Dansby v. State, 42290

Decision Date14 January 1970
Docket NumberNo. 42290,42290
Citation450 S.W.2d 338
PartiesLouis Henry DANSBY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Leonard R. Winborn, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Malcom Dade, Camille Elliott, James P. Finstrom, Cecil Emerson, and J. R. Ormesher, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of marijuana; the punishment, thirty (30) years.

The arresting officer testified that on the night of November 15, 1967, he was given information by a reliable informant, that a man by the name of Dansby would be in a certain area, and had in his possession some marijuana cigarettes. The officer proceeded to this area, and spotted the appellant on a street corner. He testified that he asked the appellant his name, and he replied that it was Dansby. The officer told appellant that he would like to talk to him. The appellant told him that if he wanted to speak to him he would have to get out of his patrol car and come over to him. The officer then proceeded to turn the patrol car around, and pulled up to the curb in order to converse with him. During this time, the officer testified that he saw the appellant take off his shoe, take several objects out of his shoe or sock, throw them on the ground. The officer retrieved the objects, and arrested appellant. The objects proved to be marijuana cigarettes.

Appellant contends that he was illegally arrested, no warrant was issued for his arrest, and there was no probable cause for his arrest. Appellant admits that there was no objection to the testimony concerning the arrest, nor to the admission of the marijuana cigarettes. We observe, however, that the evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause authorizing the arrest without a warrant, Thomas v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 68, 288 S.W.2d 791. We further note that the contraband was not obtained as the result of a search, Jimenez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 910; Robles v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 330 S.W.2d 454; Lopez v. State 171 Tex.Cr.R. 672, 352 S.W.2d 747. Appellant failed to preserve his alleged ground of error, and nothing is presented for review.

Appellant's second ground of error contends that the court erred in instructing the jury to disregard the testimony of defendant while he was explaining how the officer had allegedly abused and beat him. No confession was taken...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 4 Septiembre 1970
    ...672, 352 S.W.2d 747; Ortega v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 465; Jimenez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 910; Dansby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 338; Licerio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 96; 51 Tex.Jur.2d, Searches and Seizures, Sec. 29, pp. 673, 674. We need not pass upon th......
  • Calhoun v. State, 46115
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 1 Noviembre 1972
    ...(Tex.Cr.App.1968); Ortega v. State, 414 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Parson v. State, 432 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Dansby v. State, 450 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Miller v. State, 458 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Buse v. State, 435 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). See also Lewis v. St......
  • Thompson v. State, 43955
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 Junio 1971
    ...as a result of a search. See Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 680; Licerio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 96; Dansby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 338; Jimenez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 910; Ortega v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 465; 51 Tex.Jur.2d, Searches and Sei......
  • Licerio v. State, 42741
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 Mayo 1970
    ...122 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 55 S.W.2d 845, and the officer saw appellant place the contraband on the floor and then walk away, Dansby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 338. No search warrant was The judgment is affirmed. 1 Licensed under the Texas Liquor Control Act (Art. 666--1 et seq., Vernon's An......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT