Calloway v. State
Decision Date | 27 January 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 571-86,571-86 |
Citation | 743 S.W.2d 645 |
Parties | Carl Lee CALLOWAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W.E. Harper, Beaumont, for appellant.
James S. McGrath, Dist. Atty., and R.W. Fisher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of the offense of possession of cocaine. The jury assessed his punishment at 30 years' imprisonment.
On appeal the conviction was reversed because the trial court had denied the motion to withdraw filed by appellant's counsel based on a claim of conflict of interest. Calloway v. State, 700 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1984).
This Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review and concluded, under the circumstances presented, the trial court had not erred in denying the motion of counsel to withdraw. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated and the cause was remanded to that court to consider appellant's remaining points (nee grounds) of error. Calloway v. State, 699 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).
On remand, the Court of Appeals rejected all other points of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Calloway v. State, 707 S.W.2d 720 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1986).
Thereafter the appellant filed the petition for discretionary review urging, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding he first had to establish he had a proprietary or possessory interest in the premises searched before he had standing to complain of the search warrant, the execution of which produced the alleged contraband, and that the trial court had applied the wrong legal test to determine his standing to complain of said search warrant. These alleged errors are related to the Court of Appeals' disposition of appellant's point of error No. 18. We granted appellant's petition in this regard only to determine the correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Some background is here necessary to place appellant's contentions in proper perspective. On June 16, 1982, some two months prior to appellant's trial on August 18 and 19, 1982, he filed a motion to suppress "all physical evidence and all statements or confessions obtained as a result of the arrest of this Defendant." The only pertinent part of the motion regarding our discussion is:
As can be seen the motion is extremely broad and does not mention a search warrant or affidavit for a search warrant.
After the jury was selected for the trial on the merits the trial court, in absence of the jury, heard and ruled on the motion of appellant's counsel to withdraw. The record then reflects:
Appellant does not direct our attention to any portion of the record of the trial on the merits where he made any effort to object to the matter of the search, nor has he demonstrated that he was denied the opportunity to object or test the validity of the search warrant at trial after the trial court stated it would not consider the pretrial motion to suppress. Neither the search warrant nor the affidavit is in the appellate record.
On appeal the appellant urged as his ground (now point) of error No. 18 the following:
"The trial court committed reversible error by denying appellant's motion to suppress for lack of standing to complain for the reason that the trial court did not apply the proper legal test to determine appellant's standing to complain." (Emphasis supplied.)
In disposing of said contention the Court of Appeals stated:
"There is one remaining alleged ground of error. It complains of the trial court's refusal to suppress certain evidence because of the lack of standing of the Appellant to complain, arguing that the trial court did not apply the proper legal test to ascertain the Appellant's standing. We think that the record on this point is confusing. There was a lively dialogue between the trial judge and trial attorney for the Appellant. The dialogue concerned itself, in its major thrust, with the motion to withdraw because of conflict of interest. But then we find:
(Here the Court of Appeals sets out the bulk of the colloquy between the trial court and counsel quoted above.) See 707 S.W.2d at 723.
'Therefore, in order to be entitled to seek suppression of evidence of a crime, a defendant must establish that some personal Fourth Amendment privacy interest of his was violated by police...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Villarreal v. State
...access to the relevant evidence, has the burden of proving facts establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). To carry this burden, the accused must normally prove: (a) that by his conduct, he exhibited an actual subjective ex......
-
Garcia v. State
...Urbano v. State, 837 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). See also Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to appellant's confession t......
-
Davidson v. State
...The burden of proving facts establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy rests with the accused. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). The burden to establish standing rests on the party seeking to exclude the evidence. Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 60 (Tex.Crim.A......
-
Smith v. State
...508 U.S. 963, 113 S.Ct. 2937, 124 L.Ed.2d 686 (1993); Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 652 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). The State's offer of life to a capital defendant was excludable on other grounds. Evidence that the State offered a cap......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...afford standing to challenge a search, where he concedes he has no possessory or proprietary interest in the premises. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Occupants of an automobile have to show a property or possessory interest in the vehicle or its contents in order ......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...afford standing to challenge a search, where he concedes he has no possessory or proprietary interest in the premises. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Occupants of an automobile have to show a property or possessory interest in the vehicle or its contents in order ......
-
Pretrial Motions
...to hold a hearing on a pretrial motion to suppress evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Morrison PRETRIAL MOTIONS 12-9 Pඋൾඍඋංൺඅ Mඈඍංඈඇඌ §12:21 v. State, 71 S.W.3d 821 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet. )......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...afford standing to challenge a search, where he concedes he has no possessory or proprietary interest in the premises. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Occupants of an automobile have to show a property or possessory interest in the vehicle or its contents in order ......