Cortez v. State, 49961
| Citation | 520 S.W.2d 764 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 49961,49961 |
| Parties | Anselmo CORTEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Marvin F. Foster, Jr., San Diego, for appellant.
William B. Mobley, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. Grant Jones and John Potter, Asst. Dist. Attys., Corpus Christi, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from an order revoking probation.
On February 4, 1974, appellant pleaded guilty before the court to the offense of sale of marihuana. Punishment was assessed at eight years, but the imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation.
Among the conditions of probation was the requirement that appellant shall
Included in the State's motion to revoke probation, filed on April 15, 1974, is the allegation that appellant violated condition 'a' as follows: 'That on the 4th day of March, 1974, Anselmo Cortez (appellant) did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally possess a usable quanity of a controlled substance, to wit, marihuana.'
The record reflects that after a hearing on April 18, 1974, the court revoked appellant's probation, the order revoking probation reciting that 'he committed the offense of being in possession of marihuana in violation of the laws of the State of Texas.'
Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation in that there was insufficient evidence to prove the commission of the offense which formed the basis of the revocation.
Th record reflects that on the night of April 7, 1974, 1 officers observed two men running from the Kingsville Auction Company toward a pickup. The officers pursued the pickup and observed it pull into a parking lot. Upon approaching the pickup, the officers saw the occupants 'stuffing something behind their back, either into the seat or possibly the back of their pants.'
The three occupants of the pickup, one of whom was appellant, were searched, and a small quanity of marihuana was found in the pocket of one of appellant's companions. Appellant and his companions were taken to the police station, where appellant was asked to remove his clothes. A small plastic baggie containing a substance appearing to be marihuana was found between the cheeks of appellant's buttocks. Tests on the contents of the baggie reflected that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayberry v. State
...counsel, nothing is presented for review under the claim that evidence was seized as a result of an illegal search. Cortez v. State, 520 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Johnson v. State, 504 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Weatherspoon v. State, 501 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stewart v. Stat......
-
York v. State
...waives any complaint as to the admissibility of such evidence. Stutes v. State, 530 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Cortez v. State, 520 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). Further, even had appellant preserved this issue for review, there was no error in the admission of evidence concerning the ci......
-
McGrew v. State, 50147
...counsel, nothing is presented for review under the claim that evidence was seized as a result of an illegal search. Cortez v. State, 520 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Johnson v. State, 504 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Weatherspoon v. State, 501 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stewart v. Stat......
-
Green v. State
...of the evidence, nothing is preserved for review. See McGrew v. State, 523 S.W.2d 679, 680 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Cortez v. State, 520 S.W.2d 764, 765-66 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Appellant's first and second grounds of error are In his third ground of error, appellant contends that the trial cour......