirm the judgment. Wake's first three points of error complain the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the evidence ofmarijuana. Specifically, Wake contends the police lacked probable cause and reasonable suspicion to enter the motel room where the marijuana was found and he was

1The Honorable David F. Farris, Former Justice, Second District Court ofAppeals, Fort Worth, Texas, sitting by assignment. arrested. We overrule all three points because Wake did not meet his burden ofproving that he had alegitimate expectation ofprivacy in the motel room. See Callowayv. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). There was no testimony identifying anyone present as amotel guest. By his own admission, Wake had arrived at the motel room only minutes before the police, and the room was occupied by others when he arrived.

In his factual sufficiency point of error, Wake challenges the credibility ofapolice officer who testified that abag of marijuana fell from Wake's "lap area" as he stood up. Wake also contends his statement that the marijuana belonged to him was coerced by the police. Two police officers testified that they saw the marijuana fall as Wake stood and both contradicted Wake's testimony that his confession was coerced. We overrule this point because, after reviewing all of the evidence, we are unable to say that the verdict was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The judgment is affirmed.

&^Z-v^&£> TfarkE justice, assigned

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47

-2-

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

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed December 9,1999

In The

Caitrt of Appeals Jfftftlj Ststmt at Qtexas at Dallas No. 05-99-00142-CR

MICHAEL SHAUN WAKE, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 8 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB98-25376-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Bridges and Farris1 Opinion By Justice Farris

The issues in this appeal are two: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Wake's motion to suppress, and (2) the factual sufficiency ofthe evidence. We overrule each of Wake's points of error and affirm the judgment. Wake's first three points of error complain the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the evidence ofmarijuana. Specifically, Wake contends the police lacked probable cause and reasonable suspicion to enter the motel room where the marijuana was found and he was

1The Honorable David F. Farris, Former Justice, Second District Court ofAppeals, Fort Worth, Texas, sitting by assignment. arrested. We overrule all three points because Wake did not meet his burden ofproving that he had alegitimate expectation ofprivacy in the motel room. See Callowayv. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). There was no testimony identifying anyone present as amotel guest. By his own admission, Wake had arrived at the motel room only minutes before the police, and the room was occupied by others when he arrived.

In his factual sufficiency point of error, Wake challenges the credibility ofapolice officer who testified that abag of marijuana fell from Wake's "lap area" as he stood up. Wake also contends his statement that the marijuana belonged to him was coerced by the police. Two police officers testified that they saw the marijuana fall as Wake stood and both contradicted Wake's testimony that his confession was coerced. We overrule this point because, after reviewing all of the evidence, we are unable to say that the verdict was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The judgment is affirmed.

&^Z-v^&£> TfarkE justice, assigned

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wake, Michael Shaun v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wake-michael-shaun-v-state-texapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack